Danner’s ‘The Age of Rhetoric’
I apologize for neglecting lies.com lately. My attention in the last month has turned from the general to the very, very specific; I started a new blog, and have been focusing way too much of my attention on it. The chances that a reader of this site will be interested in it seem fairly small, but here’s a link anyway, for the idly curious: The Sutro Forest Birdcam Blog.
Even so, an occasional item on the antics of the Failure-in-Chief can break through the fog of birdy obsession that surrounds me, and here’s one now: From author Mark Danner, a commencement speech delivered recently to some graduates at UC Berkeley: The Age of Rhetoric.
Danner offers a powerful argument as to the nature of the reality we, and the Bush administration, are inhabiting these days. It’s very, very good. Which is to say, very, very depressing. But important to read and understand, I think.
Sigh. I wonder what the birdies are up to?
June 1st, 2007 at 10:02 am
I like the bird feeder with the spherical anti-squirrel cage.
Tho I wonder how effective that is?
Isn’t Sutro Forest (the one in SF) composed mostly of Eucalytus trees? Naughty non-native species that burn like crazy (a ridge of eucalyptus beyond our south 40 went poof late last year). I hear the park service is trying to rip em all out of public places. That should take generations!
We have a big planting bed full of some white and pink flowers (don’t know what kind, they came up spontaeously after we moved in and renovated). All last year before we redid the deck a pair of hummingbirds would come to drink at exactly our meal hour. The boys loved it!
More sporadic visits now, even tho we have a dedicated hummingbird feeder.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:26 am
God is that ever a good article, and it’s almost disappointing that he chose to narrow it to just the administration.
The Age of Rhetoric extends to business where corporations have collectively decided that it’s often easier to compete with invented realities of words (rather than with real invention and work), backed by a system of laws that they’ve slowly designed to allow it. It extends into the chuches where hate is preached in pursuit of power, under the guise of righteousness. And it has pulled a shroud over science, when science contracticts the rhetoric of any of those groups, political, corporate, or religious.
I think this is perhaps a better way of looking at the subject of Al Gore’s “Assault on Reason”. It’s much easier to simply ignore reason than it is to assault it. You will never hear reasoned criticisms of the administration refuted — instead they will cast doubt on the motivations of the critic, or simply define the issue such that the criticism becomes irrelevant. It’s how things are done in the new Age.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:17 am
rhet•o•ric (rět’ər-ĭk)
1.
a. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
b. A treatise or book discussing this art.
c. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
d. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
3. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
4. Verbal communication; discourse.
I would say 1d fits this article well. Do liberals learn only half of history, or do they learn all of it and just choose to ignore half of it?
So let’s get a few facts out of the way, please let me know if any of the bulleted items below are factually wrong.
• When Bush gave his speech on the Lincoln, major military operations were over, divisions of tanks were no longer rumbling through the desert, the rest of the fight would be door to door, street to street fighting for a long time, as it has been, and as the president said in his speech. Read the whole thing, you might be enlightened.
• Altering the landscape for a photo op is nothing new, remember Iwo Jima, Macarthur’ landing, or who can forget AlGore’s trip to my humble hometown of Denver. His schedule didn’t allow him to be here at peak runoff time when the Platte River flows heavy and fast as his advanced team had seen on a scouting mission. So when they returned a few days before Gore to set things up they found nothing but a trickle of water in the river. Water officials agreed to slow the flow down a bit before and after the event allowing them to open the flood gates for a few hours while Gore gave his speech. The same amount of water was released over the course of the week as prescribed by regulation and treaty, and Gore got his photo op, no harm no foul. Unlike Clinton’s people cutting down trees and throwing them over the side of the Grand Canyon.
• We are a Republic, not a Democracy
• We use an Electoral College to determine the election of our president, not a popular vote, the popular vote is just a point of reference. Article 2 Section 1
• Florida law stated that the election results have to be received at the Secretary of States’ office 7 days after the election 17:00. Section 102.112, Florida Statutes
• Federal law states election rules (see above) cannot be changed after the election.
• The Florida Supreme court ignored the two points above and US Supreme Court rectified this situation with a 7-2 vote
• The 5-4 vote stopped the recount
• While it is rare for the president to be elected with less than a plurality of the vote, it is not unprecedented. It is also not unprecedented for the race to be close in the popular vote, and a landslide in the electoral vote. In the 1968 election Nixon won by a 22% margin in the electoral vote and a .8% margin in the popular vote. Didn’t matter, on Wednesday morning Nixon was the most powerful man in the free world and Humphrey was cleaning out his desk at campaign headquarters, there are winners and losers.
• This country was founded on a principal of a number of individual states banded together for a common defense and mutual prosperity. State powers and federal powers being separate.
• Some offices of government were to be elected by direct democracy in individual states with numbers determined by population, The House Of Representatives. The Senate was to be appointed by those representatives in numbers that would be equal with all states, giving small states more power in the senate and less in the house. The president was to be elected using a combination of the two. Other offices were to be appointed by the president, judges, ambassadors, and cabinet members. All designed to keep ultimate power from one area or the other, kind of cool, huh?
• It doesn’t matter if the president wins by one vote he has all the power due him under the constitution, same with the congress, the only risk you take when the electorate is so evenly divided is loosing the next election.
• The US spends about one third the worlds military spending, nowhere near more than the ROW combined.
• There is no evidence the administration was anything less than honest about it’s belief there were WMDs in Iraq, or that Sadam intended to make nukes as soon as sanctions were lifted. At least I haven’t heard of any here, and I have asked for some reasons on numerous occasions.
• The Downing Street Memo was a report of notes taken at a meeting where someone else recounted a meeting he had with Bush administration members, not Bush about what the writer’s impressions of what the intentions of the Bush were.
• All the DSM said was Bush had made up his mind to invade Iraq no matter what the WMD intelligence showed, showing there were more reasons than just WMD.
There are a lot of facts listed above in direct opposition to Mark’s assertion in his article, I’m sure you can get me an a couple technicalities, but the bulk of my assertions are correct, he is basing his opposition on a pile of rubbish. I find it queer that Mark refers to this administration using the tactics of a Nazi when he is using the same tactics as Joseph Goebbels, tell a lie enough and it will become the truth. Now if Mark, or the rest of you don’t like war and have a better solution to winning without surrendering, fine, let’s hear it. All this guy does is regurgitate unsubstantiated bile for 10 out of 12 pages and then base his opposition to this war and this administration on those lies, without an alternative. I use the word lie advisedly in this case, I looked up his bio and he is certainly intelligent enough to research these points. And since most of his points are getting close to being a decade old, he has had the time.
What is wrong with a leader trying to rally the troops and the population, engaging in rhetoric if you will, you didn’t mind when Cindy Shehan tried to rally the troops against the war, in fact you applauded the event.
His “reality based community’s” main objective is surrender, not just in this war but in every war. If his “reality’s” only purpose is surrender, then power will make his reality it’s bitch, the slave can only be freed by his master, therefore it is better to be the master and release your bitches after you have vanquished evil than to surrender without a fight and join the slaves. Then who will vanquish evil? And evil will never free slaves.
Mark makes some good points in the middle of the piece about the media roll and the enemy using the media. He makes the statement that the enemy is exploiting our strengths, here he is wrong, the enemy is exploiting our weaknesses both tactically, and in the media, as any enemy does. But mostly they are exploiting you, if they can get enough folks to join your side in America, you can win this war for them this is the way the tactic of terror has always been played, if you can’t defeat your enemy’s army head to head, “encourage” the civilian population to surrender. Mark also says the enemy preferred to fight not with tanks, nonsense, they simply don’t have tanks. Their preference would be to fight us with B-2 bombers if they could get their hands on them. As far as I can tell, we are killing them at a rate of about 10 to 1, they know they can’t keep that kind of ratio up for long so they are using whatever tactic they can with whatever weapon they can get their hands on, and you guys are handy and reliable, and no training or maintenance is required.
The tactic of IED use with shells and explosives laying around was very effective. Then the Americans hardened their vehicles and the cheap IEDs were not very effective except against the civilian population. So more powerful shaped charges are being imported from Iran, and their success is on the rise again, so we have changed our tactics again with “the surge”, the enemy will adapt to this as well and so on and so on.
For the most part, Mark repeats all the lies, distortions, and exaggerations you guys carp on about on a daily basis, mostly unsubstantiated. I got a kick out of the guy, don’t remember his name, who criticized me for muddying the argument with facts. Mark also uses facts unrelated to the discussion in many cases, sometimes for character assassination, other times just to confuse things a bit. I can see why you guys like him. He shows he has a pretty good grasp on politics but not on military tactics.
Did you guys hear the Iraqi population finally had enough, stood up to the bad Arabs and fought them bravely for a couple days before calling in the Americans for help. How cool would that be to make a 911 call and have a couple Spookies and half dozen Apaches and Warthogs over head in a few minutes. Good news for those in the world who aren’t ready to surrender, bad news for those who are.
Pray for our troops
SHCB
June 6th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Relevant to the “nature of reality we, and the Bush administration, are inhabiting these days” the is this breaking news story:
A report about an American reporter arrested for asking an unfavorable question to a republican candidate. Police threaten to transfer reporter to a secret detention facility. The comments after the video are insightful too, especially the one containing the comparison to 1940’s Germany and the parable about cooking a live frog by turning up the heat gradually.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9191?page=1
June 6th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I give up. Birds it is.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Ah come on Mat, you can enjoy both. You guys keep bringing it up. Just give me some facts to back up your assertions, I can’t just let this stuff go without replying.
June 7th, 2007 at 11:08 am
shcb
I will use your own words (with one crucial change) to describe your rather lengthy diatribe: “All this guy does is regurgitate unsubstantiated bile for 10 out of 12 pages and then base his support for this war and this administration on those lies”
I can’t find any reference to Clinton cutting trees or me wanting to surrender or any of the garbage that is your extended jingoistic blather.
Your whole “I’ll be the master while I save you slaves from the evil brown people!!1!1!” schtick is sickening. Put down the gun there cowboy, you have done way too much damage to America, the Constitution and the world already.
The Eye-raki people want us the hell out of their country. Same with the propped up government we installed after we invaded. Say how is the hunt for Osama bin Forgotten going? Dead or alive? Terrorist events are up the world over. Heck of a job bushie! Is there anything this incompetent bunch of neo-conmen freaks haven’t screwed up?
June 7th, 2007 at 11:30 am
knarly
I couldn’t even hear the questions properly, but arresting a credentialed reporter for asking questions is indeed pretty damn Gestapo. Then the whole ‘we are charging you with espionage for having a camera and a microphone at a presser’ is beyond ludicrous. Truly fascism has come to America, proudly wearing its cross lapel pins and thuggish naziism on its brooks brothers sleeve.
What next? I feel sure shcb would torture this sap within an inch of his life and probably beyond. What next? Knock his house down with a bulldozer and sow salt in his fields? Round up the libs n queerz n brown folk and… just so long as proudly ignorant rural dipsh!ts get to feel macho and pertektid-like.
June 7th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Enkidu,
I know my piece was long, but the lying little pinhead gave me so much to work with. Yet again you say Bush lied without an example. The signing ceremony I was referring to was the Grand Escalante-Staircase National Monument. In 1996 Clinton took 2 million acres over by executive order, removing something like 8 billion dollars worth of low sulfur coal off the market without congressional debate. I can’t find a reference to the trees either, might have been a rumor, I’ll give you that one, it was bar far the most minor of points anyway.
I thought my slave analogy was quite good, must have touched a nerve, you just can’t come to grips with Arabs hating us for who we are can you? You can’t have my gun second amendment and all. I’m quite proud of my western heritage, good solid folks, the people that built America.
Osama is neutralized or at least marginalized, that is good enough for now. Read up on island hopping in WW II. As far as there being more terrorist incidents, make a timeline of the opposition to the war and I’ll bet the incidents go up in relation to the fervor for surrender, and why not, you guys are winning for them right now.
I wouldn’t torture, or arrest or even pummel the “reporter” I would have just got in his face and called him a sniveling little moron, but that wouldn’t be politically correct.
Yup, we’re all ignorant here in flyover country, glad you’re not bigoted.
June 7th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Hi Enkudo,
Sorry you couldn’t hear the video, this one taken by a different camera at the same event is far superior and hassome amazing footage of Luke telling the officer’s his rights and putting them on notice that they will be prosecuted if they persist (they did and they are.)
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9216#comment
shcb, you sure you got your US military spending right, seems by your figures that you forgot to add in a few things like the cost of veterans affairs programs, debts costs on borrowing for military spending, the cost of private contractors performing “security” which would have been conducted by the military in prior decades (might be included in your figures), R&D expenditures for military programs, nuclear programs related to military,… all these (?) and more have been moved off the military books so that the military does not look like the bloated pig it is in your economy.
You guys no longer even debate Guns vs Butter issues, your reality now is a Guns vs crumbs debate.
So how much did you neo-cons say the war would cost? Wasn’t someone fired for suggesting it would be in the $100 billion range while your propoganda machine was raging full throttle about it paying for itself? Did anyone ask the Iraqis if they wanted to pay for your war in Iraq with their natural resources (yes it is theirs not yours, despite your proposed oil revenue law)?
All that war spending (how much have you spent on the war? how many peoples lives have been destroyed? how many new terrorists are there and how many more terrorists are there in the world now compared to in 2001?) and you cannot make a more than highly debatable argument that the world is a safer place now than before. How does the war costs compare to development and aid spending? Would the world be a safer place if that war money was spent towards resolving social problems and gross inequities that make 3/4 or more of the world feel like slaves to the rich countries? We’ll never know, that kind of spending on fixing problems has never been attempted, America’s idea of solving problems is to go places to kill people and blow things up.
June 7th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Forgot to include whether or not you included spending on covert operations including national security spying and your own salary in the disinformation unit? Oh yeah, after ballooning for several years those costs were hidden / taken off the books so that no-one except perhaps a few in the oversight committee (assuming they are not being lied to) get to see the real figures. let’s change that reality to Guns + secret funds vs. crumbs
June 8th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Knarly,
The figures I cite are just apples to apples numbers from all the different countries, in places like China there is even an asterisk saying it is just a guess. As usual you are only looking at half the picture, sure there are ancillary costs, but there are also benefits; jet engine development GPS, many emergency room techniques, helicopter evacuations etc. all these things came out of the necessity of war.
I don’t know how many more or less terrorists there are now than before, they don’t have id cards or even uniforms. I do know for a fact the terrorists that are dead aren’t terrorists any more. If the rest of the world feels bad because big bad America is better than them, get off your lazy asses and get to work. This is a competitive world, get rid of the socialistic anchor around your neck and out produce us, out think us, out work us, “oh poor me” just makes you poor and mean. Almost a third of our GDP goes to social programs, only 4 or 5 percent to military. Knarly-the KING of overstatement. If I did work for the government as an undercover guy, it would be giving out information not disinformation since most everything I say is based on facts, the rest is opinion based on those facts, you are the disinformation KING.
Any further disputes of the facts refuting Mark Danner’s piece?
June 8th, 2007 at 7:39 am
No, you do not know if terrorists are dead all you know is that people are dead. Fact is, just like Vietnam the army has strong reasons to label the dead as former terrorists.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:02 am
I believe that was one of the primary purposes of the Geneva conventions, the military must wear uniforms so you know who to shoot. If more civilians get mistakenly killed because one side or the other doesn’t abide by that rule, it is the side wearing civilian cloths that is at fault. Blame the right people, we are the good guys, the Arabs are the bad guys, pretty simple really.
The other thing to remember with this type of guerrilla warfare is the enemy tends to blend into the population one day and come out and fight the next, so the civilian you kill today may have been a combatant yesterday and visa versa, it gets very confusing and many more innocents are killed. I don’t have a remedy, I just know where to point the blame. This is simply a tactic of vastly inferior military, and a very effective one.
Don’t forget, they attacked us on Sept 11, Kobar Towers, USS Cole, Marine barracks, Madrid, London subway, London bus attack, African embassies…… if they stop, we will stop.
The purpose of war is peace, on the victor’s terms.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I wish the shcb’s of this country would have lost the argument much sooner than they did. I understand Matt’s desire to just move on.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:59 am
We would all like to just move on, but if you leave a task half finished, you just have to finish the job at a later date, at a much higher cost.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Ever heard of false flag attacks or r u too narrow minded to consider that possibility? You might benefit from educating yourself about the motives for and signature characteristics of false flag attacks both foreign and domestic. Either that or wait about 40 years or so for documents that might be released which might allow us to know the truth.
Until then, just keep on being led, unquestioningly, into endless wars by your heroic leaders (such as the queer fellow who donned a jet fighter’s suit to fly out to an aircraft carrier just offshore San Diego for a photo op and a speech to an adoring brainwashed audience who will cheer wildly for the end of major combat operations and the beginning of an endless occupation to suck hundreds of billions of dollars (getting closer to a Trillion now isn’t it?) out of taxpayer pockets and into the hands of the likes of Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, etc. So what if these heroic leaders have nothing to lose and oodles of cash to gain from instigating world conflicts with their overwhelming military force fed by the lives of wasted American youth.
Cost of military. You seem to say that your statistics are only a guess, and they fail to include the costs of nuclear weapons development etc. That’s the closest I’ve seen to honesty from you about your statistics. I notice that your percentage of GDP that goes to the military has crept up from the 2% or 3% in earlier posts on other topics and now you admit it is 4% or 5%. You might be starting to see the light. Also, there was a reason why military officials wanted to express military spending in percent of GDP terms to hide certain aspects of the spending, maybe I’ll share that when I recall it or find the source.
You say “All these things came out of the necessity of war.” Perhaps so, but how much sooner would these fabulous inventions have been made benefits if they were focused on R&D for the benefit of humanity instead of the killing of humanity, and if R&D dollars and research on life enhancing projects were not diverted to military purposes? Oppenheimer and Einstein, for only two, had much to say about that. Warmongers argue that wars spur invention, but the truth is that when people put their mind to inventing that’s what spurs invention.
“This is a competitive world.” One would think so. History suggests that is so. In the past, those peoples who did not have strong means to defend themselves were over-run and often exterminated by stronger peoples with superior military tactics. That was before the war to end all wars and rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII and the development of the UN and the end of the cold war, all steps in the right direction. If you do not believe that there can be a better way, you are a pessimist who condemns the world’s children to endless war (just like your neo-con leaders.) You have fully bought into the old fashioned “I win you lose” paradigm, just like the school bullies in your memories that have shaped your frame of mind so that you now are incapable of appreciating much less considering the possibility of viable cooperative models of human and nation interactions.
Thankfully, for those that still can imagine such a world there are remnants of peaceful societies around the globe that remain - usually due to their isolation. While often (usually) poor, in general they are culturally rich, happy, and the value of relationships are celebrated. Perhaps certain aspects of some of these societies can provide more enlightened models of behavior than is apparent in your philosophy. See: http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/
“Get off your lazy asses and get to work.” That is another incredibly ignorant / arrogant statement from the SHCB (short, hairy, creepy bugger). Most of the rest of the world does more in a day to scrounge up enough to eat for their family than you might do in a week, and they never get vacations (unless you count death as a vacation.) The willingness of people around the world to work, very hard, at near slave labour wages is part of the reason why so much of America’s manufacturing has gone, and service industries are going, to the Chinese and East Indians. And you have the audacity to call people in less developed countries lazy.
You and other government shills falsely claim that your “opinions” are based on facts, when that is no more true than the rest of your recklessly right wing rhetoric. The time and energy that you expend doing back-flips to defend your government is beyond anything a regular person would do, and yet you try to convey yourself as a regular guy operating a machine shop in the Midwest. Your first post and many other posts back when TeacherVet (RIP?) was assisting you (in your training?) It defies credibility that you are as you say you are and not one of those people who are on the government payroll to influence public opinion in public debates. Heck, your government even has agents wasting their time scoping out church based peace groups.
“Any further disputes…?” I have objections to virtually all of your first post but there is nothing in it for me to it is not our responsibility to set you straight (I for one have an income to earn)
Oh, and a few comments about the reporter who was arrested for asking Ghoulanis press secretary an embarrassing question and refusing to be ignored:
http://www.rense.com/general76/dksd.htm
June 8th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Since we have gone over all this umpteen times, I’ll just touch on a few items. The phrase you were grasping for at the end of your post is “ I am under no obligation to prove a negation”, but that is my line. You see I am asserting Bush did not lie about WMD, I can’t prove he didn’t do something he didn’t do. You see the onus is on you to prove he did lie, or at least offer some evidence.
In this world without war you want to live in, how would you deal with evil people? If your logic holds, should we get rid of police? If the criminals didn’t feel threatened by the cops there would be less of them. If the police would just give the criminals one section of town, maybe they will leave the rest of us alone. Do you think that might work? If we didn’t have to pay for police, courts, jails, etc. think of all the beautiful paintings we could hang in our museum, since there are no criminals, we don’t even have to lock the doors, or all the homeless we could feed. There would probably be enough left over for the government to give us all an extra week off to bond with our families, we could call it “peace to all week”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Einstein Jewish? If there had been no WWII wouldn’t Hitler have killed him? Just finishing the equation, utopia is easier if you only consider one side of the argument
June 8th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I had never heard the term “false flag” attack before, I looked it up, thanks, never too old to learn something new. But if you are again referring to your 911 conspiracy nonsense no, I don’t think it is applicable here. I’m sure it is being used in our fight against the Arabs, but the administration didn’t use it to get us into this war, the risk reward ratio would not justify it.
I am noticing you and the other conspiracy nuts I know are similar to overly religious people. There has to be an answer to everything, when there is no easy answer, or it is an answer you are uncomfortable with you blame it on some conspiracy or another. It just bugs the shit out of you that some hayseed in flyover country might be smarter than you or may be right about the Arabs or that war has some usefulness. So you invent that I must be someone I am not, a covert government agent sent to infiltrate a blog with what, 10 people on it. Now you can live with that explanation, its ok if someone is smarter than you, just so long as it’s not a hick. No bigotry here.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
shcb, evidence of a WMD Lie:
: Trailers Of Mass Destruction, “You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons….They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two.* And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons(!), they’re wrong. We found them.” –WP, “Bush: ‘We Found’ Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, ” May 31, 2003
*At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: “U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons.” There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA’s finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. –Politex, 08.09.03
Here’s another about IAEA:
“President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used “for missions targeting the United States.”
Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein’s nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were “six months away from developing a weapon.” And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy “for a long period of time.”
All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. –10.22.02, Washington Post
From another website:
What the Bush team said:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney August 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons
George W. Bush, Sep. 12, 2002
Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons
George W. Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002
The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.”
George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.
George W. Bush Oct 10, 2002
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,…The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney Dec 1, 2002
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent” and “upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents…
George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
George W. Bush January 28, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell February 5, 2003
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George Bush February 8, 2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly.
Ari Fleischer, Mar. 21, 2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin Powell March 8, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George Bush March 18, 2003
We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George Bush April 24, 2003
Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.
Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003
We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so.
George Bush May 3, 2003
June 8th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
shcb comments about evil people are too silly for a response.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Einstein, Hitler and WWII - it is common interpretation of the victor’s history that hitler had to be restrained, einstein agreed with that for christsake, that has nothing to do with my point. America had such moral authority in the world and a sranglehold on military power which, used judiciously could have made the world better,
could have pushed humanity to more enlightened approaches to solving problems (reducing crime, a.k.a. terrorism & dealing with rogue leaders)
but instead the neo-con thugs wasted that opportunity in an orgy of war
and a race to the bottom of immorality (encouraging torture, espousing aggressive use of nuclear weapons, establishing permanent military bases in Iraq and around the world, etc.)
but shcb tries to twist that into something akin to einstein wanted to kiss hitler
June 8th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
false flag - “you looked it up” Well, that’s just great, now you think you are the expert. what a joke.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:02 am
shcb, trying to demean someone by sticking them with a label of “conspiracy nut” is acting like a traitor:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/whats-wrong-with-america.html
This is what I call a nutty conspiracy theorist:
Someone who actually believes Osama bin Laden conducted the attacks of 911 even when the FBI says there is not enough evidence to make that case,
and that 19 Arabs with boxcutters outwitted NORAD’s air defenses,
anyone who ignores discordant facts like these: (A) July, 2001: Secret Service moves the president from his hotel in Genoa Italy due to warnings of suicide skyjackings. (B) September 2001: Secret Service DOESN’T move the president during REAL suicide skyjackings. (This is one very sticky little point out of a great many.)
anyone who has no problem accepting that WTC 1 and 2 both overbuilt steel and concrete towers can pancake onto themselves without the lower floors providing any resistance so that they fall at freefall speed (Despite NIST now disavowing itself of the pancake collapse theory),
and that fires and falling debris hitting one side of WTC 7 could make that 47 story building fall symmetrically exactly into it’s own footprint like a textbook demolition again at freefall speed, I would go on but let’s look at WTC 7 closer:
“WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and was not hit by an airplane. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” Watch the collapse video here. And 5 1/2 years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.] ” Yet shcb believes WTC7 fell due to Arab hijackers crashing planes into WTC 1 and 2.
Who in their right mind could believe that crazy conspiracy theory despite hundreds of other obvious shortcomings such as these:
“There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes and their names were not on any passenger manifest. Several have turned up alive and well and living in the Middle East. The government has not even produced their tickets as evidence that they actually could have boarded the aircraft they are alleged to have hijacked. Did Osama call from a cave in Afghanistan and charge them to his MasterCard?” All the other passengers are accounted for…
But that wasn’t shcb’s point, his point was that supposedly I am upset if some country hick is smarter than me. What an asshole to accuse me of that. I am sure many rural inbred dweebs are actually much smarter than I am, and even a few of the normal looking ones might be too. Actually I’ve met a few that are quite impressive and humbling when you get to know them. No, I suspect shcb is not who he says he is for the reasons I cited, not for the reasons contained in shcb’s bullying accusations.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:02 am
shcb, trying to demean someone by sticking them with a label of “conspiracy nut” is acting like a traitor:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/whats-wrong-with-america.html
This is what I call a nutty conspiracy theorist:
Someone who actually believes Osama bin Laden conducted the attacks of 911 even when the FBI says there is not enough evidence to make that case,
and that 19 Arabs with boxcutters outwitted NORAD’s air defenses,
anyone who ignores discordant facts like these: (A) July, 2001: Secret Service moves the president from his hotel in Genoa Italy due to warnings of suicide skyjackings. (B) September 2001: Secret Service DOESN’T move the president during REAL suicide skyjackings. (This is one very sticky little point out of a great many.)
anyone who has no problem accepting that WTC 1 and 2 both overbuilt steel and concrete towers can pancake onto themselves without the lower floors providing any resistance so that they fall at freefall speed (Despite NIST now disavowing itself of the pancake collapse theory),
and that fires and falling debris hitting one side of WTC 7 could make that 47 story building fall symmetrically exactly into it’s own footprint like a textbook demolition again at freefall speed, I would go on but let’s look at WTC 7 closer:
“WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and was not hit by an airplane. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” Watch the collapse video here. And 5 1/2 years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.] ” Yet shcb believes WTC7 fell due to Arab hijackers crashing planes into WTC 1 and 2.
Who in their right mind could believe that crazy conspiracy theory despite hundreds of other obvious shortcomings such as these:
“There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes and their names were not on any passenger manifest. Several have turned up alive and well and living in the Middle East. The government has not even produced their tickets as evidence that they actually could have boarded the aircraft they are alleged to have hijacked. Did Osama call from a cave in Afghanistan and charge them to his MasterCard?” All the other passengers are accounted for…
But that wasn’t shcb’s point, his point was that supposedly I am upset if some country hick is smarter than me. What an asshole to accuse me of that. I am sure many rural inbred dweebs are actually much smarter than I am, and even a few of the normal looking ones might be too. Actually I’ve met a few that are quite impressive and humbling when you get to know them. No, I suspect shcb is not who he says he is for the reasons I cited, not for the reasons contained in shcb’s bullying accusations.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:03 am
weird that posted twice… the server must have thought it was pretty good…
June 9th, 2007 at 12:14 am
FALSE FLAG (did you look this one up shcb? if GWB instead of JFK was in charge, this might have actually been followed through with!)
Recently declassified documents show that in the 1960’s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also committing terrorist murders against U.S. citizens on American soil, and then blaming it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba
Source: google operation northwoods yourself or go to:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/911-for-very-busy-people.html
June 9th, 2007 at 12:52 am
And do you still think that false flags are the realm of “conspiracy nuts”?
Educate yourself:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5816
June 9th, 2007 at 12:53 am
STEVE:
I understand ymatt’s desire to move on too. But that’s the problem, these neo-cons NEVER give up. Win one argument with them and they start 12 more.
shcb’s technique is just like the rest of the neo-cons. Let fly with the backhanded insults, no-matter how accurate, because what people mostly remember about that is that the opponent is on the defensive. Then the opponent loses either way: if they let it go then people assume it might be true, if the opponent counters that insult or accusation then it wastes their energy to deal with substantive issues and distracts everyone from the real points at hand. Karl Rove’s basic strategy in a nutshell.
When most normal people get fed up and walk away, they take that as a victory and assume control of the state.
Freedom requires constant vigilance.
Americans became complacent and the Repugs or neo-cons asserted a stranglehold over politics and that is why reporters are now being arrested when they assert their rights to ask questions. Dan Rather said he was afraid to ask tough questions prior to the Iraq war in fear of jeers from fellow journalists. Despite the Bush criticisms in the media now, it is actually worse now. It is dangerous to have questions in America now:
http://www.fwweekly.com/content.asp?article=6022
Thankfully, more and more people are starting to ask questions, the most prominent (such as the structural engineers, military, architects, pilots, etc.) are listed here:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/
June 9th, 2007 at 5:35 am
Sorry you spent so much time working on all that, we have all conceded not as many WMD’s were found as we thought, but that just means we were wrong to varying degrees, it still doesn’t mean anyone lied.
Why are my comments about evil people silly? How would you deal with them without war, or on a smaller scale police? Seems like a reasonable question.
I’m sure Einstein would have preferred the nuclear bomb never be developed, we all would, but Germany was developing it at the same time. Einstein kissing Hitler? I’m still scratching my head on that one.
False flag isn’t that difficult a concept to understand.
I can piss you off about as bad as anyone, can’t I?
June 9th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Birdcam is cool.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
NorthernLite, Yes, birdcam is pretty cool.
I notice SHCB has not commented on it - bet he would be more interested if the cam was upgraded with a pellet gun.
June 10th, 2007 at 12:31 am
shcb,
lol - WMD’s in Iraq an issue of varying degree? You mean like totally completely wrong from what was claimed is just some minor degree of error. pffff.
Want to know why your comments were silly? First, you falsely projected that I had suggested a world without war was possible now, when what I actually was suggesting clearly was that America has failed miserably by taking their huge moral and military superiority and wasting it with bullying at the UN, launching an unnecessary war, condoning torture, proposing that USA would adopt a nuclear first strike policy, etc. rather than taking a mature, insightful, and intelligent approach to the problems at hand in order to move towards a more peaceful world.
Second, it’s because the context of the discussion was about rogue states, and you were adopting a local police analogy as if that was the same.
With rogue states you have societal considerations far beyond the single rogue dictator, you have other national alliances and geo-political realities with potential escalations, etc.
With the criminal you have a relatively self-contained problem, even with the tentacles of organized crime.
Different tools are needed.
Diplomacy does NOT work with a rapist; and, when any one country uses their military on the world stage like a private police force that too has a dubious record of poor results. Ordering the military to subjugate a nation (using your analogy as if that is like you would order a police officer to make an arrest) is far more dangerous and has a high potential for disaster (e.g. Japan attacking Pearl Harbour, France in Vietnam, Americans in Vietnam, Brits in Afghanistan last century, Soviets in Afghanistan, and perhaps now the US (plus their pathetic coalition) in Iraq, and the Brits in Iraq way back when in the last century.
Perhaps all those debacles were caused because moronic leaders acted as if world geo-politics was as simple as a game of cowboys and injuns.
Einstein v Hitler – yes, that was totally vague, sorry. I had originally mentioned einstein and oppenheimer as they had regretted that R&D efforts mainly go towards warfare rather than social goods.
Shcb said that einstein was jewish and, without WWII, Hitler would have killed Einstein; this supposedly demonstrated that (a) Einstein only considered one side of the equation when regretting that R&D efforts went towards warfare (i.e. Utopia is easy to envision if you ignore the evil people) and that (b) shcb’s position that spending most all of your R&D efforts on warfare rather than social goods was right and necessary.
SHCB’s stretched my original statement (that Einstein regretted R&D being diverted to war) so far as to falsely imply or suggest that I had said (or that Einstein had said) that Einstein wanted no military R&D; and that was as big a stretch as if shcb had said that Einstein wanted to kiss Hitler.
In other words, no-one is considering only one side of the equation shcb, you are simply falsely revising my statements in order to argue against strawmen.
June 10th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Enkidu,
Oh my god, you have got to watch this freaky conspiracy theorist, I wonder if anyone has ever been so out of touch with reality about 911!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwQa5eokieY
June 11th, 2007 at 4:05 am
There’s nothing wrong with that analogy, if it fit the situation perfectly it would be an example not an analogy. You just don’t like it because it would hurt the credibility of your argument.
I’ve got a lot to do this summer, so I’m going to take a little break from the blogs, I’ll probably pop in from now and them, but you guys can have your soap box back. Just remember, everything you know is wrong.
June 11th, 2007 at 10:17 am
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html
Yet another case of ‘The Law’ getting way too aggressive. So it is now illegal to record a government employee arresting a citizen because it violates the officer’s rights? wtf? I suppose that is one way to stop people from videotaping Rodney King style beatings. I can hear shbc now “he #$(%&*!^ deserved it!”
Knarly and northern: please don’t think all Americans are proudly ignorant xenophobes who want nothing more than endless war to prop up their illegitimate Rethuglican mis-leaders. In 08 it’ll go to either Obama (please!) or Hillary (puhlease) and then we can start fixing this fucking mess. I have nearly lost hope that the Congress has enough spine to end dumbya’s folly.
tv/shcb (I have a feeling they are the same moron) does represent a sizeable fraction of the US population (generally centered in the south and the plains states) who deny science, deny reason, deny reality and just keep right on praying that bushco will bomb Iran to get their Rapture going. 25% of Duhmurkkins are so farking stupid they think the Sun goes around the Earth. You and I may call these people idiots, but dumbya calls em his base.
hey shcb have you made your hajj to the Creation Museum in Kintucky yet?!?! It’s full of dinosaurs n stuff! yeeeehaw!
June 11th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Enkidu,
Actually, I’m agnostic, so no hajjing for this guy. So you think if a Obamma is elected and he decides to ignore the Arabs they will go away? It is possible, maybe all they want is to be left alone. For the record, what chance do you give it? I say there is a 5-10% chance they will not mount more attacks on American interests after we surrender. What say you?
Better pray for Obamma, Hillary has enough sense to know this war must be fought, and by the time Soros gets done with his mud slinging machine pointed at her, Hillary won’t care about the far left any more than I do. Obamma however will be in its eternal debt.
I’ve asked this before, is there any circumstance that would require preemptive war? If so what bar would another country have to cross?
Deny reality? Deny science? Deny reason? You guys don’t even think we are at war! You believe the 911 conspiracy nutcasses.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Enkidu heard about the Creation Museum from his Dad and his “Genocidal Republican” friends. What a disappointment they were all too short for their heads to reach Dino’s hand, thus barring them from riding “L’il Noah’s Turbo Ark.” It’s been some sad days at the compound since they got home, let me tell you.
June 12th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Enkidu,
Thanks for the post about the proudly ignorant xenophobes. We have a few of them up here too, actually our current Prime Minister fits that description well and is trying to lower the quality of public debate to the pathetic level of much of your R wing thuglicans (e.g. to paraphrase an earlier shcb argument: do you support the troops or do you want to wake up in the middle of the night with an Arab holding a knife to your throat?)
I note shcb’s trying to beat some dead horses with questions about how to justify war (I think the UN has addressed that already) and seems to want to debate whether a democratic president will result in more or less false flag terror attacks in your country. Instead, I think we should revise your earlier suggestion and try to figure out whether the right wing neo-cons are misguided, narrow minded, self righteous pedophiles or whether they are bloodsucking pathological fraudsters who secretly envy Bush for his closeness to the male prostitute named Jeff Gannon, see: http://www.americablog.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html
Also, thanks Enkidu for the Brian Kelly item, the arrest seems like another in a spate of attempts (by ?) to suggest to independent minded Americans that the consequences of exerting their constitutional rights against heavy handed law enforcement acts will be expensive, time consuming and scary as hell. On a personal level, if faced with the choice of doing as authority says when it seems wrong to you or raising questions or resisting or even recording the event, you are being conditioned to respond as sheep.
Dicktater at 911blogger had this to say about the arrest:
“The Rights guaranteed in the First Amendment are INDIVIDUAL Rights. Of this there is no question, unless it is by tyrants. That means that each and every one of us INDIVIDUALLY enjoys the UNALIENABLE Right to Freedom of the Press. Create your own blog, web site, newsletter, whatever. Post your work as news. Put your face and name to it. MAKE YOUR OWN FANCY PRESS CARD. Stand on you Rights, like Matt Lapecek did in New Hampshire last week and sue them for violating your UNALIENABLE Rights if they do so. You only have those Rights you are willing to defend. Hold them accountable. Take their houses, take their cars, take their kid’s college funds. Hit them in the only place that they have feelings left, their wallets.
A video recording leads to felony charge for an 18 year old. They charge him with a felony that they believe will seem allowable under the law and then will push him to plead to a lesser charge. Somebody in Pennsylvania please get this kid a copy of the Constitution because in his schooling it was obviously never covered.”
June 12th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Enkidu et al, you might have objections to a few small parts of this new video (32 min.) but to ignore the sum of the remaining parts is to live in denial:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2602704786128880796&hl=en
June 12th, 2007 at 1:26 am
I say “denial” in my previous post due to a recent scan of the interesting perspectives at http://www.awakeninthedream.com
Anyone with even the tiniest ability to be introspective (that excludes shcb) will be able to appreciate to some degree the ideas presented in the newest article there: “Denial: the 51st State”.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:52 am
Knarly,
I actually agree with you about the Brian Kelly thing with a couple stipulations, I would like to see the police car video before passing final judgment. With freedom comes responsibility, if these two kids were out trolling for a cop to make a video of, they should be punished, the police have a tough enough job without worrying about someone trying to trap them with 15 seconds of edited tape. We already have one Michael Moore, we don’t need another. I would have preferred the kid to have said to the officer “I am taping this stop” then I think your first amendment rights argument would have more weight, remember none of our constitutional rights are absolute, yelling fire in a theater etc. I hate to see the law used in cases like this, assuming for the sake of argument, these kids were baiting the police for a video, and their parents did nothing to punish them, I would rather someone meet them in a dark alley and explain things to them than make case law. If it was as innocent as they say, then I agree the police overreacted and the captain, or whoever is over these officer should have handled it with an apology to the kids, case closed, no courts needed.
The things I wish to debate are debatable, if you have the courage.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:00 am
so these teens “were out trolling for a cop to make a video of”
yeah
uh huh
and (typically) your solution is to “someone meet them in a dark alley and explain things to them” Would that be your garden variety GOOPer torture or just a standard issue GOOPer master/slave beating? I know how much you want to play massah to us poor dumb brown folk (shall I quote your ridiculous ‘we are the master’ fantasy again?). By your twisted (and sick) ‘reasoning’ Rodney King was trolling for his beating as well, eh?
Hey lefty nice to see you posting! How is your unit in Iraq doing? Did you get my care package? What?!?! You haven’t joined up to get your legs blown off for dick cheney’s folly? Drag your pimpled fat ass down to the recruitment station or please shut the fuck up.
June 12th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Enkidu,
Touche on all points.
BTW if the kids were out trolling for cop mistreatment to film that’s fair game as long as they are within the law. If cops can’t deal with kids or wannabe movie producers (a very positive activity for kids) in a constructive way then they are not qualified to be in a position of authority. Heavy handed law enforcement just like heavy handed military intervention has short term effects but breeds long lasting resentment and desire for retribution.
I’d suggest that the goals of police when dealing with wayward youth and transients or others who they may see on the streets is that (a) when you need us we will be here to defend you no matter what your class status, (b) we will always act with the utmost restraint & respect for you as a person, (c) we will do our job to effect order in the city through the enabling tools (laws) in place, (d) any complaints about us will be dealt with thoroughly and transparently.
If the police are pushed to the limits by some punk and there is no imminent public safety issue, I expect the police to (a) attempt to defuse the situation intelligently without threats of force and help the punk see his errors, (b) warn of what force will be done to bring him/her into line, (c) exert such force up to the limit of the law but not to cross that line. To cross that line is to enter into a police state model such as experienced by east germany under the communists, most of Europe under hitler, and
America under Ghouliani (oops I am getting ahead of myself.)
June 12th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Enkidu - what’s wit all the hatin’ playa? Me loving you like I do and you and you repaying me with all this rambunction and hostility? Don’t I work hard for you? Don’t I do my best to bring out the best in you and make you shine like the bright little diamond you are? If it weren’t for our partnership, you might actually have to say something of substance from time to time, or let what’s in the back of your head rattle around a minute or two before it busts out your mouth. You and me dawg…Batman and Robin…the Green Hornet and Kato…Chuck D and Flava Flav. I’m there for you.
June 12th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
…and “GOOPer” - man, that’s some good-ass shit. You and I have torn some threads to pieces with good ass shit like that. We get these crackers so fucked up they don’t know what we’re even talking about, which is some funny shit, since we aren’t really talking about anything. Don’t throw away the good times, Baby!
I meant to ask though, haven’t your Dad’s “genocidal Republican friends” noticed he ain’t white yet?
June 13th, 2007 at 12:38 am
that’s serious shit lefty. u all sweetlike … inviting ol’ enkidu down to the pond cuz below that ‘ol black water you got a croc on a leash.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:41 am
Kid and Knarly,
I don’t recall mentioning race anywhere, does someone have chip on their shoulder? I believe in judging people by their character and actions, not skin color, just as Dr. King said. I believe I went to great lengths to say IF they were trying to trap police. i also said it was up to the parents first and formost to tell their children this was unacceptable. Failing that, like Hillary I think it takes a village to raise a child.
Leftbehind,
I’m not going anywhere, this is too much fun and these guys are so left they are easy, Matt is the only one so far that is a chalenge. I just have a lot to do this summer, we have a daughter getting married in a couple weeks, and I will be in China for a week or two on business first part of July, and the lawn needs to be mowed so I just don’t have time to do normal research. I have a higher bar for facts than most of these guys, so this takes time. Now I can’t keep up with them on “feelings”, wishful thinking or overstatements, but I have the facts down cold.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:23 am
High praise indeed…for oneself. Sewer rats think pretty highly of themselves too, just like fellow Repugnantons “you’re doing a heckuva a job brownie”
June 13th, 2007 at 9:39 am
“Repugnantons” (Repugnicans?) - That’s some good-ass shit, too. You better hope Enkidu don’t beat your white ass to the copyright office on that one.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:03 am
lol
& leave my *ss out of this unless you want a serious stink.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Rethuglicans pretty much covers it.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Here is what passes for ‘humor’ amongst Rethuggle presidential candidates:
“I have just come out of six weeks at a concentration camp held by the Democrat Party of Arkansas in an undisclosed location, making a hostage tape” Huckabee said. Way to make a Holocaust joke! And mix in the Iranian hostage thing to help ramp up the drive to bomb bomb bomb Iran. Show your true colors much?
On Imus’ radio show (yet another racist elitist white man who should be unemployed). No surprise there.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Are both your parents black, or just one of them? If your Dad’s black, how does he express his “genocidal racism? Is it just that he has beef against white people (and, hey doesn’t everybody?)
June 13th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
…and I agree that the understated simplicity of “Rethuglicans” has yet to be topped on this, or any other blog. “Demoncrats,” which is also yours, is a hot one too. Why are you giving this stuff away? You could sell material like that to “the Family Circus” for high dollar. It could be one of those cute sketches when the kids mis-hear things the adults say and come up with their own, riotous versions of grown-up words. “Pscetti and Meatballs”…”Rethuglicans”…”I Fell on the Slidewalk”…
June 13th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Rethuglicans it is then.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
It just sounds better. It sounds so…I don’t know, “juicey juice.” It conjures up such a strong image of Jeffy Keane and his cute little lisp…you can’t help but smile when you say it. Just like you can’t help but smile when you say, “smock.” Smock. Smock. Smock.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
…and those Morticia Addams-looking girls who shop at Hot Topic could be “Gothug”…
June 15th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
gee lefty, obsessed much?
you forgot my fav
“please keep your bible out of my wife’s uterus, thanks!”
June 15th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Now you and I both know black girls don’t go for that kind of shit.
“Gothug’s” still better - Marilyn Manson’s already stolen it for his new video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlreYpwkYVg
Speaking of Youtube, I was looking for some video I had posted of my tank and I think I found your dad having a laugh at the expense of his “racist Republican” friends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku9NhtYEAdo
June 19th, 2007 at 10:56 am
http://greencycles.blogspot.com/
synopsis, guy legally riding a bike is harassed and tased by overzealous cops. Obviously he was out trolling for it! Maybe shcb and his posse of microcephalics would be kind enuf to take this eco-terrrrist to a dark alley and ’splain some things to him. His name is Orsak, that sure sounds muslimaniac enuf to earn him a whuppin! Or maybe some Abu Griab style ‘hijinks’
bet my last dollar the cop is a Rethuglican
and I do hope this guy sues them for millions (and that moron’s job, and his dumbass rookie partner)
June 19th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
ahhhhh, there’s a good hypocrit for you, typical GOOPer
selling quantities, not just a bit of ‘temporary weakness’ or ‘the bottle made me do it’… hey maybe that William Jefferson (D) scumbag can claim the bottle made him hide all that cash in his freezer!
Giuliani South Carolina chairman indicted on cocaine charges
Ravenel is Giuliani’s South Carolina state chairman.
COLUMBIA, South Carolina (AP) — South Carolina Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, a former real estate developer who became a rising political star after his election last year, was indicted Tuesday on federal cocaine charges.
Ravenel and another man were accused of distributing less than 500 grams of the drug starting in late 2005.
Ravenel is also the state chairman for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign.
Ravenel started his political career in 2004, funding his own campaign for a U.S. Senate seat. He finished a close third in the Republican primary.
Ravenel was founder of the Ravenel Development Corp., a commercial real estate development company. His father, Arthur Ravenel Jr., was a powerful politician from Charleston who served eight years in the U.S. House and is a former state representative and state senator.
So today it comes out 911Rudy911Ghouliani911 was booted from the Iraq Study Group because he didn’t show for a single damn meeting. Too busy raking in $11 million in a speaking tour talking to crowds of gullible 25%ers…
And his good ol boy SC state GOOPer chairman is a coke dealer…
for heaven’s sake what is next? he likes to dress in drag?!?!
oh wait… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8&NR=1
June 19th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
What’s all the hate regarding Ghouliani expressing pride in his alternative lifestyle? I though you supported Gay marriage, Inky Black. When was the last time a gay man tried to stick a book up your wife’s crack? You and yer Daddy the black Klansman gonna git them fags? Yew gonna run them Nancy boys outta Kintucky. How intolerant! I shutter to think what havok you might wreak in the Tenderloin with a tank!
Remember Stonewall and stay black!
June 20th, 2007 at 3:31 am
I’ve come to expect this kind of ignorance from whites, who have never suffered under prejudice themselves and really don’t understand - but you, as a member of a minority group yourself, should know better.
It’s things like this that make me weep for what could be.
June 20th, 2007 at 4:59 am
It’s lucky for your friend on the bike that he was not transgendered. These people you and your Christian morality hold up to such ridicule often fair far worse in the hands of the law:
On November 21, 2005 in San Diego, California, transgendered Vanessa Facen stopped breathing during a melee with sheriff’s deputies Facen, 35, was in the custody of San Diego police after being found naked and bleeding inside her neighbor’s home on November 17th. While it is unclear as to why Facen became violent while in police custody, signs indicate that it was her treatment by officers — who insisted on treating her as male while in custody — that contributed to her actions.
http://worcester.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/5737.php
On 13 August 2001, Jeremy Burke, a transgender man, was refused entry to his partner’s
home by a housing authority security guard who cited a policy that residents must come
down to the lobby to admit a visitor. He reportedly attempted to explain that his partner
was ill and needed the medication he brought for her. According to Jeremy Burke, the
security guard then shoved him into the elevator. Approximately 15 minutes after he
arrived at his partner’s apartment, three police officers came to the door, entered the
apartment and pulled Jeremy Burke out of a chair. They allegedly carried him into the
hallway, and started punching him in the face, chest and eyes. His head was reportedly
slammed into the floor and wall. The police report — which consistently uses the wrong
pronouns, referring to Jeremy Burke as a woman — alleges that he attempted to strike
and later to bite one of the officers, but was subdued. He was arrested on charges of
assault, battery, resisting arrest and trespassing and taken to the police station, where he alleges he was subjected to humiliating and transphobic verbal abuse and medical neglect.
Jeremy Burke was vomiting bile and blood for several days after the beating. After three
days, he was taken to San Francisco General Hospital where it was discovered that his
kidneys were injured from the beating and he was bleeding internally. Reportedly, his
black eye and bruises were visible and documented. All charges against him were
eventually dropped, except that of trespassing.
Patti Shaw, a transgender woman, was arrested following a domestic dispute in 2003. She had undergone sex-reassignment surgery and had been issued with identification that had been legally corrected to reflect her gender. However, the authorities determined that they had no procedure for changing her gender from male to female in the court’s criminal record system and reportedly placed her in a male cellblock. In the courthouse cellblock male prisoners allegedly subjected her to systematic sexual harassment – including verbally abusing her, lifting up her skirt, exposing their penises and masturbating in front of her; they also reportedly sexually assaulted her. The guards allegedly did nothing to intervene and protect her.
Several youths drove by a Latina transgender woman in their car in 1999, stopped, and
attacked her, stabbing her and beating her with a baseball bat. When Los Angeles Police
Department (LAPD) officers responded, they reportedly focused on determining the
woman’s “real” gender. They demanded her driving licence, which identified her as female, but refused to accept this documentation. Officers allegedly demanded that responding paramedics examine her to confirm that she was male. The paramedics refused to do so. Police also reportedly harassed witnesses to the crime, many of whom were also transgender women, inquiring about their immigration status.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/AMR510012006ENGLISH/$File/AMR5100106.pdf
June 21st, 2007 at 12:15 am
Hey Enkidu,
Thanks for the greencycles blogspot. While I’m sure to agree with shcb’s likely explanation that them cops were just a couple bad apples, I will also likely disagree with where he’d go next: that them cops just got a little carried away just like at Abu Ghraid but not so bad, see they weren’t so bad… and besides if they really were being held up from an important call then “Orsak” deserved what he got anyway…
Sadly, there’s a fair chance that Orsak will go broke fighting this and end up squished by the state like a bug.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:50 am
Well, I am not quite ready to believe (or is that Believe?) that the gun’mint demoed the WTC, but this simulation (and what was left out) is convincing me that this was an inside job more than any of knarly’s links. tho you should keep em coming u krazykanucs! =) I can be convinced with better data.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8
So these guys made a simulation of a jet whacking into the WTC. Well, that was quite a bit of damage. However, notice how you get very few sequences where you see the size of the entire building vs the area where the impact occurred. Forgive me if I make a common sense observation, but the impact snapped a double handful of columns, and the resulting fires weakened many more. The core of that building was far too massive, far too redundant a mesh to have simply disintegrated like it did.
Only three steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. Ever. WTC1, WTC2 and the one Julie Ghouliani ‘pulled’ (had to throw that in there as a shout out to sister lefty). Those towers were designed to take the impact - and resulting fires - from the biggest airliner of the day, and then some. A bomber smacked into the empire state building: it did not collapse into a pile of rubble. Check out the much more dramatic Madrid skyscraper fire. No pile of rubble.
Actually I just spent several minutes using The Google and found that there have been many fires in steel frame buildings. This quote seemed very interesting to me: “It is not well-known that WTC1 itself survived a serious fire in 1975. It started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors, burning for three hours. How come WTC1 survived a 3-hour fire in 1975 but completely collapsed as the (alleged) result of a fire lasting less than two hours on 9/11?”
June 21st, 2007 at 10:12 am
Hi Enkidu,
One of the architects described the WTC steel layout as being designed like a screen window, so that if an aircraft struck it would be like a pencil going through the mesh. The remaining structures could more than sustain the existing load. The video of him describing it is more convincing than my description.
There are now over 100 architects and structural engineers questioning the official conspiracy theory (OCT) with regards to the collapse of the buildings. I think you can find them and their individual questions on one of the scholars for 911 truth sites.
You’ve identified a few troubling questions about the 911 OCT. There are hundreds. Debunkers try to pick a few to answer in support of their silly theory, or to cast doubt on the validity of even asking such questions, and then suggest that the hundreds of other questions aren’t worth dealing with. Sadly for them, debunking the basis for a few questions, or casting doubt on some of them, or refusing to answer them does not qualify as an adequate defence of their OCT. Discarding a few does not invalidate the many. In fact, discarding the many does not even invalidate the few.
Regarding the simulation, don’t hang your hat on it too closely. If I recall the debate about it on 911Blogger.com correctly, the consensus was that it generally supports, via an animation, the OCT. Although it is billed as being a scientific work, it is simply a highly detailed animation of the scientific work of others (e.g. NIST) whose accuracy in regards to the collapsing towers has already been highly criticized and “debunked”.
Refer to the 911 Victim’s families petition for a new enquiry, delivered to Congress in the past month.
There are also disagreements in the accuracy of the animation.
I think the biggest smoking gun lies with building 7, which was overbuilt, sustained asymetrical damage from falling debris to a lesser extent than other buildings (WTC6?), had very small fires RELATIVE to raging infernos in other skyscraper fires (e.g. Madrid), WTC7 fires were RANDOM, yet the 47 story building collapsed symmetrically at freefall speed into its own footprint in a manner experienced demolition experts describe as an expert demolition. Demolition of a building is not easy, if it could be done with a few whacks with a wrecking ball and some arson to simulate what happened to WTC7 then the demolition industry has been run by fools for its entire history.
You may be interested to go to 911Blogger.com and read the comments about the Purdue university simulation. There is a search engine on the site, but if you cannot find the right blog entry let me know and I’ll find the link.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:25 am
Sister Lefty says “hi,” too Inky Black. Cute slip, but your homophobia’s showing. You and yer daddy run them nancy boys up the hollar yet? Would’t want them Janey’s ‘fectin the chillins with that AIDS. We just got rid of one Jerry Falwell, too bad to see you geared up to take his place.
Why is it that black men, such as yourself, have a harder time with homosexuality than do whites? It’s one of the only issues currently on the cultural plate that many whites approach more progressively than do many blacks. Why does an alternative sexual preference bring out the “thug” in you the way it does? Who’s the conservative now?
June 21st, 2007 at 10:29 am
You might want to actually answer this one in other than your typical “Lil Abner” level prose, as it might be of interest and service to many of the posters here, the majority of whom are white, and have probably never gotten a chance to discuss this issue with an African American. “Don’t Hate - Create.”
June 21st, 2007 at 10:46 am
…and Knarlyknight, here’s something you can fixate on during lulls in 9-11 conspiracy “scholarship.” Here’s the REAL reason William Cooper was killed:
http://www.amuseyourself.com/amuse-2000/epitaph/paulisdead/paulisdead.html
June 21st, 2007 at 10:47 am
..but Inkydoo, you should definately go to THIS site first:
http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/uraniamanuscripts/sept11.html
June 21st, 2007 at 11:02 am
Enkidu,
Just checked, they’re talking about the Purdue thing now:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9478#comment
A couple comments:
“I don’t see al-Satami’s passport in their simulation. Or did he chuck that from the cockpit window just prior to impact? ;-)”
“For RAW Story, this is pretty good. Hope it is a sign of better things to come from them. The sim should be shredded as it is pure junk science/cartoon nonsense, but RAW has never gone this far into questioning the OCT, so it is positive in that respect.”
June 21st, 2007 at 11:04 am
Just a few common sense points:
[Only three steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. Ever. WTC1, WTC2 …
Actually I just spent several minutes using The Google and found that there have been many fires in steel frame buildings. This quote seemed very interesting to me: “It is not well-known that WTC1 itself survived a serious fire in 1975. It started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors, burning for three hours. How come WTC1 survived a 3-hour fire in 1975 but completely collapsed as the (alleged) result of a fire lasting less than two hours on 9/11?”]
You are comparing buildings with fires alone and not buildings with fires and massive impact damage.
[Those towers were designed to take the impact - and resulting fires - from the biggest airliner of the day, and then some.]
Evidently not.
[A bomber smacked into the empire state building: it did not collapse into a pile of rubble. Check out the much more dramatic Madrid skyscraper fire. No pile of rubble.]
A 767-200 weighs between 80 and 157 tons depending on load, the B-25 that hit the Empire State building was slightly over 10 tons. The fuel capacity of a b-25 was 811 gallons, a 767-200 is 23,980, almost 30 times the fuel.
Damn those facts, they sure get in the way.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:19 am
laughedbehind,
that link was silly, is your National Enquirer late today?
Also, there is no lull in 911 news. New information comes out almost daily, although I suspect the current work on molecular signatures of thermate in the WTC dust being conducted and peer reviewed by chemists and molecular physicists will be beyond your level of comprehension except to the extent that you think you can ridicule it based on your position of ignorance and blind obedience to what your Masta’s have told you is the truth of 911. Nothing to see here boy, git along now.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:23 am
shcb,
there are many much better places to get “facts” than from your data bits couched in opinion.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:29 am
New information comes out on Bigfoot and UFO daily too, and I’m sure the adherants to those clownish apparitions are certainly as smug as you are about yours. Conspiracy theories are the final havens od charletans and fools, and nothing you or your buddies in the black helicoptor crowd have come up with on this 9-11 thing has done much to convince those of us who dwell in consensus reality otherwise. Now run along, the “Hour of the Time’s” on and you wouldn’t want to miss it.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:34 am
shcb,
Buildings with massive damage? “Massive” is a relative term, absolutely the planes were huge but the buildings were built to a tolerance that would more than handle the a huge airplane (they were built to withstand a collision with the planes of the day and to withstand hurricanes.)
Your logic is classic DENIAL* (see below)
The buildings stood by themselves for a while. They stood for an hour, proving they could well support their weight. Then they fell. Something at that point casued them to collapse. Your OCT says it was the fire. Where is the proof? Carted away ASAP to be recycled in China, destroy the evidence. Approximately 0.4% of the steels was retained for further study, but none of the “interesting” peices we see in some pictures with molted metal dribbling down cut lines that very, very, very closely resemble thermate cut lines.
* DENIAL:
” The common debunker (shcb) positino seems to be that 9/11 was simply an anomalous event. That’s it. They put away their thinking caps, and proclaim the original architects and other experts wrong because, in a wicked case of arguing from the consequent, the buildings fell.”
“That is, instead of recognizing that the buildings should have stood, debunkers simply say, “The buildings fell; therefore, the architects were wrong.” ”
” Anyone can invent a series of just-so arguments to explain why the buildings may have fallen, but the fact of their falling does not necessarily mean the architects were wrong.”
” So when you say “who can argue with the building designers,” the answer is, “the debunkers can.” What someone clever should do is make a computer simulation that manipulates the data such that the plane crashes could have produced another absurd result, like having the interior of the towers collapse but leave the perimeter standing. We need to demonstrate that the simulation (a) can be made to show many results, and (b) does not account for the cumulative evidence we have (eyewitnesses, explosions in the basement prior to impact, squibs, CD expert testimony, etc.). “
June 21st, 2007 at 11:34 am
…but if you do, don’t worry. I’ll bet Inky’s dad’s got the podcast on the ipod in Watch Tower 3 Bravo.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:44 am
laughedbehind, with his own comments, has given ample evidence to the truth of my earlier statement that 911 news (research by scientists and those obtaining witheld info from government through FOIA and other means) is “..beyond your level of comprehension except to the extent that you think you can ridicule it based on your position of ignorance and blind obedience…”
LOL
June 21st, 2007 at 1:18 pm
shcb,
I don’t think enkidu was trying to suggest that the 1945 bomber crash into Empire state building was the same plane or very similar to the jumbo jets that crashed into the WTC. You just constructed a strawman, shcb.
Obviously there are differences between the two crashes: e.g. the WTC crash involved bigger planes but the way the towers were designed and constructed (there were advancements in structural engineering, and the availability of stronger and better concrete and other building materials) between when the Empire State was built in 1929 and the WTC construction in the 70’s was also significantly different. Enkidu’s point was that a plane crashing into a building causing great damage is not a de facto reason to expect the building (and surrounding buildings) to collapse in a near SYMETRICAL manner at near free-fall speeds.
Maybe shcb could turn his attention to finding better examples of what happens when planes crash into buildings for comparison with the WTC catastrophe. Either that or he can continue to waste space with strawman arguments such as that two separate aircraft crashes (temporarily and quantitatively) into two separate buildings are, according to shcb’s meticulous researching of the “facts”, are actually two different aircraft crashes.
I look foreard to shcb’s plane/building crash examples. By the way, I’ve seen the fighter video “vapourizing” into a re-inforced concrete wall, that was a learning experience. However, the re-inforced Pentagon walls did not hold up like the wall in the video, and although most of the Pentagon plane virtually vapourized apparently some paper evidence and DNA from all the passengers on the flight survived.
On a different subject, if all the passengers on the pentagon plane were accounted for by DNA evidence (so therefore the hijackers couldn’t have been impersonating a fictitious passenger), yet the hijackers weren’t on any of the passenger lists, how did they get on the plane?
Never mind. Instead, let’s just have a full impartial INTERNATIONALLY RUN investigation into the government’s 911 conspiracy theory and other possible hypothesis.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
“The building was designed to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it; that was the largest plane at that time. I believe that that building could sustain multiple impacts.”
Mr. Frank A. DeMartina, WTC Construction Project Manager
“The airplane we were envisioning was the largest airplane of its time. We designed the buildings to take the impact of the Boeing 707 hitting the building at any location.”
Mr. Les Robertson, Head of WTC Structural Engineering Group.
More (with respect to a response to the Purdue animation) here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9499
June 21st, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Knarlyknight - There’s very little here beyond anyone’s comprehension, really. You’re just doing what conspiracy theorists always do. You just found some internet sources (it used to be the shortwave radio when I was a young UFO enthusiast,) that provide you with scientific-seeming information that you don’t really understand, then repeat it to us hoping that we don’t understand it either and will accept it on that basis. I can’t form a credible argument based on structural capabilities of buildings, melting points of various metals, etc., because I’m not an engineer, an architect or a metalurgist - but neither can you, because you’re not either. You’re just doing what you accuse everyone else of doing - you’ve decided, based on your predispositions, what you believe, you’ve found a source that seems to back it up in what you perceive to be accurate, technical terms, which are ultimately too far outside your own skill set to judge accurately. There’s no need to get all high and mighty about that.
If there was a wealth of ironclad evidence of anything you are trying to establish, this debate would be carried on publicly on levels higher than either your’s or mine - it wouldn’t be (practically) the sole domain of internet bloggers and podcast hosts. The Bush administration can’t manage to pull panties over the head of some guy in Iraq without the entire world knowing about it, but you expect me to believe that somehow the US Government managed to blow up two skyscrapers in one of the world’s biggest cities, not to mention blow a hole in the Pentagon, and nobody knows about it but a bunch of conspiracy theorists on a weblog? It would take a conspiracy of silence involving literally hundreds if not thousands of people on all levels of society to pull a job like that, yet no one has come forward with any information or proof, and the media, who practically jizz all over the newsroom at any opportunity to defame the administration has either uncovered nothing regarding one of the biggest stories in human history, or are all so complicit with a power structure they can’t stand that they won’t report it. Do you honestly believe for a second that if Dan Rather had even an inkling that any of this were true, that he would have wasted time with that bogus National Guard memo? Do you think this Scooter Libby nonsense would even be newsworthy if Terry Moran had a line on the story that could not only bring down the President, but make him a journalistic God and millionaire? Of course, I’m forgetting that all the media are either a) tools of the administration or b) silenced in their terror of the Shadow Police - but isn’t that the line every conspiracy theorist falls back on in the end - “You can’t trust anyone but me and my dubious sources, because everyone else but us has been bought off. Every supposedly credible source in the whole world outside myself and some guy who runs a website in his Mom’s basement are too afraid to tell the REAL TRUTH”
Besides all this, if the Government were actually powerful enough to pull off the destruction of 9/11, the very nature of their power would make 9/11 counterproductive. If they were already so in control of our society, from the street level to the highest offices of the military, business and the public sector, their control would already be so complete, so total, that something like 9/11 would be the last thing they would have to do. In simple terms, if you are so powerful you can destroy two of the world’s biggest buildings and cover your tracks that completely, you’re powerful enough to start a War in Iraq without having to blow up the World Trade Center to do it. You’re already powerful enough to establish whatever totalitarian regime you wish, without having to blow up the World Trade Center to do it. If you’re powerful enough to blow up the World Trade Center witout fear of reprisal, you’re powerful enough to make damn sure there are weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq when you need there to be WMDs in Iraq. Nobody knows what you do to prisoners in Iraq when you’re that powerful. Nobody knows Gitmo even exists when you are that powerful. Rolling Stone magazine doesn’t publicly criticize your foriegn policy when you’re that powerful, and Michael Moore would be Michael Who? in some hole somewhere.
Why bring attention to yourself if you’ve already consolidated that much power undercover? Give the people bread and circuses. Give them peace, or at least easy victories, and they will ask no questions. Blow up the World Trade Center and, as you yourself are an apt example, people will ask questions to the point of making up questions to ask. For the World Trade Center to come down as you suggest it did, the Police State would already have to be in place, and would have had to have been going swimmingly in secret for years - why risk such total control for no good reason. Unless the real Paul McCartney’s body were hidden in a gold chest in the World Trade Center parking Garage…or maybe somebody figured out that the studio where they filmed the fake Moon landing was down there, or maybe Ron-Za got loose from Area 51 and something had to be done…
June 21st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live
June 21st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Roddy Piper rules.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFiDxOVGQWY
June 21st, 2007 at 5:47 pm
A government plot to destroy the World Trade Center could not have been a spur of the moment action. It would have been planned for years before its execution.
On March 4, 2001….6 mos. before 9/11… “The Lone Gunmen” series aired on FOX TV. The pilot episode of this X-Files spinoff was about a commercial airliner having its navigation system hijacked and being flown into the World Trade Center via remote control by a covert group within the US government in order to create an alleged terrorist attack on the US.
This pilot episode was filmed between March 20 - April 7, 2000, 19 months before 9/11.
If a group within the government, powerful enough to destroy the World Trade Center with complete atonomy were able to do so, and to almost completely block the flow of information regarding the event, why would they allow something this close to reality to be shown on national television only a few months before they were planning to act? I thought they controlled the media. I thought Fox was a propaganda arm for the Big Power Machine. What gives?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQyYuWXp3E8
June 21st, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Don’t take my word for it, refer to the neo con song sheet for why they did it:
PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” in Section V entitled “Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force”, includes the sentence: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor”
Signed off by all the war criminals just prior to 2001.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Which is basically as sinister a statment as you care to make it. It’s the same thing as me saying “I’ve got a nice house here, and it will continue to be a nice house unless someone burns it down.” Looking forward to potential trouble from outside or fermenting a fiendish plot for world domination?
I’ve answered enough of your questions for one day kid, let’s have a look at how you tackle the issues I brought up. I’m sure we would all like to explore your psychological landscape together. What’s the big picture? How, specifically, am I wrong? Who’s really out to get you, and how are you and and Liberty Legion going to save us all in the end? C’mon, Rowdy Roddy - show us. Let us see the world through your dark glasses for a little while.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
…for instance, if the PNAC is such as super sinister outline for the fourth reich, why do we even know about it? Shouldn’t it be under dark glass, defended by the Emperor’s private guard in the Fortress of Darkness? Every lefty blogger worth his Berkinstocks has already posted at least portions of it years ago. More people have read it than have read “Howl” - don’t you think such an obvious outline for a totalitarian take over of everything would be more carefully concealed? If it was leaked to the public, isn’t that more damning to the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory? I mean, how are we to believe that any group of people could keep a massive undertaking like 9/11 under wraps when they can’t even secure one lousy document - especially when that document is supposed to be the layout for the entire scheme? How does it help the Grand Conspiracy to have every college kid on the internet quoting huge sections of the World Domination Manifesto right out in the open? If these guys are evil enough to kill over 3000 people in one day, why didn’t they just go ahead with the handful of eliminations it would have taken to keep the