Obama vs. Rice, January 2005

Here’s a YouTube video of Barack Obama questioning Condoleeza Rice during her Senate confirmation hearing in January 2005:

It does a good job of demonstrating that aspect of Obama that I got from listening to his podcasts: That he’s smart, and thinking on his feet, and that three years ago he already had the judgement and the temperament that put him light-years beyond McCain (or Hillary) as a presidential candidate.

Experience is over-rated. George W. Bush has seven years’ experience in the White House — doesn’t seem to have changed the essential fact that he’s profoundly unqualified to be president of the United States. Barack Obama arrived on the national political stage a better candidate than Hillary or McCain, and he’s only gotten better since. I offer this video as Exhibit A of that fact.

155 Responses to “Obama vs. Rice, January 2005”

  1. ymatt Says:

    No attacks, no grandstanding. He gives Condi the benefit of the doubt, framing his question in terms of the gap between the administration’s statements and the perceived reality in the public sphere which causes most to doubt the administration’s intentions. Then watch as Condi falls back to precisely the same neocon party line which Obama is giving her the opportunity to move past. The exchange speaks volumes about both people.

  2. enkidu Says:

    Didn’t I just see her deny being interested in the R veep slot?
    it was on CNN in the headlines area…
    She’s been wrong about just about everything (sov collapse, 9/11, iraq, now iran) do we really want 8 more years of Condi’s crap?


    I’ve been impressed w Obama since ’04 and the more I learn about him, the more impressed I am.

    rwnjs – wrong

  3. ymatt Says:

    Condi always seems so flustered about everything that I’m not even sure she’s been “wrong” so much as she’s continued to serve as the face for wrongness. At least Rummy gave the impression that he was actively in charge of the bad decision-making.

  4. NorthernLite Says:

    Ding Ding Ding!

    Round 1: Obama

    ymatt, that’s a good point about Condi. I sometimes too think that she is just a really loyal servant, and her frustration shows it.

  5. shcb Says:

    I think both Obama and Condi exhibited a great deal of thoughtfulness and professional. If all the parties in our system performed as admirably as these two a lot more would get accomplished. I wish that discussion would have gone on for an hour or two, it looked to me like they had just set their broad positions and didn’t have the time to expound into those positions. They both seemed willing to concede each other’s points when they were valid.

    In a more extended setting I would have preferred Condi to say that mid East terrorism is a matter of national security and the problems in Africa are not so they are better suited to being handled by the UN.

  6. ymatt Says:

    Well, but Obama’s point is that the administration has fallen back to the “tyranny” argument, which the public isn’t so impressed by since that aspect of it applies better to many other places in the world. The argument doesn’t make sense to people and he’s asking Condi to make it in a different way, which she isn’t willing to do. Say what you will about the value of the Iraq war, you can’t deny that most of the public and indeed the world believes that we have arbitrarily invaded Iraq for reasons that don’t line up with the rhetoric. Given that, the administration really owes it to us to make their argument in a more convincing way, if indeed their motivations are good. If their best reason is really that somehow this war is reducing terrorism, it’s pretty remarkable that the vast majority if the rest of the world thinks they’re wrong.

  7. shcb Says:

    It’s been a couple days since I watched the video but it seems to me there were two or three questions he was asking; the first was what are the criteria for using military force. He wanted a defined list of bullet points that would be met before force was used. Condi said every case is different, Obama agreed and then continued to ask the question repeatedly. Secondly, in his prelude he uses Iraq as an example and Condi uses too much of her very limited time allotment (even Obama is visibly frustrated with the time limit) to explain her position on Iraq and then Obama has to spend even more time bringing her back to his line of thought. The third aspect of his questioning, and I think the main point, was why do we use force in a place like Iraq and not in the Sudan and the like when atrocities are greater there. By that point they had just run out of time. I think Obama really wanted to know the answer to those questions, he really wanted to have a discussion with this woman, but he wasn’t able. The way these sessions work is each member of congress is allowed so much time, this keeps them from taking all day to themselves. The person being questioned isn’t under the same pressure as the congressman because the next congressman can keep up the line of questioning as if it were one person. So Condi doesn’t have to answer the questions fully in this 5 minute bite because if it is important Congressman Foghorn Leghorn will pick up where Obama left off. At the very beginning of this segment we hear Obama say he is picking up where two senators left off. To get the full effect you would have to listen to more of the proceedings.

    Now to my opinion. A leader in any walk of life doesn’t worry about what others think of him or his actions. The opinions of others is certainly one of the factors they consider, but it only rarely is the deciding factor. Followers on the other hand almost always put the opinions of others at the top of the list. I know you are sensitive to my rhetoric so I’ll leave it at that. If I had been answering those questions I would have said that the difference between Africa and Iraq is our national interests were directly at stake in the war on terror since we are the primary target and our interests are not at stake in Africa. Since no country outside the Sudan are affected by Sudan’s problems that is a better use for a multi national force like the UN. As far as why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia, China, or North Korea? You attack weak enemies before strong, (China) you don’t attack enemies that you can negotiate with (Saudi Arabia, Lybia, Pakistan) this all Sun Tzu kind of stuff.

    What have I left out?

  8. enkidu Says:

    You left out the fact that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 (despite your transparent attempts to link the two). You left out the fact that Iraq had no meaningful WMDs. No WMD program related activities that were worth invading and spending/wasting 4033 lives and 3 trillion in lucre. Yes, indeed, you left out a whole bunch of facts but continue to hew to your comforting delusional fictions.

    gwb has done more for global terrrrrsm than Osama bin Forgotten and the House of Saud combined (no I am not switching to the 9/11truther pov, I think the gwb cabal is not capable of perping 9/11 without getting caught flatfooted/red handed)

    When a leader makes a mistake, it is my understanding that they admit it and then move on/change their behavior/policy/etc. Bush is a car wreck that keeps slamming into the wall over and over and over again. Just praying harder doesn’t seem to work… can we try something else now?

    Our choices are Obama, Clinton or McSame. Which one of these choices offers the best hope for real change? Clearly Obama.

  9. knarlyknight Says:

    Good discussion. Sorry to interrupt. (chuckle.)

    There is a new, succinct and relatively comprehensive synopsis of the 911 truther pov, some of you might be interested.

    It is called:

    The mission to crack the 911 case gains traction

    It speaks to the ludicrous myth that Republicans are better able to protect America, example:

    The Bush administration had cut anti terror funding soon after assuming the White House, even though the bombing of the USS Cole and the US embassies in Tanzania and Zaire had yet to be addressed. A stunning array of warnings eminated from no less than eleven foreign intelligence agencies including France, Germany, the UK, Italy, Russia and Syria in the months and weeks before the attacks. Some that were especially specific, warning of hijackings of commercial jets to be used as missles against US targets. Richard Clark, the chief counter-terrorism expert under four presidents had been removed from the president’s inner circle months before by the National Security Advisor to the President, Condoleezza Rice. His daily, documented warnings about “an intelligence warning system blinking red” went ignored. He was repeatedly denied an audience with the president. Daily Presidential Briefs, (daily updated assessments of the most important national security threats), including one titled “bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States”, and a variety of similar DPBs were also being ignored on a regular basis. George Bush was on vacation the entire month of August 2001.

    Another example… shcb recently cited Payne Stewart’s plane without realizing how dramatically it provided evidence against the case he was trying to make. Some elaboration of that in the article:

    The Commission further claims that the military must rely solely on the FAA for radar services, blatantly ignoring the independent military radar that dwarfs the civilian radar network – both in scope and sophistication. In the nine months preceeding 911, the FAA had contacted the military – and NORAD had intercepted errant aircraft 67 times. Average time to intercept: 16 minutes. In the previous year, there had been over 120 such events, all with comparable intercept times.

    And examples of lies:

    Between testifying before Senate Commitees and the 911 Commission, NORAD, Pentagon and FAA officials offered no less than three contradictory accounts over the course of a year to explain their failures. Several Commission members sought criminal charges for perjury but were stopped. No reason was offered. The National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, testified under oath that “… no one could have foreseen hijacked airliners being used as missles to fly into buildings…” George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld also made this assertion repeatedly, in direct contradiction to a variety of recognized and well practiced scenerios by NORAD, the NRO and the CIA since 1998, as is a matter of record. Among these contingencies, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were considered to be prime targets. …

    Full article here:


  10. Craig Says:

    Knarly, you seemed to have been doing better lately at resisting the urge to unleash your 9/11 spam on unsuspecting threads such as this one. I guess that compulsion just gets too hard to control after a while….

  11. knarlyknight Says:

    I appreciate your comment. Essentially you are correct.

    It is a lot like watching an old girlfriend over the years who has become the victim of domestic violence. I’ve tried my best to reason with her and get her to see that her husband is not the valiant defender of their family that she thinks he is, but is in fact the cause of most of their problems and the primary reason why her kids are misfits. But her reality is a scary one, and her perception of an uber-violent world has tragically become more comfortable to her than the unfamiliar and saner world that actually exists out there but that she cannot see properly through her dirty windows.

    Sadly, it becomes more apparent that there is little more one can do other than to watch her descend further into an abyss and be there to offer a life rope whenever it appears she might be glancing up.

    The Salon article above, “The Mission to Crack the 911 Case Gains Traction” seems to be one of those instances where she might have been looking out of the abyss.

  12. shcb Says:

    funny how stuff goes through on lower threads

  13. shcb Says:

    even though no Arab names were found on any passenger list of the hijacked flights.

    Partial list of victims
    By Associated Press, 09/13/01



    eighth try

  14. shcb Says:

    “even though no Arab names were found on any passenger list of the hijacked flights.”

    Partial list of victims
    By Associated Press, 09/13/01

    Put the h**p in front of these



  15. knarlyknight Says:


    I guess you missed the message. You 28%ers are where the “abuse” comes from.

    shcb finds fault with one or two minor items and hold it up as proof that the whole ball of wax is faulty. What’s clear is how ridiculous shcb looks by holding one standard for those who question authority, yet utterly abandoning that standard to bend over backwards rationalizing the hundreds of major discrepancies in the official conspiracy theory to which he clings so tightly.

    It’s been an endemic form of faulty reasoning over the past 20 years or so, and was described at length by one intellectual in a paper that dealt with the term: the “Higher Dismissiveness.” HD is a problem because it has been used to misdirect scientific enquiry, usually to maintain consensus views long after they should have been further examined and altered.

  16. shcb Says:

    But you are the only one on this site that believes this nonsense and I guarantee there aren’t many 28%er’s here. So why is it that if I believe national elected leaders I have some sort of malady but you are perfectly rational if you believe some faceless entity on the internet? I don’t consider claiming there were no Arabs on the passenger lists when there were a small matter. Do some Google searching, there are thousands of sites making that claim, and guess what, lil ‘ole me just proved them all wrong, with the help of another blogger, who by the way is an anti Bush non 28%er.

    Your analogy just isn’t very good, I really have no idea how it relates to Craig’s post. Sorry guys, now he is going to explain.

    All I really wanted to do was continue my discussion with Matt.

  17. enkidu Says:

    ‘elected leaders’
    looking through the lens of the ’00 election, there is just so much (rwnj) wrong packed into those two words…

  18. knarlyknight Says:

    Because you are submitting to authority rather than rationality.

  19. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb – About the analogy, I wouldn’t expect you to figure out how it relates that would involve more internal reflection than you seem capable of doing. But that’s okay, if a person can’t understand a lesson then they aren’t ready for it yet.

    The exception is the analogy’s reference to “dirty windows” that can be easily understood by reflecting on Tim Robbins April 14 speech:

    Hello, I’m Tim Robbins. I’d like to thank you for the invitation to address you here at the National Association of Broadcasters. When I first received the invitation I was a little confused because the last time I had contact with the national media I seem to remember them telling me to shut the hell up.

    I would like to start with an apology. To Rush and Sean, and Billo and Savage and Laura what’s-her-name. A few years ago they told America that because I had different opinions on the wisdom of going to war that I was a traitor, a Saddam lover, a terrorist supporter, undermining the troops. I was appealing at the time for the inspectors to have more time to find those weapons of mass destruction. I was a naïve dupe of left wing appeasement. And how right they were. If I had known then what I know now, if I had seen the festive and appreciative faces on the streets of Baghdad today, if I had known then what a robust economy we would be in, the unity of our people, the wildfire of democracy that has spread across the Mideast, I would never have said those traitorous, unfounded and irresponsible things. I stand chastened in the face of the wisdom of the talk radio geniuses, and I apologize for standing in the way of freedom.

    The rest here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-robbins/addressing-the-national-a_b_96836.html

  20. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, did you mean “faceless entities” like these: http://patriotsquestion911.com/ ?

    for example,

    Recent Additions to This Page
    (Please also check the other five pages.)

    Senator Lincoln Chafee
    Former U.S. Senator from Rhode Island
    Added March 11, 2008

    Capt. Edgar Mitchell, DSc
    Retired U.S. Navy Pilot and Astronaut
    Added March 11, 2008

    Milton Bearden
    Former CIA Station Chief in Pakistan,
    Germany, Nigeria, and Sudan
    Added March 11, 2008

    Paul Grenier
    Former Interpreter for the U.S. State Dept,
    U.S. Army and U.S. Central Command
    Added February 27, 2008


  21. knarlyknight Says:

    okay, so if you think the flight lists are such a big deal (compared to, say, pools of molten steel under all 3 WTC buildings that collapsed that day).

    So you’ll need to explain to yourself why the flight lists that you provided for the hijacked flights only have hijackers for flight 11 listed (i.e. “inserted after the fact”???) There are no hijackers listed (i.e. “inserted yet” ???) into the other hijacked flight manifests.

    So you provide evidence that one of four hijacked planes had the hijackers on the passenger manifest AND ALSO provide more evidence that three of the other hijacked planes DID NOT contain hijacker names
    on the original flight manifests.

    Therefore, yours is lost argument, shcb.

  22. knarlyknight Says:

    Not that flight lists are all that important relative to the numerous other items in that article… http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_michael__080412_the_mission_to_crack.htm

  23. shcb Says:

    No, the statement was the hijackers names were not on any of the lists, to disprove that all I have to do is provide evidence they were on one, more than likely they were on the other lists as well, this was all I found in ten minutes work, but that is all I have to do disprove the claim.

    Because you are submitting to authority rather than rationality

    Does that mean authority is wrong by default? Just conservative authority? Don’t the facts determine the truth no matter who is making the statement? What is more rational than believing someone with legitimate evidence and not believing someone without evidence or with false evidence.

    Ok, so molten pools of metal are a mystery, the problem is they don’t do much for your conspiracy theory by themselves, you need more than that, the rest of the gobaldy gook is either far fetched cast of thousands type of stuff or it is provably wrong (lies). An intricate operation like you are professing is possible however so very unlikely. The more unlikely a story the more credible the evidence needs to be for it to be believable.

  24. knarlyknight Says:


    The list thing: you are completely wrong.

    The original claim is that none of the hijackers names showed up on the original flight manifests (lists).

    You did ten minutes of research and provided not a flight list.

    What you provided was an Associated Press (AP) compilation of a partial list of who AP thinks was on-board the hijacked airplanes, according to family and friends of the victims.

    That’s entirely different than the original flight list from the airline(s).

    So if we are keeping score here, you have earned an F- so far.

    If memory serves me correctly, to get the flight manifests you will have to convince the FBI to release them to you. They refuse to do so despite FOI requests. The airlines gave the manifests to the FBI, and the airlines are unwilling or prohibited (I don’t recall or never knew for sure which) from elaborating on what they contained.

    My understanding is that there are no other airline crashes, hijackings, or other significant airline event since the age of computers in which the Government of a Western Nation has refused to release the original flight manifests. Witholding such basic documents is not exactly helping convince me that everything is on the up and up with those boys at the FBI.

    But then again, I do not think this issue is as important as you seem to think it is. Maybe you can remind me again, why is it important to you whether or not hte hijackers names were on the airline flight manifests? Oh yea, if they were not on the original list, or if some of them were not on the original list, then that fuels all kinds of speculation about how they got on the planes, whether they were impersonating someone else, or whether they weren’t on the plane at all. Hmmm. Sounds kind of crazy to me. I’d think that with the largest terrorist event on US soil the FBI would want to clear up such basic issues as that in as transparent a manner as possible: i.e. show the people the original flight manifests that were surrendered to the FBI on 911. That would at least clear up this speck of speculation about that day.

  25. knarlyknight Says:

    For your reference, this is what you provided:

    Partial list of victims
    By Associated Press, 09/13/01

    Partial lists of those killed in Tuesday’s terrorist attacks, according to family members, friends, co-workers and law enforcement.

  26. shcb Says:

    so if no official list has been reliesed, how do you know the names of the hijackers aren’t on them?

  27. knarlyknight Says:

    A fair question. If memory serves, the people withthe Airlines commented that there were no Arabic names on the flight manifests prior to the lists being handed over to the FBI. ut don’t take my word for it, I’ll look thta up and confirm or correct in case I got that wrong, it’s been a long time since I looked into that trivial aspect.

    What I really wanted to concentrate on was the laarger theme of the article,
    covered by the intro and the conclusion. Here are those excerpts:

    Near the beginning:

    … with the presumed legitimacy of a federal government as their chief sponsor, the collective lightbulb about the official obfuscation of the truth, the motives behind – and the actual results of the 911 attacks is beginning to glow brightly. Any five significant elements of the largest crime and mass murder in US history simply can’t pass the smell test of the average eigth grader. And taken in tandem, the excuses/apologies leading to the massive failures in predicting and preventing the attacks – along with the ‘offical story’ quickly presented to the public in the aftermath – would cause a second-rate, drunken defense attorney in an actual trial to laugh hysterically at the presiding judge. Not one shred of the 911 Commission’s final report was subjected to, nor would pass the most basic of evidentiary scrutiny or verification. Each and every fact that contradicted the offical story, drawn from an immense body of evidence, had to be carefully and deliberately ignored in order to prop up the official version. The report is, in it’s very essense, a carefully woven fairy tale created while navigating a minefield of political agendas. None of them, as is now obvious, were honorable.

    The first public announcement from the newly formed 911 Investigative Commission was, “… we’re not out to blame anyone…”

    George Bush vigorously and repeatedly blocked the formation of any investigation into the attacks of 911. Wouldn’t one wonder why? He succeeded for over fourteen months until pressure from the 911 victim’s families and the general public caused him to relent. …

    and the conclusion:

    Let’s not assume that our federal government – nor any of it’s myriad agencies at the forefront before, during and after the attacks had anything to hide. After all, why would any official in any agency, or any politician, wish to foster doubt? And what possible element of the evidence could be deemed classified – and for what reason? Four hijacked airliners were crashed, three into landmark buildings and one into an open field in Pennsylvania.

    Why would any official at the FBI, the CIA, the FAA, NORAD, the Pentagon, or Conoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George Bush or the ten members of the 911 Investigative Commission wish to leave any American the impression that there was anything to hide?

    Yet they do. Repeatedly, deliberately and consistently – through their actions and their words. The grandest of lies about the largest mass murder in American history and event that changed the world. A disgraceful, arrogant collection of self-serving liars wiith a profound contempt for due process, justice, decency and honor.

    The American myth remains safe. For the time being.

    Michael McCoy

  28. shcb Says:

    I suppose the most obvious answer would be security, we had just been hit hard. The enemy had found a big hole in our defenses, we didn’t want to give the enemy information of where other holes existed nor did we want to give them information of how we had fixed those holes. That information could be used to find other weak points.

    It also seems there was plenty of information released, now of course they didn’t release information of the black ops that had set the charges or the names of the FBI agents flying the planes, or were the Predators? They also didn’t release the name of the ship that fired the cruise missile that hit the Pentagon. But I felt we got most of the other information we needed at the time.

  29. knarlyknight Says:

    Thanks shcb, but that’s another area where we differ.

    Off the top of my head I can think of three info sets that have no security, judicial, administrative nor even LEGAL basis for being withheld:

    1. Passenger list originals

    2. Serial & part numbers of the plane(s) wreckage that should confirm and put to rest any question about what planes crashed (utterly unbelievable the lengths the FBI is going through to withhold this public information; for more info on the exhausting efforts of Aidan Monaghan to get these released, see: www . 911blogger.com/node/15029 )

    3. Blue-prints of the WTC (these were refused to be released but then were leaked to independent investigators in a brown bag about two or three years ago)

    As for the black ops information, that’s a red herring. No-one has requested that info set be released.

  30. knarlyknight Says:

    This is also pretty good work by Aiden Monaghan: www . 911blogger.com/node/14081

  31. shcb Says:

    From page 1 of the 911 commission report

    Boston:American 11 and United 175. Atta and Omari boarded a 6:00 A.M.
    flight from Portland to Boston’s Logan International Airport.
    When he checked in for his flight to Boston,Atta was selected by a computerized
    prescreening system known as CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger
    Prescreening System), created to identify passengers who should be
    subject to special security measures. Under security rules in place at the time, the only consequence of Atta’s selection by CAPPS was that his checked bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that he had boarded the aircraft. This did not hinder Atta’s plans.

    From page 2

    In another Logan terminal, Shehhi, joined by Fayez Banihammad, Mohand al Shehri, Ahmed al Ghamdi, and Hamza al Ghamdi, checked in for United Airlines Flight 175, also bound for Los Angeles.A couple of Shehhi’s colleagues were obviously unused to travel; according to the United ticket agent, they had trouble understanding the standard security questions, and she had to go over them slowly until they gave the routine, reassuring answers.

    Also from page 2

    While Atta had been selected by CAPPS in Portland, three members of his hijacking team—Suqami,Wail al Shehri, and Waleed al Shehri—were selected in Boston.Their selection affected only the handling of their checked bags, not their screening at the checkpoint. All five men cleared the checkpoint and made their way to the gate for American 11

    From page 2 and 3

    Hundreds of miles southwest of Boston,
    at Dulles International Airport in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.,
    five more men were preparing to take their early morning flight.At 7:15, a pair of them, Khalid al Mihdhar and Majed Moqed, checked in at the American Airlines ticket counter for Flight 77, bound for Los Angeles.Within the next 20 minutes, they would be followed by Hani Hanjour and two brothers,Nawaf al Hazmi and Salem al Hazmi. Hani Hanjour, Khalid al Mihdhar, and Majed Moqed were flagged by CAPPS. The Hazmi brothers were also selected for extra scrutiny by the airline’s customer service representative at the check-in counter. He did so because one of the brothers did not have photo identification nor could he understand English, and because the agent found both of the passengers to be suspicious.The only consequence of their selection was that their checked bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that they had boarded
    the aircraft.

    More from page 3

    The video footage indicates that he was carrying an unidentified item in his back pocket, clipped to its rim.

    So you see, you don’t have to read anywhere near the full 585 pages of the report to see that there is an official document that shows the terrorists were on those planes. Note the last quote, one of the other claims by you (non)truthers is that there is no footage on security cameras of the hijackers. Evidently none of the thousands of folks that have posted this BS on the internet or none of the thousands more that have read it have bothered to delve past the table of contents of one of the documents they criticize. I could pile on and tell you what I really feel about your pathetic movement but that would just be cruel. don’t be so damn lazy and don’t be so damned afraid your BS may be lies, WORK AT THIS A LITTLE.

  32. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,I said I would look into this and get back to you, & you did not give me the chance.   Then you say “I could pile it on” but proceeded to do so anyway.   Not very honest and not very fair.   In any event, you did not answer your won question about the passenger lists, you just parroted a discredited whitewash piece of crap document of errors and ommissions.  Do you even remember your question?  It was how Your tirade did not answer how  Look up to  I found a better answer to the passenger list issue      

  33. knarlyknight Says:

    Sorry for the gobbledygook last two lines, should have read:

    Do you even remember your question? It was if the official passenger lists have not been released, how do we know the names of he hijackers aren’t on them?

    Your post did not answer your question very well at all now did it? (It was a good excuse for a tirade though, perhaps you are just upset that ABC news exposed Condi’s public LIES about condemning torture while chairing secret meetings that actually choreographed the torture sessions? Or are you just losing your cool because China has decided to step away from the dollar in a big way and you see the end of this whole neocon debacle is growing near? I realize things aren’t going very well for you 24%ers who support Bush now, but please try not to lose your head and lash out like in your previous post. After all, I am only looking for honest answers; and our fellow citizens are only looking for the same thing from your government that that they think (thought? wish?) is “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

    I found the answer to that in the “evidence” catalogue at 911research.wtc.net ; and because I am nice, here is the link to save you some time:


  34. knarlyknight Says:

    So, now that we have dealt with your pet issue about flight passenger lists, we can return to the larger theme.

    Since it is apparent you couldn’t evn remember your own question, I will repeat the theme for you:

    Let’s not assume that our federal government – nor any of it’s myriad agencies at the forefront before, during and after the attacks had anything to hide. After all, why would any official in any agency, or any politician, wish to foster doubt? And what possible element of the evidence could be deemed classified – and for what reason? Four hijacked airliners were crashed, three into landmark buildings and one into an open field in Pennsylvania.

    Why would any official at the FBI, the CIA, the FAA, NORAD, the Pentagon, or Conoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George Bush or the ten members of the 911 Investigative Commission wish to leave any American the impression that there was anything to hide?

    Yet they do. Repeatedly, deliberately and consistently – through their actions and their words. The grandest of lies about the largest mass murder in American history and event that changed the world. A disgraceful, arrogant collection of self-serving liars wiith a profound contempt for due process, justice, decency and honor.

    The American myth remains safe. For the time being.

    Michael McCoy


    Here is a prime example of your Administration’s calculated 911 LIES:

    Thanks to Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11, which came out in 2004, the world knows [that]… Bush remained sitting [in the classroom] minute after minute after minute.

    Journalists, however, had reported Bush’s strange behavior much earlier. On September 1, 2002, for example, Jennifer Barrs had reported in the Tampa Tribune that, after Card whispered in Bush’s ear, the president picked up his book and read with the children “for eight or nine minutes.” In his 2002 book Fighting Back, Bill Sammon, the White House correspondent for the Washington Times, said that even after the reading lesson was over, Bush continued to linger, leading Sammon to dub him “the dawdler in chief.”

    The White House’s First Anniversary Account

    On the first anniversary of 9/11, however, the White House, with Andrew Card taking the lead, started giving a radically different account. On September 9, 2002, Card told Brian Williams on NBC News: “I pulled away from the president, and not that many seconds later, the president excused himself from the classroom, and we gathered in the holding room and talked about the situation.” In an article in the San Francisco Chronicle on September 11, Card said that, after he had informed Bush about the second attack, the president “looked up—it was only a matter of seconds, but it seemed like minutes. . . . And he just excused himself very politely to the teacher and to the students and he left.”

    Much more on that, including Rove et al attempts to rewrite this sad history is here:

  35. shcb Says:

    This is from an old Mark Steyn column, a fellow Canadian. I think he nails the real problem with conspiracy nuts, not only your brand but nuts of all stripes going back to the assassination of Lincoln and further.

    Debunking 9/11 Myths does a grand job of explaining such popular conspiracy-website mainstays as how a 125-foot-wide plane leaves a 16-foot hole in the Pentagon. Answer: it didn’t. The 16-foot hole in the Pentagon’s Ring C was made by the plane’s landing gear. But the problem isn’t scientific, it’s psychological: if you’re prepared to believe that government agents went to the trouble of researching, say, gay rugby player Mark Bingham’s family background and vocal characteristics so they could fake cellphone calls back to his mom, then clearly you’re not going to be deterred by mere facts. As James B. Meigs, the editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics, remarks toward the end of this book, the overwhelming nature of the evidence is, to the conspiratorially inclined, only further evidence of a cover-up: “One forum posting that has multiplied across the Internet includes a long list of the physical evidence linking the 19 hijackers to the crime: the rental car left behind at Boston’s Logan airport, Mohammed Atta’s suitcase, passports recovered at the crash sites, and so on. ‘HOW CONVENIENT!’ the author notes after each citation. In the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logic of conspiracism, there is no piece of information that cannot be incorporated into one’s pet theory.”


  36. knarlyknight Says:


    You seem incapable of staying on topic.

    The discussion was withholding of evidence by the administration and the FBI and the questions that the administration is preventing from being answered.

    If you want to speak about conspiracy nuts, lets talk about the idiots who thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq despite UN inspectors visiting over 700 facilities at 500 sites in Iraq in a year or two. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8671

    Or we can talk about the conspiracy nuts who thought torture by marines at Abu Ghraib was the result of a few bad apples, when we now know, thanks to ABC news, that it was orchestrated by Condi Rice.

    Or the fools who believe a few men with boxcutters can take control of four airplanes filled with military and ex-military passengers, fly around for hours and completely demolish three skyscrapers with two planes (one that was a block and a half away and housed the NYC “emergency” control centre) and avoid NORAD’s trillion dollar defences to hit the Pentagon well after the attacks had commenced, and crash the other plane into a small hole without leaving any sizeable rubble to clean up exept for debris found miles from the supposed crash site. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of the ridiculous myth we are asked to take on faith because your government will not let the People see the evidence (e.g. original passenger lists, airplane parts serial numbers, seized video tapes of Aircraft approaching the Pentagon.)

    I could go on but conspiracy nuts aren’t worth my time.

    At least you could sign the petition to get Condi under control: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gqaw5UnHA4

  37. shcb Says:

    Staying on topic 4/18/2008 2:49 PM

    I’m staying on topic. The assertion of the author in the link you provided is that the government is withholding the passenger lists because the Arabs the government says hijacked the planes were not even on the planes and the passenger lists would prove that. So if the Arabs weren’t flying the planes, remote control or government agents were.

    I don’t know if they have released those lists or not. For the sake of argument let’s say they haven’t. I am saying the government has released documentation that shows they were on those flights even I it wasn’t the passenger lists.

    You of course say “well that document (911 commission report) is bogus” that is what prompted the Steyn article. If they released the passenger lists today to much fan fare you guys would say “the fact that it has been so long is proof these lists are forgeries”. Back to Steyn. It all fits.

    In the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logic of conspiracism, there is no piece of information that cannot be incorporated into one’s pet theory

    Now I’m not god enough to hit a moving target, which is why my comments are about the link and not what you think this conversation is about at this particular moment. So let me ask you a simple question, no links, no BS just a yes or no. Do you think those 19 Arabs we on those planes?

  38. shcb Says:

    good enough, not god enough

  39. knarlyknight Says:

    Yes, absolutely. But maybe not all of them. Or maybe different ones using aliases. But overall, and for all intents and purposes or in all probabliity: yes.

    That is why I have been saying this is a miniscule point to be discussing when there are such greater themes; and it is why you picked that particular point out of the hundreds out there to debate me about. Or the 50 or so mentioned in the article.

    That tactic, your preferred tactic, has a name (as I mentioned before) : “the Higher Dismissiveness”

    It is a crude tactic and does not hold up to intelligent consideration, but it does tend to influence people. And it is entertaining. That’s why you see it on TV so much. But it is illogical and ultimately does everyone a disservice.

  40. knarlyknight Says:


    Wait a second. You are wrong again. 100% wrong.

    In your previous link, first full paragraph, you claim the author asserted there were no Arabs in the planes because there were no Arab names on the passenger lists. That is not what he said at all. This is the full extent of what he said about that:

    Yet a complete list of the nineteen alleged suicide hijackers, their photos and connections to al Qaeda and bin Laden was being broadcast by the mainstream bullhorn across the United States within hours – even though no Arab names were found on any passenger list of the hijacked flights.

    You jumped to a faulty conclusion, one could say you endulged in a conspiracy theory, when all the author stated was that there was a very peculiar presentation and timing of passenger / alleged hijacker data.

    All you accomplished so far is to construct another useless straw man.

    Want to see some REAL WORK? Published today, this is probably the best concise critique of the evidence and science of the building collapses.

    Please, this is a must read.

    Here is first of several soon to be published articles in a mainstream, peer reviewed technical engineering publication It has published a “letter” by Stephen Jones, PhD. et al which indicates how incredibly poor the NIST analysis was. Prof. Jones decided on the “letter” format so that it would be reader friendly for the lay-person.

    More explanation and background about the aricle can be found at www . 911blogger.com/node/15081, but here it is in its published form:


  41. knarlyknight Says:

    When you get to that link, http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm ,
    click on 2008 and look for the article titled:

    ” Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction ”

    Ha! Don’t let the title fool you.

  42. shcb Says:

    But don’t you see you are making Steyn’s point, the point of the terrorists not being on the manifests (the ones that haven’t been released) were important enough to be the first piece of evidence presented by your author. But when pressed they became insignificant in your mind. The same thing happened when I destroyed the notion that the plane that hit the Pentagon could not have made that maneuver. All with ninth grade math, AutoCad ,and an online program. Suddenly that wasn’t important either, same thing happened with the hole in the Pentagon. Look at your yes or no answer as to whether the 19 terrorists were on those planes, you couldn’t help yourself to leave some wiggle room, maybe some of them, not all, maybe not, maybe so, but definitely… and then you want to expand this conversation back to where we have a plethora of targets so I can swing at one while you are throwing another.

    Yet a complete list of the nineteen alleged suicide hijackers, their photos and connections to al Qaeda and bin Laden was being broadcast by the mainstream bullhorn across the United States within hours – even though no Arab names were found on any passenger list of the hijacked flights.

    So let’s look at this quote:

    …even though no Arab names were found on any passenger list of the hijacked flights.

    Do a search, there are thousands of sites that claim this is proof Arabs didn’t do 911, the Bush administration did, since this guy (McCoy) regurgitated every other facet of this conspiracy theory, I see no reason to believe that isn’t what he meant here.

    Now the whole statement, as happens so often in these cases, we have two parts of the theory that are somewhat at odds with themselves.

    A) The terrorists weren’t on the planes, evidence; their names weren’t on the passenger lists.

    B) The Bush administration knew these terrorists were in the country and did nothing to stop them because either;
    i) They were grossly incompetent or
    ii) They were helping the terrorists

    But the rub comes when, according to the 911 Commission Report, we find out that the reason we know they were on the planes (A) is because they tripped our alert systems (B i) and we let them on the planes anyway because keeping them off the planes simply because they were suspected terrorists would have brought down the wrath of the ACLU and every other politically correct liberal group who can utter the phrase “racial profiling”

    Our incompetence and slavery to political correctness is why we knew who they were, we stopped them once at the airport, we knew the flights, someone said “did anyone suspicious get on those planes?” and everyone’s heart sunk in that room because they all knew they had them and let them go. We knew within minutes who they were, we all but had pictures of them getting on the planes.

  43. knarlyknight Says:

    I feel sorry for you. I know how much you love your little man: but face it, despite what you see with your big imagination, he’s just a straw man.

    You’ll feel better when you just admit you made a mistake. Adding more straw won’t make him real (i.e. you alluding to thousands of crazy sites.)

    The Arab names / passenger list was part of the introduction, there were quite a few points made in the first four or so paragraphs that set the stage for the “evidence” that he presented.

    But, duh, this article is not one of the scientific papers discussing the evidence. It’s like you looked a sedan and said, “that is a stupid car it can’t transport a football team; obviously the bus is the better vehicle.”

    If you want to examine the evidence, shcb, go to the papers published at http://stj911.org/ or better yet wait for the batch that have already started to be published in mainstream journals, beginning with the http://www.bentham.org link already provided.

    Because for crying out loud, your intention to manipulate cannot be any more clear. You TOTALLY failed to recognize that I clearly stated the purpose of the article before giving the link:

    9. knarlyknight Says:
    April 14th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    Good discussion. Sorry to interrupt. (chuckle.)

    There is a new, succinct and relatively comprehensive synopsis of the 911 truther pov, some of you might be interested.

    It is called:
    The mission to crack the 911 case gains traction

    It speaks to the ludicrous myth that Republicans are better able to protect America, example:

    So your picking that single statement out of the introductory paragraph where he used it in the briefest manner possible to help set the stage for the issues – (not “evidence,” but rather extraordinarily unprobable peculiarities) – that he did discuss in greater detail in the remaining four pages, misrepresenting it as the author’s first big piece of “evidence”, and then mis-characterizing it based upon your picking of weak arguments of other author’s on the web, well that’s just ridiculous and you are wasting everyone’s time.

    If you want to be effective, try picking an author’s three central or best points and then if you can make a convincing argument to reconsider those. That would be a real discussion.

    As for the Pentagon thing, I laugh at your silly calculations as you never had the guts to have it assessed properly by the pilotsfor 911 truth or anyone else with qualifications and because the image you present of an incompetent pilot winging a complex jet by jerking around a joystick is less than totally improbable, it is ridiculously stupid.

    I got more to say about your inane remarks, but better things to do.

  44. shcb Says:


    It would have been silly for me to go to the 911 pilots for their approval, if the prosecution has evidence placing the suspect at the scene of the crime and the defense attorney in cross examination says “were you there” to the suspect and the suspect says no, who is the jury going to believe? What I was wanting was for you to do the math and tell me where I was wrong because if you do it yourself you will see it is right. But you didn’t.

    Ok, pick one of the items, which ever you feel is more important, except the molten metal. I will concede that one, I don’t know what caused it.

  45. knarlyknight Says:


    The prosecutor made allegations that flight 77 hit some light poles (despite conflicting witness reports) and its official report indicated a flight path consistent with the damage in the Pentagon.

    The National Traffic Safety Board released the flight data recorder information which did not support the prosecutor’s allegations.

    A “judge” could make a ruling on that and say the physical evidence is paramount, However the risk of error is large, because the flight data recorder and conflicting witness testimony provides far more than a reasonable doubt.

    Then the defendants present their case, pointing out many more holes in the prosecutor’s case (i.e. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html ) and ask a dozen questions that, if answered, would solidify the prosecutor’s case:

    Questions For NTSB/FBI Regarding Flight Data Recorder Information

    1. The current FDR shows 480′ MSL True Altitude, too high to hit the light poles. What are your findings of True Altitude at end of data recording 09:37:44. Why did you provide a Flight Data Recorder that shows the aircraft too high without a side letter of explanation? How did you come to your conclusion?

    2. What is the vertical speed at end of data recording :44. How did you come to your conclusion?

    3. What is the Absolute Altitude and end of data recording? How did you come to your conclusion?

    4. Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set? (This is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it).

    5. Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?

    6. Do you have any video showing a clear impact and/or of the plane on its approach to impact?

    7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?

    8. Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44?

    9. Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator?

    10. How did you come to the conclusion of 09:37:45 as the official impact time?

    11. What is the exact chain of custody of the FDR? What date/time was it found? Where exactly was it found? Please provide documentation and names.

    12. Why does the hijack timeline show a 3 min interval for hijacking to take place? Why was Capt. Burlingame reported to have not followed protocol for the Common Strategy prior to 9/11?

    The prosecutor does not answer the questions. This destroys the judges’ confidence in the prosecutor’s case. And that is where we are at.

    Enough about the Pentagon already.

    Back to the article: “The mission to crack the 911 case gains traction”.

    So you want me to “pick on of the items”? Why? I think the article speaks well for itself in presenting the 911 skeptics’ point of view (the reason that it was offered.)

    If you want to debate evidence, talk to Richard Gage’s people about the 13 characteristics of a controlled demolition:

    WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:
    1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

    2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a full second prior to collapse

    3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

    4. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment

    5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

    6. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (What could have produced all of that molten metal?)

    7. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

    8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples (no FEMA explanation – knarly)

    9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

    10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

    And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

    1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

    2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

    3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

    4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

    You may contact Mr. Gage or his associates here, for your “debate”:


  46. shcb Says:

    I didn’t expect you would submit to a point by point examination. Things that aren’t truthful usually fall apart when they are subjected to real analysis. The reason I want you to give me one item is that every time I pick one it suddenly becomes unimportant. Here is another unimportant item in McCoy’s article. (I see McCoy is becoming unimportant, you are giving me other places to look even though this was such a good article.)He is talking about Marvin Bush here:

    His company’s contract was scheduled to expire on September 11, 2001

    So what proof of this tidbit is there, a copy of the contract? No. it comes from Securacom CEO Barry McDaniel, he said they had a contract for security at the World Trade Center “up to the day the buildings fell down” meaning once the buildings were rubble there wasn’t much need for a security company. But the (non)truthers have extrapolated that out to the expiration date of the contract. By the way, Marvin was on the board of directors from 1993 until 2000. McCoy also says Securacom was the security company of the airports the terrorist flew out of. If Bush had still been on the board of directors what possible advantage to Securacom could have been realized by allowing terrorists to board through those airports, they would have lost the contracts. If they were trying to get those contracts from a competitor, maybe. But you see in Conspiracy Town nothing has to make sense, there just has to be a connection.

  47. knarlyknight Says:

    Yes, you are good at constructing straw man arguments. You seem to enjoy creating silly arguments that you can then argue against.

    Again, if you want to discuss the evidence, like the glaring ommissions in the NIST report, go to the engineering journal at http://www.bentham.org and review the 2008 paper about the “Fourteen points of Agreement with NIST”, or learn the difference between collapse due to structuaral failure and fire vs. Controlled Demolitions as referenced in my post above.

    If you want to debate conjecture about:
    – Marvin Bush’s role, what Silverstein meant when he said about WTC 7 that the safest thing to do is “pull it” and then later claimed that he meant the firefighters when they had long prior been removed from the building,
    – the millions in unclaimed earnings from “shorting” American and United Airline stock at a CIA linked brokerage house,
    – what gold was extracted from buildings before and after the collapses,
    – Zionist warnings to Israeli workers in the WTC,
    – no plane theories,
    – space beams,
    – mini-hydrogen bombs, etc.
    then go away and debate yourself.

    Your debating yourself will never change the mountain of material yet to be addressed by your administration, such as: physical evidence that fits a demolition, the false accounts told to the 911 commission by Pentagon officials about NORAD actions that day, and the destruction and withholding of evidence to name but three examples.

  48. knarlyknight Says:


    And tell us again, why do you support these incompetent clowns?


  49. knarlyknight Says:

    … and I wasn’t just talking about this part:

    Again, we have yet another member of the Bush administration who–in a ham-handed effort to help our “allies”–is actually placing our own troops in more danger. I don’t think there’s any question that this echoes George W. Bush’s provocative invitation for terrorists around the world to descend on Iraq when he declared, “Bring’em on” in July 2003. And we all know how that worked out.

    But it’s not just about Rice’s dismissive, provocative tone, either. It’s also this continuing, obnoxious Bush-brand of hypocrisy that the whole world sees: If Sadr had said the same thing of Rice–that she’s a Washington, D.C. bureaucrat who sends others to fight her own battles–the Bush administration would freak out. And that fact isn’t lost on Iraqis.

    As Rice is one who will not have to stay and fight the Mahdi Army side-by-side with our troops, I suggest that she keep her mouth shut if she’s not going to say anything helpful. Because statements like these are certainly not.

  50. shcb Says:

    Where did I use a straw man argument? I asked you to provide the subject, when you went off on a dozen tangents to take the heat off the point you were losing, I picked one and refuted it. Was I wrong? Is there a copy of the contract showing 9-11-01 as the last date of the contract? Was Marvin still on the board of directors in 2001?

    Evidence refutes Liberalism

    Rush Limbaugh

    Now you’re off on another dozen tangents, Rice vs Al Sadre? (I do support what she said by the way, we should have killed him years ago)

  51. knarlyknight Says:

    OMG, you support that hypocritical tripe?! Can you understand this part of it at least?

    If Sadr had said the same thing of Rice–that she’s a Washington, D.C. bureaucrat who sends others to fight her own battles–the Bush administration would freak out. And that fact isn’t lost on Iraqis.

    Here’s a clue: it is a huge reason why so many Iraqi’s do not throw flowers at US troops.

    Look shcb, you remind me of the punk who spoiling for a fight who keeps pushing their their yap in someone’s face snarling: “you got a problem? You got a problem?” Your snivelling is getting a lot tiresome.

    I said all I’m going to say about the article, and I stand behind my original statement:

    There is a new, succinct and relatively comprehensive synopsis of the 911 truther pov, some of you might be interested.

    It is called:

    The mission to crack the 911 case gains traction

    YES, it (A) was a new article, (B) it is relatively succinct and (C) it is a relatively comprehensive synopsis of the 911 truther pov,…

    And you know what, the mission to crack open the 911 case is gaining a lot of traction. Thanks to valuable resources like 911research.wtc7.net which, by the way, has this to say in regard to Marvin Bush: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/security.html

    Stratesec’s involvement in WTC security might eventually become an issue for further investigation if there ever is a real 911 investigation into the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. However Marvin, like his POTUS brother will probably be found to have little knowledge or understanding about anything substantive.

  52. shcb Says:

    That is why when my daughters got to the age they might find themselves threatened with violence I always told them to not engage in that “you got a problem” nonsense. I told them to smile right up to the point you throw the first punch, hit as hard and as often as you can, charge the opponent against a wall if possible and inflict as much damage as possible then retreat before they have a chance to regroup. We should have done that with Al Sadr including carpet bombing Sadr City

    So to recap, you are not going to debate me on a single point of this entire conspiracy theory. This reinforces my and Mark Steyn’s points that the conspiracy nuts prefer to flutter off in every possible direction rather than analyze their theory analytically.

    I guess McCoy’s article wasn’t that great after all. Not worth defending anyway

  53. knarlyknight Says:

    McCoy’s article is an excellent presentation of a general 911 Truth seekers’ point of view. That’s all anyone ever presented the article to be. Except for you in your search for a fight.

    You want to debate evidence, I told you where to go:

    1. http://www.bentham.org

    2. http://www.ae011truth.org

    3. http://www.stj911.org

    4. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

    Now get the hell out of here before I phone the cops for inciting violence in juveniles and advocating the murder of thousands of innocent people in Sadr City.

  54. shcb Says:

    Oh, I would have given the women and children 24 hours to clear the area, just to see how many got shot in the back if nothing else.

  55. knarlyknight Says:


    Your statements are arrogant, callous and horrifying, on par with the worst thinking of WWII Nazi’s. If you are an indication of the mentality of Americans in Iraq or handling Iraqi policyit is no wonder that you’ve copmletely lost the critical struggle for hearts and minds and face enormous (and likely growing) hatred.

    Or so I thought until I did a Google Images search on “Sadr City’. That was depressing, so I did another image search on ‘Sadr City Beauty’, but that just gave the same disgusting, ugly results. Hard to believe but according to Googel there is virtually nothing of beauty in Sadr City.

    So, if I had to eke out an existance in Sadr City you would have my blessing to carpet bomb me and everything I had ever known there into nanoparticles. Yet… I could not speak for my sister if she lived there too.

    In the final analysis, your words are evil.

  56. enkidu Says:

    well at least you two aren’t talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories any more

    I am unconvinced that shrubco could pull off a crime like 9/11 without getting caught. I mean, look how ineptly they have handled every other thing they have ever done since seizing power?

    However, Mossad seems very capable of this sort of giga-crime. Please explain the ‘dancing Israelis’ who were caught in NJ with cameras and film of the WTCs collapsing – and they were dancing – celebrating. Yet another possibility… just saying. Information about the dancing Israelis is classified. Gee I wonder why?

    But to rwnj and the rest of the 27%ers the reason for 9/11 is whatever Rethugglican leaders say it is today (that may change tomorrow). The reason we invaded Iraq was whatever they say it is today (tomorrow it may change yet again).

  57. shcb Says:

    I’m intrigued, why are my words evil? I want to defeat my enemy, Al Sadr is undeniably our enemy. Has been from the beginning. Hitler was evil, he wanted to kill Jews simply because they were Jews, same with the Arabs al Sadr represents. Was Churchill evil for wanting to defeat Hitler? Was Canada wrong to invade Europe at Juno beach? Eventually we will have to kill this guy, we should have done it earlier, and killed his followers at the same time. Just my opinion.

  58. knarlyknight Says:


    Thanks for the reminder, it’s so silly of me to keep forgetting we are conversing with their talking point memos.

    Oh Oh, you mentioned the dancing Israeli’s! Doesn’t that make you an anti-semite? Myself, I love Jewish people and Israeli culture. And the more I learn about Islamic people, the more I find to like and become more curious about. However, that Koran thing is beyond me, you’d have to study it a hundred years before even begining to figure it out. Oops, straying even further off topic.

    I basically agree with you about W Bush. He does not seem competent or intelligent enough to put together or keep together any sort of a successful operation. I hope that we the people find out sooner rather than later whether the 911 operation was done by elements in the CIA, Mossad, a combination of the two, and how many in the administration played a knowing role in the treason.


    Al Sadr has been your enemy since the beginning of what?

    Now why would al Sadr’s followers want to kill Jews, or do you mean Israelis?

    You didn’t mention the fire-bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, but that was a different type of conflict, a world war.

    Churchill and all WWII is black and white, at least the conventional history that we were taught, historians will not be so kind in explaining Bush’s Iraqi debacle.

    The Iraqi war, as I understand the current wag of the dog, is part of the war on terrorism. Amazing that there were close to zero Iraqi terrorists until America occupied Iraq, and now there are millions of Iraqi terrorists trying to get the new torturers out of their country. Heck of a job. Now you are advocating carpet bombing the cities that you failed to occupy?

    Why would you advocate carpet bombing a city of any size, let alone one of 2 million (?) people like Sadr City?

    Is it because it is home to a militia that resists your country’s will?

    Is it because the majority of the public in that city probably thinks that your country is a rogue aggressor state simply continuing their oppression and mistreatment?

    Whatever the reason, carpet bombing a city is evil because most of the dead and horribly injured, orpans and critically injured people will be without medical care after the carpet bombing, and most of these people will be totally innocent.

    You are talking about inflicting horrile pain and suffering and destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, or more than a million people with extreme violence. That’s about as evil as it gets.

    Didn’t those Nuns teach you anything about God’s word?

  59. shcb Says:

    Of course you’re right, which is why I’m not in charge. But it would fix the problem. History has given Sherman’s march to the sea and sacking of Atlanta a failing grade for being overly brutal but it did what it intended and broke the back of the Confederacy. Same with at least two of the three cities you mentioned, don’t forget Tokyo. But you’re right, this is a different war, fighters come from all over to fight in Iraq, then they leave, then they come back only to blend into the citizenry. It would be difficult or impossible to do what I want without killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. Which is why al Sadr is still there. Tactically bombing Sadr city would have been right, strategically it would have been a disaster, especially if al Sadr wasn’t killed. Oh well.

    About the nuns, those were the meanest most sadistic b…. I’ve ever ran into. Celibacy will do that to you.

  60. enkidu Says:

    right, so tactically, it is AOK! to murder a few hundred thousand (heck, why not a million!) innocent Iraqis if it makes rwnjs feel warm and safe.

    NEWSFLASH – these are people! Human beings.
    The ones you kill will be the lucky ones. But the many many more you maim will be plenty angry (and quite piteous) so how do you think the many pictures of brave American bombs murdering a million Sadr city residents will play on the Freedom and Democracy channel? I would say you would have won the hearts of millions, perhaps billions: for the other side.

    How – exactly – are a million dead Iraqis different than six million dead Jewish men women and children? Other than of course the 1:6 ratio (math is so hard for rwnjs, so i filled in the blank here)

    ANSWER – they are both Holocausts that will haunt humanity for centuries.

  61. knarlyknight Says:

    Enk, I think shcb recanted to the best of his ability.

    shcb, welcome back from the dark side.

    You mention that carpet bombing Sadr City is wrong but that it would fix the problem. But Enkidu pointed out the folly in that thinking, as it would only create bigger problems. (You should listen to Enk, the Pentagon’s premier acedemic institution has even come around to endorsing his positions with respect to the American debacle in Iraq!)

    So if carpet bombing Sadr City would “fix the problem” (but not really) can you see that, from an Iraqi position, the Carpet bombing of Washington DC would also “fix the problem” (but not really)? If so, then we can conclude that it is wrong to carpet bomb either of these cities to “fix the problem.”

    Now, how about the targetted air strikes that you now propose?

    The “collataral” murder and the sudden violent mutiliation of innocent people would be reduced in number relative to carpet bombing. However, any large blast in a densely populated urban environment such as Sadr City or Washington DC will still have a high unintended victims/intended kills ratio. So does that not also seem to you as being in the extreme range of the evil scale?

    We can debate various aspects of this or other degrees of military interventions to, as you say, “fix the problem,” but after all the smoke clears we will always find that Enk’s assessment is true: more problems are created than are fixed.

    The only way that military solutions make sense is if you look at the world throug the lens of a Victorious vs Defeated paradigm.

    That paradigm is difficult to hold on to as we find that humanity is becomming increasingly interconnected and is now intertwinned in far more ways than ever before.

  62. knarlyknight Says:

    A final thought:

    At the root is that the Bush administration chose, before and during its Afghanistan and Iraq war planning prior to September 11, 2001, to descend to the perceived barbaric level of its adversaries in order to crush them.

    That was a change from prior administration and /or UN efforts to maintain more enlightened stance (defensive and reactive posture against tyrants and terrorist crimes) while actively seaking to bring millions of desperate people, like the Kurds or the Shiites in Sadr City, up to a higher plane of existence.

    Hence, America is reaping what the Bush doctrine has sowed: barbarism.

  63. enkidu Says:

    if you want to look for Canadian valor, don’t forget to wiki Dieppe
    even if it was a tragic mistake/snafu, the Allies learned some valuable lessons

  64. shcb Says:

    That has always been the problem with war, peace and freedom. You can’t have freedom without war and you can’t have peace with war. So you have to balance the three. The UN and prior administrations ignoring the problem of Islamic radicalism obviously didn’t work and sanctions against Iraq weren’t working. Leveling Sadr City would make me feel better, but wouldn’t win the war. That is why we have cooler heads than me and more courageous men than you in the positions to make those decisions.

    One of my friends sent me this:

    We have a friend who has a relative in Holland. This came from their
    relative. Quite profound…

    “We in Holland cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an
    election. On one side, you have a bitch who is a lawyer, married to a
    lawyer, and a lawyer who is married to a bitch who is a lawyer. On the
    other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge
    chest who owns a beer distributorship. Is there a contest here? “

  65. enkidu Says:

    rwnj – aren’t you just supposed to be making jokes about (in your words) “negroes n jews”

    so we should elect the first lady with the biggest chest and the most beer?
    look we tried your plan the last 8 years (you know, the Supreme Court installed a drunk ass fake cowboy with a moran IQ, and we didn’t riot in the streets) and look what a fine mess you’ve gotten us into…

  66. knarlyknight Says:


    I thought your post was funny but Enk’s is even funnier.

    By the way, decisions to launch war does not take courage. It takes arrogance, psychopathy, hot headedness and either a lack of imagination for alternative solutions or a clear rationality. Courage belong to those who are in the front lines.

    Don’t let your manipulative politicians or their PR machines try to convince you otherwise.

  67. shcb Says:


    I thought that was funny too, I didn’t really see any humor in Enky’s comments. I tell my friends in Holland the Dutch are just Germans with a sense of humor. I think Enky must be German.

    Enky, I used the words Negro and Jew in a serious discussion, not in a joke, that would be politically incorrect. I’m reminded of a few years ago when a congressman told congress they should not be so niggardly with funds for I believe veterans benefits. Democrats like Cynthia McKinney were outraged, wanting this guy tossed out of the congress. Of course the pejorative nigger comes from the word negro, a Spanish word, niggardly comes from niggard, a Scandinavian word. When someone pulled Ms McKinney aside and explained what a fool she was making of herself, she still persisted in saying she was offended, what a twit.

    So Enky explain to me again how Bush stole the election? What law or provision of the constitution did the US Supreme Court ignore? I’m old and forgetful, I’m sure you have given me well thought out rebuttals to the statutes I’ve supplied at both the state and federal levels as to how the Florida courts subverted laws but my memory fails as how the US courts did so.

  68. enkidu Says:

    personally i loved how yMommy leapt in to ‘explain away’ your ‘Negras n Jewz’ as just a lighthearted joke, some baiting and word play, what what!


    Where in my post did I say dumbya stole the election? He won by one vote – a Supreme Court vote. If that vote had gone the other way, you rwnjs would be complaining about how boring old Al Gore is wasting your money on going to Mars (Osama would be dead and the likelyhood that 9/11 even happened would be way way down, but why bother to revisit the hypothetical past, eh? we are where we are, right? no fault of the worst president in a hundred years, right?)

    Just keep listening to Rush dimbulb and Macho Mike Rosen – the real heart, soul, mind and muscle of America is going to sweep away the Rethugglicans this fall (if you don’t ratchet up your Diebold chicanery in FL and OH).

    Change is coming and I Hope we put the dumbya criminals on trial in the Hague.

  69. shcb Says:

    but that is my question, was the Supreme Court decision right or wrong in your opinion. if it was wrong, please explain why.

  70. shcb Says:

    actually Matt is just smart enough to understand my point, and wise enough that understand I had made a valid point, then we move on. I have done the same when he has made valid points.

  71. knarlyknight Says:


    I hope so, but those chickens haven’t hatched yet and there are a lot of omelettes to make before November.

    The whole US election process is so full of flaws it is hard to acknowledge its legitimacy regardless of who ends up being the winner. I know that doesn’t answer your question to Enk but come on man, disenfranchised voters and hanging chads? “Proprietary software” to count votes? You-tube demonstrations on how to hack election tabulators? Party controlled polling stations? The list goes on and on. If you don’t beleive me, survey bradblog. No other advanced nation has such problems, it is like the USA has purposefully obfuscated what should be simple processes to count votes.

  72. enkidu Says:

    knarls – look at the turnout in every single Dem primary: way above ’06
    in some places 200% or more! There is reason to Hope.

    I am sure the rwnjs will paint Obama as a hafrican muslim crackhead commie surrrrndrr while ignoring Saint McCain’s many flaws (hell, the media IS his base, other than angry ol white folk and lobbyists).

    People are angry, people are bitter and the wedge issues of guns gawds n gayz have been manipulated and used by the rwnj contingent for decades. Enough. You want more 50-50 cats vs dogs Duhmerkkkah? Vote McSame or Hillary. You want to change the direction of the world towards the light? Obama.

    And rwnj? When you make a valid point, I’ll respond to it.

  73. shcb Says:

    But Knarly no system is any better than the people who man it. And you have no system if people don’t follow the rules no matter how imperfect or perfect. The hanging chad, Democrats, the party controlled recount, Democrats, that was our complaint in the 2000 election, Democrats did everything they could to steal that election but the system finally caught up to them and set it all right. We can go through the timeline and laws again if you like. Or you can listen to Enky’s simplistic lies. My suggestion is to just listen to Enky, it is a lot easier, no research required, reading the actual law is really boring. You also don’t take the chance of finding out you and Enky have been fed BS.

  74. enkidu Says:

    ok, so where have I lied?
    dumbya won by a single vote: Scalia’s evidently (he has a [I think 60 minutes] interview coming out where he basically says “So?” He also lies that it wasn’t even close a “7-2 decision” no it wasn’t it was split 5-4 along party lines) Am I supposed to be making simplistic lies about the Dem primaries in comparison to previous years? Those are easily goog’d facts, chump. The rest is opinion.

    But just keep up the rwnjobbery and your jokes about negras n jewz, wheee-ooo!
    And your penchant for murdering a million innocent people that had nothing to do with 9/11. Why hasn’t lefty leapt in here to talk about his tank?

  75. knarlyknight Says:

    Thanks for your offer to go through the timeline and laws related to US election frauds. Unfortunately, I have a life and it would not be sane to dedicate more of my time to that issue. As for Enk’s “BS”, I give you the benefit of the doubt, but truthfully, he sounds more real than your carefully crafted excuses for this administration.

  76. shcb Says:


    Of course Enky “sounds” better to you, he is saying what you want to hear. All I’m asking is fact check a few of these items. Here is an easy one, in his last post he says Scalia has an upcoming interview where he says (you would think you guys would have learned after getting burned on the IPP report, but, oh well) Scalia says the vote was 7-2 and that was a lie. Scalia is right, Enky is wrong. Why is Enky wrong, because he believes all he hears from the left because, well, it “sounds” better.

    There were 3 decisions made in this case, I’ll focus on the two that are most pertinent. One said that the Florida Supreme Court’s (FSC) plan for recounting was unconstitutional because it did not count all the votes in the state under the same set of rules. The hand counting, hanging chad, dimples. Re-re-re counting was only being done in 6 heavily Democratic counties. This vote was 7-2. The other vote, the 5-4 vote actually stopped the count because there was not enough time before the FSC deadline to recount the whole state under the same rules.

    So, the 7-2 vote declared what the FSC was doing was unconstitutional. That meant the count would go back to what it was before the unconstitutional act was done. Making Bush the winner. The 5-4 vote stopping the re-re-re-count didn’t determine the winner. Had the recount been allowed to continue and enough votes for Gore gleaned to make him the winner, Bush would have sued again saying the re-re-recount was invalid because the US Supremes had said it was 7-2. and he would have won that argument.

    Don’t take my word for it (let Enky make that statement) look it up, the transcript and abstracts from the case are out there, read them.

  77. knarlyknight Says:

    okay, that sounds reasonable, except of course that the court was ruling on an unreasonable situation. Trying to impose a logical conclusion on such a chaotic process is an excercise in self-deception. The entire question is moot, doesn’t matter whether you are right or Enk is right.

    I wonder who the proprietary software in the black voting boxes are going to elect in November?

    By the way, why is the Florida 2000 election results so important to you?

  78. enkidu Says:

    the decisions were:

    7-2 on the Constitutionality of Florida judges deciding Florida election law (in FL) but since it was a national election, federal law trumps state law (I know how much rwnjs love state’s rights, unless it goes against your activist agenda)

    5-4 on continuing the FL vote count. This is the one that matters. If the count had gone on, the count would have shown Al Gore to be our President, not shrubbie. But that one vote stopped the count and that was that. Count all the votes. It was that simple. shrubbie won by a single vote.

    I am still waiting for you to identify a single lie.

  79. shcb Says:


    The situation wasn’t unreasonable. Even after the FSC made it chaotic. There were a set of rules and procedures set by the legislature. From memory it went that the vote was counted, if the final count was within a certain percentage there was a recount. I don’t remember what went next, I would think if the same person was leading both counts they would be the winner but I don’t remember what happened if one person won one count and the other won the other count, but there was a procedure, it didn’t happen anyway, Bush was ahead after the recount. Then there was a 5 or 6 day period to finalize absentee and armed service ballots. At that point the election had to be called by law. Gore found a loophole in the law (no problem, that is how the game is played) Gore sued to have hand counts done in only six counties. After all this Gore was closer to being the winner, but never quite crossed the bar.

    What the FSC did wrong was allow this to continue past the 6 day mark. If there had been wide spread corruption, a hurricane, something like that they may have had a case. Every reasonable effort to count every vote had been made and then some. To Enky’s point that federal law overrides state law there is a federal law that says you cannot change the rules of an election 48 hours before the election. The FSC essentially did this. And of course the FSC isn’t supposed to be writing law of any kind. There was no chaos needed, count the votes, the one with as much as one vote more wins.

    The reason this is so important to me is I want to make my decisions based on facts, not feelings. It is also important because this is the basis for all the other garbage told by Bush hating liberals. When you allow Bush (or the US SC) stole the election, they are bad people for doing this, this makes it easier to justify them being bad people for killing thousands of Americans, rushing to war in only 18 months and all the other crap. You knock this one off and it brings all the other lies being told about Bush into reach to be knocked out of the park as well because it makes the liars a little bit less credible.


    “Count all the votes. It was that simple. shrubbie won by a single vote.” That is the lie. By the way, the New York Times did an independent recount months after the election and guess who won by almost the exact same margin?

  80. shcb Says:

    This is the logic I have to battle when I discuss something with you guys; it was ok for the FSC to ignore rules because the situation in Florida was so chaotic, but the reason the situation was so chaotic was because the FSC was ignoring the rules.

    Here is a pretty good Wiki article on the timeline of the post election foibles:


  81. enkidu Says:

    I love how many straw men you set up (so easy to knock them down when they match your psychosis).

    I didn’t say dumbya “stole” the election – he ‘won’ be one vote
    if the intent of the voters (butterfly ballots, bad punches etc etc etc) were taken as they intended, Gore would have won (certainly by more than one vote ;-). Recounts with the proposed rules would have had Gore winning by a few hundred/thousand votes (no time to google the NYT count – funny how suddenly the NYT is a rwnj source… aren’t they supposed to be lying liberals?)

    liberals, progressives and independents (I am in the last category) despise dumbya because he is an incompetent moran, slow witted, dogmatic, a figurehead sockpuppet for the money (mostly oil and gas, but also military industrial morans). Gas is over $4 a gallon here (we have a refinery within 10 miles btw) and it’ll be $5 a gallon by end of summer. The economy is in recession and the US tortures anyone we are afraid of.

    But just cling more tightly to your hate radio morans, your wedge issues and your dog whistle racism and calls for genocide (hey just a little joke right? har har har!)

  82. shcb Says:

    Thank you Enky, thank you, thank you, thank you. Gore would have won if the intent of the votes were taken as intended? There Knarly, that is the way you run a fair and impartial election, you count the voters intentions. Who determines those intentions?

    The hole was punched for Buchanan but there was a liiiiiitle dimple by Gore,
    no one in their right mind in this county would vote for Pat so… count it a Gore vote.

    This card doesn’t have a vote for president,
    are there any dimples?
    yes a little one next to Gore.
    Count it!!

    This one doesn’t have any votes either, and no dimples,
    who did they vote for in the congressional race?
    The Democrat,
    count it for Gore,
    The Republican,
    well, everyone has the right to not vote, count that as a no vote.

    So much fun.

  83. enkidu Says:

    I can see why you must cling to your delusions so tightly rwnj
    you make up stuff that your debate opponent doesn’t say then prove it wrong…

    Maybe you should go to youtube and watch Pat Buchanan laughing about how the poorly designed ballots gave him hundred or thousands of votes that he is sure weren’t intended for him. Or the blatant problems w the Diebold machines.

    Try asking goog about Feeney and Clinton Curtis. Fenney is one of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress as per CREW (that aughta be good for a laughable response!).

    In 2004, Clinton Eugene Curtis–a computer programmer from Florida, testified under oath that he was instructed by Tom Feeney in 2000, to create a software program that could effectively hack and change the data in all electronic voting machines. The program would use the already cast votes and turn the election 51/49 in any partisan-direction the wielder desired.

    dumbya won by one vote
    but just keep making up stuff, knocking the stuffing out of your strawmen and making your leetle jokes. u r teh 1337

  84. shcb Says:

    But it doesn’t matter, that is still not the election official’s place to determine the voter’s intentions. If the voter mis-punched the ballot, they should ask for a new one. If they are having trouble understanding the ballot, they should ask. There is a picture of the ballot on the link I provided, if that confuses you, you probably shouldn’t be voting anyway, or driving or breeding.

    I’m not debating what you said, I’m debating what you intended to say, just kidding, you said it all, I haven’t done any strawman thing here.

  85. enkidu Says:

    Will you ever address any of my points?
    Or is it just more straw man bashing and high fiving rwnjs all around?
    My guess is the latter…

    The butterfly ballot was confusing. Pat Buchanan got thousands of extra votes (as per the wiki article you links to). A statistical analysis of the vote shows an enormous spike for arch-conservative (in a Dem county) with the problematic ballots (if the page isn’t fed in and aligned perfectly, it would be quite difficult to be certain who you were voting for). To say nothing of the Diebold machines and their eminent hack-ability. Illegal purges of legitimate voters in heavily Democratic counties meant thousands more votes that were never cast. Read through the “controversial issues in Florida” part of that wiki article…

    I’ll ask about just a single example of the problems w the FL vote: How do you explain the Volusia error? I have an simple explanation: electronic voting machines are designed to be hacked. They are designed to allow partisan douchebags to skew the results in any way they want. And who makes these machines? Stridently pro-Rethuglican douchebags, that is who.

    Still your good ol boy won by a single vote. And has been a disaster ever since.

  86. enkidu Says:

    from wiki

    The error cropped up in Volusia’s 216th precinct of only 585 registered voters. A Global Election Systems (acquired by Diebold Election Systems now Premier Election Solutions) voting machine showed that 412 of those registered voters had voted. The problem was that the machine also claimed those 412 voters had somehow given Bush 2,813 votes and in addition had given Gore a negative vote count of -16,022 votes (Green Party candidate Ralph Nader was shown to have an even larger negative vote, though he was not considered a likely winner of the whole Florida election).

    How many other counties had a more subtle (or hell, just as blatant) vote theft? Impossible to say with black box voting.

    Nothing to see here of course, what is done is done, lets move along (ignore the burning Constitution, the economy in ruins, the failed wars of aggression and invasion), nope nothing to see here… move along if you know what is good for you…

    Ignore the net gain of 18,835 additional votes for dumbya in a precinct with 585 voters total and whaddaya got? president clusterfuck

  87. shcb Says:

    I don’t think I’m dodging any of your questions, I may not answer a statement like the Diebold thing, I just don’t know much about it, I have found these things are usually just conspiracy nut items. I also may not answer a question if it is in the middle of one our misspelled rants because I usually don’t read them. This Volusia thing intrigues me so I’ll look into it.

    About Buchanan, my point is that if the ballots were confusing, they were confusing to Republicans as well as Democrats so why is that unfair? You should fix the problem in the next election, but there is nothing that can be done in this election. Especially after the fact.

    Every time I have voted there is a sign in the booth that says if you don’t understand something ask the election official and they will assist you. Now they can’t vote for you, but if you say “I want to vote for Gore, but I don’t know what hole to punch” the official will say “this hole is for Bush, this one is for Buchanan and this one is for Gore” that is as far as they can go but when I have seen them help older folks they have been very patient, and if that doesn’t work they can have a proxy vote for them, as long as the proxy isn’t an election official, there is some paperwork that has to be filled out, but it’s not bad.

  88. shcb Says:

    I read the Wiki article, it says the problem was fixed by the end of the evening, don’t know what to tell you. As far as I can see the correct numbers were recorded officially.

    In reading about this I did find something interesting, I found the tally sheets of the recounts. In Volusia county, precincts 206 to 216, of the 46 questionable votes, 35 were given to Gore and 11 to Bush. In those precincts Gore got 11% more votes than Bush but was awarded over 300% more questionable votes in the recount.

  89. knarlyknight Says:


    Re: your post:

    April 28th, 2008 at 4:33 am
    This is the logic I have to battle …snip …, but the reason the situation was so chaotic was because the FSC was ignoring the rules. …

    Election chaos in Florida 2000 was not caused by the Florida supreme court ignoring the rules, the manufactured chaos started well before then. It will continue in November 2008 too:

    Eight years after the debacle of “hanging chads,” Florida once again seems to be courting electoral trouble. A handful of laws have been passed since the 2000 presidential recount, with state officials saying they bring order to a chaotic system.

    “Some say we err on the side of caution,” said Joe Pickens, a Republican from Palatka who served on the Florida House’s Ethics and Elections Committee in 2005 and 2006. “I would say that’s the place we should be.”

    But Election Day may end up looking oddly familiar. According to independent elections experts at Pew’s Electionline.org and other organizations, it is now harder to vote here than in nearly every other state in the nation…

    From: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/us/politics/28voting.html?_r=2&hp==print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    Of course, all that lawmaking smoke and mirrors would be unnecessary if Jeb would just install hackable computers in every county (to print-out the desired results) and also get rid of any annoying trails of paper ballots or other input into the tabulations.

  90. shcb Says:

    I guess I don’t see the problem with making an effort to ensure that people who are voting are actually legal to vote. Requiring that a person’s driver’s license number matches the one the state issued seems reasonable.

    You said the chaos started well before the FSC ignored laws, in your opinion what started the chaos?

    Did Republicans institute the concept of hanging chads?

    The article is correct that Republicans are generally for more stringent standards, but not to the point of excluding anyone that has a legal right to vote. The Democrats on the other hand tend to want to lower the bar to the point people without the right to vote will vote for them. This is because Mexicans crossing the border illegally will tend to vote Democrat, after they are here for a while and become citizens they tend to vote more in line with the rest of the population. When liberals write stories like this they always include black in this list to enhance the stereotype of Republicans being racist. For this discussion blacks are irrelevant because they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats no matter what their status. So to the charge that Republicans are for laws that make it harder for law breakers to vote I say “guilty as charged”

  91. enkidu Says:

    so many straw men
    so little time

  92. shcb Says:

    can you give me an example of where I have engaged in a straw man argument?

  93. knarlyknight Says:

    1. “I guess I don’t see the problem with making an effort to ensure that people who are voting are actually legal to vote. Requiring that a person’s driver’s license number matches the one the state issued seems reasonable.”

    Straw man: the issue is not about matching DL numbers.


    But in Florida, many of the cases remain unresolved.

    Three laws in particular are at issue, including a “no match, no vote” measure; the provision managing voter registration drives conducted by third parties, like the League of Women Voters; and a law that would keep a voter from correcting mistakes or omissions on a registration form in the final month before an election and would bar that person from having his or her vote counted.

    Besides, even if the issue was as cartoonishly simple as your straw man, not everyone has a drivers license; and, refusing to accept a person’s alternative evidence that the election role contains an error in DL# (or social security #) is pig headed.

    End 1.

    2. “When liberals write stories like this they always include blacks in this list to enhance the stereotype of Republicans being racist.”

    Straw man: Including blacks in this list enhances the racist Republican stereotype.

    Oh really, they always do?

    As a Republican it appears that you not comprehend that it is sufficient for a person to be a racist simply on the basis of their discriminating against Mexicans (i.e. Latino’s)

    End 2.

    3. “For this discussion blacks are irrelevant because they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats no matter what their status.”

    Straw man: The status of black voters does not determine how they vote therefore disenfranchising them through discriminatory laws is not a relevant issue in this discussion.

    Excuse me? So a Republican dominated election adminstration that effectivly discriminates against a segment of black voters has what effect? (Hint: Does it raise or lower votes opposing Republicans?)

    End 3.

    4. “So the charge that Republicans are for laws that make it harder for law breakers to vote I say ‘guilty as charged'”

    Straw man: Framing the complaint as being that the laws make it harder for law breakers to vote rather than addressing the actual complaints about the different ways that the laws go far beyond that stated goal.

    Self evident for anyone with a reading comprehension level over grade 10 and who read the preceding posts and links, so there is no need to support that statement.

    End 4.

    5. April 29, 3:02 pm shcb post re: Volusia County precincts 206 – 216 (see fifth previous post).

    Straw man: Low double digit tallies showing results contrary to the overall results of Volusia County (that were in the quadruple digits); (and percentages based on these low double digit tallies were used by shcb for dramatic effect, e.g. 300%.)

    The net effect of precincts 206 -216 was insignificant, except in percentage terms related to the double digits themselves. The percentages on the double digits are not material at all to the overall results.

    The fact that there was a set of numbers contrary to the overall effect does not by itself indicate anything. If Velusa county results show evidence of vote count hacking, then contrary precinct results may be a result of error in the vote hacking (either by person or software program), or an attempts by a person who tampered with the results to hide their tampering by making it look like the errors went both ways, or a result of a slight degree of sophistication in the software program that attempted to hide its own existence behind one or a number of results contrary to the overall hack, or a result of other unknown factors. We may never know the answer, especially if it was a self-deleting software hack.

    End 5.

    That’s enough. As a wise man once said,

    so many straw men
    so little time

  94. knarlyknight Says:

    If you can understand sarcasm, check this out (don’t miss the readers comments) http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5935

  95. shcb Says:

    I think you guys need to look up the definition of straw man, you have lowered the bar to the point where any argument I make meets the requirements. No matter, I’ll just ignore references to the arguments being straw man unless they are.

    You are essentially correct on point 5, to get a better feel for how lopsided the vote growth for Gore was in the recount you would have to look at a much larger sample, however that is about the same growth count percentage of Miami-Dade county, if you read the actual case Bush presented you will see that is one of their primary points, that selectively picking counties for recount will produce more votes for the Democrat candidate. Other than conspiracy nuts, I haven’t found anything that would lead me to believe there was any “hacking” that went on.

    Point 1: I still think those are reasonable measures, you can correct mistakes, there is just a 30 day deadline, sounds reasonable, the LWV can still do their drives, they just have to be more careful, I would be happy to give up that provision by the way, it seems the other two would weed out people that shouldn’t be voting.

    Point 2: I’m not discriminating against Mexicans, just illegal Mexicans. If they have citizenship, they are now Americans who have immigrated from Mexico legally, which is why I didn’t use the word Latino.

    Point 3: Which segment of the Black population would these provisions discriminate against? It doesn’t raise or lower the number of votes for either party, it can’t, the percentage of votes Republicans get from Blacks is too small for there to have much effect.

    Point 4: I guess I’m not enlightened enough to see the deeper meaning here. I don’t see how these laws go beyond the stated goals. It seems the Democrat’s goals are just different, they want people that can’t legally vote to be able to vote.

    One last point, voting is a right, but it is also a privilege, with a privilege comes a certain level of responsibility, obtaining a photo ID 30 days before the election is part of the responsibility of the voter to enhance the integrity of the voting process.

  96. shcb Says:

    I’m confused, you guys have been grousing that the Diebold software was proprietary, but Brad here is complaining that it was posted on the internet. How can both be true?

  97. enkidu Says:

    actually, I think I owe one to knarls
    well done

    I love how rwnj ignores a nearly 20,000+ vote for dumbya in a county of less than 600 voters, but focuses on a tiny increase for the Gore vote somewhere else. Nope, no ‘hacking’ anywhere. Jes a lil ol glitch that favors rwnj’s candidate to the tune of 20,000 votes.

    rwnj – your ridiculous ‘arguments’ about Ds wanting illegals to vote may reflect your Grand Ol Pedophiles party and their obsession with punishing anyone who isn’t as lilly white and lucky as they are.

    As a personal aside, I know a few Rs, several of whom are family members. A few years ago, I hosted a family get-together at Lake Tahoe. The R brothers brought up illegal immigration (not a issue for me really). Turns out both of my R brothers hire illegal aliens! One wants some sort of path towards citizenship (with penalties, taxes etc) while the other wants to deport all 12 million (or whatever). The most radical R I know is a guy I go kayaking with: he makes lots of ‘n-word’ ‘jokes’ (just like rwnj!) and hates illegals, but guess what? He also hires illegals to do grunt work.

    Maybe you should change the name of the party to Gormy Olde hyPocrites.

  98. enkidu Says:

    rwnj – the proprietary software was not posted to the internet by the company, it was leaked by someone who didn’t want our elections in ’06 stolen (again)

    Black box voting machines are designed to steal votes, not count them.

    Try youtube, princeton voting machine

  99. knarlyknight Says:

    Proprietary –

    Thanks Enk, I had forgotten that was leaked.

    shcb – plus, I understand there are many versions of the software, different ones for different states, ballot initiatives, etc. so just because one is leaked the vast majority remain proprietary.

    plus, although there is supposed to be state certification of the software before it is used, the people doing the certification have (occasionally/usually/always?) been unqualified in software security issues.

    plus, it has been determined that on at least one occasion (in the 2000 or 2004 electino?) the software certified by the state was not used in the election, rather an updated version (without state certification) was loaded on to the machines.

  100. knarlyknight Says:

    Sorry that I unintentionally strayed from the meaning of straw man in some (not all) of those responses when they actually would better fall under other categories of logical fallacy. I’ll stick to the def. of straw man in future.

    Now, HOW ABOUT THESE ADS!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6ul9iMgmOw and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6ul9iMgmOw

  101. shcb Says:

    I can see all those issues you raise being problematic Knarly, it happens in government, look at alcohol based fuels. One would hope the politicians would hire third party consultants to look at the security issues, so even if the name on the certification isn’t qualified, they have had someone that was qualified look at the code. I’m sure the code is constantly evolving, in the case in Florida in 2000 it would seem you would have a line that would flag a negative vote count for instance since that is impossible. I’m sure there is one now but you don’t think of everything right off the bat. In all the automated equipment I have programmed I can only think of one case that I turned the machine on and it worked exactly the way I wanted it to the first time.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if this software “leak” was a fraud, some guy in his basement writes some code that can be easily hacked, or gets hold of an early version without a lot of security and says it is the version in the machines at the time of the election. That sort of thing. I have read some of the official trial documents and they specifically say there was no evidence of tampering. In the case of precinct 216, the error was easily spotted and fixed. As far as I can see in the counties that had hand recounts the vote count matched the machine count so votes weren’t added or subtracted, I suppose they could have been changed from one candidate to the other, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that.

    No problem on the straw man thing, we aren’t professional debaters here or in the words of the Republican that ran for governor a few years back “masterdebators” (I voted for a Democrat that year after that comment). I just felt you guys were starting to ignore fairly valid points by calling it a straw man. Your point number 5 above was a good example of one of my points that certainly was flirting with being a straw man (that one was closer to a slut than a flirt) I thought when I wrote it I should preface it better but didn’t take the time.

  102. knarlyknight Says:

    I take that as an admission that you construct straw sluts for master debating.

  103. shcb Says:

    i’m speechless :-)

  104. enkidu Says:

    straw man argument (from the wiki, not Vicki)

    A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.

    Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it. Such a target is, naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent.

    sounds like most everything you have ever posted shbc

  105. shcb Says:


    I know what the definition is, the problem is that you guys had expanded that definition to include almost any analogy or example. When you give a parallel example it of course isn’t going to be the same, it wouldn’t be an example if it matched the subject, it would be the subject. Analogies buy definitions are over simplified. I can only comment on what you guys write, I can’t read your mind. But I can see patterns develop and comment on those patterns even if that isn’t exactly what was said in the last statement. Matt got on me once because I called Obama “his guy”, Matt said he had not endorsed a candidate yet, and he hadn’t. But he had posted three or four favorable posts, he is obviously against the war in Iraq and if for or against the same things Obama is running on. Turned out I was right, it didn’t take a lot of insight.

    That may not be the best example because there really wasn’t an argument involved there, but you get the idea, I wasn’t exaggerating anything to make a point I was merely pointing out several observations and connecting the dots. Now at some point Matt may have said that I was right on all points but Obama owns Cocker Spaniels and Matt hates Cockers because one bit him as a child, he could never vote for a man that has Cockers. Ok, I didn’t see that one coming, that doesn’t mean my other observations were wrong, and it doesn’t mean my conclusions were wrong based on that information, it just means I can’t read Matt’s mind.

    When you look at the definitions of logical fallacies you can make one fit most any differing point of view. The case has to be pretty blatant for a logical fallacy to be called.

  106. enkidu Says:

    no sorry that doesn’t compute

    saying bs like “dems want illegals to vote” or many of your other macho mike bs talking points isn’t just a point of view on your debate opponent, it is stuffing your preconceived notions/distortions into a strawman and then knocking the stuffing out of it.

    I could call you a nazi and then spend a few paragraphs tearing down nazis/you, but it wouldn’t be anything but a strawman specially constructed to make it easy for me to make some cheap and easy ‘points’. Worthless.

    Dems and Libs love this country every bit as much as you do if not more.
    You are confusing nationalism with patriotism. Nationalism is the fervent cry of seig hiel! patriotism is rev wright saying there is much to bless America for, but let us not lose sight of what we should damn America for (racism, inequality, jingoism, greed, stupidity the list goes on for quite a ways – same as the [longer] list of blessings).

  107. knarlyknight Says:

    No-one asked me but I wish both shcb and Enkidu listened to each better a bit more. They both make valid points.

  108. enkidu Says:

    eh? what did you say?

  109. knarlyknight Says:

    Never mind, someone must have hacked on to my computer. I don’t recall saying anything.

  110. shcb Says:

    Darn it anyway Knarly, you wimped out again, you made a good point, and at the first brow beat of Enky you folded.

    First, I didn’t impugn your patriotism, this is simply about winning and losing. The difference between you and I is I’m not going to accuse you of engaging in some sort of logical fallacy, you simply didn’t understand my point, that was probably my fault for not being more clear.

    The reason it is so simple to defend a statement like D’s want illegal’s to vote is because what other reason can there be? I would think it is pretty obvious we don’t want people from other countries to vote in our elections, so what other purpose could there be in making sure those that are voting are allowed to vote?

  111. shcb Says:

    the second and third paragraph to Enky, sorry knarly

  112. knarlyknight Says:

    I wonder if D’s really want illegals to vote, or if that is just another one of shcb’s silly conspiracy theories.

    I hear Bush has highest Disapproval rating of any president ever (CNN says it tops 70%), and his approval rating hovers around 28%.

  113. shcb Says:

    then why do they thwart efforts to keep them from voting? what does Bush’s poll numbers have to do with illegal voters? Was that a random thought, a deversion from the subject, or a straw man in waiting? Hey, you guys keep bringing the staw man up not me.

  114. knarlyknight Says:

    Why do who thwart what efforts to keep whom from voting?

    Bush’s poll numbers are for you to re-evaluate the crumbling base upon which you stand. If it were academics and other enlighted people who were his 28% base, then it wouldn’t be much of an issue. Alas, Bush lost enlightened supporters a long time ago and his staunch supporters now remain the rich beneficiaries of his favours to large corporations, tax breaks for the rich and the remaining short haired country bumkins so in-bred they don’t even realize comprehend the obvious: like their own children are being used as sponges to soak up middle east oil.

  115. knarlyknight Says:

    errata: bumpkins; don’t even comprehend the obvious

  116. shcb Says:

    First paragraph: Democrats

    Let me give you an example, here in Colorado Republicans introduced legislation that would require you to show a Colorado driver’s license or a state issued ID. To get either of these documents, you have to prove citizenship of the United States, passport or birth certificate. The Democrat counter proposal was to be able to use a utility bill with the voters name on it, now that would prove the utility bill came to your house so it would kind of prove you live here but it certainly doesn’t prove you are a citizen.

    Second paragraph: thanks for that rather unpleasant Enky style rant. It was quite stereotypical, on the shady side of bigoted. That’s ok, I have big shoulders. It doesn’t however answer my question of what Bush’s numbers has to do with illegal voters?

    But since you brought it up at the end of the day the popular vote will be closer to 50% for either side than the 25-75 spread you are insinuating.

    Do you really want to compare the educational levels of Republicans and Democrats? I can find those numbers, you wouldn’t be pleased.

  117. knarlyknight Says:

    1st para – interesting, sounds like a good point;I suspect there is more to it than that but I got no dog in that fight you can have it.

    2nd para – it wasn’t meant to answer any question you posed, rather, a tenth grade reader would have noticed that I clearly stated the purpose in the first sentence: “Bush’s poll numbers are for you to re-evaluate the crumbling base upon which you stand.” Also, my comments were entirely about the Republican’s who now disapprove of Bush, and that generally his remaining supporters are either pathetic wealthy sycophants or imbecilic militaristic nationalists. (False patriots all.) There is nothing whatsoever about Democrats in my “bigoted” comments so your trying to re-frame it as a partision is just another of your silly straw sluts.

    By the way, I agree my comments were stereotypical against Bush’s remaining supporters. That is what was intended, I was talking in general terms (i.e. stereotypes) about the people who I’ve seen supporting Bush lately. You are wrong to say that is “on the shady side of bigoted” because I’d have no problem noting that a lot of enlightened people supported Bush if they did, but from what I’ve seen the vast majority do not.

  118. knarlyknight Says:

    Here are some who are trying to
    educate those imbecilic militaristic
    nationalists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYhCgmE8KoQ

    If I am bigotted against Bush, and i am not, it would be because I have not heard him renounce
    his granfather’s criminal acts: www . youtube.com/watch?v=Q8OtmwmxWP4&feature=related


  119. shcb Says:

    I guess Democrats wanting Illegal’s to vote suddenly got unimportant, what a shock. I wonder if you would be so cavalier if a bunch of Canadian lawmakers decided it would help their cause if they allowed American’s to vote in your elections. Now to be analogous, they wouldn’t really “allow it”, they would just turn a blind eye to it. Maybe the people in North Dakota would like a voice in how the Bakken Play oil field is developed, maybe a lawmaker in Canada wants to allow all the revenue to be sent to America, that might be enough to get a bunch of folks from the border states to travel to Canada for a few days and vote. It’s kind of the principle of the thing, and it’s the guys you support.

    Inbred? As far as I know I only have one relative that is inbred, the son of my cousin that married his first cousin. As far as I know the kid is fine. The dad is a millionaire, owns an ethanol plant, the mom is quite pretty and a wonderful gal. no, I think if a neutral observer read those last ten or so posts, they would say you changed the subject to avoid answering a pretty straight forward point.

    President Bush owes his family inheritance to Adolf Hitler, and his grandfather, Prescott Bush, helped finance the Nazi rise to power in Germany. These stories had circulated for years but resurfaced on May 13, 2003, in the Cuban Communist Party newspaper Granma, headlined, “Bush Family Funded Adolf Hitler.” As the Associated Press reports, Prescott had been on the board of Union Banking Corp., whose majority owner, the Thyssen family of Germany, indeed had funded the Nazis against a feared communist takeover of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Family leader Fritz Thyssen broke with Hitler over the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom against the Jews, was stripped of his citizenship and fortune, and was in a Nazi prison at the time the elder Bush sat on that board. There is no evidence that Prescott Bush, who owned just one share of Union Banking, had anything to do with the Thyssen political work in Germany.

    I don’t have any idea how reliable this is but at least it gives a timeline and some dates.


  120. knarlyknight Says:

    Hey! If what you say is true and “Democrats want illegals to vote” I think that really sucks!

    But there you go again, who said anything about “Democrats wanting illegals to vote is unimportant”??? YOU are the only one who said that, trying to build yet another straw man.

    Either you are constructing all these straw men on purpose, in which case you are a very silly and annoying person, or you are seriously unable to listen and understand what other people actually say so instead you project all your biases and phobias on them and imagine they are saying all kinds of things you don’t like. I suspect the latter.

    I’ll look into your article about the Bush family support for Nazi’s in the 1930’s and 1940’s. I raised the topic because I was curious how much of a backflip you’d do to defend your precious leader; and because I find it interesting that some candidates get dragged through the wringer for past connections but Bush seems to have had pretty much a free ride until long after the fact (i.e. F911 revealing Saudi funding for Bush “investments” notwithstanding, etc.)

  121. knarlyknight Says:

    Just read the article you posted. Typical “debunker” or “Bush apologist” type drivel.

    The item I posted, which is similar to most others I’ve seen, is that Prescott Bush as CEO of the Bank was responsible for big loan to Nazi Germany at a time when such financial relationships were illegal. Prescott got his wrist slapped (poor liddle baby.)

    The article you posted argues a red herring: that Prescott did not make his fortune from investments with the Nazis. Krist Almighty, did you write that article shcb?? Biggest straw man / non-sequitur yet.

    This is more to the point:

    The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

    His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

    The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator’s action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.


  122. shcb Says:

    You brought making it easier to vote, or harder, depending on your point of view (April 29, 3:05). Now of course that wasn’t your point, your point is that those nasty R’s want to make it harder for poor people to vote, (for some conspiratorial reason or another), I am just telling you who those poor people are and why it should be harder for them to vote. I am also pointing out who is trying to make it easier for them to vote and why, Democrats.

    Prescott Bush, in the worst case, isn’t that one of those sins of my father things? Ole Joe Kennedy wasn’t a saint, does that mean JFK Jr. was a total jerk? No, I think he was a decent guy. I don’t like Teddy because of what Teddy has done, not because of what his dad did.

    But back to whether it is true or not, is the time line of the article I provided wrong? I don’t know and don’t really care that much to dig into it much more. But it fits a pattern of your links of taking a few random facts and misaligning them to come to an erroneous conclusion. Probably why you put so much faith in Michael Moore.

  123. knarlyknight Says:

    Assets of a Bank directed by Prescott Bush were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

  124. knarlyknight Says:

    A “fine” family tradition that appears again with the current Bush family’s dealings with the bin Ladens prior to September 11, 2001.

  125. shcb Says:

    Well after reading a little about ole Prescott, I am prepared to say this is just more bull shit. A half dozen half truths plopped together in such a way to make a boogy man so despicable to transcend the generations.

  126. enkidu Says:


    Business Plot
    On July 23, 2007, the BBC Radio 4 series Document reported on the alleged Business Plot and the archives from the McCormack-Dickstein Committee hearings. The program mentioned Bush’s directorship of the Hamburg-America Line, a company that the committee investigated for Nazi propaganda activities, and the alleged 1933 attempt, supposedly led by Gerald MacGuire, to stage a military coup against President Franklin D. Roosevelt aimed at forcing Roosevelt to resign (or, failing that, to assassinate him) and at installing a fascist dictatorship in the United States.

    Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street partner for several German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party, but by 1939 was bitterly denouncing Hitler and had fled Germany. He was later jailed by the Nazis for his opposition to the Nazi regime.[5] Business transactions with Germany were not illegal until Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, but, six days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act after it had been made public that U.S. companies were doing business with the declared enemy of the United States. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of German banking operations in New York City. Roosevelt’s Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing property under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The order cited only the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Bush was a director and held only one share. Fox News has reports on recently declassified material about this issue, according to a document signed by Homer Jones, chief of the division of investigation and research of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, a World War II-era agency.[6] By 1941 Thyssen no longer had control over his business empire, which was in the hands of the Nazi government.

    So… shrubee’s granpappy had some role (nicely covered up/papered over with lots of pro-bush money) in a fascist plot to overthrow FDR in ’34 and was a director of a bank that backed Hitler in the same time frame. When their assets were seized in 1942, he was still a director… hmmmm, nothing to see here!

    I will admit I am surprised to read he held many moderate or even liberal views for his day. His support of Planned Parenthood and the United Negro College Fund shouldn’t be discounted. But neither should his links to pro-Nazi fascist creeps: thems the facts.

  127. knarlyknight Says:

    maybe shcb will play up the “sins of my father” plea again. It may be fine for rwnj’s to keep it all in the family but if someone reveals a “sins of my preacher” (Wright) then hooooo boooy the rwnj’s will send in the dogs.

  128. knarlyknight Says:

    Good article, sample:

    Needing terrorists to keep the farce going, the U.S. government dropped leaflets in Afghanistan offering $25,000 a head for “terrorists.” Kidnappings ensued until the U.S. government had purchased enough “terrorists” to validate the “terrorist threat.”

    The six that the United States are bringing to “trial” include two child soldiers for the Taliban and a car pool driver who allegedly drove Osama bin Laden.

    The Taliban did not attack the United States. The child soldiers were fighting in an Afghan civil war. The United States attacked the Taliban. How does that make Taliban soldiers terrorists who should be locked up and abused in Gitmo and brought before a kangaroo military tribunal? If a terrorist hires a driver or a taxi, does that make the driver a terrorist? What about the pilots of the airliners who brought the alleged 9-11 terrorists to the United States? Are they guilty, too?

    The Gitmo trials are show trials. Their only purpose is to create the precedent that the executive branch can ignore the U.S. court system and try people in the same manner that innocent people were tried in Stalinist Russia and Gestapo Germany. If the Bush regime had any real evidence against the Gitmo detainees, it would have no need for its kangaroo military tribunal.

    from “What do we stand for?” at http://www.rense.com/general81/stand.htm

    this is particularly appropos:

    But let’s assume that Rice was fooled by faulty intelligence. If she had any integrity she would have resigned. In the days when American government officials had integrity, they would have resigned in shame from such a disastrous war and terrible destruction based on their mistake. But Rice, like all the Bush (and Clinton) operatives, is too full of American self- righteousness and ambition to have any remorse about her mistake.

  129. enkidu Says:

    funny how the facts blow away all the bullshit

    rwnj – so where are the half truths in the wiki refs I copied?

    Prescott Bush was implicated in a plot to overthrow FDR (or assassinate him)
    and fact
    Prescott Bush was a Director of a bank that helped Hitler come to power

    note that I included the parts that exonerated Thyssen and possibly Bush as it has bearing on the entirety of the question – not that I expect the same courtesy of stating the whole truth from dear rwnj: his head is so stuffed full of Macho Mike Rosen nonsense and Rush Limp-baugh bullshit, that I expect nothing but partisanship (mixed with occasional humor).

    Note that I had the date wrong on The Business Plot – it was 1933 (same year Hitler came to power – coincidentally)

  130. shcb Says:

    I don’t have many problems with the Wiki article, you even properly said he was “a” director I believe Knarly or one of his links used the word “the”. Prescott had 1 share, the principal in the corporation held around 4000, so he owned .02% of the company. When the government “seized” the assets they seized the German assets, the American portion of the company was allowed to continue business as usual and the German assets were returned after the war. All these things are important to asertaine the scope of a story. This is typical of Knarly’s conspiracy theories.

  131. knarlyknight Says:

    “Conspiracy theory” is your department, shcb.

    Straw man #1: Shares held by Bank Directors. As a Director, did it matter if Prescott held one share or 4000? Presumably Prescott with his one share got one vote at the Boardroom table, and the other Directors also got one vote no matter how many shares they owned.

    Straw Man #2: “I believe Knarly or one of his links used the word “the.” Oh really now? That’s quite the allegation there shcb. The point is that Prescott held a position at the Bank to make decisions and make principled stands, for example: “I move that this bank immediately cease aiding and abetting Nazi Germany and henceforth abide by our own US law concerning trading with the enemy, and furthermore I will immediately resign my Directorship if this motion does not pass.”

    Straw man #3: “… the German assets were returned after the war.” What exactly does that prove? Incompetence of prosecutors? A dire need to free up the frozen assets to fund massive rebuilding efforts? Or does it provide evidence that Prescott, or other directors of the bank, had undue influence? What if the Nazi’s won the war, would they have done the same thing or would they have added a little bonus?

    Straw man #4: “All these things are important to ascertain the scope of a story.” As we see from Straw man #1, #2, and #3, this is hardly so. “These things” as presented by shcb are minor or misleading at best. It is a straw man because these are not the kinds of things that need to be considered to determine the scope of a story. Much, much more is needed to ascertain the scope of a story than what shcb accepts as sufficient. shcb has made a decision that Prescott is innocent based on the most superficialy skimming and disregard for the few facts that have been examined here.

    Straw man #5: “This is typical of … conspiracy theories.” And what conspiracy theory is that? The bank’s assets were frozen because the Board of Directors conspired to continue doing business with America’s enemy, contrary to American law. shcb seems to have made a point that the directors of that bank were not convicted (were they even prosecuted?) of the crime even after the war, but it is pretty clear that the Trading with the Enemy Act was violated, i.e. a crime was committed. That is fact, not theory. And do you recall why I posted the link about Prescott? Clearly stated in the first and following few posts about Prescott the link was presented as background to my comment that I had not heard your dear Gearge W renounce his grandfather’s criminal act, or explain them as Obama was browbeaten into discussing his pastor, and as stated much earlier it was to see how many backflips shcb would do to defend Bush’s family honor. We have the answer: an infinite number.

    As for the phrase “conspiracy theory”, you just earn yourself more contempt for the way you throw it around as an insult. You throw that phrase around like Nico at ground zero. Maybe you have been visiting NYC, you spit those two words out like like Nico.

    YADA yadadadadadadaadaaaaaaa.

    This post has an epilogue about conspiracy theory. If follows now.

    “The real reason why there are conspiracy theorists is because there are conspiracies. There have been conspiracies for thousands of years. James Thornwell was awarded $625,000 dollars in compensation from Congress, after proving the American Army conducted mind control experiments on him, using LSD, without his knowledge.”

    “A large percentage of all criminal prosecution are under some form of conspiracy theory. RICO is an especially significant conspiracy based law. .. “conspiracy theory” is a phrase created to discredit critical thinkers. Just like “family values”, “activist judges”, “patriotism”, “American values” or whatever other phrase the Neo-scum have conjured up to gain the subverviance of the American public, these phrases are trigger words ment to obfuscate, mis-direct or intimidate. Newt Gingrich once produced a list of “words” that the repukes should use, Im sure “conspiracy” is on that list.”

    “If you want “conspiracy theory” to be something crazy, something paranoid, it applies perfectly to the official one. Even breastfeeding mothers face problems taking breast milk on board on airplanes, because of some paranoid security rules. Public paranoia, there you got the pathological official conspiracy theory.”

    “To a conspiracy theory we would expect a certain degree of theory. But observe that in the debate David Ray Griffin vs. George Monbiot, it is the latter, defending the official theory, insists on discussing theory, whereas Griffin insists on discussing evidence; Monbiot wants to debate a priori, Griffin a posteriori, or as Kevin Ryan exclaimed in debate with Michael Shermer, we need less speculation here and more facts! In The War on Truth, Nafeez M. Ahmed writes that he will not discuss any theory, just give the facts; in The Road to 9/11, Peter Dale Scott has the same attitude.”

    What Does The Phrase “Conspiracy Theory” Mean?
    By Jon Gold

    As 9/11 family member Donna Marsh O’Connor said at the National Press Club on 9/11/2006, “this Government has made me a victim of Conspiracy Theories, because they haven’t answered fully, or allowed anyone to ask the true questions of September 11th.”

    Instead of answering all of the questions put forward by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, and others, the Government, through the media, has labeled those with questions as “Conspiracy Theorists”, and several other “colorful” adjectives.

    If you need some examples, here are a few:

    “Let Us Never Tolerate Outrageous Conspiracy Theories”
    Scientific American Takes On The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts
    March Of The Conspiracy Theorists
    Conspiracy Theories
    500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet To Seek The Truth Of 9/11
    A Question For 9/11 Conspiracy Buffs
    9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather At L.A. Conference
    Reuters: 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather At L.A. Conference
    NYTimes Writes An Op-Ed About Kevin Barrett: Conspiracy Theories 101
    Some 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists To Boycott Oliver Stone Film

    There are SEVERAL more examples, but you get the idea. They have taken the words “Conspiracy”, and “Theory”, combined the two, and created the phrase, “Conspiracy Theory(ist).”

    According to them, that phrase means the following:

    Conspiracy Theory

    1. Outlandish Lie
    2. Lunacy
    3. Crazy
    4. Wacko
    5. Psychologically Disturbed

    In reality, it means “silence anyone who dares question this Government.”

    As Ramman Kenoun said, “a tyrant has succeeded in his search for absolute power when his own people fear to question his actions.”

    It is our duty as citizens of the United States of America to ask our Government questions, and DEMAND answers. There is certainly nothing shameful in doing so.

    Teddy Roosevelt once said, “patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official…”

    Please do not blindly follow this Government for fear of being labeled a “Conspiracy Theorist.”

  132. knarlyknight Says:

    Also this is not too bad: www .georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/tell-me-again-why-conspiracy-theory-is.html

  133. shcb Says:

    If we’re going to deal with what ifs (if Germany had won the war) what if we had not gone to war with Germany, they didn’t attack us, we really don’t need a Jewish population, and wouldn’t geography be so much simpler without all those imaginary lines dividing up Europe. One big area marked “Germany” would be so much simpler. You are still distorting the truth when you say the bank funded Hitler, they did before the law was passed, when Hitler was fighting communists, always a noble cause even if it was Hitler. The reason for my points is that Prescott seems to be a very small player in a very small crime at best. Business and war often times collide, and business sometimes can’t turn on a dime. Did you realize that in World War I the British were paying patent royalties to Germany for the machine guns that were killing men on both side of the trenches?

  134. enkidu Says:

    I love how the jujistu of rwnj thinking paints this as just one big bundle of “what ifs” no biggee!

    There seem to be some facts in play here rwnj:

    Prescott Bush was a director of a bank that backed Hitler (right up until ’42 evidently [a word derived from the word “evidence”])

    Prescott was also mixed up in a plot to overthrow FDR (by violent terroristic means if necessary)

  135. knarlyknight Says:

    Enk, you are totally on target. “What if” shcb had a brain? Then he wouldn’t have to live in the Land of Oz.

    You said, “Did you realize that in World War I the British were paying patent royalties to Germany for the machine guns that were killing men on both sides of the trenches?” I find that hard to believe; but if true that just adds another blaze to the firestorm controversy that war is more about increasing profits to the military-industrial complex’s than it is about settling differences of ideologies.

    Ideologies that are used to justify massive armament expenditures that enrich the powerful lobbysists and principals who own weapon manufacturing and other defence, I mean OFFENSIVE, industry stock; e.g. Fear the Islamo-fascists! Buy more military jets and atttack helicopters!

    The Last Samarai put that theme into perspective.

  136. knarlyknight Says:

    Or if, like me, you’d rather not watch Tom Cruise, this excerpt from the NYT alludes to the same theme:

    Despite Alert, Flawed Wiring Still Kills G.I.’s

    The Defense Contract Management Agency, which is responsible for supervising maintenance work by contractors at American bases in Iraq, defended its performance. In a written statement, the agency said it had no information that staff members “were aware” of the Army alert or “failed to take appropriate action in response to unsafe conditions brought to our attention.”

    Keith Ernst, who stepped down Wednesday as the agency’s director, said, though, that the agency was “stretched too thin” in Iraq and that the small number of contract officers did not have expertise in dealing with so-called life support contracts, like that awarded to KBR to provide food, shelter and building maintenance. “We don’t have the technical capability for overseeing life support systems,” he said.

    For its part, KBR, which until last year was known as Kellogg, Brown and Root and was a subsidiary of Halliburton, denied that any lapses by the company had led to the electrocutions of American soldiers. “KBR’s commitment to employee safety and the safety of those the company serves is unwavering,” said a spokeswoman, Heather Browne. “KBR has found no evidence of a link between the work it has been tasked to perform and the reported electrocutions.”

    Ms. Browne declined to respond to the specific accounts of former KBR electricians.

    Those electricians have a ready response to anyone who suggests that poor electrical work might be considered an unavoidable cost of war. “The excuse KBR always used was, ‘This is a war zone — what do you expect?’ ” recalled Jeffrey Bliss, an Ohio electrician who worked for the company in Afghanistan in 2005 and 2006. “But if you are going to do the work, you have got to do it safe.”

    Since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, tens of thousands of American troops have been housed in pre-existing Iraqi government buildings, some of them dangerously dilapidated. As part of its $30 billion contract with the Pentagon in Iraq, KBR was required to repair and upgrade many of the buildings, including their electrical systems. The company handles maintenance for 4,000 structures and 35,000 containerized housing units in the war zone, the Pentagon said.

    Lawmakers and government investigators say it is now clear that the Bush administration outsourced so much work to KBR and other contractors in Iraq that the agencies charged with oversight have been overwhelmed. The Defense Contracting Management Agency has more than 9,000 employees, but it has only 60 contract officers in Iraq and 30 in Afghanistan to supervise nearly 18,000 KBR employees in Iraq and 4,400 in Afghanistan handling base maintenance.

    “All the contract officers can do is check the paperwork,” said one agency official, who asked not to be identified. While about 600 military officers supplement the contract officers, Mr. Ernst said, the soldiers are not adequately trained for the task.

    Frm: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/world/middleeast/04electrocute.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


  137. shcb Says:

    I’m going to have to bow out of this one, it is getting to silly even for me.

  138. enkidu Says:

    lemme get this straight rwnj

    shrubbie’s gran pappy and his links to/support of hitler’s rise to power and a “Business Plot” to overthrow FDR are “silly”? Well how about you refute these facts if they are so silly? You can’t, they are part of the historical record.

    Or perhaps you think it is “silly” that Darth Cheney’s company (that he still profits from btw) KBR is electrocuting soldiers with their shoddy work and ‘ah fuck it’ attitude? You must not support the troops. All that matters to you is your partisanship: if it reflects poorly on the Gormy Olde Pedophiles, by golly it is just silly lies and froofrahhumdingermajiggy.

  139. knarlyknight Says:

    Always wondered what GOP stood for, thanks Enkidu.

  140. knarlyknight Says:

    This thread is dying. shcb has as many good arguments left as a dead horse has cowboys lining up to ride her.

    So here’s my favourite live horse, Dana Perino, answering a recent 911 related question.

    It would have been better if her answer held some forthright honesty for a change rather than such strained evasiveness and highly patronizing dismissiveness.

    I would apologize on her behalf, but as she is speaking on behalf of the GOP’rs she probably could not have answered in any other way. Poor Dana.

    The clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeVX5zt8wEk

    And here is the reporter’s follow-up to Dana:
    –> start

    Thank you for the suggestion of checking my sources. If you take the time to read those articles, you will see that both sides of the aisle had issues with the way the Bush Administration dealt with the investigations of 9/11. Also, the people that were most affected by that day also had several issues with their conduct as well. With regard to your predecessors Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellan, and Tony Snow, if you could set up interviews for me with each of them, I would be more than happy to discuss this information. However, with regard to the last article cited in this video clip entitled, “9/11 – the big cover-up?”, it is from September 2007, so I would also like to request another interview with you when you have the time. The recent news concerning Philip Zelikow from NYTimes Reporter Phil Shenon, to quote the September 11th Advocates, brings into question “the veracity of the entire Commission’s report.” It also resulted in them calling for an entirely new investigation. In fact, that is the only article cited in this video that is not considered “mainstream”. The reason for this is because what is considered “mainstream”, did not bother to cover their request. This is not spin. This is a request by those most affected by that day to finally learn the who, how, and why of 9/11 so they can have some much deserved justice and solace.

    It is true, we have not been attacked since September 11th, 2001, and thank God for that. However, as a result of that day, we have started two wars that are still going on, and thousands have been killed. We have changed our entire way of life here in America in the name of “Security”. If that day is not what we were led to believe, then we need to know about it, and we need to know about it now.I hope this letter finds you in good spirits, as well as in good health. I also look forward to our next interview.

    Justin Martell

  141. shcb Says:

    It’s not the subject matter, it’s the debating partners, let me give you an example:

    Knarly said

    What if the Nazi’s won the war, would they have done the same thing or would they have added a little bonus?

    This was my response

    If we’re going to deal with what ifs (if Germany had won the war) what if we had not gone to war with Germany, they didn’t attack us, we really don’t need a Jewish population, and wouldn’t geography be so much simpler without all those imaginary lines dividing up Europe. One big area marked “Germany” would be so much simpler.

    This yielded

    I love how the jujistu of rwnj thinking paints this as just one big bundle of “what ifs” no biggee!


    Enk, you are totally on target. “What if” shcb had a brain? Then he wouldn’t have to live in the Land of Oz.

    So the answer, Fritz was in prison, so I would think Hitler probably wouldn’t have been kind to his American partners once Adolf was on this side of the pond, I doubt there would have been much reward for Bush, maybe the same fate as ole Fritz. I try and maintain a reasonable debate, I enjoy a reasonable debate, but with logic like this that is impossible.

  142. knarlyknight Says:

    You win the award for creative editing. Plus, you constructed a fine straw man. Pay attention now, I’ll explain it for you.

    The “what if Germany had won the war” was a tiny red herring in a huge school of bigger fish: and you went for it. (This also illustrates your inability to discriminate between relevant and trivial comments.)

    So you bite into the “what if” theme, hook, line and sinker.

    Enkidu ridicules you for that big red herring in your teeth but also brings the discussion back to the facts (his full unedited post below):

    enkidu Says:
    May 7th, 2008 at 7:01 am
    I love how the jujistu of rwnj thinking paints this as just one big bundle of “what ifs” no biggee!

    There seem to be some facts in play here rwnj:

    Prescott Bush was a director of a bank that backed Hitler (right up until ‘42 evidently [a word derived from the word “evidence”])

    Prescott was also mixed up in a plot to overthrow FDR (by violent terroristic means if necessary)

    Unfortunately you cannot see past the bleeding red herring flapping in front of your fish eyes, so you are unable to comprehend that the comment “Enk, you are totally on target…” relates to the facts he presented and not the red herring that shcb is struggling so hard with.

    So the straw man you constructed is that our logic is flawed, when it is your ability to discern that is flawed.

    shcb, hows the spring planting going? What are you growing?

  143. knarlyknight Says:

    … I meant other than scarecrows.

    Other than the usual veggies, this year I put in some raspberries and replaced an overgrown cedar tree with a few bunches of blueberries. It’s micro gardening, I wish I had more land (damn city life.)

  144. shcb Says:

    Planted the garden last weekend, and we have had rain all week so the timing was good. I have 5 tomatoes, 3 cucumbers, a pumpkin, cantaloupe, squash and zucchini. I don’t think the cantaloupe is going to make it but the rest are doing great. We live in the middle of some of the best truck farming country in the west with little farmer’s markets all over so growing a garden is sort of a waste. But it is good therapy, so I don’t grow as big a variety as I used to. Plus having the acreage is time consuming so I keep it simple and just plant things that don’t take a lot of upkeep. How about you?

  145. knarlyknight Says:

    Besides the raspberry and Blueberries which won’t do much until next year I got a ton of strawberries scattered about, and a few local thornless blackberry bushes starting along the fence, as they grow I’ll cut back the invasive thorny himalayan blackberries more and more until they’re gone (as if that’ll ever happen.) Lots of herbs and flowers in the front yard, we buried the lawn when we moved in and after two years it now looks great.

    Last year I converted a 10’x20’portion of my back lawn to a raised bed. A few rows of Romaine, garlic & chives, a broad bean teepee set up for my little girl to play inside, a couple of broccoli and a half dozen overgrown Swiss Chard left over from last year. It is time to plant tomatoes this weekend but am running out of space so they’ll go in pots. I have to build my garden like a fortress to keep our 4 dogs out. Also have a small (15′) and a medium-large (25′?) cherry tree, but the crows usually feast on them before they are fully ripe. Hey, all that sounds pretty nice, I aught to appreciate it more instetad of focusing on thoughts like: if I had to grow our own food we’d all starve.

    Sad that we pay high prices for fruits and veggies all year except at harvest time. Supply and demand. If it wasn’t for the therapy benefits of growing food I might not bother. Simplicity in gardening for me too, otherwise I’d have no time to correct your erroneous posts here. Have great day / weekend.

  146. enkidu Says:

    next thing you know, you two will be swapping recipes!

    I like the idea of the bean teepee – have to work on that for next year (treehouse eating up too much free time and the porch isn’t in for the summer, so I’d better get crackin)

    We planted a pear tree where the kids could pick the fruit from the treehouse porch (give it a year or two). The lemon and lime trees are incredible.

  147. shcb Says:

    Thanks for the memory, I had forgotten that I did that bean wall years ago for my oldest daughter. At our other house I also planted catnip, our cat would build a nest in the middle of it and lay there all day like she was in an opium den, eyes watering and all.

    Give you a secret that I happened upon by accident, when you’re making fried chicken, use parmesan cheese for about a quarter to a third of the flour mixture, mmmm.

  148. knarlyknight Says:

    you soak the Chicken in beer first, right?

  149. shcb Says:

    beer? what kind of rube do you take me for, a light brushing of creme de cassis mmmmm

  150. knarlyknight Says:

    okay, fine. You can do the cooking.

    But what about these peanuts? http://www.rense.com/general81/mcci.htm ?

  151. shcb Says:

    ah, at his age he’s probably just passing gas

  152. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, that’s mildly amusing (if not totally disgusting). Unfortunately, it fails to address the thousand words that the picture tells. I find the author’s description copmelling:

    What is just as interesting, however, is what I describe as McCain’s emotional reactivity. What I’m referring to is not just the intensity of the response but also its speed, and how much that, too, differs from the crowd’s.

    What I mean is, if you study the other people in the photo, what you encounter are emotional reactions that are more complex and nuanced. If you had to generalize, you could say they combine at least two different attributes, the first being approval and pleasure over what’s happening on the field, but second, and the more prevalent one, a more open-ended curiosity, inquisitiveness and concern for what continues to unfold in front of them.

    What scares me about McCain is not just the intensity of his emotions, but how their escalation is often based on snap- emotionally-based reactions to situations that are inherently more enduring and complicated.

    Taking the picture as a modeling exercise, I’d feel a whole lot safer with a Commander-in-Chief more representative of the guy in the Hawaiian-looking shirt, the man in the red shirt, the lady in the turquoise and the white-haired guy to her right. What you get in that package is a candidate with more awareness in the moment; more feeling informed by thought; more sustained attention; greater inquisitiveness; and more recognition of a larger picture.

  153. knarlyknight Says:

    copmelling = compelling

  154. shcb Says:

    So a politician saw a camera pointed in his direction and decided to ham it up, stop the presses.

  155. knarlyknight Says:

    yea, that’s it, he was just pretending. Another f*cking brilliant comment from shcb.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.