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.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
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.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
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?
No.
I’ve been impressed w Obama since ‘04 and the more I learn about him, the more impressed I am.
rwnjs - wrong
April 9th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
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.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
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.
April 12th, 2008 at 6:43 am
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.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
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.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:14 am
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?
April 14th, 2008 at 7:39 am
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.
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:
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:
And examples of lies:
Full article here:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_michael__080412_the_mission_to_crack.htm
April 15th, 2008 at 6:30 am
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….
April 15th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Craig,
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.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
funny how stuff goes through on lower threads
April 15th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
http://web.archive.org/web/20010914225345/http://boston.com/news/daily/13/victims_list.htm#aa11
http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/images/aa_flight_11_manifest.gif
eighth try
April 15th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
“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
//web.archive.org/web/20010914225345/http://boston.com/news/daily/13/victims_list.htm#aa11
//graphics.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/images/aa_flight_11_manifest.gif
April 15th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
shcb,
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.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:08 am
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.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:32 am
‘elected leaders’
looking through the lens of the ‘00 election, there is just so much (rwnj) wrong packed into those two words…
April 16th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Because you are submitting to authority rather than rationality.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:44 am
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:
The rest here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-robbins/addressing-the-national-a_b_96836.html
April 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
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
etc.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
shcb,
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.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
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
April 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
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.
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.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
shcb,
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.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
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.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
so if no official list has been reliesed, how do you know the names of the hijackers aren’t on them?
April 16th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
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
April 16th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
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.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
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.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
This is also pretty good work by Aiden Monaghan: www . 911blogger.com/node/14081
April 17th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
From page 1 of the 911 commission report
From page 2
Also from page 2
From page 2 and 3
More from page 3
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.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
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
April 17th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
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:
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html
April 18th, 2008 at 12:18 am
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:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_michael__080412_the_mission_to_crack.htm
Here is a prime example of your Administration’s calculated 911 LIES:
Much more on that, including Rove et al attempts to rewrite this sad history is here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8555
April 18th, 2008 at 4:48 am
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.
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20060904_132517_132517
April 18th, 2008 at 9:05 am
shcb,
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
April 18th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
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.
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?
April 18th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
good enough, not god enough
April 18th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
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.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
shcb,
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:
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:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm
April 18th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
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.
April 20th, 2008 at 5:58 am
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.
So let’s look at this quote:
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.
April 20th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
shcb,
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 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.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:36 am
Knarly,
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.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:36 am
shcb,
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:
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:
You may contact Mr. Gage or his associates here, for your “debate”:
http://www.ae911truth.org/
April 21st, 2008 at 11:38 am
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:
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.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
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 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.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
shcb,
And tell us again, why do you support these incompetent clowns?
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1052
April 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
… and I wasn’t just talking about this part:
April 21st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
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?
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)
April 21st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
OMG, you support that hypocritical tripe?! Can you understand this part of it at least?
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.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
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
April 21st, 2008 at 6:49 pm
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. www.bentham.org
2. www.ae011truth.org
3. 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.
April 22nd, 2008 at 4:25 am
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.
April 22nd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
shcb,
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.
April 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
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).
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
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.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Enk,
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.
shcb,
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?
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 am
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.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:52 am
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.
QUESTION
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.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
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.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
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.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
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
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
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:
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
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…
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
shcb,
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.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Knarly,
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.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:06 am
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!
bullshit
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.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:46 am
but that is my question, was the Supreme Court decision right or wrong in your opinion. if it was wrong, please explain why.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:49 am
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.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Enk,
I hope so, but those chickens haven’t hatched yet and there are a lot of omelettes to make before November.
shcb,
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.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:52 am
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.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
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.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:02 am
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?
April 25th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
shcb,
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.
Cheers.
April 26th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Knarly,
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.
April 26th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
shcb,
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?
April 26th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
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.
April 26th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Knarly,
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.
Enky,
“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?
April 28th, 2008 at 4:33 am
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000
April 28th, 2008 at 8:30 am
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!)
April 28th, 2008 at 10:19 am
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,
or,
The Republican,
well, everyone has the right to not vote, count that as a no vote.
So much fun.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:39 am
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…
easy!
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
;-)
April 28th, 2008 at 10:51 am
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.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am
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.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
from wiki
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
April 29th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
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.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
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.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
shcb,
Re: your post:
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:
From: 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.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
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 discussi