February 4, 2008

"I hope this gets you fired, you're obviously stupid.... There's plenty of proof 9/11 was an inside job. Try reading, if you know how.....lololol."

I've got a feeling conspiracy theorists are out to get me.

126 comments:

fstopfitzgerald said...

You know, just because the 9/11 truthers are obvious crackpots doesn't mean that anybody who believes the official Bush administration narrative on 9/11 isn't a major dupe.

Bob said...

Is it possible that you're making a mistake by allowing them a voice on your blog? Won't it just encourage them?

Fen said...

Geez, their flames are as weak as their logic. Try reading if you know how...lololol? Is it September already?

Simon said...

I'm sorry that you have to put up with these people.

joated said...

Forget more prisons, we need more mental institutions in this country. These truthers are in need of help.

Synova said...

What is the "official Bush administration narrative on 9/11" and what is wrong with it?

I think I know the answer to that, but if I'm wrong I'd like to know. What part of the "narrative" put out by the Bush administration is wrong?

It is not open-minded and thoughtful to allow an unarticulated possibility in order to seem open-minded and thoughtful.

The "narrative" is very simple. Bin Laden, who formally declared war on the United States some years previous, was behind an effort where a group of men in a coordinated effort, hijacked planes to fly them into targets in America. Two of those planes hit the world trade center (to cripple our economy) one hit the Pentagon and the fourth, believed to be meant for government buildings in DC or the White House, was crashed by passengers who'd heard news of the World Trade center crashes, into an empty field.

The engineering facts as to why the world trade center buildings fell and how they fell are not mysterious. Nothing about the physical reality at the Pentagon is mysterious. The remains of the plane in the field are consistent with the remains of a plane that nose dives and are not mysterious.

Further, nothing whatsoever about those physical facts is anything like an "official Bush administration narrative." And if you think that the Bush administration has been successful *ever* at putting a story out that they want put out then... well... that sort of qualifies as "crackpot" too.

aidan said...

The "...lololol" is really irritating. I have no idea why, it just is incredibly annoying, just to look at. I wonder if that is why people do it all the time. It definitely doesn't help the argument, it just makes me want it to end.

John Stodder said...

"Try reading?"

The evidence clearly points to a particular dormant commenter here whose main comeback when challenged was to suggest you should "READ A BOOK."

As I recall, he was also a serial lololol abuser.

Pogo said...

.....lololol.""
When my retarded brother moved to a group home, there was a young boy there who made that noise rather continuously.
Lololololol.
Lolololololololol.
Cough.
Sputter.
Lololololol.

And now he's sending stalking e-mails.
How nice of the state to arrange for computer training for the developmentally disabled.

But Ann, watch for Kevin Barrett and Pedro Oliveira Jr. walking together down the street, carrying the numerous jockstraps they've managed to swipe from local locker rooms over the years.
Sorry.
Supporters.
Hundreds of supporters.

But God, the smell, though.
How do they stand it?

Roger said...

Professor A: you might try not responding to them (of course, that will confirm the conspiracy--but these woof doofs are beyond help anyway).

TROBlog said...

Actually, yes, if you don't believe the "official Bush administration narrative on 9/11" then you are indeed a dupe.

Especially since there is no such thing and if you believe there is then you are a double-dupe.

MadisonMan said...

The "...lololol" is really irritating.

It's 'cause they're laughing out loud in an echo chamber.

MadisonMan said...

It's a pity, by the way, that the email didn't include and You, a law professor!

fstopfitzgerald said...

Synova said:

And if you think that the Bush administration has been successful *ever* at putting a story out that they want put out then...
9:46 AM


Wow, that's just hilariously funny.

Apparently, you missed the whole memo about how we needed to invade Iraq because Sadam was about to nuke us.

Earth to Synova:

The Bush administration is the biggest bunch of lying bastards in American history.

I'll say it again -- just because the 9/11 truthers are obvious crackpots does not for a second mean that we have been told anything resembling the truth about what actually happened that day and why.

MadisonMan said...

Apparently, you missed the whole memo about how we needed to invade Iraq because Sadam was about to nuke us.

You made his point for him. This mushroom cloud thing was proven false.

PoNyman said...

lolol is the code used for laughing within an echo chamber.
"Laugh out loud....out loud....out loud"

PoNyman said...

Dang it, stupid blogger ids. madisonman beat me to the comment. I don't comment enough to remember my login.

fstopfitzgerald said...

MadisonMan said...

Apparently, you missed the whole memo about how we needed to invade Iraq because Sadam was about to nuke us.

You made his point for him. This mushroom cloud thing was proven false.


It wasn't proven false until long after Bush ginned up the bogus war. Therefore it was successful.

And in any case, far too many people still believe it was true.

Thus proving, as does your comment, that stupidity is contagious...

Hoosier Daddy said...

just because the 9/11 truthers are obvious crackpots does not for a second mean that we have been told anything resembling the truth about what actually happened that day and why.

Considering that the Bush Administration has shown nothing but complete ineptitude on keeping a single shred of classified info from being leaked to the NY Times, I find it amazing you want to give them so much credit for 'hiding the truth' about 9/11.

So if you don't buy the truther argument, what do you think happened on that day? As for the why, why not look at bin Laden's declaration of war on the US? Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Balfegor said...

It wasn't proven false until long after Bush ginned up the bogus war. Therefore it was successful.

I'm not quite sure what MadisonMan was referring to, but I think he was saying that the "Bush threatened mushroom clouds" thing was proven false.

In that connection, it is worth noting that Bush heavily implied, in his public statements, that the threat from Saddam was not imminent, because if it were imminent it would be too late:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

Just to make sure we're all on the same page here, Bush is saying that he does not agree with the people who think we need to wait until the threat is imminent. Quite the contrary, he thinks we need to strike before conditions have a chance to metastasize into active and immediate threats.

Elliott A said...

Prof. Althouse- When someone is clearly irrational in our office, we invite them to leave and not come back. In a lot of ways this little corner of cyberspace is your office. Invite them to leave and not come back. Request all of the commenters ignore any posts by these folks and refuse to discuss the topic. Eventually, they will give up. Too bad we can't throw them in Cyberjail. At least in a courtroom a judge has the ability to definitively handle miscreants such as these.

MadisonMan said...

far too many people still believe it was true.

Yes, well people do believe just about anything, no matter how far-fetched.

Tibore said...

The storm will blow over eventually. In the meanwhile, take the number of emails you're getting and divide by at least 3; that's roughly how many sock puppets some of these folks end up running. That'll give you a count of how many people are actually involved in this.

On top of that, many of these people are sheep; they're simply responding to that Prison Planet article where Barrett posted the text of your emails to him. He in turn posted your email address, plus the addresses of others around the Madison area (like the university provost, if I'm reading that email address correctly). Once they get that out of their system, they'll find another target for their ire. Maybe Bill Clinton will say something again, or they'll try to take on one of the Presidential candidates and get slapped down. Either way, it's a storm to weather, that's true, but it'll blow over eventually. Just give it time.

Elliott A said...

Balfegor- Thanks for the sensible comments. The Bush haters would need the terrorists in their living room before they believed there was a threat to our security. In a way they are 9/11 deniers since they fail to see the connection between 9/11 and the ongoing terrorist threat we face; they just don't believe these folks want to hurt us if we leave them alone.

fstopfitzgerald said...

So if you don't buy the truther argument, what do you think happened on that day? As for the why, why not look at bin Laden's declaration of war on the US? Seems pretty clear cut to me.

9/11 happened either because of the incompetence of the Bush administration or in some way by their design. When we authoratively know which, get back to me.

Bush is saying that he does not agree with the people who think we need to wait until the threat is imminent. Quite the contrary, he thinks we need to strike before conditions have a chance to metastasize into active and immediate threats.

So what? He still frightened the American people into accepting an unneccessary war. It's called bullshit, and it was depressingly successful.

So when Synova says "And if you think that the Bush administration has been successful *ever* at putting a story out that they want put out then..." the only rational response is a resounding horselaugh.

AllenS said...

Lololololol

That's an internet crackpot's attempt at yodeling. Try it out loud (if you're not at work).

radar said...

fstopfitzgerald: "Apparently, you missed the whole memo about how we needed to invade Iraq because Sadam was about to nuke us."

This is a common misrepresentation of the 'Bush Doctrine'. From his 2003 State of the Union speech:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."


Bush was not claiming that Iraq was an imminent threat. He was claiming that if we wait until someone like Saddam is an 'imminent' threat, we have waited too long.

You may disagree with the doctrine but pointing out that the threat wasn't 'imminent' is not a counter argument.

fstopfitzgerald said...


This is a common misrepresentation of the 'Bush Doctrine'. From his 2003 State of the Union speech:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."


Bush was not claiming that Iraq was an imminent threat. He was claiming that if we wait until someone like Saddam is an 'imminent' threat, we have waited too long.

You may disagree with the doctrine but pointing out that the threat wasn't 'imminent' is not a counter argument.


Not a counter argument to what?

Bush used a non-existent threat to scare the country into war.

Is there anything bogus about the Bush administration you can't rationalize?

Balfegor said...

Not a counter argument to what?

To, uh, what you said like five minutes ago in this very thread:

Apparently, you missed the whole memo about how we needed to invade Iraq because Sadam was about to nuke us.

We're pointing out that this is a pretty flagrant rewriting of history.

fstopfitzgerald said...


We're pointing out that this is a pretty flagrant rewriting of history.


No, you're trying to weasel out of the clear implications of what Bush actually said and what he meant to do by saying it.

radar said...

fstopfitzgerald: "Not a counter argument to what?"

You suggested that it was argued that we needed to invade Iraq because they were about to nuke us.

But that wasn't the argument. The argument was that we need to invade Iraq *before* it gets to the point that they are 'about' to nuke us.

So for you to point out the lack of an imminent threat is to argue against your own fictitious doctrine. It makes you look uninformed and careless in your reasoning.

MadisonMan said...

you're trying to weasel out of the clear implications of what Bush actually said and what he meant to do by saying it.

Actually, he's telling you that his interpretation of what Bush says differs from your interpretation.

I could insert a sentence like Reasonable People can disagree here, but that presumes too much.

radar said...

No, you're trying to weasel out of the clear implications of what Bush actually said and what he meant to do by saying it.

Some of us actually agree with the Bush Doctrine and think that there were several good arguments for tossing out Saddam and bootstrapping a democratic republic. No weaseling at all.

fstopfitzgerald said...

Hoosier Daddy said...

Considering that the Bush Administration has shown nothing but complete ineptitude on keeping a single shred of classified info from being leaked to the NY Times... 9/11.


A single shred? That's another horselaugh.

Sorry...if you think we have even the slightest idea about what horrors the Bush administration has perpetrated in secret and in our names, then I have some bridgefront property in Brooklyn that I'd like to interest you in...

fstopfitzgerald said...

So for you to point out the lack of an imminent threat is to argue against your own fictitious doctrine. It makes you look uninformed and careless in your reasoning.

You could say that, but only if you're really dumb or deliberately disingenuous.

I'm voting the latter, but around here you never know.

knoxwhirled said...

the Bush Administration has shown nothing but complete ineptitude on keeping a single shred of classified info from being leaked to the NY Times

...or to Sandy Berger.

knoxwhirled said...

fstop, you don't seem to realize that you're arguing in circles. You're embarrassing yourself.

Hoosier Daddy said...

9/11 happened either because of the incompetence of the Bush administration or in some way by their design.

'or in some way by design' sounds a like like the 'inside job argument' that the truthers are spouting.

So in your original post you call the truthers 'obvious crackpots' and then you basically agree with thier premise.

Stop and think about your rationale for a second. Either the Bush administration is a bungling oaf which could not prevent 17 Islamofasicsts from killing 3000 people or is a evil genius who managed to pull off the biggest attack on American soil since the Civil War without leaving any tangible evidence or leaks of anyone involved.

Seems to be a pretty wide margin of possibilities doesn't it?

fstopfitzgerald said...

radar said...

You suggested that it was argued that we needed to invade Iraq because they were about to nuke us.

But that wasn't the argument. The argument was that we need to invade Iraq *before* it gets to the point that they are 'about' to nuke us.


So even a non-existent threat is a threat.

That's some catch, that Catch-22.

You guys deserve the Bush administration.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Sorry...if you think we have even the slightest idea about what horrors the Bush administration has perpetrated in secret and in our names, then I have some bridgefront property in Brooklyn that I'd like to interest you in...

Yes I am certain that you have intimate knowledge of what those horrors are.

Thanks for the comments but you're sounding a lot like a former ranting Bush hater who lurked around here

fstopfitzgerald said...

Either the Bush administration is a bungling oaf which could not prevent 17 Islamofasicsts from killing 3000 people or is a evil genius who managed to pull off the biggest attack on American soil since the Civil War without leaving any tangible evidence or leaks of anyone involved.


What I'm suggesting is that they knew it or something like was about to happen and did nothing to try and prevent it because such a calamity served their larger geo-strategical goals.

For some reason, that very credible possibility gets short shrift around here. I wonder why.

Elliott A said...

Bush clearly meant to take out Sadddam. He had the potential to be a threat. The disaster of the aftermath has colored people's opinions of the need in the first place. Rarely mentioned is that Qadaffi, after witnessing what we did to Saddam, transparently dismantled his nuclear program and has been a good citizen ever since. He has even provided substantial amounts of his oil cash to various projects in greater Africa.

In the modern age, where advanced technology shrinks the world and a few crazies can kill many, many people, a zero tolerance policy is not irrational. It is debatable as being either effective or necessary, but not as a concocted threat by a president with delusions. What will our respnse have to be if they kill 100000 next time? Should we take any risk that might allow that to happen? I can imagine the bloodlust in this country if it did. All the Islamic world would become glowing glass. What other means of protecting ourselves would we have? Clearly not the scenario to follow if you want the most elegant and enlightened solution to the terrorist threat.

Der Hahn said...

What I'm suggesting is that they knew it or something like was about to happen and did nothing to try and prevent it because such a calamity served their larger geo-strategical goals.

Just wondering, in what way does this not describe the Clinton Administration's failure to prevent the 1993 WTC Bombing and subsequent treatment of the attack as a 'law enforcement matter'?

Roger said...

That anyone could believe the government was aware of 9/11--or a similar catastrophe--and let it happen (LIOHP
Thoery) to further some set of goals absolutely boggles my mind. Unfortunately we have evidence right on this very thread. Scary, indeed.

Hoosier Daddy said...

What I'm suggesting is that they knew it or something like was about to happen and did nothing to try and prevent it because such a calamity served their larger geo-strategical goals.

Well the most oft touted proof that Bush 'knew an attack was coming' was the NSA report saying 'bin Laden determined to strike the US' which of course narrows it down to a couple million targets.

Then again your theory was also the same one a lot of people used on FDR in that he knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor yet, nothing was done to put the military on alert status. In the end we lost a good chunk of our Pacific Fleet but it got us in WW2 which was FDRs main goal. Just as an FYI, that theory has been debunked pretty much like the 9/11 inside job/collusion has been as well.

I'm not a fan of Bush either but I'm not in the habit of attributing blame with no proof either.

John Kindley said...

The first time I heard the explanation that the towers likely collapsed as a result of the steel girders partially melting due to the extreme heat of burning jet fuel was on the morning of 9/11. The theory was suggested by my expert witness, Joel Brind, a biology and endocrinology professor at CUNY, in a trial I was litigating that was scheduled to begin that very morning. The trial was of course postponed, and Brind suggested this explanation as we watched events unfold on a TV the judge had set up in a small courthouse conference room, in close and rather awkward proximity with the defendant and the defendant's attorneys. (Of course, any feeling of awkwardness was subsumed by the shock of what we were seeing.)

Now, what we and my expert witness were proposing to demonstrate in this false advertising trial was that, contrary to the defendant's commercial brochures, there IS evidence of a causal relationship between induced abortion and increased breast cancer risk. (In fact, a substantial preponderance of the available peer-reviewed evidence suggests such a link.) The defendant was using a commercial brochure that, among other false statements, quoted a National Cancer Institute "fact" sheet as saying "there is no evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and either induced or spontaneous abortion." (And the quote, astoundingly, was accurate, although it had come from an outdated NCI "fact" sheet, and although the most current NCI "fact" sheet available to the defendants, though still highly misleading, had removed and corrected this particularly obvious falsehood. In any event, the quoted statement was as false at the time the NCI made it as it was at the time of trial.)

The moral of the story is that the government does lie, and will lie through its teeth when it serves its interests. Moreover, supposedly independent experts, who rely on government funding to support their research, will support and defend the government's lies when their professional lives depend upon it. When we eventually had the trial months later, the defendant's experts (hired by the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy), including one from Yale, explicitly testified to the absurd lie that in fact there is "no evidence" of a causal relationship between induced abortion and increased breast cancer risk. I was able to demonstrate (it wasn't hard) on cross-examination their self-contradictions, prevarications, and willful ignorances. (You can find our appellate briefs, which cite the trial transcript extensively, by searching for "Kjolsrud v. MKB Management" on the North Dakota Supreme Court website. The frustration of losing on appeal, as a result of the Court's unprincipled and results-oriented reversal of prior precedent, was enough to turn anyone into an anti-government radical. I for the most part sheepishly accepted government authority and legitimacy before that.)

I've not been motivated to examine the evidential claims of the 9/11 Truthers, because I already know that the government at all levels is corrupt and does not have the interests of those it purports to represent at heart. One only needs to watch the news to know that. Although I've not been motivated to examine the Truthers claims at all, in the absence of an opportunity to personally examine these kinds of claims for myself I tend to keep an open mind. I'm not inclined to simply believe that our government would "never do" such a thing of this nature. After all, in the case of the abortion-breast cancer link they've actively suppressed important information, the ignorance of which has undoubtedly cost many women their lives. (Though the idea that the government could successfully pull off the operation the Truthers attribute to them without exposure strikes me as highly unlikely. Moreover, while I'm very ready to believe our government would do something just as evil as the 9/11 attacks to another country's people, I just don't think they'd have the guts to do it to their own subjects, even if they were itching for war and war's blessings.)

Simon said...

fstopfitzgerald said...
"For some reason, that very credible possibility gets short shrift around here. I wonder why."

Because it isn't credible. You blithely say that they knew 9/11 "or something like it" was "about to happen" without acknowledging that between 9/11 vs. "something like 9/11 that may happen sometime" is a gulf of possibilities. You come across like the people who fret about the August PDB without acknowledging its lack of specificity - what action ought they have taken in advance based on what information they had? That's something that's never explained by those who urge that the administration knew in advance. Knowing that Al Queda wants to strike in the U.S. - even that they are determined to strike - is not by itself actionable intel. Even if they'd known the target, they'd still not have known when, how, or by whom.

fstopfitzgerald said...


Then again your theory was also the same one a lot of people used on FDR in that he knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor yet, nothing was done to put the military on alert status. In the end we lost a good chunk of our Pacific Fleet but it got us in WW2 which was FDRs main goal. Just as an FYI, that theory has been debunked pretty much like the 9/11 inside job/collusion has been as well.


Well, there's the problem that in the case of 9/11 it certainly hasn't been debunked. You know, that whole pesky PNAC manifesto calling for a Pearl Harbor style calamity as a justification for an attack on Iraq.

Funny, I can't recall a bunch of people advocating an attack on Japan before December 7th later getting jobs in the Roosevelt administration.

Roger said...

John Kindley: agree entirely the governments lie to their constituents--thus it has always been so. The only thing I found of interest was that a biology and endocrimology expert some how is an expert on strength of materials and how the modulus of elasticity of steel is affected by high heat. I don't believe he would qualify as an expert witness with respect to the collapse of the WTC.

cold pizza said...

"Come on down to Annie Alt's house of Fresh Picked Crazy. You can hear the echoing LOLOLOL of the nut headed loon as they swim in increasingly erractic circles. Mad skilz paranoia on display coupled with the wisdom and experience of late adolescence."

f-stoop is proof positive that a little knowledge is dangerous (emphasis on "little"). Normally I wouldn’t be one to feed trolls either, but sometimes you just got to make fun of the guy wearing panties on his head. Mote meet beam and all that.

What a putz. -cp

Original Mike said...

No, you're trying to weasel out of the clear implications of what Bush actually said and what he meant to do by saying it.

One of the funniest things I've seen on television was a Sunday morning interview of Jay Rockefeller, then ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, by Brit Hume. Rockefeller claimed that the reason he voted for the Iraq War Resolution was because Bush, in his 2003 SOTU address, said that the threat from Iraq was imminent. But Senator, Hume replied, Bush specifically stated in the address that the threat was not imminent and he played a video clip of the passage Radar cites. But we all knew, Rockefeller said, that when Bush said it was not imminent, that what he was really saying was the threat was imminent. With a smirk on his face, Hume came back with, But Senator, your vote for the Iraq resolution came in Oct 2002, 3 months before the 2003 SOTU address.

It made me lololol ...

MadisonMan said...

there's the problem that in the case of 9/11 it certainly hasn't been debunked.

This is the crux of the issue. In your mind, it hasn't. But to many it has.

I'm curiously if you could ever be satisfied with explanations -- or are they forever tainted because of taint from the government.

Synova said...

"9/11 happened either because of the incompetence of the Bush administration or in some way by their design. When we authoratively know which, get back to me."

No, sorry.

When YOU can authoritatively or even *rationally* explain what really happened then YOU get back to US.

Truthers figure they're off the hook for providing anything at all other than questions. Sorry dudes.

fstopfitzgerald said...


I'm curiously if you could ever be satisfied with explanations -- or are they forever tainted because of taint from the government.


If by "from the government" you mean the self-serving, secrecy obsessed lying criminal bastards who comprise the Bush administration, the answer is no.

Nothing they say about anything connected with 9/11 or the Iraq war is even remotely credible.

Synova said...

"Apparently, you missed the whole memo about how we needed to invade Iraq because Sadam was about to nuke us."

I realize others already answered this.

But, yes, I *did* miss that memo.

And no matter how carefully Bush tried to control the "narrative" on that issue, he failed.

Which was my point. Thank you.

fstopfitzgerald said...

Synova said:

And no matter how carefully Bush tried to control the "narrative" on that issue, he failed.

Which was my point. Thank you.


No he didn't. He got (and continues to get) his bogus war, largely because people thought (and still think) Saddam was going to nuke us.

Bush succeeded. On every level.

You're embarassing the crap out of yourself by denying this obvious truth.

Synova said...

Who would you believe, Fitz?

Who is not "tainted" by the government?

No one.

You will believe what you prefer to believe. Probably because it makes you feel smarter than other people, like those administration lick-spittles at Popular Mechanics.

But a person doesn't have to trust government or even to believe somehow that they wouldn't blow up 3000k people for no good reason to recognize that the simplest explanation is almost always the correct one and the extreme convolutions necessary to explain how the "inside job" was carried out are laughable.

fstopfitzgerald said...


Blogger Synova said...

But a person doesn't have to trust government or even to believe somehow that they wouldn't blow up 3000k people for no good reason to recognize that the simplest explanation is almost always the correct one and the extreme convolutions necessary to explain how the "inside job" was carried out are laughable.


There's an enormous difference between an inside job and simply lying back and letting it happen.

You know that, which is why you continually fail to mention it as a possibility.

Synova said...

Considering that Saddam was trying to appear more threatening than he really was and considering that no one *paying attention* thought he actually had a nuke ready to go...

Why am I the one embarrassed?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Funny, I can't recall a bunch of people advocating an attack on Japan before December 7th later getting jobs in the Roosevelt administration.

Funny cause I don't recall a bunch of people advocating an attack on Iraq prior to 9/11 either.

Again, some proof that Bush knew and did nothnig would be a start. Simply stating so based upon your dislike of the man doesn't cut it. I can make a claim that Clinton had actionable intelligence that 9/11 was going to take place and instead had it hidden cause he was pissed off that Gore lost the election and wanted to punish Bush. That has about as much plausibility as your assertations when you come down to it.

Synova said...

Those embarrassed should be the ones who continue to claim that Bush said Saddam was about to Nuke us, which is clearly false.

fstopfitzgerald said...

Hoosier Daddy said...

Funny, I can't recall a bunch of people advocating an attack on Japan before December 7th later getting jobs in the Roosevelt administration.

Funny cause I don't recall a bunch of people advocating an attack on Iraq prior to 9/11 either.


See, now you're just lying.

The PNAC Manifesto. Look into it.

Synova said...

"Funny cause I don't recall a bunch of people advocating an attack on Iraq prior to 9/11 either."

Though they maybe should have been.

What Japan didn't have was a war with the US ten years prior to Pearl Harbor. We knew that Japan was aggressive, but we weren't involved.

RMc said...

Fstop wants to blame Bush for 9/11, but he doesn't want to cop to that (nor join the ranks of the truther crowd) and so uses weasal words "in some way by their design."

Which means he's using the INSIDE JOB! trope, but doesn't want to admit it. Oh, and everyone who disagrees with him is crazy, stupid or a willing dupe of "the biggest bunch of lying bastards in American history."

More than Clinton? More than Nixon? What are you, twelve?

Hoosier Daddy said...

There's an enormous difference between an inside job and simply lying back and letting it happen.

You mean like the WTC in 1993, Khobar towers, the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya? Or the USS Cole?

Some might argue that the former President simply 'lied back and let those happen too.'

Again, when someone leaks the memo, report or magic mirror that told Bush that 17 Islamofascists were going to hijack 4 planes and crash them into the WTC, Pentagon and the White House on September 11, 2001 then I'll believe you. Until then, I'll assume we were just following the same national security policies from the previous President.

Synova said...

Desert Storm and our ongoing issues with Iraq existed. We were hated in the world for being so cruel as to insist that sanctions be enforced and were specifically charged with directly causing the deaths of 650,000 or so Iraqi children. The deaths of those children were part of Bin Laden's call to arms. Thus, directly linking the situation in Iraq to Bin Laden even if no one really believed he gave a rat's *ss about Iraqi children.

Nothing whatsoever similar to that situation existed between the United States and Japan.

Tibore said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simon said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
"Funny cause I don't recall a bunch of people advocating an attack on Iraq prior to 9/11 either."

Regime change had been the policy of the U.S. since the 1990s, and there were indeed people advocating liberating Iraq prior to 9/11 - I was one of them, and the Project for the New American Century did sterling work getting it onto the policy radar.

fstopfitzgerald said...
"Well, there's the problem that in the case of 9/11 it certainly hasn't been debunked."

It's been comprehensively and repeatedly debunked, the effort of which was entirely unnecessary since the conspiracy theory revolves around untenable assumptions, misunderstandings and a veritable army of strawmen from the outset.

Personally, I think the only reason so many people buy into the conspiracy theory is that it gets them off the hook: after Atkins they can cite believing in the conspiracy to avoid the death penalty.

Tibore said...

"You know, that whole pesky PNAC manifesto calling for a Pearl Harbor style calamity as a justification for an attack on Iraq."

Oh, Lord, why do LIHOP'ers always jump from plain-jane LIHOP to PNAC in around 10 posts or so, no matter what forum they're in?

Link: 9/11 Myths - The New Pearl Harbor

fstopfitzgerald said...

Keep pretending the neo-cons in the current administration didn't sign onto to the PNAC manifesto.

Specifically advocating an invasion of Iraq, and tut-tutting about the fact that a Pearl Harbor style calamity would be necessary to sell it to the American public.


Really -- keep pretending. It so enhances your credibility.

Roger said...

It does no good to reason with a truther: they have created a totally closed system and anything cited from outside that system will be used to confirm their lunacy. Anything said is confirmatory. In reality it is pig wrestling. You get dirty and the pig enjoys it. Even on the moonbat sites like Democraticunderground, the truthers are in the minority and when you can convince a majority of your fellow moonbats, you know you have trouble!

Now: we DO know that the reason why people routinely disappear is because the earth is really flat, and those people have fallen off the edge.

Roger said...

fortunately for all of us on Althouse, the NSA and its PNAC masters have now traced Fstop's IP and even as we speak the black heliccopters are on their way to silence him. Sic semper idioti.

Synova said...

Yeah, that's why they rigged the world trade center with explosives that no one noticed and then flew planes into them just to be redundant and THEN blamed it on Bin Laden and attacked Afghanistan.

Because they were looking for an excuse to attack Iraq.

See... it makes perfect sense.

Because blowing up 3000k people in an elaborate rube-goldberg and figuring a way to blame Saddam and directly attack Iraq in 2001 is just *silly*.

fstopfitzgerald said...

Simon said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
"Funny cause I don't recall a bunch of people advocating an attack on Iraq prior to 9/11 either."

Regime change had been the policy of the U.S. since the 1990s, and there were indeed people advocating liberating Iraq prior to 9/11 - I was one of them, and the Project for the New American Century did sterling work getting it onto the policy radar.


Thank you. I rest my case.

fstopfitzgerald said...

Synova said...

Yeah, that's why they rigged the world trade center with explosives that no one noticed and then flew planes into them just to be redundant and THEN blamed it on Bin Laden and attacked Afghanistan.


I did not remotely even suggest that, which of course you know.

Keep being dishonest -- it's the only thing you're good at, apparently.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Regime change had been the policy of the U.S. since the 1990s, and there were indeed people advocating liberating Iraq prior to 9/11 - I was one of them, and the Project for the New American Century did sterling work getting it onto the policy radar.

I guess I must have slept during the first 8 months of the Bush administration when he was building his case for war. I seem to recall main efforts in trying to jump start the fledgling economy and something about getting China to release our Navy survellience crew.

I don't mean to sound sarcastic Simon, I'm sure there were people who advocated war in Iraq. I'm simply not buying the theory that Bush turned a blind eye to 9/11 to further his ambitions in Iraq.

Elliott A said...

9/11 happened because of the imcompetence of the Clinton administration and the congress if there was "official fault". Failure to strongly respond to several terror attacks, failure to take Bin Laden's head on a silver platter, eviscerated intelligence capability, etc. Bush barely had his feet wet on 9/11. Bush just wasn't/isn't enough of a career politician or intellectual to possibly think up a strategy of passively inviting an attack on the US in order to go to war in Iraq. Don't give him that much credit. He really didn't even want the job. The attacks were the result of a generalized failure to identify and accept the seriousness of the terrorist threat and the unwillingness of the government to properly do its job. McCain was fighting for secure and universal emergency communications ten years ago. Finally in one more year we will have the frequencies available to operate the system. What held it up? The Dems felt it was an undue burden on folks without cable tv to buy a $40 set top box. The Republicans didn't feel it important enough to force the issue. More important than giving emergency personnel the opportunity to communicate. (Can You say Katrina?) It really helped the poor in New Orleans! The congress treated the entire defense of the country this way in the 90s. Even Republicans.

radar said...

fstopfitzgerald: Clearly you feel strongly about these issues. Do you not understand that your method of argument completely discredits you?

You postulate a conspiracy and then insist that those who disagree must bear the burden of proving the conspiracy doesn't exist. But it isn't possible to prove a negative. Read up on Russel's Teapot.

Synova said...

"I did not remotely even suggest that,..."

You don't think about what you're suggesting.

That's a Truther trait. To make suggestions without actually having to show how they apply to anything rational.

You had presented the theory that PNAC was calling for a new Pearl Harbor in order to attack Iraq.

"Specifically advocating an invasion of Iraq, and tut-tutting about the fact that a Pearl Harbor style calamity would be necessary to sell it to the American public."

But what happened was a "Pearl Harbor" style calamity that resulted in attacking Afghanistan. Which I pointed out.

You know, if you'd think things through and make sure they related properly to other things you have said rather than expecting them to stand as unrelated fragments you wouldn't end up trying to argue stuff that becomes ridiculous when put into the larger context.

fstopfitzgerald said...

radar said...

fstopfitzgerald: Clearly you feel strongly about these issues. Do you not understand that your method of argument completely discredits you?


If memory serves, somebody other than me posted this a few moments ago.

Bush is saying that he does not agree with the people who think we need to wait until the threat is imminent. Quite the contrary, he thinks we need to strike before conditions have a chance to metastasize into active and immediate threats.

In other words, a non-existent threat is actually an existent threat.

So Bush got us into war by raising the specter of a non-existent threat that was actually an existent threat.

But you can't say that he raised the specter of an existent threat, because he only specifically said Saddam was a non-existent threat (that was actually an existent one).

Somehow, I don't think it's my style of argument that's self-discrediting.

Synova said...

Or were you claiming that the administration narrative is correct? That 9-11 was the doings of Bin Laden and men who looked to him? And that they were in Afghanistan which was an utter hell-hole, as the guests of the Taliban.

And then Bush and his decided that failing to do something about the situation in Iraq was unacceptable and the opportunity to do so shouldn't be passed up.

Gawd, Fitz, you just swallow those administration lied wholesale don't you.

fstopfitzgerald said...

Synova said...

"Specifically advocating an invasion of Iraq, and tut-tutting about the fact that a Pearl Harbor style calamity would be necessary to sell it to the American public."

But what happened was a "Pearl Harbor" style calamity that resulted in attacking Afghanistan. Which I pointed out.


So now you're suggesting we didn't invade Iraq becaue of 9/11?

Now we've completely entered Crazytown.

Simon said...

fstopfitzgerald said...
"Keep pretending the neo-cons in the current administration didn't sign onto to the PNAC manifesto."

Some of them did. What of it?

Synova said...

In other words "existant" is exactly the same as "imminent" and "immediate."

A non-immediate threat is no threat at all?

Is this why you insist that he was claiming Saddam had a nuke all ready to go? Because you think "some time in the future he has the intention" only means "he's got a bomb ready to go?"

I'm sure he didn't have chemical weapons until the morning they materialized in Kurdish villages either.

Simon said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
"I'm sure there were people who advocated war in Iraq. I'm simply not buying the theory that Bush turned a blind eye to 9/11 to further his ambitions in Iraq."

Oh, I don't disagree with that. I don't think there's any credible case to be made connecting the desire to liberate Iraq to either Bush or to the administration's conduct - none of the people who were in positions of authority vis-a-vis the intelligence community were PNAC supporters anyway.

Roger said...

Syn: the code phrase is "in other words...." They just take their narrative in replace yours with their narrative and demostrate you are wrong! One can only hope the truthers have not been permitted to breed. Where is Margaret Sanger when we really need her.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Somehow, I don't think it's my style of argument that's self-discrediting.

Well until you can actually point to the document, video or audio tape in which shows that Bush knew the 9/11 attacks were going to take place and cognitively did nothing to prevent it then yes, your argument is self discrediting. At best its an opinion and like a certain body orifice, everyone has one.

Sigivald said...

Sweet Zombie Jesus, a PNAC-er.

The mental leap from "it would take a Pearl Harbor-level attack to get the US to take action" to "we, the evil bastards at PNAC, want such an attack and will sneakily plot one" is... words fail at describing it in an appropriately non-obscene manner.

Let's also not forget the irrationality of "Bush/PNAC/etc are so evil that they'll either do 9/11 or deliberately let it happen... but will then throw a lot of it away by not planting a few WMDs in Iraq.

Because, you know, they're randomly incompetent vs. super-competent, and because while they're willing to murder thousands of americans they're not willing to plant some fake nukes - or they're able to generate a sufficiently watertight conspiracy to allow or create the attacks, but too incompetent to conspire to plant WMDs without it getting out.

The mental gynmastics required for such a worldview are beyond my capability to follow.

(And if you wish to claim that The Official Narrative was that "We got to invade or else Saddam nukes us!", you might want to re-read what they actually said, rather than your third-hand paraphrases of what someone else said Fox was reporting.

And a "non-existent threat" of nukes in the future? So the interviews with Hussein and all the data about his mothballed nuclear program and desire to restart it the moment he could is all lies too?

Even if we assume he's not stupid/crazy enough to particularly want to attack the US, we know damn well he was scared of the Iran army and their nuclear program, and that his own would be the best deterrent.

The biggest reason the US intelligence agencies were wrong about WMDs was that he was deliberately generating the impression that Iraq still had them to keep Iran from doing anythin.

Somehow this becomes Bush being either incompetent or a liar!)

Synova said...

Crazytown is suggesting that in order to create an excuse to attack Iraq we needed a side trip to Afghanistan.

Put the pieces together and it's a joke.

Accept that 9-11 happened the way it happened and the people responsible for it are those responsible and that Iraq was an existing threat that people can disagree about and every thing fits seamlessly.

And we *can* disagree about the necessity of invading Iraq. Arguments on either side of that issue are valid and rational. There is no need for a conspiracy or the moronic notion that Iraq was so very obviously not any sort of problem that Bush had to lie or fabricate any sort of disaster to support our actions there.

The biggest lie I think I've heard is "sanctions were working." They quite clearly were not doing anything but making the situation worse.

There may have been some other solution to that problem, but that comes under rational disagreement, not some idea that nothing was wrong before Bush lied us into war.

Revenant said...

Why are you all arguing with this "fstopfitzgerald" dolt? It has been obvious from the beginning that he's one of the "truthers" himself.

Tibore said...

Hold the Hell on, everybody. Where in the PNAC document did it "call for a Pearl Harbor style calamity"? Someone mind pointing out the page that is on? For reference, you can download the document in question here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Can someone tell me where the hell in the document a new Pearl Harbor was actually called for? Because I'm either not reading the same document you guys are, or I'm dense. The references I see are not "calls" for one to happen, or to allow one, but warnings about not being prepared for one:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"."

And

"Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age"."

If you'll read the document, you'll see that those are warnings against being lax, letting technological advances slow, and allowing a Pearl Harbor to catch the US again. It's not a call for one, or a set of steps on what to do in case of one, it's a warning that no increase in defense spending on new technology will allow one to happen. Has anyone here actually read the damn doc? Because no one seems to know what the stupid thing actually says about "new Pearl Harbors".

Further info:

"The use of Pearl Harbour here means "a form of attack which we don't have the technology to counter", which now lets us make more sense of the first quote. All they're saying is that "the process of updating the US military will take a long time, unless the problems are made apparent by an attack that reveals our technical failings". 9/11 undoubtedly revealed failings in intelligence and response on the day, but nothing that matches the PNAC’s agenda. There’s no military technology fix that would have prevented it.

What about the other claims? 911Truth say the document wants Hussein to be "toppled immediately". Other sites also claim the PNAC wanted war with Iraq, but what do they say in the document?

"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene."

Not much demand for his removal there. What about Syria, Iran, or other countries that aren’t so popular in the White House?:

"...according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America – North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad".

And did the neo-cons want these regimes to be destroyed? Wrong again, this sentence appeared in a chapter recommending that America develop a global missile shield. The shield is required because these countries exist."


(Source: 9/11 Myths "New Pearl Harbor" section)

Why are people conceding the argument that the PNAC somehow planned or provided steps for the invasion of Iraq? That's not true! Please, people, understand what the PNAC is before agreeing that it somehow served as a blueprint for 9/11 or Iraq. Start with the 9/11 Myths site before we let someone try to tell us what it is, let alone tell us that it somehow proves the LIHOP argument about 9/11. It does neither.

radar said...

fstopfitzgerald:
In other words, a non-existent threat is actually an existent threat.

Sure, if you want to define 'not imminent' to be the same as 'non-existent'. You do realize that 'imminent' and 'existent' are two different words, right? And you do understand what an adjective is, right?

Synova said...

"Why are you all arguing with this "fstopfitzgerald" dolt?"

Because I'm not as smart as you.

Still, there has to be some other argument lurking about all lonely. I think I'll try to find it.

Or else make lunch.

Simon said...

Sigivald said...
"The mental gynmastics required for such a worldview are beyond my capability to follow."

I believe Orwell termed it "Doublethink."

fstopfitzgerald said...

Well, if we've learned a lesson today it's that there isn't a single depraved thing the Bush administration can do that the regulars here can't rationalize away or use bullshit semantic argueuments to deny that they even happened.

It's almost inspirational, somehow.

Roger said...

fstop leaves us with the perfect non-sequitur! A fitting close to a bogus argument.

radar said...

fstopfitzgerald:
Well, if we've learned a lesson today it's that there isn't a single depraved thing the Bush administration can do that the regulars here can't rationalize away or use bullshit semantic argueuments to deny that they even happened.


There are lots of things that the Bush administration has done that I disagree with. But what makes you think it is necessary to conjure up silly conspiracy theories to refute those policies and why do you think that rejection of your wild accusations is acceptance of Bush's policies in toto?

Tibore said...

Some people will believe anything.

Quarter of Brits think Churchill was myth

It's not on topic - we're talking 9/11 deniers here - but then again, it's oddly applicable. Goes to show that some people will believe anything.

And with that, it's really time to get back on topic:

Professor, if you're receiving too high a volume of harassing email, you should contact your tech support folks and ask about how to filter the junk out. No one should have to deal with that sort of crap.

And if any of these geniuses make the mistake of sending something openly harrassing from a wisc.edu address, that campus does have an IT Security office, and they may be able to take action if an email does cross a certain line (I don't know if you have another email address from your time in New York, or if you're also doing work on another campus; I'm just assuming it's your wisc.edu address that's getting flamed because that's the one Kevin Barrett published). At any rate, you shouldn't have to suffer abuse from those people.

Original Mike said...

Kevin Barrett said in his letter: After thoroughly canvassing the UW faculty, especially the History and Political Science departments, they were unable to find any defenders.

Quell surprise.

Simon said...

Tibore: wait, did I miss something? Barrett published it? In what context? Either my brain's failing or I've missed a post.

Tibore said...

Simon,

I'm reluctant to give it any more publicity than it deserves, but I found that Barrett published information on Alex Jones's "Prison Planet" site (I will not provide a direct link to that despicable cesspool of paranoia and antisemitism in order to keep Google algorithms from ranking it any higher than it is now). I merely Googled "Althouse" and "9/11", and found it on the first page of returns.

While I cannot say he violated any privacy laws for publishing contact info, since that info is publicly available (I'm able to find Professor Althouse's contact info through a simple search on the www.wisc.edu page), I do see it as a low thing to do. He clearly exhorts his followers to not just email bomb her, but (as noted in the previous post) "contact (her) by email, phone, and perhaps in-person requests". Recall, he's pushing for a "debate" (re: for help in conducting a publicity stunt in order to keep his name in the news), and it's obvious that he's soliciting help to browbeat the professor here into submitting to one. Low tactics. On top of that, publishing email without permission may or may not have any legal implications, but I still view it as another low blow, as he never secured permission to do so. I've always viewed email as point-to-point, and therefore by definition non-broadcast, and attached privacy expectations to that. And that's how I view Professor Althouse's email to Barrett on that page: It's clearly intended for just him, not him and his followers. Barrett has no shame in how he pursues his agenda, and demonstrates why it was a wise choice on the part of U of W to not hire him permanently.

Synova said...

Thanks to everyone who gave me a pass on 3000k.

egad.

Original Mike said...

No harm, no foul, Synova.

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simon said...

Tibore, gotcha. What a jackass.

Anthony said...

Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you!

But these uys are the new Moonies. I was at a McCain campaign rally Friday night and some Ron Paul supporters came by. One was babbling to me about 9/11 and the like.

The Drill SGT said...

Synova said...
Thanks to everyone who gave me a pass on 3000k.


Well on a normal day aren't there 100,000 folks working in that 7 building complex?

If the planes had brought the towers down instantly the death total would have matched Hiroshima.

BTW: I missed the VRWC memo that would have told me what PNAC is. Can somebody define that term?

Tibore said...

"BTW: I missed the VRWC memo that would have told me what PNAC is. Can somebody define that term?"

PNAC: "Project for the New American Century". The specific document referenced above is linked at the bottom of this page:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

... and is titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century".

The 9/11 Myths page on the subject is here.

Tibore said...

"Tibore, gotcha. What a jackass."

Yeah, Simon, agreed. And I saw your first post too. I have to admit that I agree in spirit, even though I should be a proper, good citizen and disagree with the method of protest. Problem is, I have trouble doing so in Barrett's case; it takes strong force of will to not want to join in. He really, really is a reprehensible person. I know he seems like a harmless crank, babbling on about some nuttiness that's struck his fancy, and I don't really think he's got the courage of his convictions to carry out the nastier parts of his proclaimations, but let's not forget that he's made terrible proclaimations before. Read the following:

"... journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold. You would be well advised to strive for more balanced and accurate coverage in the future"

That was one of his rants in regards to coverage of his participation in a 9/11 "Truth" conference. They merely reported on it, and what does he say in return? Just because the coverage didn't show him in any sort of positive light.

And that's not the only time he's invoked the "gallows" for people that disagree with him. As I've said before in a previous post here:

"He's actually talked about people hanging from the gallows or otherwise facing death for being "complicit in war crimes", those people being targets for the mere act of not agreeing with his illogical and disproven worldview. Sure, it's mere rhetoric, just the annoyed rantings of a marginal figure. But that doesn't mean he himself doesn't take what he says seriously. He's said some truly hateful things towards people who disagree with him...

... Like I said, it's easy to poke fun at Barrett, but in the end, he's really a horrid little man. Get past the narcissism and you have the core of a man who hates. And while derisive humor is a valid defense against the malice that such a man inflicts with his views, I still have to remember that the humor isn't about some comic figure, but of an honestly hateful human being. A human being who's illogical activities are not driven by eccentricity or narcissism - the latter of which is merely one of the two outputs of his psyche - but of hatred of those who do not subscribe to his delusional takes on the world.

I don't think we should lose sight of that when thinking about Barrett. And I think we're all lucky he's not in any real position of power; could someone imagine a person like him being a military officer or government official in a small country without the respect for law and society we have here? This is exactly the sort of person that enables the Pol Pots and Idi Amins of the world."


Not a single thing I've experienced since then has given me reason to change that opinion.

Simon said...

Tibore - I thought better of it. Or of saying it out loud, at least. He'll get his just deserts in time, I'm confident.

Tibore said...

Of course you did. That's why you're a better person than he is.

hdhouse said...

forgetting of course that this mindless fool couldn't lead a line of ants through a straw.

how can or how could UW hire this ninny?

Steven said...

fstopfitzgerald —

"Funny, I can't recall a bunch of people advocating an attack on Japan before December 7th later getting jobs in the Roosevelt administration."

Well, no, but that's only because they'd all already gotten jobs in the Roosevelt Administration back in the 1930s. As it was, since Congress was unwilling to declare war first, the Roosevelt Administration instead engaged in a number of deliberate provocations of Japan designed to push Japan into declaring war. FDR supplied Lend-Lease aid to China in its war with Japanese, he froze Japanese bank accounts, he cut off Japan's oil . . . and eventually he provoked Japan into declaring the war he couldn't get Congress to authorize.

tituschelsea said...

I don't know why you can't just ignore this crap?

These individuals are obviously nuts. Can't you just accept that and move along.

I believe their intent is to get a reaction from you and by posting this on your blog they succeed.

Ignore them, they are not worth it. For you own health block them out-there is too much other stuff to think about in life rather than a bunch of shameless ignorant people who are deluded.

Ann Althouse said...

You're right that they deserve to be ignored. I did want to mock them a bit before going back to that position.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

The PNAC Manifesto. Look into it.

So what.

Its filed right behind our "Frank Barbarian" scenario - where we liberate Canada from French separatists and seize all the oil.

I also recall "Dusty Roads". It was another warfighting scenario for launching strikes against the Shining Path.

These types of plans are common, and startling when taken out of context by civillians.

Fen said...

"Bush is saying that he does not agree with the people who think we need to wait until the threat is imminent. Quite the contrary, he thinks we need to strike before conditions have a chance to metastasize into active and immediate threats."

fstopfitzgerald: In other words, a non-existent threat is actually an existent threat.

No. And the fact that you so easily muddle your paraprase calls your logic and comprehesion into question.

So Bush got us into war by raising the specter of a non-existent threat that was actually an existent

How can you fail to understand this? Bush said that the triangulation of 1) rogue states like Iran & Iran 2) who have WMD progams and 3) sponsor terrorist orgs could not be tolerated. We could not afford to wait for the spectre of an anonymous untraceable WMD attack to be imminent. Its a gathering threat, and our policy is not to retaliate after NY city is a valley of glass. Our policy is to prevent it from happening to begin with.

Theo Boehm said...

Fen: You are absolutely right about military contingency plans. Of necessity there are a zillion of them, most pretty far-fetched. But that's one of the things governments do: Plan for every possibility, just in case. Keeps DoD bureaucrats busy, but there is a point to it.

You are also right about the
motivation of the Bush Administration in waging preventative war. There is a very rational, strong case to be made for it. The problem is that preventative war never seems to work in practice.

Take the case of Austria-Hungary. Why did it take the strong position it did with Serbia in 1914? ("Spirited note, what?") It wanted a war to both punish Serbian state-sponsored terrorism for the most recent outrage of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and to prevent, once and for all, future acts of terror. To not retaliate for the assassination seemed a "valley of glass" to them, too.

The problem was that the situation was morally ambiguous, which it almost always will be in the murky waters of state terrorism and the justifications for preventative war. This allowed Serbia's ally, Russia, to claim that poor little Serbia was being picked on. What followed was not just a botched, unpopular little war like we have today, but the beginnings of the unraveling of a civilization.

Are there any examples of a successful preventative war? I really can't think of any, but then again, it's late and I'm tired.

BTW, the reason there are a couple of my deleted comments above is that I put up an example of Roosevelt-hate, by way of comparison with Bush-hate. I edited it, but it was still too long and too ugly, so I'll spare you.

The bottom line was Roosevelt hate/conspiracy theories, and Bush hate/conspiracy theories: Same crap different toilet.

One of the reasons to elect a non-Hillary president is to get away from all this, at least for a little while.

Kirby Olson said...

Communist psychiatry regularly declared that anyone who disagreed with the state was insane. Sakharov, for instance, was declared insane.

Hilarity like that will hopefully never take over our government entirely. Thank goodness for checks and balances.

Madison needs to be reread and thanked, again and again.

Elmondohummus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tibore said...

Not to beat this thread into the ground, but someone pointed out to me that there is a Wisconsin statute prohibiting e-mail harassment: Wis. Stat. § 947.0125

"Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor:

With intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten, abuse or harass another person, sends a message to the person on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system and in that message...


(Insert long list of types of harrassment, such as "inflict injury or physical harm", "suggests any lewd or lascivious act", etc.)

(c) With intent solely to harass another person, sends repeated messages to the person on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system...

... it goes on and on, but the point is that there's a state law specifically against email harrassment. Hopefully, the email inundation won't include anything bad enough to force the professor here to invoke the law to protect herself, but the law is there in case she needs it.

Of course, pointing this out on a law professor's blog may be a bit unnecessary, but still... I figured putting this to word was a good idea anyway.

Ann Althouse said...

Tibore: When Barrett emailed me the quote you see in the title to this post, I replied with a link to that statute. I'm not sure if he put that up as a post before or after I sent him that, but I was surprised that he put it up or left it up. More evidence of his poor judgment, I'd say.

Tibore said...

GOOD!!! Barrett's too narcissistically self-righteousness (witness his trip to Morocco), and frankly needs to be shown that trying to push people around to suit his agenda has potential consequences.

He's too full of himself. Emailing him that statute, then ignoring his pleas for debate is exactly the right thing to do.

And yes, his judgement is indeed painfully poor. His post is still up.

Ernst Blofeld said...

Preventive wars (as opposed to preemptive, such as the six day war) are inherently tricky to evaluate even in retrospect. The '91 first Gulf War was an inadvertant self-declared preventive war, in that it forced a military action before Iraq got a nuclear weapon within a year or so.

But if the war really is preventive, you never get to see what it prevented. It's clear that Saddam wanted WMD and planned on starting the programs back up again as soon as the embargos and blockades finished collapsing.