A Government with No Military and No Territory : Disintegrating Iraqi Sovereignty
March 10, 2006 11:45 AM   Subscribe

At this point in Iraq, you do not have a central government -- so you don't have a legitimate authority running the country. You don't have a government with the power to establish or maintain order. What you have is a nominal government that can only stay in power because the Americans are there. The government is supposed to have derived legitimacy from the constitution and the elections. It is now almost three months after the elections and there is still no government... A government that takes over five months to form is not a government that is going to have very much legitimacy in the end. The country has already collapsed. Now the challenge is figuring out a way to deal with this fact...
"The Country Has Already Collapsed"
Remember Beirut? Welcome to Baghdad
A Government with No Military and No Territory
Studies of the Iraq Disaster: When Democracy Looks Like Civil War
posted by y2karl (127 comments total)
 
I'm looking forward to the action movies of 2010 to 2020, where all the heroes will be semi-crazed Iraq war vets, just like all the guys from the 80s movies were semi-crazed Vietnam vets. Anyone want to guess when we'll see the first buddy-cop action film where a semi-crazed Iraq war vet becomes an LAPD detective?
posted by frogan at 11:54 AM on March 10, 2006


I'm looking forward to the action movies of 2010 to 2020, where all the heroes will be semi-crazed Iraq war vets, just like all the guys from the 80s movies were semi-crazed Vietnam vets.

Bring on the new Rambos!!
posted by billysumday at 11:57 AM on March 10, 2006


I'm just hoping these lemons are made into lemonade somehow. Change is good, change is good...

just keep repeating that to yourself! change is good, change is good. lemons into lemonade...
posted by PigAlien at 11:58 AM on March 10, 2006


y2karl (or his sources) are right. If you look at Afghanistan, you see that the gov't is doing something. You see the Afghani police and soldiers out there taking action and being of assistance to the coalition troops there. You just don't see that in Iraq. Even the green zone is a deadly place. The Kurds are the only ones that have got anything stable going on in Iraq.
posted by furtive at 12:00 PM on March 10, 2006


"Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq — the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency."

[The Associated Press | March 10, 2006]
posted by ericb at 12:01 PM on March 10, 2006


The qualitative shift from a messed up occupation to a full-blown civil war came with the Samarra mosque bombing. Direct violence aside, it was symbolic of so much else.

And when people like George Will are realizing the obvious, all pretense goes out the window.

(The pictures in the fourth link are disturbing, but well worth looking at.)
posted by bardic at 12:02 PM on March 10, 2006


General William E. Odom, director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988, compares Iraq and Vietnam:
"The Vietnam War experience can’t tell us anything about the war in Iraq – or so it is said. If you believe that, trying looking through this lens, and you may change your mind.

...Only by getting out of Iraq can the United States possibly gain sufficient international support to design a new strategy for limiting the burgeoning growth of anti-Western forces it has unleashed in the Middle East and Southwest Asia."
[Nieman Watchdog | March 08, 2008]
posted by ericb at 12:04 PM on March 10, 2006


Night Draws Near (2005) by Anthony Shadid. An amazing book told from the perspective of the Iraqi people. BTW the average Iraqi was calling a "Pandora Box" years ago. The average Iraqi was more afraid of what would happen after the invasion than of Saddam. This is a country of tribal law, the law of revenge and blood feud. It is not simply a Shiite vs Suni it is much more complicated and subtle.
posted by stbalbach at 12:06 PM on March 10, 2006


bush is still pretending everything is fine, though. how long can he lie to the American public?
posted by wakko at 12:07 PM on March 10, 2006


how long can he lie to the American public?

As per the poll numbers, no one's buying his and Rumsfeld's spin that things are going fine in Iraq.
posted by ericb at 12:10 PM on March 10, 2006


ericb: George Will noticed a long time ago, to his credit.
posted by raysmj at 12:11 PM on March 10, 2006


BTW the average Iraqi was calling a "Pandora Box" years ago

George Will noticed a long time ago, to his credit.

Many of us did.
posted by NationalKato at 12:13 PM on March 10, 2006


But, hey -- Bush says his beliefs unshaken by poor poll numbers.

Nanana, I'm not listening...nanana...I can't hear you...nanana.
posted by ericb at 12:13 PM on March 10, 2006


Mission accomplished!

You know, he did promise no new nation building in his 2000 campaign. I guess he's living up to that promise by destroying a nation instead.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 12:13 PM on March 10, 2006


I don't think you can point to Afghanistan as any rip-roaring success. Our Canadian peace-keeping soldiers are being killed, the Taliban is back, and opium poppy farming is on a marked increase.

It would have been nice if the US had hung around the country a little longer, helping clean up after its invasion.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:15 PM on March 10, 2006


And all joking aside, the US is escalating its war of words with Iran. It's going to get worse before it gets better.
posted by NationalKato at 12:17 PM on March 10, 2006


March 10th AP/Ipsos Poll Results
70% of Republicans think civil war will break out in Iraq

70% of Americans think US is on wrong track

37% approve of his job performance

36% approval rating on domestic affairs, down from 39% last month

43% approval on foreign policy and terrorism

40% approval on Iraq and economy
You're doin' a heckuva job, Bushie!
posted by ericb at 12:17 PM on March 10, 2006


How can say they didn't know it would happen? Iraq was a false colonial construct in the first place. Every policy paper I have ever read about bringing down Hussein predicted almost immediate civil war - from Bush #1 on.

Did these dipshits never ask themselves maybe there is reason guy's like Saddam Hussein rise to the top and stay there? Because that is the only way such divergent impoverished and sectarian cultures with a thousand years of hostility toward eachother can have a cohesive state - with strong-man central authority at the top.

And if they insist on making this anarchy-free zone a supposed state that is what they will get - Saddam II Electric Boogaloo. And you thin gassing the Kurds was bad wait till SIIEB get's ramped up. Death squads. Sports Arenas filled with The Disappeared. Oh. Man.

That intelligent people like George Will are acting surprised by this makes me want to vomit. Some Catcher-in-the-Rye nut shoot that unprincipled fucker already.
posted by tkchrist at 12:19 PM on March 10, 2006




I'm starting to think that the entire point of the exercise from the start was a scheme to get Muslims fighting each other again. Just watch: this will end with a partitioned Iraq, consisting of small fractious ethnic states.
posted by slatternus at 12:32 PM on March 10, 2006


Indeed, ericb. I was going to post that with the headline, "We Made Your Bed -- Now Lie in It."
posted by digaman at 12:32 PM on March 10, 2006


Iraqi Police Ill-Equipped to Prevent Civil War
"– As of March 2005 — two years into the war — the Pentagon had still not developed a 'system to assess the readiness of Iraqi military and police forces so they [could] identify weaknesses and provide them with effective support.'

– U.S. advisors to Iraqi police units 'have been stretched thin' for 'much of the last three years.' The L.A. Times reported yesterday, 'By the end of 2005 there were only 700 U.S. police trainers for an Iraqi police force of more than 100,000.'

– As a result, U.S. advisors believe that the training of Iraqi forces 'have skewed toward weapons handling and battlefield tactics and not dealt enough with human rights, investigations and administration.'"
posted by ericb at 12:36 PM on March 10, 2006


ericb - I wish you would've not posted that. See I've been having this blood pressure problem lately.

Rumsfeld is so full of shit. I think he must be busy with his "stay out of jail" planning to be thinking clearly. Perhaps he is rehearsing his defiant scowl during his defense attorney's speech before the Hague in 2017.

Rummy KNOWS we will have send troops in there. He knows it will most likely be a Democratic Administration that will forced to pull them out again. And he knows the script by heart - the one of blaming the liberals for shaming America once again.

"We were victorious in creating a shining democratic utopia for Iraq - until them democrats cynically exploited the situation in 2012 and cut and run."
posted by tkchrist at 12:36 PM on March 10, 2006


tkchrist, I'd give Will a bit more credit than that--he's brought up the "competency" meme with regards to Bush failures both in Iraq and at home (Katrina, social security). There are shades of gray, as opposed to this NRO guy, Victor David Hanson (who at the very least is laugh-out-loud funny). Shades of the same, I guess, but Will hasn't lost all his marbles a la Krauthammer and others.
posted by bardic at 12:37 PM on March 10, 2006


I'm always amazed at how logical, level-headed, rational and dispassionate Victor Davis Hanson's analyses of the global situation are - and yet how completely and utterly dead WRONG he always turns out to be.
posted by slatternus at 12:40 PM on March 10, 2006


Wasn't it Colin Powell who invoked the Crate & Barrel Rule -- "You Break It, You Bought It?"
posted by ericb at 12:40 PM on March 10, 2006



tkchrist, I'd give Will a bit more credit than that--he's brought up the "competency" meme with regards to Bush failures


Sometimes. But he has chugged the koolaid, like the rest. If he was at all truly principled ("conservative" principles mind you) he would be calling for impeachment at this point.

He should stick to baseball.

"Krauthammer"

Aaaaah. [involuntary spasm]
Suffice it say that is one of the words the Knights of TK cannot hear.
posted by tkchrist at 12:42 PM on March 10, 2006


tkchrist, agreed.
posted by bardic at 12:49 PM on March 10, 2006


Yeah, I gave up reading Will a couple of years ago.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:51 PM on March 10, 2006


How can say they didn't know it would happen?

President Bush's father did:
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
-- President George H.W. Bush, A World Transformed, 1998.
(I was never a big fan of his, but compared to his son he's a giant.)

Wasn't it Colin Powell who invoked the Crate & Barrel Rule -- 'You Break It, You Bought It?'
Pottery Barn's statement that "this is certainly not our policy" was one of my two favorite corporate statements of 2004; the other one was Polaroid's statement that you should not, in fact, "shake it like a Polaroid picture."

posted by kirkaracha at 12:54 PM on March 10, 2006


Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, said the situation in Iraq had evolved to the point where Sunni-Shiite violence was more of a threat to U.S. success there than the insurgency, which continues taking a deadly toll on Iraqi and American troops, and to impede efforts to stabilize the country.
Things are going to get worse before they get any better.
posted by furtive at 12:58 PM on March 10, 2006


Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Prescient.
posted by ericb at 12:59 PM on March 10, 2006


Thankks for that quote, kirkaracha. He lays it all out, right there, doesn't he.

Then, 5 years later, along comes Junior...
posted by darkstar at 1:01 PM on March 10, 2006


You might ask yourself how Iraq got into this mess.

And Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is here to set you straight, boy. Who's causing the outbreak of civil war? Those traitors -- the American media!

"From what I've seen thus far, much of the reporting in the U.S. and abroad has exaggerated the situation, according to General Casey. The number of attacks on mosques, as he pointed out, had been exaggerated. The number of Iraqi deaths had been exaggerated. The behavior of the Iraqi security forces had been mischaracterized in some instances. And I guess that is to say nothing of the apparently inaccurate and harmful reports of U.S. military conduct in connection with a bus filled with passengers in Iraq... Interestingly, all of the exaggerations seem to be on one side. It isn't as though there simply have been a series of random errors on both sides of issues. On the contrary, the steady stream of errors all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and to give heart to the terrorists and to discourage those who hope for success in Iraq."

posted by digaman at 1:03 PM on March 10, 2006


(I was never a big fan of his, but compared to his son he's a giant.)

I so agree. I didn't vote for him in the first election where I could vote, but I'd install him as king tomorrow if it got his nitwit son out of the Oval Office.
posted by Cyrano at 1:05 PM on March 10, 2006


Rumsfeld really is blaming the press for this.
Rumsfeld really is blaming the press for this.
Rumsfeld really is blaming the press for this.
Rumsfeld really is blaming the press for this.

I mean, it's quite something.
posted by digaman at 1:06 PM on March 10, 2006


If you look at Afghanistan, you see that the gov't is doing something

I think the critical difference between the two is that the average Afghani knows international forces have a basic right to be there, just like Germany & Japan after WWII. The Taliban sheltered the org that brought down the towers, ergo they got what they deserved and co-operation may as well be the order of the day.

But the average Iraqi knows the U.S. occupation is fundamentally wrong and that anger touches their every thought and action, just like France during WWII.

Extremists will always fight blindly, but most everyday joes have an innate sense of justice and logic, even if it's buried deep.
posted by CynicalKnight at 1:13 PM on March 10, 2006


The reason we should not have gone to war in Vietnam is because of the Domino Theory. You don't prop up the weakest domino. The reason we should not have tried to build democracy in Iraq is for the same reason. Short of trying to reunite Yugoslavia, it was the dumbest place to try to build a country.
Of course, historically, the Republicans will blame the media for not reporting enough good stuff or too much bad. And they'll blame the Congress when they finally get around to asking the troops to pull out. What other Vietnam parallel half-assed excuse for why we lost am I missing?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:14 PM on March 10, 2006


June 2005 -- Cheney: "The insurgency in Iraq is 'in the last throes,' Vice President Dick Cheney says, and he predicts that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office."

June 2005 -- Rumsfeld -- "Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years."

Let alone "insurgents." What about three sectarian groups fighting each other in a civil -- compelled on by radical Islamic groups such as Al Quaeda (who, thanks to the invasion, found their way into Iraq via poorly secured borders)?
posted by ericb at 1:16 PM on March 10, 2006


I could have told you all this back in '03.
posted by j-urb at 1:26 PM on March 10, 2006


A government with all hat and no cattle.

“skewed toward weapons handling and battlefield tactics and not dealt enough with human rights, investigations and administration.'"” - ericb

I’d say human rights, investigations, and admin aid strategic goals more than pulling the trigger. Some guys study logistics, some just want to rock and roll.

Thanks for the Bush the Greater quote, kirkaracha. I like his reference to Punta Patilla.
It’s weird how some people learn things, y’know, from experiance. As opposed to, not.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:27 PM on March 10, 2006


Say what you want about Bush Senior and being a member of America's "aristocracy", but the man knew how to critically analyse events and he had a keen interest in world politics and more importantly: a questioning mind. He knew to ask questions, the right questions - and he knew reality was different from fantasyland.

Sadly, Junior doesn't get it. He simply does not get it.
posted by tgrundke at 1:46 PM on March 10, 2006


Any right-wingers want to weigh in on how we're assessing the situation incorrectly? Anyone? Bueller?
posted by NationalKato at 1:46 PM on March 10, 2006


tgrundke, I would assume - and perhaps incorrectly - that the reason Bush Sr. was a better analyst about foreign affairs is because he spent so much time doing it in the CIA.
posted by NationalKato at 1:48 PM on March 10, 2006


I so agree. I didn't vote for him in the first election where I could vote, but I'd install him as king tomorrow if it got his nitwit son out of the Oval Office.

Of course, you do realize how monarchies work, don't you? Are you aware of who would succeed GHWBush as king ?
posted by flarbuse at 1:50 PM on March 10, 2006


NationalKato -

Yes, you're correct about him being at the CIA, and that could account for why he was so forcused on external rather than internal events, but in general, George Bush Senior strikes me as someone who was intelligent. Perhaps not politically saavy or cool, but intelligent. I never considered him to be a moron and I never thought of him as 'dimwitted'. From what I've read of the man, he was thoughtful about decisions and didn't make them 'based on faith.'

There's a great book called "The Ingentuity Gap" about how modern issues are becoming so complex that to manage or solve them requires expontentially greater amounts of ingenuity. In the current messy global situation, all I can think is that George Junior is the *last* person I would pick for the job. ;-)
posted by tgrundke at 1:51 PM on March 10, 2006


Guys, we've scared away all of the conservatives. Especially political (neo-con type) conservatives. We still have dios, but 111 aaron, and Steven Den Beste are loooooong gone. So yeah, nobody's going to come into this thread and defend any pro-administration policy or argument or course of action. Metafilter used to be that place, but no longer.
posted by zpousman at 2:18 PM on March 10, 2006


Are you aware of who would succeed GHWBush as king?

The Idiot Prince Will Have His War -- March 2003.
posted by ericb at 2:22 PM on March 10, 2006


Er... a thought strikes me:

Given that we now have endless proof that George Bush Jr. is in every regard completely incompetent at all he attempts to do...

...how the fuck did he get to be President?
posted by five fresh fish at 2:22 PM on March 10, 2006


...how the fuck did he get to be President?

See: The Supreme Court concerning GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v. ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
posted by ericb at 2:24 PM on March 10, 2006


Forget about the popular vote of November 2000.
posted by ericb at 2:26 PM on March 10, 2006


The scariest comment in those articles was in reference to to Iraq's decreasing level of military readiness. We could be essentially training the partcipants in a civil conflict.
posted by kuatto at 2:27 PM on March 10, 2006


“Guys, we've scared away all of the conservatives.”

I don’t see agreeing with all of Bush’s policies as a pre-requisite for being conservative.
That said - given the premise, what ground does one choose to defend? Bush screwed the pooch. Period.
Want me to go far afield? I can give some good reasons why our geopolitical strategy has us in the middle east. But that’s quite a derail and a somewhat big picture argument anyway. And an explaination isn’t a defense. Ultimately, we should change our energy policy such that it renders our need to engage the middle east moot.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:42 PM on March 10, 2006


Despite all the mess we're in, we _could_ have pulled it off and won this war. If the Iraqis were convinced we really did have their best interests in mind, and enough of them had helped us, we could have squashed the insurgency.

But then we had Abu Ghraib, and the Iraqis saw what we really thought of them, and what this administration was really like. That was where we lost. Suddenly, the crazy terrorists claiming that America is the Great Satan were validated. We couldn't possibly have done anything more stupid.

Well, except invading in the first place, but we did have a chance of making it work.

It's just a matter, now, of how many body bags we want to fill. There may someday be a stable state or states where Iraq was, but it won't happen until years after we're completely out of there.
posted by Malor at 2:44 PM on March 10, 2006


I don’t see agreeing with all of Bush’s policies as a pre-requisite for being conservative.

I see them as being damn near exclusive.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:44 PM on March 10, 2006


Rumsfeld really is blaming the press for this.

The pen really is mightier than sword.
posted by srboisvert at 2:58 PM on March 10, 2006


Abu Ghraib. That was where we lost.

No. No. Before that. Shock and Awe, not even attempting to sway the Iraqi military to defect, and de-Baathification was when we lost.
posted by tkchrist at 3:00 PM on March 10, 2006


No: we lost because we had no business going into Iraq. It was an unjust war from the start, not a matter of tactics, and even "winning" would have been a loss (though much harder to see), because it was a war launched on false pretenses. America lost by launching the war -- the rest is footnotes and mass death and suffering.
posted by digaman at 3:04 PM on March 10, 2006


It was an unjust war from the start

Sure. If you want to get technical about it.
posted by tkchrist at 3:05 PM on March 10, 2006


I don’t see agreeing with all of Bush’s policies as a pre-requisite for being conservative.

I've always considered myself a bit right of center, and most of my reasons for bitter opposition to this President and his administration are precisely the things I admire most about conservatisim: fiscal responsibility, personal liberty, and a deep respect for and commitment to our constitutionally enshrined system of government. Mr. Bush can't be described as a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word.

Sandra Day O'Connor is right. I just wish she'd figured this out before stepping down.
posted by EarBucket at 3:28 PM on March 10, 2006


I just wish she'd figured this out before stepping down.

She knew this, and stepped down anyway, and put Alito on the fucking court. Gee, thanks. I'll put that under the Colin Powell file of "Gosh, shame you feel bad about it now -- by the way, we're still fucked because of you, thank you very much."
posted by eriko at 3:37 PM on March 10, 2006


how many body bags we want to fill

Continuing and rising...

"Ours"
Coalition Deaths in Iraq (DoD confirmed): 2,513 (U.S. -- 2307]
"Theirs"
"A study by the Iraq Body Count (IBC) project suggests that 12,617 people have been killed over the past year....US-led invasion of March and April 2003...resulted in 7,312 civilian deaths and 17,298 injured in a mere 42 days." [Scotsman | March 08, 2006]
posted by ericb at 4:25 PM on March 10, 2006


For a Total Count Since the Invasion --

”Theirs”
”…President Bush has said he thinks violence claimed at least 30,000 Iraqi dead as of December, while some researchers have cited numbers of 50,000, 75,000 or beyond. [MSNBC]

…Iraq Body Count puts its tally of Iraqi war dead at between [33,489] and [37, 589] as of [Mar. 10.], but that doesn’t include Iraqi soldiers or insurgents. It compiles its estimate of civilian deaths from news stories, corroborating each death through at least two reports. [IBC]
posted by ericb at 5:23 PM on March 10, 2006


I don't think you can point to Afghanistan as any rip-roaring success. Our Canadian peace-keeping soldiers are being killed, the Taliban is back, and opium poppy farming is on a marked increase.

Why does everyone always point to opium production as a sign of Afghanistan's failure? It seems to me that things wouldn't be nearly as bad in Iraq if people just started farming and smoking Opium.
posted by delmoi at 6:17 PM on March 10, 2006


Well they'd better hurry up, because...


posted by wakko at 6:24 PM on March 10, 2006


"Abu Ghraib. That was where we lost.

No. No. Before that. Shock and Awe, not even attempting to sway the Iraqi military to defect, and de-Baathification was when we lost."


No, we lost on September 11th, 2001 when we let the gang of murderers and thieves squatting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue crash planes into buildings, demolish them with explosives, ship and destroy all evidence from the scene of the crime, and immediately blame a largely fictional "Al Qaeda" terror network, ostensibly headed by a member of Saudi Arabia's second richest family.

A family with connections to Halliburton, the Bush family, The house of Saud, the CIA, and more.

Then the final feather in the cap of our loss ocurred little more than a month later, October 24th 2001, when the United States Congress rolled over and passed the USAPATRIOT Act.

A three hundred and forty-two page piece of incredibly dense legislation we are to believe was cooked up in less than a month after the "attacks."

A piece of legislation that our congress signed, without even bothering to read it first.

No, we lost the minute we underestimated these fiends. The minute we fell for the "incompetent rube" schtick because it was easier on the brain than the realization that we'd been had by the worst, most amoral, ruthless, and cruel con-artists in the history of the United States.
posted by stenseng at 6:57 PM on March 10, 2006


Watching the Republican solution to these problems is like watching stupid frat boys that point to their cars and loudly brag 'Look at us! We just poured sand into our gas tanks! Aren't we smart!? Envy us, foolish mortals for only we could think of pouring sand into our gas tanks!'
The Democrats in D.C. on the other hand are saying 'Look at the Republicans, aren't they smart? They poured sand into the gas tanks of their cars! Aren't they smart? Gee, we wish we had thought of pouring sand into the gas tanks of *our* cars!!! We will pour more sand into the gas tanks of our cars next time! ! ! Because we wish to be identified as being like the Republicans ! ! ! Because we are smart too ! ! !

Dumbasses. . .
posted by mk1gti at 7:06 PM on March 10, 2006


Furthermore: Maybe a democratic republic isn't such a good thing after all. Perhaps there's something to be said for a benovelent dictatorship. Just so long as I'm the dictator. Bwah, hah hah hah ! ! !
posted by mk1gti at 7:10 PM on March 10, 2006


Ah, tis a terrible strain when the tinfoil, having done its work, weakens and finally fails in a shower of exploding concrete and glass, pancaking much too fast to be a mere structural failure.
posted by stirfry at 7:34 PM on March 10, 2006


Everyone who ever, ever supported Bush should be made to wear sackloth and ashes and be spat upon for the rest of their worthless living days.

Actually, no, I am serious.
posted by Decani at 7:37 PM on March 10, 2006


I don’t see agreeing with all of Bush’s policies as a pre-requisite for being conservative

Absolutely not. But it's certainly a prerequisite for being an ignorant, shameful cunt of an excuse for a human being.
posted by Decani at 7:39 PM on March 10, 2006


I don’t see agreeing with all of Bush’s policies as a pre-requisite for being conservative.

Democratic Party/Republican Party is a useless metric anyway, as is liberal/conservative. You must consider (at least) two axes when describing a political position: one economical, one social.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:51 PM on March 10, 2006


It's all very well you guys doing a "see- told you so" number on Iraq while on Iran, Bush is now saying "it's very important for the United States to continue to work with others to solve these issues diplomatically," Ominously familiar, no?....
posted by marvin at 7:52 PM on March 10, 2006


Everyone who ever, ever supported Bush should be made to wear sackloth and ashes and be spat upon for the rest of their worthless living days.


I've advocated for a while now that they should have scarlet "W's" scorched into their foreheads.

They should be made to walk in shame wherever they go, and be forced to live off of the kindness of strangers.

And yes, I am absolutely serious.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 9:14 PM on March 10, 2006


while on Iran

What can this administration really do, short of firing a nuke into Tehran? Our army is broken, our reserves are tapped, the budget is dry...what the fuck can they actually DO?

I hear them bluster, and I can see Iran snicker, with North Korea left to it's own devices, all the while.

Can this idiot Bush fuck up any more than he already has?

nevermind. i don't want an answer.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 9:23 PM on March 10, 2006


it's certainly a prerequisite for being an ignorant, shameful cunt of an excuse for a human being

Decani, either you unintentionally reversed your clauses or you're claiming that there are no anti war hippy wankers who are 'ignorant, shameful excuses for human beings'.
posted by jacalata at 9:37 PM on March 10, 2006


it's certainly a prerequisite for being an ignorant, shameful cunt of an excuse for a human being

Decani, either you unintentionally reversed your clauses or you're claiming that there are no anti war hippy wankers who are 'ignorant, shameful excuses for human beings'.
posted by jacalata at 9:37 PM PST on March 10 [!]



Yeah, but the spelling looks to be ok.
posted by stirfry at 10:04 PM on March 10, 2006


You people are in deep, deep shit.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:12 PM on March 10, 2006


we let the gang of murderers and thieves squatting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue crash planes into buildings

Murderers and thieves? Maybe. More like incompetent, opportunistic bitches.

But directly responsible for 9/11? Somebody get me my tinfoil hat...
posted by frogan at 10:23 PM on March 10, 2006


yup, grab your tinfoil hat. While you're at it, grab your earplugs, and a good thick cloth for a blindfold. Nothing to see here folks.
posted by stenseng at 11:32 PM on March 10, 2006


yup, grab your tinfoil hat. While you're at it, grab your earplugs, and a good thick cloth for a blindfold. Nothing to see here folks.

So, you've got something to back up those claims then? I mean, besides the ridiculous stuff we've all already seen and been able to dismiss with SCIENCE?
posted by Cyrano at 3:23 AM on March 11, 2006


The only hope I hold on to is that the punishment Bush and his cronies will receive at the hands of the civilized world will be so monumentally horrid that it gives future politicians pause a thousand years from now. That children in school will have to wait until they are old enough to hear of what was done to them, so as not to give them nightmares.

That's the only hope I've got left in me.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:47 AM on March 11, 2006


Decani, either you unintentionally reversed your clauses or you're claiming that there are no anti war hippy wankers who are 'ignorant, shameful excuses for human beings'.
posted by jacalata at 1:37 AM AST on March 11 [!]


"hippies" (who uses that word anymore anyway?) don't have blood on their hands. Bush voters do.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:22 AM on March 11, 2006


New York Times Baghdad Bureau Chief: US Effort in Iraq Will Likely "Fail"
"A day after returning to the U.S., after another long term as bureau chief in Baghdad, John Burns of The New York Times said on Bill Maher's Friday night HBO program that he now feels, for the first time, that the American effort in Iraq will likely 'fail.'

Asked if a civil war was developing there, Burns said, 'It's always been a civil war,' adding that it's just a matter of extent. He said the current U.S. leaders there--military and diplomatic--were doing there best but sectarian differences would 'probably' doom the enterprise.

Burns said that he and others underestimated this problem, feeling for a long time that toppling Saddam Hussein would almost inevitably lead to something much better."
posted by ericb at 9:43 AM on March 11, 2006


CD: When rat-bastards like Milsovic and Hussein and so on are allowed to remain alive indefinitely, instead of being subjected to a swift trial in which the evidence is treated with the same sort of standards we use when convicting mere civilians... well, I wouldn't hold much hope for seeing the Bush Administration pay a price for their crimes.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:54 AM on March 11, 2006


Burns still doesn't get it. Americans are "doing their best" but "sectarian differences would... doom the enterprise"

It was possible to hold Iraq together. Extremely difficult, but possible. This "blame the Iraqis" movement makes me ill.

Not to excuse the sectarian violence, or pretend it only exists because of the failure of America, but if the plan had been better executed, you simply wouldn't be seeing this level of violence. There are sectarian problems all over the world which are held in check by representative government and/or economic incentives. It took a few years for it to get to this level, and you can precisely track its rise with the growing failures of leadership on the US side.
posted by cell divide at 10:00 AM on March 11, 2006


"So, you've got something to back up those claims then? I mean, besides the ridiculous stuff we've all already seen and been able to dismiss with SCIENCE?"


If you're speaking of the physical evidence of the WTC collapses, nobody has explained a damned thing with SCIENCE.

A "pancake" theory of building collapse has been proferred that isn't in any way "proven," doesn't match the structural form of the building (i.e. floors "pancaking" failing to account for, or even mention, the inner box column structure like a central spine that held the buildings up,) and doesn't account for the building falling at nearly free-fall speed.

Anyone who has a basic grasp of physics, or has ever built anything, should have problems with the upper floors of the building crashing through hundreds of thousands of tons of undamaged reinforced structural steel box columns and concrete, at near freefall speed, due to gravity alone.

NO highrise building has ever collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11, including the Madrid skyscraper fire which burned for days, burned through completely, yet still stood.



No one has explained the flood of warnings from 11 different countries in the months before the 9/11 attacks, and why these were all ignored.

No one has explained why the hijacking plot of 9/11 caused a sudden and complete failure of our air defense system. This same system had worked perfectly 67 times in the prior year, catching off course aircraft with military interceptions usually within 5-10 minutes of course deviation.

No one has explained the role of war games which cluttered the skies that morning with false hijackings, removed existing aircover, and placed fema and other government officials on the ground the day before the attacks.

OPERATION NORTHERN VIGILANCE: This was planned months in advance of 9/11 and ensured that on the morning of 9/11, jet fighters were removed from patrolling the US east coast and sent to Alaska and Canada, therefore reducing the amount of fighter planes available to protect the east coast.

BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: Rudolph Giuliani let the details of this exercise slip in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. FEMA arrived in New York on September 10th to set up a command post located at Pier 29 under the auspices of a 'biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12. Tom Kenney of FEMA's National Urban Search and Rescue Team, told Dan Rather of CBS News that FEMA had arrived in New York on the night of September 10th. This was originally dismissed as a slip of the tongue. Giuliani was to use this post as a command post on 9/11 after he evacuated WTC Building 7.

Giuliani knew when to leave WTC 7 because he got advanced warning that the Trade Towers were about to collapse. "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News. How did Giuliani know the towers were about to collapse when no steel building in history had previously collapsed from fire damage?

OPERATION VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector and started to coincide with 9/11. Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, NORAD unit's airborne control and warning officer, was overseeing the exercise. At 8:40am she took a call from Boston Center which said it had a hijacked airliner. Her first words, as quoted by Newhouse News Service were, "It must be part of the exercise." This is another example of how the numerous drills on the morning of 9/11 deliberately distracted NORAD so that the real hijacked planes couldn't be intercepted in time.

No one has yet to explain with any believability the collapse of WTC 7 - a building untouched by debris from the attacks, yet still somehow catches fire, and seven hours after the attacks, collapses perfectly within it's own footprint, from all outward appearances, a perfect example of controlled demolitions, with statement by owner Larry Silverstein saying it was “pulled,” standard demolitions lingo.

I could go on all day. The questions of 9/11 and the evidence that does not in any way match the official explanation are endless.

Some other interesting details to ask about:

The major media’s immediate display of Bin Laden as the perpetrator, and display of the 19 alleged hijackers within 24 hours.

The evacuation of 160 Saudis including Bin Ladin family members when the airlines were grounded. The FBI were not allowed to adequately interrogate them on their knowledge of Osama’s whereabouts or any possible Saudi foreknowledge

The head of Pakistani intelligence, Mahmood Ahmed, in Washington, DC, meeting with Porter Goss, Bob Graham, George Tenet and having $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta

Warnings to avoid commercial airline flights went to John Ashcroft, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and Pentagon officials who cancelled their flights on Sept. 10th.

George Bush first appointed Henry Kissinger as chairman of 9/11 Commission

Max Cleland stated that “the government knew much more than it had told us and the American people were being scammed”, then was removed from the commission and shifted to the Import-Export Bank

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allowed to testify in secret and off the record, and Commissioner’s notes were confiscated. Now they can never be held liable for their statements. The media and American public acquiesced.

Several alleged hijackers have been reported in the foreign press as being alive, with no further explanation from our intelligence agencies

Marvin Bush is on the board of the company in charge of security for Logan airport, Dulles airport and the WTC

The illegal removal and destruction of the debris at Ground Zero by Demolition Services

The anthrax attacks and the silence in the media, even though the source was traced to Ft. Detrick, Maryland and the Ames strain source was destroyed

The promotion of David Frasca, Richard Myers, and Condaleeza Rice after failing their duties

The destruction of tapes of FAA flight controllers speaking about their accounts of the hijackings

The CIA report withheld for five months until after the election stating that the FAA had received 52 warnings of threats to airline security. They held 19 classified meetings to address the “growing threat from bin Laden and renewed interest in hijackings”, yet our government claimed ignorance of any such threats

June 21st change in protocol placing Rumsfeld in command of hijacking policy

Communications between the firefighters indicating the fires were in control

Reports from firefighters and others saying bombs going off in buildings

Numerous eyewitness from police, firefighters, and bystanders - accounts of flashes in the buildings, multiple explosions, sequenced "popping" noises, the smell of cordite-like chemicals, all consistent with controlled demolition

Evidence to the contrary:

There are lots of good sources of information questioning the events of 9/11 out there. There's also a lot of tinfoil hat crap that doesn't stand up to math, logic, or sniff tests.

Here are a few good places to start:


VIDEOS

Loose Change - a video examining the 9/11 attacks produced by a group of SUNY Oneonta film students

Free - Google Video


9/11 Eyewitness - terrible narrator, great footage, good analysis

Free - Google Video 3 parts

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

David Ray Griffin: 9/11 Commission: omissions and distortions

Free - Google Video


BOOKS

Crossing the Rubicon - Mike Ruppert

Amazon link

The New Pearl Harbor - David Ray Griffin
Amazon link
posted by stenseng at 11:10 AM on March 11, 2006


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - As if sabotage, killings and collapsing infrastructure were not enough, political uncertainty and the failure of Iraqi parties to form a government three months after an election is now dragging on Iraq's oil industry.

Analysts and officials said Iraq risks losing entirely the confidence of the international market as a supplier. The Oil Ministry said a cash crunch could hit even domestic supplies if the limbo continues, something that could provoke public anger.

"With the political situation as it is, the only direction the oil sector is going is downwards," Saad Allah al-Fathi, a former official at Iraq's oil ministry, told Reuters.
Government delay pulls Iraq's oil sector down
posted by y2karl at 12:23 PM on March 11, 2006


I wouldn't hold much hope for seeing the Bush Administration pay a price for their crimes.

It's happened before. It would take some balls on our part.

posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:14 PM on March 11, 2006


stenseng, that is an impressive summary.
posted by Hat Maui at 4:26 PM on March 11, 2006


stenseng, I've been avoiding most "crackpot" 9/11 theories-websites-books-etc. until now, but I was tempted to watch that first video you linked to. Very interesting. I can't believe that in the history of modern skyscraper construction, there have been only three times a building has fallen due to "fire" alone: WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

No one has yet to explain with any believability the collapse of WTC 7.

I happen to know someone currently working on the WTC7 lawsuit, and while I can't say much of anything useful about it, I can say that some of the actions of some of the occupants/tenants may have contributed to its destruction.

Personally, I was more fascinated at the information about the Pennsylvania and Pentagon crashes. Particularly the PA crash. I mean, there was no plane in there. Normally when a plane crashes, you have chunks of plane strewn about mixed with bodies. But there was no discernable plane "part" in that crash. No tail section, no wing section, no engine, and no bodies. Nuts.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:37 PM on March 11, 2006


Haig: Vietnam Mistakes Repeated in Iraq
"Former Nixon adviser Alexander Haig said Saturday military leaders in Iraq are repeating a mistake made in Vietnam by not applying the full force of the military to win the war.

'Every asset of the nation must be applied to the conflict to bring about a quick and successful outcome, or don't do it,' Haig said. 'We're in the midst of another struggle where it appears to me we haven't learned very much.'
[Associated Press | March 11, 2006]
posted by ericb at 5:12 PM on March 11, 2006


I really, really wish I had a means to monetize the gullibility of the conspiracy theory crowd. Do you people need anything? Is there anything I can sell you? Please tell me. My son needs braces, and you seem to have no limit to your ability to leap ... nay, soar ... to wild-ass places based on nothing more than the ideas of half-baked internet crackpots.

I realize you'll tell me that I'm the one that lacks critical thinking skills, I'm just a tool of the man, I'm getting rogered up the poop chute by the Bush cabal. Yadda yadda yadda. I still think you're crackpots in desperate need of perspective.

But in the meantime ... you're just such a unique breed. What do you people buy and can I sell you some more of it? Do you need a Bigfoot brand line of tennis shoes? A Mafia-killed-JFK line of kitchen gadgets? "Halliburton Sucks" T-shirts?

There's a viable business model in here, I just know it!
posted by frogan at 5:12 PM on March 11, 2006


Do you need a Bigfoot brand line of tennis shoes? A Mafia-killed-JFK line of kitchen gadgets? "Halliburton Sucks" T-shirts?

"Never went to the Moon Mood Rings"?
posted by stirfry at 5:24 PM on March 11, 2006


I really, really wish I had a means to monetize the gullibility of the conspiracy theory crowd.

What, you can't write a conspiracy book?
posted by sonofsamiam at 5:41 PM on March 11, 2006


"Never went to the Moon Mood Rings"?

See, now we're cooking!

Attention, wing-nuts! How do you show your fellow conspiracy wing-nuts that you don't just think WTC7 collapsed as a result of hidden demolition changes planted by the CIA -- you believe it! You're the REAL DEAL!

"I'm not some fake-ass wannabe chump, because I've got a pair of $900 Air-Jordan-Retired-Because-of-Secret-Gambling! You are the ball-lickers! Look upon my wing-nutness and despair!"
posted by frogan at 5:44 PM on March 11, 2006


I hate to even answer these numbnuts because then they get all bevets on you, but I can't help myself.

This is a good and oh so typical case:

blahblahblah...ship and destroy all evidence from the scene of the crime, and immediately blame a largely fictional "Al Qaeda" terror network, ostensibly headed by a member of Saudi Arabia's second richest family.

followed by:

A family with connections to Halliburton, the Bush family, The house of Saud, the CIA, and more.


mkay...
posted by stirfry at 5:49 PM on March 11, 2006


"I'm not some fake-ass wannabe chump, because I've got a pair of $900 Air-Jordan-Retired-Because-of-Secret-Gambling! You are the ball-lickers! Look upon my wing-nutness and despair!"

Just....pleeeeze don't make me run too far. I'll fall off the edge of the earth, fall into a pile of Protocols of Zion texts, and Elvis will come running out of the 7-11 and sing:


You look like an angel
Walk like an angel
Talk like an angel
But I got wise
You’re the devil in disguise
Oh yes you are
The devil in disguise

You fooled me with your kisses
You cheated and you schemed
Heaven knows how you lied to me
You’re not the way you seemed

You look like an angel
Walk like an angel
Talk like an angel
But I got wise

You’re the devil in disguise
Oh yes you are
The devil in disguise

posted by stirfry at 5:58 PM on March 11, 2006


A Mafia-killed-JFK line of kitchen gadgets?

How 'bout a line of "there is no conspiracy" products for the intellectually stalward?

I've got it: golf paraphenalia. Maybe a "My Head's in the Sand, not my Ball!" line of sand wedges? You could supplement it with a "Lone shooter" 1-wood. Instead of "Eagle," you could try shooting "America's."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:48 PM on March 11, 2006


Rats, make that stalwart. Like the thing that grows on your face.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:50 PM on March 11, 2006


How 'bout a line of "there is no conspiracy" products for the intellectually stalward?

How about "lets generalize" bath towels?


I've got it: golf paraphenalia. Maybe a "My Head's in the Sand, not my Ball!" line of sand wedges?

Cool! I thought the sand was aluminum silicate.


You could supplement it with a "Lone shooter" 1-wood.

You could do that. But your tinfoil is blocking your point.
posted by stirfry at 7:44 PM on March 11, 2006


Oh hey, good to see the "see no evil" brigade avoided my twenty-plus salient facts and questions to fall back on the old standard "tinfoil hat-we never landed on the moon-lone gunman" gag. That never gets old guys. Really.


See, now, I point out that you completely ducked every single bit of the substance of my post, and then you guys can post something about "it's not up to us to prove you wrong," while still avoiding every legitimate question or piece of factual evidence I provided.


Oh, and throw in "moonbat" somehwhere if you're feeling saucy.

I'm so glad we have the formula down so we never have to actually discuss, analyze, or question anything the nice folks at the government and the networks tell us about the world. It makes the world a safer place! We stopped Saddam from nuking LA, and found all those WMDs!
posted by stenseng at 8:21 PM on March 11, 2006


DeWine is co-sponsoring the bill with Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. The White House and Republican Senate leaders have indicated general support, but the bill could face changes as it works its way through Congress.

That list is missing only Lincoln Chafee. Boy, those are the, ahem, maverick independents of the Senate Republicans. Scary in both red pill or blue pill form and any number of alternate realities. Did they all gets horse's heads in their beds or were they just drinking the Sugar Free Koolaid all along ?
posted by y2karl at 8:36 PM on March 11, 2006


stenseg....to my mind it is like this. I don't waste intellect on flat earth theorists, ID theorists, never went to the moon theorists, kidnapped by UFOs theorists, Atlantis theorists or any of their bretheren.

And bretheren they are in that many a whakko web site covers more than one base.

You peoples' "see no evil" bullshit is just that. I see one hell of a lot of evil in this administration. Their incompetence is so magnificent that the sort of evil your moonbat whakkodom posits upon them is giving them a degree of credit beyond their abilities.

Your so called "salient facts" have been debunked over and over and yet you conspiracy theorists of the internet cling to them them the same way a fundie clings to creationism.

There is no discussion with your type.
posted by stirfry at 8:40 PM on March 11, 2006


Do'h ! Wrong Thread !

*whistles... runs for exit...*
posted by y2karl at 8:42 PM on March 11, 2006


stenseg, I refer you to my previous statement...

I realize you'll tell me that I'm the one that lacks critical thinking skills, I'm just a tool of the man, I'm getting rogered up the poop chute by the Bush cabal. Yadda yadda yadda. I still think you're crackpots in desperate need of perspective.
posted by frogan at 8:48 PM on March 11, 2006


in desperate need of perspective thorazine.

fixed it for ya.

posted by stirfry at 8:54 PM on March 11, 2006


I am not a "people" or a "type."

I am not a proponent of a flat earth, intelligent design, faked moon landing, ufo abduction, atlantean mystery, Dr. Bronner's soap, nature's harmonious four day time-cube, or anything of the sort.

You're full of shit. You've got an agenda, and you fling ad-hominem attacks and appeals to authority like a chimp with a fistful of so much poo.

No one has "debunked" ANY of the salient facts that I listed, nor have they explained any of the legitimate and troubling questions that I and many others, including Howard Zinn, John Conyers, Cynthia McKinney, Mike Ruppert, and many more have raised about the attacks of September Eleventh.

I say put up or shut up. I've asked legitimate questions, and proferred factual information, and you have responded with "tinfoil" "moonbat" and more.

Why?


Cause ya got nothin'.

I don't give a rat's ass what you think, one way or another, but I hope this "discussion" is informative to others on MeFi, and beyond, as to the tactics you and others like you use to stifle open discourse and chill speech.
posted by stenseng at 8:56 PM on March 11, 2006


I'll go one step further. I challenge you (frogan, stirfry, any other hatas in this thread) to actually watch two of the videos I linked to above. Neither are longer than about an hour. Both are free via Google Video.

I challenge....no, fuckit, I fucking dare you to watch Loose Change, and 9/11 Eyewitness, and then tell me that there are in your mind, and in light of what you saw, absolutely no unanswered questions in your mind about the events of 9/11.

Whaddya say Mefi?

Betcha I don't get any takers.


Loose Change - a video examining the 9/11 attacks produced by a group of SUNY Oneonta film students



Free - Google Video






9/11 Eyewitness - terrible narrator, great footage, good analysis



Free - Google Video 3 parts



Part 1



Part 2



Part 3
posted by stenseng at 9:02 PM on March 11, 2006


aaaand.......



crickets.
posted by stenseng at 10:15 PM on March 11, 2006


I fucking dare you to watch Loose Change, and 9/11 Eyewitness, and then tell me that there are in your mind, and in light of what you saw, absolutely no unanswered questions in your mind about the events of 9/11.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Yes, I shit you not, I've already seen both of those. You're going to have to take my word for it, obviously. But I'm one of those Gerald Posner types -- intensely interested in how interpretations of complex events go completely off the rails into conspiracy theory. It's a fascinating psychology.

And I just disagree with you. I think you're flat wrong, and your bulldoggedness on the issue betrays you. If anyone's closed-minded here, it's the conspiracy theorist's tendency to demand that those that disagree with them must prove a negative (e.g. "prove to me that Bush didn't blow up WTC7 ... ya' got nothing"). Which is, of course, impossible. So I don't have to "have" anything.

But let's get to the crux of the issue.

there are in your mind, and in light of what you saw, absolutely no unanswered questions in your mind about the events of 9/11

Of course there are unanswered questions. A lot of them. Not as many as YOU clearly think, but some. Sure.

But where things get screwy is when people take bits of information, bits of gossip, bits of truthiness, misinterpretations, hearsay, etc, and whip them all together into a frothy cocktail of bullshit, with the end result being an assertion that behind everything is a deliberate, malicious, impossibly skillful, impossibly wide-scale conspiracy.

This isn't new. It's been done a thousand times over. The UFO crowd are the pioneers. I see lights in the sky and wonder what they are. The UFO guys see lights in the sky and assert that they are aliens. When you ask them how they know, they show you a smudged photograph and demand that you prove it isn't visitors from the planet Vulcan.

Oh well. Rock on with your bad self.

Now, you haven't asked the question ... why do the crackpots deserve ridicule? It's because the batshitinsane yammering distracts from any real conversation. Read the Posner book about 9/11. Plenty of administrative bullshit to go around. I'd love to talk about how in 2001 (2001!), while we're all using Google, FBI databases couldn't perform searches on more than one term at a time. You could look for "terrorist" and "pilot" and "training," but not "terrorists training as pilots." Unreal.

Have a good night.

I'll crib the ending to a great movie and say, "finish with a quote and go out strong."

"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges near, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us - then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."

"If we can't think for ourselves, if we're unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness."
posted by frogan at 10:48 PM on March 11, 2006


Yeah, glad we've got those "Gerald Posner types" to light the way.


I Was Wrong About Bush
He's proved himself to be the leader America needs.

BY GERALD POSNER
posted by stenseng at 11:07 PM on March 11, 2006


"Sometimes historians wonder whether great leaders are made by the crises they confront, or whether they would be great leaders even in untroubled times. More often than not, real leadership flourishes when faced with imminent threats and dangers. That is what America faces at the start of the 21st century from a radical perversion of Islam. And President Bush showed all of us who doubted him, and who voted against him, that he is indeed a leader.

There will be numerous tests for him in the long battle ahead. But, as of now, he has converted many of us to admirers, and he deserves our complete support. The entire administration, from Colin Powell to Donald Rumsfeld to Dick Cheney, inspires more confidence as we embark on this uncertain war than we likely would have had in any Gore administration.

I must sadly admit that Bill Clinton, for whom I voted twice, could not have delivered that same clear speech last Thursday. His almost compulsive need to please all sides would have prevented him from casting the issues as starkly or as unequivocally.

My late father used to tell me that one of the hallmarks of good character is the courage to admit mistakes. Most people who lock themselves into a public position want to keep defending their original stance, even when in their heart they know subsequent events have proven them incorrect.

Well, I was vocal last year in stating my firm belief that the wrong man was elected president. Now I am compelled to admit I was mistaken. The best man for this incredibly hard campaign is now president. I suspect many of my fellow Democrats feel exactly the same way."


yes. brilliant stuff.
posted by stenseng at 11:13 PM on March 11, 2006


If anyone's closed-minded here, it's the conspiracy theorist's tendency to demand that those that disagree with them must prove a negative (e.g. "prove to me that Bush didn't blow up WTC7 ... ya' got nothing")

Ah, but you're talking about two different sets of people. The first are the whack-jobs that take shreds of "Hmm, that's interesting," and spin it into a tale of intrigue and suspense. The second are people like myself, who try and take in all the facts but reserve final judgement. You've already come to a conclusion even with conflicting evidence to the contrary (which you don't seem to have a problem with). That makes you as bad as the wackos.

No one has come up with an explanation for the explosions in either WTC before they collapsed. No one has explained how the lobby "looked like a bomb went off" (to quote one of the firefighters who was actually there). Of course, if you've seen the Canadian documentary, you can see for yourself that the lobby is a shambles.

The plane wreckage from both the PA and the DC crashes are... well, let's just say, curious. Particularly the Pentagon crash. If a plane supposedly skimmed the lawn, why is it in immaculate condition even as the facade burned? Why was the hole so small? Why were windows surrounding the entry point intact? Where is the plane? The engines? Oh, they burned up. Yet the bodies of the victims survive for identification.

I have no conclusions to draw from this, except that the currently accepted wisdom doesn't hold water.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:32 PM on March 11, 2006


^

DING! WINNAR.
posted by stenseng at 9:59 AM on March 12, 2006


I also find the lack of a burning plane at the Pentagon to be curious. I try not to get all tinfoil hatty about the subject, but there is a part of me that thinks there is no accusation against this adminsitration, no matter how wild, which will not eventually prove to be true.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:18 AM on March 12, 2006


I'm still amazed that more people don't find the "perfect" collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 incredibly troubling. Large structures *never* collapse perfectly like that naturally, and no steel building had ever collapsed from fire prior to 9/11. Ever.

I have to think that our incredible media saturation as a culture has a lot to do with most peoples' lack of understanding as to how totally unusual those collapses are, simply because the only time they've ever seen a large structure fail has probably been footage of a controlled demolition on television. That has become the new "norm" as to how a big building looks when it comes down, but in reality, it's not at all.

There's a reason controlled demolition is such a well paid, highly specialized career. It's REALLY HARD, AND REALLY EXPENSIVE to make a building fall down in it's own footprint, perfectly like that. It takes an incredibly precise level of understanding of the physics of demo materials, in conjunction with the layout of the structure and where the load forces are in the structure.

These guys get paid big big bucks to pull off demolitions like that, specifically because big tall buildings FALL OVER, or splinter, and fall over and apart, in unpredictable paths, not down into their own footprint, always, unless controlled demo is used.

The odds of a steel framed skyscraper, not just collapsing from fire, but collapsing from fire in a perfectly even and controlled manner, not once, but THREE TIMES in one day, never before, and never since, are so ridiculously astronomically high, that I'm continually amazed that anyone with a basic understanding of mathematical probablilty isn't swinging from the rafters demanding an explanation of this.
posted by stenseng at 10:34 AM on March 12, 2006






IN PRAISE OF MADMEN

Dear Newsday -

Your friends over at the Post made a roast of Mr. Habib the day after you printed his remarks concerning 9/11, calling him a "MADMAN MULLAH" and applauding his dismissal for the crime of being a Muslim who honestly answered a reporter's questions on the phone.

Funny, the Post never mentioned the dozens of firefighters, cops, TV reporters and escaping tenants who confirm Mr. Habib's story. (See below.) Shouldn't they too be fired and/or deprived of their pensions?

Funny, the Post never mentioned that Mr. Habib is 100% correct when he says, "No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire." That's exactly what Fire Engineering Magazine says, and it's the undisputed Bible of hi-rise fire data.

Funny, the Post never mentioned that WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein made a 233,333,333.33% profit (that's TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE POINT THIRTY-THREE PERCENT PROFIT) from his $15 million downpayment on the WTC. Not bad for an investment held for about a month. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, Silverstein's Building 7, the 47-story hi-rise across the street from the WTC, also collapsed on 9/11 - without being hit by a plane, and with only minor fires on two floors. Like the Twin Towers, it collapsed inward at the speed of free fall (6.5 seconds), which can only be achieved by controlled demolition. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, Silverstein shared in a $450 million profit on Building 7 on top of the 233,333,333.33% profit he walked away with on the rest of the WTC. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, the WTC leasehold was awarded by the Port Authority to the LOWEST bidder. That would be -- you guessed it -- Lawrence Silverstein, Esq. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, according to an article in the London Financial Times that appeared days after 9/11, Silverstein had a clause written into the leasehold providing that, in the event of a terrorist attack on the WTC, he would no longer be liable for ground lease payments. He could -- and did -- walk away with a $3.5 billion insurance settlement without the inconvenience of having to make further payments to Port Authority. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, Silverstein's attorneys refused to turn over the World Trade Center blueprints to Congressional investigators. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, by order of the City of New York, the Towers' charred steel beams were removed from Ground Zero immediately -- before they could be forensically examined for traces of explosives. They were sold as scrap metal and shipped lickety-split to Asia. But, really, how could former federal prosecutor Rudolph Giuliani have known it's illegal to remove evidence from the scene of a crime, much less the scene of the nation's largest crime? Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, after Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, federal investigations were commenced no later than two weeks after the crime. But President Bush and Vice President Cheney held up the 9/11 investigation for a YEAR AND A HALF. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, according to CNN and other reports, the President and the Vice President each made personal phone calls to Senate leader Tom Daschle, asking him to LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE 9/11 INVESTIGATION. What's more, they refused to testify under oath. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, insider traders made millions of dollars by betting that American and United Airlines stock prices would crash on 9/11. The government knows who they are, but won't release the names of those who profited from foreknowledge of 9/11. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, at each 9/11 airport, security camera films showed every passenger who boarded all four flights. But the government refuses to let us see exactly who was -- and who wasn't -- on those planes. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, there are multiple air-to-ground tapes from 9/11, but the government will let us hear only one of them. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, the FBI produced pictures of 19 Arab hi-jackers within 24 hours of the attack. But a few months later, the BBC and the London Telegraph discovered at least 6 of the "hi-jackers" were still alive, living in Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, from 1995 on, there were 11 high-level warnings to the CIA from foreign intelligence agencies, specifying a terrorist attack in lower Manhattan. No preventive measures were taken. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, the year before 9/11, air force jets successfully intercepted planes that strayed off-course 67 times -- usually within 15-20 minutes. On 9/11, they couldn't intercept a single plane -- and they were looking for them. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, the 60-ton Boeing 757 which crashed into the Pentagon entered through a hole about the size of a car, as shown by the first photo taken minutes after the crash. And amazingly, after being slammed into by a 60-ton jet traveling at 400 mph, the Pentagon wall did not collapse; it waited a half hour to fall down. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, there were three security cameras opposite the Pentagon, and all three captured the Pentagon crash from start to finish. But the government will let us see ONLY FIVE FRAMES of one of the films, and none of the other two. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, 9/11 expert David Ray Griffin combed through the 9/11 Commission's Final Report and came up with no fewer than 115 omissions, distortions and outright lies ... such as not mentioning a word of published eyewitness testimony that massive underground explosions were heard at Ground Zero immediately before the Towers collapsed straight down, inwardly, at the speed of free fall -- exhibiting all the signs of a controlled demolition. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

No, there are no reasonable grounds for further investigation of 9/11. Nothing the public would be interested in learning more about . . . nothing that would outrage them. Why, you'd have to be a madman or a mullah -- or both -- to think so.
posted by stenseng at 11:38 AM on March 12, 2006


Senator Joe Biden on 'Meet the Press':
"When I got back from Iraq a little while ago, I went down to see the president, and I sat with the president, and he kept talking about terrorists. And I said, ‘Mr. President, if every single al-Qaeda personality, every single al-Qaeda operative or anyone like him tomorrow were blown away, you still have a war, Mr. President. This is well beyond terrorists.’ There’s an insurgency, Tim, a gigantic insurgency that has nothing to do with terrorists."
posted by ericb at 8:57 PM on March 12, 2006


It takes an incredibly precise level of understanding of the physics of demo materials, in conjunction with the layout of the structure and where the load forces are in the structure.

That is why I believe the twin towers fell naturally. I do not and can not believe that it would be possible to fall them purposefully without (a) having them fall imperfectly and (b) keep it a perfect secret. The latter makes absolutely no logical sense to me. The former — hey, weird shit happens all the time.

Everything else about the 9/11 attacks, however, smells strongly of tuna.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:13 PM on March 12, 2006


And, um, perhaps with that I'd best shut up about things that have absolutely nothing to do with the front page post, eh? Sorry.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:17 PM on March 12, 2006


"I do not and can not believe that it would be possible to fall them purposefully without (a) having them fall imperfectly and (b) keep it a perfect secret."


Point (a) is absurd on it's face.

I assume you have heard of controlled demolition...

If not, take a look.

Note also the incredible similarity between controlled demo and the wtc collapses.

Those huge rolling plumes of hot gas and dust don't just happen when a building collapses. They're caused by explosives.

point (b) is somewhat understandable, but really, it's not terribly hard to keep people quiet, and/or to compartmentalize operations such that only a handful of individuals have any sense of the overall structure of an excercise. The numerous overlapping wargames being conducted in and around NYC on 9/11 could have provided that sort of organizational cover. As to keeping people quiet, some combination of military/covert informational discipline coupled with overt or covert threats to the safety of friends/family/spouse/children etc. would be more than effective.
posted by stenseng at 11:12 PM on March 12, 2006


I am not sure what to believe, but one thing I found interesting is that a few days ago, the CEO of a fairly large company (a nominal Republican, with a PhD and buckets of cash) told me he thought Bush or people connected to him, "set up 9/11". That blew my mind.
posted by cell divide at 4:15 AM on March 13, 2006


US Postwar Iraq Strategy a Mess, Blair Was Told
"Senior British diplomatic and military staff gave Tony Blair explicit warnings three years ago that the US was disastrously mishandling the occupation of Iraq, according to leaked memos."
[Guardian Unlimited | March 14, 2006]
posted by ericb at 2:55 PM on March 14, 2006




New CBS News Poll [PDF]:
Only 3% of Americans believe Bush decided to go to war to free the Iraqis or promote democracy.

25% of Americans believe the Iraq war was worth the costs.
posted by ericb at 3:04 PM on March 14, 2006


More U.S. Troops Moving Into Iraq
"March was supposed to be the month when the U.S. commander in Iraq made a recommendation to pull more troops out of Iraq. Instead, he has asked for more troops to be sent in."
[CBS News | March 14, 2006]
posted by ericb at 3:07 PM on March 15, 2006


« Older To orbit or bust   |   The last feudal government in Europe Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments