• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
KevenSeven_ On January - 12 - 2010

I freely admit that I was among the loudest accusing the reactionaries of colluding int the brutal murder of Federal employee and census worker, Bill Sparkman.

I was wrong.   Sparkman committed suicide.

From WaPo:

William E. Sparkman Jr. was found with his hands, feet and mouth loosely bound with duct tape, a rope loosely tied around his neck. Passersby spotted his body Sept. 12 in a remote area of the Daniel Boone National Forest in eastern Kentucky.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR2009112403778.html

Now, I suppose the WaPo could be bamboozled, or could be colluding in the cover up.   But I am disinclined to believe that.   From the same report:

Witnesses told investigators that Sparkman had discussed ending his life. He had also discussed recent federal investigations of Kentucky public officials and the negative perceptions of federal agencies expressed by some residents of Clay County, Ky., where he lived, investigators said. Before his death, Sparkman also secured two life insurance policies, totaling $600,000, that would not pay out for suicide.

Again, I suppose it is possible that all that is a fiction.   And I know that some people believe that all law enforcement agencies from south of the Ohio are untrustworthy, but I am not ready to build my conclusions of the case on a prejudice against Southerners.

Again, WaPo:

The Kentucky State Police partnered with the FBI and other state and federal agencies to investigate the death. Authorities decided to share some details of their investigation Tuesday because of the high level of national interest.

Granted, there are some who can believe that the FBI is prepared to collude in the cover-up of the murder of a Federal employee, but me?   I find that implausible.  And the report was authored by the State Police, not some redneck county sheriff.    I cannot vouch for the veracity of the Kentucky State Police in particular, but those who continue to insist that this was murder bear the responsibility to provide specific, not vague reasons to doubt this specific police agency, not some woolly generalizations about Southern police agencies.

And just to establish that it is not only the WaPo that has drunk the Koolaid, the NY Times reports:

The police said they analyzed the ink on Mr. Sparkman’s chest to determine if someone else had written the word. They concluded that the letters had been written from the bottom to the top, which is not how another person would have written them while facing Mr. Sparkman.

The police also found no evidence of a struggle, and there was only Mr. Sparkman’s DNA on the rag in his mouth and near his body.

Mr. Sparkman’s hands were bound, but loosely, allowing him to move them a shoulder-width apart. The police added that they believed Mr. Sparkman had acted alone in manipulating the scene to conceal the suicide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/25census.html

For those who continue to insist that this is some sort of conspiracy, I ask you to state expressly that you believe that the FBI would be ready to cover up this murder.   And if you could provide a published challenge to the police report from any sort of credible source, such as The Southern Poverty Law Center.   The SPLC does rather pay attention to lynchings in the South.   I dare say to lynchings anywhere in the US.   To the best of my knowledge, no FOIA requests have been filed.   What journalist of any real credibility is pursuing this?

I bang this drum be cause I find it tiresome to see other progressives expend energy on some woo woo conspiracy theory when there is so much serious work to do.   Obama’s agenda has slammed hard against the Party of No, and we have seats in the House and Senate to defend and win.  BTW, it is entirely possible that we could GAIN seats in the Senate, if only my fellow progressives would pull their goddam socks up and make it happen.

I grant that I was not a witness to this tragedy.    I was a witness to 9/11, although I was in downtown DC at the time.   What a horrid day.  Still, I did not need to be in NY to know that Bush did not destroy the WTC, nor did the Israelis.   None of the subscribers to the murder theory were witnesses either.   My logic follows as direct a path as I can draw:the FBI investigated, I trust the FBI to get the facts on the death of a Federal worker correct, the FBI says it was suicide, I believe with good reason that it is suicide.   I challenge anyone who would care to insist that it was murder to illustrate a similar path.

Occam’s razor tells us that this was a suicide.

Categories: News & Politics

217 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. KQuark says:

    Talk about beating a dead Bush and Cheney victim.

    Were Bush or Cheney a criminals because they let a terror attack occur on purpose or just because they were criminally negligent?

    Bush and Cheney are criminals that all that’s important to me and like I said before their biggest crime was starting aggressive war on false pretenses.

    Now the whole 911 was an inside job conspiracy theorists who say the CIA under Cheney planted explosives to take down the twin towers or blow up the pentagon have definitely been proven wrong by hard evidence. But I don’t see anyone really saying that’s what happened here.

    However, anyone who thinks Bush and especially Cheney and his droogs would not be capable of purposely not connecting the dots has far too much faith in these criminals than I do for sure. Especially at the beginning of Bush’s presidency it was Cheney’s presidency and he was definitely capable of letting a terror attack occur if he though it fit his ends. He probably did not think 911 would have gone as far as it did but Cheney would not give a shit about losing a few hundred people in plane crashes to further his neocon aspirations. It’s also about impossible to prove because the conspiracy could have in this case just been in one man’s mind when you think about it.

    The ultimate bottom line that we all can agree on I hope is that Bush and Cheney are fucking war criminals for the body of their actions before and after 911. Debating where their crimes begin and end is purely academic and hardly worth it.

    • KevenSeven says:

      Well, I would make a few observations on that:

      If BushCo had deliberately permitted an attack for whatever reason, I think that would be a crime even larger than deceiving us about the threat posed by Iraq or invading Iraq.

      If you would like to say that the distinction is pretty damned small, I’d go along with that.

      The other point that you don’t quite make: Was BushCo sufficiently evil to have deliberately allowed 911? That is very evil indeed. But I will give you that one, as I have to agree that they were very evil.

      What you don’t address, and that’s OK, is the question of DID they do this horrid crime?

      I cannot believe that they did, for good and sufficient reasons. Morally capable? Yes. Did they do it? No. But I’m tired and gonna get some sleep. I may be able to write up my argument, which really needs to be a substantial document to make any sense, tomorrow. Or not, as I need to get my books to my accountant soon.

  2. AdLib says:

    Folks, it is a challenge and occasionally a tightrope act to protect Freedom of Expression and at the same time, the integrity of a website and its membership.

    There are times where conversation hits a wall and the continuation of it not only becomes redundant and a case of diminishing returns, it can also move the primary issue aside and make the discussion itself the issue.

    That’s when things can become personal or are taken personally and we’ve seen at other sites what that always leads to.

    So, may I suggest for this thread that whoever wishes to, summarizes their position, agrees to disagree and moves on to another topic?

    Appreciate your consideration on this.

    • KevenSeven says:

      But, as Hitchens would say, we barely got our trousers off!

      OK, I’ll give you my best thumbnail:

      I not only concede but insist that BushCo came into office with an agenda, and that they deliberately deceived the nation regarding the threat of Iraq, and further that they exploited 911 shamelessly. All conceded many times over.

      I will likewise not only concede but insist that BushCo had some level of warning of a pending attack. Here we begin to diverge, as there is a need to say that they did this deliberately in order to create causus belli. This I cannot credence, and my reasons will follow shortly. But on this point, I say it was hubris and incompetence that caused them to not figure it out.

      The suggestion that Willie Brown was given a waring on Sept 10 has been offered. If one accepts this as true, then one needs to assert that BushCo had hard knowledge that the attack was very much nigh, and that it would be in America.

      Now on this next point I must insist: If one is to assert that BushCo deliberately did nothing to prevent 911, despite having solid warnings, then one must, as a matter of logical consequence, be accusing BushCo of the basest of treason. Treason like likes of which we have not seen since the darkest days of the Cold War, if not further back.

      To deny that this crime described was treason defies the language, much less logic.

      So, to put away the Willie Brown evidence: one needs to believe that BushCo was willing to see the nation attacked, yet saw the need to do the responsible thing and warn a mayor to not fly that day.

      I think that nobody could make that argument with a straight face. BushCo is willing to commit a crime that would make Benedict Arnold look an amateur, but they are going to lift the curtain sufficiently to warn a mayor, who they probably did not like if they even bothered to think of him, and leave a trail of crumbs back to the bat cave?

      Sorry. Nobody will ever get me to believe that W Brown was warned. Unless you get me twenty other mayors and governors to come out and insist that they were warned.

      But set that aside. Let’s just accuse BushCo of deliberately ignoring threats in the hopes of an attack that would suit their political and geopolitical purposes.

      That is still treason. And I am OK with accusing them of being morally capable of such a crime. God knows they may have been sacrificing children for all of what I know, they were so monstrous.

      But here is the problem: While the American people now believe that BushCo deceived them in order to get the war going, the American people are not sufficiently moved to demand trials. Why? Because lots of the people who believe that BushCo did that are glad that BushCo did that.

      Sort of like the reactionaries parroting on about the number of people opposed to the current HC bill. Half those people oppose it because they want a more socialist bill.

      Likewise, many if not most of the Americans who believe that BushCo tortured assorted hapless Muslims, are happy that BushCo tortured assorted hapless Muslims.

      Like it or not, many of the people involved in BushCo were acting under a freakishly bent impression that they were being patriotic. While I will grant you that Cheney and Rummy are as evil as the day is long, and would put their own mother on the rack to get one more oil contract, I have considerable difficulty believing that Colin Powell and Armatige and even the semi-bright Tenent would be willing to go past Straussian deception and torture to the point of being willing to see America attacked and do nothing about it. Bush? I don’t care to think about it.

      So, how big is this conspiracy? Is it all in Cheney’s head? Is he all there is to it? Is he preventing intel moving correctly and telling people that their shoe laces are untied? For months on end?

      I will concede that that is just slightly more feasible than the Sun rising in the west. But I just can’t imagine that the entire Nat Sec machinery, including the military, would just stare out the window for months on end while VP Svengalli was hypnotizing them.

      And if the conspiracy is even slightly larger, then you need to imagine people who must be imagining what the consequences of discovery would be.

      Because while plenty of Americans would pay for a cable channel featuring the torture of hapless Muslims, and plenty more regret that we only get to invade Iraq once, I cannot be convinced that the American people would not have dragged every member of BushCo out of their offices and hung them from the lamp posts of DC had they become convinced that the Admin had known of 911 and deliberately done nothing to prevent it.

      Hell, the Joint Chiefs would have broken down the gates to allow the mob in.

      That, my friends, is why I find it utterly implausible that they actually did this thing.

      Is Cheney sufficiently morally bankrupt to do it? Sure. Could he get enough people to go along with it? I very much doubt it. I think that if he had tried to recruit people to this conspiracy, he would have suffered a sudden and perfectly explicable heart attack.

      I simply cannot credence it. Others may believe that BushCo could be that reckless, and they were pretty goddamn reckless, but this would have been suicidal. Who knows, perhaps they are just that crazy.

    • boomer1949 says:

      I already have, but thanks for the reminder. On the other hand, beware of dragon slayers; me thinks you’re going to have something similar to the House’s 9,000 page HC bill.

      I am dun finished thar Sheriff; besides I have a headache from the brick wall anyway. :-)

    • KQuark says:

      OK dad us kids will try and behave.

    • bitohistory says:

      Understood and appreciated, AdLib.

  3. javaz says:

    Sparkman’s body was found Sept. 12 near Hoskins Cemetery in a heavily wooded area of the Daniel Boone National Forest. Investigators said Sparkman’s wrists were bound so loosely that he could have done the taping himself. He was touching the ground almost to his knees. To survive, “all Mr. Sparkman had to do at any time was stand up,” Capt. Lisa Rudzinksi of the Kentucky State Police said.

    Adams, who passed a polygraph test on his statements, told authorities Sparkman paid him $7.50 per hour in cash to travel with him in the remote areas when he canvassed door to door for the census.

    “In reality Bill spoke with me several times about killing himself and, on the Saturday before his death he told me he was going to kill himself on the next Wednesday,” Adams said in a written statement included in more than 200 pages of investigative records.

    AP Article Here

    • SueInCa says:

      That statement was verified? If so those cops are dumber than people who watch faux news. And the FBI bought it?

    • boomer1949 says:

      hey javaz,

      How are you today? Ohio is having it’s January thaw. We’ll be in a mess of slush, freeze, slush, freeze for weeks.

      Re: your post…

      My issue the other evening had less to do with the message and a great deal more to do with the messenger. It’s why I made the decision to watch the follow-up from the sidelines the very next day.

      Remember Barney Frank and the woman at the Town Hall Meeting? It’s that damn furniture conspiracy. 😉


  4. AdLib says:

    VOX POPULI IS ABOUT TO BEGIN! CLICK HERE TO GO THERE:

    http://planetpov.com/live-events/vox-populi/

  5. nicole473 says:

    Utterly logical, Kevin. But sometimes instinct is a better judge than logic.

    Prior to the election of 2000, I would have snickered at anyone attempting to convince me that a national election could be stolen. Or that SCOTUS would willingly collude to steal it. These days, I am wiser, and far less naive.

    In my very humble opinion, there are people who will do ANYTHING, commit any atrocity in order to attain what they wish to have, be it power, money, et al.

    The government can easily cover up whatever it wishes. Bill Sparkman’s death might have been a suicide (and I am leaning towards that belief at this point), but your insistence that the police or the FBI would not have fabricated evidence to cover up the truth is simply disingenuous.

    Edit: For the record, I lived in the South for 10 years during the 1970’s. The police forces were known to cover up many things, including lynchings. I would not be at all surprised to hear that they still do so.

    • KevenSeven says:

      There is nothing disingenuous about my assumption that the FBI is not covering up. I am as out front in stating that as I can be. I find it very implausible to believe that they are.

      And considering the fact that this guy was talking about suicide, I really have difficulty with the postulate.

    • bitohistory says:

      They never covered up anything about the murders of the Black Panthers in Chicago either. Lied about them committing murder then lied about the cover-up!

      • nicole473 says:

        So true. Hell, they have lied about many, many things throughout the history of this country,

      • javaz says:

        Certainly the government never lied about the Gulf of Tonken either.

        • SueInCa says:

          Or Watergate, or Iraq. There is case law that indicted FBI for fraud and taking bribes. LAPD and NYPD have more than their share of corruption, Rodney King, J Edgar Hoover and his wiretaps, Nixon, Iran Contra the list goes on and on

          • KevenSeven says:

            Yet none of it proves anything.

            I stand by my conviction on this: I find it very hard to credence the idea that the FBI is involved in a cover up in this case, and considering the evidence that this guy was suicidal, I am sticking with my opinion that it was suicide.

            • SueInCa says:

              It proves they lie when convenient or to cover up inappropriate, sometimes criminal, activity

  6. SueInCa says:

    OK Kevin
    My grandson is now playing with his Wii so here are the facts you asked for in your comment to me.

    Coincidences? No, I don’t think so…………….
    All of this evidence is reported by reputable sources and leaves me to believe that BushCo had all intention from the beginning of his administration to attack Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein once and for all. 9/11 provided the “pearl harbor catastrophic event” that galvanized the nation against Iraq and Afghanistan. The lies that were told to this nation provides the premise that Bush wanted war with Iraq just as did all the signers of the PNAC letters. In fact these signers were well known in the Bush administration, William Bennet, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, Jeffrey Bergner, Zalmay Khalilzad(Ambassador to Iraq) , Paul Wolfowitz served as deputy sec of def, all members of his staff and signers of the letter from PNAC. So, all of the signers of the letter were taken care of in key positions in the Bush administration, except for William(Bill) Kristol.(see below)

    Richard Pearlman worked on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004. He was Chairman of the Board from 2001 to 2003 under the Bush Administration.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._James_Woolsey,_Jr.
    James Woolsey Within hours of the 9/11 attacks appeared on television suggesting Iraq complicity. In 2002 he told The Wall Street Journal that Iraq (he believed) was also connected to the Alfred P Murrah Fed Building in OK City

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zoellick
    Zoellick was the United States Trade Representative, he later became Dep SOS

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Schneider,_Jr.
    He served on the nuclear weapons panel for the Institute for Public Policy, later appointed to the Defense Science Board by Donald Rumsfeld

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rodman
    Assistant Sec of Def for International Security Affairs for Bush

    Vin Weber only has a cushy lobbying job in DC now.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Dobriansky
    Paula Dobriansky served as Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs from 2001-2009, making her the longest-serving undersecretary in the State Department

    • KevenSeven says:

      So, Sue, I concede, indeed I insist that BushCo intended to find a way to invade Iraq. And I likewise concede and insist that they exploited a national tragegy to get it done. They are utterly shameless.

      I am aware of the Aug 6 PDB. I see it as proof that they were dazzlingly inept. Criminally so.

      I think that BushCo refused to find a compromise with the Tali re bin Laden. And I am at a loss as to why BushCo would have refused to take him into custody if they had a real belief that they could have him, except perhaps that he would have insisted that Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

      And I don’t need to concede yet again that BushCo used 911 as an excuse to invade, do I?

      I’m delighted to chat further on this, but I have not seen evidence of the treason that you postulate.

      All sorts of other crimes for which BushCo should rot in hell for, sure.

    • KevenSeven says:

      Regarding The Independent and Bush’s refusal of the Talli’s offer, the headline is misleading, and looks like something that Huff might write.

      I really only scanned this one, so correct me if I have this wrong, but the fact is that we were bombing Afghanistan, and the Tali tried to negotiate. Bush demanded that bin Laden be handed over, without any discussion of how we were going to treat him.

      So I am at a loss as to what you can conclude from this that leads to the treason that we are discussing.

      • SueInCa says:

        After the incident with the USS Cole and Clinton’s subsequent actions, the Taliban sent word to Clinton in Nov 2000 that they would hand over OBL at a pre-arranged place and time. Clinton talked with the incoming Bush administration and they agreed the new administration would move forward with it. The person who acted as the intermediary attempted many times prior to 9/11 to arrange even a meeting to discuss but was rebuffed by the Bush administration. If I can find the original documentation I had on this, I will post it here for you. I am not merely speaking about the 10/01 offer.

        Here is a report on AlterNet originally about a book on the subject but also with info on the 9/11 Commission which was a sham as well that gives detail on all the intel Condi Rice ignored:

        http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/79059/

        But 9/11 Commission staff director Philip Zelikow was not interested in pursuing criticisms against Rice. Zelikow

      • SueInCa says:

        I never said treason, I said if they allowed torture, a crime, to go on, I would believe they also let an attack go on as well. They, in fact, wanted a

    • KevenSeven says:

      Sue, the Guardian article you cite references the Aug 6 memo. I can only conclude that you have not noticed me over at Huff, because I have cited that memo a hundred times.

      I see it as proof positive of the criminal incompetence of BushCo. It is not proof sufficient to convince me that BushCo committed the treason you postulate.

      So if there are any other references to the Aug 6 PDB, please take this as my response, unless you see some way to expand upon the simple existence of the memo.

      • SueInCa says:

        I never said treason, I said if they allowed torture, a crime, to go on, I would believe they also let an attack go on as well. They, in fact, wanted a “cataclysmic event like Pearl Harbor” and they all worked for Bush or in his government. The buck stops with the president…………….

        • KevenSeven says:

          No. You did not say treason. I said treason.

          But can you define the act of allowing the nation to be attacked as anything else but treason?

          So why would you dispute me on this?

    • KevenSeven says:

      Regarding Willie Brown, you know he denies this, yes?

      http://www.911myths.com/html/willie_brown.html

      This is like so many others. I cannot come to the view that BushCo committed the sort of treason that this implies based on one web site.

      I need to ask so many questions: does Brown get “warnings” on a regular basis? He says, yes, his security people review the advisablity of travel. Why, I don’t know.

      I can read this as Brown had a call regarding his travel plans from his security people, and the next day was 911. Being the slightly idiosyncratic guy that he is, and I am sure you would concede that point, he flips it over in his head and claims to have been warned.

      Which certainly would make his eagerness to deny it in the future make sense.

      Then I really need to ask: why would BushCo warn Willie Brown? Perhaps you could suggest a motivation to do so. God only knows if I was conspiring to commit treason at this level, I would make damned sure just as few people as possible would know anything of it. Especially a liberal Democrat in CA. Can you address that concern on my part? An attorney friend of mine likes to say, if you want to go to prison and quick, the way to do it is to enter into a criminal conspiracy.

      • SueInCa says:

        Why would Willie Brown say it, then retract it months later? In fact he denied he said it originally until confronted with the story in the Examiner(hardcopy of the original edition). I don’t really care if he was warned or not, but if he was I sure would like to know why. SF is a major metropolitan area in the US so maybe they thought his city might be included in the attacks? I don’t know but he did say it. SF Examiner has removed the article from their archives………….

        • KevenSeven says:

          Sue, I cannot make a claim to know Brown’s mind, but I can tell you for a fact that he is repeatedly denying it now.

          I ask you to please look at what you are proposing:

          1) BushCo committed the basest treason (which is the only way to describe your accusation), that if exposed, would certainly have had them all hanging from the lamp posts in front of the White House, yet:

          2) They think it a good idea to give hints of their horrific criminal conspiracy to various mayors, (why mayors, why not senators?) that will leave a trail of bread crumbs?

          I simply cannot be convinced that they did both of these things. It is just utterly inconceivable that they would commit such a horrific treason, the sort of treason that would make Benidict Arnold look good, and then go blabbing about it to somebody for whom they patently have no regard or connection to: Democratic Liberal mayor Willie Brown.

          What possible reason could they have to do something so crushingly stupid?

          Tell me that they did both of these things.

          • SueInCa says:

            LOL, Willie Brown has lied continuosly throughout his career, when it suits his purpose.

            • KevenSeven says:

              OK, at what point was he lying?

              When he said that he had been warned or when he said that he had not been warned?

              Which is it?

    • KevenSeven says:

      Sue.

      I have repeatedly over the years accused BushCo of having an agenda to invade Iraq from long before they stole the election. So I will concede to you that they came into office with every intention of finding a reason to invade.

      That is indicative of many things, but it is not PROOF that they deliberately ignored the warnings coming in in order to create causus belli.

      I also have on many occasions accused BushCo of exploiting 911 for the same purpose. So for the various citations that you provide, I concede that BushCo were evil and devious. I do not concede that these elements PROVE that they deliberately allowed the country to be attacked. Is it POSSIBLE? Well, almost anything is possible. It is possible that the various credit cards that I owe my blood to are going to forgive my debts. Say a prayer. Otherwise, I lose my home.

      Now, I am going to look at the few that you have there that indicate some pre-knowledge of the attack. I’ll get back to you.

      • SueInCa says:

        The only ones who had the chance for proof was the 9/11 Commission and that was a sham in the true sense of the word. Of course Bushco or Cheney or any of the players could come out and tell the truth, who knows maybe on their deathbeds?

        There is no proof, either way, they did or they didn’t. There is no proof on either side of the equation.

        • KevenSeven says:

          But there is rational argument.

          I can deliver it.

          Sample: Explain how it is that BushCo would conspire in a horrific and treasonous crime such as deliberately permitting the nation to be attacked, and yet was prepared to call various US Mayors and give them warning?

          How does that make a lick of sense?

          There: an example of rational argument: the idea that BushCo would warn Willie Brown just makes no sense what ever.

    • KQuark says:

      Great references Sue I will have to read them.

      I simply don’t understand why people don’t focus on the fact that aggressive war is a war crime. No matter what their intents were ever pretense for going to war, save for removing a a leader of a sovereign government from his position was found out to be a lie. We prosecuted people in Nuremberg for waging aggressive war which the Iraq War was. Wars should always be reactionary, not instigated. and a hell of allot more innocent people were destroyed by the Iraq war than torture.

      • KevenSeven says:

        Yes, aggressive war is a war crime.

        Now let me ask you: do you believe that BushCo deliberately ignored warnings in order to have justification to invade Iraq?

    • KevenSeven says:

      Sorry, gotta get to the job. I’ll try to review all this tonight. I would really have appreciated your attempting to create a narrative and then offering citations to back it up. At a glance I see you requiring me to draw the whole narrative myself.

      As I say, this is your accusation against BushCo, and I feel it is incumbent on you to build the accusation, not me. I cannot prove a negative for you.

      But I will be glad to review what you offered.

      And again, I need no convincing of the evil of BushCo. I just find it implausible that they could commit the sort of treason that this implies. That would be on par with the Germans sending their own troops into Poland to turn around and attack their border guards to justify the invasion of Poland. Are you willing to expressly accuse them of that sort of treason?

      • bitohistory says:

        Do you have any proof of this statement K7, or is this conjecture on your part?

        I just find it implausible that they could commit the sort of treason that this implies. That would be on par with the Germans sending their own troops into Poland to turn around and attack their border guards to justify the invasion of Poland.

        I cannot prove a negative for you.

        • KevenSeven says:

          I’m sorry. What do you want for me to prove?

          That I find it implausible? I would need to ask you to take my word for it. And seeing as I have said so many times, I think you can trust me on this one.

          And I still cannot prove a negative to you, I don’t know why you insist on asking the same question over and over.

          • bitohistory says:

            I am asking you give some support to your argument of “I find it implausible? What leads you to this thought?
            If Sue and others think it is plausible and you don’t, there is no debate.

            Is “I think it implausible” both your argument and your conclusion?

            Edit: is your argument a statement like a parents “because I said so”?

            • KevenSeven says:

              Ah, now you are at the nub of the whole question. I was wondering when someone would ask it.

              I think the answer will be a few hundred words long perhaps five hundred, and I am crashing deadlines on slightly more pressing stuff.

              Keep an eye out at the top of the page, I’ll try to write it tonight.

              And please do trust me: I have REASONS for my skepticism. I will not be able to give you eye witnesses, because this is happening in my head, most of it.

              I will lay out a narrative and provide facts that we all agree to, and show you the path that I followed to get to my conclusion. As I said, it will take time.

            • KevenSeven says:

              No, this was the first time anyone has asked me why I find it implausible.

              I was wondering when someone would ask.

            • bitohistory says:

              Getting to the nub?
              Is that not the function of a debate? Both sides are presented? Sorry, I thought that was what I have been asking.

      • SueInCa says:

        I gave you a synopsis of each article and the attachments are not that hard to get through, they are not all that long. And to answer your question, they got away with torture and that is a more accepted/confirmed crime by the public at large. So could they have done this, yes, unlike Woodward and Bernstein, we don’t have real investigative reporting these days. I bet Nixon wished they or Daniel Ellsberg were never born.

        • KevenSeven says:

          Yes, yes you did do all that, and I said I needed to leave for the day, and would review them this evening, which I will do, thank you.

          I would ask you to make a positive statement: “I believe BushCo had knowledge of an attack and deliberately failed to prevent it in order to provide casus belli to invade Iraq.”

          I agree that it is not out of the realm of possibility that they could do that, I just find it implausible that they did. As in very hard to believe.

          And I will state for the umpteenth time, for those who missed it the first six times I wrote it: I believe BushCo was evil. So I will concede that point to you. But I am not convinced that they were evil enough to deliberately allow the nation to be attacked.

          I am not convinced. See? I am not saying that it did not happen. Are you saying that it did?

          • bitohistory says:

            K7 what convinces you that he didn’t?

            • KevenSeven says:

              I am not convinced that he did not. As I have said so many times. My position is that it is just inconceivable that they could commit such a base treason.

              But I cannot prove a negative, as I keep telling you.

    • nellie says:

      Sue, if I remember, there were also reports of strategies to attack Iraq being raised as soon as weeks after Bush was inaugurated. I’ll try to find those sources to add to your list.

      I think it is pretty much irrefutable that Bush planned to attack Iraq. Whether 911 was allowed to happen or just provided a convenient disaster is the only question I have. We certainly had enough warning to prevent it.

      • javaz says:

        That’s what bothers me about BushCo.
        How they chose to ignore all the “chatter” coming in from different intelligence agencies.

        “”U.S. intelligence community had extensive forewarning of the 11th September attacks on New York and Washington. Further evidence suggests that the attacks may, in fact, have been in the interest of certain elements of the Bush administration (see Chapter VII).””

        “”

        • KevenSeven says:

          Funny, I knew I had just seen that guy’s name.

          “a certain Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, whose book The War on Freedom had been brought to us by what Vidal called

        • KevenSeven says:

          Javes, I remember that summer, and I remember there being reports of intel traffic. It was all thought to be about a foreign attack, as I remember it. We had recent history of embassy bombings and the Cole. The news at the time was of chatter of an overseas attack.

          Not that that proves anything one way or another.

        • Emerald1943 says:

          Javaz, I would assume that the “Clark” referred to in the last paragraph of your comment is Richard Clark. He was GWB’s counter-terrorism guy in the White House until 2003. I have seen several interviews with him where he stated that he made repeated efforts to bring the threat of impending attack to the attention of the President and Vice President, but he was told that they “didn’t want to hear about it anymore”. Bush, Cheney, and their little cabal just brushed him off.

          I would probably give anything I have to see these men on trial for war crimes! They and their oil buddies have literally made billions off this illegal, immoral war!

          Addendum: Sorry that I did not read all the comments below before I posted this. Obviously, you are aware of Richard Clark’s attempts to warn the Bushies. I see the problem of trying to prove the Bushies’ agenda, but the old adage of “Follow the money” would give me reason to believe that the privatization of the military was for that reason. Halliburton/KBR did have some pretty good connections in the White House and managed to get themselves some very, very lucrative no-bid contracts. Sometimes, where there is smoke, there is fire!

          • KevenSeven says:

            I have long thought that the privatization was in response to Vietnam and the casualty counts. Most of the time that we have been in Iraq, we have had more mercenaries than sworn troops.

            So the news keeps saying what our troop level is in theater, when in fact it is twice that.

            Rummy and Cheney got this ball rolling back in the Ford admin.

          • SueInCa says:

            One and the same. He was also with Cheney during the entire day on 9/11.

      • SueInCa says:

        Nellie
        Actually O’Neill did an interview with 60 minutes (I believe) which he was told “not to do” and he said it was Priority A within days of the shrub inauguration. They also had referral from Clinton to arrange a pick up from the Taliban of OBL but refused repeatedly to meet with the representative from Feb 2001 on. I could not find my documents on that one, otherwise I could give his name.

    • javaz says:

      Wow, Sue!
      Extraordinary amount of work you’ve put into this and I thank you for finding so many sources!
      Excellent job!

      • SueInCa says:

        Javaz
        It was just a walk in the park or time spent in “Midnight in the Garden of “not so Good” and Evil”. These people were evil to the core. When the shrub mentioned the axis of evil, I believe it was projection on his part.

  7. javaz says:

    When Bush first took office, there was the big hoopla, that has been proven false, about the W’s being stolen from the keyboards.

    When Bush first took office, and he ran on bringing morality back to the office, his administration tossed everything and anything Clinton.

    There was even a rumor how Laura typed in Bush, and it went to porn sites.

    Remember Ashcroft?
    How he had sheets draped over statues to cover their breasts?

    Remember how Ashcroft screamed at people, such as Richard Clark, and Ashcroft told them that he didn’t want to hear anything more about this Al Queda?

    Remember Condileeza Rice?
    And when asked, she asked, Al who?

    Remember Pearle, and how he said we need another Pearl Harbor, so that we can invade Iraq?

    Think about this.

    You are a new president and have a cabinet, and your cabinet is hearing about all this intel, and there are reports of Saudis taking flying classes in Minnesota and Arizona.
    And they are not learning how to land.

    Richard Clark spoke after 9/11, and he was the only person to apologize for being asleep at the wheel, except Clark wasn’t.
    He tried numerous times to get Ashcroft and Condi’s attention.

    Look at the reaction by the Obama Admin when it comes to the Christmas Day underpants bomber.
    Airport security has been beefed up.

    With all the intel coming in and from intel left from Clinton, since Clinton warned and tried to get Osama, but the Republicans were shouting -- ‘Wag the Dog’ -- and spent 60 million dollars to hire Ken Starr and investigate Clinton for a blowjob in the Oval Office.

    How hard would it have been, since the Bush Admin was aware of the threats, to beef up security at airports?

    Now you tell me.
    Were they incompetent?
    Or did they have an agenda.
    Remember PNAC.

    • KevenSeven says:

      Hey, so let me go thru your list point by point.

      The W’s on the keyboards, I don’t see how that pertains. Help me out there.

      Yes, BushCo clearly decided that they were going to be the anti-Clinton admin. Again, I don’t see how that proves your point.

      Ashcroft and statues, I think that proves he was a pathological prude. I don’t know what other conclusions to take from it.

      Ashcroft not wanting to hear about terrorists. That goes back to disdaining anything that the Clinton Admin emphasized. But what else I can draw from it? I don’t know. Except to say that I think it is all about BushCo hubris.

      I think the Condi not knowing al Qeada charge has been debunked. And if it were true, I think it would back up my view that they were ungodly inept, not yours, that they were unholy devious.

      Pearle and Pearl Harbor, well, that is almost something. Not enough to convict on, by a long shot.

      Regarding your scenario of who the cabinet worked. You do realize that the whole cabinet would never have met on this? This would be only the Nat Sec team. The Sec of Education would not have been there.

      My understanding is that nobody was hearing the intel, that they were avoiding it. Clarke writes that he worked for months to get a Principals meeting, and I don’t remember if it was scheduled shortly before the attack, or after, but it sure did not get much accomplished.

      I am also pretty sure the business of Arabs taking flying lessons never got to the Nat Sec Team, at least the way Clarke tells it. It has been years since last I read his book, but it is less than 15′ from me, if you want to give me page citations, I’ll gladly look at them.

      Yes, Clarke apologized when Rice et al should have, but I don’t know that that proves anything, beyond their hubris.

      How hard would it have been to tighten security? Not hared at all. But BushCo did not, due to their raging mediocrity and ineptitude, see any threat, and they were not at all interested in reading any reports, apparently. Again, that is how I get it from Clarke.

      The last of it, where I tell you? No. None of what you wrote is new to me, not even. You are either going to prove to me that there is any reason to believe your theory, or you are not, but I am not going to prove it for you. I am sure they had all sorts of nefarious agendas.

      But I need a lot more proof to accuse them of treason at this level.

      • javaz says:

        After thinking about this last night and then this morning, I’ve come to the conclusion that you are correct.
        I cannot prove my doubts about BushCO and 9/11, because it is only my opinion.
        I do not know how to debate, obviously!
        I do not know how anyone goes about proving their opinion.
        All I could do was outline part of the reasons that I formed the opinion that I did.

        I brought up the missing Ws and other silliness from the previous administration to try to show that they were not beyond fabrication in setting their agenda.

        I respect your opinion, even though I am still skeptical.
        All in all though, I agree with you that BushCO were simply incompetent.

    • KevenSeven says:

      Oh, you need not argue that BushCo came into office with the intention of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam. I concede that. I do not concede that it proves anything.

      • nellie says:

        I have one question — and this question has never been answered to my satisfaction.

        WHERE WAS NORAD.

        How is it that two huge planes are allowed to go off course and make u-turns in the sky for TWO HOURS without NORAD interfering. How does that happen?

        I actually have a second question:

        How does it happen that Colleen Rowley can’t get a FISA warrant to look at Moussaoui’s computer?

        I have no idea what happened, but there are basic questions that have never been answered.

        • KevenSeven says:

          That is an interesting question. I wonder how much of it can be written off to basic incompetence?

          and I don’t actually know that NORAD paid much attention to flights beginning in the US that have flight plans and all. There is certainly a whole lot of it.

          I would have to guess, and it is only a guess, that unless the ATC called NORAD, NORAD was not going to pay any attention.

          I won’t speak authoritatively on this, but I expect that NORAD tends to look at the borders more than flight in the US.

          I know nothing of the warrant that you reference.

          • nellie says:

            Basic incompetence? At NORAD?

            I can’t go with that answer. It’s too easy to defer to “incompetence” when it comes to the government. Especially considering the people Bush put into office. But most government workers are life-time employees that don’t really care which party is in office. They care about the country. Some of the most responsible people in the country are govt employees.

            • KevenSeven says:

              I was not attempting to make a final argument there, but I think the fact is that NORAD did not pay any attention to passenger craft with legitimate transponders transmitting.

              Now if you want to actually accuse NORAD of deliberately standing down, I think it is incumbent upon you to show me what it is that they would normally have done and obviously did not do.

              Again, I think they look at the borders, not passenger traffic. I know a bit about the military, but am not an expert. But I am not going to be able to prove a negative for you, sorry, just can’t do it.

              If you want to form an actual charge against NORAD, then I will have the option to either concede your point or challenge it.

              “I find it interesting….” is not anything that I can debate.

    • KevenSeven says:

      No, that is not an argument.

      That is an accretion of accusations and suppositions.

      Do please try again. You need to give citations to be taken seriously.

      • AdLib says:

        Do you believe that a lack of civility, sweeping generalities and broad dismissals of others’ opinions causes one to be taken more or less seriously?

        IMHO, no matter the facts one may be presenting, if one does not do so with a confidence that collegiality and respect reflects, one undercuts one’s perception and in turn undercuts ones own opinion.

      • javaz says:

        Since you’ve challenged me, I will back up my claims tomorrow, since it is passed my bedtime.

        BTW, I had to look up several words in your reply.

        Do not think that you can outsmart me.

        Do not think that you can win.

        Neither of us can win but I’ll take you on.

        Going to bed now, but let me tell you that I am your worst nightmare!
        LOL
        Just kidding, but didn’t that sound tough?

      • bitohistory says:

        And that is not dis proving anything either K7, you have done nothing but accuse of falsehoods. and your proof is?

        • KevenSeven says:

          Excuse me, but I do not believe that I made any “accusations of falsehood”.

          I think I said that I did not find that persuasive. My opinion is that her argument above is not persuasive.

  8. javaz says:

    I miss Keven and was so hoping that he’d take me up on a debate about the 9/11 truthers, whereby I could give him the FACTS as to why I am one of them.
    Well, not all the way one of them, but I have my reasons in believing the GWB Admin dropped the ball, and dropped the ball on purpose.
    Then again, I really don’t want to go through all that again, since Keven and everyone else already knows all the missed opportunities that were missed in preventing 9/11.

    I do not see anything wrong when having a debate, that the debaters want to win the argument.
    Why have a debate after all?

    But, I also recall the old adage that an argument can never be won, or no one ever wins an argument.

    I’d love to actually debate Keven some time, except it seems that he and I agree more times than not.
    He’s far more knowledgeable and opinionated than me on several issues, and that’s saying a lot, as I am a very opinionated person.
    And when it comes to something I am passionate about, I have a thick skin, and can give as good back.

    Perhaps we could debate global warming, as I am not convinced it’s real, but then I’d have the entire PPOV members debating me, and I’m not sure I could handle that!
    But I’ll work on it, if anyone is up for it.

    (oops, was this off topic? well, too bad!)
    LMAO

    • KevenSeven says:

      I’m right here, although it is nice to be missed. I appreciate your attitude toward debate. Without an expectation that one’s opinions will be challenged, there is no value to having an opinion. The adage is: opinions and hemorrhoids, sooner or latter every asshole will get one.

      I don’t know that I have ever expressed an opinion on a political blog that I was not prepared to back up with reason, facts and logic. I am at a loss as to how anyone can think that they have some privilege to share an opinion, such as, say, black people are inferior to white people, and not expect to get challenged.

      If French food superior to Italian food? I am a chef, and I cannot answer that one. And I don’t think that a lot of blood would get spilled over the question.

      I frankly feel that it is disrespectful of the other members of a political blog to expect to be able to declare a position, especially a controversial position, and then demand that the opinion be “respected” without being willing to argue for the validity of that position. That may just be me, but there you have it. Stand and Deliver, I say.

      As for BushCo and 911. I would say that there might be a living human on this planet that despises BushCo more perfectly than I do, and I appreciate that it is not a competition, but I will insist that my bona fides on this matter cannot be challenged.

      That said. I am almost perfectly incapable of believing that BushCo did anything deliberate to bring on 911, including any passive yet deliberate refusal to take action on intel. I feel they are capable of almost any other kind of criminality and mendacity, but not this. Feel free to educate me. I think 911 is a direct result of overweening hubris and incompetence. Occam’s razor, again. I so despise those assholes.

      While I am certainly opinionated, and damned happy to share my opinion, I am not really all that knowledgeable. The most knowledgeable member here, to my mind? Quark (despite the fact that he and I fight like cats) that guy knows more about health care than anyone I know. I don’t even bother to try to know what he does not know. I just ask him what should I think. I have asked him to speak to some details that I find interesting, but most of what I know I learned from him.

      As for global climate change, I defer to my favorite living political philosopher, Christopher Hitchens. To paraphrase him: We have a moral duty to assume that it is true. We are trapped on this one planet, it is not ours to despoil, we have no right to destroy it for future generations. So it does not matter that the Cassandra voices could be wrong. If they are, we will essentially lose nothing. If they are right and we ignore them, then we lose EVERYTHING. And I mean EVERYTHING. We are talking about the potential for a billion people to die in one year. And for five years running.

      Oh, BTW, whoever wants to write to bag on Hitchens, I blow a big fat raspberry. As he wrote regarding his reputation as a drinker, I love it when the argument turns to ad hominen. That means the other guy has nothing.

      Hey, I know we have butted heads, and so doubly I appreciate your sentiments. While you appear to have two woo woo opinions that I don’t credence, I certainly will respect any coherent presentation of facts and reason that might back them up.

      And my fucking kitties are just fine, thanks.

      And I’m not wearing any pants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • whatsthatsound says:

        Attention all strawmen! K7 does not want you to bring up Christopher Hitchens, and a preemptive raspberry is waiting for you if you do. He does not want you to proffer Michael Moore as a credible source on 9/11, as he has seen ‘Farhenheit 911’. He will hold any such behavior in contempt, and will call it twaddle. He looks forward to dismantling all your arguments.

        • kesmarn says:

          😮

          We all know Michael Moore never does any credible research. And we also know that alcoholism never affects anyone’s ability to reason sensibly or debate with civility and a clear head. Just check out the depth of the discussions at your local pub on Saturday night.

    • SueInCa says:

      I know some of your facts and quite frankly I am more of the opinion they let it happen, wanted it to happen just like Darth Cheney still does today………..there is plenty of fact to back that up.

      • KevenSeven says:

        If you two could catalog them and co-author a column on the subject, that could be cool.

        Do this: go to google, create email accounts that are utterly anonymous and has no other purpose, then correspond for a bit until you have the column.

        I look forward to dismantling your argument.

        • SueInCa says:

          Remember K7 it is a debate. It would be interesting to debate it with you. i don’t necessarily call myself a truther in the true sense of the word, but I do believe they let it happen, without taking any proactive steps.

          • KevenSeven says:

            Well, it is not a debate yet, as you have not yet presented an argurment. And please do not do so without offing facts that can be verified.

            I think it would be interesting to have a drink with you. So there.

            Try this: Resolved: BushCo had knowledge of the threat of 911 and deliberately did nothing to meet the threat in order to justify (waddevah).

            Hey, I wrote this column in about fifteen minutes. You and Javez could take a few hours and try to write something really solid.

            But I will have nothing but contempt for the argument if you do not give me citations that I can check.

            The other day I was confronted with “a lot of people agree with me!”

            Sheese. I have no patience for that sort of twaddle.

            I’ve seen Fahrenheit 911. I warn you. M Moore is not an authority on anything except how to produce a provocative narrative. Do not come at me with “M Moore says….”.

            • SueInCa says:

              Sorry K7 but all you have done so far is make accusations, with no citations to prove they did not allow it to happen. We all have our own opinions and they should be respected. I will write something up for you when I have time. Right now I have my grandson for the weekend and he comes first. Our debate can wait.

            • KevenSeven says:

              I cannot prove a negative. The accusation is yours, not mine. Providing proof and logic is your charge.

              And I am sorry, but I am unaware of any “accusations” on my part.

            • bitohistory says:

              K7,And why do you get to write the resolution and the beg for proof?
              Resolved: BushCo did not have any negligence for 9-11.
              Proof?
              have KQ or Ad Lib draw up the “beg.” Not one side of the party doing the debate.

            • KevenSeven says:

              I would never argue in favor of the resolution you offer there, as I believe that BushCo was grossly negligent. I have so stated countless times, including above.

              But that is not the same thing as deliberately looking the other way.

  9. AdLib says:

    KevenSeven says:
    01/12/2010 at 5:47 PM

    Yes, I want an argument. Actually, I want a debate.

    If you want to retire from the debate, that is fine.

    Keven, the issue I see here is that you don’t see or reflect a perception of much of a difference between a personal argument and a debate.

    A debate is a presentation of facts and logic that support one’s position and contradicts the assertions and/or tenets of another’s position. It is not about the other debater or expressing negative comments, inferences or emotions towards the other debater(s). It is only about the issue, reason and facts.

    A personal argument is instead an emotional conflict which is very much about the person one disagrees with. It ranges into portrayals of their intellect, sensibilities, personality, etc. In such, one reflects aggression and hostility towards those one deems as frustrating or ignorant because their views are not as “smart” or “right” as the one engaging in the personal argument.

    I have had many debates here including with you on this article. I have never allowed it to devolve into a personal argument, even when aggression or disrespect may be aimed my way. So, my expectations are not unrealistic.

    It is not a reflection of a strong argument or debater to try and denigrate or invalidate the person whose opinion they dispute, thinking that by doing so, they also invalidate their opinion. Shooting (or dissing) the messenger doesn’t necessarily kill (or diss) the message one may not like. And, it is not using reason or logic to overcome an argument, just the opposite, it takes no reason or logic to take that route, as we’ve witnessed from the GOP this entire last year.

    The Planet is not a place for practicing wrestling. It is a place for the thoughtful and respectful exchange of ideas and opinions. It is a think tank, not Thunderdome.

    Everyone here, including you, is entitled to respect and acceptance of their right to their opinions. That does not mean that anyone here, including you, has to agree with anyone else or refrain from disputing any assertions another member makes.

    What it does mean is that, unlike HuffPo, all members are required to respectfully disagree. No member will be permitted to freely insult, disrespect or hector another member as a response to their disagreeing with another member’s opinion.

    Your passion, principles and opinions are very appreciated and valued here. It is necessary though to fully make the leap from the troll bashing, full contact, personal attack blogging that passes for discourse at HuffPo.

    It’s the difference between having a raucous debate with drunken strangers in a bar as opposed to thoughtful and intriguing conversations with friends and colleagues at the home of a friend.

    So sit down, relax and enjoy the company, camaraderie and engaging discussions and debates here. After years of HuffPo, it may seem a bit odd it’s far more rewarding.

    • kesmarn says:

      Thanks so much, AdLib, for reminding us all to call upon our better selves in the midst of a discussion.

      Like many, I used to be a more “fists a-flyin'” type of debater, but one day a good friend said: “Kes, you feel as though your words have no power, but you’re much more ‘formidable’ than you think you are.” I think it was his way of saying a.) “Ouch, that hurt,” and b.) “You’re not hearing yourself the way others hear you.” and c.) “All that aggression comes from a feeling of insecurity that is not justified. You are smart enough to debate without resorting to snark.” That one conversation changed the way I approached discussions.
      As someone else mentioned, the fact that everything here is in print, too, makes a difference. Facial expression and intonation are gone. What might seem witty and urbane, like starting your reply with the word “Yawn.” can come across as inappropriate and dismissive. It’s okay, as you said, to posit a counter-argument, but is it necessary to add an implicit “btw, you bore me” to it? That may not be intentional baiting, but it is baiting. It’s that kind of style that runs people off.
      It’s easy to respond with a sort of “well-if-you-can’t-stand-the-heat-get-out-of-the-kitchen” comeback, but I don’t think this is a matter of thin-skinned people going all touchy when their arguments are disputed. This is about hitting below the belt, and why it’s not a good idea.

      Thanks again.

    • Khirad says:

      ‘It’s a think tank, not Thunderdome!’ Seriously, I’d get a

      • nellie says:

        Khirad, I must say your comment surprises me. After all those complex, intricate, and intriguing histories that you write about Iran, I would think that you would apply Occam’s Razor rarely if ever!

        In my personal experience, the simplest explanation is hardly ever the whole story.

        I have no dog in this fight, either. But like the Atlanta Olympic bombing, it is certainly a cautionary tale.

        • Khirad says:

          Things are often not what they seem, true, and intrigues and competing power centers are often present. You’re right, Occam’s razor can often fall apart when politics and intelligence services are involved.

          I guess what was on my mind when I wrote that was just getting back from an assassination on a pro-reform nuclear physicist which Iran and its apologists on HP blame on Israel and America, as it still claims Neda was a cover-up and possibly a hoax altogether. That’s what may be coloring my perception a tad too much. That’s where I apply Occam’s razor. It’s more that I have conspiracy fatigue more than anything else, because my attention and time strays from domestic issues too often for me to add anything valuable to this discussion. It might be a cover-up, it’s plausible, that’s all I can say, not keeping abreast of all the minute details. This isn’t an authoritarian regime though, we have far more openness and ability to request information (redacted as it may be) and see FBI reports (as self-serving they may be, as well).

          • KevenSeven says:

            I say, you must always start with Occam’s razor. The simplest answer may not always be the correct one, but the majority of the time it will be, and one only needs to maintain an open mind for alternatives to be doing one’s part.

            I have never seen anyone claim that Nada was a fraud…..

            • Khirad says:

              Then you don’t keep tabs on Iranian state-media. Consider yourself lucky. 😉

      • boomer1949 says:

        ps…forgive me khirad, but cobain was off the radar…everyone knows that…even me and i’m 60 years old.

        cobain o’d, ledger o’d, who else? i can’t come up with names at the drop of a hat, but there are more. yet, many (sorry collective generalization) lump this older, part-time census-taker into the same category as the younger guys who should’ve known better. and then there was michael jackson.

        i don’t have k7’s arsenal of facts, just my intuition and history, for what it’s worth. given the date, time, election, area of the country, and the first ever African American elected as President of the United States? I would bet my meager one year’s salary that 1) this man was murdered, and 2) for reasons none of us will ever be privy to, his death was covered up to protect Barrack Obama.

        • Khirad says:

          I wasn’t exactly trying to compare the two. If I was making any convoluted point, it’s that in the case of Cobain, he clearly had a history of severe depression which he used to self-medicate. I thought all the conspiracy theorists surrounding that were doing a great disservice to mental health awareness. Apparently the stigma was still so great, and not heeding some of his song material, they couldn’t come to terms that he had written the suicide note (in what was definitely his handwriting) and pulled the trigger of the shotgun.

          As to this case, I take Cher’s line. All good to look at the broader atmosphere -- and this was seen as validation of the report on the rise of rightwing extremists, indeed -- but I lean towards suicide. I don’t take an absolutist line on it though. I just think it’s the higher probability barring some new leak or revelation.

          I must say I need to re-read the details of how he was found though. There are patterns to suicide, and it was strange, though not unheard of -- especially considering that insurance claims don’t cover suicide. Faking ones own murder is not unheard of. Suicide is often quite premeditated.

      • boomer1949 says:

        Oh c’mon Khirad, put your 50 cents worth in.

        AdLib, aka God, went out on a limb here. never mind that it is almost 2:00 am EST here and I have to be at work in six hours.

        yo, i’ve not done this in thirty years…ooops jokes on me…this isn’t a Friday or Saturday night? Short term memory loss, the elder woman pleads!

        apologies for the lower case, but as my granddaughter says and i quote, “i tired”.

    • KQuark says:

      The Planet is not a place for practicing wrestling. It is a place for the thoughtful and respectful exchange of ideas and opinions. It is a think tank, not Thunderdome.

      Great analogy.

    • KevenSeven says:

      Well, I think I have been debating on a perfectly reasonable level here, using facts, logic and reason. As well as any here, I believe.

      Despite assertions to the contrary, it is not possible for those who hold the opinion that this man was murdered and those that have the opinion that he committed suicide to both be right. I’m sorry, either he was murdered or he committed suicide.

      Now, if someone wants to assert that reasonable people can come to either conclusion, then perhaps that could be defended. Not that I would not insist that the entire body of evidence that is currently available about the actual facts points to only one conclusion.

      Reasonable people can have a reasonable discussion whether the ideal maximum tax rate should be 34% or 39%. Economic science is a trifle vague. How this man met is end has only one answer.

      • AdLib says:

        Kev…I’ll concede the logic of everything in your comment following your first paragraph.

        However, to make the claims in your first paragraph, you would need to be intentionally “overlooking” all of the evidence in the bulk of responses to your comments to arrive at your preconceived conclusion.

        For me, Cher’s points felt very much on target.

        The problem is not in debating but may be in the zealous pursuit of winning a debate. In such cases, people can cross lines, attack other party(ies) in personal ways and lose perspective on how they are perceived and conducting themselves.

        The Planet is not a place for a mercenary debate. It just isn’t.

        As I have referred to, this is the equivalent of a social gathering at a friend’s home, to meet, socialize and discuss with each other issues that really matter to us. Getting hostile, condescending or insulting is inappropriate in such an environment.

        This is a place for Free Expression and the theory here is that people can only feel free to express themselves if they feel they will not be personally insulted or attacked for doing so. If they feel that they will be respected for their right to their opinion, they will be more likely to return that respect and real constructive conversations and debates on even hot button issues can become deep and enlightening.

        That is what The Planet is about, it is perhaps a unique style and approach but IMO, it has been working to attract and inspire a remarkable community and remarkable discussions.

      • KQuark says:

        boomer asked you to stop. You did not. It does not matter who is right or wrong.

      • Chernynkaya says:

        I think you’ve missed the point Kevin. And I’ve been giving it much thought. It is not about your logic and your sources or your reasoning. I am afraid I have to be blunt: It’s your attitude, which comes across IN PRINT as snarky and scoffing. You are coming across as hostile.

        I understand your frustration with those who dismiss facts and sources and refuse to accept them. I too have felt that way on HP when someone insists on some birther shit or something. Show them all the docs we want and they are still insistent Obama is a Kenyan.

        When you replied to my initial reply, you didn’t even bother to comment on the bulk of my assertions, but on my ill-chosen distinction between conspiracy and cover-up. I admit I had not WaPo or FBI report, but I at least tried to explain why I thought it was PLAUSIBLE that he was murdered. You didn’t even acknowledge that, even to disagree. I do not think you want to debate; I think you want to win. I offer this in the truest spirit of PlanetPOV-- you can not win by calling others a “woo woo.”

        As I said, I do get your frustration, but you need to polish your skills of discussion, because you have a lot to offer here, and yet you really do seem combative-- not into open discussion, but into winning.

        • KevenSeven says:

          Well, I perhaps see your point. I do feel frustration and little regard for the argument of people who will not address reason. I mean, what is the point of giving all sorts of regard to somebody who will not give a reasoned argument? “A lot of people agree with me!”

          I mean, seriously, what are you supposed to say to that?

          As for only responding to the one element of your post, what can I tell you? I’m multitasking here!

          But I do appreciate your sensible comments. I will treat them with the respect that they deserve.

          • boomer1949 says:

            K7,

            I was a Psychology Major and not on the debate team for God’s (sorry AdLib) sake. Lighten up.

            Not everyone with an advanced degree is a debater; yet we do not require “Debating for Dummies” as a guide to how we think or develop our opinions.

          • Chernynkaya says:

            Keven, thank you so much for hearing me out. Honestly, I value you and what you contribute!

        • KQuark says:

          The most frustration I ever have in a debate or argument is when you agree with most of what the person is saying and they are too concerned about arguing to see that you actually agree with them.

          • Khirad says:

            That happens a lot on HP. I try to concede points, and find middle ground whenever possible, yet back up my original assertion all the same.

          • Chernynkaya says:

            Yeah-- That’s a biggie. It wasn’t the case tonight-- as you probably know-- but it happens a lot in “real life.”

            • KQuark says:

              Yup it happens allot with what I call those “common denominator” people. You know the people that seem to have a problem with everyone else. My mother is like that.

            • boomer1949 says:

              cher,

              i’m up way past my snooze time…wired as we tend to say…but thanks.

            • KevenSeven says:

              Yeah, I think we have a pretty clear-cut dichotomy on this one.

    • escribacat says:

      Well said, Adlib. I think that is the atmosphere I was looking for when I came here.

  10. boomer1949 says:

    kesmarn,

    yes dear I did read the “roid rage” piece. jeeze and I just came off the stuff for carpal tunnel. not only did it do wonders for my computer hands, it fired up the old brain (as reflected in my outspoken discourse). thanks ma’am.

    ps — all i ever wanted to be — you are — a nurse. bless you for what you do. nursing & teaching — two professions where one wants to be — cannot be just a job.

    apologies for lower case, but (as my granddaughter would say), i tired.

    • kesmarn says:

      Boomer! Needless to say I wasn’t implying that YOU were the one raging! You certainly weren’t! 😀

      And thanks for your kind words on nursing. Oddly enough it was a profession that sort of “picked me” rather than the other way around. My degree was in History/Chinese. But there wasn’t exactly a waiting list of employers for History majors. A friend of mine asked me to go with her to take the entrance exam for nursing (just for moral support) and the rest is history. (Or, rather, not history…!)

      I think I’m going to call it a day, too, boomer. I tired, as well. G’nite and sleep well!

      • bitohistory says:

        Ah, history. The draft board drooled at history majors. 😆

        • boomer1949 says:

          yes ma’am and my ex-husband was one of them thar history majors. me? psychology ’cause early on i was a nursing reject, ahhhhh!

          totally ruined my self-esteem. on the other hand i was accepted recently, but decided i didn’t want to go into a nursing home with thousands of dollars in student loans -- but hey -- i could be earning 4 times what my admin. assistant pays. jeeze — careers for dummies — i could be an author :-)

          very spooky, but every time i walk into a hospital? i know it is where i belong. how does overcome being a failure?

          • kesmarn says:

            Argh! boomer, I didn’t find this until Wednesday morning, and I feel terrible that I didn’t respond earlier. You? A failure? I DON’T THINK SO!!

            I have a strong suspicion that, whatever job you’re in, you’re making an enormous positive difference in the lives of co-workers, clients and management. I know this may sound weird, but, I believe things do happen for a reason. We’re placed in the area in which we find ourselves for some specific purpose. Many’s the time I’ve walked into the hospital thinking: “Why me, Lord??” But somehow I always find myself getting the message: “Why not you? Now get to work!”
            So I figure the Big Guy must have a plan and my part of it is to give it my best shot, try to bring a little humanity to a scary time in most people’s lives by looking into their eyes and really HEARING them when they talk to me, and then leaving the rest in the hands of The Administrator. The fact that I’m the one in nursing is an indication of His Almighty sense of humor. Right, AdLib?

        • kesmarn says:

          Hey, b’ito! How’re ya!

          History!! What was I thinking!?

      • boomer1949 says:

        Never took it that way, trust me.

        Hormones perhaps? Not mine of course; we no longer have them. :-)

        G’night — i tired.

  11. Hopeington says:

    Great insight from the comments here tonight.
    While I’m one for a good conspiracy theory, I think K7 is correct.
    I remember when this story first came out. I reserved judgment because something didn’t sit right with me, and when I heard he had his hands bound far away from each other so he could, possibly, secure them in front and then move them to behind his back, I thought suicide was possible.
    I can’t imagine the anguished thoughts of a father who desperately wants to leave, yet still wants to provide for his child.
    Truth is stranger than fiction.

    But what I really got from this is that we all almost expect some kind of cover up or conspiracy or that we’re not being told the whole truth….I think it’s part of planetpov makeup
    We know why we don’t believe anyone any more. How much info to we need before we do believe? Who or where is a trusted news source?
    I think we all want to get to the truth but how we get to it or what differing opinions we share along the way, will always remain unique to the individual.

  12. KevenSeven says:

    boomer1949 says:
    01/12/2010 at 5:05 PM

    Not the point Keven, not the point.

    —————--

    No, boomer, it is my point. I made the point. It is the point until you show with reason and logic that it is invalid.

    You don’t get to just dismiss my arguments by saying “you’re wrong”.

    Sorry, debate does not work that way.

    (The point being that I am most comfortable in my conclusion because no reputable reporter or investigator, nor the Southern Poverty Law Center, have in anyway challenged the report authored by the Kentucky State Police and the FBI.)

    I need to get to my kid’s High School orientation. I’ll look in again in about two-three hours.

    • VegasBabe says:

      your (instead of you’re) wrong.
      and put some friggin pants on!

    • boomer1949 says:

      Keven, AdLib, and everyone else…

      I was not, nor am I, looking for an argument. Period. I made a couple of comments which, you Keven, took personally; it was not intended to be personal. I sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding.

      Beyond that, I do not apologize for my opinion, nor will I allow myself to be intimidated or backed into a corner, whatever your motivation. Keven, you can continue this if you want, but do battle with yourself, not me. I simply refuse to play and not because I am afraid of you, but because this forum has rules and I respect the rules and everyone posting here — including you.

      If there is an issue with me or any of my posts, please take it up offline and with AdLib.

      • KevenSeven says:

        OK, you are not looking for an argument.

        I was debating you. I brought facts and logic to the discussion, and argued that my opinion was superior to yours.

        That is called a debate.

        • boomer1949 says:

          Stop it Keven! Please…give it a rest.

          I will not engage you anymore on this topic because you are being unreasonable. As I stated before, while you were away, if you have an issue with me or anything I have posted, please take it up offline and with the PlanetPOV Admin..

          Enough is enough.

      • KQuark says:

        First off on the Planet you have the right to your own opinion and others have the right to disagree with you.

        There’s no set limit on the number of iterations in an argument but after several iterations I find there are diminishing returns with each additional comment. Frankly based on my experience the more iterations in an argument the more it tends to devolve into a personal argument because people simply run out of good points to make. For this reason I think it takes more maturity to end an argument than to needlessly perpetuate an argument. In my opinion perpetuating an argument when two people are not going to agree on an issue is futile banter.

        • boomer1949 says:

          KQ,

          thank you, and i’ve tried.

          i was a psychology major/pseudo registered nurse; neither profession leaving much wiggle room for debate. negotiation and/or compromise? for sure.

          in this instance, it has been personal, not by me, but personal non-the-less. if i have contributed to any confrontation, i sincerely,and from the bottom of my heart apologize; not only to Keven7, but also to the entire Planet community.

          okay guys/gals, i have no problem sucking it up for the sake of the community…i’m sorry.

          that said, it is the last time i will do this without direction or banishment from the admin.. my apology puts an end to all of the discourse.

        • kesmarn says:

          KQ, words of wisdom:

          “…it takes more maturity to end an argument than to needlessly perpetuate an argument.”

          Thank you.

          I hope you’re feeling better today. New pacer/AICDefib?

          • KQuark says:

            AICD

            I’m sorry I did not respond to you comment yesterday. At one point I was starting the protocol to get a transplant because I had an EF of about 5-10%. While I have dropped back as low as 10-15% with the help of the AICD and tweaking my meds I’m in the no option CHF range of about 20%. Although my organs have been through the wringer my lungs and liver are in excellent shape and the only problem I have is with occasional renal insufficiency and my compromised immune system of course. The chemo and radiation took out much of my glandular activity as well. I have an O2 generator at home and I use it as therapy which for me personally really helps.

            Of course like late last year when I got a staph infection I’m always in medical danger, but when my AICD is working well and my meds are alright I feel OK, not much better than OK though.

            • kesmarn says:

              Lord, KQ, what you’ve been through!
              I really wish you could get on the transplant list with an EF of 20%, but I know they “have their rules.”
              The fact that you are so tuned in to what goes on here and in the political and social realm outside of the Planet is really a tribute to a remarkable inner strength and sense of altruism. I know full well that many people, possibly myself included, would have collapsed into a puddle of self-pity and self-absorption. I sincerely hope you’re in for a long spell of smooth sailing now!

        • KevenSeven says:

          Well, of course that makes sense.

  13. nellie says:

    Just thought I’d post this, being the trouble maker that I am 😎 :

    Murder and Motives in Clay County

  14. kesmarn says:

    Well, to really throw a cynical wrench into the works…if you were an insurance company how much would you be willing to pay to secure an official determination of suicide and be relieved of the obligation to pay out $600,000?

    • KevenSeven says:

      Ah, a fresh conspiracy. Not that that is not some huge felony that would land people in the slam for years. Noooooo.

      • kesmarn says:

        Insurance companies can be totally trusted…..it says here on the Kool-Aid package….

        They’ve behaved so well in other areas…like Katrina coverage and health insurance…

        • KevenSeven says:

          Hehe. That’s funny.

          Actually, I think conspiring to suborn an FBI report on a death is perhaps a bit of a different animal than the offenses you list.

          I really gotta think that suborning an FBI report would be, well, a mistake.

          • kesmarn says:

            People have been known to make ’em…

            • KevenSeven says:

              Yeah. But ask yourself: which is easier to believe? That the FBI played this by the rules or an insurance company came upon what looked to be a horrific murder and rather than pay out, suborned perjury from a dozen or more State Policemen and FBI agents?

            • Khirad says:

              I hope he sees justice in his lifetime, kesmarn, I do.

            • kesmarn says:

              Khirad, only now, years after these deaths occurred is the county sheriff under indictment. He still holds his job and all steps toward an actual trial are proceeding forward at a slower-than-snail’s pace. The guy is 72 now. Will he still be around for the trial at this rate? Who knows?

            • Khirad says:

              “seizure” sounds to me like “meningitis”.

              It’s despicable this happens in the US of A, but I know chances are it occurs somewhere or other.

            • kesmarn says:

              You only need to pay off/threaten one or two guys higher up the food chain. All the subordinates will fall in line after that. Can you tell I come from an area with corrupt law enforcement, where county jail murders have been reported as “seizures” and “suicides” and it went undetected for years?

        • Hopeington says:

          it says so on the KoolAid package…love it

          • kesmarn says:

            Thanks, Hope! I was thinking of throwing in a few smiley faces, but thought that might be pushing it too far…. 😉

            Hope your evening is going well!

            • boomer1949 says:

              Kesmarn,

              not to worry dear, I seem to be the chosen one this week…cross hairs and all. :-)

            • Hopeington says:

              Hey Boomer, just wanted to let you know I really liked your comments about opinions from earlier today and…..in answer to your question, no not H1N1, just verging on pneumonia, did zithromax?? (antibiotic) for 5 days….My head hurt so bad I wanted to cut it off!!
              Life looks real fresh today, no pain…Sigh….
              Thanks for asking.

            • KevenSeven says:

              Well, it was not Kersman who dismissed my comment with “what are you smoking”, so there may be a point in there.

            • kesmarn says:

              I hear you, boomer!

              Ahem. Did you see Pepe’s article on ‘roid rage?

              Very interesting. 😉

            • Hopeington says:

              couldn’t be better Kesmarn
              I’ve been down sick for 4 days, I feel like I got a new lease on life.

            • kesmarn says:

              So glad to hear you’re feeling better, Hope.
              Isn’t it amazing how being sick makes you feel so grateful for health when things improve? Sort of exhilarating!

            • boomer1949 says:

              hope,

              not H1N1 — I hope not.

              Feel better soon!


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features