Stats

Comments Posted By KevenSeven

Displaying 241 To 270 Of 1,300 Comments

Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar: Sparkman Committed Suicide

The article cited says that he passed the polygraph.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 17, 2010 @ 1:01 am

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 17, 2010 @ 12:27 am

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 16, 2010 @ 11:25 pm

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

I was wondering when someone would ask.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 16, 2010 @ 11:12 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 16, 2010 @ 6:43 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 16, 2010 @ 5:32 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 16, 2010 @ 5:02 pm

You missed the “passed the polygraph”?

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 16, 2010 @ 4:52 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 9:21 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 9:09 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 9:06 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 8:57 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 8:49 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 8:24 pm

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

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 8:03 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 7:23 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 7:20 pm

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?

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 7:18 pm

He who? Clarke?

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 6:48 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 6:47 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 6:45 pm

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?

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 6:33 pm

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?

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 11:38 am

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 10:04 am

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 12:46 am

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 12:43 am

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 15, 2010 @ 12:40 am

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 14, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

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.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 14, 2010 @ 7:47 pm