Today on Blogcritics
Home » You are a Conspiracy Theorist!

You are a Conspiracy Theorist!

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

You are a conspiracy theorist, and you probably don’t even know it.

You read about conspiracy theories every day in your newspaper. You hear about conspiracy theories every night on the evening news telecast. You gather around office watercoolers, and you talk about conspiracy theories –and most of the time, you believe in them without realizing that you have made a leap of faith to do so. You see, you believe in conspiracy theories in such instances where the conspiracy theory does not make you feel uncomfortable.

Then suddenly, along comes a well-supported, factually based conspiracy theory to make you feel squeamish. A conspiracy theory that challenges your beliefs. A theory that causes you to question your worldview, and perhaps even your identity. A conspiracy theory that would require you to make a paradigm shift just in order to examine it. And it is at this point that you “rationally” decide to denounce conspiracy theories.

It is at this point where cognitive dissonance takes place, and you belittle the entire notion of conspiracy theories altogether (even though you believe in them elsewhere, perhaps unknowingly). It is at this point where you scoff and make references to “tin foil hats” and a living Elvis Presley.

It is only when a non-dominant, progressive, or controversial alternative theory or description of events is set forth, that you choose to backhandedly dismiss conspiracy theories with absolute finality. If a particular conspiracy theory illicits an uncomfortable feeling, beckons self-examination and/or a paradigm shift, more likely than not, you will deem that theory ‘irrebuttably false.’

At the point where a conspiracy theory challenges your world view, you suddenly use the term “conspiracy theory” as a perjorative term.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

A “conspiracy” is defined as “an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.”

A “theory” is defined as, “a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

Let’s look at a couple examples, shall we?

Story #1
First we have the following news item reported by Reuters today:

“HARARE, Zimbabwe (Reuters) — President Robert Mugabe’s guards briefly detained the U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe after he entered a restricted security zone near the African leader’s residence, state television reported Thursday….[snip]….a calculated disregard of the rules governing relations between states … clearly intended to provoke an unwarranted diplomatic incident.”

In this story, Reuters is reporting that more than one guard calculatedly (e.g. by agreement, either expressed or implied) broke rules governing relations between states. This is a story about an alleged conspiracy– a group of people coming together to break a rule or law.

Now, who would question this story’s veracity? In my estimation, most people would likely accept this story without any extra scrutiny. After all, the story does not cause us any personal discomfort, nor does it provoke us to examine ourselves. The story does not challenge any of our world views. Yet this story is unquestionably a conspiracy theory.

Is the story true? We really do not know for certain, we are left to either trust the media’s description of events or not.

Story #2
Next, on Aug. 5, 1964, American news media reported that North Vietnamese forces — for the second time in three days — had launched unprovoked (e.g. illegal) attacks on U.S. ships in the Tonkin Gulf. The New York Times claimed that the U.S. government was retaliating “after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.” The Washington Post’s headline stated: “American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression.”

Once again, here we have a conspiracy theory set forth by the news media. Similar to the present-day Zimbabwe story, the Gulf of Tonkin story was, at that time, not too hard to swallow. In fact, the conspiracy theory was so believable when it was reported that, two days later, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed by Congress authorizing the president “to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.”

Essentially, the public’s unflinching acceptance of the government and media’s “conspiracy theory” set the stage for America’s entrance into what became known as the Vietnam War. How many Americans even realized, at the time, that they bought into a conspiracy theory?

In the Tonkin case, history now shows us that the government and media presented a false conspiracy theory to the American public. Little did most people know at the time, but the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as theorized in the newspapers, was a lie. Recently released tapes of White House phone conversations indicate the attack probably never happened.

Now consider this. What would have happened if, at that time, another newspaper (or alternative media source) reported that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie? What if somebody challenged the mainstream theory with credible evidence? In 1964, how many people would have considered the possibility that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was indeed a lie? In order to believe a “conspiracy theory” like that, one would have to face the uncomfortable possibility that the government or media was fabricating the truth. One would have to face the uncomfortable possibility that their country was capable of lying on a grand scale. Most likely, a person would have to experience a complete paradigm shift just to entertain critical examination of the alternate theory.

Essentailly, we would have two opposing conspiracy theories. Which one should we believe? The easiest theory to digest? The theory with the most evidence? The easiest theory to explain?

You see, this is where most people get a bit squeamish. This is where most people begin to invoke the “be rational” or “commonsense” card. What many people do not realize though, is that they are invoking “rational thinking” and “common sense” not because they have suddenly partaken in critical examination, but merely because they are viscerally repugnant to the alternate theory. In essence, they are not being rational at all. They are being emotional.

Are conspiracy theories ever true? Of course. Generally speaking, preachers don’t tell on preachers; soldiers don’t tell on soldiers; cops don’t tell on cops; doctors don’t tell on doctors; and so on. Politicians will not turn on one another unless there is a greater goal to be gained. Conspiracies, for the most part, develop quite organically. Most of us don’t tell on our friends, and from this, you can understand why we shouldn’t just immediately shut ourselves off to the notion of a conspiracy.

Just look at the run up to the Iraq War. There may have been a conspiracy amongst the Neocons to take this country to war. Shouldn’t we investigate it? Of course we should. We should investigate all colorable conspiracy theories, even the ones that make us feel squeemish. Even the ones that challenge popularly held theories of “facts.”

Are conspiracy theories ever false? Of course. In fact, it’s safe to say that they are false more often than they are not. But, we are not served by dismissing conspiracy altogether, we ARE served by investigating it. And by investigation, I mean critical investigation. The worst thing we could do is simply turn our attention away from conspiracy (or any other quest for knowledge, for that matter). By doing so, we allow them to go unchecked. We deny ourselves potential knowledge, and perhaps even justice.

This is why I laugh when I hear somebody use the term “conspiracy theory” as a perjorative term. I laugh because most people fail to recognize that conspiracy theories are everywhere, and more often than not, most people swallow conspiracy theories without recognizing that they have done so.

Gulp!

What we need is critical examination. What we need is an open mind. We need to examine theories, even when they make us feel sick to our stomach. And we need to dismiss theories only when they are no longer colorable. But so long as they are colorable, we must, at the minimum, keep our minds open to the possibility that they may be true.

As humans, we tend to seek absolute order. We crave answers. Generally speaking, we do not feel comfortable with the inherent insecurity of chaos. But it is from chaos and disorder that we typically and ultimately find knowledge and wisdom, even when we don’t find absolute answers. It is the balance between order and chaos, knowing and not-knowing, believing and not believing, which brings us the greatest fruit. It is the marriage of doubt and faith which illuminates the never-ending path of knowledge.
ed/pub:NB

Powered by

About The Bulldog Manifesto

  • http://withduerespect.blogspot.com JCB

    Mayabe some are a figment of ur imagination. Nonetheless, certain things have been explained in a way that insults the intellect of any rational person. Conspiracy theories come to life precisely because you expect so much more from the ones making the explantation (e.g U.S Goverment). I wrote something related here in BC: The FBI’s Latest Conspiracy Theory

    Good read though. Highly appreciated.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    The great thing about conspiracy theories is that you can just make them up and they seem perfectly plausible regardless of the quality of the sources. For example, it’s well known that the members of the DLC hold orgies and worship the god Pan at a compound just south and east of Washigton DC, with rituals which include eating raw pork and grapes off of the naked body of 12 year old boys.

    See, perfectly believable. And you can take my word for it. My cousin’s wife’s hairdresser’s uncle is the groundskeeper there and he saw it with his own eyes.

    Dave

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com alienboy

    good work bulldog, always good to read rational writing

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com alienboy

    Dave, I believe your scenario is a theory but lacks a conspiracy…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Whenever two people with more than a million dollars in the bank and/or an elected office get together it’s a conspiracy, Aleinboy – you ought to know that by now.

    Dave

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com alienboy

    Oh look, a Nallyism!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Well nobody cares about conspiracies being fomented by 3 broke drunks in a corner bar. They are more likely to produce conspiracy theories than the actual conspiracies.

    Dave

  • Maurice

    This is your best post yet, Bulldog. You are well on your way to becoming a healthy skeptic. There are many more dissappointments in your future.

    I’ve never believed in conpiracies simply because it is impossible for humans to keep a secret. One person can keep a secret but as soon as 2 or more are involved the story will be told.

  • http://livefromblogdahd demabloggery

    Conspiracism is one of the greatest dangers facing the world today; it drives arab terrorism, it drives American terrorism,and is currently ripping apart the American and European left because what was at one time a right-wing phenomena had now been transferred to the left via clowns like Michael Moore. Conspiracism is a flawed world-view, a replacement for the difficult work of institutional analysis where an individual can turn himself from a part-time websurfer to a revolutionary “in the know” who doesn’t have to do anything but create fear, doubt and hatred.

    It is marked by innuendo and speculation and places upon the reader the responsbility to disprove such theory.

    The fact that there are real conspiracies going doesn’t change the fact that it is a very real, and dangerous threat.

    publiceye.org

  • http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Possible-police-role-in-2002-Bali-attack/2005/10/12/1128796591857.html ENDtheNWO

    ROFLMAO at the person linking to “Publiceye.org”, which uses slander and lies to smear people it disagrees with. I’ve never seen a page so full of conspiracist nutbag nonsense (all the while claiming to oppose “conspiracism” [which according to publiceye.org is a form of anti-semitism]) in my life.

    Governments use terrorism to mobilize the public consciousness. That isn’t conspiracy theory. That’s historical fact.

  • Romach

    Here’s an hypothesis. The war on terror is a scheme. Someone in our administration figured we needed another Cold War type of continual warfare to expand the most diplomatic, economic, and military supremacy in as much of the world as possible. Whoever has alliances with the most energy producing nations has the greatest wealth; hence, has the greatest strength. The object is to expand that diplomatic, economic, and military sphere to gain and to maintain control over the most energy access corridors. The winner controls as much prime real estate as possible. Of course we need a perpetual enemy, which enemy is either terrorists, tyrants, or both. The amount of troops, money, and freedom lost in warfare is worth the potential gain. Strength means more wealth, more influence, and more security, which is power. Having power translates into the opportunity to constantly pursue more power, which constant pursuit is driven by a desire for power for its own sake. Those key people who want the war on terror want power for its own sake; and the war-on-terror scheme serves no purpose than to get that power.

  • Ebony Ghost

    Romach:

    I don’t know if you were serious or not with your hypothesis. But if you dig up some info on the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) you can put some faces to it.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    PNAC is too purist to use terrorism as a tool. They believe the US has an absolute right to an empire and doesn’t need any stinking excuses like terrorism. We just deserve to run the world.

    However, if you do like conspiracies of the full blown Arnold Schwarzenneger is Hitler’s secret Clone variety, you have to spend some time on InfoWars.com – that’s where our next Tim McVeigh will be coming from.

    Dave

  • Luke

    My theory is that it doesn’t matter how many trillions of dollars america spends on iraq, because their machine which can see the future has already told them that all the currencies in the world are going to crash in the next decade and usher in the new great GREAT depression, eventually the monetary system itself will crumble and all the power in the world will be in the hands of those who control the natural resources, such as oil and uranium and things of that sort, not to mention food, but when everyone is starving I’m not sure if people will trade food for oil, George Bush senoir let his good friend Saddam know what was going on, they’re currently secretly ruling the world in an underground bunker somewhere, along with hitler, stalin, and emperor hirihito.

  • Nancy

    #10 is correct: governments have been using conspiracy theories & fear tactics to control the public ever since the human species rose up on its hind legs & formed a government. The How-To manuals go all the way back to Machiavelli, and before him all the way to T’ang China, and before them probably all the way back to Sumer & Jericho, and before them all the way back to Olduvai Gorge, I have no doubt. The most valuable courses I ever took were a series in critical thinking, that taught me how to resist & analyze the bombardment of garbage being shovelled at me to ingest, from political quackery to advertising. Of course the downside was I have since been pretty much perpetually angry at those who are trying to perpetrate it.

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    ROFLMAO at the person linking to “Publiceye.org”, which uses slander and lies to smear people it disagrees with.
    ======================
    ROTFLMAO at the person who posted this. Chip Bertlett slandering Lyndon LaRouche and Mike Ruppert, who are icons of critical thought! How dare he!

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    if you dig up some info on the Project for a New American Century
    =================
    They may be jackasses but they are FAR from being some kind of sinister cabal of zionists operating behind the scenes. The version the wingnut left trots out here is insulting and conspiracism at it’s worst.

  • http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/ The Bulldog Manifesto

    The Project for a New American Century acts somewhat like a “sinister cabal of zionists” in many respects.

    Sorry, but there is no group on the planet more dangerous than the present Bush Cabal.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Bulldog, the Bush Cabal and the PNAC are hardly the same thing. Right now the PNAC is quite unhappy with many of Bush’s policies and they’ve been quite vocal in their criticism in the media and on their website.

    Dave

  • http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/ The Bulldog Manifesto

    Dave,

    The fact that there may now finally be some dissention between the PNAC neocons on some old guard paleo-cons is hardly enough to say that the “Bush Cabal” and the PNAC are “hardly the same thing”.

    Sorry charlie, but for the past five years, the Bush Cabal has been running the PNAC playbook. The present rumors do not undermine the five years of undeniable fact.

    Nice try.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Bull, you’re clearly not familiar with the ‘PNAC Manifesto’ if you can say that at all. While Bush has some PNAC types in his administration, and may support their ideas in an abstract way, almost from the beginning his foreign policy efforts have been generally incompatible with PNAC dogma. Even Wolfowitz is splitting somewhat from the PNAC line in his recent activities negotiating with China.

    The fearmongering about the PNAC just doesn’t stand up when compared with reality.

    Dave

  • http://livefromblogdahd demabloggery

    Dave’s right. It makes a good story, but the reality is quite different.

  • http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/ The Bulldog Manifesto

    LOL Dave. No, I think I’m pretty well informed on the PNAC’s manifesto. More than you know, my friend.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Ah, so you’re a secret member of the quasi-trotskyite imperialist legion?

    Dave

  • http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/ The Bulldog Manifesto

    Not even close.

  • Ebony Ghost

    Do we have a manifestation of Bulldog’s original thesis coming to fruition here?

    Bulldog writes: Then suddenly, along comes a well-supported, factually based conspiracy theory to make you feel squeamish. A conspiracy theory that challenges your beliefs. A theory that causes you to question your worldview, and perhaps even your identity. A conspiracy theory that would require you to make a paradigm shift just in order to examine it. And it is at this point that you “rationally” decide to denounce conspiracy theories.

    And further: It is only when a non-dominant, progressive, or controversial alternative theory or description of events is set forth, that you choose to backhandedly dismiss conspiracy theories with absolute finality. If a particular conspiracy theory elicits an uncomfortable feeling, beckons self-examination and/or a paradigm shift, more likely than not, you will deem that theory irrefutably false.’

    There is even evidence that one might “scoff and make references to “tin foil hats” and a living Elvis Presley.”

    Dave Nalle: Does your idea of “PNAC types” includes Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Scooter Libby? That their signatures are attached to the PNAC Statement of Principles would seem to indicate that they are much closer to PNAC founders than PNAC types. In a September 20, 2001 letter to the President, PNAC states, “But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.” While this particular letter was not signed by any of the above mentioned men, the Bush administration’s support for the idea has been far from abstract.

    If Margie Burns was correct in her May 1, 2004 story for the Washington Spectator:

    Bush announced the appointment of PNAC signer Robert B. Zoellick as the U.S. Trade Representative, the president’s principal trade adviser—on January 11, 2001.

    Paul D. Wolfowitz was named Deputy Secretary of Defense on February 5.

    Richard L. Armitage was appointed Deputy Secretary of State on February 12.

    Dov S. Zakheim became Comptroller at the Defense Department on February 12.

    John R. Bolton was picked as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs at the State Department on February 21.

    PNAC signatory Peter W. Rodman was appointed to the International Security Affairs office in the Defense Department by the end of May.

    Bush appointed the PNAC signer Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad to the National Security Council on May 23,

    and signer Elliott Abrams to the NSC on June 25.

    Seth Cropsey, who signed the letter, was later named Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau.

    The letter signed by these men was to President Clinton in 1998 and specifically addressed “removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.” Many of these men had ties to the Reagan administration and some recent “splitting somewhat” does not change who they are.

    So, help me out, Dave. Give me some idea of what “the reality” is and some facts to support it. Oh and Wallace Francis, feel free to pipe in too (I’m curious to discover just what it is that the wingnut left has a version of and what version of whatever it is that you would not find insulting).

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Look at the jobs and look at the people, Ghost. He put hawks in the defense department. What a surprise. The PNAC is one of the major gathering points for hawks these days, so that only makes sense. Was it their PNAC connections that got them the jobs, or just inevitable that those who would be well suited to those jobs had a sympathy for the PNAC?

    The mistake is in thinking that the PNAC is some sort of monolithic organization. Not all of their supporters sign off on all of their statements, and not everyone who expresses support for the PNAC in general terms or on a particular issue is necessarily a hard-line supporter.

    Hell, Clinton endorsed removing Saddam Hussein from power – does that mean he’s a secret PNAC sympathizer? And when it gets right down to it, even if you don’t support the PNAC’s idea of an imperialist foreign policy, who in 1998 could disagree with their contention that a war on terror would have to include support for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power?

    And finally, the PNAC is too above board too open and too transparent in their intentions to really be a conspiracy. Perhaps a ‘cabal’ woudl be a better term for them. It’s not like their intentions or their membership are at all mysterious or secret. They’ve got a website with everyone’s names on it and with clear statements of their beliefs, after all.

    Dave

  • Romach

    Notice that my hypothesis suggests that the war on terror is a scheme to continually pursue power. The powerful have to have a continual means to somehow continually pursue power. Whether the powerful are forthcoming in their continual pursuit is really beside the point. In fact, through overt association, the powerful might divulge some of their intentions. Of course they would hope to throw off the public from realizing what the war-on-terror scheme is really about. “The war on terror could not be about power,” the public would say, “since the powerful have their little associations that are precisely for that.” The war on terror is about freedom and democracy. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke agree that there is no freedom where there is war. They also agree that there is no freedom where there is no stability. How, then, can we possibly claim to bring freedom and democracy to regions that we destabilize and that remain destabilized long after we end our occupation? The war on terror is about something, and it is not freedom or democracy.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Yep, Romach. First and foremost the war on terror is – oddly enough – about making war on terror, terroristic governments and terrorist organizations. Go figure.

    If good things happen to oppressed people along the way, that’s a pleasant but separate outcome.

    Dave

  • Romach

    Dave,
    Your response to my post brings us back to the reason we initially invaded Iraq. Was it to fight terror in Iraq, to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, or both? We did not initially go to fight terrorists, but then we did not initially go to bring freedom and democracy either. Only after we arrived did we have to fight terror and only when our initial disarming Iraq mission failed did we suggest that we were spreading freedom and democracy. Will we be spreading freedom and democracy into Syria, will we be fighting terror in Syria, or both? What will it be somewhere else? Only today Bush invoked Reagan’s Cold War. This isn’t cold war, though, that we are fighting in people’s backyards; and I guarantee you that one of the greatest conspiracy theories is that our continual warfare has anything to do with terrorism, freedom, or democracy.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    As I’ve discussed many times before, the stated reasons for invading Iraq were clearly not the real reasons for doing so. Iraq was the central linchpin in a network of terrorism-supporting countries. By invading Iraq we broke up communications and structural unity in that region, driving a wedge between Iran, Syria, Palestine and Saudi Arabia and putting the neighboring nations under potential threat. The primary goal in Iraq was not to attack specific terrorists, but to attack the region, establish a presence and essentially break up the support for terrorism which was coming from that region.

    Dave

  • Luke

    Dave, it sounds more to me like the US is trying to subdue a bullants nest by stomping all over it, from my experience, that just pisses them off, A LOT. And couldn’t you just feel the love between iraq and iran, I’m glad they don’t have structural unity anymore.

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    and I guarantee you that one of the greatest conspiracy theories is that our continual warfare has anything to do with terrorism, freedom, or democracy.
    ==========================
    I hear this a lot. It’s exactly the sort of talk that pushes moderates and democrats into the arms of the Republicans. Bombs can be going off for a decade straight, the WTC can be a pile of smoking rubble, OBL can give statement after statement of his intent to kill infidels for the crime of separating church and state and STILL there are people saying that everything we see is a reaction to American imperialism. This is tired-ass, stale rhetoric and objectively pro-fascist. But it does help those who spout such nonsense continue to believe the myth that these mass, totalitarian movements, these cults of suicide and death either don’t exist or are all our fault.
    The fact that the Republicans are sneaky, dishonest, and have never seen an enemy they didn’t try to blow out of proportion doesn’t mean who don’t have a real enemy. That’s the problem.
    There are those who see Iraq as an opportunity for fear-mongering. But it’s hard to see how a liberal would do their best to undermine attempts at democracy in a place like Iraq, where Hussein was quite a good villain for us leftists, all for the greater good of mankind. Bush may be an ass, but for the people who ostensibly love the innocent of the world so much, there is a lot of cold, callous talk about the victims of Hussein and a hypocritical need to inflate every incident in Iraq involving US forces.

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    Dave, it sounds more to me like the US is trying to subdue a bullants nest by stomping all over it,
    =======================
    YOu mean the Islamofascists are going to get upset with us? Gee…and it was going so well!

  • Historian

    Was there a conspiracy to defraud America and illegally engage in the Iraq war?

    Whatever the superficial reasons given later for the Iraq war, the real reason to invade Iraq was to support Israel in its quest to be the only strong power in the region. With lobbying from Israel and the AIPAC Jewish-Zionist lobby, the neo-cons in high-level positions in the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House got foreign policy neophyte Bush to agree with them and to invade Iraq.

    Bush was duped into believing that the Iraq war would be over in a couple of weeks (“shock and awe“) and the country could easily be controlled (“bring it on“). That was clearly what he was thinking in May, 2003 (“mission accomplished“).

    Bush deserves a special commendation for being the most duped president in American history.

    The real reason for the war is widely understood in Washington but the reason is suppressed by our controlled news media, which never publishes anything critical of American-Israeli deals.

    According to our controlled news media, AIPAC and Israel have never done anything antithetical to America — including their demands to free Jonathan Pollard.

    We should take note of the fact that when Bush is pushed on the reason for war, he WILL admit that “Saddam was a threat to Israel”, but then quickly return to his “democracy and freedom” excuses before that pithy statement can be questioned (as if it would be answered).

    The finishing touch to start the war in Iraq was provided by the forged letter claiming that Niger was supplying Iraq with uranium.

    Lies and forged evidence duped the American people into waging a preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to us.

    The source of this letter has not yet been disclosed, but after 2,000 dead American soldiers and suffering 20,000 wounded, and spending several hundred billion (borrowed) dollars, and to top it off, increasing the terror threat to this country, Americans deserve to know the name of the bastard who forged this letter so they can have a public hanging after the bastard is drawn and quartered.

    After 9/11, when Israel was debating on how hard to push America to take out Saddam, Ariel Sharon knew what he was talking about…

    Israel Radio (Kol Yisrael), reported on Oct. 3, 2001, that Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, had boasted at a Cabinet meeting, “I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.”

    Sharon knows full well what goes on in Washington.

    Check out this espionage nest in Washington:

    http://litbmueller.blogspot.com/2005/05/lawrence-franklin-case-possible.html

    Let’s see what Fitzgerald and McNulty can do with this nest of rats…

  • Romach

    Dave,
    Breaking up support for terrorism in Iraq is an odd argument. We were doing a fine job of destroying the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan without Iraq. Let us assume, however, that you are talking about Hussein sending money to Palestinian suicide bombers’ families. Now that Hussein is ousted, Palestinian suicide bombers are still blowing up Israelis. You are suggesting, then, that actual terrorism does not matter as long as we capture its proponents. Otherwise, our troops should be fighting in Gaza and not in Iraq. Perhaps, Dave, Iraq has nothing to do with breaking up support for terrorism or with bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. What is our exit strategy? Now that the Iraqis have a constitution, are we there to fight an insurgency that will not go away so long as we are there? The Sunnis do not even support al-Qaida suggesting that the insurgents have nothing to do with terrorism. If our administration swept Iraq clean of al-Qaida and insurgents remained, would that mean our soldiers would continue fighting insurgents? What is the administration’s plan? You do not know because no one knows. Maybe the administration itself does not even know.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Dave, it sounds more to me like the US is trying to subdue a bullants nest by stomping all over it, from my experience, that just pisses them off, A LOT.< <

    To continue your analogy, once you piss them off they come to the surface and you can hose them down with poison and wipe them out.

    >> And couldn’t you just feel the love between iraq and iran, I’m glad they don’t have structural unity anymore.<<

    See, you’re clueless. That’s exactly why Iraq was the lynchpin. They didn’t get along with anyone and got along with everyone at the same time. As a secular anti-American/anti-Israeli state they could function as an essential neutral party between terrorists and terror supporting states. They could funnel Saudi money to Al Qaeda and Hammas, they could give terrorists a place ot hide out without making it obvious the terrorists were backed by Iran and Syria. Their diplomats could act as surrogate representatives for terrorist nations. Each of those nations had something to offer in the way of terrorism, and Iraq was essential because of its location and willingness to play along with everyone.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Whatever the superficial reasons given later for the Iraq war, the real reason to invade Iraq was to support Israel in its quest to be the only strong power in the region.< <

    Gosh, that would be a tragedy. To have the friendliest nation in the region strong and the unfriendly ones weak.

    >> With lobbying from Israel and the AIPAC Jewish-Zionist lobby, the neo-cons in high-level positions in the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House got foreign policy neophyte Bush to agree with them and to invade Iraq.< <

    Yep, it's all about the Ewige Jude working behind the scenes, scuttling like a rat, poisoning the wells with plague...

    >>Bush was duped into believing that the Iraq war would be over in a couple of weeks (“shock and awe“) and the country could easily be controlled (“bring it on“). That was clearly what he was thinking in May, 2003 (“mission accomplished“). < <

    The actual military-style fighting WAS over quite quickly.

    >>The real reason for the war is widely understood in Washington but the reason is suppressed by our controlled news media, which never publishes anything critical of American-Israeli deals.< <

    Because, of course, the media is controlled by the Jews - like those two terrible jews Rupert Murdoch and Robert Maxwell and that other evil jew Ted Turner.

    >>The finishing touch to start the war in Iraq was provided by the forged letter claiming that Niger was supplying Iraq with uranium.<<

    An issue so vital that it was not even mentioned in the 17 causes of action noted by congress in their authorization for the war. Of course he really needed that yellowcake for Niger because the 500,000kg of yellowcake and 2kg of enriched uranium he already had in Iraq wasn’t enough to eventually build more than 30 or 40 bombs given the time to finish processing the materials.

    Dave

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    Israel Radio (Kol Yisrael), reported on Oct. 3, 2001, that Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, had boasted at a Cabinet meeting, “I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.”
    ===================================
    this phony statement has been widely circulated among anti-semites everywhere, and it was only a matter of time before the conspiracist posters started to bust out with “the jews did it” al la Adolph.
    =====================
    The hoax originated from an October 3, 2001 press release from the pro-Hamas group, the Islamic Association for Palestine. It said, “An acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres during which Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying “don’t worry about American pressure, we control America.’” Notably, in the same press release, a direct quotation changed from “we control America” to “we the Jewish people control America.”

    IAP writes, “According [to] the Israeli Hebrew radio, Col [sic] Yisrael Wednesday, Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and turn the US against us. At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying “…I want to tell you something clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.’”

    According to the IAP press release, the statement was reported on Kol Yisrael. However, CAMERA’s calls to Kol Yisrael confirmed that no such broadcast exists.
    http://world.std.com/%7Ecamera/docs/alert/geyer.html

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Nice to find something we agree on, Wallace – the anti-semites have nothing positive to contribute to this discussion.

    Dave

  • MCH

    “The actual military-style fighting WAS over quite quickly.”
    – Dave (I had other priorites during Desert Storm) Nalle

    Tell that to the families of the 1,300 brave men and women who’ve been killed, and the 11,000 who’ve been wounded in action, since GW’s infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech, Nalle.

    Of course, they’re sacrifice doesn’t mean anything to you – you’re the same bozo who compares traffic fatalities to being killed in combat…

  • Historian

    Here we go again.

    Dave Nalle wants us to believe that Israel and AIPAC have done nothing to harm the best interests of America, and to suggest otherwise is “anti-semitic”. In other words, criticism of Israel is always based on race or religion. It couldn’t possibly be politics.

    This well-worn “anti-semitic” canard is stale but some still desperately hang on to it because they have no other argument.

    To show how ridiculous this canard is, consider this:

    http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

    “ On June 8, 1967, Israeli warplanes and torpedo boats launched a ferocious two-hour attack against the USS Liberty, an American intelligence ship operating in the eastern Mediterranean. Of the 294 men aboard the vessel, 34 were killed and 172 were wounded.”

    “Admiral Moorer has said, “What is so chilling and cold-blooded, of course, is that they [the Israelis] could kill as many Americans as they did in confidence that Washington would cooperate in quelling any public outcry. I have to conclude that it was Israel’s intent to sink the Liberty and leave as few survivors as possible.”

    “The United States Congress has never investigated the attack, making it the only attack on a United States Navy ship involving significant loss of life that has not been so investigated.”

    Does Dave believe this two-hour attack in broad daylight was an “accident”? Does he believe the survivors who say otherwise are all “anti-semitic”? If he does let him talk to the survivors.

    http://www.ussliberty.org/

    “The ship’s crew is bitter. It is bitter because its own country turned its back on them… it is bitter because someone killed 34 Americans and got away with it…what’s more, that its own government covered up the truth and HELPED them get away with it!

    “Ahhh,” you say. “Anti-Semitism!” No. Many of the ship’s crew are Jewish, and we have many Jewish friends. We are NOT anti-Semitic. We ARE anti-Israel. We know that Israel has controlled the American congress for years… to the point where 34 dead sailors can go un-investigated!

    Of course, fellow travelers will cry, “anti-Semitism” whenever Israel is criticized, even when to do so is a cover-up for a war crime.

    http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm

    So Dave says even if the real reason to invade Iraq was to support Israel in its quest to be the only strong power in the region, Israel is the friendliest nation in the region and we have to keep Israel strong and the unfriendly ones weak.

    Dave ignores the fact that the unfriendly ones are unfriendly because our AIPAC-sponsored one-sided foreign policy enables Israel to keep building illegal settlements on Arab land which serves only to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict going and keep the Middle East in turmoil.

    Dave waves his magic wand of “Eternal Jew” in an attempt to erase the fact that lobbying from Israel and the AIPAC Jewish-Zionist lobby, the neo-cons in high-level positions in the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, got foreign policy neophyte Bush to agree with them and to invade Iraq.

    Dave wants us to believe that policies concocted and enacted by our “public servants”, who also have ties to Israeli interests which are inimical to our interests, must be accepted because otherwise we are being hostile to Jewry.

    Dave wants us to believe that because in Iraq, “the actual military-style fighting WAS over quite quickly”, and because of that, most Americans who now see through this sham war should be impressed by the “shock and awe” part and forget the “bring it on“ and the “mission accomplished“ portions. Perhaps Dave believes that most Americans are stupid enough to fall for this line of his.

    Dave believes that our news media presents balanced reporting of the Iraq war and would never suppress the real reason for the war because he evidently believes owners such as Rupert Murdoch, Robert Maxwell and Ted Turner are honorable men who would never even remotely consider doing such a thing as censoring what is reported or presenting selected news to the American public. (Ever hear of Carl Cameron of Fox News and what happened to him when he stepped over the line and reported some news critical of Richard Perle and other AIPAC supporters in this country? Carl was taken to the wood shed for a couple of months and then given innocuous assignments. No more serious reporting on foreign affairs for Carl.)

    Dave also wants us to forget that the forged letter claiming that Niger was supplying Iraq with uranium was considered by Bush to be important enough to mention it during his 2003 State of the Union Address. Obviously this was said to get the American public solidly behind the war. And Dave still hangs on to the warmongering claim that Saddam already had enough uranium to eventually build more than 30 or 40 bombs given the time to finish processing the materials.

    Oh well.

    An ignoramus will believe anything.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I’ve already done the anti-semitism dance several times on BC, I’m not going to do it again. I’ll address some of your points that aren’t just the same racist drivel.

    >>Dave wants us to believe that because in Iraq, “the actual military-style fighting WAS over quite quickly”,< <

    No, I don't want you to 'believe' it. It's a fact. You can believe it or be delusional.

    >>Dave believes that our news media presents balanced reporting of the Iraq war and would never suppress the real reason for the war because he evidently believes owners such as Rupert Murdoch, Robert Maxwell and Ted Turner are honorable men who would never even remotely consider doing such a thing as censoring what is reported or presenting selected news to the American public. < <

    I never said anything remotely like this. You said that Jews controlled the media. I pointed to these three major media figures none of whom are Jews.

    >>And Dave still hangs on to the warmongering claim that Saddam already had enough uranium to eventually build more than 30 or 40 bombs given the time to finish processing the materials. < <

    It's not a claim, it's a fact. You seem to not have a fondness for facts. Perhaps you should read the UN IAEA report on nuclear materials in Iraq. Just click here: IAEA

    Dave

  • http://www.pippwnsqueak.blogspot.com gypsyman

    Boy you the know the times have changed. It used to be that us jews got branded as part of the leftist communist plot to nationalise banks and destablelise the world banks or some such shit.

    but now what a good jewish leftist political agitator like myslef supposed to do now that we are part of a sinister right wing cabal threatening to destablise world economies and nationalise banks and opress minorities everywhere.

    Sheesh talk about conspracy theroies…hey anybody want to buy a copy of Protacols of the Elders of Zion…you do know they were written by jews as a way to ensure hatred would be spread against them, so that world would feel sorry for them and give them Israel. You didn’t? oops I guess I’m givng away secrets again. I’ll be in trouble at the next cabal meeting (oh and have you ever noticed how much that word sounds like Kabbalah…coicendence or not?

    A lot of people need to cut back on their coffee and turn off their computer for a while.

  • Ebony Ghost

    Thanks Dave. I do stand somewhat corrected. However, you’ve got to admit that there isn’t much more than a semantic difference between a cabal and a group of conspirators. I believe that the thrust of Bulldog’s article is to explain that; if a group is engaged in an activity that appears reasonable on the surface, yet turns out to be something that one would find distasteful, there is a tendency to try and label the details in support of the distasteful hypothesis as a conspiracy theory. Then, once so labeled, easy to dismiss.

    Speaking of labels, the hawk is not necessarily a bad thing when defense of the country is the primary objective. On the other hand, hawks are not known to fly in packs. Given that PNAC has no demonstrable qualms against engaging in activities as criminal as my assaulting you in self defense, sympathizing with them may not be any indication of who might be well suited to overseeing our nation’s defense. This is not to say that any of them will actually go out and attack anyone. It is to say that we should be careful who is in a position to influence putting our armed forces in harm’s way.

    I’m sorry Dave, But I have to contend that anyone who would think they have the authority to decide who should be “in power” in any nation other than their own is engaging in an activity that puts their own country in danger. By what right does anybody get to unilaterally decide which nations are sovereign and which are not? The danger posed by this particular group is the access they have to the power to accomplish their goals. Your comment, in this thread that “nobody cares about conspiracies being fomented by 3 broke drunks in a corner bar is appropriate. Three drunks plotting to take over the world can do nothing. A group of men plotting to take over the world can get a whole lot of people killed if they have constant access to The President of The United States.

    We’re currently engaged in a war that could not have been possible without the string of lies that came out of “high places” in this country. Many of the people who had access to the information that led to the decision are actual PNAC members. If these people are engaged in activities that put our nation in danger, it is vital to our security that they be rooted out and treated accordingly. But, we do ourselves a grave disservice if we refuse to even entertain the idea that something might be amiss.

    BTW Dave, I don’t want to get too involved in getting this thread off topic. Is there another BC thread where they’re discussing the nutty idea that the war in Iraq is over? I’d like to check it out.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>I’m sorry Dave, But I have to contend that anyone who would think they have the authority to decide who should be “in power” in any nation other than their own is engaging in an activity that puts their own country in danger.<<

    On this we certainly agree. Of course, this scenario does not describe the situation in Iraq. What we have done there is create the opportunity for them to pick their own leadership and design their own government. This is enormously different from picking a dictator for them as we did with problem countries in the past. It represents an enormous and positive change in US foreign policy methods.

    Dave

  • Ebony Ghost

    Gee, Dave. That sounds an awful lot like “Normally yes, but this time it was OK.” The standard response to any mention that we shouldn’t even have started this in the first place seems to be, “Would you rather that Saddam was still in power?” In that sense I believe the scenario exactly describes the situation in Iraq and it’s aftermath. We’re not leaving the country any time soon (soon being any time in the next generation) and we’ve already lined up other countries for regime change. Shoot first and ask questions later may represent a change in policy, but I hardly see it as positive.

    That said, is there any validity to the theory that a conspiracy led up to the war in Iraq? And, if so, should not those conspirators be brought to justice?

  • Historian

    Dave claims that “I’ve already done the anti-semitism dance several times on BC, I’m not going to do it again. I’ll address some of your points that aren’t just the same racist drivel.”

    I guess Dave just can’t distinguish between political criticism and what he calls “racist drivel”. Woe to those who criticize Dave’s political heroes. When he can’t refute political commentary, he resorts to name-calling.

    I said “Dave wants us to believe that because in Iraq, “the actual military-style fighting WAS over quite quickly”, and because of that, most Americans who now see through this sham war should be impressed by the “shock and awe” part and forget the “bring it on“ and the “mission accomplished“ portions. Perhaps Dave believes that most Americans are stupid enough to fall for this line of his.”

    Dave’s retort is “No, I don’t want you to ‘believe’ it. It’s a fact. You can believe it or be delusional.”

    So does Dave believe that most Americans are stupid enough to fall for this line of his.”?

    Or is he delusional?

    Dave said, “Because, of course, the media is controlled by the Jews – like those two terrible jews Rupert Murdoch and Robert Maxwell and that other evil jew Ted Turner.”

    I responded to what Dave said about Jews. I had not mentioned Jews, and I don’t know or care if the three he named are Jews.

    So how does Dave respond?

    Dave replied, “You said that Jews controlled the media.”

    But I never said that “Jews controlled the media”.

    Lies and distortions appear to be Dave’s forté.

    When Dave has no argument based on fact, he creates fiction.

    And Dave still hangs on to the warmongering claim that Saddam already had enough uranium to eventually build more than 30 or 40 bombs given the time to finish processing the materials.

    If Dave’s claim is true, where is the uranium now?

    If this is the reason we went to war, it would seem that finding the uranium would be our objective.

    If what Dave claims is true, why isn’t finding the uranium our primary objective?

    Another delusion?

    Sad.

    Very Sad.

  • Historian

    gypsyman is concerned about “talk about conspiracy theories” and concludes that “a lot of people need to cut back on their coffee and turn off their computer for a while.”

    After reading what is between these concerns, it appears that gypsyman should take his own advice.

    Was the post about the USS Liberty the conspiracy that concerns gypsy man?

  • Historian

    This country supports the extreme right wing militarist Likud party in Israel.

    What does support for Likud militarists in Israel do for America?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>I guess Dave just can’t distinguish between political criticism and what he calls “racist drivel”. Woe to those who criticize Dave’s political heroes. When he can’t refute political commentary, he resorts to name-calling.< <

    Sure I can tell the difference. The racist drivel is the part of the discussion where everything is blamed on the jews, Israel or their control over the media, our government or whatever else.

    >>Dave replied, “You said that Jews controlled the media.”

    But I never said that “Jews controlled the media”.< <

    You said:

    "The real reason for the war is widely understood in Washington but the reason is suppressed by our controlled news media, which never publishes anything critical of American-Israeli deals.

    According to our controlled news media, AIPAC and Israel have never done anything antithetical to America -- including their demands to free Jonathan Pollard."

    I agree, you did not say 'the jews control the media', but what other conclusion can I draw from these statements. You're talking about the media being pro-zionist and being controlled. Please, tell me who is controlling the media and making it pro-Israel if not the jews.

    >>And Dave still hangs on to the warmongering claim that Saddam already had enough uranium to eventually build more than 30 or 40 bombs given the time to finish processing the materials.< <

    This isn't a claim, it's a fact. Did you go to the link from the UN which I posted?

    >>If Dave’s claim is true, where is the uranium now?< <

    It is currently under UN control again.

    >>If this is the reason we went to war, it would seem that finding the uranium would be our objective.

    If what Dave claims is true, why isn’t finding the uranium our primary objective?< <

    Because we already found it. That's one of the reasons why we know so much about it.

    Here's a link to a BBC article on the yellowcake and its disposition: BBC.

    You can call me all the names you like, but facts remain facts.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle
  • Historian

    Dave retorts: “The racist drivel is the part of the discussion where everything is blamed on the jews, Israel or their control over the media, our government or whatever else.”

    No Dave. Not everything.

    Only that which is based on fact.

    Dave wants to ignore facts such as the attack on the USS Liberty.

    It is not racist drivel to identify facts, The only drivel is that which Dave spews in his attempts to ignore facts.

    I don’t care whether the attack on the USS Liberty was perpetrated by Germany, Japan, Italy, Russia, Israel, or any other country.

    But evidently Dave does care.

    Any other country would be held accountable by our country.

    Israel is not held accountable. Why?

    In the case of a similar attack on another lightly armed US intelligence ship in international waters, the USS Pueblo, which was attacked by North Korean torpedo boats on January 23, 1968, six months after the USS Liberty was attacked much more viciously by Israeli torpedo boats as well as by Israeli aircraft, there was no excusing the North Korean attack by our government.

    In the attack on the USS Pueblo one American sailor was killed.

    In the attack on the USS Liberty, 34 American sailors were killed.

    Why was North Korea held accountable by our government and Israel was not held accountable by our government?

    Has Dave read what happened in the course of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and the cover-up in Washington that followed?

    Is it “racist” for the American sailors who have waited for almost 40 years to demand the Congressional Hearing they have been denied so far?

    If an American supports the sailors, is that being racist?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Good lord, the attack on the Liberty was 40 years ago. What the hell does it have to do with foreign policy today? Everyone involved is dead. We’ve got a whole new generation of leaders. Go take it up with Menachem Begin’s corpse.

    The fact that you persist with this utterly irrelevant argument demonstrates that your goal is not realistically dealing with the problems we currently face, but rather pursuing a grand fantasy of conspiracy and evil which exists mostly in your mind.

    Remember the Maine! To Hell with Spain!

    Dave

  • Historian

    1. “Good lord, the attack on the Liberty was 40 years ago.”

    “Good Lord” doesn’t make your reply any more credible. It is no better than the “Gosh” in your earlier childish effort to embellish a reply by playing dumb.

    Yes, the attack on the USS Liberty should have been investigated by Congress long ago. But it wasn’t. And the reason it wasn’t should be thoroughly investigated by Congressional hearings. Hearings have been repeatedly blocked by those who don’t want the truth revealed. Keep in mind that we have gone to war for far less reason than the killing of 34 Americans.

    Evidently you had no interest in reading the facts presented in the following website”

    http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm

    Read it and get educated on some history.

    A Report: War Crimes Committed Against U.S. Military Personnel, June 8, 1967
    Submitted to the Secretary of the Army in his capacity as Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense, June 8, 2005.

    You believe that June 8, 2005 was 40 years ago?

    The 1967 attack has never been fully aired by Congress. It is way past time to address the issue and put it to rest.

    Comprende?

    2. What the hell does it have to do with foreign policy today?

    The connection between what happened in 1967 and today is evident. When a foreign power with a vociferous lobby in this country kills 34 Americans, and gets away with it, the issue becomes, what else has happened as a result of getting away with this murderous atrocity?

    One clue is that since 1967, after the attack on the USS Liberty was whitewashed by our government, it became obvious to AIPAC that our Administration and Congress were not inclined to interfere with whatever Israel wants. As a result, we have sent hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars to Israel without any real discussion in Congress. Those in Congress who question this transfer of taxpayers’ dollars, are attacked by AIPAC money in their next election. This happens repeatedly to illustrate to others in Congress that to be other than silent on billions being sent to Israel, would result in AIPAC money being used against them in their next election. Because most of those in Congress are in constant need of money and are spineless, it works.

    Another clue is that for decades, our government vetoed any effort to enforce UN Resolutions in the Security Council to which Israel objected.. These are resolutions which we had previously approved, but had not been enforced. They remain un-enforced because unless Israel agrees with the enforcement resolution, the US vetoes it, effectively giving Israel veto power over resolutions it doesn’t want enforced. This has allowed Israel to continue to build illegal settlements on Arab land and to dictate terms to others in the region, knowing that “it owns America”, and can get away with anything it wants. Perhaps Fitzgerald or McNulty will shed some more light on the connection between the US attacking Iraq and the fact that Saddam was in the crosshairs of Israel for years.

    Other examples that come to mind: selling our secrets and technology to China in violation of US law and getting away with it; using US weapons provided to it for defensive purposes in offensive attacks in violation of US law and getting away with it; selling our weapons to Iran in violation of US law and getting away with it; having Jonathan Pollard spy against us; demanding that we guarantee billions in loans, then demanding that the loans be converted to gifts and coercing more billions every year from our Congress while Congress cuts back on more vital needs at home.

    3. “Everyone involved is dead.”

    Not quite. Thirty-Four were killed, but another 172 were wounded. Most wounded are still alive are demanding the Congressional hearings they have been denied for almost 40 years.

    For more information and pictures of those killed and wounded, go to:

    http://www.ussliberty.org/roster.htm

    4. “We’ve got a whole new generation of leaders.”

    We don’t have leaders. We have politicians who are followers.

    5. Go take it up with Menachem Begin’s corpse.

    Cute.

    But Begin was not the Israeli PM at the time.

    Read your history.

    6. “The fact that you persist with this utterly irrelevant argument demonstrates that your goal is not realistically dealing with the problems we currently face, but rather pursuing a grand fantasy of conspiracy and evil which exists mostly in your mind.”

    The fantasy is in your mind.

    The problems we currently face in the world stem from our foreign policy in the Middle East over the past 40 years. We can’t solve problems if we ignore the primary causes of the problems. It should be obvious by now that the more we interfere in the Middle East, the worse it gets for America. Perhaps it gets better for Israel, but it is worse for us.

    7. “Remember the Maine! To Hell with Spain!”

    Another irrelevant and idiotic statement!

  • Historian

    A “conspiracy” is defined as “an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.”

    Are these not conspiracies?

    1. Getting away with selling our secrets and technology to China in violation of US law and getting away with it.

    2.Getting away with the offensive use of US weapons provided to Israel for defensive purposes in violation of US law and getting away with it.

    3. Getting away with selling our weapons to Iran in violation of US law and getting away with it.

    4. Getting away with demanding that we guarantee billions in loans, then demanding that the loans be converted to gifts and coercing more billions every year from our Congress while Congress cuts back on more vital needs at home.

    These are not “conspiracy theories”, they are facts.

  • Historian

    It is ironic that on Aug. 5, 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson claimed that North Vietnamese forces launched unprovoked (e.g. illegal) attacks on U.S. ships in the Tonkin Gulf, killing no Americans, but Johnson started the Vietnam War as a result.

    Yet three years later, when Israel launched an unprovoked (e.g. illegal) attack on the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans and wounding 172, Johnson responded by agreeing to recall US Navy planes en route to help a United States ship in international waters which was being torpedoed, strafed and napalmed for over two hours in broad daylight.

    And to add insult to the death and injury, for over 30 years, Johnson and other spineless politicians kept the survivors from talking about what happened until it became “old news”.

    Our Congress still denies the survivors a hearing!

    No conspiracy here?

    Those responsible should be hanged!

    Posthumously, where necessary.

  • Historian

    I would dig the bastards responsible for this conspiracy out of their graves and have a public hanging.

  • MCH

    Historian – 3,
    Dave Nalle – 0.

  • Historian

    Evidently “lumpy” can’t stand facts.

    Are the lumps on the brain?

    Historian has won the argument.

    The facts are on his side.

    Calling historian epithets doesn’t change facts.

    But all lumpy can do us spit venom because he/she/it has no facts to counter the facts.

    And there is just no excuse for vacuous babbling over “racism”.

    Go see how our own politicians conspired against our own American military!

    http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

    And it continues even up to the current year.

    http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.html

    Is Iraq in the same category?

    Or is that question also “racist”?

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    Historian has won the argument.

    The facts are on his side.
    ======================
    Once people start trotting out the USS liberty it’s time to move on.
    ===============
    Recent American military history is replete with accidents, each of which cost dozens of lives. In May 1987, an Iraqi Entendard jet fired Exocet missiles into the destroyer Stark, killing 37 U.S. Navy men. Other disasters included the 1968 Pueblo, 1969 U.S. Navy EC-131 and 1975 Mayaguez incidents–and of course the Black Hawk in 1994. In each case, the U.S. was at peace. These incidents were mostly soon forgotten.

    But for 35 years, the USS Liberty has been a festering wound. More than 100 books were written about the incident, which still routinely figures in news and magazine articles.

    In 1986, a professor suggested to A. Jay Cristol that his U.S. Navy, international law and judicial backgrounds uniquely qualified him to examine the facts of the case. He then began an investigation that spanned 14 years.

    A retired U.S. Navy Captain A. Jay Cristol, accessed every living and written source he could locate, including more than 500 witnesses he interviewed in four nations. He reviewed five television productions, more than 100 books, hundreds of articles, and more than 3,087 documents–including all those from at least ten official U.S. investigations and three official Israeli ones.

    Throughout, Cristol focused on the one (right) question–whether the attacking Israelis knew that their target was an U.S. ship. In 1986, Cristol did not know the answer. Nor did he, like many discredited conspiracy theorists, assume that Israel maliciously premeditated the attack against a vessel they knew to be American.

    Every official investigation had concluded that while intentional, the attack was also clearly a case of mistaken identity. After conducting the most extensive research ever on this topic–Cristol agreed. Several Israeli and American mistakes caused Israeli forces to mistake the USS Liberty for an Egyptian vessel.

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    Nice to find something we agree on, Wallace – the anti-semites have nothing positive to contribute to this discussion.

    Dave
    ==================
    NO doubt. I’ll take a conservative republican anti-abortion gun lover who can at least know racism when he sees it than these wingnuts.

  • Historian

    “Attack one American and you attack all Americans” and “the U. S. government always protects its citizens”, is what is required of the President by our Constitution.

    These have become meaningless words.

    There is no justice when politics takes precedence over adhering to the Constitution which states, “The President… shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.. And take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…”

    President Johnson failed this requirement when he recalled our military jets on the way to fight off an Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. As a result, 34 Americans were killed and another 172 were wounded. And then Johnson prevented the survivors from talking about it on the threat of court-martial.

    Did George Bush also fail when he attacked Iraq in 2003, which has already caused 2,000 American dead and 20,000 wounded.

    Politics is rotten!

    Politics stinks!

    We need to re-instate public hangings for traitors, wherever they are!

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com lumpy

    MCH I’d have to say that ‘historian’ preemptively lost the argument when it became clear that he is a racist conspiracy nut.

    As for you there is just no excuse for your vacuous babbling.

    lumpy

  • Historian

    “Historian has won the argument.”

    Thank you.

    It’s time to move on and get the Congressional hearings which have been denied for almost 40 years.

    That is the only way the issue will be put to rest.

    I’m sure all truth-loving people want the truth revealed.

    Then we can make up our own minds.

    You can drag out Professor A. Jay Cristol and have him testify before Congress under oath.

    Isn’t that the American way?

    That will test his claim that he is uniquely qualified to examine the facts of the case. He can then tell us all about his investigation that spanned 14 years.

    Cristol concluded that Israel had not premeditated the attack against a vessel they knew to be American.

    Obviously, it was just a case of sheer, unmitigated stupidity.

    Cristol concluded that it was stupidity that caused Israeli forces to mistake the USS Liberty for an Egyptian vessel.

    The problem is that the Egyptian vessel did not look like the USS Liberty and was only a fraction of the size of the Liberty.

    It was a clear day and the Israeli attackers in planes and helicopters could see the American sailors scrambling on the decks.

    I just didn’t know that Israeli pilots are blind.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>5. Go take it up with Menachem Begin’s corpse.

    Cute.

    But Begin was not the Israeli PM at the time.< <

    No, he was head of the Mossad, a far more relevant position when it comes to conspiracies.

    >>Read your history.< <

    I have - including enough to get two advanced degrees in history and teach it for almost 20 years. That has given me enough perspective to realize how completely irrelevant the USS Liberty incident is to any current issues. You can be completely right about everything you say about the USS Liberty and it still makes no difference at all, because it has nothing to do with anything that's going on today unless you're a conspiracy nut and an anti-semite.

    >>The problems we currently face in the world stem from our foreign policy in the Middle East over the past 40 years. We can’t solve problems if we ignore the primary causes of the problems. It should be obvious by now that the more we interfere in the Middle East, the worse it gets for America. Perhaps it gets better for Israel, but it is worse for us.< <

    So you're both an anti-semite AND an appeaser. Lovely combination.

    >>7. “Remember the Maine! To Hell with Spain!”

    Another irrelevant and idiotic statement!<<

    Not if you have any knowledge of history or the wit to think about the point I’m making here. The sinking of the Maine was also believed to be the result of a conspiracy and it was certainly covered up for 80 years until the Rickover report determined that in fact it really was an accident. My point being that you’re just like the people who ranted about the Maine for years afterwards and ended up just being loony cranks.

    Dave

  • Historian

    Menachem Begin was not the Israeli PM at the time the USS Liberty was attacked.

    Levi Eshkol, as PM, was ultimately responsible for ordering the attack on the USS Liberty.

    Read your history.

    If Dave knew as much about history as he knows about bragging, he would know how relevant the USS Liberty incident is to current issues, as well as Middle East issues for the past 40 years.

    He does admit that I am completely right about everything I say about the USS Liberty.

    That’s an accomplishment.

    Perhaps a few more history lessons and Dave will be qualified to teach History 101,

    But Dave is so hung up on name-calling he isn’t qualified yet. He loves to replace fact with his pet names, “conspiracy nut and anti-semite.”

    Some people just have a very limited vocabulary.

    Dave also likes to use “appeaser” to bolster his non-existent facts.

    That’s a combination of epithets suitable for one who likes to brag about his “credentials”.

    Comparing the sinking of the Maine to the attack on the USS Liberty is clear proof that Dave Nalle is a “history professor” imposter.

  • MCH

    Score:
    Historian – 4, Dave Nalle – 0.

    No contest, actually. Nice to see a genuine historian topple BC’s self-proclaimed know-it-all’s flimsy house of cards.

    This isn’t one of your high school classrooms, Nalle; you’re not going to be able to bully and intimidate Historian like you used to do to your students.

    Look on the bright side, though, Nalle – you can always put the paper from your degrees to use for something else….

  • troll

    hey history guy – how would you describe your attitude towards Israel and Jews in general – ?

    do you think of yourself as an anti-Semite – ?

    just wondering as you stand accused

    troll

  • Historian

    On June 4, 1967, the weather was clear with unlimited visibility.

    The USS Liberty, an elaborate state-of-the art intelligence gathering vessel bristling with antennae, was in international waters off the Gaza strip and was flying the Stars and Stripes.

    Israeli reconnaissance planes flew overhead for hours. Pilots and ship’s crew waved to each other.

    Then, inexplicably, unmarked Israeli aircraft began attacking the ship.

    Torpedo boats came within 50 feet of the ship, but later claimed they couldn’t see the American flag on the mast, or the words “USS LIBERTY” on the stern, or see “GTR-5″ in 6 1/2 foot letters on the bow.

    The torpedo boats shot at American sailors on the deck of the Liberty as the sailors tried to help one another.

    As life rafts were put in the water by Liberty sailors in preparation for abandoning the ship, the torpedo boats shot them up.

    Before they could sink the Liberty, the torpedo boats left, apparently when they got premature word that our carriers had sent fighters to help the Liberty.

    The Liberty had radioed for help. Two US aircraft carriers in the area responded by launching fighter aircraft.

    Unbelievably, they were recalled by the White House.

    Rear Admiral Larry Geis, Commander of Carrier Division Four, commanding the carriers in the Sixth Fleet, called Washington personally to confirm the order to recall our aircraft.

    Secretary of Defense McNamara came on the line, then President Johnson.

    Johnson indicated to Admiral Geis that the aircraft were to be returned, that he would not have Israel embarrassed, and that he didn’t care who was killed or what was done to our ship.

    Admiral Geis was compelled to recall the aircraft.

    President Johnson went on television and announced to the American people that only ten sailors were killed in an “accident”.

    Sailors were ordered not to discuss the incident under threat of court-martial. The Liberty sailors and America waited for the Congressional investigation that never came.

    Recently, retired Navy captain Ward Boston, one of the Navy’s chief legal counsels who conducted the Navy’s inquiry, now says that the Navy inquiry was a sham and a fraud. He said he and oher naval officers knew that the attack was not an accident but deliberate, but if he had said this at the time, he would have been court-martialed.

    No conspiracy here.

    Just a routine “mistake”.

    Bullshit!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    The issue here is not the attack on the USS Liberty or the reasons for that attack or whether there was a conspiracy or a coverup.

    The issue is why, 40 years later, someone would think that the Liberty incident is at all relevant to US foreign policy.

    And the fact is that the only people who currently make an issue of the attack on the USS Liberty and whip it out as their first point of evidence, are anti-semites from the lunatic fringe. This is the kind of discussion you find on infowars.com and nations run by the KKK and the Aryan Nation and not much of anywhere else.

    MCH, you may want to side with those folks, but it sure doesn’t resound to your credit. I’ve deliberately avoided even discussing the USS Liberty because it is completely irrelevant to any discussion of American foreign policy UNLESS you subscribe to the theory that the US is run by a secret cabal of powerful jews – the ZOG as ‘historian’ and his fellow travellers call it in private. By focusing on the attack on the Liberty he is attempting to give an appearance of legitimacy to his more general racist message, and I’m not about to fall for that crap.

    Dave

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    Indeed, the central point here IS that Jews control America. “historian” has already repeated propaganda disseminated by Palestinian terrorists as fact, and failed to address the veracity of his claim that a statement was made that “we Jews control the US”.

    It doesn’t take even the most passing familiarity with history to see who has spread this vicious canard throughout the centuries, and it hasn’t been liberals, progressives, or even conservatives. It’s been reactionaries.

    ========================

    The conspiracist blames societal or individual problems on what turns out to be a demonized scapegoat. Conspiracism is a narrative form of scapegoating that portrays an enemy as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good. Conspiracism assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events, frames social conflict as part of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil, and makes leaps of logic, such as guilt by association, in analyzing evidence. Conspiracists often employ common fallacies of logic in analyzing factual evidence to assert connections, causality, and intent that are frequently unlikely or nonexistent. As a distinct narrative form of scapegoating, conspiracism uses demonization to justify constructing the scapegoats as wholly evil while reconstructing the scapegoater as a hero.
    The current wave of conspiracism has two main historic sources, irrational fears of a freemason conspiracy and irrational fears of a Jewish conspiracy.

    http://publiceye.org/top_conspire.html

  • Historian

    “The issue is why, 40 years later, someone would think that the Liberty incident is at all relevant to US foreign policy.”

    The pertinent issue here is WHO is Dave Nalle to TELL others what is RELEVANT?

    If Dave Nalle has relevant facts, he should post them without dictating what I should conclude from his missing facts.

    The problem is Dave has no facts to present, he only has his conclusions.

    Is Dave Nalle a censor who wants to suppress what he doesn’t want to hear?

    Enter “USS Liberty” into google and you will find 188,000 websites.

    This one is dated June 8, 2005.

    http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm

    Dave believes that 2005 is not relevant.

    Let me remind the self-proclaimed “professor” what a real professor would already know.

    What happened 40 years ago and now is relevant because when a foreign power with a vociferous lobby in this country kills 34 Americans, and is able to get away with it, we must be aware of what has happened since then as a result.

    When you get away with murder, what else are you able to get away with?

    After the attack on the USS Liberty was whitewashed by our government, Israel has been selling our secrets and technology to China in violation of US law and getting away with it; using US weapons provided to it for defensive purposes in offensive attacks in violation of US law and getting away with it; selling our weapons to Iran in violation of US law and getting away with it; having Jonathan Pollard spy against us; demanding that we guarantee billions in loans, then demanding that the loans be converted to gifts and coercing more billions every year from our Congress while Congress cuts back on more vital needs at home.

    After 1967, it became obvious to AIPAC that our Administration and Congress were not inclined to interfere with whatever Israel wants. As a result, we have sent hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars to Israel without any real discussion in Congress. Those in Congress who question this transfer of taxpayers’ dollars, are attacked by AIPAC money in their next election. This happens repeatedly to illustrate to others in Congress that to be other than silent on billions being sent to Israel, would result in AIPAC money being used against them in their next election. Because most of those in Congress are in constant need of money and are spineless, it works.

    Another clue is that for decades, our government vetoed any effort to enforce UN Resolutions in the Security Council to which Israel objected.. These are resolutions which we had previously approved, but had not been enforced. They remain un-enforced because unless Israel agrees with the enforcement resolution, the US vetoes it, effectively giving Israel veto power over resolutions it doesn’t want enforced. This has allowed Israel to continue to build illegal settlements on Arab land and to dictate terms to others in the region, knowing that “it owns America”, and can get away with anything it wants. Perhaps Fitzgerald or McNulty will shed some more light on the connection between the US attacking Iraq and the fact that Saddam was in the crosshairs of Israel for years.

    Dave Nalle wants us to forget the attack on the USS Liberty and consider it irrelevant.

    The lil’ self-proclaimed “professor” wants to be a lil’ self-proclaimed dictator.

    Dave, go read some of the 188,000 websites referenced above and then come back for a “pop” quiz.

    And BTW, wash your mouth out with soap and stop spewing epithets when you have no argument.

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    The problem is Dave has no facts to present, he only has his conclusions.
    ==============
    Well, I presented the efforts of a Navy JAG who researched the subject for fourteen years and effectively debunked your sorry-ass “facts” yet you fail to respond to it.
    ————————–
    Is Dave Nalle a censor who wants to suppress what he doesn’t want to hear?
    ===================
    NO, he’s an educated person who is challenging your shrill, hysterical, racist rhetoric.
    ======================
    Enter “USS Liberty” into google and you will find 188,000 websites.

    This one is dated June 8, 2005.

    http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm
    ======================
    Well, if it’s on the internet it must be true! Good thinking!
    =======================
    Dave believes that 2005 is not relevant.
    -=——————-
    NO, he said that events forty years ago aren’t relevant unless you believe your “jews control america”/ZOG anti-semitic conspiracy theory.
    ===========================
    Let me remind the self-proclaimed “professor” what a real professor would already know.
    ==================
    Education is no innoculation for ignorance and bigotry. People who believe this shit aren’t interested in “facts” or “history”.
    =======================
    What happened 40 years ago and now is relevant because when a foreign power with a vociferous lobby in this country kills 34 Americans, and is able to get away with it, we must be aware of what has happened since then as a result.

    When you get away with murder, what else are you able to get away with?
    =======================
    I admit it. I stole your bagel
    ========================
    After the attack on the USS Liberty was whitewashed by our government, Israel has been selling our secrets and technology to China in violation of US law and getting away with it; using US weapons provided to it for defensive purposes in offensive attacks in violation of US law and getting away with it; selling our weapons to Iran in violation of US law and getting away with it; having Jonathan Pollard spy against us; demanding that we guarantee billions in loans, then demanding that the loans be converted to gifts and coercing more billions every year from our Congress while Congress cuts back on more vital needs at home.
    =======================
    I would say that the US has done very well by Israel, and that should Israel stop serving the purposes of the US, they would find themselves alone pretty quickly, like a lot of “allies” of the US. Egypt gets billions each year too. Care to comment on how Egypt controls the US? Or the Saudis?
    ————————–
    After 1967, it became obvious to AIPAC that our Administration and Congress were not inclined to interfere with whatever Israel wants.
    ========================
    Hence the sale of military hardware to numerous mideast nations, including, I believe AWACS to the KSA.
    =========================
    As a result, we have sent hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars to Israel without any real discussion in Congress.
    =============================
    Yeah. Same goes for all those dams you see built all over the country. Do you realize how government works?
    =====================
    Those in Congress who question this transfer of taxpayers’ dollars, are attacked by AIPAC money in their next election. This happens repeatedly to illustrate to others in Congress that to be other than silent on billions being sent to Israel, would result in AIPAC money being used against them in their next election. Because most of those in Congress are in constant need of money and are spineless, it works.
    ========================
    Somehow those white people keep worming their way to the top, don’t they…wait, isn’t Bush a Jew? Dick Cheney? Bill Clinton? TOm Delay?
    =====================
    Another clue is that for decades, our government vetoed any effort to enforce UN Resolutions in the Security Council to which Israel objected..
    =========================
    If the UN passed a resolution that the earth was flat and Israel had flattened it, it would pass with the usual majority of one-eyed pirates and dictators, like Libya, who headed the human rights commission. I believe around 1990 the UN failed to pass a resolution on the rights of women, but a resolution condemning zionism as an affront to women passed. While Hussein was gassing kurds, the UN was drafting resolutions on Israel. GOod job.
    ========================

  • Historian

    The problem is you and Dave have no facts to present, you only have your delusions.

    I support the testimony of 172 American sailors who were on the USS Liberty and have been denied a full Congressional hearing.

    I would take the word of these American sailors who were eye-witnesses over your one self-proclaimed “expert”.

    Whose payroll was he on?

    Stop being a shrill, hysterical racist-conspiracist.

    Come back to the real world and deal in facts.

    Dave said that events forty years ago aren’t relevant.

    Does that mean we also can forget the events of WWII?

    Is what happened during WWII no longer relevant?

    Wake up!

    Yes, Egypt has received billions each year since 1979 to keep it from attacking Israel.

    It’s called “protection money” in some circles.

    I wouldn’t send Egypt a dime.

    It’s evident you want to overlook the AIPAC opposition to providing AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia. It passed Congress only when Israel got additional F-16’s, our premier fighter planes, which were denied to the Saudis.

    You want to equate building dams in this country with sending hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars to Israel without any real discussion in Congress?

    Good for you!

    Those in Congress who question this transfer of taxpayers’ dollars, are attacked by AIPAC money in their next election.

    This has included Senators William Fulbright, Charles Percy and many others who questioned the sending of billions of dollars to Israel each year.

    Another clue is that for decades, our government vetoed any effort to enforce UN Resolutions in the Security Council to which Israel objected..

    The resolutions vetoed have not been in the best interest of America.

    Best for Israel.

    Not best for America.

    Evidently, you are not concerned about the best interests of the United States.

    You can only have allegiance to one country at a time.

    Make up your mind.

    Where is it?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>You can only have allegiance to one country at a time.<<

    I’d submit that your primary allegiance is to groups rather than countries. Still trying to figure out which one. Are you a full-blown supremicist or just a Bircher.

    Let’s take this discussion in a new direction. Since you’re so well informed I bet you can answer these two questions for me.

    1. Who was responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center – not who was in the planes, but what government, organization or group controlled and directed the attack?

    2. How many Jews were systematically exterminated during WW2?

    Honest, simple answers please.

    Dave

  • Historian

    Dave and Wallace are doing their best trying to confuse valid criticism of Israeli politics and the AIPAC lobby with some grand scheme against Jews.

    It’s an attempt at obfuscation.

    Old communist trick.

    Doesn’t work in this country.

    Let’s stick with the facts and stop the propaganda.

    How would you describe your attitude towards Catholics?

    Suppose you post facts about catholic priests abusing children, and I then claim you are religiously bigoted against the pope and catholics.

    Would you buy that?

    Would you regard yourself as an anti-papist, anti-catholic bigot?

    No, unless you are a complete idiot.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Good subject change, histy. Notice you didn’t answer my questions. So, how do YOU feel about Catholics? Still think they’re stockpiling weapons in their schools and churches to overthrow the US Government?

    Dave

  • Historian

    Dave, I’d submit that your primary allegiance is to groups and countries other than the United States.

    I see you took my bait about catholics and ran with it.

    But let’s keep this discussion in the same direction.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    My primary allegiance is to myself. Keeping my country free from bigotry and racist craziness benefits me, so I’m all for it.

    Dave

  • Historian

    Dave,

    Next to your primary allegiance to yourself, what allegiance comes next?

    Can we get to which country?

  • Historian

    We cannot change what we do not acknowledge. We cannot arrive at a solution without getting to the source of a problem. We cannot get to the truth by relying on lies and distortions.

    How did it come about that we were misled by statements that Iraq was about to attack the United States?

    How did it come about that we are currently engaged in a pre-emptive war that we now know was based on the lie that Iraq was about to unleash nuclear, chemical and biological weapons upon the United States?

    How did it come about that thousands of American died or suffered crippling and debilitating wounds in conducting a war based on a series of lies?

    How did it come about that American taxpayers are obligated to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for a war based on lies?

    How did it come about that “faulty intelligence” led us into a war?

    How did it come about that the American people are not entitled to know the source of this “intelligence”.

    Who or what is being protected?

    Why are we not told the source of this treasonous “intelligence“?

    Considering the amount of blood and the cost of this debacle, there is no reason to keep the source secret.

    Is there a conspiracy to keep Americans from knowing the truth?

    America deserves answers.

  • Historian

    hey troll,

    sorry, I forgot about your post

    How would you describe Dave Nalle’s attitude toward pedantic fools and bigots who thrive on epithets?

    Does Dave Nalle think of himself as an anti-pedantic fool and an anti-bigot?

    Dave Nalle stands accused of being a pedantic fool and bigot

    Find out where Dave Nalle stands on that

  • Historian

    Is there an ongoing conspiracy to get the Unites States to invade Iran?

    The neo-cons want to attack Iran because “they don’t like their form of government.”

    But how do Iran and the United States differ in their governments?

    1. In Iran, an un-elected council of clerics is the highest authority in the country.

    2. In the United States, an un-elected council of nine lawyers is the highest authority in the country.

    The question is fundamental:

    Who do you trust more, a cleric or a lawyer?

    Keep in mind that — Clerics pray; lawyers prey

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Next to your primary allegiance to yourself, what allegiance comes next?

    Can we get to which country?<<

    Do you have some sort of reading disorder or are you being deliberately obtuse? I’m for the US first among all countries. After that I have no allegiances and support no countries.

    It’s a pity you don’t have a national loyalty and instead place your loyaltty on groups and ideologies such as international anti-zionism.

    Dave

  • Historian

    I am anti-lobby.

    I am especdially against those who lead this country astray in foreign affairs where there are no constitutional checks and balances.

    What Middle East country declared that the road to Middle East peace leads through Baghdad?

    What country was most concerned about Iraq’s support of the Palestinian uprising?

    Which country had previously conducted a preemptive attack on Iraq?

    What country is supposed to have the best spy network in the Middle East?

    Who was in the best position to provide “intelligence” that led our government to declare (falsely) that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from an African country?

    Who was in the best position (and most motivated) to provide the United States with the (false) information that aluminum tubes were going to be used by Iraq to build nuclear weapons?

    Who had a motive to provide the (false) information that Saddam was training Al Qaeda terrorists in chemical and biological weapons.

    What country was sufficiently motivated to provide information so false that it could lead the United States to start a war?

    Which country has neo-cons in our government to override the State Department and CIA disagreements with “intelligence” that was provided to the Pentagon?

    What country has a strangle-hold on United States foreign policy in the Middle East?

    What country had the most to gain by putting American troops on the ground in Iraq?

    What country’s interests are fully supported by the neo-cons in the Pentagon — above the interests of American troops and American citizens?

    In this war, what country has achieved the objective of neutralizing its primary enemy without losing even one of its own soldiers or losing one of its own citizens?

    Who has a Washington lobby — with the sole objective of dictating United States policy in the Middle East?

    What foreign country has infiltrated our government to the extent that its interests are placed above those of our own country?

    What country has such a strangle-hold on the American news media that its role in this war is never analyzed or even considered?

    Let’s see how perceptive the “professor” really is.

  • troll

    history guy – thanks for the non-response to a simple question – I’ll take it as a big yes and figure that you’ve got some personal problem with Jews

    you’ll have to direct your questions for Dave Nalle to him

    take your Sieg Heil marchin’ paranoid agenda off my bridge

    troll

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    1. Who was responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center – not who was in the planes, but what government, organization or group controlled and directed the attack?

    2. How many Jews were systematically exterminated during WW2?

  • Historian

    “It’s a pity you don’t have a national loyalty and instead place your loyaltty on groups and ideologies such as international anti-zionism.”

    Well, Dave, let inform you that my loyalty is to the United States Constitution, which I volunteered to defend in combat in a real war.

    I hope you can say the same.

    Action speaks with a very loud voice.

    Your derogatory words ring hollow.

    Dave is so dedicated to what he calls “anti-zionism” that he sees “anti-zionists” coming out of the woodwork and he has nightmares about “anti-zionists” causing him to wake up screaming.

    The word “international” also seems to be constantly on his mind.

    And he also has a penchant for using the words “groups” and “ideologies”.

    I wonder how Dave’s mind came to be so disturbed.

    It would be highly preferable if Dave displayed total allegiance to the United States Constitution and not be so concerned with what he calls “anti-zionism”.

    Looks like Dave has his allegiances screwed up.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Historian, I’m now firmly convinced that I’ve had exactly this same discussion with you on BC u8nder at least two different names. Care to comment?

    Oh, and as to #87, while all your statements about the capabilities and interests of Israel may be true, none of them create a clear causal connection between Israeli interests and American policy. That’s what makes this a conspiracy fantasy instead of fact. You don’t have the smoking gun. All you have is motivation and assumptions.

    >>Well, Dave, let inform you that my loyalty is to the United States Constitution, which I volunteered to defend in combat in a real war.

    I hope you can say the same.< <

    Bingo. You just disqualified yourself on another count from rational discourse. My background and yours have nothing to do with anything we're discussing. I've at least BEEN to Israel. Have you? Who cares. It's not relevant.

    >>Dave is so dedicated to what he calls “anti-zionism” that he sees “anti-zionists” coming out of the woodwork and he has nightmares about “anti-zionists” causing him to wake up screaming.< <

    You're sadly deluded here. You and your fellow Birchers completely leave my mind after I finish typing here. It doesn't require any long-term brainpower to deal with you.

    >>I wonder how Dave’s mind came to be so disturbed.<<

    I’m troubled because people sometimes assume that I share some of your crazy beliefs just because I object to the formation of the state of Israel as a matter of international policy.

    Dave

  • Historian

    Dave, now I’m firmly convinced that you are paranoid.

    If all my statements about the capabilities and interests of Israel are true, only an imbecile would not see the conflict between Israeli interests and American policy, and not see the problem inherent in this conflict of interest.

    I have posted dozens of smoking guns which would be obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

    Because Israeli interests are not the same as American interests, that shows a conspiracy must be taking place.

    That’s what makes your wild accusations and denials a fantasy instead of fact. All you have to offer is innuendo, assumptions, epithets and obfuscations.

    My background has a lot to do with what we’re discussing because you called into question my loyalty to the United States:

    Your absurd, unfounded claim:

    “It’s a pity you don’t have a national loyalty and instead place your loyaltty on groups and ideologies such as international anti-Zionism”.

    Your claim that I don’t have a national loyalty is an absurdity that I did not want to go unanswered.

    I don’t know what military service you were in or whether you volunteered for combat, but from what you have posted, it is clear that it is you who does not have primary loyalty to this country.

    And calling me a “Bircher” shows you just can’t get away from your penchant for name-calling.

    You act as though you still attend grammar school, mentally.

    Isn’t it past time for you to grow up?

    Your childish responses indicate you need professional help.

    “I’m troubled because people sometimes assume that I share some of your crazy beliefs just because I object to the formation of the state of Israel as a matter of international policy.”

    Yes, indeed, you are a troubled person.

    That I can agree with.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Histy, I love the way you turn to personal insults when I don’t play along with your little game.

    >>I have posted dozens of smoking guns which would be obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.< <

    A 'smoking gun' is actual evidence. Someone doing something concrete and observed or documented to have done it. Not supposition, theories and inferences - which is all you have.

    >>Because Israeli interests are not the same as American interests, that shows a conspiracy must be taking place.< <

    This brilliant statement really stands on its own. You should put it on your gravestone. I plan to quote it in response to anything you post in the future.

    >>That’s what makes your wild accusations and denials a fantasy instead of fact. All you have to offer is innuendo, assumptions, epithets and obfuscations.<<

    I haven’t made any accusations, that’s your bag. The problem is you can’t follow the accusations up with any proof.

    Dave the Paranoid, Traitorous, Childish and Troubled Person – who at least doesn’t live in a world of racist conspiracy fantasy.

    Dave

  • Historian

    Dave,

    You wouldn’t know a smoking gun if it went off in your face.

    You would see the smoke and think it was a cloudy day.

    Your problem is you are blinded by an allegiance other than the best interests of this country.

    Try putting the US Constitution ahead of every other allegiance and see if your vision improves.

    If it doesn’t, get some professional help.

    You need it in any event.

  • Historian

    Dave the Paranoid, Traitorous, Childish and Troubled Person – who lives in a world of racist conspiracy fantasy.

    In response to facts dealing with allegiance to this country, Dave spews forth his racist conspiracy fantasies.

    Dave is the one who keeps bringing in the subject of race.

    And he is ignorant of what he does.

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    I have posted dozens of smoking guns which would be obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
    =====================
    See, that’s the problem with conspiracism. Since you don’t have the capacity to vet evidence for it’s veracity, or even refrain from making basic logical fallacies, you have to make conclusory assumptions. In order for you to prop up this elaborate fantasy, you have to convert innuendo and supposition into fact.

    One of the fascinating things about conspiracists is the level of incompetence they operate at. A recent study by a Cornell psychologist discovered that the same skill set required to be competent is the one that allows people to know whether they are incompetent are not. Thus incompetent people wildly exaggerate their abilities, in fact far more so than competent people. link

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.

    The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, they suggested in a paper appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

    “Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,” wrote Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, and Dunning.

    This deficiency in “self-monitoring skills,” the researchers said, helps explain the tendency of the humor-impaired to persist in telling jokes that are not funny, of day traders to repeatedly jump into the market — and repeatedly lose out — and of the politically clueless to continue holding forth at dinner parties on the fine points of campaign strategy.

    In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning tested their theory of incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on tests of logic, English grammar and humor were also the most likely to “grossly overestimate” how well they had performed. -sf gate

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    Historian-
    do you think you could throw an insult my way? I’m feeling kind of left out here. I would consider being denounced by you an honor. Besides, my Dad is Jewish, so I’m the one telling Dave what to say.

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    1. In Iran, an un-elected council of clerics is the highest authority in the country.

    2. In the United States, an un-elected council of nine lawyers is the highest authority in the country.
    —————————–
    Oh, that’s rich. Comparing a liberal democracy with a constitution and a system of checks and balances with a fascist state. Brilliant.
    ==========================
    The question is fundamental:

    Who do you trust more, a cleric or a lawyer?
    Keep in mind that — Clerics pray; lawyers prey
    ======================
    That’s good. Make sure you represent yourself pro per if you ever have trouble.

  • Historian

    George Bush now says more sacrifice is needed in Iraq.

    A continuing conspiracy?

    Keep the war going and more sacrifice, for what?

    For whom?

    What country is the beneficiary of this war?

    No smoking gun?

    The neo-cons who took us into the Iraq war have been promoted and awarded medals.

    Why were the neo-cons adamant about attacking Iraq?

    Now George Bush says more sacrifice is needed in Iraq.

    There are 2,000 American soldiers (and counting) who have or will come home in boxes.

    Who is being sacrificed?

    I don’t see anyone in Washington (or elsewhere in the country) sacrificing.

    Is that how “sacrifice” is defined in Washington?

    “Sacrifice” in Washington is when the lobbyists stop the money flowing.

    Keep the AIPAC money flowing and Syria will be next!

    Otherwise, Syria will hit us with their vast military superiority located on the Golan Heights!

  • Nancy

    There is something extremely sick in Bush’s logic that “honoring” those already killed in Iraq requires more persons to die in Iraq fighting his useless, fraudulent war, in order to save his ‘face’. McCain, too, said he thought it inappropriate to use the deaths of those killed in Iraq to criticize the president. I can’t think of a BETTER reason to criticize Bush, and a better, more appropriate basis for doing it. 2,000 dead Americans, tens of thousands more wounded or maimed (estimates range from 15,000 – 42,500 to date for 2005 alone); most significantly, there is NO ONE even remotely connected with the Bush administration or their families serving – or from congress, for that matter; the hypocrisy of this is blatant – and rancid. Yet Bush is still unappeased, still insistent that Americans keep marching to the slaughter. Truly this is a rich man’s war, & a poor man’s fight.

  • Nancy

    I guess my point was (& I forgot to include it before I hit the button) I do think there was a conspiracy to get us into war, but I doubt anyone was involved except the neocons, Bush, & his various supporters, and the main thing they all have in common is that they are all ultra-rich elitists.

  • Historian

    The main thing they all have in common is strong ties to Israel and the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.

    This is the biggest conspiracy in the history of the country and the news media is afraid to touch it.

  • Nancy

    I think they have stronger ties to Saudi Arabia & the oil industries than anything else. I don’t think Isreal has anything to do with it – but oil sure does.

  • Historian

    Do you believe that we attacked Iraq because of the Saudis?

    That’s a new twist.

    How do the Saudis benefit?

    Does the Saudi government want more terrorists on their border?

  • Historian

    BTW, if Bush and his conspiracy had succeeded in Iraq according to “plan”, Iraq would be pumping so much oil out of the country that the Saudis would be broke by now.

    Did the Saudis know that things would go “wrong”?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>1. In Iran, an un-elected council of clerics is the highest authority in the country.< <

    I think a lot of Iranians would say that in Iran the sharia law of the Koran is the highest authority, so basically a written document.

    >>2. In the United States, an un-elected council of nine lawyers is the highest authority in the country.<<

    I’d say the highest authority in the US is the Constitution – again, a written document of law.

    Personally, I like our take on law a bit better.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Nice to see the oil conspiracy theory come up here too. At least it isn’t racist, even if it’s equally mistaken.

    That we didn’t go into Iraq for oil is amply demonstrated by the fact that if we’d wanted oil from Iraq we could have gotten it far more easily by just getting friendly with Saddam again. Plus the result of the war is that no oil has been coming out of Iraq for several years. In addition, we’ve agreed to give all the oil profits to the Iraqis for their rebuilding efforts. But the real key is that it doesn’t matter who pumps the oil, only that it gets pumped. The distribution will go through the same small number of international companies no matter what, and that’s where the money will be made.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Well somebody had to do it. ;)

  • JR

    Dave Nalle: That we didn’t go into Iraq for oil is amply demonstrated by the fact that if we’d wanted oil from Iraq we could have gotten it far more easily by just getting friendly with Saddam again. Plus the result of the war is that no oil has been coming out of Iraq for several years.

    That’s irrelevent because it’s clear that’s not what they thought would happen. Wolfowitz himself said that the oil would pay for the war, and I think they believed that. Hell, I did.

    Besides, if the people behind the war were the least bit intelligent (and even I will give them that much credit), they could see China casting about for oil suppliers; and they would have known that a deal with Iraq would have been mutually beneficial to both Saddam and the Chinese, in an Axis-of-Evil kinda way. We could not afford to put all of the West’s eggs in the precarious basket that is Saudi Arabia and leave the wild card of Saddam Hussein right next door. Is it any coincidence that the “Neocons” (I use the term reluctantly) who pushed hardest for the war are the same people who have come out in support of hybrid cars and energy conservation?

    Barring some unforseen miracle of petroleum independence, securing Iraq from becoming a Chinese client state was absolutely critical to the future prosperity if not existence of the United States. I’m not saying that they went in to Iraq explicitly to grab the oil, but… well, maybe I am sort of saying that. But I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they envisioned Iraq as a free member of the international community and thus a voluntary ally of the West (i.e. their oil available on the open market), as opposed to becoming a satellite of China (sort of like a useful version of Cuba).

  • Historian

    Now Dave Nalle can’t even see the oil conspiracy!

    Not even with 20/20 hindsight!

    Let’s see now…

    Who benefited from overthrowing Saddam?

    When it came to invading Iraq, a lot of different interests had to be satisfied.

    There are winners and there are losers.

    Halliburton and the rest of the military-industrial complex is having a ball.

    The oil cabal has lost the Iraqi oil but has made a killing anyway.

    Israel got rid of Saddam without firing a shot or spending a shekel-dollar.

    With Saddam gone and Gaza evacuated by a handful of illegal settlers, the right-wing Likud party can take whatever land and water it wants in the West Bank and forget that thing Bush called a “roadmap”.

    Israel and its neo-cons in Washington have to be given credit for what has been pulled off. Even the neo-cons got medals and promotions.

    And let’s not forget that the original “war plan” called for immediate construction of an oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel. Imagine that – gasoline for 25 cents a gallon in Tel Aviv!

    The real losers are the 2,000 dead American soldiers, many of whom belong to the National Guard and who swore to defend THIS COUNTRY against all enemies and uphold the Constitution.

    Did I miss something? Were we attacked by Iraq?

    Next come the 20,000 wounded Americans who are missing a leg, two legs, an arm, an eye, two eyes, or a mess of shrapnel in the leg or chest or face, that will pain them the rest of their lives…

    But not to worry, the VA will take care of the wounded IF the money is there. So far the record for VA appropriations is dismal.

    The last loser for the moment is the next generation of Americans who will face the $500,000,000,000 price tag for the Iraq war that will be paid by them – assuming they can afford it.

    But the only conspiracy Dave Nalle can see is the “bigotry and racist craziness” conspiracy comprising the KKK and the Aryan Nation.

    In Dave’s little world, no other conspiracy exists, and certainly not one in Washington. The only conspiracies Dave sees are those that recognize and criticize real conspiracies. According to Dave, either a conspiracy “is racist, or it is just equally mistaken.”

    Dave must lose sleep over the “bigotry and racist craziness” conspiracy day and night – because where ever he goes, he sees white sheets – probably even when he is sleeping.

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    Did I miss something?
    ====================
    Yes. For one thing the villains you have chosen are the same scapegoat the nazis used. What do you think about the nazis, anyway? Was Hitler right?

  • Historian

    Wally, go back and read what you missed.

    All Wally can see behind the white sheets is the ghost of adolf.

    How ‘bout dat!

    Wally missed sumthin!

    Your responses lack logic, humor, and certainly have no credibility.

    Come back when you are off whatever it is you are smoking.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    As I recall from Historian’s prior visits before those IDs were locked out, he’s not all that pro-Hitler. He’s got a new, kinder, gentler perspective on eliminating the Jews. As I recall he supported some sort of giant prison camp for them or somesuch. Some plan Hitler had to send them to Madagascar after he conquered the world.

    Dave

  • Historian

    Dave is right,

    I am in favor of a giant prison camp

    But Dave has got it wrong about who would go there.

    I favor sending Dave Nalle and his fellow Iraq war conspirator bastards to a prison camp on Madagascar.

    Only the conspirator bastards who took us into the Iraq war get to go.

    No one else.

    Goodbye, Dave.

    BTW, take Wally with you.

  • Historian

    Interesting.

    Dave moaned and groaned and wet his pants when I brought up the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty.

    Dave complained, “The issue is why, 40 years later, someone would think that the Liberty incident is at all relevant…”.

    But Dave also wants to keep bringing up WWII, which by last count ended 60 years ago.

    Dave is bringing up Hitler and some sort of “giant prison camp in Madagascar“.

    Does Dave think that 1945 is more recent than 1967?

    Evidently, he does.

    Poor Dave doesn’t understand that what happened 60 years ago occurred before any of the events of 1967.

    Dave doesn’t realize that 60 is greater than 40.

    Very sad.

    Dave is mathematically challenged beyond hope.

    And not only mathematically!

  • Historian

    Was there a conspiracy behind going to war in Iraq?

    We are told the country was taken into a pre-emptive war based on “faulty intelligence.”

    How could it happen that the President of the United States could deliver a State of the Union message making a claim that later had to be “retracted’ because it was based on “faulty intelligence”?

    Was the intelligence “faulty” or “cooked”?

    If it was “cooked”, who cooked it?

    What was the reason?

    The country spends tens of billions of dollars each year on “intelligence”.

    In this case the “intelligence” was nothing more than propaganda, intended to serve special interests.

    Why is the news media silent?

    Why are both Republicans and Democrats silent on what is obviously a conspiracy?

    What will it take to open this can and expose the worms?

    No conspiracy?

    Hard to believe.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I think it’s time to all just do the ‘ignore the troll’ dance.

    Dave

  • Ebony Ghost

    The war for oil idea can be easily dismissed because the market for oil will be there whether we are at war or not. What may be a more relevant exploration is the oil for dollars issue. Iraq made a move to start selling oil for euros. Iran is threatening a euro based oil exchange. Our dependence on borrowed money dictates a need to take actions that will support the value of the dollar. Are Americans dying in Iraq so that we can borrow money from China? Will Iran be next for the same reason?

  • Nancy

    I think Syria will be next; Smirk is rattling his saber & making belligerent noises, and they’re small enough he obviously thinks he might have a chance beating up them instead.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    The Euro has already declined against the dollar to where it was at the start of the war so I don’t see that as an issue.

    As for Syria, that’s an interesting situation. France and the US together approached the UN this week to ask for sanctions against Syria, and frankly it’s about time. I don’t think they should be invaded, but they need to be bottled the hell up and kept out of Lebanon once and for all.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    I’ll admit, that did surprise me, that France went in on it with the US. The Syrians must be bad, if even the French can’t tolerate their jinks any more. Who else is leaning in that direction of bottling them up? Germany? Anyone else?

  • Historian

    The attack on Iraq did not happen for a single reason.

    The question is who was pushing the most for the war?

    1. The war for oil idea can be easily dismissed because the market for oil will be there whether we are at war or not?

    Oil was not Reason #1.

    The war for oil was not the PRIMARY reason to go to war, but having the oil cabal on board helped.

    2. What may be a more relevant exploration is the oil for dollars issue?

    No. Oil for dollars is hardly a reason to start a war.

    3. Iraq made a move to start selling oil for euros. Iran is threatening a euro based oil exchange.

    This doesn’t come close to making it the reason to start a war.

    4. Our dependence on borrowed money dictates a need to take actions that will support the value of the dollar.?

    Ridiculous. This doesn’t make it as a reason to start the war.

    5.Are Americans dying in Iraq so that we can borrow money from China?

    Hardly the reason to start the war.

    6. Will Iran be next for the same reason?

    No. Not for any reason. Once burned, twice shy.

    7. Syria will not be next. It may be small enough to be beaten up a bit, but how many American lives is it worth? Remember Israel got kicked out of Lebanon just a few years ago because the price in blood was too high even for Syria’s arch enemy. Speaking softly and using a big stick is not in play here. It’s just the opposite.

    As for Syria, keeping them out of Lebanon or considering it as more than a “paper threat“ to anyone other than Israel really isn’t even in the category of noise level.

    8. We have to look elsewhere to figure out why the neo-cons took us to war. But we have to look no further than the New American Century Project and their obsession with Israel being the dominant country in the Middle East.

    And only the US could make that happen.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    (still ignoring the troll)

    Nancy: “I’ll admit, that did surprise me, that France went in on it with the US. The Syrians must be bad, if even the French can’t tolerate their jinks any more. Who else is leaning in that direction of bottling them up? Germany? Anyone else?”

    The French at least have something resembling balls when they see their own interests at stake. Traditionally Germany has been extraordinarily weak in foreign policy. With the new more conservative government this may change. This could be a good test to see if they have grown a spine.

    Dave

  • Historian

    Some people think they are so important that being ignored by them is worthy of consideration.

    Actually, being ignored by ego-maniacs is desirable.

  • Historian

    France conspired with the neo-cons to take us into war?

    Syria conspired with the neo-cons to take us into war?

    Germany conspired with the neo-cons to take us into war?

    Someone else conspired with the neo-cons to take us into war?

    Israel conspired with the neo-cons to take us into war?

    Take your pick.

    But grow a spine before you decide.

  • http://livefromblogdahd.blogspot.com/ demabloggery

    (also ignoring the troll)
    The French at least have something resembling balls when they see their own interests at stake. Traditionally Germany has been extraordinarily weak in foreign policy. With the new more conservative government this may change. This could be a good test to see if they have grown a spine.
    =========================
    Given that the French and Germans were totally right about there being no WMD in Iraq, I give them some credibility. French bashing may be fun, but it is really no less mindless than America-bashing. They have their failures and we have ours. They are weak and ineffective, we interfere too much.

  • Historian

    Some other people also think they are so important that being ignored by them is worthy of consideration.

    Actually, being ignored by any ego-maniac is desirable.

    The Ecitron Burchelli at least have something resembling balls when they see their own interests at stake. Traditionally Polyergus Rufescens has been extraordinarily weak in foreign policy. With the new more conservative queen this may change. This could be a good test to see if they have grown better antennae.
    =========================
    Given that the Ecitron Burchelli and Polyergus Rufescens were totally right about there being no Camponotus obscuripes larvae in the Formica nest, I give them some credibility. Ecitron Burchelli bashing may be fun, but it is really no less mindless than Crematogaster-bashing. They have their failures and we have ours. They are weak and ineffective, we interfere too much.

    Just wanted to add to Wally’s gibberish.

  • Historian

    Does the United States want to dominate the Middle East vis-à-vis Iraq for America’s own sake?

    Its population wouldn’t allow it.

    Does Israel want to dominate the Middle East vis-à-vis Iraq for its own sake?

    Its population would love it.

    Could Israel dominate the Middle East vis-à-vis Iraq on its own?

    No.

    Was an attack by the United States necessary to accomplish the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

    Yes.

    Do you sense… a…a…a … c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y… here?

    (trolls need not respond)

  • Historian

    In mid-2003, a controversy arose concerning a statement made by President Bush during the State of the Union address delivered on January 28, 2003.

    In that address, Bush said: “The British government learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

    The accuracy of this statement was called into question by a series of articles, including an op-ed piece by Joseph Wilson, a retired career State Department official, which was published in the New York Times on July 6, 2003.

    Wilson had asserted that he had taken a trip to Niger in 2002 at the request of the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate a report that Iraq had sought or obtained uranium from Niger, and that he had reported to the CIA upon his return his conclusion that it was “highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.”

    Wilson asserted that “some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”

    Anyone smell the beginning of a conspiracy being hatched here?

  • MCH

    Historian;
    “Ignoring the troll” reads “We won’t debate anyone we can’t bully and intimidate”

  • Historian

    On July 14, 2003, Robert Novak published a column in the Chicago Sun-Times in which he said that “two senior administration officials” told him that Wilson had been selected for the Niger trip at the suggestion of Wilson’s wife, whom Novak described as a CIA “operative on weapons of mass destruction.”

    After Novak’s column was published, it was revealed that other reporters had been told by government officials that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA monitoring weapons of mass destruction, and that she was involved in her husband’s being sent to Africa.

    The article stated that some government officials told Time that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and suggested that she was involved in her husband’s being dispatched to Niger to investigate the reports that Saddam Hussein’s government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore.

    In addition, on September 28, 2003, the Washington Post reported that in July, 2003, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife.

    Anyone smelling a conspiracy being hatched here?

  • Historian

    MCH:

    It’s become very clear.

    “Ignoring the troll” reads “We won’t debate anyone we can’t bully and intimidate”

    Being ego-maniacs is their problem.

    They are little bullies.

    They need professional help.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Given that the French and Germans were totally right about there being no WMD in Iraq, I give them some credibility. French bashing may be fun, but it is really no less mindless than America-bashing. They have their failures and we have ours. They are weak and ineffective, we interfere too much.<<

    Being strong makes us prone to being too aggressive. We think that because we’re the most powerful country we can solve everyone’s problems. Of course, France has some of this syndrome too. They’ve notorious for meddling in affairs in Africa and not doing a very good job of it. Plus they got us into Vietnam for which we can never thank them enough.

    Dave

  • Historian

    Given that the French and Germans were totally right about there being no WMD in Iraq, we should wonder even more about how the neo-cons could push us into the Iraq war.

    Viva La France!

    Deutschland Uber Alles!

    However, the French and Germans were far from being the only ones who saw through the sham.

    It took a coordinated conspiracy to pull off the big lie.

    But there is no perfect crime or conspiracy.

    The guilty always leave clues.

    In the fall of 2003, the government began an investigation into whether federal law had been violated in connection with the unauthorized disclosure by government employees of information concerning the identity of a purported CIA employee.

    On August 12 and August 20, 2004, grand jury subpoenas were issued to reporter Judith Miller and the New York Times, seeking documents and testimony related to conversations between Miller and a government official occurring between on or about July 6, 2003 and on or about July 13, 2003, “concerning Valerie Plame Wilson,” whether referred to by name or by description, “concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.”

    Miller refused to comply with the subpoenas and the district court held her in civil contempt of court and went to jail.

    Later, one conspirator told another grand jury witness what others had said. This would only serve to taint the testimony of others.

    In high-level government conspiracies it is seldom the crime as much as the cover-up that traps the conspirators.

    Hopefully, the conspirators will get at least 20 years.

    Leaks similar to the crime suspected here (exposure of a covert agent) apparently caused the deaths of several operatives in the late 1970s and early 1980s, including the agency’s Athens station chief.

    Other leaks could be even more damaging.

    It is clear those involved in this conspiracy care little about the security of our country or our CIA agents.

  • Justin Berry

    Germany and France didnt see through anything. They were just opposed to the war because the world would see their corruption. Hows that oil for food thing working for them now?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Bingo, Justin. France in particular stayed out of the war not because they didn’t believe Saddam was a threat, but because they had a vested interest in his regime and didn’t want to put it at risk. Germany was just too distracted by their own internal problems.

    Dave

  • Historian

    The French and Germans were far from being the only ones who saw through the sham.

    It took a coordinated neo-con conspiracy to pull off the big lie.

  • Historian

    In pursuing their Iraq war fever, the neo-cons said “damn the lack of intelligence, full speed ahead.” Bush chimed in and said we cannot wait for the final result… a mushroom cloud. Chaney, Rice, Rumsfeld, all saw a mushroom cloud. They all said there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD’s.

    It should be obvious that the mushroom cloud they saw was the UN oil-for-food program that was making all the smoke.

  • Historian

    We really have to thank the neo-cons.

    If they had not started the Iraq war, we might never have found out about such outrageous crimes as the one where Daimler Benz had a secret agreement to pay Iraq $7,000 — a 10 percent surcharge — for an armored Mercedes van valued at about $70,000.

    That makes it all worthwhile.

    Tell that to the families of 2,000 dead American soldiers.

  • tommyd

    Historian 10, Dave Nalle, 0

    Historian, remember that people like Dave Nalle and his supporters here only have one m.o. that they live by:

    America and Israel are ALWAYS right, and even when they’re wrong they’re still right, moral, upstanding, righteous, underappreciated benevolent and benficient governments and people tyring to right the wrongs of the rest of the unsaved world. In other words, Dave and his gang believe that the USA and Israel have GOD given, divine right to rule other nations and decide what’s best for them.

    When folks are that brainwashed, Historian, there’s really no use in debating them for they are simply too far gone in their minds to begin to think logically.

    And there is an awful price for nations where too many people think like Dave and his supporters.

    It’s sad, really sad what’s become of this country.

    BTW, France, Germany, Russia, and China all opposed America’s illegal attack on Iraq and all those countries were absolutely correct to do so. Too bad the American-Zionist media didn’t see it that way.

  • tommyd

    And another thing: The so-called “Oil for Food Scandal” is just another American/Jewish smoke screen to distract Americans from the truth of their debacle in Iraq. This “scandal” also gives dumbed Americans a false sense of righteousness that their illegal invasion of Iraq is now justified. Bollocks!

    Who the fuck died because a little grease was passed around? It is an absolute FACT that Saddam Hussein’s government bought food and supplied it to ALL Iraqis on a monthly basis. That is a FACT. If France and Germany and others, including the UNITED STATES, were doing business with Saddam’s Iraq, wouldn’t that give them more insight into what Saddam was up to, regarding WMD’s??? Why SMASH a place to pieces without first intesively studying and planning for what would take it’s place after you SMASHED it to pieces??

    France Germany Russia China deserve medals.
    Vive La France!! Vive la Deutchland!!

  • http://livefromblogdahd demabloggery

    And another thing: The so-called “Oil for Food Scandal” is just another American/Jewish smoke screen to distract Americans from the truth of their debacle in Iraq.
    =====================
    DOn’t you mean the “oil for bagels” scandal?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I guess I should have figured that tommyd was an anti-semite too. So many on the left subscribe to that particular bigotry.

    >>America and Israel are ALWAYS right, and even when they’re wrong they’re still right, moral, upstanding, righteous, underappreciated benevolent and benficient governments and people tyring to right the wrongs of the rest of the unsaved world. < <

    Where on earth did you get this idea. I'm often critical of the US government, though the basic principles of our nation are unassailable. But Israel? Who told you I have any positive feelings in that direction? Not thinking Israel is behind every evil in the world is not the same as liking Israel. The argument that Israel is behing 9/11 and the Iraq war is absolute hogwash. Not being able to see that makes you either a fool or a racist. Your choice.

    >>In other words, Dave and his gang believe that the USA and Israel have GOD given, divine right to rule other nations and decide what’s best for them. < <

    An interesting concept except for the part where I'm an atheist and don't even believe in god and the other part where I think Israel should be cut off to sink or swim on its own.

    >>When folks are that brainwashed, Historian, there’s really no use in debating them for they are simply too far gone in their minds to begin to think logically.< <

    Yeah, gosh. I'm brainwashed because I don't see the 'logic' of blaming everything that ever happened on the Jews.

    >>Too bad the American-Zionist media didn’t see it that way.<<

    Ah, of course. The Jews control the media. That must be why the truth of their conspiracy to rule the world never gets out.

    Dave