Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Article II: Falsely conflating September 11 with Iraq as threat to justify war of aggression...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 12:20 AM
Original message
Article II: Falsely conflating September 11 with Iraq as threat to justify war of aggression...
ARTICLE II.--FALSELY, SYSTEMATICALLY, AND WITH CRIMINAL INTENT CONFLATING THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WITH MISREPRESENTATION OF IRAQ AS AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT AS PART OF A FRAUDULENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A WAR OF AGGRESSION.

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, executed a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States into believing that there was and is a connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein on the one hand, and the attacks of September 11, 2001 and al Qaeda, on the other hand, so as to falsely justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner that is damaging to the national security interests of the United States, as well as to fraudulently obtain and maintain congressional authorization and funding for the use of such military force against Iraq, thereby interfering with and obstructing Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and declaring war.

The means used to implement this deception were and continue to be, first, allowing, authorizing and sanctioning the manipulation of intelligence analysis by those under his direction and control, including the Vice President and the Vice President's agents, and second, personally making, or causing, authorizing and allowing to be made through highly-placed subordinates, including the President's Chief of Staff, the White House Press Secretary and other White House spokespersons, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the National Security Advisor, and their deputies and spokespersons, false and fraudulent representations to the citizens of the United States and Congress regarding an alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and Iraq, on the one hand, and the September 11th attacks and al Qaeda, on the other hand, that were half-true, literally true but misleading, and/or made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth, as well as omitting to state facts necessary to present an accurate picture of the truth as follows:

(A) On or about September 12, 2001, former terrorism advisor Richard Clarke personally informed the President that neither Saddam Hussein nor Iraq was responsible for the September 11th attacks. On September 18, Clarke submitted to the President's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice a memo he had written in response to George W. Bush's specific request that stated: (1) the case for linking Hussein to the September 11th attacks was weak; (2) only anecdotal evidence linked Hussein to al Qaeda; (3) Osama Bin Laden resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein; and (4) there was no confirmed reporting of Saddam Hussein cooperating with Bin Laden on unconventional weapons.

(B) Ten days after the September 11th attacks the President received a President's Daily Briefing which indicated that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was ``scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.''

(C) In Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002, the United States Defense Intelligence Agency cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-Al Qaeda conspiracy: ``Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.''

(D) The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate gave a ``Low Confidence'' rating to

GPO's PDFthe notion of whether ``in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with Al Qaeda.'' The CIA never informed the President that there was an operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein; on the contrary, its most ``aggressive'' analysis contained in Iraq and al-Qaeda-Interpreting a ``Murky Relationship'' dated June 21, 2002 was that Iraq had had ``sporadic, wary contacts with al Qaeda since the mid-1990s rather than a relationship with al Qaeda that has developed over time.''
(E) Notwithstanding his knowledge that neither Saddam Hussein nor Iraq was in any way connected to the September 11th attacks, the President allowed and authorized those acting under his direction and control, including Vice President Richard B. Cheney and Lewis Libby, who reported directly to both the President and the Vice President, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, among others, to pressure intelligence analysts to alter their assessments and to create special units outside of, and unknown to, the intelligence community in order to secretly obtain unreliable information, to manufacture intelligence or reinterpret raw data in ways that would further the Bush administration's goal of fraudulently establishing a relationship not only between Iraq and al Qaeda, but between Iraq and the attacks of September 11th.

(F) Further, despite his full awareness that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had no relationship to the September 11th attacks, the President, and those acting under his direction and control have, since at least 2002 and continuing to the present, repeatedly issued public statements deliberately worded to mislead, words calculated in their implication to bring unrelated actors and circumstances into an artificially contrived reality thereby facilitating the systematic deception of Congress and the American people. Thus the public and some members of Congress, came to believe, falsely, that there was a connection between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11. This was accomplished through well-publicized statements by the Bush Administration which contrived to continually tie Iraq and 9/11 in the same statements of grave concern without making an explicit charge:

(1) `` Iraq regimes continues to defy us, and the world, we will move deliberately, yet decisively, to hold Iraq to account ..... It's a new world we're in. We used to think two oceans could separate us from an enemy. On that tragic day, September the 11th, 2001, we found out that's not the case. We found out this great land of liberty and of freedom and of justice is vulnerable. And therefore we must do everything we can--everything we can--to secure the homeland, to make us safe.'' Speech of President Bush in Iowa on September 16, 2002.

(2) ``With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.'' March 6, 2003, Statement of President Bush in National Press Conference.

(3) ``The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001--and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men--the shock troops of a hateful ideology--gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the `beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.'' May 1, 2003, Speech of President Bush on U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.

(4) ``Now we're in a new and unprecedented war against violent Islamic extremists. This is an ideological conflict we face against murderers and killers who try to impose their will. These are the people that attacked us on September the 11th and killed nearly 3,000 people. The stakes are high, and once again, we have had to change our strategic thinking. The major battleground in this war is Iraq.'' June 28, 2007, Speech of President Bush at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island.

(G) Notwithstanding his knowledge that there was no credible evidence of a working relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda and that the intelligence community had specifically assessed that there was no such operational relationship, the President, both personally and through his subordinates and agents, has repeatedly falsely represented, both explicitly and implicitly, and through the misleading use of selectively-chosen facts, to the citizens of the United States and to the Congress that there was and is such an ongoing operational relationship, to wit:

(1) ``We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.'' September 28, 2002, Weekly Radio Address of President Bush to the Nation.

(2) ``e we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind.'' October 14, 2002, Remarks by President Bush in Michigan.

(3) ``We know he's got ties with al Qaeda.'' November 1, 2002, Speech of President Bush in New Hampshire.

(4) ``Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.'' January 28, 2003, President Bush's State of the Union Address.

(5) ``hat I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network.....'' February 5, 2003, Speech of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations.

(6) ``The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001--and still goes on. ..... he liberation of Iraq ..... removed an ally of al Qaeda.'' May 1, 2003, Speech of President Bush on U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.

(H) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information, which was released on June 5, 2008, concluded that:

(1) ``Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.''

(2) ``The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.''

Through his participation and instance in the breathtaking scope of this deception, the President has used the highest office of trust to wage of campaign of deception of such sophistication as to deliberately subvert the national security interests of the United States. His dishonesty set the stage for the loss of more than 4000 United States service members; injuries to tens of thousands of soldiers, the loss of more than 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $527 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt and the ultimate expenditure of three to five trillion dollars for all costs covering the war; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, the lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. Regardless of the fact that no evidence
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 01:06 AM by noise
supports such a notion, the propaganda will continue to suggest that Bush acted in good faith. We are still led to believe that support for Bush=support for soldiers. How is this possible?? How does betraying soldiers=supporting them??

Senator Graham admitted that officials linked to the Saudi government supported two purported hijackers in San Diego. That sort of sounds like Saudi Arabia might have been involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
2. Richard Clarke documents this one very well
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 01:09 AM by jberryhill
I couldn't believe that prick Douglas Feith still trying to argue that the intelligence really supported the assertions the Bush administration was making as a justification for attacking Iraq.

The implicit message sent down the chain of command by repeatedly asking for evidence of a connection was "Come back to me with the answer I want." For Feith to deny that with a straight face is a clear demonstration of how low a person can sink.

Dunno why this is a dungeon post, since I doubt anyone here disagrees with the substance of this article of impeachment.

So, why is Kucinich covering up "conducting a false flag attack on the United States"? Is this article of impeachment just intended to create a distraction from what really happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. reply
"Dunno why this is a dungeon post, since I doubt anyone here disagrees with the substance of this article of impeachment."

It's all over GD, so why not here too as something relevant to discussion of September 11, as compared to many other topics that for some reason get pushed here?

"So, why is Kucinich covering up 'conducting a false flag attack on the United States'? Is this article of impeachment just intended to create a distraction from what really happened?"

Nothing in the articles explicitly rejects the idea. Two other articles are compatible with it: ignoring foreknowledge (33) and obstructing investigation into Sept. 11 (34). If K. doesn't believe 9/11 was directly orchestrated, that's fine. He's still an honest actor in calling out the many, many other, even greater crimes of the regime. Unlike those who offer complete denial, he clearly would support a real investigation that would settle the questions of Sept. 11, rather than further obscure them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. "so why not here too as something relevant to discussion of September 11"

I suppose.

I'd be surprised if anyone here disagreed with the factual substance of this article.

The combination of (33) and (34) is interesting, and is at least thematically related to the tension between "ignored warnings" and "inside job" over which you got hissy in another thread.

Clearly, Bush didn't do a good enough job of obstructing investigation, because the 9/11 Commission seems to make it absolutely clear that Bush ignored foreknowledge. And there have been plenty of instances here in the dungeon where someone who accuses Bush of ignoring foreknowledge is lambasted as "naive".

"Ignoring" isn't the right word. If someone is engaged in what they believe to be a stimulating and important conversation with their imaginary friend, and they don't answer the telephone when it rings because they don't want to be interrupted, they've made a conscious decision not to answer the phone. Instead of "ignoring", I'd say "too engaged in delusional faith-based bullshit to deal with reality."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Appealing to a shared sense of nationalism is a key aspect
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 02:05 AM by noise
of the propaganda. We are supposed to believe that our leaders couldn't possibly have an ulterior agenda that is not in the best interests of the county as a whole (even though the circumstantial evidence is indicative of such a motive). Bush's patriotism was never up for review. It still isn't so far as the media is concerned...he has made mistakes, he was given bad intel, at worst he is incompetent, etc.

Imagine if the people who claim to be protecting the public are actually competing against them (not in a friendly manner either). From a strategic standpoint that is pretty clever. Sick but clever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Right Wing Nationalism....
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 02:20 AM by jberryhill
Consists of "I pledge allegiance to me, and everything I can grab while waving a flag". If you asked these people to engage in a "shared sense of nationalism", they'd flinch when they heard the word "share".

"he has made mistakes, he was given bad intel, at worst he is incompetent, etc."

There's been that, but there has also been plenty of "they wanted to invade Iraq on day one" as well.

What's Bush's approval rating these days? Low 20's? If the media has been trying to prop him up, and his approval rating is what it is, then I hope they keep up the good work for the next few months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. By shared nationalism
I mean when Bush says something like "We must win the War on Terror." The public is expected to unconditionally accept the idea that the government is acting in the best interests of the public. Bush can betray the public over and over and his betrayal is concealed by way of propaganda, fearmongering and authoritarianism. Yet if a citizen dares object to the notion that Bush is acting in good faith in relation to the WoT, then that citizen is labeled an unpatriotic al Qaeda sympathizer who wants to lose the WoT.

Authoritarianism=patriotism. Cheerleading for corrupt leaders is now considered patriotic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. "Cheerleading for corrupt leaders is now considered patriotic. "

Where, in your mind?

Again, how do you explain the fact that Bush's approval rating is lower than Nixon's prior to his exit?

You need to turn off Fox News and listen to what real people think for a while. Virtually nobody can stand this president or his policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. I readily admit I'm not objective
Years of right wing propaganda are hard to forget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. That's why I suggested

...turning off the TV and getting to know real people.

If you don't pay attention to right wing propaganda, then forgetting it is not a difficulty.

There was a study done a while back on the relative ability to assess the risk of crime by people who (a) watched local TV news and (b) didn't watch local TV news. It turned out that group (b) had a better handle on the actual, and lower, risk of being a crime victim than group (a).

Fox News has been polishing this turd of a president for years, and it's just not working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #14
31. The propaganda drives the whole thing
For example, Kucinich is considered a fringe leftist even though he is simply standing up for the rule of law, checks and balances and representative democracy. Actually, I don't watch much TV at all. My reference is more from grandstanding public officials whose authoritarian views are somehow presented as mainstream and credible by the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. No kidding, JB..
I will say I think, as a practical matter, it's too late for impeachment. However, I will also say I think Bush deserves a fair trial (he can be indicted after he leaves office). Same thing goes for Cheney, although I think it might be poetic justice if they decided to waterboard him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. If the media had not been trying to prop him up...
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 10:14 AM by JackRiddler
He would not have been elected.

He would have been out in 2002. Just from Enron. We're not even counting the original 9/11 lie here.

Iraq would not have happened, because all would have known by March 2003 that the WMD and attempt to link Sept. 11 to Saddam was a horrible, impeachable lie. Rather than still be debating it today!

Instead, his unelected regime got to launch a war of aggression and implement the most radical and thorough agenda of change since the New Deal, shifting trillions of dollars in spending priorities. And yet it was enabled by the ostensible opposition, who now complete the process by seeking no justice for the most openly criminal regime in US history, the first to proudly announce that the Constitution did not apply to the executive.

He leaves "unpopular" and yet the program isn't going to be altered by the one who follows in certain essentials: imperialism and bases in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, the concentration of wealth pushed by Bush will all still be with us in 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. He was not elected in the first place

So I can't see how, but for the media "He would not have been elected". He wasn't.

He is not "leaving" unpopular. He came IN unpopular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. elected, selected, whatever...
You understood me perfectly well. The media propped him up and continue to prop him up, which is the biggest reason (along with Democratic failure to provide opposition or protect the constitution) why he got to take power in Jan. 2001, why he is not in prison, and why his unelected regime is the most successful in implementing its agenda in American history since FDR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. speaking of imaginary interlocutors
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 10:05 AM by JackRiddler
You write: And there have been plenty of instances here in the dungeon where someone who accuses Bush of ignoring foreknowledge is lambasted as "naive".

When replying to me, please address only what I said, or else make specific citations of whatever it is you're talking about. Otherwise I'm not interested in agreeing with some harmless-seeming generality that you may take to mean something other than I do. I will agree that various people stoke often artificial divisions.

How do you know if Bush is really too busy talking to God to do anything about 9/11? This seems to be an article of faith on your part.

At any rate, one can ignore foreknowledge only if one has foreknowledge.

The question of where that foreknowledge came from then becomes paramount, and was either not examined by the official investigations, or not treated in their reports.

Having foreknowledge is in no way incompatible with orchestration scenarios, as you have seemed to suggest. In fact, the two would go together; involved officials would have a passive, facilitation role, while the covert operation itself would be in the hands of professionals whose names we are not supposed to know.

Since Bush obviously would not hold an active role within a covert operation, but is a member of the officials class for whom plausible deniability is paramount, it would be his role specifically to ignore any foreknowledge that got to him, while others handled the more complicated business.

These possibilities go unformulated by the investigations, despite a long history of illegal covert operations to intentionally create or reinforce enemies and use fear to implement agendas. Long as that is so, 9/11 remains an open case, which is also an open wound, a public trauma; pointing to the mistakes or associations of given authors who represent themselves (or are represented by you) as the "movement" is irrelevant to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. "or are represented by you"

Jack, my opinion that Bush is a deluded religious wingnut surrounded by a like-minded vanguard of apocalyptic cheerleaders is certainly my opinion. If you want to characterize people's opinions as "articles of faith", then you are free to do so.

But when you suggest I am being paid to promote bizarre 9/11 theories, that is a subject on which I have direct personal knowledge that I am not acting in a representative capacity on behalf of anyone in my participation here. So, yeah, when someone calls me a government shill, troll, whatever, I do have direct personal knowledge that person is full of shit, and it certainly influences my assessment of their connection with reality.


The question of where that foreknowledge came from then becomes paramount, and was either not examined by the official investigations, or not treated in their reports.


...and you expect it would be treated in a public report?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Eh? Off your rocker?
But when you suggest I am being paid to promote bizarre 9/11 theories, that is a subject on which I have direct personal knowledge that I am not acting in a representative capacity on behalf of anyone in my participation here. So, yeah, when someone calls me a government shill, troll, whatever, I do have direct personal knowledge that person is full of shit, and it certainly influences my assessment of their connection with reality.


When did I ever suggest any of this?! Please correct yourself or provide a citation.

You strike me as probably the most sincere, logical and thoughtful of the local bedunker brigade, albeit cantankerous, and pretty much the least likely to be a paid employee. (Not that I suspect anyone else in particular, but it's always possible. My first bet for paid employee would actually be the no-planes crowd who have done more to obscure the issues than any other single group.)

---

...and you expect it would be treated in a public report?


This mindset disables even a notional inkling of democracy or a republic, you realize. If the possibility of criminal corruption of the government can never be investigated because national security requires everything to be blanketed in secrecy, you can sign all power over to the spooks and rightly expect the most ruthless and corrupt among them to be in charge. Which is what we have had since the Spook Coup of 1980, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Maybe you could offer the "no-planes" crowd more money to stop...
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 01:58 PM by SDuderstadt
Just a thought. Hey, "no-planers"! Did you hear that? You just been dissed by a member of the "truth movement". This might be fun. I might just stick around to watch the fur fly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. You're years too late...
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 02:21 PM by JackRiddler
This has already gone on for some time and the no-planes crew have been isolated, not just for their theories but for the fact that they have showed all the signs of a COINTELPRO operation, above all by issuing death threats and calling everyone (without exception) an agent.

It's apparently your self-appointed mission to keep the focus on them, though. Sort of like Hannity, with Colmes playing the fake liberal. So as someone who appreciates them so thoroughly, if it's anyone who should pay the no-planes crowd for services rendered, it's you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. "Cointelpro operation"....
For the love of God, has it ever occurred to you that some "truthers' are just plain nuts? BTW, I've gone your website/link/whatever and you've got some pretty sbsurd things there, too. I'd be glad to point them out to you if you'd like. For now, the "no-planers" do make your stuff appear more sane, but that could change just llike that. I'd love to see them gone tomorrow. What can I do to help you with the "purge"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. I totally agree
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 01:59 PM by Bassman66
My first bet for paid employee would actually be the no-planes crowd who have done more to obscure the issues than any other single group

It's the only explanation for such a ridiculous position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Yup. And not just ridiculous.
It's a conscious parody position.

If you wanted to come up with the idea that would most alienate and disgust family members of relatives and anyone with the least sensitivity, this would be it. It's like a product of post-modern theory, a non-plus-ultra for creating offense and a stinkbomb effect in the most unforgettable fashion possible.

Another tip-off is how the idea evolved from "pods" and "missiles" to "holograms" until the most ridiculous possible form was found. (I'm suspicious of certain people from the "pods" period because they a) acted crazy and b) injected the most money the movement ever saw on behalf of "pods.")

Add to this that the current advocates of "no planes" work straight out of a COINTELPRO textbook. They attach themselves to every single initiative undertaken by others and work very hard to preempt and poison the well in advance, they demand 100% allegiance from all others in the movement or immediately attack them as agents and use personal calumny, they issue death threats.


And... for what its worth...

Welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Thanks JR
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 02:41 PM by Bassman66
I agree entirely with what you said.

I have had some in credible arguments with people about holograms, I suspected all along they were just muddying the waters.

I'll have to read up about COINTELPRO.

I'm a great admirer of your work here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Or they're just plain nuts....
sorry, guys...you're stuck with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. You didn't write this?
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 04:54 PM by jberryhill

pointing to the mistakes or associations of given authors who represent themselves (or are represented by you) as the "movement"


You know what I do for a living, and the words chosen by you in that sentence have a dual meaning.

So, if I want to refer to the movement, instead of the "movement", is it appropriate for me to use 911truth.org as a reference guide to the real truth movement, in contrast to the fake truth movements?

IMHO, Judy Wood is too crazy to be insincere, and the Leaphart/Wood/Reynolds crew appears to be the only part of the "movement" that is pursuing legal action in a real live court, instead of selling books and DVD's and making YouTube videos. I give them credit for having the apparent courage of their own convictions. I believe they are nuts, but they do strike me as sincere nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Got it, counsel.
"You know what I do for a living, and the words chosen by you in that sentence have a dual meaning."

No worries, I see now the misunderstanding, it's not what I meant. (I.e., "represented" was not in the sense of legal representation for a party, but the mere representation or characterization of a party in writing.) Sorry if that was unclear.

There's really no need for paranoia with me, by the way. I disagree with you on a certain important matter but as I said figure you're for real, and appreciate the way you avoid nonsense and strawman arguments most of the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Lol

"Jack Riddler" figures I'm for real? Coming from a pseudonym, I take that as a real vote of confidence.

Of course, this is done in connection with a portrait of Shakespeare which, some allege, contains steganographic clues suggesting that the works of "Shakespeare" were themselves in fact pseudonymous works of Christopher Marlowe, the use of which avatar has always hinted to me that perhaps things are not what they seem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. ho ho ho
So much for being nice, counsel.

Did you ever click on the button next to my tag labeled "profile"?

Maybe you should. Due diligence and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Oh, okay...

You're that male person who lives in New York City.

I think I saw you there once. It must have been you. He was male. And in New York City.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-11-08 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Hmmm...
Edited on Wed Jun-11-08 10:22 PM by JackRiddler
You're right again. I used to have my name there. Must have changed that, but I forgot. Fact is, others here know my name who could only know it from my profile. And I've often given it in the by-line of articles I posted.

Anyway, if you go to my site

http://summeroftruth.org

you'll see it. So sorry.

(As though it's relevant. Since almost everyone uses a nick here, not their real name. But whatever.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
32. kick (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC