November 24, 2007

Truther Nation [Dan Collins]

Can I claim my minority status, now?

Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the federal government had warnings about 9/11 but decided to ignore them, a national survey found.
And that’s not the only conspiracy theory with a huge number of true believers in the United States.

The poll found that more than one out of three Americans believe Washington is concealing the truth about UFOs and the Kennedy assassination – and most everyone is sure the rise in gas prices is one vast oil-industry conspiracy.

Sixty-two percent of those polled thought it was “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials turned a blind eye to specific warnings of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

I patiently await the reprogramming. Those Creationists, though . . . they’re WAY out there.

Posted by Dan Collins @ 11:39am
362 comments | Trackback

Comments (362)

  1. Dan, I really didn’t need to read that. The majority of Americans are morons!

  2. Sorry, Mark. I just wanted to get that out of the way, so that we could have fun. But perhaps it’s a general side-effect of realizing that the media’s so full of shit that they’ve got no idea what’s really going on.

    Or The Matrix.

  3. It’s astonishing to me that 1/3 would still believe otherwise…

  4. “…the truth about UFOs and the Kennedy assassination”

    Well of course UFOs were involved in the Kennedy assassination. Everyone knows that the Mafia, the CIA, Castro, Big Labor, the Freemasons, and the Illuminati couldn’t carry it out by themselves! How do you think that “magic bullet” changed direction, like, seven times?
    Space alien technology, that’s how. C’mon people, the truth is out there!

    /sarc, by the way

  5. “Oberstar described the instructor as “an American hero” whose actions resulted in Moussaoui’s arrest and might have prevented another suicide hijacking.”

    I am betting a lot of things astonish RMN.

  6. Yes. This did as well, from Moussaouis’ trial:

    “During testimony Tuesday, a terrorism supervisor in FBI headquarters dismissed as “hunches and suppositions” a field agent’s concerns about Moussaoui in the weeks before Sept. 11.

    The supervisor, Michael Rolince, testified that he had not even read an Aug. 18, 2001, memo written by Minneapolis agent Harry Samit, who arrested Moussaoui and was convinced from the outset that Moussaoui was a terrorist with plans to hijack aircraft.”

    fox news

  7. The Clinton Administration kind of got a big fat warning when the World Trade Center was bombed the first time, and national security became their primary concern.

    Got a suggestion to name President Clinton’s new puppy? Send it to him; he’s eager for ideas.

    Already deluged with thousands of names, the White House invited an avalanche of more suggestions Thursday by saying Clinton was interested in Americans’ recommendations.

    Clinton was surprised so many people were interested in offering names, said presidential spokesman Joe Lockhart, with Clinton in Miami on a fund-raising trip.

    “He has asked us to try to compile in some way some sampling of these suggestions, and he said he wants to use it in how he goes forward and actually picks the name,” Lockhart said.

    The president’s new pooch is a 3-month-old, chocolate-colored male Labrador retriever. He’ll move to the White House after being trained.

    But unfortunately it wasn’t enough.

  8. Just to be clear, Moussaoui was arrested on immigration charges. The FBI totally ignored field warnings of a hijack plot. Why shouldn’t 2/3 believe what Michael Rolince testified to under oath…

  9. Because you can’t arrest someone because you suspect they may be planning a crime, moron. And the fact the some field agents didn’t act aggressively on suspicious activity reports doesn’t equate to “the Government” deliberately ignoring a specific threat.

  10. By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. 402 arid 403, as amended, section 7902(c) of title 5. United States Code, and section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 668, as amended, and in order to require that Federal employees use seat belts while on official business; to require that motor vehicle occupants use seat belts in national park areas and on Department of Defense (“Defense”) installations; to encourage Tribal Governments to adopt and enforce seat belt policies and programs for occupants of motor vehicles traveling on highways in Indian Country; and to encourage Federal contractors, subcontractors, and grantees to adopt and enforce on-the-job seat belt use policies and programs, it is hereby ordered as follows…

    – Bill Clinton, April 16, 1997.

    Clinton tried to protect us. He really did.

  11. How many people here answer polls?

    I never do. As far as I know, none of my friends or family do either (I’ve asked).

    Polls, especially polls like this (as opposed to exit polls, which I never answer either), are polls of “Teh Stupid.” Of COURSE the results make people look dump, smart people don’t answer.

  12. Because you can’t arrest someone because you suspect they may be planning a crime, moron.

    Nobody, not even a moron, is claiming that. What field agents wanted was a search warrant to Moussaouis’ laptop. Who is saying he should have been arrested for planning a crime? He could have been interrogated, that is the point. The FBI might have paid some attention to their own field agents. That is the point. There was no “wall” separating FBI headquarters from its’ own district offices. The issue is whether warnings were ignored. Isn’t that what the original post stated? The FBI itself says warnings were ignored. Maybe I am a moron for taking them at their own word.

  13. The FBI “ignores” warnings of a terrorist threat under the Bush Administration= signs of a huge conspiracy, Bush responsible for 9/11.

    A fatwa entitled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places” released during Clinton’s presidency? PLUS, the first WTC attack, AND the Cole ….

    Look! A shiny penny …

  14. And also we should ignore warnings from anything learned from wiretapping under the Terrorist Surveillance Program cause Harry and Nancy say we’ll be more safer that way.

  15. You are a moron for equating “the FBI fucked up” with “the Government deliberately ignored warnings”.

    How many reports of suspicious activities by people of Middle-Eastern descent do you think the FBI gets daily now? How about reports of suspicious activity by Muslems? Do you support granting search warrants and wire taps for all of these? How do you feel about profiling Muslems and Arabs for special treatment at airports? Shopping malls?

    How fucking loud would you have been screaming if the FBI had no-knocked searched those terrorists and rounded them up for enhanced interogation before 9/11, you pompous phony.

  16. For shits sake, the field agent sent a 30 page memo outlining the very specific threat he thought Moussaoui posed… and the D.C. supervisor testified under oath he ignored it, never read it. Keep telling me I’m a moron for believing warnings were ignored…

  17. This is why you should always include an abstract.

  18. But the “warning” posed by the bombing of the Cole?

    In his defense, Clinton was preoccupied at the time.

  19. Bin Laden was kind enought to kind of sum-up his Fatwa with that title, so you have a point Happyfeet.

  20. Exactly. “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places” is both concise and compelling. Keep telling me I’m a moron for believing warnings were ignored…

  21. You think Clinton should have responded forcefully to the Cole Attack? He had a three month window to do so, seeing as how the Cole was attacked in Oct. of 2000. This means that Bush did nothing about the Cole 3 times longer than Clinton did nothing about the Cole. Was there some sort of statute of limitation operating for Bush? A nine month break in period?

  22. Are you being intentionally obtuse, RMN. You say a MEMO should have made all of Washington sit-up and take notice. I counter that the attack on the Cole should have had a similar affect.

    I no where blamed Clinton for the attack itself. For inaction AFTERWARD. duh.

  23. You are a moron for not knowing the difference between “the DC (FBI) supervisor” and “the government”. And for confusing a mistake in judgement (in hindsight) with a conspiracy.

  24. And where is your blame for Bushs’ inaction for 3 times as long as Clinton”?

  25. And, I didn’t only mention the Cole – there was a Fatwa and the first attack on the WTC – with a tad LONGER than a 3 month window of inaction.

  26. B Moe,

    I never once mentioned a conspiracy. I am responding only to warnings being ignored. You vaguely label this as a “fuck up”. I am saying the fuck up is that warnings were ignored. I’m not a 911 truther.

  27. Were is your blame, AT ALL, for the Clintons? It isn’t there. Well trodden territory, but no one imagined 9/11. Hindsight we can pick out all these clues that we should have know … yet the only clues people care about are those that occured under the Bush administration.

    And, to constantly harp about a MEMO when you had more significant events (under Clinton) shows that this in nothing but a partisian issue for you and the other numnuts who believe this crap.

  28. Carin, Was this fatwa in effect from 1/2001 to 9/2001? Was it in effect during the 2000 presidential campaign? I don’t remember Bush talking about it all that much. Do you? I’m willing to take a look at any evidence you can supply…

  29. “And where is your blame for Bushs’ inaction for 3 times as long as Clinton”?

    You really are a moron, aren’t you?

  30. Spell it out then. Why is it unforgivable that Clinton did not respond to the Cole attack in 3 months time, but wholly understandable that Bush did nothing for 9?

  31. Milhouse. It happened under boy Clinton’s watch. It was his responsibility to respond to it. In the three times as long that bush had , there was a small incident in September. But it’s nice to see you hold Bush to a higher standard than Clinton. You should have to hold FDR to the same standard vis a vis Japan. Don’t get me started on FDRs nuclear weapons program. I find your dishonesty………………………tiresome.

  32. Bush was also putting a government together. I am seriously embarassed for you that you need this explained to you.

  33. Rusty, I am not holding Bush to higher standard. I am holding him to the same standard. You are holding him to NO standard.

  34. B Moe, How long after 911 were we in Afghanistan? Less than one month. So give it up on the freakin’ breaking in period.

  35. Spell it out then. Why is it unforgivable that Clinton did not respond to the Cole attack in 3 months time, but wholly understandable that Bush did nothing for 9

    I’m gonna type this slowly, so maybe you’ll get it this time. Why is a MEMO a bigger “warning” than two attacks and a Fatwa? I, personally, don’t blame Clinton, in that no one – NO ONE – is to blame for 9/11 except those affiliated with OBL. No one viewed terrorism as something that could affect us like it did.

    But, if we are going to pinpoint someone in Washington for a failure of vision, I’m gonna say Clinton was in the chair for the majority of time OBL was hatching and plotting his plan.

    But, the reason I know this is nothing but partisian bullshit, is because I have yet to see one 9/11 nutter ever point even a pinky in Clinton’s direction.

  36. All this tells you is just how much spare time Americans have. And, of course, how some need to remember their meds before they go out.

  37. red pills? I lost mine.

  38. What did Bubba do about those African embassies?

    And what would the screeching left have done had we decided to invade Yemen in Jan ’01?

  39. Why is it unforgivable that Clinton did not respond to the Cole attack in 3 months time, but wholly understandable that Bush did nothing for 9?

    Clinton cried and cried and made solemn promises is why. Cause there were TV cameras, but then the cameras went away.

    Returning from the Middle East peace negotiations in Egypt to attend Wed’s memorial service, President Clinton promised action against those who bombed the Cole while it was on a refueling stop as it headed toward the Persian Gulf.

    “To those who attacked them we say, ‘You will not find a safe harbor. We will find you and justice will prevail.’”

    [ ... ]

    Augustine Wiggins, the sister of Seaman James R. McDaniels of Norfolk, wondered whether her brother’s death could have been prevented. “It’s not that Clinton or anybody else can do anything about it now,” said Wiggins. “What I don’t understand is if they had warnings, why they went into that port.

    – W Post, Oct 19,2000

  40. “B Moe, How long after 911 were we in Afghanistan? Less than one month. So give it up on the freakin’ breaking in period.”

    We didn’t invade Afghanistan with the Cabinet and Executive Branch, but keep digging.

  41. “I’m not a 911 truther.”

    I bet your a Republican, too.

  42. Carin, If you can point out where I said a memo was a bigger warning than two attacks and a fatwa I’ll be happy answer/apologize for saying so. I responded to the original post, which seemed incredulous that 2/3 believe warnings were ignored. If you want me to include a fatwa and two attacks as warnings that were ignored I’m ok with that. As I stated, I don’t hold Bush to a higher standard, but to the same standard. You hold him to no standard.

  43. We didn’t invade Afghanistan with the Cabinet and Executive Branch, but keep digging.

    Which means we didn’t respond to the Cole that way, either.

  44. Bush should respond more forcefully to terrorism.

  45. “Which means we didn’t respond to the Cole that way, either.”

    This has got to be timmy. No one else is this dense and this persistent.

  46. Actually, I hold Bush and Clinton to exactly the same standard. Obviously, warnings were not taken seriously enough by anyone. Personally, I find a memo a tad less overwhelming than some of the other events that occured, so I find it bristling (and curious) that so much attention is paid to THAT and not other things. Why the focus on the Memo? Because that is the only one they can pin on Bush.

    Scratch a 9/11 truther, and you’ll find a Bush hater beneath the surface. Polls like this one is used to fuel the fire. I mean, the question is rather general … and, dare I say, stupid. OBVIOUSLY things were overlooked, or we’d still have those two tall building in NY.

    But, to ask the average American questions regarding intellegence gathering and threat assessment is rather pointless. Meaningless. I believe the questions, themselves, are aimed at driving an agenda.

  47. Still waiting for one link to a speech Bush or Gore gave during the 2000 campaign on terrorism. Please show me how much time they devoted to the topic during the debates. Let’s include the 2000 primaries and you have a two year period to find anything Bush said on the subject up to 911. Let’s hold him to some standard, shall we?

  48. Two months ago, at the Citadel in South Carolina, I talked about American defense. This must be the first focus of a president, because it is his first duty to the Constitution. Even in this time of pride and promise, America has determined enemies, who hate our values and resent our success – terrorists and crime syndicates and drug cartels and unbalanced dictators. The Empire has passed, but evil remains.

    We must protect our homeland and our allies against missiles and terror and blackmail.

  49. “Let’s hold him to some standard, shall we?”

    We shall, and in your own words:

    ” How long after 911 were we in Afghanistan? Less than one month.”

    Works for me.

  50. I honestly can’t make it any more clear regarding my opinions of the failure of the US government to forsee the threat terrorism posed to the US. But, the threat didn’t simply appear the day Bush took his oath of office. I find blaming Clinton equally as valuable as blaming Bush for 9/11. Meaning, not much.

    But, in the hindsight game – which people seem to like to play – certainly Clinton had many more opportunities (than Bush) with which to “wake up” to the terrorism reality. But, I’m not a big fan of the hindsight game. It is informative, and that is it.

  51. I’ll listen to TruthNutters and other conspiracy buffs, as soon as they answer one simple question.

  52. Thank God Hillary understands the threat of terrorism though:

    “It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world,” Clinton told supporters in Concord.

  53. Well, I must say… that is certainly impressive. Three sentences amounting to a significant speech on the threat of terrorism. Must have been part of the humble approach to foreign policy holding him back.

  54. Also the part where he liberated two countries from dictatorship was kinda impressive too.

  55. You asked for a link and you got one. Now I have a request for you: How many other memos crossed that DC supervisors desk the same week, or month, as the 30 page tome of doom you reference above? What was occupying his time while he ignored the threats of 9/11? How does his dismissal look in the perspective of what was happening then, as opposed to hindsight?

  56. But as you said the cabinet and executive branch had nothing to do with that…

  57. B Moe, The only way to answer that is to ask him if he regrets not reading that memo. The agent who sent it to him feels regret.

  58. cooking dinner… been a blast, don’tcha know.

  59. I wrote a 100-page memo way ahead of time about how they were gonna bomb the levies which is sad cause Bush got away with that too but you want I can email you.

  60. Am I understanding this right? RMN wanted Bush to arrive in DC and immediately snap into action on a terrorist attack that Bubba had done fuck-all about for the preceding three months?

  61. Don’t try to make sense of it. See, the rule of thumb with these types, is to NOT get distracted by any logical argument. Stay focused on the Bush-hatred-ball.

    Oh, I forgot. RMN was a Republican.

  62. The simple fact of the matter is the alterations to the bureaucracy are long lasting legacies of previous administration. The bureaucracy failed to detect signs of an operation in planning or to pass it up the chain of command. Why, I don’t know. But is more likely that personel hired and policies instituted during previous administrations, with the one in office for the last 8 years, were responsible. Afterall, there will still many high level Clinton holdovers in place.

  63. When people think Bush had something to do with 9/11 it’s cause of “anger at the federal government and skepticism in general by younger Americans” but when people think Saddam had something to do with 9/11 it’s cause Bush lied.

    Troofer sincerity is not to be questioned.

  64. Sixty-two percent of those polled thought it was “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials turned a blind eye to specific warnings of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

    And why wouldn’t the Bush administration have done so? After all, the Oklahoma City bombing probably saved the presidency of Bill “I’m still relevant” Clinton.

  65. Do you, um, know what date the Federal Building was bombed cause you sound kind of disoriented.

  66. “Bin Laden determined to strike US.” What did Bush do about that, exactly?

  67. He beat Al Gore.

  68. “Truther Nation”

    Yup, that sums up far too much, politically and socially. Joe Rogan-esque and Rosie O’Donnell styled polemics, such as they are, seemingly sway not merely very many, but most. I.e. both subtle and not so subtle threats of ex-communication, for failure to conform and be part of the group-think political culture, are sufficient to ensure many will in fact conform.

  69. Didn’t some real smart political scientist guy (Søren Aabye Kierkegaard?) say that there is no truth to be found in a crowd?

  70. Blue Texan seems to be taking up the second shift, but apparently he didn’t get the memo of issues already covered in this thread.

    I’ll answer your question when you tell me what Clinton did in response to :

    First WTC attack
    Declaration of War against the US by OBL in 96
    Attack on the Cole

    The liberal’s hyper-focus on a Memo is unbelievable given that Clinton’s non-reaction to warning signs a bit more tangible than a memo.

  71. Clinton’s non-reaction included thwarting the 2000 attack on LAX, a fact that Clinton haters always love to omit.

    How many terrorist attacks did the Bushies stop before 9/11? None. But I love how you ignore the PDB question and pivot right into Clinton.

    Was Clinton’s response to terrorism robust enough? No — everyone knows that. But the Bush Administration’s was even worse — absolutely zilch. Everyone BUT Bushbots seem to know this. So to bring up Clinton is not only a red herring in this context, it’s stupid.

    The answer to the PDB question is zippo and the 9/11 Com. concluded that many warnings were missed and ignored, including the infamous PDB.

    Ignoring something doesn’t mean you want it to happen. So this “conspiracy” angle by the Post is just silly.

  72. The 9/11 Commission was fags though.

  73. Clinton’s non-reaction included thwarting the 2000 attack on LAX, a fact that Clinton haters always love to omit.

    That was a sharp-eyed border agent who caught that. It didn’t have anything to do with anyone in Washington.

  74. Geriatric poofters.

  75. “Clinton’s non-reaction included thwarting the 2000 attack on LAX, a fact that Clinton haters always love to omit.”

    Clinton was a border agent?

    The man was a regular fucking Superman.

  76. Blue Texan – How many warning of attacks on the U.S. did Clinton get and what was his response. His response was to temporarily ramp up airport security, the same response as Bush in response to the same warnings. How fucking disengenuous can you get?

  77. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe Lee Hamilton likes young boys.

  78. “Was Clinton’s response to terrorism robust enough?
    No — everyone knows that.”

    8 years to resond.

    “But the Bush Administration’s was even worse — absolutely zilch.”

    9 months to respond.

    While putting together a government.

  79. And happy, good job.

  80. I personally took great comfort in the words of Scary Larry Johnson in the summer of 2001 when he said we had nothing to fear from terrorism. He even wrote about it in the NY Times. He was wrong. I think he’s been consistently wrong on everything he’s said since. Can’t trust that man.

  81. “Was Clinton’s response to terrorism robust enough? No — everyone knows that. But the Bush Administration’s was even worse — absolutely zilch.”

    Bush’s response was absolutely zilch? Then what the fuck are all the pinheads protesting?

  82. No one has (tellingly) answered the question: what did Bush do in response to the PDB?

    What I keep seeing in response (tellingly) is: Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton.

    The 9/11 Comm. found 10 missed opportunities to thwart the attacks. The majority of them occurred on Bush’s watch.

    I know that sucks for you 25-percenters who still support him, but those are the facts.

    Still waiting to hear all the outstanding anti-terrorism measures Bush and Cheney took before 9/11.

  83. Carin

    Don’t forget the 2 African embassy bombings that Pablo pointed out earlier.

    First WTC attack
    People were arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison. See how well the criminal justice system works in the fight against terrorism. And we all lived happily ever after.

  84. Hindsight is 20/20, and removes all context from the discussion.

    It’s like talking about a ten car pile-up without reference to the snowstorm that caused it. It amazes me that so many apparently intelligent people could be talking through their asses.

    How does one put past events in perspective by applying today’s mores to yesterdays situations?

    If I remember correctly, ALL of our leaders saw terrorism as no more than an annoyance, and were more focused on conventional attacks within our borders. To say that anyone would let 9/11 happen on purpose is delusional, at best. The attitude of the 90′s was really too casual, but that’s how it was. Like it or not.

    Also, the way our intelligence agengies functioned was FUBAR, to say the least. We CAN thank the Democrats for that, though. Jimmuh and Frank Church completely gutted any and all agencies. More proof that Carter was the “greatesty president ever”, right?

    No conspiracy. Just a enough big mistakes for everyone to share in.

  85. “9 months to respond.”

    How’s that going? We got the guy responsible, didn’t we? You mean… we didn’t? He’s unimportant and not worth thinking about? Heck of a job Lil’ Dickie.

  86. Osama is sort of like Gollum, really. His mistakes since 9/11 shouldn’t be overlooked in how helpful they’ve been.

  87. Blue Putz – Just what papers did Sandy Burglar steal that the Clinton’s don’t want anyone knowing about in terms of that administration’s response to terrorism? It was in connection with Sandy’s work to brief Bubba for his appearance before the 9/11 commission or one of the other commissions. Awfully relevant for the discussion if one of your closest aides destroys the historical record and then delays taking his required polygraph test about the stolen papers. Just sayin.

  88. That part where Osama made Iraq the focus of his jihad thinger, that seems to have been kind of a bad call, huh?

  89. And more Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton.

    Like a broken wingnut record.

  90. “Still waiting to hear all the outstanding anti-terrorism measures Bush and Cheney took before 9/11.”

    Why? So you could dismiss them like you do all the measures they have taken afterwards?

  91. Why? So you could dismiss them like you do all the measures they have taken afterwards?

    What does that have to do with the article above about 9/11? Oh, I know! Nothing!

  92. Various brainwashed types also believe that global warming is a hoax, Valerie Wilson wasn’t a spy, John Kerry inflicted his own wounds, and someone in Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

  93. “Still waiting to hear all the outstanding anti-terrorism measures Bush and Cheney took before 9/11.”

    Richard Clarke explains it all, really.

    Oh. And also I thought Valerie inflicted her own wounds and John Kerry was a spy. Global warming is definitely a hoax though.

  94. Blue Texan

    In your mind, does Clinton bear any responsibility?

  95. Blue Texan,

    The 2000 LAX attack wasn’t thwarted by any action of Clinton’s. The bad guy had the misfortune of finding the only alert guard on the US-Canadian border.

    Some people on this thread have obviously never worked with or for the government. US security agencies get an avalanche of tips every single day. 99.9% of them are from crackpots. Even when you get a tip from believable source, you can’t really do anything without specific information. Of course there was a memo about planes. There were memos about crashing oil tankers into refineries, about commando squads of terrorists taking control of nuclear reactors, about poisoning the water supply, about bombs in malls…

    People who want to focus on this document or that briefing are missing the fact the information in question was lost in a giant ocean of bad intel. How many times in the last couple years has the FBI warned about bombs in shopping malls based on “good intelligence”. How many times has it happened?

    American security agencies simply can’t run down all the threats they get tipped on. It was impossible then, and it’s impossible today. At some point you gotta make a judgement call about where to put your resources based on incomplete information, and you can make the wrong call.

    The 9/11 hijackers had pretty good operational security, so it’s no surprise the FBI missed it. They’ll miss the next one, too, unless they get lucky. Traditionally the way you deal with this is to put agents in your enemy’s organization, but over the years Congress crippled the CIA, which by 9/11 had essentially stopped doing human intelligence. I hope that’s been fixed.

  96. No. People believe that the anthropogenic component of global warming is grossly overstated, that the data has been manipulated and misinterpreted to serve ideological ends and for the simple pleasure of self-flattery, that Valerie Wilson wasn’t undercover in any serious sense of the word, that John Kerry has a talent for shooting himself in the ass and that you can’t explain why certain fundamentalist Islamist terrorists had been given sanctuary in Iraq.

    Also, that knowing what we know about Saddam, it’s simply impossible that he should ever have been involved with any attempt to derive private revenge through an outside channel. There are certainly no documents that might suggest as much that the press has no interest in disseminating knowledge of.

  97. Putzie – The answer to your question is public information. Bush was putting together a comprehensive plan when 9/11 occurred. With respect to the August PDB, how did he react differently to the many similar warnings which Clinton got?

  98. Before 09/11, Bush had about 8 and 1/2 months to do anything, only being in office since January 20, 2001. Prior to 09/11, Clinton had about 8 years to do anything about it. Supposedly those 8 months are more important than the 8 years, even though the perps were in pilot training a year or two before January 20, 2001.

  99. “Various brainwashed types also believe that global warming is a hoax, Valerie Wilson wasn’t a spy, John Kerry inflicted his own wounds, and someone in Iraq had something to do with 9/11.”

    Wow. It’s like Laney is some kind of mind reader or something.

    Spooky, I tell you.

  100. Broadway Joe inflicted Valerie’s wounds. How is her book doing BTW? I saw it dramatically reduced in price the last time I was in a book store.

  101. And here, you see the deranged pathology of the right wing, in all its unadulterated glory:

    People believe that the anthropogenic component of global warming is grossly overstated, that the data has been manipulated and misinterpreted to serve ideological ends and for the simple pleasure of self-flattery, that Valerie Wilson wasn’t undercover in any serious sense of the word, that John Kerry has a talent for shooting himself in the ass and that you can’t explain why certain fundamentalist Islamist terrorists had been given sanctuary in Iraq.

    John Kerry shot himself. Valerie Wilson wasn’t undercover. Global warming is a big lefty conspiracy. Saddam’s had meaningful ties to those who did 9/11.

    Classic.

  102. I think Laney is definitely a root causes type of person.

  103. Since Saddam died there haven’t been any terrorist attacks on American soil. How do you explain that, huh?

  104. Y’know, Blue, you really ought to post in all caps. That way you could lie louder.

    Nobody here is absolving Bush for ignoring warnings. The reason that we’re going Clinton, Clinton, Clinton! — which we are — is that you and your moonbat buddies are absolving him. Nothing is ever Clinton’s fault, nothing he did was wrong in any way, and any time anyone suggests that it might be you guys start shouting BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!

    Nobody did a good job, and that includes Saint Bubba. If you and yours are not willing to accept that in any way — if every suggestion that Bill C. might fail to walk on water is met with ever louder shrieks of BUSHBUSHBUSHBUSH — then we have no reason whatever to take your accusations seriously in any way.

    Regards,
    Ric

  105. Tell you what, Instaputz, the first two of your interpretations reveal that the pathology of the left is the inability honestly to represent the arguments of their opponents, in service of the truth, of course.

  106. happy:

    Since Orson Bean’s career died there haven’t been any coups in Australia. What’s your fucking point?

  107. And here, you see the deranged pathology of the right wing, in all its unadulterated glory:

    Your ego is a thing of beauty. How long does it take you to get it to shine that way?

  108. Ummm… Hasn’t RMN shown that the federal government (the FBI specifically) DID, in fact, have warnings that they ignored? Is this contentious, or can we agree on it? The statement is factually true but it doesn’t mean that it was done with any malicious intent. It was pretty damn stupid but not intentional. Hindsight is certainly 20/20, but in this case the mistake was just stupid on the face of it, no need for hindsight to see that. No surprise really, the FBI is not oriented to do counter terrorism. Their sole focus is on getting convictions in their own jurisdictions (and they are VERY territorial about this). An improper search of the laptop might have led to the evidence being excluded in court and that was their priority. I hope they have changed focus a bit since then.

  109. Please, Themis. Like I can’t google that. You’re stupid.

  110. Is this contentious, or can we agree on it?

    I think we can, with the caveat that one human error is not to be equated with the whole of the federal government. It seems to me that at least one agent did suspect something and at least tried to raise an alarm. If we had a perfect system, that might have been enough.

  111. happy:

    But was it worth Orson Bean’s career?

  112. One more comment. People keep harping on about what Clinton did or did not do about terrorism while in office. Are you forgetting that up until 9/11 terrorism really was treated fairly casually by most people in both parties? Bush would have responded much the same as Clinton did. 9/11 was a uniquely monstrous provocation and invading Afghanistan in response would be a virtual certainty whatever party was in power. Iraq? Perhaps not. BTW, I voted Bush twice and supported the Iraq war wholeheartedly. I have my doubts about that move (Iraq) now but it’s too late for buyers remorse.

  113. Hey, Ric, can you read? I don’t think you can. I wrote,

    “Was Clinton’s response to terrorism robust enough? No — everyone knows that.”

    How is that “absolving” Clinton exactly?

  114. “Bin Laden determined to strike US.” What did Bush do about that, exactly?

    I thought this was a joke, initially.

  115. if I remember correctly, ALL of our leaders saw terrorism as no more than an annoyance, and were more focused on conventional attacks within our borders. To say that anyone would let 9/11 happen on purpose is delusional, at best. The attitude of the 90’s was really too casual, but that’s how it was. Like it or not

    Exactly. The only reason I bring up Clinton, is because if you are going to blame a “leader” for 9/11 than he is AT LEAST as culpable (if not more ) as Bush.

    But, I don’t blame either of them.

    I blame OBL.

  116. is they a war?

  117. Instaputz still believes Gore won the 2000 election, part of left wing pathology in its full glory. He visits other blogs because he has no audience at his pathetic place.

  118. Blue Texan,

    Ya know, junkscience.com has a prize of over $100,000 for the first person to post any actual proof of MAN INDUCED global warming. You should scamper right over there and claim it by posting your scientific proof. Just because Big Al says “shut those people up” to anyone who questions man made GW, it doesn’t mean that they have no right to disagree – and many, many scientists DO disagree that we are the cause of GW.

    And you know, those pesky lies about Kerry shooting himself in the butt would all go away in the blink of an eye if Kerry would stop refusing to release his medical records. I am a little skeptical of Kerry’s side of the argument, because he changed his story 4 times after the “Swiftboaters” showed up.

    And Diva Plame? She was outed quite innocently by Richard Armitage, who can hardly be seen as a “Bushie”.

    As for Iraq, Bush NEVER said they had anything to do with 9/11. There were certain Al Queda there, but Iraq was not accused of being involved with 9/11. They were accused of being heavily involved in terrorism, though, and at the time, every intelligence agency in the world agreed that Saddam had WMDs.

    Of course, Bush and Cheney were the only two people in the whole world that knew he didn’t. Uh-huh.

    Facts are a major pain in the neck, no?

  119. I had to google Orson Bean. He really had a pretty good run. Dr. Quinn residuals ain’t nothing. Pax used that as an anchor show for years. Did you know he’s Calvin Coolidge’s second cousin? Neat.

  120. As with the contacts with bin Laden, we cannot be sure what came of the Iraqi regime’s ties to al-Massari. In a recent interview with the editor of Al-Quds Al-Arabi, however, al-Massari confirmed that Saddam sponsored al Qaeda’s relocation to Iraqi soil in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Al-Massari was, therefore, apparently keeping tabs on the Iraqi relationship with al Qaeda years after his first attempts to work with Saddam. And, as with bin Laden’s contacts with Iraq, the fact that al-Massari was willing to work with the Iraqis and vice versa is deeply troubling–and contrary to the widely-held belief that Saddam’s secular regime was anathema to Sunni extremists.

    Yet, nowhere in the Times’s account of the Iraqi intelligence memo is there any mention of al-Massari. The public would never have known that the Iraqi regime was in contact with this al Qaeda propagandist if it were not the ability to read a translation of the document.

    That’s the whole point of the document release project. For too long, the public discussion of the Iraqi regime has been colored by the U.S. Intelligence Community’s assumptions and the press’s own mishandling of the topic. This is why it is so important for the American people to see the evidence firsthand.

  121. I am inclined to agree with Ric L. here. To me the question boils down to: Clinton did nothing, and Bush did something. Which (in)action caused the greatest good or harm? I think the jury’s out.

  122. Orson Bean was blacklisted by Hollywood in the 1950s. I never trusted the fucker, especially since he put up with Kitty Carlisle for so long on To Tell The Truth.

  123. “Hasn’t RMN shown that the federal government (the FBI specifically) DID, in fact, have warnings that they ignored?”

    He has shown that one FBI regional supervisor did. If you want to have him stand in for the entire Federal Government by proxy, then I suppose your assertion is correct.

  124. Oh. It said he was the ONLY surviving To Tell The Truth cast member. That is kinda suspect now that I think of it.

  125. And also he was from Vermont. Just sayin.

  126. The issue boils down entirely to one’s personal calculation of risk. Which poses a more immanent threat? You see, as BluTe notes, when the anti-Islamofascists sell the public on the dangers, they do so in order to consolidate their power and defend their personal interests. When Al Gore and company pitch Global War Ming, all they are doing is defending the interests of the human race at large.

    That’s because Proggs are the Only Good People.

  127. Oh Jaysus on a Pony

    The Leftcult trolls on this thread are either stone cold stupid or mendacious. They refuse to consider what the American body politic was like prior to 9/11.

    ANYONE who believes that anyone in the Bush Administration could have seriously presented the scenario that a bunch of hijackers with no weapons could/would take over American jets on the same day and done suicide bombings into major us cities and that WE MUST ACT NOW…and shut down American airports, round up foreigners from the ME and interrogate them would have not just elicited derisive laughter, but would have caused said officials to be bound over for psychiatric observation. Terrorism from Arab moslems was treated as no more than the criminal irritations far less worthy of Fed attention than organized crime and child abductions. The soft bigotry of the Left dominated/bureaucratic State Department was that Arabs aren’t bright enough to pull off anything except maybe blowing up a few Joooo! buses in Israel, so why worry?

    And the antagonism between the intelligent branches was palatable. the Clinton/Reno fiasco in Waco was due in no small part because the ATF resented the FBI and wanted to show them up. They jealously guarded their own data and that is aside from the huge wall the Clinton administration errected to prevent even the most modest of data sharing. Good godfrey, agents from different branches couldn’t even be in the same room during Presidential briefings!

  128. The Leftcult trolls on this thread are either stone cold stupid or mendacious

    I would add a comma there: stone(d), cold stupid, or mendacious.

  129. John Kerry shot himself. Valerie Wilson wasn’t undercover. Global warming is a big lefty conspiracy. Saddam’s had meaningful ties to those who did 9/11. Classic.

    Those are all badges of honor, compared to proggs who sincerely believe that 9/11 was a righteous 3rd World retribution, and America deserved it.

    Someday you’ll be sorry, that you spent these days just hovering up there on your superior mental and moral plane, blowing razzberries at those who are beating back The Jihad.

  130. “Global War Ming”

    Hey Dan. Is this some kind of Chinese snake oil?

    Just askin’…

  131. Idiocracy has arrived 500 years early.

  132. Enough of this partisanship. Can’t we just hate them all? I certainly do. Incompetence, ass covering, dishonesty, venality? Check. Every administration fills the bill.

  133. Clinton never really stood up to the Europeans. Bush did. I think he’s super, and not at all like those words.

  134. Ok people on the left hate Bush and everything bad in the world has to do with him, yet when anyone mentions the “Clinton” they scream that the other side is deranged with Clinton hate. Ok now I get it we are all fuckin crazy.

  135. “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”
    –George Bush, to a CIA briefer trying in vain to warn him in the summer of 2001

    “My name is Orson Bean. Harvard ’47, Yale Nothing,”
    –Orson Bean, to someone who bothered to write it down

  136. I hated Clinton, but not enough to put a bumper sticker on my car.

    ‘Cause, I think that’s a barometer.

  137. As low an opinion as I have of Clinton as a President and as a man I’m willing to give him a pass on not taking more aggressive action against al Qaeda. When I voted in 2000, terrorism was not one of the major issues to me. Furthermore, I can’t remember talking to a single person back then for whom it was. Being an independent and undecided until just before the election I spoke with a lot of people about it. In last the last few years, however, there has been a concerted effort by Clintonistas to re-write history to say that for eight years Bill Clinton did everything possible to stop al Qaeda and bin Laden then Bush came in and in 9 months ruined everything and then 9/11 happened. Unfortunately we were all living through the aftermath of the Seinfeld decade.

    As far as the Presidential Daily Briefing of 8/8/01, I can’t see how anyone who has read it can think that Bush should have been able to stop 9/11 because of it. If you disagree, go read it and then tell me what specific actions you would have taken as President that were both legal and reasonable at the time to stop the attacks. If you say ground all aircraft or in any way profile or give extra scrutiny to Middle Eastern men, I’m sorry but those were not reasonable. And keep in mind also that at the time the CIA knew of 2 al Qaeda operatives, knew their names, knew they were in the US and had a reasonable suspicion they were up to no-good but they couldn’t investigate them, couldn’t look for them and couldn’t share what they knew with the FBI, who could have done all of the above. It turned out they were 2 of the 9/11 hijackers.

  138. “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”
    –George Bush, to a CIA briefer trying in vain to warn him in the summer of 2001

    Even as he and Cheney plotted the invasion of Iraq.

  139. In the latest Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll, 811 US adults were interviewed Sept. 24 to Oct. 10

    300,000,000+ people in the USA, and they interviewed 811 people. Eight hundred eleven. That’s one out of every 500,000 people. How many are in your home town? Divide by 500,000 and that’s the equivalent of how many they talked to there. Except they didn’t talk to people in your home town, more than likely.

    Polls, Schmolls.

  140. Define “warning.” Arabs wanting to fly a 747 but not know how to land, that is a warning. So, of course we had warnings. But the gov’t didn’t have warnings of this caliber: messages from separate credible sources detailing hijackings and in the second week of September. Stupid polls.


  141. “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”
    –George Bush, to a CIA briefer trying in vain to warn him in the summer of 2001

    So we are to believe that this memo was the first memo of its kind ever, and that no one had EVER ever written a memo on terrorism that wasn’t given top priority.

    For cripes, sake – we have trouble implementing security measure POST 9/11. Yet, prior – the left would have rolled over and accepted “Fascist elements, probably relying on illegal wiretapping, to arrest men who were only suspected of terrorism.

  142. “Ya know, junkscience.com has a prize of over $100,000 for the first person to post any actual proof of MAN INDUCED global warming. You should scamper right over there and claim it by posting your scientific proof.”

    What does “scientific proof” entail?

  143. “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”
    –George Bush, to a CIA briefer trying in vain to warn him in the summer of 2001

    Too bad this CIA briefer wasn’t talking about post invasion Iraq and planting WMD. I mean to go thru all that trouble lying to the entire world and then not just plant the weapons there, President Bush must really be as stupid as you guys say.

  144. This sounds troofy…

    Perhaps it is not surprising that the operators of the world’s largest prison-camp network have found a way to provide access to due process in a form that actually looks more unjust than indefinite imprisonment without charges.

    What a dick. And I like this part too…

    After months of stony silence, except for leaks of unsupported and self-serving allegations to friendly media outlets, military authorities are railroading Bilal’s case

    Just in case you confused the AP with a friendly media outlet while we’re at war.

  145. “Because you can’t arrest someone because you suspect they may be planning a crime, moron.”

    Can’t you arrest on probable cause of a conspiracy or an attempt?

  146. There ya go milhouse-http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E6D6133FF937A25753C1A9669C8B63
    You’re being dishonest again. Clinton had ample warnings since the 93 attack on the WTC and chose to do noting, Well. Not nothing. He chose to chase tail. Not very good looking tail at that. With the bar set that low, Bush couldn’t help but look good.
    You really want to believe there was a conspiracy. Don’t you.

    Cynn. I’ll give you this. You’re honest.

  147. I was never fond of Bubba, but as a peacetime president what, exactly, should he have done differently? Yes there werea lot of missed signals. Yes there was a lack of cooperation between various agencies in adding up those signals. But Bubba wasn’t psychic. And I still haven’t heard how Dubya spoke or did anything about terrorism pre-9-11-or why he should have, given that he had just won one of the most controversial elections in history.

    I also happen to believe that a President Dole wouldn’t have done anything differently, either.

  148. “John Kerry shot himself.”

    I’d put it more in terms of Kerry walking on his own cock, but yeah, pretty much.

    “Valerie Wilson wasn’t undercover.”

    She wasn’t. Nobody was prosocuted under the relevant law.

    “Global warming is a big lefty conspiracy.”

    Ther may be global warming, but it’s likely caused by that flaming ball of nucklear explosions that passes across the sky every day.

    “Saddam’s had meaningful ties to those who did 9/11.”

    Saddam aided and abeted terrorists.

    NOBODY ever said there was operational command or cooperation from Iraq on the 911 attack. Other than lying reactionary leftists, of course.

    Classic.

  149. “Can’t you arrest on probable cause of a conspiracy or an attempt?”

    Suspicion isn’t probably cause. Are you suggesting we should be able to arrest people for acting funny? For showing more interest in flying planes than landing them? That is probable cause now?

  150. Also besides the nucklear there is also the water vapors. Atlanta and Australia are doing their part though.

  151. It was a stupid poll question because it was too general. About half the pollees thought it was “Did some government agent have prior evidence of the impending 9/11 attacks?” and half thought it was “Did the federal government ignore conclusive evidence of the coming attack?” And now they’re making us label our own as idiots. The real idiots are the pollsters who made this ridiculous question.

  152. Andy, Andy, Andy,

    “What does “scientific proof” entail?”

    Assuming that you are over the age of eight, I find it frighteneng that you would have to ask this question. I also assume you are a part of the American school system, because this is one of the most ridiculous questions ever posed. You really don’t know?

    Unlike what you have been taught to believe, “scientific proof” is not consensus. It is not a bunch of assholes sitting around dewciding what “science” is. Most educated people already know this. “Scientific proof” is a set of facts that can be independently verified by other scientists in rigorously monitored settings. There are NO published proofs that man has anything to do with GW. If you took the time, you could find for yourself just how ridiculous these claims are. On second thought, after your question, I take it back. You probably are incapable of thinking for yourself..

    Jeebus, but people like you scare the shit out of me. Scientific theory at one time had to be proven. Moonbat consensus does not meet the requirements of scientific proof.

    I still can’t get over the fact that you are clueless enough to ask this question. You are a part of some really scary shit, my friend.

    Jeeezus Keerist! It’s even worse than I thought…

  153. “Did some government agent have prior evidence of the impending 9/11 attacks?”

    I understand your point, but even this is stretching the facts I think. All they had were suspicions, there was no real evidence.

  154. “Scientific proof” is a set of facts that can be independently verified by other scientists in rigorously monitored settings.

    But is that “proof” in the way scientists use the word “proof”?

    “Scientific theory at one time had to be proven.”

    Theories aren’t proven. They’re verified, refined, falsified, etc… but not proven. Not in the sense that scientists use the word “proof.”

  155. Think of it this way andy:

    “The plural of anecdote is not data.”

    -Frank Kotsonis

  156. It’s odd how even NPR liberals know to say “the theory of evolution” but can’t get their little socialist heads around “global warming theory.” That’s funny except not really.

  157. “Liberals don’t believe there is such a thing as “fact” or “truth.” Everything is a struggle for power between rival doctrines.”

    -Ann Coulter

  158. “Fittingly, in the final analysis, Clinton will not be remembered for what he did as president, but for who he did.”

    -Ann Coulter

  159. To be perfectly clear: like Carin, Mike C, and several others, I don’t blame Clinton for 9/11, nor do I blame Bush. Both accusations are at best Monday-morning quarterbacking and at worst partisan-hack attacks — and, that being the case, if you’re going to blame one the other has to carry an equal-sized can. If you attack only one, you’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    There are a couple of things that do make me half-laugh, half-wince. One of them is people saying “Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11″ as if that were irrefutable proof that the attack on Iraq was unjustified. No, Saddam didn’t have anything material to do with the attacks on the WTC. So the f* what? That’s not irrefutable proof of anything but ignorance on the part of the one bringing it up. Iraq was attacked for a long list of reasons, and if the truth be known one of the major ones was, in fact, that Iraqis had nothing material to do with 9/11.

    Another is John Kerry the war hero. Democrats, know this: you were sold a bill of goods. The message was that Kerry was Electable because of his war record, and based on that you all went out and supported him — and in doing so betrayed your own principles. Dammit, for the last forty years you’ve been sneering at “Rambo”. Here’s a Naval officer who abandoned his command to go bounding through the jungle with a bandolier strapped over his chest chasing Viet Cong — and brags about it! — and you’re defending the guy? I’m sorry. Anybody who’s served has met half-a-dozen John Kerry clones; the cynical observation is “the first liar ain’t got a chance.” They’ve all got a story to top the last one, no matter how late the bar closes, and none of them are worth the cartridge to blow them away. “Swiftboating”? Bah. There have been well fewer than 300 people in the world who can call themselves “Swift Boat veterans.” Something like 250 survive today, and of that number over two hundred are willing to go on the public record — remarkable in itself; and of all those willing to go on the record, all but five say Kerry isn’t to be trusted. Forget the content of the charges. You’re Democrats. You’re supposed to believe in voting. Think of it as a poll.

    Regards,
    Ric

  160. Andy,

    You personify the moonbats. You are a MAJOR FUCKING ASSHOLE who thinks (like all your loony pals) that reality is whatever you say. Intelligence doesn’t count (and I can see why, because you are totally bereft of that particular quality).

    Fuckin’ A! You have finally revealed your true colors, and your colossal stupidity.

    Andy’s creed: “Screw logic. I don’t NEED logic. I’m way too smart to need logic”.

    Congratulations! You are now OFFICIALLY the stupidest person to have ever entered PW. I know you’ve been knocking on the door for a long time, but you have finally made it!

    But I also understand that’s OK with you, because you are so stupid that you are intellectually bullet proof. Your Parents would be proud of you, I’m sure.

    Me? I think you are one of the most grossly uninformed people to have ever walked on this planet. How do you debate with someone who is so immensely proud of their stupidity?

    I give up. You are beyond embarrassment (a common affliction of the left).

    You are one scary SOB, Andy. I salute you for your awe inspiring total disconnect from reality.

  161. “Think of it this way andy:

    “The plural of anecdote is not data.””

    You’re telling me. Up above someone was all like ‘poll schmoll.’ Sampling? Just an unproven theory. Not fact.

    “It’s odd how even NPR liberals know to say “the theory of evolution” but can’t get their little socialist heads around “global warming theory.” That’s funny except not really.”

    Or electromagnetic theory, or gravitational theory. Who are these liberals that can’t get their heads around ‘global warming theory’?

  162. Some scientific theories are better than others. They are subject to experimental verification. Some, like electromagnetic theory, are verified to ten decimal places, and there are no counterexamples. One experimentally verifiable counterexample is sufficient to invalidate a theory. After over one hundred years of experiments, there are no experimentally verifiable counterexamples to electromagnetism, nor are there any for evolution. If you don’t like our theories, you are welcome and encouraged to invalidate them. However, you don’t do this by taking a vote at your church, you actually have to do some work.

  163. “Andy’s creed: “Screw logic. I don’t NEED logic. I’m way too smart to need logic”.”

    See, logic offers proofs. But theory? There I don’t think there is proof. Not in the way scientists use the word. But you think otherwise?

  164. Global Warming

    BECAUSE OF TEH DECIMAL PLACEZ!!!!!

    PWN3D!!!121!!!!

  165. Who the hell started this pie fight?

  166. There I don’t think there is proof. Not in the way scientists use the word. But you think otherwise?

    Holy shit.

  167. “Comment by andy on 11/24 @ 8:52 pm #

    “Andy’s creed: “Screw logic. I don’t NEED logic. I’m way too smart to need logic”.”

    See, logic offers proofs. But theory? There I don’t think there is proof. Not in the way scientists use the word. But you think otherwise?”

    The Lost Dog was right.

    Stupid doesn’t begin to descibe you, andy boy.

  168. andy

    when the Gorical pontificates “the debate is over” and when mush-head Patrick Kennedy screams that anyone that questions The Revealed Truth of Anthropogenic Global Warming is a “traitor” and “needs to be treated as one” you are not in the company of scientists you are in the company of religios fanatics on par with Fred Phelps.

    Gorical’s “Inconvenient Truth” has already been debunked as alarmist polemic unconnected with facts or real science.

    As the quote goes: When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they’ll believe anything.

    But concern about the environment is not really the motivation of many of the hardcore AGW preachers … POWER to control others is their ultimate goal. They are contemporary Stalins in tie-dyed robes.

  169. Orson Bean totally started it. Effing instigator, that one.

  170. I guess CIA Director Michael Hayden is a liar, as is Plame herself (why isn’t she being charged with perjury) as is Patrick Fitzgerald. All liars.

    During House hearings today, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) announced that CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden recently told Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) that there was no doubt Victoria Plame Wilson was covert. Cummings — relaying what Waxman had told him — said that Gen. Hayden expressed clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.”

    Cummings also asked Wilson to respond to the specific claim, made by Victoria Toensing and others, that Plame had lost her covert status because she “had not been stationed abroad within five years.” Cummings asked, “During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?” She answered, “Yes I did, congressman.”

    This will be a bitter pill for some conservatives to swallow. CIA Director Michael Hayden personally reviewed and okayed Henry Waxman’s opening statement for Valerie Plame’s testimony today. Furthermore, Hayden took pains to set the record straight: Plame was indeed a covert agent up until the day Robert Novak revealed as much to the public.

  171. A CIA director… a liar??? Oh.

    Wowsers.

  172. She could be technically covert according to some definition. But what’s clear as day is that Saddam had no important relation to al-Qaeda. Also that Val had absolutely nothing to do with having Yellowcake Joe sent on that tea-sipping mission.

  173. This will be a bitter pill for the reactionary left to swallow: no one was charged under the relevent statutes.

    Ol’ Val must not have been “covert”.

    Ooooops.

  174. Andy sounds like a character (caricature?) sprung forth from a dense Ayn Rand novel.

  175. Wesley Mouch without the intelligence.

  176. “As the quote goes: When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they’ll believe anything.”

    Calling it global warming theory, which apparently it is liberals that can’t wrap their heads around, puts it into some pretty good company. Electromagnetism, gravity, evolution. Theory.

    We expect lay people to make these mistakes. Because they’re not aware that “theory” refers to things that are widely accepted and verified.

    “Stupid doesn’t begin to descibe you, andy boy.”

    Seriously. Ask someone about the differences between ‘proof’ in logic and in experimental science. In the “scientific” sense. Which is what the prize stunt is about.

  177. Valerie was exposed for her role in acting to undermine U.S. foreign policy by disseminating false information. It really doesn’t matter if she was covert or not.

  178. Plame was indeed a covert agent up until the day Robert Novak revealed as much to the public.

    So where’s Fitzgerald’s indictment of Richard Armitage under the relevant statute?

  179. Glue Sniffing Texan spent a good portion of his time here howling for something other than “Clinton! Clinton! CLINTON!!!”. He’s been given what he’s asked, and now wants to focus his argument on a side-comment made about Valerie Plame.

    As they say in America… Classic.

  180. Cummings — relaying what Waxman had told him — said that Gen. Hayden expressed clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.”

    Blue Texan, any word on the prosecution of Bill Harlow? You know who he is, right?

  181. andy, sweetheart

    AGW is not “widely accepted and verified”. It is in the same “widely accepted and verified” corner of the party making small talk with its “scientific peer” Creationist Science.

  182. Darleen, perhaps you meant to say “Shut up, actus.” Or was that me? Could be.

  183. William -

    I think you said it 100 times better than I did. Thanks.

    I’ve had an incredibly hard time lately, and, after reading my own post, realize that I have transformed my personal problems into a righty KosKid. Not where I wish to be. I should be able to make my points in some other guise than a spitting cobra…

    Sorry Andy, and everybody else. PW is not where venom belongs.

    As soon as I get my sense of humor back…

  184. Under the relevant statute it would have to be proven that Armitage, or any of the others, knew beforehand that she was covert. None apparently did, except that guy Libby was lying to Fitz…. why? Why did he lie? Put youself in Fitz’s place. Why is Libby lying to me?

  185. It’s kind of pathetic that I have to point this out, but because Fitzgerald didn’t charge Armitage doesn’t mean Gen. Hayden, Plame, Fitzgerald, Waxman, and everyone else who’ve said on the record that Plame was covert is a liar and a perjurer. It simply means that Fitzgerald didn’t have enough evidence to charge Armitage, or that Armitage wasn’t in violation of the statute, ie., he didn’t know she was covert when he leaked her name.

    Not complicated.

  186. Only one possible guy that Libby is protecting with his lies. Only one.

  187. Tell me something, Blue Texan: has anybody ever introduced you to the concept of hearsay evidence?

    And the burden of proof isn’t on us, anyway. Fitzmas never came; how do you explain that? (Partly rhetorical, I know you’ll have some loopy conspiracy.) It’s against the law to “out” a covert agent. Prosecutor Fitzgerald never charged anyone for that crime, and in fact never made any public statement that would imply that he was seriously contemplating charging anyone for that crime. Gen. Hayden’s testimony was available to him. How is it that no charges resulted? How is it that Fitzgerald never even made a public statement to the effect that the crime had been committed even if nobody was chargeable with reasonable probability of proof? After all, if he had you and the rest of the moonbats would be screaming about it.

    Regards,
    Ric

  188. “AGW is not “widely accepted and verified”. It is in the same “widely accepted and verified” corner of the party making small talk with its “scientific peer” Creationist Science.”

    You don’t need to tell me. Its happyfeet that tells me that liberals can’t get their heads around the idea that it is a theory. Seems to me he’s off on that one, because theory refers to widely accepted and verified things.

    AGW is at least a hypothesis. The creationists don’t have that. You’re wrong to call them peers.

  189. I’m sorry, I simply can’t take seriously anyone on the Left making the argument that “Bush didn’t do anything about 9/11 when he had the chance!”

    Has everyone forgotten that at the time the 8-6 PDB was dropped on the President’s desk, the wide consensus view on the Left was that Bush was a fascist thief who had engineered a massive racist conspiracy to steal a national friggin’ election?

    What, precisely, would the reaction have been if he’d announced he was taking the nation to war, surveilling “suspicious” Arabs at home, and instituting travel restrictions, all based on two pages of mimeo paper?

    I can’t improve on Buckley: “I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence.”

  190. Like we would be better served somehow NOT knowing that a CIA hoochie sent her jackass husband on an overseas mission ostensibly representing the United States, failed to have him sign anything with respect to non-disclosure, and stood silently as he blatantly lied about his findings. Bitch should be in jail.

  191. Yay! Troofer/Leftist convergence!

    For your convenience: 5 site the 9-11 Troof movement doesn’t want you to read:

    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
    http://www.debunking911.com/
    http://www.911myths.com/
    http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
    http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

    Only one possible guy that Libby is protecting with his lies. Only one.

    Possibly? You don’t sound too sure, Troofer.

  192. andy… tell that to the socialist revolutionaries at NPR, really.

  193. They’ve only mentioned global warming theory once in the last 5 years, and that was a guest who hadn’t been properly coached.

  194. Blue Texan,

    Under the relevant statute it would have to be proven that Armitage, or any of the others, knew beforehand that she was covert.

    So BT, you want to being us up to speed on the prosecution of Bill Harlow?

  195. “andy… tell that to the socialist revolutionaries at NPR, really.”

    So who isn’t wrapping their heads around “theory”? You, or NPR? We do expect lay people to make mistakes about its usage.

  196. Kind of like the word consensus.

  197. Shut up, actus.

  198. The only possible source I’ve heard for the idea that Plame wasn’t covert was that Armitage didn’t know she was covert because he read her real name in a memo. That seems to point to a mistake more than to her not actually being covert, and also to a mistake more than a conspiracy theory by Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld/righty villain du jour to out Plame. Since when did people play that kind of petty “gotcha” with intel agents?

    Also, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, huh? Maybe not, but he had plenty to do with AQ:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738670/posts

    andy, scientists don’t use the word “proof”. That’s how I know that none of you are scientists (or at least not thinking like scientists when not on the job, which is perfectly forgivable, so no flames plskthx). MATHEMATICIANS use the word “proof”, by which they mean something that is absolutely true given a set of axioms. Scientists start with a hypothesis, perform an experiment, and determine if the hypothesis is correct. If a hypothesis is validated by many experiments (while broadening its scope, generally) and allows you to correctly predict the results of new experiments, it becomes known as a theory. Some theories, like evolution and gravity, have become so well-founded that they are accepted as fact – however, even these theories are subject to radical modification (see the evolution of gravity from Newtonian models to Einsteinian models, along with the current attempts to fit gravity into string theory).

    The best scientific definition of proof would probably be the one that has been given to you by others – objective evidence, verifiable by other scientists. For proof of anthropomorphic global warming, one would have to additionally specify that the evidence not be explainable by non-anthropomorphic sources of GW, like that big fusion reactor in the sky. As of now, anthropomorphic global warming doesn’t have the same mountain of evidence behind it that gravitational theory or quantum theory have, so I don’t see why you keep on trying to place them in the same category.

    As for sampling theory, it’s extremely difficult to do a good poll, especially with a relatively small sample size like 811 of 3*10^8. And given the incompetence of the pollsters in properly defining the parameters of the question, I have little trouble believing that they screwed up in their sampling methods as well.

  199. “They’ve only mentioned global warming theory once in the last 5 years, and that was a guest who hadn’t been properly coached.”

    So you think more people should be calling it theory? Ok. Because what that implies:

    1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

    2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding (“explain”) a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

    3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

    4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

    5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

    6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

    You’re sure this is how you want global warming labelled?

  200. Really? ok… The Vice-President told me that Plame was Wilson’s wife but I completely forgot about that and a week or so later Tim Russert told me the same thing but it was as if I was learning it for the first time. I never remembered that Cheney had told me before. And that’s why I called all those reporters and told them that Plame was Wilson’s wife. AFTER I forgot that Cheney had told me. I told them about Plame because Russert told me.

    You really believe that shit?

  201. You really believe that shit?

    Call Fitz. He missed something.

  202. A scheme … that works.

  203. “andy, scientists don’t use the word “proof”. ”

    But people who run the website ‘junkscience’ and want to make a stunt about global warming do. Thats the point. For pointing that out you are someone lacking in logic.

  204. “A scheme … that works.”

    So, theory? or no?

  205. The only possible source I’ve heard for the idea that Plame wasn’t covert was that Armitage didn’t know she was covert because he read her real name in a memo.

    Then I guess you haven’t heard Armitage’s conversation with Bob Woodward. You can fix that right now.

  206. Blue Texan, are you going to tell us about the prosecution of Bill Harlow or not?

  207. Pablo, please be kind enough to cite where that article states Armitage knew she was covert.

  208. Hoax, andy. Or like seeing the Virgin Mary on a tortilla. Nature must operate in accord with Marxist principles, cause I believe it in my widdle heart.

  209. Pablo, please be kind enough to cite where that article states Armitage knew she was covert.

    It doesn’t, and I didn’t say it does.

  210. No, Andy, you misunderstand me. Here is the post I’m responding to:
    ““Scientific proof” is a set of facts that can be independently verified by other scientists in rigorously monitored settings.

    But is that “proof” in the way scientists use the word “proof”?

    “Scientific theory at one time had to be proven.”

    Theories aren’t proven. They’re verified, refined, falsified, etc… but not proven. Not in the sense that scientists use the word “proof.””

    You implied, here, that scientists used the word proof, and implied that the speaker didn’t know the scientific definition of proof, which is where I stepped in to attempt to clear things up. Presumably junkscience is using the word “proof” in the colloquial form I mentioned, in which case they’re looking for unequivocal evidence rather than handwaving. You’re the one refusing to accept this colloquial definition; who’s being illogical?

    Also, why do you keep saying “we expect” this and “we expect” that? It’s kind of creepy. Almost like you’re pretending to be a monarch or a representative of the Borg or something. :P Also, by talking about lay people as if you aren’t one of them you imply that you’re something more. Credentials, please? Otherwise you’re just being smug. A little knowledge…

  211. Call Fitz. He missed something.

    No. He did not. He got a conviction on Libbys’ piece of crap lies.

  212. “Hoax, andy. Or like seeing the Virgin Mary on a tortilla.”

    So its incorrect to call it a theory. I see. So you never wanted it called a theory?

    “You implied, here, that scientists used the word proof, and implied that the speaker didn’t know the scientific definition of proof, which is where I stepped in to attempt to clear things up.”

    right. I imply that scientists use the word ‘proof’ to refer to logical/mathematical proofs. And to further imply that the junkscience guy is leaving himself lots of room to not pay out by using that word. Obviously he is using it colloquially, which is imprecise. Which gives him room.

    “Also, by talking about lay people as if you aren’t one of them you imply that you’re something more. Credentials, please?”

    I’m certainly a lay person when it comes to science. I’ve often made the “oh that’s just a theory” mistake. Now happyfeet won’t do it anymore at least.

  213. Pablo, what is your point? Why should Harlow be charged? He tried to turn Novak away from the story.

  214. Yes. Not Fitzgerald though. The news media convicted one of their own sources. A source who told them the truth.

  215. He confirmed her employment to him. If she was covert, he damned well knew it.

  216. huh? please run that by me with a bit more detail. really, i want to know what you mean, happyfeet.

  217. RMN: All Fitz got Libby convicted on was lying about whether or not he knew about Plame and who he told, not about whether Plame was covert or not, or whether Libby was involved in some elaborate conspiracy to out Plame or not. The leak came from Armitage, who supposedly thought she wasn’t covert because he read her real name in a memo, which sounds more like a mistake than conspiracy. And from the interview with Woodward, even though she was covert, it seemed an open secret such that it was going to get out eventually. If everyone knows about a secret, is it still a secret?

  218. He confirmed her employment and told Novak not to publish. That’s called keeping a secret.

  219. Andy. Baby steps. NPR, socialist little monkeys that they are, refrain from calling global warming a theory precisely, and this is key, precisely because of what the word theory connotes to the lay person. They make propaganda more better than you. You could learn a lot from them if you stopped talking and had yourself a little driveway moment.

  220. He confirmed her employment and told Novak not to publish. That’s called keeping a secret.

    You are a moron. Passing along the information and saying “But don’t tell” is not keeping a secret. Keeping a secret is not telling anyone.

  221. AGW is at least a hypothesis.

    Well, well, finally we come down to it. Anthropogenic Global Warming is an hypothesis, a proposal to explain the observed data. Hypotheses have to be supported in order to advance to the status of theory. A theory has two components: it explains the observed data, and it predicts that things will happen. An hypothesis need only do the first. If it fails the second, it is not supported.

    How might we support the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming?

    Well, human beings (the “anthropogenic” part) are a fairly recent phenomenon. If the only episode of warming was recent, that would support the hypothesis. Bzzt! No! There have been many previous episodes of warming, some of them at times when there were no human beings around, let alone any SUVs.

    Human beings only exist on one planet, Earth. If no other solar system bodies exhibit warming, that would support the hypothesis. Bzzt! No! Warming is presently observed on at least two other planets (Mars and Jupiter) and is strongly inferred by the data on Neptune and Pluto. Recent data suggests that Saturn and Uranus can be added to the list.

    Human beings continue to exist and engage in the activities that putatively cause Global Warming. If warming is continuing or accelerating, that would support the hypothesis. Bzzt! No! The most recent data is best explained as either neutral or a very slight cooling trend. The Arctic appears to be warming, but the Antarctic ice is growing.

    Given that there have been past episodes of warming, and that the mechanism suggested is carbon dioxide emissions, if those past episodes showed an increase in carbon dioxide followed by higher temperatures the hypothesis would be supported indirectly. Bzzt! No! All the credible data displays the same pattern: increased temperatures followed by increased CO2, sometimes by several centuries.

    Given that CO2 is declared as the mechanism, if high concentrations of CO2 were shown to produce warming, that would support the hypothesis. Bzzt! No! The planet Mars receives approximately 40% of the solar energy that Earth does, but it has sixteen times as much carbon dioxide. If CO2 were a significant greenhouse gas, Mars would be warm. It isn’t, because it doesn’t have the other atmospheric components that actually are significant greenhouse gases. The average surface temperature of Mars is only fractionally above that of asteroids, etc. at the same distance but lacking any atmosphere at all.

    And against all that, we have DATA! — data collected manually, by people who have never been identified, from the tree rings of one bristlecone pine tree, and analyzed by a method the researcher has never made public.

    Yes, the creationists have an hypothesis, the existence of a Creator. It isn’t a well supported hypothesis, of course, and mostly they aver that that’s because it cannot be supported — and it’s fair for those who aren’t believers to sneer. Me, I sneer at AGW Believers. Your hypothesis isn’t supported anywhere near as well as you Believe it is.

    Regards,
    Ric

  222. Math, I certainly agree that is what Fitz got Libby on… is that a small thing to you, lying to a grand jury? and mind you, Libby was telling the same lie to the FBI in the Fall of 2003.

  223. RMN, is it not newsworthy when a CIA wench uses her husband as an operative in a campaign to undermine the foreign policy of a sitting president by printing lies in the New York Times?

  224. pablo, novak already knew she was an employee. Harlow warned him not to publish.

  225. RMN, is it not newsworthy when a CIA wench uses her husband as an operative in a campaign to undermine the foreign policy of a sitting president by printing lies in the New York Times?

    Of course not. That’s called PATRIOTISM.

  226. happyfeet, it is not news. it is a lie that you jerking off to.

  227. He confirmed her employment and told Novak not to publish. That’s called keeping a secret.

    For more about keeping secrets,

    New York Times.
    SWIFT program.
    Google.
    Go play.

  228. I knew that, Good Lt – I was just testing RMN.

  229. pablo, novak already knew she was an employee.

    Novak had heard she was an employee. Harlow confirmed it. Novak asked, harlow coughed it up, from the CIA Public Affairs Office. Tell me, where in the statute does it say that it’s OK to reveal the identity of a covert agent as long as you tell the person you reveal it to not to publish the information?

  230. it is not news.

    It sure as sh*t would be news if the D’s and R’s were reversed, wouldn’t it?

  231. The swift program outed cia agents?

  232. Harlow did not tell Novak she was covert. He told him not to publish.

  233. it is not news because it is not true. indeed, the WH disowned the 16 words.

  234. Math_Mage,

    I am testing my new-found serenity here.

    Can you tell me what, besides hand waving, points to the fact that something that makes up about 3% of our atmosphere could possibly cause catastrophic warming on the Earth?

    I still haven’t seen one iota of evidence displayed. Maybe you could help me out here. And Al Gore’s religious rantings do not qualify as proof.

    My reading of the situation is that water vapor is by far the most prevalent (I may be wrong, but I think it is near 90%) and volatile of warming gasses. What will happen when fuel cell technology is perfected and we are adding billions of tons of H2O to the atmosphere every day?

    The CO2 meme makes no sense to anyone with even a dash of curiosity.

  235. This is the same CIA that MURDERED Salvador Allende, RMN. I can’t believe you’re defending them.

  236. Harlow did not tell Novak she was covert. He told him not to publish.

    He told him she was a CIA employee. If she was covert, that’s blowing her cover. If not, then no one committed any outing, because no one said she was covert. Only that she sent her hubby.

    That’s a really stupid dodge you’re running, RMN, much like your 232.

  237. If Harlow had told Novak that Plame was covert, Novak may not have published at his request. Maybe Harlow did not think she was covert the same way no one else thought she was covert.

  238. Salvador Allende killed himself.

  239. “Math, I certainly agree that is what Fitz got Libby on… is that a small thing to you, lying to a grand jury? and mind you, Libby was telling the same lie to the FBI in the Fall of 2003.”

    You’re missing the point. I don’t deny that Libby lied, nor that he should have been punished for it. However, Libby’s lies are irrelevant to the questions of “was Plame covert?” and “Was there a high-level conspiracy theory to out Plame?” because that’s not what he lied about.

  240. “Andy. Baby steps. NPR, socialist little monkeys that they are, refrain from calling global warming a theory precisely, and this is key, precisely because of what the word theory connotes to the lay person.”

    And yet they refer to evolution as a theory? Or electromagnetic theory? Not because it would be inaccurate to use that term, but “precisely” because of the what the word connotes. Wonderful. So what did you learn today? Do you want it called theory or not?

    “Yes, the creationists have an hypothesis, the existence of a Creator. ”

    No. They don’t. Because it is not verifiable.

  241. Harlow did not tell Novak she was covert. He told him not to publish.

    So? The WH told the NYT not to publish. And the big wheel keeps right on spinning.

    it is not news because it is not true.

    It is. Sorry for the newsflash.

    indeed, the WH disowned the 16 words.

    British intel didn’t. And, as everyone knows, the first five words of the 16 were…..

    http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

    Factchecked.

  242. He told him she was a CIA employee. If she was covert, that’s blowing her cover. If not, then no one committed any outing, because no one said she was covert. Only that she sent her hubby.

    That my friend, is why Fitz never charged on the relevant statute. He settled for charging the one stupid mofo that lied his ass off.

  243. Maybe Harlow did not think she was covert the same way no one else thought she was covert.

    I think you may be on to something there, daleyrocks. The CIA Public Affairs Office would be prepared to protect the identity of covert agents in such situations, huh?

  244. That’s what the CIA wants you to think about Allende.

  245. That my friend, is why Fitz never charged on the relevant statute.

    What is why? If she was covert, Harlow broke the law. Why wouldn’t he be charged?

  246. I already told you, andy. Me, I want it called a pitiful hoax. Or maybe a religious tenet, like transubstantiation. Or that thing about limbo. It should have a catechism.

  247. the WH disowned 16, not 11.

  248. Pablo, you write why… he never told Novak that she was covert.

  249. oh.

    LUMUMBA!!!11!>/b>

  250. On Plame: take it to Maguire’s, guys.

    I say again, where are the charges? If Fitzpatrick were willing to go around to Democratic Party meetings and give speeches declaring that somebody should have been charged but that couldn’t happen because of Libby, he could buy Aruba for his wife this Christmas. He had access to all the data and all the testimony, and because he didn’t deliver he’s a semi-pariah. Why would he suffer that? Face it, BT. You backed the wrong horse.

    Regards,
    Ric

  251. “I already told you, andy. Me, I want it called a pitiful hoax. Or maybe a religious tenet, like transubstantiation. Or that thing about limbo. It should have a catechism.”

    Ok. So there is no complaint about liberals failing to call it ‘theory’ or NPR needing to do so more? Thanks for clarifying. Have you now wrapped your head around what it means to call it a ‘theory’?

  252. Pablo – I believe Novak said he respected requests not to publish material for national security reasons or to protect identities of covert agents in the past. In this case he got no such requests.

    I’m waiting for a citation from Blue Weenie on that Hayden hearsay and whether it’s going to be in writing and actually refer to the IIPA instead of CIA house terminology.

  253. the WH disowned 16, not 11.

    What were those first five words?

    The British government has learned…?

    Yeah…what do they mean?
    Yeah…that’s called sourcing.

  254. Saying she’s covert or not is irrelevant. If she is covert and you know it, and you ID her as CIA, you break the law. This is a mindless point you’re hanging on to here.

  255. Look, Fitz charged only one person. The one who lied right from the start, beginning with his FBI interview. Why did Libby lie? That is what needs to be asked. If all was perfectly ok, why the hell did Libby lie?

  256. I say again, where are the charges?

    DINGDINGDINGDING

    RMN?

  257. That is what needs to be asked.

    Wrong. The question is “why not charge others if lying and deceit was so rampant during this three-year investigation?

    I think we both know the answer.

  258. “Math_Mage,

    I am testing my new-found serenity here.

    Can you tell me what, besides hand waving, points to the fact that something that makes up about 3% of our atmosphere could possibly cause catastrophic warming on the Earth?

    I still haven’t seen one iota of evidence displayed. Maybe you could help me out here. And Al Gore’s religious rantings do not qualify as proof.

    My reading of the situation is that water vapor is by far the most prevalent (I may be wrong, but I think it is near 90%) and volatile of warming gasses. What will happen when fuel cell technology is perfected and we are adding billions of tons of H2O to the atmosphere every day?

    The CO2 meme makes no sense to anyone with even a dash of curiosity.”

    I pretty much agree, save that I haven’t done as much research on the subject as you apparently have. Congrats. However, you’re off by a couple orders of magnitude – according to Wikipedia, CO2 makes up 0.038% of the Earth’s atmosphere. Water comprises a mere 1% (and that’s variable), but that’s enough to qualify it as 90% of the greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. You’re right that CO2 is about 3% of greenhouse gas, though – is that what you were getting at?

    However, if we do end up pouring billions of tons of HOH into our air, all that water vapor in the air can probably be put to use, and more easily than CO2 because it’s easier to condense water vapor into water than CO2 gas into dry ice. Also, it’s probable that more atmospheric HOH is added and removed every day by the water cycle than we could add in a year with cars, so it’s easier for the global warming theorists to go after CO2 – less back talk.

    By the way, for those of you hysterical about global warming (scared or laughing), look up the global cooling hysteria in the 70s. Clinton said it was always the young ‘uns who ask her about GW – well, that’s because the oldsters all have memories.

    Oh, and apologies – I was using the term anthropomorphic for AGW. As someone above pointed out, it should be anthropogenic. Sorry. :D

  259. Andy, have you really wrapped your head around what it means to call Global Warming a matter of settled science?

    We’ll end up having to do that whole Enlightenment thing all over. Kind of Yeatsian, that.

  260. It’s probably all right there in Valerie’s book. Buy it. She needs the sales boost.

  261. Mcllellen lying to the press is one thing, lying to a grand jury is quite another. Fitz cannot charge public deceit.

  262. I know! I’ll change the subject! That always works.

  263. We’ll end up having to do that whole Enlightenment thing all over.

    That, or the global cooling fad, led by the same crowd.

    http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

    Man, I’m glad we stemmed off THAT man-made doomsday! Thanks, Dems!

  264. Fitz cannot charge public deceit.

    Worse yet, Fitz cannot charge anyone with outing Plame. Which was supposed to be the point of this from the beginning.

  265. McClellan. Bless his pudgy wudgy inarticulate heart. He was there, man.

  266. Mcllellen lying to the press is one thing, lying to a grand jury is quite another. Fitz cannot charge public deceit.

    McClellan lied?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21917188/

  267. Can you tell me what, besides hand waving, points to the fact that something that makes up about 3% of our atmosphere could possibly cause catastrophic warming on the Earth?

    that leaves me speechless, but not for the reason you think.

  268. good lt., that is what scotty said. bush did not lie. did he exonerate the other 4?

  269. that leaves me speechless, but not for the reason you think.

    Didn’t think so.

    Lost the Plame fight, too?

  270. that is what scotty said. bush did not lie. did he exonerate the other 4?

    Where are the charges?

  271. “By the way, for those of you hysterical about global warming (scared or laughing), look up the global cooling hysteria in the 70s.”

    If we look it up, how would it compare in its scientific acceptance?

    “Andy, have you really wrapped your head around what it means to call Global Warming a matter of settled science?”

    I have. Thats why I’m double checking why it seems you have some idea as to how often NPR should call it a theory.

  272. “that leaves me speechless, but not for the reason you think.”

    You just lack the ability of logic.

  273. where are what charges? Fitz can charge Libby and Rove for lying to Scotty? That’s a new one on me.

  274. LOL andy.

  275. “where are what charges? Fitz can charge Libby and Rove for lying to Scotty?”

    So Rove lied to Fitz?

  276. Because NPR is a socialist mouthpiece, Andy. Shuh. Every story they do is just a bullet point in the master Socialist Agenda powerpoint presentation, and when they do the same story a kajillion times, that, my friend, is a clue.

  277. andy

    We do expect lay people

    who is this “we” you keep citing?

  278. ““By the way, for those of you hysterical about global warming (scared or laughing), look up the global cooling hysteria in the 70s.”

    If we look it up, how would it compare in its scientific acceptance?”

    Does it matter? The fact is that we have these worries whenever the climate changes, and nothing ever comes of it. I remember reading somewhere that there were GW and GC crazes in the 30s and 20s, respectively. This is seriously old news, whether or not it has a scientific veneer of respectability.

    ““Andy, have you really wrapped your head around what it means to call Global Warming a matter of settled science?””

    I have. Thats why I’m double checking why it seems you have some idea as to how often NPR should call it a theory.”

    And now I’m forced into the unenviable position of defending you…people, Andy isn’t talking about whether AGW is real or not, he’s disputing whether to call it a theory or a hypothesis or an unfounded conjecture or the cat’s pajamas. He places it on the level of hypothesis, so cool off already.

  279. Mr. Mage Person – I let that go a long time ago. It’s important to andy. My only point is that NPR takes care to present it as a matter of settled science. And also how it would be more better if poor children here all had free violin lessons like in Venezuela.

  280. The ice cap is melting. This seems to be an indication of a warming trend. Where are the charges?

  281. Trying to explain anything to this particular group of visitors is pointless. I think they honestly believe that they can change reality by just shifting words around. I mean even though there was a trial where it was determined that Plame was not covert, where the only charge not flushed was one that could just as easily be due to mistake then lie (as was apparently OK for Russert), they will still argue that Libby outed a covert CIA agent.

    Actual, verifiable truth is not what these people are after. They want you to line up for the lie, or to shut up.

  282. bless the memory of my public grade school… we got music lessons on any orchestral instrument we chose. And an exercise program, mandatory, every day. AAPER, it was called. Anyone remember that?

  283. So the argument being made here is everybody knew Plame worked for the CIA but no one realized she was covert? Do you not realize how retarded you sound?

    “Look, Fitz charged only one person. The one who lied right from the start, beginning with his FBI interview. Why did Libby lie? That is what needs to be asked. If all was perfectly ok, why the hell did Libby lie?”

    Maybe he forgot? Or else he just really likes lying for no fucking reason whatsoever.

  284. Also, and I may be wrong here, but isn’t it the Law of Gravity, or is that just a fancier way for saying theory?

  285. Well, yeah. The Internationale doesn’t play itself.

  286. happyfeet, that is why jfk is fondly remembered. life was good for a kid, back then.

  287. Yeah, right. Before XBox and MySpace, life was good. Three tv networks, normative homophobia and racism, no CGI or anime, no cell phones, careers that very likely didn’t feature air conditioning, no Internet, and one-party rule. Ack.

  288. The way it works, there is a theory about gravity says if I drop a rock off my balcony, it will tell me how long before it hits the ground. Science makes a prediction, I can test it. The theory of electromagnetism says if I have a metal bar with so many wraps of wire around it and this many volts through it, it will pick up a piece of metal weighing a certain amount. I can test it.

    And if I test any of these things again, I will get the same results. We are still waiting on anything remotely resembling this with regards to anthropogenic global warming.

  289. “happyfeet, that is why jfk is fondly remembered. life was good for a kid, back then.”

    JFK is fondly remembered because he was killed. He started an unpopular war of choice based on lies and slashed taxes on the rich. If he had lived he would have been tried for war crimes, no doubt.

  290. Assassination is the same as rape.

  291. “bless the memory of my public grade school… we got music lessons on any orchestral instrument we chose. And an exercise program, mandatory, every day. AAPER, it was called. Anyone remember that?”

    We got taught to read, write and cipher. At recess we got to do whatever the fuck we wanted, within reason.

  292. perhaps. What I remember most about JFK were his press conferences. If there is any video online of them you should watch.

  293. “The ice cap is melting. This seems to be an indication of a warming trend. Where are the charges?”

    Erm, the Arctic is melting, but the Antarctic is growing, so that’s not indicative of anything (except perhaps regional heating and cooling). Of course, now there’s going to be a massive reorientation of the Earth as the weight of the Antarctic pulls it to the bottom. [/sarc]

    As for why Libby lied, why did Martha Stewart lie? You’re asking us to get inside the head of a man to figure out his motive when there’s disagreement over the facts of what happened. How? And you’re getting into speculation here; this is where conspiracy theories start to kick in.

  294. Recess was dodgeball. we called it elimination.

  295. He sure could talk purty, you right about that.

  296. You can borrow my moveon password if you want.

  297. Math, no it’s really just curiosity. Why didn’t Libby tell the truth? Yeah, Cheney told me and I told all these others. So what?

  298. yeah. It felt good to have a President that could talk purty. “Is our children learning?” none of that.

  299. 300 is enough. nice yakkin wit ya. g’night.

  300. “Why didn’t Libby tell the truth?”

    Why are you so obtuse about this? Have you ever gotten an answer wrong on an exam? Why did you lie to your instructor?

  301. Goodnight RMN, but I don’t know how you can sleep while the ice caps are melting.

  302. last answer and then i’m really gone. b moe, i’ve never lied to a grand jury. you are the one being obtuse.

  303. Materiality matters.

  304. “Because NPR is a socialist mouthpiece, Andy. Shuh. Every story they do is just a bullet point in the master Socialist Agenda powerpoint presentation, and when they do the same story a kajillion times, that, my friend, is a clue.”

    So in stories about global warming, should they be calling it a theory more, or less?

    “Does it matter? ”

    Yes, because if cooling back then was as accepted as warming now, then warming proponents have a problem. Its not a very strong critique that something with a certain level of acceptance today be contradicted by something with a lower level of acceptance in the pats.

  305. Yes. They should call it a controversial theory, andy. See Mr. Mage Person? He’s like relentless.

  306. Funniest thread evah!

  307. B Moe,

    So the argument being made here is everybody knew Plame worked for the CIA but no one realized she was covert?

    And the Libby leaked it..not that she was covert, mind you, just that she sent her hubby on the super secret mission to Niger. Which was totally breaking the law. Why? I dunno, but it is. Though I’m hearing that if you didn’t say she was covert, it’s OK. And even you told the people you told not to repeat it, then it’s even more OK.

    Do you not realize how retarded you sound?

    The important thing is WHY DID LIBBY LIE!!??!

  308. Fire melting steel, outing CIA super agents, causing global warming. Child’s play.

    Just check Saturday’s AP headline if you want to get a taste of the most intricate conspiracy ever hatched since the Jesus/Mary Magdalene cover up:

    DESPITE ECONOMY MALLS JAMMED

    Imagine getting all those impoverished people, wondering where their next meal is coming from, out shopping and buying. I’m sure they cleaned up homeless people and that accounts for 20% of the record number of shoppers, but how did they get the people who are on the edge of homelessness to kick in? Genius!

    And it’s a scheme that has it’s own automatic cover-up mechanism. The people who work at the stores get to keep their jobs despite the shitty economy. Sublime.

  309. “Yes. They should call it a controversial theory, andy. ”

    It certainly causes controversy. But still you think it meets the criteria for ‘theory’? Ok.

  310. Funny thing. There is no objective scientific proof that GW is man made. it is based in highly suspect models designed by people who are not meteorologists- the people who actually study weather. But if milhouse is referring to the polar icecaps on mars-it would have to be ‘system warming’, something the sun has done for several billion years.
    But like Martin Luther said. If thats your god, go for it.

  311. The there’s this.

    Oh Canada!
    Great White North forces the Commonwealth to back down.

    A friend once explained the difference between the United States and Canada as this: Americans view the outdoors as a place to play and have fun; Canadians respect it as a dangerous place that has things that can eat you.

    Now what is this nonsense about global warming being a bad thing?

    The National Post said Prime Minister Stephen Harper won a victory over the Kyoto Protocol at a meeting of the the Commonwealth nations (nee, the British Empire) meeting in Uganda.

    Canada succeeded in watering down a resolution backing Kyoto. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, “Canada’s view is we need binding targets on all nations.”

    Reported Mike Blanchfield: “The Kyoto protocol exempts developing nations, including major emitters India and China, from commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. Canada had insisted on Friday that it would sign no agreement in Kampala unless any targets included all major emitters. Disagreement on this issue may explain the vague nature of Saturday’s declaration. It called for a post-Kyoto agreement to reduce greenhouse gases but spoke only of ‘long term aspirational goals for emissions reduction to which all countries would contribute’.”

    And therein lies the intellectual dishonesty of the Kyoto Protocol. If the world were in such peril from carbon dioxide, then all nations would reduce their emissions, not just the West and Japan.

  312. “But still you think it meets the criteria for ‘theory’? Ok.”

    Still waiting on some experiments to test it, andy.

  313. alppuccino

    The Dinosaur Media, which fancies itself the 4th branch of government and exclusively picks the head of the executive branch, has been bad mouthing the American economy since about … oh, a week after President Bush took office.

    Poll after poll finds the majority of American citizens are happy and satisfied with their own life HOWEVER they are pessimistic and worried about everyone else because of “the bad economy”

    This is another reason why the Dems want to a new [un]Fairness Doctrine .. they want to shut down even the smallest dissent from their doctrine and propaganda.

  314. “There is no objective scientific proof that GW is man made. it is based in highly suspect models designed by people who are not meteorologists- the people who actually study weather.”

    Ah. objective scientific proof. As opposed to those subjective non-scientific models.

    “Still waiting on some experiments to test it, andy.”

    Ask Happyfeet, he’s the one that wants to call it a theory. I understand AGW makes predictions. The trivial test would be to see if the predictions match the observations.

    “This is another reason why the Dems want to a new [un]Fairness Doctrine .. they want to shut down even the smallest dissent from their doctrine and propaganda.”

    Yes. Never mind those foreclosure lies.

  315. I see that andy has some people joining in his inanity. RMN and that idiot bluetexan sure are persistent. Mendacious, but persistent. How do they sleep at night, knowing that Libby lied, and people died, while the polar ice caps melt and threaten to flood North Dakota at any time now. 315 comments, and these trolls did not bring up even one new or interesting point.

  316. Sub prime lending and adjustable rate mortgages are Bush’s fault. If only the nannystate had provided a preemptive solution — like, say, making sure that people with the free will to make economic choices have that free will stripped from them by legal fiat. For their own good. After all, people are dumb. We know this because the government has been responsible for educating them through the public schools.

    Teaching basic economics — the kind that would empower people to make responsible choices when it comes to signing onto adjustable rate mortgages, for example (which, incidentally, are often times a great idea, just as sub prime lending is of itself not at all evil). — gets in the way of teaching about the US holocaust against native americans and the selfishness of materialism (which is responsible for the inexorable destruction of the planet by way of AGW); and it’s those things that keep people voting for Dems.

    So best just to stick with teaching the latter, then erect new nannystate provisions to “care” for those who have been irreparably harmed by prior nannystatist initiatives, which have left them either ignorant (or with the expectation that the government will bail them out), and so vulnerable to bad decisions.

    Has the benefit of keeping lawmakers looking busy, and winning over increasingly infantalized voters. Plus, it sets up an intellectual class system — which is one of the prerequisites for a government run by a bureaucratic elite.

    Progressivism. For the people — but run by the better ones. For the greater good.

  317. andy

    Isn’t it a little early to be drinking?

    Or are we back to the infantile “If the economy isn’t perfect it is ALL BAD” bds schtick?

    EVERYTHING (even the climate) cycles. But to watch the last 7 years of the MSM, the American economy has been in the worst economic conditions since the Depression for ALL the past 7 years. And they always start their timeline right after the dot com bust.

    My husband and I waited out the past 3 years of the over-heated housing market in So Cal (which a lot of people got rich on … is that a bad or good thing, andy?) and bargained hard early this year for price and a fixed rate mortgage. The price of the house was still outregeously high compared to most of the US (which is why Obama’s Jimmy Carter moment in sneering at families making over $97,000/year as “the rich” deserving of being punished by more fed taxes marked him yet again as an unserious leftist), we are willing to be frugal and wait out the down cycle and the housing market will rebound in time.

    pay attention now, andy. It is called being an adult.

  318. “Teaching basic economics ”

    Whats interesting is that these transactions take two parties (and sometimes more, when you involve mortgage brokers). One of which is clearly the less sophisticated one. Some of them know quite advanced economics, or have access to it. But apparently we’ve identified who it is that needs the basics.

    You’re capable of realizing that money rule is bipartisan. Which makes it so unfortunate to see such ignorance: “Sub prime lending and adjustable rate mortgages are Bush’s fault”

  319. “Or are we back to the infantile “If the economy isn’t perfect it is ALL BAD” bds schtick?”

    I don’t think its perfect and i don’t think its ALL BAD.

    “EVERYTHING (even the climate) cycles. But to watch the last 7 years of the MSM, the American economy has been in the worst economic conditions since the Depression for ALL the past 7 years. And they always start their timeline right after the dot com bust.”

    I understand “everything” cycles. But there are few interesting features of this economic cycle. The recovery has mostly benefitted profit, not wages. And then we have the housing boom. You seen Shiller’s graph? Wait till that shit “cycles” back. Then we get pain.

    “we are willing to be frugal and wait out the down cycle and the housing market will rebound in time.”

    Rebound? woah. Where do you think home prices ought to be?

  320. All children have a right to a home, andy. You can’t put a price on that.

  321. “All children have a right to a home, andy. You can’t put a price on that.”

    Sure, I didn’t learn “basic economics.” But the market will be happy to. Rebound. hot damn.

  322. yes rebound andy

    My parents have had their house for 40 years … while prices have (in the short term) gone up and down, over the long term their home is now worth 20X what they orginally bought it for.

    Even the CA house downturns in 91 and 97 only lasted a little over five years apiece.

  323. “Even the CA house downturns in 91 and 97 only lasted a little over five years apiece.”

    Did you look at that graph i linked to? Where do you think the rebound’s going to again?

  324. Me I can’t wait to pick me up some dead boomer’s house at half price.

  325. Sorry Darleen, but it’s hard out here for a pimp.

  326. Gosh. That sounds awful, really. It’s kind of my own fault for getting all settled in to a neighborhood I can’t afford. From my balcony, the ass-end of the Hollywood Hills is there, taunting me every day. Mostly I just ignore it but sometimes I sigh.

  327. andy

    sure I looked at the graph … but there are so many factors involved in housing, most especially “location location location” that it is interesting and informative but predictive? The dot com bust didn’t spell the end of the internet nor internet businesses, did it?

  328. “The dot com bust didn’t spell the end of the internet nor internet businesses, did it?”

    And dot-com boom wasn’t the beggining of the internet. I’m just wondering what downturn you’re seeing to talk about rebounds. In past booms we’ve “rebounded” back to around 110 on that graph.

  329. The graph for rent here isn’t any prettier really I’d bet. That has to mean something. I bet math is involved.

  330. You’re capable of realizing that money rule is bipartisan. Which makes it so unfortunate to see such ignorance: “Sub prime lending and adjustable rate mortgages are Bush’s fault”

    So they are Bush’s fault? Because clearly I was being sarcastic.

    And yeah, some professionals have better knowledge of things than those who are mere dilettantes. Like car dealers, for instance. Which is why I’d really like the government to step in and help me buy my car.

    I can’t be expected to research things myself. And I’m at a disadvantage, not being a car dealer myself.

    Hell, you should see me at Safeway. Many a time I look at the variety of canned peaches and wish that some bureaucrat was there to make sure I chose the generic over the products with the name brands and the pretty packaging.

    To save me from myself.

  331. “So they are Bush’s fault? Because clearly I was being sarcastic.”

    Clearly, like this: “If only the nannystate had provided a preemptive solution — like, say, making sure that people with the free will to make economic choices have that free will stripped from them by legal fiat”

    As if that’s whats at issue here.

    “Like car dealers, for instance. Which is why I’d really like the government to step in and help me buy my car.”

    Or why when the car market is fucked, its not just the lack of ‘basic economic’ knowledge in the dilettante. If lack of knowledge is the problem, you’d think one would put the blame on the ones with the access to it.

    “Hell, you should see me at Safeway. Many a time I look at the variety of canned peaches and wish that some bureaucrat was there to make sure I chose the generic over the products with the name brands and the pretty packaging.

    To save me from myself.”

    Or at least to make sure that if something’s not peachy, it’s labelled as so.

  332. #

    Comment by andy on 11/25 @ 12:54 pm #

    “Teaching basic economics ”

    Whats interesting is that these transactions take two parties (and sometimes more, when you involve mortgage brokers). One of which is clearly the less sophisticated one. Some of them know quite advanced economics, or have access to it. But apparently we’ve identified who it is that needs the basics.

    You’re capable of realizing that money rule is bipartisan. Which makes it so unfortunate to see such ignorance: “Sub prime lending and adjustable rate mortgages are Bush’s fault”

    No. Really. You need to understand basic economics. In a system that involves buyers and sellers it is the buyers job to understand what he/she is buying. The people who bought subprime short term mortgages were betting that their situation would improve. They bet wrong. It helps if you remember that money is a commodity just like orange juice.
    like talking to a pig.

  333. “In a system that involves buyers and sellers it is the buyers job to understand what he/she is buying. ”

    Sure, given fraud, etc…I understand. But the buyers aren’t just the ones that used mortgages to buy their homes. There are also the institutional buyers who bought these mortgages from mortgage brokers, and were trading these debt obligations. But apparently these people dont know the basics, because, being banks, they’re busy learning about genocide and tolerance and foreign languages or something.

  334. Pingback: A comfortable minority

  335. “Whats interesting is that these transactions take two parties (and sometimes more, when you involve mortgage brokers). One of which is clearly the less sophisticated one. Some of them know quite advanced economics, or have access to it. But apparently we’ve identified who it is that needs the basics…”

    So what happens when the sophisticated lenders starts refusing loans to high risk borrowers, andy? What will you and your little friends say then?

  336. B Moe – You do not even have to ask that question. You know that he will switch back to talk of lenders taking advantage of the underprivileged, minorities, women, and starving children.

  337. “So what happens when the sophisticated lenders starts refusing loans to high risk borrowers, andy? What will you and your little friends say then?”

    They haven’t started yet?

  338. What a tool.

  339. andy

    what? you are looking for some law that makes risk illegal and failure impossible?

    Geez, missing your breastfeeding years, eh?

  340. Why are the leftmost letters in these
    posts crawling farther and
    farther under the left column margin
    of this page?

    Is my computer “askew”?

  341. “what? you are looking for some law that makes risk illegal and failure impossible?”

    Not at all. But laws which make risks known are a good idea.

  342. People do not know the risks of mortgages, andy?

  343. Never mind, I am sure that a pile of rubbish, an attempt to avoid answering a direct question, or a complete non sequeter is the best one can hope for from you.

  344. “People do not know the risks of mortgages, andy?”

    It seems like some of these buyers weren’t aware of the risks of the debts they were buying. Some don’t even seem to be aware of the actual value of their debt portfolios.

    There are also laws, like the Truth In Lending Act, that protect consumers in credit transactions by requiring disclosures. You think they’re always followed?

    Someone above is looking for a housing market rebound. Makes me think they’re not aware that its more like a correction that is happening now, and aren’t quite aware of the risks involved in that market now.

    How bout you? You think people should be able to hide risks?

  345. I think you are incapable of answering a question.

  346. Were people having their arms twisted into accepting mortgages? Isn’t the onus on the buyer to make sure that they are in agreement with the contract they are entering into? So an 80/20 loan is going to be more than they expected, especially with an ARM. Why is it that you think it is the government that needs to step in here? Why does the consumer bear no responsibility in your scenario? And investors? I feel even less for them. If they were not provided with the proper information that the lenders are required to submit, then the lenders should be held to account for that. But, not doing enough homework on your investments. Sorry, your bad.

  347. “I think you are incapable of answering a question.”

    The only answer is that some people know the risks, and some don’t. Some know them better than others. Some people got scammed, and did not know the risks of what they were doing, and fell prey to equity stripping schemes. I’ve heard one story of a terrible violation were someone was actually schemed into signing over their house when they thought they were signing on to a second mortgage. Clearly, that person did not know the risk. Clearly, a law against this is good.

    It seems that overall, lots participants in this market were ignoring or not aware of the risks. Thats why we’re seeing these writeoffs in the collateralized debt obligations market. Thats why we’re seeing Countrywide hurt so much. And home builders…

    How bout my question. Do you think people should be able to hide risks? You got a problem with TILA disclosures? Is it all caveat emptor with you, or is there still a problem with misrepresentation and deception?

  348. “Why does the consumer bear no responsibility in your scenario? And investors? I feel even less for them. ”

    Who says they bear no responsibility? People take on risks, and are responsible for those. I just approved of laws which helped to make those risks known. Christ.

  349. Where did I state, or even imply that I was alright with deception or misrepresentation? Must you lie?

  350. “Where did I state, or even imply that I was alright with deception or misrepresentation? ”

    You didn’t. I’m asking you. Whats the matter? You can’t answer a question? lol.

  351. andy

    Oh I like your snotty attitude towards “someone doesn’t know the risk”; kinda demonstrates your general attitude that we must have a Nannystate to protect all the obviously clueless non-andys and you’re just one of those intelligent selfless superior individuals to head it. Someone pass andy his whip!

    Did you happen to see my “location location location” comment, which is very much a factor in real estate? While much of the market is “correcting”, certain areas of CA have still increased. We weighed the risk and we weighed the PERSONAL benefits to ourselves of buying a home and we chose an area based on our own homework and knowledge of the So Cal RE market.

    Of course, its still a risk. When the next 9/11 happens after a Dem president is elected and wipes out the port of Los Angeles, this area will suffer greatly.

    Life has no guarantees.

  352. BTW

    We also took our time in choosing a re agent and a mortgage broker. We were over 2 hours at closing, reading every page of what we were signing and our broker NOT a closer was with us, explaining, pointing out stuff and going over in every detail of what we were reading.

    see due diligence is in our vocabulary

  353. “The only answer is that some people know the risks, and some don’t.”

    Exactly. So why are you so dismissive of teaching real economics in school?

  354. B Moe

    but that would take valuable time away from teaching how to put a condom on a banana, how to obtain an abortion without your parents knowledge and how America is solely responsible for Anthropogenic Global Warming.

  355. Comment by The Lost Dog on 11/26 @ 12:13 am #

    Why are the leftmost letters in these
    posts crawling farther and
    farther under the left column margin
    of this page?

    Is my computer “askew”?

    You’re probably using Internet Explorer. I used to have the same problem. I don’t have it with Mozilla.

  356. Clinton’s non-reaction included thwarting the 2000 attack on LAX, a fact that Clinton haters always love to omit.

    Christ, here’s yet another lie that won’t die. Someone’s been reading Juan Cole far too closely.

    By which I mean, mostly, at all.

  357. “but that would take valuable time away from teaching how to put a condom on a banana,”

    the condom always makes the banana so damn hard to peal. It doesn’t make sense.

  358. Lets address these one at a time:

    It seems like some of these buyers weren’t aware of the risks of the debts they were buying. Some don’t even seem to be aware of the actual value of their debt portfolios.

    So what laws should be enacted to protect buyers of debt or in this case, Portfolio Managers? “Sophisticated”, highly paid, bond managers that are too lazy to do their homework. Perhaps we should put these folks to work at a farm and leave the bond trading to the government?

    There are also laws, like the Truth In Lending Act, that protect consumers in credit transactions by requiring disclosures. You think they’re always followed?

    I propose a “Truth in Affordability Act” as in if you borrow more than you can afford to pay, you should recieve a swift kick in the ass by a Treasury Agent. Do you think legislating common sense will work?

  359. “Exactly. So why are you so dismissive of teaching real economics in school?”

    Because people with real sophisticated economic knowledge were making mistakes too, so i’m doubtful that some basic economics, of the sort you’d get in pre-college, would change much.

    “So what laws should be enacted to protect buyers of debt or in this case, Portfolio Managers? “Sophisticated”, highly paid, bond managers that are too lazy to do their homework. Perhaps we should put these folks to work at a farm and leave the bond trading to the government?”

    Just because they’re stupid doesn’t mean they should be protected. I’d say making sure that disclosures are made on balance sheets, investors have hte ability to see what their agents are doing, and that accounting and pricing are done independently, ought to all do it. Some of this will protect them. Some will make it easier for other market player to watch them to prevent dumb moves.

    “I propose a “Truth in Affordability Act” as in if you borrow more than you can afford to pay, you should recieve a swift kick in the ass by a Treasury Agent”

    I believe its called bankruptcy. Or fraud, if you lie about how much you can afford. Then again, there’s also that banker’s adage: “if you lend someone a thousand bucks, he’s a creditor. Lend them a billion, they’re a partner.”

  360. Pingback: Zen of Comment Spam IV

  361. LOL what a joke!!! If you think the governement intentionally killed all those people on 911 then you must think Van Jones is Christ reborn……

Leave a Reply