I don't go with LIHOP or MIHOP. I think bush is just an idiot.

[Carl Spackler]

Look at the Medicare thing, now 30% over projections and pissing off his base big time. Same with the "Making Mars safe for Democracy" initiative, immigration reform, and pretty much everything else over the last 6 months. This is no SHERSH mastermind here, this is just plain old incompetence.

And I don't think Cheney, if he's the man behind the curtain, could be any smarter. I mean they pretty much had a foolproof recipie for a 50 state wipeout before Iraq. Then they backed themselves into a corner by planting our army in the desert with summer approaching and somehow didn't pick up on the europeans being in Saddam's pocket. It's one thing to not have good WMD intelligence for a dictatorship. It's inexcusibly stupid to not know who's in bed with who and won't back you up at the big security council meeting.

Now they will lose it all, and they are just scrambling. How is this evidence of a super secret, all powerful cabal of PNACers executing a worldwide conspiracy?

[proud patriot]

1. I put the incompetence theory to the test , but it failed IMHO

If it was incompetence someone would of been
fired or reprimanded for not following standard
operating proceedure in getting the fighter
jets in the air .

To this day that has not happened .

[lovedems]

2. You are 100% correct. It took me awhile to come around to LIHOP

but the administrations own actions have led me there and not my own "paranoid thinking". It is the same with the war intelligence. Where is the outrage that he was "misled by the CIA?" If I did anything, and I mean anything that put even one person life in danger because I was "misled", heads would roll. Instead, they just want to ride this thing out and hope for the best.

[Jawja]

21. Yes, I find it

unbelievable that we had a massive intelligence failure, a massive security failure, and a massive military failure together all on the same day.

That realization convinces me that it was at least LIHOP.

[salinen]

3. Chimps incompetence is legendary

Wasn't this experienced, war proven cabinet placed there to offset flightsuit's dullheadedness?

[Minstrel Boy]

7. Not only has no one been fired, but

those who effectively stymied pre-9/11 investigations, like the FBI's Dave Frasca, were promoted.

The hijackers didn't get lucky once. They got lucky over and over and over again, and long before September 11th.

I'm not one who, on the day of the attacks, believed it was an inside job. It's something I came to over months of seeing evidence accrue for foreknowledge and complicity. As much as I hated Bush, I didn't want to believe it, and I didn't rush to embrace it. But it's the only answer which makes sense.

There are so many dots that connect now, they blacken the page. Anyone who doubts me, a good place to start is here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html
Print out the complete timeline, from 1979 to the present. As it's printing, get a marker and pour yourself some strong coffee.

[Carl Spackler]

10. No, incompetence is usually buried

Firing someone focuses attention on the next level up. Incompetence has always been dealt with by denial and obfustication. It's not at all uncommon for someone who's really pulled a boner to be PROMOTED to cover for it.

[Darranar]

25. Exactly.

[Sterling]

43. Not true at all

Heads have always rolled after something like this. Pearl Harbor anyone? Only the BFEE gets a pass on this stuff.

[Selwynn]

22. What does "put it to the test" mean?

Does it mean anything more than "I thought about it, and my gut tells me its not true?"

[proud patriot]

60. After months of researching

I did not want to Believe LIHOP ,

but I kept reading and reading .

Too many things don't add up and need to be answered .
bush himself pushed me to LIHOP with his admin's obstruction
into the investigations of the events that led to 911 .

And yes at this point it is just gut instincts that
I'm relying on .

my gut instincts have saved my life before so :shrug:

[Darranar]

23. Why?

What the administration does not want is to look incompetent. They want to look capable, which is why they launched a conventional war in Afghanistan after saying that this war would be different from every other.

You saw what happened with O'Neil; firing officials is a sure way of this incompetence being broadcast across the country. They want to make it look as if it was 'totally unexpected', something they can blame on Clinton for not modifying the intelligence agencies into a post-Cold War form.

[aquart]

4. It's not that they're stupid, exactly.

They simply have a world view that was more suitable to Genghis Khan, who did quite well invading countries and murdering the inhabitants, way back when a short Mongol on a fast pony was an unbeatable WMD.

They really did imagine that our entry into Iraq would be identical to the Allies' entry into Paris. The problem was that Iraq had not been occupied by a foreign power such as the Nazi Germans, but by a dictator of their own. The foreign occupiers turn out to be us.

They also forget that other people are human. The Iraqis are doing exactly what we would do if they had invaded us, instead of the other way round. We'd kill 'em any way we could and collaborators would die ugly. Bush/Cheney are constantly surprised by the strength of the resistance, and actually believe they can stop it by arresting or killing "ringleaders."

They behave intelligently if, say, the date were 800 ad.

[Intelsucks]

5. I don't think anything that went on at the Security Council was a surprise

to Bush and his minions. Everyone in that room knows exactly who is in bed with who, and what everyones' hidden agenda is.

I think it's called politics...

What you say out in the open, and what you're really thinking are two very different things... But everyone knows how the bullshit smells.

[gristy]

20. No they don't

Everyone in that room knows exactly who is in bed with who, and what everyones' hidden agenda is.

Even if they were brilliant folks, which they are not, they are not omniscient. They have a very narrow view of the world as well as of the people and institutions they deal with every day. This view blinds them from seeing and understanding many things. This will be their undoing before the end of this year.

[meg]

6. It's both MIHOP and he's an idiot

Why choose just one?

[Eloriel]

8. If you don't buy LIHOP or MIHOP, then

you have two choices:

1. Stay in denial

2. Do more research

An excellent place to start is CooperativeResearch.com (is that the one that has Paul Thompson's magnificent work?)

And I hope some oldtime DUers will come along to offer some more links for you (altho the stuff at the above site ought to keep you busy for a while).

And here, for your reading pleasure, is some information on Conspiracies:

CONSPIRACIES
Conspiracies: Self-interest, fear, inertia, values
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5535&forum=DCForumID70&archive=yes

Also see Information Architecture of Evil (rd dn) at http://www.zpluspartners.com/zblog/

Paranoid Shift
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/011004Hasty/011004hasty.html

[Carl Spackler]

11. Read my sig

[Solomon]

44. Even the incompetence theory requries a massive

conspiracy. I guess it's just a lot easier to believe a conspiracy where some beanpole with a rag on his head sitting in the middle of a godforsaken desert in a cave, could pull off 9-11 without a hitch.

Er, yeah, uh, ok.

[ThoughtCriminal]

9. I agree

I have not ruled out an administration LIHOP (bush might have been out of the loop), but various items, including O'Neill's book have me leaning towards the idea that they were just so set on invading Iraq, missile defense and tax cuts, that they didn't care about any threat from OBL.

I look at how badly Bush performed that morning. It seems to me that if they really knew exactly what was going down and when, they would have been all set to really make Bush a big hero that day. Something a bit more heroic than finishing a pet goat story.

But there's more to it than that. The Bush family business connections to Saudi Arabia may have seriously undermined anti-terrorist investigations. Even without LIHOP, this alone helped assure a successful attack.

[Carl Spackler]

12. Finishing the goat story

not flying back into the face of danger to address the country from the white house, etc. etc. etc.

I've pretty much read all the LIHOP and MIHOP stuff and it doesn't do it for me. It all seems more plausibly explained as incompetence and the strange confluences of self interest. Which is kinda funny as I do go for the Kennedy conspiracy theories.

[Minstrel Boy]

16. "I've pretty much read all the LIHOP and MIHOP stuff"

Oh, okay. So you've read

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's The War on Freedom
Michel Chossudovsky's War and Globalisation
Gore Vidal's Dreaming War
Brisard and Dasquie's Forbidden Truth
The research archived on sites such as
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/index2.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
http://www.madcowprod.com/
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/11SEPT309A.html
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm
http://911review.org/index.shtml
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/
http://www.questionsquestions.net/topics/archive/911archive.html
http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/
http://www.guerrillanews.com/
http://www.globalfreepress.com

Just so long as you've come to an informed conclusion.

[Selwynn]

26. YES - I have indeed read every single one of those links

And then some.

And none of them, not one, and not all of them combined, bring us to a place where LIHOP or MIHOP is PROVEN or where other explanations are conclusively ruled out.

And once again, 99% of the people here who speak in absolute statements that MIHOP or LIHOP is absolutely conclusively true reflect some of the most glaring and embarrassing flaws of critical thinking and logic known to humankind.

The biggest one being that the conclusion has been assumed prior to proof, and biases - not a clear and objective investigation of the facts, are the primary drive toward the conclusions held. The need for certainty, the need to assign blame for loss, the predisposition to Bush hatred and the wealth of circumstantial evidence that indicates definite open questions lead many people to conclude - without any kind of serious scientific investigation of evidence, that there was a vast sweeping criminal conspiracy implicating hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people and none of them talk, and nothing leaks.

The only way to be honest and not outright deceitful in seeking answers is to not start with conclusions based on biases, emotion, or wishful thinking and instead carefully consider the evidence with the willingness to admit that we may never conclusively know for certain. Proof, not speculative inference.

The only thing that all of these sites tell us about 9/11 is that there are open questions that need answering. But in typical conspiracy theory bravado, most people instead ask a bunch of open questions and then, without answering them with evidence, act as though the fact that there are open questions is a fair substitute for proof of their conclusion. It is not.

What I know is that there are many open questions about 9/11 that deserve a serious, non-speculative, non-inferential credibly factual answer. And I also know that it may or may not ever happen. I also know that as much of a case can be made for incompetence or negligence as can be made for deliberate inaction or direct action. The only "evidence" for any of these is a long chain of circumstantial bullshit that has multiple possible explanations. The only reason why some embrace one set of explanations and reject others has to do with what they PREFER not that there is conclusive hard evidence that RULES out other possibilities.

http://selwynn.blog-city.com/read/454044.htm

[Carl Spackler]

31. What he said

couldn't say it better.

[Q]

18. When Standard Operating Procedure is not followed...

...that can't be called 'incompetence'. Unless of course you have a mindset to give Bush* and Gang the benefit of doubt.

- Given their secrecy before and after 9-11...their outright obstruction of any and all attempts to investigate 9-11...one can ONLY conclude they're not trying to hide 'incompetence'...but their INACTION.

- You'd know this if you've read all the 'stuff' about the events before, during and after 9-11.

[Selwynn]

29. There is no standard operating procedure

Oh there's procedures in the books. But nothing like this had ever happened in the history of our country. Never. So what we have is a completely untried system, and a bunch of people who never even imagined the kind of thing that happened on 9/11 would ever happen here. We were slow, simply because we were totally unprepared in our arrogance and feelings of untouchabiltiy.

This "standard operating procedure" bullshit overlooks the fact that nothing like this had ever happened in the United States ever before in the generations after generations of terrorism in the world. What I find more ridiculous than anything else is the idea that anyone "expected" our response to go smoothly and efficiently and not uncover massive, massive flaws and vulnerabilities in our processes.

Listening to the tape recording of the flight attendant call back to control that was released last week only bears that out even more. The lady she talked to on the ground, and the conversation between her and some higher up at United - it was so obvious they were just totally unprepared for what was going to happen next. And it took them forever to take any meaningful action. There was hesitation that day, there was uncertainty that day, there was miscommunication that day, there was a lot of denial and disbelief that day. American functioned about as well as an Ant Hill that's just been swiftly kicked - everyone scrambling in shell shock and disbelief to figure out what the hell just happened to us.

I am jacks complete lack of surprise that in the aftermath of 9/11 we've discovered huge deviations from standard procedure and many many flaws in our system. We were smugly sitting on decades and decades of feeling completely safe and untouchable - our security counter-terrorism "procedures" were little more than lip service because we had never - ever - EVER - been touched in this way before.

Now, you provide me with anything other than speculative inferential bullshit to conclusively RULE OUT other options and PROVE one single conspiratorial scenario, and I'll accept it. So far no one, and no research, and nothing has done anything other than make a lot of speculative, circumspect, inferential leaps to support conclusions already assumed based on predisposed biases and emotion.

Rule out other options. Conclusively prove one scenario correct. Otherwise stop wasting my time.

[Q]

32. What bunk! It has ALWAYS been SOP to intercept hijacked planes...

...or planes off course. Frankly...I'm tired of people making excuses for the most criminal government this nation has ever seen. Suddenly everything breaks down at the same time and it's 'incompetence'?

- I won't waste my time 'proving' anything to you...especially a 'theory' that's staring you right in the face. You're 'wasting' your own time by responding to these threads. Don't blame it on me.

- Here we have a government that actually had warnings that planes would be hijacked and used against American targets and the US was left competely undefended. You find nothing at least suspicious about that?

- Totally unprepared, my ass. Literally dozens of off course planes had been intercepted in the previous year...yet you see nothing amiss in NO response at all when four planes are hijacked?

- I don't care what you believe. It's just that simple.

[Selwynn]

40. Yes - untried, untested, un-actioned "proceedure" to do something...

...that had never happened nor even been thinkable up until 9/11.

Gee, imagine my shock that after generations of feeling safe, secure and protected, we weren't quite on our game when someone decided to smash planes into buildings...

Yeah, boy its really hard to believe that our documented and untested procedures didn't work according to plan the first time they were seriously tested...

[leesa]

37. Crap. There are standard operating procedures for highjackings and

you know they have been used many times. Why are you an apologist for these criminals? You won't see the "proof" until there is an independent investigation which Bush has obstructed from day one. Why do you suppose he's doing that. Not too hard to figure.

[Selwynn]

42. That scenario has never happened before.

So all you have is an untried set of on paper procedures to combat a threat the likes of which we had never experienced before.

Your question is so classic: "why do you suppose he's doing that?" Answer: I DON'T suppose. But you do, and then PRETEND like that supposition is a substitute for CREDIBLE EVIDENCE!

Gee, Clinton stonewalled over a fucking blowjob. Imagine my complete and total lack of surprise that the Bush Administration would stonewall over things that might be potentially embarrassing to them. I'm sorry but that kind of speculation doesn't get you to the conclusion of a vast criminal conspiracy between hundreds and hundreds of people to murder 3000 Americans. Not by a fucking long shot.

So - show me evidence, prove to me one theory by eliminating all others. Or get off my back not refusing to accept hook link and sinker the speculative bullshit of conspiracy theorists who have NO conclusive evidence and tons of bias. You are in the way of actual truth seekers.

[Eloriel]

49. There is an overabundance of credible evidence

The credible evidence extant is almost, IMO, overwhelming.

However, from THIS side of the event, that evidence may be what you call "circumstantial evidence." Guess what. It's still "evidence." And lots of people have been found guilty in courts of law, where there is a presumption of innocence, on far, far less in both quantity and quality.

It boggles my mind that anyone can claim to have "read all that" and still want to complain about "no credible evidence." Hell, I couldn't get past about page 80 of War on Freedom because the well-documented EVIDENCE was so overwhelming, and he hadn't even gotten to the good stuff yet.

They had means, motive and opportunity. We have plenty of information about the warnings they got which they did NOTHING about, and afterwards they did everything in their power to delay and obstruct any and all investigations -- and that is still going on.

We are also talking about people who were unprincipled and corrupt enough to steal a national election -- execute a stealth bloodless coup. These are hardly choir boys we're talking about who have no record of malfeasance, corruption and illegality.

No credible evidence? I gues it depends on what you define as "credible" and "evidence." Means, motive, opportunity, bad actor with a real bad history.

:shrug: Seems pretty obvious to me.

[Selwynn]

52. Guess what, no it isn't.

"circumstantial evidence." Guess what. It's still "evidence."

Guess what, no it isn't. It is not evidence that conclusively proves something as fact. And those found guilty in a court of law by "circumstantial" evidence deserve - and frequently get - an appeal.

What we're talking about here, is proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. No one has that - not by a long shot. A long string of circumstantial speculative inferential claims will never - EVER - get you to proof. If that's all you've got, then you've got nothing.

Means, Motive and opportunity are not enough in and of themselves to convict. Our are forgetting one crucial factor - the elimination of other possibilities. That is the very reason why non-circumstantial evidence, (also known as credible, as opposed to incredible evidence) is crucial.

You can't just be satisfied saying that x could have done it, because he /she had the motive means and opportunity. No, you also have to eliminate other possible alternatives. If you can't, its not proven.

You're fundamental incredible misunderstanding of what constitutes credible evidence is the source of the problem here. Circumstantial speculative inference is not credible. Prove the case. You can only "prove" something by eliminating all other possibilities, which is done by a process of elimination and by the collective of verifiable objective concrete evidence, not a long list of inferences based on open questions.

I have no problem asking the question, "did the administration allow 9/11 to happen?" I have no problem asking the question, "did the Bush Administration plan and execute 9/11?" But I also have no problem asking the question "was the Bush administration guilty of incompetence or negligence?" And I have no problem asking the question "does the evidence point to any other conclusions?"

What I have a problem with is people who assume a conclusion as absolute fact ADMITTEDLY based on circumstantial evidence. It's ridiculous.

All we know for fact right now is that we don't know for fact what happened. And acting like anything else is true gets in the way of actual truth seeking.

[drdigi420]

56. why do you keep claiming that there are no SOP?

evidence to the contrary has been given to you

many planes that went off course were intercepted within 20 minutes

why did it take OVER 90 MINUTES to even BEGIN to send up planes AFTER the govt KNEW there were hijackings?

easy answer: they were ordered to stand down.

[leesa]

36. I highly doubt you have read anything with an open mind

I can tell by the rationalizations you use. They are the ones conservatives use to try to paint those looking for answers to obvious Bush administration pre-knowledge and massive security failures on 9-11 as muddle-headed conspiracy theorists. I've heard them many, many times since 9-11.
The good thing is that the more these people read and learn, they usually have a light bulb go off and they realize we are right.

[Malva Zebrina]

13. I don't think he ever had the people of this nation in mind

ever. I don't think he ever meditated on his responsibilities to the people of this country except for those who are wealthy, connected and contributed to his powerful position and getting him in there when he did not really win the election.

Lihop of Mihop--it does not matter--he will never be called for any of it. It will end up like the endless Kennedy assissination conspiraciy theories and although that is truly sad for the people of this ocuntry, I do not think we will ever really be privvy to the facts on this one. We can go on making fun of his bunnypants hiding and all the rest, but I do not think anyone is going to prove he lihop or mihop. He may have just been following someone else;s orders and could have been that detached from the real going ons in his "administration" over which he did not and does not preside> Personally I think some one LIHOP.

I think all he is interested in is treating this like one of his failed businesses. Go in, take what you can get out of it to the hilt, and then pull out. And I think that is what he is doing.

--someone will see to it that he gets a presidential library where his pilot's costume with his "George Bush, President" embroidered on the upper left hand pocket might be exhibited along with the photo op with the tele tubbies. But, he will exit this presidency unscathed--just take off with the loot and go on to something else that he can screw up and bet bailed out of at the age of fifty five or sixty. He was propelled into it, just like he was propelled into the TANG on his daddy's name. He cares not for this country at all and has no sense of history.

So, it means little to him--he is entitled, in his mind to do with us what he wants because he was handed and given this election, once more, by his daddy. When one does not have to work much, one does not really have a sense of responsibility or the motivation to succeed. One will get bailed out again if one screws it up. He, our pwesidunce, is not looking good these days. Getting fat and bloated looking


Where's his teeth?

[pretzel4gore]

14. the proof is, they're getting away with it...

and people like you, who need 'proof' beyond what's blatantly obvious for example the FACT bush inc sent 100k plus troops to iraq borders before UN vote was an act of blackmail, not of the 'enemy' but of the US people, a forcing them to choose US instead of 'them'(simple, eh?)!
are why the busheviks are getting away with it.
There's tons of proof, if you consider 'news' entertainment, a live action movie event..to be used up daily by 'consumers'...and bush's personal goofiness, or cheney's, or even the entire admin's, doesn't change fact it ALL is filtered through the 'media' of news..which itself doesn't even pretend anymore to have any interest but the figurehead of geebush at heart; remember the phone call from barb olsen to her husband? Never happened, couldn't have...but ENTIRE PREMISE that it was arabs hinged upon that early identification..and the destruction of afghanistan, then iraq, all flowed from there, and there was no basis (even if you accept there was a ph call, olsen never id'ed arabs as the culprits... it was CNN/BFEE did that..with pre-pared fbi photos of bunch of 'arabs' and links to bin laden's earlier actions neatly presented and SOLD to the people.....
Bushinc hates america, and their success is dependent on americans looking away from obvious....

[Sterling]

45. I agree

The Barb Olsen lie was one of the triggers for me starting to look into the subject.

[calimary]

15. WHATEVER has them scrambling and floundering, I like.

I'm more or less in the LIHOP camp when I try to be a little more objective. I've just read too much about the PNAC and the people in in, who now populate the bush administration. It just doesn't pass the smell test. Just too much here that looks too fishy.

You know the ol' cliche - if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck and eats like a duck and poops like a duck, maybe it just might be a duck!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

17. Bush is Not a Fuck-up......(nor an idiot!!! )............read this

this was written and posted by someone (sorry i can't remember who but i hope someone will post it) here at DU...iand every word is true IMHO.


Bush is Not a Fuck-Up
January 17, 2004


I can read your mind. Right now, you're listing all the ways you know that Bush has fucked up and are getting ready to fire off some hate mail. Your list probably has three failed companies, failed foreign policy, failed economic policy, disastrous environmental policy, "bring 'em on," and more. But you're wrong. Bush is indeed guilty of all of that, but he is no fuck-up.

Let's take the failed oil companies. You're probably thinking that it takes a real fuck-up to start an oil company in Texas that fails to find any oil. But you're not thinking like a Bush. Bush's failed company allowed him to milk millions from investors and walk away with it in his pocket. A real fuck-up would have been as broke as his investors, or would have walked away with millions only to find himself put in prison for fraud. Bush achieved his objective: to get rich at the expense of others.

How about foreign policy? Bush has alienated most of the world, failed to find Osaka and fought a war in Iraq based on nothing but lies. Most people who did that would be fuck-ups, but not Bush. Bush's foreign policy has allowed his defense company cronies to walk away with billions (so they will reward him with campaign contributions). Bush's foreign policy has allowed him to terrorize the US into numbly allowing Ashcroft to wipe has behind on the Bill of Rights in the hopes that it will make them safer. Bush's oil company cronies will be benefiting in due course. Bush achieved his objectives: to help his cronies get rich at the expense of others so they will kick back campaign contributions.

Failed economic policy? Any other president who turned a surplus into a deficit, lost millions of jobs and is about to cause a collapse of the dollar might be deemed a fuck-up, but not Bush. The deficit means that the US will soon no longer be able to afford social programs like health benefits, unemployment benefits or retirement benefits, which is exactly how the GOP likes it. The tax cuts for the obscenely rich will benefit his cronies who will kick back with campaign contributions. The lost jobs mean that people will be more likely to sign up with the military as their only chance of any kind of job. The collapse of the dollar will allow his rich cronies (who hold other currencies and gold as well as dollars) to buy up shares at bargain-basement prices and increase their stranglehold on businesses of all kinds. Not only that, the collapse of the dollar will actually allow companies to start using domestic labor instead of outsourcing to other countries by employing people for peanuts (less than they would pay Chinese or Indian workers). Bush has achieved his objectives: fuck everyone so his rich cronies benefit and so does he.

Disastrous environmental policy? Not for Bush's cronies, who can afford houses in places that won't be flooded when the icecaps melt and can afford air and water treatment systems for their homes that will filter out the mercury, carcinogens and other toxic crap. Bush again is no fuck-up, he has achieved his objectives: fuck everyone but him and his rich buddies.

Bush is busy getting ready to fight war on more fronts when the US military is struggling to cope with the two wars he already started. But he's still no fuck-up. His economic policy means that more people will be signing up as cannon fodder (and if they don't, steps are being taken to ensure the draft can be revived at short notice). Those wars will keep his defense contractor buddies happy as the US plunders the resources of foreign countries. Sure, those wars will breed resentment and increase the likelihood of terrorist attack, but Bush needs the excuse of a terrorist attack to justify even more draconian legislation (and perhaps even to suspend elections for the duration of the "emergency"). Ask George Orwell: perpetual war is double-plus good. No fuck-up here, Bush is on the point of achieving his ultimate objective: fuck democracy and stay in power perpetually by the use of perpetual war.

I can read your mind again. You're thinking that the truth will out and Bush will lose the election. But he has it covered three ways. The first is his massive campaign fund, allowing him to outspend his opponents (advertising works -- ask Joe Camel). The second is the control by his rich cronies (whom he rewards with tax breaks and media deregulation) of most of he media. The third is the unauditable electronic voting machines from the likes of Diebold which will make the vote-rigging in Florida seem like an honest vote. Bush might seem like a vulnerable fuck-up, but he is likely to succeed in his objective: steal another election so he can fuck us over some more.

There are many more examples, but I'm sure you can think of them for yourselves and figure out why what looks like a fuck-up is actually superb strategy. And now you also know why I want you constantly to repeat the mantra: "Bush is not a fuck-up." He isn't. He only seems like one if you don't understand his objectives. If you think of Bush as a fuck-up, you "misunderestimate him" to his advantage, not yours.

It is true that Bush is fifty-one cards short of a full deck, but stupidity has never hampered despotic kings in the past -- they just rely on their advisors and only falter when their arrogance causes them to ignore their advisors, which may be our only hope with Bush. It is true that Bush is a greedy, dishonest, evil piece of shit, but he is no fuck-up (by his own greedy, dishonest, evil standards).

However, telling your GOP friends (if you have any) that Bush is a complete fuck-up and giving examples (without explaining to them why really it is good strategy by Bush) may persuade them not to support him. Just make sure you never think of Bush as a fuck-up, because he isn't.

[rman]

19. That would make not only Bush, but all of them idiots.

Or do you think that Bush makes all the decisions in person?
I'd say that an adminstration full of idiots is as worrying as an administration full of criminal conspiritors. In either case there's cause for outrage and call for resignation of the entire aministration.

Of course -IF- you assume all of them are idiots, and that all the bad things that are happening are coincidences, then there's no reason to suspect conspiracy.


"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."
- US President J Edgar Hoover

[Darranar]

24. There is not enough evidence for LIHOP or MIHOP...

Our government is certainly capable of at least LIHOP, but the fact that they could have done it does not make it true that they did do it.

[Minstrel Boy]

28. "the fact that they could have done it does not make it true

that they did do it."

Of course not, but there's much more than mere conjecture to support the case for foreknowledge and complicity.

When I hear people say there's not enough evidence, I tend to think it's because they haven't seen the evidence. Because it's considerable, not based upon speculation, and adds up.

[Darranar]

30. I actually have read many of the conspiracy theories...

and all the evidence they show proves is that there is much incompetence in the Bush Administration.

[Sterling]

48. It's not the theories you need to read.

It's the evidence. The mountains of it. Make up your own mind. Am I 100% of MIHOP? No. Am I sure that 9-11 is being used as a pretext for an evil plan that is bad for our country
?

Yes. That is enough reason to work very hard to take this issue away from Bush.

[leesa]

39. Then why are they obstructing the investigation? Why did they tamper

with evidence? If they have nothing to hide they would welcome a transparent, independent investigation. The Bush Crime Family has funded many criminals in the past, what would make you think these thugs were NOT complicit with their buddies the bin Ladens, the Saudis, etc.

[Darranar]

47. They DO have something to hide...

their tremendous incompetence.

[gulliver]

27. You are right of course.

Don't mind the tinfoilers. They don't bite.

[Q]

34. It's disturbing to see those who seek the truth...

...called 'tinfoilers'. This is part of the reason Bush* is able to get away with obstructing any real investigation into 9-11. This allows the 'official' story to stand...that Bush* is the 'hero' of 9-11 because he went after the big, bad terrorists IN IRAQ.

- These 'tinfoilers' are asking the questions that SHOULD BE asked by our representatives in the form of hearings and investigations. The Bush* government seems to think they're not obligated to answer ANY questions about responsibility or accountability.

- It's easy to dismiss one of the worse failures to protect America on 'incompetence'. I'm sure the Bushies love the fact that those asking these hard quesitons are dismissed as 'conspiracy nuts' and worse.

[Selwynn]

38. But you don't seek truth. You seek to confirm your own biases.

Seeking truth doesn't look anything like what you do. It doesn't start with an assumed conclusion and then seek corroborating evidence. It doesn't make its primary tool of verification be confirmation (i.e. looking for all the evidences that supports a view you already hold, which is the biggest and most sure way to obscure the truth that there is). Instead, it seeks out evidence that might disprove the assumption, it looks carefully at alternative explanation and tries to eliminate others. If it cannot eliminate other possibilities, then it doesn't

LIE

and claim that your assumption is the only obvious plausible explanation.

And let's be clear here - no one has a problem with these "tin foilers" who are asking questions. No, the real problem is tin foilers refusing to ask any questions that don't reinforced their own made up minds about the issue. They are not the genuine truth seekers. They are not the opened minded scientific investigators who only care about truth. They are a group of closed-minded people who have decided, before proof, on one conclusion and ignore or dismiss any evidence to the contrary.

The people who are ACTUALLY asking the questions in the right spirit are the people who want to find the FACTS, not the assumptions, not the speculative inferential facts. They are the people who acknowledge there are five possibilities:

1) no one did anything wrong
2) it was a failure of incompetence
3) it was a failure of passive allowance
4) it was a failure of active allowance
5) it was not a failure but a success of direct planning and execution

And of those five possibilities not one has been conclusively pr oven or disproven. Because part of conclusive proof is the ELIMINATION OF OTHER POSSIBILITIES. Oh and that pesky little think called, concrete objective credible conclusive evidence.

You know where I think we're at today? I think we're getting to the place where we can make a strong and grounded case that says we can eliminate #1 from the realm of possibility. That's it. The rest of it is wildly speculative, wildly CLOSED MINDED, assumption making which has NOTHING in common with the actual search for truth.

No one is persecuting the truth seeker here, except the tin foilers mocking and scoffing and those who refuse to swallow their unscientific biased-based wildly inferential chain of assumption based conclusions as absolute gods-honest fact.

[Minstrel Boy]

51. All you do, Selwynn, is confirm your own bias

that LIHOP can be explained away by our psychological need to find order where there is none. I have never seen you address the evidence. Evidence, not theory.

Just address for me one thread of evidence. One I'm sure you must be familiar with, since you claim such familiarity with the case for complicity.

Michael Springman.

From the transcript of a Greg Palast BBC documentary, "Did Bush Turn a Blind Eye to Terrorism?", broadcast Nov 6, 2001:

GREG PALAST: The former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah is Michael Springman.

MICHAEL SPRINGMAN: In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. These were, essentially, people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to the US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the Inspector General's office. I was met with silence.

...

What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the CIA.... Would you be surprised to find out that FBI agents are a bit frustrated that they can't be looking into some Saudi connections?
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=104&row=1

Springman has said "The State Department did not run the Consulate in Jeddah. The CIA did. Of the roughly 20 Washington-dispatched staff there, I know for a certainty that only three people (including myself) had no ties, either professional or familial, to any of the U.S. intelligence services." http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/02/521.shtml

Why is this relevant? Because 15 of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas to travel to the US through the Jeddah office, which was run, unusually, by the CIA.

A CBC radio interview with Springman, from January 19, 2002, can be heard here: http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/dispatches/audio/020116_springman.rm.

Listen to him. He claims his decisions to deny visas to unqualified applicants were frequently overturned for "national security reasons." In the interview, he claims he was told the CIA was working with bin Laden through the Jeddah office as a channel to send al Qaeda recruits to the United States for training as terrorists. He bluntly asserts that this partnership didn't end with the expulsion of the Soviets from Afghanistan, and continued as late as September 11, 2001. Springman raised hell, and lost his job. Why would the CIA be helping bin Laden send terrorists into the US after the Soviet defeat? Springman: "It's only a few thousand dead, and what's that against the greater gain for the United States in the Middle East?"

When they arrived in the United States, five of the hijackers received training at secure military installations. This was reported as early September 16, 2001 by The New York Times. Mohammed Atta attended the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force in Alabama. Saeed Alghamdi studied at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey,

Lt. Col. Steve Butler was vice chancellor for student affairs while Alghamdi was a student. In a letter published May 26, 2002, Butler charged "Bush knew of the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. What is...contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain." Butler was removed from his position and threatened with court martial.

According to its web site, the Defense Language Institute provides foreign language services to "Department of Defense, government agencies and foreign governments" to support "national security interests and global operational needs." Why was Alghamdi there? Why did he enter the US through a visa office run as a CIA operation? And what are we to make of the French Intelligence reports of the CIA meeting bin Laden himself in a Dubai hospital in July 2001?

Springmann, 20-year veteran of the State Department's foreign service, suggested to the CBC that those who died on September 11 "may have been sacrificed in order to further wider US geopolitical objectives."

What do you say, Selwynn, to Michael Springman?

[Selwynn]

54. My first question would be:

How do we know Michael Springman is credible. I notice that there is no paper trail to support his claims? So the first thing that I would want to do is attempt to assess his credibility. So far I've not have much luck, other than the statements that he was a 20 year veteran of the Sate Department, which means absolutely nothing. He could still be lying. Or he could be telling the truth? How do I know, other than to take his word?

So, I don't dismiss Springman's statements. I file them away, I look for more suport, some documentation other information. But I don't mistake the fact that some guy I don't know who I know nothing about said x things happen means I can close the book on the deal.

Second and more importantly, how do his claims conclusively connect Bush to MIHOP? We don't have any information on why he was ordered to issue visas. We don't know. So his claims DO NOT conclusively connect anyone to 9/11.

Seems to me that it is at least as plausible that the CIA was trying to train terrorists for their own uses abroad - something we already know happens. I acknowledge the possibility that the orders to issue visas were part of a criminal conspiracy by the government to kill Americans. But I find that explanation no more plausible than other equally plausible explanations. The only honest thing to do then is to admit we still don't know, not make absolutely conclusions based on inference.


Listen to him. He claims his decisions to deny visas to unqualified applicants were frequently overturned for "national security reasons." In the interview, he claims he was told the CIA was working with bin Laden through the Jeddah office as a channel to send al Qaeda recruits to the United States for training as terrorists. He bluntly asserts that this partnership didn't end with the expulsion of the Soviets from Afghanistan, and continued as late as September 11, 2001. Springman raised hell, and lost his job. Why would the CIA be helping bin Laden send terrorists into the US after the Soviet defeat? Springman: "It's only a few thousand dead, and what's that against the greater gain for the United States in the Middle East?"

This is what I said three other times when this was brought up. No one is denying that this happens. But you have to make a LEAP from these elements to the place where you say, AND THEREFORE BUSH MADE IT HAPPEN ON PURPOSE. Why? Because it's not really that shocking to me to discover that the CIA was still working with Terrorists - trying to use them, train them, and get them to do their bidding around the world. That doesn't get you to the place where you can conclude that therefore they were planning 9/11. In fact, in anything it only lends more evidence to the idea that we got caught totally with our pants down, or perhaps a better metaphor is with our hand in the cookie jar, and our attempts to "use" terrorits totally backfired.

Now, my speculation there is also inferential. That is why I FOR ONE AM NOT CLAIMING THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. I am acknowledging the limits of what we no for fact and REFUSING to commit some some conclusion and pretend like it is an absolute fact when it isn't.

There are open questions that need answered. But unlike conspiracy junkies, I don't look at a bunch of open questions as PRETEND LIKE THAT IN ITSELF IS PROOF. The only thing I know is that there are questions that need answers. Beyond that its unclear what happened.

[Selwynn]

55. You can only confirm bias if you hold a conclusion -

I don't hold a conclusion.

As I said before, there are five possibilities.

1) no one did anything wrong
2) there was a failure of incompetence
3) there was a failure of passive allowance
4) there was a failure of active allowance
5) there was a success of deliberate planning and execution

Those are the options. The only option I am closed to is option number one. There is enough concrete evidence of failings to eliminate that possibility. The scope of those failings, the severity of those failings and most importantly the motives of those failing are all open matters to which there is no concrete proof in any direction and this time, just a lot of speculation, reminding us of the truth that Americans are incredibly terrible critical thinkers.

[Beam Me Up]

53. Wait JUST a minute

On the whole I agree with what you are saying but there are several things that have to be considered.

First, what constitutes PROOF or even "concrete objective credible conclusive evidence". The FACT is, we (the people) are not being ALLOWED to examine ALL the evidence. WHY NOT? What is more, if by PROOF you mean either a direct witness of wrong doing (most likely implicated in the crime) or a credible document outlining the plans in detail, chances are we will never have access to such "PROOF". However, even with our limited access, sufficient EVIDENCE already exists to warrant a closer scrutiny. That scrutiny is being denied.

Second, to whom, precisely, does the five possibilities apply? One number might apply to Bush* and quite another to Rove or Cheney or Rumsfield.

[Selwynn]

57. I agree - open questions warrant closer scrutiny

I couldn't agree more. But just because the administration is stonewalling doesn't mean it is therefore proven that there was a criminal conspiracy. Like I said presidents of the past have stonewalled for far less... like a cigar, for example. :)

But I agree with you. There are unanswered questions that deserve a closer look. There should be outrage at the administrations attempts to stonewall. There should be a full and open public investigation of the facts, congressional hearings should be open to all. That's how we would start to heal.

I want to know what happened too. I want answers to open questions. But I refuse to form absolute conclusions based on inference and without ruling all other possibilities out - not on a whim but by credibly eliminating them by PROVING THEM FALSE.

Until then, I continue to say I don't know what happened in 9/11 - but I have a right to know.

[gulliver]

58. Seeking the truth is not that easy.

There is this quote from Maugham's The Razor's Edge that he got from the Katha-Upanishad.

The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard.

Tinfoiling is too easy. Models of the political world that include the possibility of MIHOP and LIHOP don't help in seeking the truth. They make you give up the search.

I have nothing against the tinfoilers as I called them. I kind of have a grudging affection for them. I only called them tinfoilers because many of them proudly wear that name ... "tinfoil-hatters, etc."

No offense intended, Q. Seriously.

[pretzel4gore]

61. i resent that!

you wouldn't wanna be the last granny smith apple i met!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

33. We must back away from the conspiracy theories before the General Election

We can't scare swing voters away with stories of voting machines with no ballots, falsified intelligence, 911 coverups and advance warnings from our allies, or elite fraternities and backroom deals, or transparent government cover stories.

Bush is simply incompetent, and we need to find a more efficient manager for the Occupation of Iraq, the Terror Wars, the PATRIOT Act state, and the privatization of our economy.

[Q]

35. Here comes the myth of the swing voter again...

...who is far more likely to vote for the great CIC Bush* than some scared rabbit Democrats afraid to challenge his 'truth blackout'.

- The awful truth is many of these aren't 'conspiracy theories'. They are FACTS that the American media refuses to report. You have to disregard many of these facts in order to say that the Bush* government was simply 'incompetent'. And as a matter of fact...those who simply dismiss this as incompetence are actually helping Bush* to stay in the WH after 2004. Do you really think Republicans give a shit if Bush* is incompetent as long as their party is in power?

[leesa]

41. You can't explain what happened via incompetence

Man, denial is a tough nut to crack when their is so much overwhelming evidence that the coincidence theory simply does not hold true.

[Selwynn]

50. Not overwhelming evidence, overwhelming speculative inference

[Q]

59. "speculative inference"

- Man o Man...you could work for this WH.

- Those of us who have been watching/participating in politics for a few decades KNOW that no other administration would be allowed to get away with this shit...especially a Democratic administration.

- This government hasn't answered even the most basic questions about 9-11. And it seems they won't have to...as long as there are enough people around to excuse their criminal behavior.

[Astarho]

46. Not an either/or

Bush is an idiot and they did LIHOP or MIHOP. There is too much evidence for just incompetance.

How is this evidence of a super secret, all powerful cabal of PNACers executing a worldwide conspiracy?

They aren't that secret, it's all on the net. www.newamericancentury.org

[x-g.o.p.er]

62. What does LIHOP and MIHOP stand for?

Still pretty new here, and trying to pick up the jargon

[Carl Spackler]

63. Here you go:

LIHOP - Let It Happen On Purpose
MIHOP - Made It Happen On Purpose

Both referring to 9/11, the idea being that George Bush, his inner circle, an top people in the civilian and military services conspired to either allow 9/11 or actually engineered it to advance the "neocon" agenda of worldwide domination.

[x-g.o.p.er]

64. Thanks!! n/t