Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Bad link, unless you, Rand, are a major Democrat candidate. I always knew you were a neo-liberal. ;)

Posted by Leland at May 10, 2007 09:17 AM

These people are complete nuts. Sadly nutty people get traction in difficult times. Check out the GOP right during the last years of Clinton.

The tape from the REv. Fallwell of how Hillary murdered Vince...is sure a keeper for political insanity.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 09:19 AM

The tape from the REv. Fallwell of how Hillary murdered Vince...is sure a keeper for political insanity.

No, what's political insanity is making up stuff like this. Once again, you're fact-challenged. There is no such tape.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 09:24 AM

Rand, the Jonah link points to yourself.

Posted by JP Gibb at May 10, 2007 09:25 AM

Rand, why did you forget to mention the 1 in 7 Republicans who answered that poll the same way?

Of course, a CIA briefing paper presented to George Bush in August with the title warning that al Qaeda intends a major strike within the US might actually count as "knowledge" of the subsequent attack in September.

Dependign upon the definition of "knowledge"

Posted by Bill White at May 10, 2007 09:29 AM

Because it's only one in seven, not one in three.

Links should be fixed now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 09:32 AM

The more fundamental problem is that the Rasmussen poll results do not lead to the inferences Jonah Goldberg makes.

During the polling process "knew" can be interpreted to include "should have put the pieces together" without an assertion of willful complicity.

But go right ahead, continue to accuse the majority party in Congress (and their voters) of insanity and perhaps treason. Such a stance will be sure to help in November 2008. Help us Democrats, that is.

As for pandering to the base, a denial of the scientific evidence for evolution for political gain, strikes me as a rsther extreme case of pandering.

Posted by Bill White at May 10, 2007 10:07 AM

No, what's political insanity is making up stuff like this. Once again, you're fact-challenged. There is no such tape.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 09:24 AM

Yes there is Rand. I have a copy of it. I always by things like that...

Another one actually is coming out about Hillary's problems. It was all the rage a few weeks ago at the Thompson blog.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 10:11 AM

During the polling process "knew" can be interpreted to include "should have put the pieces together" without an assertion of willful complicity.

Not by me. I know what the word means, even if they don't.

But go right ahead, continue to accuse the majority party in Congress (and their voters) of insanity and perhaps treason.

I didn't say anything about treason. But clearly a large part of the left of the party is nuts.

Such a stance will be sure to help in November 2008. Help us Democrats, that is.

Really?

How does that work? Particularly if it's a credible charge?

As for pandering to the base, a denial of the scientific evidence for evolution for political gain, strikes me as a rsther extreme case of pandering.

What reason do you have to believe that they weren't expressing their sincere beliefs? Or that they were doing it "for political gain"?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 10:12 AM

Posted by Bill White at May 10, 2007 10:07 AM

some people on the far left are nuts. ON the Edwards blog the comment is all the rage because a lot of them do believe that WTC 7 was a Bush conspiracy...a lot of them buy into Rosies steel comment.

People on the far right are nuts. The "WMD went to Syria" crowd is as stupid as the folks who think that the 9/11 stuff was a bush conspiracy.

The extremes are captive of ideologies. And to attack those ideologies are "personal attacks"...which they are because that is all these people have. Hence the Clinton lied crowd more or less claiming Scooter didnt.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 10:14 AM

I have a copy of it.

You have a copy of a tape by Jerry Falwell that claims that Hillary murdered Vince?

Hang on to it, it's a unique collector's item. In fact, probably the only one in existence.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 10:16 AM

On evolution and political gain, does anyone deny that John (Straight Talk) McCain was pandering during that debate?

If they do I will go and collect the YouTube tapes and we can watch them together. McCain said "yes" and then back pedalled and scrambled like Fran Tarkenton. Anyoen remember him?

Posted by Bill White at May 10, 2007 10:21 AM

Hey Robert -

YouTube is your friend.

Posted by Bill White at May 10, 2007 10:22 AM

Robert: What's nuts about thinking Ba'athist Syria got Ba'athist Iraq's weapons?

It would be untenable to assert it as fact, since the evidence is far from conclusive, but sources in Iraq and the intelligence community have been suggesting that for years now.

Believing it possible or even probable is not insane at this point, though believing it certain is inconsistent with available evidence.

For that matter, it's hardly as stupid as thinking "Bush was behind 9/11" - believing that requires believing impossible things, like a giant super-competent government conspiracy that has remained utterly hidden (in terms of revelations from inside) to this day.

Believing that Iraqi WMDs went to Syria requires believing only that Iraq had WMDs (which was believed by pretty much everyone in 2002-3), and that they could send some to friendly Syria on trucks.

The latter is uncertain (and probably unlikely, see below), but it's nowhere near as implausible as "Bush did 9/11", which requires the silent, active c0mplicity of a huge number of people.

(Myself, I believe the Syria thing to be possible, though unlikely based on available evidence.

I think it's more likely that Hussein never actually had any significant WMDs in that timeframe, but thought he did because his WMD staff were misleading him.

Who wants to tell the dictator his nerve gas is outdated and bad, or that the program you assured him was going to work perfectly had developed fatal flaws?

I recall reading intercepts and captured documents from the Iraqi Army at the time that indicated that they believed they had a WMD arsenal.

That they were wrong points up a dangerous flaw in the internal workings of a dictatorship - nobody's willing to bear bad news, and there's no independent means to confirm anything.)

(PS. Why does "act1ve c0m" count as a banned phrase?)

Posted by Sigivald at May 10, 2007 10:25 AM

On evolution and political gain, does anyone deny that John (Straight Talk) McCain was pandering during that debate?

I didn't see the debate, but it wouldn't surprise me if McCain was.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 10:30 AM

"Hang on to it, it's a unique collector's item. In fact, probably the only one in existence.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 10:16 AM"

Rand. The distribution list was small by most standards but they were distributed in quite a few churches, that is where I found mine.

I could go to You Tube and pull out some downloads of it. They must have gotten one as well. But I just went to Wiki...

Enjoy. FActs. I wont laugh on line. I enjoy the moment when the extremes fall down.

"As to what prompted this line of investigation, reporter Dan Moldea claimed in an interview for Salon.com that "Foster had some blond hair and carpet fibers on his suit jacket, and he had semen in his underwear. So, the Jerry Falwells and the right-wing crowd get a hold of this information, and…they start making movies alleging that the Clintons were involved in this murder."[16] Falwell produced the Clinton Chronicles, which Ruddy was involved with claiming the gun was placed in Fosters hand.[16] These videos and claims have been "widely discredited" the videos "sophisticated production" served as a reliable resource.[17]"

and the walls came tumblin down.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 10:35 AM

Posted by Sigivald at May 10, 2007 10:25 AM

Its nuts because we had 24/7 air survellance of the roads in Anbar and other places before we went BOG (boots on ground) and this administration was depserate for some proof. According to Tram Tranior we had teams assembled in Kuwait ready to "insert" to gather any proof.

We never found it.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 10:38 AM

As for pandering to the base, a denial of the scientific evidence for evolution for political gain, strikes me as a rsther extreme case of pandering.

Posted by Bill White at May 10, 2007 10:07 AM

Oddly enough it more or less follows my beliefs in both science and religion.

I believe quite strongly that a supreme Being set the physical laws of the universe in motion and that "evolved" to what we have today.

There is nothing in my view inconsistent with what McNasty said on that issue.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 10:39 AM

1) The fact that Dan Moldea claimed it doesn't make it true.

2) Even if true, "the Clintons were involved in this murder" != "Hillary murdered Vince"

But again, don't let reality get in the way of your delusions.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 10:40 AM

Fran Tarkenton. Anyoen remember him?

Posted by Bill White at May 10, 2007 10:21 AM

I remember Fran.

I cant recall what year it was, but I was a child. We (my saintly father and I) were with some other family members at a Dallas Cowboy game and they were playing the Vikings. I recall a fight broke out. What was funny to watch was the fight going on and on the sidelines were Francis and "Dandaru" (with apologies to Howard Cosel) sitting and chatting with each other.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 10:42 AM

1) The fact that Dan Moldea claimed it doesn't make it true.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 10:40 AM

Rand...nice subject change.

I am sure that if Dan Modea said it that it is fiction.

but nice subject change. This is what you wrote:

"No, what's political insanity is making up stuff like this. Once again, you're fact-challenged. There is no such tape."

you are wrong. Wiki things you are wrong. Try looking under Vince Foster.

There are lots of these tapes made by the Rev. Jerry F which is what I said. INformation is the key to a Free Republic.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 10:45 AM

This is from Wiki on The Clinton Chronicles.
VHS copies of the film were promoted and distributed via television infomercials by Moral Majority leader Rev. Jerry Falwell, who also appears in the film.[1] Falwell's infomercial for the 80-minute tape included footage of Falwell interviewing a silhouetted journalist who was afraid for his life. The journalist accused Clinton of orchestrating the deaths of several reporters and personal confidants who had gotten too close to his illegalities. However, it was subsequently revealed that the silhouetted journalist was, in fact, Patrick Matrisciana, the producer of the video and president of Citizens for Honest Government. "Obviously, I'm not an investigative reporter," Matrisciana admitted (to investigative journalist Murray Waas), "and I doubt our lives were actually ever in any real danger. That was Jerry's idea to do that ... He thought that would be dramatic."[1]
"

So one shouldnt wonder why the far left believes that Bush took the buildings down...the far right believes nutty things as well.

An informed society is essential to a free state.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 10:47 AM

Rand.

If you would like to buy a copy of the tape, they are still available...

http://users.rcn.com/virtual.nai/sot/videos/clinton.htm

There are more then 1.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 10:52 AM

Robert, you still haven't cited a single thing that says that any tape by Jerry Falwell claims that "Hillary murdered Vince." If your point is that the far right believes nutty things, no one disputes that. But you should use actual factual examples to make it. Facts are a stubborn thing.

But go ahead. Keep flailing, and graffitiing up my web site, and looking like a nut.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 10:57 AM

Yeah Rand. First you claim that no such tape exist. That was wrong. You obviously have not seen the tape.

If you had then you would know that more then 1 copy exist, (unless you watched it with me). Go read about it. Go to YouTube and watch some of the excerpts.

Both your statements flounder quite quickly.

Its claims (among them HIllary murdered Vince) are as nutty as anything on the WTC. information is power.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 11:04 AM

I never claimed that no tape exists. I am familiar with the existence of "The Clinton Chronicles" and have been since the nineties.

I claimed that no tape exists that claims that "Hillary murdered Vince." You have provided zero evidence that such a tape exists, despite all of your keyboard diarrhea. If you want to back off on that claim, we can get on to other topics. But based on your history, I suspect that the diarrhea will continue.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 11:10 AM

Evidence and information are two different things. Watch the tape. I've watched it you have not. If you want to believe what you believe go ahead. You dont have enough information to make an informed judgment.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 11:23 AM

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/03/cov_11news.html

One more link for you Rand on the Clinton Chronicles.

You should get the tape. I have tapes from the nuts on the left and right. It is sort of a Gong Show for me to watch when the world gets very nutty. I can always see that some people are nuttier.

There is a new Clinton Chronciles coming out. It exposes even more of Hillary (hopefully just her life, not her body).

I do enjoy your blog Rand. a fun place and you are a fun guy.-------------------------------

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 11:28 AM

As I recall, and I wasn't then or now much concerned so I can't provide specifics, there were some "odd" circumstances surrounding Fosters death.
There are also a number of knowledgeable people who say that at least some Iraqi WMD went to Syria, and there is some evidence to support this hypothesis.
However there is NOT ONE shred of evidence that would lead any sane person to believe that anyone in the US government had anything to do with the event of 9/11.
Therefore any comparison of these "right wing conspiracies" with the kooks who think Bush staged 9/11 is ludicrous. Snow is white and so is cocaine, but that is where the similarities end.
The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are a special breed of kook ranking alongside those who believe there is a human face sculpture carved into a mountain on the surface of Mars.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 10, 2007 12:19 PM

The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are a special breed of kook ranking alongside those who believe there is a human face sculpture carved into a mountain on the surface of Mars.

Or the ones who think that NASA covered up fake landings on the moon.

Yes, Foster's death was quite suspicious and, barring someone's deathbed confession, we may never know who killed him, given how badly the investigation was botched.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 12:38 PM

Robert, we also had 24/7 surveillance of large parts of Iraq in 1991 during large (and largely unsuccessful) "SCUD hunts". Was our coverage as 100% as we claimed it was? I seriously doubt it. Especially when civilian traffic was flowing and smuggling was and is rampant. I don't think we'd have missed 100% of it, though, so I doubt it.

Posted by Larry at May 10, 2007 04:02 PM

Robert,

Since you've got the tape, it should be a simple matter of putting up on YouTube the clip from "The tape from the REv. Fallwell of how Hillary murdered Vince" that explains just how "Hillary murdered Vince".

Posted by Larry at May 10, 2007 04:06 PM

"Robert, we also had 24/7 surveillance of large parts of Iraq in 1991 during large (and largely unsuccessful) "SCUD hunts". Was our coverage as 100% as we claimed it was? I seriously doubt it. Especially when civilian traffic was flowing and smuggling was and is rampant. I don't think we'd have missed 100% of it, though, so I doubt it."

And suppose we had perfect intel, and somehow bombed the correct target. The Saddam regime then could then claim we were targeting civilian targets and starting a war. Besides Syria regime has chemical weapons and can legally have chemical weapons unlike Iraqi because of it's cease fire agreement. [A cease fire agreement btw signed to countries that included Syria as a member of Gulf war coalition]
So compared to bombing what could easily called civilian targets and starting a war, what is argument you going to used justify the bombing- that Saddam isn't following the exact lettering of the cease fire agreement because instead returning them over to the UN inspectors, he is getting rid of them by giving them to Syria?
It's similar to F14 pilot saying he strafed the street because he thought he saw a someone jay walk or do an illegal U-turn.

Posted by gbaikie at May 10, 2007 04:40 PM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 10, 2007 12:19 PM

There were odd circumstances only in the world of The Rev Jerry F. aka the world of right wing nuts. The Park POlice did a first rate investigation, Ken Starr (that noted liberal) looked into the thing and said "nothing here" (but that didnt stop the Rev. Jerry.

There is not a single forensic scientist who would find anything remotly strange about the suicide evidence, everything was consistent with a sad man who ended his life.

AS for the WMD to Syria...more fantasy.

This seems to fall under the "their conspiracies are nut jobs, ours are plausible."

Check (they think that on the Edwards blog as well...and some other whacky left wing ones)

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 05:36 PM

Robert, we also had 24/7 surveillance of large parts of Iraq in 1991 during large (and largely unsuccessful) "SCUD hunts". Was our coverage as 100% as we claimed it was?

Posted by Larry at May 10, 2007 04:02 PM

Who was claiming it was 100 percent in DS? DF maybe? That noted warrior elite.

We were hunting for WMD to justify the Bush invastion. Do you really think that they let it get to Syria?

Come on now?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 05:37 PM

Posted by Larry at May 10, 2007 04:06 PM

It would be easy but there are two problems....of course the main one is "I dont really care to do it".

See I am correct here and that is as they say good enough for me. I gave a lot of links where Mr Rev Jerry F has his fingers completly in The Clinton Chronicle pie..including the "MYSTERY INTERVIEW" of someone who felt threatened by their lives.

Since that was a charade the entire thing falls.

Jerry should repent.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 05:39 PM

Posted by gbaikie at May 10, 2007 04:40 PM

Saddam did all that in Desert Fox and no one cared...why Because DF was done competently.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 05:40 PM

Oler: “Who was claiming it was 100 percent in DS?”

The point, for those not so dense as to miss it, is that if Scuds moving about the desert in 1991 and we could not locate them 100% no one (other than Bob Oler) can be 100% certain that Scud sized vehicles hauling WMD to Syria in 2002-2003 would have been located. Thus it is proven that such movement can, and did in 1991, take place without US surveillance detecting it.

There is also the story by a former Saddam General who states that WMD was flown to Syria in Iraqi commercial airliners. Commercial flights to Syria from Iraq WERE taking place up until shortly before the invasion, that is a known FACT, but no one (again, except for Bob Oler) can say with any surety that only passengers were on those aircraft.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 10, 2007 06:20 PM

Oler: "Because DF was done competently."

"...it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

Chronological hint for Oler: Operation Desert Fox ended December 19, 1998. Bill Clinton, IE the man who ordered Desert Fox, made the above statement July 22, 2003 IE after Desert Fox. Therefore Bill Clinton believed WMD remained AFTER "DF was done competently."

Desert Fox did NOT destroy all of Saddams WMD nor his capacity to create WMD.

Of course you know this Bob, because I've told you so many times.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 10, 2007 06:26 PM

The Park POlice did a first rate investigation

This is a joke, right?

Ken Starr (that noted liberal)looked into the thing and said "nothing here"

Yes, some people love Ken Starr when it comes to the Foster report, regardless of how incompetent it was. He's only a villain when he did something that was detrimental to their hero, Bill Clinton.

(but that didnt stop the Rev. Jerry.

The "Rev. Jerry" came out with his video years before Starr's report. But don't let reality interfere with your fantasies.

There is not a single forensic scientist who would find anything remotly strange about the suicide evidence, everything was consistent with a sad man who ended his life.

You've obviously never read Starr's Foster report, particularly the Knowlton Appendix, whose conclusions are not supported by the evidence therein. Instead, you just buy, and sit and watch loony Falwell videos, that don't support your statements here, that "Hillary murdered Vince."

And yet you expect us to take you seriously, and not recognize you as the arrogant loon you are?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 06:29 PM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 10, 2007 06:20 PM

That was then Cecil...this is now.

Then the JSTAR's plane was a one of scratch built that more or less went over there with contractor personel like a hobby plane.

They were not even sure that the JSTAR could detect "SCUD sized vehicles" because they had not really had a chance to well test it fully.

Now we know Cecil. And JSTAR's is a fairly mature and maturing technology. And pre OAF, it was "on patrol" more or less constantly, particularly in ANBAR.

Thanks.
]
Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 07:45 PM

Therefore Bill Clinton believed WMD remained AFTER "DF was done competently."

Desert Fox did NOT destroy all of Saddams WMD nor his capacity to create WMD.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 10, 2007 06:26 PM

Probably did actually. IN fact the "records" we have now post invasion more or less confirm that it did.

Clinton wasnt for sure, but the odds that Saddam was a threat to anyone went down "a lot" after DF...indeed he never used a single bio/chem weapon again or built one.

Guess DF was done "competently"

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 07:47 PM

Knowlton Appendix

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 06:29 PM

Well. yes Ken STarr was in on the conspiracy.

Rand you dont have the technical competence to judge a forensic report. I dont either but I have classmates from Glynco who are. They label the theories of "murder" absurd. In fact it is one of the jokes on CSI vegas.

Do you have own copy of JF's tape? NO...wow you are a Clinton not liker...trying not to laugh on blog ...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 07:50 PM

BTW Rand.

I should add, you are correct on the dates. Jerry F didnt wait for any real investigation or proof...He did his "tapes" with "people in fear for their lives" just on his own hate.

I fear for The Republic with an HRC presidency, the only redeeming feature would be that people like Falwell would have to take it up the buns during it...

Oh Jerry might stroke out he would be so upset...particularly after his "Moral man" that brought the GOP to ruin.

That would be to cool.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 10, 2007 08:03 PM

Rand, you seriously believe that a third of the democratic party congressmen think that the president knew of the 911 attacks ahead of time?

One has to seriously wonder who is the delusional one here.

Posted by Adrasteia at May 10, 2007 08:25 PM

Rand you dont have the technical competence to judge a forensic report.

With all due respect, you unjustifiably arrogant ass, you have no idea what my areas of competence are. If you or your friends haven't read the Foster Report, including the Knowlton Appendix, then quit fantasizing what you think it says. I haven't stated any "theories," other than that it is extremely unlikely that he died by his own hand in Fort Marcy Park.

And I neither own, nor have seen, the Falwell video. As I said, I was too busy reading and evaluating actual evidence. If you'd done the same, you wouldn't be so demonstrably ignorant of the Clinton era.

Rand, you seriously believe that a third of the democratic party congressmen think that the president knew of the 911 attacks ahead of time?

Do you seriously believe that I made such a claim? If so, go back and reread what I wrote, and work on your reading comprehension.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 11, 2007 04:18 AM

Robert, you did know that the August '01 PDB was less
specific in every respect than the one offered to Bill
Clinton in December '98. Four months before the Kosovo war.

Posted by narciso at May 11, 2007 05:35 AM

Why is it that every time someone brings evolution into the debate I want to laugh? I have the same reaction when my plumber wants to debate the merits of the existence of a human soul as a function of quantum mechanics. More to the point, there are some very adequate reasons behind not describing it as the LAW of evolution, n' est ce pas? When people argue as if thermodynics and gravity are theories and evolution is a law of science it only exposes how dreadful this country is at teaching basic science and philosophy (among other things).

Posted by Gunga at May 11, 2007 06:16 AM

A little aside of humor...truthfully, HOW do you teach philosophy? You could call it critical thinking maybe.

Posted by Mac at May 11, 2007 06:31 AM

JSTARS coverage of Iraq in 2002 up until 2003 invasion was NOT, I repeat NOT, sufficient to track even ONE TENTH of the vehicle traffic Iraq-Syria. That is simply a fact.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 11, 2007 06:34 AM

FWIW re Foster, my father is a retired homicide detective. I recall some years ago asking him about it, and he said Foster probably did kill himself, but not where his body was found. I don't recall what his reasoning was, but I do recall it had something to do with both a lack of blood at the site as well as an assertion that he couldn't have shot himself in the way he supposedly did holding the gun the way it was found.

Posted by Crimso at May 11, 2007 07:14 AM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 11, 2007 06:34 AM

All that shows is that you dont understand JSTARS...

First you might get a grasp on WAR...then go to the implements of it.

We had ANBAR under complete observation including SEAL teams etc on the ground. Tram Trainor labels your statement ridiculous.

He should know

Start with War.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 07:27 AM

Posted by Crimso at May 11, 2007 07:14 AM

ON what "Data" did your father support that conclusion?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 07:29 AM

ON what "Data" did your father support that conclusion?

He probably read the Starr Report on the Foster death, whose conclusions don't follow from its contents.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 11, 2007 07:35 AM

Right.

Three "name" forensic pathologist looked at the "data" that indicated movement and even someone who had just watched a few episodes of CSI VEGAS would have figured out that the claims of movement were from the "Loon" bin.

This is about as nutty a concept (that Foster was killed or moved or whatever) as that jet fuel cannot melt steel.

It is conclusions based on faith...ie faith that our ideology is better then science.

You may not understand the forensics enough to be fooled Rand, but thats ok there are people who think that jet fuel cant melt steel. Heck there are blogs where people have done experiments and even proved that just sitting in a bucket jet fuel wont burn!

trying not to laugh at the "science guys"

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 07:49 AM

Robert, you did know that the August '01 PDB was less
specific in every respect than the one offered to Bill
Clinton in December '98. Four months before the Kosovo war.

Posted by narciso at May 11, 2007 05:35 AM

What conclusions are you trying to draw? Bill Clinton had excellent reasons for fighting in Kosovo. He did a good job and executed power well.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 07:52 AM

You may not understand the forensics enough to be fooled Rand

Stop insulting my intelligence and knowledge. You are completely ignorant of this subject, by your own admission, and yet you have the temerity to come in here to my own blog and insult me on the subject?

Do you think that anyone here takes you and your hilariously pompous arrogance seriously, Robert? On second thought, perhaps we should be LOLing at your comments, but not for the reason you think. Do you have any comprehension of what an unwitting clown show you put on for us in my comments section, every single day?

If I were you, I'd stop it, and slink away. But then, I guess if I really were you, I'd continue to act like an ignorant arrogant ass, as I suspect you will.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 11, 2007 08:10 AM

OK, back to the point of the main post. I am completely flabbergast that ~1/3 of democrats (and ~1/7 of republicans) actually believe this junk. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at their total and complete ignorance.

On one side, we have a thorough investigation, conducted by members of BOTH parties, several independant SCIENTIFIC reports, and our own EYES that all state that 9-11 was a terrorist act.

On the other side, we have a few college students, a bunch of web-sites (btw, ROBERT, using Wiki as a basis of argument is laughable - anyone can post anything to it - kind of like using a post here as a reference to FACT), and extremist loons telling us that 9-11 was an 'inside job'.

It just goes to show that people really are sheep and will believe almost anything.

Posted by Tom W. at May 11, 2007 08:44 AM

Mac - HOW do you teach philosophy?

Well, check the course catalogue any given university and you'll likely find that they claim to teach philosophy. Some people I know even majored in it, cough, sputter,...humor indeed.

Robert

Posted by Gunga at May 11, 2007 09:11 AM

I guess if I really were you, I'd continue to act like an ignorant arrogant ass, as I suspect you will.

We call it, "The New 'diversity'"...

Robert

Posted by Gungabert at May 11, 2007 09:25 AM

On one side, we have a thorough investigation, conducted by members of BOTH parties, several independant SCIENTIFIC reports, and our own EYES that all state that 9-11 was a terrorist act.

At the time, we were shocked and everyone was on the same page. Then, the power shifting started, as it always does. Both sides do it, so its not one side's fault. However, if there ever were a time for true 'bipartisanship' that was it.

Posted by Mac at May 11, 2007 10:37 AM

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 11, 2007 08:10 AM

Rand. I am not insulting your knowledge or intellegence, perhaps your judgment.

Unless you are going to produce 1) some courses in forensic science and 2) certification in same then you are merely a layman and you have demonstrated on many occassions that you are not capable of seperating your ideology from your judgments.

rest of your post is a rant. Hope you feel better after it.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 10:58 AM

Posted by Tom W. at May 11, 2007 08:44 AM

I go to Wiki because I try and post things that are on the level of comprehension of the people who I am posting a reference to.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 10:59 AM

I go to Wiki because I try and post things that are on the level of comprehension of the people who I am posting a reference to.

So the level of comprehension of the people you're posting a reference to is make believe? Get that guys? General Zinni is a make believist!

Posted by Mac at May 11, 2007 11:30 AM

Rand. I am not insulting your knowledge or intellegence, perhaps your judgment.

Of course you are. One doesn't need to "take a course in forensics" to understand a crime report, particularly one written as part of a government investigation and meant for laypeople to read. One merely need be reasonably intelligent. You are declaring me otherwise. And I can safely say you're completely ignorant in this matter, since you haven't even read the report.

And as for my "rant," it was reality. You are a joke here, Robert. Who do you think is convinced, or mind is changed, by anything you write?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 11, 2007 12:14 PM

you have demonstrated on many occassions that you are not capable of seperating your ideology from your judgments

Pot, i'd like for you to meet kettle...kettle, pot...

Robert

Posted by Gunga at May 11, 2007 12:39 PM

Robert, perhaps your analogy between the Foster conspiricists and the "truthers" would be more cogent if you could point to an instance of a leading Republican presidential candidate pandering to the "Hillary Murdered Him" crowd. As far as I know, Jerry Falwell is a private citizen.

Posted by Frank B at May 11, 2007 01:20 PM

Who do you think is convinced, or mind is changed, by anything you write?

Much as I hate to say it, because it means I'm defending Robert ...Are any of us posting here really changing our minds on these issues?

Posted by Mac at May 11, 2007 01:39 PM

leading Republican presidential candidate pandering to the "Hillary Murdered Him" crowd. As far as I know, Jerry Falwell is a private citizen.

Posted by Frank B at May 11, 2007 01:20 PM

Which many Republican politicans feel that they must pander to.

Most of the people making the charges about the towers being blown up by Bush are private citizens.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 05:01 PM

You are completely ignorant of this subject, by your own admission, and yet you have the temerity to come in here to my own blog and insult me on the subject?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 11, 2007 08:10 AM

I am not insulting you Rand. I am saying that you have no more technical or scientific skill to question forensic reports then people who are questioning the report of the 9/11 commission.

The "someone murdered Vince" or "he killed himself somewhere else" thing is so fascinating to me, because it dovetails completly the "logic trend" on the "jet fuel wont burn steel" groups.

The experts conclude one thing and the ideology experts conclude quite another based not on the science but their ideology.

One web site on the Vince Foster thing I recall was fascinating...the guy went to great links on analysis with the basic statement that "the heart keeps pumping until it runs out of blood" in a suicide. This of course is possible, but it is not always the situation. My experience is that I have seen people with head shots, they die rather quickly and not all that much blood. Their heart stopped the minute that the brain part that controls their pacemaker was "terminated".

It seems important to you that the Clintons and Bill Clinton be evil. Guard against excessive ideological indulgences on that.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 05:06 PM

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 11, 2007 08:10 AM

Rand...btw I didnt say I was ignorant of the subject...I said I and I bet you dont have professional training in the subject. I bet I have seen more head shots then you for instance...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 05:07 PM

btw I didnt say I was ignorant of the subject.

Of course you didn't say that. Why would someone with a monumental ego like you say such a thing?

We can all easily infer it from everything you've posted, starting with the fact that you haven't even read the most fundamental governmental report on it.

Nonetheless, you have admitted that you haven't read the relevant government report on the subject, and are only relying on your "friends" to tell you what is going on. This is why it's perfectly reasonable to infer that you are ignorant of the subject, and that you are an arrogant ass.

..I said I and I bet you dont have professional training in the subject. I bet I have seen more head shots then you for instance...

Yes, you have said that, even though you are a grammatical moron, and have no conception how hypostrophes work, or the distinction between "then" and "than." The statement continues to be moronic. The amount of "professional training" that I've had, and the number of head shots that you've seen is irrelevant.

And you continue to look like a clown.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 11, 2007 06:20 PM

Wow Robert. That was instructive. Rand posts a link to a poll that says a third of Democrats believe think that Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time - and yet allowed it to happen anyhow - and you try to deflect from the obvious insanity that affects such a huge portion of the Democrat party by bringing up... Jerry Falwell? I see. When it becomes apparent that a third of the Democrat party is batshit insane, deflect the issue - hey! Look over there! A baby wolf! Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain!

I strongly suggest you read EjectEjectEject sometime, particularly the "Seeing the Unseen" series.

Posted by Ed Minchau at May 11, 2007 06:38 PM

OH I bet you about a third of the GOP bought the "Hillary murdered Vince thing"...Rand seems to think Vince was murdered, some vast conspiracy exist...he is in other things a rational purpose.

Toss Clinton in front of him and that rationality seems to fade.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 07:23 PM

Rand posts a link to a poll that says a third of Democrats believe think that Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time - and yet allowed it to happen anyhow - and you try to deflect from the obvious insanity that affects such a huge portion of the Democrat party by bringing up... Jerry Falwell?

Perhaps not Cognitive Dissonance, but Grandiose Delusional Disorder?

Posted by Leland at May 11, 2007 07:25 PM

Of course you didn't say that. Why would someone with a monumental ego like you say such a thing?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 11, 2007 06:20 PM

as I sing the song. "Oh Lord its hard to humble (an apostrophe there for your AH attack!) when your perfect in every way, I cant help but look in the mirror, cause I get better looking each day, to know me is to love, ........oh Lord its (there is that apostrohe...a little spellling as well) hard to humble...

I sing as well (Not really)

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 07:26 PM

Posted by Ed Minchau at May 11, 2007 06:38 PM

I should add. I think that about 1/3 of the GOP is batshit (grin) insane...nuts actually. Vince Foster, wmd smuggled to Syria, Bush is a moral man...etc etc.

They are dumber then dirt in terms of their ideology. So is the far left and I enjoy pointing out their flaws as well.

It is fascinating to watch, because it illustrates how nations can go off track. It is almost like investigating an airplane (or any kind really) of accident caused completly by human error not technology failure. It is great post mortum to watch the "walls come tumbling down" in the decision making process.

Speaking of the Rev Jerry. I watch his act on TV some just to see how the "cover the bust of lady Justice because she has a bust" wing of the gOP operate (dont worry I watch nuts like Casey Sheehan as well...wasnt it a hoot when they saw all their money get bonked)...

A month before the 06 election he was promising the faithful that "God wont let the GOP lose control of Congress". Suckers

All laping it up. Just like the jet fuel folks on teh far left.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 07:32 PM

That should be "nuts like Casey Sheehan's mom"...

Casey Sheehan was a soldier and a hero to The Republic. The "times" regrets the error.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 07:36 PM

"All that shows is that you dont understand JSTARS..."

No I don't, but a US Army Major I've known for 30 years not only knows JSTARS but also knows where and what they were doing 2002-2003.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 12, 2007 05:30 AM

Also I see that you will not address the issue of the possibility of commercial aircraft being used to move WMD from Iraq to Syria. What iron clad proof is there that only Robert G. Oler has to debunk that one?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 12, 2007 05:33 AM

Cecil

I thought that it was pretty much confirmed that the terrorists that tried to decapitate the Jordanian government got their WMD from Syria. While it was not confirmed that this WMD came from Iraq there were credible inferrences that it did.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at May 12, 2007 08:28 AM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 12, 2007 05:30 AM

Then he knows that most of them were either 1) building or 2) on the ramp in HZ land flying.

Even Aviation Week and Space Technology knew that.

so now commercial aircraft.

That is not to hard to debunk.

We had 24/7 flight ops over Iraq and had we detected ANY pattern of loading of hazmat onto commercial airplanes I am pretty sure that we would have at least shown the pictures.

It isnt like one just goes and gets these weapons loads them on a pallet and puts them in the bag bays of a commercial airliner.

OK you could probably do that about two shells or barrels at a time, but hardly usable for large shipments considering the vast quanities of the stuff we were claiming he had.

We had AWACS survellance of Iraq pre BOG (boots on the ground) so we knew when flights were comming and going. I assume "someone" was looknig for clues that this was happening.

They could have taken the stuff out barrel by barrel in Dodge Ram pickups like the one I have but it hardly seems a probable act.

That was easy.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 11:13 AM

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at May 12, 2007 08:28 AM

To believe your conclusion one has to believe that this administration which was tying everything into a reason for invading iraq, still today missed something that was "credible".

Little Hussain in Jordan didnt even draw that analogy.

why would you? (and I bet LIttle Hussain knew who Saddam's dad was as well)

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 11:15 AM

"That was easy."

Yes a simplistic explanation always is, try a realistic one.

Does anyone, other than Oler, believe that US surveillance techniques are so overwhelmingly perfect that Iraqs could not load a ton of rocks, sheep and/or WMD on a jet without the omnipotent USA knowing about it?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 12, 2007 04:49 PM

Occams razor

The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"):

...

The "transport to Syria" theory takes an enormous amount of assumptions with no facts to back those assumptions up. It is "ass"umption city.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 06:18 PM

Yes Robert it is a huge leap of faith to imagine an airliner being rolled into a hanger for "maintenance" to then have it's seats removed and a couple of tons of WMD loaded. I mean, planes being rolled into hangers??? Than NEVER happens!

So you must be right Robert. ahem...

You and I are both making one assumption each here.
I assume that it would not be difficult for Iraq to hide something simple from US surveillance.
You assume it would be impossible.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 13, 2007 05:24 AM

I mean, planes being rolled into hangers??? Than NEVER happens!

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 13, 2007 05:24 AM

that is your statement Cecil..not mine. planes are rolled into hangers all the time.

Let me help you with the rest of it.

to "load" WMD into an airplane in a hanger one doesnt just "roll" the airplane into the hanger and put the stuff on board.

There would be (just a quick list) trucks leaving the WMD storage area, trucks transiting to the airport, special equipment to load and unload the WMD (not even the Iraqis would move the stuff without suits or mask), since this is not just a one shot thing, then there would be some regularity to this and other things.

All those things would have been "Picked" up by survelliance. WE WERE LOOKING For that. This administration was so desperate to find ANYTHING that could back up their claims that they were exaggerating things left and right.

Why did they not try this?

Not a single credible source has presented a scintilla of credible verifiable evidence that your "claim" has anything to back it up.

could it of happened? Yes. Did it? You have zero evidence to claim it did. You have about as much evidence as the global warming people have for their conspiracy.

Could the CO2 be causing global warming? Yes. Is it? They have no evidence to claim it is. They have about as much evidence as the WMD was moved out of the country people have for their conspiracy.

I understand that you (and I mean you personally...but this could apply to the entire right wing group) need to desperatly have some reason that what Mr. Bush was claiming was fact. Otherwise well this thing gets hard to support and backing this guy is hard to explain.

I've been there with Bush. He had a lot of promise when he ran for Gov of my state. Odd thing is that I initially supported him. Even was at some "funders" for him. Then it became slowly clear that his run against ann richards was well what he has done as President.

It was hard to deal with because he seemed like the ideal guy. I feel fortunate, I got off the train early.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 13, 2007 12:07 PM

You and I are both making one assumption each here.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 13, 2007 05:24 AM

not so much.

I learned at about 16 that flying (the profession I wanted), assumptions without facts, and staying alive were all incompatible with each other.

My rather brief (but entertaining stint) as a Federal Law Enforcement officer flying narcotics interdiction (I was a trainer but did some cases) taught me that assumptions without facts to support them have no basis in law enforcement.

The Columbia accident is the mother of all assumptions in spaceflight.

No facts to back up assumptions.

That is what your theories have.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 13, 2007 12:10 PM

Keep digging, Robert. I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of the hole soon.

Posted by Ed Minchau at May 13, 2007 12:23 PM

On getting WMD from some site in Iraq to some hanger Bob, you evidently assume the Iraqis would load it all up in big trucks and transfer it in one long convoy. I give them credit for being smarter than that.

Did it happen you ask? I don't know, I don't claim it did. I only claim it was a possibility.

You on the other hand claim it to be absolutely impossible and rate the idea of it happening alongside nutty theories of the President of the United States being behind the events of 9/11.

That is a STUPID assumption.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 13, 2007 03:26 PM

Very few things are impossible to the mind of man Cecil, but that fact does not in logic make them probable. And once one starts thinking things are probable because they are probable then the reality is that one is Dick Cheney....

or one starts making stupid decisions that eventually get one killed.

There is no evidence to support either the theory that the Iranians moved their wmd to Syria or that Bush had the buildings somehow "imploded".

Since no evidence exist for either, belief in either is "faith based".

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 13, 2007 04:05 PM

Posted by Ed Minchau at May 13, 2007 12:23 PM

no sadly left and right wing conspiracies pop up all the time. They seem to be endless in our political climate.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 13, 2007 04:06 PM

"Since no evidence exist for either, belief in either is "faith based"."

You had no trouble believing "Memogate" without evidence, and you had no qualms on declaring Saddams capture to have been "political" without evidence.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 14, 2007 04:02 PM

Post a comment