« The Senate Votes for Cloture on the Immigration Bill | Main | The operation was a success, but the patient died »

Underpants, lies, and statistics

I don't regularly watch "South Park," but I do recognize that the creators are brilliant -- and have presented some remarkable insights into human nature. I think my current favorite example of this is the "underpants gnomes," a group of gnomes who stole underpants from sleeping children. This was part of their grand plan for making their fortune, as summed up in their business plan:

1. Collect Underpants 2. ? 3. Profit!

This has become, to many, a shorthand for describing situations where people leap from 1 to 3 without ever managing to make a connection between the two, but somehow are innately convinced that the two are intimately intertwined.

A classic example is this one, from Wizbang Blue. In this case, the underpants gnomes' business plan is translated as follows:

1. Newsweek Survey shows 41% of Americans believe Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. 2. ? 3. Bush Lied!!!!!

The missing connection is showing just when Bush ever actually said Saddam was involved in 9/11.

There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that Saddam was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. While he certainly rejoiced in them, and I am convinced that he did have connections with Al Qaeda prior to the attacks, I do not think that he had any foreknowledge. Al Qaeda was very careful of its security leading up to the attacks, and kept that information on a "need to know" basis -- of which Saddam had no such need.

Further, Saddam was desperate to get out from under the military and economic sanctions at the time of the attacks. Those attacks threw everything into chaos, putting his plots to end them on hold indefinitely.

In fact, had Saddam known of the plot, he would have been tempted to reveal it, scoring PR points in his push to end the sanctions. Whether or not he would have, we'll never know -- but Al Qaeda certainly must have recognized the possibility and not informed him about their plan.

My most solid evidence, however, is the lack of an actual quote, an actual sound clip, an actual video of Bush tying Saddam to the 9/11 attacks. Yes, linking Saddam to terrorism in general (an indisputable fact), linking Saddam to Al Qaeda (not indisputable, but convincing enough for me), and stressing the importance of Iraq in the overall global strategy (again not indisputable, but clear to me), but never linking Saddam to 9/11.

But simply debunking the fantasy isn't enough. I feel like I should propose my own theory to explain it. It's not the greatest one, I admit, but it's a bit more substantial than the one cited above.

1) People, as a rule, are growing more and more distrustful of the mainstream media.
2) The mainstream media keeps hyping the "people wrongly believe Saddam was involved in 9/11" polls.
3) Some people start thinking that "if the mainstream media is so desperately debunking this, maybe there's something to it after all" and start wondering if Saddam really was involved in the attacks.

It's plausible. After all, the people pushing the "Saddam was involved in 9/11" polls are the same ones who reported that a Koran was flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo (Newsweek), who hyped the fraudulent Texas Air National Guard memos (CBS), and spent years covering up Saddam's brutalities (CNN), just to name three examples. I know that when these people sink all that energy into pushing one theory, my instinctive response is skepticism.

That's my second thought.

My first thought is related to my long-established disdain for polling in general. Far too often, these are used as a substitute for thinking for oneself, subsuming one's own judgment for what is presented as "public opinion." And these polls are far too easily manipulated to render whatever results the one who commissions the polls wishes.

Either way, I view these surveys the same way I do weather reports from Ranjipoor or stories about Paris Hilton: they might be vaguely interesting to some people, but boring and utterly irrelevant to me.

And I simply can't understand why people get so fascinated with any of them.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22094.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Underpants, lies, and statistics:

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance for 06/27/2007

Comments (95)

No blood for oil! Bush lied... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

No blood for oil! Bush lied-people died! Shredding the constitution! Torture! Not in our name! Fire cannot melt steel!

Sincerely,

American Idiot

I agree 100%. President Bus... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I agree 100%. President Bush never said Sadam was involved in 9/11. He didn't even say Saddam was an imminent threat to the US. He said we cannot wait for Saddam to become an imminent threat, because by then, it is too late.

We know Al Quada was in Germany, Spain, England, Indonesia, Japan, Africa, France, Saudi Arabia, everywhere. But for some reason, the lefties believe they were everywhere BUT Iraq. It makes no sense. Of course. ww

The usual moonbats will cit... (Below threshold)
Kat:

The usual moonbats will cite polls when the polling data favors their world view. Otherwise, you hear

At the very bottom of that ... (Below threshold)

At the very bottom of that poll:

25% Republican
35% Democrat
34% Independent
3% No party/Not interested in politics
*% Other party
3% Don't know

"...The overall margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting surveys can also introduce error or bias to poll results."

Then the "results" are gleefully posted on a liberal blog with super-imposed images of a Bush/Pinocchio effigy. Though the smallest sampling was from people who clearly identified themselves as Republicans (aside from the negligible "Don't Know" and "No party/Not Interested in Politics") it's naturally assumed, through the constant accusations of Republicans lock-stepping with Bush and all his "lies", that the 41% is largely, if not all, Republicans and Independents who identify with them.

Sweet!

Will anyone ever address th... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Will anyone ever address the possibility that Saddam/Iraq was involved in the OKCity attacks? Farfetched? Not if you read the Third Terrorist, by Jayna Davis?

Will anyone ever address the possibility of a cover up by our federal govt? The 1st FBI APB after the bombing was for a 'middle eastern' looking man whcih was rescinded hrs later.

I have friends who cite the... (Below threshold)
Strick:

I have friends who cite the text of the authorization for the use of force against Iraq as clear evidence that Bush tied Saddam to 9/11. They can't explain how this one obscure text no one ever saw could have done that (at least no one ever saw it before it was listed as one of Bush's lies by his enemies) and you practically have to diagram the sentences for them for them to see that it doesn't say what Bush's enemies claim it does, but it's still impossible to convince them it's not evidence of the lie.

The only friend who can clearly articulate why he thinks Bush lied about Saddam and 9/11 when he knows Bush never said anything of the sort is one who's convinced that the Administration's attempts to show Saddam was connected to terrorists in general was designed to delude the public into thinking that meant he was involved in 9/11, too. He's convinced that it worked as they intended because so few people actually pay attention to what politicians say. Trying to talk him out of it is hopeless.

In the end, I'm convinced that the real source of this confusion is the Democrat's technique of rejecting Bush or the White House or the GOP's claim of X, when none of the above ever claimed X. They say that Bush has no proof that Saddam was involved in 9/11 often enough that people become convinced Bush claimed he was. That still doesn't explain the 70% poll results, though.

And I simply can't... (Below threshold)
Rovin:
And I simply can't understand why people get so fascinated with any of them.

C'mon Jay, surley you could see the fascination in some one getting accidentally stuck in a jail-house shower with Paris Hilton?

Jay parses his lies careful... (Below threshold)

Jay parses his lies carefully, just like the Bush administration.

Notice that Jay says Bush didn't lie, instead of the administration didn't lie. The fact is, Cheney tried his darndest to make America believe there was a connection. Bush even had to correct Cheney publicly, but the persistent efforts of the administration to lie to the American public, about WMDs, about yellow-cake uranium, about those nefarious 'aluminum tubes', were successful in creating in the public's mind -- as this survey shows -- that there was a connection.

(published 9/18/2003

Distancing himself from remarks by Vice President Cheney, President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- disputing an idea held by many Americans. [...]

[Money quote - write this one done kiddies] Critics have said the administration has tried to create the impression of Saddam's involvement in the attacks, without directly making such a claim, in order to boost public support for the war against Iraq.

On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Mr. Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.

Mr. Bush defended his No. 2.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11," he said. "What the vice president said was is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

Despite such assertions, the administration has never proved a prewar link between Saddam and the terrorist network.

What Cheney said:

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know.

Cheney was eager to say we didn't know, and then to give reasons that supported a connection -- when he knew damn well that "No, there's no connection" was the full and correct answer.

Well, the President set the record straight shortly thereafter - we DO know there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11, but as you can see Cheney was only too eager to let people believe there was...

And when asked the direct question - Was Saddam involved in 9/11 - rather than giving the correct answer - No, Saddam wasnt involved - Cheney says "We don't know" (when we did know) and then goes on to provide supporting evidence to suggest Saddam WAS involved.

Here's the MSNBC transcript of the interview with Cheney.

Now I'm sorry but I can't stay and entertain the preschoolers that comprise your readership, Jay, but I have a real blog to attend to - so I'll leave you and your trolls to parse more of your carefully worded lies and lies by omission.

Have a nice day! Give your little rubber ducky a squeeka from me.

btw - Here's the caption fr... (Below threshold)

btw - Here's the caption from the photo on the blog post Jay linked to:

(photo caption: President Bush is depicted with a long nose on a carnival float during the traditional carnival parade in Duesseldorf, western Germany, on Monday, Feb. 23, 2004. The writing on Bush's nose reads: Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction (AP Photo/Frank Augstein))

Lee, stop your LYING!!!!!</... (Below threshold)

Lee, stop your LYING!!!!!

I own a beanie duckie. I also live near about 50 real ducks. I do not own a rubber duckie, nor have I ever. When will you stop your LIES!!!!!?

And have fun over at your "real" blog. No need to rush back here.

Ever.

J.

Bush not only didn't say th... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Bush not only didn't say that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11, I seem to recall that he positively asserted that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 - more than once.

This is like the leftist lie that Bush said the Iraq War or the W.O.T. would be easy. Both he and his surrogates emphatically stated just the opposite; that it would be long-fought and hard.

Saddam's Iraq was a state s... (Below threshold)
kim:

Saddam's Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. Period.
==================================

See? That's just funny. Lee... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

See? That's just funny. Lee Ward is the one who will get all literal and stuff in saying that, even though they want to use the gov't to enforce 'fairness', it's not censorship but who isn't so literalist when it comes to parsing bullshiit out of thin air.

That's why I love Lee. It's a naked partisan pretending to be an intellectual who usually resorts to name calling after its 'points' are demolished.

And when asked the... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
And when asked the direct question - Was Saddam involved in 9/11 - rather than giving the correct answer - No, Saddam wasnt involved - Cheney says "We don't know" (when we did know) and then goes on to provide supporting evidence to suggest Saddam WAS involved.

An al Qaeda runner shows up in Bagdad meets with Saddam and is given cash to help fund al Qaeda before 9/11, thus establishing a link between Saddam and 9/11. Is such an event plausible? Very much so. Did it happen? We don't know and no one can prove it didn't happen. Cheney's answer was exactly correct. Had Cheney answered with an emphatic "no" that would have been incorrect.

The fault is in the question, not the answer. The correct question would have been "Do you know of any involvement Saddam had with 9/11?" To which Cheney could have responded with a simple "no".

Claiming this exchange proves Cheney lied instead proves those making that claim lied, and have done so repeatable. Why then should I accept anything else they say on the issue?

Lee you are so stupid....</... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Lee you are so stupid....

Date of your link? 9/18/2003

Date we went into Iraq? 3/20/2003

Other than that, you make a great point.

Moron.

MR. RUSSERT: But i... (Below threshold)
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know.

Only a thoroughly dishonest liberal like Lee could assert that this is a positive statement by Cheney that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

You know, I always thought ... (Below threshold)

You know, I always thought Lee was intellectually dishonest, prone to far-fetched interpretations and impossibly obtuse, but I thought that was as bad as it could get. Boy was I wrong. Since he's been given a [sarcasm]real blog[/sarcasm] which gives him a position to be headlined, rather than just buried in a comment section, he has become a monster. He thinks it has lent him more legitimacy when the more apt analogy would be that he has enthusiastically grabbed the rope with which to hang himself.

It would be funny if it wasn't so awful. Wait ...

nevermind. It IS funny.

Libby's brief seeking bail ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Libby's brief seeking bail during appeal was filed yesterday. To my mind, the most important part of the three points used for appeal is the preclusion of Andrea Mitchell's testimony. She is the one who said that everyone knew about Plame, and she is most likely to impugn Russert's testimony that Plame couldn't have come up in his conversation with Libby, and that is the discrepancy on which Libby's conviction stands. If it can be shown, as it will, that Russert lied on the stand, then the whole charade by NBC comes falling down, and we have a chance to get to the truth of the matter.

The other two points were the exclusion of a memory expert and the constitutionality of Fitz's appointment. If the first carries, Libby will get a new trial. If the second carries, I suspect the whole shebang will be thrown out, and we may never get to the truth. I'm convinced Fitz was unconstitutionally appointed but if it goes that route, we may never learn the truth of the matter.
==================================

heh- good point Mac but log... (Below threshold)
Paul:

heh- good point Mac but logic will get you nowhere with that idiot

"Any" involvement and "dire... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

"Any" involvement and "direct" involvement are two different things. I do believe that Saddam was involved with (supported) Al Qaeda and thus indirectly involved in 9/11. The question is usually parsed with the word "directly."

I am still down with "Let's Roll" and my support for the war has not waned one iota.

The media is making much of... (Below threshold)
Mark:

The media is making much of an effort to really present anything about the threat of Saddam or pre invasion Iraq in a remotely responsible way. Over the past few years as I've managed www.regimeofterror.com and tried following up with reporters from the AP and NEWSWEEK and others and actually talked to these people on the phone it's stunning how little they really know on the subject (like "Who is Izzat al Douri or Abdul Rahman Yasin?" they'd say). Saddam's terrorist links were once common knowledge and now taboo for these people, they stopped being journalist some time ago and chose to simply pick a side in this, for better or worse, and that side is to report on only the reasons why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq (thus the focus on supposedly faulty prewar intel, the death counts, trying to whitewash Saddam, etc.).

What's also funny about that poll is that only 20 percent of the public is aware that ANY WMD's have been found in Iraq when NEWSWEEK themselves reported that OVER 800 shells (either filled with Sarin, vx, Mustard or something) had been found in Iraq (usually by troops and not inspectors) and didn't find this part of their poll odd. I hate to keep harping on the media bias but these people only find it odd if the public has bent to their reporting and believe something else.

Wow, so is Mr. Ward asserti... (Below threshold)
Strick:

Wow, so is Mr. Ward asserting enough people saw Cheney say "We don't know", cite some "alleged" incidents, and repeat more than once "but we have no evidence..." on "Meet the Press" that 70% of the whole population to instantly believed that meant Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

Foolish preschooler me, it sounds like Cheney was giving an objective description of what the bipartisan Senate report on Iraq said. Live and learn, I guess.

So Cheney, by telling the established facts straight out, mananged to convincingly lie while not saying what he enemies claim he said. Damn. I thought only Karl Rove was that good. I mean, evil.

Another Thread Where Lee... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Another Thread Where Lee Talks Too Much But Says Too Little

I'll tell you what pisses m... (Below threshold)
kim:

I'll tell you what pisses me off and that is that Lee can see that the Union effort to block secret ballots was 'greasy' but still rejoices at the plan to Stalinistically propagandize the workers about Republicans opposing elections. This is a corrupt as one can get.

Well, no, probably not.
======================================

Paul,Thank you for p... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

Paul,
Thank you for pointing out Lee's attempt at misdirection. He was hoping that no one would notice that the statement the VP made came well after the invasion, not before. Of course, the fact that the VP was talking about "stabilizing" Iraq was a dead giveaway about the timing of it.

Lee said, "[Money quote ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Lee said, "[Money quote - write this one done kiddies] Critics have said the administration has tried to create the impression of Saddam's involvement in the attacks, without directly making such a claim, in order to boost public support for the war against Iraq."


Because everyone knows that if critics said it, it must be true.

An amazing number of lies h... (Below threshold)
kim:

An amazing number of lies have been told to diminish public support for the war, and they started with Joe Wilson, Val Plame, Jay Rockefeller, and John Kerry at the May, '03 Senate Democratic Policy Committee meeting.
===================================

Hey Lee you moron can you f... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Hey Lee you moron can you freaking read????

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

Did you read that?

You just tried to prove that Cheney caused people to believe that 41% of the people believe the connection because of his comments on Meet the Press....

But at the time (duh before his comments) 69% believed in the connection.

So Cheney (by your logic) must be responsible for the DECREASE.

You stupid stupid moron.

wee wee lee lee wardie over... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

wee wee lee lee wardie over at bluie has to come over here to get someone to look at his name (snicker snort). Over at "bluie", he has to comment on his own post to show any comments at all. Go take a look. 99.9% of the comments are from "Lee Ward", "Paul Hamiltom" or "Larkin". It is amazing that they have time to come over here and spread their crap. (snicker snort) Now you know why the present liberals in Congress are trying to get a "fairness bill" passed. YOU CANNOT GET ANYONE TO LISTEN TO A LIBERAL for over 5 seconds at a time.- snort snicker- Even if it passed how the hell do they think that would make anyone listen to them? Do they not know that a radio has a dial. (shouldn't have asked that as it is self-evident). Just like Jay says, gheezz, how could anyone be so dumb.

Another Thread Where Lee... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Another Thread Where Lee Talks Too Much But Says Too Little

If you've ever been polled,... (Below threshold)
COgirl:

If you've ever been polled, you quickly realize that the answer to the poll has been preordained. The pollsters never give you the choice that best explains your position. Example: would you like to die by (a) hanging, (b) a handgun (c) being beheaded?

They get their answer and the media hypes it. Polls don't mean squat.

Push polls are a propaganda... (Below threshold)
kim:

Push polls are a propaganda technique, and you can smell it, COgirl.
==========================

Three things:1) Go... (Below threshold)

Three things:

1) Good job Lee! I think Lee proved that Bush's gang actively encouraged people to doubt the fact that Saddam had nothing what so ever to do with 9/11.

2) If you guys hate Wizbang Blue so much why don't you devest yourselves from it, or shut it down?

3) Kudos to Jay for using an Underpants gnome analogy.

I just want to say...Hoo Ha... (Below threshold)
Adrienne:

I just want to say...Hoo Haa to Jeff Blogsworthy...I am with you brother...When all else fails quite a few us will still be defending and fighting against these Islamofasit...America is well worth everything we have and more...911 taught me that if nothing else...I always say I'll be come an army of one, should our "Leaders" decided to run from the battle; and then I run across true blues like yourself...I refuse to allow these thugs to take over my home land and will fight until death before I every let them convert me...My support for the war has not waned either, and by the grace of God, as long as necessary, never will...Any one who shows common cause with these a--holes has my scorn...I don't care if they were involved directly or inidirectly with 9/11...Siempre Fi my brother...Godspeed...Now "Let's Roll"...

Seems to me that lee prove... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Seems to me that lee proved your point, that people that say Bush lied about Saddam being linked to 9/11 are indeed the liars themselves.

"Well, the President set the record straight shortly thereafter - we DO know there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11" -lee

Yet lee and other still claim he lied about it. Wow. I am finding lee's new "tactic" of commenting on a post and then claiming he can't stay, and then running away, VERY humorous, he seems to be doing it quite often now! Almost as humorous as thinking his blog, that gets no more than 10 comments for any given post, is a "real" blog!!!

And most of those comments ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

And most of those comments are from larkin and hamilton no less!!

The neocons had a whole fra... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

The neocons had a whole frame shop in the basement of the Pentagon for the purpose of tying Saddaam to 9/11. They even outsourced to Italy, the Czech Republic and the Philippines.
Headquartered in Cheney's office.
Sales accounts with National Review, Weekly Standard, New York Times, New York Post, New York Sun, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Washington Times, Insight magazine, Jerusalem Post, The Times of London(Murdoch-owned!), etc. etc.
To be fair though, the Get Saddaam meme does go beyond the current puppets in residence. The neocons tried (notably through Mylroie the "journalist") to tie Saddaam to the OKC bombing.
The Get Saddaam meme stems from Bibi "9/11 is a good thing" Netanyahu and the Settler Movement strongly represented in Israeli intelligence.

Were it necessary, Adrienne... (Below threshold)
kim:

Were it necessary, Adrienne, Americans would make the most marvelous underground.
=====================

BryanD, "The Get Saddaam me... (Below threshold)
Eric:

BryanD, "The Get Saddaam meme stems from Bibi "9/11 is a good thing" Netanyahu and the Settler Movement strongly represented in Israeli intelligence."

Those damn Jews are behind everything.

bD, why bother tying 9/11 t... (Below threshold)
kim:

bD, why bother tying 9/11 to al-Qaeda then? Why didn't they just blame it straight up on Saddam. Look in every drawer of the bureau before you answer that one.
==========================

See, you have to delve righ... (Below threshold)
kim:

See, you have to delve right into the depth of the psychosis to reveal the flaw. bD is a truther. Why wasn't 9/11 blamed on Saddam in bD's world.

I'll call it a delusion rather than a psychosis; you are sane, bD, I'm sorry to tell you.
===============================

Aren't you a little struck,... (Below threshold)
kim:

Aren't you a little struck, bD, at how fast the term 'truther' has become universally known in its ironic sense?
===================

kim: Since Atta's passport ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

kim: Since Atta's passport fluttered down in pristine condition from the the inferno, how could they say No? From On High!

As for Saddaam: It was supposed to be a coup d'etat, with a little Shock and Awe on top.
A minor detour. The scenic route. Not a debacle.

The neocons had a ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
The neocons had a whole frame shop in the basement of the Pentagon for the purpose of tying Saddaam to 9/11..

Reallllyyyy. I suppose this is also where the charges used to demolish the WTC buildings originated from? They've probably been trying for years in their top secret neocon laboratory to weaken steel with heat, but lack the necessary technology.

Aren't you a littl... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
Aren't you a little struck, bD, at how fast the term 'truther' has become universally known in its ironic sense?

The easier and more accurate way to say 'truther' is 'liar'.

Since Atta's passport fluttered down in pristine condition from the the inferno, how could they say No? From On High!

Got that gag reflex working again I see, regurgitating old deliberate misconceptions even after they've been ripped from your repertoire in previous threads.

kim: re: the "Truther" thin... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

kim: re: the "Truther" thing. That's funny! It's matasticizing though. FOX Radio (can't remember who) referred to "North American Union Truthers" last week.
Now this week, the Trans-Texas Corridor (attached to the word "China(!!!)" has been "outed"(a wee bit) on FOX Radio! We are officially Adepts!
And the 9/11 movement is having it's crossover effects. A mod-conservative blogger (I can't remember who. Surfing. a specialized one, though, as opposed to a word quota-blabber) mentioned his desire for a mechanical explanantion for the 12 -15 seconds of the WTC implosion. He says there isn't one. Odd.

So are you a specialist or ... (Below threshold)
kim:

So are you a specialist or a word quota-babbler?
===========================

C'mon, c'mon, c'mon. Atta ... (Below threshold)
kim:

C'mon, c'mon, c'mon. Atta could be tied to Saddam. Try to keep up. Why bother with bin Whosis? Why not straight up to Saddam? Not a good answer you got there, despite the detour trans Texas.
==================================

The other issue is the way ... (Below threshold)
Sue:

The other issue is the way the question is worded.

"Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

It's quite possible for someone to think that Saddam was directly involved in planning...etc., and yet know that the US has not found any direct links or proof.

They may have received very different responses if they had left out the word "think" and simply asked "Was Saddam directly involved in planning...." or else asked "Has the US found proof that Saddam planned....etc."

But of course then they might not have been able to continue the lie that President Bush and Vice President Cheney said that there was a direct link and the stooopid people still beleive it.

kim, I post for the Masses.... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

kim, I post for the Masses. Mene Tekal Upharsin...

The White House explicitly ... (Below threshold)

The White House explicitly denied the Atta-Iraq intel meeting in Prague, so blaming it for the spread of the story is ... incoherent at best.

I think I've figured out Le... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I think I've figured out Lee, Bryan, Nogo, Jim, and the rest of the far left. They've been using a strategy that is simply a modification of the "Chewbacca Defense".

Simply put, their arguments make no sense therefore Iraqi must have nothing to do with the war on terrorism.

More democrat politicians m... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

More democrat politicians made statements against Iraq (Saddam) in the years prior to President Bush's election and right up to the day of the invasion than republicans ever have. The problem is the republicans stand by their beliefs and the democrats turned traitor (coward) when the first shot was fired even after making direct statements in the 90's and up to 2003 that Saddam had WMD and was a danger to the U.S.
I think I have became a third party voter, even when there is no chance. Enough of us change and there will be a chance.

I know, RR, I'm trying to e... (Below threshold)
kim:

I know, RR, I'm trying to expose bD's incoherence.
============================

Scrappy, how dare you accus... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Scrappy, how dare you accuse democrats of wanting Saddam deposed. It didn't happen. Ask the lefties. Their favorite feeling is denial. ww

bD, it is 'mene, mene'. Yo... (Below threshold)
kim:

bD, it is 'mene, mene'. You got the number wrong.
===============================

I'm trying to expo... (Below threshold)
I'm trying to expose bD's incoherence.

No need. He's self-exposing.

But, bD, I like your Grand ... (Below threshold)
kim:

But, bD, I like your Grand Illusions.
========================

He's busy looking in all th... (Below threshold)
kim:

He's busy looking in all the bureau drawers for the answer to why didn't the powers that be just blame 9/11 on Saddam straight up, instead of running off after that red herring in Bora Bora.
========================

Right, C-C-G, he is self-ex... (Below threshold)
kim:

Right, C-C-G, he is self-exposing, but possibly not self-conscious. That's why I have him ruminating over why they just didn't blame Saddam for 9/11.

It'll spill out of him somewhere down the line. I'm watching.
=============================

I can't wait, Kim... it's s... (Below threshold)

I can't wait, Kim... it's sure to be spew-Coke-all-over-keyboard-and-monitor hilarious, knowing bryanD[elusional].

While I love a good round o... (Below threshold)

While I love a good round of shooting fish in a barrel, at this point, I think the worst fate you can provide to Wizbang Blue and its authors is to simply ignore them. Yes, the majority of their stories amount to little more than yellow, "shock" journalism with a penchant for fabrication and dishonesty-dressed-as-"opinion". And, yes, writings like that deserve to be fought and disproven wherever and whenever possible.

However, consider - as with their comments here, the writers at WB only appear to be interested in generating reactions. However, from the appearances of the WB webpage, this does not seem to be happening - very few comments per post, and most are nothing more than the standard AOLv("Me too!!11!!!1"); from the other WB writers. The site amounted to nothing more than two guys passing a buck back and forth repeatedly, and both claiming a ten-dollar profit. And what is the worst fate for a class clown? Obscurity.

But now, fortnately or not, they are receiving all of the attention they could ever desire, and are probably basking in the glow of their monitors as we speak. Do you really want to encourage them? Poking fun is great and all, and those posts definitely deserved it, but it is still attention, and who knows what new depths they will feel driven to?

Let them flail and spew and hate and squirm... but, please, let them do it in obscurity. These posts, by their very existence, give them far more credit than they are due.

"my first thought is relate... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"my first thought is related to my long-established disdain for polling in general. Far too often, these are used as a substitute for thinking for oneself, subsuming one's own judgment for what is presented as "public opinion." And these polls are far too easily manipulated to render whatever results the one who commissions the polls wishes."

I agree. This further backs up my claim that the Democrat party are a criminal and perpetual fraud. Most of what they believe are untruths that they have created and manipulated through deceit via their liberal media/polls.

Real World business kept me... (Below threshold)

Real World business kept me away long enough for this thread to degrade into the usual trolls throwing the usual poo and ad hominem attacks - although Paul got very creative and used bold to make sure his poo stood out from the rest. Nice work, Paul! A new box of crayons for you!

Blue Neponset and BryanD - Thanks for showing up here and slugging it out with the liars. You're both a breath of fresh air amidst the stench that passes for reasoned thought on this blog.

Why do I love Lee Ward? <br... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Why do I love Lee Ward?
Real World business kept me away long enough for this thread to degrade into the usual trolls throwing the usual poo and ad hominem attacks

Followed immediately by
Thanks for showing up here and slugging it out with the liars. You're both a breath of fresh air amidst the stench that passes for reasoned thought on this blog.

Without any hint that it sees the irony.

See? That's darn funny.

bryanD slugging it out with... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

bryanD slugging it out with a liar would amount to shadow boxing, Lee.

And I've never really considered poorly worded innuendo to be a breath of fresh air.

I'd love to get the two of ... (Below threshold)

I'd love to get the two of you (you and BryanD) in a structured debate, Heralder. I've watched you two duke it out. Email me if you can think of a topic and/or debate format we could use at Wizbang Blue. I'm not sure if BryanD would be interested in playing along, maybe mantis would do it if BD wouldn't.

Veeshir if I said it once I... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Veeshir if I said it once I said it a thousand times. Irony is lost on the dumb.

---

And yes Lee I like to use the bold tag when you've been pwned.

But I gotta give Lee this..... (Below threshold)
Paul:

But I gotta give Lee this.. He's so dedicated to the lefty cause that no matter how many times he makes a jackass out of himself he keeps showing up asking for more.

He can be proven as wrong as wrong can be and he'll keep denying reality. Most people would give up. -- Of course most people have an IQ above 37.

Lee,Actually that ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee,

Actually that would be interesting, but I think I've decided long ago that our views are so violently incompatible that it would degenerate into simple accusations of lying, which it usually does (admittedly, always by my hand).

Mantis however, would probably kick my ass.

I accept the proposal for a... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I accept the proposal for a debate between Heralder and myself, provided we agree on the topic.

Suggested topics:

- Relative merits of debating politics on the internet vs. driving a railroad spike into your skull.

- Intentionalism and the orthography of 1337, or why Jeff Goldstein is a tool.

- If everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, does that make you a bridge (or who would look better in drag, civil behavior or Scrapiron)?

mantis,Accepted, t... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

mantis,

Accepted, though for the sake of longevity, perhaps we can expand the topics:

-The merits of graphical novels to comical books.

-Sockpuppetry: It's origins, usage and negative effects on Glenn Greenwald's lovelife.

-Foods that end in -amburger.

Ok - If both of you could p... (Below threshold)

Ok - If both of you could please email me we'll get the ball rolling.

Lee, in order to have a tru... (Below threshold)

Lee, in order to have a true debate, each side must be able to admit when they are proven wrong.

bryanD has been proven wrong on numerous occasions, yet he continues to spew the same busted theories around time and time again. In short, he refuses to admit when the weight of evidence is against him. Therefore any "debate" in which he is involved would be a farce.

I fully expect that you, Lee, will come up with some insult about conservatives as a "response" to this. However, if you want to surprise me, you might actually try a reasoned response. I'm sure you'll fail, though, because the evidence is against you, so all you have left are your insults.

Oh, better take some Tylenol now, I am sure trying to come up with a response that doesn't prove my point for me will give you a headache.

Graphical novels, of course... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Graphical novels, of course! How about we broaden it even further, "Words vs. pictures: which is better?"

Yeah Lee, I don't think the two of us take things seriously enough for what your looking for. At least not with each other.

(H, if you are interested: tehmantis [at] the mail that is G.)

lee--"Blue Neponset and Bry... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

lee--"Blue Neponset and BryanD - Thanks for showing up here and slugging it out with the liars. You're both a breath of fresh air amidst the stench that passes for reasoned thought on this blog."

HAH!! bryan"9/11 inside job,leary was deep cover CIA"d is a reasoned thinker!! Oh lee, you never cease to expose yourself for the fool you are.

I agree mantis, plus, there... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I agree mantis, plus, there is the problem that even if we do, we'll come to agreements too quickly to actually have a debate. Then there's the risk that you'll swiss cheese my argument... like the time I challenged someone for proof and you, well, supplied the proof. *sigh*

I'll drop you mail anyway though.

I agree mantis, plus, th... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I agree mantis, plus, there is the problem that even if we do, we'll come to agreements too quickly to actually have a debate.

I think we can agree that we're smart and everyone else is dumb.

Settled.

Oh lee, you never ... (Below threshold)
Oh lee, you never cease to expose yourself for the fool you are.

That's why we find him amusing.

See, that was anticlimactic... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

See, that was anticlimactic.

Sure was. But still, every... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Sure was. But still, everyone else got pwn'd!

Saddam may not have been in... (Below threshold)
greg:

Saddam may not have been invloved in, or aware of the specifics of 9/11, but it does appear that he was involved in training terrorists how to hijack an airplane. Google on "salman pak" to find a description of a terrorist training camp which had the fusilage of a russian airliner. Several defectors from Iraq (pre-war) described this facility as a terrorist training camp. That certainly doesn't mean that the 9/11 hijackers were trained there, but perhaps their trainers were.

"Yeah Lee, I don't think... (Below threshold)

"Yeah Lee, I don't think the two of us take things seriously enough for what your looking for. At least not with each other."

All right, so maybe a blog debate isn't the right format. Why don't you guys try radio - try co-hosting your own podcast!

Let me know if you think of something you'd like to try at WB-B. We have roots as commenters and are very open to trying new stuff.

I am really, honestly surpr... (Below threshold)
jim:

I am really, honestly surprised to the degree that you refuse to acknowledge, that Bush and his administration implied a Saddam-9/11 and Saddam Al-Qaeda connection.

I mean, really.

Here's a couple of direct pre-war quotes from Bush.

Direct things which were known at the time to be untrue, are in bold. Weasel-worded implications and conflations, are in italics. Utter irrelevancies are underlined.

Bush's OCt. 7th, 2002 speech in Cincinnati:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Besides repeatedly sandwiching 9/11 and Saddam in nearly all his pre-Iraq invasion war speeches - while making no other explanation for including 9/11, thus clearly implying they're connected - Bush said:

"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. [This was known to be against the evidence by Bush, at the time of this speech - don't believe me, go read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19822-2003Jun21?language=printer]

Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq.[So? More fled to Iran and Pakistan.] These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. [ So? One Al Qaeda member, involved in 9/11, went to Boston for treatment. Snide comments aside, is Massachusets working with Al Qaeda?]We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."[Bush was informed this was a lie in Feb. of 2002. Don't believe me, belive Fox news:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77248,00.html ]

In Bush's March 2003 letter to the Congress and Senate:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html

"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

If you aren't trying to connect Saddam and 9/11, why would you even bring that up?

You don't honestly think that's strongly implying anything? seriously? You really think that?

That's only two examples from two different documents, and from Bush's mouth directly. Need more examples?

The underline tag didn't wo... (Below threshold)
jim:

The underline tag didn't work, above. For reading clarity, the full original paragraph in Bush's 10/7/2002 speech is:

"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.
Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

Also, WaPo link above doesn... (Below threshold)
jim:

Also, WaPo link above doesn't work because of end bracket - correct link is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19822-2003Jun21?language=printer

Oh, and above link to Fox d... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh, and above link to Fox doesn't have the full case; here's another source, on the direct report that Bush received 8 months before the Cincinnati speech:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.ready.html?ei=5088&en=a943e84339b08496&ex=1288933200&pagewanted=print

"A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, "was intentionally misleading the debriefers'' in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda's work with illicit weapons."

I particularly like the synchronistic name of the lying informant - "al-Libi".

Lee, thanks for the thought... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Lee, thanks for the thought, but Mantis and Heralder will do (I cannot type and Mantis is a typing MOFO! Instant disadvantage in the timestamp dept.! My brain is quick, my fingers? Malingerers!)
Heralder's cool in his heart-on-sleeve way, but toucheee! (All New Yawkas are touchy. Like Texans away from home. All roads lead to... I know the type well!) Vet subject matter. Emotionalism is the Bushbots' milieu and will only encourage multiple jhow, jo and scrapiron interruptions. ketchup will flow!

PS: you're doing a good job. I only try to comment when I disagree, which leaves me busy enough on the "Right" side, but I read you. Also, I use your Sadlyno.com link as a springboard when I'm done!


but I have a real ... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
but I have a real blog to attend to - so I'll leave you and your trolls to parse more of your carefully worded lies and lies by omission.

Posted by: Lee Ward at June 27, 2007 08:45 AM

Yes, leeward has a blog to run, thanks to the magnanimity of Wizbang's owner. Which proves that when a socialist whines enough, and someone gets tired of it, they are likely to get a handout - that they won't appreciate. After that, no matter how unsuccessful the appeasement measure was, the socialist will attempt to convince everyone how successful it is, despite evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, the recipient of the handout will fail to credit the benefactor that gave them the opportunity to begin with.

So, leeward has to run back over to his subsidized blog and post some comments in response to the comments left by other wizblues contributors, that were responses to comments by another wizblues contributor, where they agree with each other, and congratulate each other on how smart and insightful they are.

leeward, when are you going to identify the racists among those who are opposed to illegal immigrant amnesty?

Lee, (Jim is intersting! In... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Lee, (Jim is intersting! In a TOTALLY non-gay way! Blogalicious, though)

Note: By "New Yawkas" being touchy, let me clarify: Upstate New Yorkers are Normal. NYC'ers, from THE CITY (THE City) are self-absorbed and generally delusional.

Since I'm a Texan away from... (Below threshold)

Since I'm a Texan away from home your explanation has helped me out considerably. And thanks for reading us.

I'm from Massachusetts.... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I'm from Massachusetts.

I'd have to disagree about New Yorkers being touchy only because we manage to be surrounded by millions of people every day all day, pressing in around us. A touchy person wouldn't last a day here. Have you been to Manahattan bryan?

As far as me being touchy, sure, that's arguable...though you know from my own admission that 9/11 is a different kind of subject matter for me.

Hmm..perhaps I should just avoid arguing that in the future.

"...including those nation... (Below threshold)
Ben:

"...including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

"If you aren't trying to connect Saddam and 9/11, why would you even bring that up?"

Oh, I dunno, possibly to reinforce the absolute necessity of defeating ALL terrorism? It's like saying "we have to take action against all sorts of natural disasters, including hurricanes like Katrina" that certainly doesn't imply all diasters are part of or linked to Katrina! Why is it the Left is so bad about analyzing like this? Why do they say "if he said X then he must have meant Y" and NEVER consider all the other possibilities?

Ben

It's incredible to me how t... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

It's incredible to me how the right will condemn Clinton to no end for his "is is" rationale, but will defend to the end the micro-mincing of words and meanings regarding anything connected to Bush and Cheney (who's greying of words have actually resulted in thousands of deaths - as opposed to Clinton, where his words have probably only resulted in the death of sex in his marriage).

Here's a thought: If we admit universally that Clinton's mincing of words was deceptive, will you do the same regarding Bush and Cheney?

(Let's see the excuses fly - lemmings).

Clinton macedoined words so... (Below threshold)
kim:

Clinton macedoined words so finely as lose their meaning; Bush just mushes them up. Clinton's is deliberate; Bush's just unfortunate. Bush has a fine record to defend, but will have to let the historians, or his successor, make it for him. You're gonna miss him when he's gone.

Note who is making Bush's case best; Thompson.
============================




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy