Wake Up!

Dear JFD MBA MFA,

“Your response is to assert--with no citations or proof--"Conspiracy theory.””

Actually I asserted “conspiracy theory” about only the US government having a hand in 9/11. How else to classify that but conspiracy theory? There’s no traction whatsoever in respectable circles.

Regarding Palast and the “stolen election,” I continued relevant discussion, I didn’t call it conspiracy theory. Apparently you have chosen to ignore that discussion. So be it.

“That does not win points in a debating contest. Thus you offer nothing substantitive in response.”

Again, regarding Palast, I point out that you chose to ignore my substantive response. Regarding the conspiracy theory you put forward, you just threw up a couple of assertions of conspiracy. Here’s what you wrote:

“There is a strong argument in the “Blowback” trilogy that Osama bin Laden group was trained by our own CIA, for about $6 billion over time, and that this “weapon” was turned against the US by 1) the US setting up bases on Saudi Soil, or 2) a US encouraged or allowed attack on the twin towers--with the persistent efforts to suppress the investigation into the 9/11 incident raising legitimate questions as to why. This is the event that “allowed” the current administration to stay in power.”

What exactly am I supposed to do with that? You didn’t exactly make an argument. You simply said there is an argument. 

“On the matter of the report of the intelligence committee, surely you are aware that there was serious committee-stuffing of members who would turn a blind eye to the Administration’s failures.”

Do you have evidence from something resembling a group with no axe to grind showing that there was coercion on the intelligence community? Further, do you have any evidence of what you say about the committee turning a blind eye? Surely the dissenters made their opionions public. Or are you just speculating?

“but it points to slipshod research on you part.”

Perhaps it would if you could provide any evidence beyond your speculation.

So far only one of us has provided any outside source of any substance: me providing the report.

“If you would read more non-fiction,”

What do you recommend? Can it be found in mainstream bookstores?

“People are not off-topic just because you say so in print.”

Agreed, JFD MBA MFA, people are not off-topic just because you say so in print.

“And so far, it seems that no one has accused anyone else but you of being a troll.”

I wonder why? Could it be because I’m a righty arguing in the heart of far lefty land?

Sincerely,
J Craig

I believe there is a simple and holistic answer to what Tom was asking.

The thing is...and I ask anyone who disagrees with this assertion to please speak up...there are a few general trends and, let’s call them, benchmarks in any argument of this type that can lead you understand quite quickly if there is any possibility of real dialogue between two or more participants.

One of the most simple and clear is to see what the participant says, and how the participant phrases it. This is an indication as to what that person uses as source material. Mainstream media, independent media, foreign media, etc.

Because across the board the most vociferous supporters of US Foreign Policy and our new imperial mobilizations take their information straight from the politicians and the mainstream media. They actually believe what they hear and take it at face value. This is why, for one example of many, that despite literally overwhelming evidence that the official 9/11 story is a farce, the mainstream public swallows it whole and never questions, because the mainstream media never questions the official story.

Then taking into account the Israel/Palestine question, very few understand how much news and information about that conflict is filtered, manipulated, and distorted by a four step process which included pro-Israeli media corps, elected officials and Federal policy, a cadre of high-power PR firms which feed stories to reporters and massage the ones the journalists bring to them, and finally pro-Israel activist groups like AIPAC which harrass and litigate anyone who, basically, tells the truth about the occupation.

Case in point: CNN can no longer use the term “settlement” when describing the illegal colonies. They have to use the term “neighborhood”, implying legal, contiguous Israeli territory.

People who argue using mainstream media reportage and elected official soundbytes, do not know what is really going on and thus are arguing either false or grossly distorted points.

Mr. Craig is one of them.

Thus, it is a waste of time and energy to argue with someone like him, because he is not as yet properly educated and informed.

Moreover, anyone interested or participating in a real, healthy debate in order to solve a larger issue will, at least one or twice, concede certain points and acknowledge when they are wrong. People who cannot or do not do that are not interested in the issue at hand, they are embroiled in a narcissistic game of self-gratification by attacking and (in their mind) defeating the opposition. To me, this is all about E.G.O.

So yes, we can discuss social sciences provided that discussion is the actual intent and motivation. Ego gratification is not within this purview.

Does that make sense?

Charles Shaw
Publisher/Editor-in-Chief
Newtopia Magazine
www.newtopiamagazine.net

And just like that, Mr. Craig provides a perfect example of what I was just saying.

He wrote to JFD:

“Your response is to assert--with no citations or proof--"Conspiracy theory.””

“Actually I asserted “conspiracy theory” about only the US government having a hand in 9/11. How else to classify that but conspiracy theory? There’s no traction whatsoever in respectable circles.”

Mr. Craig equates “traction”, or the active reporting or general public acceptance of a story, with “truth” or “reality”. And by bringing the red herring of “respectable circles” into the argument, he implies that somehow truth is only truth if it is sanctioned by some ruling elite. That sounds a lot to me like Totalitarianism, and is definitely and obviously Orwellian.

The facts of the 9/11 case are as plain as day, and there is a mountain of material that the mainstream media will never report because it would expose their complicity. We do have a Constitutional right to not self-incriminate, you know. ;)

Facts are facts, regardless of who approves or disapproves. And I won’t even bother to go there about the “respectable circles” part. What part of “respectible” is systematically lying to and deceiving the citizenry?

-C

“that despite literally overwhelming evidence that the official 9/11 story is a farce, the mainstream public swallows it whole and never questions”

I don’t know what this means - that 911 never happened, or that 911 was done by the US (or Israel), or ????

No, not that it didn’t happen.

What I mean is that the official story...19 Arab hijackers acting entirely on their own with absolutely no advance warning whatsoever, and with nothing more than box cutters were able to hijack 4 planes, and fly unimpeded for almost an hour and a half through the most heavily defended airspace on earth, and by executing extremely complicated flying manuevers, able to strike the Towers and the Pentagon, the former of which collapsed only an hour later in a pure 10 second freefall despite being one of the strongest structures ever built, with tempered steel and concrete built to withstand temperatures in excess of 2800 degrees Fahrenheit (whereas jet fuel burns at a maximum of 850-1100 degrees) and never before in history having a steel framed building collapse due to fire, the latter (Pentagon) of which was stuck in an unoccupied wing allegedly by a Boeing 757 which executed a 270 degree spiral descent turn (one of the hardest maneuvers possible, and one many professional pilots testified is near impossible) and then proceeded to fly a perfect 8 inches off he ground across the lawn until it hit the building, leaving virtually no wreckage, piloted by someone who was thrown out of the Venice flying school for his inability to pilot a Cessna, and then that eight hours later anothr 47 story building that was not hit by a plane, not hit by falling debris, and contained only two small fires on lower floors, suddenly fell to the ground perfectly into its footprint in less than 7 seconds…

THAT official story… ;)

If you believe that one, I got this bridge for sale, great price…

-C

Dear Charles Shaw,

If we can’t believe what we most commonly read and hear, why should we believe you? What access to facts do you have that nobody else has? None.

Let’s see. What could it be? There is a massive conspiracy that Charles Shaw and a few others know about (yet they haven’t been able to get anyone in the mainstream to think it credible enough to pursue), or Shaw et al are living a paranoid fantasy?

“The facts of the 9/11 case are as plain as day, and there is a mountain of material that the mainstream media will never report because it would expose their complicity.”

Well why not enlighten all us dupes then? Please, go on.

“What part of “respectible” is systematically lying to and deceiving the citizenry?”

A hefty charge. Please do continue. Let’s hear about the evidence. 

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear Charles Shaw,

“What I mean is that the official story...19 Arab hijackers acting entirely on their own with absolutely no advance warning whatsoever, and with nothing more than box cutters were able to hijack 4 planes, and fly unimpeded for almost an hour and a half through the most heavily defended airspace on earth, and by executing extremely complicated flying manuevers, able to strike the Towers and the Pentagon, the former of which collapsed only an hour later in a pure 10 second freefall despite being one of the strongest structures ever built, with tempered steel and concrete built to withstand temperatures in excess of 2800 degrees Fahrenheit (whereas jet fuel burns at a maximum of 850-1100 degrees) and never before in history having a steel framed building collapse due to fire, the latter (Pentagon) of which was stuck in an unoccupied wing allegedly by a Boeing 757 which executed a 270 degree spiral descent turn (one of the hardest maneuvers possible, and one many professional pilots testified is near impossible) and then proceeded to fly a perfect 8 inches off he ground across the lawn until it hit the building, leaving virtually no wreckage, piloted by someone who was thrown out of the Venice flying school for his inability to pilot a Cessna, and then that eight hours later anothr 47 story building that was not hit by a plane, not hit by falling debris, and contained only two small fires on lower floors, suddenly fell to the ground perfectly into its footprint in less than 7 seconds… “

I understand you’re skeptical. But what evidence do you know of? You’ve presented nothing here but skepticism of the events. You do understand the difference between skepticism and evidence, don’t you?

Sincerely,
J Craig

As I said, there is a literal mountain of evidence that I myself could never present here without taking up pages. Each aspect of the official story has produced their own mini-mountains of evidence to the contrary. It takes time and effort to learn and understand all of it, and more importanly, within its proper context.

But for those intrepid enough to explore, here are some great entry-point sites:

http://www.911truth.org/

and especially their links/community page…
http://www.911truth.org/links.php

...and their “resources” page…
http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=resources

also…

http://www.septembereleventh.org/
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/

Ok. Happy reading.

-C

I also strongly recommend the two books on 9/11 by the Professor and Theologian, David Ray Griffin…

“The New Pearl Harbor”

“The 9/11 Comission: Omissions and Distortions”

Dear Charles Shaw,

I will take a look at those websites. Thank you. I probably will only buy the books you suggest if the websites are convincing enough.

But in the mean time, instead of just general links, why don’t you provide a link to the single most damning piece of evidence out there? Please try to make it very specific.

Sincerely,
J Craig

It’s a matter of opinion which piece of evidence is “most damming”. The issue is too complex to break down to a soundbyte. It took me a year to understand the issue fully.

And the websites should be mutually exclusive ofn the books. This is preceisly what I am talking about. Why not try judging things on their individual merit, instead of dismissing them through some poor, ad-hoc guilt-by-association criteria.

How to write a J Craig comment:

1.  Bring up a small quote from the article or a previous comment.  Make sure the statement is as brief as possible.  Try and keep it down to a sound bite.  No sense in trying to deal with anything that requires you think for more than a few seconds (ADD is a bitch).  Point to these quotes in later arguments as proof you have cited sources and supported your argument.  Other people posting will be too frustrated by your attempts to obfuscate everything to call you on it.

2.  Comment on the quote.  This requires great care.  State your opinion, or try and bait the other person further with a poorly concealed obnoxious comment. DO NOT under any cicumstances try and address any of the points made, or the argument as a whole.  That is not your strong point. Smart ass comments directed at the author of the quote are best.

3.  Never concede a point or an argument (see RB).  If someone makes a valid point, ignore it in your next comment and instead concentrate on a piece of the post that has little to do with the argument as a whole.  This will annoy and confuse the other poster(s) making it unclear exactly what you are even arguing about.  The result is that they will either respond in a very irrate manner (use this to point to your advantage when you are accused of being an instigator), or realize you are not worth the time (in which case you have won).

4.  Any comments longer than a soundbite should take the form of either defending yourself from attacks (valid ones as well as personal ones (which you will get a lot of )), irrate he said/she said back and forths, or ideological Libertarian doctrine.  This will further obfuscate whatever kind of valid conversation might have existed. 

5.  In the most insincere manner possible sign mark all your posts “Sincerely”.

6.  Get a job.

7.  If you already have a job than get a life.  If you like politics so much go converse with some friends about it.  If you don’t have any than go join the Ayn Rand or something society and makes some.  Or remain the celebrity trial of the site, a joke that, although entertaining, distracts people from more important things.

J Craig Re: did I miss the coup? parts 2 & 3

Your inability to understand the postings does not constitute a crisis on my part.
No one else is making an appointment to stay after class for remedial learning.
Ayn Rand would solve this situation by turning it into a business. Translation services for neo-cons. Let’s start out with the Halliburton pay scale: $100,000 per year to start. Tax-Free.
Here’s my first piece of advice, for openers:
Put down the mirror while you are reading the weblog. Your eyes keep shifting between the computer screen and the mirror, causing you to miss at least half of the content.

Friends of Hal . . . 4-4-05 end message.

And still no response .....

Sincerely,
RB

To Cynthia Gay Heller Re: decline of civilizations, etc.

It seems to me that you make a very important point about the decline of civilizations. Oswald Spangler, of course, tried to study civilizations in their various stages, and he came up with some characteristics of civilizations in decline.
One that I remember is the lack of innovation. By that measure, the move in the US away from science and toward “creationism” would be seen by Spengler as symptomatic of a civilization in decline.
I have heard reports on the radio that the rate of innovation in some Mid East countries has rapidly declined, which would be seen by Spangler as a similar system.
The difficulty with Spangler’s analysis, it seems to me, is that it is hard to apply his analysis systemmatically to existing civilizations.
For example, how would you apply Spangler to the break-up of the Soviet Union, or to the emerging union, after centuries of division, to the European Union. Neither is brand new, so is there a birth-and-death, or a cycle of renewal?
These categories are most useful if one could harness the “information” they supply in order to recognize the stage a civilization is at, and to implement policies to either “save it,” hasten its demise. Or is it a useless effort, and leaders should just let things run their course? It comes down, I think, to whether you favor a view of “free will” predominating, or the contrary view of “destiny” predominating.
A thoughtful question . . .

8.  Use several different screen names to either hide the fact that you are breaking your very recent word that you would no longer be posting on ITT (Tom Finley Jr., Ron, J Craig) or to add “independent” expert testimony as to the greatness of your “debating” techniques (Kurt-the liberal-minded independent; Tom-the analytical physical scientist).

Dear Charles Shaw,

If not the most damning, then just offer a specific link to one of the most damning pieces of evidence. If the case is so strong, this really should be quite easy.

You shouldn’t go around saying the case is a slam dunk without being able to offer some specific evidence (instead of general links). But I know that’s not the case. I know you can offer some specific evidence.

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear Disseminator and JFD MBA MFA,

(Neither of your messages really offered anything to respond to - which is remarkable given the length of yours, Diss - so I’ll keep this brief.)

Frustrated?

Sincerely,
J Craig

Hey, what about me?  Can I get a response, maybe a denial?

I think it would be really cute if you did it in the form of Kurt and Tom.  I envision it going something like this:

Hey, I am not another screen name for J Craig, I am really a liberal minded independent who just happens to be ignorant enough of my own political philosophy to have posted the question “Is there really no arguments against what he is claiming?”.

Has anyone seen my $.02?

Yeah, and I am really a, uhhh, analytical natural scientist who thanks my lucky stars (see I even talk about stars) that there are great people like J Craig to “keep us on our toes.”

He is a most excellent debating dude and I bet he is very hot too.  OK, I love him.  There are you stupid non-debational liberals happy now?

Dear R.B.,

I apologize. I missed your earlier message, then when I saw that you were waiting for something, I went back and found it.

You are correct. I am not posting enough messages. I should answer every single one if possible. Those that want me to shut up owe you thanks.

“When an assertion is refuted, proven unsound and invalid, and untrue, and still used as a “fact”, ”

Who is doing that? Please provide some details. I know I’m not doing that.

“GWB stated several times ‘Saddam Hussien has weapons of mass destruction‘”
“He must be dissarmed” (Rice, Rumsfeldt, Powel, Cheney, repeated ad nauseum)

Agreed. They all said that. And unless Saddam moved the weapons before we got there, they were wrong. So it is obvious after the fact that, unless Saddam moved the weapons, that was a false premise.

But I am capable of distinguishing between knowingly acting on a false premise and unwittingly acting on a false premise, and I believe that while it is inexcusable to knowingly act on a false premise, it can be (and the case of Iraq it was) acceptable to unwittingly act on a false premise.

I’ll give you an example of this concept. Let’s say my sister is going to pickup my daughter for me at daycare, so I go out with the boys for a beer. And let’s say that the premise that my sister is going to pick her up is false. If I know that the premise is false, obviously my behavior is inexcusable. However, if I don’t know that the premise is false, if I think it is true, if there is some confusion, well that’s another story. Unfortunate, certainly, but my behavior is of a totally different and much more acceptable nature. 

I’ve seen no evidence that the Bush administration knew there were no WMD. As far as I can tell (unless Saddam moved the WMD), it was a case of unwittingly acting on false premises. Until I see some evidence that they knew, they get the benefit of the doubt. You’re free not to give them the benefit of the doubt if you don‘t want to.

“Not one mention of democracy in IRAQ was ever mentioned before the ‘weapons were ‘not found‘”

Are you willing to stand by that statement? Will you admit you are wrong if I find otherwise?

Sincerely,
J Craig

Frustrated?  Yes, I can tell you are very frustrated.  Too frustrated to actually respond that is for sure. So thank you for proving my point.

You are correct about one thing though.  It is remarkable that you could not find anything to respond to in my lengthy post.  We shall assume that myself and Generic Fake Screen Name have got your number in regards to your BS rhetorical technique, since you have not responded to either of us, or RB for that matter.

Cat got your tounge?

Ahh, so Hans Blix was correct after all, according to the statements released this week by the State Department.  How astute and generous of our Washington “geniuses” to admit they were “dead wrong” after totally destroying our credibilty internationally (the London Daily Mirror’s election day quote was sadly quite an honest relection of what I hear from my friends in the UK)and killing thousands of innocent people for a failing war.  So they had an election, big deal.  The majority of the populace did not or could not vote and no one knew the names of the candidates beforehand.  Wow, what a democracy!  Speaking of democracy, since we are such a good example of one, why is Iraq now adopting the British parliamentary system with Islamic roots?  I wish it would work, for the blood of our soldiers and the suffering of innocent children if nothing else, but that’s about as likely as the Congress (Republican majority) impeaching W.  Iraq and Afghanistan are both failures, but it will take a Democratic victory before those words will ever hit the press.

Chalmers Johnson is absolutely correct.  When people will fight tooth and nail for a system that destroys democracy and replaces it with fascism (Websters- a political movement, philosophy or regime that exalts nation or race above individualism and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a one-party system led by a dictatorial leader with severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”, we’ve already crossed the Rubicon.  Witness the resistance we’ve experienced on this site from one who would (judging from his comments)like the Republicans to centralize power with the three branches of our government.  It is funny how fascism almost always rides in on the back of religion...and hand in hand with the corporate and military establishments of the land.  Does this sound familiar, anyone?

“I’ve seen no evidence that the Bush administration knew there were no WMD. As far as I can tell (unless Saddam moved the WMD), it was a case of unwittingly acting on false premises.”

Funny, a Fraud (still waiting...) who can’t see (or doesn’t admit to seeing) a fraud.  Imagine that.

Thank you Disseminator and Generic Fake Screen Name-that was delightful and so right on. I was worried no one saw what these characters do(it’s how they took over the damn country) and you both communicated it so well. My faith has been restored-a breif light has appeared- allbeit “across the Rubicon”. Now, how do we get back to the other side? Or should the question be how do we survive this side?

Dear Disseminator,

“Too frustrated to actually respond that is for sure.”

To what? You lampooned my messages. How was I supposed to respond?

“It is remarkable that you could not find anything to respond to in my lengthy post.”

I’ll try now. (You’re not one of those hoping I’ll stop talkie talkie, are you? Because asking me to respond is not the best way to achieve that.)

“Bring up a small quote from the article or a previous comment.  Make sure the statement is as brief as possible.  Try and keep it down to a sound bite.  No sense in trying to deal with anything that requires you think for more than a few seconds (ADD is a bitch).”

I talk about points I disagree with and that stand out. Must I comment on everything? Aren’t I doing enough talking around here? (It’s not clear if you are talking about my quotes or someone else’s, so don’t blame me if I missed your point. If you want me to explain exactly why it is not clear, let me know.)

“Point to these quotes in later arguments as proof you have cited sources and supported your argument.”

Give me an example.

“or try and bait the other person further with a poorly concealed obnoxious comment.”

I give total respect until someone gets insulting, and even then I give quite a bit less insult than I get. Read back through my messages and find an example of me using an obnoxious comment, and I’ll be able to show you the obnoxious comment I was responding to. For the most part I don’t do it, and when I do, I don’t start it.

“DO NOT under any cicumstances try and address any of the points made, or the argument as a whole.”

I address points made all the time. Please give me an example of me not addressing an argument as a whole. (Please don’t use the initial article as an example; I’ll never claim that my messages are entire analyses of entire articles. I assume you mean someone I’m talking to makes an argument, and I ignore most of it but for one part. Please, give an example.)

“Never concede a point or an argument (see RB).”

I concede when concession is called for. What regarding RB? Can’t I miss a single message around here? I since have responded to him. Goodness the bar is set high around here for those outside of the group think.

“If someone makes a valid point, ignore it”

Example please? See, you might not like hearing this again, but you’ve offered a laundry list of assertions. Try to support your assertions. Examples help. I shouldn’t always have to ask for them. See my response to RB? I didn’t just say there’s a difference between knowingly and unwittingly. I used an analogy. That’s just one of many ways to support an assertion. Do I really need to explain this? It seems so around here.

That’s numbers 1-3 of your comments. Please let me know if you’d like me to continue.

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear Margaret,

You seem angry.

“The majority of the populace did not or could not vote”

You’re not counting children in that count, are you? Because children really don’t vote anywhere. Asusming you weren’t including children, are you sure that’s accurate?

“Speaking of democracy, since we are such a good example of one, why is Iraq now adopting the British parliamentary system with Islamic roots?”

We’ve given them the opportunity for representative government. It’s up to them to choose what kind.

“I wish it would work”

I’m not convinced.

“but that’s about as likely as the Congress (Republican majority) impeaching W.”

Let’s hope your power of foresight is weak.

“Iraq and Afghanistan are both failures,”

If that’s your conclusion, then your expectations were unrealistic. Really, what did you expect?

Thank you for the definition of fascism. It is nothing like the U.S.

“exalts nation or race above individualism”

How exactly do we do that?

“and that stands for a centralized autocratic government”

There is no single figure with unlimited power, and we have three separate branches of government, two of them elected, not to mention 50 different states. And that hasn’t changed a bit, and I see no sign it will. Do you? what will be the first major change you see?

“headed by a one-party system”

We have a two-party (at least) system. Do you see this going away by means other than the Democrats making themselves irrelevant? How?

“led by a dictatorial leader”

He may seem dictatorial to you, but any educated person knows his power is quite limited.

“with severe economic and social regimentation,”

How exactly is social and economic order being imposed by the government? We certainly have tremendous economic mobility.

“and forcible suppression of opposition”

We’d need some examples from the crowd. Crowd, how are the Republicans forcibly suppressing the opposition? Don’t get lax here. Give good examples.

“Witness the resistance we’ve experienced on this site from one who would (judging from his comments)like the Republicans to centralize power with the three branches of our government.”

(Are you referring to me? If so...) Foolish assertion. Do you realize what you just did? You said I’d like to centralize power with the three branches of our government. On what basis do you make this ridiculous comment? Certainly you can explain. A direct quote would work best, but I’ll take whatever feeble explanation you can manage.

“Does this sound familiar, anyone?”

Yes. It sounds familiar to all your other comments.

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear Generic Fake Screen Name,

“Funny, a Fraud (still waiting...) who can’t see (or doesn’t admit to seeing) a fraud.  Imagine that.”

That comment was bursting with substance!

Do you disagree with me? Why don’t you tell me of the evidence that they knew that there were no WMD (assuming Saddam didn’t move them before we got there).

I’ve seen none. Have you?

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear Disseminator,

Do you realize you wrote this:

“since you have not responded to either of us, or RB for that matter.”

immediately below my response to RB? Should I make a big deal of that oversight?

Sincerely,
J Craig

Hi Margaret,
“It is funny how fascism almost always rides in on the back of religion...and hand in hand with the corporate and military establishments of the land. Does this sound familiar, anyone?”

How right you are. But then, the neocon position is simply stated. Militarism that no one can challenge, control of the rule of law, and “use” religion as your sheep to get your agenda accomplished. And of course the moneyed support whoever will give (allow) them economic control. Left, right, conservative, liberal, radical, whatever.

Take militarism, for instance. Read an article called “If You Build it They Will Kill” by Nick Turse on the TomDispatch website.  Here is a sample of how this administration is building a military monolith.

“Obviously, the military is purchasing guns and other weapons for a reason: to injure, maim, and kill. But the extent of the killing being planned for can only be grasped if one examines the amounts of ammunition being purchased. Let’s look at recent DoD contracts awarded to just one firm—Alliant Lake City Small Caliber Ammunition Company, L.L.C., a subsidiary of weapons-industry giant Alliant Techsystems (ATK):

Awarded Nov. 24, 2004: “a delivery order amount of $231,663,020 as part of a $303,040,883 firm-fixed-price contract for various Cal .22, Cal .30, 5.56mm, and 7.62mm small caliber ammunition cartridges.” Work is expected to be completed by Sept. 30, 2006.

Awarded February 7, 2005: “a delivery order amount of $20,689,101 as part of a $363,844,808 firm-fixed-price contract for various 5.56mm and 7.62mm Small Caliber Ammunition Cartridges.” Work is expected to be completed by Sept. 30, 2006.

Awarded March 4, 2005: “a delivery order amount of $8,236,906 as part of a $372,586,618 firm-fixed-price contract for 5.56mm, 7.62mm, and .50 caliber ammunition cartridges.” Work is expected to be completed by Sept. 30, 2006.”

You and I can buy 400 rounds of 7.62mm rifle ammunition for less than $40. Imagine, then, what federal purchasing power and hundreds of millions of dollars can buy!”

The military industrial complex indeed! If you have not seen the TomDispatch website do look into it. It will become a must for you.

LEt the USA die. Its a piece of shit.

Hi Generic Fake Screen Name
“Funny, a Fraud (still waiting...) who can’t see (or doesn’t admit to seeing) a fraud.  Imagine that.”

Well said! Trolls have a different agenda than they present. They are not interested in “discussion” or “debate.” They crave an emotional payoff. In this case a feeling of superiority and one upmanship. Since I last stated my opinion on that, has there been any change in his approach? Just more of his usual tricks to entice people to respond emotionally so he can put them “in their place.”

Here is his response to Margaret:

“On what basis do you make this ridiculous comment? Certainly you can explain. A direct quote would work best, but I’ll take whatever feeble explanation you can manage.”

Another response from the sweet “gentleman” with multiple web names. Oh yeah, that’s right. He is just responding to the remarks of a feeble and ridiculous person.

Now of course, I could assume that J Craig is a mean and nasty man instead of my believing as I indicated in my earlier post. But just suppose his being here is to disrupt and destroy. That his job is simply to undermine liberal websites by his presence. Maybe he is being paid to do this. After all there is Gannon, a paid shill for this administration. Why not J Craig, or what ever his name is? Nah...he is too much of an honest “gentleman” to do anything like that.

Unbelievable! While there is certainly some interesting discussion on this site, the wackos are rampant (ok they are mildly entertaining, but distracting in the same way kids playing too noisily in the house are)! Excuse me if i am a bit out of sorts, but according to the nuts around here i am merely a sub-personality of J Craig.

Hey, maybe **all** of us are a single poster? Talking to ourselves? Perhaps somewhere deep in the Pentagon?

I only wish we could be both more polite and more constructuive our other selves. . . Maybe we (i?) would learn something.

Signed - J.Craig - um Merlin, um Margaret, er Kayla - oh, n’ver mind!

Dear Tom,

“Excuse me if i am a bit out of sorts, but according to the nuts around here i am merely a sub-personality of J Craig.”

And as such, they think I am now writing a message to myself, and paid to do it.

Sincerely,
J Craig

no you should not make a big deal of my oversight considering when I wrote my post your response to RB was not up yet.  You, however, ignored RB for some time.  This was probably because his original post did not begin with “Dear J Craig”, so you, being the egomaniac that you are, probably did not even read it. 

Thank you once again for supporting my argument again by responding with more of the same in all your posts.

You want me to cite examples.  Listen, your record speaks for itself.  I have better things to do than read through all your comments and argue whether each single quote constitutes points x,y,z.  If people want to see who is on the level than they should just look at your posts and they will find plenty of examples. It is bad enough I had to read through your incoherent dribble to begin with.  Now you want me to go back over all your comments and pick out little quotes to support an argument we both know is true. 

If I was wrong about you in my post than why did you not respond with a real response quicker?  Because you knew you could not do so without proving me right.  Yet, you responded anyway with all the same bullshit.

Dear Merlin,

“Obviously, the military is purchasing guns and other weapons for a reason: to injure, maim, and kill. But the extent of the killing being planned for can only be grasped if one examines the amounts of ammunition being purchased.”

(I realize his article may do a better job explaining the two problems I describe than the brief excerpts provided by you do.)

1. The numbers you provide certainly seem like big numbers, but they don’t offer any relative comparison to demonstrate that they are different from past levels, particularly in a way that indicates increased military ambitions beyond what we are doing now. Such an increase would help to make the case for the suggested increase in military activity.

The numbers would also have to be (in unit terms or, if possible, in potential for damage/death terms, not dollars unless inflation adjusted) not just higher, but significantly higher, than the levels of the late 1990’s because (1) the 1990’s levels do not take into account military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which were ocurring in the late 1990’s and both of which contribute to the need for a higher level of military spending just to maintain current military operations; and (2) the 1990’s were a period of substantial military cuts. Some increase is reasonably due to rebuilding the military and may not indicate further military ambitions.

2. He’s jumping to a conclusion that military buildup means we have military ambitions. The conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premise. See the 1980’s.

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear Disseminator,

“You want me to cite examples.  Listen, your record speaks for itself.”

Why will noone on the left ever support their assertions?

Sincerely,
J Craig

p.s. must you resort to swearing?

Merlin,

Thanks for your kind and intelligent, non-ego-motivated words.  It’s a pleasure to hear that there are others in our population who don’t “need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

As stated before, I come to sites such as this to hear further evidence of the treasonous behavior of the current administration.  I can hear neocon BS every day on the tv or radio or newspapers.  I already understand where J. Craig is coming from, and I have no interest in explaining my rationale to him anymore as he has made it more than clear that he really has no interest in modifying his perception.

So keep writing Merlin, Charles Shaw, Kuya, Generic Screen Name, Kayla,et al.  I would welcome your insights and data.  I do propose, however, that we ignore any posting from J. Craig.  He is completely disingenuous (meanly artful, insincere, sly and uncandid), so don’t waste your time.

Looking forward to hearing from the REAL PATRIOTS, not the TREASONOUS NEOCONS.

Good bye, J. Craig and, yes, Jesus loves EVEN you.

Dear Margaret,

“I already understand where J. Craig is coming from”

I don’t think you do. It’s certainly not apparent in your messages.

“he has made it more than clear that he really has no interest in modifying his perception.”

Is your whole life about unrealistic expectations? Do you have any interest in modifying your perception? You’ve made it crystal clear you’re only interested in speaking here to those with whom you agree. Have I intruded on the Mutual Admiration Society?

“I come to sites such as this to hear further evidence of the treasonous behavior of the current administration.”

It’s sort of a pacifier for you then? 

You call me mean. Shall we go back to where our direct conversations first went off the tracks and try to decide who is mean? It’ll be quite obvious who is the bitter woman and who is not. Shall we?

“He is completely disingenuous”

Any chance you might support that assertion?

Sincerely,
J Craig

Thank you once again for supporting my argument (don’t try and be all cute by quoting that).

As far as language goes I do not share your arbitrary idea of good and bad words.  I call a spade a spade. Your insincere sincerity is transparent and childish.

Hey Disseminator,

I just read an interesting article on <oldamericancentury.org> called “Just Say No...to Empire” written by a retired Air Force Lt. Col.  Quite interesting with good links and I think it compliments Mr. Johnson’s article nicely.

Enjoy!

Thanks Margaret.  I will check it out.

Dear Disseminator,

“(don’t try and be all cute by quoting that)”

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear Disseminator,

How cute am I!?

By the way, it is interesting that you insisted that I respond to you in detail, yet you won’t support your assertions.

Sincerely,
J Craig

So you want me to waste more of my time looking through all your posts and citing all the examples?  I’m not playing that game, especially when we both know my description of the way you operate was correct.  I have wasted enough time on you.  Oh, and for the last time thank you.

Dear Disseminator,

“So you want me to waste more of my time looking through all your posts and citing all the examples?”

If you read my last post, you’ll see that I wasn’t asking you to support your assertions. I was simply observing that it is interesting that you won’t.

Sincerely,
J Craig

Yeah and I told you why.  So stop pretending like you didn’t read the rest of my post. Furthermore, it was obviously implied, so stop arguing over mute points, since you have nothing else. This is the kind of garbage I am talking about. 

For the last time (I hope so this is getting tedious) thank you.

Dear Disseminator,

“Yeah and I told you why.”

You did. Because you’re just right and that’s all there is to it and you don’t have to support any of your assertions.

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear Disseminator,

“so stop arguing over mute points”

Did you mean “moot”?

Sincerely,
J Craig

Ah, trolls.  aren’t they lovely.  Mr. Craig needs proof. 

1.  Colin Powell standing before the UN and saying he has indisputable proof of Iraqi WMD wasn’t a lie, he was just mistaken.  When Hans Blick invesigated all those claims and couldn’t verify a single one, it didn’t weigh as evidence that maybe Powell was wrong, but how clever Saddam was in his deception. 

2.  Condi Rice finally admitting that there was some controversy over the use of those aluminum tubes, but she wasn’t clear about what exactly it was because it was buried in footnotes, isn’t evidence of willing distortion of intelligence, it was mere incompetence, I guess. 

3.  When Wolfowitz proclaimed that Iraqi oil would pay for reconstruction and Rumsfeld declared the Iraqi people would welcome us with flowers, that wasn’t ungarnished BS, but only excessive optimism.  That Wolfowitz’s plan didn’t survive contact with reality, is evidence that controlling the world’s petroleum supplies wasn’t even a consideration for his policies.  Uh-huh. 

4.  We went to war with Iraq because they weren’t in compliance with the UN resolution.  Saddam’s non-compliance was that he didn’t hand over the WMD’s he didn’t have.  Oh, that’s right, he wouldn’t dare use them to defend himself, but just gave them away to his lifelong rival, Syria. Yeah, that’s the ticket, that’s logical.  No evidence for it, but it keeps his argument alive. 

So unless we can give him unimpeachable proof of intentional deception on the part of the Bush administration, their mistakes are only the result of incompetence and unrealistic expectations.  I guess incompetence and unrealistic expectations are A-OK with Mr. Craig.

If you want to become a real libertarian rather than just another self-centered and willing stooge of the ruling oligarchy, Mr. Craig, I suggest you read Kropotkin’s ‘Mutual Aid’, ‘Ethics’, etc., the mature works of Emma Goldman, and the work of Noam Chomsky, Mohandas Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Dalai Lama. Get over your Ayn Rand exceptionalism and quit reading all that self-serving crap at lewrockwell.  If you think there is a contradiction between being green and libertarian, you might want to check out the principles of the Green Party and the writings of Edward Abbey and Murray Bookchin.  Only if you want to broaden your mind, however.

Oh my, my, my, we’ve got a real genius on our hands with this fella.
“I wonder why they do this?”
They do it because they believe their god has specifically allocated the land to them and if they must use force against the Palestinians to get it, then so be it.
“Could it be that the Israelis are willing to co-exist peacefully (and just years ago offered the Palestinians 95% of their demands, in response receiving a jihad), while the Palestinians want to drive them into the sea? I don’t agree with all that they are doing in the territories, but on balance, they have the moral high ground by a long shot. None of it would have happened if the Israelis didn’t take the lands in a war they didn’t want.”
How the bloody hell on earth do you co-exist peacefully with someone by taking their land, demolishing their homes, entire villages & towns, etc so you can take the land for yourself, build your own homes, villages & towns on top?! That’s a pretty strange type of co-existence if you ask me. If you consider any of that to be the moral high ground then that says a lot. And yes they wanted the land.
As for ‘just years ago offered the Palestinians 95% of their demands’ – I presume you refer to the 1995 peace talks that broke down due to the Palestinians refusing to give in, I would suggest you go take a look at the maps of the propels. Then after much search and heart-ache, because the maps are not widely known or distributed about for good reason, you will discover that it broke up the West Bank into two large parts, it then broke up the southern half into two more parts; west-Jerusalem, the centre of Palestinian cultural, economic, etc, life would be broken into multiple tiny portions. The space between all of these parts & portions was to be filled with more settlements and of course there would be multiple checkpoints, watchtowers, etc in the Palestinian ‘territory’. Travel between the various parts & portions would be difficult at best. It was in effect the Bantustans from South Africa’s apartheid days.
What would your response be to such a ‘gracious’ offer?
“That’s Palestinian propaganda.”
Really? Your statement to the contrary and that’s all you need for proof. Wonderful.
I’ve seen video recordings of the affected Palestinians thrashing and withering about in pain and agony, having to be held down by orderlies and family members, I’ve seen video recordings of the affected Palestinians still debilitated and recuperating days & weeks after exposure, etc I have seen video recordings and read the medical reports of the doctors diagnosing it, etc. But hey, you say its propaganda so that must be what it is, if only we all lived in a world where our saying so made it so.
I will not even bother replying to the childish and very troll-esque statements you made next.

You pointed out a spelling/usage mistake.  Aren’t you clever.  Because I am sure there are “noone” in your posts. But in pointing this out you brought up a moot point, giving more evidence that you are full of shit.

Fellow Patriots,

It would open up this site to real discussion and an unimpaired sharing of data and opinions that support returning this country to its Constitutional priorities if we would all just dismiss J. Craig’s statements by virtue of NON-REPLY.

He only clutters the site and adds no valid information, only chaos.  Don’t play his game.

Margaret,

If we, the people are to regain control of our government, it will be because we learn how to counter the anal sophistries of the likes of Mr. Craig.  We should embrace the opportunity to hone our arguments against the most intransigent, self-righteously arrogant of our foes.  After all, it is the ubiquity of opinions of those like Mr. Craig that enable the bastards in charge.  Mr. Craig may be congenitally unable or unwilling to alter his views with the addition of new information, but many other libertarian-capitalists are beginning to realize that the neo-con agenda means them no good, and learning from the best responses here to Mr. Craig’s unsupported assertions and sophmoric reasoning are helpful in that debate.  I suspect that the reason Mr. Craig is spending so much time here is because he, at least sub-conciously, suspects that there may soon be no home for libertarian views in the Republican Party.  He probably thinks his so superior intellect will cause us to come over to his shallow and pathetic point of view.  At least Mr. Craig is making the sophist attempt to express himself in rational sounding language, instead of just calling us all a bunch of ‘loozers’ and telling us to ‘get over it’.

I have to say i agree with Margaret. Certainly if one does not wish to defend their beliefs with facts or logic (and there is no reason why one has to do so - silence does not imply agreement), then one should simply ignore those who have other opinions. (Even there i would assert that people who have differing opinions - left or right - can certainly be honorable! But i am not religious in any sense of the word. . .)

On the other hand, it is an interesting mental exercise to debate controversial issues. Einstein once opined that if you cannot clearly explain something to a child, then you don’t really understand it yourself. Plus it provides instruction for those of us who encounter people with opinions that differ - occasionally drastically - from our own.

So i am for either 1) ignoring people who have opinions that are contrary to the nature of this forum (but i really don’t understand this option) or 2) debating them politely (which i might do if i had more time/knowledge). I see no reason for namecalling or any other rude behaviours.

Hi Margaret,
Thanks much for pointing me to the website “Project for the Old American Century.” (Love the take off on PNAC.) Wonderful resource! Interesting interview with Scott Ritter regarding Bush having signed off of bombing Iran on June 5, 2005. This echos Bush signing off on the attack on Iraq in 2002. So now the neocons have to get through the “diplomatic” problems which include bringing the problem to the UN and proving it is ineffective so we can go it alone again. (Oh yeah, not alone, with a “coalition of the coerced...er willing.) And that is John Bolton’s job. Destroy the UNs credibility and the reason it is so important for him to be there at this time.

Now look what you’ve done! A new website to read! I’ll never get any work done.

L.B. and Tess,

Please understand that I debate issues ALL the time with hardcore Republicans, as I am a business owner and born-again Christian, but of the Jim Wallis variety.  So I often deal with people who have differing opinions and relish the opportunity to see the basis for their reasoning.

That is, however, with people who are not attempting to cow or ridicule.  While I may not convince some, though I often do, the discussion is undertaken in sincerity and love of our country.  So my point is that, if you read the whole thread, J. Craig is not genuinely looking to understand the basis of our beliefs, varied as they are.  He only wishes to create chaos so that nothing can be accomplished to shake the predominantly neocon hold on the USA. His arguments often are full of holes, but I do not wish to take the time to try to educate him.  Look at all the information that his been given to him on this thread.  He negates most all of it in a completely off-handed and condescending manner.

Not that any of us are going to start the revolution, but when enough people talk and find out they are not alone, power grows.  That is what his type fears.  He gains power by allowing us to be sidetracked.  That is the crux of my statement.

L.B., I always find your posts quite intriguing.  Do you consider yourself a Libertarian?

Margaret,

Yes. Due southwest on the compass to the 7th degree.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Hi Tess,
You opined:
“On the other hand, it is an interesting mental exercise to debate controversial issues.”
Of course it is. But… only if you have an opponent who is interested in an honest debate. Trolls have another agenda, even if they are knowledgeable on the surface. Their point is to disrupt, not really to discuss. It is best to ignore them than fall into their emotional trap. See my earlier posts on J Craig.

You also said:
“So i am for either 1) ignoring people who have opinions that are contrary to the nature of this forum (but i really don’t understand this option) or 2) debating them politely.”

Regarding 1), it is about honesty and sincerity. To assume that everyone who has a different point of view than yours is really looking out for the best interests of the country would be naive and foolish. Somewhat akin to trusting your wallet to a Mafia chief while not understanding what he stands for or what he is doing in the rest of his life. The idea is to develop “street smarts” so we know who we can debate with on a real basis.

In item 2), you raise an interesting point. Politeness. This to me is something to think about. I “read” that word to mean that we should never express any emotion. Regardless of whether a situation warrants it or not. I have noticed in the many discussions I have with those who disagree with me, that the ones who want me to squash my emotions are also the ones who never express any themselves. There is something eerie about people who are emotionless. They seem devoid of life to me, and it is these very people who would invite me to give up my passion and become lifeless like them.
I welcome passion and emotion in debate. Not the angry name calling personal diatribes; rather the real kind.  Emotion signifies life instead of the walking dead that Mark Twain so accurately described, “Died at 30, buried at 60.”
Interestingly, in my opinion, most of the wingnuts I’ve met and debated, fall into this category. Overly polite, emotionally dishonest, “Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of A Bitch” emotional Game players. There is no point in discussing anything with them other than their emotional dishonesty.

Margaret,

You do have a point.  Ignoring J. Craig would be the simplest and most obvious solution, but I think luminous beauty is spot on right.  The left needs to improve on how we “counter the anal sophistries” (well said!) of the neo-con right.  The right are well-practiced in the art of using language to drive home their points in a way that twists the debate to their advanatage.  For example, using terms like “personal accounts” as opposed to “private accounts” when discussing Social Security or “Death Tax” as opposed to “Estate Tax” regarding tax cuts.  Once the framework has been changed to your advantage, then it is just a matter of time before the debate is yours.  That’s what J Craig, despite being called on it by merlin and others, is rather effective at doing.  It’s working, why stop?  And he’s not alone.  The voices of the re-party are very good at framing the debate, far better than the johnny-come-lately dems.  Of corse, you could argue that the right has more access to the media and that the media itself is controlled by a very small oligarchy.  Perhaps, but there are still plenty of avenues for the left to get the word out - Alternet, Air America, a wealth of blogs, MoveOn, nevermind sites like this, etc.  We just need to frame the debate and take it to folks.  And remember, we have the advantage of using the truth, something the neocons shaping our foreign policy don’t have.  Examples include, as alluded to by Chalmers Johnson, the reasons for invading Iraq and the cost of the war.  Nevermind the irregularities of the 2004 election that allowed the Bush camp and attendant neocons to remain in power (specifically in Ohio - see Chris Hitchens article in Vanity Fair http://www.makethemaccountable.com/articles/Ohio_s_Odd_Numbers.htm).

Learning from the best responses to J Craig, to paraphrase luminous beauty, can only help the cause, don’t you think?  Practice makes perfect and all that.  And frankly, based upon recent political events, the left could use the practice.

By all means, debate those who debate honestly.  But not those who are completely disingenuous.  Those will never learn and it only allows the damming up of the free-flow of information.  Please read the entire thread.  MUCH correct information is presented, none of it even considered.

By the way, I have referenced that exact Hitchens article repeatedly online and in personal discussions.  I have yet to meet one Repub that was even willing to consider the possibility.

So the question is, do you want to waste your time:
a.  trying to give medicine to a dead man
b.  leave the dead man and give medicine to those clinging to life
c.  learn from like-minded individuals who, collectively, do far more research than you could do alone
d.  b and c

I suggest b and c for the benefit of the cause.  Otherwise you are kneeling down with your face staring at the dead man, not gleening any new and valid info (whether it be opposing your personal viewpoint or not-it is GOOD to hear the other side)and you are not spreading that important information because you’ve been waylaid.

So, no, I’d don’t agree that it is worth one’s time to engage those who only wish to seek and destroy.  Better to educate and empower those who will work with you to bring the destroyers down.

I hear ya.  If that’s what you think of him, then it is probably best if you don’t engage him at all.  I read him differently.  He’s annoying, and as Merlin pointed out, he does seem to be looking for an emotional payoff, but he does make a point that many of the arguments on this thread are not as well substantiated as they could be.  Many of his are conjecture as well, or simply refutations ending in a question mark, but that’s not the point.  He’s not a dead man in my eyes, just wrong and rather self-centered.  The better and more effectively we can refute the likes of him, the better we will be at shaping the argument against Bush’s policies as a whole.  In other words, it is not just the substance of the debate (on which you and I clearly agree and, I think, are clearly in the right - so to speak ;), but the style of the debate as well.  If we can effectively refute someone like J Craig, we can convince a whole lot of fence-sitters about the damage Bush et al are doing.

Or to be more concise, it’s not what we are saying, it’s how we’re saying it.  The better we presnt the material, the better for the cause.  Make sense?

I agree with tomkins assertion above ("The better and more effectively we can refute the likes of him, the better we will be at shaping the argument against Bush’s policies as a whole.").

Wouldn’t this be a wonderful testing ground for coutering arguments we disagree with (preferably in a manner that is not rude, but as Merlin points out, it need not be completely emotionless)? Sure there are no referees to decide who “wins”, but it might sharpen our thinking along with our abilities to debate our preferred point(s) of view.

I do think that both sides tend to underestimate (or villify) the other. Morally, ethically and intellectually (example, informed intelligent people can be either for or against the Iraqi war, depending on their weighting of the salient issues). But i suppose that politics is almost religious to those who really care deeply about the issues (which is similar to Protestants who think Cathelics are going to Hell, and even more similar to Christians who think Buddists are going to Hell).

I figure if i learn anything here, then it is time well spent.

Dear luminous beauty,

“Colin Powell standing before the UN and saying he has indisputable proof of Iraqi WMD wasn’t a lie, he was just mistaken.”

Agreed.

“When Hans Blick invesigated all those claims and couldn’t verify a single one, it didn’t weigh as evidence that maybe Powell was wrong, but how clever Saddam was in his deception.”

Certainly it weighed as evidence that maybe Powell was wrong, but not enough evidence, primarily because Saddam wasn’t fully complying with the inspections process. (Hans Blix himself concurred that he wasn’t fully complying. He had the power to stop the war by issuing a report that Saddam was fully complying, but he couldn’t do it.) Had we found nothing AND had he been in full compliance, more skepticism may have been applied to Powell’s testimony, but that skepticism wouldn’t have been necesssary, because had he been in full compliance, we would not have gone to war.

“Condi Rice finally admitting that there was some controversy over the use of those aluminum tubes, but she wasn’t clear about what exactly it was because it was buried in footnotes, isn’t evidence of willing distortion of intelligence, it was mere incompetence, I guess.”

Apparently. I’m a little confused: if it is so clear that she was lying, why wouldn’t her mainstream enemies (and especially the mainstream press such as the NYT, who would love nothing more than big “LIE” headlines if only they could) say so? Why do we only find this on the fringe, where we find charges such as “Hillary Rodham Clinton murdered Vince Foster”? I know why: because it is all mere speculation.

“When Wolfowitz proclaimed that Iraqi oil would pay for reconstruction and Rumsfeld declared the Iraqi people would welcome us with flowers, that wasn’t ungarnished BS, but only excessive optimism.”

Apparently.

“That Wolfowitz’s plan didn’t survive contact with reality, is evidence that controlling the world’s petroleum supplies wasn’t even a consideration for his policies.”

Negative evidence, huh? How about some positive evidence? What evidence is there that controlling the world’s oil supplies was even a remote consideration? (By the way, if it was, it has been a remarkable failure.)

“We went to war with Iraq because they weren’t in compliance with the UN resolution.  Saddam’s non-compliance was that he didn’t hand over the WMD’s he didn’t have.  Oh, that’s right, he wouldn’t dare use them to defend himself, but just gave them away to his lifelong rival, Syria. Yeah, that’s the ticket, that’s logical.  No evidence for it, but it keeps his argument alive.”

Are you really ridiculing me for not having evidence for what I recognize simply as a POSSIBILITY (that he moved WMDs) even as you offer no evidence whatsoever (only speculation) for something you consider an absolute CERTAINTY?

“So unless we can give him unimpeachable proof of intentional deception on the part of the Bush administration, their mistakes are only the result of incompetence and unrealistic expectations.”

Yes. If you’re going to claim something is a lie, you should either have evidence or acknowledge that you are just speculating.

“I guess incompetence and unrealistic expectations are A-OK with Mr. Craig.”

Because I refuse to call what very well could be incompetence and unrealistic expectations “lies” means I am okay with incompetence and unrealistic expectations? Now that’s poor logic. 

MORE TO FOLLOW

HERE IS MORE:

“If you want to become a real libertarian”

I don’t.

“work of Noam Chomsky”

Noam Chomsky will teach me how to be a real libertarian?

“If you think there is a contradiction between being green and libertarian,”

There is. How well do you think this portion of the Green Party platform (just for starters) would sit with most libertarians?

“We have a special responsibility to the health and well-being of the young. Yet we see the federal safety net being removed and replaced with limited and potentially harsh state welfare programs. How will social services be adequately provided if local resources are already stretched thin? We believe our community priorities must first protect the young and helpless. Yet how will state legislatures and agencies, under pressure from more powerful interests, react? We believe local decision-making is important, but we realize, as we learned during the civil rights era, that strict federal standards must guide state actions in providing basic protections. As the richest nation in history, we should not condemn millions of children to a life of poverty, while corporate welfare is increased to historic highs. The Green Party opposes the privatization of Social Security. It is critical that the public protections of Social Security are not privatized and subjected to increased risk. The bottom 20% of American senior citizens get roughly 80% of their income from Social Security, and without Social Security, nearly 70% of black elderly and 60% of Latino elderly households would be in poverty.”

Not too well.

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear Lamont Cranston,

“How the bloody hell on earth do you co-exist peacefully with someone by taking their land, demolishing their homes, entire villages & towns, etc so you can take the land for yourself, build your own homes, villages & towns on top?!”

Did I say all their current actions mean they are now co-existing peacefully. No, that’s ridiculous, they’re in the middle of a war. But the Israelis are the only ones WILLING to coexist peacefully. The Palestinians want to drive them into the sea.

“As for ‘just years ago offered the Palestinians 95% of their demands’ – I presume you refer to the 1995 peace talks that broke down due to the Palestinians refusing to give in”

No, I’m talking about the Oslo breakdown of 2000. Arafat refused the most generous offer he could have ever expected to see. Instead, he escalated the violence.

“What would your response be to such a ‘gracious’ offer?”

That’s not the offer I’m talking about.

“I’ve seen video recordings of the...”

How about a link?

Hey, it is ugly on both sides. So was WWII, and there was a right side and a wrong side there as well.

For anyone interested, here’s one more insult lobbed in my direction:

“I will not even bother replying to the childish and very troll-esque statements you made next.”

Such hostility!

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear Fellow Patriots,

“It would open up this site to real discussion...”

Translation: Can’t we please just resume the Mutual Admiration Society?

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear luminous beauty,

“unable or unwilling to alter his views”

This might be the single most ironic thing I continue to hear here.

“unsupported assertions and sophmoric reasoning”

Any chance you’d offer up some examples?

“At least Mr. Craig is making the sophist attempt to express himself in rational sounding language, instead of just calling us all a bunch of ‘loozers’”

Correction! That is the most ironic thing I’ve read here yet.

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear Tess,

“i see no reason for namecalling or any other rude behaviours.”

Tess, I couldn’t agree more. Have a lovely day.

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear Margaret,

“His arguments often are full of holes,”

Just to demonstrate that you have a single ounce of credibility, PLEASE PROVIDE ONE EXAMPLE OF ONE OF MY ARGUMENTS THAT IS FULL OF HOLES AND EXPLAIN THE HOLES.

Good luck!

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear tomkins,

You sound like a very reasonable fellow. We need not go down any hostile path. If we do, as with several others around here, it will be your choice. Otherwise, I’ll be critical but as polite as can be.

This is all I have to say about your post:

“it’s not what we are saying, it’s how we’re saying it.”

Likewise, the Democrats continue to insist that they keep losing not because their message is bad but because they aren’t presenting it forcefully enough.

I think they’re losing because they’re message is out of touch. On the big issues of defense and the economy, they’re not in touch. That is not to say they’re wrong (perhaps the electorate is wrong?); it is just to say they’re not electable. In my very humble opinion, of course.

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear Margaret,

You only think this:

“So, no, I’d don’t agree that it is worth one’s time to engage those who only wish to seek and destroy.”

because I don’t agree with you, and you can’t adequately counter my arguments.

Sincerely,
J Craig

Back to the Chalmers Johnson article. He notes how the US treated Italy as an ally, with the fighter pilot accident and then the shooting of the reporter’s car, killing one of the chief anti-terror agents for Italy.
Now that Pope John Paul II has died, these issues will still be in the public mind in Italy as the American delegation visits. In this regard, there is also the issue of the Bolton nomination to the UN. Policy matters.

Dear Tom,

“informed intelligent people can be either for or against the Iraqi war,”

Whatever else we may not agree on, we agree on that, but in thinking that, it appears you and I are pretty lonely here. Seems most don’t think it is possible for a good, honest and intelligent person to support the war.

Sincerely,
J Craig

Dear JFD MBA MFA,

“Policy matters.”

Exactly. Policy matters. Certainly much more than the warmth of a reception.

Sincerely,
J Craig

One does have to wonder how the Democrats can be so “out of touch” if 56 million Americans voted for Kerry?  Bush didn’t really win if you understand statistical analyis (read “Corrupted Election” on this site from Feb. 15th, just to mention one of several studies done that coraborate the unliklihood of such a statistical anomaly), but even if he really did, it was only by 3% nationwide.  How is that mathematically possible that a 3% difference would render the losing side “out of touch”.  Just more neocon BS.

To Charles Shaw

I saw your post mentioning “respectable circles,” and have an addition to make to your thought.
“Respectable Circles” can include the New York Times, which published Judith Miller’s accounts based on Ahmed Chalabi’s “information,” who was then at the very least on the US payroll, sometimes the CIA’s, sometimes the Defense Departments.
“Respectable Circles” can include the White House and Congress, which resisted mightily a full-fledged investigation into the full story behind 9/11, and had to be shamed into an effort by the widows and grieving families of those killed.
“Respectable Circles” could include the three major newworks news operations, at least until it was revealed that the government had some agents planted in their operations, and, in the eternal quest for graphics, sent numerous reporters to be “embedded” and then ran most of the coverage in the run-up, and then did very little in-depth coverage after that based on the “embeds”. Two years later, where are the specials based on that coverage, with critical follow up, especially in light of the lack of WMDs?
The list is longer, but three examples should suffice.

Hi LB and Tomkins,
Excellent posts argued very well. None the less I agree with Margaret AT THIS TIME AND PLACE that we are in, in this country politically.
Your argument accepts the red herring that the neocons are using. That is, get us so tied up in arguing issues (social security and Schiavo for instance) that we don’t see the big picture.
In one instance J Craig is correct when he said in an earlier post “there is much more to it than that.” i.e. oil. The big picture is world domination over time but as fast as possible. Our Middle East excursion with 14 permanent military bases in Iraq as well as 14 permanent military bases in Afghanistan, that we are constantly upgrading, is an under reported fact and just one indicator of where they are taking us. We are being scammed by political magicians and that is the message we need to be getting out to those who don’t see it.
When this Emperor and the neocon cabal behind him has been dumped in the dumpster with the rest of the garbage we can discuss the issues that we need to work on. And THAT WILL BE THE TIME AND PLACE I will side with you in your excellent and correct argument.

Dear Margaret,

(You apparently skipped my challenge to demonstrate that you have an ounce of credibility. The challenges still stands.)

You were off to such a good start on a civil debate, but you had to end the message with “Just more neocon BS.” (What does neocon mean to you? Everything and anything with which you disagree?)

But I’ll ignore that last line and address the substance of your post.

“Bush didn’t really win if you understand statistical analyis”

I know, I know, and the vast vast majority of his opponents just let this horrible crime pass while a fringe website is sitting on the goods.

“but even if he really did, it was only by 3% nationwide.  How is that mathematically possible that a 3% difference would render the losing side “out of touch”.”

That’s just one election, and an election in which the incumbent was hampered by a weak economic recovery and a war that wasn’t going so well. It was ripe for the picking. A party that was in touch would have picked it.

Do you realize that Republicans from 1968 through 2008 will have had the presidency for 24 out of 40 years and the Democrats only 12, four of those years likely due to a third party candidate? (Notice that I’m not putting 2000 to 2004 in the Republican column for arguments sake.) Likewise, they have turned a seemingly impenetrable Democrat house majority into a minority going on 12 years, have a solid majority in the Senate with good prospects for pickups in 2006, have most of the governorships, and reached parity in state legislatures, which will most likely be well beyond parity when the southern conversion at the state level from conservative Democrat to Republican is complete? Do you not see that every single one of these developments is a significant turnaround from prior to 1968? And this is not a Republican party that has grown by taking over the center. This is a Republican party that has taken over even as it has moved to the right (aided, of course, by the Democrats’ out of touch move further to the left). The Democrats creeped left as the country creeped right. 

It was around the time we started electing Republican presidents again that it became all too obvious that the Democrats were on the wrong side of the two biggest issues, the economy and defense, and they’ve never really recovered. Clinton tried a little bit, but the Democrats fell back into their comfort zone after him.

Sincerely,
J Craig

“How well do you think this portion of the Green Party platform (just for starters) would sit with most libertarians?
*extensive Green Party platform quote*
Not too well.”
So you say Libertarians are for extensive corporate welfare? You say Libertarians are against providing for those that cannot provide for themselves: the young, the old, the poor, the homeless, etc? You say Libertarians are also against local decision-making? Well those are some interesting policies; I’ll give it that.
“Did I say all their current actions mean they are now co-existing peacefully. No, that’s ridiculous, they’re in the middle of a war. But the Israelis are the only ones WILLING to coexist peacefully. The Palestinians want to drive them into the sea.”
Oh, ok, its their intentions that are, they’re willing to coexist peacefully, but until the Palestinians are willing to abide by the Israelii version of coexistence, they will treat the Palestinians like dogs and animals and take their land, their homes, their villages, their towns, etc and build their own homes and towns and villages &etc;on top of them, until the Palestinians are willing to do as their told that is.
The 2000 Oslo plan was much the same. Once again would you accept what I described, because that’s what the Arafat & the Palestinians were expected to accept.
“How about a link?”
Do your own damned research, but for a start go find the documentary “The Gaza Strip”
You’re right about WW2, we know who it was in that conflict that removed people from their land because they practiced a different religion and kept the land for themselves, we know who it was that forced people to flee from their homeland(s) in terror & fear, we know who it was that subjected human beings to barbaric and degrading and offensive conditions, I just hope the WW2 analogy doesn’t go any further for all our sakes.
“For anyone interested, here’s one more insult lobbed in my direction:
‘I will not even bother replying to the childish and very troll-esque statements you made next.’
Such hostility!”
Hostility? Excuse me? Lets take a stroll down memory-lane and have a look at what you said that led me to say that, shall we? You said:

(me): “and finally you can not say their actions are worse than what the Israelis do.”

(you): Their actions are worse than what the Israelis do.

Sincerely,
J Craig

You want to be a smart arse, then I will treat you like one. And once again I suggest you go properly look at the facts about what the Israelis do, because if you did you would not be able to say that what the Palestinians do is worse than what the Israelis do.

Finally stop with the “drive them into the sea” shtick, that is extreme hyperbole. While it is true that a few Palestinians want to do that – but then a few Jewish-Settlers want to occupy all the land from the banks of the Nile to the Euphrates, they’re not sure about the northern and southern borders but they have suggested as far south as the Red-Sea and north into and undefined part of Europe – my point being there’s extreme hyperbole from both sides. The vast, vast, vast bulk of the Palestinian population ignore those people as uncompromising extremists, the rest simply want to live as two separate & independent states at peace without one occupying the other. Without settlers, without checkpoints, without watchtowers, etc.

Mr. Craig says

“ Because I refuse to call what very well could be incompetence and unrealistic expectations “lies” means I am okay with incompetence and unrealistic expectations? Now that’s poor logic.”

So they could very well be incompetence and unrealistic expectations rather than conscious deception?  I’m happy with that.  Could you offer odds, either way?

No, Chomsky can’t teach you to be a real libertarian, but if you studied his work you might at least learn how it is that being a real libertarian doesn’t mean having no sense of social responsibility.  If you take on his technical work, you might even begin to learn to think like a modern human being instead of some throwback to the third century BCE.

I have been following this conversation for quite some time, and while I am generally loathe to join these threads, it seems to me that one of the fundamental elements of this discourse has been cast aside or ignored by most participants.
Both sides of this argument, and most political discussions, base their statements on certain presuppositions commonly held among their peers. For myself and most of those posting on ITT (the ‘left’) this includes the presupposition that our appointed representatives’ statements about Iraq as a basis for war (including WMD) that later prove to be false cannot be mistakes. With so much evidence against the presence of WMD, Powell and Rice and others MUST have been lying. This, among the ‘left’, is considered a commonly held fact and pre-stated prior to any argument.
However, as Mr. Craig has said over and over, it is not commonly held on the ‘right’ that these statements were any more than mistakes. It has even been stated that these justifications were provoked by the actions of Hussein himself, and since Mr. Blix could not prove or disprove the presence of WMD then it can be rightly concluded that the statements were not, in fact, lies. It is not the truthfulness of the statements that Mr. Craig and others stand behind, but the possibility of their truth. The fact that they turned out to be incorrect is, for many, an afterthought.

Because of this, we are all speaking in different languages. Those of us on the ‘left’ pre-asssume, in the history of FDR, Lincoln, Kennedy (and even to a certain extent Nixon) that government should provide for all people of this nation, and a healthy social structure creates a healthy and productive economy. Many on the ‘right’ believe that a federal government is only allowed limited powers, and that the rights of the individual or the state or the corporation should not be addressed on the federal level. (Areas such as religious inclination, the right to die, or the right to control one’s body are strangely ignored when talking about personal/corporate/state’s rights, but no world is free from contradiction.) This difference in viewpoints regarding the role of government brings us to our current war over Social Security.

This is exacerbated with the fact that information comes from many sources, and I don’t think there are many out there who believe that most news and media are not biased. Thus, it is very easy for someone in Mr. Craig’s position do dismiss all information coming from ‘alternative’ sources (the BBC, Associated Press and Al Jazeera) as faulty, biased and wrong. Similarly, those on the ‘left’ have much reason to be skeptical of mainstream U.S. Media, particularly FOX News, and can easily feel justified in dismissing information derived from those sources.

I guess the reason I wanted to join the discussion is this: it is frustrating to watch two groups of people argue without even the simple basic language of presupposition. Mr. Craig’s repeated assertion that people justify their claims & prove their statements comes from a perspective that assumes that any and all proof can be refuted by logic or contradicting information. Those attempting to argue with him present information that is perfectly logical within their presuppositions, yet alien to Mr. Craig’s. The debate is futile because there is no common ground or language. Sadly, Mr. Craig’s assertion that ITT may be a site where common minds meet to agree with each other could, in fact, be true, if onl