TCS Daily


9/11 Myths, Debunked

By Austin Bay - August 18, 2006 12:00 AM

Trust that conspiracy theorists will attempt to exploit the fifth anniversary of 9/11 to spread sensational claims and sensational lies.

Moreover, it's a fair bet sensationalist media will collaborate, not because the squawk show host or headline scribbler believes the poisoned foolishness, but because anger, fear and trembling sell. Conspiracy theories are public ghost stories of a sort, campfire horror tales tarted up with government devils, corporate witches and other demons-of-convenience.

However, Popular Mechanics magazine and Hearst Communications have provided a handy antidote to the conspiracy theorists' more noxious rhetorical poisons.

Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To The Facts expands to book-length a collection of articles Popular Mechanics published in March 2005. The book contains new appendices and updated analyses.

"Debunking" begins with an insightful and blunt foreword by Sen. John McCain, who observes,

"Conspiracy mongering is no small phenomenon. ... These theories come in nearly infinite variety, but all reach essentially the same conclusion: that the U.S. government, or some shadowy group that controls it, organized the attacks as part of a master plan for global domination. But the truth is more mundane. The philosopher Hannah Arendt described the banality of Nazi evil; the 9/11 hijackers were also ordinary, uninteresting men with twisted beliefs."

Counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke's blurb for the book describes it as "reliable and rational" and that the government "isn't competent enough to pull off such conspiracies and too leaky to keep them secret."

Book editors David Dunbar and Brad Reagan frame the content with the late Senator Pat Moynihan's classic quip:

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts."

With Moynihan as a guide, the book follows a "Claim" and "Fact" format. Here are excerpts from the section entitled "Melted Steel":

"Claim: ... 'We have been lied to,' announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. 'The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.' The posting is entitled 'Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC.' ..."

"FACT: ... Jet fuel burns at 1,100 to 1,200 degrees Celsius ... significantly less than the 1,510 degrees Celsius typically required to melt steel. . . . However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength -- and that required exposure to much less heat..."

The "Fact" section includes analysis from structural engineers, a professor of metallurgy and explosives experts.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories have overt and covert promoters. Some are more nuisance than threat. Howard Dean verbally toyed with 9/11 conspiracy theories when he was playing primary election footsie with hard-left constituencies. Others seek nuclear weapons and finance terrorism.

"Debunking" notes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rambling May 2006 letter to President George W. Bush included "broad hints" that the U.S. organized the attacks.

"Debunking's" afterword, written by Popular Mechanics editor-in-chief James Meigs, deserves special plaudits. Journalism and rhetoric professors should make use of it in undergraduate classes. The afterword's first sentence sets the stage: "On February 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy for global domination." That's the day his magazine's "debunking" issue appeared in print.

Meigs, however, quickly moves from hate mail to a discussion of "conspiracism" techniques. ("Conspiracism" is a term coined by Chip Berlet of the liberal Political Research Associates think tank.)

Meigs analyzes eight 9/11 conspiracy-spinner techniques. I'll mention two:

  1. Attempts to "marginalize opposing views." Meigs says thousands of eyewitness 9/11 accounts and the analyses of numerous universities and professional organizations (including Underwriters Labs and the American Society of Civil Engineers) are dismissed as "the government version."

  1. Circular reasoning. Meigs writes that " ... among 9/11 theorists, the presence of evidence supporting the mainstream view is also taken as proof of conspiracy." He concludes: "Like doctrinaire Marxists or certain religious extremists, conspiracists enjoy a world view that is immune to refutation."

Meigs' analyses of "demonization" and the "paranoid style" are particularly crisp and compelling.

I also wrote a book blurb, calling "Debunking" "a victory for common sense...." The world deserves more victories just like it.

Austin Bay is a syndicated columnist and TCS Daily contributing writer.

Categories:

192 Comments

9/11: It was indeed an inside job!
Give it up guys. Everybody with a functioning brain knows already. Here are some links which totally debunk the debunkers...



Popular Mechanics' Deceptive Smear Against 9/11 Truth: http://www.911review.com/pm/markup/index.html



Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/



Popular Mechanics Cites Hoaxes To Discredit 911 Truth: http://rense.com/general62/popp.htm



9/11 Lists & Links:
http://www.commoncapital.net/downloads/lists&links-preview-7-17-0.html


Hmmm...
am I to assumed that you are being sarcastic?

My mind's made up, don't confuse me with facts.
Some time ago I got into a fruitless discussion with a friend who is convinced that contrails are a government plot to disperse chemicals on an unsuspecting America. Applying logic to the discussion was about as useful as applying logic when conversing with my cat.

On another occasion, a believer in the moon landing hoax said that the stars weren't in the pictures because "the constellations look different from the moon." Trying to explain what a parsec was to demonstrate that they would look exactly the same from the moon or the earth was again a study in futility.

The real problem is too many people study Oprah and too few study science

Just the facts
Fact: On August 6, 2001, the President was given a PDB entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'

Fact: What did George Bush do about it? He cleared a bunch of brush, spending most of the month of August on his Crawford ranch.

Here's his August agenda:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2676-2004Apr10?language=printer

The presidential schedule
Told that Al Qaeda was planning to attack the United States and that no fewer than 70 FBI investigations were underway on what appeared to be preparations for airplane hijackings... but unfortunately NOT told, per C. Rice's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, that this intelligence was "actionable", and that it was up to him to do something, the President took the following bold steps:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45265

poor little roy
he actually thinks that unless the president is sitting in the oval office, he isn't doing anything.

roy and his delusions
The president is told about hundreds of such threats in every security briefing.

move along citizens, there's nothing to see here. (not even a functioning brain)
I wasted a couple of minutes checking out the sites.
They take a couple of blurry images, and then claim to see things that apparently only they can see.
They abuse basic facts of physics on a routine basis.
They make claims that every architect in the country disagrees with.

Kos
A few weeks ago, some guy over on KOS did an experiment.

He took some garden fencing, rolled it up in a tube, put a paving block on it, then lighted a little bit of kerosene inside it.

The tube didn't collapse. He then proudly proclaimed that his experiment proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the twin towers must have been brought down by controlled demolition.

Good facts... with a few omissions of course...
Shall we dive into Roy's omissions? There are a great many of them so I will quickly throw some out there for those of us who are compelled to actually look at all the information. I will not be surprised if Roy is stunned to learned these juicy facts:

1. When presented with this "damning memo" in front of the 9/11 Commission, Rice replied, "The fact is that this August 6th PDB was in response to the president's questions about whether or not something might happen or something might be planned by al-Qaeda inside the United States. He asked because all of the threat reporting or the threat reporting that was actionable was about the threats abroad, not about the United States."

She also pointed out that the actual contents of the memo contained a "discussion" on whether al-Qaeda might use hijacking to try to free a prisoner in the United States. The PDB concluded that "the FBI had full field investigations under way," Rice corrected the 9/11 Commission by pointing out, quite rightly that, "Commissioner, this was not a warning."

Now that you have been exposed, once again, as a consumer of Air America's propaganda and a devoted follower of the tactics of Michael Moore, let us move even further back in history to the Clinton administration. The one that kicked the terrorism can down the road.

You see, what Roy, and the libeals who fed his insane need to shrug off reality, don't want you to know is that there was another memo written that same day, August 6, 2001.

This memo, written by Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General, addressed the issue of the rules that prevented the sharing and collection of intelligence data. This memo is a hundred times more pertinent to 9/11 as the memo the Democrats are attempting to exploit.

This particular memo was concerned with the collection of intelligence and the lack of integration of resources with the departments responsible for counterterrorism. He was concerned with the "wall" that was erected between the departments by the 1995 rewriting of the rules that governed such interaction by Janet Reno and (*gasp*) 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick.

Think I am just blowing smoke? The 9/11 Commission stated: "Our ability to "connect the dots" about the plans and activities of al-Qaeda before the attacks of September 11th was substantially inhibited by the lack of communication and collaboration between intelligence agencies and law-enforcement agencies."

Very interesting that the person responsible for the lack of communication in the intelligence community was the very person who was now questioning it. I am sure that Roy will fail to see the stupidity of having one of the architects of the failure to deal with terrorism investigation that failure.

If you wish to blame Bush about 9/11 please compare Clinton's eight years of allowing terrorist act after terrorist act to go unpunished to Bush's first 7 months in office.

Just for the record Roy, this is now the 21st century. We have the internet, communication satellites, jets, and other modern marvels. The President is never out of contact with his office.

You really just picked this one off the DailyKos didn't you? The canned nature of your talking points make you seem just as ignorant as Kos himself.

Perhaps you should use some of that brain power you believe you possess to check the facts before believe them to be facts.

rsvp
...

More facts:
"Nichols also repeatedly called a boarding house in Cebu City, an establishment that has been linked to 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Ramzi Yousef (search). The same kind of ANFO fertilizer fuel bomb was used in New York and in Oklahoma City."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153635,00.html

"Finally, frustrated in my attempts to execute Mr. Clinton's "leave no stone unturned" order, I called former president George H.W. Bush. I had learned that he was about to meet Crown Prince Abdullah on another matter. After fully briefing Mr. Bush on the impasse and faxing him the talking points that I had now been working on for over two years, he personally asked the crown prince to allow FBI agents to interview the detained bombers."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008563

""Team members believed that the Atta cell in Brooklyn should be subject to closer scrutiny, but somewhere along the food chain of administration bureaucrats and lawyers, a decision was made in late 2000 against passing the information to the FBI," Weldon wrote."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165414,00.html

Man think God laugh
When 9/11 attact was there ,in India there is rumour that actually GOD planned this attact.God want teach a lession to arrogant U.S. government and people ,that there is mighter power in unversal so behave humbly and donot interfer and peep in other nation`s affair.
Unfourtantlly ARROGRANT Government of U.S. DID NOT LEARN ANY LESSION FROM LAST TRAGADY AND WAITING FOR ANOTHER ATTACT.

There you go Mark
Proof of the conspiracy and you announced it here. You are now officially eric's hero. LOL

Incompetent?
TO: Austin Bay
RE: Remembering Not Too Recent History

"Counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke's blurb for the book describes it as "reliable and rational" and that the government "isn't competent enough to pull off such conspiracies and too leaky to keep them secret."" -- Austin Bay

I beg to differ.

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin 'Incident'?

It was a near total fabrication. Hundreds of military officers knew that. However, the conspiracy, on the part of the government, persisted until MacNamara admitted to it in his book.

I was having a drink with some friends one evening, shortly after the book came out, and one of our group admitted that in his position of working CINCPAC Operations at the time of the alleged incident, knew it was a lie.

We almost lynched him on the spot.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Some months after 9/11...
I wrote a rebuttal to those blaming Bush for 9/11. It went something like, "Do you honestly think he would kill 3000 people, destroy the WTC, almost destroy the American economy, invade 2 countries... just for some oil? No one knew who Bin Laden was on 10 Sept 2001. You were all worried about Condit and his missing intern and how to spend your $300 tax refund. Maybe you should write for the X-files."


A timeline of what we knew and when with Al-Quaeda: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/cron.html


U.S. warned in 1995 of plot to hijack planes, attack buildings http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv.hijacking.philippines/


1997 Warnings to the FBI http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/bombings/warnings.html

Popular Garbage
I am interested in actual FACTS not more propaganda, as we now see the Pop Mech article and follow up book to be.

Popular mechanics article is put into the public arena by persons directly tied to the Bush Administration. You see, it turns out that one of the main contributors to the article is one Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of the new Dept. of Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff.

What a coincidence!


You can read more about it here where actually informed writers take apart the PM article point by point:

[url]http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm [/url]

and here

[url]http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html[/url]

Thanks
Neil[url]

not a lie, a fabrication
Two incidents occurred, the second was for more benign than some in the government made it out to be and was used as the reason for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. All of this is now available to the public so I suggest you look it up.

Again, the incidents did occur, the second one simply wasn't exactly what it was made out to be.

the facts are quite simple
A bunch of Al Queada thugs managed to hijack a few fully loaded planes and fly them into buildings. Lots of people died.

end of story.

Now there are numerous finer points of how this happened that deserve more attention, to keep it from happening again. But any theory beyond those simple facts is pure fantasy. If you believe them please check yourself into the nearest mental hospital and get your medication re-adjusted.

Let me guess, you believe that "informed" equals "agrees with me"
These sites contain the same tired, retread claims that have been disproven time and time again.

A few examples.

The pod under the wing:
I've looked at all of the photos, and I don't see it.

StandDown orders:
1) If there had been such an order, don't you think at least one of the thousands of pilots affected by it would have remembered such an order.
2) The time between hijacking and impact was an hour so at most. This was not enough to for the FAA to determine that hijackings had occurred, and send orders to get pilots suited up, planes fueled and into the air.

No windows, no collision:
Ok, someone several miles away, couldn't see windows on the plane. Hardly surprising. Windows on planes are pretty small. With the sun glinting, through the early morning haze. etc.
Birnbach says he was several miles away from the WTC. He didn't see the collision, but he did hear the explosion.
Such a statement does not prove that there was no collision, only that he didn't see it. Hardly surprising, from two miles south, he couldn't even see the WTC. Not hard to believe he couldn't also see the collison.

Repeats the tripe about a kerosene fire not melting steel.
As has been pointed out 100's of times. You don't need to melt the steel. Steel starts getting soft as it gets hotter. At the temperatures known to exist in the WTC, steel would have lost about 1/2 it's strength. This softening, combined with the damage from the collisions was sufficient to destroy the buildings.

Repeats the tripe about the buildings collapsing straight down, and not tumbling over.
1) All tall buildings are designed to load shift. When one column fails, the load is shifted to the nearby columns.
2) Combine this with the fact that once the failure started, it rippled around the building, like a zipper unzipping, all columns failed within a few tenths of a second. This was not enough time for the upper floors to start tipping.



The rest of the garbage gets more and more unbelievable.

Like the AGW fanatics, these guys see what they want to see, and don't let anything as trivial as facts, or basic physics get in the way of their fantasies.

Flight 77
It really, really bothered me that some people believe that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not by Flight 77.

Nevermind that there are HUNDREDS of eyewitnesses -- the 757 flew directly overhead a highway slowed to a crawl by traffic (knocking over a lightpost that smashed the windshield of a taxi) -- the grainy surveillance video is all the proof they need. So I took it upon myself to analyze the evidence.

1. http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h293/Rhampton7/aa77part1.gif
2. http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h293/Rhampton7/aa77part2.gif
3. http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h293/Rhampton7/flightaa77.jpg

As you might have suspected, the conspiracy theorists were none-too-happy with me.

Fabrications & Lies
TO: Pauled
RE: The Splitting of Hairs

"Again, the incidents did occur, the second one simply wasn't exactly what it was made out to be." -- Pauled

An 'incident', by definition, is ANYTHING that 'happens'.

Neither of the 'incidents' was justification for what followed. A Chris-craft with a .50 cal going up against a US Navy destroyer is like trying to tackle an M1 Abrams with a .22. Even if it IS long-rifle....

And yet, the Johnson (D) administration parleyed that into a war that cost 58K American lives, failed, utterly in its mission objective, and left US with a foul taste in our collective mouth for using our armed forces as they should be used.

The point, here, is that the government is NOT 'incompetent' with regards to conivance. Indeed, it can be quite cunning. But usually as a conspiracy of silence. Not as a conspiracy of the overt.

THAT was what I was describing. If you fail to recognize it....that's not MY problem. And if you wish to argue it....I've got a great street corner you can stand on and lecture from....

....it's in the middle of gardens of stone in Arlington, VA. Lecture the dead.....

Regards,

Chuck(le)

People....
TO: Rhampton
RE: ...Will Beleive...

"It really, really bothered me that some people believe that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not by Flight 77." -- Rhampton

...what they WANT to believe. And there is darned little you can do to correct them.

It's like 'religion'. You can show them all the proof in the world and they will still not accept, as fact, what you state which opposes their carefully crated belief structure. Their philosophical facade.

That is, unless they are truly 'intelligent'. But such folk are few and far between.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Don't bother me with facts. I know the Truth!]

P.S. Cuidado! If you insist on telling people the facts of the matter, when they dont' WANT to hear them, they will try to make arrangements for you 'not to be heard'.

Such actions will include 'kick/ban/kill' on web-sites and possibly, if you persist despite their efforts, more 'dramatic' actions.

No Crap, Since He already did in 1993
Since Bin Laden already attacked the *TC in 1993, Your boy Bill had 8 YEARS to take him out, but insteaded TURNED DO*N the cretin's head on a silver platter for lack of probable cause-oh yes, we have the tape of poor Billy telling us ho* his hands were tied..had he *orried less about OBL's "civil rights", *e'd have been protected from the idiot Bush *ho *as so incompetent he couldn't provide the appropriate prophylaxis in in 35 days..

Too bad they spent so much time in Jan and FEb '01 getting ne* "*"'s on keyboards. Everybody kno*s its just another useless letter!

No Crap, Since He already did in 1993
Since Bin Laden already attacked the *TC in 1993, Your boy Bill had 8 YEARS to take him out, but insteaded TURNED DO*N the cretin's head on a silver platter for lack of probable cause-oh yes, we have the tape of poor Billy telling us ho* his hands were tied..had he *orried less about OBL's "civil rights", *e'd have been protected from the idiot Bush *ho *as so incompetent he couldn't provide the appropriate prophylaxis in in 35 days..

Too bad they spent so much time in Jan and FEb '01 getting ne* "*"'s on keyboards. Everybody kno*s its just another useless letter!

Let's not forget Gore's Florida fiasco
Most new presidents spend Nov. and Dec. getting their cabinets nominees in order and working on the transition.
Thanks to Gore, Bush had to spend all of that time working to keep Gore from stealing the election.

For the same reason cabinet officers aren't named until after the election (I for one would love to know before the election, but it ain't gonna happen). Nobody wants their current boss to know that they are being considered for a cabinet position, until the person doing the naming is actually in a position to carry through on the promise.

Who are you...
And what have you done with Hammy?

He chuckles take your meds
The point is there is no comparison.

The U.S. government has never pulled off anything like the conspiracy it would take to perpetrate a 9/11. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution better resembles the "use of force" resolution Bush got to go into Iraq.

In neither case were the excuses and incidents "made up" they were, however, "blown up" and out of proportion in some respects to smooth the way for a resolution, in both cases, that was going to pass anyway. This just made passage quicker and closer to unanamous.

If you believe the U.S. perpetrated some great hoax on 9/11, you need to check your meds, something is off and it is you.

'Meds', Governments and Conspiracies
TO: Pauled
RE: Say What?.....

"The point is there is no comparison." -- Pauled

...you will.

The fact remains. The US 'conspired' regarding the Gulf of Tonkin Incident(s) to bring about a war that cost 58K American lives and God-alone-knows how many others.

Hundreds of 'military professionals' knew this and said NOTHING. [Note: For your information, I enlisted in 1970 and retired (LTC) in 1997, SFB, so you'd better believe I know a think or two about the military and that era.]

You don't care for this appreciation of the facts, as I said, that YOUR problem....not mine.

By the by....this has NOTHING to do with 9/11. It has EVERYTHING to do with whether or not the US government is totally incompetent. Which, I believe, I was pointing out.

I suspect you have serious problems with proper targeting proceedures.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God is alive....and airborne-ranger qualified.]

Still a no comparison
I was Navy enlisted 1979-85 and I too have a little appreciation for the facts.

I do understand what you are saying and agree…for the most part. Where we disagree is on whether or not the "silence" involving the Tonkin resolution has meaning in the 9/11 "conspiracy. This was the point that began this string.

What could the lower ranking officers who "knew" have done? Speak out? Get real. Yes, there were a few higher ranking officers who knew and kept their mouth shut (as per the plan). But you forget, the Vietnam war was already on before this; the Tonkin resolution only approved, what turned into, nearly unlimited escalation of the conflict.

While veterans are very divided on this, a majority still believe the biggest mistake was pulling out of Vietnam. They feel this was an insult (or great disservice at the least) to the 58K+ who died and the many wounded and maimed. I have no right to an opinion on that, and won't express one. But I do feel it was a disservice to the U.S. military as a whole.

BTW, I have no problem with target acquisition, but I'm sure you were an expert at target camoflage!!
(Yes, God is alive…but he is SEAL qualified!!)

Squids R US
TO: Pauled
RE: Personally....

...I don't think particularly highly of squids.

However, it is a mark in your favor that you can recognize what I'm 'trying' to impart.

However, again, I'm not equating Gulf of Tonkin Incident to 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. I'm just pointing out that the government is not 'totally incompetent'.

I see the problem as a 'basic instinct' belief that in order to 'get along' one has to 'go along'. I recall one instance, at the infantry battalion level, where the battalion exeuctive officer confronted a company executive officer over the low scores his company recived on the rifle qualification range.

The discussion went something like this:

Bn XO: Why are your company marksmanship scores so low?

Co XO: That's the way the men shot, sir.

Bn XO: They need to be higher.

Co XO: That's how the men shot, sir.

Bn XO: You don't seem to understand.

Co XO: No, sir. Apparently I don't. Please explain.

Bn XO: I can't explain. Use your 'imagination'.

Co XO: No sir. You use YOUR imagination.


Said company excutive officer summarily terminated his career.

Later on, in life.....I did the same, but in a different location and against a different person, albeit a similar 'attitude'.

Interestingly enough, said 'different person' went on to become the "very model of a modern lieutenant general". I went into a different line of 'business'...thanks to his personal opinion, as reported in my OER.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. The 'biggest mistake' is the sort of P-C mentality that settles into the military over a long period of 'peace' and 'political correctness'.

Getting 'Real'
TO: Pauled
RE: What the F***!?!?!?!?

"What could the lower ranking officers who "knew" have done? Speak out? Get real." -- Pauled

I guess YOU and everyone of those other twerps forgot EVERY word of their oath of office.

Something to do with "...uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies; foreign and domestic."

You POS! You say you're a 'squid'? I've know better 'squids' than YOU! They, at least, undertand the words they spoke as a oath to every man, woman and child of this country.

YOU, however, absolve the miscreants and cretins that would destroy everything they stood for.

"Get REAL"!!!!!

Think about it.....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The truth will out. -- some wag several thousand years ago.]

Rhampton
And I can say the same to you.

Yes mazztek, even though I read quite a bit more than the average perosn, I really do think for myself.

P.S.
I've got a SEAL friend who I like to paint-ball with.

He and I, back-to-back in a MOUT environment took out quite a few of the opponents, before they took him and later caught me. [Note: Bachelor Party for an associate.]

Care to bring a friend and take us on?

An old Denver warehouse was the scene...

We can do Shotgun Willies afterwards to display our welts....if the girls will share their stage.....

Would love to
I kind of got out of that a couple of years ago, but it was a blast. A bit of a long trip (to Denver0 as live about 60 miles from Havre Montana, (30 miles south of the Canadian border). If you are in the area I would love to get my brothers together and do it again!! (we used to do most of our battles in an old warehouse as well; set up as a paintball gallery.)

LOL - speaking of welts, the first time I got into a paintball battle it was in a t-shirt and shorts!!! You can imagine what I looked like (espicially when I got caught between my brother and a friend of his who were on the other team; I was the last alive on mine and they made sure, very sure, I was "dead"!!). Next time I had a sweat-shirt and heavy levis beneath a protective over-suit.

No surprise in this
Never met an army puke who could hit his a ss with both hands. ;)

I can relate and agree with your post. (evals suck if you aren't liked by your immediate supervisor.)

A big Amen on your P.S.

As real as it gets
Sure, but they may very well have spoken up through the chain of command as they are supposed to. some didn't, while that could be construed as some violation of their oath by you, what is the point? Especially if they were in the chain of command of those"in the know".

FOAD - I remember my oath word for word to this day and believe in it to the max. I worked with the Miramar "Whistle blowers" who exposed some of the overpayment scams that were big news during the Reagan administration. (the $1,000 screw drivers, $10,000 ashtray in the E2C I believe it was) Several guys got busted in rank for bringing this to light, (I wasn't that far up front and wasn't one of tem) until the whistle-blower laws went into effect.

Still, times change. It wasn't a violation of their oath to remain silent as there was no Constitutional violation here. Dream on buddy.

BIOYAMF you REMF!!! This is great stuff bozo. I doubt you knew any better swabby-squids; the closest you ever got to the ocean was flying 20,000 ft. above it.

Best always,
"squid"

If only Clinton were alive
Just think what would have been accomplished if only we had a great anti terrorist like Clinton in office. Think of how many terrorists would be pardoned! Yes Roy how many times did Clinton do nothing rather than make the slightest effort to eliminate this threat?

The moral dyslexia of the Left is amazing.

Guess this is why GOD blew up all those Indians at the railway stations
God doesn't like slimey Indians.

Clinton killed hundreds of camels and an aspoirin plant
All camels fear the wrath of Clinton. What more could you ask superheater?

Wrong Chuckie
One of the vessels was attacked, the second attack is somewhat in doubt. To suggest there was a conspiracy is flat out wrong and has been dealt with at length in the various professional naval journals.

We want Hammy back
Its all a plot, Mark's kidnapped Hammy.

Wrong?
TO:ThomasJackson
RE: Okay...

...YOU explain it to 58K dead Americans, buckie.

And don't leave out 'mission failure'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

The Ocean
TO: Pauled
RE: How Close Did You Get?

"I doubt you knew any better swabby-squids; the closest you ever got to the ocean was flying 20,000 ft. above it." -- Pauled

Got to Myrtle Beach and Calabash a few times. Not to mention my grandmother and uncle lived in Venice, Florida.

Oh. Yeah. Then there was my Father's tour at Biloxi. And then again, the final assault on Santa Rosa island, part of the Ranger course.

Other than that...I'd rather be sailing.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Give me a 40-footer and an all co-ed crew....

Actionable intelligence
You're expending a lot of verbiage trying to hide the main point. But it still shows through.

The main fact to be gleaned is that the President of the United States is the man in charge. If he learns of a grave danger to the republic, he yells at his staff "I don't want this thing happening on my watch! I don't care how you do it, but fix it! Git 'er done!"

In other words he causes the wheels of the executive branch to start turning. Had he only given one of his public addresses, and told the nation "We have learned of the possibility of a serious threat, and ask all of you to be watchful in the coming days and weeks to the possibility that we may be the target of terrorists", that in itself would have been all that was required of him.

But he didn't do it. He went instead to a Harley plant in Minneapolis for a photo op. And the attack caught us completely by surprise.

Explains all those Clinton Bin Laden speeches then doesn't it?
Right Roy, and we all know about all those action plans Clinton had to deal with the problems except he was too busy dealing with threats to national security posed by Bin Laden agents in skirts.

Corrupt leadership getting cold feet and a bad case of cut and run
From LBJ to Nixon the leadership wouldn't do what was required to win. You may have forgotten SEATO was all the excuse necessary to enter the war, why invent an incident that would only have backfired? No the leadership made every mistake possible as they are doing today.

You mean the JFK war right?
If you remember your history JFK put troops into Vietnam.

But wait…

In fact it was a Truman war. Because it was his actions after WWII that directly led to the Vietnam War. Ho was working for the US during WWII and was told we would support him in his actions to form a democratic government after the war. In fact there are some great pics of US troops and flag next to Ho right after the war as US planes flew over and Ho declared the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Too bad France yelled and screamed and threaten to side with Russia in Europe, so Truman told them they could have Vietnam back and pulled all the backing from Ho. Then of course they had problems with Ho and asked us to help them out. Leaving the US holding the bag after Diem Bien Fu. So we went from supporting the man to fighting the man all to keep France on our side and in NATO. (Not that that worked any way.)

Umm makes you wonder why he hated the US so bad; guess he didn’t want another knife in the back.

But this action; just like 9/11, was not the fault of one President. Which President was the first to be responsible? Maybe Truman for focusing on Europe too much? Maybe Carter for not acting after the Iran issue? The issue is that by the time of Bush I, Clinton, Bush II the stage was already set to blow. Bush I or Clinton could have put a stop to it by following though with the first Gulf War. By the end of Clinton’s time the stage had truly been set for major blowup because they had envisioned the US as a weak nation unwilling to follow thought.

Bush II main fault was that he was hoping to keep the Middle East on the back burner, just like Clinton had for the 8 years before. The second major fault in this war follows directly at the feet of each and every person in the US. This is our unwillingness to fight in the Middle East the way it needs to be done. Bush is trying to fight a WWII style war using Vietnam “feel good” tactics. And why is he doing this? Because the American public is unwilling to wage the Total War needed to truly remove the problem in the Middle East. Just like we removed the ***** from every government in Europe during WWII and committed to the YEARS of occupation afterwards while the new governments grew and gained the strength to stand on their own, we need to do this in the Middle East. As long as one IslamoFascist government stands in the Middle East we will have this problem. Iran and Syria are the major problems now and need to be fixed.

As the old saying goes “We didn’t start it, But we D***ed well better end it.”

The President has help
A president does not have to DO everything himself.

He does have a few people working for him.

It is called d-e-l-e-g-a-t-i-o-n.

They make Harley's in Minneapolis?

If you were to be fair about it...
...you would note also that Clinton responded promptly to the Khobar Towers incident by blowing up the Sudanese aspirin factory and the Afghan day care center. He intended to continue in his response, and undoubtedly would have pursued an extradition with the Sudan-- who was at that time willing to entertain the notion and hand Bin Laden over.

The problem, of course, was partisan Republicans bickering that this was just a diversion, so people would take their minds off Monica. So, with no political will in Washington to support the GWOT, Clinton shelved the idea and said the hell with it.

The exact buzzwords employed in shooting down our greatest opportunity to get OBL were "tail wagging the dog". Remember?

Whose fault was it that we didn't get Osama in 1998?

TCS Daily Archives