Tuesday, October 31, 2006

"Hey, Look Over There!"

I was waiting for something like this to happen. Invariably, as an election nears the home stretch, someone on the Democratic side commits some minor gaffe which every Republican politician, pundit, and blogger instantly seizes upon and treats as if it were The Biggest Thing Ever.

In 2004, it was John Kerry mentioning in the final debate that Mary Cheney was gay. It didn't matter that everyone already knew she was gay, or that Kerry's comment wasn't at all derogatory, or that whipping up anti-gay hysteria was central to his opponent's electoral strategy. None of that that did anything to stem the orgy of faux outrage that ensued.

Every election cycle has something like this. Unfortunately for Kerry, it looks like he has once again managed to find himself at the epicenter:
In his remarks in California on Monday, Mr. Kerry said: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Mr. Kerry said that he botched a joke that his aides said had been prepared as follows: "Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
Given that this isn't 1968 and we no longer have a draft, I think I'm willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt here.

It doesn't really matter, though, because no matter how convincing his explanation is, every Republican in the country is going to spend the next week accusing Kerry, and by association, every other Democrat, of secretly harboring a deep disdain for our troops in Iraq. Nevermind that Kerry and half of the Democrats running for office this cycle are decorated veterans themselves. Nevermind that nearly 3000 American troops have died already in an ill-conceived and thoroughly mismanaged war in Iraq. Nevermind that the Bush administration has all but admitted that it is playing games with our soldiers' lives by putting off making any course corrections until after the election. Nevermind that they did the exact same thing in 2004, and the decision likely led to unnecessary American casualties. Nevermind that Bush and his top officials have a track record of incompetence a mile long and have been feeding us nothing but happy-talk and propoganda for years.

Nope, none of this matters. What matters is that a Democratic Senator who is not even running for anything said something that, if read in the worst possible light, was insulting. In the bizarro world of Republican partisan politics, this is somehow THE issue.

So how should the Democrats react to this sideshow? Well, as Michael Caine says to Sean Connery at the end of The Man Who Would be King: "Brash it out, Danny. Brash it out."

The Democrats need to come across as confident and unflustered and save the recriminations and navel-gazing until after the election. This story is likely to dominate at least one more news cycle, but if the Democrats start sniping at each other or treating Kerry like a leper, the story will only gain more traction. If they haven't been asked already, every Democrat in a contested race is going to be asked tomorrow whether or not they stand by Kerry and his comments. Their answer needs to be this (more or less):

"I take Senator Kerry at his word that he misspoke. I think it's unfortunate how his comment came across, but we've all said things that just came out wrong. It happens. But instead of dwelling endlessly on a botched joke, maybe we should be paying more attention to the Bush administration's botched war in Iraq and botched policies here at home. Our Republican leaders are very good at distraction. That's how they've managed to avoid accountablity for their disastrous policies for so long. But it's not going to work this time. This is their accountability moment, the moment when the American people say enough is enough; it's time to put someone else in charge."

Unfortunately, getting Democrats all on the same page is almost impossible. A number of Democratic candidates will be very tempted tomorrow to publicly distance themselves from Kerry. If they succumb to that temptation, this story will gain steam. I'd like to think that a story this trivial and inane couldn't influence the outcome of the election, but given the current dismal state of our political discourse, nothing would surprise me.
Digg!

25 Comments:

Blogger spiiderweb™ said...

Our Republican leaders are very good at distraction. That's how they've managed to avoid accountablity for their disastrous policies for so long.

You have this exactly right. They're trying to distract from bad policies.

Its no time to mention Foley, Libby or any of the others. Stay on message...bad policies.

2:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for this post -- it's exactly what needs to be said, and your recommendation for the Democratic response is right on. It's hard to believe this is even happening. When I first read the story, the "remark" came before the so-called criticism, and I couldn't figure out what the problem was. It was so obvious that it was a joke on Bush, even if it didn't come out quite right. Who in their right mind would assume otherwise? That we was mocking people in the military. You have to have virtually no common sense at all to think otherwise.

- JLB

7:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That should read: That he was mocking people in the military?

Absurd.

7:16 AM  
Blogger slc said...

Are you sure you don't mean John Edwards, in the debate with Richard Cheney? It was pretty astounding how a thoughtful and well-meant statement - even Cheney nodded and said 'thanks' - got turned the next day into this incredible theater of outrage. Talk about a way to not discuss any real issues!

slc

7:26 AM  
Anonymous Charles said...

I think you're wrong about how to handle this. I think Kerry is absolutely correct to remove himself from the public eye and let this settle out, because, as long as he stands up to argue, the raving and crocodile tears are going to keep on being driven by the right.

Bush has the ability to generate news just by saying something, however incoherent and idiotic. Not much of anybody on the Democratic side has that power. Rush can rant and rave in simulated fury -- and who on the left would be able to counter it? The MSM is covering this in the usual "balanced" fashion, having sound clips of Kerry bleating about what he meant to mean to say, and sound clips of various democratic pundits -- and then having McCain in person discussing Kerry's "meaning."

Honestly, how do you stand up and fight that? Whatever you say will be taken out of context. They're truly desperate to find something to talk about that isn't damaging, and talking about how somebody else feels about "the troops" is about the safest thing they can find. I mean, if they actually talked about how *they* had shortchanged the troops in order to do their little war on the cheap, it wouldn't be very smart, would it?

I'm sure there are operatives at every campaign rally by any prominent Democrat, taping and scanning for things that can be taken out of context and used in just this way. On the other hand, try that at a Bush or Cheney function, and you'll never get your equipment in.

Rather than defending Kerry or trying to claim he didn't mean what they think he meant, it would be more effective to run ads listing the absolutely idiotic things Bush, Cheney, et al, have said over the last few years about Iraq.

Or just keep quiet, let the thing die -- if they'll let it die, as now they're all howling for an "apology" for remarks about education at a college, which remarks I, for one, have previously used on more than one occasion to spur a flagging young student. And it worked -- that kid was apparently motivated by the prospect of having to enlist if he dropped out.

I strongly suspect a majority of the right-wingers now howling for Kerry's blood have done the same. I say, keep quiet, let the hypocrisy sink in, and let them talk themselves into a corner.

9:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The correct response to Republicans who will spend the next seven days bashing Kerry, is to repeat what Kerry himself said. That each and everyone of these Republicans who bash him -- a decorated veteran -- has managed to stay away from military service. That this is the same kind of cowardly scum who accused Tammy Duckworth of "cutting and running" (she could hardly "run", now, could she, having lost two legs in Iraq...).

I don't think that Kerry bungled. The argument was clearly a dig at Bush, not at the army.

So, repeat it loudly, clearly, and incessantly: "Republicans who bash John Kerry have never been near combat, and would cut and run to other countries if they were ever drafted".

Enough with bashing Kerry! Democrats should know better, especially seven days before the Democrats are poised to regain power.

What do you prefer? Play into the hands of the cowards in the GOP and fall for bashing Kerry, therefore endangering the elctions, and insuring that the GOP continues to loot the Treasury, and contribute to the killing and maiming of thousands of US recruits and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians? Or keep your mouth shut about Kerry and give the Dems a chance to snatch this country from the jaws of fascism?

9:28 AM  
Blogger JLB said...

I was impressed with how vehemently Kerry reacted, in a kind of "Network" "mad as hell" performance. Surely no one, with the possible exception of Gore, is more fed up with the Bush-Cheney bullshit machine. I just wish he could attach the clear, coherent, commonsense response to his justifiable outrage: that it was a joke against Bush, and he blew it -- so sue me, he should say, everyone knows I'm wooden and have no sense of humor. I tanked the punchline, but even so, any idiot should see that I was trying to mock the President, the dumbest, least educated (and proud of it) President ever to strut the halls of the White House. And it is obviously his lack of education (of course, among many other things) that helped get us all, BUT ESPECIALLY OUR TROOPS, into a mess from which we have no idea how to extricate ourselves. This was Kerry's mistake in 2004 as well. There were clear, coherent, and irrefutable responses to both the Swift Boaters and those who railed on him for "voting for it before I voted against it." If democrats can ever manage to harness outrage to the sensibility of their positions they just might emerge as an impressive party behind which people won't be ashamed to stand.

- JLB

9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AL, Kerry compounded his gaffe -- and I am not at all convinced that this was just a botched joke (comparison of what his aides claim was the text of the original joke, and what he said is markedly different) -- by responding to his critics by once again resorting ot the facist argument that how dare they criticize him when he served in Vietnam and they didn't. I don't understand why more Dems don't get upset when someone -- anyone, even a fellow Dem -- makes this argument. Why do you all keep giving him a free pass?

9:31 AM  
Anonymous DrGail said...

It's been particularly interesting hearing how the media have responded. The CBS radio news described it as a botched joke, which thankfully puts the whole thing in its proper context. On CNN yesterday, though, they mentioned "Democratic strategists" who were mortified (my word) by Kerry's comment and were urging him to keep a low profile. I shouted at the TV "Who? Which Democratic strategists?" but, alas, I got no answer.

Personally, I thought Kerry's "come out swinging" approach was right-on, FWIW.

9:42 AM  
Blogger A.L. said...

by responding to his critics by once again resorting ot the facist argument that how dare they criticize him when he served in Vietnam and they didn't. I don't understand why more Dems don't get upset when someone -- anyone, even a fellow Dem -- makes this argument. Why do you all keep giving him a free pass?

First of all, Kerry's response wasn't the same thing as invoking the chicken-hawk argument. He was saying, in effect, 'how dare you, someone who's never served, accuse me, a veteran, of hating our troops.' That's not the same thing as saying 'how dare you, someone who's never served, have an opinion about war-related issues. You're conflating totally different things. Plus, why do you think the GOP trotted out John McCain to criticize Kerry? Could it have anything to do with his military record?

More importantly, though, the people who would be getting a "free pass" if we focused obsessively on Kerry's comments are the Republican politicians who would be avoiding accountability for the disastrously stupid policies they've supported for the last six years.

9:57 AM  
Anonymous Charles. said...

Anonymous comments don't really deserve a reply or acknowledgment of any kind, but I'm a little bored this morning, so:

1. What he said can be interpreted as a joke about Bush. I'm not going to be upset about that, let Bush handle it.

2. What he said can only by uncomfortable stretching be made into anything resembling a slur about "the troops". I'm not going to try to stretch myself into something that looks like Rush Limbaugh to get upset about something this trivial.

3. As I said earlier, I'm much more likely to get upset about people who knowingly sent people into a conflict without adequate equipment, just to save money than someone who may have insulted somebody.

4. But it's true. Take a look at the plummeting standards for acceptance into the Army and see if you can keep from being shocked. Only by the most brazen cherry-picking of statistics can you even pretend otherwise. I'm not knocking the troops. They come out of the army (if they come out) far more mature, capable, and wise, on average, than their peers who didn't serve, and I respect and honor their service. But a wise young person would be well-advised to think carefully about their choices before enlisting rather than getting an education.

5. It's just Kerry. The man couldn't deliver a one-liner to save his soul. We're not cutting him a break. All too many of us realized his shortcomings long ago, which is why, in spite of the obvious insanity of having a second Bush term (which we have now begun to drink the bitter dregs of) -- he isn't sitting in the Oval Office today. We don't have much choice about having him be a senator, those folks back east elected him, and they seem to like him. Given that the people of Texas elected Tom DeLay multiple times, Strom Thurmond remained in office until they had to scrape his festering carcase out of the chair, and ... sorry, I can't go on. I need some serious anti-nausea medication now. But it's not up to us. Membership in the Democratic Party is a personal choice. As is membership in the GOP. We may not like everyone with whom we share a party, but that's the party system.

I hope I helped you understand the lack of outrage amongst the "Democrats".

10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AL, The GOP is not some monolithic entity. It seems pretty clear that McCain trotted himself out to criticize Kerry because he was so appalled at what the junior senator from massachusetts said. Do you have any evidence otherwise?

Also, how is the quality of US soldiers and the means of determing who becomes a US solider not a war-related issue? Not even a little bit war related?

10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Charles, I was wondering why Dems aren't outraged by the facist nature of Kerry's defense of his awful joke, not the awful joke itself. You misread my post.

10:03 AM  
Blogger A.L. said...

AL, The GOP is not some monolithic entity. It seems pretty clear that McCain trotted himself out to criticize Kerry because he was so appalled at what the junior senator from massachusetts said. Do you have any evidence otherwise?

I would bet my left arm that McCain's appearance on television was urged on and coordinated by the Republican party. At the very least, they made sure it got all the publicity it could.

Republicans are never, never above using the military to their advantage. Bush and Cheney always use captive military audiences as a backdrop for their speechs. Republicans always appear with troops at campaign events. The idea that the Democrats are somehow more "fascist" in this regard is total claptrap.

10:14 AM  
Anonymous Charles said...

Anonymous,

Sorry, my outrage capacity was burned out when this country re-elected Bush/Cheney/Rove. I'm pretty much incapable of feeling anything that way these days. Probably for the best, as otherwise I might have incinerated myself when the GOP cabal that rules Washington passed the "abrogation of civil rights" bill AKA the MCA.

But to try and be more helpful, when you holler "fascist" as somebody, Godwin's law kicks in and I ignore the rest of what you say. "Fascist" has a meaning, it's not a general-purpose slur.

His attack on his attackers basically boils down to an appeal to authority or emotion argument, the basis of his authority being his service in the military. As such, it is a logical fallacy, granted, but again, I have trouble getting upset about the commission of a logical fallacy by a politician. The argument made by the administration and their apologists, for example, boils down to: you should support the President because he's a war president. Now, "war" applied this way is meaningless, since there's always conflict in this world, so it further reduces to "you should support the president because he's president."

So if you wonder why "Dems" (whoever they are) aren't upset, look at what's been done by the GOP over the last 10 years and let your mind boggle at the thought of what could possibly upset anybody who has tolerated all that.

As to the previous comment, also by somebody calling themselves "anonymous", if you haven't noticed by now that the GOP is nearly always monolithic in their response and their attack modes -- you just haven't been paying attention. Even the MSM has noticed, and that's saying a mouthful. Try watching the "Daily Show" roundup of the "talking points" -- which they regularly do. It's dozens of people saying exactly the same words when the GOP speaks.

So yes, we're entitled to think that McCain trotted himself out in service to his party to further his party's efforts to retain control of Congress. We may be wrong, but given McCain's recent history of currying favor with the right-wing base, it would be very unlikely.

As to your comment about the "quality of soldiers" -- re-read my comment above. This is a non-issue, at least as a positive for the GOP.

10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Charles, I was wondering why Dems aren't outraged by the facist nature of Kerry's defense of his awful joke, not the awful joke itself. You misread my post."

Why do you call Kerry's defense "fascist"? He made the correct point that those who accuse him of insulting the military are the same cowardly chickenhawks who have never seen combat, yet have no trouble continuing their disastrous policy (or lack thereof) in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bashing veterans who loyally served their country.

George Bush never served and managed to go AWOL from his plum assignment in the Texas National Guard. Cheney got five deferments and claimed that he had "other priorities" than fighting in Vietnam. Rumsfeld never saw combat. Rice never served. As for our lovely pundits such as O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and assorted bottom-feeders, they have never served either.

10:33 AM  
Anonymous Commander Ogg said...

Never misunderestimate the relationship between the right wing noise machine, aka "The Mighty Wurlitzer" and the lapdog press (pre$$titutes, media whores, etc.).

But Mr. Kerry played it smart by not following the script. First off, he immediately gives a press conference in which he tells those chicken hawk bastards what they can do with themselves. Then he cancels his appearances to avoid any further distraction.

And finally we have at least one secret weapon that was not available in 2004, Keith Olbermann. He will be doing a Special comment this Thursday, and he is the Republicans worst nightmare come true, a progressive with a nightly news show and an open microphone.

11:25 AM  
Blogger spocko said...

I have to agree with Commander Ogg above. The reach and power of the right wing noise machine and it's pickup by the nightly news and press is really key here.

When you hear how ABC News political lead Mark Haliprine says "Drudge rules our world" and he sucks up to Hugh Hewlettit, you know that the connection is solid.

And the ability of the right wing noise machine has NO counter to it.

They had on Charlie Gibson on "The View" and Elizabeth Hasselwhatever her name is, brought up some poll that said, 'What do you say about the study that says 70 percent of the press is liberal.'? Before he could answer luckily Rosie O'Donnell pointed out "It was probably a Fox poll" Gibson gave some bullshit answer about them trying to be objective and fair

There is nobody on Rush or Hannity's radio show saying, "You are full of shit. That's a lie, prove your "facts" what's your source." Colmes doesn't count.

2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Responding in any way that includes Kerry, good or bad, moves the topic away from Iraq. Maybe this works better:

"If the Dems really hated the troops, they would just leave them in Iraq where they are being killed and maimed for no good result. 'Staying the Course' in the middle of a quagmire that isn't reducing terrorism, isn't spreading democracy, and isn't making anyone safer is true disrespect of our men and women in uniform."

Anything that keeps the focus and the blame on Republicons should be the answer. Kerry's (and the Dems) honor is not work losing sight of the real argument.

3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to say, I don't think Kerry flubbed a punchline. I think he said exactly what he meant to say.

And I'll go a step further: I think he was right, and I think every educated parent thinks the same thing and hopefully gives their children the same advice.

Borat has shown us that people say the darndest things when they don't think other people will see it. Kerry, as well as so many other people of his age/generation, has not yet learned the new reality: everything you ever say or do in public may very well end up all over the Internet an hour later. I believe that Kerry has not learned this lesson yet, and thought he could get away with a risque joke to a like-minded audience. When it blew up in his face, he tried to spin it a totally different way. I think his spin is bullshit.

He's right. Get an education or end up as cannon-fodder. But when you get caught saying that, don't make a bunch of lies to pretend you didn't say exactly what you meant.

3:33 PM  
Blogger Christopher C. in Hawaii said...

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." — GW Bush Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

5:04 PM  
Anonymous S.W. Anderson said...

Kerry should be back out on the campaign trail, doing what had him so obviously tired when he misspoke. If he ducks out of sight the jackals will point and say, "There, you see, he's guilty and he knows it, which is why he won't show his face in public."

What's more, Democrats and non-right-wing diehards should rally around Kerry, giving the wingnuts proper hell until they back off. That's exactly what they do, and it has worked well for them. Not only does it get the opposition to back off (or down), it generates a certain kind of respect among the nonpartisan.

I assure you, lack of rallying around one of ours when he/she is in trouble and taking an unfair beating causes the uncommitted to wonder why, if we have no more loyalty than that, they should show any loyalty to us and to ours.

2:02 AM  
Anonymous Charles said...

S.W.Anderson,

And if he comes back out and makes a target of himself, they'll just keep hollering. Ever been at a monkey cage, or a dog kennel? What happens when you jump up and down and irritate the animals? What gets them to quiet down faster, staying and yelling at them or leaving? I'm not saying they're animals, but just go read some right-wing blogs and make up your own mind about it.

As to their saying "he's guilty" -- they will say that no matter what. The arguments are completely circular: "he's got a pattern of insulting the troops. That's what proves this time that he's insulting the troops." And five years from now, if he says something questionable, it will simply be recycled, no matter whether this time, that time, or *any* time in the past he didn't insult the troops.

Giving the wing-nuts hell is simply playing their game. Just like screaming at the monkeys, it won't do anything to shut them up. And you think this somehow impresses a bystander -- the partisan loyalty of the monkeys? I'm sorry, it doesn't impress me in any way, and I'm not a true partisan -- my loyalty is reserved for individuals, not a party.

Speaking of loyalty, the only loyalty we owe any leader of the Democratic Party is to listen to him/her speak and give liberal consideration to their arguments. As for their loyalty to us, well, I'd just hope to heaven that their loyalty is to Democratic ideals and the principles of this country, as interpreted liberally. One of the things I find most objectionable about the current GOP administration is their apparent loyalty to the corporate statists and the religious right over the rest of the country, and against the constitution and traditions of this country.

2:22 PM  
Blogger ADA_Stephen said...

I have gone a decade without ever knowing what "TRB" stands for in The New Republic. I hope I don't have to do the same with "MSM." What does MSM stand for.

And more to the point, I agree, Kerry's explanation is bullshit. Kerry was not commenting on the presidents CV under the heading "Education." Kerry was commenting (ironically, not jokingly) on how the men and women chosen by the educated class to fight their faith based "war" are generally, if not universally, from the undereducated classes. This is true.

That said, I wish Kerry would go on a cruise or something. Nobody can put the foot in the mouth like the junior Senator from Massachusetts.

2:27 PM  
Anonymous Enlightenment said...

Speaking of propaganda we as a nation have been fed...

One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying "We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]". Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I've ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four "pilots" among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake "pilot" of the bunch. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports. These "hijackers" somehow managed to board all four airliners with their tickets, yet not even ONE got his name on any of the flight manifests. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn't work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn't work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won't let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you "aren't supposed to think about". Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name, more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn't respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn't happen, not even close. Somehow these "hijackers" must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that is not at all like a jumbo jet, but didn't have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were "supposed to see". Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these "hijackers" wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn't even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying "We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down" attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers' magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be "Muslim hijackers" the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don't laugh) one of their passports was "found" a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously "surviving" the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also "survived" the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be "indestructable" like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn't bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Further making themselves look guilty, the Bush administration steadfastly refused for over a year to allow a commission to investigate 9/11 to even be formed, only agreeing to it on the conditions that they get to dictate its scope, meaning it was based on the false pretense of the "official story" being true with no other alternatives allowed to be considered, handpicked all its members making sure the ones picked had vested interests in the truth remaining buried, and with Bush and Cheney only "testifying" together, only for an hour, behind closed doors, with their attorneys present and with their "testimonies" not being recorded by tape or even written down in notes. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastic far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the "nineteen hijackers" is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.

Debunking Popular Mechanics lies:
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6880
someone else debunking Popular Mechanics crap:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
still more debunking Poopular Mechanics:
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=5505
and still more debunking of Popular Mechanics:
http://www.reopen911.org/ericreubt.htm

Poopular Mechanics staff replaced just before laughable “debunking” article written:
http://www.reopen911.org/hiddenhand.htm
another neo-con 9/11 hit piece explodes, is retracted:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/180806hitpiece.htm
Professor Steven Jones debunks the N.I.S.T. “report” as well as the F.E.M.A. one and the 9/11 commission "report":
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc_buildings_collapse_steven_jones.htm
N.I.S.T. scientist interviewed:
http://www.teamliberty.net/id235.html
F.B.I. says no hard evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11 which is why his wanted poster says nothing about 9/11:
http://forum.afghansite.com/index.php?showtopic=9349
Fire Engineering magazine says important questions about the Twin Tower “collapses” still need to be addressed:http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID

Twin Towers’ construction certifiers say they should have easily withstood it:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/121104easilywithstood.htm
USA Today interview with the last man out of the South Tower, pursued by a fireball:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-escape.htm
Janitor who heard explosions and escaped has testimony ignored by 9/11 whitewash commission:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/ignoring_9-11.html
Janitor starts speaking out about it and his apartment is burglarized, laptop stolen:
http://kurtnimmo.blogspot.com/2005/08/apartment-of-nine-eleven-hero-william_28.html
Firefighters tell of multiple explosions:
http://www.wnbc.com/news/1315651/detail.html
Eyewitnesses tell of explosions:
http://research.amnh.org/users/tyson/essays/TheHorrorTheHorror.html
Interview with another firefighter telling of explosions:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt
Firefighter saw “sparkles” (strobe lights on detonators?) before “collapse”:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fitzpatrick_Tom.txt
Other eyewitnesses talk of seeing/hearing explosions:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/more-proof-911-inside-job-witnesses-to.html
Surviving eyewitnesses talk of multiple explosions there:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm
Cutter charge explosions clearly visible:
http://www.rense.com/general63/cutt.htm
The pyroclastic wave (that dust cloud that a second before was concrete) and how it wouldn’t be possible without explosives:
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/physics/
Detailed description of the demolition of the Twin Towers:
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html
Freefall rate of “collapses” math:
http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
More about their freefall rate “collapses”:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/second_wave.htm
Video footage of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/
Video footage of the controlled demolition of WTC # 7 building:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
More
http://www.wtc7.net/
Photos of the Pentagon’s lawn (look at these and see if you can tell me with a straight face that a jumbo jet crashed there):
http://www.911blimp.net/cached/HuntTheBoeing!.htm
More photos of this amazing lawn at the Pentagon:
http://cryptogon.com/docs/Introducing%20the%20amazing%20Penta-Lawn%202000!%20(9-11).htm
Very unconvincing fake “Osama” “confession” tape:
http://welfarestate.com/wtc/faketape/
More about the fake “Osama” tape:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html
Fake “Mohammed Atta” “suicide” letter:
http://www.welfarestate.com/wtc/fake-letters.txt
Commercial pilots disagree with “official” 9/11 myth:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/september_11_us_government_accused.htm
More commercial jet pilots say “official” myth is impossible:
http://www.masternewmedia.org/2001/10/31/commercial_jet_pilots_analysis_of_the_twin_tower_attack.htm
Impossibility of cell phone calls from United 93:
http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm
More about the impossible cell phone calls:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html
Experiment proves cell phone calls were NOT possible from anywhere near the altitude the “official” myth has them at:
http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9
Fake Barbara Olson phone call:
http://www.vialls.com/lies911/lies.htm
Where the hell was the Air Force?
http://www.welfarestate.com/wtc/af-scramble.txt
More about the Air Force impotence question:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0331-11.htm
Sept. 10th 2001, Pentagon announces it is “missing” $2.3 trillion (now why do you think they picked THAT day to announce it? So it could be buried the next day by 9/11 news):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
Unocal pipeline-through-Afghanistan plan:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0513/p05s01-wosc.html
Unocal pipeline-through-Afghanistan plan mentioned:
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/05/19/OutOfAfghanistan
More on Unocal Afghan pipeline:
http://www.newscentralasia.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1031
The attack on Afghanistan was planned in the summer of 2001, months before 9/11:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
Pentagon deliberately misled 9/11 Commission:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EGG20060802&articleId=2887
9/11 whitewash Commission and NORAD day:
http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071204_final_fraud.shtml
The incredible fish tales of the 9/11 Commission examined:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20GR20051213&articleId=1478
Jeb Bush declares state of emergency 4 days before 9/11 for Florida, saying it will help respond to terrorism:
http://www.eionews.addr.com/psyops/news/jebknew.htm
Steel debris removal from Ground Zero, destruction of evidence:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
Over two hundred incriminating bits of 9/11 evidence shown in the mainstream media:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html
Tracking the “hijackers”:
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
“Hijacker” patsies:
http://911review.org/Wiki/HijackersPatsies.shtml
“Hijackers” receiving flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0208/S00085.htm
No Arabs on Flight 77:
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm
Flight manifests (tell me if you find any Arabs):
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
Thirty experts say “official” 9/11 myth impossible:
http://911fraud.blogspot.com/2005/06/us-governments-offical-911-story-is.html
“Al Qaeda” website tracks back to Maryland:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/alqmaryland.html
Al Qaeda videos uploaded from U.S. government website:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2004/140704governmentwebsite.htm
Operation: Northwoods, a plan for a false-flag “terror” attack to be blamed on Castro to use it as a pretext for America to invade Cuba, thankfully not approved by Kennedy back in 1962 but was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and sent to his desk:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/us_terror_plan_cuba_invasion_pretext.html

5:54 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home