Woodward and Reality--UPDATED

After reading the below piece, Bob Woodward called to tell me that he thought that the article was "dishonest" and "unfair" and that I owed him an apology. During a calm but passionate conversation, I promised to print as long a reply as he would care to write. He said he would send something along soon. So watch this space....

Bob Woodward writes insider accounts of wars and the policymakers who wage them. He does so by talking to the most senior Bush administration insiders, who--obviously--tell him what they wish to tell him. No doubt, Woodward does capture some (maybe even most) of what occurred. But what happens when the insiders try to spin Woodward or share with him a rather selective rendition of an important event? Does he buy it and sell it (literally) to the rest of us? The leak of a British memo recounting a January 31, 2003 conversation in the White House between George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair affords Woodward's readers a rare opportunity to factcheck the fellow who imbues his behind-the-scenes storytelling with an omniscient tone.

The Bush-Blair meeting came as Bush was moving closer to launching the invasion of Iraq. UN weapons inspectors were back in Iraq--thanks to a resolution passed by the UN Security Council the previous November--but the hawks of the Bush administration, including Bush himself, were by this point eager to declare the inspections a failure and to get on with the show. At issue was whether the Bush administration needed a second resolution from the UN that would authorize military action against Iraq. Blair wanted one. The prospect of war was unpopular in England; he needed the cover of a second resolution. Bush and his senior officials were not enthusiastic about going back to the UN once more. Bush had just delivered a State of the Union address that lay out the WMD case for war, and Colin Powell was about to make a more detailed presentation at the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and purported ties to al Qaeda. With the war preparations picking up speed, Bush and Blair met at the White House.

Now let's turn to Woodward. This is how he described the conversation between Bush and Blair in his book Plan of Attack:

Blair told Bush that he needed to get a second UN resolution. He had promised that to his political party at home, and he was confident that together he and Bush could rally the UN and the international community.

So they were back in the briar patch as far as Cheney was concerned.

That's a rather straightforward description of a significant meeting. Earlier this week, New York Times correspondent Don van Natta Jr. published a front-page piece disclosing portions of a classified British memo that summarized this particular discussion. The memo was written by David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time and one of two Blair aides who were in the meeting. According to this document--which was stamped "extremely sensitive"--a different sort of conversation had occurred. Here are some of the key points in the memo:

* Manning wrote, "The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin."

* Both acknowledged that no WMDs had been found in Iraq. Bush raised the possibility of provoking a confrontation with Saddam Hussein. One idea he proposed was placing UN colors on an American U-2 spy plane that would fly over Iraq and draw fire from Iraqi forces. Bush also discussed the possibility of assassinating Saddam Hussein.

* Bush did say that he would help Blair win a second UN resolution--and "would twist arms and even threaten," as the memo put it--but that if that effort failed he would still invade Iraq.

* There was tension between Bush and Blair over what might be a legitimate legal argument for going to war and what would be accepted by other nations.

* The two leaders talked about post-invasion Iraq, and Bush said that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Blair agreed.

* Blair asked Bush about planning for the postwar period. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who was in the meeting, assured Blair that much work had been done on this. Bush, the memo noted, "said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine."

Read Woodward's account and you get the impression that Bush was doing all he could to help a buddy and that Bush was willing (more so than Cheney or Powell) to stick with the United Nations a little longer. Read the Times' account of the memo and you see that Bush had already set a date for war--despite saying in public that he hoped to avoid war--and that he had raised the prospect of staging an event to make it easier to sell the war. (Does a fellow looking to avoid a war talk about what could be done to provoke a war?) The memo also indicates that Bush and his aides were not fully prepared for the postwar challenges and that Bush and Blair had misjudged the sectarian divides within the Iraqi population.

Woodward likes to say that his best-selling books--which are good reads--are the first drafts of history. That's true. But they can also be tilted drafts--especially when his high-level confidential sources have an interest in tilting the facts. Whoever gave him the details of this Bush-Blair session--Rice, perhaps?--left out the best and most important stuff. The net result was a less-than-full but Bush-positive account of the event. This goes to show that Woodward is only as good as his sources and that those insiders are not always so good when it comes to disclosing the real story.

Please check out David Corn's personal blog at www.davidcorn.com.

Comments (122)

1. Let's see the apologists spin this one....

   Posted by leftofcenter at 03/31/2006 @ 10:55am

2. LVLiberty,

   Are you seriously suggesting that the prelude to the Iraq war was not merely preordained political manuevering? You do realize that no matter was Hussein had said or done could have prevented our attack. You do realize that no matter what the UN had said or done could have prevented our attack.

   Posted by freedomplease at 03/31/2006 @ 11:15am

3. We may disagree about whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong.

   But this statement according to Woodward's account of the conversation between Bush and Blair points out what I believe is greatest threat to democracy and living in a representative republic:

   "It was necessary for him politically. It was no more complicated than that, an absolute political necessity."

   Any time politicians make important economic, foreign policy or similar national decisions that use a key criteria "politics" how the decision will in essence affect their personal political future, I argue we as those being represented are in dire trouble.

   This is why I don't think our founding fathers ever envisioned the need for the term "career politician"

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 03/31/2006 @ 11:21am

4. we may agree or disagree about the illegal occupation in iraq. but everyone agrees, and the administration admits, there was pure mind-blowing incompetence regarding the consequences of enacting the illegal invasion and occupation. condi said lots of planning had been done in great detail for the post invasion period. they all smugly agreed there would be no warfare between the various groups of people in iraq. this is nothing more than mind-blowing incompetence. with all the resources they have at their fingertips, this is what we get from them? unfuckingbelievable!

   Posted by loveloki at 03/31/2006 @ 11:34am

5. I think it's important to look beyond incompetence when discussing the Iraq war. the problem is not that they were incompetent in their conduct of that war.

   it is that the entire rationale for the war was fraudulent. it's a bit like criticizing Kenneth Lay for his handling of the Enron fiasco, instead of excoriating him for the fraudulent nature of the whole enterprise.

   it is part of the immorality of the american populace, that were the war a success, no one would be criticizing the misadministration

   Posted by johannesrolf at 03/31/2006 @ 11:51am

6. yes, johannesrolf, i agree. that's why i referred to this quagmire we are all stuck in as an illegal invasion. but what apologist out there could possibly justify or support this mind-blowing incompetence? and it's an interesting thing u scrape the surface of there when u say a successful illegal invasion would be ok with the american populace. disgusting but fascinating.

   Posted by loveloki at 03/31/2006 @ 12:00pm

7. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/31/2006 @ 11:08am

   This is not about recounting conversations, fallible memory, or spin. This is about a hard document detailing, contemporaneously, an important meeting between two heads of state just before they went to war. And as David unambiguously points out, it shows not only that virtually everyone in the Bush administration has been lying to the public for three years, they were even lying to our war allies before the conflict.

   And this is not the first time the proof has appeared. How many more there will be is an open question, but Bush defenders can be assured they will keep on coming.

   And Bob Woodward is no liberal. And I'm no cannibal, thank you very much.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 03/31/2006 @ 12:08pm

8. i am a cannibal liberty. but i only eat wingnut men of the cloth. wanna come for a visit?

   Posted by loveloki at 03/31/2006 @ 12:11pm

9. Look, W was even prepared to blow smoke up his buddy Tony's ass.

   He assured him that there would be no internecine tension between the Islamic factions post-invasion.

   But quite some time after the invasion he had to be schooled on the fact that there was even more than one kind of muslim.

   Posted by drhammer at 03/31/2006 @ 12:13pm

10. "a successful illegal invasion would be ok with the american populace"

    Sad but true through all human history. History is written by the wieners.

    And to be utterly frank (pun alert!) I would prefer we had succeeded in our illegal endeavor. Because it is "we", not "them".

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/31/2006 @ 12:16pm

11. History is written by the wieners.

    since the paternal side of my family is from Vienna, Wien in german, I guess it's up to me to get started on writing history

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/31/2006 @ 12:26pm

12. Hey Todd, we do, in fact, disagree about whether Iraq was right or wrong...how long is it until your son has the opportunity to get his ass blown off in Baghdad because your president lied us into war?

    Oh, and by the way, your boy Bush is a career politician, doncha know...

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/31/2006 @ 12:27pm

13. has anyone noticed that the way we find out about Bush's misdeeds is when a former staffer publishes a book. that means two things. one is that investigative journalism is dead in the mainstream media. and second that the profit motive is alive and well

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/31/2006 @ 12:35pm

14. Former DeLay Aide Pleads Guilty [breitbart.com]

    Perhaps the grinding wheels of justice will make up for a lack of investigative journalism. Our friends at the Nation excepted, of course.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/31/2006 @ 12:52pm

15. Maybe I'm just blinded by bias, but this memo just confirms what was obvious to anyone who was paying attention at the time. Did anyone actually imagine that the plot to invade Iraq had any chance of being derailed? The fall of 2002 and winter of 2003 was a pure lie-fest. Bush might as well have wagged his index finger from the podium during every sentence.

    You know what this makes me want to do? Vote for a democrat! Yeah! At least those guys knew what was what, tried to direct this country away from an impending disaster, worked diligently to...what's that? They caved? On the basis of His word? Huh. Whaddaya know...

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/31/2006 @ 1:21pm

16. Nathan,

    "Hey Todd, we do, in fact, disagree about whether Iraq was right or wrong...how long is it until your son has the opportunity to get his ass blown off in Baghdad because your president lied us into war?

    Oh, and by the way, your boy Bush is a career politician, doncha know..."

    Let's get some things clear Nathan....

    Bush isn't "my boy". he was who I voted for in a bad case of which is the lessor of two evils.

    My son has 2 more years before he will be able to proudly enlist = )

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 03/31/2006 @ 1:51pm

17. Actually, I should have said

    "Did anyone actually imagine that the plot to invade Iraq had any chance of being derailed by the slightest bit of evidence that beginning a war of choice might just not be in our best interest."

    The little nugget in the memo that I did enjoy is the keen understanding of the region indicated by Ms. Rice. Thank goodness our foreign policy is being managed by such an insightful person, one who sees no potential for conflict in a region that has experienced nothing but conflict unless under firm, central control. Quick! Send her to ease tensions in all the hot spots of the world simply by bringing along a copy of our constitution and a American History 101 textbook. Really, it IS that simple.

    Friday is Sarcasm Day--my favorite day of the week.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/31/2006 @ 2:42pm

18. Gee Todd, I'll bet you would have accepted that Bush is your boy last year; what happened, did you spend all your tax cut on heating your home and gassing up your Durango?

    And, don't get me wrong, I don't wish harm or ill upon your son. I certainly wouldn't want him to be the last man to die for a Bush mistake (nor the last man to die for a Bush lie).

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/31/2006 @ 3:07pm

19. TJ, be careful, your 2:42 post heaps sarcasm on Todd's choice for president in 2008. Todd, can we agree to refer to Ms. Rice in future posts as "Mushroom Cloud Condi"?

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/31/2006 @ 3:10pm

20. LOC,

    Over the months I've noticed that one of your biggest pet peeves was being lied into war....specifically the aluminum tubes lying....and I've noticed how sad you get when the apologists spin the BS to claim he didn't know about the tubes other uses.

    Due to the Fitzpatrick squeeze on Stephen Hadley the following is a charming little article that not only shows how they knew of the non-nuclear uses, but also knew that in order to get reelected they must keep it unknown that the President knew of the other uses...

    http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/31/2006 @ 3:11pm

21. Just back from the Condi beat ...

    "I believe strongly it was the right strategic decision," Rice said Friday.

    "I know we've made tactical errors, thousands of them, I'm sure," she said in a speech at Blackburn's Chatham House -- a center for independent research on global.

    "I am quite certain there are going to be dissertations written about the mistakes of the Bush administration," she said.

    "But when you look back in history what will be judged on is" whether the "right strategic decision" was made.

    Wieners and Rice, getting an early start on that first draft of history.

    She didn't get to go to the mosque as planned, though, kind of got booed off the stage.

    And does anyone besides me think Jack Straw is the most hilariously perfect name for a politician?

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/31/2006 @ 3:48pm

22. it is part of the immorality of the american populace, that were the war a success, no one would be criticizing the misadministration

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/31/2006 @ 11:51am | ignore this person

    Johannesrolf,

    That is quite an indictment of the American people. Don't forget, the American people are victims (sorry Todd, there's that word again, lol); victims of propaganda, victims of lies, victims of manipulation of their fears, etc. That is, for the most part, you cannot blame the American people for the Iraqi war. They weren't thinking straight, they didn't have the facts; they were scared and easily deceived, etc. Bush played them like a fiddle.

    They believed the war was right. The American people aren't evil. (Maybe Bush is, but not the people.) They wouldn't consciously go along with a war they didn't think was right. (Most of them anyway.)

    I dispute your cynical (and overly general) assessment of the American people. That is, if the American people thought the war was wrong, and we were winning anyway, I think they (most of them) would STILL say we shouldn't have fought such a war. To put it another way, even if we WERE "winning" in Iraq, I think most who opposed it would still do so, and most who favored it would still do so. The two things are interrelated, true, but not coterminous. And that is true now, with our losing. (Or stalemate, whatever.) It is true that some of those that previously favored the war do NOT now do so, BECAUSE (in part) we are not winning. But not because they have changed their minds about the fundamental (as they see it) justness of the war.

    But that is different than saying that there are those who thought the war was WRONG all along, but favor it anyway, BECAUSE we are winning. (How would we know that anyway? We ARE NOT winning in Iraq.) That is, I think you are shortchanging the American people. They are not evil. They generally do not support wars simply BECAUSE we can win them, or are winning them. If that was true, then tomorrow, if we invaded Switzerland, then Americans would support it, even though that would be totally unwarranted and unjust and evil. I would like to think (I would bet on it) that the American people would OPPOSE such a war, DESPITE the fact we would probably take Bern in 4 hours.

    I think you are not giving the American people enough credit. Yes, whether we are winning affects their perception of a war. But I think the determination of its justness (or not) comes first.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 3:52pm

23. The two issues (the justness of a war, and whether we are winning it or not) CAN be separated, and I think that the American people are capable of making that distinction.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 3:56pm

24. "Any time politicians make important economic, foreign policy or similar national decisions that use a key criteria "politics" how the decision will in essence affect their personal political future, I argue we as those being represented are in dire trouble"

    I think that Todd deserves props for this statement, however much one disagrees with his general political views (& OH, how I do) - I mean, what are we all pissed at the Dems for doing? Making important PUBLIC decisions and statements based on how they will effect their PERSONAL political futures. So, OKSPORTSGUY - good statement.

    Posted by LClaire at 03/31/2006 @ 3:59pm

25. LCLAIRE,

    It's not that simple though. When a politician is concerned with "political considerations," what does that mean? What it means is they are worried that their constituents will not like what they do, and will maybe even react by voting them out of office. Now here's the thing. While I agree that politicians should not "pander" to the masses, neither do I think they should IGNORE the will of the masses. That is, another way of stating that politicians are "worried about politics" is saying that they are hearing (and acting upon) the will of the people. And THAT is a big part of the democratic idea, is it not? To say they should NOT be worried nabout "political consequences" is to say that they should perhaps ignore the will of the people?

    We don't WANT politicians to IGNORE what the people want, do we? That is, one might argue that, IF the people don't want Bush censured, if they don't care about illegal warrantless wiretaps, then maybe, the politicians (in their decisions and actions) should reflect those beliefs?

    This is an inherent problem with democracy. How much DIRECT power should the people have? If you believe the answer is a lot, then, if the American people do not WANT Bush censured, then maybe he should NOT be censured!

    (Sort of playing devil's advocate here, raising issues to make people think.)

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 4:11pm

26. Freedom

    Thanks, pretty good piece. Yeah....as a scientist it just flat pisses me off when science is available and ignored.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/31/2006 @ 4:14pm

27. Science also tells me their are grains of fact in the 9/11 conspiracy morass. (If you'll pardon a bbrief aside) The one tower was hit very obliquely, yet still collapsed straight down. Physics deny the potential (which has been attested to by the WTC design engineers.) It is akion to kicking a leg out from a table and expecting it to fall straight down.

    Also watched a CNN video (that was only shown once I hear?...dunno as I was in France that day.) included in a video "9/11 In Plane Site" That shows a huge billow of smoke emanating from close to the ground well before either tower came down. Really odd stuff. (Now if they'd have only kept some of that structural steel for scientific analysis....)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/31/2006 @ 4:27pm

28. With this latest left attack against another liberal like Woodward, the usual leftist canibalism has shifted into another gear.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/31/2006 @ 11:08am | ignore this person

    "Leftist cannibalism"... What a joke. As if the Republicans don't strive to annihilate any fellow Republican who cuts away from their willfully blind, Fox-watching, yes-man flock.

    (See John McCain's illegitimate baby for starters)

    Apologism, misdirections, and willful ignorance never cease to amaze. _____

    Hey, Todd, have you stopped subjugating your wife?

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 4:34pm

29. Let's see the apologists spin this one....

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 03/31/2006 @ 10:55am | ignore this person

    Didn't take 'em long to get geared up and going, did it?

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 4:35pm

30. let's not forget the tidal wave of jingoistic war fever that was sweeping the nation after 9/11 and before the invasion. and it wasn't just democrats who were in its thrall.

    I have a clue for Zero and all the dem bashers. who are you going to vote for? no one? a third party candidate? some of us tried that with less than satisfactory results. so get a grip folks.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/31/2006 @ 4:42pm

31. ND

    LOL....you got that right!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/31/2006 @ 4:52pm

32. I have no doubt that the United Nations was somewhat in support of the war, lvLiberty, given that it has tolerated the imperialist rape of the world since the non-alligned movement began to bite the dust in the early 1980s. But hopefully some of those ringleaders will learn something from the way the right wing barracudas have turned on people like Kofi Anan, who they were very willing to see as an ally so long as it suited the imperialist purpose. Screw that noise.

    Posted by redwingblack at 03/31/2006 @ 4:55pm

33. Liberty posts:

    "I have no problems or hesitancy in continuing to support the War with Iraq as the right decision.

    As long as Saddam and his sons remained in power, they were a threat to the stability of the region and therefore to the entire world."

    BWAHahahahaaHaaahAHaahaahAHHAAAhahaha

    Okay, I'll comment in a--

    BWAAHaahahaaahaahaaahahAHAhahaahHHAaa

    Oh, my tummy hurts.

    How fucking LUDICROUS.

    No WMD's, and no means to deliver them against any U.S. target, even if he had them (what was he going to do, ship them in through a port? - that's irony, in case you missed that, too).

    How hard is that for you retarded morons to understand? This ain't calculus.

    I'm sick of you people. Get the fuck out of my country and go start a new one - Dumbfuckland. You can all give each other color-coded warnings to distract from any accountability that might be required every time one of you gets caught in a lie; you can live in never-ending fear while doing nothing to stem terrorism; you can all get together and send your sons and daughters to blow up brown people in other countries that had zip to do with 9/11 (which BREEDS new terrorists, by the way - ah, it would require math skills to understand the cause and effect equation here, so never mind).

    Some of you people should be required to take an IQ test to breathe. Donate your organs. Today.

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 4:57pm

34. "I have no problems or hesitancy in continuing to support the War with Iraq as the right decision.'

    of course not, you pay nothing for the war, the blood being paid by the underclass, and coming soon, illegal immigrants. the financial costs to be borne by everyone's grandchildren.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/31/2006 @ 5:01pm

35. Frank T wrote,

    "I dispute your cynical (and overly general) assessment of the American people. That is, if the American people thought the war was wrong, and we were winning anyway, I think they (most of them) would STILL say we shouldn't have fought such a war. To put it another way, even if we WERE "winning" in Iraq, I think most who opposed it would still do so, and most who favored it would still do so."

    You're contradicting yourself, I believe. Your last sentence indicates that, since most favored the war from the outset, most would still favor the war if we seemed to be winning. Yet most now believe we are not doing well and most now believe the war was not worth doing.

    What is your evidence for believing that we as a people would withdraw our support for the wrong war that is going well? If the war were not lingering on and on and on, there would be little time or motive for the continued investigation of the mistakes made by the administration. It is only because the war is not going well that most have come to believe that it was wrong.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/31/2006 @ 5:01pm

36. Leftofcenter,

    Not you too. You are considering 9/11 conspiracy theories? Damn. You seem like a fairly reasonable, intelligent person. Oh well.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 5:02pm

37. Actually, Johannes, I've tried voting for Dems too with pretty unsatisfactory results: I can take the losing, but I can't stand that it was an unsatisfying vote to cast AND he lost anyway.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/31/2006 @ 5:03pm

38. New Dawn,

    "Hey, Todd, have you stopped subjugating your wife?"

    It depends on your definition of subjugating.

    Our vows may have differed from yours (assuming you are married) however when we were wed, she vowed to "Love, honor and obey" her husband (that would be me).

    She does very well and has always kept her vows to me, as I have kept mine to her.

    If you consider her keeping her vows "subjugation" then no I have not stopped "subjugating" my wife.

    We do not consider her role in our marriage as what I think you consider subjugation.

    Not that it's any of your business anyway, however I don't mind answering the question.

    Why do you ask?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 03/31/2006 @ 5:03pm

39. ND

    Didn't you get the memo? Rummy's boys found secret plans in Baghdad for a DC attack. They were going to take 20 camels and sew their assholes shut, then feed them a bucket full of cabbage and anthrax. The delivery mode was a secreted away C10 cargo plane, which was to fly under radar and land in rural Virgina. Then, the camels would be boarded by 20 "Freedom Fighters" who would charge DC. Between the cabbage and the anthrax, the camels would evetually burst under pressure or explode on being shot, meaning their dealy load of spores would wipe out at least 2 or 3 blocks of downtown DC. (Depnding on the time of day and prevailing winds.)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/31/2006 @ 5:04pm

40. Frank -

    One simple question, no conspiracy necessary. We won't even discuss WTC steel, per se.

    How does steel with a melting point of 2800+ degrees fail at significantly lower temperatures than that?

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:06pm

41. FT

    There are incongruencies that science doesn't support. (Such as why didn't the one bldg tilt when it fell...that is actually the most egregious anomaly.)Why did WTC7 come down BTW? Beats me. No, I don't buy into al lthe conspiro-nut stuff. But there is something being covered up....I'd like to know what and why. Wouldn't you?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/31/2006 @ 5:08pm

42. LCLAIRE,

    "I mean, what are we all pissed at the Dems for doing? Making important PUBLIC decisions and statements based on how they will effect their PERSONAL political futures. So, OKSPORTSGUY - good statement."

    Wow... a liberal on the blog agreed with me, SEE we can find common ground!

    Thanks for the props Lclaire.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 03/31/2006 @ 5:09pm

43. Todd -

    I asked because I think you're sick, but am always amused at how willing you are to prove it in public. Thanks again.

    The standard marriage vows of "honoring and obeying" do not equal the way you put it to me once. You said "My wife does, first and foremost, what I tell her to, as a good Christian wife should".

    And yes, I was married once, but I took my meds and got plenty of rest and eventually got over it. My wife would have never allowed me to "tell her what to do" and I loved her for that, having a mind of her won and the same free will God granted everyone else, according to you people.

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:09pm

44. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 03/31/2006 @ 5:09pm | ignore this person

    And believe it or not, I also agreed with you on the "career politicians" remarks.

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:10pm

45. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 03/31/2006 @ 5:04pm | ignore this person

    Dear God, why didn't we have a color-coded warning? This is terrible!!!

    (hee hee hee)

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:12pm

46. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 03/31/2006 @ 5:01pm

    You have a point or two there.

    I think my main point was that, whether we are winning or not is the not the SOLE determinate of whether or not a war is supported. Yes, it is a factor (one of many; another is, whether the war was believed jusified or not). That is, yes, there are some whos support is in fact determined (at least in part) by whether we are winning or not. So Johannesrolf has a point. I just thought he was overstating it, overheberalizing, and in so doing, was shortchanging the wisdom and moral decision-making capabilities of the American people. What he said is true of SOME of the American people, but hardly all. There are also some that would not support a war even IF we were winning. (I gave as an example, if we invaded Switzerland; all leftists and all liberals and all or most conservatives would say Bush was insane if he did that, even though we would win handedly.) At the same time, there are those who did support the invasion of Iraq, who still do, who are still for the war, DESPITE the fact that we are not winning! If whether we were wining or not was the sole determinant, then NO ONE would still support the war now. (But of course, many still do.) So Johannesrolf had a point, but only UP to a point.

    The main point is, that whether we are winning or not is not the ONLY determining factor in whether a war is supported or not.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 5:13pm

47. New Dawn,

    I don't know man...

    Based on this statement:

    "And yes, I was married once, but I took my meds and got plenty of rest and eventually got over it."

    It sounds like, from a psychological point of view, that you might be displacing some of the anger that you have over your failed marriage onto me; perhaps because mine is intact and we love each other and our respective roles dearly.

    What do you think?

    I'll make you a deal, you don't bring up our marriage arrangements in public and I won't bring up yours ok?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 03/31/2006 @ 5:19pm

48. if we invaded Switzerland...we would get clobbered, the Swiss are not Iraqis, one of the worst armies ever. In Switzerland every male under 50 is in the army reserves. they take their guns and equipment home with them. they train every year. their military assets are in bombproof caves, the terrain favors them, try attacking them with tanks, ha!

    anyway poor example. my indictment of the american people stands, though I find your defense of them touching. perhaps my cynicism is due to the fact that I was an adult during the vietnam thing, and had everything to lose, my life for instance to the draft.

    your response did get you off my ignore list

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/31/2006 @ 5:25pm

49. The main point is, that whether we are winning or not is not the ONLY determining factor in whether a war is supported or not.

    my question is, how would you know we haven't won a war in some time

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/31/2006 @ 5:26pm

50. I saw a television show on PBS about the World Trade Center. They explained and demonstrated how the intense heat from the fire caused the beams to melt, and the buildings to fall, the momentum from the floors falling, each causing the one below to collapse, in a pancake effect, until, the buildings were no more. I see no reason whatsoever to dispute this account. It jibes with investigations and expert testimony and opinion. It makes sense.

    But this conspiracy idea goes deeper than that. I think people who believe in conspiracies WANT to believe in them, and that is why they do. It's psychological. It's also partly ideological. I guess if you think the American government, generally speaking, regardless of who is President or any other factors, is totally organically evil, through and through, then you are likely (or more likely) to believe that they were capable of doing such an evil thing as planning 9/11 or allowing it to happen. I happen to not be of that general ideological belief system.

    No, the Mossad did not plant explosives. Neither did they tell Jewish employees the day before not to come to work the next day. The American government did not know about it either. There was no conspiracy.

    Except by Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 5:28pm

51. Well, gee, Todd, based on almost every other statement that rolls off your sorta-slow-upstairs redneck fundamentalist fingers, it sounds like (from a psychological point of view) you are a sorta-slow-upstairs redneck fundamentalist with a very ignorant and limited view of the world outside of your trailer. But hey, I'm no psychologist, so I could be wrong.

    And my marriage didn't "fail" like the WTC steel supposedly did. I left it. That's a decision, not a consequence. Look them both up if you don't know the difference.

    And by the by, the woman I left my wife for was a BDSM submissive who did as she was told, and liked it. But at least I don't try to sugarcoat the arrangement like you do. I call it what it was.

    And by the way, Todd, you are the one who originally brought up your subjugation of your wife "in public", way back, boards and boards ago.

    I'll discuss anything you want in this forum. No fear here. But for now, I'll just let it go, if you will. To be honest, Liberty's apologism pissed me off today, and I kinda lashed out to the side, on you. I apologize and I'm sorry you're such an easy target. I'll leave you alone now and hope you get better.

    ;)

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:31pm

52. (Get a sense of humor)

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:32pm

53. Johannesrolf,

    We won in Serbia/Kosovo, and a whole lot of conservatives (not usaualy known for opposing wars) were against the operation there. They still are, despite the fact we won.

    The main point is, that whether we are winning or not is not the ONLY determining factor in whether a war is supported or not.

    P.S. Why did you have me on ignore?

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 5:32pm

54. Also Johannesrolf,

    Many still strongly support the war in Iraq, despite the fact we are NOT winning there.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 5:33pm

55. Frank -

    Sorry, but a single PBS documentary does not do it for me. Too many other problems with the official story. And again, I am far from a wackjob conspiracy theorist. I believe the simplest answer is usually the truth. Usually.

    Did the Warren Commission satisfy you?

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:36pm

56. Johannesrolf,

    I could have said Luxembourg, or Iceland, or Monaco, instead of Switzerland. Isn't picking on my choice of countries avoiding the point I was making? The point wasn't which country I chose to illustrate the point. The point was, the point.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 5:37pm

57. Frank T, that some still support the war does not alter my point. the Kosovo thing does not qualify as a war in my book. we sent NO soldiers, war was not declared. I don't believe Grenada was not a war either. Afghanistan was not a war either, we merely changed the signs on the doors.Dead soldiers notwithstanding.

    I don't remember why you were ignored, sorry

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/31/2006 @ 5:38pm

58. Frank -

    Give this a read some time, then let's discuss it. Pretty interesting.

    http://www.physics.byu.edu/ research/energy/htm7.html

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:39pm

59. Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/31/2006 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person

    Good response - thanks. (and of course its never simple) ;) but, how do career politicians, who have a job to hold on to, obviously, as do the rest of us, decide what the people want and which ones to pander to? Having personally never been polled (and I don't do the voluntary polls online, generally) as to my views on any political issues of today, I guess I worry that they're representing me based on my votes - and I voted for Kerry (blargh!)

    Posted by LClaire at 03/31/2006 @ 5:39pm

60. my comments on war with switzerland was an asides. even hypothetical examples should bear some relation to facts. we would not win a war against Switzerland. my point also goes to the limits of even overwhelming military "superiority".

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/31/2006 @ 5:41pm

61. I guess I worry that they're representing me based on my votes - and I voted for Kerry (blargh!)

    Posted by LCLAIRE 03/31/2006 @ 5:39pm | ignore this person

    So right, Claire. And I live in California, where even my reps are sometimes waaaay too "left" for me. Getting tougher and tougher to find candidates who will vote to represent their constituents instead of their own personal windmills and the furtherance of their careers...

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:42pm

62. I will have to leave this and other discussions, as someone is waving a fist full of dollar bills at me, and would like me to perform a service in return.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/31/2006 @ 5:43pm

63. Johanne -

    Had no idea you were a stripper...

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:44pm

64. I think the Warren Commission was essentially correct, yes.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 5:45pm

65. Frank -

    sigh...

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:45pm

66. I'm in WA, and I gotta say I'd rather have Maria Cantwell than an actual Republican - but I don't want that to mean that my representatives think that I approve of her stance on the war and that that is how I want them to represent me. Fuck it, I want a new system entirely.

    Posted by LClaire at 03/31/2006 @ 5:46pm

67. Fuck it, I want a new system entirely.

    Posted by LCLAIRE 03/31/2006 @ 5:46pm | ignore this person

    Most profound comment on the boards today.

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:48pm

68. It is very hard to make a point in here.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 5:50pm

69. Frank -

    Are you still hammering on how American wouldn't necessarily back an unjust war?

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:51pm

70. I once believe in a conspiracy to kill JFK. I studied it in depth for years. Then I read a great book that convinced me otherwise. I am now of the opinion that Oswald killed Kennedy, alone, no conspiracy.

    However, it is not ironclad, and I am open to other possibilities, remote though they are. But that case DOES make you wonder sometimes. There are a few holes in it, still.

    However, that is not the case with 9/11. It is quite clear what happened.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 5:53pm

71. Frank -

    I have many books on JFK and his death, and have read many others, and don't believe the Warren Commission for a half second.

    Which book solidified your opinon this way? - I would really like to read it!!!

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:55pm

72. opinion

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 5:55pm

73. Yes, New Dawn. What I said was that whether we are winning a war or not is not the only or entire or sole determinant as to whether it is supported or not. As an example, I gave a hypothetical in which we invaded some easily defeatable country, would everyone support it even though doing so was totally and obviously unjust?

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 5:55pm

74. New Dawn, it is called "Case Closed," by Gerald Posner.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 5:56pm

75. Copyright 1993, Random House, New York.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 5:58pm

76. It was a bestseller.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 5:58pm

77. Years ago, I read a book that (at the time) convinced me of the exact opposite.

    It was called "Best Evidence," by David Lifton.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 5:59pm

78. Heard of it, and believe I've read it.

    You're aware that that's one of the most highly disputed books on the subject, right, and that Mr. Posner isn't necessarily the best fact-checker who's ever written a book...?

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 6:00pm

79. Lifton's theory was that the different descriptions of the wounds on Kennedy's body (between Dallas and the autoposy in Washington) could be explained by the body having been sccretly altered.

    Now THAT is a conspiracy.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 6:01pm

80. Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/31/2006 @ 5:55pm | ignore this person

    No. Some of us already got that point loud and clear. And it was a good one.

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 6:01pm

81. Frank -

    Magic Bullet. Bye-bye, lone gunman theory. Period.

    Simple logic, no books necessary.

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 6:02pm

82. "You are aware..." No, I am not AWARE of that. Am I aware that some SAY that? No, actually, but that is what everyone does about anything they disagree with. Try to discredit it.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 6:02pm

83. I'm off work and headed for Friday pool night to take poor players' money.

    Night, all.

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 6:03pm

84. Psoner's book shows that the magic bullet theory makes perfect sense. There is an entire chapter on it.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 6:03pm

85. Frank -

    There's nothing wrong with being "aware" that the book is highly disputed. Google it. You're awfully defensive today, pal.

    G'night.

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/31/2006 @ 6:04pm

86. Sorry, New Dawn.

    I have been attacked a lot lately in here. Feeling a bit defensive.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 6:13pm

87. Interesting twist in the topic from one book's lack of credibility to a couple of others.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/31/2006 @ 6:17pm

88. Frank T,

    We all get it at some point. One week you're a genius, the next you're ignored, and the week after that you're the AntiChrist. Except for Love Liberty or LVLIBERTY who is always right.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/31/2006 @ 6:19pm

89. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 03/31/2006 @ 6:19pm

    Thanks TJ, I needed that post, it made me smile.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 6:21pm

90. Sign seen at demonstration:

    Will somebody please give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him?

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/31/2006 @ 6:43pm

91. liberty,

    your monstrosity post did not even address what i was talking about. i said we can agree or disagree on whether the illegal invasion and occupation was the right thing to do. my point was about the mind-blowing incompetence regarding the post-invasion planning and assumptions.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/31/2006 @ 7:08pm

92. New Dawn,

    I've never been better = )

    And lashing out at the person behind an argument is called an ad-hominem attack, and is considered a sign of having a weak argument.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 03/31/2006 @ 10:13pm

93. And lashing out at the person behind an argument is called an ad-hominem attack, and is considered a sign of having a weak argument.

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 03/31/2006 @ 10:13pm

    Why is that Todd Bot and by who is it considered?. Is that what they tell you fury litle rodents in the hamsterland gazette?

    Posted by Will C. at 03/31/2006 @ 11:17pm

94. While evolution is strictly only a theory

    Technically, yes. On the other hand, gravity and the idea that the Earth is round are only "theories" as well. However, the evidence for them is overwhelming. As is the evidence for biological evolution.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 04/01/2006 @ 02:06am

95. FT

    Here is the transcript of a letter from Underwriters Laboratory that should be more than enough to discredit the notion of the WTC collapse "offical" story. UL OR GO HERE spine and scroll towards the bottom and read the bits from the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven.

    Is it still "...quite clear what happened.."?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/01/2006 @ 10:37am

96. this Bush blowjob thing is very tired and has a long beard. however with jeff Gannon's 130 visits to the white house, and that person's metier, one might assume that someone over there was getting said blowjobs.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/01/2006 @ 11:25am

97. LEFT,

    As my father used to say, the truth is a very tricky thing.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 04/01/2006 @ 12:33pm

98. FT

    Agreed and true enough...although sometimes you DO gotta look under rocks to find it.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/01/2006 @ 12:39pm

99. LEFT,

    I think that ones basic ideology shapes ones perception of what the truth is, or rather, what is MUST be. This is often given short shrift, but the fact is, that the ideological lens through which we view reality colors our basic perception of it. Of what the truth is likely to be. For example, if one is on the far left politically, one views the U.S. govt as capable of incredibly evil things, whereas, if one is on the right politically, one views the US govt as always good and benevolent and so on. (Within reason; if you go far enough to the right, you run into the anti-govt milita nut types, your Timothy McVeighs.) And this applies to all kinds of things. I believe in objective truth. However, I also believe that we mortals are not capable of searching for it non-subjectively. Our subjective ideology will always color our perception of truth, and what might or might not be the truth.

    But in the name of open-mindedness, I will take a look at your site.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 04/01/2006 @ 12:39pm

100. LEFT,

     I looked at your site. Here's the problem. I'm sure I could find other sites stating opposite things, that metal CAN melt at 2000 degrees, OR, that states that the temperature in the buildings was higher than 2000, or whatever. Why should I believe YOUR site and not the others that state differently?

     This goes to the question of credibility. Credibility of sources counts for a lot, I'm sure you'll agree. The New York Times, for example, has an incredibly more amount of credibility than the National Inquirer. In general, websites are not terribly credible sources. If what your site is saying was printed in the New York Times I would give it a lot more creedence.

     Plus, again, ideology. I think that people who have an ideological predisposition to believe the worst about the American govt are more likely to believe that such a thing as the American govt having something to do with the 9/11 attacks is possible. Further, if they find anything at all supportive of that view, they are more likely to inflate it and give it greater importance than a more ideologically neutral observer would. I am not saying that the left is necessarily more susceptible to this phenomonon. For example, the right was ideologically predisposed to believe that Vince Foster was murdered by Hillary Clinton, despite there being no rational reason to do so, despite the total lack of evidence. The right also did this with Iraq; the "cherry-picking" of evidence and so on; they WANTED to believe that Iraq was some huge threat. They couldn't get out of their ideological straight-jacket and see the truth that it wasn't. (I am referring to ordinary American citizen conservatives, not Bush, who to some extent DID just outright lie.)

     I believe that is what it operating here. I think that ideology is producing belief, and that those who want to think the worst about the American govt are allowing that desire to color their perception. Not being of that ideological persuasion, MY ideolopgy tends to make me believe the offical version of events. Further, when I TRY to be genuinely objective, I think that there is no particularly good evidence for thinking otherwise. (Though again, intellectual honesty compells me to admit that I am hostage as much to my ideology as you are to yours.)

     So in my case, it is two basic reasons that I reject any conspiracy theories about 9/11:

     1) My basic ideological beliefs about the American government

     2) To whatever extent I CAN be objective, I think there is no evidence to suggest otherwise; I believe even a totally objective observer would agree

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 04/01/2006 @ 1:14pm

101. http://www.911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

     It is an issue of dispute and not something I worry much about. But the claim of melting steel is a bit weak. The fires almost certainly did not get within 1000 degrees of the temperature necessary to melt the steel supports.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/01/2006 @ 1:30pm

102. TJ,

     Then why did the buildings come down? What other logical explanation is there other than the metal melting theory? Besides, that's what the great majority of experts who have examined the question say is what happened.

     Unless you want to claim that there were explosives planted or something, which again, means a conspiracy.

     I still think this all comes down to ideology.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 04/01/2006 @ 2:03pm

103. Sometimes I do wonder what I am doing in here. I don't particularly belong. Let's face it, most in here are slightly, to significantly, to perhaps (with a few) tremendously, to the left of me. I know the Nation encompasses a wide swath of ideological territory, everyone from Bill Clinton to Angela Davis. I guess I am to the right end of the left, you might say, to the point where the question of whether I belong, does arise.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 04/01/2006 @ 2:12pm

104. I love having the left here because it helps maintain my sanity...

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/01/2006 @ 3:25pm

     Obviously we have a LOT of work to do.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/01/2006 @ 4:10pm

105. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/01/2006 @ 3:25pm

     History is already proving that the BC BS regime is the worst-- no need to wait.

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/01/2006 @ 8:33pm

106. Previously posted but since the subject was broached:

     Maybe it is time we were awakened. I do feel like the American people, congress, and the media, have been sleeping, or in a drug induced state that won't allow us to wake up fully. Trauma, shock, the indoctrinated suspension of disbelieve 'in reverse'? Who knows, but perhaps it's time we become immune to the drugs, fight the trauma, remember the truth, figure out what really happened to us. Perhaps we need to see the films of people falling from the WTC, see them standing at the holes made by the planes so hot they melted steal, but not the people there. Perhaps it's time to face reality-- the same reality the abused wife that keeps going back to her abuser has to face at some point before she's killed at his hands. Face it-- this guy, this regime, will never stop lying to us. It will continue figuring out more ways to destroy our country, make us weaker. Face it, it's real and it's not going away. It won't go away, unless we make it go away.

     http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_652.shtml

     Eliminating the impossible

     By Sheila Samples Online Journal Contributing Writer

     Mar 31, 2006, 20:37

     I said I'd never do it -- say what I think about that terrible morning of September 11, 2001. I've seen what happens to those who question the elaborate, tangled explanations the Bush administration offers about what happened, how it happened, who did it, and why they did it. It doesn't matter if those who dare speak truth to the lies are professors, investigative reporters, eyewitnesses, scientists -- "conspiracy theorist" is immediately tattooed on their foreheads. They are jeered at, ridiculed, spat upon and swift-boated right out of the room. They are banished to the outskirts of civilized society.

     *************************************

     For four and a half years, questions about 9-11 have swirled through the Internet with tornadic force, yet caused scarcely a breeze within the mainstream media. The sheer number of heroic questioners helped to keep the door of truth open just a crack in spite of a relentless effort of the Bush men, the media and the Congress to force it shut. It hasn't been easy. Americans' psyches were shattered on 9-11 when, with no warning, they suddenly came face-to-face with raw, fiendish evil. They were incapable of handling the truth.

     Americans are waking up. They have been told one -- or one hundred -- too many lies. They instinctively know there are only three areas of questions about 9-11 whose answers, however improbable, reveal the truth.

     **************************************

     Bush made clear that his "presidential need" was to not have a commission blaming him for what happened. When an investigation was forced on him, Bush undercut it, underfunded it and agreed to meet with commission members only in the Oval Office, only if Dick Cheney was there, only if he was not under oath, only if his remarks were not recorded and only if no notes were taken. DeMott tells us that the more than 600-page document was nothing more than "a weapon in a major domestic conflict: the war on incisive, sometimes rudely disruptive thought -- thought that distinguishes the democratic citizen from the idolatrous fool, the sucker, the clueless consumer, the ad person's delight."

     Posted by BUSHFOOLS 04/01/2006 @ 01:26am | ignore this person

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/01/2006 @ 8:38pm

107. And how low can one go in the polls if it's just not relevant to the W what the population thinks. Lets see, what does that mean? So the W, that which is lacking the rest of the alphabet, doesn't care what the polls say and for a moment lets just consider he may actually be telling the truth, what does that mean that what the people think means nothing to the W?

     http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

     In the Bush administration "the negation of truth is so systematic. Dishonest accounting, willful scientific illiteracy, bowdlerized federal fact sheets, payola paid to putative journalists, 'news' networks run by right-wing apparatchiks, think tanks devoted to propaganda rather than thought, the purging of intelligence gatherers and experts throughout the bureaucracy whose findings might refute the party line -- this is the machinery of mendacity...The point here is not the hypocrisy involved, though that is egregious. The point is the downgrading of truth and honesty from principles with universal meaning to partisan weapons to be sheathed or drawn as necessary. No wonder the Bush administration feels no compunction to honor the truth or seek it; it conceives truth as a tactic, valuable only insofar as it is useful against one's enemies." Russ Rymer

     http://motherjones.org/commentary/ednote/2005/05/ednote.html

     Rather, the mouthpieces are ignobly contesting the very science itself, using any tactic, any slipshod fiction, that might throw doubt into the public mind and so deflect the dictates of hard fact. In other words, given a public policy debate, conservatives have decided to forgo real debate entirely--to adopt instead a radical course: denying reality itself.

     ANSWER: The BC BS regime thinks it can do whatever it wants, at the very least, keep trying to.

     Posted by BUSHFOOLS 04/01/2006 @ 4:03pm

     Posted by Bushfools at 04/01/2006 @ 8:44pm

108. I love having the left here because it helps maintain my sanity...

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/01/2006 @ 3:25pm

     Obviously we have a LOT of work to do.

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 04/01/2006 @ 4:10pm

     TJ

     It's quite the dilemma that liberty has. He needs the left to maintain his sanity but at the same time he works to send the left into dusty pages of history.

     It's not every man who will lose his mind for his country

     Posted by Will C. at 04/02/2006 @ 12:34am

109. LVLIBERTY1:

     I've lived in other countries including...a liberal country like England.

     If true then you clearly didn't pay much attention when you were over here, England (though not Scotland or Wales) is a predominantly Conservative country, especially when compared to our continental neighbours. We have a 'Socialist' government because it is that in name only...any sign of genuine Socialism away from the middle ground and they'd be gone in a flash, though of course that's patently obvious given Blair's sickening neo-con arse licking as well as his admiration of Thatcher and usurpation of many of her policies.

     Yes we're Liberal in comparison to much of the U.S, some of our Conservative Mp's are to the left of many of your Democrats but we're way to the right of France, Germany, Spain, Holland, Sweden...using the U.S as a Liberal yardstick makes passing the test rather too easy.

     Posted by Azathoth at 04/02/2006 @ 05:17am

110. FT

     I do appreciate the open mind (more or less). I would leave you with this one item though. Let's not discuss the two "big towers" as there are some reasonable arguments (I feel) on both sides [temperature issues, symmetric versus asymetric collapse, time of total fall, etc.] and lets look at one real incongruency, that "even a totally objective observer would agree". That is WTC7.

     It wasn't hit by a jetliner and was the furtherst WTC bldg (Several other bldgs closer, but not part of the WTC-owned did not spontaneously burst into flame). It somehow developed a couple minor fires and then suddely collapsed. I would remind you that no other steel building in the world has ever, before or since, collapsed due sheerly to fire. Isn't that a little bit curious? Why was no structural steel kept for examination of this singular and unique event? You'd think that engineers and scientists in the interst of national security would part these materials out for state-of-the art examination. It wasn't.

     Scroll down this page HERE to the part about moletn steel, and consider the 5000 degree F temp required.

     Curious isn't it? You're right about one thing. It does come down to belief structures in the end. I believe absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Dick-n-Dubya show has been hard at work consolidating power and thumbing their noses at naysayers. I conceive well-intentioned evil it is at least possible. Maybe it was the owner as some suggest....helluva big insurance pay-off.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/02/2006 @ 4:40pm

111. Oops. To continue . . .

     The progressive collapse of the lower floors was pretty predictable given the shock loads from above. It struck me as a testimony to the design of the building that it withstood the structural and thermal stresses of the impact of several thousand tons of metal at a few hundred miles an hour. The biggest single flaw with the building was designing the stair and lift wells with walls of drywall instead of reinforced concrete. They were blown on impact denying those above the necessary routes to escape.

     Posted by inveresk at 04/03/2006 @ 10:14am

112. Apologies for the confused post. Here's the full text . . . .

     There's one factor I can't square with the 9/11 conspiracy theory. If Bush and co. were complicit in blowing up 9/11, they knew the attack was coming. That being so, he'd have had a plan of action for when it occurred. He didn't. He sat like a rabbit frozen in the headlights for seven minutes.

     Furthermore, steel framed buildings are notoriously poor performers in fires. The high degree of thermal expansion of the metal causes structural members to expand and they have no option but to buckle when end connections prevent them from doing so.

     I watched with horror the collapse of both towers live on tv. What struck me as odd was that the first collapse was symmetrical but that successive floors collapsed that way was no surprise. Drop 20 or so storeys on any steel structure not designed for the purpose and I would expect to see what I did.

     The progressive collapse of the lower floors was pretty predictable given the shock loads from above. It struck me as a testimony to the design of the building that it withstood the structural and thermal stresses of the impact of several thousand tons of metal at a few hundred miles an hour. The biggest single flaw with the building was designing the stair and lift wells with walls of drywall instead of reinforced concrete. They were blown out on impact denying those above the necessary routes to escape.

     Posted by inveresk at 04/03/2006 @ 10:20am

113. Another oops.

     Read 'several hundred tons' for 'thousand' . . .

     Posted by inveresk at 04/03/2006 @ 10:31am

114. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 03/31/2006 @ 10:13pm

     Todd,

     I can spin circles around you in ANY argument, and the day I need you to explain "ad hominem" or any other word to me is the day we all celebrate you going back to get an education beyond the eighth grade.

     Glad you're feeling better.

     Posted by New Dawn at 04/03/2006 @ 11:33am

115. NEW DAWN??:

     Spoken like the true leftwing intellectual giant. While evolution is strictly only a theory it is readily apparent that devolvement of intellect, charactor, and civility is a representative fact in thought process and writing of the opposing liberal left.

     I don't know what is funnier, the demoncrats scratching around for a message, or liberal journalism running around like a bunch of ferrats with confused, distorted, contradictory messages, and theories playing off of any pundit that comes along reguardless of the sourse!

     I can see why most can only spew verbal garbage such as above!

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/01/2006 @ 01:52am | ignore this person

     As usual, you aren't worth responding to, but what the hell, you called me out personally...

     You mock me as an example of liberal intellectualism by cherry-picking ONE post I have made here. I'm guessing that the longer posts I make that actually discuss issues went completely over your head (too many big words and concepts and no Sean Vanity to explain them to you?).

     Criticism about intellectual ability coming from someone who regularly taunts the opposition with "Demoncrats" name-calling, and to whom spelling is an iffy skill, at best, is simply laughable.

     What's really funny is that EVERY post you inflict on us here is the equivalent of something one steps in and scrapes off their shoe onto the curb.

     Go back to being obscure and unimportant, Rio. Oh, never mind, you never stopped.

     We all laugh at you here, Rio, even many of your fellow Republicans.

     Posted by New Dawn at 04/03/2006 @ 11:42am

116. Liberty posts:

     "You must need a life!"

     I have a life, thanks.

     "History will prove Bush right and those of us who continue to defend, not apologize for doing the right thing."

     You say this with the same self-righteous certainty which with you say most everything else and by which you seem to measure everyone and everything. You are a zealot, Liberty, and your way will always be right. We all know this about you.

     "You can continue to sound like an anarchist idiot or attempt to come back to your left of center original attitude."

     Idiot? Not by any measure. Anarchist? Yes, that's me, the anarchist accepted by police departments in two states. Better check your dictionary for that word, Liberty. You clearly don't know what it means.

     Posted by New Dawn at 04/03/2006 @ 11:53am

117. Posted by AZATHOTH 04/02/2006 @ 05:17am

     Thank you for the reality check, Az. It's always good to hear about the state of other countries from their actual inhabitants, rather than the ill-informed Americans regurgitating Fox-speak definitions of them here.

     Posted by New Dawn at 04/03/2006 @ 11:55am

118. Oooh yay, I'm looking forward to Woodward's defense . . .

     Posted by LClaire at 04/03/2006 @ 3:18pm

119. One of the reasons I have always believed the notes published in the Times to be an accurate account of the Bush-Blair meeting (and Woodward's account not) is that the part about provoking action using knowingly false premises (painted planes) to get consent is consistent with the way Bush has presented most, if not all, his controversial proposals and, for that matter, how he ran for president. Add to it Bush saying he would twist arms and threaten, and suggesting the illegal act of assassinating the leader of a sovereign nation, and you have a complete picture of the man's character - or lack thereof. Say anything, do anything, and lie about it when caught.

     Posted by Condor at 04/03/2006 @ 4:46pm

120. woodward also said in "plan of attack" that the admin. started planning or plotting 10 days before inauguration :When they met with Sec.of Defense William Cohen ,to see how and what they could do about the NO FLY ZONE toprovoke Saddam. So, Helen Thomas' question to bush was never answered ?why did you attack iraq? well Helen ,with all doe respect after 911 ,things changed ?BUT,BUT. Mr. president you wanted to attack before day 1 :: therefor 911 is mute? is it not... Joe Bell Belljp@rcn.com

     Posted by abell at 04/04/2006 @ 9:58pm

121. Impeach the bastard!

     Posted by jweckner at 04/05/2006 @ 2:36pm

122. "The New York Times, for example, has an incredibly more amount of credibility than the National Inquirer."

     Actually, I would disagree. The National Inquirer is known for PAYING for stories, and I would argue, that they don't like to pay for stories that aren't true, as it is a bad use of money. The Old Gray Lady, on the other hand, prints stories to support their (increasingly right-wing) political slant, with very little regard for whether or not they are totally accurate. Maybe if the Times PAID for some stories?

     THERE IS NO LIBERAL MEDIA! That is the ultimate lie of the right-wing media spin machine. There are definitely liberal journalists (though fewer and fewer each day), but part of their training is to remain objective and balanced IN SPITE OF THEIR PERSONAL OPINIONS, unlike those "pundits" and "opinionators" at Fox and MSNBC who simply decide what the view should believe and then make up whatever lie they want.

     As for 9/11, and the idea that they "would have a plan." Don't assume that Bush was completely in on the plan, even if Cheney and Rove and Hadley and the Secret Service were. After all, while "America was under attack" the Secret Service just let the POTUS sit in an open classroom with no air or land cover at a site that was known to the public. (Refer to an article about "The Dog That Didn't Bark" for an understanding of what an indictment that is.

     And PLEASE, don't think Woodward is a liberal, or ever was, just because he and Bernstein took Nixon down. It is quite possible that as evil and criminal as Nixon was, he got the wrong people mad at him and had to be taken down. Woodward is in love with himself and loves the ACCESS he gets and would say and do nothing to endanger that access, as it is what will let him write his own history for himself. Expect his response to the original article that started this thread to show his crass belief in his own perfection.

     Oh, and as for Dawn, I understand her anger completely. When you right-wing, neo-con, anti-science apologists start talking, I just wonder why you can't all go away. I used to believe I would fight to the death for the right of people I disagree with to have a voice, but after 25 years of hearing your stupidity, ignorance, bigotry and bile (all the way from Reagan and his "trees cause pollution" and "ketchup is a vegetable" to W's thousand lies, crimes and stupidities), I think I would just step aside and let them kill you. Republicans aren't worth the air they take up. Some day the word "Republican" will be held in the same esteem as the word "Nazi" or "Fascist" or "Hun" or "child molester." Perhaps even in my limited lifetime the disgusting species extinct.

     Charlie L Portland, OR

     Posted by CyberChas at 04/05/2006 @ 6:13pm