River Valley Blogs

To Harsch wrote on Jun 5, 2008 8:34 AM:

" See 5:04pm post. What say you? "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jun 4, 2008 10:23 PM:

" Hey Brian, I do hope you find that. I would really like to read that too. "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jun 4, 2008 10:22 PM:

" I know just who is going to get my vote for Best sense of humor too... "

harsch wrote on Jun 4, 2008 4:01 PM:

" I support conceal and carry? Sure, some things. Sometimes I walk along with a lizard in my pocket. If I have a little cash I try to keep quiet about it. I don't like to include diseases in this category... "

Michael Welch Making It Clear I Hope... wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:39 PM:

" I've said it before -- I don't 'hate' the Clintons any more than I can muster up hatred for W; I mean I don't KNOW them personally and if I did I might even 'like' any of them. It's their records and ideas I question -- the former moreso in the Clintons' case and both in W's. One advantage of having once been a right wing guy myself is that I don't see EVERY Repub or 'conservative' as the same -- I DON'T believe Mac is 'Bush's third term' BUT I don't believe he is a 'closet' liberal as many right wingies do. I believe in an AMERICAN socialism but I MUST, at this time, settle for a 'revived' liberalism. I would vote for Hillary over McCain -- not happily especially but I would... "

Michael Welch Even McCain Wants Change... wrote on Jun 4, 2008 11:42 AM:

" The 'discussion' seems to have gone damp -- the righties here have drunken their troubles away after Obama's apparent victory yesterday and haven't aroused yet to the usual abortion abortion abortion is the key!!! to all elections, the 'answer' to every issue!!!!? But no kids, it's the war and yes the economy, which IS a little 'stupid' at the moment, lethargic and unpromising. Bush is in the tank and McCain is now (necessarily) iterating and reiterating 'George W Bush? I hardly knew him!' and talking about how HE, Big Jawn, has OPPOSED the prez over the long years! 'Change'? Yeah I'd say so -- even in the turgid Republicanned poopy er party... "

Dear Bugs wrote on Jun 4, 2008 3:04 AM:

" Dude...I am all open regarding 9-11. I certainly beleive it is possible the neo con ghouls "let it happen"....I'm well aware of "Operation Northwoods" which seriously gives me the creeps. In the EU they passing around an article taken from a Pakistani journal with an American memeber of Bush's cabinet describing 9-11 as a plot by the Bushniks....I'll dig it up and pass it along. If we do find out they did it...committed the horrendous crime....what recourse or action shuld we take? BrianGSmith "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:36 PM:

" I do enjoy the banter between the various character's on here. Although I don't agree with everything that people on here say for example: I don't share Bugs and Michael's and Harsch's (and Jimmy's) hatred for the Clinton's. In fact I like them. I don't share Bugs view that the Military shot down flight 800. I believe an individual terrorist did. (can't expound on that here). I never would have voted or supported people like Reagan and Dole like Michael did. I don't support conceal carry like Harsch, (I think), without several conditions applied and I've tried to pick the brains of the anti abortion people for answers and had some good discussions. I don't think we should be too upset that we disagree on some things. I know I've learned a lot and I think this blog helps you keep an open mind. "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:12 PM:

" Interesting that this book is coming out now just when I'm starting to read Valerie Plames book. (She mentions McClellan in her book). I'm looking forward to reading McClellan's book too. I also picked up two others about the CIA. Legacy of Ashes, The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner and one called Inside The Company by Philip Agee. This ones out of print and REALLY hard to get and expensive! This is the guy that just died a couple of months ago. I believe that he named agents in his book and still got it published. The CIA wasn't amused and I think they tried to get all of his books pulled off the shelves. Thanks to Bugs for getting me interested in all this stuff... "

More hilarity from Harsch wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:04 PM:

" I can't believe his whining and carrying on!!! For samples of truly offensive and dismissive comments from Harsch, check out the last few posts on both the "Racist loudmouth" blog and the "Huckabee comments" blog. Pompous? Definitely! Condescending? Absolutely! Hypocritical? For sure! I guess it is ok when Harsch does this to others, but just like the schoolyard bully, when he gets it back he is the first to cry about it. "

Michael Welch ASK And Ye Shall Receive... wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:50 PM:

" The abortion war goes on but the election will NOT be decided by it. Your fervor however is duly noted, both here and on the latest Jim blog. Re: Harsch I commend all anti-imperialists as realists -- Chomsky and Monbiot too -- and I guess the argument is '9-11 ALTERNATIVE conspiracy' as opposed to the one we got -- the Bushite version. I'd say Take a look at the Griffin stuff; it's worth it. I'd also say 'Bugs' oughtn't be so defensive; even Chomsky made some remark that the Kennedy assassination smelled at that -- late but you know 'better late than --' etc. I believe in discussion or why am I here so since I'm currently reading two of the Griffin books I'll be glad to be questioned but I'll reply to any tomorrow okay?... "

harsch...what offends me wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:34 PM:

" This kind of thing offends me: 'I'm just urging you, and others ,particularly BGS, to put some time and effort into learning about what really happened on 9/11. If that offends you, so be it.' If a suggestion to read was what this is about then there would be no this. Your dishonesty, Chip, that's what offends me. I have, by the way, read a thousand or more pages on THE EVENTS and seen two documentaries. Apparently before I please your magistrate by agreeing I need better proof than what I see. Until then, I am more convinced by the 'they let it happen' thesis. "

harsch to welch wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:30 PM:

" You apparently read what I write. bugs can? be bothered if there is a hint of disagreement. That disgusts me in any man of any political genre, but especially on the outside of the mainstream where an open mind so often snaps clamshut. If Chomsky believes that my mama wears a jockstrap I'm still behind him when he dismantles American systemic predation; and if Monbiot wants Bush in jail and Chip thinks it better to attack Monbiot I believe the Clam is dead from lack of oxygen--the paradoxical fate of so many minds that opened wide. As for what I think about 11/9, someday I'll really feel profoundly sure I suppose, but now I will only say it stinks, but I can't find the dead animal. Maybe the clam ate it. "

Harsch to Welch and everyone wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:21 PM:

" Unfortunately, what you just witnessed was a smug bugs refusing honest discussion. I normally would not care, but we are on public display to a degree and I would like readers to know that the person i believe to be bugs has rendered me extraordinary and kind assistance above and beyond the call--which is more important than the hijinks here. So if you are out there, bugs, thanks again, but if this is your idea of fair exchange i can't abide your kind. In fact, though you brought up the notion of apologies, I actually think that if the roles were reversed I WOULD apologize for such verbal behavior. I mean, especially, what's the point of posting if you don't want to engage in discussion? "

Michael Welch Inevitable Defeats... wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:54 PM:

" You know in a way the Bush administration didn't exactly 'bungle' Iraq -- they won the war after all because as Sen James Webb, erstwhile Reaganite gone Demo over this our LATEST quagmire, has observed that the US has the greatest 'strike force' in the world but it is NOT an 'occupational army.' Maybe Rumsfeld and the neo-cons lost interest in Iraq precisely because they REALLY DID understand that if the Iraqis didn't just capitulate and cooperate on their own terms WE could NOT in effect 'make them.' We won AND lost, then, simultaneously. The Australians are apparently preparing to just 'pull out' -- no doubt with a friendly wave and a 'Good luck mate!' We ought to see the light and do the same: a 'nice try but no cigar!'... "

To Michael wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:11 PM:

" No one argues about Obama and abortion. Hillary supports abortion also, so that would be a wash. People argue about Obamas support of infanticide against babies ALREADY BORN. That is a significant difference. "

I still think... wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:04 PM:

" Bugs and Harsch are the same person, and this marital squabble is simply a ruse to throw everyone off. "

Michael Welch Listening To The Warm... wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:57 AM:

" Also we might observe that 'we,' the generally pro-Obama, anti-Bush, sort of 'left' folks ('Bugs' has his own unique category however I'd say!) can argue forcefully about other than Obama and abortion or some person's high school wrestling career say. This is encouraging. Arguments like this do at times remind me of those in the socialist and communist parties of the last century -- so much ado about what struck outsiders as relatively 'minor' points. 'Conspiracy' re: Kennedy and 9-11 is NOT 'minor' but I do believe analyses about the US imperium blah blah have merit too and like Harsch I believe in 'listening' though I reserve the right to make up my own mind. AND I recommend Griffin's books though some stuff in them is 'arcane'... "

Bugs to Harsch wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:48 AM:

" Methinks you're a bit too sensitive on the condescending thing. I'm just urging you, and others ,particularly BGS, to put some time and effort into learning about what really happened on 9/11. If that offends you, so be it. I offer no apologies. "

Michael Welch Nobodys Perfect... wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:46 AM:

" I'm puzzled about the animosity between Harsch and 'Bugs,' though I've seen it before. I think 'Bugs' is correct in his analysis re: the 'secret government' stuff and I also agree that certain 'left' folks are much too dismissive but I don't detect that in Harsch, only his assertion that Chomsky et. al. are not 'irrelevant' which they are not albeit they may not be 'right' about everything they believe of course. I just think 'Bugs' is being a bit unnecessarily hyper here. By the way I read in Griffin ('The New Pearl Harbor') that 'Northwoods' WAS developed, like the Bay of Pigs, under Eisenhower but yes Kennedy 'vetoed' the former and acceded, unfortunately, to the latter. Well 'nobody's perfect' as Joe E. Brown once noted... "

Bugs to Harsch wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:44 AM:

" Sorry, Rick, perhaps you were observing airphones. Cell phone calls at Flight 93's altitude were simply impossible in 2001. If you would just enlighten yourself, you'd know that. Your lack of curiosity about the defining event of the 21st Century is baffling. Perhaps you've been influenced in this regard by the obnoxious Monbiot and the irrelevant (to me anyway) Chomsky. "

Harsch to bugs wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:09 AM:

" By the way, a self-promoting champion of justice such as yourself is not by that definition a pompous prik; but when you perpetrate even the minor injustice of misrepresentation you lose any good will you had coming. I, for instance, have made no assertions regarding 119, but, like many a tyrant would, you have chosen to answer my questions by accusation. And the one question you answered was without reference and I believe it to be untrue (because prior to that event I had been on planes in which people were speaking on cell phones). "

harsch to bugs wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:04 AM:

" When someone has the arrogance to condescend to me with 'You need to...' they generally lose their ability to influence me. Worse, though, Bugs, is that you have misled yourself in this discussion, made false assertions, false comparisons, and done nothing to address anything I have to say. You're acting like Phil O'Bates, and I assume that if you go over this dialogue with a hint of detachment you'll be embarrassed enough to apologize. Otherwise little is lost here, just one man (you) deeply misunderstanding another. "

To nine twenty one am wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:34 AM:

" Good call..Engbers letter to the editor was ALMOST WORD FOR WORD what Starfish has posted here. Also, I assume you caught "STeveENGBER"? "

To Steve Engber wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:21 AM:

" Why do I get the feeling that "Steve Engber", "Stengber", and "Starfish" are either all the same person or collaborate on many posts here? "

Bugs to Harsch wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:53 AM:

" I think you need to do some research. Start with David Ray Griffin. At this time, you resemble Montbiot casting aspersions on something you apparently know little about. Such a shame. The defining event of the 21st Century and you don't seem to have much interest in it, just like Chomsky. By the by, the cell phone calls from Flight 93 were technologically impossible in 2001. That's an irrefutable fact. "

harsch to bugs wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:04 AM:

" You are behaving very strangely: perhaps a fever? I have never written a word about half the folks you mention (only Chomsky and Monbiot), nor do I know what they write or believe regarding the bad flight joke in New York. You dismiss the most important of my points (your silly 'caught up in the phony left/right' etcetera). Regarding my irrelevant thoughts on the famous attacks: first, you have the arrogance to make your way of thinking seem like physical territory; second, if the criminals behind the Iraq and Afghan wars are behind it I would like to see them rot no more no less; third, I like conclusive evidence: the phone calls from the sky are not all explained, neither is the assertion that 8 or 9 or 19 of the 'hijackers' are alive presented convincingly... "

Bugs to Harsch wrote on Jun 2, 2008 1:16 PM:

" Sorry, Rick, but I do think you're caught up in the phony left versus right milieu. Chomsky, Montbiot, Cockburn, Rothschild, and the Green Party (at least the British version) are all lefties whom you defend even though on the most important issue of all, 9/11, they display a monumental ignorance that is devoid of the intellectualism they purport to represent. They simply refuse to look at the picture. By the by just where do you stand on 9/11 or 11/9? It seemed to me, at one time, you were coming around to my way of thinking. "

harsch to bugs wrote on Jun 2, 2008 11:59 AM:

" A terribly feeble response. You embarrass yourself. You think i believe that Hillary and MCCain represent left and right?
I doubt it. Let yourself be wrong and feel the cool liberating breeze. "

Froto wrote on Jun 2, 2008 10:11 AM:

" My how simple minded we the people are. We buy anything and everything that is put into print no matter who writes. Republican, Democrat,Liberal, Conservative, and so on. As long as our esteemed media presents it as the greatest news since God made little green apples or someone did. Those who can tear themselves away, stand back and attempt to truely analyze all circumstances around these various publications, including but not limited to the financial side, would save their money and not give it to these various supposed and real writers of subtrafuge. What a simple minded and small world so many live in and how outraged they get when called on it. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Jun 2, 2008 9:53 AM:

" Who was the person who wrote the doctrine of pre-emptive attack that Bush used to go to war with Iraq? It was Phillip Zelikow. Who was the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, the man who set the agenda and determine what would be investigated and what would not? It was Phillip Zelikow. So it all comes full circle. Bush attacked America creating the "New Pearl Harbor" he needed to launch his resource wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Zelikow gave Bush the doctrine to "legitimize" his attacks, and then covered up Bush's role in the inside job that was 9/11. "

Bugs to Michael wrote on Jun 2, 2008 9:44 AM:

" Good posts, but Northwoods was presented during JFK's tenure. Important to note that every single one of the Joint Chiefs signed on to this use of terror against American citizens to rally support for an invasion of Cuba. JFK wisely put an end to it. The more things change, the more they stay the same. "

Johnny Hobo wrote on Jun 2, 2008 8:55 AM:

" This morning's attacks in Pakistan clearly show the threat that America, Western Civilization and Christendom face and the understanding that George W. Bush and others (Zell Miller, Lieberman, Ed Koch) understand. McClellen's ghost-written work of fiction and speculation shows how ignorant so many on the left (of both parties) are in recognizing this very clear and present danger. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Jun 2, 2008 7:38 AM:

" Too many of you, including Harsch, are caught up in the phony left versus right milieu. You don't understand the very real alliance between the Clintons and the Bushs. Neither of them wanted to catch Osama. Why? Because Osama and al Qaeda are creatures of the CIA. We're through the looking glass, here, people. What appears white is really black and visa versa. Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset and FBI informant. The Agency then used him to take the blame for JFK's death, just as they would later use Osama to take the rap for 9/11. "

Bugs to Citizen wrote on Jun 2, 2008 7:30 AM:

" There never were any "good old days." "

Bugs to Kevin wrote on Jun 2, 2008 7:20 AM:

" Of the three who have a chance to be president, Obama is by far the best choice. It's as simple as that. "

Steve Engber wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:03 PM:

" I don't think anyone hopes to make Pres Clinton "look like Lincoln," Mr. Yo. We're only trying to slap down the idiots that try to pretend that any misfortune that has befallen your beloved W was Clinton's fault. I assure you that W has fouled this up on his own? No attacks in 7 years? Egads, son, what are you smoking? If anyone has actually permuted the definitions of "attacks" enough to make such a statement. . .they're probably working for Fox News. Get together with Johnny H and Tess T. There you can congratulate each other on your brilliance. "

Citizen wrote on Jun 1, 2008 8:25 PM:

" I really have to laugh at most of you commenting!!!. Most of you are the people that will run out and buy this book, to fatten this man's pocket...Whether this is true or not,what happened to loyalty????? Why is that everyone that leaves these offices, write a book???? MONEY HUNGRY PEOPLE, thats all we have in this country anymore.

What happened to the "good ole days"??? "

Michael Welch Is Obama A Clinton-Bush Too... wrote on Jun 1, 2008 2:32 PM:

" The only way Clinton 'looks like Lincoln' is in how many Iraqi civilian deaths his administration caused -- not as many civilians as in the American civil war with its 'sanctions,' starvation and devastation of nearly half this country but then the second Bush admin created as chaotic and volatile a mix of religious warfare as say the Thirty Years war but on much smaller ground. Clinton bombed too; Serbia was punished but only after years of looking the other way, as if for example Bush were NOW to suddenly have the Sudan invaded AFTER a decade or so of genocide. And remember too -- if Obama actually withdraws 'US' from Iraq he's STILL dedicated to the increasingly deadly Afghan occupation... "

Michael Welch Bush Clinton Bush... wrote on Jun 1, 2008 2:21 PM:

" So I see we're back in the simpleton's declination -- who's 'best'? Clinton or Bush? The Clinton adminsitration's foreign policy was as far as I can discern no different than his predecessor, also a Bush remember? Iraq was decimated as a nation, once the 'showcase' of Arab states with both young men AND women traveling over the world, studying at its universities. Saddam's war with Iran plus the vicious US attack in '91 was followed with a decade and a half of delibilitating sanctions that saw the deaths of thousands, including MANY children, from malnuitrition and disease. The Clintons never flinched; Madeleine Albright, the sec'y of state, even said the deaths of oh 200,000 were uh 'sad' but 'worth it.' Spoken like a Bush!... "

Yo wrote on Jun 1, 2008 12:42 PM:

" To those detractors who want to make clinton look like Lincoln....Sirs he is no Lincoln. Not one attack in over 7 yrs on ANY land, sea, or Army base. Six attacks under Bill at the helm. This is not by chance, it is by choice. As for being most hated country in the world, that has been the case since our inception. Britian tried to dominate us, Spain, French, Germany had sights on us in 1940's, Japan as well. We stand alone with enjoying the most freedoms of any nation, thanks to Bush and the Veterans (past and present) who keep it that way. Nice try at revisionist memories though! "

Davidinlse wrote on Jun 1, 2008 7:52 AM:

" RE;Yo wrote on May 31, 2008 10:49 PM: It still does not change the fact that bush ignored the warning of imminent attack. Look where his friendship with putin got him, nowhere. Look where any and all of shrubbies lies got us. the most hated, villified country in the world. Quite an accomplishment. "

Steve Engber wrote on Jun 1, 2008 7:42 AM:

" I'll save you the trouble, Re Mr. Hughes: it WAS me that wrote that letter to the editor. Conspiracy? I think not. The argument(s) are self-contained and apparent to any intelligent observer: bad legislation is bad legislation, regardless of the "purity" of the intent.

And Yo: as for missed opportunities, YOU neglect to mention that GWB had THREE (thats 3 for you private-school prodigies) shots at Abu Musab al-Zarqawi BEFORE the Iraq war-- each cleaner than the shot Clinton had at Osama bin Laden. The reason GWB didn't? He didn't want to muddy up the waters in his clarion call for war.

Nice try, Mr. Yo, but you and the "Path to 9/11" crowd have convinced no one but yourselves that this mess is on Clinton's hands. "

Yo wrote on May 31, 2008 10:49 PM:

" To:Davidinlse

How convienent you forgot to mention that Bill had a shot at Osama Bin Laden, but refused to take it! Attacked 6 times within 8 yrs of holding office, no - Bill did not uphold his oath to protect and defend the USA from all enemies, foreign & domestic. BTW - Bush was entertaining Putin at his ranch while on his "vacation." Nice try though. "

Davidinlse wrote on May 31, 2008 6:01 PM:

" RE: Yo wrote on May 31, 2008 3:51 PM: How convienant that you choose to ignore that shrubbie was specifically told that attack was emminent. What did he do? Went on vacation. "

Yo wrote on May 31, 2008 3:51 PM:

" Dick Morris has a daily column and rant against Hillary, yet it never hits the newspapers at all. Hmmmmmmmm, a little bias here with your newspaper, and stories! - why thank you Jimmy, I'd love some. Clinton Lied(said we were safe) 3000 died on 9/11. It took 2 yrs to plan, Bush was in office for only 8 months. Clinton is 16 months at fault, but nev'r is heard a bad clinton word, and the skies are not cloudy all day. "

Michael Welch Theory Versus Practice... wrote on May 31, 2008 11:41 AM:

" So in a basic sense McClellan's book is an apologia, a defense really, for the Bush administration as simply 'too idealistic' for its own good or the good it wanted to do; and then finally too incompetent, too intransigent, even to pull that off, i. e. Iraq as a 'western' democracy. I accept the incompetence charge -- the US armed forces have been very inadequate as occupational troops and they have had very little training that wasn't 'on the job,' hit and miss. But the identification of 'democracy' in Iraq for the Bushites is subservience to the US and its oily interests, NOT the current shi'ite government that is de facto allied with Iran! The admin got its war but alas! the 'worst laid plans' didn't work either... "

Michael Welch The New Pearl Harbor Is -... wrote on May 31, 2008 11:31 AM:

" In the late 1990s neo-conservatives previously having served Reagan and Bush pere came up with a radical doctrine to insure US world dominance. Their think tank, Project for a New American Century, compiled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses,' which among other recommendations first posited the 'preemptive strike' against ANY perceived POTENTIAL 'enemy' whether that 'enemy' was actually planning an attack or not. By 2002 this doctrine was enshrined in a National Security Agency document; by 2003 of course that doctrine was implemented vis-a-vis Iraq and has been periodically raised re: Iran. In order that such a policy be accepted by the public it was stated (in the '90s study) that it may require 'a new Pearl Harbor.' Hmmm... "

Michael Welch Sort Of Kind Of Maybe... wrote on May 31, 2008 11:20 AM:

" Re: Harsch I'm not saying that Chomsky wouldn't have a similar perception of American power as I've stated below; I do find however that the dismissal of 'unofficial,' 'unapproved' conspiracy theories (the OFFICIAL 9-11 commission report posits of course an al-Qaeda conspiracy) is paradoxical. Chomsky doesn't for instance accept US government propaganda but he embraced the Warren report conclusion for years. Cockburn calls the OTHER 9-11 conspiracy theory 'idiotic' etc.; now why? If the CIA during the Eisenhower administration was capable of presenting 'Operation Northwoods' in which an American airliner would be shot down by supposed Castro forces (but actually by the US) why NOT 9-11?... "

DJ wrote on May 31, 2008 9:07 AM:

" As I see it, the primary differences between this administration and the previous one is the fidelity, honesty and faith of the office holder and the sincerity, warmth, and life goals of the first lady. Standby for the next office holder. "

harsch to welch wrote on May 30, 2008 6:08 PM:

" I think Chomsky covers that. "

harsch to kevin wrote on May 30, 2008 5:50 PM:

" I think you're right that the demos failed the people. But the questions to ask are why and what then? The system won't change--but at least there are a few, a very few Democrats trying to bring criminals to justice. Blanket condemnation is understandable, but unhelpful. "

harsch to bugs wrote on May 30, 2008 5:47 PM:

" Well, Bugs, I see you're as inflexible as ever. I'm reminded of the (real) left during the 80s, the Spartacists fighting the Maoists or whatever. When there is general agreement regarding the system there should be no factional infighting, but people like you seem to insist that 100% adherence to your views is necessary. I think I provided a good example of the importance of Chomsky--his relevance--and you ignore it because it doesn't fit your agenda. This kind of crap only aids your enemies, and you really should know better. What Monbiot did is to be commended, and you are incapable of appreciating that because of your personal beliefs and agenda, which overlap about 90% with his. "

If wrote on May 30, 2008 5:12 PM:

" the Bush administration is sooooooo evil, then why did they allow McClellen to publish this book? Wouldn't they have Vince-Fostered him? Or at the very least given him a high paying, do nothing job for Haliburton? I suspect McClellen just had his feelings hurt some how by Bush or someone else in the administration and this is his idea of bringing them down. The problems with his stories is that he wasn't in the meetings where information was analyzed, so he makes guesses. Guesses that make his publisher happy and will give him a job on the liberal talk circuit for a few years. Washington politics is evil. It turns relatively decent people into self-serving nihilists. "

Michael Welch Attention Must Be Paid... wrote on May 30, 2008 2:49 PM:

" I have respect for Chomsky et. al. but I would suggest that they ought to bother with -- well they could START with the Kennedy assassination because they haven't caught up with even THAT yet! So perhaps 9-11 is asking too much? I've re-read David Ray Griffin's 'The New Pearl Harbor' and I'm currently reading 'Debunking the 9-11 Debunkers' (also by Griffin) and it startles me that many 'left' people find this uninteresting apparently and 'irrelevant' to their I dunno 'analyses' of capitalistic imperial whatever. To ME these things seem inordinately pertinent -- I mean WHAT are certain (our) governments capable of? Subversion of their own society, their own 'system' ultimately! Mark Lane to David Griffin are describing a US governmental-society structure that is eating itself -- and destroying its own raison d'etre... "

Re Mr Hughes wrote on May 30, 2008 2:47 PM:

" Its funny, I read these blogs and I saw that letter also VERY similar wording...was it Steve Engber who wrote the letter...I will have to see if i can find it in the archives. "

Starfish wrote on May 30, 2008 2:39 PM:

" No doubt the youngsters in an administration become a bit star-struck by their superiors. Personally, I think the response of Monica was considerably more organic than the mindless dissembling of Scottie. How much less damage to the nation had he just slinked under the presidents desk. . . "

Bugs to Harsh wrote on May 30, 2008 1:12 PM:

" Sorry, Rick, my horizons have been expanded. My eyes have opened. It's people like Chomsky, Montbiot, the despicable Alexander Cockburn, and the pathetic Matt Rothschild that need to expand their horizons. "

Kevin ReBugs wrote on May 30, 2008 1:08 PM:

" Either way the democratic party bailed, which in my opinion eliminates any credibility they may have had. In addition congress has not demonstrated any increase in backbone since they (the democrats) gained control. Politics as normal. So then my question, How does Barack have any more credibility, since he has demonstrated the same political survival instinct as the rest of the bunch? I have limited tolerance for all the whining going on, either do what you say or go away.... I think history has proven, political control should not belong to either one party or the other, it needs to be split Dem/Repub/Independent. "

Bugs to Harsch wrote on May 30, 2008 1:07 PM:

" Let me clarify. For me, and I believe, for most people in the 9/11 Truth Movement, Chomsky is irrelevant. For those who don't understand yet the truth of American foreign policy or how the media operate, Chomsky's books are invaluable. I'd characterize Montbiot's attempt to arrest Bolton as little more than a stunt and about as effective as the political left gets. "

harsch to bugs wrote on May 30, 2008 12:22 PM:

" I see now that you agree that Bush has gotten away with too much. Are you so stuck on one possible crime that you don't care about the others? Besides, your repeated statements that Chomsky is irrelevent is erroneous. He remains the most important American critic for Europeans. To Europeans he makes sense of the darkness of America, and that's extremely important in that Europe needs as many informed critics as possible to fend off American efforts in the future. And by the way, quite a number of Europeans I know both rely on and regard highly the works of Chomsky and at the same time believe that 11/9 was an inside job. I think it's time for you to expand your horizons, realize who your allies can be, and criticise those who really earn it. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on May 30, 2008 12:12 PM:

" Interesting to note that when Feingold was pushing for censure, Hillary literally skulked away from the media, who were trying to get her opinion of it. Big brave Hillary. "

harsch to bugs wrote on May 30, 2008 12:10 PM:

" You post suggests that what people such as Chomsky 'criticise' regarding the conspiracy focussed has some value. If you would dismiss Monbiot's very important attempt to arrest a Bush administration member for a KNOWN crime that can easily be proven simply because he does not agree with your version of 11/9 events--or, more likely, believes that, as I do, they are unlikely to be proven, especially if the Bush crew is never rounded up--then your priorities are askew. "

Bugs to Kevin wrote on May 30, 2008 12:04 PM:

" You give Feingold too much credit. He only wanted to censure Bush, when he should have been pushing for impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. It's no wonder Bush has gotten away with so much..there's no opposition media and no opposition political party to hold him accountable. "

Kevin wrote on May 30, 2008 11:36 AM:

" Personally I think all the Dems that are jumping on this bandwagon are spineless. They had a chance to do something when Feingold filed his motion to impeach, and where did all the strong men go? Fishing I guess "

Michael Welch The Scott They Knew... wrote on May 30, 2008 11:18 AM:

" Personally I hardly 'hate' Bush; how can one 'hate' someone with so small a sense of self-awareness, someone so pliant to his ambitions and so intransigent about their results? McClellan actually offers alibis for the administration, i. e. he insists on its basic idealism -- W & Co wanted to turn Iraq into a version of a 51st state, a democratic 'model'; also the Bushites were unable to 'admit mistakes,' especially the prez, but then this is Roveian strategy 101: NEVER APOLOGIZE; NEVER say you were wrong about ANYTHING and ALWAYS attack your (domestic political) enemy on his 'strength' -- e. g. Obama's apparent sincerity and integrity. And my own assumption re: 'the Scott [they] knew' is that they assumed he, like they, had no more a conscience than a Rove or a Cheney... "

Bugs Raplin wrote on May 30, 2008 11:02 AM:

" George Monbiot is the British version of Noam Chomsky. He calls those of us in the 9/11 Truth movement "morons" who are out to destroy "the movements so many of us have tried to build up." Sorry, George, but you and Noam and Alexander Cockburn and Matt Rothschild have become irrelevant, impotent distractions. George, arrest yourself! "

Self-delusion is bliss wrote on May 30, 2008 10:40 AM:

" None of what McClellan has said is exactly a revelation: the Michael Moores have been saying these things for years--in fact, if you want to criticise Michael Moore, criticise him for being too mild...Bushworld, being the scenes, is way more corrupt than either McClellan or Moore could possibly portray it. Yeah, Jimmy, it's the tip of the tip of the iceberg!

McClellan is not being entirely forthright either by letting Bush off the hook in the Plame case or for the deceptions that paved the way for the Iraq War...the problem doesn't magically stop at the Dick Cheney level. "

harsch wrote on May 30, 2008 10:11 AM:

" In England yesterday the Guardian's best columnist, George Monbiot, tried to make a citizen's arrest of Bolton for war crimes but was stopped by bodyguards. My first thought was that McClellan wants to be able to travel the world without fear of arrest, which most of the top members of the Bush regime will never be able to do. Another striking thing is that McClella hasn't said anything that any astute follower of the lead up to the war did not know--it was all lies and even if it were not pre-emptive strike and state assassination of another head of state are both against international law. The lies didn't matter. The Bush regime is criminal. The press was afraid. Many allies were afraid. With any luck a period of justice will ensue and Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Powell, among others, will end up in The Hague. "

PHIL OSIFER wrote on May 30, 2008 10:07 AM:

" At 65 years of age I cannot believe how far we have degenerated in this country. Why do people "HATE" so much of President Bush. It wouls appear that if this continues at some point there will be some kind of revolt. People claim that they respect the office but not the person. I do not believe it. I for one will not buy or read this book. I don't care if he is telling the truth, telling on the President or what ever I will not line his pocket. I do believe that he has a alternate purpose. "

Mr Hughes wrote on May 30, 2008 10:02 AM:

" This sort of reminds me of how everyone jumps to defend Barack Hussein Obamas outspoken support of infanticide. If people feel the same way about an issue, they are likely to have the same reasons for feeling the way they do. Sorry, I don't necessarily find that so unusual. Barack Hussein Obama being the only Senator to speak out against the Born Alive Infant protection Act only has so many possible defenses. The same defense that Starfish constantly uses here was suspiciously similar(as in word for word) of a recent letter to the editor by Steve Engber. Is that enough to say there is a conspiracy? "

Eddie wrote on May 30, 2008 9:02 AM:

" Since when is TELLING THE TRUTH considered traitorous or cowardly? There is a GREAT story here. It is how a presidential press secretary has finally found the courage to say what he/she really knows and thinks. Scott McClellan should be applauded for ceasing to be a brainwashed lapdog for the president. MORE press secretaries should speak out more often, but, sadly, they are too brainwashed or intimidated to speak their minds. If more government officials were to speak out, then we could put an end to the corruption that infests the Executive Branch. "

BrianGSmith wrote on May 30, 2008 8:59 AM:

" Good observation on the united talking points from the right wing noise machine sang in harmony these past few days. Everyone that knew Scottie was "puzzled" and noted that Scottie never spoke out when he had the chance. Well, better late than never. Scottie obviously has a conscious and wasn't moon-bat body-snatched like the rest of the Bushniks "

Bugs Raplin wrote on May 30, 2008 8:53 AM:

" Go back and read the Downing St. memo, which has NOT been disavowed by the British government. The information there was grounds for impeachment, but everyone was afraid to do anything about it. Regarding McClellan, I just loved his portrayal of the White House press corp as a bunch of wimps afraid to ask any hard questions. "

Johnny Hobo wrote on May 30, 2008 8:40 AM:

" The only story here is that McClellan's "memoir" was ghostwritten by George Soros' spinmeisters and published by one of Soros' yellow presses. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »