Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
Recent Comments
- Francis Barnett on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- BenV on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Greg in NZ on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- czechlist on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
Wetdrywarmcoldflooddroughtrainsnowcloudysunnyupdownblackwhiteleftrightblahblahblah!
Steve,
Fascinating article,
Now, who are the climate scientists that are now warning of a new ice age? He neglected to give their names.
Also who are the “increasing number of breakaway climatologists were saying the cause of that late 20th century rise in temperatures might not be CO2 at all.”
I also had not realized that Schneider and Hansen had invented the evil theory that CO2 is related to global warming. Jealous scientists must have rewritten history to make it seem like the theory had been invented over a century ago.
And I never knew it was in 2007 that scientists first realized that there was something called the sun that impacted temperatures and those pesky ocean currents affected temp distribution. And I didn’t know that the last three winters have been some of the coldest experienced in decades by “much of the world”. I could have SWORN the 2009-2010 winter was not way colder than other recent winters.
But the article must be right. After all Steve has proven that no matter WHAT is printed in Salon, or how it can be proven to be wrong by original sources, and retractions, if it is in print in an article it has to be true.
Oh, Sorry Steve I don’t mean to direct these questions at you. I already know that I am a maroon.
So could someone else actually supply relevant answers?
You are correct. Hansen never predicted that Manhattan would drown. When he wrote on his web site that multi-metre sea level rise was “dead certain” it was really a hack job by Salon.
Steve you are wrong about that. Although drown is not a very scientific or descriptive term. You should check out a site by this blogger Steven Goddard. He has documented Numerous statements by Hansen saying that there will possibly be 2,3, or even a five meter rise in sea level by the end of the century. I have checked them out and they are real.
Unfortunately he keeps attributing a quote to Hansen that he never made back in 1988, that has been shown to be totally bogus. (reference numerous comments by tony duncan explaining the actual facts)
You are correct Hansen – never predicted in 1988 that Manhattan would drown and never confirmed it ten years later saying that he “wouldn’t change a thing”
Steve,
Wrong on both counts. In 1988 Hansen said the west side highway would be underwater by 2030 with a doubling of CO2, which was a question asked by REISS
And according to Both Reiss and Hansen he DID confirm it years later. he was referring to his ACTUAL quote when he said he wouldn’t change a thing. the quote that Hansen actually said, that he remembered from his discussion with Reiss.
What he never said was “Manhattan will be underwater by 2008”. I am sure eventually you will get this all straightened out in your head. For some reason it seems really easy to understand from my end. Maybe if you bought the book and read the actual quote it would make it easier.
If your untenable theory were correct, the only honest answer for Hansen would have been to say that CO2 couldn’t possibly double by 2030.
Not rant about heat, birds, broken windows, high wind, crime, police, drowned highways …
Your defense of Hansen reflects very badly on both your intelligence and character.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or0h6OwSiC8
Nic,
I had just learned how to hoop them! thanks for the reminder!
I don’t think you should suggest Steve is on crack though, and that is why he can’t accept reality. It is common for cocaine to have that effect, but I don’t think Steve uses any illegal drugs
Tony, not to detract you from this every predictable argument, but to your first posit and query, “Now, who are the climate scientists that are now warning of a new ice age? He neglected to give their names.”
Uhmm……. from the story, “Dr Robert Kaufman of Boston University blamed China this week. ‘During the Chinese economic expansion there was a huge increase in sulphur emissions,’ he said. And this was the cause of global cooling.”
and, “And the cause of this cooling, it was argued by the U.S. scientists, led by climatologists Stephen Schneider(RIP) and James Hansen, was all the sulphur dioxide and other particulates being chucked out by burning fossil fuels — notably those from coal-fired power stations.
Fifteen years later, the very same scientists were at the forefront of the great panic over global warming.”
While I’m sure this isn’t an all-inclusive listing of scientists, this could get you started. 🙂
I think we should bounce this off of LIndzen, so we can have another debate similar to the cloud debate. Does coal burning have a net cooling or net warming effect?
This is the ultimate of a green recycling campaign!!
SUYTS,
What makes you say that an argument repeated almost the same way 20 times is predictable 😉
As for your attribution, i am very familiar with the paper, and what the paper says is NOT a new ice age or even predicting global cooling. It asserts a masking of the effects of CO2 forcing, so it is described as a relative cooling, not absolute.
I would be very interested in Lindzen’s response to this. I personally have wondered about the effects of all that coal being burned, having been in China 10 years ago or more, I was shocked at the degree of pollution. It was horrendous. Also bad in India. I remember tearing up coming into mumbai (bombay) harbor.
Certainly this is an area of significant uncertainty. I look forward to the brou-ha-ha
Steve,
You are mistaken in thinking I am defending Hansen. I have said nothing except point out the facts that not only show my “theory” is tenable, but it is the only “theory” that is in any way reasonable. Occams razor kind of tears to shreds any possibility of Hansen actually making the Salon quote.
Your assertion that ” the only honest answer for Hansen would have been to say that CO2 couldn’t possibly double by 2030.” May be very true. I tend to agree with your analysis. However he did not say that, and it has nothing to do with whether he said the West side highway would be underwater by 2008. I have no problem with you attacking him on that ground. Fire away.
As I have pointed out numerous times. This was a SECOND hand account after 13 years over a casual phone call about a quote that DIRECTLY referenced the book, printed BEFORE the article. The book has the correct quote in it. I would have no objections to you asserting that REISS lied about Hansens quote. That he did so in order to promote sales of his book. It would be speculation but it is not an irrational assertion. Continuing to assert that HANSEN said the quote in the Salon article is just lying about it.
As far as I know I have never said I thought he was correct about his estimations about sea level rise. So I don’t see how my insisting that you comment on what he actually says constitutes defending him. I breath a sigh of relief as you have now rehabilitated my reputation in both character and Intelligence for the readers here, since I am clearly not defending Hansen regarding this issue.
I appreciate that vote of confidence.
Your choice of causes is bizarre beyond comprehension
Tony,
Remember Saddam’s WMDs. Politicians convinced themselves and us that they existed. Alas history said no. Today scientists have convinced themselfves for the AGW case. AGW has all the hallmarks of Saddam’s WMDs. 😉
Time will tell who is right.
Jimbo,
Ah, something I know a bit about. Let’s see. yes there are some similarities. They both have an international body charged with determining whether something potentially catastrophic is a foot. Politicians making dire warnings that there is no time to lose, documented evidence available to everyone as it is happening, and a press corp that dutifully presents the evidence.
So to make the analogy work 1. the weapons inspectors must have been begging Bush to attack iraq because they had absolute proof that Saddam had WMD’s. 2.Bush weighing the evidence with his objective advisors and consulting all relevant experts. 3.All sorts of evidence from multiple independent sources pointing to WMd’s and 4. The press checking out the claims to make sure they passed some sort of sniff test as well as giving ample attention to both those for and against starting a war with Iraq.
point 1. Woops total fail. Weapons inspectors said repeatedly they could find no evidence of WMd’s. They had followed numerous US leads and come up empty. they had a huge amount of information and made dozens of unannounced inspections since the fall of 2002.
point 2. Even WORSE fail. Bush admin had been planning an Iraq war even before 9/11, and used that as justification for an attack. Cheney and his WHIG (White House Iraq group) fabricated stories. Fed them to the press and then cited them and then the press confident it had multiple sources treated baseless allegations as true. The US major source “screwball” , (sorry that is curveball) was considered unreliable by German intelligence> his claims could not be corroborated by anyone. Powells speech to the UN had almost no information that was true. it was all either made up or exaggeration.
point 3. total fail.. See above. there was no actual evidence of WMD’s, except as Scott Ritter had pointed out, possibly very old stockpiles of chemical agents from the Iran Iraq war that would be degraded and completely unusable.
4 Big time fail. the press reported the administrations claims as true or likely without doing ANY investigation of their own. NY times reporters assigned to the issue were hacks for the administration, and in exchange for “exclusive” info” were granted exclusive access. the information they were fed was lies. Case in point. Aluminum tubes. were immediately shown to be incapable of use in centrifuges by experts in centrifuge use from Lawrence livermore, Los Alamos, State department intelligence, and experts from IAEA. But Bush Cheney Condi, powell, went with NON experts from the CIA. this information was readily available yet the press did not report it at the time. the leadup to the war saw at least a 10-1 ration of “experts” who supported the war compared to those that didn’t. It also included people who were presented as independent experts who were actually paid by the military to give the Administration line on the war.
and extra point 5. When Saddam DID have WMD’ and used them against iran AND the Kurds, it was the Reagan administration that prevented any action against Iraq. In one case the US being the ONLY country to vote against condemning Iraq.
So while the analogy appears to have similarities it is a pretty awful one on further examination.
This idiot Tony Duncan is at it again?
(Just one out of dozens of lies crammed into that *one* post!)
You couldn’t be more full of crap if you were a doggie bag full of crap.
I realize the news is getting to you these days, what with the AGW fantasy collapsing on multiple fronts. You really should get yourself checked in to a mental health clinic ASAP, it’s best for everyone especially those around you.
Seek help Loser.
Blade,
sorry you must be right. All the sources in and out of the administration that confirm pre 9/11 planning of attacking Iraq are all lying.
here are the first three hits in case you don’t know how to google.
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-01-10/politics/oneill.bush_1_roomful-of-deaf-people-education-of-paul-o-neill-national-security-council-meeting?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
and my favorite right from the horses mouth even BEFORE Bush took office. Let’s see Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Bolton, Pearl, Amitage, all senior members of the Bush admin. Are THEY all liars too?
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
I said you were a liar and you promptly proved it.
For other readers, those that are sane (unlike the Tony Duncan troll), there are contingencies in place for practically every target on planet Earth. And there had better be for the amount of money we pay them.
That the Pentagon has had operations drawn up for Iraq is to be expected, the surprise would be if there wasn’t any. Iraq was on top of the pile since we were already there in theater since 1991 you dumbass.
Moreover, since Clinton had Iraq regime change as official policy, how could there not be plans drawn up. You might as well have said Bush was planning a war on Russia, it would have made as much sense.
This slimey little troll Tony Duncan maliciously confuses normal policy with some kind of warmonger fantasy of Bush. He knows full well that without 9/11 there would have been no Iraq liberation and his buddy Saddam would still be happily starving children while Tony Duncan blames America.
I suppose this is to be expected from this troll because as a groupie of President Dumbo he has to deal with the contradictions of Libyan action through massive cognitive dissonance. Such a mental condition is hard enough to deal with for a normal sane person, but as a self-hating Anti-American American (or so he says) it pushes his limits towards a nervous breakdown. So I repeat …
You couldn’t be more full of crap if you were a doggie bag full of crap.
I realize the news is getting to you these days, what with the AGW fantasy collapsing on multiple fronts. You really should get yourself checked in to a mental health clinic ASAP, it’s best for everyone especially those around you.
Seek help Loser.
Blade,
what a shock. You totally ignore what I posted and go off on a totally irrelevant argument. At least you didn’t use any ad-hom attacks. that would have been devastating.
You start mentioning contingency plans from the pentagon. I never mentioned the word pentagon, nor did the links I supplied. of COURSE the pentagon has contingency plans for all sorts of things, and contingency plans for Iraq would be expected since we had just had a war with Iraq the previous decade. Wait you said that. OMG we agree on something!
So your whole post is meaningless since it has nothing to to with anything I said or any of the links I posted (there are many more BTW). I was not talking about contingency plans but an intent to implement war
I actually enjoy how you call me a liar, and then say I “prove” it by documenting my comment with actual facts from members of the administration that support my contention. You of course provide nothing concrete to contradict those accounts (Hint: I hear Bush and Cheney both have books that explain their saintly roles in all of this).
Actually there is one thing that I object to. Calling me slimy. I bathe at LEAST once a day, often twice in the summer.
Of course this has nothing to do with the post.
Another lie. Will you admit it or not?
Link-1 … CNN glorification of drama queen Paul O’Neill (fired SecTreasury) stating obvious facts like: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go”. Duh! He should have said ‘continuation’ of presidential policy from Clinton. [This is the little dope that said we cannot cut taxes, the David Stockman of his time, both who make John Dean look like normal people. This article reminded me that Bush 43 was like 41 with Sununu, terrible at hiring people and for keeping that idiot Mineta (SecTrans). Always screen out the leftist socialists before they do something stupid.]
Link-2 … BBC un-sourced story claiming that in early 2001 big oil companies fighting with Pentagon Neo-Cons (code for Jews) over spoils of a future Iraq War. Claims big oil won (huh! when do we get the oil again?). Alex Jones level of journalism.
Link-3 … Letter to the fat pervert Clinton dated January 26, 1998. Nothing to do with Bush 43.
Not one single fact that supports your exact statement …
Therefore I repeat, you are a liar.
And I repeat, nothing except official policy existed. And contingency plans. And I repeat, without 9/11 there would have been no Iraq (barring something Saddam did of course). Bush 43 was on the glide path to being the perfect Republicrat, it was in his genes. Then 9/11 intervened.
I knew right away where this troll Tony Duncan was coming from. This is conspiratorial propaganda that was under way since 2002, targeting the Jewish members of the Bush 43 cabinet and outside think tanks calling them neo-cons and implying Jews had some terrible grudge against Iraqi (who the hell knows why) but strangely not against Syria or Iran which *would* make logical sense from an Israeli strategic point of view. They simultaneously said we planned on taking Iraqi oil which we never took.
The only story these nuts forgot to invent was our 2001 interruption of the Afghan poppy crops to increase domestic drug prices to further enhance DEA and FBI power. They just didn’t have time.
Seek help Loser.
I sense the public is numb to all this bologna.
Would not it be better to go to the source with your question? Steve posted part of the article, but I did not catch where he made the claim. So instead of going through the “barking chain”, it seems that it would be more logical to ask the author of the piece, not the poster of the link to it.
Phil,
I hardily agree with checking with the author
Jimmie Death Trains has a vivid imagination. It seems that Hansen reiterated his Manhattan under water prediction at a conference in Sacramento, CA on 9/14/2006. His dates are a tad vague, but the implication seems to be that most of Manhattan will be submerged by 2016. His predictions are fairly fungible, but the pay-off is always a submerged Manhattan to punch things up for the media.
“I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change … no longer than a decade, at the most,” Hansen said Wednesday at the Climate Change Research Conference in California’s state capital.
If the world continues with a “business as usual” scenario, Hansen said temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees F) and “we will be producing a different planet.”
On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a rise in sea levels that would put most of Manhattan under water. The world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves, powerful hurricanes in new areas and the likely extinction of 50 percent of species.” – J. D. T.
Justa
it is well understood that “I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change … no longer than a decade, at the most,” means that is the time frame needed to curb CO2 emissions to prevent serious consequences many decades from that point. Whether one accepts this nor not it is in no way saying that there would be catastrophic consequences within ten years.
You’re right, Tony. The way I read it is that Manhattan could be underwater as soon as 10 years or anytime therafter. The dates are fungible in Jimmie’s rap. I doubt Jimmie can even keep all of the dates he’s thrown out there for all of the various flooding straight. I also infered that Jimmie is a two bit huslter. The Ten years he speaks of is completely arbitrary. It’s just a period of time that he conjured up out of thin air to suggest to the rubes that his issue was URGENT. The whole Manhattan under water deal is just his schtick to illustrate to the rubes a SCARY scenario that the rubes could relate to.
Joe,
Not quite. he is ONLY saying that if action does not happen within ten years that it may not be possible to stop sufficient warming to cause serious consequences somewhere down the line. Without saying dates one would have to look at actual predictions form his publications and others that indicate when warming would start causing catastrophic consequences. Certainly sometime after the mid century, but maybe starting around then.
I totally agree that the 10 years is arbitrary and that he used (uses) it to cause alarm. And it has been at least 20 years since at least some scientists have been saying we only have 10 years to do something.
So you concur that Jimmie Death Trains is just peddling alarmism, and Jimmie doesn’t know if or when Manhattan will ever be threatened?
Justa,
I wouldn’t say he is JUST peddling alarmism. He is certainly being alarmist. I don’t think anyone is sure of exactly what is going to happen. I think Hansen is pretty sure that by the end of the century sea level rise will be so rapid and extreme that Manhattan will be dealing with serious problems related to that sea level rise. His mention, (while acknowledging there is no scientific support for this contention) of the possibility of a 5 meter rise by then would certainly be catastrophic. His quote from 1988 says 2030 with a doubling of CO2, but that was a rather vague unscientific statement as well. As Steve has pointed out doubling of CO2 by then is an extremely unlikely occurrence.
@ Tony Duncan and Steve:
I have sort of followed your sniping back and forth about Hansen just for fun, but don’t really know the whole story. I found this at WUWT … does it help or make things worse?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/
P.J.
Yes, that sums it up fairly accurately I think. And Anthony takes the facts and runs with them, as opposed to denying them. As you can see it does nothing to limit his argument against hanson’s prediction. I have some quibbles with this correction. For one he says that Sea level rise should be halfway to the mark Anthony determines for Hansen’s prediction, that is just silly. But he is certainly correct that sea level rise would have to be phenomenal for the second 20 years.
How many friggin angels can dance on your pin?
I’m waiting for the argument that the ice age at the end of the Eocene Optimum would have been a lot worse if CO2 levels had not been so high……………..
And point 6 – Total fail tony. Nice little scenario, but it conveniently ignores the inconvenient facts on the ground at the time, and the full context of Bush’s speech on the reason for invading Iraq. He had no willing press (that is a fabrication of the left that likes to think the press is neutral when all studies show it is not). In other words, a great story on your part. With no facts or evidence to back up your black helicopters. Fail.
Phil,
which facts on the ground? The ones of the weapons inspectors that found no evidence of any WMD programs or anything other than old pre -’91. munitions.
Or do you mean 9/11 giving Cheney an opportunity to fabricate and manipulate intelligence so they could find an excuse to invade Iraq?
Of course, I understand that if they had NOT lied about WMD and Al Qaida they would not have been able to politically pull it off. So they really had no choice.
And of course if we HADN’T invaded Iraq, Al Qaida would not have been able to recruit people there and in other countries to come and kill American soldiers (and thousands fo Iraqi’s), since we so obligingly put them in a hostile country where they could become targets
Fail again Tony. First, you state opinion as fact. Total fail. Second, you neglect the fact that the WMD argument was not the SOLE justification (nor even a major part of the justification) for ending the Gulf war begun by Saddam in 91. Third, Al qaeda was not mentioned, TErrorist were. And indeed, Saddam had a bounty of $25k for each palestinian suicide bomber (in other words for the feeble minded, he was SUPPORTING terrorims). And 4th, you assume facts not in evidence. Should you succeed Bin Laden as Head of al Qaeda, you can make grandiose assumptions about intent and future plans. Until then, your opinion and a buck will get you a cup of coffee, nothing more. Your total response is a fail, and just another impotent diatribe by one who is well versed on talking points, but has no earthly idea of any facts to present. Sorry, this is not up to your typical caliber. And hence a major fail on your part.
Phil,
that WMd’s were not the sole argument is rather meaningless. The ONLY way they could sell the war was through WMD’s. And they could barely do that. The crowning piece was Powell’s Speech to the UN, which actually made me question the matter, even though i unlike most americans i had information that contradicted the lies from the Admin. they put up the one credible member of the administration and made him tell a bunch of lies.
as for opinion as fact, you have not given any documentation to undermine the very few links I posted. There are many many more.
As for Al Qaeda there was a consistent effort to link Saddam with Al Qaida. Don’t you remember that? there are even STILL people who think there was a connection (that infamous Prague meeting.
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,472023,00.html
Hmm public polls had people connecting Iraq to 9/11 at 3% in 2001 and 44% after US invades Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/politics/09intel.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
“Later, Cheney called Iraq the “geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”
Bush, in 2003, said “the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001.”
Beyond the Sept. 11 attacks, administration officials have also suggested that there had been cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda that went beyond contacts. Bush last year called Hussein “an ally of al Qaeda.” Just this Monday, Cheney said Hussein “had long-established ties with al Qaeda.”
http://articles.cnn.com/2003-03-11/world/Iraq.Qaeda.link_1_al-qaeda-leader-terrorist-network-saddam-hussein?_s=PM:WORLD.
“These al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they’ve been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months,” said U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in his presentation last month to the U.N. Security Council.”
Bush: “Some Al Qaida leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior Al Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.” [Bush remarks, 10/7/02]
Bush: “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” [Bush remarks, 10/7/02]
Sorry but I don’t have time to look through the other 7,347 links that point to all the instances when the admin either lied or strongly implied Al Qaida and Iraq were working together or that Iraq was involved in 9/11
No question Saddam supported terrorist acts. But that was NOT what was being argued. It was WMD’s baby.
I realize now that when you write that I am totally wrong, since you don’t give ANY documentation that contradicts mine, that you actually mean the opposite
Liar!
That Washington Compost article is full of crap! No-one sane should believe them.
I am going to demonstrate how much of an devious little troll Tony Duncan is. He is recycling *proven* lies, from an intentional propaganda attack by the Washington Compost. After 7 or 8 years Tony Duncan has certainly become aware of this fact by now, which means he is now lying on purpose, perpetuating outlandish smearing of Cheney.
PowerlineBlog destroyed those Washington Compost hit pieces. For example I am reproducing from their blog here …
That is the first paragraph, continuing in the PowerlineBlog article, here is their part concerning the exact quote by Cheney that Tony Duncan is intentionally misrepresenting, I am quoting them again …
Only the most evil POS would extract that part of the sentence and thus change the meaning intentionally.
The world we be a much more perfect place if two asteroids came down and landed on both the Washington Compost and the New York Slimes. These are traitorious enemy strongholds that should be razed and then the ground salted. No wonder Tony Duncan uses propaganda from these low-lifes.
And that is just *one* of the countless lies Tony Duncan parrots in every post. All he does with every breath is take a big giant crap on America.
Seek help Loser.
Blade, there are many problems with Tony’s diatribe, and you point out one of the most egregious. I hate doing a point by point rebuttal on these types of forums as the rebuttal then runs longer than the article and/or the issue being rebutted. So I concentrated on his karnac powers of mind reading (which he has not demonstrated). It is saddening as usually he is diligent about his research and even though he would love to make a point, he has shown a tendency to shy away from it when the only justification for his point is his opinion, not facts. I guess he had another bad episode as that is not the case here, as you have so eloquently pointed out.
Blade,
Now THAT was hysterical. WHAT a lie!
here is what Cheney ACTUALLY said Blah blah about freedom and peace loving peoples of the world and democracy. “we will have struck a major blow right at the HEART of the BASE, if you will, the GEOGRAPHIC base of the terrorists who had US under assault now for many years, but MOST ESPECIALLY on 9/11.”
what the Post wrote ““geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” What does geographic base meant to you?
Now if he had said “we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the spiritual base (oops saddam is a damn atheist) of the terrorists, who were not Iraqi’s and were not controlled or connected to Saddam, who had the US under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. THEN the quote would be a total distortion.
if this is the best you can do, showing that Cheney is, as has so OFTEN been commented, putting 9/11 and terrorism and Iraq in the same sentence, I am not sure why you want to shoot yourself in the foot.
but maybe you are saying that people only paid attention to the grand rhetoric of setting up a beautiful american inspired republic in Iraq, and nobody noticed the last half of the statement.
As for perpetuating outlandish smears on Cheney. on my last comment to Phil, I pointed out the lying that I saw him do with a straight face on TV about mobile weapons labs, after everyone else knew it was a lie. And he had known for over a year it was a lie. Hard to smear a guy so intent on saving face for his true believers
I hope you guys are having as much fun as I am.
@Tony: “I hope you guys are having as much fun as I am”.
I am … all I need is a bag of chips and a cold drink while I sit back and continue to watch the fur fly back and forth ;).
You’ve got some real moonbat tendencies there, Tony.
<blockquoteTony Duncan says:
July 11, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Phil,
that WMd’s were not the sole argument is rather meaningless. The ONLY way they could sell the war was through WMD’s.
Fail again. That is your opinion and those who like to rewrite history. That is not the facts as played out at the time (that inconvenient thing called history).
The UN does not have a vote in congress.
Fail again. You have yet to list one lie. in YOUR opinion, is how you should have stated that, and as said, that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.
And what facts (other than pointing out your opinion) have I stated that needs documentation? The fact that Bush mentioned WMDs as just one part of the violations of Saddam (do I really have to link to his SOTU speech? Are you that google impaired?). Again, if it was worth it, I would link to facts that I stated, but alas, I am just calling you out on your non-facts. fail again.
Like the mock up of the 707 in the Iraqi desert? Like the reems (not single) of documents captured from Iraq showing funding and resources for training? Like those facts – which you are free to dispute. However as soon as you say “lied” (or any derivation thereof), you put yourself as either God (who knows everything) or a fool for stating a fact not in evidence. You can say he was “wrong”, but to get from “wrong” (which all of us mortals are from time to time) to “lied” you have to have irrefutable proof that he knew what he said was wrong, and said it anyway. You have yet to provide any link to that period. Fail again. In fact, you are just a failure in this case.
Phil,
How typically bizarre. My FAVORITE p[art of your comment was that the UN doesn’t have a vote in congress. Therefore, obviously, Powell’s speech means nothing of course. It probably wasn’t even reported on in the US.
The rewriting of history that Iraq was about many things and not just WMD’s is a laudable attempt at protecting your image of those shining knights who gave their all to save america from its enemies. The POINT is that WMD’s were the REAL game if there was going to be war. It was a total nonstarter without it. Everyone knew that, which is why all the attention was on that. Yes there were other rationalizations. I never denied that. Al Qaida, 9/11 and WMD’s, that was all that mattered. Make a connection with those and it was clear sailing.
And of course you supply no documentation of any sort. Just prattle on about how wrong I am.
So I am going to play your game and make you look up the voluminous documentation of lies.
#1. Aluminum tubes. They were not for reprocessing. they were for mortars ALL the experts said so, the Admin Ignored this and relied on non experts.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml
Quote from Houston Wood, at Oak Ridge “”Most experts are located at Oak Ridge and that was not the position there,” says Wood, who claims he doesn’t know anyone in academia or foreign government who would disagree with his appraisal. “I don’t know a single one anywhere.”
#2 Mobile weapons labs. And this is one of my favorites.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html
Bush crowed about finding mobile weapons labs proved IRAQ had WMD’s. Experts had already determined they were not. I recall watching Cheney on a talking heads show still maintaining this fiction over a year later, when EVERYONE else had admitted the “mistake”. I would have been flabbergasted, but I just laughed at his lame attempts to seem credible. But of course the 20% that believe anything he said .probably lapped it up. Just as the reports of WMD’s FOUND were repeated years afterwards, when there were old corroded munitions pre 1991.
#3 Uranium from Niger. Admin believed an obviously forged document, and unconfirmed nebulous reports. We all know what happened after that. Yes. Pflame was determined to destroy Bush so she conspired with her husband and those other traitors at the CIA to go to Niger and report the TRUTH – That Iraq did not attempt to buy yellowcake form Niger. Damn commies all of them. Of course Bush only said Iraq was just window shopping, so this is in fact not a lie, just a propaganda distortion to further support the lie that Iraq had WMD’s. because What people heard was Iraq MUSt have been building nukes is they were so intent on uranium.
And of course you have not provided anything that contradicts any of my previous posts. But I don’t mind that seems to be the standard for rebuttal here.
you do mention rems of papers showing funding and training? REALLY? Why no link that totally undermines one of my documented assertions – That Iraq had no connection with Al Qaida. please supply the link to those documents.
You do have a point about the definition of lying though. It is quite possible that Bush was so deluded that he could not tell the difference between fact and fiction, and clearly people like Cheney and Rice and others massaged his understanding of reality to fit the agenda. So I amend my proposal that is Bush had been rational and said many of the tinges he said, they would have been lies.
Tony, you have really lost it. Please quote the amendment that gives the UN a vote in congress. And #2, please quote the line where I talked about Powell’s speech to the UN. Beyond that, I could not read as you not only showed gross ignorance in your first paragraph, but blatantly lied about what I said. Fail, tony, major fail.
Phil,
I realize why I enjoy these pointless discussions. Since I actually comment on the issues discussed, I am always surprised, because it is impossible to guess what irrelevant turn the thread will take. It is like a blindfolded roller-coaster (Except for the Hansen thing. THAT is the same comfortable terrain over and over again)
“Tony, you have really lost it. Please quote the amendment that gives the UN a vote in congress.”. I guess this is designed to result in angry frustration. But to me it is just fun. There is NO amendment that gives the UN a vote in congress. I never said anything about the UN having anything to do with legislation. I just was pointing out the speech was full of lies, exaggerations, unsupported allegations, all presented as an airtight case about WMD’s. And you can keep protesting that I am wrong about this, but you will need to provide some actual documentation that shows Aluminum tubes were used for reprocessing, mobile weapons labs existed. Storage facilities had chemical weapons, etc. etc, etc. You will not do that. I understand. No problem
#2 you did NOT talk about Powell’s speech to the UN. I did. As part of the blindly clear evidence that the administration lied, manipulated, fabricated and exaggerated the US into a war.
You see, contrary to my previous post., the UN speech WAS covered in the US and millions of Americans (including me) watched as Powell said all that convincing stuff that just was not true. Look at the google hits of various experts on almost every point Powell made, who reacted in shock as he made point after point that they KNEW was untrue and that they had TOLD the admin was untrue or unsubstantiated.
I never said that YOU brought up Powell’s speech. I brought up Powell’s speech. You responded with this. You took my line and responded.
“<> (me)
(You)”
I responded with how fun it was that you wrote that, since it had nothing to do with anything I was saying. So not only did I not lie about what you said, I complimented you on your humor!
As for my first paragraph in my last comment being grossly ignorant. Funny I remember that time vividly, since I could’t believe that NOT ONE MSM was questioning anything the admin said in the buildup to the war. History is quite clear that WMD’s links to Al Qaeda, and 9/11 were the driving talking points (all lies or distortion, if I haven’t pointed that out yet) in the march toward war. THAT is why it was such a big deal when it all turned out to be garbage. of COURSE the Admin talked about creating a new shining City on the Hill that was going to totally transform the Middle east. But NO one was going to buy going to war for that. You may say that is just my opinion, and i will just nod my head and smile at you.
Bush Cheney supporters remind me of my great uncle. So caught up in ideology, he covered the Show trials in Moscow, and he believed the garbage the prosecution coughed up about Buckharin. He reported Bukharin’s elegant coded truth, but he didn’t even understand that Bukharin was ripping the entire case against him to shreds, even while admitting every charge.. http://art-bin.com/art/obukharin.html
Yes you will go off about me bringing this up. More proof of my maroonishness no doubt. But look at that city on the hill now. Still people being blown up, Iranian allies have leveraged control of much of the politics. Infighting, squabbling corruption and still no stability. total incompetence even full American military victory turned into devastating guerilla war. All going down hill until we started paying our enemies to fight agains Al Qaida, which of course only existed because of our liberation of Iraq. So many more things that show why lies and manipulation don’t work well, especially when based on rigid ideology.
sermon over. Please hold you applause
Sorry Phil,
the actual quote parts got deleted from my snip
the post should have read
<I never said that YOU brought up Powell’s speech. I brought up Powell’s speech. You responded with this. You took my line and responded.
“<> (me)
(You)”
the point being that i was the one that brought up the UN and then you took my statement and made a totally irrelevant comment about it with no explanation
you wrote in your comment (July 12, 2011 at 7:02 pm)
Tony, you have really lost it. Please quote the amendment that gives the UN a vote in congress. And #2, please quote the line where I talked about Powell’s speech to the UN
as i said in comment (July 12, 2011 at 11:23 pm)
<“Tony, you have really lost it. Please quote the amendment that gives the UN a vote in congress.”. I guess this is designed to result in angry frustration. But to me it is just fun. There is NO amendment that gives the UN a vote in congress. I never said anything about the UN having anything to do with legislation. I just was pointing out the speech was full of lies, exaggerations, unsupported allegations, all presented as an airtight case about WMD’s. And you can keep protesting that I am wrong about this, but you will need to provide some actual documentation that shows Aluminum tubes were used for reprocessing, mobile weapons labs existed. Storage facilities had chemical weapons, etc. etc, etc. You will not do that. I understand. No problem
#2 you did NOT talk about Powell’s speech to the UN. I did. As part of the blindly clear evidence that the administration lied, manipulated, fabricated and exaggerated the US into a war.
You see, contrary to my previous post., the UN speech WAS covered in the US and millions of Americans (including me) watched as Powell said all that convincing stuff that just was not true. Look at the google hits of various experts on almost every point Powell made, who reacted in shock as he made point after point that they KNEW was untrue and that they had TOLD the admin was untrue or unsubstantiated.
I never said that YOU brought up Powell’s speech. I brought up Powell’s speech. You responded with this. You took my line and responded.
“ (me)
(You)”
I responded with how fun it was that you wrote that, since it had nothing to do with anything I was saying. So not only did I not lie about what you said, I complimented you on your humor!>
you supplied the dictionary definition of bizarre
the key part is the “incongruous” and “unexpected”, “strange” and “odd”
I bring up Powell’s speech as being full of lies distortions and exaggerations. he WAS part of the administration at the time (though I am sure he is STILL kicking himself about that, for he would likely be president now if he hadn’t bees so stupid about that.)
YOU respond that UN does not have a vote in congress. THAT is funny. As well as being bizarre, incongruous unexpected and odd.
of course this has nothing to do with the point of the thread. it is just trying to confuse the issue, and my mistake in accidentally deleting the content without checking before I posted gives you more room to confuse the issue. Which of course is fine with me. As I said i enjoy actually commenting on these tangents and bringing it back to the fact that you have provided nothing to counter my documented statements of the admin lying distorting and exaggerating in order to start a war. On to Blades bizarre comment.
Phil,
Damn it happened again. THIS is what you wrote that was missing from BOTH my comments!
I never said that YOU brought up Powell’s speech. I brought up Powell’s speech. You responded with this. You took my line and responded.
“<> (me)
.(You)”
that was were you RESPONDED to my mentioning the UN Speech. Nothing about congress or votes on my side.
Of course I MUST have left that out on PURPOSE in order to confuse the less astute of you, in my evil mission to undermine the glory of the truth of the great Iraq was success and totally above board and honest lead up and prosecution of said war.
Even after I demonstrated the Cheney quote was from debunked propaganda hit pieces, still you persist. Either you made an honest mistake by being duped by the Washington Compost *or* you are a defacto fellow traveler. Some others may still give you the benefit of the doubt, but I say you are an intentional liar knowingly parroting proven leftist propaganda. So which is it?
I think I just proved the latter.
Phil Says –
Tony Says –
Dictionary Says –
Um, you did not say WHAT? It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and it is starting to swim. I guess in your surreal world, words have no meanings. In the REAL world, they sure as hell do. Again, explain your way out of that one, oh failure of words.
But you offered a perfect example of how to tell a lie versus just being wrong. You doubled down on your stupid comment and it became a lie. Had you left it alone, we could just have assumed you were wrong. Again, your lack of grasp of the written word means there is no point in reading further. Because you failed in the first part of your response so the rest does not deserve any reading or review.
Sorry for the formatting. Of course my comments begin with “Shame”. Preceeding that is merely a copy and paste from what Tony wrote.
Blade,
I posted your REAL quote next to the WaPost quote. Only someone like you and whoever wrote the piece you supplied could somehow manage to believe that it didn’t mean almost exactly the same thing. Yes the WaPost left out the flowery talk of democracy and stopping terrorism (which the war actually increased by orders of magnitude for quite a few years resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans the mutilation of tens of thousands more and the death and destruction of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s).
you of course do not supply even a germ of how my explanation is incorrect. here are both quotes with my commentary.
<>
Do you understand what geographic base means? how could anyone read that and not think he was saying that Iraq was the source of terrorists that had been attacking us and that were responsible for 9/11.
This is the quote from WaPost.
“Later, Cheney called Iraq the “geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.””
Blade if that is your idea of a lie, you certainly take the title of BIZARRE away from Phil in a first round knockout.
If you read my comment, i provided a quote Cheney COULD have made that would NOT have made his statement the lie that it STILL is.