Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Moron Morgan Reynolds

Morgan Reynolds is one of the shining stars of the 9-11 "Truth" movement. He's a former Chief Economist in the Labor Department in the Bush Administration, which of course makes him very well qualified to comment on unemployment rates and payroll percentage increases, somewhat less qualified as a historian (as we shall see).

Discussing how difficult it is to convince people of the "Truth", Reynolds writes:

Governments throughout history have provoked or staged attacks on their own people to serve the powers behind the throne (“the money power”), glorify themselves, engage in vast government spending, reward friends, exert domestic control, stimulate the juices of war, annex neighbors and pursue vast geostrategic rearrangements (the “global domination project”). A few examples:

* Nero burned Rome to blame the Christans A.D. 64
* US provoked Mexican-American war 1846
* USS Maine sinking 1898
* Lusitania sinking 1915
* Reichstag fire 1933
* Hitler’s staged attack on the Gleiwitz radio station 1939
* The “surprise attack” at Pearl Harbor 1941
* Bay of Pigs conspiracy 1961
* Operation Northwoods 1962
* LBJ’s Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy 1964
* Kuwaiti baby incubator hoax 1991
* Bush Jr.’s 9/11, yellow cake and WMD scams


Of course, very few of those, upon reflection, turn out to be conspiracies, but conspiracy "theories". Nobody knows if Nero deliberately burned (a section of) Rome; evidence against it includes that the fire destroyed his own palace.

The myth that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen is frequently touted by the same folks who would have us believe FDR was our greatest president. I have read quite a bit on this subject, including the famed Toland book, and the sense that I get is that much like 9-11 there were clear concerns that something was up, but not enough specifics for the attack to be prevented. Note as well that if the conspiracy theory were true on Pearl Harbor, that FDR would be reviled as the most evil person to hold the office of the presidency.

The Reichstag fire? Most historians now believe it was started by a deranged communist, not by Hitler and his goons. The Lusitania? If it was intentionally sunk or allowed to be sunk, then the goal of drawing America into the war was unsuccessful, as it took another two years before we entered combat. The Gulf of Tonkin? A recent study by the National Security Agency indicates that one of the two claimed attacks did not occur, but the other did.

I'm surprised since he put in the Bay of Pigs "conspiracy" that he failed to mention the conspiracy to invade France on D-Day. The baby incubator story? Hey, news accounts are sometimes inaccurate; were the reports of child rape in the New Orleans Superdome planted to give the Bush Administration a reason to take over management of the Katrina evacuation?

You get the picture. All of these conspiracy theories are just that, "theories", and presenting a list of them does not improve the credibility of the 9-11 Truthers. Indeed, this section shows how goofy Reynolds is:

Many Americans know that the JFK, RFK, MLK and other assassinations were inside jobs, and Nixon’s Watergate and Reagan’s Iran-Contra are proven conspiracies with criminal convictions.

Yes, and Watergate and Iran-Contra were quickly discovered, but somehow these other conspiracies have never been revealed. And the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK were done by Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and James Earl Ray, respectively.

On the Screw Loose Change Nutbar-o-Meter, Reynolds rates:



Hat Tip to BG in the comments.

29 Comments:

At 07 June, 2006 09:00, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Come on.

He at least rates a "Raving" and possibly a "Delusional" on a bad day.

 
At 07 June, 2006 17:32, Blogger BG said...

* Kuwaiti baby incubator hoax 1991

Let's just see have Raving

Fake Dead Babies

The propagandists for the Gulf War had to reach back to World War I for the ultimate staged outrage--our evil enemy attacks innocent babies.

Here is how it unfolded. Kuwaiti citizen Nijirah al-Sabah, wiped her eyes and described a horrifying scene she saw when she was a volunteer in the Al Adnan hospital in Kuwait City. She had witnessed Iraqi soldiers looting incubators to take back to Baghdad, throwing Kuwaiti babies on "the cold floor to die."

 
At 07 June, 2006 17:33, Blogger BG said...

Correction: meant Let's just see how Raving...

Sorry

 
At 07 June, 2006 17:37, Blogger James B. said...

Conspirators face no threat of arrest, prosecution and punishment by the government’s justice system

Yeah, tell that to John Dean, G. Gordon Liddy, John Poindexter, Oliver North et al. Hell, even Libby is being prosecuted for supposedly lying about what he said to a reporter. But killing 3,000 people, no way they could get prosecuted for that.

 
At 07 June, 2006 17:57, Blogger shawn said...

See, this is what I love about that crowd, one incorrect or hoax horror by the enemy, and the enemy is now innocent.

Saddam really did gas Kurdish children. Saddam really did have people put through plastic shredders. Saddam really did let hundreds of thousands of children starve so he could fill his coffers in the Oil for Food debacle.

 
At 07 June, 2006 18:02, Blogger BG said...

James,

Here's the context of what you quoted your comment preceding this:

Here’s how large, inside conspiracies work:

Reynold then listed what you included.

Clearly, Reynolds was referring to the egregious situation where the wrong doer's get away scott free.

No one is claiming that all conspiricies and conspirators have avoided detection.

We do believe that for a rational person, citing examples in history where people have gotten away with it is a logical way to present the evidence.

I think you aren't willing to be honest in your argument if you don't admit that most people are in the dark about many verifiable scams in US history. And, it is that lack of understanding that leads them to say "there no way anybody associated with our Govt. would pull off something like 9/11 behind the scenes.

 
At 07 June, 2006 18:25, Blogger BG said...

I'm no apologist for Saddam's crimes.

He would not have been the Dictator if the US hadn't installed him in the first place.

 
At 07 June, 2006 19:41, Blogger BG said...

Morgan Reynolds Presentation in Chicago 6/4?

 
At 07 June, 2006 20:06, Blogger shawn said...

He would not have been the Dictator if the US hadn't installed him in the first place.

You're kidding, right?

Please tell me you're kidding.

While true we liked Iraq more than Iran or the Soviet Union, he took power himself as the aging president was unable to perform his duties.

 
At 07 June, 2006 20:07, Blogger shawn said...

And if you were right about us putting him to power, isn't it our responsibility to take him out?

 
At 07 June, 2006 20:21, Blogger BG said...

Breaking News: NY Times (More CIA Ops)
Efforts by C.I.A. Fail in Somalia, Officials Charge

 
At 07 June, 2006 20:22, Blogger shawn said...

If I have the choice between a secular warlord and an Islamist warlord, I choose the former.

 
At 07 June, 2006 21:00, Blogger BG said...

How about Neocon Warlords?

The Case of the Missing $21 Billion

 
At 07 June, 2006 21:27, Blogger Pat said...

BG, read the story; Scowcroft and the Bush Administration didn't know the story was false. If anything they were guilty of giving too much credence to first-hand testimony. I doubt very strongly that the incubator story moved six votes in the Senate.

 
At 08 June, 2006 02:23, Blogger nesNYC said...

* Kuwaiti baby incubator hoax 1991

LOL! Caught red handed right there!

I think the Jordanian Woman with the bomb belt was staged by a PR firm also, but don't have proof. Call it "a funny feeling" based on prior US/Israeli propaganda.

 
At 08 June, 2006 03:45, Blogger shawn said...

I think the Jordanian Woman with the bomb belt was staged by a PR firm also, but don't have proof. Call it "a funny feeling" based on prior US/Israeli propaganda.

Those wily Jews.

(nesnyc, for once think. They get bombed enough, why would they need to create fake bombers?)

 
At 08 June, 2006 06:24, Blogger Alex said...

"nesnyc, for once think. They get bombed enough, why would they need to create fake bombers?"

Didn't you hear? They didn't really get bombed. It's all "prior US/Israeli propaganda".

 
At 08 June, 2006 20:10, Blogger Culper721 said...

I'll give you credit for attempting to distingush "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theories."

To be clear, "conspiracy" is one of the three common law inchoate crimes (i.e. solicitation, conspiracy & attempt).

Solicitation consists of asking someone to commit a crime. The crime of solicitation is committed when you ask them. Should the person agree in one way or another, then the crime of solicitation merges into the crime of "conspiracy." As John Dean, former Whitehouse Cousnsel to R.M. Nixon learned the hard way, it takes very little to get caught up in a conspiracy charge. In fact, in order to compel Dean to cooperate, the prosecutor had to formulate a "theory of the conspiracy" in an indictment and leverage it against Dean so that he would testify.

One other point about "conspiracy;" IT DOES NOT MERGE WITH THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE.

What does that mean? Simply this; a perp can be charged with both the crimes of "conspiracy to rob" and "robbery." Conspiracy does not merge.

Here's where you screwed the pooch.

The myth that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen is frequently touted by the same folks who would have us believe FDR was our greatest president. I have read quite a bit on this subject, including the famed Toland book, and the sense that I get is that much like 9-11 there were clear concerns that something was up, but not enough specifics for the attack to be prevented. Note as well that if the conspiracy theory were true on Pearl Harbor, that FDR would be reviled as the most evil person to hold the office of the presidency.

1. If you paid a visit to the international musuem entrusted with preserving the biography of
FDR,

http://www.fdr-littlewhitehouse.org/

you'll find that FDR did not only know of the attack, but he was constrained to provoke ANYTHING with Japan in the Pacific so as to get into the war via the Tripartite Act before England fell.

2. FDR's obligations under Article II and Article VI gave him no choice in the matter; i.e. it was not only legal, but a legal obligation; therefore precluding a "criminal conspiracy."

3. Your article is indicative of one that desperately seeks tranquility over truth. Ridiculing any serious analysis of 911 affords you the delusion that you'll never have to face a problem for which you have no immediate solution. This may be due to a fear of the death penalty.

Example: When Tallmadge caught Andre & Arnold conspiring to take West Point, Washington had no reservations about what fate awaited Andre (since Arnold got away).

You, however, hesitate at the notion that the penalty for treason is 'the felon's noose.' The mere idea that you could be betrayed is simply unacceptable. Yet Washington, who entrusted his good friend Gen. Arnold with one of the most strategic strongholds of the Revolution, wouldn't hesitate for a moment. Just as he didn't hesitate when he denied Andre's pleas for an officer's firing squad.

In modern cinematic vernacular, Gen. Washington's response to those who engage in "seditious conspiracy" & "espionage" can be summed up as:

"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.

 
At 08 June, 2006 20:20, Blogger shawn said...

you'll find that FDR did not only know of the attack, but he was constrained to provoke ANYTHING with Japan in the Pacific so as to get into the war via the Tripartite Act before England fell.

As someone who has studied the War extensively, the most likely "they knew" story is that of Churchill knowing and keeping it from FDR so he'd join the war.

3. Your article is indicative of one that desperately seeks tranquility over truth. Ridiculing any serious analysis of 911 affords you the delusion that you'll never have to face a problem for which you have no immediate solution. This may be due to a fear of the death penalty.

When there's a serious analysis (and I'm talking about one that doesn't drown in psuedoskepticism and logical fallacies) we'll take it seriously. There hasn't been one yet.

And what is this death penatly nonsense? Nobody on this blog has committed treason, least of all those of us who understand the "official" story is the most likely chain of events.

You, however, hesitate at the notion that the penalty for treason is 'the felon's noose.'

I hold no such reservations.

The mere idea that you could be betrayed is simply unacceptable.

I see it everyday. I see it when I open my paper and our armed forces are tried in the court of public opinion without a defense. I see it when they can't be happy that we killed an enemy commander. There has been treason in this country, we're just too much of pansies to call anyone on it.

 
At 09 June, 2006 12:14, Blogger Culper721 said...

As someone who has studied the War extensively, the most likely "they knew" story is that of Churchill knowing and keeping it from FDR so he'd join the war.

Let's assume you can argue from your own authority; is it your contention that the mere fact that you've studied the topic intensely precludes the idea that you may have overlooked something that the folks down in Warm Springs Georgia did not?

When there's a serious analysis (and I'm talking about one that doesn't drown in pseudo-skepticism and logical fallacies) we'll take it seriously. There hasn't been one yet.

I see; so, when you beg questions by appealing to your own authority (ipse dixet), that's okay. But any premises supported by reasoning or evidence that is discordant with your desired outcome shall be deemed pseudo-skepticism. Hmm.... Pathological science meets pathological reasoning. Check.

And what is this death penatly nonsense?

Nonsense? It's actually the most serious penalty there is; probably why most liberals lack the stomach for it.

Nobody on this blog has committed treason,

Did I say that; or did you?

Just a minute ago you complained about "pseudo-skepticism and logical fallacies;" and now you have the audacity to insert a premise of your own into my argument and thence reduce it to absurdity? How intellectually honest of you.

least of all those of us who understand the "official" story is the most likely chain of events.

Affirmati, non neganti incumbit probatio.
-- "The proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him who denies."

As a former physics major who finished as a philosophy major and thence ran away to law school; I'm keen to guess if you can tell me what the heat of fusion for molten steel is.

No, wait; equity deals not in halves.

Kant: "Truth is the agreement between knowledge and its object."

Rather than taking a half ass'd approach to the laws of physics that must be broken to accept your "official story" as being truthful and in accord with "the law of parsimony;"

Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora

let's just cut "The Razor" so to speak and let you refute the following:

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

And isn't it amazing that the FBI still can't muster up enough evidence for a simplified information against Bin Laden; if even to print a Most Wanted Poster?

Affirmati, non neganti incumbit probatio?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

So, the star of your Bin Laden conspiracy is Mr. Atta? And allegedly took over Flight 11; which marks the beginning of your "official" 911 story?

Cujusque rei potissima pars principium est.

"The principal part of everything is the beginning."

You must have been a whiz at word problems in grade school. Apparently you've never even bothered to analyze the story of Flight 11 and tapes from Betty Ong. Because, according to the "official story" that you hew so proudly, at 8:41am, Sweeney renders your "official" story... well... how shall we say...."

Ultra posse non est esse, et vice versa.
"What is beyond possibility cannot exist, and the reverse, what cannot exist is not possible."

Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur.

"One absurdity begin allowed, an infinity follow"

Apparently some people seem to enjoy imbibing themselves on absurdities; if only to make it easier to swallow tranquility over truth.

And you do know that your blind acceptance of a story that's impossible on its own terms has become the rallying cry for waging war against a tactic, dare I say a gerund form of a verb, and "all those who you think they are." Gee, you don't suppose von Clausewitz & Eisenhower are rolling in their graves; do you? After all;
Dolosus versatur generalibus.

And you do know the Whitehouse did everything in its power to investigate the crime of 911; didn't they? No, wait; they chose to "jam the gears of government" didn't they? Why, in the first investigation, they insisted on a joint inquiry and thence refused any further investigation until they gained control over the appointment of certain members. And the Administration REFUSED to testify under oath at ANY time.

In judicio non creditur nisi juratis?

Gee, it's almost as if they stonewalled the entire investigation; isn't it? At least, John Dean, the man charged with calling the plays for the President who wrote the book on stonewalling the public and Congress seemed to come to the same conclusion. Perhaps John Dean's well aware that "stonewalling" an investigation is the archetype of the following maxim:

Qui non libere veritatem pronunciat, proditor est verilatis?

"Truth fears nothing but concealment."

Lest we forget...

Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.

Misprision of a felony?

Misprision of treason?

Felonia implicatur in quolibet proditione

Accordingly...

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

Translation:
"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

QED

Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.

P.S.

Please regale me with the reason the ONI was incorrect in their assessment and advice they gave FDR. And don't forget to show me how FDR could engage in a criminal conspiracy while keeping his oath of office.

And for the record, I say the ONI made the correct call and FDR, whether cognizant of his duty at the moment or not, also made the correct call; much like a captain of a submarine giving the order to seal off a portion of the boat to keep the entire ship from sinking.

Then again, one need not delve into the biography of FDR before employing a
"Pearl Harbor Gambit."

Right?

 
At 09 June, 2006 14:39, Blogger Alex said...

What the hell?

Is it just me, or did that entire post seem like an exercise in free-association?

 
At 09 June, 2006 23:47, Blogger Culper721 said...

Is it just me, or did that entire post seem like an exercise in free-association?

Could be a combination of things.

A confession of your ignorance of the latin headnotes

An unwillingness on your part to engage in an earnest (non-realist) analysis

An indication of your blind acceptance of an account that fails to meet any definition of reason or argument.

An indication of your confusion as to how to respond to a conservative with a low threshold tolerance for bullshi+ while attempting to save face at the same time.

An indication that it's time to up your lithium/Kool-Aid ratio so as to sustain your "lie of the mind?"

Who knows.

 
At 10 June, 2006 18:09, Blogger Alex said...

No, I'm pretty sure it's a direct result of your inability to string together words in a logical manner.

Oh, and the fact that you're a windbag who likes to unneccesarily draw-out his arguments doesn't help either.

 
At 10 June, 2006 22:18, Blogger Culper721 said...

No, I'm pretty sure it's a direct result of your inability to string together words in a logical manner.

Oh, and the fact that you're a windbag who likes to unneccesarily draw-out his arguments doesn't help either.

Perhaps the "Hooked On Phonics" approach would suit your needs:

Mistakes were made on 911>

Magna culpa dolus est.

"Great neglect is equivalent to fraud."

Fraus latet in generalibus.

"Fraud lies hid in general expressions."

"The evil-doers despise our freedoms." "Freedom is on the march." Oh and "The war on terror."

Fatetur facinus is qui judicum fugit.

"He who flees from judgment confesses guilt"

“Unable to block [an] additional inquiry, Cheney again moved to control it. Bush and Cheney dropped their objections “after winning the power to appoint the chairman, who also has the power to block subpoenas.” And the White House had a chairman in mind: Henry Kissinger, a selection described by The Nation on December 23, 2002) as “a sick, black-is-white, war-is-peace joke -- a cruel insult to the memory of those killed on 9/11.” Given Kissinger’s record of “coddl[ing] state-sponsored terrorists” and standing as “a proven liar, … Bush has rendered the independent commission a sham”

Kissinger didn’t last long, for he was unwilling to disclose his clients in his international consulting business to avoid any conflicts of interest, profit trumping his patriotism. Next The White House selected former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, a fine man with absolutely no experience in national security matters, which made him a perfect selection. But the real reason the White House wanted authority to select the chairman was that, it wanted the ability to control the selection of the key staff, for this is where the investigation would be conducted. Co-chairman Kean, not by coincidence, selected as executive director for the commission Phillip D. Zelikow, who might as well have come directly from the Bush-Cheney White House. Zelikow had co-authored a book with Condi Rice (Germany Unified & Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft, 1995) and had served with Rice on Bush senior’s NSC. In addition, Zelikow had worked with Cheney on the transition.

Understandably, the 9/11 families felt the fix was in when they learned this, and requested his removal.13 But Zelikow remained. Those who know Zelikow, a highly ambitious fellow, say they would be amazed if he has not provided a back channel to and from the White House regarding the work of the commission - and if he has not, it is simply because he is taking good care of everything for them. With Zelikow in such a vital post, any report by the 9/11 commission is suspect. Regardless of the good intentions of the commission members, the staff can have a tremendous influence on their knowledge and focus, and thus their report. The White House successfully managed to reach inside the 9/11 commission to protect itself.

If Bush and Cheney and their aides had acted reasonably and responsibly before 9/11, why the endless efforts to block the investigation? A logical inference can be drawn from their behavior (for example, classifying previously unclassified information, launching an FBI investigation of Leah from the congressional inquiry, publicly trying to discredit it) that Bush and Cheney want to hide what they were doing.”
(John Dean,
Worse Than Watergate,
pgs. 113-115)

 
At 10 June, 2006 23:18, Blogger Alex said...

All I saw there was....kissinger....bush...blah blah blah, I'm a dirty whore.

Send again, over.

 
At 11 June, 2006 11:20, Blogger Culper721 said...

All I saw there was....kissinger....bush...blah blah blah, I'm a dirty whore.

Nah.

I'll just restate this:

"You desperately seek tranquility over truth; ridiculing any serious analysis of 911 affords you the delusion that you'll never have to face a problem for which you have no immediate solution. This may be due to a fear of the death penalty.

You hesitate at the notion that the penalty for treason is 'the felon's noose.' The mere idea that you could be betrayed is simply unacceptable; since you're more concerned with saving face than facing any truths discordant with your original agenda. Oh the fear of guilt by association...boo hoo.

Yet Washington, who entrusted his good friend Gen. Arnold with one of the most strategic strongholds of the Revolution, wouldn't hesitate for a moment. Just as he didn't hesitate when he denied Andre's pleas for an officer's firing squad.

In modern cinematic vernacular, Gen. Washington's response to those who engage in "seditious conspiracy" & "espionage" can be summed up as:

"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

Glad we had this chat.

 
At 12 June, 2006 15:38, Blogger Alex said...

Please, please, PLEASE....just ONCE...say ONE FUCKING THING that actualy sounds NORMAL!

I'm not asking for much am I? It can be something simple. "I like apples" would do. Or "I'm certifiably insane" if you want to say something relevant.

 
At 13 June, 2006 12:49, Blogger Culper721 said...

Please, please, PLEASE....just ONCE...say ONE FUCKING THING that actualy sounds NORMAL!

By normal you mean anything that comports with your pre-determined outcome.

I'm not asking for much am I? It can be something simple. "I like apples" would do. Or "I'm certifiably insane" if you want to say something relevant.

You're not insane; you're just ignorant & cognizantly lazy.

But here's a little ditty for ya:

"Fraud is kaleidoscopic, infinite. [And that] being infinite and taking on protean form at will, were courts to cramp themselves by defining fraud with a hard-and-fast definition, their jurisdiction would be cunningly circumvented at once by new schemes beyond the definition..... Accordingly definitions of fraud are of set purpose left general and flexible and thereto courts match their astuteness against the versatile inventions of fraud-doers. (
Stonemets v. Head,
248 Mo. 243, 263, 154 S.W. 108, 114 (1913).

 
At 21 August, 2006 18:19, Blogger Joe said...

Alex...looks like Culper721 kicked your ignorant little a--. Culper-100, Alex-0.
Culper runs circles around you, using logic and facts while you wallow in your silly assumptions.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home