Friday, August 20, 2010

Congressman Alan Grayson, Truther

Well, we have a new candidate for the Troofer with the highest office in the land: Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida comes out in favor of the LIHOP theory. He's a freshman, was swept into office with 52% of the vote in 2008. Expect him to be dragged out to sea with the tide in November, but in the meantime he's got some 'splainin' to do.

Labels: , ,

17 Comments:

At 20 August, 2010 08:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Alright, you covered your ass, now you can go home." -- George W. Bush

LIHOP? No.

Gross dereliction of duty?

Hmmmmm...

Sorry, I call 'em as I see 'em.

 
At 20 August, 2010 09:13, Blogger Pat said...

GB, that quote has never made any sense. Bush requested a briefing on Bin Laden, so why would he respond in such a hostile fashion? It makes no sense.

 
At 20 August, 2010 09:19, Blogger BG said...

As a Constitutional conservative, Grayson's idea that the role of the Fed. govt. is to provide health care and resuscitate the middle class is monumentally upsetting.

Adding a layer of BS about Bush's lack of preventing 9/11, as Grayson does here in the video, makes him the rough equiv. of Michael Moore with his entirely toxic Fahrenheit 9/11.

 
At 20 August, 2010 10:09, Blogger BG said...

Pat,

Perhaps you need a refresher cource on how the more emotional and propagandistic sliming is done:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/08/19/grayson-9-11-bush-let-it-happen

 
At 20 August, 2010 10:50, Blogger ConsDemo said...

I wouldn't go as far to call Grayson a LIHOPer. He is making the standard Michael Moore line. Grayson has a history of extreme statements and it's cetainly a cheap shot but doesn't make him a LIHOPer in my book. The interviewer, on the other hand, makes the claim that Bush was told about hijacked planes heading towards DC and New York, which is bs since that was never in any intelligence report.

As a Constitutional conservative,

If this the same "BG" who is a no-planer and birther, you aren't a "constitutional conservative" but rather a dumbass America-hating conspiracy theorist. No credible constitutional conservative would go anywhere near those ridiculous conspiracy theories.

 
At 20 August, 2010 11:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." -- George W. Bush, 13 September 2001

"...I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority." -- George W. Bush, 13 March 2002

I think the aforementioned quotes tell us all we need to know about George W. Bush.

 
At 20 August, 2010 11:46, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

There are a number of outstanding books about the hunt for bin Laden that I recommend:

"Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander" - Gary Berntsen

"Not a Good Day to Die: The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda" - Sean Naylor

"The Mission, The Men, and Me: Lessons from a Former Delta Force Commander" - Pete Blaber

"First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan"- Gary Schroen

All of them are gripping accounts of those first months in Afghanistan. They will also make you shake your head as they detail the missed opportunities to capture/kill OBL. The Bush Administration's DoD and SecDef were incompetent.

The best evidence of this fact was the 180 degree turn the Iraq War took when Gates took over. It is my opinion that if Gates had been SecDef in 2003 the US does not invade Iraq.

As far as "Letting it happen" goes. There are two key factors that lead to the government's failure: Attitudes and Ego. Although the US had been a target of Islamic terrorists since the mid-1980s the issue was almost always given a backseat. Reagan, Bush and Clinton had only dealt with terrorist acts in mostly symbolic acts (a missile strike here, Diablo Canyon in Lybia, and so on.) Under Reagan and Bush there were the complexities of the Cold-War to consider, and often "Islamic" terror groups had links to the KGB which meant a 21st century stile strike could have lead to a problem with the Soviets. Under Clinton terrorism was considered a law enforcement issue.

So when GW Bush gets to the White House his administration adopts that same attitude of making terror a back-burner issue.It was the same attitude that most all of Washington had (FBI, CIA, NSA).

Then you had the problem of EGO. All you have to do to understand the failure to stop the attacks of 9/11/2001 is to look at the antics of the CIA's Alec Station as they were forced to work with the FBI. Michael Scheuer was an agency bomb-thrower, and while he was usually the smartest guy in the room he was also more than happy to point this fact out too. He rubbed the FBI the wrong way, and they rubbed him back. Information was not shared and key facts like Arab men training in US flight schools was not passed to the CIA. Then you have internal discussions at CIA about the possibility of hijacked airliners being used as missiles that never got passed to the FBI.

In short, you had grown men acting like children.

The thing that bothers me is that in 2010 so very little has changed in Washington.

 
At 20 August, 2010 11:52, Blogger Sam said...

I think Grayson was working the "abject negligence" angle, not the "knew what was going to happen and let it happen" angle.

I think it's still a tad simplistic, but I don't think it puts him in line with LIHOPers.

 
At 20 August, 2010 12:20, Blogger BG said...

ConsDemo

Feel free to read:

"dumbass America-hating conspiracy theorist"

whenever I sign my comments

BG

 
At 20 August, 2010 16:21, Blogger Triterope said...

How come every time so legitimate politician purportedly comes out for 9-11 Truth, it's always buried in a four-minute interview about a completely different subject?

 
At 20 August, 2010 16:44, Blogger Pat said...

Sorry guys, but I'm not going to excuse anybody for a "Let It Happen" comment.

 
At 20 August, 2010 16:57, Blogger Triterope said...

I'm not going to excuse anybody for a "Let It Happen" comment.

Oh, I agree. I was speaking more in terms of things the Twoofkiddies have promoted over the years as "OMG famous person backs inside jobby job theory!!!!", which I (perhaps incorrectly) assumed this was.

 
At 20 August, 2010 17:35, Blogger BG said...

Triterope,

I think we can find common ground in this area.

Restating your point (to verify).

You are saying that if there was US govt. complicity in the actions of 9/11,

and some politicians were aware of this complicity,

and said politicians wanted to expose the "truth", or make hay for the benefit of their political career,

What would be the point of hinting at it only, or folding the 9/11 talking points into a discussion of an unrelated or a much broader topic?

Further, hypothetically, isn't it obvious that "truthers" have to lift small morsels from lessor "Authorities" to get details to support the inside job case.

If that's your point, then I would confirm that only a few politicians have spoken / written with integrity with respect to 9/11:

McKinney
Curt Weldon

If I believed in Heaven and Hell, I was wish a special place in Hell for Ron Paul and his deceptive dance.
Of course, Weldon was only up in arms about Able Danger matters, as far as I know.

 
At 20 August, 2010 18:49, Blogger Triterope said...

You are saying that if there was US govt. complicity in the actions of 9/11,

No, I'm not saying that at all.

 
At 20 August, 2010 23:11, Blogger Joseph Nobles said...

Two reports of different incidences are being confused by Cenk. The August 6 PDB was the first, and both Cenk and Grayson are badly misrepresenting it, I do believe. After all, we have the text out in the public now.

The "covered your ass" comment was supposed to have happened later in the month, when someone went back to Bush to emphasize the red flags. It was from the Ron Suskind book One Percent Solution, and was supposed to be illustrating what little regard Bush had for Al Qaeda and bin Laden. So you're right, Pat, that it doesn't make sense for Bush to say that to the August 6 PDB. But that's not when it was supposed to have been said.

So, yes, Grayson was going for gross negligence -- "let it happen" -- not "let it happen on purpose".

 
At 21 August, 2010 14:56, Blogger Sam said...

Come on Pat, let it be what it is. Grayson's "let it happen" and LIHOPers' "let it happen" are implicitly different claims. Grayson is implying negligence and apathy, LIHOPers are implying explicit foreknowledge and guile. I can't let it slide on equivocation, we've got to be more rigorous than that.

 
At 21 August, 2010 14:58, Blogger Triterope said...

Two reports of different incidences are being confused by Cenk. The August 6 PDB was the first, and both Cenk and Grayson are badly misrepresenting it, I do believe.

This is why I love the Internet.

For every issue, there's always some ordinary person with a blog who understands it better than the "experts" who get to be in radio, television, or even Congress.

But millions will hear Uygur and Grayson's version of the story, and hardly any will hear the above.

That makes me sad.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home