Rosie Still An Idiot
No particular surprise. She's apparently going to be back on the View as resident Truther.
Dean Wormer put it well:
posted by Pat @ 9:49 PM
74 comments
As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Dean Wormer put it well:
Previous Posts
- High Rise Initiative Shot Down at Freefall Speed
- Kurt Eichenwald on the Danger of Conspiracy Theories
- Bill Clinton on 9-10-01: I Could Have Killed Bin L...
- De Blasio: Truther Initiative Ridiculous, Insensit...
- NYC-CAN Submits 67000 Signatures
- Box Boy Considers Suing CNN
- AE911Truth Threatens to Sue CNN
- This Will Surely Break 9-11 Truth Into the Mainstream
- Crazy?
- Math is Hard
View My Stats
Allies:
74 Comments:
Just another dumb ass with no idea wtf she is talking about. According to Rosie there were meetings where they said they would "rally Americans with a new Pearl Harbor". Of course we all know she is getting a "new Pearl Harbor" from some BS she read online about the PNAC while having no idea what it actually says. Pretty hilarious when people say they don't believe the "official story" when they have no friggin clue what the reality is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Iz1JcmWi6w
How do you know where Rosie got her knowledge of PNAC's statement that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"?
Her belief that there were discussions (meetings) about this issue appears to be an inference, but is it an unreasonable one? It's right there in black and white on page 51 of PNAC's paper "Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century".
They said military transformation was necessary, and was unlikely to happen without the catalyzing force of a New Pearl Harbor.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
They are talking about the US Navy's reliance on an aircraft carrier-centric strategy. The Pearl Harbor reference is in relation to the Navy's battleship centered strategy in the years before WWII, even though technology had clearly given the edge to aircraft.
9/11 was not a new Pearl Harbor. None of our weapons were defeated.
Marc, the word "battleship" does not appear even once in the document's 90 pages, as anyone who bothers to consult the text can see.
The Pearl Harbor reference on p. 67 does put forth the possibility of a future Pearl Harbor in which the Navy finds its carrier-centered operations inadequate to modern challenges, just as the pre-carrier Navy was "unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age."
But the Pearl Harbor reference Rosie is talking about is the one on page 51, "a catastrophic and catalyzing event" that would motivate swift action in transforming and modernizing the military. George Bush noted in his diary the evening of 9/11/01 that "the Pearl harbor of the 21st Century took place today."
None of our weapons were defeated on 9/11? ALL of our weapons were defeated! The intel apparatus failed to prevent a plot that had been known since 1995, for which relevant warnings were received from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA. If the 9/11 Commission can be believed, none of our 1800 mph F-15s were able to catch 600 mph airliners.
The HQ of the most powerful military apparatus the world has ever seen was attacked by an unarmed airliner.
Where do you get this nonsense? Do you invent it yourself, or do your "ex-black-ops" buddies at Franco's feed it to you?
..."a catastrophic and catalyzing event" that would motivate swift action in transforming and modernizing the military...
Which didn't happen after 911.
And indeed, none of the weapons were defeated in the way they were at pearl harbor.
the word "battleship" does not appear even once in the document's 90 pages
Typical snug.bug logic...
But the Pearl Harbor reference Rosie is talking about is the one on page 51,
while earlier you said this:
How do you know where Rosie got her knowledge of PNAC's statement
you are contradicting yourself over and over again, brian.
you are aware that that is a tale sign of a liar?
Also contradicting:
The intel apparatus failed to prevent a plot that had been known since 1995
So you admit there was a terrorist plot behind 911...
And what did rosie state?
there were meetings where they said they would "rally Americans with a new Pearl Harbor".
implying that the US Govt was planning a new Pearl Harbor.
Even the mining of the PNAC quote is to make them say that they want to create a new pearl harbor to get the things done...
Adn that is the whole problem with the truth movement: they distort quotes, they mine quotes, they disregard the contradictions, etc. etc.
No wonder the truth movement is just about dead and only has people like Rosie and Brian supporting it.
Both appear to be clueless when it comes to details about the events.
th, you just make atuff up. After 9/11 the military budgets mushroomed.
ALL of the weapons were defeated on 9/11. The attacks succeeded, remember?
There is no contradiction between me citing PNAC page 51 and asking Marc where he got his information.
Like your "facts", your "contradictions" are made up.
PNAC said they needed a New Pearl Harbor to achieve the military transformation they desired. 9/11 was that Pearl Harbor, and George Bush said so in his diary.
How do you know where Rosie got her knowledge of PNAC's statement that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"?
Considering she can't accurately quote it I was giving her the benefit of the doubt that she never read it. But if you think she is either dishonest, or too stupid to read and comprehend, then fine.
Her belief that there were discussions (meetings) about this issue appears to be an inference, but is it an unreasonable one? It's right there in black and white on page 51 of PNAC's paper "Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century".
Based on the total lack of evidence, yes it's unreasonable. But when has a total lack of evidence been a problem for you to present nonsensical claims? Nowhere does it say what she claims.
They said military transformation was necessary, and was unlikely to happen without the catalyzing force of a New Pearl Harbor.
No, they said it was:
"[T]the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"
They never said it was unlikely. Thanks for proving you don't know what it says, or equally likely are incapable of conveying it accurately. Seems you and Rosie have something in common.
Nowhere does it say they would rally Americans with a new Pearl Harbor. Thanks for providing a direct link to make proving your buffoonery much easier.
Side note...I predict through this entire thread Brian will never present a single shred of evidence showing such meetings occurred. As always we will have to take his word and the word of other clowns in the truth movement.
GMS, it is normal talk-show practice to paraphrase and to express opinions. Your criticism of Rosie because she paraphrased and expressed an opinion is not justified. Your belief that because she paraphrased and expressed an opinion therefore she "can't" quote accurately is silly.
We all know that 9/11 was followed by meetings of Republicans bent on rallying Americans.
The PNAC paper said that a New Pearl Harbor would be needed to expedite the change that PNAC felt was vital to America's future. You're right, they didn't say it was unlikely. They said it would be slow. But of course slow, in the world of politics, decreases likelihood. Anything could happen--recession, tax revolts, anti-military sentiment.
The PNAC paper said that a New Pearl Harbor would be needed to expedite the change that PNAC felt was vital to America's future
And of course, you don mention what PNAC felt was vital for the US, because you know that 911 did not reach those goals.
ALL of the weapons were defeated on 9/11.
Not in the way with pearl harbor, which left the west coast virtually unprotected after pearl harbor.
PNAC said they needed a New Pearl Harbor to achieve the military transformation they desired.
They didn't get it.
9/11 was that Pearl Harbor, and George Bush said so in his diary.
Care to quote him?
Lets expose that quote mine of you...
..The PNAC paper said that a New Pearl Harbor would be needed to expedite the change that PNAC felt was vital to America's future. ..
No it doesn't state that.
It merely states that the process of change would take a long time unless something like a new pearl harbor happened.
You truthers turn that around and make pnac state that they wanted a new pearl harbor..
The observation of pnac is a common one, everyone knows that changes take a long time, unless something radical happens...
it is normal talk-show practice to paraphrase and to express opinions.
So, when Rosie talked about those meetings, it was just an opinion, not a fact that those meetings actually took place..
Well, got to admit, you are very creative :o)
th, why would PNAC want to waste their thunder transforming America's military after 9/11 when they could have a nice profitable war instead, and transform the military later?
I already did quote George Bush, silly. He noted in his diary the evening of 9/11/01 that "the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century took place today."
Very good, th, it's finally starting to dawn on you that talk shows are not journalism! Maybe some day you'll even learn to recognize the difference between an opinion and a fact!
why would PNAC want to waste their thunder transforming America's military after 9/11 when they could have a nice profitable war instead, and transform the military later?
Why would this, why would that..
Speculation, Brian, just your biased speculation.
He noted in his diary the evening of 9/11/01 that "the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century took place today."
So he didn't say that the long and awaited pearl harbor had arrived.
And as you implied above: that pearl harbor did not bring the changes that PNAC wanted.
Very good, th, it's finally starting to dawn on you that talk shows are not journalism!
The fun in this is that i never stated it was.
But now it finally starts to dawn on you that Rosie didn't state any fact and was merely babbling when she spoke of the meetings...
Maybe some day you'll even learn to recognize the difference between an opinion and a fact!
Mirrortalk again, Brian...
You are quite fond if it...
why would PNAC want to waste their thunder transforming America's military after 9/11 when they could have a nice profitable war instead, and transform the military later?
So first truthers claim that the pnac wanted a pearl harbor to transform the military, now you claim that that was not the case...
th, asking a question is not speculation. I am asking you to justify YOUR speculations about PNAC's motives and strategy. Answer the question: Why would PNAC waste their thunder on modernizing the military when, if they played their cards right, they could have two very nice, juicy, profitable wars AND modernize the military?
Do you deny that after 9/11, people in the Bush Administration held meetings to whip up public sentiment in favor of their Orwellian "War on Terror"?
I am quite fond of pointing out the differences between opinion and fact to people who don't know the difference, such as you.
PNAC said a Pearl Harbor was necessary to expedite an agenda of military modernization. Do you expect that they would have written a public statement saying they wanted it to expedite an agenda of lawless war, media intimidation, torture, presidential murders of American citizens, and blanket surveillance of everybody?
th, asking a question is not speculation.
You combine the two...
I am asking you to justify YOUR speculations about PNAC's motives and strategy.
Nope, you didn't.
Answer the question: Why would PNAC waste their thunder on modernizing the military
That was what the report 'rebuilding america's defenses' was all about.
And that report stated pearl harbor twice.
when, if they played their cards right, they could have two very nice, juicy, profitable wars AND modernize the military?
That is not in the report, which is used as 'proof' that the US wanted a new pearl harbor.
Just your speculation.
Do you deny that after 9/11, people in the Bush Administration held meetings to whip up public sentiment in favor of their Orwellian "War on Terror"?
I would have been surprised if they didn't.
Days after 911, pictures of 'lake afghanistan' went around the globe on internet. Everyone expected the US to hit back, and to hit back hard.
I am quite fond of pointing out the differences between opinion and fact to people who don't know the difference, such as you.
I know, because that is what truthers are all about.
They find themself so great, anyone who opposes them must either be a liar or a moron. You cannot choose, so your opponents are both to you.
PNAC said a Pearl Harbor was necessary to expedite an agenda of military modernization.
Nope, they said that it would take a long time, unless something like a new pearl harbor happened.
And that is a correct observation of pnac.
Everyone (except you of course) knows that changes in govt take a very long time, unless some disaster happens...
Do you expect that they would have written a public statement saying they wanted it to expedite an agenda of lawless war, media intimidation, torture, presidential murders of American citizens, and blanket surveillance of everybody?
So you now speculate that pnac said A, but meant B.
What is the use of being a think tank if you don't express what you are thinking?
What is the use of publishing a document that states A, while the organisation wants to state B?
This is just one of your clever schemes to make people state something they never did in reality.
Of course the wars are not in the report! Do you think they'd want to admit that wars are as profit opportunity for their poor starving military contractor buddies?
The report indicated that a New Pearl Harbor would speed up the changes that they said were necessary. And what makes you think that the military is not transforming? Drones, F-22s, F-35s--ever hear of them?
I don't have to choose between liar and moron. A moron can lie, and a liar can be a moron.
Well Brian, it was fun debating you.
You have shown how truthers think, act and reason and why after 13 years, they are still empty handed, stuck in discussions that go round and round over and over again without getting anywhere.
Ik pity you in some way, Brian.
But on the other hand, you are doing it to youself.
Empty clsims, th. You pwn yourself in every post. You don't know what you're talking about, you make stuff up, and all you have is attitude.
Well, that was the most amusing part of it all: the mirror talk.
I fully understand now why others respond to you the way they do.
Your habit of getting the last word in on a thread and posting a bunch of lies in it is quite annoying.
One of these days I'm going to have to collect your last-word lie-bomb posts and respond to them as a set.
725Well, you got to do what you got to do :o)
But keep in mind that it won't get you anywhere. You are just going round and round in circles, stuck in your own delusions...
but it was fun.
Your statement that F35 is a good example of speeding up the transformation of the military thanks to 911 is priceless..
I'm only going round in circles because you make it that way. You make claims that aren't true, I refute them with facts, and then you pop right back up again like a bozo punching bag with the same idiotic grin on your face, repeating the same stupid lies.
What makes it circles is your refusal to learn.
No, Brian, you are going in circles for several years now.
Our discussions started a few weeks ago.
And it isn't getting you anywhere.
All you get is that you alienate people from you because you start to harass them as soon as they doubt what you are stating...
The only reason for my circularity is that I must repeat the same old truths to refute the same old lies.
I don't harass anybody, liar.
Page 51. - " Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this
report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great
upheaval. "
The problem here is that none of that happened. The next generation of Aircraft Carriers is already under construction in spite of what the PNAC folks wanted.
Also on page 51. - "The expense associated with some programs can
make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment."
And yet the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is in production today, against PNAC's wishes.
Page 67.-
"Absent a rigorous program of
experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies
to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the
post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age."
It doesn't say "Battleships" because it is not written for morons. Japanese planes launched from [what kind of ship?] sank, and damaged U.S. Navy [what kind of ships?] at Pearl Harbor.
You said - "The report indicated that a New Pearl Harbor would speed up the changes that they said were necessary. And what makes you think that the military is not transforming? Drones, F-22s, F-35s--ever hear of them?"
The F-22 began production in 1997. Drones had been in use since Vietnam, and it has already been shown that PNAC wasn't a big fan of the F-35.
"Rebuilding America's Defenses" was nothing more than a think-tank position paper that made sense back in 2000.
Or what is known commonly as a straw man.
There was a mushrooming in the military budget, there were two off-the-books wars to provide profit opportunities for our brave war profiteers, and there were new agencies created to fulfill PNAC's demand for a new emphasis on intelligence.
The only thing that didn't happen is a slowdown in carrier production.
The going forward of carrier production and F-35 in spite of the fact that these investments were considered unwise by PNAC only further shows the hysterical money bombs thrown at all things military by the USA.
Drones, F-22s and F-35s all saw big increases in funding after 9/11. The fact that the program began before 9/11 is meaningless.
PNAC wanted a new Pearl Harbor to bring profits to their buddies in the military-industrial complex. They got that and more through the agency of 9/11.
GMS, it is normal talk-show practice to paraphrase and to express opinions...
She in no way implied it was opinion. She stated it as fact. Paraphrasing requires you to accurately convey information you are referencing. To misrepresent information is a form of plagiarism; which you did by claiming they said "unlikely". It is minimally dishonest, and in an academic setting would be grounds for expulsion for students and termination for staff. Thanks for proving again you didn't actually go to college, Brian. You would know what's required in paraphrasing if you paid attention in high school, let alone attended a university.
http://www.una.edu/writingcenter/docs/Writing-Resources/Avoiding%20Plagiarism.pdf
We all know that 9/11 was followed by meetings of Republicans bent on rallying Americans.
Her claim was at meeting that called for "a new Pearl Harbor to rally Americans". These meetings never occurred.
The PNAC paper said that a New Pearl Harbor would be needed to expedite the change...
You lied or don't know what they actually said. Trying to dance around the fact that you were wrong changes nothing. "Slow" does not mean "unlikely" to sane people who understand English.
Long story short, Rosie, and you, were wrong and you are doing back flips to make it seem like your common stupidity has some basis in reality.
She doesn't need to imply that it's an opinion. It's a talk show. Everybody know that it's an opinion.
In an academic environment I would not have to compete with lying apammers like Ian and truth hurts, and I would have more timwe for subtleties. You're quibbling in an effort to pretend that you have a point.
How do you know that no meetings to prepare a New Pearl Harbor to rally Americans occurred? Is making unsourced claims you cannot support not a cause for expulsion? I went to college, GMS. Your belief that I did not is absurd.
The PNAC paper said that a New Pearl Harbor would be needed to expedite the change. That's what the paper says on p. 51.
This is what page 51 states:
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions. A
decision to suspend or terminate aircraft
carrier production, as recommended by this
report and as justified by the clear direction
of military technology, will cause great
upheaval. Likewise, systems entering
production today – the F-22 fighter, for
example – will be in service inventories for
decades to come. "
Which shows how the quote mining of Brian works..
Also fun to read that Brian earlier showed the F22 as an example of military changes that were made possible by 911, while that plane was already in production at the time this document was released and prior to 911..
But that is the beauty of being a truther: you can make things up as you go along and blame others for telling lies. After all, you are the truther so everyone else is a liar.
"How do you know that no meetings to prepare a New Pearl Harbor to rally Americans occurred?"
Indeed, we don't know..
Just like those modified attack baboons that Ian has brought to the discussion: you cannot prove that they weren't the ones blowing up the towers, Brian..
So according to you: he has a point. And a strong one because there is no way in the world that you can disprove it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
In an academic environment I would not have to...
You choose to be in this environment, Brian...
Mainly because the academic environment you desire would not tolerate someone like you.
She doesn't need to imply that it's an opinion. It's a talk show. Everybody know that it's an opinion.
Brian makes more shit up to protect his delusions. When someone says there were meetings to rally Americans with a New Pearl Harbor, is a statement of fact. Not "I personally believe they had meetings...". Christ you're a sad little person.
In an academic environment I would not have to compete with lying apammers like Ian and truth hurts, and I would have more timwe for subtleties. You're quibbling in an effort to pretend that you have a point.
Red herring. Another thing in an academic environment you would get called out on.
How do you know that no meetings to prepare a New Pearl Harbor to rally Americans occurred?
How do you know the meetings weren't really about "Trolling morons with the phrasing 'a new Pearl Harbor'"?
Is making unsourced claims you cannot support not a cause for expulsion?
Until one of you clowns provides evidence such meetings happened there is no reason to believe the happened. It's hilarious how desperate you are, while simultaneously proving whatever non-existent university you went to obviously never had a critical discourse requirement.
I went to college, GMS. Your belief that I did not is absurd.
Your belief that anyone would believe that after your constant elementary failure is what is absurd.
The PNAC paper said that a New Pearl Harbor would be needed to expedite the change. That's what the paper says on p. 51.
Liar, they said the change would be long, unless an event like a new Pearl Harbor happened, not that it was needed. Brian commits plagiarism again.
Brian, either:
a. you never went to college.
or
b. you should be demanding a refund on your tuition.
At no time will Brian back up his baseless claim that talk shows are exclusively opinion based, just like he has at no time provided evidence that the meetings happened.
To be fair TH, Brian really isn't quote mining the PNAC, he is just inserting meaning and words into it from thin air, which is even worse. So please, let's at least be accurate of the things we accuse Brian. At least we should hold ourselves to some sort of standard. Lord know Brian sure as shit won't do that for himself.
So first you claim that I choose not to be in an academic environment (as if that had something to do with something) and then you claim that an academic environment would not tolerate me.
You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next in a futile effort to give the impression that you have a point.
Your quote from the PNAC paper does not support your claim that I was quote-mining.
Drones, F-22s and F-35s all saw big increases in funding after 9/11. The fact that the programs began before 9/11 is meaningless.
I didn't say there were meetings to "rally Americans with a new Pearl Harbor". Rosie did. That's her opinion, she's entitled to it, and there is evidence she could cite to support it.
GMS said that Rosie's opinion was BS, MF mischaracterized the context of the famous Pearl Harbor statement, and you claimed stupidly that modernizing the military did not happen after 9/11.
So first you claim that I choose not to be in an academic environment
Well, you might be here without having any choise, brian...
(as if that had something to do with something)
You were the one starting about it.
and then you claim that an academic environment would not tolerate me.
My observation.
You prefer an academic environment, but you are stuck with this blog where you have to endure me and ian.
You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next in a futile effort to give the impression that you have a point.
just your usual babbling, Brian. Nothing more, nothing less.
Your quote from the PNAC paper does not support your claim that I was quote-mining.
Now you say it: you are right.
You didn't even quote pnac, you just stated that the paper said something on page 51, which it didn't as it turned out..
F-22s [..] all saw big increases in funding after 9/11.
A m00t point as pnac used the F22 as an example of technology that will be around for a long time, which implied there point that changes in the military will take a long time.
The fact that the programs began before 9/11 is meaningless.
It proves what poor examples you come up with.
The F35 is still far behind schedule. The F22 was already in production and served as an example of existing tech that won't go away for a long time. Drones were also being developed before 911 and simply continued developing.
You failed to give any example of a change in the military desired bij PNAC, that has speed up because of 911.
I didn't say there were meetings to "rally Americans with a new Pearl Harbor". Rosie did.
And you came to the rescue when she got criticized for it.
That's her opinion, she's entitled to it, and there is evidence she could cite to support it.
You haven't shown any evidence to support her opinion.
Even more, you implied that her opinion doesn't have to be based on facts.
GMS said that Rosie's opinion was BS.
That is an opinion he is entitled to have and you haven't proven him wrong (you even implied that he is right by stating that Rosie can have an opinion which is not based on any facts)
Nope, you tried but failed to imply that.
and you claimed stupidly that modernizing the military did not happen after 9/11.
Also a distortion coming from you.
I simply pointed out that the changes PNAC wanted didn't speed up after 911.
You acknowledged that by implying that PNAC was more happy with spending large amounts of money on the war machine, in stead of bothering about modernizing the military.
Later on, you came with some poor examples which had nothing to do with 911, so you now state that those points of you were meaningless..
And so the circle is round again..
Your quote from the PNAC paper does not support your claim that I was quote-mining.
As I noted earlier, I concur, you were just making shit up.
Drones, F-22s and F-35s all saw big increases in funding after 9/11. The fact that the programs began before 9/11 is meaningless.
Can't imagine why.
I didn't say there were meetings to "rally Americans with a new Pearl Harbor". Rosie did. That's her opinion, she's entitled to it, and there is evidence she could cite to support it.
Sure there is, Brian. First of all, it was not opinion and secondly if such evidence existed it would constitute fact, not opinion.
GMS said that Rosie's opinion was BS, MF mischaracterized the context of the famous Pearl Harbor statement, and you claimed stupidly that modernizing the military did not happen after 9/11.
^LOL! I love seeing Brian claim other people mischaracterized the PNAC when he himself inserted words and ideas that are nowhere to be found. What a clown.
Her claim was BS not because it was opinion, b/c it was a claim of fact.
Funny, Brian still hasn't backed up any of his claims, as I predicted.
Brian will no doubt write:
" What claims did I not back up?"
That there is evidence such meetings took place.
That talk shows by nature are opinion.
Get cracking, fraud.
Indeed, he just goes round in circles.
And of course, others are to blame for that :o)
Of course! Brian Good would be hailed as the intellectual juggernaut he is and be presenting at all the major engineering and science conferences if it weren't for those meddling kids!
these pictures will make him mad...
william-rodriguez
william-rodriguez
william-rodriguez
william-rodriguez
william-rodriguez
william-rodriguez
While Brian is frantically trying to defend Rosie's rambling, he should consider why it is Rosie has interviewed and praised Willie while Brian is relegated to crying about Willie on the internet.
It shows that there isn't any consistency nor any logic in his babbling.
He just goes round and round...
By the way, those pictures didn't exist according to Brian, as he could not find them with google :o)
"There was a mushrooming in the military budget, there were two off-the-books wars to provide profit opportunities for our brave war profiteers..."
Hilarious. Neither war was off the books. The biggest problem with both was that Rumsfeld thought he could fight them on the cheap, which ended up costing more because they went on longer.
"The only thing that didn't happen is a slowdown in carrier production."
We now have fewer carriers than we did on 9/11/2001. Pay attention.
"The going forward of carrier production and F-35 in spite of the fact that these investments were considered unwise by PNAC only further shows the hysterical money bombs thrown at all things military by the USA."
No, it shows that PNAC had no control over anything.
"Drones, F-22s and F-35s all saw big increases in funding after 9/11. The fact that the program began before 9/11 is meaningless."
All three increases would have seen the same increases weather 9-11 happened or not. That's par for the course for next gen fighter aircraft.
"PNAC wanted a new Pearl Harbor to bring profits to their buddies in the military-industrial complex."
No. This is a lie. The statements do not support this.
This argument reminds me of people who think The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn is a racist book. They point to the N-word, but fail the understand the larger story.
Of all the 9-11 troof madness, the PNAC nonsense is equal to the no-plane theory.
""The going forward of carrier production and F-35 in spite of the fact that these investments were considered unwise by PNAC"
Hmm, missed that one..
But also a nice example of brian going in circles: one moment he uses the F35 as an example of the success of pnac after their pearl harbor, the other moment he states that pnac didn't want to invest in F35.
More fun in this is that he also states that pnac was all about spending more and more money on military budgets..
And at the same time he states that pnac didn't want to invest in F35.....
It says in their white paper that they weren't big one the F-35. The War on Terror doesn't support the "Big Military", that's the Big Military's complaint about it. Counter terror, and counter insurgency is not tech-heavy, it's people intensive.
While 9-11 had a similar social impact that Pearl Harbor did, it did not carry the military implications that smacked us in the face in 1941. Al Qaeda didn't represent an arms race, just an armed philosophical one.
If anything, Putin has been a better foil for the Hawks in Washington in the last four years. Russia represents a fixed military industrial target flexing its muscles again.
Matc, I didn't find any reference to the F-35 in the PNAC paper. Can you tell me where you get your information, and show where the paper references the F-35?
I didn't find any reference to the F-35 in the PNAC paper
i could give you some quotes, but then you would probably argue that the joint strike fighter is a different plane...
You keep claiming evidence you won't provide. There's no reason to give you any benefit of the doubt because you lie.
The F-35 is also called the "Joint Strike Fighter", which is mentioned dozens of times in the PNAC paper.
It's called the "Joint Strike Fighter" because it will be used by the USAF, the Navy, and the USMC. This is also why it is so expensive. The Navy and Marines have a VSTOL variation, and the Air Force keeps changing and adding to its list of things the plane must do.
How can you not know the F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter?
The PNAC paper recommends cancelling the "Joint Strike Fighter" program, calling a roadblock to transformation. And yet, after 9/11, the F-35 program went forward along with pretty much every other DoD program and intel program the Bush administration could devise. What is yor point?
That is what I said.
There is no point in quoting parts of the document about F35, because you will deny that it is about that plane..
Tanks for supporting my point
Why does that surprise you?
The point is that all your arguments about the pnac paper turn out to be m00t...
If that is your point, then your point is wrong. Since it is wrong, it is irrelevant. Do you have no relevant point?
Yes, my point is that you are going around in circles about the pnac paper, as you cannot stick to the truth...
You make all kinds of things up about the paper, and when proven wrong, you simply follow the circle again.
Which is fun to watch, so please, continue...
The only circles come from my need to repeat myself because you make stuff up and you don't know what you're talking about.
I didn't make up anything about the paper, and I wasn't proven wrong. You are a liar.
The game of all of you is to give the impression that you know what you're talking about (when you don't even bother to find out) and to pretend that you have a point (when you don't).
marc has proven that you made things up about the paper.
you on the other hand haven't shown anything significant that is actually in the document which ties it to 911.
and to hide that fact, you simply go round and round in circles, while putting up smoke screens by accusing others of whatever you can make up...
And in the meanwhile, this isn't going anywhere.
Marc proved nothing of the sort.
The paper says that the process of military transformation is likely to be slow in the absence of a New Pearl Harbor. When 9/11 happened, Bush wrote in his diary that the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century had happened.
You make empty claims and try to confuse the issue with more empty claims. The only reason we go in circle is because you keep repeating the same dumb lies.
And so the circle is round again, as you once more changed your argument about what the pnac paper states.
And of course you deny what Marc has shown.
Ik would not expect other from you.
You are the perfect example why the truth movement hasn't been getting anywhere despite all their effort ...
I didn't change my argument, liar.
Marc didn't show anything.
You make empty claims.
You are the perfect example of the peedunkers who know nothing about 9/11, but who spend enormous energies trying to spread confusion by creating the false impression that they know that they're talking about and the false impression that they have a point.
Why do you labor so to keep the widows from the truth they deserve?
Ah, he brings in the widow argument :o)
you must be getting desperate brian.
You also exaggerate your and my influence on this blog.
Whatever you and state, agree or disagree on, it won't matter.
It isn't as if the US govt reads your postings, decides that they should answer those 270 questions, but then read my replies to you and decide that answering them isn't neccessary...
And i fully understand that you deny what marc has shown you.
That is why you made the circle go round again.
6 days later, and you still haven't shown even the smallest evidence that Rosie was right or that pnac wanted a new pearl harbor and after 911 got what they wanted in the whitepaper.
The widow argument will never go away until their questions are answered.
You didn't answer the question. Why do you labor so to keep the widows from the truth they deserve?
I didn't deny anything that was true. What Marc "showed me" was bullshit. Like you, he makes stuff up and pretends he knows stuff that he doesn't know.
The evidence that PNAC wanted a New Pearl Harbor is in their paper.
I didn't say Rosie was right. I suggested that her inference was not unreasonable.
[i]
The widow argument will never go away[/i]
I know, you will always use it for your last resort.
[i]You didn't answer the question. Why do you labor so to keep the widows from the truth they deserve?[/i]
That is a leading question.
And like i answered: whatever i post here won't change anything for the widows.
So again, you come with a m00t question.
[i]I didn't deny anything that was true. [/i]
Nice smokescreen..
[i]What Marc "showed me" was bullshit.[/i]
Indeed and that is the whole point.
[i] Like you, he makes stuff up and pretends he knows stuff that he doesn't know.[/i]
Nope, you are the one doing that.
You make things up about the pnac report, and when confronted with that, you back away and change your argument. And later on you change it again, making the circle whole again...
The evidence that PNAC wanted a New Pearl Harbor is in their paper.
And yet, you fail to show that it is in the paper.
You even admit that it is actually bullshit and that marc has shown that to you.
Now you go back to stating that it was in the paper, and the circle is round again.
[i]I didn't say Rosie was right. I suggested that her inference was not unreasonable.[/i]
Ah, so you back away from that as well..
But in your next reply, you will turn around again, making the circle whole..
The widow argument will never go away until their questions are answered.
But none of their questions are about any inside job nor ralating to anything about what happened on 9/11. Their questions were about how their relatives died and how an attack like that could be prevented in the future.
So no, their questions aren't going to be answered and you don't represent them. So just STFU about it ok Brian? Whining about it will get you no where.
Well said, Stewie...
th, the widows' questions are not the last resort--they are the first resort. They asked 300 questions and got 27 answers. How can you justify keeping the widows from the truth they deserve?
I didn't make up anything about the PNAC report. I quoted it and cited the page of my quote.
Stewie, where do you get the right to limit the widows' questions to "inside job" questions? You may just as well limit them to "no planes" questions or "jews did it" questions or "space aliens did it" questions.
The widows want the truth about what happened. They have 273 unanswered questions. The contortions you guys go through to try to make their questions seem negligible are quite astounding.
Post a Comment
<< Home