2008-04-30
The following text is one-side of an online discussion. I did not include his half for various reasons such as the fact it wasn't well written.
Mr. Hawley said that this was his real name. I have not verified it, and simply took him at his word. As such, why don't I change it here? Because it is open and public in the other forum.
Dear Ms. Gannon,
Whoever sent you that complaint has a memory longer than, say, one week. What they wrote may have been partially true about me up until the first warning I received (about 3/6/2008), but it does not correctly characterize my involvement since that time. I feel that this new warning is unwarranted and should be rescinded.
You wrote:
"We will have to delete your account if you continue to attempt to dominate the forums by volume of postings, by pulling conversations off topic, or by fighting."
The complaint you received characterizes Mr. Hawley from California throughout, particularly where the complainer details: "the nature, and sheer number, of them seem to intimidate or repel others." His daily average is up around 11 postings; he posts frequently to nearly all forums; and he throws out comments that would indeed turn off readers (or egg them into a fight.) Here is a sampling from Mr. Hawley since last Sunday or so (and after the first warning):
- "I can't wait to hear a Liberal support sexual assault."
- "Many ill informed and confused Liberals worship [Bill] Clinton as a God. Last time I checked God does not sexually assault women. Clinton is nothing but a misogynist punk."
- "Hillary Clinton. A liar and a scandal machine of Olympic proportions already , why would anyone elect a person of such dubious character and reputation. You can't make the excuse you didn't know she was a liar and power hungry person that would throw her mother under the bus if she thought it would give her a minute of power."
- "Hillary has had people actually commit suicide rather than face humiliation in court."
- "Hillary is a joke..."
- "Now let's see Max defend the statement Hillary wrote. He won't even acknowledge it as there is no defense to such a statement. She is right up there with Al Gore who we all know invented the Internet."
- "The left morally bankrupt and proud of it."
- "yada yada hate Bush yada yada Hate Bush : repeat"
The next ones may have been prior to the warning. I include them because they are very representative of his tactic of attributing false statements to people.]
- "[Liberals/Forum User] want to extend our rights to terrorists."
- "People Like [derogatory perversion of forum user's name] are the same people that allowed Hitler to come to power."
Look, I'm not even a Hillary Clinton supporter. In fact, I'm a registered Republican. But I do respect and stand up for the truth, even if it is not my political view or is unflattering to our country. I know lies and smear when I see it, and believe they must be addressed openly. Otherwise, silence means agreement.
Yes, another option in the forum is to flag it as abusive. Abusive to whom? More importantly for my core values, it doesn't confront the lies and smear (which the other person may believe is the gospel truth and has already posted to the forum which someone read.) Plus, because the threshold for labeling something abusive and getting it deleted from the site is so low, it may call into question my motivation for flagging it as such. It is entirely possible for someone with an opposing ideological slant to remove those political opinions they don't agree with by making a false or hyped claim of something being abusive.
The discussion forum is just that: a discussion. It is a debate. Others have responded positively to my attempts to set the record straight with Mr. Hawley.
In summary, if any part of this person's complaint referred to me, it related to postings prior to the first warning last week. It does not reflect my actions since then, thus this new warning to me is not warranted. Please reset your warning counter on me back to 1.
Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges
> We have received more complaints about your brawling on the forums. > > Here is an example of some of the latest. > > "This poster and another in this thread regularly derail these discussion > threads with their long derisive put downs of each other and off-topic > discussions. In each of the several threads they are currently conducting > their discourse, contributions by most others have ceased. I don't know if > they technically violate any policies but the nature, and sheer number, of > them seem to intimidate or repel others." > > We will have to delete your account if you continue to attempt to dominate > the forums by volume of postings, by pulling conversations off topic or by > fighting. > > Kate > > > Kate Gannon > New Media Development Manager / Content > Coloradoan.com
{Here is the posting that tipped Craig Hawley into his third warning and out of the Coloradoan.}
Drax you are a seriously unbalanced , bitter , person. Even the left praises General Petraeus. And you denigrating him just serves to marginalize you into a group of about one.
You have no support even from the far left. I would love for you to get Obama to say what you just said about a war hero.
You see the rest of the country is entitled to our opinions also. You are not the arbiter of truth for anyone but your self, which you obviously think very highly of. That is good because you are alone in your reprehensible words used to describe General Petraeus.
So you have every right to spout your hate here as far as I am concerned and I have the right to expose you as so far left as to be not relevant or seriously considered to any discussion by thinking human beings.
That said I really enjoyed reading all the other posts from both left and right.
Another forum participant responded:
Craig, Drax didn't call YOU any names. He didn't say that YOUR opinion was worthless.
Don't give me this defense of a war hero nonsense. General Petraeus has advanced to the level of a politician and public figure. The good General, if he has need of your defense in this forum, would want to see it done with his record, not with the blind loyalty of a soldier lashing out in personal attacks on his detractors.
You say that I am "[attacking] you for making one statement". Uh, no, wrong on two accounts. One, I'm not attacking you; I'm calling a spade a spade. Two, you made not one but two statements that are irrelevant to this thread.
YOU could have stayed on topic and defended the good General without launching into a personal attack against the writer.
You want my opinion? President Bush has proved over and over and over again that his appointments to all positions in all corners of government are all about politics. You are either with him or against him. If you are against Bush's policies, your tenure doesn't last long. There have been far too many high ranking military officials who were demoted or forced out because they spoke out against bad policies. Never happened before in our glorious military history in such great numbers; never before have so many decorated veterans of all ranks spoken of mismanagement and bad Presidential policies.
So, yes, "butt-kisser" is a nice, concise, accurate description of Admiral Fallon's replacement, General Petraeus. A "butt-kisser" is the only person that Bush could possibly put into that position so that he'd have the ability to say that his military advisers agree with his (failed) policies.
ClearThinking1 posted 3/13/08 @ 12:01 PM MST
Hi Craig,
I noticed you no longer have an account on the Coloradoan, did you get bounced?
Craig Hawley posted 3/13/08 @ 3:16 PM MST
Yup just as well I found out that they don't even read the abuse posts for the most part so it is just a popularity contest. LOL! if enough people get together and complain they bounce your account.
Oh well I'll live. Had a life before the Coloradoan. :)
One thing I like about here is you can say what you want. The Coloradoan has censored there content down to lukewarm Pablum in my opinion.
I even tried to be nice there at the end. All I did was say the Drax who called the administration murderers and Patreus a buttkissser , was seriously unbalanced and a bitter angry guy. That was it and I was out of there.
Let me know how big the pizza party is the Liberals are posting. Max Bridges is stalking me I think LOL! He sent me a DVD and a couple books on 911. Told him I already watched the DVD in Vegas.
Nice to hear from you have fun at the Coloradoan I have this and about 10 other posts around the country as well as being published again in the Los Angeles Daily News , so I'll try to survive without the good ole Coloradoan.
Skinny has already joined me here also.
TTYL
Live Large
Craig
{To the participants of a thread on the Coloradoan.}
I happened to catch part of his departure. His opening line in response to another message was a personal attack on the poster. Later after marginally addressing what he perceived was the issue (General "Buttkisser" Petraeus) which was a minor point in the original message, he made another statement about how it was his duty to point out the other poster's far left leanings that he felt were worthless and weren't worthy of serious consideration by anyone in the human race.
I'm paraphrasing, of course, but then again we are talking about opinionated Mr. Hawley, who was encouraging people to come to this forum where you can write what you want. I guess he forgot where he was when he wrote that.
At any rate, when I refreshed my session about an hour or two later, his response was gone and it was no longer possible to key off of his name to see where his latest postings were.
{Note: this is on a different Collegian forum.}
Dear Mr. Hawley,
You told people from the Coloradoan to come here. So here I am, and I see you've already used my name in vane.
I won't be making a habit out of this forum. Although I live in Fort Collins and have ties to CSU, I believe this forum should be left to the students.
I even tried to be nice [at the Coloradoan] at the end. All I did was say the Drax who called the administration murderers and Patreus a buttkissser , was seriously unbalanced and a bitter angry guy. That was it and I was out of there.
Get your story right. Drax did not call the administration murderers, but he did call Patraeus a buttkisser -- a minor point in his posting at that.
Rather than addressing his major or minor points, you attacked him as being unbalanced, bitter, and angry, and then added words to the effect that Drax's opinion was far left and unworthy of consideration by any thinking member of the human race. Not your best moment.
When someone called you on it, you didn't apologize. You didn't edit out the offending statements in your posting (even to save your Coloradoan account that you knew via a final warning was in peril.) You plowed on. You had a death wish. How many forums have you been kicked out of now? Surely, the Coloradoan isn't the first.
No, it wasn't me who flagged you. Hell, you got me into enough trouble.
But I knew you were going to get it and hit refresh on that forum about every hour in my morbid curiosity. Then, *Pppfft*, you was gone.
Had a life before the Coloradoan. ... I have this and about 10 other posts around the country.
If that is the case, why did you continue to give the Coloradoan so much of your precious, volumous, and unwanted-in-such-quantities-and-vitriol attention? How close are you to getting booted from those other ten forums around the country? What business is it of yours that you need to stick your nose into the local opinions of places you have no ties to?
Max Bridges is stalking me I think LOL! He sent me a DVD and a couple books on 911. Told him I already watched the DVD in Vegas.
Let's also state this correctly. I asked your permission before ordering and instructing Amazon & www.911tv.org to send you anything. Thank you for confirming receipt. Too bad I had to hear it second hand and that you were not courteous enough (nor man enough) to tell me directly.
As it were, I put my money where my mouth was. I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.
You still owe me a review on that 9/11 DVD from www.911tv.org. A hand-wave dismissal doesn't cut it. Saying you saw it in Las Vegas doesn't cut it. (Prof. Jones goes on for over an hour, and Kevin Ryan's is 48 minutes. I can't imagine you standing around a trade show booth in Las Vegas just watching it. In such an environment, how much could you truly understand and absorb?)
You're supposed to detail why the 9/11 DVD is or isn't true. In the scorecard that you keep on each scientific point and logical argument, you are to rate them on a sliding scale from (5) "I have seen the light and now strongly agree with this point" down to (1) "I strongly don't agree with the specific assertion X based on Y; here is a relevant passage from Q, its link, and my plain text explanation for how Q debunks X and/or Y."
You can debunk ~all~ of the presentation either from BYU physics professor Dr. Steven Jones or from Kevin Ryan, Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories (a Division of Underwriters Laboratories.) After loading the DVD, hit the menu button to get to Mr. Ryan's presentation. In both cases, it is useful to have the pause button handy so that you can read the written bullets in the PPT which time constraints forces Dr. Jones to skip over but that you'll have to address in your report.)
Or you can debunk one of the books I sent you point-by-point:
[Use the third book, "The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot", just to open your eyes and connect the dots.]
You should note that the 9/11 truth arguments are cumulative and not deductive. A deductive argument means, "if A then B; if B then C; if ... then F" whereby should any single A - E be proven not true, then the conclusion F is not true. A cumulative argument means, "if A or B ... or E, then F" whereby any single point A - E is enough to make the conclusion F true, and that all points A - E have to be proven false for the conclusion F to be false.
What is the conclusion that all members of the 9/11 truth movement agree on? That the story we were told by the US government about the 9/11 attacks was false. That's it.
We don't have to even go into speculation about what ~really~ happened; we can leave that to a formal investigation. All that has to be proven is that the story -- in whole or in part -- is wrong, and a whole house of cards comes tumbling to the ground.
Because if that "official" 9/11 story is wrong in any way, then so is everything based on it, like two wars, a global war on terror, our nation's entire foreign policy in the Middle East, our Homeland Security measures, and so much of what the Bush Administration been promoting on all fronts. This is why the Bush Administration has never and will never admit that they were wrong on any point, because doing so risks sending a stiff breeze right at the card house they've built.
You want to communicate with me (and issue your report)? Off-line through my website is better, because like I said, I won't be monitoring this forum.
Enjoy your vacation in Maui with Lynne on sunny sandy beaches with a beer in one hand and one of the books I gave you in the other.
Dear Mr. Clint,
ClearThinking1's link to the Collegian does indeed give information about Mr. Hawley's final moments in this forum.
Earlier in the month I was accused (probably rightfully so) of brawling with him, although I do try to put extra effort into my measured words. We were warned, so I clicked it down many notches. Over that weekend, Mr. Hawley plowed on. At the time, it was his rants against Hillary and the Democratic Party which hit below the belt. I'm not a big Hillary fan (and am a registered Republican), but felt compelled to point out some of the errors in his posting. At least my side of the exchange was civil.
Be that as it may, another reader of these forums with a memory longer than one week (time of first warning) complained of the volume of postings, the tone, and the fighting with another participant. The complaint was leveled primarily against Mr. Hawley. But because I went for the bait and was the other participant, we both get hit with another warning.
(I contested it to no avail. I mean unlike Mr. Hawley, my daily average was way down; I didn't post to any and all discussion threads; my writing since the first warning were within the acceptable boundaries. The complainer's memory being longer than one week wrapped my prior behavior in with Mr. Hawley's more recent behavior and netted me the second warning.)
Mr. Hawley plowed on unheeded and launched the attack on Drax21 a few days later. I stayed out but knew he was going to get it.
In my exchanges with the Coloradoan, they tell me they'll be moving these forums to a new technology.
I expressed my request for:
I feel that deletion notification is only fair given the Coloradoan's stated low threshold level. It doesn't matter what the quality of most of the message was, if someone is offended by even one sentence or one word, they could flag it as abusive. It could disappear without you or the forum even noticing or knowing. How do we know that someone with a radical ideology won't use this to skew discourse and systematically remove opposing views?
Pbville wrote:
"thanks for sharing that info on the new layout for the forums."
So that no misunderstandings arise, what I wrote above was my wish-list for the forum technology (be it this or something new). With the exception of threaded discussions, I see no reason why those features can't be implemented on top of what we have.
Mr. Moore at the Coloradoan at first poo-poo'ed my suggestions. He said that implementing them for a small minority of the forum participants (those having their messages flagged as abusive and deleted) wasn't cost-effective, and they were migrating to a new technology sometime in the future anyway.
I had to write him back and ask him to take a closer look at the suggestions. Meaningful email subjects as well as useful and persistent links in the emails are features that all participants could use. Placeholder flags in the discussions for deleted messages helps the understanding of all who might visit a forum well after most of the activity has happened. A courtesy email to the poster with the content of a deleted message helps the poster and assures that a forum isn't hijacked well after the fact due to the low-threshold-for-abuse flag.
================
The last few comments about Hawley truthfulness were interesting.
Several inconsistencies in his online persona does lead one to wonder what the hell he was doing. He implied that he was monitoring our community because his step-daughter attends CSU. It amazed me that he could not see that his postings -- supposedly under his real name no less -- could be viewed as meddling and even detrimental to his family. And this is just taking him at his word.
[begin paranoid speculation]
A different fuzzy picture comes forth when connecting the dots of the frequency of his posts here (which alone were a huge time suck), the number of additional forums he claimed to be participating in, his flag-waving support of the Bush Administration and all of their policies no matter what, his military and security background... Was his participation a paid-for service?
If the US government can pay for propoganda in Iraq, (hell, if they can pay for planted news stories in our own US media,) if their PNAC manifestos talk about cyberspace control being a war frontier, then gee, maybe we shouldn't be surprised about government trolls influencing our online discussions.
[end paranoid speculation]
I had written before that I had no issues with his out-of-state status, with the frequency of his postings, or with his politics, although combined they did raise an eye-brow. But when all of that was added to his common form of substantiation -- belittling comments, name calling, offhand dismissals --, yeah I'll prove that I'm both a Christian and a patriot by both standing up to it and rising above the gutter level in refuting it. (Silence can mean acceptance.)
Dear Mr. Hee-Haw-ley,
I see that you learned very little from having been kicked out of the Coloradoan message board in March for your abusive postings and their overwhelming quantity (of dubious quality).
You are certainly doing your darnest to make a valid argument for the Collegian to instigate some editorial control over this forum and to get your ass booted from its ether as well.
Case in point is just about every posting from you on this thread (or any thread, on any topic. Your postings are usually the first, last, and in the middle: hard to overlook.) When it isn't a personal attack, talking down, and belittling, it is a weak argument devoid of substance including humor.
You aging Cali-foreigners are slow learners, eh? Is that why you hang out on this campus online forum and swamp those having a fraction of your years with your drivel and hate? When you tell your debate opponents to "grow a pair," the appropriate response is for you, Hee-Haw-ley, to simply "grow up and get a life." Graduate, already all right. Get a job. Move on. (See if your views fly on the New York Times online forums?)
I mean really. As if you had the credentials from simply being well read (which you prove over and over again you are not) to flame the New York Times across the board! And just what fine newspaper publisher do you hold up in its place as being better? The Christian Science Monitor might be a good one, but you are neither patient enough nor astute enough to deal with its Christian reporting motto of "first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear."
Speaking of reading and my reason for being here, how are you getting along with the DVD & books I sent to you as your spring break assignment?
I put my money where my mouth was. You still need to do the same.
You owe me a detailed review on one of the following:
[For those of us actually in Fort Collins, Prof. Jones presentation runs every Saturday morning at about 4 a.m. on local Comcast cable channel 22. Set your VCRs.]
It is certainly worth your while to complete this simple homework assignment, Hee-Haw-ley. Because, you see, it appears that a good 80% of the positions you take on political things are in lock-step with the con-job of the neo-cons. If you found yourself unable to address and debunk ~every~ scientific point and logical argument made by the 9/11 truth seekers regarding the government's 9/11 "coincidence theories" -- which are the cracked foundation for US policies --, well, you just might have a revelation of biblical proportions.
It is all about the sheep, man. All about the sheep.
Mr. Bridges
www.MaxBridges.us
P.S. I don't monitor this forum with any regularlity. Please post a copy of your reply to the "contact me" page of my website. I wouldn't want to miss either your full debunking report or your complete born-again hallaluja conversion into God's Truth about 9/11.
{to Registered Independent}
[QUOTE id="4a32df2b-f4e8-4435-a13c-7b934af6235f"]
And I'd just like to add the following for the edification of Mr. Dark Lord:
The liberal media bias is not in fact just two to one. 89% of professional journalists admit to being registered Democrats. Which means the actual figure is probably even higher.
I would suggest that "Mr. Dark" pick up a copy of Bernard Goldberg's excellent book, "Bias".
For over 20 years Mr. Goldberg was a mainstream media "insider", so he knows whereof he speaks. Goldberg was a news reporter and producer at CBS news, who won 4 emmys for his television news coverage. His book is quite enlightening on the subject of media bias.
Sincerely,
Reg Indy, aka "The Empress of Light of All the Americas" . . . . .
(My, doesn't that title sound grand!)
[/QUOTE]
What I recall reading about that very survey was that those journalist who were registered with a party were to a high degree (maybe 80%) Democrat. But what you leave out from the survey is that there were far more journalists who weren't registered with a party at all. To ignore this little fact kind of puts a damper on your media bias argument.
And what pours cold water over your argument completely and entirely is the fact that those journalists don't decide what is news-worthy and what is not. That job goes to the editors.
If you were to do a similar survey on the editors, you would see the political bias swing right radically. And for the editors who are aren't registered Republicans, they do have a responsibility to their owners and advertisers. So even when an editor might be a Democrat, they are often faced with making decisions along Republican party lines just to please their corporate sponsors (and to keep their jobs).
{to Registered Independent}
You are correct that I haven't read Goldberg's book, but I did read articles that analyzed the results of surveys of journalists' political party affiliations.
It is no lie that the vast majority of journalists are not affiliated with any political party (maybe so they can keep with the claim they are impartial or maybe because they don't care). The fact that a tiny minority of journalists are registered to a party (coincidentally Democrat) can't be used to construe the media as being biased "liberal".
It is also no lie that editors decide the news, not the news anchors sitting in front of the cameras.
Ouch. I'm hurt that you call me a "conspiracy theorists."
"Industrial-strength", no less. Wow.
Alas, you haven't proved it wrong. You've simply played your role of government troll by going after the messenger, not the message.
Maybe you should look up both the words "conspiracy" and "theory" in your pocket dictionary or your favorite online dictionary. Then let's see if you can extrapolate that to, say, the truly outrageous theory of a conspiracy involving 19 Arab hijackers and how they breeched the defenses of the most heavily guarded spot on this planet without being intercepted (after some 40 minutes flying around without transponders, ignoring control tower commands, and radically deviating from their flight plan) and with a flying stunt in a commercial jet that even experienced pilots find not credible even without knowing the flunky flight-school skills of the alledged pilot.
So, Mr. Coincidence Theorists, I present you with the same challenge that I've placed before Mr. Hawley (repeatedly... and even to the point of purchasing and sending him the materials).
Seeing how you seem to be from Fort Collins, kindly set your VCR to record Comcast cable channel 22 on Saturday morning from 4-6 a.m.
Then, at your leisure and with the remote control at your finger tips, kindly disprove every spoken and written (in the Power Point Presentation) point given by BYU Physics Professor Steven Jones.
Warning: If you fail to address or disprove even one of the good professor's assertions, you will fail to debunk the 9/11 Truth Seeker's premise that the US government lied to us about 9/11 and we need a new investigation.
Go on. Be a man. Step up to the plate. Put your money where your mouth is.
And hey, this is a college forum. Quite possibly you've had some math and science courses in your day. If you are so smart, apply Newton's equations for falling objects to, say, the roof of WTC-7 which wasn't hit by a plane but which fell through the path of most resistance and near free-fall speed into the building's footprint while pulverizing concrete into tiny powder. Explain using math and physics where the energy came from to handle this marvel. (Trick question, because it applies to WTC-1 & 2, too.)
Post your detailed report here and to my website's "Contact me" page.
Maxwell C. Bridges
www.maxbridges.us
[QUOTE id="40387b97-d881-4a76-8ffc-9f77c6752cb3"]
Now that's a complete lie Mr. Bridges, and you know it.
And you obviously haven't read Bernard Goldberg's book, "Bias", on exactly this subject.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to introduce you to Maxwell Bridges, an industrial-strength September 11th conspiracy theorist.
He firmly believes that forces within our own government blew up the twin towers and the pentagon.
Tee Hee.
[/QUOTE]
{to Registered Independent}
Dear Ms. Registered Independent,
My apologies for mistaking your gender.
It doesn't get you off the hook for stepping up to the plate. Women make mighty fine softball players. So come on! Be a WO-man and step up to the plate. Hit my wimpy underhanded softballs on 9/11 out of the park!
You rest your case? And what, pray tell, is the case that you rest?
Yes, I've come out and expressed part of my viewpoint. What is your viewpoint? You appear to want to defend the government's coincidence theory. So do so. Please. With science, math, and evidence.
The crux of this matter probably has nothing to do with any of the smoldering details about 9/11 proving the Bush Administration's story false (and potentially their criminal involvement) that you know I have the resources and the ability to rub your nose in.
The crux of this matter probably is that you (like most Americans) can't crow-bar even a tiny sliver of your mind open to the possibility that the U.S. government has a history of doing things that most of us would find reprehensible, un-Constitutional, un-American, un-Christian, were we (1) to find out about it and (2) believe it. Getting citizens to #2 is the biggest hurdle of all, because that might lead to (3), us actually having to get out of our couch-potato comfort zones to do something about it.
Whereas we know that there are things about our blessed country that we could improve, that is different than entertaining the notion that our nation has done and continues to do bad things -- even criminal things -- in need of daylight and improvement. Such a notion calls into question our own morality and choices regarding for whom we voted and supported. To admit the guilt of leaders we elected (particularly with this knowledge at re-election time) means we admit our own participation. Or given our apathetic times, it might more strikingly highlight the immorality of our silence, our turning away, our ignoring the evidence, our uncritical thought, our willful superficial choices in distractions, and our personal attacks on any bad-news messenger who did tell us, who did present thoroughly convincing cases, and who simply could not crow-bar enough sunshine into our thoughts for us to believe it and act on it.
"Feed my sheep" was a command given in the New Testament. Little lambkin, a banquet of 9/11 truth is prepared before you with many sour and bitter foods. If you don't let it nourish you and strengthen you into belief and action, the main course will be seasoned and roasted (Ewe).
[QUOTE id="1f62104a-9c15-48ba-8143-3616502b0e6f"]
I haven't the vaguest intention of "being a man".
I happen to like being a woman.
But thank you for so being so obliging as to demonstrate your viewpoint for the folks.
I rest my case.
[/QUOTE]
Craig Hawley posted 4/28/08 @ 3:20 PM MST
Don't waste your time Reg Indy. You can see the quality of Mr. Bridges arguments by his juvenile Hee hawley comment. I mean really even the CSU kids could come up with a better cut down than that. LOL!
Max is a 911 conspiracy nut that thinks every conspiracy is true. I don't know how many of the old conspiracy's he railed about on the Coloradoan.
He wasn't taken seriously by any one there and shouldn't be here. As you can see by his first post he always works in a 911 reference. We could be discussing milk and Max would say did you know that people in the towers were drinking milk , yada yada.
As far as getting kicked from the Coloradoan I consider it an honor. I do post at the New York Times and the Los Angeles Daily News and have gotten along just fine.
Now if Max is honest which is in doubt , he will tell you that I never used profanity or threatened any one. How ever i had profanity ( you know the baby get past the censor kind A** LOL ) used against me and one person called for my suicide. Ah yes the pacifist of the tolerant left. :)
Hey Max you are behind the times. I also got kicked from the Denver Post. I am trying to get kicked from a couple other Colorado papers but so far I am still there. LOL!
The Coloradoan is run like a beauty contest as far as censorship goes. They allow people to complain that they don't like your tone and kick accordingly , so I would not have lasted long there under any circumstances.
Finally Max my little stalker and loon. You really don't know the Collegian do you. The only person that was ever close to getting kicked here was a left wing loon like you that threatened my Step Daughter because he was mad at me.
The CSU police investigated and the Collegian was a responsible paper in helping.
I totally disagree with McSWanes F Bush headline , but you can even use profanity here and not get kicked. Man I would love to use some on you but I do not curse. LOL!
Your arguments are as usual , vacuous paranoid fantasy's.
But you will not find a Liberal haven here. My friend Reg Indy has already given you a taste and exposed one of your lies.
You may not want to come here as you will be exposed for the left wing loon you are.
Another thing Max loves is his sheep comment you see it in almost all his posts. :)
Max thinks there is a right wing media bias even though just about every channel except Fox spouts anti Bush rhetoric.
If Max were right then we would know the enemy body count in Iraq. What is that Max? Go ahead bright boy. No googling. Just from watching the News please tell us how many terrorists we have killed in Iraq? How many schools have been rebuilt? How many hospitals? In fact just give me some good news.
Are you trying to sell to us that all these editors who control the news are right wing and yet they don't air anything to help the right , but to the contrary air things that help the left.
A child could see the fallacy there.
You are a man that likes all this data you demand from others on 911.
So I am calling your bluff. Instead of your inane vacuous argument that a right wing bias exists , please list all the right wing propaganda from MSNBC , CNN or any network news.
Now why did Dan Rather and all those anchors get recently fired or retired. Oh yea making up things about Bush to trash him that later were discredited as not vetted and found to be BS.
So every piece of evidence is to the contrary of your assertion.\
And by the way it may be the editors that decide what to air , but it is the reporter that decides how to couch said story. It is also the reporter that adds his or her commentary to the story. So the reporter not the editor dictates the tone and tenor of the story.
Well Max thanks for stopping by and showing just how out of touch with reality you are. Heck even at the Coloradoan most posters thought you were a loon. All the Collegian readers have to do is go there and read the archives.
Notice Max lists 911 in just about every post and his famous sheep comment. To say he is delusional fixated on this is the understatement of the year.
Bye Bye Max. When will you get the fact that no one finds you or your arguments compelling.
Oh FYI the guy that kicked me from the Denver Post is now my friend and has joined my MySpace page. His name is Joe and he is a nice guy.
Any time I get kicked from a left wing rag I consider it an honor. LOL!
But the only way I am getting kicked from the Collegian is in your wet dreams. Now see if I said wet dreams , which I did , i would have been censored and kicked at the Coloradoan. LOL!
Sorry to disappoint you Max. You people think I am a TROLL and SCREED a lot. Just wait until Max gets going. His posts are like sominex they put you right to sleep.
Dear Ms. Reg Independent,
What was the point you were making that I seem to be making for you?
All I can see coming from your short responses is a mind welded shut.
Glad that Hee-Haw-ley finds you engaging and witty. If he weren't married, I'd say you two storm troopers belong together.
Dearest Hee-Haw-ley,
While it is most certainly true that you provide ample fodder for someone to cut you down better, you fail to see that given your age, your back-woods mentality, and the 70's TV cultural reference itself, "Hee-Haw-ley" is quite fitting. Of course, I also liked the reference from others to your time on the Coloradoan, "Hawley-caust." I submit that you should use one of them instead of your real name the next time you sign up for an online discussion forum that you will ultimately get kicked out of, in order that you might spare your family name and family members further embarrassment and in order that all potential readers will be forwarned of your substance, or lack thereof.
As for 9/11, you seem to forget quite conveniently that you have unfinished business in this matter with me.
Metaphorically speaking, I called you out. I called you onto the carpet. I called your bluff and put my money -- my ~$60 -- where my mouth was.
You have in your possession one DVD and three books, most of which dealt with 9/11, compliments of me.
Your task was to take one of these and thoroughly debunk it point-by-point.
It would be incorrect to say that you "failed miserably," because you didn't even try.
Of course, it was known at the onset by at least me that you could not succeed; your only two outcomes were "failure" and "don't try." Better trolls than you have tried to put lipstick on this government's 9/11 pig, only to have legions of thinking, patriotic people quickly rip it apart for its inconsistencies that contradict other fundamental elements of its fairy tale and defy in instances the laws of physics.
So if I knew that you would fail in this task had you attempted it, why did I persist that you should try?
Some of the best inventors, business leaders, and even sports legends were made great, not by early success, but by failure, sometimes even heaps of it. In fact, even St. Paul of the New Testament failed at his profession (Roman tax collector), only to succeed at a much higher calling.
It was thought that in making the case for the government's 9/11 lie and in exerting such effort that you soon would recognize would fail, you would have a blinding Paul revelation. You would not only see the 9/11 Truth, but you would, like St. Paul, go forth and preach it with even greater vigor than you attacked and persecuted others for expressing such beliefs.
But back to the barnyard references and the fitting nickname I gave you, when it comes to feeding sheeple, I can lead a stubborn jackass to water, but I can't make him drink.
--------------
Here's something to stew on regarding media bias:
"[T]he selling of the Iraq war by exacerbating the fears and channeling the rage of the American people after 9-11 was a tour de force. Much of the mainstream media collaborated, in one way or another, with this endeavor by failing to examine dubious administration claims, passing on propaganda as fact, embedding its reporters with American troops, adopting the official language, and shamelessly cheerleading. While even in the mainstream media there always have been individual journalists who questioned the administration's story, overall the media's complicity in the war began to wane only when the debacle of Iraq became too obvious to ignore."
http://progreso-weekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=441&Itemid=1
"To the public, these men [a group of retired military officers] are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world. Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance. The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air. Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?ex=1366344000&en=196b27df83cc255c&a
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Whereas weaker minds might applaud your attempt (buried in a thread above) to smear me with innuendos regarding other conspiracies, it really only shows how uncritical your thinking is.
On the one hand, they are not the subject here. You don't know what my position is, except that I can graciously concede that, unlike you, my mind is open to evidence and re-evaluation.
On the other hand, it is well that you bring up other conspiracy probabilities. They are dots waiting for an enlightened people to connect regarding why our government needs to be returned to its Constitutional roots.
When a child gets away with crime, like the theft of a Lifesavers roll from a grocery store, they can become more bold regarding what they steal and when and where. The parents might believe for a time that the acquisition of junk food, new clothing, CDs, and electronics was truly the result of babysitting and trades with friends, up until the child is caught by a store security guard. What will make the at-home punishment for the known offense worse is when moral parents begin to ponder the child's newly acquired possessions and the unlikelihood of the child's ever-changing stories about them.
Let's assume that 9/11 is the roomful of ill-be-gotten toys and that the Bush Administration is the petulant child. You believe the stories that the kid told you and keep the door on their 9/11 room closed, as requested in their tantrums.
The thing is, every month something comes to light that calls the honesty of the Bush Administration into question. You recall the 935 lies told by Bush officials leading us into the war with Iraq. Now we learn about the retired military officers who were hired as consultants by corporate mass media and that they weren't really so objective about our wars; they were lined up by the Bush Administration to toe the line, else the access required in their second careers in the military-industrial complex will be cut off. Bush has a history of rewarding and promoting politics over ability and science, which recent cases with FEMA and the EPA bring to light. He has staffed oversight agencies with officials from the industries that they were to monitor. Other oversight agencies he has simply chosen not to staff, such as the SEC, OSHA, USDA, etc.
A complaint active-duty military personnel utter is that Commander-in-Chief Bush is treating soldiers like toys in a game: through stop-loss, extended tours, and repeat tours, he just keeps sending them back into battle again and again until they break. (Let's hope your step-son fairs better.)
This barely scratches the surface. I could go on, but this is enough.
The point is that once the pattern of abuse (of our government, our Constitution, our military, our citizens) becomes glaringly obvious, all right thinking parents have to open the door on the child's 9/11 room despite the child's hand-written signs that say "No Admittance" and "National Security" and even with the child screaming epithets of "conspiracy theory nuts" (as you, Mr. Hawley, spew regularly as your chief and sole defense.)
Once the good parents' minds begin to fathom even a fraction of the mess of that 9/11 room and how it came to be, the boldness of the crime sticks out. It, too, can be recognized as part of a bigger pattern of deceit that built up to the ugliness in front of us.
The "conspiracy theories" that were easy to dismiss before because official government reports so authoritatively told us so, suddenly don't seem so far fetched. As it was then, so it is now: Those who wrote the reports weren't so objective and had vested interests that account for their participation in the cover-up. Now is not the time or place to dredge up the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm-X, or the friendly-fire bombing of our war ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-Contra, the Federal Reserve & the federal income tax, etc. In historic context, however, many of these misdeeds are like the misbehavior of a multi-generational crime family advancing from Lifesaver rolls to grand-theft auto and beyond.
You can call me your silly names, Mr. Hawley. Anybody reading this discussion today or at any future combing of the Collegian's or Coloradoan's archives will readily see how weakly you argued the government's side of the 9/11 case, despite plenty of opportunity and me holding your hand and spoon-feeding you. You couldn't come up with evidence, facts, or even science to thoroughly explain your position, nor could you use the same to debunk 9/11 truth.
What will stand apart from everything else will be your closed mind and stubbornness.
For the record, the "couple other conspiracy nuts" you try to reduce the 9/11 truth movement to exceed by probably 10 points and growing Bush's approval numbers, which today are SO-ooo low (and sinking), he stoops to video appearances on "Deal or No Deal" and "American Idol" -- after an instance of being boo-ed off the pitcher's mound at an opening day baseball game.
Mr. Hawley, who is to say when we are to have our day of reckoning when all will be revealed. For the younger students reading this forum, maybe a similar mini-day will come when the Bush archives are swung open by their grandkids, who then ask them what they were told about 9/11, what they knew about 9/11, what they believed about 9/11, and what they did to rectify the differences.
I've had drinks with many Germans who lived through Hitler's tenure, such as one who served on the Eastern Front and survived five years in a Russian labor camp after the war, another who was sent to a POW camp in England, and another who was conscripted as a soldier directly from the Hitler Youth along with his schoolmates before they had pubic hair or could shave and --so close was the end of the war -- were subsequently ordered by their front-line commander to put down their weapons and walk home a couple hundred miles away before the Russians arrived. I have listened to their tales in various German dialects about being cogs in the machinery that they could not stop or slow down. I have researched and read the accounts of others who should have known better, spoken up, and done something. My college friends and co-workers two and three generations removed suffer still the shame and guilt of their ancestors and lands people.
When the political and judicial systems (and the 4th Estate) have been so thoroughly gamed by those in power, your lame suggestion that you'll recant your cheerleading for the government’s 9/11 fairy tale once the 9/11 perpetrators are tried, convicted, and sent to jail is a bit like a 1776 American colonist saying that he'll support the revolution and the United 13 States of America once the King, his army, and his loyalists are tried and convicted in the King's court and put in the King's jail.
The time to support our Constitution is now; the time to defend it from its foreign and domestic enemies is now; the time to be heard is now.
For all your claims of being both a Patriot and a Christian, your words ring hollow. The electronic archives of the forums in which you participated (and were kicked out of) will expose to your curious great-grandkids more acutely than Nazi stories loosened by German wine what your true position was. It will be like prophesized biblical plagues visiting the iniquities of the third and fourth generation, such will be your dishonor and your embarrassment to them.
"Feed my sheep, Mr. Hawley."
Mr. Hawley, you and Reg Inde have been taught well by the Karl Rove School of Online Debate.
Lesson #1:
The first part of any response should be to personally attack the opponent.Lesson #2:
Put incorrect words into your opponent's mouth.Lesson #3:
Misconstrue your opponent's message purposely so as to build a straw man argument that is easier to knock down than your opponent's real argument.Lesson #4:
Take all of the weaknesses in your own position and project them onto your opponent, whether or not true. Later when the opponent picks up how the weakness is really yours, you can point to their unoriginality in throwing it back at you.Lesson #5:
Rather than addressing your opponent's points head-on, insult their intelligence instead and extrapolate your claim of their lack of intelligence as being the reason why their points fail.Lesson #6:
Purposely mislabel your points as "fact", so that it is harder for your opponent to question it.Lesson #7:
Repeat your lie over and over until it sinks in as a possible truth.
Mr. Hawley tries Lesson #2 of putting words in my mouth with:
[QUOTE id="c4bc4a4f-01d9-4b61-bdc4-62a0c077746f"]
"So Max and his herd of sheep, want us to stop fighting the war on terror and jail Bush and the thousands of people it would have taken to pull off his fantasy of a conspiracy theory."
[/QUOTE]
The number of people that would be required to pull off 9/11 is more on the order of 150, not thousands. And only 10 or so of them would be required to bring down the towers.
That fact that you bring up "thousands of people" as a number means you have not watched the 9/11 DVD that I purchased and sent to you, nor have you read any of the books. For shame, for shame.
As for "[wanting] to stop fighting the war on terror," you seem to forget that terror & terrorism are tactics: not a person, place, or thing. It is a convenient marketing slogan but says nothing of the root causes... one of which just might very well be an occupying foreign army who holds thousands of Iraqi people in prisons and tortures them.
Mr. Hawley tries Lesson #5 with:
"Max is just a loon who will not talk about anything except 911. Just look at his posts here. Max the articles title is about students being mum on the war not on 911."
Mr. Hawley, given that you've been kicked out of the Coloradoan forum and given that you have never contacted me through my website or otherwise given me your email, I had to hunt you down in the Collegian to see if you were ready to complete YOUR UNFINISHED 9/11 BUSINESS.
Remember. I called your bluff, and paid to do it.
I told you that I have an open mind. I not only told you but bought and shipped you the material I use to support my 9/11 views. I simply wanted you to use this and debunk it point-by-point, so that I could see the light and be as well informed in the world as you.
Alas, my ignorance on 9/11 remains vast because you are too cowardly to step up to the plate and make a cohesive argument for the government's 9/11 fairy-tale.
With regards to the article being "mum on the war", we could have taken this all off-line or off-forum (via my website), but I suspect that you are too chicken.
Be that as it may, you consistently fail to recognize that without 9/11 there would probably be no war in Afghanistan and no war in Iraq. And if we were to concede that maybe both would have happened anyway without 9/11, we have to agree that they would not have happened so rapidly, with such poor planning, with such mismanagement, with such war profiteering, without the UN...
Could there be a connection between "mum on 9/11" and "mum on the war"? Could there be a connection with America's overall apathy towards things and their general excitement over David Cook in American Idol?
Mr. Hawley tries Lesson #6 with:
"Fact: There is now a democratically elected Government that represents and speaks for the Iraqi people just like our Government speaks for us."
Who picked the candidates that were "elected"? Whose bidding do they do? Are they really speaking for the Iraqi people, or for the oil corporations who exploit the chaos?
"Fact: That Government has asked us to stay until they can maintain security on their own. So no one is currently occupying Iraq and to say otherwise is a damnable lie."
They did not ask us to build a HUGE embassy. They did not ask us to occupy and run their prisons. They did not ask us to take over their oil industry.
From Mr. Rose:
Actually prime minister Maliki did publicly call for the U.S. to stop its occupation of Iraq on July 14, 2007.
Here is the link to the archive: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/14/2518/
C'mon now, this was less than a year ago!
Craig Hawley wrote:
[QUOTE id="124694b6-8998-4b1d-9825-c9651fc9daa6"]
Find one post where I ever said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 Mr. Rose. I never said it had anything to do with it.
The Inspectors said they could not find records to show all of Saddams WMD's had been destroyed. So no one has confirmed that fact. IT was confirmed he had them and used them.
SO WHERTE DID THE WMD's THAT WERE PRODUCED GO?
...
So the coalition ( not just the United States ) attacked Iraq because Saddam did everything possible to insure that attack , as he admitted he did.
...
YOU ARTE WRONG ON EVERY POINT YOU MADE.
[/QUOTE]
Mr. Hawley,
Not only can we not find any posts where you said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 (-- not that I actually looked; I'll take your questionable word for it --), but we also can't find any posts where you JUSTIFIED the war with Iraq.
You should know that it is impossible to prove a negative. If something is destroyed, how can you prove that you destroyed it? If you didn't destroy it and it exists, you can certainly prove that merely by coughing up the evidence.
If we accept your assertion that the inspectors could not find records to show all of Saddam's WMDs were destroyed, so what? Would those same inspectors have believed any such documents? More importantly, would the Bush Administration? They would have claimed such documents were fake and forgery. And as you've already alluded, it was in Iraq's best interest for its aggressive and armed neighbors to continue in the illusion that such WMDs still existed.
As for the confirmation of Saddam having WMDs and using them, let's put that in context. When did he have them and use them? Like 1988 or 1989. The US gave them to him. That's how we knew.
What sort of WMDs are we talking about? Chemical. Why is this distinction so important? Because the chemical WMDs we gave him in 1989 had a limited shelf life. (Not to say that they wouldn't have been dangerous if one broke open at your feet 10 years after its "use by date" expired, but their potential to be used as an effective and reliable weapon greatly diminished.)
The point here that even the weapons inspectors made, even if chemical WMDs were dug up, they would not have been so critical. Unlike nuclear weapons with a longer shelf life.
And those neo-cons with WMD knowledge in the Bush Administration knew this as well. Which is why they were all over the forged document coming through Italy that supposedly claimed Saddam sought Yellow Cake Uranium through Niger. (Few news organizations have explored who forged this document.) And even when they knew this document to be a forgery, they still touted it as reliable evidence. And when a distinguished and patriotic American, who was involved in determining its forged state, came forward and said "it was a forgery and shouldn't have been used as justification", the Bush Administration attacked him so personally, it resulted in his wife, an under-cover CIA agent specialized in WMDs, being purposely outed. The Bush Administration threw up so much dust and sand into the eyes of the investigator of this crime, all that could be determined without doubt was that Cheney's Cheney committed perjury in maintaining the cover-up.
Let us also not forget that much of the other WMD information came from an Iraqi codenamed "Screwball." A drunk who was milking the system and whose information was known to be unreliable. But it just so happened to fit in with the US government's other dubious justification points.
You wrote:
"So the coalition ( not just the United States ) attacked Iraq because Saddam did everything possible to insure that attack , as he admitted he did."
Not quite. The coalition in this case was very weak.
More importantly, Saddam also did EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to avoid getting attacked. Even before Bush started amassing his forces on Iraq's borders, he was letting in UN weapons inspectors. The US kept saying, "he has WMDs." The inspectors replied, "Where? We'll go see."
You'll want to argue that the inspectors were on a dog and pony show put on by the Iraqi handlers, and that they were busy moving things before the anticipated arrival of the inspectors (often leaked to them.) Still, the inspectors did their own bait and switch and pretty much went any where they wanted and followed up on all leads given them by the US government.
They came up empty. Of course, the US government probably knew that they'd come up empty again and again, but it wanted war and it wanted the oil fields. It yanked the inspectors amidst their loud complaints before their job was done.
At this point we should bring up the 935 lies uttered by top-level Bush Administration officials. These were not misstatements or statements based on an imcomplete picture. They were lies, because the picture was complete enough for them to know at the time they weren't true.
I'd like to spare you another 9/11 reference, but the Bush Administration used 9/11 fear-mongering repeatedly in its 935 lies, mentioning Saddam in the same sentence as 9/11. Can you see how it benefited them to use the fraud of 9/11 to perpetrate another fraud to start the war?
So, Mr. Hawley, you may not be WRONG ON EVERY POINT YOU MADE, but you are certainly MISGUIDED and MISINFORMED and UNINFORMED and (a) UNIFORMED government cheerleader on this.
The electronic archives of these forums in years to come will expose your less than glorious misinformer role, and "it will be like prophesized biblical plagues visiting the iniquities of the third and fourth generation, such will be your dishonor and your embarrassment" to your decendants.
Dear Ms. Registered Indefensible,
You really do live up to your claim of being a "gunslinger for hire." You are all over the map in reciting the talking points of the McBush Administration.
So, who is paying you to regurgitate such uncritical thought, and how much? Do you get paid by the posting?
Aside from the talking points, do they also give you advice? You know, little tidbits like "always personally attack your debate opponents within the first paragraph or two to put them on the defensive before repeating the 'Amerika-ueber-alles' mantra."
I applaud Mr. Rose for expressing his valid and rational points. It appears that you have been fingering too feverishly the money in your pocket paid to you for this "policing" gig.
You wrote:
"It has been six years, six months, and seventeen days since Al Quaeda's horrific, unprovoked attack upon our civilian population."
PROVE IT!!! PROVE that it was Al Quaeda who attacked us.
The so-named master-mind of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, has taken credit for the bombing of the USS Cole, but he never owned up to 9/11. Our very own FBI has bin Laden on its most wanted list for the Cole bombing, but not for 9/11. Can you say, "insufficient evidence"? That's what the FBI says.
And how about the six named hijackers who are alive and well and disputing the claim of their involvement? So maybe it was a merely a case of identity theft, but (a) the government has never fixed its story, (b) this revelation kind of underminds the "magic passports" that were found near the towers, and (c) this could poke holes in even some of the DNA findings.
You know, I may be a 9/11-one-trick-pony, but if it is found to be a fraud, it undermines EVERYTHING in our foreign policy, as if the documented 935 Administration lies in the run-up to the Iraqi War didn't discredit it on its own. If 9/11 was a fraud, it calls into question what we really need for homeland security, such as an honest Congress with a truly patriotic backbone.
Before you remove your fingers from feeling up the money in your pockets to type out a nasty reply to me, walk over to your VCR and program it to record Comcast Channel 22 on Saturday morning from 4 to 6 a.m.
If you don't have Comcast cable or this public access channel 22, then spend some of your propaganda salary on ordering a DVD from www.911tv.org.
Or are you afraid of a little knowledge and how your narrow view of the world will come crashing down?
Step up to the plate, girl, and swing that reich-wing bat at my wimpy underhanded 9/11 pitches.
{Never published to the forum.}
Dear Mr. Hawley
Your lengthy, rambling posting has fallacies, holes, and gaps in logic, starting with your opening line:
"Every major intelligence agency said he had WMD's."
The operative word in this sentence that gives it a tiny grain of truth is "had", as in past-tense. Yes, "he (had) had WMD's", because the US gave them to him, gave him battlefield intelligence, and watched him use them on the Iranians and his own people. (It should be noted that once they were used, they were consumed and not available to be used again.)
In 2002-2003, were these agencies in agreement that "he has WMD's"? Was this a "slam-dunk" assertion?
Even before we question what you mean by "every major intelligence agency," the answer is "No." The usual agencies on our side -- the CIA --, put hefty qualifiers, conditionals, and weasel-words around such assertions. The USA outspends every other nation in the world combined on defense and intelligence. In the past, when the NSA or the CIA -- both non-political -- issued a top-secret briefing with their assessment, it was usually very reliable. As such, "every major intelligence agency" outside the USA put a high level of confidence in any reports shared with them from US intelligence agencies.
Cheney was unhappy with such mincing of words by the CIA, which is why he created his own office of special intelligence (or whatever he called it) that took raw, unanalyzed, intelligence data and skewed it to their meet their policy ends. This is how Screwball's allegations of mobile chemical weapons trailers made it into the official story line. This Cheney stovepipe purged all words of uncertainty and doubt from other agency reports, like the NIE and CIA.
These creations of fiction were what they shared with other major intelligence agencies, Congress, the UN, and more importantly leaked to the press. Then when Cheney was in one of his rare media interviews and was asked questions relating to the (dubious) information circulating in the press, he confirmed the reports "yes, we have heard that."
How about if we connect some dots here?
You wrote:
"Remember WMD's was a reason to go into Iraq, not the only reason."
Let's be honest here. By removing all qualifiers from the intelligence reports to make the WMD argument sound more solid, they could play on America's fears and push this agenda through. If they would have left in the qualifiers and not repeated the 9/11-Saddam-9/11 lie, the WMD reason would not have been very strong. In fact, it would have been downright weak. All of the other reasons they publicly uttered (like the removal of a murderous dictator, bringing democracy) may have been true, but were not strong enough to justify military engagement in many other countries (Sudan, Dafur, ...), so they would not have been strong enough here.
PNAC gave many reasons why we should invade Iraq, the chief one being the desire to have a permanent military presence in the Middle East to control our nation's future energy supply. You look at the numerous permanent bases we have built in Iraq and Afghanistan and the huge embassy in Iraq, you'll conclude "mission accomplished."
{-- Begin Lots of point-by-point rebuttal stuff to be deleted. --}
You wrote:
"1. Did he have WMD's ( yes he had and used them )"
The key phrase is "used them." If he used them, he consumed them. They can't be used again.
You wrote:
"2. Where are the WMD's we know he had the the UN inspectors said they could not find and were not destroyed."
Again, the WMDs "we know he had" (past-tense) were chiefly chemical weapons with a short shelf life.
Moreover, given the Bush Administrations track record of disinformation and skewing analysis to meet their policy, we now have to doubt the assertion of "the WMDs we know he had." Maybe we didn't know.
Yes, the UN inspectors said they could not find them, but no, they did not say they were not destroyed.
"3. Inspectors never had open access even when they were allowed into Iraq."
Your statement is true for the time period prior to Saddam kicking them out, which led the Bush Administration to hype the argument that they were kicked out because Saddam was reconstituting his weapons programs.
Your statement is false for the time perior immediately prior the invasion. Saddam saw how serious the US was in going to war and let them back in. They had open access... Up until Bush kicked them out again "for their safety at the invasion."
"4. Inspectors were kicked out of Iraq several times. You going to tell me WMD's could not have been buried or taken outside the country when no Inspectors were there to see them moved."
We may not have had UN weapons inspectors on the ground, but we had satillites in the air. We and other intelligence agencies had spies. Yes, I am going to tell you that WMDs could not have been buried or taken outside the country easily. Their burial for sure would have been noticed. And if they were taken outside the country, not an easy feat.
You wrote:
"NOT FINDING SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN IT DOESN'T EXSIST."
True. The weapons inspectors were not given the opportunity to search "every square inch of Iraq." They pleaded for that opportunity, and were denied even though Saddam was contained and wasn't a threat.
{-- End Lots of point-by-point rebuttal stuff to be deleted. --}
Mr. Hawley, have you ever conceded any points about the crimes of the Bush Administration? Have you conceded anything that they have done wrong in a major way, possibly even an impeachable way? Have you every admitted an instance where they lied? Have you even put together their 52+ major scandals that individually could have brought down any other administration?
I haven't seen all of your postings in this and the Coloradoan, but I've seen more than my share. And at least in my exchanges with you, I don't seem to recall any concessions (but I could be wrong.)
In fact, when I thought that my arguments (or those of others) got you close to seeing that "our nation has to take another course," you weaseled your way out by bringing up ancient President Clinton canards or other inapplicable distractions and justified in your mind continued un-Constitutional behavorior of our leaders.
We have been giving you chapter and verse across the whole spectrum of Bush Administration policy and action about how they lied to us here and they duped us there, whether we're talking about domestic policy or foreign policy, our Constitutional Law or International Law, fiscal policy or elections, 9/11 or invasion of Iraq, FISA courts or Federal Prosecutors, FEMA or SEC, ...
DAMN IT! It ought to be perfectly clear that Bush has had an inverse-Midas touch on everything he came in contact with (from the perspective of an average US citizen, not one of his ultra-rich donors.) It ought to be perfectly clear that we cannot rely soley on the word of the Bush Administration or any agency headed by Bush appointees.
Yet still you're (Mc)Bush's biggest cheerleader.
My first thought is to ask you (again) to pull your head out of... uh, the sand.
My second thought is to revisit a [bracketed] bullet point above, where I hinted that Cali-foreigner Hawley is a paid propaganda spinner for the Bush Administration. Numerous times in the past, I've called you a government troll, somewhat half in jest to shake you up and out of your stupor.
At this point, calling you a government troll and paid propaganda catapultor appears to be the highest honor I believe I could ever bestow upon you. You will never see the truth, either because you aren't paid to.
Because if that isn't it, then my condolences. Please step up the frequency of your AARP Alzheimer's testing of your mental faculties, because you are closer than debate opponents to the slurs of loon, nut, crazy, whacky, off-balance, uninformed, stupid, etc. that you've slung at me or others to defend your weak positions.
{unfinished}
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 2: Registered 420 Jimmy
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 4: 9/11 Christian Science Treatment
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 5: Mind Your P's & Q's
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 6: Q Dots
Choice Quotations from the Hee-Haw-ley Himself showing his God-given character & charm:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
* 25
* 26
* 27
* 28
* 29
* 30
* 31
* 32
* 33
* 34
* 35
* 36
* 37
* 38
* 39
* 40
* 41
* 42
* 43
* 44
* 45
* 46
* 47
* 48
* 49
* 50
* 51
* 52
* 53
* 54
* 55
* 56
* 57
* 58
* 59
* 60
* 61
* 62
* 63
* 64
* 65
* 66
* 67
* 68
* 69
* 70
* 71
* 72
* 73
* 74
* 75
* 76
* 77
* 78
* 79
* 80
* 81
* 82
* 83
* 84
* 85
* 86
* 87
* 88
* 89
* 90
* 91
* 92
* 93
* 94
* 95
* 96
* 97
* 98
* 99
* 100
* 101
* 102
* 103
* 104
* 105
* 106
* 107
* 108
* 109
* 110
* 111
* 112
* 113
* 114
* 115
* 116
* 117
* 118
* 119
* 120
* 121
* 122
* 123
* 124
* 125
* 126
* 127
* 128
* 129
* 130
* 131
* 132
* 133
* 134
* 135
* 136
* 137
* 138
* 139
* 140
* 141
* 142
* 143
* 144
* 145
* 146
* 147
* 148
* 149
* 150
* 151
* 152
* 153
* 154
* 155
* 156
* 157
* 158
* 159
* 160
* 161
* 162
* 163
* 164
* 165
* 166
* 167
* 168
* 169
* 170
* 171
* 172
* 173
* 174
* 175
* 176
* 177
* 178
* 179
* 180
* 181
* 182
* 183
* 184
* 185
* 186
* 187
* 188
* 189
* 190
* 191
* 192
* 193
* 194
* 195
* 196
* 197
* 198
Choice Quotations from Hee-Haw-ley's Echo Chamber, Registered Independent:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
* 25
* 26
* 27
* 28
* 29
* 30
* 31
* 32
* 33
* 34
* 35
* 36
* 37
* 38
* 39
* 40
* 41
* 42
* 43
* 44
* 45
* 46
* 47
* 48
* 49
* 50
* 51
Choice Quotations from Hee-Haw-ley's Superior Officer, Sgt. Asshat:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
Quotations from Jesus H. Christ:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
Quotations from others:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21