Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Liars and Lefties and frauds, oh my!

I know, I know, I’m wasting my time by putting all this out there yet again, after having done it time after time over the course of the last several years. But it seemed that it might come in handy to have this stuff gathered together in one post, if nothing else. So without further ado, here’s Mike’s Basic Primer on Lies.

The trouble, it seems to me, is that some who sympathize with the Left misrepresent or at least misunderstand the meaning of the word “lie.” To actually lie, one must first have a solid knowledge of the truth. Lying is a matter of will and intent. An honest mistake isn’t a lie; thus, the claim that “Bush lied” because he based his decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power by force on so-called “faulty intelligence” actually points up not only an irrational hatred of the man himself but also a fundamental ignorance of what intelligence work is. Intelligence is never concrete, static, or foolproof; intelligence, much like many of those individuals intelligence agencies rely on for their information, is random, uncertain, and riddled with guesswork and flaws.

Bush, as President, was and is charged with a certain responsibility: defending this nation from its enemies. He was and is forced to make critical decisions based on interpretations and analyses done by various intelligence agencies, which analyses were in turn based on uncertain raw intelligence data. All this merely makes the presidential decision-making process unremarkable and entirely ordinary when compared with historical precedent.

What makes Bush’s decision-making process unique is the context in which many of those decisions have been made. Bush’s presidential decisions were not and are not made in a vacuum; there was and is a very specific, very important context to be borne in mind, for Bush if not for the rest of us — a context the Dems and the Left generally would very much like you to either forget or ignore, since most people are aware of their dismal record on national security. Here is the context, for you forgetful Lefties out there:



If Bush had made his judgment to invade Iraq without taking this context into consideration, people who actually do think America is worth fighting to defend — and yes, there are plenty of people who don’t think so, although it’s more politically costly for them to admit it nowadays than it used to be — would have considered him at best incompetent (see Clinton, Bill — response to Islamic terrorism) or grossly negligent (ibid). His duty was to err, if err he must, on the side favoring our national security, to shade his decisions in such a way that our country’s safety is not compromised; what that means is that if any evidence could be shown that indicated a potential threat from Saddam’s Iraq, those of us who put America’s interests first would have demanded that action be taken — as in fact we did, for months before Bush finally decided that the risk of inaction was too great to accept in the post-9/11 geopolitical landscape.

This was by no means an indefensible decision, except to those on the Left who are too evolved and sophisticated to believe in quaint, antiquated concepts like national defense and patriotism anymore. It was a judgment call based on recent events and the best intelligence available, intelligence that was by no means perfect, because no intelligence ever is. If Bush gave more credence to the parts of it that indicated a potential threat, well, good. That’s exactly what those of us who voted for him hired him to do. It does not, however, make him a liar. It makes him exactly what we hoped he’d be: an American President who is unwilling to roll the dice with the safety of our country and its citizenry, or to rely on the goodwill and basic honesty of mad, terrorist-coddling dictators like Saddam Hussein.

Those of you who think that’s wrong are entitled to your opinion, but you’re not necessarily entitled to get your pretty pink panties all in a wad when the rest of us question your patriotism over it. Because really, it all comes down to this: either you think we ought to err in favor of American security, or you don’t. If you don’t, you most likely fall into one of two possible categories:

If you’re one of those who actually does understand how intelligence works and is just playing the political “gotcha” game to even the score for Clinton or otherwise advance the Lefty agenda, you have no claim to any kind of patriotism at all; you’re guilty of breaking one of its cardinal rules, the one that says all political disagreement stops at the water’s edge. Your “dissent” is illegitimate, based as it is on a deceptive representation of your actual agenda. And you leave yourself open to a charge of treason, although it’s unlikely it will ever be formally made; there is simply no question at all that your efforts encourage America’s enemies, place our soldiers in greater danger, and undermine the broader war effort. Even our enemies openly acknowledge that, and our soldiers damned sure know it too.

If you’re one of those who think Bush should have been more reticent in defending the nation and should have ignored intelligence suggesting that Iraq was a potential threat even after eight years of such fecklessness regarding Islamic terrorism’s potential to do us serious harm got us that big construction site in lower Manhattan, you might still have some credible claim to patriotism. You are certainly entitled to hold that opinion if you wish, against all rationality and plenty of evidence suggesting that the threat we currently face from violent radical Islam — and, most especially for purposes of this post, outlaw states that support and enable its practitioners — is quite real. But you are also very, very reckless. And very, very stupid. And, for the next three years at least, very, very irrelevant.

And if you’re one of those who thinks that there’s a significant difference between Bush’s so-called “lies” and Clinton’s real ones, well, you’re right. And here it is: Clinton lied for nothing more noble than self-aggrandizement; he lied for the most banal purpose imaginable, and his lie betrayed his near-sociopathic contempt for the office he held, the people who put him there, and women generally. Bush “lied”¹ because he took this national-security business seriously enough to make a politically dangerous decision and stick with it, because he thought that after having endured the deadly and damaging 9/11 attacks, America could no longer afford to tolerate certain things. In any mature moral sense, Clinton’s lie was actually more contemptible than Bush’s, which wasn’t a lie at all but is being claimed so only to provide a political handhold to people who take power more seriously than they do principle: ie, Democrats and the Left.

And if you want a practical example of some real liars in action, we know where to look. Herewith a by no means comprehensive collection of Lefty lies on various topics, in no particular order:

  1. Bush was in some way responsible for 9/11, or had advance knowledge of it but did nothing to prevent it (which amounts to the same thing) or, put another way, as radical, non-moderate, non-mainstream Democrat and DNC chair Howlin’ Howie Dean did, it’s “an interesting theory” — absurd on its face, and I won’t dignify it further by addressing it, but to anyone not wearing the latest in tinfoil headgear, it’s clearly a…LIE
  2. Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat — no, what he said was this: “…Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?” — a statement that clearly conveys the precise opposite of what the Lefties are so fond of smugly asserting…LIE
  3. Joe Wilson is an honest whistle-blower whose credibility and reliability is unimpeachable, and therefore a cause of great fear and consternation for the Bush admin — not hardly. Joe Wilson blatantly lied about at least three easily-verifiable things that we know of, and possibly even more, placing his credibility somewhere far, far south of your average used car salesman’s…LIE
  4. Valerie Plame was a covert agent outed by some sinister Bush admin cabal — no, she wasn’t – she hadn’t had an out-of-country CIA assignment in over five years, which is the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act’s legal threshold for “covert” — or it is, at least, according to two of the guys who wrote the damned thing. One assumes that they would have some minimal grasp of the meaning of their own creation, or one would if one were someone interested in the truth and not a Lefty liar pursuing a partisan get-Bush agenda at any and all cost. The Fitzgerald commission also returned no indictments for “outing” Plame after a two-year investigation — none, zip, zero, nada — which would also seem to negate the “outing” assertion for anybody but a Lefty…LIE
  5. Saddam had never threatened the US — ridiculous to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the history of the last, oh, fourteen years — which, apparently, does not include very many of the “reality”-based. From Saddam’s constant saber-rattling threats against us, to weekly attacks against our military aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq, to helping out with the ’93 WTC bombing and providing shelter to those who committed it, to placing a standing bounty on the head of a former US president (and one can’t help but suspect that if it were any non-Republican, non-Bush-family president, it might matter somewhat to the Proudly Patriotic Left), this one is just another stupid Lefty…LIE
  6. Bush killed the Kyoto treaty — leaving aside for now the extremely dubious nature of the whole global-warming proposition, the Kyoto treaty was effectively junked by Resolution S-98, the Byrd-Hagel resolution — in a unanimous 95-0 vote, during the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, not Bush’s; Gore symbolically signed the abomination, but Clinton never submitted it for ratification, and thankfully neither has Bush…LIE
  7. FEMA, under Bush’s stewardship, is incapable of mounting an adequate and appropriate response to natural disaster — a twofer, in that it either wilfully or ignorantly misrepresents what FEMA’s mandate and overall task is, and is also patently untrue, if the Katrina disaster is any indication — under Michael Brown’s leadership, FEMA mounted a response in NOLA that was a) no slower than its response to previous disasters, and b) hampered in the main by the disorganized incompetence of the local political leadership, which failed to implement its own disaster plans and generally behaved not as responsible adults but as whining, weeping children. FEMA surely isn’t perfect, but only a Lefty could ever expect any federal agency to be, and complain when it isn’t in the face of one of the worst storms in history…LIE
  8. WMDs were the only reason we went after Saddam, and promoting democracy in a part of the world not exactly known for it was an after-the-fact rationalization — see this for a quite adequate refutation…LIE
  9. Bush, ever the photo-op phony, served up a plastic turkey to troops in Iraq at Thanksgiving — Tim Blair’s got your “plastic turkey” swingingLIE
  10. Bush went AWOL from the TANG — it’s remarkable — and revealing, of the virulently debilitating nature of BDS at least — that, after the Rathergate forged-memo scandal, the Left has the nerve to keep bringing this tired old lie from the 2000 campaign up, but then I suppose if Mary Mapes, the LIC (Liar In Charge) of bringing those phony documents to light can have the gall to show her face in public and still insist on the veracity of the “fake but accurate” story, I suppose most Lefties are shameless enough to disregard the disgrace associated with another plain old-fashioned….LIE
  11. There was no connection between Islamist terrorism and Saddam’s Iraq — another laughably absurd claim, and another one scarcely worth bothering about. Unless the Left, in their ceaseless quest to make excuses for and lend moral support to any and all of America’s enemies, has now defined “terrorism” so narrowly that it no longer describes people like Abu Nidal, Zarqawi, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and othersLIE
  12. Actual honest recounts of Florida ballots show that Gore won the 2000 election — this is it: the Big One, the Enchilada, the Big Kahuna of Lefty lies; this is the one from which all the others flow, the one that started the whole BDS ball rolling, the one the Left will simply never forgive, forget, or recover from — the culmination, the Alpha and Omega of thirty-some years of Left/liberal derangement. Unfortunately for the foundations of their delusions, recounts done in accordance with the election rules in force in Florida at the time show no such thingLIE

As a liar, our President looks pretty darned Bush-league next to these pros.

Yeah, I know. Sorry; I couldn’t resist.

Update! And the latest lie, currently being peddled by Left/Liberal Lemmings all over the blogosphere and elsewhere: that Bush said that everyone who disagrees with him on Iraq is “irresponsible.” Once again, the Left has taken a Bush statement and turned it on its head, claiming, as they did with “imminent threat,” that he said the exact opposite of what he actually did say, which is this: “”While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.”

Can anyone but a moron — or a craven, venal liar — possibly misunderstand something as clear and plainspoken as that?

Never mind; don’t answer that one.

Updated update! Via Bill – more. And how.

¹ and of course, he actually didn’t by any reasonable definition of the word; he made a decision that some people don’t like, is all

Share

30 thoughts on “Liars and Lefties and frauds, oh my!

  1. Firsties! I don’t believe it!

    Thanks to Cold Fury for pulling all the pieces into one clear, concise, precise, convenient and well referenced form that I can send to my LLL “friends” when they rant their usual BS…It’s sort of like having a handgrenade or grapeshot to use, versus repeated rounds of small arms fire.

    Keep it coming!

  2. damn! scooped.

    Well your list certainly is exhausting, er-exhaustive! I will address 2 issues here, which I deem to be the most important at the moment:

    The Iraq War- the main issue here is the timing of the initial events. What various past presidents, current presidents, advisors and so on said 10 years ago, 3 years ago or yesterday doesn’t matter. What matters is that the White House Iraq Group, led by the VP and POTUS had a plan to invade Iraq regardless of process.

    A TPM reader expresses my thoughts nicely:

    Both domestic and international leaders agreed that we had a right and even an obligation to determine whether Saddam was a threat, and if so, what to do about it, but this process was PREEMPTED by the decision to invade before knowing all the important facts. Let’s hold them accountable for that premature decision and forget arguing about who thought what in 1999 or 2002. We could have reached a consensus with the international community and our own intelligence agencies if we had allowed the facts to come out from the inspections, and more complete intelligence that would have come from that process.
    Thus the accusation is that they pre-empted that process specifically to avoid the possibility that the consensus would have been not to invade. They were determined to invade and that’s what led to the intelligence manipulations. That’s what we need to focus on. The decision had already been made regardless of the intelligence. Once people realize that the invasion was already planned and the NIE or PDB had nothing to do with that decision, the issue will be framed in a way they can’t respond to except to deny it.

    Global Warming: This administration’s biggest failure. In 5 years we’ve gone back 50. Global warming is real, and is the biggest threat the world faces today- period. Whether it is a result of human activity or not doesn’t matter, although I think that we are in a natural warming cycle excasberated and amplified by human activity.

    The absolute necessity of keeping the threads of nature connected has been tossed in the trash heap by this administration. The importance of wetlands to act as storm-surge buffers on our coasts is well known and documented, yet Bush has dismantled the laws protecting them. The effects of pollution in the Caribbean are well known, yet Bush has dismantled the laws that keep polluters in line.

    This president has no domestic policy, other than cutting taxes for corporations, and making it easier for those corporations to exploit natural resources and human resources.

    A forward looking president would have pushed technology forward by offering unprecidented grants and prizes to companies developing hydrogen fuel technologies. If 1/3 of what we have spent in destroying Iraq were used in such a way, it is conceivable that we would end our reliance on oil in 10 years or so.

    But no, this president and his VP in particular are operating as though we are still in the 1950’s. They have no regard for the environment, and their policies will cause this country unnecessary hardship. We are past the point of no-return. Going forward the weather will be more unpredictable and damaging to human concerns.

  3. More nonsense from Zorro, this time dressed in Waxman’s cheesy list. Did you even look at how lame those quotes are, Z?

    Here’s Waxhead’s first quote for Bush:
    “I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program.”
    and why he thinks it’s not true:
    “This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community’s deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to resume its nuclear program.”

    Waxman’s lie is thoroughly debunked here.

    As usual, try again Zorro. Might I suggest choosing sources that aren’t so obviously wrong on their very first point?

  4. No, Joe. You link to facts about how much yellowcake Iraq had…no big secret, Iraq has uranium reserves (which makes the Niger story all the more unbeleivable). Other links to well-known information is also provided.

    This is not the argument (nice try though…). Bush repeatedly said things like “our intelligence indicates…” without acknowledging that the intelligence community reached no such conclusion, and inspections found no signs whatsoever supporting that claim.

    What Bush should have said was:

    “Even though our intelligence sources disagree on the matter, and inspections have found no evidence that Saddam is trying to rebuild his weapons program, I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program.”

    But, even you can see that that would not have had the same PR value.

  5. Dude, that picture was fabricated by the Mossad. Or Enron and the CIA got us into the war intentionally to get their hooks into middle eastern oil, which is proven by the massive Oil Company profits. You can’t deny there were massive Oil Company profits can you? No, I didn’t think so. Which proves the war was immoral and wrong. US out of Iraq, now! We’re patriots! Don’t question our motivations or our honesty!

  6. But, even you can see that that would not have had the same PR value.

    Not to mention the fact that even Mr. Rogers would have been embarrassed to have made such a feeble, hairsplitting, meaninglessly namby-pamby non-statement as that. The truth is that, despite the niggling doubts provided pretty sparsely by a tiny handful of analysts, the majority of the intelligence community — and the rest of the world — believed Saddam had WMD, for one simple reason: he had them before, and had used them, and had refused to account for their disposal or destruction as he was required to do by umpty-leven UN resolutions. After 9/11, that suspicion, combined with his support for jihadist terrorists as evidenced by their having the run of Baghdad, was all the rationale any President should have needed to take Saddam out.

    Any responsible President not more concerned with getting blowjobs on my dime than with national security, that is. Hey, if that’s okay with you, you have a right to that opinion. But let’s not cloud the issue here with bullshit, and let’s not get bogged down in discussions of minutiae. The WMD issue was one of several that justified the use of force in Iraq. The truth is that we had a debate — a long one — followed by a vote, and your side lost, with some legislators on your side voting against their conscience (if any) in hopes of providing themselves with a bit of political cover, and now those guys wish to run from taking any responsibility for their votes by slinging out base accusations that have no basis in fact and cannot be proven.

    THAT’S what we’re really talking about here.

  7. You continue to make unsupported statements like “without acknowledging that the intelligence community reached no such conclusion” or “inspections found no signs whatsoever supporting that claim” that are patently false, Zorro. Cite the intelligence product that came to a different conclusion that the President gave; as for inspections, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Read Baradei’s report, and see my cites here.

    Saddam was trying to reconstitute his weapons programs; only liberal denial and willful stupidity could conclude otherwise.

  8. There’s been a breach in the dike:

    JONES: Tucker, sure, sure. Let’s start with the collapse of Building seven. Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?

    CARLSON: OK. I am not sure if we can, but that is the World Trade Center. It’s smaller than the other two it was not hit by a plane.

    JONES: Let’s try.

    CARLSON: Of course, it collapsed.

    JONES: Right. It’s 47 stories.

    CARLSON: That’s right.

    JONES: Twenty-four steel columns in the center.

    CARLSON: Right.

    JONES: Trusses, asymmetrically supported. Now, I can’t see what you’re seeing. Are we rolling that?

    CARLSON: No. We just see the building. And just so our viewers know, the explanation that I think is conventional is that there was a large tank of diesel fuel stored in the lower level of that, which caught fire, and the resulting fire collapsed the building.

    JONES: Well, that’s basically it, yes, but as we read in the FEMA report, it says here, and I put this in my paper, of course. “The best hypothesis, which is the only one they looked at, fire, has only a low probability of occurrence. Further investigation analyses are needed to resolve this issue, and I agree with that.”

    CARLSON: OK.

    JONES: But they admit there’s only a low probability, and if you look at the collapse, you see what I have studied is the fall time, the symmetry, the fact that it first dips in the middle. That’s called the kink. Which is very characteristic, of course, of controlled demolition.

    CARLSON: Professor, I am sorry that we are out of time …

    JONES: Whoa, one other thing I want to mention.

    CARLSON: Ok. If you can hit it – hit it quickly.

    JONES: OK. All right. Here we go. Molten metal in the basements of all three buildings.

    CARLSON: Right.

    JONES: And yet all scientists now reasonably agree that the fires were not sufficiently hot to melt the steel, so what is this molten metal? It’s direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, which produces molten iron as an end product.

    CARLSON: OK.

    JONES: It’s very short time, but people will read the paper, then I talk about the molten metal, the symmetry of the collapse, and the weaknesses and inadequacies of the fire hypothesis.

    CARLSON: Professor, we are going to have to leave it to our viewers who are interested enough to follow up to do just that. We appreciate you coming on, even if I don’t understand your theories, we appreciate you trying to explain them. Thanks.

    Now, I think that Professor Jones did not say anything that could be called scientific “mumbo-jumbo”, yet Tucker Carlson says he can’t understand it, and basically shoos him away.

    I’ve said this all along, that whover is behind 9/11 fucked up with Building 7. There would be far less scrutiny of the mechanics of the collapse if they had left #7 standing.

  9. Oh God, no, Z, don’t go there. I’ve always considered you off-base, incorrect, sometimes a bit disingenuous in making your argument, but still at least generally honorable and not completely bugfuck nuts. If this kind of insanity is where you’re headed, though, I’m going to have to reassess all that. No way am I interested in following where you’re goin’.

    “Whoever is behind 9/11”? Lord help.

  10. I simply follow the truth, wherever it may lead. Let’s assume that al Qaeda is behind the attacks. Building 7 has always been an anomoly: many structural engineers and architects have looked at it and said that the story we’re told to believe: that a diesel-fuel tank fire caused that building to collapse as it did is highly unlikely, if not impossible. That building’s collapse is consistent in every way with a controlled demolition.

    So, let’s assume that al Qaeda is behind the attack (which I am not disputing). That may mean that al Qaeda had plants in the WTC security operations in order to be able to place the explosives. That casts a completely new light on things.

  11. Zorro, there are a lot of structural engineers and architects in the world. If you look hard enough you can probably find one to give a nod to almost any theory. You can find people who claim that Special Forces blew up dikes in New Orleans. You can find people who claim that no airliner ever hit the Pentagon. For every tragedy there’s an imaginary and needlessly complex conspiracy.

    Popular Science included the Building 7 claims in their debunking article back in March. Read their answer.

    PM: Debunking The 9/11 Myths – Mar. 2005 Cover Story

  12. Read the Pop Sci bit when it came out…

    It really says little to explain #7. Professor Jones and others have looked at the evidence, and have a working hypothesis that a controlled demolition brought that building down.

    Even if, as the Pop Sci article says, one of the main central columns gave way, the “scooped out” lower floors that the article refers to would have most likely caused the building to fall to the side rather than perfectly straight down. The way that all 4 outside walls fell perfectly on top of the interior rubble is a hallmark of a professionally “pulled” building.

    In any event, the Pop Sci article is really just a bunch of fluff…I am hoping that there is a lot more discussion about #7, because that incident is the most extraordinary moment in a day of extraordinary events, and the most troubling.

  13. Zorro could you supply some kind of link to all these laws about the enviroment that you claim Pres. Bush –er broke or struck down or whatever.

  14. Here’s a little summary
    http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/water_wetlands.asp

    …but the devil is always in the details, as the good folk in New Orleans have disovered. This Guardian article sums that one up nicely:

    “The Bush administration’s policy of turning over wetlands to developers almost certainly has contributed to the heightened level of the storm surge. In 1990, a federal task force began restoring lost wetlands around New Orleans. Every two miles of wetland between the Crescent City and the Gulf reduces a surge by half a foot. Bush promised a “no net loss” wetland policy, which had been launched by his father’s administration and bolstered by President Clinton. But he reversed the approach in 2003, unleashing the developers. The army corps of engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency announced they could no longer protect wetlands unless they were somehow related to interstate commerce.”

  15. Oh, Man! I should have included the last part of that quote above…because it really spotlights this adminitration’s lack of vision:

    “In response to this potential crisis, four leading environmental groups conducted a study that concluded in 2004 that without wetlands protection New Orleans could be devastated by an ordinary – much less a category four or five – hurricane. “There’s no way to describe how mindless a policy that is when it comes to wetlands protection,” said one of the report’s authors. The chairman of the White House’s council on environmental quality dismissed the study as “highly questionable”, and boasted: “Everybody loves what we’re doing.”

    That’s pretty much it in a nutshell…I wonder if “everyone” now loves what they did.

  16. When will you see that the Virgin Mary is just a stain on the wall?

    When will you see that the Worldwide Caliphate is just a stain on your sheets?

  17. Oh, dear God, Bryan. I knew that the military was homophobic, but they were blowing up dykes in New Orleans? No wonder they had to blow up the levee too – to cover up their insane Bush Administration Warmonger Gay Bashing! I knew it… I just knew it.

  18. ” The way that all 4 outside walls fell perfectly on top of the interior rubble is a hallmark of a professionally “pulled” building.”

    Do you have any idea how many man-hours of work go into setting up a building to be “professionally pulled” like that? And you think there is even the slightest chance that this could be done cladestinely in a 47 story office building in Manhattan without anyone noticing?

    This is like the pinheads who think that the Pentagon hit was faked, and the damage was done by a missile, not a plane. Questions – where’s Flight 77? Where’s Barbara Olsen and the rest of the pasengers and crew?

  19. How many times do I have to say it? Conspiracy theories are unimpeachable evidence that you’re dealing with an unreachable idiot.

    Next he’ll trot out “The Jooooos were warned!” bullshit, and we can comfortably label him as the Anti-Semitic asshole he is, then go have a beer.

    As Schultzie says, “We win again!”

  20. Oh. My. God.

    Zorro, can you really be that fucking dumb?

    Try this on for size: NEW ORLEANS WAS BUILT BELOW SEA LEVEL, YOU FUCKING DOLT!

    It doesn’t matter if the storm surge was only a foot higher than the walls around the city, New Orleans was going to get flooded! And the main wall that failed was the wall between New Orleans and LAKE PONCHETRAIN! Yeah, a lot of wetlands sitting on top of that lake there, right?

    Jeebus, would you shut the fuck up and go away? Reading your blather is like listening to a five-year old fucked up on speedballs.

  21. Note to self: Invest in TIN.

    The demand for foil hats has obviously gone up.

    Zerro is the poster boy.

  22. Dave,

    Have a look at this image:

    http://whyfiles.org/228flood_control/images/landloss11x17.jpg

    Now, the storm surge came in from the SE, blew right up the sound into Slidell and Lake Ponchartrain. Now, do you see the BIG areas of land-loss and predicted land loss (this map was produced by USGS in 2000). Do you see how fragmented the delta is immediately south of Slidell?

    Yes, you do. THAT is the wetlands we’re talking about.

    Now, it’s time for your Prozak, bitch.

  23. Zorro, there is no way one and one half years of wetland developments doomed New Orleans. The ACE knew the place was doomed if a strom surge came through, their own magazine ran the articles. The potential for a disaster in New Orleans has been known for forty years. Most of the city is below sea-level, the rest sits in a swamp, between one of the world’s largest rivers and a large “lake”, which is actually an arm of the Gulf of Mexico. The only thing that could have possibly save New Orleans was the plan for putting flood gates on the passes from the gulf into Lake Ponchartrain to keep a storm surge back.

    That was nixed back in the seventies as being environmentally bad.

    Sorry, geography doomed New Orleans. Chimpy gets a pass on this one.

  24. You don’t go to Madamoiselle to learn about professional football, and you don’t go to Popular Science for structural engineering news. Go to Engineering News Record for the opinions of professionals, includng the structural engineer for the WTC. The assertions by Zoro about building collapse are errant nonsense. To convert a straight down gravity collapse into a tipping requires a horizontal force that seems not to have been present.
    The levee failures were boils, seepages under the levees that washed away material. Apparently there were cases where sheet piles designed to cut off seepage were not driven to the specified depth, obviously to save costs. Someone made a profit by cheating the government.
    Had the flood gates recommended decades ago not been halted, New Orleans would have had a more in depth defense. If levee reinforcement money had not been diverted to make a basin for casino barges, perhaps levees could have been improved.
    Zoro, turn in your mask.

  25. “Whoever is behind 9/11″?

    It takes a special level of mendacity to suggest that the US government was involved in 9/11 but that Saddam Hussein couldn’t possibly have been.

Comments are closed.

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix