RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

Keith Olbermann comments on the politics of the death of Osama bin Laden. Olbermann talks of the end of Sarah Palin's presidential hopes, and the air being sucked out of Peter King's anti-Muslim congressional hearings. Keith also points out that the search for Bin Laden began and ended with Democratic presidents.

Keith Olbermann. (image: FOK News Channel)
Keith Olbermann. (image: FOK News Channel)

go to original article your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+63 # AndreM5 2011-05-03 09:23
"These arguments are dead... as bin Laden."
Not likely. With the attention span of a nanosecond and their only information source spewing and spinning the world upside down, there are 25% in the USA who will believe anything. Facts are merely irrelvant nuisances and assassinating bin Laden will not end this.
0 # AndreM5 2011-05-05 22:42
Forparity, get a life. I have worked on climatology models since 1972. With an increase in CO2 everyone's models predict an increase in climate aberrations (+/-), call it the standard deviation of annual climate cycles if you like. Wierd storms are wierder on both sides of the mean, OK? I said EVERYONE'S models and that includes Exxon's.
0 # Wojciehowicz 2011-05-07 00:45
And all of those models have been, statistically speaking, entirely inaccurate. You're nowhere near an alpha of .05, nevermind .01. So please, stop acting as though less than 40 years of in-depth observations have given you more than a tea-leaves level of guessing about a subject that plays out on multi-thousand- year scales. Your interdisciplina rianism is nonexistent; you base everything on tight focus on a few things in one area and ignore geology, biology, hydrology... Some of us do have a university archive access and the ability to wade through your field's papers and know what they say versus the press releases.
-128 # forparity 2011-05-03 09:54
Olbie's "

"..acts set off by weather events.. " comment made me think of Al Gore. Actually blamed Katrina on man-made (AGW) global warming.

Should have been the end of his voice.

Al Gore set back intelligent fundtional conversation on the enviorment by 50 years.
+84 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-05-03 11:31
i have yet to meet or read any words from anyone who attempted to besmirch Al Gore's position on global warming who didn't sound like a pathetically misled know-nothing. Thanks for maintaining that consistency.
+64 # Ellen Stein 2011-05-03 11:33
Duh. Check the preponderance of serious scientists (the ones not working for the petroleum and chemical industries). What hubris to think that the billions of people on Earth would NOT affect the planet in the least!
-25 # forparity 2011-05-03 14:44
Oh, I (a true ole greenie from the 60's) do indeed believe that billions of people have done a lot of damage to the planet.

Interesting, how you assumed my position on such.

There is no evidence that points to man's activities as having anything to do with Katrina - nor the recent horrific tornado outbreak (which is far less likely that the cyclonic connection).

The consensus of opinion, amongst the experts here, as well as the IPCC, is that there is no evidence. Some of them believe that in a much warmer ocean environment there may be a slight increase in the intensity of some of the storms.

In a much warmer environment - tornadoes would most likely become much less frequent, and less severe - you see - the driving force of tornadoes is the forceful push (almost always to SE) of late winter cold air masses (Obama's guy just called it "spring") into the warm most air of the south - southeast. And, the more shear - the more powerful.

It might interest you to understand that there were more hurricanes (cyclones) both in the world, and in the Atlantic basin - during the first 1/2 of the 20th century than the 2nd half. Also, the total energy from all released during the first 1/2 was also slightly greater - and we don't even have records of so many in the 1st 1/2. Now - we see all.
+12 # billy bob 2011-05-03 18:12
Please share where you're getting all of this misinformation. We'd like to be misinformed by your sources.
-12 # forparity 2011-05-03 18:44
Well, gee .. from the experts.

The Hurricane experts, pretty much reached a consensus a couple of years back. The IPCC simply spell it out..."that some think that a warmer ..may result in an increase in... but there is no evidence of any measurable increase yet.." Paraphrased, by right on.

Tornadoes? If you understand them, then it's obvious. You might think of the monsoon season in India and in South America - in the tropics - no tornadoes. Need a large push of cold air during seasonal shifts.

The hurricane/Cyclo nic counts. There's been several studies both here by NOAA (probably Chris Landsea and his team -- and foreign) they're pretty much all in agreement. It's not much different - but then again, it was supposed to have been worse in the 2nd half, because of AGW. And again, just how many tropical storms and cyclones before the day of advanced satellites in the 70's did we never even see? And before ship to shore radio? Get the picture. But amongst those that did get recorded, the 1st half was worse.
+8 # billy bob 2011-05-03 19:24
This is the misinformation I'm talking about. You disagree with the entire scientific community.
-10 # forparity 2011-05-03 20:36
Once again, you have no context.??

PS - and I have a lot of respect for them, as I've been thru and around several.

Was standing almost dead center (well just on the south side of the eye) - in Cozumel - of this picture when it was taken. Gilbert Sept 1988 - one of the largest and most powerful ever.
-3 # forparity 2011-05-03 22:23
"April 12, 2008 - One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand.

The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.

The research, appearing in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is all the more remarkable coming from Emanuel, a highly visible leader in his field and long an ardent proponent of a link between global warming and much stronger hurricanes.

His changing views could influence other scientists.

"The results surprised me," Emanuel said of his work, adding that global warming may still play a role in raising the intensity of hurricanes. What that role is, however, remains far from certain."

Didn't surprise me..

Last week - A top official NOAA rejected claims by environmental activists that the outbreak of tornadoes ravaging the South is related to climate change brought on by GW.

No surprise there - there is a consensus of opinion here.
-6 # forparity 2011-05-04 13:07
oops - where'd billy go?

Billy - scientific community is having a significant debate on the theory of man-made (CO2 related) warming. Thousands of them are deep in the science of - one way or the other - or both.

The are also interested in how such climate change would play out with both cyclonic activity and strength, as well with tornadoes. In the moment, however most of the scientific community is pretty much agreed - there is no evidence of anything here yet - with cyclones, and with tornadoes, their gut tells them - there's even less there, other than they would probably decrease in a much warmer climate.
+6 # billy bob 2011-05-04 18:43
+8 # billy bob 2011-05-04 18:47
"Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists."

"Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second."

"The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.

"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

+4 # billy bob 2011-05-04 18:49

“ ‘They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.’

‘The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes,’ said Doran.”
+4 # billy bob 2011-05-04 19:09
What's ironic is that, among petroleum geologists 47% agreed that human beings are responsible for global warming! That's almost 1/2! Sssshhh! Don't tell their bosses.

Meteorologists (the source you keep quoting), don't know much about the actual climate, since they study local weather, and not the history of global weather patterns. YET, EVEN AMONG THEM, 64% agreed human activity is the reason behind global warming. Apparently, your sources were quoted from the minority, huh?
-6 # forparity 2011-05-04 23:02
Nobody believes - not even the extreme ones - that man is responsible for more than a portion of the earth's warming, or cooling (depends on the season, does it not?
+4 # pgobrien 2011-05-05 11:45
Only a portion -- well, d'uh. But it's that portion we are concerned about, isn't it? (And how big IS that portion, one might ask?)

If we can slow down how much we warm the planet. and we can slow down the demise of weather as we know it (and the arrival of extreme weather as we're coming to find out -- not "better for plants and growing things" but awful for storms and floods and droughts), why would we NOT?
-7 # forparity 2011-05-04 23:08
You might consider that many "climate scientists" enter the field because they have a predetermined environmental bias to want to proove what they want to believe, and understanding that there is unlimited funding $tens of billions in government grants -compared to a pittance of a few $million from private sources, that that is where the money is - honey.

Self serving career move.

Kinda like birthers, or like 9/11 truthers.
+4 # billy bob 2011-05-05 08:32
That's nice, so any SCIENTIST who disagrees with you has a "predetermined environmental bias"? What exactly does that mean? Does that mean that they're predetermined to study the environment?

I'd say they have a "predetermined SCIENTIFIC METHOD bias". But then again, I'm self serving because I listen to the EXPERTS.

Who would you consider "experts" by the way? Maybe someone who works for the coal industry? Bias wouldn't get in his way, would it?
-1 # forparity 2011-05-05 14:41
Don't know anyone who works in the coal industry. Or oil, for that matter. Got a few friends in solar and geothermal (well, maybe not - he just died - well, I know his partner) and wind (going to have a beer with him later).

Probably most everyone who is outspoken on these subjects -on both sides - have a bias. I wonder how many folks are going into careers in global climate studies these days who don't already believe that man is causing most of the recent warming?? All, but 1 or 2??
+2 # billy bob 2011-05-05 16:45
You don't personally know the people who wrote the "research" you hand selected? That's nice.

I didn't ask who you claim to have barbeques with.

I asked you to disprove your research was paid for by EXXON. Until you do that, I'm not going to follow you down a maze of further changed subjects.

Any further discussion with me, will be about that subject until you can prove me wrong.
+6 # billy bob 2011-05-04 19:34
by the way forTEAparity,

The survey was conducted by the University of Illinois. I just thought I'd throw that out there before you changed the subject again, by accusing CNN of "liberalism".

Here's a strategy for ya: accuse the University of Illinois of a liberal bias! You know, "ivory tower elites, and all that..."

Who know's, it might convince someone.
-2 # forparity 2011-05-04 23:00
>>before you changed the subject again, by accusing CNN of "liberalism".>> I said nothing on the subject - time and time again, you change the subject and make up a lie.

Starting to understand that you're not just nuts -you're a bold faced liar.

But just the same, in the interest of actual thinking working minds which may stop by:

Harvard-Smithso nian Center for Astrophysics

- A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithso nian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.
0 # billy bob 2011-05-05 08:34
Again, "astrophysicist s"? What does astrophysics have to do with climate science?

When you find out you have a heart problem, who do you go to? Personally, I'd go to a HEART SPECIALIST - you know, someone with a "predetermined bias" to STUDY THE HEART.

I realize you'd go to a proctologist. That's your decision.
+1 # forparity 2011-05-05 10:33
Billy - it was a study of "Climate Studies" Get it?

You know - up above you asked me for information on the relationship between hurricanes and AGW - so I went right out and found you one of the most compelling awakenings from Kerry Emanuel, of MIT, a favorite of the warming alarmists. He looked at the science - and announced what he found - quite a change from what he'd been arguing - against the rest of that community.

So what did you do - change the subject, instantly.

Then you attacked me for accusing CNN of liberalism - and naturally - you brought up CNN - not I.

Then you change attacks again..

The big difference here Billy - is that I've probably read as much, or more of that which supports AGW theory, as you have; however, I also read that which questions it - that's what science is about - look it up.

Just read the research - if not, go get your head examined - by your proctologist, I'd assume.

PS just looking at NSIDC's Arctic Ice extent and concentration charts for April --- Right back where it was in 2004-2005.
-1 # billy bob 2011-05-05 11:14
I don't see anywhere where I asked you to limit the focus of the debate you started to hurricanes or tornadoes.

I "get it". You're trying to discuss "climate studies" done by petroleum industry employees who aren't even climatologists. Yes, I "get it". I'm perfectly aware of what you're up to.

By the way, what do you think of the fact that I just proved your information is comming directly from EXXON?

Unless you can address that fact directly, I think the handful of people still reading this thread will know what your agenda is.
+3 # billy bob 2011-05-05 11:34
The angrier you get, the more your motives in this "debate" become clear.

I'm curious why, if you've read as much or more than anyone else about climatology, you'd choose to take the scholarly stance of disregarding 97% of it, in favor of the other 3%. It wouldn't take "a proctologist" to figure out that something's askew.

In fact, that doesn't sound like "science" to me. It sounds a bit more like having an agenda and trying to selectively use ideas that back it up, even if those "ideas" are funded by the petroleum industry.

That's not what "science is about".

That's what propaganda is about - look it up.
+2 # billy bob 2011-05-05 08:44
Actually, you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of bias. IN FACT YOU JUST DID IT AGAIN IN YOUR ABOVE COMMENT.

You said nothing on the subject (accusing others of "bias" for disagreeing with you)?

Who's the "bold(sic )faced liar"?
+3 # billy bob 2011-05-05 09:18

It turns out the "study" you just quoted was funded by EXXON!

"Senior Scientist, George Marshall Institute. Science Director, Tech Central Station. Chief scientific researcher at the frontiers of Freedom's Center for Science and Public Policy which was set up after $100,000 ExxonMobil grant in 2002."

"Dr. Soon disclosed in the acknowledgments section that he had received direct corporate funding for the work, stating 'W. Soon’s effort for the completion of this paper was partially supported by grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation.' "


By the way. I read your link. Did you read mine?
+3 # billy bob 2011-05-05 11:27

If you want to prove something about 97% of all climatologists being wrong, a good place to start would be by responding right here.

As you'd say, "let me repeat myself"; your source was DIRECTLY FUNDED BY EXXON.
+2 # billy bob 2011-05-05 18:52
It turns out that another one of the "scientists" behind the link you keep refering to (DAVID R. LEGATES) was a recent guest on GLEN BECK.

2 May, 2007
Appeared on Glenn Beck's May 2, 2007 special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear"
Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007

He's also a member of:

the Heritage Foundation,

the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (that wants to treat environmental science based on "Biblical" thinking),

the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS (whose mission statement believes cutting CO2 emissions would be too bad for "the economy" to make it worth while),

the COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (whose stated purpose is to go after environmental regulation with court action) - can we say "corporate lawyers"?

-6 # forparity 2011-05-03 20:50
I assumed that there be some good science out here recently:

Craig Fugate, admin of FEMA, also dismissed Thursday climate change as a factor in the deadly tornadoes: "Actually what we're seeing is springtime," he said.
AFP - US meteorologists warned Thursday it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes in the wake of deadly storms that have ripped through the US south.

"If you look at the past 60 yrs of data, the number of tornadoes is increasing significantly, but it's agreed upon by the tornado community that it's not a real increase," said Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University.

"It's having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we're seeing them more often," Dixon said.

But he said it would be "a terrible mistake" to relate the up-tick to climate change.
+5 # billy bob 2011-05-03 22:15
Do you believe global warming has no impact on our weather? Do you believe that it's hard to tell whether or not that impact would be negative? Do you believe global warming is a purely natural phenomenon that has nothing to do with human activity?

If you don't believe any of these things, please explain your labored point. If you do believe any of these right-wing lies you have been grossly misinformed.

Which is it?
-2 # forparity 2011-05-03 23:47
Perhaps a little tiny bit.

Well, we know factually - and a brand new long term ice core study just came out of Greenland - that (since the end of the last ice age) the earth's climate goes thru these significant little warming and cooling cycles, every 3-600 yrs or so. Also it appears that the warming end of that, time and time again, is very rapid, compared to the cooling period. We were very warm, about 1000 yrs ago, then it cool till the bottom of the cycle some 400 yrs ago. (the bottom being longer than the warm top - once again) and now it's been warming once again.

Consensus of opinion, including the National Academy of Sciences, is that there is no evidence now, that it is any warmer than it was during the last warm period, 1000 yrs ago.

Certainly urban landscapes are pouring heat into the atmosphere - and remain warmer than surrounding rural areas. And, it seem plausible that man's emissions could add to that process - or that it could go the other way - they keep changing their minds - these scientific theories. Whatever- it'd be nice if we'd close the borders, like the Father of Earth Day wanted to do, so that we could slow it down a bit - the polluting.

I'll tell you more, as soon as you attempt to make a response to what you should have just picked up about tornadoes and cyclonic activity in regards to global warming.
+8 # billy bob 2011-05-04 08:07
Is there a reason you didn't read the AP article from YESTERDAY?

“STOCKHOLM – The ice of Greenland and the rest of the Arctic is melting faster than expected and could help raise global sea levels by as much as 5 feet this century, dramatically higher than earlier projections, says the report of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP), the scientific arm of the eight-nation Arctic Council.”

"The updated projections should supply further scientific ammunition in the uphill struggle for concerted global action to rein in greenhouse emissions. The failure of emissions-cappi ng legislation in the U.S. Congress last year was one major setback.

' I'm not sure what is more alarming, the glacial pace of Congress to reduce carbon pollution or the astounding rate of melting Arctic ice,' Lou Leonard, climate chief at the World Wildlife Fund, said of the new report."

Apparently, according to climate scientists human beings have something to do with global warming and need to do something about it.
-4 # forparity 2011-05-04 10:15
Rate of sea level rise is falling. Latest deep ice core study out of Greenland says that even during the last warm period 9probably warmer than this one), a thousand years ago, it didn't melt that far. Another study out last year, or so, said that Greenland is actually adding ice/snow.

Besides the temp trend in Greenland over the past 100 yrs - ain't exactly what they've been telling you.

Except for the one odd anomaly, it's been in a cooling trend since the 1940's. Who'd thunk that?

They keep telling us that here in Los Angeles sea level is going to rise by a minimum of 55 inches by the end of the century (89 yrs), and we have to spend tens of billions of dollars to move and protect infrastructure, yet:

Rate of rise - 3 1/4 inches per 100 yrs - and anything but increasing. Look at the picture.

All around the US - all oceans - no record of any measurable rate of increase in the rise of sea level.

That's after some 60+ yrs of man-made warming??

It's been 400 yrs since the bottom of the little ice age - this warming cycle will soon turn into a cooling cycle which will go on for 300 - 600 yrs, as normal.
+3 # billy bob 2011-05-04 18:41
Apparently, you still have not read the article. Apparently the top climate scientists in the world don't agree with your sources.

I believe, as the effects of global warming continue to multiply over the next few decades, the ONLY sane and fair thing to do is to tax all teapublicans disproportionat ely to pick up the tab.

Maybe then, you'll stop just listening to your sources, or gleaning information out of context to fit your agenda, and pay attention to the leading experts in the field.
-3 # forparity 2011-05-04 23:10
did you look at NOAA's chart? Can you force yourself to?
0 # billy bob 2011-05-05 08:41
I'm not sure why you think this argument is all about tornadoes.

Is that the card you want to play?

Did you read my article? Can you force yourself to?
0 # forparity 2011-05-05 10:46
Billy - I read the crap - OK? Call me when the rate of sea level starts increasing. I think it's at a roughly 3 1/5 inch per 100 year clip right now (OK, some say 7 inches - but lately it's slowed). When's it make that leap to 5 feet (60 inches) - in next 89 yrs clip?

At some point in time here one would expect that sea level is going to have to do something - like start going up an inch per year - from 0.0345 inches per year.

Noted in Wikepedia: "A new assessment suggests that there has been an observed reduction in the prior rate of sea level by 2mm/yr from 2005 (a 60% reduction from the 1993 to 2005 rate) to a level of 1mm/yr" (3.9 inches per 100 yrs)

AGW really got swinging some 60+ years ago, right?
+2 # billy bob 2011-05-05 11:24
Tut tut forTEAparity. Now you're just getting angry. It's not doing your argument any good. I'm sorry that the worlds leading CLIMATOLOGISTS disagree with you. I'm sorry that I proved your information was funded by the PETROLEUM INDUSTRY.

If you ACTUALLY read the "crap", as you say you did why are you not responding to it?

Rather than trying to prove to me that your independantly Google-research ed science is more well-founded than the opinions of 97% of climatologists, maybe you should discuss why we should listen to you, and disregard them.

Rather than quoting Wikipedia (talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel), try explaining why your information is comming DIRECTLY FROM THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY. Why should we believe them?

As long as we're discussing heresay, I hear the petroleum industry is also hiring people to defend them on left-wing web sites.

Produce something scholarly, independant, not heresay, and that DISPROVES 97% of climatologists working in the field. If you can't do that, you're wasting your time.
+3 # billy bob 2011-05-04 18:58

oops - where'd TEAparity go?


Namely, the one that said:

90 percent of scientists agree global warming is real; and 82 percent agree that it's man made. This of course INCLUDES scientists working for the petroleum industry and meteorologists.

"The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role."

According to the study, meteorologists don't actually know much about long term climate patterns since that's not the focus of their science.

Anything you can do to clear this up and present a scientific argument that disproves the consensus of the 3,146 scientists who were questioned in the survey would be very "educational" to us simple folk, who only know what science tells us.
+9 # Dave W. 2011-05-04 10:36
forparity, In a discussion concerning global warming/climate change which YOU maneuvered from Bin Laden's death you suggest "closing the borders?!" Whatever maze it is you're wandering around must really be confounding. How the hell did you PASS any class whilst in school? Read again billy bob's post below. The evidence for man's complicity concerning increased temperature's and global sea rising is NO LONGER A DEBATE! You're screen name would "suggest" an ability to make "balanced" judgments based on the information provided. Perhaps "forbiased" would be more appropriate.
+5 # Lestrad 2011-05-04 08:53
Mr. forpay... er, sorry, forparity:

So FEMA is your autority on hurricanes?
-6 # forparity 2011-05-04 12:20
Another one - read man..

was speaking there of tornadoes, not hurricanes there. It was a quote. from a FEMA administrator.

Want a quote from someone else (can find you dozens right now, as the scientific community is pretty busy trying to dispel all these silly media wanted rumors connecting global warming and tornadoes)?

“There really is no scientific consensus or connection [between global warming and tornadic activity]....Ju mping from a large-scale event like global warming to relatively small-scale events like tornadoes is a huge leap across a variety of scales.”

Greg Carbin, the warning coordination meteorologist at NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center, asked if climate change should be “acquitted” in a jury trial where it stood charged with responsibility for tornadoes, Carbin replied: “I would say that is the right verdict, yes.” Because there is no direct connection as yet established between the two? “That’s correct,” Carbin replied.
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-05 16:38
Not surprising. Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute are his authorities on global warming.
-7 # forparity 2011-05-03 19:03
What information Billy. Ellen seemed to claim that I didn't understand that billions of folks on the planet have caused environmental harm.

Don't know why I would think that. I didn't even hint at such. It would seem, in the moment to be Ellen who is misinforming you.
+6 # billy bob 2011-05-03 22:27
So, if you agree that human activity has caused global warming, once again, I have to ask:


Are you, once again trying to change the subject from the very one you brought up, to make it sound as if the entire premise is wrong, simply because it's controversial whether or not any particular weather event could be predicted by computer climate models?

Seriously? Gore's not even a human being, because you disagree with one of his claims about global warming? Do you disagree with his whole premise? Or are you just trying to change the subject?
-5 # forparity 2011-05-03 23:53
Goodness, I didn't change the subject. Both of you keep confusing "AGW" with pollution.

I made that very clear. Man has definitely polluted the earth, the atmosphere (though that may not be significant - as the day we stop, it might be just fine - that afternoon) and altered the landscape.

The question as to whether or not, CO2 is causing global warming, or changing the climate - is a different discussion, entirely.

Ellen - out of the blue - accused me of:

"What hubris to think that the billions of people on Earth would NOT affect the planet in the least!."

The "hubris" was all hers (and your's as you can't read, or comprehend words and expressions) - and I explained myself; of course the billions of earthlings are affecting the planet. And, you are affecting me.
+4 # billy bob 2011-05-04 07:59
CO2 IS causing global warming.

It's not controversial Rush.

Can we get back to bin laden now, and the fact that President Obama succeeded where george jr. failed?
-6 # forparity 2011-05-04 11:24
Let me pose a q to you. If these 300-600 year cooling and warming cycles are normal (these past many thousands of years) - note; at the end of each cooling cycle, it warms up very suddenly - and we've been in warming cycle for 400 years now, what causes the warming?

Here's the latest:

That's a long term look - from the ice core record. Short tem record looks about the same - but 300-600 periods.

I'm praying for warmth. More people die from cold - than heat.

C02 is good for plants. A crowded office party can send CO2 up to 8,000 ppm in the room.

Most scientists believe that C02 may be contributing "some" to warming - No-one believes that it is most of it.

Proof there, is that we're not warmer than usual in the moment.

It's not been getting any warmer for about 15 years now.

I don't think that is significant - but it really challenged Phil Jones, and many others. Does not fit their models. but as the eminent Freeman Dyson suggests - the models are bunk - garbage in garbage out. Don't like the garbage out - play with it for a few days by changing the garbage in.
+5 # billy bob 2011-05-04 18:35
You're right about the weather following natural cycles. Our current warming trend is the warmest in a few hundred thousand years. It was warmer before that. Then again, the human species didn't exist and the human food supply wasn't already stretched to its limit trying to feed 7 billion people.

Try responding to my comment above first before trying to change the subject and make it about the few "scientists" you could find to agree with you, while disagreeing with the OVERWHELMING majority.
+4 # billy bob 2011-05-04 19:13
Let me pose a "q to you".

Who are you to argue with the overwhelming majority of the 3,146 scientists who were questioned about this very subject in 2009 and disagreed with you completely?

Are you one of the 3% of climatologists who believe global warming is not being caused by human activity. If so, you'll have to convince the other 97% of climatologists, before you can convince us.
-3 # forparity 2011-05-04 23:23
You've never answered, nor addressed any of my Q's.

But I'd be the first to tell you that polls are a dime a dozen.

And again, you misrepresented my views.

Still even with your misrepresented (already completely dissected poll) and considering polls from the other side, along with the numerous climate scientists who have left the IPCC calling it nothing but a political power house, not interested in science, what we are left with is the true beauty of science - that which the nuts on the left do not want to accept - that there is a healthy scientific debate raging amongst the worlds scientists - of all specialties - on the theory of AGW. It's only a scientific theory - nothing has been proven, one way or another - and no scientist would tell you any differently.
+2 # billy bob 2011-05-05 08:51
Since "polls are a dime a dozen", why is it that you're trying to disprove mine, by providing some of your own? Are you a hypocrite? Random polls are a dime a dozen. You can hand select opinions that agree with your bias. You've done just that. On the other hand, polls which represent the overwhelming majority of opinion among ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS are not a dime a dozen - even though there are dozens of them.

You're right there's a debate going on, but it isn't "scientific" and it isn't "healthy". One side of the debate is represented by SCIENTISTS working in the field (you know, the people you consider to have a bias). And the other side is represented by people like you, who can't accept the overwhelming consensus, fueled by industry "scientists" who are paid by the petroleum industry.

You can drag this argument out all you like, but you're not getting anywhere, unless you can prove to me that the majority of CLIMATOLOGISTS do not agree that global warming is REAL and MAN MADE.

Continually trying to discuss tornadoes won't do the trick. Nobody's buying it.
-3 # forparity 2011-05-05 11:07
Actually, I was rather clear - one could assume that both polls are tainted - tilted - baised to the want of whoever did the polling.

Was global warming before 1940 man-made, Billy? Was it man made from 1880 to 1940 when temps (N. Hemisphere) rose 2+ degrees F.?

It's true most scientists do believe that man's contributions to greenhouse gases may have an effect on gw - but GW is not caused by man - is it a 1% boost or less. A 10%. 50%.

The Harvard-Smithso nian study of climate research papers summary on the subject addresses just that - the views of thousands of scientists - there is some effect - but nothing dramatic is happening.

We should clean up our environment - we do have plenty of time. The gov. should fund/encourage directly the development of cleaner energy alternatives - we should set out 30-50 year goals. We should definitely abandon vodoo cap and trade.

We should close the borders and reduce legal immigration by 2/3rs as Sen. Harry Reid proposed in 1993 - and as the Father of Earth Day clearly understood. With slower population expansion here (and immigration and it's offspring is almost all of it now) combined with technology advances and a bit of conservation - the US rate of growth of emissions could be sliding backwards in only a few years time.
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-05 11:40
Global warming has been going on since the beginning of the industrial revolution. I'm surprised you didn't know that with all the "reading" you claim to do on the subject.

The "Harvard-Smiths onian" study IS THE ONE THAT WAS FUNDED BY EXXON!!! What's the matter? Don't you read my replies before responding to them?

Let me say it again: YOUR STUDY WAS FUNDED BY EXXON.

Can we just focus on your last change of subject right now. First we'll solve the environment, THEN maybe we can change the subject, yet again, to immigration law. Honestly, do you have ADHD?
-2 # forparity 2011-05-06 14:51
Oh goodness help me..

Are you suggesting that it wasn't going on before that?

Like AGW is to cause a great drought in the SW US. I wonder if it will be like the one from 900 AD to 1300 AD?

Oh, I forgot, after a near record year of rain and snow in the West - following years of predictions that we not be able to ski out here any longer - bingo - they get their grant money, and in a panic run out and do new studies, and wa la. Suddenly, new research shows that AGW may not cause such severe droughts out here. Every time.
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-06 20:43
I was wondering if you'd try to come back after I gave up on you...

Oh goodness, you do need help!!!

Here, I'll provide it for you. Answer my question. Why are you quoting sources FUNDED BY EXXON?

I'm going to keep harping on about that until you answer it.
+38 # drgulla 2011-05-03 11:47
Katrina WAS a man-made event. Haven't you noticed a proliferation of suprt-storms lately? Think that is purely coincidental? Think again! This is exactly what climate science has been predicting for over 30 years. Well, that train has just pulled into the station. And other reasons Katrina was a man-made event: THE LEVEES FAILED!!!!!! (or were you asleep at that time, along with our illustrious president and Brownie, who was doing a heckuva job)

Here is the simple science of what happened: Due to the loss of wetlands in the Gulf, the excess storm waters could not be absorbed, therefore overwhelming the levee and swamping the city, much of which is below sea level. So what would be your idea of intelligent functional conversation on the environment? Drill baby drill?
-6 # forparity 2011-05-03 14:58
I know all about Katrina and the levees.

Yes meteorologists were indeed predicting from the 1970's (bottom of a short cooling cycle) that in the 30-40 yrs to follow that the cycles which had occurred in previous cycles was expected to repeat. The fear of scientists was that population expansion into the danger zones would put humans and infrastructure at risk, like never before.

Many factors resulted in the weakness of the protection system for NOLA, etc., and the failure of the levees. There are many many major factors. NYT's:

"In the wake of Hurricane Betsy 40 years ago, Congress approved a massive hurricane barrier to protect New Orleans from storm surges that could inundate the city.
But the project, signed into law by Pres Johnson, was derailed in 1977 by an environmental lawsuit. [..]

"If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not be flooded," said Joseph Towers, retired chief counsel for the Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans district."

Also, the local levee boards, sued to keep the corps from building flood gates / locks across NOLA's main canals-remember the pictures?

Bush ordered them built after Katrina.

And the city continues to subside - because 100 years ago we damned up the great Mississippi.

As well, as you said, the loss of wetlands also plays a vital role.
-3 # forparity 2011-05-03 19:05
Drgulla. Do you know the difference between these superstorms (thunderstorms) and cyclonic activity?
+36 # George D 2011-05-03 12:15
I think the term "Global Warming" is what set the stage for people like yourself, picking and choosing "facts" to fit your own agenda. To that end, perhaps Al Gore did do us a disservice. But the world is a big place and the "warming" is real. "Global CLIMATE CHANGE" hasn't stopped, just because you had a cold day the other day or a nasty winter. In fact, if you understood the science of what is happening, you would realize that the extreme weather events, Katrina, mass tornado events, and even your cold winter, are due to EXACTLY what Al Gore spoke about.

In the long run, I can see that America has been led into an era of "facts don't mean anything" and "Science can be turned into, just an opinion" if people are ignorant enough. Tell a stupid person they just "learned" something with a chalkboard on FOX and you'll have the dolts eating out of your hands, come election time.

FOX and the Conservatives have the right formula to win elections. Despite the words "you can't fool all of the people, all of the time" the one Achilles heal of America is that you don't need to. Just get a solid 28-30% that will follow you over a cliff, and fool another 21-24% and you have the control you need.

Now you know why education is being squelched in America too. First make it too expensive; Then kill public funding of it.
-17 # forparity 2011-05-03 15:03
Any idiot could have spoken about it. It's called the weather, and the climate.

The alarmist crowd made the change from "global warming," to "climate change," [both in the context of "man-made] because their global warming models were all failing - forward and backward.

In fact just last week, after years of being blasted with how global warming was already leading us to a great drought in the West - they adopted a new - "quick, we need grant money to cover our buts on that one, too" study, now saying (gee just had all of this near record snow, rain and coolness) that perhaps the drought out here won't be so bad from GW.

Fortunately the sea level around Los Angeles, is only rising at a 3 1/4 clip per 100 years - and the rate of rise is falling. But they are still predicting a min of 55 inches in the next 89 years.

Let me know when the change occurs.
+7 # billy bob 2011-05-03 18:10
You're right about one thing. It's "climate change" because we don't know if the end result will be "global warming" or a friggin' ICE AGE. We aren't sure. It's a bit like spinning plates and then throwing them up in the air. We don't know if they're going to come crashing down on the left or the right, but we know for CERTAIN they won't be landing back on the little stick that held them up.

If you want to argue whether or not we're toying with the possibility the Earth will become too hot to raise crops or cold, I'm willing to hear about it. Either way, we are messing with the future of the human species and our global FOOD SUPPLY.

If you're privy to private information the rest of the serious scientific community doesn't know about, please feel free to share.
-4 # forparity 2011-05-04 00:22
And Gore's ethanol effect on the world's (3rd world) food supply and starvation?

Wasn't pretty, was it?
ATHENS, Nov 22 (Reuters) - Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said support for corn-based ethanol in the United States was "not a good policy", weeks before tax credits are up for renewal. [..]

"First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small. [..]

He explained his own support for the original programme on his presidential ambitions.

"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president."

Ah, needed money to run for President, he did - did he?

How many people have starved and died already because of his greed?
+25 # billy bob 2011-05-03 13:12
"Al Gore set back intelligent fundtional conversation on the enviorment"

When you insult someone else's intelligence (especially someone who has the entire serious scientific community behind them), you set yourself up for assholes like me pointing out the lack of intelligence in your spelling.
+8 # SpaketheRaven 2011-05-03 13:18
Quoting forparity:
Olbie's "

"..acts set off by weather events.. " comment made me think of Al Gore. Actually blamed Katrina on man-made (AGW) global warming.

Should have been the end of his voice.

Al Gore set back intelligent fundtional conversation on the enviorment by 50 years.

forparity: You should be able to spell "environment" before you foolishly attempt to poke fun at Al Gore's theories or statements on the subject.
-1 # forparity 2011-05-03 15:04
well... got two bum fingers, and still type too fast - I can spell it. But thanks for the friendly stab.
+8 # billy bob 2011-05-03 18:04
You presented yourself as more intelligent than thou. I called you out on it. Now you have lame excuses. I don't think, "got two bum fingers" would get you very far as an excuse for a poorly spelled doctoral disertation.

I'm sure you can find spelling errors in my own posts as well. I don't make excuses for them. I'm not a scientific genius. Neither are you, but you don't have a problem pointing out the stupidity of people who listen to those who ACTUALLY ARE.

You claim Gore is a hypocrite. You might want to look in the mirror before making that accusation as well.
-3 # forparity 2011-05-03 19:08
Yep - dishwashing by hand is a dangerous habit. My wife wants me to use the dishwasher - but I believe it's a waste of energy. Also, it's easier for me to carry the gray water out to the garden.
+2 # billy bob 2011-05-03 21:59
Your point?
+16 # Dave W. 2011-05-03 14:42
forparity, Even for you, this MAY be one of the most irrelevant and sophomoric posts I've had the displeasure of reading on RSN. Obama got the bad guy. Bush and the Republicans DID NOT. Regain whatever balance you had. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. And your opinions on Gore are pathetically absurd. Honestly, no one likes a sore loser.
-11 # forparity 2011-05-03 16:02
Did I criticize Obama for getting the bad guy? Don't think so. My hat's off to him for doing, as Sy Hersh and Olbermann would call it, a political assassination at the hands of paid killers.

Of course, I don't share their views - my hat's off to Obama cause it looks like he made the hard and correct decision, when the time was right - when they finally had the proper information required.

Somehow, I think that Bush would have done the same thing.

Gore? I don't even consider him a part of the human race. Has to be the most pompous and hypocritical person I've ever heard of. I was pleased to see Al Gore apologize, however, a few weeks back for his selfish self serving leadership in the ethanol disgrace. I've not seen him apologize for his groping of that little massage gal - in one of his completely non-green absolutely obnoxious opulent residences. Mr. press-not-allow ed Gore.

Did he ever get that open pit zinc mine cleaned up on his property?

"CARTHAGE, Tenn. - Al Gore has profited from zinc mining that has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances near his farmstead, but there is no evidence the mine has caused serious damage to the environment in the area or threatened the health of his neighbors."

At least Bush built a pretty darn green and sensible sized home on his ranch.
+12 # billy bob 2011-05-03 18:00
"Somehow, I think that Bush would have done the same thing."

-Bush had 8 years and didn't bother.
+10 # Dave W. 2011-05-03 21:30
forparity, You're completely off topic here. You "don't consider Gore a part of the human race." How self-serving of you to appoint yourself God. You succeeded in changing the course of the discussion which was supposed to be concerning the death of Bin Laden. Is this what you did in school, assuming you went to school? "I don't like math and I'm going to throw a tantrum until we do something I do like." I'm something of an expert on classic films. How about the next time a subject comes along I feel I have nothing pertinent to say about, I instead talk about my knowledge of old movies. And I'll have ALL the relevant info to back it up. Get the picture? Its your privilege to blast Gore. Try doing it when he's the subject? As for Bush, he spent more days in "his green and sensible sized home" whilst on vacation, than any President in history. They couldn't even drag him out, mighty warrior that he was, to talk to Cindy Sheehan. What a man!
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-03 22:23
Even for you, this was one of the best replies ever! Keep it up!
-3 # rock 2011-05-03 22:56
Actually, that was seriously stupid. Like President Obama is going to come out and talk to every publicity hound who hangs out around the White House?
-8 # forparity 2011-05-03 22:28
He'd already met with Cindy Sheehan - FTR. In person. Oh, the media didn't tell you.

As soon as Obama became president, the national media lost interest in her, and here continued protesting. Funny, isn't it. Bob Schieffer offered up his (he loved her before) condescending, "Isn't she done yet?"

She was only a pawn of the national media.

Well, at least Bush actually cares about the environment and has a green house - more than we can say about the great planet raper, Gore. He's a joke.
-1 # billy bob 2011-05-03 23:09
Didn't you bother to read the comment you're replying to?

He said, "forTEAparity, You're completely off topic here".

You just proved his point.
-2 # forparity 2011-05-04 12:23
Off topic? Dave W. stated that Bush wouldn't meet with Cindy Sheehan.

I rebutted, that he had already met with her before.

I didn't bring her up - Dave W did.

You guys have done this about ten times now on this one thread?
+3 # billy bob 2011-05-04 18:30
Dave was responding to your insistence in changing the subject.

YOU brought up Cindy Sheehan when you bragged about jr's "sensible" home in Crawford, which incidentally, is where he chose to hide out, rather than doing his job.


You're right about one thing. "Us guys" have brought up you changing the subject about 10 times already.
-2 # forparity 2011-05-04 23:24
Work on your reading BB. No I did not. Dave brought up Sheehan - I responded with a factual rebuttal.
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-05 08:57
No, work on reading you OWN comments. You changed the subject multiple times, INCLUDING bringing up george jr's summer home in crawford where he spent most of his time. It's only natural that you're going to attract the obvious remark that it was a hiding place to avoid his job and to avoid people like Cindy Sheehan.

If you hadn't brought up jr's summer home, Cindy Sheehan wouldn't have entered the conversation.

What did THE REST OF US do to spark the debate about whether science is right or you are, concerning global warming? We TRIED to discuss the subject of the ARTICLE.


+1 # jbecket 2011-05-03 23:44
I've enjoyed your entries and from what I know you are correct about hurricanes and tornados in that there is not sufficient evidence to attribute them to global warming. But alas your fact based presentation is now into 'alarmists' and Al Gore not being part of the human race. So once again political points of view trump science and credibility so solid in the earlier texts is lost.
The flooding of New Orleans was a man made disaster, the levees were not overtopped they gave way underneath. Bad engineering and the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible.
-2 # forparity 2011-05-04 23:56

Yea well - I just got a thing about how hypocritical Gore is - and that is not debatable -and that the press will never challenge him on anything (not that they are allowed to be near him, most of the time -and then, only his fans in the media). So I should not have described him that way. K.

Yes, other than the effects of the hurricane, all those things you mentioned were very much a part of the disaster.

But it was not just those things - just search and find my other comments here, re: how the environmental folks stopped the corps efforts to protect the city - how the Red Cross was not allowed in following Katrina, and the role of the levee boards.

One also has to understand, that the damn place is sinking at an alarming rate. One would need to raise the elevation of the levees every ten years or so to keep up with just that.

I went and visited the gutted old house that we lived in, after rebuilding from Betsy.
+2 # billy bob 2011-05-05 08:58
Concerning hypocricy, the phrase: "the pot calling the kettle black" comes to mind.
+3 # FL Democrat 2011-05-05 16:04
This is the most absurd statement that I have ever read. The scientific community is in agreement with Al Gore. One of the effects of global warming is indeed an increase in the number and scale of hurricanes.
+12 # msfrost 2011-05-03 10:03
Someone else will rise to take his place, history proves it.
+65 # fredboy 2011-05-03 10:52
Bush/Cheney never went after bin Laden--they used him as their boogeyman. He was the mysterious, ruthless, distant danger--straigh t out of the pages of Orwell's 1984. They used him to pump fear and hatred throughout the land, to the point that we began to fear and hate one another. But they never went after him--he was too valuable to their cause and the cause of other right-wing extremists here.

If you ever suffer from constipation, a sure cure is a reading of the 9/11 Commission report. It cites the clear and immediate warnings. And it tells of Bush/Cheney allowing bin Laden's family to fly out of Texas and the United States the day after 9/11--and not allowing the FBI to first interrogate them. Ask why. Indeed, we should all ask why.
-43 # forparity 2011-05-03 11:45
Oh come on fred - don't be a boy.

They "never" went after him?? Are you kidding? What- you wished they would have nuked Pakistan? I can assure you that everyone in this administration, the Clinton admin - the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, etc., would tell you that it was a constant. And, in fact - this little bit of intelligence (the smoking gun here) where their eavesdropping picked up that one lone phone call - which led to this successful find, came out of the complete work over of our intelligence orgs - the Patriot Act - the wiretapping - the Clinton's rendition program - interrogations, etc.

FTR, all over the news - coming out of the Obama administration - is that a lot of this came out of following what they inherited.

I agree - Iraq, became a massive distraction - but the effort to find Bin Laden was constant.Also, Iraq started quite some time after Bin Laden slipped our military's/CIA' s effort to get him in late 2001.

By the way - it was Richard Clarke who personally allowed the Saudi family to fly out of the US (never heard that they were in Texas??) and it wasn't the day after 9/11 - it's the 20th of Sept that was noted. Richard Clarke says it did it on his own authority - for their protection. Does that answer your "why?"
+30 # George D 2011-05-03 12:26
You have ZERO credibility.

...At least 13 relatives of Osama bin Laden, accompanied by bodyguards and associates, left the United States on a chartered flight with Ryan International Airlines (Ryan International Flight 441) [13] eight days after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, according to a passenger manifest released on July 21, 2004.[14] The passenger list was made public by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who obtained the manifest from officials at Boston's Logan International Airport. None of the flights, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of Sept. 13 and the 9/11 Commission found "no evidence of a political intervention".[15]

Among the passengers with the bin Laden surname were Omar Awad bin Laden, who had lived with OBL nephew Abdallah Awad bin Laden who was involved in forming the U.S. branch of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth in Alexandria, and Shafig bin Laden, a half brother of OBL who was reportedly attending the annual investor conference of the Carlyle Group.[14]

Also on board was Akberali Moawalla, an official with the investment company run by Yeslam bin Ladin, another of Osama bin Laden's half brothers. Records show that a passenger, Kholoud Kurdi, lived in Northern Virginia with a bin Laden relative.[14].. ..
+20 # billy bob 2011-05-03 13:14
During that day, I couldn't have flown if I'd tried. In fact, my wife was stranded - along with hundreds of thousands of others. I guess I didn't have the same connections with the bush family the bin ladens did.
-9 # forparity 2011-05-03 16:47
You know politics is big business. Clinton's contacts with the Riady family - and all of his other friends who got convicted and sentenced by the his own US DOJ; Bush had his family friends, and Obama has his.

None of them were friends with Bin Laden - or anything to do with his group of radicals.

And right, even they had to wait 8 days to get out.
+5 # billy bob 2011-05-03 17:58
Are you suggesting that bush let the bin laden family escape because they bribed him?
+6 # Suzan 2011-05-03 14:21
Thank you, George.

Their memories are short for facts and long for wishful thinking.


[quote name="George D"]You have ZERO credibility.

...At least 13 relatives of Osama bin Laden, accompanied by bodyguards and associates, left the United States on a chartered flight with Ryan International Airlines (Ryan International Flight 441) [13] eight days after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, according to a passenger manifest released on July 21, 2004.[14] The passenger list was made public by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who obtained the manifest from officials at Boston's Logan International Airport. None of the flights, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of Sept. 13 and the 9/11 Commission found "no evidence of a political intervention".[ 15]
-8 # forparity 2011-05-03 15:11
Zero credibility? Fredboy said the "day after 9/11." I quoted Clarke, who said it was the 20th. You're saying the 19th.

Go talk to Fred, not me.

Now George, try reading a bit better. I offered no judgement on whether or not it was the correct thing to do - in fact, when I heard about it - I was flaming mad.

Later, I came to understand that the left's beloved Richard Clarke (the man who sold the Rendition program to Clinton and "of course it's against international law - go grab their ass," Al Gore) who took complete responsibility for making that decision (apparently not going any higher) and maintained that he doesn't think that it was a mistake.

I really don't have a view on that little insignificant point, at this juncture in time.

Honestly did you read a single word that I wrote?

+4 # George D 2011-05-03 17:28
I wasn't going to bother to answer your comment but let me just clarify "why" you have ZERO credibility. You said...

"Richard Clarke says it did it on his own authority - for their protection. Does that answer your "why?"

But actually, Richard Clark said no such thing. The fact you had the date wrong also is incidental. Clark asked the FBI to investigate the request for the Bin Ladens to leave.

Picking and choosing "facts" and carelessly invoking them, doesn't win you any credibility. I'll bet you watch MSNBC like I watch FOX. We see snippets from each side; Often out of context. The difference is that there are numerous examples of FOX simply making things up and NO example of that from MSNBC.

I tried to watch Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly but Beck is a complete buffoon and O'Reilly and Hannity do way too much yelling and interrupting. It's also the reason I didn't watch "Hardball".

Iraq was more than a "distraction" and people need to discuss that honestly also. You do not.

I have been advocating a third party choice against Obama; I may be wrong to do that.
+2 # billy bob 2011-05-03 18:28
"Picking and choosing 'facts' and carelessly invoking them, doesn't win you any credibility."

That's true, but that's all he has.
-2 # forparity 2011-05-03 19:11
George.. I remember several interviews with Clarke. Here's the Democratic Underground quoting it:
Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush’s chief of counterterroris m, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Begin excerpt: "In an interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”

Most of the 26 passengers aboard one flight, which departed from the United States on Sept. 20, 2001, were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened.

Clarke’s claim of responsibility is likely to put an end to a brewing political controversy on Capitol Hill over who approved the controversial flights of members of the Saudi elite at a time when the administration was preparing to detain dozens of Muslim-American s and people with Muslim backgrounds as material witnesses to the attacks." end excerpt.
-3 # forparity 2011-05-03 21:05
From the left wing Annenberg Political Fact Check (checking up on the big fat liar too, Michaell Moore):

They say, "This one is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let us count the ways"

Ooh - I've not seem them come down so hard since they went after Obama and Biden for lying about SS in an effort to "scare seniors." If only the media would have reported it - doesn't help to have the facts, when the national media doesn't want em out there.
+23 # SpaketheRaven 2011-05-03 13:35
For gosh sakes, forparity,
Have you read or heard any news since 2001? Bush said on television: "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02).
-12 # forparity 2011-05-03 15:17
Yes - our national media has played that a few hundred times for us, have they not.

I'd have to admit - wasn't one of Bush's shining moments under pressure from a pounding press.

Underneath that is the fact that the system, had been rebuilt and massive mechanisms were working around the clock - at massive cost - and was working just as it was when Obama came in and kept it all going.

You know, and Obama is no exception, they get tired and they say stupid stuff all the time.
+6 # billy bob 2011-05-03 17:57
"they get tired and they say stupid stuff all the time."

-Especially when the truth pops out.
-3 # rock 2011-05-03 23:02
Actually, I think it was probably a very smart thing to say . . . did we want everybody to know how much was being done to track down Bin Laden?

the answer is "no" by the way.
+9 # genierae 2011-05-03 15:05
forparity, I just heard that a member of the bin Laden family was with Bush Sr. on the morning of 9/11. Also, in 2005 the Bush administration shut down the special team that Bill Clinton had formed to get Osama bin Laden, and Bush himself said that he wasn't concerned about getting him. COINCIDENTALLY, that's the same year that the million dollar compound that bin Laden was living in, was built. Seems like he felt pretty safe, to live for six years out in the open like that. Just thought I'd mention it.

forparity, you need to open up your mind and watch Thom Hartmann on Free Speech TV (channel 9415 on Dish Network). Also watch The Ed Show, Rachel Maddow, Cenk Uyger, The Last Word, all on MSNBC PM.
-11 # forparity 2011-05-03 16:25
The bit about Bush being with a member of the Laden family that morning seems a bit far-fetched. Seems he was in an elementary school.. remember?

And so what if he was? Was that member of that huge massive family to know something of 9/11 - highly unlikely. His family and The Kingdom had long before kicked him out. His brothers had pushed him out of the family business, etc.

Yes the CIA did close down that unit - saying that the operational aspects of al Qaeda had become too widespread - Michael Scheurer, thought it was a bad move - of course, he wasn't too fond of Clinton's refusal to do their bidding either.

In hindsight, it appears that they continued to develop intelligence and leads - that were instrumental in the path to May 1st.

And trust me, I watch plenty of MSNBC (limited ethics there - in that line up) - gag. Not radio, except classical music and NPR.
+3 # Dave W. 2011-05-03 23:37
forparity, Genierae said Bush "SR." was with a member of the Bin Laden family on 9/11. Not the 7 and 1/2 minute "dunce' who continued reading children's stories while his countrymen were being killed. Was George Sr. in an elementary school the same morning? Quite a coincidence. Proofreading may prove helpful to you. Over the course of many posts I've witnessed a strange phenomenon. To hear you tell it, its as though Bush Jr. was never really President at all. Everything that has gone wrong in the country is either attributed to Clinton or Obama. I'm the first to admit that both of these men have made their share of mistakes. What President hasn't? But you border on the pathological in your denial of ANY wrong doing by "Kenny Boy and Karl Rove's" handpicked puppet. Go back through some of your own posts. Denial is unbecoming a critical thinker. If that's what you consider yourself.
-4 # forparity 2011-05-04 12:34
Sorry - I missed the Sr. bit.

There is no civil conversation to be had about Bush's demeanor in that classroom full of young children.

Kenny boy benefited a heck of a lot more from the Clinton administration than from the Bush admin. Bush came in and did nothing to save them - even refused the effort from Robert Rubin (then at CitiGroup, who held much of Enron's commercial paper. Bush also refused to extend the billions in US guaranteed loans given to Enron from the Clinton admin. That's about the whole story there.

My denial of any wrong by Kenny boy? Where in the world did you dream that up?

Ken Lay got just what he deserved. Gary Winnock did not.

Bush's biggest mistake in my view was in not shutting down the housing bubble when he came in. But then again, he had a lot on his plate too. The fallout from the economic bubble crash and recession he inherited, that little thing called 9/11, etc.

Economically - Bush didn't fix anything - just allowed and/or made it worse -just like the guy before him, and the one after.
+3 # genierae 2011-05-04 13:38
forparity: The bin Laden that was visiting Bush Sr. on 9/11 was in town for a meeting with the Carlyle Group. I believe he was the half-brother of Osama. What your "limited ethics" statement really means is that only the facts are allowed on MSNBC's evening line-up, no lies, omissions, or distortions. This requirement, by its very nature, leaves out most Republicans. forparity, the Republican party has lost all credibility, most of its honest members have left, taking the remnants of Republican integrity with them. You need to stop defending the indefensible and become an independent.
-6 # forparity 2011-05-03 16:56
Hmm .. Snopes took a good little stab at the issue, in Flight's of Fancy"
+6 # Roger Skillings 2011-05-03 10:56
Suppose you noted code name for Bin Laden-- Geronimo. How is it we never learn. You'd think our affair w the mirror wd help but it don't.
+17 # reiverpacific 2011-05-03 11:42
Isn't all the "U.S.A. - U.S.A.!!" chanting and whoopin'-it-up, very much like the reciprocal of the celebrations of post 9-11 "Dancing in the streets" in certain Islamic countries and factions, which was so roundly condemned time and time again by most of the Western press -especially here (the shallow end of the news pond)?
While I have no regrets about the death of B-L -probably less risky than capture, trial and eventual execution anyway- but it all depends on one's perspective on what "appropriate" response is, innit!
Now for the reprisals!
+3 # George D 2011-05-03 17:56
This is one story I can take at their word. I can't even imagine being one of the guys going into that compound that night. "Take him alive?" You gotta be friggen kidding me.

But maybe you have a point. Maybe a team went into a big compound, in Pakistan, in the middle of the night, shot up the place, killed some people, and got out alive, all while it was being "tweeted" in real time and they DIDN'T get OBL.

I wonder who they actually killed. Maybe it was all done in Hollywood and Pakistan and the Internet folks tweeting are in on it.

Oh the possible plots for this little drama in one's own head are tremendous.
+3 # billy bob 2011-05-03 19:16
The "dancin' in the streets" reports aired on 9-11 were taken out of context and actually had to do with something that had happened months before. This wasn't exposed until several months later, just like the psy-op of "Iraqis spontaneously toppling the saddam statue" (actually, it was about 15 people being coached by the American military, while being filmed by cameras intentionally leaving out the surrounding area).
+43 # George D 2011-05-03 11:57
Did anyone see 60-Minutes a couple of years ago when they interviewed the young Special Ops commander that had OBL trapped in a cave in Tora Bora, soon after 9/11? Remember his words? "We had him in our sights and we were ordered to stand down.... The order had to come from the White House.... That had NEVER happened in any previous operation before..."

Then, the other night, I saw a "man on the street" interview with a guy that was asked about what his thoughts were about OBL being killed. He said "now we can get out of Afghanistan".

For anyone that doubts it, the reason OBL was allowed to "hide in plain sight" for a decade, was to keep him as a propaganda tool and terrorist tool by OUR OWN LEADERS AGAINST AMERICA. Public support for invading Iraq would never have had the chance to materialize because the very first lie would have been squelched before it was told.

I have that interview and the OBL story on the same disk now. I wish some of our "Liberal Media" would have the balls to do a little "investigative reporting" (ho-hum) and air those stories together AGAIN. Then start the next story; WHY did Bush, Cheney et al get away with it and avoid prosecution?
+7 # George D 2011-05-03 17:08
Check out the interview online.

.........The idea was that if this all worked out Osama bin Laden would be dead, and no one would ever know that Delta Force was there?" Pelley asks.

"That's right," Fury says. "That's the plan. And that always is when you're talking about Delta Force."

And there was no mission more important to the United States. "We'll smoke him out of his cave and we'll get him eventually," President Bush had vowed.

But the administration' s strategy was to let Afghans do most of the fighting. ....

They videotaped their journey to a place called Tora Bora....

Fury told 60 Minutes his orders were to kill bin Laden and leave the body with the Afghans.....

"We want to come in on the back door," Fury explains....

But they didn't take that route, because Fury says they didn't get approval...

The next option that Delta wanted to....
But they didn't do that either, because Fury says that plan was also disapproved. He says he has "no idea" why.

"How often does Delta come up with a tactical plan that's disapproved by higher headquarters?" Pelley asks.

"In my experience, in my five years at Delta, never before," Fury says.
+5 # billy bob 2011-05-03 19:12
Thank you. That brings up yet another aspect of the whole thing I hadn't even thought of. It seems very probable that bush jr. knew where his friend bin laden was the whole time.
+9 # Jeri 2011-05-03 12:38
Dear Keith - How I miss your comments every night! this like all the others was spot on............
0 # David Ehrenstein 2011-05-03 12:50
+2 # Anagnorisis 2011-05-03 13:17
One would wish that such commentary would comform to the professionalism portrayed by the journalists published herein, not the mundane banter promulgated. These commentators have spent their lives arriving at this plateau of credibility and it should be acknowledged that they have gained respect for their insights. Commentary forthwith would be appreciated on basis of relevance devoid of personal bigotry. Shall we proceed?
+12 # Susan W 2011-05-03 13:29
It is really sad when the only thing this country can find to celebrate is an assassination. Everyone is entitled to a trial and this killing should be a warning sign as to how much we now resemble our enemies.
+13 # bak 2011-05-03 13:38
okay... so NOW can the govt. begin an investigation of the previous administration' s war crimes, violation of the geneva convention, etcetera etcetera...
oops, election looming. too much to hope to happen if O. gets a second term??
+4 # forparity 2011-05-03 16:28
This administration will not be investigating anything from the Bush years.
+9 # George D 2011-05-03 17:37
That may be the most accurate thing you have ever said in this venue.

I suspect that Cheney will die of cancer within a few years and GWB and his family will not leave the U.S. for the rest of their days. The risk of arrest in a foreign country is too great and is getting greater as time goes on and information is leaked to the world.

So we have our own OBL story of people committing atrocities and hiding in plain sight. There will be no justice for the Muslim world, except that, in one attack, the freedoms we enjoyed as Americans and the wealth our economy was enjoying came crashing down in the weeks following the attack on 9/11 that GWB ignored the threat of and Bush/Cheney exploited for gain.
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-03 17:55
Hopefully the next one will.
+6 # Anarchist 23 2011-05-03 15:19
Alas-having no TV I can only speculate on KO's comments from those made here. However, given that Bin Laden was a magician of great power, melting steel with Fynd Fyre-because hydrocarbons like jet fuel and paper and furniture just don't burn hot enough to melt all that steel(47 box columns in the core, 240 surrounding the perimeter), which as a most efficient heat sink will conduct heat away from the main source,to bring down in explosive destruction the Twin Towers, I must doubt his death as much as his life as this super villian.
-5 # forparity 2011-05-03 16:41
Oh come off of it. It doesn't have to melt the steel - just get it hot enough so that it softens a bit - looses it's strength. Even small steel framed buildings will collapse much faster in a fire than will wood framed.

Ignoring obvious logic and evidence here is like ignoring the eyewitness accounts of the hundreds of people who watched the AA jet plow into the Pentagon.

Like this:

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

I've seen several easy to follow video's but in the moment take a look at the snap shots here, notably the 4th one down. It's really self evident what is happening.
+5 # George D 2011-05-03 17:49
Something we can agree on. 9/11 was only an "inside job" to the extent that incompetent people were elected and then dismantled the prior intelligence system and ignored their warnings, allowing the attack to take place.

It's what they did with the "opportunity" of that attack that makes me sick.

It was a disaster, set up by incompetence. Just like Katrina. Just like the crash of the economy. Just like the so called "intelligence failures" that supposedly "led us into Iraq".

If we ignore the affect man has on the change in the climate of the world, I guess people in the South and Midwest are in for a rougher ride than we in SoCal will have. Unless Gawd makes "the big earthquake" happen. LOL

I'm an Independent and have been for years. But only a complete moron would ignore the "coincidence" of all of these large scale disasters taking place at the hands of Republican/Cons ervative rule.
-6 # forparity 2011-05-03 19:24
Well, that's some logic. Poor Obama and the BP oil disaster, the Haiti earthquake, the Japanese massive earthquake and resulting Tsunami and the resulting meltdown, the $trillion in new national debt, the floods in the midwest, the rising oil and gasoline prices, the 900 to 1,000 US who have died in Afghanistan, the bla bla...

9/11 was not an inside job. And they didn't ignore the old tired out warnings - the PDB's that read just like the ones that Clinton was getting years before.

Look - I have a problem with the transition, especially with intelligence matters. Bush learned a lesson from the Clinton dropped the ball and run crowd, and presented the incoming Obama administration with a long and organized intensive transition process -like this country may have never seen before - military, intelligence and economic - they schooled and brought them on board.

The other issue - is that once they get in, they all start to work on their stupid agendas - "everything's going to change over night."

Besides one of the first acts that Bush did was to trash the old "swatting flies" approach, and ordered up a new plan to get the Taliban and Bin Laden out of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, it took a week too long.

Got to remember, Clarke, Schurer - were all tired of Clinton not going after him too.
+5 # George D 2011-05-03 20:55
Just when I thought you may be able to actually discuss matters in an honest way, you respond with this. OK' My answer (although I'm sure it's quite obvious) is for the other readers.

Katrina (the aftermath mostly) was a huge and devastating event because of what didn't happen. Nobody ever said GWB caused a hurricane and to suggest that is a rather desperate and juvenile measure on your part. All of the "disasters" I cited had to do with government preparation and/or relaxing of laws and ignoring systems that were "handed off" to Bush. Nothing in your rebuttal is even on that topic.

I won't limit it to GWB. My comments are applicable to Republican governance in Congress and the White House.

The key difference between Obama and the events of the other day versus the Bush/Cheney years is precisely the decision making and governing style. GWB had an "it's our due" attitude about firing people and ignoring the "old guard" but Obama has realized that these systems and structures have been developed over time by many people; Republican and Democrat alike.

Bush didn't "hand Obama" anything, but he certainly did ignore and dismantle all that came before him as soon as he took office; To all of our demise.
+5 # George D 2011-05-03 23:46
And just to address your convenient memory about what changed when GWB took office, it's well documented that the intelligence and national security shift that took place was the de-emphasis of terrorism and a refocus on RUSSIAN MISSILE DEFENSE. Condi did what she knew and studied and that was it. What a surprise and a wake up call they had when they realized they were trying to rekindle the cold war with the Soviets when the new world threat was Bin Laden and al Quaida.

So take your convenient "facts" that came from fake talking points on FOX and preach them to your FOX buddies. You can all go "yup, yup, yup" to each of the points you discuss but it won't make them true or you right.
0 # forparity 2011-05-04 00:04
Unbelievable - I didn't bring up GWB. The claim was that Katrina was a man-made event. Many, like Gore, have repeatedly tried to convince people that Katrina was proof of AGW - an insane claim - as the scientific community has done it's best to distance itself from such crazy fear mongering.

I think we all know that both the federal government, the environmental lobby, the City of NOLA, the State of LA, the local levee boards, and the Corps of Engineers all played a role in poor construction, no construction, poor planning, no evacuation plan, no stockpiled emergency shelter for the stragglers... etc., that all pile up as man's role in making the disaster much worse than it happened to be. (pls read my comment above about Katrina and the levees - points that Harry Schearer agrees with, in our conversations).

My guess is - as you watch how wonderful the Red Cross is performing it's historic role, working with FEMA, is that following Katrina, the State of Louisiana ordered that the Red Cross not come into the city for over a week. Picture the Convention Center and the Superdome now.

Further, other than not having a plan, and refusing to order the evacuation when Bush and others asked them to, and then, Blanco not ordering up her Nat'l Guard onto the streets, then forgetting to request federal troops - things still were overbearing.
-3 # forparity 2011-05-04 13:14


+2 # George D 2011-05-05 00:11
You said....
Besides one of the first acts that Bush did was to trash the old "swatting flies" approach, and ordered up a new plan to get the Taliban and Bin Laden out of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, it took a week too long....."

And I reminded (informed?) you that Condi, up until 9/11, had shifted the National Security attention to a renewal of Reagan era missile defense, for an imagined threat from the Soviet Union, and away from Al Quaida.

Now you decide to try to shift the topic in a diatribe about Louisiana's response to Katrina when I was clearly challenging your flawed assertion of the above statement.

Like I said before; You have ZERO credibility and I won't waste any more of my time answering your outlandish remarks about Clinton, Clarke, or whoever you want to trash with your next fantasy.

If you want to make a point about conspiracy theories? I'll probably be in agreement with you. It's even possible that there is a lot of agreement to be had across the imaginary lines in the sand of the two ideologies. But until people have an honest dialog about each point and avoid the "score one for my side" mentality of shifting topics and making up data to suit the moment, that will never occur.
0 # billy bob 2011-05-05 08:59



George replied to you.
+1 # George D 2011-05-03 18:09
I have to agree that, the video "Loose Change" was done very well. But lest we allow ourselves to be followers of neatly packaged propaganda, like the average FOX viewer, we have to balance the conspiracy theory with facts.
1. The steel did not have to melt; Just weaken. I accept that it most likely did; As did the concrete surrounding it.
2. When each floor collapsed it fell on each floor below it, causing a pancake affect of massive forces. Dynamic forces are MUCH greater than static forces. (Force=Mass*Acc eleration) Ring any bells?

I mean really; How far do you have to stretch a tale like this to make it plausable?

Right after 9/11 Bush said the "War on Terror" was not going to be a conventional war and the headlines would be occasional and far between. Then someone figured out what a huge opportunity they just got handed and we went to Iraq. The rest is truly history.

This "plan" was no plan. It was one folly after another.
-6 # forparity 2011-05-04 00:13
Well ... that was refreshing for a moment. Let me pause and watch my breath.

And then - whoa.. where'd you go?

Just the same - the Iraq war was terribly misunderstood by the Bush folks. But at least he didn't ignore them - after Saddam had already caused the death of some 1 1/2 to 2 million human beings, like Clinton ignored, as president Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Blood Diamonds, Algiers, Afghanistan (was overthrown in mid-90's - remember), N. Korea as 2 million died, and finally the DR Congo, which just as Pres Clinton stood in Rwanda and promised, "never again," had erupted into a historic civil war - including numerous major genocides, which would result in the deaths of between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 million lives thru the end of his term.

Oh, did I mention how he turned his back on the Pandemic in Africa - the HIV/Aids pandemic? Seems to me that that the left was silently screaming - in the background all that time - in shock.. oh, there is some powerful reading out there.

Then Bush came in - and quickly proceeded to propose, pass, and implement the largest, and in the end -most successful and on target - program in history in this HIV effort. Millions of lives were saved, and millions more won't contract Aids, because of his lone leadership. It's nice that Clinton, after office got to work, as well.
+4 # Glen 2011-05-04 20:03
Right, anarchist23, and I have the original building plans for the trade center and how they were built to withstand a hit by a 707. Also, those buildings had been condemned due to the huge amount of asbestos included in the structure. The heat from the jet fuel would not have weakened the entire structure. Maybe if they had been hit at almost ground level. Maybe. Those investigating this event did notice the beams that had obviously been cut with a torch and did analyze the thermite in the rubble. No building falls as the center and building 7 unless it is a controlled demolition.
-3 # forparity 2011-05-04 23:48
Of all the laughable fantasies - that one takes the cake.LOL

The WTC had no concrete structural inner core, nor concrete encased steel steel outer columns.

The fires (not to mention the outer steel columns which were severed or damaged) weakened the floor trusses, which were connected to the outer wall structure, which pulled and buckled the structure of the building inwards.

Watch it at the 10 second mark. If you actually have the building plans, or not, you can then see why the building collapsed.

With thousands of tons of weight above bearing down, Newton understands what would happen next.

Look at the picture - after one floor buckled the outside structure - and the collapse stared - at this place -where the plane had struck - look at what's above here.

It's going to fall - it's very simple - even a 10 year old child can figure out this one.
+5 # Glen 2011-05-05 09:31
Ah, but forparity, hundreds of folks a lot older than 10 HAVE studied the event and falls and HAVE determined it could not have happened as reported. And researched not from just a youtube video, thank you.

The building plans and those involved in security at the center and who bought them in spite of their having been condemned and then proceeded to take out major insurance, and all else involved in that debacle are public domain. I at first accepted the scripted reason for the fall of these buildings, then decided I would listen and read the counter arguments. I was then convinced of the lie.

If those buildings had not been built to withstand a hit by a 707 (and who in their right mind would build structures so tall without some form of defense against such an impact) I might not have continued reading and researching. It took a lot of my time to do it but it was worth it, just as it was worth digging into the reasons behind the downfall of the U.S. and the actions of the neo-cons, neo-liberals, and the PNAC. Everything said by the U.S. government is suspect, including statements arising from this administration.
+1 # Daphne Penttinen 2011-05-03 16:45
I wonder why Bin Laden was killed and then thrown into the sea; why not arrest him and bring him back to the U.S. to stand trial as the mastermind of 911 (if, in fact, he really was). Why was his body thrown into the sea, and not delivered to Washington D.C. where our government could decide what to do with it? Who of such authority made that decision? It was a summary execution and then disposal of the body so that no one could be officially responsible. Very suspicious, to say the least, IMO. I know very intelligent responsible thinkers with Ph.D.s who doubt that story. No proof of the pudding is out there!
0 # rock 2011-05-03 23:11
Can't you imagine the horrific circus that his trial would have become?
+4 # Jacqueline Johnson 2011-05-03 16:56
Everyone should read Steve Coll's excellent book THE BIN LADENS--much larger story than just Osama!
+4 # billy bob 2011-05-03 18:25
GREAT JOB "forTEAparity" changing the subject away from something you're uncomfortable with: NAMELY, THE FACT THAT OBAMA SUCCEEDED WHERE BUSH FAILED.

Can we get back to the discussion at hand? Or would you rather just discuss global warming?
-3 # forparity 2011-05-03 18:58
here - let me repeat myself:

" hat's off to Obama cause it looks like he made the hard and correct decision, when the time was right - when they finally had the proper information required..."

It was Olbermann that mentioned the weather, BTY..

Besides you can't discuss anything - just a smear and hate monger.
+4 # billy bob 2011-05-03 19:21
You took a blurb out of context and created an entire debate out of it to avoid the actual topic of the discussion.

Bush had the proper information. It's too bad that he chose to ignore it, or use it to his own advantage at the expense of the American people.
-4 # forparity 2011-05-03 20:58
What information? That Bin Laden wanted to strike -hijack planes - blow up the WTC's ?? We all knew that. Clinton's PDB's said it for years - and so did Bush's - but the intelligence community had nothing for sure to go on.

The intelligence community knew that something was up - they thought that Europe was the likely location - they didn't know what it was - everyone was on alert watching - and then there it was.

After the fact, we tore down the wall between the FBI and the CIA, we had finally learned what Bin laden meant when he declared his holy Jihad's against the US in 1996, and 1998 and began carrying out attacks.
+3 # billy bob 2011-05-03 21:55
Funny how President Clinton was able to divert the same kinds of attacks. Funny how bush specifically IGNORED all of the warnings. They knew something was up within a few days of the attack and did NOTHING.

Coincidentally, bush was part of an organization (PNAC) with a specific agenda to colonize the Middle-East and take away civil liberties at home. This agenda was ACTUALLY PUBLISHED in the early '90s. The one thing they thought that would be needed to put this agenda in motion would be "another Pearl Harbor".

They sat on their asses and got their wish.
-2 # forparity 2011-05-04 12:43
That's a pretty odd statement.
The 1993 WTC bombing.
The Cole
The twin embassy bombings in Africa.

Sure, I'd bet that they did stop something - and had Clinton been president after 9/11 and after the Patriot Act was passed, he'd (the entire government is a massive thing) been able to stop even more - like they did during the Bush tenure.

Seems to me that we've had more attacks and attempts at attacks in the US since O took over? But I'm not going to blame him.

Just what attack did Clinton stop? And don't mention that planned LAX bombing - the one that was pick-up at the border; it was not the result of any warning or alert - it was a lone woman agent at the border that noticed that the man was a nervous wreck, sweating, and he looked suspicious - so they opened the trunk. And, it's a darn good thing they did.
+2 # billy bob 2011-05-04 18:24
The 1993 WTC bombing was 8 years before the 2001 bombing. You can check my math on that if you'd like. We didn't know what we were dealing with UNTIL the 1993 WTC bombing. Of course you left out the BIG REPUGLICAN BOMBING in Oklahoma City. Who knew how much the repug party was breeding terrorists?

After the 1993 bombing, President Clinton did something bush wouldn't. He REACTED.

I think it's pretty hard to blame the President for bombings that happen outside of our boarders, no matter how much you're trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel for examples.

"What attack did Clinton stop"? The attacks that didn't happen on our soil after 1993.

What attack did bush stop AFTER 2001? In fact, before bush took office, there was already a precedent. AND BUSH HAD WARNINGS HE REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

Nice try.
-2 # forparity 2011-05-05 00:03
True - he had most of the Patriot act written by Biden and Lugar.

I know damn good and well when the 1993 bombing happened. Why you'd say that?? And actually, it was a FBI sting, in process, that lost track of the bombers. Bad one.

Guess that we should have let the FBI and the CIA start communicating and sharing information then, instead of making it more difficult, you think?

Now why is it that the Clinton Justice Department shut down "The Man who Knew?"

This is not my game - it's yours.

Blaming the R's for the OK bombing, is like blaming 9/11 on the D's.

Pathetic. Sick.

Or blaming the D's for the radical liberal nut that shot Giffords.

Or that radical liberal nut that flew the plane into the Dallas IRS building.

Get a life.

You see - I'm very familiar with both the radical left's shrill pathetic crap, and the radical right's pathetic crap, and with the obvious truths.
+3 # billy bob 2011-05-05 09:04
little Timmy was a self-described anti-government right-wing repuglican.

bin laden hates America and all of our Western LIBERAL ideas.

I noticed you left out the word "shrill" when refering to YOUR OWN radical right "pathetic crap". I think I can speak for others, when I point out that it's definitely SHRILL.

"Get a life"? Sounds a bit personal, don't you think? Sounds like someone who's running out of affective arguments. In fact, it's pretty "shrill".
-3 # forparity 2011-05-05 00:12
The Obama administration is on record recently in stating that they stopped many - ask them - they didn't disclose. Security concerns, I hope.

Your last statement borders on sick.

I wouldn't say that about any president in my life, unless there was some evidence.

Rumor has it that Clinton hated the intelligence briefings, and Bush upped them. So? what does that proove. The massive intelligence monolith and the industrial military complex doesn't come to a stop each and every day of the week when the President reads his redundant "Presidential Daily Briefing" and doesn't declare DeathCom 4.

Bush actually had, if you read, suggested that the briefings were too redundant, he wanted more details - and this one -that is so famously misunderstood - was much more detailed ( a fairy told me - seriously). They, and he, were very concerned - but they had no idea as to what was going on, or where - but the presumption was overseas - and they were talking to them.

If I were like you, I'd be more inclined to blame Clinton more, because he passed on killing Bin Laden, and didn't react to the Cole and Embassy bombings - nor did they go out of their way to bring the Bush admin, on line - as Bush did for Obama, when he came in - the most intense and professional transition in history, for sure.
+2 # billy bob 2011-05-05 09:12
Again, accusing me of being, "sick"? Sounds pretty "shrill".

It amazes me how much time you have on your hands to carry on multiple long-winded arguments with several people at the same time on several threads. Some might even call it a "sickness". Look at the facts. You generate more negatives than anyone else, with the possible exception of NCMike. Still, NCMike deserves a little credit. He tends to stay on message and not jump all over the place like you do, or change the subject when he's trapped.

Who are you trying to argue with? As I see it, the point of arguing a point is to INFLUENCE other people. You've certainly done that! Afterall, the more you argue, the more people join in and point out the ignorance of your comments. If anything, you're just STRENGTHENING the liberal opinions of the people on these threads by forcing them to deal with you.

Maybe that's your purpose. Maybe you're not a conservative at all, but a liberal plant trying to play the devil's advocate.
+3 # Dave W. 2011-05-04 11:02
forparity, I'm assuming you're an expert in structural engineering? You certainly speak as though you BELIEVE you're one. The union of American Architects and Engineers have stated conclusively that 9/11 DID NOT occur as the public was informed. If there is nothing to hide then why not open "a real" 9/11 Truth Commission and let the "real" experts and the witnesses from that tragedy have their say in an open, public forum? Wouldn't that be "the American way" to do things. Transparency, honesty, BOTH sides able to present their evidence. This DID NOT happen the first time around. Frankly, the name "forbiased" is something you should consider and trying to reason with you is an exercise in circular, non-sequitur charades. Enjoy your "fantasy, Fox induced world." The rest of us will try to figure out the "reality" of the real one.
-3 # forparity 2011-05-04 13:33
Oh my..

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - where the "union" term come from?

It was form in 2006 - by a guy named Gage.

"different than the public was informed?"

I don't think we actually needed to be informed - we watched it happen. We saw the planes - we heard the phone calls - we listened to the witnesses - we watched the fires blazing out of control all afternoon in building # 7, until they "pulled" the fireman away as collapse seemed inevitable. Folks were observing that the WTC was buckling from the heat - and they were sounding the alarm that it might collapse. Hundreds of people watched as the AA 757 flew over their heads and headed straight into the Pentagon.

The explanation for the collapse of the WTC's from the structural damage and the fires, and of building # 7 is obvious.

A few kooks get all the attention, while thousands of dedicated engineers and scientists and experts go about their serious business of addressing what took place and the result.

It's like the birther movement. Must be a brain fart sort of a thing.

Why don't you open up a "truth commission." Go for it. A few dozen kooks will line up behind you - and thousands of professionals will tell you to get a life.
+2 # Dave W. 2011-05-05 01:23
forparity, "A few dozen kooks will line up behind you." Then you should have NO objection to an open and transparent public forum on the subject. "Kooks" should be easily debunked by "thousands of professionals." And there is certainly nothing "obvious" about the collapse of building seven. Redundant absurdity is what you're best suited for. Facts or even the attempt by others with whom you disagree to examine evidence for themselves is derided. Your an expert...on EVERYTHING and a legend in your mind. And quite frankly, a waste of time. End of line.
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-05 09:13
He also considers climate scientists to be "kooks" because they disagree with him.
-1 # forparity 2011-05-05 11:19
Like I said - go for it.

Did you take an honest and open look at some of the links?

Are you now familiar with the fatal design of the WTC's?

Have you looked and listened to the video of the NY police copter, flying around the building, saying, it's starting to buckle - it's going to collapse!

It's a very easy to understand structural issue, as it's so easy to observe.

Have you seen the video that goes on all day long - fixed on the fires raging out of control in building # 7?

Oh, and that hole in the ground in Penn. Remember the jet that caught fire and crashed into the Everglades? Largest body parts they found were whole fingers. Pulverized - in the water. And it wasn't flown into the ground.
0 # billy bob 2011-05-05 11:42
Did you take an honest and open look at my link that proved YOUR link was funded by EXXON?
0 # billy bob 2011-05-05 16:27
Like I said - go for it (in case you want to prove that your "climate research" wasn't funded by EXXON).

Have you seen the link I provided earlier today proving that your research was funded by EXXON?

Are you now familiar with the fatal design of your argument, as it's so easy to observe?
-1 # forparity 2011-05-06 14:47
Well, it's difficult to get a piece of the $50 billion spent by governments promoting AGW theory. The measly little pocket change from GE or EXXON, or BP Pet (the future of the earth (according to Energy Sec. Steven Chu) that goes to universities and higher education and charity is what it is. If it takes that to provide some minimal funding to support science, then fine.
0 # billy bob 2011-05-06 20:47
It took you a few days, but you finally answered me. I like how you tried to wait me out. I go back and check these threads from time to time.

So, the only "science" you're willing to accept as having any validity will have to be funded by the PETROLEUM INDUSTRY.

I think you just lost this argument.
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-06 20:48
By the way, I wouldn't call PERSONALLY POCKETING $100,000 to write a paper for the oil industry "pocket change".
+2 # GTrout 2011-05-03 23:14
Amazing how one passive-aggress ive neo-con can so easily waste the time of so many progressives. No wonder they're winning the hearts and minds of the great unwashed. Tsk.
+6 # Wunkman 2011-05-03 23:22
Iraq is not a war. It is a theft designed to look like a war. Who got the trillions? Not me. I'm still paying for it.
+3 # Da60sman 2011-05-04 08:46
Forparity said "Well, at least Bush actually cares about the environment" I nominate this comment for Stupidest comment of the Year. Bush's "clear skys plan" allowed the burning at an additonal 79 MILLION TONS of coal. His "healthy forest initiative" exempted loggers from fed review.
+1 # billy bob 2011-05-04 09:33
I second your nomination.
+2 # VSweet 2011-05-04 10:04
Sadly, there are lot of racist folks and political leaders who will never accept President Obama leadership achievements no matter what he does. So why keep beating a dead horse with these narrow minded and racist American citizens? They will never be satisfied !!!
+3 # MikeNolan 2011-05-04 13:30
Some more wisdom from Keith Oberman. Thanks, man!
0 # Charles Sherwood 2011-05-07 04:05
He might be a little more credible if they weren't so HEAVILY biased. Talk about blatantly being pro-Democrat and anti-Republican . Why bother even listening to someone who is not the least bit objective?
0 # irvingwood 2011-05-08 05:51
What we saw on Monday was what Hunter S.Thompson saw in Richard Nixon... "It is Nixon himself who represents that dark, venal and incurably violent side of the American character almost every other country in the world has learned to fear and despise". (Rolling Stone (June 1994)) What we saw in the act of extra-judicial execution and the vulgar rejoicing that followed, is the American psyche at full pitch of brutality and rage. A seething mob mentality that horrifies civilized minds. The guns, the torture, the death penalty, the overwhelming military power, the is all there, waiting to show it's ugly face. The crude arrogance, the boasting, the bullying, the indifference to the rule of law.....will the world survive the US's superpower status?
0 # jblane321 2011-05-09 17:27
Keith...serious ly, you actually believe that Bin Laden was found and located based ONLY on intelligence gathered since your favorite President took office? Where do you get your information? Leon Panetta himself told Brian Williams on NBC News that much of what they knew about Bin Laden's current location came about as a result of "special interrogation techniques" i.e. waterboarding. Wake up and smell the real world, Sir.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.