[ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks

[Richard Loosemore]

John K Clark wrote:
> Stefano Vaj Wrote:
> 
> 
>> Let us say, however, that "some" kind of involvement, at "some" level,
>> seems much more likely a scenario than the opposite.
> 
> As there is no rational reason or the smallest particle of evidence to
> believe in such a thing I can only conclude that you received this
> information from the Blessed Virgin in a dream, or perhaps it was
> miraculously spelled out in pepperonis in a pizza that you bought.

If this means what I think it means, the your comment puts you in the 
same bracket as Samantha:  pretending that obvious evidence does not 
exist is just as irrational as gullibly swallowing non-existent evidence.

It is quite easy to assemble a prima-facie case for *passive* 
involvement:  that prima facie case simply involves the deliberate 
avoidance of all efforts to counter a pending terrorist attack, in the 
hope that the attack would get through and give the administration the 
excuse it needed for implementing its policies.

This is what I assume Stefano meant by "passive involvement".  [Stefano: 
correct me if I am wrong].

There was abundant evidence for that scenario, starting the early 
position paper written by the Neo-Cons when Bush Senior was in power 
(after reading their position paper, GHW Bush threw it in the trash in 
front of a witness and dismissed the authors as lunatics).  That 
position paper basically said that probably the only thing that would 
allow the proposal to become a reality was the occurrence of a new 
"Pearl Harbor".  Later, of course, there was the extraordinary and 
mind-boogling go-slow on anti-terrorism activities that started when the 
present administration first arrived in office, as documented in detail 
by Richard Clarke and others.  The full extent of that go-slow has many 
components to it, all interlocking into one chilling picture.

There does not need to be any suggestion that anyone knew any precise 
details of the attacks.  No conspiracy to do anything at all (and 
certainly not a conspiracy to blow anything up).  And no knowledge of 
exactly what the attack would be.  Just a decision, at some level, that 
they had to allow the widely expected big attack to get through.

The one piece of evidence that counts against this passive involvement 
scenario is that the administration is so stupid at its highest level 
that thinking that far ahead is impossible for it.  On balance, I think 
it's fifty-fifty there.

If what you were intending, by your remark, John, was to attack some 
more nefarious meaning of "passive involvement" for which there really 
is no evidence, then I withdraw paragraph one, above.



Richard Loosemore