“When Condi Rice stands before a press conference and says no one ever imagined terrorists would fly a hijacked plane into a building, and then it comes out that the government had war games simulating just such a scenario, Condi was lying.”
How is that statement evidence that Condi was lying?
i) For one thing, Condi was head of the NSA, not the DOD. Why assume that she’s cognizant of everything that goes on over at the Pentagon? It’s a big place. Even the Secretary of Defense isn’t cognizant of everything that goes on under his own roof.
ii) It’s also possible to forget something you used to know.
iii) But let’s assume that she was lying. How does that constitute evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?
What motive would she have to lie? What’s the context of her statement? She’s on the defensive. She was head of the NSA, as well as Bush’s National Security Advisor. Why didn’t she see it coming? Why didn’t she connect the dots?
Like many incompetent bureaucrats, she tells a lie to excuse her incompetence. To minimize blame for her failure to anticipate 9/11.
Isn’t that a simpler, more plausible explanation than a conspiracy theory involving countless conspirators both inside and outside of gov’t?
“When George Bush says(not once but twice), he saw the first plane fly into Tower 1 before he spoke to the children at Booker T. Washington Elementary, and it turns out that there was no videotape available then or live television coverage of the first plane, George was lying, or so monstrously confused he should submit to random drug testing, or at least provide us a copy of the script he's been reading from.”
What’s the point that DPW is trying to make? Is this supposed to be evidence that Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11?
If so, then the inference is obviously fallacious. When did Bush make this statement? Three months after 9/11.
How would a statement made three months after 9/11 be evidence of advance knowledge? The statement would only be evidence of advance knowledge if it was made before the fact. Before Bush was in a position to know what happened—unless he was in on the plot.
DPW is confusing the timing of the statement with the timing of the event. Even if the statement is anachronistic, it was made after the fact, long after Bush had seen footage of the planes hitting the towers.
The fact that Bush’s later statement about the sequence of events may be wrong is irrelevant to what he knew on 9/11. It’s only relevant to what he knew (or thought he knew) at the time he said it. The timing of a statement, and a statement about timing, are two different things. This is pretty elementary.
Why not assume that Bush misremembered the sequence? It’s very easy for subsequent information (or misinformation) to merge with our prior recollection and subconsciously change our recollection of events.
In fact, here’s a textbook example: Many Bush-haters think they remember Bush say that we needed to invade Iraq because it posed an “imminent threat.”
Of course, Bush never said that. In his State of the Union speech, he went out of his way to say the very opposite.
That was a memorable speech. Unlike the average State of the Union speech, there was exceptional public interest in this speech. And that’s because this was shortly after 9/11. Everyone was expecting Bush to use the occasion to say how the US was going to retaliate.
So how could so many people forget such a memorable speech?
And even if they did forget, it would be easy for them to refresh their faulty or fading memory. The text of the speech is posted at the White House website. And if you don’t trust the White House website, there are many other places on the web where you can pull up a transcript.
Yet despite all that, there’s a persistent urban legend that Bush lied us into war by claiming that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US.
People think they remember what he said at the time they heard it live. But they don’t. What they really remember is subsequent coverage of the speech, which they subconsciously merge with their original recollection.
If they can misremember, why can’t Bush?
“Government bureaucrats should be assumed to be lying unless proven otherwise, not the reverse.”
By that logic, we should assume that official critics of the Bush administration like Michael Scheuer and Richard Clarke are lying unless proven otherwise.
“It seems as though no matter how many deceptions elements within the US government orchestrate, from the creation of the Federal Reserve, to the Lusitania, to the USS Kearney, to Pearl Harbor, to Operation Northwoods, to the Gulf of Tonkin, to the USS Liberty, to 9/11, ever the gullible rise up to believe the 'patriotic' lie.”
Let’s run through these items, shall we?
How is this evidence that American bureaucrats deceive people?
Pearl Harbor/USS Liberty/USS Kearny/Gulf of Tonkin
DPW is pyramiding. Using one conspiracy theory to prop up another conspiracy theory. All of his examples are disputed examples.
i) That plan was produced at the height of the Cold War, around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. That emotional climate didn’t exist in the 8 months before 9/11, when Bush took office.
ii) Despite Cold War tension, Operation Northwoods was never adopted or implemented. How does the fact that Operation Northwoods was rejected by gov’t bureaucrats prove what gov’t bureaucrats are prepared to do?
iii) This was also before we developed such an adversarial press corps. Before Watergate. Before the anti-war movement. A president could get away with more back then (e.g. JFK’s poor health and sex life).
iv) Finally, is Operation Northwoods even analogous to the issue at hand?
DPW is the one who suffers from acute gullibility.
i) People who lie, lie for a reason. Lying involves a cost/benefit analysis. If I lie, how much do I have to gain, and how much do I have to lose?
Evil people are motivated by their perceived self-interest. The 9/11 conspirators would have nothing to gain in comparison to what they’d have to lose if their plot were exposed. And in the adversarial climate of Washington, both inside and outside of gov’t, there would be a high risk of exposure. That isn’t even slightly comparable to “lying” about the Federal Reserve.
The fact that many people lie some of the time doesn’t create any presumption that someone lied to cover up a heinous crime. If he committed a heinous crime, he is likely to lie about it, but the fact that he lies from time to time is no evidence that he committed a heinous crime.
If you lie on your tax returns, that doesn’t make you a serial killer.
ii) It’s also credulous to assume that most folks who work for the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD and so on are as evil as DPW has to assume for his conspiracy theory to work.
Gov’t employees are not a breed apart from other human beings. They are not more dishonest or more corrupt than the private sector.
If gov’t employees are that untrustworthy, then 9/11 Truthers are just as untrustworthy, since both groups are just a subset of humanity in general.
Not to mention all of the additional conspirators he needs after the fact, both inside and outside of gov’t, to participate in the cover-up.
DPW’s scepticism is self-refuting. 9/11 Truthers are selectively sceptical and selectively gullible.