The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Defending Trutherism

Text Size

Of all of the possible responses from liberals in the wake of the Van Jones resignation, about the oddest is the impulse among some to actually excuse the 9/11 truther position, harkening back to a time when the far left was viewed by the general public as completely radicalized and out of the mainstream. Earlier this afternoon, I debated FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher on the Van Jones fiasco on MSNBC. Before we were cut off for a Reid/Pelosi health care press conference, she argued that he shouldn't have been forced to resign, dismissing his support for an investigation into whether the government had prior knowledge of 9/11 as not a big deal. Over the weekend, Hamsher blasted the White House for letting Jones hang out to dry, arguing:

Now he's been thrown under the bus by the White House for signing his name to a petition expressing something that 35% of all Democrats believed as of 2007 -- that George Bush knew in advance about the attacks of 9/11.

View all comments (24) | Leave a comment

Pete| 9.8.09 @ 5:25PM

35% eh? No wonder these people can't see the Messiah for what he is.

Bob| 9.8.09 @ 5:33PM

...and how many Republicans are "birthers"? Case closed. Perhaps the "birthers" can join with the "truthers" and get abducted by aliens (you know what they do to you on the mother ship).

Pete| 9.8.09 @ 5:45PM

I have no idea, Bob, but I bet you can show me a chart that says at least 35% of all Republicans are "birthers."

And even if there is a stat out there, what is loonier? I don't think they are even in the same class given the cirumstances. On the one hand you have to believe that a US president (with pro-America views) approved of and/or orchestrated the deaths of thousands on home soil (for oil, wasn't it?). On the other hand, you have to believe that a guy who clearly hates this country, has foreign parents, and hasn't been truthful about anything in his entire life, lied about where he was born.

Tough call.

Truth to Power | 9.8.09 @ 7:39PM

3/5 Bob can explain all liberal bad behavior by a conter example. The only people I know that do this are partisans. It is an easy enough thing in which to get caught up. It is a sad part of human nature but it does not excuse the next bad behavior really. It is just an attempt to cover bad behavior by the partisan. 3/5 Bob is covering for liberals as he frequently does. Why does he almost always do this? He is a partisan but just not on the conservative side. He is a troll. He must be very upset recently. I have always found him slow but he is becoming more and more obvious.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.8.09 @ 7:42PM

Hi Pete
That was funny........thanks.

Fact is...Obama was a total cypher until after election. No transcripts...no lecture notes from students...etc.
Years ago I read an entire series of novels beginning with "Advice and Consent" by Allan Drury.
During the series (five years long) the media killed America...and were in turn IMMEDIATELY killed by the communists when they took control of the US.

A cold war era series , but chilling nontheless.

Mindnumbed robot| 9.8.09 @ 7:48PM

Ken(Old Texican)- Interesting that you mention the Drury novels. I read all the Washington novels and a couple others. Drury was so wonderful in presenting how D.C. is full of scoundrels... and heroes. My memories dim from reading the books so long ago, but I just bought a long out of print novel: A Shade of Difference which explored race relations in this country. Drury was about thirty or so years ahead of his time. Worth reading even today. I think there should be a Drury revival!

Grzmlyk| 9.8.09 @ 7:58PM

Nice one, Pete. Touche, as they say.

Speaking of charts, I have a chart that says 100% of people whose intellectual capital consists of precisely two charts, and who claim they are not ideologues, and who have three letter monikers that are anagrams, are liars.

Or fools. Or, sigh, in a certain "Bob's" case, both.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.8.09 @ 8:04PM

Let me get this straight, Bob... birthers are outrageous wackos, but truthers are just misunderstood Great Democrats?

Ever heard of the term "double standard"? Or does the DNC pay you to come here and spread doublespeak?

warcraft gold| 9.8.09 @ 10:01PM

Classic exposition, I have also mentioned it in my blog article. But it is a pity that almost no friend discussed it with me. I am very happy to see your article.

PA-1650-01| 9.8.09 @ 10:55PM

Ever heard of the term "double standard"? Or does the DNC pay you to come here and spread doublespeak?
Yes.

Nathan| 9.9.09 @ 9:38AM

I believe the MSNBC moderator misspoke. He said Bush received an intelligence report saying Bin Laden was determined to strike the U.S. with planes. If I remember correctly the actual report only said, "Bin Laden determined to strike the U.S." Planes were not mentioned. The so-called Truthers are nonetheless a bunch of loons.

Joyce| 9.9.09 @ 9:56AM

Sounds like the story about FDR being alerted by the Japanese ambassadors before the Pearl Harbor attack. In that case it has been shown to have validity. But no way, do I think GWB knew in advance about the attack of 9/11? NO. The report mentioned an attack and it was true in that al Queda had already attacked the Cole among others, or am I mistaken? Why shouldn't anyone beleive in another attack? But where and when is an important element in the report. And there is no comparison between so called truthers and birthers. Birthers at least have reason to suspect what they do about Obama. Have any of his school records been released? What else hasn't been exposed to the public? Huh, huh? Judging from the events of the last week and the departure of Mr. Jones, there may be a lot we don't know.

Bob| 9.9.09 @ 1:38PM

Wanderer -- both "birthers" and "truthers" are wackos. Both of their claims have been proven wrong but given the wackos they are, they won't believe the truth. I haven't seen Bush's birth certificate, have you? Where is the outrage?

By the way, how are things going on the mother ship?

ConservativeWanderer| 9.9.09 @ 6:48PM

Thank you, Bob. We finally found something we can agree on. Birthers and Truthers are, indeed, both wackos.

Therefore, we should be able to agree that we don't need a wacko--Birther or Truther--in the White House.

Therefore, you should agree with me that it is good that Van Jones (a confirmed Truther, therefore--by your own statement--a wacko) is no longer there.

Thanks for agreeing with me. You have shown great wisdom in doing so.

Bob| 9.9.09 @ 7:12PM

Wanderer -- As I stated in my first post, Van Jones seemed to be a wacko and I certainly would have put my foot to his arse to get him out of the White House. I am non-discriminatory in my dislike of wackos and people who don't look at facts/data. It doesn't matter whether they are right, left, top, bottom, or invisible. (Well, maybe if they are invisible).

ConservativeWanderer| 9.9.09 @ 7:51PM

Funny, Bob, I don't see you saying that anywhere in this particular thread. Perhaps you've spent too much time in the mothership yourself?

By the way, a friend of mine who goes by PhyCon wrote you a long, scientific reply in the "sausage" thread that turned into a discussion of global warming. Perhaps you should wander over there and read it and reply. I'm sure he'd love to continue discussing it with you.

Angel| 9.10.09 @ 12:44AM

CW, trust me, old "BOOB" most certainly read PhyCon's brilliant post. Poor old "BOOB" was so clearly outmatched he crawled back under his pile of charts and graphs. A lone tear trickled down his cheek.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.10.09 @ 9:31AM

I know, Angel. And I doubt it was a lone tear.

However, I just wanted to, as the lefties say, "raise awareness" that Bobo has fled that thread (hey, that rhymes!) after being definitively out-debated, out-experted, and out-scienced. :D

Bob| 9.10.09 @ 2:48PM

Wanderer -- it was in a previous thread, the first on this this guy. I don't always go back. Let me read PhyCon's response and get back to you.

Bob| 9.10.09 @ 3:09PM

Wanderer, I couldn't find the post by PhyCon, but did find a long one by a Gerald Dudley, PhD. I don't think he had a PhD in Chemistry, Physics, or any of the Geosciences, but I may be mistaken. First of all, he gave a lengthy argument for ground level amounts of CO2 that are not relevant to the discussion of global warming. Then he uses the unscientific (and disproven) argument of global cooling for the last decade when historically we've had these downward cycles in the past (there is not a linear relationship due to changing weather patterns). If he had a degree in science, he might have actually performed that historical analysis as these changes occur very slowly. We've seen these cyclical downturns in the early 1900's and then again during the 1950 period. It only makes sense after another 50 years that we see this cycle again. Therefore, the historical data disproves this theory with both levels and timing arguments. Again, if he was a scientist, he would have done this simple data oriented research. But then again, AmSpec bloggers don't seem to have this level of education and inquisitiveness.

My argument thus stands.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.10.09 @ 5:53PM

Bob, just go to this thread:

http://spectator.org/blog/2009.....sausage-fa

...and scroll down to 9/8/09 4:03 am and you'll see his lengthy response. It's perfectly visible to me and at least one other, who replied to him.

Is there anyone else here who can help Bob find this easy-to-find comment?

Bob| 9.10.09 @ 6:49PM

I posted a response there, and here is a copy of it?

Well, PhyCon, it seems as if your simple minded analysis missed the point completely. I actually majored in math and chemistry with a minor in physics.

But you and Wanderer couldn't see that my "experiment" wasn't an experiment at all, it was a simplistic response to a ludicrous and uneducated statement about global warming. If you had remembered the principles of analysis, you'd know there is a difference between macro and micro analysis -- you utilize totally different variables. Did you forget your classes in number theory and boolean algebra?

Of course there are lots of variables, that was exactly my point. The oversimplistic statement that we breath oxygen and plants breath CO2 and therefore all is right is just simply dumb -- and you know it. There is an ecosystem out there with variables.

The fact is that in this last century of industrialization that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen 38%. That is not a millenium or hundreds of thousands of years (you probably believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old) but 100 years.

When you get into a discussion of modeling, you must certainly know the difference between interpolation and extrapolation, right? Forecasting is extrapolation and in a complex system like the atmosphere or even economics, it is not extremely accurate.

What you look for in macro analysis are substantial changes from the norm. There has been a huge increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Capish? We've seen a long term trend in global warming over the recent past which corresponds to this increase in CO2 levels. Is there a dependent relationship? We must go to probability theory (you did study that, right?) to calculate an R factor on that data. In fact, the R factor is quite high -- higher than on other variables.

The statement that you make regarding "revising the hypothesis when the evidence shows the need for revision" again shows you have not studied the data. In the early 1900's and in the mid-1900's we saw decade long declines in average temperatures. Well, another 50 years have passed and we are witnessing another decade long downturn. This is a CYCLE with a long term upward slope. To make an assumption that this is a change in the long term trend line when we have evidence it has occurred before shows that you don't remember much of your math/analysis training.

I would ask your college for a refund on that math training. Perhaps you spent more time in applied math than theoretical math. Actually, I specialized in algebraic topology.