763 replies to this topic

[Mike 215]

it.It is not unusual for people to confess to crimes they did not admit and Bin Landen was never a normal person to begin with. This speech did not prove he was responsible for 911. Indeed, the grand jury and FBI did not accuse him of being responsible for 911.
  The final proof that he was not responsible for 911 was that there was no evidence in his personal videos and records taken by the SEAL team linking him at all to 911.
  I give you the facts, but people have to believe he was reponsible even if the facts do not prove it. Maybe they can't face the fact that the two presidents lied about his connection to the attacks.

Edited by Mike 215, 15 October 2011 - 09:44 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Wandering, on 15 October 2011 - 08:56 AM, said:

Not according to skyeagle. If you repeat the same thing enough times It becomes true!

It seems there are those who tend to forget what I have said. After all, look what they posted as a response!

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 15 October 2011 - 09:29 PM, said:

Right now, based on the responses both you and Q24 gave, I don't expect a truthful assessment from either of you on the core issues that I pointed out.

The truth is not determined by personal “position” or “opinion” or “mind”; all terms you are using.

The truth is determined by hard evidence and yes, “exact words”.

I’m still not sure you understand the argument - I am not saying bin Laden is not tied to 9/11.

Here is what we can nail him on using the evidence, not opinion: -

• Moral support of attacks on America
  
• Meeting with the 9/11 hijackers
  
• Foreknowledge of a hijacking plot and attack
  
• Moral support of the 9/11 attack

bin Laden has effectively confessed to the above without doubt.

That is it.

Legally, that is all he could be charged with - an accessory to the crime.

What there is no evidence of, is that bin Laden masterminded, ordered, directed or funded 9/11.

The media headlines and talking heads are not evidence.
Your opinion is not evidence.
What bin Laden did not say, is not evidence.

There is reason the Bush administration failed to provide a case against bin Laden as promised.
There is reason the British government said their dossier was not intended to provide a legal case.
There is reason the FBI said they have no evidence bin Laden is responsible for 9/11.
There is reason the Commission report said the source of funding for the attack was of little significance.

They do not have any evidence bin Laden held ownership of the 9/11 attack.
There is no evidence it was -his- operation.

And this is where such a confession by bin Laden is also conspicuous by its absence.

Show that bin Laden gave a direct order.
Show that bin Laden had input into the operational planning.
Show that bin Laden put his own money into the attack.

I understand your interpretation and opinion, booNyzarC, I completely see where you are coming from.

Can you also see the view I have set out, based on the exact words of bin Laden and lack of hard evidence?

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 16 October 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

The truth is not determined by personal “position” or “opinion” or “mind”; all terms you are using.

The truth is determined by hard evidence and yes, “exact words”.

I have referred only to his exact words.  His exact words convey the story behind his inspiration for the September 11th attacks and how he chose the primary targets for those attacks.

Q24, on 16 October 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

I’m still not sure you understand the argument - I am not saying bin Laden is not tied to 9/11.

You may be right that I didn't fully understand your position.  I did have the impression that your position involved minimal ties to bin Laden, almost to the point that he was hardly involved.  The transcript of his speech does not suggest this at all, and I'm glad that you've clarified the point.

Q24, on 16 October 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

Here is what we can nail him on using the evidence, not opinion: -

• Moral support of attacks on America
  
• Meeting with the 9/11 hijackers
  
• Foreknowledge of a hijacking plot and attack
  
• Moral support of the 9/11 attack

bin Laden has effectively confessed to the above without doubt.

On this I agree.  He does indeed confess to these things as I've been trying to convey.  It is good to have some common ground defined.

Q24, on 16 October 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

That is it.

Legally, that is all he could be charged with - an accessory to the crime.

What there is no evidence of, is that bin Laden masterminded, ordered, directed or funded 9/11.

The media headlines and talking heads are not evidence.
Your opinion is not evidence.
What bin Laden did not say, is not evidence.

There is reason the Bush administration failed to provide a case against bin Laden as promised.
There is reason the British government said their dossier was not intended to provide a legal case.
There is reason the FBI said they have no evidence bin Laden is responsible for 9/11.
There is reason the Commission report said the source of funding for the attack was of little significance.

They do not have any evidence bin Laden held ownership of the 9/11 attack.
There is no evidence it was -his- operation.

And this is where such a confession by bin Laden is also conspicuous by its absence.

Show that bin Laden gave a direct order.
Show that bin Laden had input into the operational planning.
Show that bin Laden put his own money into the attack.

It is around this area that we begin to diverge, but not fully.  As you are aware, I am of the opinion that the speech does indeed convey a confession that the attack was his inspiration alone.  It does not convey that he planned the attack alone, but it does show that he participated in the planning with Atta.

I am not speaking of legalities.  I am not speaking of additional evidence or lack thereof.  I am not speaking of specific funding, though bin Laden does refer to this ambiguously.  I am not saying that he ordered the attacks.

I am only talking about what he does convey in the speech; and he does convey that the inspiration for the attacks and the targets came to him.  He tells us this fact quite clearly.  He doesn't say that Atta came to him with the plan, as you suggested in a prior post.  He tells us in no uncertain terms that it was his inspiration.

I have little doubt that there were others involved with the fully detailed planning of the attacks, Atta included, but in this speech he takes credit for the idea.  And I don't understand how you do not see this.

I will try one more time to explain why I hold this position regarding the speech.

He is very specific.  Read the first sentence of this excerpt from the speech a couple of times.  He is defining what he is about to tell us; "the story behind" the attacks and "the moments in which the decision was taken."  And then read what follows and note that he doesn't mention Atta or anyone else when describing the source of inspiration.  He refers only to himself in this regard.

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

He doesn't say that Atta came to him with the idea.  He claims ownership of the idea by describing specifically what inspired him and how he chose to target towers in America.  Just as he promised to "truthfully" tell us in the first sentence of this excerpt.

The speech doesn't describe the details of how this inspiration of his evolved to the point of execution, but it does describe that it was his inspiration to begin with.

Both you and psychoticmike have made issue with the opening sentence of this excerpt, specifically about the words "the decision was taken" and suggested that it doesn't necessarily indicate that bin Laden took the decision.  Yet everything he talks about immediately following this sentence involves him and nobody else.  He doesn't refer to how those precursor events inspired Atta or anyone else, he refers to how he himself was inspired by those events.  It was his idea.



As for involvement with Atta, this is what he does say later in the speech:

And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.

This does not indicate that Atta planned the whole thing, nor does it indicate that Atta came to him with the idea.  This is a single point regarding the overall timing of the attacks and bin Laden credits Atta with that timing; which he (and apparently others) "agreed with."  Atta may have fleshed out many of the other details, but this speech doesn't indicate it one way or the other.  And it doesn't indicate that bin Laden planned the bulk of the other details either.  However, to me this is an indication that bin Laden was indeed directly involved with the planning stages of the attacks along side Atta and probably others.

Q24, on 16 October 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

I understand your interpretation and opinion, booNyzarC, I completely see where you are coming from.

Can you also see the view I have set out, based on the exact words of bin Laden and lack of hard evidence?

I can see the view you've set out, and as I've detailed above I do think we've found some common ground.

Do you likewise see how bin Laden conveys that the idea for the attacks and the primary targets for the attacks came directly from his mind and were inspired by what he described as the tyranny of the oppressors?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

Do you likewise see how bin Laden conveys that the idea for the attacks and the primary targets for the attacks came directly from his mind and were inspired by what he described as the tyranny of the oppressors?

Of course.

Now please watch this very closely: -




Consider yourself Nick.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 16 October 2011 - 10:22 PM, said:

Of course.

Now please watch this very closely: -




Consider yourself Nick.

Cute.

Way to avoid the content of my argument.  Again.

So tell me then.  When bin Laden said this:

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

Did he follow through with his promise to "talk about the story behind" the events and tell us "truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken?"

Show me where in the speech he fulfilled this promise.  Where exactly in the speech does he describe the story behind those events and exactly where in the speech does he indicate that the decision was taken.  Precisely which section(s) of the speech cover these two promises and what do they indicate?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2011 - 10:58 PM, said:

Cute.

Way to avoid the content of my argument.  Again.

The video example is entirely equivalent to your argument - please watch it again until you understand - you are a perfect parallel to the prosecutor, Nick Rice, who makes the mistake of thinking he has a confession when he does not.

I didn’t think it was necessary for guidance notes, but here we go: -

Nick:  Did you murder Clarence Darby?

Clyde:  I wanted him dead, he killed my wife and child.

Nick:  Rupert Ames, did you murder him as well?

Clyde:  Rupert Ames deserved to die, they both deserved to die.

Nick:  So, you arranged both of those murders?

Clyde:  Yes, I planned it in my head over and over again, it took me a long time.

….

Nick:  We’re done here, we have your confession.

Clyde:  Oh you do?

Nick:  On tape.  See, in our profession we consider that a ‘slam dunk’.

Clyde:  Oh really?  I don’t think so.  Let’s think back, what did I say?  That I wanted to kill Clarence Darby.  Yeah sure, what father wouldn’t?  That both Darby and Ames deserved to die.  I think most people would agree with that.  That I planned it over and over again in my head.  Yeah, who wouldn’t fantasise about that?  None of these are an admission of guilt, Nick.  You might want to check the tape.

Do you actually understand why, even though Clyde admitted to having those thoughts in his head, it is not a confession to the crime?

The bin Laden statement is the same - he might have wanted an attack on America, believed in the cause and even planned it in his head…

But it is not a confession he was the eventual mastermind or perpetrator.

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2011 - 10:58 PM, said:

So tell me then.  When bin Laden said this:

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

Did he follow through with his promise to "talk about the story behind" the events and tell us "truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken?"

Show me where in the speech he fulfilled this promise.  Where exactly in the speech does he describe the story behind those events and exactly where in the speech does he indicate that the decision was taken.  Precisely which section(s) of the speech cover these two promises and what do they indicate?

You have already quoted it twice.  We know which section we are dealing with.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 16 October 2011 - 11:55 PM, said:

The video example is entirely equivalent to your argument - please watch it again until you understand - you are a perfect parallel to the prosecutor, Nick Rice, who makes the mistake of thinking he has a confession when he does not.

--

Do you actually understand why, even though Clyde admitted to having those thoughts in his head, it is not a confession to the crime?

Yes I understand the point you are attempting to make.  I've understood this part of your argument from the beginning, and I understood your intended association with this clip simply by watching it.  Do you think I'm an idiot or something?

Q24, on 16 October 2011 - 11:55 PM, said:

The bin Laden statement is the same - he might have wanted an attack on America, believed in the cause and even planned it in his head…

But it is not a confession he was the eventual mastermind or perpetrator.

The bin Laden statement is not the same.  He doesn't say that he simply wanted an attack on America.  He says that he is going to tell us, truthfully, about the story behind those events and the moment in which the decision was taken.

He isn't coyly responding to questions in an interrogation.  He is delivering a deliberate and carefully worded speech intended to tell the American people how and why he was inspired to attack the United States.

This isn't even remotely close to being the same.

Q24, on 16 October 2011 - 11:55 PM, said:

You have already quoted it twice.  We know which section we are dealing with.

So you agree that he is referring to himself, his inspiration, and his strong resolve when he describes the story behind those events and the moment in which the decision was taken?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 17 October 2011 - 12:23 AM, said:

The bin Laden statement is not the same.  He doesn't say that he simply wanted an attack on America.  He says that he is going to tell us, truthfully, about the story behind those events and the moment in which the decision was taken.

He isn't coyly responding to questions in an interrogation.  He is delivering a deliberate and carefully worded speech intended to tell the American people how and why he was inspired to attack the United States.

This isn't even remotely close to being the same.


So you agree that he is referring to himself, his inspiration, and his strong resolve when he describes the story behind those events and the moment in which the decision was taken?

It is exactly the same - wanting or being inspired is not doing.

The only apparent decision bin Laden made in his mind is that “we should” punish America by destroying towers, not that “I would” punish America by destroying towers.  He does not say the decision that was made to enact 9/11 was his personally at all.  He is using his experience to give an example of the causes and events that he believes led to the decision for 9/11.  It is a rebuttal to the Bush lie that it was because terrorists, “hate our freedoms”.  He did not actually make a decision in 1982 that 19 years later he would order planes to be flown into the twin towers.  He is saying there are reasons for what “we” did, with “we” being the Muslim people bin Laden saw himself as representative of; he clearly had sympathy with the alleged hijackers.

As you think this was a confession to being the mastermind, director, funder, etc… can you explain why bin Laden twice denied responsibility for the attack and then, you think, did a sudden switcheroo in 2004?  Can you explain why bin Laden twice credited Atta as commander of the attack?  Can you explain why in the 2001 videotape, where bin Laden is having a discussion never intended to be viewed by the public, does he say he didn’t know that the attack had taken place?  How can the mastermind, director and funder not know when his own attack has taken place?  I’d say, it’s almost like he wasn’t in control.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 17 October 2011 - 01:38 AM, said:

It is exactly the same - wanting or being inspired is not doing.

To accept this comparison you must ignore that inconvenient leading sentence:

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

He tells us right here that what he is about to describe is the background which led to the decision to attack America.  Plain and simple.

Show me where in the speech he described the decision to attack America in terms not related to himself.

Q24, on 17 October 2011 - 01:38 AM, said:

The only apparent decision bin Laden made in his mind is that “we should” punish America by destroying towers, not that “I would” punish America by destroying towers.  He does not say the decision that was made to enact 9/11 was his personally at all.  He is using his experience to give an example of the causes and events that he believes led to the decision for 9/11.  It is a rebuttal to the Bush lie that it was because terrorists, “hate our freedoms”.  He did not actually make a decision in 1982 that 19 years later he would order planes to be flown into the twin towers.  He is saying there are reasons for what “we” did, with “we” being the Muslim people bin Laden saw himself as representative of; he clearly had sympathy with the alleged hijackers.

We may not be so far off in interpretation here Q24.  All I'm essentially saying is that he tells us it was his idea to attack America and destroy towers.

I'm not saying that he had the specific plan to use planes 19 years before the event.  Clearly he had many ideas when the decision was taken.  And he is describing the reasons that he had such a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

Q24, on 17 October 2011 - 01:38 AM, said:

As you think this was a confession to being the mastermind, director, funder, etc… can you explain why bin Laden twice denied responsibility for the attack and then, you think, did a sudden switcheroo in 2004?  Can you explain why bin Laden twice credited Atta as commander of the attack?  Can you explain why in the 2001 videotape, where bin Laden is having a discussion never intended to be viewed by the public, does he say he didn’t know that the attack had taken place?  How can the mastermind, director and funder not know when his own attack has taken place?  I’d say, it’s almost like he wasn’t in control.

As to why he might have denied it initially, I can only guess that it may have been to avoid extradition perhaps?  He was in one of the last places on earth that would apparently take him after all.  He didn't exactly have many other places to hide, and as I understand it Pakistan was threatening to demand he be turned over.  Faced with such options, what do you think he would do?  Clearly he wasn't interested in martyrdom.

Can you show me the 2001 video and/or transcript where he says "he didn't know that the attack had taken place?"

Is this the one you are talking about?

[Mike 215]

Do you know why President Obama ordered those SEALs to put a bullet in this head?
To avoid the ebmarrassment of a Jury trial. The president had no choice because he already said he was responsible for 911. To bring him back alive and put him on public trial would be bad news for both Bush and Obama. There is no real evidence he was responsible and even all his records and videos seized by the SEALs did not find such evidence.
  What is even worse about a jury trial is that all those conspiracy theories about the govenment role in the attacks will be allowed. With a large number of Americans already believing they were lied to by the government, it would take only one juror to have a mistrial. Imagine if the defense lawyers called both Obama and Bush to be questioned? It would be the trial of the century.
But one bullet in his head solved all of these problems.

[frenat]

Enemy combatants are subject to military tribunals.  He wouldn't have had a jury trial anyway.  The slightest bit of research would have told you that.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 17 October 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

Can you show me the 2001 video and/or transcript where he says "he didn't know that the attack had taken place?"

Is this the one you are talking about?

Yes, that’s the one.

But I’ve not seen this particular translation.

I’ll explain where the section is in the video above, and then show what I’ve seen before.

Ok, so we know the men in the video are discussing premonitions they claim to have had (talking crap basically).  Sulayman Abu Guaith is describing one of these visions about witnessing news footage of the 9/11 attack on TV.

He says to bin Laden: -

I saw that I was sitting with the Sheikh in the room, then I left from one room to another, where there was a TV set.  All of a sudden, the TV broadcast a huge event.  The scene was of an Egyptian family.  Do you know where there is a game and the team wins and people’s emotions are broadcast on TV screens…

An Egyptian family is sitting - the father, the mother and the children - the older son he is overjoyed… overjoyed.  A caption was shown on the TV, stating, “In revenge for the children of al-Aqsa.  Usama Bin Laden executes strikes against the Americans.”

I said to the Sheikh [Bin Laden] - there were, I think, about fifty or sixty people.  He said to me, “That’s okay.  As long as I…

Sulayman Abu Guaith is implying that bin Laden was responsible for the strike.

bin Laden immediately replies: -

I swear that he did not know about the -
he knew there were operations…
Muhammad ‘Ata, may God have mercy on him, was responsible for the Egyptian family…

bin Laden is saying he did not know about the strike, only that there was some ongoing operation (the rest of the video makes this further apparent), and then credits Mohammed Atta with the attack, again.

It is perhaps not quite clear from the above translation.

Here is the original translation of the section: -

Sulayman ((Abu Guaith)): I was sitting with the Shaykh in a room, then I left to go to another room where there was a TV set. The TV broadcasted the big event.  The scene was showing an Egyptian family sitting in their living room, they exploded with joy. Do you know when there is a soccer game and your team wins, it was the same expression of joy. There was a subtitle that read: “In revenge for the children of Al Aqsa’, Usama Bin Ladin executes an operation against America.”  So I went back to the Shaykh (meaning UBL) who was sitting in a room with 50 to 60 people.  I tried to tell him about what I saw, but he made gesture with his hands, meaning: “I know, I know…”

UBL: He did not know about the operation. Not everybody knew (...inaudible...).
Muhammad ((Atta)) from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qa’ida Egyptian group), was in charge of the group.

http://www.defense.g...20011213ubl.pdf

Here it is even more clear that Sulayman Abu Guaith is implying bin Laden knew of the attack beforehand, and bin Laden then responds that he, “did not know about the operation.”

It is interesting that later bin Laden also says, “The brothers” did not know of the specific attack to take place either.  The brothers bin Laden is referring to are the alleged hijackers Salem and Nawaf Al Hazmi (the latter who CIA Alec Station were all over prior 9/11 but took deliberate action to prevent the FBI going after him).  Of all the hijackers, these brothers are two of the four we could call Al Qaeda veterans.  These are the men who, if any, bin Laden would have ‘donated’ to a martyrdom operation.  And bin Laden is saying they didn’t know about the attack; they didn’t even know half of the other hijackers.  The claim is, that some of the hijackers only met at the airport on 9/11.  Well that’s bizarre - that’s not how to run a successful operation.

It is clear to me that bin Laden and his men knew relatively little but got taken for a ride by Atta’s group, the Hamburg Cell, who had approached them in 1999.

Have you looked into the background of that group?

They were the brains, they were the pilots, they were the organisers, the leaders, they spoke fluent English, they were educated in and accustomed to the West, one was related to an Israeli informant, they liked girls and alcohol, they weren’t real Jihadists!

They were an intelligence cell that exploited the situation - 9/11 was their operation and they presented it to bin Laden.

[booNyzarC]

I don't see how you can possibly reach that interpretation from the transcript.

I take it that you consider this video to be genuine though?  And the translation you linked to, is that something you also consider to be genuine?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 17 October 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

I don't see how you can possibly reach that interpretation from the transcript.

It’s very straightforward…

Abu Guaith says bin Laden knew about the attack.
Bin Laden responds that no he did not.

booNyzarC, on 17 October 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

I take it that you consider this video to be genuine though?  And the translation you linked to, is that something you also consider to be genuine?

Yes, it’s real footage of bin Laden, though circumstances of the filming and sourcing of the videotape are… unusual, to say the least.  The indication is that an insider filmed the discussion and passed it directly to U.S. sources.  I did say the intelligence services were all over bin Laden prior 9/11.

The translation is apparently genuine in areas and not in others…

Independent Arabic translators found certain White House subtitles to be misleading: -

Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini, one of the translators, states, "I have carefully examined the Pentagon's translation. This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of Bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic."

Whereas the White House would have us believe that OBL admits that "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy.", translator Dr. Murad Alami finds that: "'In advance' is not said. The translation is wrong. At least when we look at the original Arabic, and there are no misunderstandings to allow us to read it into the original."

At another point, the White House translation reads: "We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day." Dr. Murad Alami: "'Previous' is never said. The subsequent statement that this event would take place on that day cannot be heard in the original Arabic version."

The White House's version also included the sentence "we asked each of them to go to America", but Alami says the original formulation is in the passive along the lines of "they were required to go". He also say that the sentence afterwards - "they didn't know anything about the operation" - cannot be understood.

Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg sums it up: "The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."

http://www.rense.com...eral18/inac.htm

The story is a fabrication of the Bush administration with unwitting support from the media machine - they don’t have any hard evidence bin Laden was the mastermind and director of 9/11, because none actually exists.  They knew if it was repeated enough, with sufficient conviction, and a claim to have evidence, people would believe it - perception is everything.  It is no different to the lie they would go on to tell about (non-existent) WMDs in Iraq.  They are master propagandists, that’s it, and it works.

Bush knew it:  “See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

Hitler knew it:  “All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

As The Jewish Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, once attended lecture courses of a man whose roots went back to the Nazi education system and had an interest in the political philosophies of a Nazi jurist... perhaps the above correlation is not so surprising.  And the Bush administration was full of those with a similar mindset.

booNyzarC, just diverging for a moment, what is your take on the Iraq WMD intelligence?  Do you believe it was a genuine error of judgement; innocent but faulty intelligence?  Or do you see that episode as a deliberate deception to meet the ends?