There were a fair number of Hilary Clinton supporters that seemed to fall into the Birther camp back before the 2008 elections.
One could make a strong case that the Truther position is weaker than the Birther position precisely because of your points 2) and 3): faking birth documentation and keeping the fact a secret is almost inconceivably easier than conspiring to simultaneously hijack four airliners and use them to murder three thousand people, then keeping that a secret.
The point of the fake certificate, in the hypothetical where a fake certificate would be needed, would be to let Obama run for president. Politicians needing to hide dirty laundry is hardly a rare occurrence.
But why? What is so important about Obama? What can he do as president that any other president cannot do?
Why is Obama so special as to warrant such treatment?
Again, the attacks of 9/11 had clear political gain. Aside from the gain for Obama, what's the point? Why wouldn't John McCain (for example) have jumped all over this shit? Why would the losing opponent go along with it? What's in it for McCain?
I'm not particularly interested in motive, nor in defending the Birther meme. I'm just pointing out that it's absolutely clear that a hypothetical Birther conspiracy is astronomically more likely to go unexposed than a Truther conspiracy.
They produced clear political gain.....for the Islamic Republic of Iran when the USA proceeded to eliminate first the Taliban and then the Hussein Ba'ath regime. They were the best thing ever to happen to the Islamic Republic but that's usually not what people mean by "clear political gain."
And I'm showing what actually happened as a result of trying to make Neoconservatism happen. The biggest benefit was Ayatollah Khameini. If this evident fact bothers you, you're free to resort to the usual ad hominem and condescending misunderstandings of someone else's obvious points.
And I'm showing you that the attempt to export Neoconservatism in the real world backfired horribly and that those gains meant that the Democrats in 2008 would have been able to nominate a putrescent Rottweiler's corpse and beat George W. Bush. It was *not* successful in either domestic or foreign results, and this is what you ignore. Not that you'll ever address an actual counterpoint to your arguments.
No, the Iraq invasion had precursors in no less than three separate bombing raids over the previous No Fly Zone. Operations Northern and Southern Watch, Desert Strike, and Desert Fox all indicate that Bush's war was expansion of an existing trend, not a sudden and unexpected divergence.
There was a precursor to the Patriot Act after the Oklahoma City Bombing *and* there had been a previous terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in the 1990s. The Islamists didn't need to be supermen to pull off what they did. Anymore than Yamamoto needed to be to send the IJN across the Pacific to bomb Battleship Row.
And I'm showing that the Neocon agenda of a Middle East much more pro-Israel than not did not pan out in the real world which you are repeatedly and stubbornly ignoring.
There is obvious evidence that the attacks of 9/11 helped further the Neocon agenda. From the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq (neither of which stood a chance of happening without a 9/11 type event) there was substantial political gain to be had from a large terrorist attack happening on US soil that came from the middle east.
__________
Forgive me for reading in this sentence that you were referring to a general political gain for the USA in the wider world, not the USA specifically, as that is not what the original statement said but what you would rather I pretend it said. Sorry, I'm not interested in indulging your retroactive retractions of what you actually said for what you wished you had said.
One could make a strong case that the Truther position is weaker than the Birther position precisely because of your points 2) and 3): faking birth documentation and keeping the fact a secret is almost inconceivably easier than conspiring to simultaneously hijack four airliners and use them to murder three thousand people, then keeping that a secret.
Reply
Just what the hell would the point of the Obama fake certificate be? To destroy America? There have to be easier ways to do that.
Reply
Reply
Why is Obama so special as to warrant such treatment?
Again, the attacks of 9/11 had clear political gain. Aside from the gain for Obama, what's the point? Why wouldn't John McCain (for example) have jumped all over this shit? Why would the losing opponent go along with it? What's in it for McCain?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
There was clear domestic gain for the US Govt and the Neocons in the US who supported Bush
I'm not here to talk about the gains or losses felt by Iran.
Reply
Reply
Seriously?
Reply
There was a precursor to the Patriot Act after the Oklahoma City Bombing *and* there had been a previous terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in the 1990s. The Islamists didn't need to be supermen to pull off what they did. Anymore than Yamamoto needed to be to send the IJN across the Pacific to bomb Battleship Row.
Reply
The results of 9/11 helped the Neocon agenda. That's my only point; you keep addressing points that DON'T ENTER INTO THE DISCUSSION THAT I AM HAVING.
( ... )
Reply
Reply
REMEMBER: IN THE UNITED STATES
I am NOT talking about FOREIGN ISSUES. Remember, WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.
Reply
__________
Forgive me for reading in this sentence that you were referring to a general political gain for the USA in the wider world, not the USA specifically, as that is not what the original statement said but what you would rather I pretend it said. Sorry, I'm not interested in indulging your retroactive retractions of what you actually said for what you wished you had said.
Reply
Leave a comment