Monday, June 24, 2002 ::
A flimsy attempt at a snappy rejoinder. A nameless blogger (another one of those valiant dissidents who's afraid of the Treasury agents underneath his bed) has tried his hand at refuting my Ruppert timeline post below. He has his own conspiracy yarns, including a Vince Foster redux, exposing the Cliff Baxter "suicide sham."
In any event, his prodding of my timeline focuses on items 3 and 4, in which Ruppert first claims the Unocal pipeline deal failed because the Taliban's price was too high (in 1997), and that Unocal VP John Maresca testified a year later that the deal would not be feasible unless and until a stable Afghan regime was in place. Predictably, this mystery blogger does not see the incongruity here.
but presumably that doesn't necessarily follow. The 1997 negotiations could have failed over money, and the Unocal Vice President could also have testified before the House that the pipeline would not be built before there was a stable government in Afghanistan.
I suppose you could make this argument if Afghanistan had slid into chaos between 1997 and 1998, but the truth of the matter is that the Taliban continued to consolidate its rule after 1996, and the country was certainly more stable (inasmuch as a country living under the most brutal, Luddite tyranny the world has seen since the Khmer Rouge can be called stable) in 1998 than 1997, when Unocal was supposedly haggling over a price. Prudent entrepreneurs ensure the investment is a secure one before they negotiate a price, not after.
The argument then progresses to Unocal's recent press release stating that it no longer had any interest in building the pipeline, which we are to believe is "a case, I dare say, of protesting too much." Uh-huh. If Unocal had released it out of the blue, but what he doesn't tell you is that it was in response to a report that it was the "lead company" in the pipeline's construction. "Protesting too much" is something corporations sort of have to do from time to time, as they depend of what are called investors who give special slips of paper called money for their stock, based on the decisions the corporation makes.
Moron.
But here's the best part of the missive:
Ruppert's strength isn't in any particlar part of the timeline, but in the sheer quantity of
suspicious details.
So you see, it doesn't matter if none of Ruppert's weak assumptions, distortions, logic fallacies, and outright factual errors, hold any water. The fact that he is able to come up with such a wealth of idiotic arguments proves him right!
It should also be noted that this despicable pig also notes (again, in what is apparently his own yarn) the fact that only one flag officer - Lt. Gen. Timothy Maude - died in the attack as proof that there was foreknowledge, snidely remarking, "I guess he didn't get the memo."
Thanks for reminding me why I devote so much time to humiliating you
people, Mr. Xymphora.
Fucktard.
:: Bill Herbert 9:27 PM [+] ::
...
:: Sunday, June 23, 2002 ::
Mike Ruppert’s bullshit-riddled timeline (Part 1). NOTE: This is the first in what will be at least a 5-part series refuting Mike Ruppert’s conspiratorial "timeline" point by point. It may grow longer, as Ruppert continues to add more allegations, in lieu of actually providing evidence to support his older ones.
David Corn may not have the space to devote to Ruppert’s entire timeline – which contains most of his purported "evidence" of government foreknowledge of, and complicity in, the 9/11 attacks.
But I do. From the top… <SNIP>