I am … unlike most people … willing to “learn” from you … Mr “Conservative” … However this “education” I am willing to undertake is going to look less like a prison cell with me blindfolded in a chair cuffed to a table and more like a two way street … with the both of us free to take a long walk together … Care free and joyously skipping along gay-fully …. For what it’s worth Mr. ”Conservative” … I … a total loser from the middle of nowhere and being totally uneducated(on the record) am willing to sit down and actually LOOK into what you have to say … IF your willing to look into what I have to say… And I mean LOOK damn it … God gave you TWO ears, TWO eyes, and ONE corn hole … in the CLOSED position … What’s that a 400% ear/eye to closed corn hole ratio? … I’m not that good with formulas … being “uneducated” like I am ….  

Mr. “Conservative”: This is quite a list of “crimes”, coming from the same Leftists that thought Bill Clinton’s perjury was justified since it was just “about sex.”

 Johnathan: It WAS just about sex wasn’t it?? I guess I had never thought of it like that Mr. “Conservative” … Well … I know I never said Bill Clinton’s perjury was justified … although I HAVE said that the questions finally asked of him after all of that effort and time weren’t worth the sixty five million dollars spent by the republicans to ask him those questions … in fact I’m glad you brought it up because when put next to the standard set by the impeachment of Bill Clinton The impeachment of George Bush should have been that much more immediate and forthcoming … Thanks Mr. “Conservative” that was a good point ….

  
Mr. “Conservative”: Let’s start with “targeting civilian infrastructure to create civil and social collapse on an epic scale,” this is an interesting charge. One would have to question how you came up with this charge?

 Johnathan: Actually … One would  have to question how you didn’t??

Mr. “Conservative”: The fact is that Iraq kept their military buried within the civilian community, as do all mideast countries. It is understandable that civilian infrastructure would be damaged to get to the military, but to claim that the civilian infrastructure was targeted is a bit of a stretch.

 Johnathan: No it’s not ….

 
Mr. “Conservative”: “Killing innocent men, women, and children and doing so with malice of forethought.” Again, an interesting charge. But based on what evidence?

  Johnathan: Well … This helped … or maybe this …. or this …..

Mr. “Conservative”: Maybe because that was the only way to get to the Iraqi military?

 Johnathan: So … tell me again since I’m sure you have it memorized why it was exactly the IRAQI military HAD to be targeted??

Mr. “Conservative”: Was there any evidence given that the civilians were the specific targets?

 Johnathan: Sure … plenty ….

Mr. “Conservative”: No, the military was the target, but they used civilian “human shields” making the death and injury of “innocent civilians” militarily necessary, the blame for that lies not with Bush, but rather, with Saddam himself.

 Johnathan: No … but for the fact that Bush lied about his reasons for even being there in the first place none of it would have happened … therefore Bush not Saddam was at fault ….

 Mr. “Conservative”: “Causing untold levels human suffering the likes of which can only be compared to the worst atrocities in history.” Would these “atrocities” be any worse than the murder of innocent civilians specifically targeted in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center?

 Johnathan: Funny someone like you would mention 911 … again ….

Mr. “Conservative”: Possibly worse than the murder of several million Jews in Germany during World War II?

 Johnathan: No … it’s roughly the same thing ….

Mr. “Conservative”: Maybe they are worse than the atrocities committed by the Japanese all over Asia and the Pacific islands during World War II?

 Johnathan: Nope … atrocities are atrocities ….

Mr. “Conservative”: Worse than forcing filipinas and korean women into sexual slavery in japanese bordelloes?

 Johnathan: My answer is still the same … atrocities are atrocities which is why they are illegal ….

 Mr. “Conservative”: Would they be worse than Saddam’s own atrocities? The rape rooms? The mass murders of his own citizens?

 Johnathan: Yes actually … Bush is guilty of WAY MORE atrocities then Saddam Hussein ever was …. And … What happened to Saddam again I forgot ….

Mr. “Conservative”:  The use of nerve gas on the kurds?

 Johnathan: You mean the nerve gas he acquired from Rumsfeld in the eighties and used on the Kurds with the blessings of the Regan administration … you mean that nerve gas?? I mean really … are we going to have to go all the way back through history so everyone knows what atrocities are?? …. 

Mr. “Conservative”: What experience do you have in military strategy, “General”? What experience do you have in running military operations, “General”? I’m thinking NONE.

 Johnathan: I didn’t realize that you Mr. “Conservative” were a general … how’s that going for you?? … The closest I’ve ever come to having experience in military strategy or running military operations is being a feared General on the ground and a High Admiral in space … cyberspace … But if it’s advice from an actual real world General with actual real world experience you seek this general has some … so does this one …. and this one …

Mr. “Conservative”: You say, “Colin Powell lied to the UN.” Follow that with, “Bush lied in the State of the Union Address” and “He and his staff lied to us 935 separate times.” You don’t give any evidence that they lied, you just make an unsubstantiated charge.

 Johnathan: There is a big difference between making an “unsubstantiated charge”(for which Bush would sue in a heartbeat) and making a factual one with facts that YOU(IF you are interested in justice at all) may have to look up for yourself ….

Mr. “Conservative”: Have you forgotten, in your undying hatred of the American way of life, that every intelligence agency from every country agreed with our interpretation of the intel that Iraq had WMD? 

 Johnathan: You mean like this foreign agency …. or this one ….. or this one ….. or this one ….. those agencies?? Did you not get the memo that said our OWN intelligence agencies disagreed with the WHITE HOUSE’S assessments of Saddam’s capabilities … and if you sir cared anything for the American way of life at all you would have known that already ….

Mr. “Conservative”: Maybe you forgot that even the UN inspectors said Saddam was hiding WMD until Scott Ritter decided it was politically expediant to change his opinion.

 Johnathan: I wasn’t aware that Scott Ritter was running for political office … Seems to me that going up against your own boss in the White House would be a bad move if political expediency was his goal …. I don’t know if you have noticed but people who tell the truth don’t exactly go very far in this administration …

Mr. “Conservative”: “Weapons of mass destruction? Yes, I guess they missed those, because there were none and they knew that going in.” Again, your proof?

 Johnathan: My proof can be easily looked up using a simple google search … it will take you about two tenths of a second … good luck with that ….

Mr. “Conservative”: Here’s mine, refer to the above paragraph. Add to that the following. The American military found more than 500 shells of serrin nerve gas, I’m sure you remember reading about that in the paper, for only one day, until the left-wing media decided to hide that story.

 Johnathan: Ok … so I have to have tangible physical evidence for you to put your hands on(apparently) but you can get away with spouting off some unsubstantiated garbage like that …. come on now Mr. “Conservative” … you will have to do better then that if I’m expected to provide you with documented evidence of EVERY iota of what I’m saying …. or is ALL of your evidence only in your head for just you to see?? I suppose next you’ll say something to the effect of “trust me”??

Mr. “Conservative”: Or maybe you remember my son’s unit finding a wharehouse full of 55 gallon drums containg the chemicals needed to make chemical weapons,

 Johnathan: I notice you won’t say what was in those barrels … was it chlorine?? I mean I could say that same thing about some old barrels in a farmers barn and it would probably be true …. What “chemicals” did you … I mean your “son” find … exactly??

Mr. “Conservative”: no you won’t remember that, it was politically incorrect to run that story since it didn’t fit with how evil Bush is and how innocent Saddam was.

 Johnathan: This is new … I didn’t know Rupert Murdoch and his cohorts were all that worried about making Bush seem evil and Saddam seem innocent …. do tell ….

Mr. “Conservative”: “Terrorists? Yes, I guess they missed those those as well, because at that point there were none of those in Iraq either and they knew that then too.” Again, no evidence, just an accusation from you and the far left.

 Johnathan: I’m not an expert on terrorists or where they were or were not hanging out on some unspecified date Mr. “Conservative” but you sure seem like a smart guy you can find it ….. If you were to simply try …..

Mr. “Conservative”:  Here is my evidence, one of the Al-qaeda leaders went to Iraq to be treated after we got him cornered and seriously wounded in a battlre in Afghanistan. I’m sure you remember the “one-leggede sheik”? Maybe not, it wouldn’t be politically expediant for you to remember that little fact.

 Johnathan: Let me get this straight … An injured one legged man escaped the grasp of the US military … then made it undetected all the way from the barren mountainous wastelands of Afghanistan through the mountainous deserts of Turkey and Iraq to Saddam’s Palace and what … plopped himself down on the couch??? …. What was his name and where did he stay?? … Do you have photos of Saddam shaking his hand and congratulating him with a real time audio tape of their conversation?? … Do you have some skin cells I could look at?? …. Maybe a time coded and cataloged DNA trail and a video tape of his perilous journey?? … I only ask because that seems to be the standard of proof you expect out of me and I think it’s high time YOU start living up to it ….

 
Mr. “Conservative”: “They intended to hit civilian areas in order to create ’shock and awe’, in order to terrorize the civilian population into submission for the OCCUPATION that was to follow.” Again, no evidence, just an accusation.  I’d like to counter that, but it is so crazy, even Alex Jones wouldn’t make that argument, bet you are proud of being considered crazier than him.

 Johnathan: Alex Jones isn’t the one sounding crazy right now … you are Mr. “Conservative” … and you should seek help for it as soon as you are done blaming this “far left” thing you keep referring to for everything ….

Mr. “Conservative”: “The following quote proves that since the beginning of this illegal war, the Department of Defense had every intention for this ’shock and awe’ to have an effect on the population of Iraq, not just its leaders.
‘Rumsfeld said that the strike had taken place “on a scale that indicates to Iraqis” that Saddam and his leadership were finished.’ CNN”. Huh??That quote doesn’t prove any such thing, what that quote proves is that we sent a message that the Iraqis were now safe from Saddam’s atrocities.

 Johnathan: Safe yes … Out of the fire … and into a Depleted Uranium soaked, murdering insurgent, militia filled, rampaging shit storm, the likes of which none of them had ever seen … Where should they send their thank you notes?? … I’m sure they would like to know ….

Mr. “Conservative”: The fact that they themselves later hanged him, was proof that they no longer feared or needed to fear him.

 Johnathan: Hanging someone after a kangaroo court set up by friends of the US government isn’t exactly proof of anything … just ask the Judges that stepped down siting the fact that Saddam wasn’t getting a fair trial … come on Mr. “Conservative” … let’s get back to the standard of evidence set by you back at the beginning of our conversation ….

 
Mr. “Conservative”: How about this gem? “Bush is guilty of crimes against humanity and of waging an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation for the purpose of gaining access to its natural resources.” What natural resources did we gain access to? Would it be the oil that is sold almost everywhere but here? We certainly aren’t getting much of that.

 Johnathan: Those resources were not supposed to be for the American people … they were supposed to be for the benefit of Bush Cheney and their Oil Company friends only …..

Mr. “Conservative”: We still get most of our oil from our “great ally Hugo Chavez” in Venezuela.

 Johnathan: That’s simply not true …. Hugo Chavez hates the US now and we only get some of our oil from Venezuela … Bush went to Saudi Arabia when he “wanted” to “negotiate” a lower price for our oil not Venezuela ….

Mr. “Conservative”: Every accusation you have made is a false accusation that would never stand up in any court outside of the America hating UN and its world court.

 Johnathan: I have met the standard of “beyond all reasonable doubt” … especially the standard needed for a grand jury(the most important word there being “reasonable” … that standard was put in there on purpose in the first place to get around people like you Mr. “Conservative”) …

Mr. “Conservative”: Every reason Bush and his administration gave for going into Iraq was correct and agreed to by the world community.

 Johnathan: No your wrong … Bush’s reasons were outright lies … and the world community did NOT agree …. Sounds like your the one here who likes to make shit up …. or would you like to show me some proof that that statement wasn’t pulled out of your ass just now ….

Mr. “Conservative”: The only reason the UN didn’t support the invasion of Iraq was the simple fact that most of their senior people were taking bribes from Saddam, I’m sure you will recall the “oil for food” scandal. it doesn’t fit into your perfect little anti-Bush agenda.

 Johnathan: No … I’m sure you will recall … The UN didn’t support the invasion(good choice of words on your part by the way) because THEIR EXPERTS ON THE GROUND said Bush was lying to them … Oh … My bad, I guess you won’t recall that since that doesn’t fit in with your little Pro-Bush “he is good and great and grand” agenda ….

Mr. “Conservative”: 1. The Sermon on the Mount, good point. Silly me, how could I ever forget when Jesus said, “Thy Government should steal the fruits of thy labor and give thy fruits to thy neighbors too lazy to work, lest thy lazy neighbors feel less worthy, and possibly feel required to get off thy lazy neighbors’ asses and get jobs to pay their own way.” That sermon always did bring a tear to my eye, and an empty feeling to my wallet.

 Johnathan: Ya … I can see how you forgot about it though … It’s the sermon right next to the one that says …”Thy Government should steal the fruits of ALL thy labor and give thy fruits to thy closest political supporters too lazy to work and thy friends in thoust military industrial complex, lest thy lazy career political supporters and war profiteers feel less worthy, and possibly feel required to get off thy lazy republican supporter’ war profiteer asses and getest thou low paying minimum hourly wage jobs to pay thine own way.” 

You stumped me on one thing though … I can’t seem to find it anywhere where it says that Jesus spent any amount of time worrying about how fat his wallet was …. How do you say “Jesus’ wallet” in Hebrew maybe I can doist a quick search? ….

  
Mr. “Conservative”: 3.Civilians weren’t “targeted” in Iraq, the military and government installations were. But with those installations “buried” in civilian area collateral damage was going to occur. It is regrettable, but it was necessary.

 Johnathan: Was it?? … Where is YOUR proof that civilians weren’t targeted??

  
Mr. “Conservative”: 4. The link you refer to says absolutely nothing about “demoralizing the population.” It does say “use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominat maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary’s perception of the battlefield and destroy it’s will to fight.” It was written in 1996, during the Clinton administration.

 Johnathan: “It was written in 1996, during the Clinton administration” … So was some of this …. and this …..

  
Mr. “Conservative”: 5. “Saddam was pretty much a ‘paper tiger’ sitting on a large deposit of cash.” He was also encouraging terrorism by paying the families of suicide bombers, he was shooting at our planes in the UN mandated “no-fly zone,” sending assassin squads after our former Presidents and military officers, and providing medical care and a hiding place for Al-Qaeda leadership after we went into Afghanistan.

 Johnathan: Again … where is YOUR proof of ANY of that???

Mr. “Conservative”: 6. Japan trying to surrender? Now you are inventing “facts.” Japan had no intention of surrendering and made no attempt to do so. The firebombing and atomic bombs were to prevent the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and marines in an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

 Johnathan: There go those pesky history books again “inventing facts” … I’m not going to go too deep into this lesson for you …. Or do I really need to? ….

Mr. “Conservative”: The sanctions against Iraq were part of the cease-fire agreement after the first gulf war, mandated by the UN, no less.

 Johnathan: And the US has absolutely no influence at the UN right?? ….

Mr. “Conservative”: 7. It’s also rather curious that you seem to ignore thousands of American soldiers murdered by the “innocent civilians” or the indisputable fact that the insurgents and Al-Qaeda have killed a hundred times as many Iraqis as we have.

 Johnathan: First … Those soldiers were not murdered by the innocent civilians … hence the word “innocent” … Second … I just don’t believe that Al Qaeda and their insurgent counterparts are militarily capable of killing a hundred times more anything let alone innocent Iraqi civilians than the US government … Third … IF what you just said there was even true(links?) does that really make the US government look ANY better … AT ALL???

Mr. “Conservative”: 8. So what you really meant was that we didn’t go in to get their natural resources, we just wanted the terrorists to destroy their oil fields and pipelines. You should have said that in the first place.
Exxon and Shell’s record profits? At $149 a barrel? Have you ever actually run a business? Exxon and Shell buy that oil, higher oil prices are bad for the profit margin. The record profits came from record demand. One question, did you complain all the years that oil companies were losing money? I’m betting that you didn’t.

 Johnathan: WE didn’t get the resources … Bush and Cheney’s friends and business partners did …. And show me a fourteen quarter in a row record losing streak for the Oil companies ANYWHERE … Show me where they have EVER had record losses in the billions every quarter for years on end and at a time when oil … a dead technology … should have and could have been phased out sixty years before ….

Mr. “Conservative”: 9. Scott Ritter at first said Saddam had WMD and was not complying with inspectors. Only after we started ramping up for war did he change his story.

 Johnathan: So let me get this straight … when Scott Ritter first got to Iraq he said that Saddam was uncooperative and had weapons of mass destruction and then after being there on the ground working on disarming Saddam for YEARS and BEFORE Bush charged in like some kind of a retarded bull Scott Ritter changed his story and concluded that in his expert opinion Saddam had NO viable weapons of mass destruction … What a bone head!! 

Mr. “Conservative”: “And as it turned out, there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, were there?” Yes, as I said earlier, we found at least 500 shells containing serrin nerve gas. And my son’s unit found a wharehouse full of 55 gallon drums containing all of the chemicals necessary to make chemical weapons.

 Johnathan: Well … If this claim of yours is even true let me ask you this … Where, and when?? … How many of those suckers were nuclear and capable of being delivered with deadly effectiveness to the United States at any time as attested by Bush to congress and the American People in his state of the union speech … And how many of those other so called barrels of chemicals capable of possibly being made into now suddenly unspecified weapons of mass destruction had “made in the USA” stamped on them when you “found” them???

Mr. “Conservative”: “What unit found these chemicals, where were they discovered, when were they discovered?” You didn’t read it in the media for a reason, it was classified to keep the enemy from knowing about it.

Johnathan: Classified … A?? … ”he’s not guilty of lying to Congress and the American people” …. “What?? you want proof … It’s classified …. unless I need to arbitrarily mention it for some reason” … Well played Mr. “Conservative” …. I bet that kind of debating always impresses the laaaiidddaayss … I’m learning a lot from you Mr. “Conservative” ….

Mr. “Conservative”: What was released was the information about the 500 shells containing nerve gas that you choose to merely ignore since it doesn’t support your assertion thsat there were no WMD in Iraq.

Johnathan: “Saddam has 500 of our reject short range shells containing nerve gas” was not the justification George Bush used to illegally start his war in Iraq no matter how much you want to cling to it … BUSH said they had NUCLEAR WEAPONS capable of engulfing any city in the United States in what he described as “a mushroom cloud” … Those old shells Saddam acquired from us in the eighties were NOT MENTIONED until AFTER Bush was caught lying … were they??

 
Mr. “Conservative”: “You right wing neoconservative Bush supporters will not come in here and discredit us…” Ok, so what you mean is no dissent is allowed. Got it, I’ll remember next time.

Johnathan: Constructive dissent would be nice for a change … this “oh ya … well your just plain old wrong … you must be a terrorist” thing Bush and his stooge toadies have gotten over on there critics all these years based on absolutely nothing more then yet another “oh ya … well your just plain old wrong … you must be a terrorist” … is getting old … I suppose I could just sit here and reply to EVERYTHING you have to say with a “your just a crazy leftist Marxist agent of the KKK” over and over … would that kind of “dissent” make you feel more at home? …

I admit … It WOULD be easier for ME to “debate” like you do … not having to have any pesky facts to look up EVER … or having to deal with reality being in my way …  I can certainly see why you right winger types always choose that modus operandi of “dissent” … But unfortunately unlike you … I’m sticking to the truth which always seems to take more thought on my part …. I mean I actually have to go to my google search and type in “Bush crimes” …. and …. press return …. and ……… READ …. But you know what … your a single shake man who just doesn’t have the time for any of that … and I do have the time … I understand really …. 

Mr. “Conservative”: JackDanielDouglas, I never said that Bush was a “saint.” I do, however, believe is right on the war, he is wrong for signing every spending bill the Democrats sent to him and capitulating to them almost constantly since he took the White House.

Johnathan: Well now … ”I never said that Bush was a “saint.”  … I’m going to chalk that up as your first capitulation …. “he(Bush) is wrong for signing every spending bill”  … I’ll have to except that as number two …. As far as Bush being right on the war and capitulating to the demands of the DEMOCRATS since he took office(took being the operative word) … your just plain old wrong … you must be a crazy right wing marxist agent of the KKK ….

Mr. “Conservative”: I took a look at your “evidence.” You have been listening to Alex Jones too much.

Johnathan: What “evidence” did you look at exactly?? … And did your read through it all thoroughly?? … Because I’m inclined to think that you are lying … First I haven’t actually had time to give you my “evidence” yet … you are probably just getting ahead of yourself there on that one … save that line for AFTER I actually give you some …. Second Alex Jones is more of a man than you will ever be … I dare you to come up with something he’s thrown his support behind that didn’t have a paper trail of some kind … usually in the governments own handwriting …. Go ahead try …. but do it on his page … I Iike to stay focused here thank you very much …..

Mr. “Conservative”: “…quit wating our time…” is a typical response from the left. Free speech and debate are good things, unless it is from the conservative right.

Johnathan: Free Speech and Debate are your right and you are also entitled to your opinion … However … Waisting my time is not your right and you do not get to arbitrarily call your opinion fact in a real debate … IF you choose to skip over my facts and evidence only to reply with comments that far less substantiated … and dare I say it far “crazier” than anything I could ever suggest … then what you are attempting is not called debate … all you are attempting to do is waste my time and yours … for that you will get no scooby snack ….  

Mr. “Conservative”: As far as my military history, I grew up in an Air Force family, served four years in the Marines, two and a half years in the National Guard, and am currently an Army father.

 Johnathan: Well in that case … I was sorry to hear about George Bush taking it upon himself to render all of that distiguished service you and your family have endured all these long decades fighting to uphold the Constitution of the United States worthless … At least he threw it in the trash for you … You must be honored ….

Mr. “Conservative”: “Neocons and zionists?” Somewhat biased aren’t you?

Johnathan: Truth be told Mr. “Conservative” … I’m really not an expert when it comes to ”Neo Cons and Zionists” I’m sure I could find you one … maybe you could look in the phone book …. When I blog I try to keep myself focused unlike you …. so far ….

Mr. “Conservative”: While only a few nations supported the invasion of Iraq, all major intelligence agencies agreed with our own intel, and yes, Israel’s, that Iraq had WMD and was building still more.

Johnathan: Really?? … By all means … Name ALL of them … and a copy of these intel assessments you are referring to would also be nice … I’m interested ….

Mr. “Conservative”: Iran has been a threat to us since the Carter-Khomeini debacl in 1978. And they continue to be, unless you choose to believe that Ahmedinejad’s rhetoric is merely idle chit chat. Personally, I don’t.

Johnathan: Really … How long have we(the US government) been a threat to them??

Mr. “Conservative”: Thanks for the plug on my blogs. Regarding Alan Colmes, he is the onbly liberal I can listen to for more than 5 minutes without shoving a screw driver into my ears. Even in his case, ten minutes would be too long.

Johnathan: “Shoving a screwdriver in your ear” … Wow …. I was just reading a report that stated Bush has OK’d that kind of treatment for innocent civilians … are you secretly clairvoyant  Mr. “Conservative”?? … Because right at the very moment I was reading that I also thought about how I would like to do that the next time I have to hear Shawn Hannity or Rush Limbaugh talk … but without waiting the five minutes …. We have allot in common Mr. “Conservative”

Mr. “Conservative”: Just so you know, Rush isn’t on XM so I don’t listen to him, but Mark Levin is much better than Limbaugh ever was anyhow.

 Johnathan: I’m going …  to totally take your word for it on that one Mr. “Conservative” ….

Mr. “Conservative”: After looking at all of your blogs, I guess I wandered into an anti-semitic enclave. Would you be KKK or Nazi’s?

Johnathan: KKK or Nazi’s?? …. Anti-Semitic enclave??? …. Nobody from FOX NEWS works here … And I don’t Know how you would have gotten that Idea from anything that I’VE written??? … Anything specific you want to refer me to there Mr. “Conservative”?? ….

Mr. “Conservative”: What you have is an anti-Bush agenda in that Bush has done nothing to be investigated for.

 Johnathan: Except maybe … This … or this … or this … or this or this …. or this or this and this and this and this …. and  this this and this … but other then that ….. Oh wait … I forgot this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and  this … But no your right ….

You know what … I actually had fun today Mr. “Conservative” …. And I just can’t wait to do this again sometime … mostly because I’d like to hear your next thorough and accurate account chalked full of fascinating and easily verifiable facts explaining just why Bush is … contrary to all known reality … just an innocent victim of the far left and should be let off Scott free from punishment for any of his well known and thoroughly documented crimes … and … if you have some time left over … how your not just some far right wing nut job douchebag Marxist agent working for the KKK who’s just pretending to be a decent human being …

In fact … I’m all ears  

     I know perfectly well that the people on capitol hill are bought off or scared … Quite frankly I’m not talking to them anymore … I’m talking to you,  the common folk out there … who ever you might be … the people like you who are going to be going on from here to argue with your stubborn brainwashed family members and/or friends … and we all know who I’m talking about … Those of you who will, after reading this blog, go on with solid intellectual ground underneath your feet and with no other distractions in your minds to trip on … Those of you who will go home/to work/or to play and attempt to argue the case for impeachment and/or prosecution of the most contemptible group of US officials in its history … Well here is, in my opinion, the best way for you to start your conversation … ”That building was demolished (add name of  here) … period!!” … Now … and this is the important part … make THEM prove YOU wrong … In the process they WILL end up proving you right …

 That said here is a compilation of a conversation I tried to have with a die hard Bush fan … right before I was banned from afterdowningstreet.org for the first of seven times … Why was I banned?? … You be the judge …..

The excerpts of the my “attempted” conversation with Hawkster(aka anonymous) … a self described Bush minion … can be found here: I encourage you all to check it out all of Hawksters comments thoroughly before reading my answers to him … pay close attention to the fact that my name changes during our conversation … My further attempts to answer him as Johnathan DD Douglas and Johnathan DDD Douglas were completely erased … The answers I have pasted here below are the comments that were ERASED by ADS administrators leading to four(within two days)  of my seven bannings over the course of the last two months … Now … without further adieu … my answers … as I had promised … to Hawksters questions:

Johnathan: Hawkster, I want you to know that there is still no animosity on my part … That stated I listened to you … Now I am going to attempt to get you some of those answers If you will slow down … Try to keep your answers more focused.

Hawkster: “NIST is probably one the most respected research offices of the US Government.”

Johnathan: I would have to disagree … They were … perhaps …

Hawkster: “I honestly looked at the videos you’ve offered and found them vague and nuanced.”

Johnathan: Elaborate please?

Hawkster: “I’m not sure what other evidence the NIST report could contain to make it more complete.”

Johnathan: For one the rest of the “complete” collapse … Nist likes to stop their “state of the art” computer models at what they call “initiation” ignoring the fact that that is where failure would have also stopped all together. They do NOT prove their case for why the buildings continued to collapse in the way that they did.

Hawkster: “Are there any specific claims made by the NIST report that you disagree with.”

Johnathan: Several … Starting with the fact that they state publicly that low grade office fires from two plane impacts brought down three steel framed skyscrapers. The fact that they state that from the evidence they observed there was not molten metal at the site when there is plenty of evidence stating otherwise that they just refused to look at. I’ll name some more later …

Hawkster: ” There’s no argument from anyone that writes on either side of the 9-11 attack that refutes the “pancake” phenomena.”

Johnathan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6KRJ4×82L0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU

Hawkster: “It has happened in almost every stage of slab construction; from interim floor fabrication and well into building occupancy.”

Johnathan: I agree ….

http://911.yweb.sk/images/wtc/pancake_collapse.png

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/images/july2005/060705pic2.jpg

http://www.emsresponder.com/article/photos/1196974898289_FL%20collapse.j…

Hawkster: “Another thing I see in the reports offered in different sites is the claim the structure couldn’t’t melt under that intensity of heat.”

Johnathan: First … which intensity are you referring to? … and second … if your referring to Nist’s numbers … they never actually accounted for where they got theirs.

Hawkster: “Well that’s just simply not true for one and additionally the major structure beams don’t have to melt. The fasteners, rivets, bolts or welds merely need to get heated to the point where they lose their tensile strength and load carrying capability.”

Johnathan: You haven’t actually tried to ask an engineer about that have you? And again Nist has no basis for the Temperatures they have been sighting. Conservatively let’s say that the fires reached a thousand to fifteen hundred degrees(the temp of the average inferno style office fire which is what we are dealing with here BEFORE the jet fuel was burned off in the first five or ten minutes … and let’s say that the fires didn’t cool down AT ALL after the fuel source was extinguished.) There is still no way in hell that alone could have explained the aerosolized silicates Professor Steven Jones found in the WTC dust that he referred to in that video clip you said was “vague and nuanced”. He very specifically said it took upwards of three thousand degrees to form those. The temperature gap is WAY to large to have gotten absolutely no explanation from an apparently respected and supposedly scientifically motivated source like NIST.

Hawkster: ““It is incredibly inaccurate of you to assume that I “subscribed to the 9-11 conspiracies” I apologize because it sounds as though that hit a nerve.”

Johnathan: No Hawkster you didn’t hit a nerve at all … It’s just that I’ve been studying this subject for a long time now and I’ve been around the block … therefore I’m going to nip that line in the bud BEFORE you go there.

Hawkster: “I didn’t mean to categorize. I might just ask, what would you call a mass misrepresentation of an event like the collapse of Building 7 of the WT Center if it’s not a conspiracy?”

Johnathan: At this point … I’m not calling it anything but a controlled demolition … Period … if you choose to call it something AFTER that FACT has been established that’s up to you.

Hawkster: “If you’re saying that it was demolished by some other entity than the 9-11 terrorists, then in definition, your assertions are conspiratorial. Were you asserting that some other natural process in that sequence of the attacks caused the collapse or that it was demolished?”

Johnathan: I am asserting that NO NATURAL PROCESS brought those buildings down, especially building seven. The second question has been asked and answered … The fact is that YOUR assertion Sir … is conspiratorial…. My assertion is based on years of careful research, the scientific method, and all the known laws of Nature … your assertion is based on the NIST report and what your boss tells you …

Hawkster: ““It’s too broad of a classification to cover anyway … especially when you try to broaden it even further later by lumping it in with the UFO and JFK files.”

  I beg to pardon, but nowhere in any comment posted here did I mention a word about UFOs or President Kennedy. Again, in mentioning the word conspiracy, I didn’t attempt to create an opinion of your site overall, but specifically to the notion that 9-11 was being portrayed as something with an insidious secret.”

Johnathan: I’m sorry for the misunderstanding but as I told you I’m nipping it in the bud before you say it … and again … your the only one so far that has said anything about a conspiracy …

Hawkster: ” If there is one, it is that the world is still not ready to believe that an extreme wing of zealots have hi-jacked the otherwise peaceful religion of Islam and is bent on converting who they can and seeking to have all others live under Shari Law. But I didn’t even start commenting here about WT 7.”

Johnathan: Obviously….

Hawkster: “I asked a question a day ago as to whether you or folks that post here think myself and fellow officers and NCOs who supported the war wholeheartedly(and still do)should also be prosecuted with our Commander-In-Chief.”

Johnathan: If Bush HAS committed war crimes and knowing that you still wholeheartedly support him even if it cost the people of the United States the very constitution that YOU swore to protect … then … YES you should be prosecuted for war crimes right along with him … just like the officers who were only following the orders of their commander n chief …. Adolph Hitler ….

Hawkster: “Please be patient with me and try not to get angry. But the statement you made that I cut and pasted below is troubling. All the 9-11 and Bush Administration videos you asked me to watch played much on the fact that the folks who put them together claim people are easily misled.”

Johnathan: That video that you apparently think I’m basing my entire opinion on is not a study about how accurate or inaccurate eyewitness testimony Is or Isn’t … It’s simply a study Soloman E. Asch did in 1955 about “group think” … which is how people like you operate … This video goes to the heart of a discussion I was having with Chip at the time from another page … My opinion of the quality of FOX style news and how they get away calling that big of a load of crap … News … Is touched upon in that video …. I’m not lawyer, or a detective, so I can’t tell you how accurate “several” eyewitnesses, in all walks of life, and in many, many different references of perception are … But I can tell you that the statement  that “people are easily misled” works in my favor there more than it does yours so thank you …..

Hawkster: “By you own account you are not well versed on the legality of your proposals for impeachment”

Johnathan: You are correct … but I also said plenty of other people ARE and that you should actually LOOK into it …

Hawkster: “or could you offer much proof of the charges groups have leveled of the misconduct.”

Johnathan: IF there were an investigation of the CSI evidence that has been thoroughly scrutinized(Nist has been stalling for a long time now … plenty of time for others to do their own tests and studies) It’s not like nobody else but me has looked at this Hawkster …

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-1258

For a guy who’s so worried about whether or not YOU and the men under you are culpable for George Bush’s war crimes your sure not very interested in finding out …

Hawkster: “As one who has seen on line, different organizations who also desire to hold we in the military accountable, it’s troublesome.”

Johnathan: Are you saying you, the military, and your Boss being accountable for crimes that you all may or may not have committed is problematic for you and your boss??

Hawkster: “That much time and effort has been made on your part to organize this site to impeach a sitting president in time of war”

Johnathan: You hear that David Swanson … He thinks I’m you … and everybody else that was making comment’s that day to … apparently …

Hawkster: “based on the claims and that you admit to not completely understanding and having to rely on the opinion of others is very problematic for me.”

Johnathan: So the fact that I HAVE talked to experts in ALL of those subjects and referred you to consult with them yourself escaped your grasp … Does it bother you to seek a plumber when your pipes bursts and your toilet explodes??? … And later on after the plumber is finished to your satisfaction and leaves and someone asks you something and wants a more technical answer about plumbing in general(which in your case regarding WTC7 is patently ridiculous) wouldn’t you give them a plumbers phone … maybe even a few numbers?? …. What if who ever it was came back literally a minute later and said “none of those two thousand numbers were for a plumber … those were just a bunch of guys who fix broken water pipes and toilets … I wanted a plumber …” Would YOU believe they actually tried? ….

Hawkster: ““In fact I’m going to have to put a lot of study into the answers I’m going to have to formulate for your previous questions there … Mostly because they will have to be chalked full of speculation and philosophical viewpoints on my part for I have absolutely no first hand knowledge of any of it and I have not spent the last seven years researching ANY of those subjects … nor am I a practicing attorney or a JAG officer. I tend to leave that kind of speculating to the experts around here … “”

Johnathan: Yep … that was me that said that … And the only way I know how to answer a bunch of your loaded questions rife with speculation and philosophical viewpoints is to formulate answers full of speculation and philosophical viewpoints to counter with … and mine aren’t all ready to go like yours I’m actually thinking for myself that USUALLY takes a little more time ….

Hawkster: “John Murtha “speculated” without proof and almost ruined the lives of 11 Marines.”

Johnathan: Well … I guess it’s a good thing they didn’t just get arbitrarily thrown into some undisclosed prison cell somewhere with NO lawyer and NO trial IDEFFINATLY based on the classified OPINION of ONE man … huh???

Hawkster: “But John, the discussion here was very interesting for me. A real education into folks I read about but never really interacted with so thanks. I’ll look for an answer to what your opinion (or really any of your posters) to my original question.”

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/36086#comment-213326

As for the 9-11 discussion, I think we have all settled in to what we believe based on the evidence that’s presented.”

Johnathan:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://www.stj911.com/

Hawkster: “For myself, I believe in terrorists. Ramzi Yousef still sits in our prison. He told the FBI that the first failure was insignificant, because to paraphrase Yousefs words, “America has to be perfect in her attempts to thwart terrorism, terrorism only needs to be persistent!”

Johnathan: Sounds like a law enforcement problem to me … But as I said I’m not an expert …And none of that has anything to do with the FACT that those buildings WERE DEMOLISHED … PERIOD …

Hawkster: “”It’s been documented that George Bush has broken the Uniform Code of Military Justice on many, many occasions …”

1. Where has this been documented, “It’s been documented that George Bush has broken the Uniform Code of Military Justice on many, many occasions. And war crimes committed by The President himself?””

Johnathan: To quote Justice Stevens:

“Because UCMJ Article 36 has not been complied with here, the rules specified for Hamdan ’s commission trial are illegal.

The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.”

“Hamdan is entitled to the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention until ad-judged,in compliance with that treaty, not to be a prisoner of war; and that,whether or not Hamdan is properly classified as a prisoner of war,the military commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the UCMJ and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear.”

And Justice Kennedy:

“Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (III)Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,Aug. 12,1949, [1955 ] 6 U..S.T.3316,3318,T.I.A.S.No.3364. The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law.See id.,at 3316. By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered “war crimes,” punishable as federal offenses,when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel. See 18 U.S.C.§2441. There should be no doubt,then,that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in §821.”

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Hawkster: “Article 2. Sub-chapter 1 of the UCMJ is GENERAL PROVISIONS. It’s separated into articles. Article two describes PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER or the “applicability”. The President is not listed nor is he subject to the UCMJ.”

Johnathan: Like I said … I’m not a legal scholar Hawkster … you should probably go consult one of them … unless It’s … “a crime for an officer to use contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present(article #88 UCMJ)” And well …. If that’s the case and it IS illegal for you as an officer to say “IMPEACH BUSH … HE COMMITED CRIMES” no matter WHAT proof is put before your eyes … To me at least that makes your statements about AE911 truth.org being “Interesting but not compelling” and “unrecognized” that much more unreliable …

(And that my friends was as far as I could get in my attempted conversation with my new friend Hawkster … Now if I had been able to continue this conversation on ADS I would have most assuredly won the point I was trying to make … Did you see it? “That building was demolished period” … and possibly later on unlocked a mind in the process … However the way it was left by ADS administrators Hawkster was able to hold his own and make himself and his grossly misinformed viewpoints seem somewhat valid and made ADS in general look weak … he basically said impeachment was a foolish endeavor to be attempt “In a time of(perpetual) war” And was left unanswered By David Swanson and his administrator CHIP … For those of you who say “they don’t have time to pay attention to every comment” I say that on that day it was the biggest article on the page … The only thing going on there at the time if you will … And they had plenty of time to monitor what I was saying … MY question is this … Why on earth would David Swanson not only keep silent during the whole episode but sabotage me some one trying to HELP right at the moment I had Hawkster cornered … are David and Hawkster(aka anonymous) working together?? …) 

 ”Why even mention all this  Johnathan?” … It is in response to one of David’s articles … one in which he asserts that I’m just being “paranoid” and that ADS did not ban me or erase my comments … And also to this article … in which some one else who was there says that I’m not …

like I said before … you be the judge for a change …..

That said … here’s this weeks poll:

David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.org endorses Mary Pallant For Congress in her effort to unseat Elton Gallegly.

read more | digg story