Democrats Co-Opt Libertarian Iraq Exit Strategy

The old maxim once again rings true: all the best ideas belong to the Libertarians. The jackyderms might malign us, call us radicals or nutcases, but in the end they have no option but to implement our ideas to save the country and their own sorry political hides. From CNN:

House and Senate Democratic leaders have joined together to urge President Bush to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq this year.

The move is part of an effort to shake the notion that Democrats are split on the Iraq war and keep the focus on what they see as a winning issue against Republicans.

Twelve Democrats, including the Senate and House minority leaders and ranking members of key committees, wrote President Bush on Sunday about the matter.

“In the interests of American national security, our troops and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained,” said the Democratic letter, which CNN obtained.

Democratic senators and aides said the letter was intended to illustrate a unified position on the war after June debates in the House and Senate exposed differences inside the party, which Republicans tried to exploit.

The Democrats will be adopting an exit strategy that the Libertarians put out almost, what, a year ago now? And they’ll be claiming it as their own, of course. Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebraska, has already acknowledged the wisdom of going Libertarian on this issue. Now, the Democrats are realizing that a coherent anti-war message is the only thing that will save their party from oblivion come November, and they’re forced to give the American people what they want at long last.

We’re the only party making any sense these days. Whether anyone in the political world wants to come out and admit it or not, we truly are the party of ideas and it will only be the implementation of libertarian ideas, whether by elected Libertarians or by statist jackyderms afraid of the consequences, that will save this nation.

67 Comments
  1. Okay we know the forvces are under a strain, but how is the equipment holding up? Seems like in all that sand and heat it should be breaking down seriously. In the end we have the forces using aging and broken down equipment. Any focus on that?
    M.H.W.

  2. The IES was the winning hand, but marooned and stillborn due to lack of money, change of leadership and protests from people that openly admit they hate politics and seek to stop the NLP from doing same. It died on the vine instead of being front and center for the last many months.

    So now, having never followed the right thing to do politically because it would have pissed off people that dont give a shit how many libertarians get elected anyway, (not their concern, and they openly admit it) we get to watch the Democrats steal what we did and get their people elected off of the ideas it contains, and we dont have the money to fight back. But of course, that wont bother the same people that trashed it the first time.

    Lets see how many comments pop up on this one. I’ve done my level best to start it out right. Now the rest of you slobs pile on. :D

  3. Tim — you should start a church.

    The Church of People Not Blinded By (Fill In The Blank.)

    The “(Fill In The Blank)” part should really be part of the title. :)

    rofl.

  4. rofl. I’m half serious, half angry at the inability of the LP to do real politics, and half just like “fuck it, might as well have fun with it all”.

    think I’ll make another video that no one watches. :)

  5. Tim, that someone has a moral objection to parts of the IES does not mean they do not want to “do real politics”. This is a lie you and the LRC have been propagating for months now, and it is growing tiresome.

    Timothy West is not the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong on issues of morality and practical politics. Neither is Chris Moore. So please drop the lie (and that is what it is) that those who disagree with you “don’t give a shit how many libertarians get elected”.

    If the troubling pieces of the IES (foreign aid, redeployment) were removed, there would have been no (or at least much less) protest, and it would have still carried the same practical political benefits.

  6. I say what I think, no more, and no less, the same as Chris Moore or anyone else on here. I keep repeating that I’m not a highly paid professional libertarian just so no one misunderstands me. :D

    Not a lie. There’s a great many people that want the LP to be a protest group instead. Just go back in the back comments here – you’ll find loads of supporting comments to that. I’m making my vid at the moment, so I cn direct my preachiness and morals at the Democrats. You wont have a problem with that, right?

  7. ‘The jackyderms might malign us, call us radicals or nutcases . . .’

    This is pretty funny, if you think about all the ‘reformers’ who are first in line to declare that undiluted libertarianism is for ‘nutcases’.

    ‘The Democrats will be adopting an exit strategy that the Libertarians put out almost, what, a year ago now?’

    Where’s the evidence for that? I trust that even Democrats will come up with something that makes more sense than ‘Iraq Exit Strategy’.

    ‘Now, the Democrats are realizing that a coherent anti-war message is the only thing that will save their party from oblivion . . .’

    That would be quite different from IES. IES embraces the ‘in it, have to win it’ position. Under IES we would most likely never get out of Iraq.

    Over a year ago, IES forecasted that ‘It is feasible that, given a year for training, the Iraqi security forces would be able to control the insurgency.’

    (Cont.)

  8. I recently read an article about Iraqi security forces getting their butts kicked trying to take their capital from insurgents and sectarian militias. The latter weren’t even mentioned as a problem in IES, which has become absurdly obsolete and irrelevant.

    ‘If the troubling pieces of the IES (foreign aid, redeployment) were removed, there would have been no (or at least much less) protest, and it would have still carried the same practical political benefits.’

    What political benefits? I have yet to see any evidence that IES has brought any political benefits.

  9. That would be quite different from IES. IES embraces the ”˜in it, have to win it’ position. Under IES we would most likely never get out of Iraq.

    under the IES, every last US soldier would have been removed from Iraq by right about…..now. We would have no troops in Iraq at this very second.

  10. Tim one of the main things wrong with the IES is the redeployment, which many have suggested would be to other nations of the middle east. Do we intend to piss off Al-Qeda even more? They specifically want us out of their lands.
    Now I am not suggesting we buckle under to them. That’s what Reagan did when he cut and ran after the Beirut bombing in 1983, but I don’t think we need to antagonize them any more. That would probably get more U.S. troops killed unnecessarily. Just bring all the troops home and declare VICTORY. Unfortunately Libertarians, like so many others in America, do not take the time to study the culture of other groups, or nations before we butt into their business. We put our hands into a hornets nest. Why stick our asses in?
    M.H.W.

  11. We shouldn’t try to propose a “moderate” policy that pre-supposes we’ll keep doing a milder version of the same foolish actions. That would undercut our whole argument.

    Bring all U.S. troops home now, and don’t send them out again in anger except to halt a *serious* threat of attack, not just one predicted by analysts in fear of losing their jobs.

  12. The IES certanly isnt perfect, but it was better than anything the D’s or the R’s have done. Just finished digging up comments from Democrats about how we must take on Saddam and Invade due to his WMD’s…..from 1998 nd 1999, when Democratic President Clinton was in charge…. and from this year, talkin about how Bush sucks on Iraq…I cant wait to blast em all…

    Dick Durbin – hypocrite, Nancy Pelosi – hypocrite, Hillary Clinton – hypocrite. I’m gonna fuck em over. I just wish it would count for something other than self satisfaction.

  13. ‘. . . under the IES, every last US soldier would have been removed from Iraq by right about”¦..now.’

    IES made no such promise. It included a withdrawal schedule as part of a ‘strategy for success’, implicitly leaving open the possibility that the troops would stay if ‘success’ was not achieved.

  14. according to the stated timetable: (Page 4)

    which is unconnected to any part of the statement you reference, namely, this one: (page 1)

    “Regardless of an individual’s stance on the initial invasion of Iraq, it is now clear that there is no end in sight to the sustained violence in the region. A commonsense strategy for success is the first mandatory step to end this conflict.”

    You quoted that sentence so far out of any possible context wih it’s source, I cant keep a straight face. :D WTF? ROTFL.

    Anyways, it dont matter. The NLP wont ever be able to bring it about.

  15. Tim, if you really want to get your video noticed, what you need to do is burn the video on several DVDs, and then attempt to distribute these out to people in the nearest IRS office. It wouldn’t hurt to carry a pitchfork… (I kid!)

    David Tomlin: Since you appear to be unable to find the info in the IES, I did the research for you. From the LP’s IES: “Troops would leave gradually, in increments of approximately 11,600 per month, resulting in a complete withdrawal in one year’s time.” As this was released on June 29, 2005, this means that, had the LP’s strategy been immediately accepted by the major parties, all troops would’ve been out of Iraq a month ago.

  16. First, the LPHQ rolled out IES, an important project, without the knowledge of at least some of the LNC.

    The LPHQ claimed it would attract lots of people to the LP.

    When some libertarians pointed out that the IES contradicted the LP platform, the LPHQ denied it.

    The IES occupied the front page of the LP website for over 6 months and yet garnered the support of less than 3,000 people, and yet the LPHQ claimed it was a great success.

    The IES was essentially the same as a slow-motion Murtha plan and his plan was based on what people inside the military were telling him. Should we presume that the Pentagon brass is suddenly paying attention to what the LP is saying?

    Now, some of the same folks that have been trying to sell the idea that the LP is run by purists are saying the purists ruined the “winning hand” dealt by the LPHQ – and I thought the LPHQ was supposed to be purist.

    How Orwellian.

    Never trust anything that has claims to be “commonsense”.

  17. Furthermore, those dang purists at LPHQ wasted the 2004 Convention airtime on C-SPAN by NOT sending a strong anti-war message and detailing the loss of liberty, lives and money since the “war on terror”.

    Instead, the LPHQ purists invited the Bush-supporting and warmongering Neal Boortz, much to the dismay of many in the big circus tent.

    Then, after over 2 years at war, the purist LPHQ decides it is safe to offer up the “commonsense” IES. Real leadership in action. The reformers are right – something should be done about all these purists that control the LP.

    I guess all these purists that run the LP were too busy with estate tax initiatives and schmoozing with CPAC to find time to deal with insignificant things like war.

  18. From Page 1:

    “A commonsense strategy for success is the first mandatory step to end this conflict.” (This is the only place this phrase appears.)

    Followed by the actual schedule (on Page 4)

    The first step is immediately to begin the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. Currently American troop levels are at about 140,000. Troops would leave gradually, in increments of approximately 11,600 per month, resulting in a complete withdrawal in one year’s time.

    There’s no connection, in any manner. You say there is, ergo:

    “It included a withdrawal schedule as part of a ‘strategy for success’, implicitly leaving open the possibility that the troops would stay if ‘success’ was not achieved.”

    What you say it says, it don’t say….anywhere.

    Can someone else maybe find this conditional “upon” language David is rapping about? I’m not seeing it.

  19. All of you should be honored that your government masters will give your hard earned tax money to foreign governments in “aid.” Even Libertarians agree on this and on stationing US troops in foreign countries. You should all be grateful. After all, every American would welcome foreign troops stationed in the US.

  20. Good grief, how could a blog post that SHOULD be a source of pride to Libertarians (even if you didn’t 100% agree with the IES as I didn’t), turn into yet another round of us bashing each other? I don’t care where one falls among internal debates, this news is nothing but a Good Thing.

  21. When David Nolan made “The Case for a Libertarian Political Party” in 1971, he specifically said: “A sixth point in favor of establishing a libertarian party is that by its mere existence, it would put some pressure on the other parties to take a more libertarian stand.” So it did and so it has in this instance. I might also point out that
    Nolan put six points ahead of this: “And finally, there is always the possibility that we might actually get some libertarians elected.” And so the founder of the Party
    put things like having one’s ideas co-opted before the chance the LP might elect people. It was wise then and, given the 35 years of the LP, wise today.

  22. “The IES occupied the front page of the LP website for over 6 months and yet garnered the support of less than 3,000 people, and yet the LPHQ claimed it was a great success.”

    We did have people endorse the position.
    Party membership using a constant definition fell over the period.

  23. Even though the IES was featured on the national LP’s website, I would argue that it wasn’t heavily advertised in other places (I am led to believe it was due to the opposition of the IES by some libertarians). Had it been promoted as heavily as some of our past projects (ex: the “defendyourprivacy.com” website), I’m sure more people (not just libertarians) would’ve signed on to show their support of the IES.

    I also don’t think that either of the major parties are trying to steal our ideas contained in the IES, but we certainly were a year ahead of either of them in calling for a withdrawl from Iraq. And, of course, most of us were against going into Iraq before the conflict started.

  24. It actually was forbidden by the LNC to spend a single dime on it for several weeks. HQ spending authority was removed until they fixed Raisers Edge. That was part of why Seehausen quit.

    And George, that’s been true since 2000. Long time before any of this. many reasons.

    “I might also point out that
    Nolan put six points ahead of this: “And finally, there is always the possibility that we might actually get some libertarians elected.”

    Just goes to show how starting something doesnt make you right. That’s not number 7 on the political party list, that’s number 1. He has it backwards – first, you have to be a threat to them politically before they co-opt your positions. Otherwise, your positions are of no use to them.

  25. “Good grief, how could a blog post that SHOULD be a source of pride to Libertarians (even if you didn’t 100% agree with the IES as I didn’t), turn into yet another round of us bashing each other?”

    My assumption is that Stuart knew what he was doing when he posted about such a contentious subject as the IES. I’ll also point out that Tim decided to once again attempt to perpetuate the lie that those that did not and do not support the IES are political morons.

    Why should I be proud that a few Democrats want to withdraw from Iraq? Where does the article say that Democrats actually co-opted the Libertarian position? Do a search for the term “libertarian” in the source article and you will find nothing.

    The post was an attempt to show “how smart” a political move the IES was, while at the same time trying to “prove” that the purists within the party ruined it. The entire post is based on a bad premise, just like the IES.

  26. If you read a little more of the article, you will see that the Democrat’s plan ‘set no deadline for the withdrawal’s completion.’

    Of course, ‘withdraw troops’ is hardly such a complex idea that anyone would have to ‘steal’ it. This is an egregious example of egomania plus post hoc ergo propter hoc.

  27. Really, Tim, you say in post #2 that we get to sit back and watch the Democrats steal our ideas. Then , in #27, you say we have to be a threat to them politically before they co-opt our ideas. Since it is widely acknowledged in this blog that the LP is no political threat, then it must be that by putting forth sound, principled, and well-thought out political ideas, the LP will find some of those ideas will be co-opted by opponents who are, never the less, struck by the truth of them. I think this is what Nolan was getting out: we need an LP to put out libertarian ideas in a political context because it will change the debate long before the LP can look forward to actually winning any meaningful offices.

  28. Tim — this is an area we disagree with *minorly*.

    I think that perhaps the ‘intent’ behind David Nolan’s missive — not to speak for someone else — was that by seriously attempting to get candidates elected… by *going through the actual political process* we just *might* get the things more important to us occur.

    A prime example of this: Loretta Nall’s converting two Sheriff’s Candidates to an anti-prohibition position simply by giving her speech on to why *SHE* should be elected.

    *THAT* was ‘real politick’ and because she was working on more than just getting heard — actually being seen to try to get the change to happen… the message *GOT HEARD*

    Simply ranting at the wind accomplishes nothing.

    So… I don’t think Mr. Nolan was wrong at all. It was merely that we shouldn’t measure success *solely* by election results, but rather by the results of our efforts to *ACHEIVE* election results.

  29. I think that perhaps the ”˜intent’ behind David Nolan’s missive ”” not to speak for someone else ”” was that by seriously attempting to get candidates elected”¦ by *going through the actual political process* we just *might* get the things more important to us occur.

    EXACTLY. I find myself siding with pragmatists more often than purists… but regardless I see election campaigns as the strategy, not the mission statement.

  30. Steve — heh, and it *works* too!

    Why, it’s almost like having one’s cake & eating it…

    ‘Course, it should say something that I consider myself a purist libertarian as opposed to a radical zero-stater.

    I disown the purist/pragmatist dichotomy. :)

  31. >Timothy West:

    From Page 1:

    “A commonsense strategy for success is the first mandatory step to end this conflict.” (This is the only place this phrase appears.)

    Followed by the actual schedule (on Page 4)

    David Tomlin: The connection is a matter of logic, not spatial proximity. I’m not surprised you don’t understand.

  32. Tim — heh. ‘Specially considering that one could also read the IES lines quoted to mean that victory would be acheived *BY* pulling out early; causing the following:

    Withdrawal yields victory.

    Rather than the argument made by Mr. Tomlin that:

    Victory yields withdrawal.

    But hey — who am I to speak? After all:

    Peace is War.
    Ignorance is Victory.
    Freedom is Slavery.

    The point to the above? Anybody can turn anything around on its head using the same sufficiently long set of words. Trick is to look at details and particulars.

    Where there is a timeline which mandates absolute action (Such as 11,000 troops withdrawn each month, no matter what) then a conclusion must be drawn:

    The first line indicates that the goal was to succeed; not by waiting for victory then withdrawing, but using retreat to accomplish goals a military presence cannot.

    … this ought to be interesting. >:)

  33. >Timothy West: now if I did that to you, you’d jump up and down about me making “ad hominem” attacks.

    David Tomlin: I’d say ‘jump up and down’ is hyperbolic. It’s true that from time to time I’ve commented on how ‘reformers’ and ‘pragmatists’ are prone to attacking the sanity and motives of those who disagree with them.

    >TW: So I’m D-U-M, eh?

    DT: I’ve been locking horns with you for a long time. I think I’ve made enough observations to conclude that your reasoning skills are somewhat deficient. I don’t know if that is for lack of basic intelligence or for some other reason.

  34. I think I’ve made enough observations to conclude that your reasoning skills are somewhat deficient. I don’t know if that is for lack of basic intelligence or for some other reason.

    Wow, that’s quite possibly the most scathing insult I’ve ever seen just about anywhere. Tomlin, you truly are the king of biting witticisms.

  35. “Reformers and Pragmatists are prone to attacking the sanity of those who disagree with them. ”

    Que Apropo.

  36. The Iraq war and the nonexistent existence of terrorists including the planes that really did not fly into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon is nothing but a worldwide Jewish conspiracy with Israel being in the lead to control all the gold, precious jewels, commerce and oil.

    How many of you believe the above including there is no threat to us from North Korea and Iran and now possibly Venezuela? I cannot believe that the above is being promoted by some and even libertarians, that are supposedly so independent and philosophical thinkers fall for the bullshit.

    Now that my rant is over, Go, Israel, kick the shit out of Hezbollah. I still support our presence in Iraq and love Israel.

  37. You would support any US military action anywhere, Julian. Your prior comments that one cannot support the troops without supporting the war have made you a slave to supporting any action the government you claim to despise embarks upon. You don’t seem to care that undeclared wars cannot square with the Constitution you claim a reverence for, either.

    I only wonder where your loyalties will lie if the military begins enforcing Bush’s Hitlerian dictates at home.

  38. Artus: no need to wonder, Julian will be right behind his Halliburton stock.

    Julian supports wars of aggression paid for with stolen tax money and “loves” a theocratic, socialist, jingoistic, racially-ethnically based nation state, and entangling alliances therewith.

    Sure sounds libertarian to me….LOL.

    As for me….I’m not threatened by N. Korea or any other regime except the one in DC (and whatever state and local jurisdiction I’m in). And I don’t call those scumbags “we” unlike Julian, who also believes in the ridiculous official regime conspiracy theory about 9-11 and refuses to look at the evidence.

    The Democrat and Libertarian “exit strategies” are weak, and make me glad I’ve quit both those parties (and voting).

    Here’s a real exit strategy:

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/11/17/exit_strategy

  39. Autark,

    Love your plan. In fact that is the very plan I would implement were the exit up to me. But with the assortment of hypocrites, liars and morons making (or not making) such decisions, the simplicity of your approach would doubtless confuse them as it is devoid of panels, commissions and dizzying statistical evidence for the approach du jour.
    In the unfortunate reality we are in, I think the Libertarian IES is a good choice and finds a balance palatable to those who have been indoctrinated with the we-can’t-just-cut-and-run attitude. It isn’t fast enough for my preference, but its past implementation would have us out by now. An exit some of us would style slow is certainly preferable to no exit at all, or worse, an increase in troop presence.

  40. I also have a portfolio of oil stocks. Go, go, go Middle East. The more chaos, the better.

    At least I am honest.

  41. “The Iraq war and the nonexistent existence of terrorists including the planes that really did not fly into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon is nothing but a worldwide Jewish conspiracy with Israel being in the lead to control all the gold, precious jewels, commerce and oil.

    How many of you believe the above including there is no threat to us from North Korea and Iran and now possibly Venezuela?”

    Way to build a strawman, Julian.

    Obviously terrorists exist, we have video of planes hitting the towers, and some foreigners (and locals) mean us ill.

    I don’t care if Jews are involved in conspiracies or not, but obviously there are real conspiracies and some big ones have yet to be fully exposed, including much that is held top secret by our rulers. How can secrets not be part of a conspiracy?

    I believe the most harmful conspiracies are not about controlling valuable goods, but about controlling people, whether with straightforwardly evil intentions or “for their own good”.

  42. “No threat” is not the same as “no threat that currently justifies violence”. Most threats eventually produce little or no serious harm. The ones that become serious can be dealt with at that time, especially by a country whose military spending surpasses the rest of the world put together!

  43. Both the World Trade Center and the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City suffered suspiciously catastrophic damage, given the relatively small size of the fire or explosion that supposedly caused it. I don’t know enough about the Pentagon.

    Even a jumbo jet is small when compared to those huge buildings, and its fuel should never have burned hot enough and evenly enough to weaken its structural steel in such a symmetrical fashion that its floors pancaked vertically at nearly terminal velocity.

    Explosives in a small truck parked on the street supposedly vaporized nearly half of the Murrah Building without doing serious damage on the opposite side of the street.

    These were obviously demolished by large arrays of carefully placed and well coordinated explosives, placed by professionals with unrestricted access. If Al Qaeda was capable of that, wouldn’t they be bragging about it?

  44. AND in both cases, the Feds insisted on “cleaning up” nearly immediately, destroying most of the evidence before it could be seriously investigated.

    These are the actions of conspirators covering up their guilt, not honest seekers of the truth.

  45. They were also in a big hurry to convict and kill off the OKC patsy before he talked too much.

    How many freelance mass murderers still languish in jail decades after their crimes?

  46. It’s time to panic. The poor little old USA is threatened with certain destruction now that Venezuela is after us. It is just a matter of days before Hezbollah jumps on their magic carpets and invades America.

    Syria and Iran are breeding the dreaded bird flu germs and Y2.007K is just around the corner. Spooky Muslims, scary hobgoblins, a lizard people are plotting to turn us all into zombies.

    Somalia is cranking out voodoo dolls, North Korea is testing bottle rockets, and Mexican gardners are invading West Palm Beach. How will the homeland survive?

    Wait! Is it a bird flu missile? Is it an unmanned plane?

    It’s SUPER JULIAN – able to leap tall tales, faster than a speedy modem, and more powerful than a loco neocon.

    Thanks to Super Julian, God fearing Americans will be able to sleep soundly tonight knowing that his bellicose rhetoric is keeping their freedoms safe from Son of Osama, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong, Jr., and 1.2 billion Islamofascists armed with magic lanterns.

  47. Wes P

    I rest my case.

    How ridiculous you are to believe there was a conspiracy. The only variable left out of the equation was the Jews were ultimately responsible. What’s your problem, no guts to present the rest of your real beliefs?

    That is the problem I have with you and those that throw in with you. The underlying thread in your theory is the Jews are responsible for all the world’s problems but you will not address it directly.

    I don’t believe in a minute there was some sort of huge conspiracy or the Jews are responsible for the world unrest.

    You and your kind are watching and reading too much Hezbollah TV and blogs. It is all propaganda to turn you against your own and save your own coward ass.

  48. Tom Blanton

    Are you pissed off or what? I don’t see danger under every unturned stone or believe in huge conspiracy theories as you tried to present using humor or whatever that failed to work.

    Your rants reinforce my belief that my choosing to be a libertarian and a member of the LRC was a wise decision.

    Try again.

  49. Ok, here we go again.

    “and its fuel should never have burned hot enough and evenly enough to weaken its structural steel”

    The temperature of a match flame is enough to weaken steel if sustained long enough.

    “at nearly terminal velocity.”

    Are you aware of the meaning of “terminal velocity”. A coffee filter reaches terminal velocity almost instantaneously when dropped. Even if the towers fell “at terminal velocity” it does not necessarily support of controlled demolition. And BTW, what would terminal velocity be for a building like the Twin Towers?

    911 theorists continue to claim that those who disagree with them have failed to look at the evidence. I have looked at the evidence. It proves nothing. Further, it doesn’t even make a very strong case. Point to all the scientists and engineers who have signed on with 911truth and I’ll point you to even more who will not, including myself.

    That said: The Iraq war was and continues to be a bad idea. So I’m not on board with Julian.

  50. Heck naw, Julian. I’m not pissed off. I’m not harboring any suppressed rage so intense that I would want thousands of innocont people killed. Honest.

    But seriously, folks, (straightening bow-tie with both hands), I shouldn’t make Julian the butt boy of my lame jokes and I certainly didn’t meant to imply he believes in huge conspiracy theories like the Bush administration is lying about the threat North Korea, Iran, and now possibly Venezuela – Presidents never lie.

    Anybody that saw the documentary, Team America, knows that Kim Jong Il is crazy. He’s got super rockets that could reach…er, stay in the air for 42 seconds.

    That guy Chavez that’s running Venezeula is a known commie that just bought a ton of Kalishnakovs – enough said. Iran is run by a madman – he’s making nukes and hiding it from the IAEA just like Saddam did. The lunatic hates us for our freedom and if he has it his way, he’ll make us all wear burkas.

    Anyone who believes all that should join the LRC.

  51. Tom Blanton

    I just awoke from my dream. All is well in the world. I was having a nightmare that there are many people and groups of people that want to kill us and destroy our way of life. Good thing I was only dreaming. It is so hunky dorey that the LP can now be disbanded.

    I hope I am dreaming when Israel is wiped off the map.

  52. OK, Chris, I got overwhelmed and used the wrong terminology.

    Terminal velocity depends on air resistance, and you only get there after considerable acceleration under gravity.

    What I meant (rather than said) was “free fall”! This has been measured. Each floor acted as if its structural support vanished in a fraction of a second — more like a timed demolition that a wildfire.

  53. http://mujca.com/jonesphysics.htm

    “the 650 degree Celsius temperature of burning jet fuel would not have been hot enough to even bend the steel girders of the WTC Towers, let alone to MELT or EVAPORATE them, as recovered beams indicate. And even if it was hot enough … the towers should not have collapsed as they did, pancaking so perfectly into their own footprints. On the rare times when such structures have failed (always due to earthquakes), they have toppled over sideways…. And even if they did somehow pancake perfectly into their own footprints due to a structural failure, they would not have done it … falling at essentially the speed of an apple dropped from the top of one of the towers…. The steel and concrete … should have taken some measurable time to break, and thus slowed the collapse somewhat as it unfolded. And even if it did collapse, at super speed … that does not explain the molten steel seen at the … clean-up site many days after the event.

  54. ~1510ºC (2750ºF) – melting point of typical structural steel

    Melted steel was found.

    If the steel collapsed by mere weakening, how could all four corners of each floor get weakened equally at the same time to produce a vertical collapse?

    Certainly one corner or side would weaken first, and the enormous weight of the floors above would cause them to tip and fall to that side. But they didn’t.

  55. Wes P

    It is less dangerous now. Now if we can just accelerate their civil war so they are killing each other off at a faster pace, mission accomplished and our soldiers can be brought home.

    Hooray for unrest in the Middle East.

    Halliburton and oil stock portfolios as well as precious metal investments seem to know no boundaries and just keep going up in value.

  56. We are way off topic, Wes. You are right. It’s actually Julian’s fault. ;)

    But why is Professor Jones any more credible than hundreds of structural engineers and physicists who do not reach the same conclusion? If I were to write an article saying that the physics of the collapse does not necessarily support a controlled demolition, would you then link to “Virginia Commonwealth University Physicists and Researcher Claims Twin Tower Collapse Probably Happened as Commonly Believed”?

    Also, I would be VERY interested in seeing the data used to determine the acceleration, or even the video footage used to obtain the data. Can you link to it?

%d bloggers like this: