You walked into the party
Like you were walking onto a yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye
Your scarf it was apricot
You had one eye in the mirror
As you watched yourself gavotte . . .
Well I hear you went up to Saratoga
And your horse naturally won
Then you flew your Lear jet up to Nova Scotia
To see the total eclipse of the sun
Well you’re where you should be all the time
I happily belong to an infinitesimal minority that feels we’re not informed enough to have all the answers to every controversial issue in America. We don’t have a monopoly on virtue — and don’t want one. We’re not only willing to change our minds, we welcome it — and appreciate those who correct us.
Early on in COVID, I was ridiculed for refusing to take a position on something I knew nothing about. I’m old-fashioned that way.
Funny how people love to plug the “nobody’s perfect” line, and yet so many of ’em proudly refuse to be corrected on anything. The incorrigible in that camp act like they’re never wrong, never rude, never foolish, never over-the-top, never unreasonable, and never insulting.
In the spirit of the “only guilty man in Shawshank” — I’ve been all of those things at one time or another.
Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief.
The first two of these conditions specify the circumstances that will make the belief resistant to change. The third and fourth conditions together, on the other hand, point to factors that would exert powerful pressure on a believer to discard his belief. It is, of course, possible that an individual, even though deeply convinced of a belief, may discard it in the face of unequivocal disconfirmation.
We must, therefore, state a fifth condition specifying the circumstances under which the belief will be discarded and those under which it will be maintained with new fervor.
This guy is the first person I’ve ever come across who actually had some level of expertise in the domain of WMD (as a “WMD SME for the [Department of Defense]”).
This is a lengthy exchange but that’s the underlying point — just how far someone will go in their obstinate refusal to consider anything of substance. He shot his mouth off right out of the gate, and the second he saw that I had some serious knowledge on the subject — every effort he made from that moment on was to discredit me in any way that he could.
He made it impossible to have a conversation on what the issue was actually about.
A lot of that goin’ around
The opening bit below is astounding for all that it illustrates in so few words (which I’ll address momentarily)
Every automaton in this context seemingly has a memory chip that spits out the same nonsense. Questions do not compute in the Gutter Games of Government.
“Fraudulence”? What “fraudulence” are you talking about? Let me guess – WMD? Here’s a little story from NBC of all places: Secret U.S. Mission Hauls Uranium from Iraq
In case you’re too stupid to read the article . . .
it’s about the removal of 550 metric tons of “yellow cake” from Iraq after hostilities ended. Do you happen to know what “yellow cake” is and what it’s used for? I do, I am a designated WMD SME for the DoD.
I’d suggest heading on back to that backwater school, Purdue, for a little more indoctrination, er, I mean education.
Like · Reply · 1 · Mar 28, 2015 4:52am
To call the Cradle of Astronauts “backwater” is award worthy for nonsensical statements. Nobody behaves like that without ulterior motives.
- The link he sent is meaningless (one that his army of apologists love to send your way with a smug smile). The article is only 3 pages and doesn’t even imply what he believes it says.
- Take note of the dig about “NBC of all places.” Translation: Anything from the “liberal media” that can be contorted to their liking is solid gold (at all other times — those same people will be ripped to shreds without mercy).
- They pull the same stunt with the New York Times article about what “WMDs” they found (never mind that those chemical weapons have absolutely nothing to do with the case Colin Powell made). They would know that — if they read past the headline in that 20+ page article
- “In case you’re too stupid to read the article” — speaks for itself
- But this is the point at which he’s screwed: “Do you happen to know what ‘yellow cake’ is and what it’s used for? I do, I am a designated WMD SME for the DoD.” He didn’t count on someone replying about uranium hexafluoride.
- By the way, “yellow cake” is one word. That may seem small — but it’s pretty sloppy for an “expert” (especially since he misspelled twice). The article got it right 22 times. Whether you’re knowledgeable on the subject or not, I think that would stand out to anyone paying attention to detail, don’t you?
- Every effort he makes from that point on is about hiding from the fact that he shot his mouth off about something he knows nothing about in the context of Iraq WMD.
- And course, he couldn’t resist mocking my alma mater — naturally assuming it’s “liberal” (because everything I do has to be tied to the “liberal conspiracy”).
I can’t speak for what Purdue is like now — but back in my day, I had a political science teacher named Yasmin who was a purist in her purpose. She made an impression with me right off when she told us that she doesn’t vote — as a means to not harbor any political leanings in her teaching.
I immensely admire that.
Speaking of Yasmin
I respected her passion, objectivity, and desire to make the material as enjoyable as possible. While I always did pretty well on my papers, I fell short a time or two on the exams, so I was on the border for getting an “A” in the class. I knew the final paper would put me over the edge, and I was dead set on making that happen. But when I got my paper back on Nazi Germany, I discovered that she had given me a “B” — decorating my paper with a lot of red ink to point out my mistakes.
I was not too happy about it and went to her office hours to talk it over. I wasn’t angry, but I wanted to raise my objections.
We went over every single item, and while I disagreed with her here and there, on the whole she made quite a convincing case. By the end of the discussion — she could tell I was still frustrated and she looked right at me and said,
If you still think that you deserve an ‘A’ on the paper, I will give it to you.
That concession would have meant an “A” in the class, and in so doing provided a boost to my lackluster GPA. But here we go again with another moment of truth.
Without hesitation I replied, “I’ll take the ‘B’”
To accept the “A” would have been tantamount to disrespecting Yasmin and everything I had learned in her wonderful class — making it more about a grade than the value of the knowledge.
Don’t tell me that “college isn’t the ‘real world’” — everything is about how you approach it.
I had my shortcomings in school, but when it came to papers, group projects, presentations, debates, and so on — I tackled it all with great care and sincerity. Even though I needed that “A” and worked hard for it, that wasn’t good enough — so I didn’t earn it.
It doesn’t get any more real than that!
Note: As a courtesy, I have replaced this person’s name “SME” (Subject Matter Expert). And no, the “Mr. SME” is not sarcasm: I addressed him as “Mr. [Last name]” throughout the exchange. All I did below was replace his last name with “SME”
Mr. SME, as you must know, yellowcake is worthless until it’s turned into uranium hexafluoride (the process gas for enriching uranium).
As for that 550 metric tons of yellowcake in that article — that had been under IAEA seal since the 90s and was no secret to anyone in the intelligence community with any knowledge on Iraqi nuclear matters.
Moreover, the bogus Niger-yellowcake story (the “16 words” deal) has nothing to do with the yellowcake in that article.
In short, it’s meaningless — particularly because Iraq has never had UF6 conversion facilities, nor a production centrifuge cascade. They had plans for both in 1989, but the Gulf War and inspections throughout the 90s terminated the program.
The only other way to get uranium hexafluoride is in UF6 cylinders which is manufactured by very few places throughout the world — an industry so tightly regulated that it’s next to impossible for a rogue nation to get their hands on it. But that’s barely scratching the surface of the story.
Let me ask you a question. In the entire history of uranium enrichment, no centrifuge rotor with a wall thickness >1mm has ever produced a gram of HEU — so does it make sense that Iraq would be using aluminum tubes with a 3mm wall?
On top of that, they had a proven carbon fiber European design that would have been used to create their cascade had the Gulf War and inspections not come along. And then there’s the fact that those tubes were an exact match (in both material and dimensions) for the Nasser 81mm artillery rocket (Iraq’s reverse engineered version of the Italian Medusa — which they had been manufacturing since the late 80s).
I can go on all day long — as I wrote and produced the most exhaustively detailed documentary on the nuclear story (it’s in 7 parts for a total of 2 hours and 49 minutes) — but I can enlighten you in just [5 minutes alone in this custom animation excerpt from my documentary]: Trillion Dollar Tube.
I don’t doubt that you’re an intelligent man, Mr. SME — but your belief is based on emotion, not reason.
I simply don’t care what damage the truth does to any party — they’re all frauds, and my documentary makes that overwhelmingly clear.
So what will you do now — mock me some more? You asked one question, copied and pasted a meaningless link, and topped off your tiny effort with some sarcasm — and yet you’re supposed be a DOD professional in the domain of WMD?
Was this really necessary: “I’d suggest heading on back to that backwater school, Purdue, for a little more indoctrination, er, I mean education.”?
And what possesses a person to get satisfaction from this: “In case you’re too stupid to read the article.”?
I’m hoping that you can do better than that. This is supposed to be a conversation about science and what makes sense. I could have answered your questions and pasted my animation link and been on my way — but I put some time in to respectfully respond with a fair amount of detail.
On top of reading exhaustively detailed technical papers, books, and intelligence investigation reports — I’ve done first-hand research with the 3 most essential people on the entire story.
After months of email correspondence with Dr. Houston Wood (a world-renowned nuclear scientist who the DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory consulted on the tubes) — I drove up the University of Virginia to interview him.
I’ve had in-depth email correspondence with David Albright (a physicist and founder and President of the Institute for Science and International Security).
Albright was sought out by nuclear scientists who had a gag order on them not to talk to anyone in the press (so they got Albright to do analysis on the tubes and write up some papers on them).
I’ve also been in regular contact with Greg Thielmann (former Director of the Strategic, Proliferation and Military Affairs Office in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research).
And yes, that was Powell’s own intelligence agency — that he totally ignored.
My questions dug deeper than anyone had ever gone before (even to the point of squaring the slightest discrepancies in some of the reporting). The discrepancies made no difference to the truth of the story — I simply wanted to be able to explain every last detail.
Do you know where Powell got that line about “Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium.”? I do — and I explain it all in my documentary. You could watch one 20-minute segment a week — and 7 weeks later you’ll see things differently.
But if you refuse to take the time — is [5 minutes] really too much to ask of a WMD Subject Matter Expert for the Department of Defense? Where I come from, if you make a claim, you better be able to back it up.
Like · Reply · Mar 29, 2015 12:33am
Rick Memmer – Mr. Memmer, Have you been to Iraq? No?
Ever been in combat anywhere in the world? No?
Ever serve your country? No?
Then you really don’t have the perspective that vets have over disrespect towards the flag.
I have no doubt that you have some knowledge regarding the subject of nuclear materials . . .
but you have a long way to go to understand honor, courage and commitment to your country and those who have risked their lives to protect it.
But reading your earlier comment tells me that you use words like honor, courage and commitment as punch lines at liberal cocktail parties.
Narcissism, party of one?
Like · Reply · 1 · Mar 29, 2015 5:04am
I’m most insulted that he thought he could skate that “punchline” bit by me and think I wouldn’t know where he stole it from:
And by the way, as an example of the law of unintended consequences — the post 9/11 fawning over the troops has gotten so out of hand that it’s created a culture of heroic whiners.
When you turn them all into heroes — you water down what it means to be one
Whatever happened to the strong, silent type? You think John Wayne would go around bitching and moaning about how the “country doesn’t understand” (soaking up empty flattery)?
Yeah, I know The Duke didn’t serve — but you get the point. And there are plenty of other celebrities who did — and I’m fairly certain they didn’t go around complaining.
And I love how Nicholson’s masterful speech is all about honor, code, and loyalty — while he’s sitting there screwing over his soldiers (including the dead one who he’s ultimately responsible for killing).
You wanna be in charge? Then take the responsibility that comes with the job — and live up to that “honor, code, and loyalty” while you’re at it.
The best way to honor our soldiers is to refrain from sloppily and unnecessarily putting them in harm’s way.
But in the event they must go off to war, I prefer President Reagan’s philosophy on going into Grenada:
Figure out how many troops you’re going to need — and then double that number. There’ll be less casualties on both sides.
Rumsfeld’s ill-timed quest to transform the military had disaster written all over it. Remodeling the military was a worthy goal, but I’m far from alone in thinking that conventional warfare was called for in the invasion of Iraq (as in — invade with such overwhelming numbers that you shut the place down from the start).
If you’re gonna go — do it right for crying out loud!
Some highly-regarded military commanders felt the same way, but the culture at the Pentagon was not interested in such “negativity.” Even for a war I was against — ask me for some out-of-pocket patriotism, and I would have gladly participated.
And to do that you need to get people involved by asking them for more than slinging empty slogans about “supporting the troops.”
The flag came up because my original comment was in response to an article about someone flying the flag upside down. I questioned the disproportionate outrage over a flag — while not being bothered one bit by the colossal lies and monumental incompetence around the war.
And of course, they don’t believe it was a lie — but that’s how the game is played in:
Every turn you make in this country — some shit-shoveler is at the ready to bury the truth in Bullshit
Once the SME voluntarily entered into the domain of WMD (spouting off about his “expertise”) — that flag conversation was over. It’s fine to return to it at some point — but you can’t immediately revert back to it the moment you screwed up and entered into a discussion with someone who really does know what he’s talking about.
The only thing I give him credit for is that he actually did acknowledge this:
I have no doubt that you have some knowledge regarding the subject of nuclear materials . . .
But the fact that he did — and then rapidly ran from the topic — is all the more telling
P.S. Mr. SME– I meant to mention that the first and last astronauts to walk on the moon are alumni of my “backwater school” of Purdue. That university — “a place of stagnant backwardness” as you assert — has alumni that “have flown on about 37 percent of all human U.S. space flights.” www.purdue.edu/space/history.html
Oh, in this customized 2:29 animation you can watch the whole process of uranium enrichment from beginning to end: www.mounteverestoftheobvious.com/uranium-enrichment/. I also provide videos on Uranium Milling and Mining: www.mounteverestoftheobvious.com/uranium-mining-milling/ And here’s a 1:19 primer on Uranium Enrichment: www.mounteverestoftheobvious.com/uranium-enrichment…/
And as a WMD SME for DOD, surely you know who Gernot Zippe was — the Austrian scientist who is “widely credited as the father of the modern uranium centrifuge. His design included the key elements that made the machines efficient and reliable: a needlelike metal bearing that supports the rotor at the bottom and a set of magnets that keep the top of the rotor stable.” Act I of my documentary includes a 90-second clip of Professor Wood interviewing Zippe, but the full 45 minutes can be viewed at www.isis-online.org/…/gas-centrifuge-development…/23
Note: The link I provided in my previous post is an original animation that I developed with my videographer. The 2:29 one is a customized animation in that we modified and merged from existing animations (all of which I properly credit on my site).
A true expert in anything is always in search of the truth — connecting the dots no matter where they lead. To truly care about your craft, with it must come the willingness to be wrong. Very few people have that kind of courage.
Did you know that neuroscientists have shown the politics physically affects the brain like a drug? Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? Your reply is a perfect example of it, because you seized on an issue in a one-dimensional manner in order to make it consistent with your original beliefs (never mind that it easily falls apart with the slightest objective scrutiny).
Cognitive dissonance is all about eliminating “the burden” of inconsistency — so rather than examine all the evidence and see where it goes, you isolate what suits you and ignore the rest — ya know, like all this: www.mounteverestoftheobvious.com/
And by the way, I can’t stand Obama and I voted for Romney in 2012 — making it even more problematic for you to paint me in the simplistic way that you want.
I await a genuine conversation with someone who claims to be a professional. Start acting like one and let the discussion begin in earnest. Let’s have an intellectual exchange on the merits and show these people how it’s done
Like · Reply · Mar 29, 2015 4:14am
The following 2-minute scene from FAIR GAME accurately depicts Turner’s attitude
Mr. SME — I appreciate that you acknowledged my insight into this subject matter — that’s far more courtesy than I have been shown by the opposition in the 11+ years that I have been writing about this.
In the spirit of your acknowledgment, allow me to respond in kind. To the extent possible — I do understand the soldier’s disgust with the protesters. But you’re right — the extent of my understanding can only go so far as I have not been in their situation.
But surely you know by now that I didn’t post my original comment to talk about that protest – I wrote it to draw people in so I could talk about something far more important – like the future of mankind. But I could have conveyed my comment better so as not to sound like the upside-down flag doesn’t matter, so there you go – I have absorbed your input and considered it in full (which is what good-faith discussion is all about).
But the best way to honor our soldiers is to refrain from sloppily and unnecessarily putting them in harm’s way. But in the event they must go off to war, I prefer President Reagan’s philosophy on going into Granada: “Figure out how many troops you’re going to need — and then double that number. There’ll be less casualties on both sides.” Rumsfeld’s ill-timed quest to transform the military had disaster written all over it. Remodeling the military was a worthy goal, but I am far from alone in thinking that conventional warfare was called for in the invasion of Iraq. Some highly-regarded military commanders felt the same way, but the culture at the Pentagon was not interested in such “negativity.”
Colin Powell lied his ass off at the UN – and if you claim to care about the troops, then his orchestrated dishonesty should matter a great deal to all of you (otherwise your support just rings hollow). Accountability is always in everyone’s best interests (though it often won’t seem so in the short term).
Instead of the flag, I could just as easily be drawing a parallel to the disproportionate outrage over Benghazi. It’s disingenuous in the extreme to call for impeachment over that fiasco while flagrantly ignoring a mountain of evidence on Iraq.
The real story about Iraq is in the machinery behind the scenes: CIA (especially WINPAC), DIA, ORNL, DOE, INR, NSA, JAEIC, OSP (Office of Special Plans), NGA, NGIC, and so on.
Why do you think that the CIA twice refused to allow the Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee to analyze the tubes? “JAEIC is officially part of the N.I.E. process and has been a standing D.C.I. technical intelligence committee for several decades.”
And that question about “most U.S. experts” that I mentioned about Powell – CIA rigged a vote on the tubes (with only DOE and INR dissenting). Even the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency got an equal say on the aluminum tubes — an agency that does imagery analysis of the Earth. So did NSA – which would be fine they were debating satellite footage of facilities, but NSA had no business even begin in on a discussion of centrifuge physics (let along getting an equal vote on it) – nor did most of the agencies involved in the vote. JAEIC would have brought down the whole show – and that’s precisely why the CIA shut them out.
As Albright put it in this 01:39 clip: “to say ‘most’ is a meaningless statement.”: www.mounteverestoftheobvious.com/meaningless-majority/
Just like with looking at the agencies to understand the story – you gotta look at the relationships between the key players involved: George Tenet, L. Paul Bremer, Colin Powell, Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Ahmad Chalabi, General Franks, Thomas Ryder (just to name a few).
“A year after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Johnson was skeptical of the attacks, saying to Press Secretary Bill Moyers, ‘For all I know, our navy was shooting at whales out there.’” After Gulf of Tonkin led to invading Vietnam — don’t you think that a declaration of war on Iraq was warranted if you believed the WMD claims? After all, if the case was so “clear” — in the aftermath of a 9/11 world — why not do a declaration?
I’ll tell you why they didn’t — because a threat of force by resolution is vague by design — while a declaration of war is definitive and transparent by definition. The democrats went along because if the war worked out — then they “stood by the president” — but if it went south, then they could do exactly what they did: “we didn’t really think Bush would wage war — and he lied to us about WMD.”
See how the game is played? These unconscionable cowards went along with Bush in the interests of their own careers and the future of their party.
Like · Reply · Mar 29, 2015 11:16pm
I assume you mean “these unconscionable cowards (who) went along with Bush in the interests of their own careers and the future of their own party” are just like the “unconscionable cowards” in the Democratic Party who have gone along with Obama’s unconstitutional actions “in the interests of their own careers and the future of THEIR party” – because you’re fair person, right?
Or do you just have Bush Derangement Syndrome?
Like · Reply · Mar 30, 2015 6:57am
The “Bush Derangement Syndrome” — Old Faithful from the rolodex of ridicule
“Custom quoting ‘A Few Good Men’?” Obviously you’re so far into your little world that you have no clue that I’m wearing a Navy uniform in my avatar. Do you know what the Navy Core Values are? Honor, Courage and Commitment.
But yes, I’ve “stood on that wall” – a wall you’ve never been near in your life as you hide in academia. I don’t know who your therapist is but I’d suggest getting another one because the current one isn’t helping you much.
But I will say one thing – I believe you when you say you’ve never been to a cocktail party – I doubt anyone is comfortable being around your narcissism – “Hey everyone – have you seen my documentary? You need to watch it to save the world. Please watch my documentary…..please…..please.”
Like · Reply · Mar 30, 2015 7:06am
The “custom quoting” bit may seem like a small thing — but if you can’t even accept being called on passing off a classic line as your own (and using it a cheesy manner) — you’ve got issues.
And there’s no way around it — he tweaked it to the Navy Values (tossing it the “liberal cocktail” prefix to the “parties”) and voila — a ripped off line (from the Hollywood he loves to hate, no less).
It would have been cool if he had just said, “All right, yeah — ya got me on that.” But that would take character.
Embarrassment is highly underrated — feel the shame, welcome it, let in sink in, and learn from your folly.
I’m fortunate for my past foolishness — as embracing it helped me see things that I otherwise would have missed. The things I’m talking about were mostly “small” — but I harnessed those uncomfortable feelings to the fullest.
Instead, he continues to contort the conversation using all the typical tools in a Bush apologist’s arsenal:
- The “liberal” line
- The “therapist” routine
- “cocktail party”
- “I’ve stood on the wall — have you?”
- The childish bit about my “pleading” with people to watch my documentary
What does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China — or THIS?
In an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter, these guys were playing horseshoes with centrifuge physics
SME’s guns-blazing belligerence made a mockery of the Navy’s code
His bombastic boasting about “honor, courage and commitment” makes him look small. Even if I were going to “liberal cocktail parties” — is his behavior the mark of a true professional? Is this how someone in the service should be representing their country:
Fight by day and belittle by night?
And for the love of God — I’m not “offended” about him blowing off my documentary. I just can’t stand intelligent people insisting on behaving stupidly.
So while he’s posturing about the importance of his precious values — he’s butchering them with every word.
To be sure, there are some values on the site that I didn’t add to the bullet points below, and he may very well live up to those within the confines of his profession. But it’s overwhelmingly clear that his behavior was an egregious breach of the bulk of the Navy Core Values. That’s irrefutable — and equally indefensible (especially since I gave him no cause for such treatment).
Which circles back to my original point about the fury over the flag. It’s meaningless to claim values without backing them up — just as the foundation of our flag is far more important than the symbol itself.
America obsessively concerns itself with symbols — fixating over a missing flag pin on a politician’s lapel, for instance.
So — these people can . . .
- Incessantly lie
- Manipulate the hell out of you
- Start dumb wars and never finish them
- Drag their feet forever
- Obstruct as if not doing your job were a virtue
- Take off all kinds of time after accomplishing nothing
- Spend enormous amounts of energy defending the indefensible and bitching about the opposition (riling you up to join right in)
- And the list goes on and on . . .
And you’re concerned with whether or not they’re wearing the proper flair?
After I wrote about his behavior above, out of curiosity I thought I’d check out those Navy Core Values — and guess what I found:
Honor: “I will bear true faith and allegiance . . .” This means that:
- We will conduct ourselves in the highest ethical manner in all relationships and be honest and truthful in our dealings with each other and with those outside the Navy
- We will encourage new ideas and deliver the bad news, even when it is difficult or unpopular
- We will maintain our uncompromising code of integrity, taking responsibility for our actions and keeping our word
- We are accountable for our own professional and personal actions
- We will be mindful of the privilege to serve our fellow Americans
Courage: “I will support and defend . . .” This means that:
- We will meet all challenges while adhering to a higher standard of personal conduct and decency
- We will be loyal to our nation, ensuring the resources entrusted to us are used in an honest, careful, and efficient way
- Courage is the value that gives us the moral and mental strength to do what is right, even in the face of personal or professional adversity
Commitment: “I will obey the orders . . .” This means that:
- We will show respect toward all people without regard to race, religion, or gender, and we will treat each individual with respect and dignity
- We will be committed to positive change and constant improvement, always exhibiting the highest degree of moral character, technical excellence, and competence in what we have been trained to do.
- The day-to-day duty of every Navy man and woman is to work together as a team to improve the quality of our work, our people and ourselves
Rick Memmer – Are you still commenting on this thread?
You obviously need to change therapists because the one you’re using isn’t helping you at all.
The rest of us have moved on.
But if you really want to continue this . . .
I suggest you take a look at the Homeland Defense and Security Information Analysis Center (HDIAC) website, a DoD asset, and you will find my name as a designated WMD SME, amongst other disciplines.
Otherwise get over it and move on like the rest of us did almost a week ago (March 28). But seriously get help for your obsessive behavior. We read what you said and moved on – now you’re just inconsequential.
Of course you could complain to HDIAC that I, along with apparently everyone else who has had contact with you, is ignoring you and your rants. Let me know what they say – when they stop laughing of course.
Like · Reply · Apr 4, 2015 5:21pm
Just because you have a job title doesn’t mean that you’re any good at what you do. Moreover, the Pentagon has plenty of hacks just like any other organization — so the fact that you work there is meaningless unless you have sound arguments to show for it.
And I never questioned that you work there — but you don’t know jack shit about what you are talking about on Iraq WMD.
And what’s worse, you don’t even have the guts to answer a single question of mine — you have dodged, deflected, and evaded everything I have addressed — while you “move on” like the intellectual coward that you are.
You may be brave in battle — but you’re gutless in here. Live with that — and all your childishness over “therapists” and your ridiculous insults.
Somebody calls you a bullsh*tter and this is the best you’ve got?
Like · Reply · Apr 4, 2015 6:59pm
Ricky – Nobody cares. Nobody has watched your little “video” and nobody cares what you think or have to say – don’t you get it?
The war is over and the reasons we went don’t matter anymore.
I’m sorry you’re right – Brave in battle but gutless on the web. I may use it as my epitaph. Sorry “Internet Warrior” but life goes on- that is, if you have one, which it appears you do not. Now tell me again when you were in Iraq (I think I asked you that earlier).
Come on Mr. Iraq Expert – tell me about your “experience” in Iraq.
Oh and I thought my insults were pretty good – they sure have you all riled up. See you at the VFW meeting – oh wait – you won’t be there will you?
Sorry dude but gotta pop smoke.
Like · Reply · Apr 4, 2015 7:10pm
All those mangled and dead bodies of your comrades — and the reasons why we went to war don’t matter?
They’re in that condition because of people who think just like you.
Share the email addresses of your colleagues at HDIAC — and we’ll see who’s “ranting.” I’m sure your manager would be thrilled to see how well you represent their office on here.
America is a sea of stupidity and lies — because of people just like you. But move on to more playtime in your next 5 minutes of fury — that’s what you’re best at.
Like · Reply · Apr 4, 2015 7:27pm
Note: Asking for the email addresses of his colleagues had nothing to do with “telling on him” as he claims below. My request was done in hopes of having someone more objective get involved in the discussion. As for the bit about his manager — that was just something to get him to think about how he’s acting.
But naturally, as with everything else — he twisted my words into whatever he wanted. If I wanted to make him look bad I would have put his name on here.
Rick you stupid piece of shit – do you really think we’re going to get in the “Wayback Machine” and go back and stop the war from happening?
IT”S OVER and nothing we do can change it.
I know more about death and destruction than you’ll ever know but you go “Internet Warrior”.
But as usual it boils down to some web coward like you saying “I’m going to tell on you” – like some grade schooler so here I’ll make it easy for you – I was designated an SME on WMD, Arab Culture, and critical infrastructure protection by HDIAC but my full-time job is [I REMOVED HIS MANAGERIAL JOB BECAUSE IT’S MORE SPECIFIC] …See More
Like · Reply · 1 · Apr 5, 2015 6:17am
That this guy . . .
- Could be so obnoxious from the second he showed up
- Offer absolutely nothing of substance (after spouting off about his expertise, no less)
- Refuse to address even a single point
- Spew ridicule my way on whatever came to mind
- Be extremely childish with insult after insult
And THEN have the unconscionable nerve to suggest that I’m acting like “some grade schooler” out to tell on him is . . .
Exactly in line with the times we live in
While we can’t go back — we can most certainly learn (like we didn’t do before) — which is what caused this debacle in the first place.