The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Clinton Top Man at National Security Stole Documents to Thwart 9/11 Commission

Posted by iusbvision on January 14, 2007

Sandy Berger was Bill Clinton’s National Security Advisor and was the national security campaign advisor for the Kerry campaign in 2004. The story broke in 2004 that Berger had been caught taking documents from the National Security Archive and that some were never returned even after his home was searched.

So why is this news today… keep reading.

Berger pleaded guilty under a deal where he told the court that his actions were unintentional and that he accidentally discarded some of the documents. Berger had made statements to the press such as “I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced,” and “When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded” (AP July 19, 2004).

All of this was a pack of lies and Berger was let go with a small fine.

The Inspector General of the National Security Archive has released a report just before Christmas explaining Berger’s actions in detail.

Berger had taken documents and memos that concerned the Millennium Bombing After Action Report that was written by Richard Clarke who worked for Berger on the National Security Council. Berger took those documents by shoving them down his pants and in his pockets, told the people at the National Security Archive that he was going out for a break and took the documents and put them under a nearby construction trailer and later went back to retrieve them – so much for unintentional.

So what was in this report that was so damning that Berger risked jail for which to destroy?  Former Attorney General John Ashcroft referenced parts of this report in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. Ashcroft said in his testimony “This National Security Council Millennium After Action Review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 and cites luck as playing a major role, according to Ashcroft’s testimony. It’s clear from the review that actions taken in the millennium period, Y2K should not be the operating model for the US government.”

What is known of the report tells of “glaring weaknesses” in national security that are too lengthy to report here but suffice it to say the Clinton Administration knew about substantial Al-Qaeda cells in the United States a full 17 months before the September 11 attacks, and did not make begin to implement the recommendations made by Richard Clarke and the rest of the National Security Council staff and that is what they wanted to keep from the 9/11 Commission and the press.

Bill Clinton himself lied about the Millennium Bomb Plot when he said, “Well, we did a great job on that. Our plan really worked well. We got it. We got it”. The Millennium After Action Report refutes that statement because it makes it clear that there was no plan.

This also helps to shed light on why leading Democrats were strong-arming ABC Television to not air their 9/11 movie which criticized the Clinton Administration for just such lapses.

Berger lied to the courts, to government investigators, and to the press. He lied in his plea deal and got off with a fine. So why did Martha Stewart go to jail for allegedly lying to investigators? Oh that’s right; Berger is a leading Democrat so that’s different.

Chuck Norton

64 Responses to “Clinton Top Man at National Security Stole Documents to Thwart 9/11 Commission”

  1. Kevin C. said

    WARNING: Mr. Norton writes clever satire, and should be read like The Onion. Any serious responses are seriously missing the point.

  2. Kevin C. said

    There is a discussion of his satire here:
    https://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/the-irish-miracle-how-ireland-went-from-economic-basket-case-to-masterpiece/#comments
    (posts 11-65)

  3. Kevin C. said

    Here is a good example of someone who responded seriously with a good argument to the great satirist, Chuck Norton, followed by Mr. Norton’s satirical response:
    https://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2006/10/09/top-colleges-rank-lowest-on-civics-exams/
    (See posts 36-42)

  4. Anonymous said

    Chuck,

    Can you substantiate the nature of his motives and the connection to the 9/11 Commission? That is, the title of you article, “Clinton Top Man at National Security Stole Documents to Thwart 9/11 Commission” explicitly states that his actions were intended to obstruct the 9/11 Commission. However, from the evidence presented, your conclusion appears to be based on conjecture. I’m not necessarily saying that your conjecture is unreasonable, but it should not be stated as fact.

    From what I’ve read, there is no proof that he prevented the Commission from seeing any documents (or annotations on original copies). The most recent House Committee staff report (January, 2007) concluded that it could not assure the 9/11 Commission that it received all relevant documents– not that there were documents definitely missing. I can certainly see why you’d be suspicious of his motives, but I have yet to see any proof.

  5. Erkki KochKetola said

    Anon:

    If Chuck says it, it must be true. He only deals in facts. Just ask him.

  6. Rachel Custer said

    Anonymous,

    Thanks for your serious comments.

    Kevin and Erkki,

    Can you please address the article instead of making comments on Chuck’s character? We know your position on that, and it kind of makes it difficult to have a serious discussion when all your posts are tongue-in-cheek. Thanks.

  7. Kevin C. said

    Rachel,
    My critique is not of Mr. Norton’s character, but rather of the style of his articles. It is clear that part of Mr. Norton’s intended effect is to make use of the style and tone of the article. This is to say that his method of presentation is a constituitive part of his message. In this way, my criticism of his style is entirely warranted insofar as it constitutes a criticism of his message.

  8. Rachel Custer said

    Kevin,

    Ok, I see what you are getting at. My only point was, while I have no problem with humor – on the contrary, I embrace it – if we get to a point where all or even most of our posts are of the tongue-in-cheek variety, it might dissuade people from attempting to make a serious comment.

    Thanks for your thoughtful response.

  9. Erkki KochKetola said

    Rachel,

    You appear to assume that commenting seriously on Chuck’s articles is an appropriate way of responding to him.

  10. Sam said

    Chuck,

    Your article does a disservice to years of demonstrable efforts by the Clinton administration in going after Osama Bin Laden by insinuating a great deal of significance to this one arguable issue of Sandy Berger’s rationale for once taking documents from the National Security Archive.

    “Former Attorney General John Ashcroft referenced parts of this report in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. Ashcroft said in his testimony “This National Security Council Millennium After Action Review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 and cites luck as playing a major role, according to Ashcroft’s testimony.”

    I fail to understand why you call that “damning”, let alone the fact that the comments are by “hyper-partisan” John Ashcroft concerning the Clinton administration. The fact remains that major terrorist attacks didn’t occur during that time frame. Who’s to say for sure whether this can be attributed to good luck or not? Was the Bush administration simply unlucky to be in power when they finally did occur. Perhaps – but so what? Enough of your self-serving conjecture and speculation, and the same for that of Ashcroft.

    “… the Clinton Administration knew about substantial Al-Qaeda cells in the United States a full 17 months before the September 11 attacks, and did not make begin to implement the recommendations made by Richard Clarke and the rest of the National Security Council staff and that is what they wanted to keep from the 9/11 Commission and the press.”

    You mention Richard Clarke twice. Richard Clarke… oh yeah, the security advisor who worked for the previous four presidents and who especially slammed the Bush administration all over the place (Against All Enemies, 2004) regarding its apathetic stance toward Bin Laden and the resulting invasion of Iraq in particular. The Republican party immediately sent a lynch mob after him. Did you even read his book?

    Although Clarke mentioned additional measures Clinton could have taken, he sure as hell didn’t place the brunt of the blame on the Clinton administration. In fact, Clarke writes that Clinton was VERY focused on the Bin Laden threat during his presidency. Yet, no one was able to convince Dubya to show even the SLIGHTEST concern. Don’t forget that the Bush administration knew plenty as well in the months and weeks before 9/11, certainly more than members of the previous administration. Your beloved president had eight months to sit on his ass and not do a damned thing whatsoever irrespective of what he knew. The Clinton administration was indeed proactive and IN FACT, was criticized by a Republican-controlled congress for being TOO focused on reigning in Bin Laden, which highlights the absurd hypocrisy underlying this “piece” of yours. Your other piece about Clinton missing numerous “chances” to capture Bin Laden equally reeked of the sort of distorted, gratuitous 20/20 hindsight usually employed only by Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. Perhaps you haven’t noticed that truly nonpartisan entities such as the 9/11 Commission have spread the “blame” (if one can call it that) rather evenly, and the Bush administration has received its share. After all, they did everything they could to prevent such a committee from even being formed! The Bush administration has been consistently unsupportive of any type of panel investigation regarding 9/11. Why would that be? Were they just being sympathetic to the Clinton administration?

    This latest one-sided liberal slam piece surely ranks among the worst ever contributed to the IUSB Vision blog. Your views are SO hopelessly distorted by the very ideology you project onto anyone who disagrees with your political opinions that people now mainly laugh at you when they aren’t feeling pissed off by your unjustified arrogance. They often don’t bother disagreeing only because they know you will write back some incredibly arrogant, haughty B.S. condemnation no matter how polite, considerate, or well thought-out their comments are. The fact is that very few people in this country, including Republicans, would choose to spend their time blaming the Clinton administration now for the events of 9/11 unlike what you prefer to spend your abundance of time doing. Really, how relevant is your piece to anything going on in the world at the moment, especially in Iraq? Don’t you have anything more germane or current to write about and if so, perhaps you think you could possbly do so in a truly nonpartisan fashion next time around (though I doubt it).

  11. Rachel said

    Sam,

    Thank you for your comments. Speaking as a conservative, though I don’t know I would peg myself Republican, I certainly don’t blame the Clinton administration for 9/11. I don’t blame the Bush administration either. There were probably things both could have done to prevent it, but I feel like a major terrorist attack like 9/11 was bound to happen sooner or later, given the antipathy between the beliefs of America and terrorists. I blame the terrorists for what they did. It’s the same concept as not blaming a parent for the actions of their offspring after that offspring reaches legal age. It negates personal responsibility, in my opinion. But I just wanted to jump in and say that you were correct in assuming that not all conservatives blame Clinton for 9/11.

  12. Sam said

    Rachel,

    That was a thoughtful, diplomatic and perfectly intelligent contribution with which I happen to agree. Thank you.

    Chuck Norton: observe and take notes.

  13. Sam said

    I’m not completely through with Chuck Norton’s constipated bolus of vile distortion, however.

    “This also helps to shed light on why leading Democrats were strong-arming ABC Television to not air their 9/11 movie which criticized the Clinton Administration for just such lapses.”

    This so-called docudrama was pulled because more than a few notable figures – Democrats as well as Republicans – rejected quite vehemently the wisdom of presenting gratuitous dramatizations as factual history, such as inflammatory communications involving Sandy Berger that NEVER TOOK PLACE. Bill Clinton wasn’t the only one pissed off.

    Rupert Murdoch, despite his megalomanic and often Republican-sided power cravings (hence the movie), publicly expressed his regret for the mere conception of the project, describing it as “ill-conceived”.

    For the record.

  14. Herbesse said

    Will this make my Bill Clinton stocks on trendio rise? http://www.trendio.com/word.php?language=en&wordid=89

  15. Rachel Custer said

    Herbesse,

    I don’t think we’re considered a “news source” for trendio – thanks for the great website link though, I had never heard of it.

  16. Sam said

    I suppose this thread has expired, which is a good thing. The underpinnings of its origin were hopelessly biased in lieu of any actual newsworthy pretense. Free speech and the encouragement of unique thought is one thing; exceptionally poor journalism is another.

  17. Chuck Norton said

    Well its the typical responses from the same three or four people. All attacks on me and very little attempt to actually engage in the discussion.

    But to answer a few questions.

    Have I read Richard Clarke’s book? Yes, and Sam, you seem to take the book as an all or nothing proposition. The simple truth is that the book is about 2/3’s accurate and 1/3 complete BS. Several of Clarke’s statemnts in the book are directly contradicted by other statements Clarke has made (some of which are on tape), or the official record.

    Just because statements by Clarke are contradictory does not mean that I excersized poor journalism. I reported the facts as the record states them, and you hate me and the facts that you find inconvenient as you have made it clear in post after post.

    You mentioned that Clarke’s book states that the Bush Administration didnt do anything about bin-Laden or Al-Qeada before 9/11. Unfortunately Clarke is on tape stating exactly the opposite before his book came out. Clarke said on the tape essentially that President Bush was unhappy with the previous administrations policy of containment when it came to Al-Qeada and Bush wanted to destroy them and authorized more resources to the CIA to get the job done.

    Richard Clarke after his book Came Out:

    QUOTE –

    RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISER: My impression was that fighting terrorism in general and fighting al Qaeda in particular were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration. Certainly no higher priority. I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.

    -END QUOTE

    Richard Clarke to reporters BEFORE 9/11 about a terroism meeting with President Bush in JANURARY/Feburary of 2001:

    QUOTE –

    CLARKE: In the first week in February, decided on principle, in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy, and to increase CIA resources, for example for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda. And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda.”

    – END QUOTE

    Rollback under Clinton. Rapid elimination under Bush.

    So Sam once again there is no shoddy journalism on my part at all. Once again it is the same old scenario; your partisan hypocrisy constructs your reality and I work hard to do my homework and colllect the data that you completely ignore because it doesnt work to satisfy your ideology and hatred of me.

    It was a pleasure proving you wrong yet again.

  18. Chuck's Editor said

    Well its [it’s] the typical responses from the same three or four people. All attacks on me and very little attempt to actually engage in the discussion. [sentence fragment]

    But to answer a few questions. [sentence fragment]

    Have I read Richard Clarke’s book? Yes, [Yes. And…] and Sam, you seem to take the book as an all or nothing proposition. The simple truth is that the book is about 2/3’s accurate and 1/3 complete BS. Several of Clarke’s statemnts [statements] in the book are directly contradicted [awkward passive voice] by other statements Clarke has made (some of which are on tape), or the official record.

    Just because statements by Clarke are contradictory does not mean that I excersized [exercised] poor journalism. I reported the facts as the record states them, and you hate me and the facts that you find inconvenient as you have made it clear in post after post.

    You mentioned that Clarke’s book states that the Bush Administration didnt [didn’t] do anything about bin-Laden [Bin Laden] or Al-Qeada before 9/11. Unfortunately Clarke is on tape stating exactly the opposite before his book came out. Clarke said on the tape essentially that President Bush was unhappy with the previous administrations [administrations’] policy [policies] of containment when it came to Al-Qeada and Bush wanted to destroy them and authorized more resources to the CIA to get the job done. [run-on sentence]

    Richard Clarke after his book Came Out:

    QUOTE –

    RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISER: My impression was that fighting terrorism in general and fighting al Qaeda in particular were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration. Certainly no higher priority. I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue. [Nice]

    -END QUOTE

    Richard Clarke to reporters BEFORE 9/11 about a terroism [terrorism] meeting with President Bush in JANURARY/Feburary of 2001:

    QUOTE –

    CLARKE: [“]In the first week in February, decided on principle, in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy, and to increase CIA resources, for example for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda. And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda.”

    – END QUOTE [I think the end quote sufficiently conveys End Quote]

    Rollback under Clinton. [sentence fragment] Rapid elimination under Bush. [sentence fragment]

    So Sam [,] once again there is no shoddy journalism on my part at all. Once again it is the same old scenario; your partisan hypocrisy constructs your reality and I work hard to do my homework and colllect [collect] the data that you completely ignore because it doesnt [doesn’t] work to satisfy your ideology and hatred of me.

    It was a pleasure proving you wrong yet again.

  19. Sam said

    Chuck,

    Once again, your so-called journalism is so shoddy that it isn’t worth my time to engage you. Your projections of hyper-partisanship onto those who disagree with you stand as exactly that. You manifest the strongest partisan political agenda I’ve ever witnessed. Worse, you are simply incorrect in your reduction of the facts.

    I stated the obvious case against you once already, and don’t have the time to do so again. Read your own post. You haven’t a leg upon which to stand. Now I am wondering about your intelligence quotient.

    Let me repeat what I said already on a previous thread: you need to finish your degree, Chuck, and get out of there. Nothing you write makes any sense. I don’t have the gumption or time to fool with you any further.

  20. Chuck's Spelling Coach said

    I quit.

  21. Chuck's Ego said

    No. You’re fired.

  22. Chuck's Spelling Coach said

    Nice. “You’re fired,” and not “your fired.”

  23. Chuck's Ego said

    Your Hired!

  24. Chuck's Spelling Coach said

    I quit!

  25. Sam said

    For the record (to head off at least Chuck and perhaps others), I am neither Chuck’s editor nor his spelling coach nor his ego.

    :)

    My guess: Kevin C. No offense if I am mistaken :)

  26. Kevin C. said

    My guess: the great satirist himself.

  27. Kevin C. said

    P.S. They should make Chuck-baiting an Olympic sport.

  28. Rachel Custer said

    I am Jack’s smirking revenge.

  29. Erkki KochKetola said

    Not me, either. I’m not big enough to be Chuck’s ego.

  30. Kevin C. said

    And I’m not talented enough to be Chuck’s spelling coach.

  31. Rachel Custer said

    I’m disappointed in you guys. Nobody caught the awesome fight club reference?

  32. Chuck's complete lack of surprise said

    Caught it. Wasn’t surprised.

  33. Chuck Norton said

    I see that once again, as always, Sam will not address the facts presented and the argument that he cannot handle.

    So Sam, how does it feel to get your head (figuratively speaking) handed back to you by me on a platter in post after post? How does it feel to have almost every assertion or belief that you cling to in your constructed reality shattered by the verifiable facts that I present in The Vision regularly?

    Sam, how does it feel to simply not have what it takes between the ears to actually levy an honest argument, or do a little homework to make your case, in a manner that is effective?

    How does it feel to be batting a ZERO? So far you and your friends have been unable to demonstrate with verifiable evidence that even a single fact or assertion or reasoned argument in any article that I have ever written is incorrect.

    You guys want to ignore the argument and make comments about my ego. I hate to break it to you guys but you are partially to blame. You see, every time that you engage me you get owned and I laugh at you, and others who read this blog laugh at you. Not to worry, my head does not swell a great deal from defeating intellectual light weights who don’t do their homework.

    Even if every single thing that you have every said about me is true and I am a big fat jerk, it still does not change the simple fact that in the arena of facts and ideas I have defeated you, your lies, and your partisan assertions every single time.

    You don’t have what it takes to defeat me, so you try to disqualify me by calling me names and such. Such cowardly tactics only demonstrate a greater truth about you. Do not let me discourage you though because I so much enjoy laughing at you while I defeat your point of view every time a new article is posted.

    As always, thanks for reading :-)

  34. Chuck's Critical Side said

    Listen buddy. You write some newspaper collumn for a small newspaper at a commuter campus. Pipe down already.

  35. Chuck's Ego said

    Never! I am Napoleon!

  36. Chuck's Critical Side said

    But didn’t Napoleon actually win battles against real people, and not just cybor-battles on some commuter campus’ newspaper website? And I’m not even sure you’ve won here.

  37. Chuck's Ego said

    Shut up! You’re so small critical side. I will vanquish you. And then I’ll take Russia!

  38. Chuck's Critical Side said

    OMG! Somebody call the cops!

  39. Chuck's Spelling Coach said

    Nice work on that last post, Chuck. You’re almost ready for the third grade Spelling Bee now.

  40. Chuck's Ego said

    I’ll pound those little twerps! Bring it!

  41. Chuck's Boyfriend said

    Can I come?

  42. Chuck's Repressed Side said

    You don’t exist. You don’t exist. You don’t exist.

  43. Bill O'Reilly said

    Nice work there Chuck. When you graduate from writing collumns for the student paper, you can have a job wiping my spittel from the faces of my interviewees. You’ve earned it.

  44. Kevin C. said

    Heh. Apparenly Bill O’Reilly could use a spelling coach. It’s “columns” and “spittle.”

  45. Kevin C. said

    “Apparently.” Sorry.

  46. Rachel Custer said

    Kevin C.,

    Your last two posts made me laugh out loud – always an admirable quality in my book. But seriously, whoever is posting as “Chuck’s this and Chuck’s that,” I think it’s a little low to imply things about Chuck’s sexuality, presumably as an insult. Even if Chuck DID have a boyfriend, which I believe is as far from reality as it can get, why would that be an appropriate way to insult him? Let’s not allow this blog to become the kind where attacks on people’s actions in the bedroom become open fodder for cheap shots. Engaging in discussion about homosexuality, as we have done on occasion, is a far cry from anonymously insulting someone by calling them gay. There are people who would not feel being gay is an insult. So let’s try to be respectful of their feelings, please.

    Once again, this is MY post; Chuck had nothing to do with my opinion, and let me assure you once again, as far as I know, Chuck is NOT gay. But we may have readers who are, and even if they don’t find your post about Chuck’s boyfriend offensive, I do.

    Thank you and have a nice day.

  47. Rachel Custer said

    Kevin C.,

    Only that first part was meant for you. The other should have been separated as a reply to the anonymous person. Sorry about that.

  48. Chuck Norton said

    Rachel,

    All they are doing is showing us what they are really all about.

    However for the benefit of normal people who read the blog, perhaps it is time we formed a policy on trolling. Perhaps we could move all such posts to a trolls section for those who just want to post hate without substance.

  49. Kevin C. said

    I agree.

  50. Sam said

    Nigh nigh

  51. Erkki KochKetola said

    I concur, but I think that Chuck would be foolish to advocate too strongly for such a policy, since nearly all of his posts would be shunted into said section.

  52. Anonymous said

    Chuck Norton wrote: “You see, every time that you engage me you get
    owned and I laugh at you, and others who read this blog laugh at you.”

    I’ve been reading this blog for a while now, and have seen several
    respondents make a serious attempt to engage Chuck. I have yet to see
    Chuck demonstrate understanding of the criticism levied against him.
    Out of apparent frustration, the serious posters either go away, or
    resort to mocking the surreal nature of discourse with Chuck

    Yet he seems to sincerely believe that he has defeated his opponents on
    both rhetoric and substance in every instance. Further, he believes
    that other readers share this view.

    I don’t doubt that many agree with his political views (e.g. the editors
    of the Vision), but it is hard for me to believe that anyone reading the
    discussions here concur that he has effectively articulated his case and
    rationally supported it in response to his detractors.

    So I’m left wondering, are there really readers out there who believe
    that Chuck makes coherent arguments?

  53. Kevin C. said

    Anonymous,
    I’ve noted this before, namely in the last post on the following thread:
    https://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/the-irish-miracle-how-ireland-went-from-economic-basket-case-to-masterpiece/#comments
    Jokes aside, I do agree that it’s a bit odd that Mr. Norton thinks that the majority of readers agree with him. In fact, I think I’ve only ever seen one poster (his name was Brett Matrix, I believe) who has approved of anything Mr. Norton said. Now granted, I haven’t been here for the entirety of this blog. And, in fact, Mr. Norton could well be right that there is some silent majority that supports him. I don’t see any reason to believe this, but it is a real possibility. I’m curious myself, so I suggest a moratorium on posting from the usual crowd for, say, the next two days. If there are indeed people who regularly read, but never post, please take this as an opportunity, free of any criticism, to post in support of Mr. Norton. If no one posts in support, it doesn’t necessarily prove anything, but either way, it will be an interesting to see what happens.

  54. Craig Chamberlin said

    Interesting…

    As many of you can probably tell, I haven’t had much time to take an active role in the web-blogging this semester. I can honestly say my grades suffered last semester as a result. Although it was very educational.

    It is interesting to request support from Chuck’s readers on a weblog usually surrounded with dissent. After all, a reader who picks up an article and agrees with it is probably much less likely to get on and make posts to said writer. However, if someone disagrees with the writer they are far more inclined to do as such.

    The repetative bashing of Chuck on this weblog illustrates a few interesting points to me:

    1) The need to reaffirm ones opinions by finding others who accept their own.

    2) The need to post insults as a measure of ones character and writings rather than addressing the meritous quality of the work in a balanced forum.

    3) The lack of respect for the intended writer – merely illustrating a skewed perspective on opinions. In this, it simply illustrates that no matter what Chuck writes at this point, those who continually return to disagree with him will all ‘argue’ and ‘hiss’ at him for his “ignorance” and “bloviating?”.

    At this, it is easy to point out the individuals posting the expected insultive opinions on Chuck’s written pieces have rendered their own opinions useless. It is obvious they show a bias towards Chuck personally, so they will be unable to illustrate a commendable argument resulting in fair dissent.

    Unfair dissent, of course, is useless dissent – it points to lack of both willpower and maturity, which easily leaks into ones interpretation of credibility of the individual doing the dissenting.

    Therefore, it is necessary for me to express my concern for the previous posts and to encourage those who openly criticize Chuck’s character to remember your ‘frankness’ about him discredits your arguments in the long run and in doing so, actually strengthens Chucks.

    Individuals can draw their own conclusions about both Chuck and his writing, they do not need someone to act as a mediator to tell them how they should interpret his writing. It is one thing to point out facts contradicting what he is arguing, it is quite another to draw him out to be a belligerent sociopath.

    This is really my input on the matter. Good to see people still participating! :)

  55. Craig Chamberlin said

    Pardon the spelling errors…

  56. Sam said

    This will be my last post on the IUSB Vision.

    Craig and Rachel, good luck in all you do.

    Sincerely,

    Sam

  57. Craig Chamberlin said

    Rachel,

    The Fight Club reference rocked – I laughed out loud on that one… probably going to have to go back and watch it again this weekend now…

  58. Craig Chamberlin said

    Sam,

    Sorry to see you go…

    – Craig

  59. Anonymous said

    Your point about Chuck bashing is well taken. However, I posed my question to readers in response to the follow assertion, made by Chuck: “…and others who read this blog laugh at you.” I agree with you that it was a silly request, but keep in mind that it was in response to an absurd statement.

  60. Craig Chamberlin said

    Anonymous,

    Individuals will draw their conclusions from the things Chuck says, and in this particular case, I am aware of his aggressiveness and can see the hindering effect it has on a balanced forum, which in turn hinders the strength of his arguments. However, I do not think it is pertinent for others to point out these particular points, as they can be assessed without it being pointed out. In pointing them out, the dissenters really only create a bias for themselves against Chuck’s writing and it only ends up hindering their argument in the end. Many will find that if they respond respectively to someone who does not address them respectively they will have the stronger credibility simply out of meritous behavior and in turn, have a stronger influence in their arguments.

    I know that Chuck has a knack for talking aggressively to those who disagree with him, and although I understand the basis by which he does this, I also understand most reasonable people do not agree with some of his assertations about those who disagree with him.

    However, when those individuals come back in anger and/or personal attacks, it inevitably has a knack for revealing their character. I believe Chuck is a ‘draw-out’ kind of guy, in which he attempts to draw out those who blindy follow their idealogue though assertations. As I said, I can understand his basis or ‘strategy’ for this. Most people simply think he is bloviating, but in reality, there is a method to his madness.

    Thanks for your posts.

  61. Craig Chamberlin said

    Let me note that this is my personal evaluation on this, I haven’t confirmed any of the things I posted with Chuck nor is he in any way associated with the content of my posts.

    Like my disclaimer? :)

  62. Rachel Custer said

    Sam,

    I will miss you terribly.

    Craig,

    Some good points, and I’m glad you enjoyed the Fight Club reference. I do think we need to be a little careful, though, to acknowledge that there have been many posters who have attempted to address points in Chuck’s writing intellectually, and have not simply attacked his character. I think part of the issue is that sometimes Chuck’s responses to these posts have seemed to be much the same as his responses to posts that attack his character. Disagreeing with an argument does not equal an attack on character, and sometimes Chuck appears to address these disagreements with his arguments as if they are. So we need to be careful to say that your post, while it makes some good points, certainly does not apply to everyone who has ever disagreed with Chuck. By the way, this statement applies to anybody, not just Chuck; it just happens that the current discussion is about his article. Thanks for your comments.

    Rachel

  63. Anonymous said

    Craig,

    I appreciate your clarification, but it wasn’t necessary (at least not for me): I’m pretty sure I agree with your point. In fact, I think what you’re saying is compatible with much of the intending meaning of my post.

    By saying, “Out of apparent frustration, the serious posters either go away, or resort to mocking the surreal nature of discourse with Chuck”, I did not mean to endorse Chuck bashing. I simply meant it as an observation.

    As Rachel mentioned in her very nice post, several individuals have tried to criticize Chuck’s arguments and style without resorting to personal attacks. Chuck has not responded in kind, and from what I can tell, those posters have indeed gone away. Certainly some posters have allowed their arguments to degenerate into silly personal attacks, and I agree with your assessment that such tactics diminish the value of the poster’s serious arguments.

  64. […] After Action Report refutes that statement because it makes it clear that there was no plan" Clinton Top Man at National Security Stole Documents to Thwart 9/11 Commission The IUSB Vision Weblo… The MFkers knew, and didn't do shit about it. Why? __________________ Those who can make you […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: