Patterico's Pontifications

5/21/2021

bin Laden Leaning Towards Opposing Formation of September 11 Commission

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



ABBOTTABAD — Osama bin Laden on Tuesday signaled possible opposition to legislation that would establish an independent commission to investigate the deadly September 11, 2001 attacks that left nearly 3,000 Americans dead.

Speaking from a secure compound in Abbottabad, bin Laden told a reporter that he had not yet read the bill. “You think I have time for this? I’m looking to the future. By noon today I had already reviewed five plans to bring America to its knees, and people keep trying to distract me with questions about this commission. We need to stop dwelling on the past and get back to the issues that matter: killing infidels by the thousands.”

bin Laden said: “I’m worried about what it would do to America, this country that we all hate so much, to have a so-called independent commission that ultimately turns into a partisan political weapon that continues to exacerbate these tensions and divide people even more.” Stroking his beard thoughtfully, bin Laden added: “Because in a way, it sort of contributes to the very environment that made that day possible.”

bin Laden brushed aside a reporter’s citation of a recent interview in which bin Laden had said: “If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists.” Asked about that statement, bin Laden said: “Look, everybody has some responsibility. If you think about it, we are all terrorists.” Asked if that constituted an admission of responsibility, bin Laden said: “Look, I get that you guys in the media like to focus on this. It’s the only thing the Fake News ever talks about. But if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from September 11, and you don’t focus on the part where the planes hit the buildings, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.”

Ultimately, bin Laden said he understood people’s desire to get to the bottom of the historic terror attacks, but plans to oppose the bill due to concerns that the September 11 commission will be used as a partisan vehicle to blame al Qaeda. He added that he had concerns about how staffers would be chosen.

198 Responses to “bin Laden Leaning Towards Opposing Formation of September 11 Commission”

  1. Heh!

    nk (1d9030)

  2. democracy is hard

    JF (e1156d)

  3. So, wait.

    9/11 = 1/6?
    the GOP = Bin Laden?

    I see a bit of perspective loss here.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  4. Ooops. That’s not quite right.

    the GOP = al Qaeda?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  5. democracy is hard

    And it’s harder when the loser of an election conducts an Orwellian disinformation campaign making baseless allegations of fraud instead of conceding.

    Dave (1542be)

  6. I see a bit of perspective loss here.

    Are you looking in the mirror?

    Patrick’s point, obviously, is that giving the people who conspired to bring about 1/6 a veto over the investigation of 1/6 is as absurd as giving bin Laden a veto over the 9/11 investigation would have been.

    Dave (1542be)

  7. It also makes the point that the so-called Republican party is as remorseful about their responsibility for 1/6 as bin Laden was about his responsibility for 9/11 (i.e. not at all).

    Dave (1542be)

  8. @6 yes, that’s exactly the point of the post

    a classic begging the question fallacy

    you already know who the conspirators are, so what’s to investigate?

    for those displaying performative outrage at 1/6, this is hilarious

    JF (e1156d)

  9. Is surprise to any comrades that Trumpsheviks see everything as show?

    nk (1d9030)

  10. Newsweek, ON 1/16/21 AT 7:51 PM EST

    https://www.newsweek.com/trump-supporting-bin-laden-niece-claims-presidents-daring-followers-finish-coup-1562162

    Noor bin Laden, a niece of terrorist Osama bin Laden and avid supporter of President Donald Trump, has posted to Telegram a claim that the president is “daring” his fans to “finish the coup.”

    Actually, this reads it wrong. The “them” who she said Trump was daring to “finish the coup” were Joe Biden and the Democrats, and the gates and the fence they were supposedly being dared to go through and might never come out of were the White House gates. Doesn’t anyone at Newsweek have good reading comprehension?

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  11. Patrick’s point, obviously, is that giving the people who conspired to bring about 1/6 a veto over the investigation of 1/6 is as absurd as giving bin Laden a veto over the 9/11 investigation would have been.

    Dave (1542be) — 5/21/2021 @ 9:27 am

    Which Republicans exactly are like Bin Laden, someone who planned an attack that killed 3,000 Americans? Which Republicans planned 1/6? Which Republicans pledged to destroy the United States as Bin Laden did?

    I’ll wait for your list of Republicans who planned 1/6, as well as the facts that underpin the list.

    Hoi Polloi (121542)

  12. I think there needs to be a new version of Godwin’s Law, comparing X to 9/11. It is horrific to compare the GOP to al qaeda. It would be like comparing the LAPD to the Totenkopf SS.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  13. @11 let’s be fair, it’s an analogy

    it’s not equating republicans to bin laden

    however it’s equating a democratic process where there isn’t enough votes (by politicians with constituents) to push a commission forward, to bin laden giving a thumbs down to his own investigation

    even as an analogy, it’s an assault on democracy

    oh the irony

    JF (e1156d)

  14. https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/sns-worldtrade-binladen-lat-story.html

    Chicago Tribune | OCT 05, 2001 AT 2:00 AM

    Of all the mysteries surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the most mysterious may be the most basic: What did the terrorists hope to achieve?

    Not on the list, but one thing they accomplished was preventing Donald Trump from getting a loan to build the world’s tallest building in Chicago.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  15. LMAO, this will leave a mark.

    Time123 (52fb0e)

  16. Which Republicans exactly are like Bin Laden, someone who planned an attack that killed 3,000 Americans? Which Republicans planned 1/6? Which Republicans pledged to destroy the United States as Bin Laden did?

    I’ll wait for your list of Republicans who planned 1/6, as well as the facts that underpin the list.

    I’ll let Patrick explain to you what an analogy is (and isn’t).

    He’s very good at it, because he gets so much practice.

    Dave (1542be)

  17. Of all the mysteries surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the most mysterious may be the most basic: What did the terrorists hope to achieve?

    What they did achieve. Keeping the Middle East in the seventh century a while longer by strengthening the Middle East monarchies and theocracies and destroying the nascent technocracies of Iraq, Syria, Libya and to some extent Egypt; drawing the United States into a protracted war of attrition which has killed another 7,000 soldiers; and radically curtailing our freedoms at home.

    nk (1d9030)

  18. When you think about it, what this orange clown did was fly an airplane into the Electoral College but, hopefully, incompetent clown that he is, the damage will not be as severe or permanent.

    nk (1d9030)

  19. The Dispatch article linked in Patrick’s post is worth reading.

    Most of the so-called Republicans who say they oppose have no idea what the 19-page bill says, and most of their putative objections fly in the face of the actual wording.

    Dave (1542be)

  20. He’s very good at it, because he gets so much practice.

    Dave (1542be) — 5/21/2021 @ 10:07 am

    Nice deflection! You are the Iron Dome of commenters.

    Hoi Polloi (121542)

  21. 17. nk (1d9030) — 5/21/2021 @ 10:13 am

    What they did achieve.

    I thik it could be what they wanted to achieve by 9/11 was entrenching the Taliban in power/ It followed by two days the assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance by fake reporters.

    When the United States did virtually nothing, even after the Pentagon was attacked, the people fighting against the Taliban would give up hope of getting help from the United States.

    Only things didn’t work out that way.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  22. I thik it could be what they wanted to achieve by 9/11 was entrenching the Taliban in power/ It followed by two days the assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance by fake reporters.

    Maybe, but when you look at Operation Bojinka, you realize that AQ had its sights set on a spectacular aviation strike for years. Entrenching the Taliban may have been one of the marginal factors for 9/11, but I don’t think it was a primary or even driving factor.

    AQ really seemed intent on bringing down planes.

    Hoi Polloi (121542)

  23. @17. What they did achieve.

    Exposing how a world class nuclear superpower’s costly, multi-trillion dollar defense and intelligence complex could be beaten by 19 dudes with $500,000 and a little imagination.

    Run, buddy, run; save the podium! Royalists gotta royal.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  24. The basis for this analogy is that Trump’s words led to insurrection:

    From refusing to condemn white supremacists, to boosting the Proud Boys and QAnon, refusing to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power and urging his supporters to ‘Stop the Steal’, the group says the president ‘inspired’ the violence that shocked the world.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  25. 22. Yes. it’s true. a; Qaeda wanted to do it for years. Entrenching the Taliban was probably why the Pentagon was added tp the target lost, and why it got the go-ahead.

    Saudi intelligence was also probably involved. The long term (24 years, although I a caim f 23 years and a start date of 2979 instead of 1977) head of Saudi intelligence, Turki bin Faisal Al Saud. was abruptly fired just 10 days before 9/11 – too late to find out or quietly undo whatever he had done.

    The Congressional report on 9/11 had a classified section about knowledge by Saudis

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/15/911-report-saudi-arabia-28-pages-released

    Publishing the long-awaited pages 13 years after they were first classified, the White House insisted they show no link between Saudi Arabia and the hijackers who carried out the terrorist attacks. The pages put into the public domain the remaining unseen section of the 2002 report, from the joint congressional inquiry into intelligence community activities before and after the 9/11 attacks.

    “This information does not change the assessment of the US government that there’s no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals funded al-Qaida,” said Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary. “The number one takeaway from this should be that this administration is committed to transparency even when it comes to sensitive information related to national security.”

    The New York Times wrote about it at the beginning of the year 2020:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/magazine/9-11-saudi-arabia-fbi.html

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  26. Unarmed insurrectionistas… just like 9/11!

    The rock-ribbed conservatism is overwhelming.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  27. @24 yes, that would be the right basis if we were also allowed to say blm tweets and rhetoric led to the murder of five cops in dallas or democrat tweets and rhetoric led to the softball shooting, but we’re not

    JF (e1156d)

  28. DRJ @25. The author of that article doesn’t even seem to know there was an actual rally with a permit that was scheduled to take place at the Capitol.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20210106005050/https://wildprotest.com

    In fact it even did happen, although mostly anti-vaxxers spoke.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/26/us/far-right-extremism-anti-vaccine.html

    …On Jan. 6, while rioters advanced on the Capitol, numerous leading figures in the anti-vaccination movement were onstage nearby, holding their own rally to attack both the election results and Covid-19 vaccinations.

    Events overshadowed their protest, but at least one outspoken activist, Dr. Simone Gold of Beverly Hills, Calif., was charged with breaching the Capitol…

    That wasn’t a separate rally.

    That was the rally where Trump was supposed to speak – that was what he meant when he said to the people at the rallly at the Ellipse thar he would be there

    But he didn’t show up. Alex Jones is somewhere on video, with Ali Alexander, the man who got the permit for the Capitol rally, trying or pretending to try to direct the crowd to where Trump was scheduled to speak.

    A very important question is when did Trump cancel his appearance, or, for that matter, if he ever really going to go there at all, which, if he wasn’t, would probably make him part of a conspiracy if he was never going to go there that day. But he didn’t cause it by his words and his tweets (except for creating a high stakes vote that everyone knew he was going to lose) It is impossible to do so by mere words.

    Neither did Osama bin Laden cause 9/11 by anything he said in public, by the way. He planned a lot of it and personally vetted all the hijackers.

    The assault on the Capitol was planned week before and the attackers went directly to the Capitol.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/us/capitol-riot-funding.html

    Keith Lee, an Air Force veteran and former police detective, spent the morning of Jan. 6 casing the entrances to the Capitol….By noon, he was reporting that “backup” was already arriving, bypassing the Trump speech and rally. The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were among the groups that went directly to the Capitol.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  29. This reads like a segment that was recently dropped from Tucker Carlson’s show on the grounds that “Nobody would understand it.”

    John B Boddie (edb089)

  30. Oswald Leaning Towards Opposing Formation Of A ‘Warren Commission’

    Dallas, TX — Lee Harvey Oswald on Saturday signaled possible opposition to legislation or an executive order that would establish an independent commission, possibly headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, to investigate the deadly assassination attack that left President John F. Kennedy dead and John Connolly, governor of Texas, seriously wounded.

    Speaking from a safe, clean and secure location in the Dallas Police headquarters, Oswald told a reporter that he had not yet read the particulars, asked for a lawyer, been denied a shower nor ever heard of some one named J.D. Tippit. “You think I have time for this? I’m looking to the future. By noon today I had already done five interviews denying any involvent, insisting I shot nobody, asked for legal assistance and people keep trying to distract me with questions about this commission. We need to stop dwelling on the past and get back to the issues that matter: fair play for Cuba.”

    Oswald said: “I’m worried about what it would do to America, this country that I defended as a United States Marine, left for Russia and then returned to by choice, to have a so-called independent commission that ultimately turns into a partisan political weapon that continues to exacerbate tensions and divide people even more.” Stroking his t-shirt thoughtfully, Oswald added: “Because in a way, it sort of contributes to the very environment that made yesterday possible. I’m chilled. Anybody got a sweater?”

    Oswald brushed aside a reporter’s citation of a recent interview in which Oswald had said: “I am a Marxist but that does not mean I’m a communist…” Asked about that statement, Oswald said: “Look, everybody has some responsibility. If you think about it, we are all Marxists. Ask the policeman who hit me. Ask your boss. Ask your wife. Ask my wife– she was Russian born.” Asked if that constituted an admission of responsibility, Oswald said: “Look, I get that you guys in the press like to focus on this. So I lived in Russia for a while and worked in Dealey Plaza. It’s the only thing the media ever talks about. I was a Marine; Semper Fi! I defended America! But if you didn’t know the news footage was film from yesterday, and you don’t focus on the part where Mr. Kennedy’s head explodes, you would actually think it was a routine motorcade ride through the city of Dallas.”

    Ultimately, citizen Oswald said he understood people’s desire to get to the bottom of the historic killings, but plans to oppose any E.O. or bill due to concerns that a ‘Warren commission’ as it will likely be called, will be used as a partisan vehicle to cover up motives, fuel conspiracy theories and blame Oswald alone. He added that he had concerns about how staffers would be chosen. “Nobody’s gonna stop me from talking about this. Gotta go; my ride to the County Jail is here– in an armored car no less.”

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  31. This is hilarious.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  32. So, wait.

    9/11 = 1/6?
    the GOP = Bin Laden?

    I see a bit of perspective loss here.

    If only I had written over the years about the difference between analogies and equivalencies, I could have educated you better and spared you the embarrassment of making a comment like this.

    Patterico (e349ce)

  33. Unarmed insurrectionistas… just like 9/11!

    The rock-ribbed conservatism is overwhelming.

    Same.

    Patterico (e349ce)

  34. Which Republicans exactly are like Bin Laden, someone who planned an attack that killed 3,000 Americans? Which Republicans planned 1/6? Which Republicans pledged to destroy the United States as Bin Laden did?

    I’ll wait for your list of Republicans who planned 1/6, as well as the facts that underpin the list.

    Same.

    Patterico (e349ce)

  35. That said, I hope you are doing well, Haiku.

    Patterico (e349ce)

  36. Some gestures toward reality:

    Osama bin Laden was not in Abbottabad until 2005.

    A better analogy would be Pakistan or Saudi Arabia opposing a 9/11 commission.

    The 9/11 commission and other investigations happened because it didn’t look likely that there would be a prosecution soon and because there were other, non-criminal questions.

    The Warren Commission happened because Oswald was shot dead. Oswald wanted the Communist Party’s lawyer to be his lawyer, John Abt. (possible conspiracy theory: Oswald felt he would be defended like the Rosenbergs because somebody had lied to him about who wanted the assassination. And the planners of the assassination, had already lined up a lawyer for him: Former New York State Assemblyman Mark Lane, who didn’t want to give up the gig just because Oswald had been shot and killed. The planners included the Executive Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party Eugene Locke, who had used his old college roommate, Governor John Connally, to alter the route of the parade so that it would pass by the Texas School Book Depository – Connally didn’t know the real reason for the change in plans and neither did LBJ. Oswald was a fallback plan that he “lucked into” because George de Mohrenschildt had once told him about Oswald probably shooting at General Walker, and he decided to try him after the original assassins had backed out. This makes much more sense than anyhthing Oliver Stone ever came up with.)
    a

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  37. @24 yes, that would be the right basis if we were also allowed to say blm tweets and rhetoric led to the murder of five cops in dallas or democrat tweets and rhetoric led to the softball shooting, but we’re not

    JF (e1156d) — 5/21/2021 @ 11:36 am

    We are also not allowed to question the origins of the COVID virus – how dare you say it could have come from a lab!

    But now…scientists are saying it’s not outside the realm of possibility.

    Maybe the country is better off if a bunch of j-school graduates are not the gatekeepers of facts, opinion, information/disinformation/misinformation.

    Hoi Polloi (121542)

  38. A better analogy would be Pakistan or Saudi Arabia opposing a 9/11 commission.

    I think the best analogy for Republicans opposing a 1/6 Commission would be the GOP opposing a Watergate Commission.

    Hoi Polloi (121542)

  39. 37. Hoi Polloi (121542) — 5/21/2021 @ 12:39 pm

    We are also not allowed to question the origins of the COVID virus – how dare you say it could have come from a lab!

    They’re turning around in this because…

    There’s no other answer.

    And it explains the Chinese secrecy on this. Not only is it an important state secret, but the fact that it is a secret is also a secret.

    https://nypost.com/2021/05/20/psaki-wont-say-if-evidence-disproves-covid-wuhan-lab-leak-theory

    “I will say that our view continues to be that there needs to be an independent, transparent investigation and that needs to happen with the cooperation and data provided from the Chinese government,” Psaki continued. “We don’t have enough information at this point to make an assessment.”

    It is so sensitive that President Biden doesn’t want to say anything about China not co-operating with an investigation. But why should it be so sensitive?

    But the Republicans and others have the wrong lab in mind. It wasn’t the Wuhan Institute of Virology, located 8-9 miles from the seafood market that was first scapegoated. I think the research was moved.from where I think, the researchers were forced to stop by the director, but the Wuhan Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, located about 300 yards from the seafood market

    I think the research was moved to get away from the director, and it was successfully moved because the research had the backing of someone in the military.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  40. 38. Hoi Polloi (121542) — 5/21/2021 @ 12:46 pm

    I think the best analogy for Republicans opposing a 1/6 Commission would be the GOP opposing a Watergate Commission.

    A good one,

    And Nixon did not authorize the Watergate break-in. (There’s not much of a cover-up here, though.)

    But unclear are any links between some of the planners of the storming of the Capitol and President Trump. Trump was associated with the rally that was part of the cover for the assault.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  41. If only I had written over the years about the difference between analogies and equivalencies, I could have educated you better and spared you the embarrassment of making a comment like this.

    I am in no way embarrassed by my comment. I would be embarrassed had I written that post. YMMV.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  42. Nancy Pelosi is in charge of Capitol security. Trump offered her National Guard support which she refused.

    Perhaps they’ll get to the bottom of it. Heh.

    It’s all a distraction, being milked as part of the three card monte games employed while the leftist agenda is being implemented. Clear-eyed Americans – no axe to grind – understand this.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  43. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/21/2021 @ 1:27 pm

    Nancy Pelosi is in charge of Capitol security. Trump offered her National Guard support which she refused.

    There is some issue with that. A day or two before. Not clear how much Trump was involved, or Nancy Pelosi, who is only in charge of the House sergeant-at-arms.

    But here’s a story from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

    https://www.inquirer.com/politics/nation/capitol-insurrection-police-chief-wanted-backup-denied-house-senate-sergeants-at-arms-20210111.html

    WASHINGTON — Two days before Congress was set to formalize President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund was growing worried about the size of the pro-Trump crowds expected to stream into the District of Columbia in protest.

    To be on the safe side, Sund asked House and Senate security officials for permission to request that the D.C. National Guard be placed on standby in case he needed quick backup.

    But, Sund said Sunday, they turned him down….House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving said he was not comfortable with the “optics” of formally declaring an emergency before the demonstration, Sund said. Meanwhile, Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger suggested that Sund informally seek his Guard contacts, asking them to “lean forward” and be on alert in case Capitol Police needed their help.

    So it wasn’t any offer by Trump -it was a request by the Capitol police to request help.

    But everybody knows this took people by surprise.

    They thought they knew what the Proud Boys and s on would do: Fight with counter demonstrators, like they had before.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  44. Speaking from a secure compound in Abbottabada cold place in hell, bin Laden

    FIFY

    frosty (f27e97)

  45. As the posts turn…

    “If only I had written over the years about the difference between analogies and equivalencies”

    If only you could make analogies that weren’t lazy and equivalencies that weren’t stretched at best and false at worst, you might stand a chance of convincing someone rather than spending all your time explaining yourself, or posturing about ‘logical fallacies’.

    Regrettably, you’ve spend too much time with the Democrats, the type who think ‘Jesusland,’ ‘GQP’, and ‘Moscow Mitch’ is the highest form of reply. I’d recommend reading the Babylon Bee, they at least do some work on making metaphors fit.

    Dems approve $1.9B for post-Jan. 6 Capitol security

    House Democrats on Thursday passed a $1.9 billion emergency funding bill intended to fortify the U.S. Capitol[…]

    The measure includes long-term crisis planning elements, such as the creation of a new quick-reaction team that would essentially create a standing force of the D.C. National Guard, many of whom have been stationed at the Capitol for months.

    Or, as smart people might say:

    “Anti-fascists” get small taste of what a real angry mob of representative citizens looks like, immediately move to establish a Praetorian Guard.

    (That was a combination of both a metaphor and equivalency, which has the benefit of being both a powerful imaginative association with real people and true. If you want to reach Babylon Bee heights of cameraderie and shared understanding with people who aren’t in your immediate circle of friends, I suggest you brush up on them.)

    Wordforger (435664)

  46. “real angry mob of representative citizens”

    thinking emoji

    Davethulhu (ba45be)

  47. OT: The Chicago Tribune company, which owns the New York Daily News, among other papers, has been sold.

    It was predicted before it will lead to a shrinkage of the newshole and a downward spiral with an attempt to put much online, Exceptions could be any newspapers spun off to be sold.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  48. Let me see if I understand this.

    In the analogy OSB is Trump.
    The Taliban terrorists are the terrorists who attacked the capital.
    Islamic terrorist sympathizers are Trump supporters.

    That’s the analogy right?

    That’s pretty clear and while you’re not explicitly saying that Trump supporters are equivalent to Islamic terrorists sympathizers its’ reasonable for people are Trump supports to feel hurt at the comparison. After all, the only thing they have in common with Islamic terrorist sympathizers is that both groups have no love for the US and it’s laws when those laws don’t lead to the outcome that they want.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  49. Hoi, you’re allowed to question or say anything you like. We’re a country with free speech. And just like you’re allowed to think I’m a a$$hole for the things I say, other people are allowed to think ill of you if they conclude your interest in the origin of virus is motivated in xenophobia, animas toward Chinese people, and a desire to find a scapegoat for mistakes our government made in the beginning.

    To be clear; I don’t think that of you, because I’ve gotten to know you through your comments. But that does seem to be a motivation for a lot of people doing it.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  50. Any number of analogies would work. The Mafia opposed the Valachi hearings? “Right, yeah! Buffah! The Family had a lotta buffahs!”

    nk (1d9030)

  51. origins of covid, which has killed millions: who cares, move on, don’t scapegoat, racist
    origins of 1/6, which has killed one: must investigate to the ends of the earth, or you hate ‘merica and it’s laws!!!!

    JF (e1156d)

  52. DRJ (03cb91) — 5/21/2021 @ 11:02 am

    Then it’s just a continued lie that was broadcast by the media when they claimed Trump didn’t condemn white supremacists and alleged he just said “there are bad people on both sides ” when the full clip shows the exact opposite.

    NJRob (50623e)

  53. Well, frankly, I want to know what happened. The entire day was a charlie-foxtrot and I want to know why and who was responsible and for it not to happen again, especially non-security non-response.

    Nic (896fdf)

  54. Nic,

    Once someone falls in love with a politician, they’re willing to ignore all kinds of things. Hence, the effort to minimize or whitewash January 6th. That’s much easier than it is to admit that one has fallen for a false god.

    I see this phenomenon in my sister’s marriage. She controls my brother-in-law like there’s no tomorrow. He is in love with her so he just doesn’t see it, or sees it but accepts it. I couldn’t put up with her for five minutes.

    Never, ever fall in love with a politician. Fall in love with principles. That way, one doesn’t have to contort oneself into a pretzel while trying to defend the negative aspects of a politician.

    norcal (6e6099)

  55. I am in no way embarrassed by my comment. I would be embarrassed had I written that post. YMMV.

    It does. My mileage is that responding to analogies by treating them as equivalencies is always and everywhere a lazy, stupid, and intellectually dishonest argument. I have encouraged you to do better, but you’re not interested. So be it.

    Patterico (e349ce)

  56. If anyone wants to challenge the analogy as an analogy, feel free. Treating it like an equivalence is third-grade stuff and frankly I find it embarrassing.

    Patterico (e349ce)

  57. I neglected to commend you on this fine piece, Patterico.

    norcal (6e6099)

  58. Thanks norcal.

    I realize I am being pretty sharp with the people treating the analogy as an equivalency, but in my defense:

    1. That is a uniquely juvenile and stupid tactic, which has always annoyed me
    2. Those employing it are doing so with plenty of attitude, and zero self-reflection

    Patterico (e349ce)

  59. Wordforger,

    Which repeat troll are you pretending not to be?

    Patterico (e349ce)

  60. 2. Those employing it are doing so with plenty of attitude, and zero self-reflection

    Patterico (e349ce) — 5/21/2021 @ 6:35 pm

    That’s unfortunate. I can say, with gratitude, that this blog has changed my views. You almost persuaded me not to vote for Trump in 2016, but better four years late than never, right?

    I love the variety of opinion here, and I’m realizing more and more that what Jonah Goldberg said is true. We’re all blind people feeling an elephant, describing parts of the elephant but not the whole. Ideology has a lot to do with one’s focus and experience.

    norcal (6e6099)

  61. Treating it like an equivalence is third-grade stuff and frankly I find it embarrassing.

    It’s also weird when you consider how often we’ve heard that it’s totally wrong to take a certain person’s words literally. When he told people to put on a “wild” protest and “fight like hell!” he really meant “make your voices heard peacefully.” When Rudy said it was time for “trial by combat,” he meant it was time to be persuasive. And the people chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” really meant “Please give this matter further consideration.”

    Radegunda (aea52f)

  62. @norcal@54 Oh, I know. The thing is that there have been no politicians in my adult life that haven’t shown themselves to be fallible humans (sometimes very fallible, very human). Maybe someone who experienced the Kennedy or the Reagan worship might have a different idea about how politicians are, but Clinton was the first president I was really an adult for and God and everyone else knows he was not saint at all. (though, looking back, he wasn’t a bad president, just a lousy person). It’s hard for me to credit that idea that anyone my age or younger thinks of a president as a kind of demi-god, even though those people exist.

    Nic (896fdf)

  63. @60. Rest easy, norcal; it’s 2021: Jonah Goldberg is irrelevant.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  64. Well done, Radegunda!

    Trumpers would rather discuss Biden than the lie of the “stolen” election and the events of January 6th.

    I’ll be glad to talk about Biden once they admit that Trump lost, own up to Trump’s culpability for 1/6, and concede that somebody other than a gaslighting, malignant narcissist should lead the conservative cause.

    norcal (6e6099)

  65. Jonah Goldberg is irrelevant.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 5/21/2021 @ 6:57 pm

    I hate to say it, but that is more of a comment on you than him.

    norcal (6e6099)

  66. @64 we’d rather discuss the current president than the ex-president, and you’d rather not

    pretty much sums it up

    JF (b4548f)

  67. It’s hard for me to credit that idea that anyone my age or younger thinks of a president as a kind of demi-god, even though those people exist.

    Nic (896fdf) — 5/21/2021 @ 6:52 pm

    Yeah, I was being hyperbolic when I used the word “god”. Nonetheless, it is true that people fall in love with politicians, which is such a foolish thing to do. Sausage-making is an ugly business. Don’t make rock stars out of the sausage-makers.

    It’s very liberating to advocate principles instead of defending a politician. Just call balls and strikes instead of jumping in to the “us versus them” fray.

    norcal (6e6099)

  68. @66 One must first get the foundation in order before building anything. Trump is a foundation riddled with gaping holes.

    Were you one of those people who fell in love with Trump, JF? Did a shiver go down your leg when he descended the escalator and called Mexicans rapists and criminals, and said that Mexico would pay for the wall?

    norcal (6e6099)

  69. @62. Worship? Eisenhower was revered in Europe; when he died in 1969, the outpouring of adulation there for a U.S. president was stunning to see. Stateside, the old folks mourned FDR greatly– saving America in the 30’s, WW2 and all that; he was essentially the only president they’d known– though I did come across a cache of Dewey/Warren buttons belonging to a grandmother stashed in silk coin purse. Apparently she wasn’t wild about Harry. 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  70. @65. Keep believing that; it Trumps both of you.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  71. Tonight at 21 seconds after 9:21 PM it will be the 21st second of the 21st minute of the 21st hour of the 21st day of the month, and it will also be the 21st week of the 21st year of the 21st-century.

    norcal (6e6099)

  72. @71. So God plays Blackjack and shoots Craps.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  73. @68 your understanding of trump voters is apparently very deep

    JF (e1156d)

  74. @73 Do you believe that a significant number of Trump fans did not get excited at those words?

    norcal (6e6099)

  75. Some of Trump’s voters may be in love with him. The GOP muckety-mucks opposing the investigation know that they’re passing counterfeit coin.

    nk (1d9030)

  76. Whatever it takes, nk. Winning!

    norcal (6e6099)

  77. If anyone wants to challenge the analogy as an analogy, feel free. Treating it like an equivalence is third-grade stuff and frankly I find it embarrassing.
    Patterico (e349ce) — 5/21/2021 @ 6:07 pm

    It’s analogy on its face, but a pretty poor one. As someone who worked on the 9/11 investigation and saw its effects first hand, I would first say using 9/11 as an analogy or equivalence to anything simply does not work. It was an awful attack. Thousands of Americans killed. A Black Swan event wrapped in a Trojan Horse. I doubt Bin Laden (who fyi did little of the actual planning – you can thank KSM for the details of the attack) thought the towers would fall.

    I don’t think investigators after 1/6 were picking up bodies from people throwing themselves from buildings, or finding body parts from airplanes on the roofs of skyscrapers during 1/6, like they did on 9/11.

    Bin Laden wasn’t an American, he didn’t care about toppling our government, or stopping an election, or anything like that. Heck, he would have probably enjoyed the publicity of a commission if he hadn’t been sent fleeing from his camp in Afghanistan.

    I honestly don’t see how 9/11 is analogous to 1/6 in any way. Or how Bin Laden is analogous to any Republican in any way.

    I’m sure there is a better analogy for 1/6 out there, one that doesn’t include the world’s worst most infamous terrorist and terror attack ever.

    Hoi Polloi (b28058)

  78. I would first say using 9/11 as an analogy or equivalence to anything simply does not work.

    It’s not an equivalence. That’s the point.

    norcal (6e6099)

  79. Tonight at 21 seconds after 9:21 PM it will be the 21st second of the 21st minute of the 21st hour of the 21st day of the month, and it will also be the 21st week of the 21st year of the 21st-century.

    Yeah, but which time zone?

    Radegunda (aea52f)

  80. Very funny, Radegunda!

    norcal (6e6099)

  81. we’d rather discuss the current president than the ex-president, and you’d rather not
    pretty much sums it up

    Not when the ex-president is still trying to overturn the last election, and when the overwhelming majority of Trump voters still insist it was fraudulent, and when partisans in Arizona are conducting a farcical “audit” in an effort to find evidence of a stolen election, and when most of the GOP has elevated allegiance to the ex-president above any policy issue.

    Radegunda (aea52f)

  82. You said it better than I could, Radegunda. You’re like one of the Bronte sisters or something.

    norcal (6e6099)

  83. I honestly don’t see how 9/11 is analogous to 1/6 in any way. Or how Bin Laden is analogous to any Republican in any way.

    See, you’re getting it backward.

    Patrick didn’t say (as you allege):

    “Republicans are to bin Laden as 1/6 is to 9/11.”

    That, indeed, would be comparing Republicans to bin Laden and 1/6 to 9/11.

    But Patrick’s analogy was rather:

    “1/6 is to Republicans as 9/11 is to bin Laden.”

    See the difference?

    Dave (1542be)

  84. (Far be it for me to put words in Patrick’s mouth, but that’s how I interpret what he wrote)

    Dave (1542be)

  85. “1/6 is to Republicans as 9/11 is to bin Laden.”

    See the difference?

    Dave (1542be) — 5/21/2021 @ 8:21 pm

    I would substitute “Trump” for “Republicans”, but these days they’re kind of the same thing.

    norcal (6e6099)

  86. pretty much sums it up

    There’s also the way that many loyalists of the ex-president are basically rejecting the democratic process if it doesn’t go their way — just as the ex-president does. Some are speaking of secession or civil war or a military coup in approving tones.

    There’s a reason to keep speaking of how the ex-president is still fueling that attitude, and how the cultish devotion to him undermines an effective response on policy concerns.

    Radegunda (aea52f)

  87. You’re like one of the Bronte sisters or something.

    But without the imagination.

    Radegunda (aea52f)

  88. @DCSCA@69 Well, Ike was dead before I was born, so I don’t have much experience with that phenomenon either.

    Nic (896fdf)

  89. My mileage is that responding to analogies by treating them as equivalencies is always and everywhere a lazy, stupid, and intellectually dishonest argument.

    Even if true, I would not say something like that to you. Then again, it’s your blog, so you have the power.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  90. Simply calling something an analogy cannot separate the parts of the analogy.

    You could easily have picked an analogy that did not conflate a heinous crime that killed nearly 4000 innocent people with what amounted to a political demonstration, however extreme or out of control.

    You could have picked an analogy that did not contrast the actions of an American political party with the actions of a mass murdering terrorist.

    You did, however, and that choice was yours alone.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  91. what amounted to a political demonstration

    Seriously?

    lurker (59504c)

  92. Both were designed to harm American government. Trump and some Trump supporters thought government deserved it, just like bin Laden and his followers.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  93. Hoi Polloi and Kevin M, both hellbent on missing the point, manage to do so. It’s easy if you try!

    Dave explained the point well, but you guys aren’t even trying to understand. You’re basically telling me to go fuck myself with your responses. Don’t be surprised when you get a response in kind.

    Patterico (98df0d)

  94. @88. It had lot io w/liberating Europe in WW2. For the late 1960s, given the turbulent times, it was a genuine and remarkable outpouring to see.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  95. Here’s how I would explain it to a third-grader, which may be appropriate because that’s the level of understanding being displayed.

    I am not saying 1/6 is as bad as 9/11.

    I am saying you can’t expect people to participate in investigating themselves.

    This will be on the test so write the last sentence on the chalkboard either 100 times or until you understand it.

    Patterico (98df0d)

  96. You could have picked an analogy that did not contrast the actions of an American political party with the actions of a mass murdering terrorist.

    You did, however, and that choice was yours alone

    And the choice to pigheadedly pretend I was making an equivalence is yours alone, and it reflects very, very, very poorly on you. The longer you persist the worse you look.

    I am sorry I am not being more patient but when people combine aggressiveness with stupidity I push back. You might have noticed that about me.

    Patterico (98df0d)

  97. Seriously, if you were in a class and you were given a multiple choice test on “what does Patterico mean with this post?” and given the options

    A. People do not like to investigate thermseves, or
    B. 1/6 was as bad as 9/11

    are you seriously telling me you would select B?

    Really?

    You are deliberately trying to misunderstand and that kind of attitude deserves derision.

    Patterico (98df0d)

  98. Do better.

    Patterico (98df0d)

  99. @90. He was not making an effort at equivalence. It’s clearly an attempt at an analogy. Just fell short for the theatre of absurdity.

    Mine was better.

    Because it is wholly absurd–and funny.

    ‘Do better.’

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  100. As far as I can tell, none of the indictments of the over 400 arrested for the 1/6 riot show any connections to the Republican Party, but maybe things will change as time goes on. So I don’t think the reticence of the GOP to this 1/6 Commission has anything to do with guilt. It has everything to do with politics. The GOP does not want to allow the Democrats any opportunity to hang the events of 1/6 around the GOP’s neck anymore than it has. And of course the Democrats want to do this.

    Seeing as the 9/11 attacks were not a domestic event, didn’t involve domestic actors, and didn’t involve one domestic political party, then I humbly believe that trying to use it as analogy falls flat. Patterico and Dave beg to differ and maybe – probably – they are right. I just don’t like it. I don’t like comparing anyone to Bin Laden, or Hitler for that matter. Let that evil stand on its own.

    Hoi Polloi (b28058)

  101. As far as I can tell, none of the indictments of the over 400 arrested for the 1/6 riot show any connections to the Republican Party,

    Hey, look! An argument that addresses the analogy!

    I am mystified as to how you can argue that none of the indictments “show any connections” to the very Republican party that promoted the Big Lie that resulted in the entire attack. Denying that the Republican party was behind the Big Lie — or that the Big Lie was “connected” to the crimes (in the sense that it motivated them), seems almost as large a distortion of the truth as the Big Lie itself (that the election was stolen).

    I will steelman your argument, rather than the strawmanning everyone is doing to me, and guess that you are trying to argue that the Republican party did not actually plan a deadly invasion of the Capitol. All they (and by “they” I mean Trump and the people who supported him) did was radicalize the base with lies, plan a giant protest, whip up the crowd with lies, and then decline to take calming or protective measures once the mob had showed itself to be lawless. And that appears to be true, as best as we can understand it. In that sense, it is true that it is not quite like Al Qaeda. But it’s close enough for satire.

    Seeing as the 9/11 attacks were not a domestic event, didn’t involve domestic actors, and didn’t involve one domestic political party, then I humbly believe that trying to use it as analogy falls flat.

    And there you go, misunderstanding what an analogy is again.

    When Kevin M. and Hoi Polloi and Haiku watched Forrest Gump, and heard the line “life is a box of chocolates,” did they run to a Usenet message board and explain to their group that ACKSHUALLY life cannot be eaten as a tasty snack?

    When they hear the line “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet” do they lean over to their friends in the audience to explain that ACKSHUALLY names have no fragrance whatsoever?

    Patterico (e349ce)

  102. i understood the point of the post from the get go, as my comments indicate

    that said, if you have to explain it multiple times to intelligent commenters maybe it wasn’t a success

    there are multiple analogies to choose from, like say the unwillingness of a justice department to investigate itself over fisa abuses to name just one

    choosing bin laden over others available indicates something

    but as i pointed out, unlike bin laden and doj prosecutors, senators have constituents and these commissions get their charter through a standard process where they vote yea or nay, and maybe that’s where the analogy gets ridiculous

    JF (e1156d)

  103. Discussing complex things enhances our understanding and thinking. Saying things that are universally true and that everyone already knows can be valuable but that isn’t going to make us better thinkers. We read Patterico because he makes us think, not because he churns out slogans or platitudes.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  104. This is especially true where the subject matter is something we have experienced and care about. The analogy touched on both.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  105. what amounted to a political demonstration, however extreme or out of control

    An act of terrorism is an extreme political demonstration, intended to prompt a change in policy.

    if you have to explain it multiple times to intelligent commenters maybe it wasn’t a success

    Or else some intelligent commenters might actually understand the point but are made uncomfortable by the juxtaposition.

    Meanwhile, we’ve seen Trumpites drawing ridiculous equivalancies, such as a member of Congress saying that requiring her to show proof of vaccination to be allowed inside the House chamber unmasked is “exactly the type of abuse” that was visited upon Jews who had to wear a yellow star and then be carted off to gas chambers.

    Radegunda (aea52f)

  106. Brent Bozell, a stalwart conservative, calls Bouchard “the kind of man I want to see in Congress.”

    Radegunda (aea52f)

  107. that said, if you have to explain it multiple times to intelligent commenters maybe it wasn’t a success

    Nope. I am not letting you put the blame on me because certain commenters chose to misunderstand a very simple point and make dishonest and puerile arguments in response. Sometimes the blame lies on the reader and it most certainly does here, and your efforts to suggest it’s my fault are as a persuasive as a pile of cow dung.

    Patterico (98df0d)

  108. there are multiple analogies to choose from, like say the unwillingness of a justice department to investigate itself over fisa abuses to name just one

    Oh so you think the insurrectionists got FISA warrants?!?!

    /Kevin M

    Patterico (98df0d)

  109. choosing bin laden over others available indicates something

    Yeah? What does it indicate? Why do I suspect your answer is the same grade-school attempt to portray my analogy as an equivalence that I have complained about throughout this thread?

    What it actually indicates is humor. Most people here understood it and laughed.

    Patterico (98df0d)

  110. I will steelman your argument, rather than the strawmanning everyone is doing to me, and guess that you are trying to argue that the Republican party did not actually plan a deadly invasion of the Capitol. All they (and by “they” I mean Trump and the people who supported him) did was radicalize the base with lies, plan

    I believe several of the indictments show that those arrested for breaching the Capitol had done so before the rally, in fact, had not even attended the rally. So I don’t see how the rally affected those individuals. Seemed as if they had their own plans already concocted amongst themselves.

    I also believe the prevailing attitude towards Islamist terrorism these days is that the religion itself – it’s teachings and its teachers – are not to blame. Rather, a small subset that perverts the religion and the Koran. I would submit we should hold the Republican Party the same way.

    Hoi Polloi (b28058)

  111. there are multiple analogies to choose from, like say the unwillingness of a justice department to investigate itself over fisa abuses to name just one

    Please. FISA abuses are a running joke in DC. FISA judge issues a stern warning. FBI says “won’t happen again. We are issuing more training.” Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

    Wake me when someone in DC does something about the running joke that is the FISA court.

    Hoi Polloi (b28058)

  112. It’s annoying to have to explain a joke but absurdity has something to do with it, and outrageousness has something to do with it. It’s not a serious knit your eyebrows together and frown analogy. It is satire by analogy.

    Patterico (98df0d)

  113. I believe several of the indictments show that those arrested for breaching the Capitol had done so before the rally, in fact, had not even attended the rally. So I don’t see how the rally affected those individuals. Seemed as if they had their own plans already concocted amongst themselves.

    That is lovely, but the rally was not the only incitement. Perhaps you have forgotten but Trump and the GOP sold the Big Lie for weeks in advance.

    I also believe the prevailing attitude towards Islamist terrorism these days is that the religion itself – it’s teachings and its teachers – are not to blame. Rather, a small subset that perverts the religion and the Koran. I would submit we should hold the Republican Party the same way.

    If a small subset of the party believed the Big Lie I would blame that small subset. Unfortunately it’s a majority. Again, there has been polling on this; I guess you missed all that??

    Patterico (98df0d)

  114. Patterico, This was funny and I enjoyed it. But the analogy has people people opposed to investigating the attacks on Jan 6 are represented as OBL supporting terrorist sympathizers. Are you really surprised that some of them are offended and not treating the analogy dispassionately? I understand the difference between an analogy and an equivalence, but your analogy used pretty characters you knew the targets of the satire would have a visceral reaction to. I have a hard time believing that HoiPoloi or JF’s reaction is unexpected.

    From their point of view the analogy was in bad taste. They’re insulted and offended and they’re lashing out because of it.

    Kevin’s comment @90 did a decent job of explaining why he was offended, without mistakenly accusing you of making an equivalence. That seems clear and I don’t know why you accuse him of missing the point. You created a funny, and insulting analogy. Are you really surprised at the reaction of the people who are insulted? Or do you not think that it’s reasonable for them to be insulted by this? I find i hard to believe that you didn’t intend it to insult people who oppose investigating Jan 6.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  115. Are you really surprised that some of them are offended

    that’s the point

    These folks who love their country are acting kinda like they don’t. The anger and shame this revelation produces is what the GOP is pretending we can just live with. We can’t.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  116. “They’re insulted and offended and they’re lashing out because of it.”

    When all you have is a hammer…

    Davethulhu (69e65f)

  117. Dustin, I stopped believing that Trump and his supporters value the US a long time ago. I’m fine with the analogy.

    Time123 (ea2b98)

  118. lol time doesn’t speak for me

    i’m neither insulted nor offended

    more like bemused, as when someone flips me off on the freeway

    much of what goes on here is nothing more than that, and about as effective

    JF (e1156d)

  119. I stopped believing that Trump and his supporters value the US a long time ago.

    time, it confuses me. I have great friends who believe the election was stolen and love that Trump fights. They raise a lot of reasonable criticisms of the left. They definitely love the country. they don’t value the things about it I do, exactly, but I think they really are in denial about the path we’re on. I think if we really look at the brutal truth, we change our minds more often.

    Not just Team R. Biden is no leader, the path he’s putting us on is not a good one either.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  120. These folks who love their country are acting kinda like they don’t. The anger and shame this revelation produces is what the GOP is pretending we can just live with. We can’t.
    Dustin (4237e0) — 5/22/2021 @ 1:47 pm

    It’s not just the insult. It is the belief that this Commission will be something more than just politics. It won’t be. It’s a great way for Democrats to keep 1/6 upfront and center and ensuring the whole GOP is tarred with it.

    I’m all for prosecuting all the insurrectionists to the fullest extent of the law; turning it into a political circus does nothing.

    Hoi Polloi (b28058)

  121. hundreds have been charged, and the media is on this 24/7 for partisan reasons, yet without a commission this story somehow risks fading from memory

    they want the show trial, with prosecutors as emcees, which is as american as matryoshka dolls

    JF (e1156d)

  122. It is the belief that this Commission will be something more than just politics. It won’t be. It’s a great way for Democrats to keep 1/6 upfront and center and ensuring the whole GOP is tarred with it.

    Well yeah.

    They perceive this event as a good way to define the GOP and avoid talking about inflation, corruption, their lack of solutions for the world falling apart around us (or Russia’s pathetic machinations we shouldn’t be so afraid to respond to).

    You could also look at that as an inevitable consequence that Trump simply didn’t care about. he really damaged the GOP, and the dems obviously are going to use that. Makes you wonder what’s going on inside McCarthy or Cruz’s head.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  123. /Kevin M

    Now you are putting words in my mouth. This is beneath you Patrick. If someone did that to you, you would demand an apology.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  124. I am saying you can’t expect people to participate in investigating themselves.

    Yet you picked examples in your “analogy” that were completely offensive, due to unbridled animus on your part towards one of your targets (and I don’t mean bin Laden).

    You just don’t get it. The choice in your analogy parts wasn’t random. It was chosen with malice aforethought — the comparison you deny is fundamentally a part of your intent. This is what is being objected to. The analogy is completely subsumed in the offensive way you presented it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  125. When Kevin M. and Hoi Polloi and Haiku watched Forrest Gump, and heard the line “life is a box of chocolates,” did they run to a Usenet message board and explain to their group that ACKSHUALLY life cannot be eaten as a tasty snack?

    This makes no sense and is not my argument at all.

    You could have compared the GOP’s wish not to investigate 1/6 with, oh, the LAPD’s wish not to investigate the Rodney King beating and it would have been far less offensive than the analogy you chose. It is that choice of yours that was offensive, and which makes your actual point secondary to the offensive way you presented it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  126. I will point out that I want Trump in prison or otherwise out of the picture. The GOP is in a lose-lose situation with Trump and his minions and unless Trump can be removed from the picture, or releases his minions from his thrall, the GOP has really no way out.

    As everyone has pointed out, the people running the GOP don’t believe a word of Trump’s Big Lie, but over half of the people likely to vote their way DO. They could tell Trump to GFH, but that would mean they’d lose half their seats or more and the Democrats would transform this country irreversibly.

    So, they humor the morons, possibly at the cost of their souls, but heck, they’re politicians, so what use is a soul?

    I am not so wound up in my ego that I am unable to see the principles involved and vote for what best serves me. And it is not found in the Democrat Party at all.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  127. Kevin,

    OBL delegitimized American democracy and demoralized Americans by killing us with our own planes.

    Trump has also delegitimized American democracy and demoralized Americans by undermining confidence in our institutions and elections.

    I see a comparison (analogy, equivalency, whatever). I don’t care if it is an offensive Godwin-like comparison. I only care if it is true, and I think it is. Both are dangerous to America. Frankly, at this point, we can’t know which is ultimately more dangerous.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  128. /Kevin M

    Now you are putting words in my mouth. This is beneath you Patrick. If someone did that to you, you would demand an apology.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 5/22/2021 @ 3:21 pm

    He did no such thing, Kevin. Nobody, except maybe you, and I doubt even you believe it, thinks Patrick was implying that you said the insurrectionists got FISA warrants. He was merely doing what you did, i.e., treating your suggested analogy as the literal equivalence you treated his, to show you how ridiculous it is.

    lurker (59504c)

  129. It’s annoying to have to explain a joke

    I wish you hadn’t. Every time you explain a joke the terrorists win. And yes, by that I obviously mean that anyone who criticized your analogy is literally a suicide-vest-wearing, scimitar-wielding terrorist.

    lurker (59504c)

  130. @129

    🙂

    Time123 (d086f1)

  131. For the record, I did get the analogy right off the bat. I just complained about the unneccessary loading of the analogy with a mass murdering terrorist.

    If the title had been “Hitler leaning towards opposing investigation of Jewish work camps” would that have been offensive enough for people to get my point? Maybe people hate Trump enough that this wouldn’t be an issue either.

    Whatever.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  132. Moses and Aaron oppose commission to investigate slaughter of 3,000 golden calf worshippers by the Levites?

    nk (1d9030)

  133. @131. Back at Panasonic in the early ’80s, they were still chuckling over Mad Man Jerry Della Femina’s classic 1971 bestseller book, “From Those Wonderful Folks Who Gave You Pearl Harbor.”

    ‘The title refers to a tongue-in cheek slogan proposed for the client Panasonic during a brainstorming session. USA Today described him as “the most colorful creative guy in an industry full of colorful creative guys.’ – source, wikitalentedadman.org

    The moral: leave humorous analogies and/or equivalencies to the overpaid professionals– or they bomb like a Sunday morning in Hawaii, circa 1941 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  134. Patterico (98df0d) — 5/22/2021 @ 12:40 pm

    It’s annoying to have to explain a joke

    To paraphrase Picasso; people who try to explain a joke are wasting their time. I’m not sure why you’re calling it a joke though. Satire sure but was it meant to be humor? I get the irony, exaggeration, ridicule, mockery aspect but it doesn’t seem like the goal was anything humorous or comic.

    And to Time123’s point; why are you reacting to a response you had every reason to expect?

    frosty (f27e97)

  135. DRJ (03cb91) — 5/22/2021 @ 4:48 pm

    OBL delegitimized American democracy and demoralized Americans by killing us with our own planes.

    How exactly did OBL delegitimize American democracy? 9/11 had nothing to do with the US democratic process. I’d also disagree with the second part. I wasn’t demoralized by the choice of planes.

    Trump has also delegitimized American democracy and demoralized Americans by undermining confidence in our institutions.

    The list of people who’ve participated in undermining confidence in our institutions is very long. That he could even get elected tells you a lot about how much confidence our institutions deserve.

    I only care if it is true, and I think it is.

    You haven’t supported that with your comment. It sounds like this literal A=B and C=B so A=C sort of argument is what Patterico is saying he isn’t doing, and is also ridiculing.

    Frankly, at this point, we can’t know which is ultimately more dangerous.

    Here’s a plan, how long have we spent in the War on Terror? Let’s do that for the War on Political Opponents. You should advocate for sending Seal Team to take down Trump and using drones on people who vote R.

    frosty (f27e97)

  136. OBL’s goal was to delegitimize our country/system by showing America as weak. He unified Americans but he succeeded in undermining American influence in some places.

    Trump’s goal was admittedly different — to delegitimize any criticism of him — but IMO the effect has been to weaken our country/system. I won’t blame him for dividing Americans but he has exploited those divisions.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  137. I won’t blame him for dividing Americans

    (Raises hand.) I will!

    norcal (c1da7b)

  138. For the record, I did get the analogy right off the bat. I just complained about the unneccessary loading of the analogy with a mass murdering terrorist. […]

    Here was your first comment in the thread:

    So, wait.

    9/11 = 1/6?
    the GOP = Bin Laden?

    I see a bit of perspective loss here.

    I can’t say what you did or didn’t “get,” but that sure looks like you’re positing the analogy as an equivalence.

    lurker (59504c)

  139. @ Frosty, I thought it was a funny joke.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  140. Patterico, This was funny and I enjoyed it. But the analogy has people people opposed to investigating the attacks on Jan 6 are represented as OBL supporting terrorist sympathizers. Are you really surprised that some of them are offended and not treating the analogy dispassionately? I understand the difference between an analogy and an equivalence, but your analogy used pretty characters you knew the targets of the satire would have a visceral reaction to. I have a hard time believing that HoiPoloi or JF’s reaction is unexpected.

    From their point of view the analogy was in bad taste. They’re insulted and offended and they’re lashing out because of it.

    Kevin’s comment @90 did a decent job of explaining why he was offended, without mistakenly accusing you of making an equivalence.

    No he didn’t. He continued to do it. He said:

    Simply calling something an analogy cannot separate the parts of the analogy.

    You could easily have picked an analogy that did not conflate a heinous crime that killed nearly 4000 innocent people with what amounted to a political demonstration, however extreme or out of control.

    I did not “conflate” (combine two or more ideas into one) the 9/11 attacks and the 1/6 insurrection. I used a satirical analogy. Shakespeare did not “conflate” roses and names in the famous line in Romeo and Juliet. Forrest Gump did not “conflate” life and boxes of chocolates.

    Is there really a point in explaining what I did here? Do I really need to explain how analogies typically use extreme examples to bring into relief the principles that underlie a real-life situation that is far less extreme? Do I need to spend some of the limited time I have in this life patiently responding to people who take an analogy that deliberately uses an extreme example to make a point and think they have scored debate points by pointing out that the real-life example is less extreme than the extreme example I have chosen?

    I believe I have no such duty. It would be like taking time to point out the insufficiency of the argument of someone who replies to every assertion by saying “yo mama.” People who argue using grade-school tactics deserve no time and no respect.

    This type of thing makes me unaccountably angry. I sought out the last time I had people pull this idiotic stunt on me and found this thread, from 2019. I said:

    I also feel bound to say that anyone who says “Trump lies but hey they all lie” is apparently incapable of making distinctions between the extent of wrongdoing by people. It would be like saying of Stalin: sure he abused power but what politician doesn’t? It’s an incredibly stupid argument and labels the person who makes it as someone not worth taking seriously.

    The most idiotic and uncomprehending possible response to that is to say “durr hurr so Trump is Stalin huh?” and you can see by perusing that thread that the commentariat did not disappoint. At least two people took that view — one whom I like, and one for whom I tend to feel contempt.

    The whole point of such an analogy is to deliberately use the most extreme example possible to illustrate the point. In the quote above using Stalin, the point is not “Trump = Stalin” but “excusing someone who is an extreme example of a vice by claiming that everyone engages in that vice is a dumb argument that shows an inability to make distinctions between the level of severity of the vice.”

    In this post the point is not “bin Laden = GOP” but “it’s pretty humorous to watch the party esponsible for a travesty try to come up with rationalizations for not investigating the cause of the travesty.” The more extreme the travesty — deliberately chosen to be more extreme than the real-life example — the funnier and more incisive the point.

    Kevin M says he understood my point all alone. I am reminded of Jerry Seinfeld in the scene where he is told that there is no rental car for him despite his having had a reservation. The car rental person says “I know what a reservation is, sir!” and he replies:

    I don’t think you do. You see, you know how to *take* the reservation, you just don’t know how to hold the reservation. And that’s really the most important part of the reservation: the holding. Anybody can just take them.

    Similarly, to those who say they understood my point, I say: “I don’t think you do!” Because if you did, you would not keep complaining that my example is more extreme than the real-life example.

    That’s the whole fucking point. And you guys missed it, and you continue to miss it, and I’m afraid you’ll never understand it, even though it is so simple a bright child could understand it.

    A deliberate decision not to understand something can make someone as stupid as someone who just lacks the candlepower to understand. The difference between the two is that the former is far more frustrating than the latter. If I really thought Kevin M or Hoi Polloi or Haiku to have the IQ of a first-grader, I would not be angry. I would just shrug my shoulders and tell myself the concept is too complicated for them and move on. But that’s not the case. These are intelligent people, but they are people who have made a decision, for different reasons (for Haiku it’s partisan politics, for Kevin M it’s emotional, for Hoi Polloi I’m not sure) that they are going to misunderstand my point, and be stubborn in their persistence to keep misunderstanding.

    That’s annoying. And yes, Time123, it’s predictable — the 2019 thread shows that adopting this grade-school response to analogies is ingrained in the psyches of certain types of Internet commenters. That doesn’t make it right, it doesn’t mean I should stop using analogies that are effective to good faith readers, and it does not make it any less frustrating.

    I need to accept that people, including people I usually like, sometimes argue in bad faith (or from a persistent pigheaded refusal to understand, which mimics bad faith). I can’t control it, and so I ought not let it bother me as much as I do.

    Patterico (e349ce)

  141. I can’t say what you did or didn’t “get,” but that sure looks like you’re positing the analogy as an equivalence.

    Bingo. “I understood you all along” is less convincing when your first comment shows you did not understand a thing.

    Patterico (e349ce)

  142. In the future, to keep my blood pressure down, I will not spend a lot of time responding to people like Kevin M or Hoi Polloi or Haiku when they treat analogies as equivalences. I will simply direct them to this page I just created for this precise purpose, and say:

    Hi. Please click here.

    Patterico (e349ce)

  143. Analogies:

    Trump : Republicans :: Stalin : Socialism
    Trump : Republicans :: Perjury : Testimony

    Both say much the same thing, that each is destructive to the concept involved. Which one I choose, though, has implications.

    You can say all you want that I was treating an analogy as a equivalence, but I was simply pointing out that you picked an analogy whose other part was particularly repugnant, and that this seemed to be due to an animus you felt.

    It’s no longer wroth debating though.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  144. Also, Patterico, you might avoid focusing on the connotations of single words in a post with utterly no editing capability. Perhaps “conflate” wasn’t the perfect word there, but any analogy combines two regimes, the the set you choose has meaning. It didn’t have to be “chocolates.”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  145. what amounted to a political demonstration

    In form, yes. More violent than most. It crossed a line the moment they entered the building, adding criminal acts to the demonstration. But nearly all the people surrounding the Capitol stayed outside, and for them it was a political demonstration.

    If this was an attempt to “overthrow the government” it was probably the most inept such attempt in recorded history.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  146. Patterico, I was taught that an analogy is a comparison of two things with some similarity used to make or explain a point. Your analogy compared Trump to OBL, and by extension their supporters.

    I think this is pretty appropriate because the Taliban and Trump supporters both dislike the US our laws. I can easily see others will not agree with me there and be very insulted by the comparison.

    You picked OBL, after Hitler he’s probably the most universally disliked person in the US. This made your joke funnier, and more biting then if you’d picked something inoffensive; like the Hamburgler.

    I think analogies like this can go over the top, comparisons to Nazi Germany are typically seen as too far even if there’s justification in some way, such as love of dogs. I think that it’s possible to get the point an analogy and still feel that the comparison is unjust or insulting.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  147. Kevin, I don’t think having over 140 police officers injured, some stabbed, and others with concussion, cracked vertebrae and other serious injuries is a routine political demonstration.

    Also, what do you think would have happened if this mob had been able to find the people they were looking for; Pence, Pelosi, etc? We can’t know for sure but I doubt Pelosi would have been left unharmed.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  148. I think this is pretty appropriate because the Taliban and Trump supporters both dislike the US our laws. I can easily see others will not agree with me there and be very insulted by the comparison.

    Democrats don’t like our laws, either. Why else would they want to change them. They must be like the Taliban and Trump supporters too.

    Either that or you have no idea who or what the Taliban is about, because if you did, you’d realize there is no equating the Taliban to any political group in the US.

    Hoi Polloi (b28058)

  149. Dustin (4237e0) — 5/22/2021 @ 3:14 pm

    Makes you wonder what’s going on inside McCarthy or Cruz’s head.

    How do I get through the next few weeks/months (for McCarthy) or months/years (for Cruz) without loosing any support? This will surely go away, sooner or later, right?

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  150. 45. wordfinger @45 “Anti-fascists” get small taste of what a real angry mob of representative citizens looks like…”

    46. Davethulhu (ba45be) — 5/21/2021 @ 3:09 pm

    “real angry mob of representative citizens”

    thinking emoji

    Try “mob of real fascists”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Rome

    In late October 1922, Fascist Party leaders planned an insurrection, to take place on 28 October. When fascist demonstrators and Blackshirt paramilitaries entered Rome, Prime Minister Luigi Facta wished to declare a state of siege, but this was overruled by King Victor Emmanuel III. On the following day, 29 October 1922, the King appointed Mussolini as Prime Minister, thereby transferring political power to the fascists without armed conflict.[1][2]

    Except that it wasn’t really the entire mob on Jan 6, 2021, and whatever anybody might have wanted wasn’t going to happen.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  151. Wow. That was a scorching dismantlement. I’ve never seen you write such a lengthy piece in the comment section, Patterico. I’d hate to go up against you in court.

    norcal (6e6099)

  152. Kevin, I don’t think having over 140 police officers injured, some stabbed, and others with concussion, cracked vertebrae and other serious injuries is a routine political demonstration.

    Pretty sure I didn’t say that.

    “what amounted to a political demonstration, however extreme or out of control.”

    “More violent than most. It crossed a line the moment they entered the building, adding criminal acts to the demonstration.”

    Where did I suggest it was routine, even in the context of BLM it was particularly violent, and in <breaking into the Capitol, it crossed over into the criminal. But the form was still “political demonstration” for the bulk of the attendees, who remained outside.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  153. Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 was a scheduled flight from New York JFK to Miami. Shortly before midnight on December 29, 1972, the Lockheed L-1011-1 TriStar crashed into the Florida Everglades.
    The crash occurred while the entire cockpit crew was preoccupied with a burnt-out landing gear indicator light. They failed to notice that the autopilot had inadvertently been disconnected, and as a result, the aircraft gradually lost altitude and crashed.

    Analogy?

    Or equivalence? 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  154. The problem with the OBL analogy is not the extreme exaggeration – it’s that it implies that Trump planned or was in favor of the assault on the Capitol, and I think that is not so.

    It’s more like the Watergate break-in, which Nixon, everyone agrees, did not approve of in advance (he did try to hide the connection to his re-election campaign for a few days)

    The big hing that everybody has missed is Trump’s scheduled speech at the Capitol, which I think realy was on the schedule – and the big question is: When was that cancelled, and what led to its cancellation?

    It’s the kind of question you might say Lt. Columbo would ask. It could lead to a lot of answers.

    Kevin @144.

    Analogies:

    Trump : Republicans :: Stalin : Socialism

    No, no no.

    Trump : Republicans :: Stalin : Communists There is a little bit of “democratic centralism” here.

    Although, of course, Trump didn’t arrest and execute people. And, at this stage, all Republicans are not willing to follow Trump’s preposterous lies or to commit unethical, illegal or unconstitutional acts.

    And the Communists lied and killed since Lenin, not since just Stalin, while Trump is the big start of this thing.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  155. Kevin, thank you for explaining you point. I reread and it should have clear to me all along.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  156. it implies that Trump planned or was in favor of the assault on the Capitol, and I think that is not so

    Well, he certainly wanted something “wild” and “strong” to happen to “take back the country”.

    Sammy, you’re looking for something explicit. Trump is malignant, but he’s not dumb. He knew exactly what to say to incite the mob, and wasn’t all that concerned when the Capital was attacked. In fact, he even praised the mob after the fact.

    norcal (6e6099)

  157. The crash occurred while the entire cockpit crew was preoccupied with a burnt-out landing gear indicator light. They failed to notice that the autopilot had inadvertently been disconnected, and as a result, the aircraft gradually lost altitude and crashed.

    Analogy?

    Or equivalence? 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 5/23/2021 @ 2:40 pm

    It’s works as an analogy if the “burnt-out landing gear” is plagiarism.

    norcal (6e6099)

  158. The analogy would be worrying about climate change instead of real dangers.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  159. “it’s that it implies that Trump planned or was in favor of the assault on the Capitol”

    If Trump opposed the violence and lawlessness of the assault, why did it take him so long to make a unequivocal statement or take any action to call in reinforcements to quell the action? As for planning, Trump for weeks had been giving speeches and working social media to create a sense of desperation and anger that a terrible injustice was occuring….to a point where he was pressuring not only state officials improperly but his own vice president. All of this while losing every court challenge and not having any evidence. The chief law enforcement officer needs to understand that one possible result of his actions was a confrontation at the Capitol….and though it might not meet the legal standards of incitement….it surely satisfies the moral standards. All of his actions and inactions point to a callous disregard for the assault and its consequences. It’s just blind luck that there weren’t more serious injuries.

    AJ_Liberty (a4ff25)

  160. SF: it implies that Trump planned or was in favor of the assault on the Capitol, and I think that is not so

    norcal (6e6099) — 5/23/2021 @ 3:18 pm

    Well, he certainly wanted something “wild” and “strong” to happen to “take back the country”.

    I think, when he tweeted “wild be wild” on December 23, Trump was just parroting the organizers, who set up a website called wildprotest.org, and I don’t think he had any idea what it was supposed to mean. But they wanted to help him, they said, so he gave his endorsement. From the way he uses the word “wild” it’s clear that “wild” is just a meaningless word to him. Possibly he was given some explanation, but told to keep it a secret.

    Sammy, you’re looking for something explicit. Trump is malignant, but he’s not dumb. He knew exactly what to say to incite the mob,

    The mob was not “incited” nor were there any magic words he could have used to incite them. You couldn;t do that if your tried, not without being very very explicit. That was planned a few weeks in advance. But it needed the cover of a scheduled protest rally.

    and wasn’t all that concerned when the Capital was attacked.

    It seems like he wanted to use that – he told House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy that he wasn’t concerned about the election. But that was really, just to deflect.

    In fact, he even praised the mob after the fact.

    That, logically would be to make them all go home, and wasn’t criticized at the time.

    Trump’s flattery is not honest.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  161. What AJ said.

    Trump’s behavior after the election was magnitudes worse than anything he did the previous four years, and I suspect that his minions are trying set the table for better arm-twisting the next time around.

    Heaven forbid that a showman such as Trump admit defeat like a reasonable candidate. I mean, even pro wrestling has acknowledged winners and losers.

    norcal (6e6099)

  162. “it’s that it implies that Trump planned or was in favor of the assault on the Capitol”

    As norcal said, Trump is not stupid, so he probably couldn’t have wanted it to happen. Because this assault led no place. And again, the question is, what about his scheduled appearance there? (which I think was really in the works. The whole rally has disappeared into the memory hole.

    But I rescued it.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20210106005050/https://wildprotest.com

    See number 28 for alink to a New York Times article that says that rally (not a different rally, that’s how confused the NYT is) even took place (although dominated by leading anti-vaxxers (and anti-vaccinations was not something Trump supported – although he may have flirted with that in 2016 but that hard;y what he saying at the beginning of 2021.)

    If Trump opposed the violence and lawlessness of the assault, why did it take him so long to make a unequivocal statement or take any action to call in reinforcements to quell the action?

    Does Trump ever want to reject political support??

    As for planning, Trump for weeks had been giving speeches and working social media to create a sense of desperation and anger that a terrible injustice was occuring….to a point where he was pressuring not only state officials improperly but his own vice president. All of this while losing every court challenge and not having any evidence.

    Of course, of course. But I don’t think he had in mind an assault on the Capitol as the endgame – which only had the effect of half collapsing his support in Congress.

    The chief law enforcement officer needs to understand that one possible result of his actions was a confrontation at the Capitol….and though it might not meet the legal standards of incitement….

    Wgat doesn’t meet the legal standards for incitement, doesn’t meet the practical standards for incitement.

    it surely satisfies the moral standards. All of his actions and inactions point to a callous disregard for the assault and its consequences.

    That’s a fair statement.

    It’s just blind luck that there weren’t more serious injuries.

    No, the assaulters came without firearms, and the police attempted to avoid killing people. That was not luck.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  163. norcal (6e6099) — 5/23/2021 @ 3:54 pm

    Trump’s behavior after the election was magnitudes worse than anything he did the previous four years,

    It was a whole other level.

    and I suspect that his minions are trying set the table for better arm-twisting the next time around.

    That’s the natural thing to watch out for, and it is not something that can be avoided in many state level elections and elections for Congress. We just don’t see it yet.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  164. Pence got pressured, resisted it, and people were outside screaming to lynch him, and yet people at Simon and Schuster don’t want Simon and Shuster to publish his book, Because of “racism.”

    That’s another thing. Trump never expressed any sympathy for Pence while this was going on. (but I don’t think that means he actually wanted him hanged on that gallows)

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  165. Read AJ’s comment again, Sammy, and ponder it.

    It was a climate of outrage that Trump created and nurtured in the weeks leading up to January 6th.

    Around that time, I became acquainted with a Chinese woman who has a pending application for asylum in the U.S. Even she got caught up in the hysteria, and wanted to go back to DC, but was thwarted by having to care for her elderly mother and teenage son. She assured me, in mid-December, and again in early January, that Trump would continue to be President after January 20th. She said she would rather be denied asylum than see Biden as President. It was only then that I realized how powerful the cult had become.

    I made a bet with her–a nice bag of loose-leaf tea against a “big gift” to be named later. I’m still drinking the tea.

    norcal (6e6099)

  166. Some other things i want ti write about, and may later:

    1) An 8th coronavirus that can infect people discovered in 8 out of 301 old pneumonia samples from Sarawak, Malaysia from 2017 and 2018 – researcher was so shocked at the result he had the samples retested with a less sensitive test and got only 2 this time, only one of which seemed to be able to infect dogs which thew virus resembled in part. We don’t have any idea of what respiratory diseases are around. We don’t test infections. This is an important lacunae in knowledge.

    2) Fungal infection possibly caused by Covid treatment in India, especially in people with diabetes (one of the drugs administered in severe cases is an immune suppressing steroid)

    3) Dog test may be better than PCR, if you want to find the slightest trace of infection by Covid-19.

    4) New book about Steele dossier and so on.

    5) New book about what’s wrong with climate remedies.

    6) Political struggle in Somalia, where an e-U.S. citizen is trying to hang on to power.

    7) World population tracking to drop in another few decades

    Fell free to search for links before I get back to this.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  167. 166. norcal (6e6099) — 5/23/2021 @ 4:06 pm

    It was a climate of outrage that Trump created and nurtured in the weeks leading up to January 6th.

    That was crucial, but that doesn’t mean that Trump’s plan was to force Congress to recess by storming the Capitol. (in fact, that caused him finally to concede for good)

    Trump’s plan was to put political pressure on members of Congress and to delay the certification by having numerous two hour debates and votes. Republicans weren’t willing to give him more than one day. Trump was probably relying on false predictions of what people helping him could do.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  168. @norcal. Did that Chinese woman have any idea what she would do if she had gone to Washinton, D.C. and what did she expect to happen?

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  169. Sammy,

    I have no idea what she was expecting. We went hiking on January 6th. After we got back to her place and she got online, it was as if I wasn’t even present.

    In a related story, I haven’t seen her since. 🙂 (She offered me the tea bag as a gift. I took it knowing that I would win the bet.)

    norcal (6e6099)

  170. Trump supporters: Giving new meaning to “population density”.

    nk (1d9030)

  171. nk,

    You just explained China and my Chinese acquaintance in one stroke.

    norcal (6e6099)

  172. I was simply pointing out that you picked an analogy whose other part was particularly repugnant, and that this seemed to be due to an animus you felt

    . . .

    Sigh

    Patterico (cc0941)

  173. what amounted to a political demonstration

    In form, yes. More violent than most. It crossed a line the moment they entered the building, adding criminal acts to the demonstration. But nearly all the people surrounding the Capitol stayed outside, and for them it was a political demonstration.

    You’re conflating the rally on the Ellipse with the storming of the Capitol. The latter may have followed the former, but the events are morally and legally distinct. Likewise the culpability of the participants.* The former was a constitutionally protected demonstration. The latter, which is what matters here, was a criminal insurrection aimed at toppling the central pillar of our democracy. You can no more diminish the criminality of the insurrectionists by associating them with the demonstrators than you can inculpate the demonstrators by associating them with the insurrectionists.

    (*Trump and some of the other speakers at the rally are certainly morally, and may even be criminally culpable of inciting the insurrection. I doubt the latter, but it’s arguable. Regardless, they’re at most a tiny handful out of thousands. However addled and ignorant all the other Trump cultists who stayed outside, no reasonable person equates their activity with that of the insurrectionists.)

    If this was an attempt to “overthrow the government” it was probably the most inept such attempt in recorded history.

    Failure to succeed at a criminal attempt isn’t morally exonerating. And legally it just modifies the crime charged.

    lurker (59504c)

  174. I was simply pointing out that you picked an analogy whose other part was particularly repugnant, and that this seemed to be due to an animus you felt.

    Unlike Patterico, I actually pointed out similarities between Trump and OBL. So what? Someone will find a reason to take offense in almost any discussion, except maybe the weather.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  175. If this was an attempt to “overthrow the government” it was probably the most inept such attempt in recorded history.

    Trump took a clear loss and tied up the courts for weeks, convinced virtually all his Party officials to support him, and turned it into a win with a majority of Republicans. That is surprisingly. Disappointly effective.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  176. I was the first to say that the post was funny. Still … I have to say, I’m sorry, Patterico, but I think the analogies to Trump as Moses, David, and Sampson, from time to time, by some comrades here, well … you know … to be honest … they’re funnier.

    nk (1d9030)

  177. @176. It’s also too soon to say Trump’s attempt to bring down our democratic system of government failed even by his most sociopathically ambitious standards. He opened the Overton Window to what in 2024, with a servile GOP House and Senate, may very well be a successful overthrow of a presidential election.

    lurker (59504c)

  178. “Of course, of course. But I don’t think he had in mind an assault on the Capitol as the endgame – which only had the effect of half collapsing his support in Congress.”

    You still fail to draw any implications from Trump’s lack of action when the assault started….as if he was a passive observer overwhelmed by events. If, as you suggest, Trump had no interest in an assault why was he not immediately on TV calling for those breaking the law to stop…calling to ensure everyone was OK….calling for national guard backup? Trump would have had no knowledge that those breaking into the Capitol were unarmed…and so he would have had no knowledge that the event was not going to get bloodier. He also would have not known that the Capitol police would have shown such restraint. Again, your argument has a glaring logical gap that can only be rationalized by facts not in evidence….there’s no evidence that he just got bad advice…or that other advisors controlled his actions. The better evidence is that when he finally made an announcement to the rioters, the statement was tepid at best….and curiously made sure to express his love for the law breakers you suggest he did not support. Again, before even understanding how many may have been hurt or killed in the action. Nothing really supports your contention that he was shocked or terribly dismayed by the events. And nothing to this day changes that impression….

    AJ_Liberty (a4ff25)

  179. “He opened the Overton Window”

    Was Trump’s plan to overthrow the government? I think it was less about a formal plan and more about seeing how far people…wound up over incendiary rhetoric….would go to act out for him. He always seemed curiously self-impressed by the perceived loyalty of his fiercest supporters. January 6th demonstrated how propaganda…enabled by a compromised right-wing media…and a supine GOP could lead to a Constitutional crisis. What’s surprising to me is that the most ardent apologists here can’t admit that this is dangerous stuff….and just want to draw a false equivalence with BLM riots.

    It’s one thing for goofy congressmen to over-state the BLM case…it’s another for the chief law enforcement officer and commander in chief to desperately try and hang on to power and effectively look the other way as people storm the Capitol. We really will struggle to have a productive conservation until we can agree that the line of arguments that propelled that situation are beyond justification. The Overton Window must be closed…..some here just don’t get that….

    AJ_Liberty (a4ff25)

  180. The Overton Window must be closed…..some here just don’t get that…

    How many times have you seen an Overton Window close? I can’t think of many.

    Was Trump’s plan to overthrow the government?

    I doubt he thinks that strategically or conceptually. I assume his plan, as usual, was to feed his bottomless narcissism, in this case by stealing the election victory to which he felt entitled. Second order effects, e.g., toppling democracy, aren’t his problem.

    lurker (59504c)

  181. The Overton Window must be closed

    I’d settle for a mere shift.

    norcal (ad7fce)

  182. True, lurker 178.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  183. “The Overton Window must be closed…..some here just don’t get that…”

    OK, re-reading, that kind of sounds funny, doesn’t it? I think by “closed” I meant “make smaller”…meaning not let as much through. Of course, if one says that the distance to the ship must be closed, that doesn’t imply necessarily going to zero but shortening the range. So maybe if one looks at the Overton Window as being a range of acceptable political ideas….which it is…rather than a binary open or closed physical window…..closing the window simply means reducing the range of options. But does the Overton Window size actually change or is it actually more binary: acceptable versus unacceptable….and ideas move in or out of the window? Hmmm, if the Overton Window is a range of political actions ranging from extremely liberal to extremely conservative then “acceptable” in our polarized times might just mean that the window is broadening (liberals are favoring more progressive solutions to economic inequality while conservatives are favoring more hard-line solutions to immigration)….that more extreme policies from each side are becoming more “acceptable” so narrowing or closing the window might just make sense. Or maybe I should just leave it alone….

    AJ_Liberty (a4ff25)

  184. Is this AP excerpt also an offensive comparison:

    Rather than uniting behind a bipartisan investigation like the ones that followed the 9/11 terror attacks, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy or Pearl Harbor, Republicans are calculating they can regain at least partial control of Congress if they put the issue behind them as quickly as possible without antagonizing Trump or his supporters.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  185. 146. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 5/23/2021 @ 12:05 pm

    But nearly all the people surrounding the Capitol stayed outside, and for them it was a political demonstration.

    174. lurker (59504c) — 5/23/2021 @ 6:21 pm

    You’re conflating the rally on the Ellipse with the storming of the Capitol.

    No, he’s not. There was a supposed to be a rally outside the Capitol, besides the one on the Ellipse. In fact, originally it was supposed to be the only rally.
    The one on the Ellipse was added later.

    I would guess one factor in creating the separate rally on the Ellipse is because the organizers felt it was necessary in order to get Donald Trump to agree to speak – although, maybe later, he agreed to also speak at the Capitol.

    The whole question of Donald Trump’s schedule for that day, and what communications caused plans to be made and cancelled, and if at any point Donald Trump was lying about them – to anyone – needs to be gone into, but all of the people talking about a commission seem far away from knowing what questions to ask.

    There were an estimated 8,000 people outside the Capitol (mostly milling around, not knowing where to go, although there was a place, and there were speakers, who concentrated on arguing against vaccines) and something less than 1,000 people went inside, and up to several hundred may have planned it before, although it could be less than 100.

    The Democrats have ignored that scheduled rally at the Capitol, which they have to know about, even if most of the (unskeptical?) media does not. Its absence is one of several misstatements of fact that have come from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and company. (The Impeachment article has people from the crowd at the Ellipse going to the Capitol being the entirety of the protesters at the Capitol, and also being incited to storm the Capitol building because Trump used the word “fight” multiple times in his speech!!)

    The fact there was a separate rally scheduled at the Capitol has gone into the memory hole. Other misstatements have been branding them “white supremacists” – dropped mostly but stated by some; branding it an insurrection (half true) – it’s hard to figure out what word to use; and, especially, throwing extra corpses into the mix, especially Brian Sicknick, continuing to claim he was murdered long after they had to know the truth – there was also an attempt to include a Capitol Police officer who committed suicide that Saturday; and claiming that then Vice-President Mike Pence had the ability and the right to remove President Donald Trump from power using the 25th amendment.

    There have been other kinds of misstatements by Republicans.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  186. Another question is why the Republicans never pointed out the fact that there was a separate rally at the Capitol. Donald Trump himself surely should have known, and that was relevant to the charge if inciting the crowd

    I don’t know, but maybe getting into that links him, and/or some of his people, to the “insurrectionists” even if they were not aware of their real plans.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  187. “it’s that it implies that Trump planned or was in favor of the assault on the Capitol”

    160. AJ_Liberty (a4ff25) — 5/23/2021 @ 3:37 pm

    If Trump opposed the violence and lawlessness of the assault, why did it take him so long to make a unequivocal statement or take any action to call in reinforcements to quell the action?

    I didn’t say he opposed it. I said it took him by surprise. Once it happened, he was wary of criticizing his supporters.

    Another thing is, since he didn’t start it, he didn’t imagine he could turn it off. It was out of his control. But what he didn’t do, is call the Capitol, or the Republicans there, and ask what they wanted him to do. Instead, he got some popcorn, so to speak.

    As for planning, Trump for weeks had been giving speeches and working social media to create a sense of desperation and anger that a terrible injustice was occuring…

    to a point where he was pressuring not only state officials improperly but his own vice president. All of this while losing every court challenge and not having any evidence.

    All that and he had a whole rally or two in D.C..He thought he could move enough people so that they would give him the presidency, and he probably being told by some people, like Giuliani, who was probably himself being told unrealistic and false things by others, that there was a feasible way for that to happen. If they only had another day.

    He settled on having Mike Pence not counting some Electoral votes – which was still not a complete plan, even if Mike Pence was going to do it.

    He maximized the political pressure he could bring to bear.

    . The chief law enforcement officer needs to understand that one possible result of his actions was a confrontation at the Capitol….

    Well, no, because, through some intermediaries, he was in contact with the people who had scheduled the rallies. (he had to be, in order to arrange to speak at them, as well as having some other people close to him speak.)

    But Trump’s plans were legal and political (and also wouldn’t work, but he didn’t know that they couldn’t.)

    He indeed wanted to delay the certification – but he a plan to use Parliamentary means to do so. AS it is, in the end, he probably got less of a delay than he would have without the storming of the Capitol.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  188. 179. AJ_Liberty (a4ff25) — 5/23/2021 @ 8:54 pm

    Nothing really supports your contention that he was shocked or terribly dismayed by the events. And nothing to this day changes that impression….

    I didn’t say he was shocked or terribly dismayed. I said he did not expect that.

    Once it started, he didn’t want to throw away a possible lifeline. Or at least wanted to see if Congress would delay things even more.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  189. Rather than uniting behind a bipartisan investigation like the ones that followed the 9/11 terror attacks, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy or Pearl Harbor, Republicans are calculating they can regain at least partial control of Congress if they put the issue behind them as quickly as possible without antagonizing Trump or his supporters.

    Would this be offensive?

    Rather than uniting behind a bipartisan investigation like the ones that followed the 9/11 terror attacks, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy or Pearl Harbor, Democrats are calculating they can increase their control of Congress if they keep this issue in front of the voters and/or force the Republicans to antagonize Trump or his supporters.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  190. @185 it’s not offensive, it’s puerile

    JF (e1156d)

  191. @191, Actually those seem like apt comparisons.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  192. “I didn’t say he opposed it. I said it took him by surprise.”

    And what’s the evidence for this? You need to at minimum lay some sort of predicate.

    “since he didn’t start it, he didn’t imagine he could turn it off.”

    What sense does this make? He’s the chief law enforcement officer and commander in chief….how exactly are we supposed to believe that he thought he was impotent….and not even make an emphatic public statement?

    “so that they would give him the presidency, and he probably being told by some people, like Giuliani, who was probably himself being told unrealistic and false things by others”

    Again, isn’t this all supposition with no underlying evidence? You simply don’t know what Trump or Giuliani were told or what they believed. If Trump could not understand that a mob could not change the election then he is no way competent enough to be in the office….he would be delusional….and there’s no direct evidence of that.

    “But Trump’s plans were legal and political (and also wouldn’t work, but he didn’t know that they couldn’t.)”

    Again, all supposition. Trump swore an oath to protect the Constitution and all of its mandated processes…..he failed to do his duty….and he doesn’t get bailed out by claiming other people told him to do it. Accountability doesn’t work that way. The buck stops with him. Raising the rhetorical temperature and then failing to protect the electoral process is on Trump and should have led to conviction and removal. Nixon didn’t get to claim bad advice….Trump owns what the office of the President spawned. Your imagined story isn’t evidence.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  193. “I didn’t say he opposed it. I said it took him by surprise.”

    193. AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 5/24/2021 @ 1:43 pm

    And what’s the evidence for this? You need to at minimum lay some sort of predicate.

    The fact that he had other plans for the day Unless it was some kind of a trick. He also said he would speak at the Capitol rally,

    https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-speech-campaign-rally-the-ellipse-january-6-2021

    Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down — Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the capital and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

    Everyone says that is an assertion he would be at the Capitol.

    Furthermore, Alex Jones is on video saying that Trump would speak there, and they are not likely to have come up spontaneously with the same lie.

    https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/trump-told-stop-the-steal-organizers

    Per videos published by ProPublica, after Alex Jones arrived at the Capitol on January 6, he repeatedly told Trump voters massing at the rear of the Capitol that they should move to the “front” of the Capitol because Trump was shortly going to arrive and would be “speaking” to the crowd. Jones repeats his announcement several times to the massing crowd at the rear of the Capitol building.

    And there is no reason for Trump to have claimed he would be at the Capitol unless he actually intended to be there.

    The videos of Alx Jones claiming that Trump would speak there are supposed to be somewhere in here:

    https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos

    Now it was the Democrats who obscured that because they wanted to say that Trump incited the crowd to storm the Capitol with his words. Aa for Trump, there was still something not good involving his connection with the planners of the wild protest at the Capitol, so he didn’t want to talk about his plan to be there either.

    But, surely, if he intended that to happen, he never would have wanted to be on the scene. And if he didn’t intend to be at the scene, what did it benefit him to say so? So it took him by surprise.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  194. “since he didn’t start it, he didn’t imagine he could turn it off.”

    What sense does this make? He’s the chief law enforcement officer and commander in chief….how exactly are we supposed to believe that he thought he was impotent….and not even make an emphatic public statement?

    And who would that impress? We’re talking about a statement that people would listen to him because he was their leader.

    Trump actually said to Kevin McCarthy, and maybe thought, it was antifa people (disguised as his supporters?) who were doing it.

    “so that they would give him the presidency, and he probably being told by some people, like Giuliani, who was probably himself being told unrealistic and false things by others”

    Again, isn’t this all supposition with no underlying evidence?

    No, there is a basis because Giuliani claimed this. He claimed that Pennsylvania wanted to send replacement votes. At the rally at the Ellipse.

    https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/rudy-giuliani-speech-transcript-at-trumps-washington-d-c-rally-wants-trial-by-combat

    …. Number one; every single thing that has been outlined as the plan for today is perfectly legal. I have Professor Eastman here with me to say a few words about that. He’s one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in the United States. It is perfectly appropriate given the questionable constitutionality of the Election Counting Act of 1887 that the Vice President can cast it aside and he can do what a president called Jefferson did when he was Vice President. He can decide on the validity of these crooked ballots, or he can send it back to the legislators, give them five to 10 days to finally finish the work. We now have letters from five legislators begging us to do that. They’re asking us. Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin, and one other coming in.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  195. You simply don’t know what Trump or Giuliani were told or what they believed.

    But I can surmise, and it is a better surmise than that he intended the crowd to storm the Capitol. To say he did, is actually to allege a whole lot of things we don’t know. I do say we must go intoo the matter of the cancelled speech.

    If Trump could not understand that a mob could not change the election then he is no way competent enough to be in the office….

    He intended the large number of demonstrators to influence members of Congress. He thought there were hundreds of thousands people there, or he could make people believe that.

    From Trump’s speech:

    Even I, when I turned on today, I looked, and I saw thousands of people here. But you don’t see hundreds of thousands of people behind you because they don’t want to show that. We have hundreds of thousands of people here and I just want them to be recognized by the fake news media. Turn your cameras please and show what’s really happening out here because these people are not going to take it any longer.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  196. he would be delusional….and there’s no direct evidence of that.

    Yes, there is more reason to believe he thought he was lying to some degree. Hundreds of thousands of people? But he can’t count.

    “But Trump’s plans were legal and political (and also wouldn’t work, but he didn’t know that they couldn’t.)”

    Again, all supposition.

    But a lot of work went into that.

    And to imagine a mob would overturn the election is even more delusional.

    Giuliani even lays out the legal and political strategy.

    …Also, last night one of the experts that has examined these crooked dominion machines has absolutely what he believes is conclusive proof that in the last 10%, 15% of the vote counted, the votes were deliberately changed…..We need two days to establish that.

    I assume that Giuliani was not making up things himself. But somebody else was making up facts.

    Trump swore an oath to protect the Constitution and all of its mandated processes…..he failed to do his duty….and he doesn’t get bailed out by claiming other people told him to do it.

    What I say is that other people told him he could win. It was opbviously, outside the provisions of the constituton, as commonly understood.

    I am saying his strategy was not to storm the Capitol.

    It was to use Parliamentary procedures to delay the certification, and then somebody must have been assuring Giuliani, they could get some states to a send new electoral votes – which they couldn’t do, actually, and they didn’t want to do either. Delusional maybe, but less delusional than imagining anything could result from a mob assault on the Capitol other than, at most, a very brief civil war which he would lose

    The planners of the assault? They maybe thought that it could get Donald Trump to reverse his decision not to declare martial law.

    Accountability doesn’t work that way. The buck stops with him. Raising the rhetorical temperature and then failing to protect the electoral process is on Trump and should have led to conviction and removal.

    You could argue that. That merely carrying on his claims for so long – which he had to know were not true, and creating this high stakes vote, where one side of the vote was against the constitution, was grounds for impeachment.

    But they didn’t try that.

    Nixon didn’t get to claim bad advice….

    But we can take that into consideration. It was John Dean who, falsely claiming Ehrlichman had this idea, who told Nixon to tell the CIA to tell the FBI that following the money would interfere with some CIA operation in Mexico (nothing came of that, by the way)

    Trump owns what the office of the President spawned. Your imagined story isn’t evidence.

    It’s what you call a theory of the case.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  197. 195.

    Trump actually said to Kevin McCarthy, and maybe thought, it was antifa people (disguised as his supporters?) who were doing it.

    What I read about that conversation 9and it took some time for McCarthy to get on contact) is that Trump said it was Antifa – and McCarthy said he saw them and they were Maga people, (or something to that effect)

    You would have expected Trump to argue that antifa people had disguised themselves and infiltrated his demonstration, but instead he immediately switched gears.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3623 secs.