Proof of Saddam’s WMDs Covered Up?
April 20, 2007 · By Tom Cerber
So claims David Gaubatz, who says he found ample evidence and thinks Syria now has them. Judge for yourself.
Ht: NLT
Comments
16 Responses to “Proof of Saddam’s WMDs Covered Up?”
Got something to say? (Read the rules first)
-
Recent Comments
- RD: Why does this come to mind 7 years...
- Joe Evans: Mr. Grewal is a victim of racism at...
- dillon: The Indian spring will be an uprising...
- Alain: I think it is vital to distinguish...
- Tom: Unfortunately, there are over 600 chiefs...
- old white guy: there is nothing honest about...
- climatecriminal: if we don’t get what we...
- Rob C: Sounds like a duck… Maybe if us...
- Sounds Like a Duck: What’s a matter white...
- dmorris: So, what was accomplished,and how much...
RSS Feed Info
Blogrolls
The weapons of mass destruction in Iraq currently belong to the Americans who brought them along…
[...] h/t to Tom Cerber, the Politic [...]
Tom, your link was too funny to do justice to in a simple response here. Forgive me, but I had to write about it at greater length than a comment would allow.
Brief version: Gaubatz’s narrative has precisely the same narrative style and characteristics of any obsessive kook, whether you’re talking about a Bigfoot fan, a UFO believer, or a perpetual motionist.
Longer version here: http://www.stageleft.info/2007.....ddams-wmd/
You’ll be glad to know that David Gaubatz has now diversified. His website now tries to link the murders at Virginia Tech with the International Islamofascist Conspiracy (and then hits you up for a donation to his non profit organization).
Thanks for the chuckle.
Barbie, I believe Tom’s exact donation: “judge for yourself.” Hardly a ringing endorsement!
I don’t think Tom is the ignorant fool here! Did you even read the Gaubatz’s piece on the Virginia connection to counter-terrorism?
It’s an explanation of the police response. He’s arguing that if they had treated it as a counter-terror operation they would have shut the campus down before the second round of shootings. He’s not saying it WAS a counter-terror operation but rather thinking that it could be a form of Islamic terror, from the start, is not that far fetched.
I quote: “This article is entitled Suicide & Islam, not because of the murders by Seung-Hui at the university, but due to the rush by the authorities to determine after the initial shootings at 7:15am that the motive for the initial shooting-murders had nothing to do with terrorism or even to a potential mass murderer but instead was a “simple domestic murder†case.”
You would do well to have some humility and read with closer attention.
…or a Gore/Suzuki Kyoto believer, or a 9/11 conspiracist, or a CBC employee(kooks)…bwahahaaaaaaa….
“Barbie, I believe Tom’s exact donation: “judge for yourself.†Hardly a ringing endorsement!”
Nor did I suggest it was, George.
“Did you even read the Gaubatz’s piece on the Virginia connection to counter-terrorism?”
Why yes, I did. I always read everything I link to, George. Why do you ask?
I personally found it a vulgar and exploitative attempt to milk the Virginia tragedy for a few bucks. You clearly view it differently. I can’t say I’m astonished, but heck, it’s a big world – room for all sorts.
Smarter than…if you’re suggesting that a predilection to conspiracy theories cuts across partisan lines, then I definitely agree. It prospers at the lunatic edge of both the left and the right.
I ask because it does not appear, from what you wrote, that you did read it.
You write: “His website now tries to link the murders at Virginia Tech with the International Islamofascist Conspiracy …”
It does? I think the author pretty clearly disavows such interpretation.
“This article is entitled Suicide & Islam, NOT because of the murders by Seung-Hui at the university, but due to the rush by the authorities to determine after the initial shootings at 7:15am that the motive for the initial shooting-murders had nothing to do with terrorism …”
And what exactly is “vulgar” and “exploitative” about it? Is the author not addressing the police response rather than Virginia Tech and the students involved?
“I ask because it does not appear, from what you wrote, that you did read it.”
I see. Well, you’re mistaken. I did.
“And what exactly is “vulgar†and “exploitative†about it?”
He entitles his article “Suicide & Islam: The connection to the slayings at Virginia Tech”. As you correctly observe, his article actually discusses no such thing. Instead, it leads you to a pitch for his current fundraising drive, a project to monitor mosques and schools across the US.
You don’t consider that vulgar and exploitative? Cool. Now I know a bit more about where you set the bar.
He DOES connect suicide and Islam to what happened at Virginia Tech; arguing that the response of law enforcement was inadequate because it was not sufficiently counter-terrorist.
He’s making the case the law enforcement agencies can’t fight terror on their own, but that there are things private groups can do; his being a “Sharia mapping project.”
I’ve expressed no opinion on the merits of what Gaubatz writes or is doing. You misrepresented what he actually wrote and have yet to explain what exactly is vulgar and exploitive about it; considering it concerns what he sees as law enforcement deficiencies and what he wants to do to help overcome them.
It’s funny that Stageleft just took down the link you provided.
“…have yet to explain what exactly is vulgar and exploitive about it…
Heh. I once tried to explain the concept of harmony to a tone deaf friend. It was an interesting attempt, but it failed too.
“It’s funny that Stageleft just took down the link you provided.”
Really? Since I’m managing the site at the moment, that’s funny indeed.
I can’t tell what you’re talking about, George. What “link” are you suggesting is down?
The link is working again. For while it was reading something about the site is virginal, so be gentle. :-)
You haven’t tried to explain what exactly is vulgar and exploitive here, which any good critic should be able to do. He’s using Virginia Tech as an example of deficiencies with policing agencies and procedure (hardly the first to do so), deficiencies that in his view justify private initiative.
Looks like there are a bunch of Smarter than copy cats. I will take that as a compliment.
“The link is working again.”
I see. Doubtless those Islamofascinazis at it againt.
‘You haven’t tried to explain what exactly is vulgar and exploitive here, which any good critic should be able to do.”
I’ve linked to it, George. As I said, if you don’t find it exploitative – no problem.
okey dokey