• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debunk-a-LIHOP

Bill Clinton was impeached but impeachment is only the first step in an attempt to involutarily remove an elected official from office. Technically, impeachment only means the bringing of charges, not the actual removal from office. Removal from office only occurs if the official is convicted of the charges against them. Bill Clinton was acquitted of the two charges against him.
 
Oliver said:
That's exactly my point: We can't proof or disproof LIHOP.
Unfortunately...
Click to expand...

What is your standard of proof? Certainty? Good luck. On a balance of probabilities, don't you think it's possible to come to a conclusion?

On a balance of probabilities, I conclude that that the Bush administration did not LIHOP.
 
"- I use flippant 'truther' language and have truther bias, as I have from the morning of 9/11. "


See the problem there?
 
I am a Weak LIHOPer.

That is, I think is is just barely possible that Bush issued orders to take heat off Saudis in the USA that had the effect of allowing 911 to occur, and it is just barely possible that he was hoping for some small terrorist incident to justify the pre-planned war in Iraq.

And that ought to be investigated.

But it is a low-probability possibility, and as easily explained by invoking the vast incompetence we have seen from this Administration in all departments.
 
LIHOP is just another term for conjecture. it's not an argument. If someone wants to claim LIHOP, then they need to prove it.
 
yodaluver28 said:
Bill Clinton was impeached but impeachment is only the first step in an attempt to involutarily remove an elected official from office. Technically, impeachment only means the bringing of charges, not the actual removal from office. Removal from office only occurs if the official is convicted of the charges against them. Bill Clinton was acquitted of the two charges against him.
Click to expand...

Yup. Exactly. And two of the charges never even got as far as impeachment.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Yup. Exactly. And two of the charges never even got as far as impeachment.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

I *still* think the funniest moment in American Politics to date happened when the oh-so-solemn house impeachment managers walked their impeachment over to the Senate. As though they had a case. I laughed my ass off that day. Is it too much to ask that lawmakers understand the law?
 
Oliver said:
No - but what the classified information is about, is clear: :)
Click to expand...

This quote concerns Hill and the CBC and foreign support being covered up and she says she can't talk about it because it is classified.

I find the "argumentum ad Canada" (is that approximately correct?) amusing. One thing I recall, right after 9/11, is that there were a lot of rumblings that "those Canadians must have let the hijackers in, they don't take these things seriously." I was in Detroit at the time, and considering the length of the Michigan/ Ontario border, this was very much a news story. At the university where I worked we had a lot of daily commuters from Windsor who suddenly couldn't come to class; we set up a broadcast program for the classes. (Or maybe not broadcast, you get the drift.)

Perhaps that is what Hill's classified documents discuss: speculation about the ease of crossing from Canada. Who knows? In any case, Oliver, no: it's not clear.
 
Last edited:
To get back onto the topic, which is Caustic Logic's LIHOP blog, I noticed this in the most recent post:

Is Osama bin Laden, or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or whatever deputies planned the ghastly attacks really that stupid that they couldn’t foresee the chain of events their actions would trigger? Were they not aware the attack might be seen as a “catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor,” or fail to realize who would benefit most from the political fallout? If not, their collective intelligence is clearly brought into question. If so, either the true motives of al Qaeda or their guilt for the attack must likewise come into doubt.
Click to expand...

Isn't that more of a MIHOP argument than a LIHOP one? I agree with Gumboot that Osama was hoping that the reaction would be similar to Mogadishu.

Interesting blog, Caustic; thanks for posting the link.
 
SDC said:
One thing I recall, right after 9/11, is that there were a lot of rumblings that "those Canadians must have let the hijackers in, they don't take these things seriously."
Click to expand...
You can still find the "all the 9/11 hijackers got into the U.S. from Canada" falsehood being stated today by some, including a few in Congress. This myth refuses to completely die off.
 
BenBurch said:
I am a Weak LIHOPer.

That is, I think is is just barely possible that Bush issued orders to take heat off Saudis in the USA that had the effect of allowing 911 to occur, and it is just barely possible that he was hoping for some small terrorist incident to justify the pre-planned war in Iraq.

And that ought to be investigated.

But it is a low-probability possibility, and as easily explained by invoking the vast incompetence we have seen from this Administration in all departments.
Click to expand...
What? Who makes up this stuff? (political bs)

The big vast incompetence on this topic is the 9/11 truth movement.
 
gumboot said:
He was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998 on two charges - perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Two other articles of impeachment - perjury in the Paula Jones case and Abuse of Power - failed.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Of course if you are going to insist on the strict legal meaning of the word but when I use the word.... LOL

You are right I was thinking about conviction by the senate and didn't look it up.
 
gumboot said:
The hijackers had foreign support? Wow. I'm shocked.

Oliver, it is well known that Al Qaeda has a broad base of support in the Islamic world, particularly in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. That's of no surprise whatsoever.

How you managed to get from "foreign support" to LIHOP (which, by necessity, would involve domestic support) I really have no idea.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


You got that wrong.

It's not shocking at all that the Hijackers had foreign
support - it's rather the question why Eleanor Hill, who
saw the CIA and FBI documents, thought the content
was "very disturbing".

This clearly indicates that there is something within these
files which is beyond the "non-shocking", official story.

Now you might be completely happy with the 28 blackened
sides within the 9/11 Inquiry, I'm not.

Too skeptical, I guess.

Anyway: I think the answer for or against LIHOP probably
lies within the 28 classified pages.
 
beachnut said:
What? Who makes up this stuff? (political bs)

The big vast incompetence on this topic is the 9/11 truth movement.
Click to expand...

Beach, on this I think we will disagree. From what I have read, there were areas of possible incompetence. A lot of them were at the institutional level, and many more were mixed with rivalry, jealousy, and arrogance, but there certainly were areas where some incompetence was seen.

For sure, there was arrogance and ignorance at the administrative level, that one would have to say in hindsight, made them look pretty incompetent.

TAM:)
 
BenBurch said:
I am a Weak LIHOPer.

That is, I think is is just barely possible that Bush issued orders to take heat off Saudis in the USA that had the effect of allowing 911 to occur, and it is just barely possible that he was hoping for some small terrorist incident to justify the pre-planned war in Iraq.

And that ought to be investigated.

But it is a low-probability possibility, and as easily explained by invoking the vast incompetence we have seen from this Administration in all departments.
Click to expand...

LIHOP and incompetence are not the same thing- and I'm not sure why "hoping for some small terrorist incident" needs an investigation, but I think you're willing to admit that your accusations are just biased political poo-flinging, and have no basis in fact, ie "pre-planned war in Iraq" is quite a bit of a stretch.

I just have a hard time taking people seriously when they claim in one sentence that Bush secretly planned this thing or put everything in place to let it happen, and then turn around and claim that he's the biggest moron to ever walk the face of the planet.
 
Totovader said:
LIHOP and incompetence are not the same thing- and I'm not sure why "hoping for some small terrorist incident" needs an investigation, but I think you're willing to admit that your accusations are just biased political poo-flinging, and have no basis in fact, ie "pre-planned war in Iraq" is quite a bit of a stretch.

I just have a hard time taking people seriously when they claim in one sentence that Bush secretly planned this thing or put everything in place to let it happen, and then turn around and claim that he's the biggest moron to ever walk the face of the planet.
Click to expand...

The question is was it really incompetence? Was it intentional? Was it both? I believe LIHOP is just barely possible, with a low probability of being true, but I cannot rule it out on what we know now. Nothing would be lost by appointing a special prosecutor and giving that person broad authority to investigate this Administration - the financial malfeasance over war spending ought to be enough to lock some people away for a long time, and MAYBE, while looking though all the emails and memos something rotten about the months before 9/11 might turn up.

So, I rankle at the suggestion that this is something I say only for political reasons; I really have my doubts given Bush's strong ties to the Saudis and the Bin Laden family, and I don't think you can tell me that those ties are insignificant or not worrisome in an American President.

-Ben
 
Last edited:
qarnos said:
Even if that is the case, it does not mean they should be taken to be equi-probable.
Click to expand...


And I agree.

It basically means - "Don't trust the official NOR the speculative explanations."
We simply don't know the final answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom