Our favorite left gatekeeper on 9/11

[William Seger]

22. Chomsky makes sense; you do not

Let's start by accurately stating what Chomsky says in the linked video:

1. BushCo desperately wanted to invade Iraq.

2. BushCo blamed 9/11 on Saudis, not Iraqis.

3. Unless they're total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis, not Saudis, so they wouldn't have needed to fabricate claims about WMDs and al Qaeda links that quickly fell apart.

4. Therefore, either BushCo are total lunatics or they weren't involved.

5. They are not total lunatics.

6. Not stated but implied: Therefore, they weren't involved.

I assume you won't argue against 1 and 2, so your attempted refutation begins with 3, to which you say:

> 1. Iraqis were rare or absent in al Qaeda. I've never heard of even one Iraqi member of al Qaeda.

But you're really affirming Chomsky's point! If they planned the attack to justify invading Iraq, then they should want to blame it on Iraqis, not al Qaeda.

2. Iraqis would have been very difficult to recruit for an attack on the USA, because they would have known that the response would be devastating attacks on their homeland. Saudis, by contrast, could be very confident that Bush would never attack their homeland.

And "no true Scotsman..." huh. In addition to your assumption that it would be "very difficult," you failure to distinguish between "very difficult" and "impossible."

> 3. Framing Iraqis would be difficult. Friends of Iraq would be very skeptical.

First, why would the worry about that? But more importantly, since it wasn't just "friends of Iraq" who were more than "very skeptical" of the justifications they actually came up with after blaming the attack on Saudi al Qaeda, you're really just affirming Chomsky's point again.

> 4. Using Saudis gave the Dominators the excuse to bomb many countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, AND Iraq) while use of Iraqis would only get a license to bomb Iraq

That's such a total non sequitur it's hard to even comment on, but it appears to be another of your famous "just so" stories that doesn't actually demonstrate anything at all beyond its own assumptions.

> 5. Using Saudis gives the plotters the cooperation of the Saudi government, while no cooperation could be expected from the Iraqi government

And another. Your assumptions about who would and would not cooperate don't even really matter since you didn't establish any reason why BushCo wanted or needed cooperation from either. It's amusing that you say Chomsky's assumption "is just plain stupid" and then give as a reason that BushCo couldn't count on Iraq's "cooperation" in blaming Iraqis to justify invading Iraq.

So, Chomsky's points 1 through 3 survive your blistering rebuttal unscathed, which means the conclusion in point 4 appears to be valid and sound rather than "just plain stupid."

Your rebuttal to point 5 appears to be "Uh-huh, yeah they are lunatics! I've got evidence!" But it seems you forgot to say what evidence you have of that sort of lunacy.

So once again, you seem to be waving empty hands, and yet:

> I don't have to prove any CTs at all. I only need to shoot holes in the silly arguments you guys put up in defense of the prevailing myths you are so desperate to believe.

Self-flattery will get you nowhere. Ditto for imaginary holes; seems to me you can't hit the broad side of a barn. No, you don't have to prove any CTs, provided that you are content with being irrelevant. The "official story" will continue to be the one that makes the most sense, given the actual evidence. Either you've got a more convincing story or you don't, and you admit that you don't. You're just playing games, and not very well.