Note that Pericles has failed to answer my questions.

Those scratching their heads trying to make sense of Pericles' words should go back and read my posts dated:

1 April 2010 7:13:37 AM at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=21
1 April 2010 12:04:49 PM
1 April 2010 12:06:30 PM at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=22

And they should look at the videos I referred to in those posts:

"McKinney Grills Rumsfeld" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU

"Rumsfeld 2.3 Trillion Dollars missing Pentagon" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo

And then they should decide for themselves whether anything in Pericles' latest 'contribution' or anything else written by Pericles anywhere on this forum addresses the substantive evidence and arguments to be found there.

Good grief, daggett. Is it still a mystery to you?

>>Note that Pericles has failed to answer my questions<<

Which part of "it ain't lost, daggett", did you fail to comprehend?

No amount of flummery will get you past that simple fact.

Nor will sending the poor long-suffering addicts of this thread on a wild goose chase through your previous posts.

You have the entire transcript of Rumsfeld's speech available to you, but you insist on sending people to a YouTube video instead. That alone should indicate to you the weakness of your case.

Here it is. That speech. Again.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

Read it all.

Then encourage everyone else to read it too - after all, there's nothing like the original, when it comes to forming an opinion about what someone said nine years ago.

"And then they should decide for themselves whether anything in daggett's latest 'contribution' or anything else written by daggett anywhere on this forum addresses the substantive evidence and arguments to be found there."

Of course I don't object to people reading the original of Rumsfeld's speech at http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

As I wrote earlier, I think people will find that the wider context contained in the text doesn't, in any way, alter the essential meaning of the words contained in that video "Rumsfeld 2.3 Trillion Dollars missing Pentagon" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo

However, what I think what is more instructive than Rumsfeld's carefully crafted spin, whether on video or on text, is how he performed when confronted in 2006 when confronted by a congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who was determined to hold him to account over the issue at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU

---

In regard to Pericles' persistence in his pedantry of claiming that "missing" does not mean the same as "unable to keep track of", "missing" is also the term used by Pentagon whistleblower John Minnery of the $300 million he could not find:

"'We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on,' said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

"Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency's balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records."

"'The director looked at me and said "Why do you care about this stuff?" It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job,' said Minnery.

"He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off."
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml)

Anyway, Pericles can go on playing games with the meaning of words such as "missing", "not accounted for", "cannot track", etc. until Hell freezes over, but any reasonable person should be capable of grasping that amongst that "$2.3 trillion in transactions" that the Pentagon "[could not] track", sufficient funds to pay for 9/11 could have easily been found.

Pericles' insistence to the contrary was, and remains, a deliberate lie.

I wouldn't for a moment expect you to accept the incontrovertible reality of the situation, daggett. But no amount of bluster will change the simple fact that Rumsfeld's speech was on a totally different track to the one you characterise.

>>However, what I think what is more instructive than Rumsfeld's carefully crafted spin<<

It was an exhortation to his admin staff to shape up. Hardly "spin".

And I wouldn't place too much credence on Minnery either. He spent his employer's time "crisscrossing the country looking for records" trying to prove that $300m had gone missing, and failed.

But having failed, he still insisted that it was missing.

How logical is that?

No wonder he was "reassigned." I would have fired him for incompetence.

>>any reasonable person should be capable of grasping that amongst that "$2.3 trillion in transactions" that the Pentagon "[could not] track", sufficient funds to pay for 9/11 could have easily been found.<<

Errr.... only if some of it had actually gone missing, daggett.

And there is absolutely no evidence of that.

Whatsoever.

Well it looks as if Pericles is not going to succeed in convincing daggett that "missing" means something different to "unable to keep track of".

Perhaps if daggett was as smart as Christopher John or, perhaps, PynchMe, he would understand Pericles' argument, but sadly he is not.

---

It's amazing how so many whistleblowers with stories that appear, on the surface, to be embarrassing to their employers turn out to be incompetent, to be driven by resentment and have other grave human failings just as did Sibel Edmonds and Kevin Ryan.

This is unlike all their impeccable co-workers who know to keep their lips zipped.

I think Pericles' should be given a special assignment within the Ministry of Truth to similarly explain to the rest of us the flaws of other future whistleblowers and why we should pay no attention to them, whatever they might come up with.

Very tempting daggett.

>>Perhaps if daggett was as smart as Christopher John or, perhaps, PynchMe, he would understand Pericles' argument, but sadly he is not.<<

But I won't bite.

>>I think Pericles' should be given a special assignment within the Ministry of Truth to similarly explain to the rest of us the flaws of other future whistleblowers and why we should pay no attention to them, whatever they might come up with<<

There you go, exercising that massive logic muscle of yours again. Do be careful, too much of that can turn you blind.

Daggett's logic at work:

Pericles thinks Minnery is blowing smoke.

Minnery is a whistleblower.

Therefore Pericles thinks all whistleblowers are blowing smoke.

Well up to your usual standard, I'm delighted to report.