A simple question for OCTers:

[Subdivisions]

Is/was Theodore Olson credible?

[LARED]

1. About what? - nt

[Subdivisions]

2. Next. n/t

[LARED]

3. What's the matter?

Can't take the heat of a simple question?

[Subdivisions]

4. Did you answer my simple question? n/t

[LARED]

6. Ok

Perhaps if you answered my question asking what aspect of Olson is or is not credible, I could provide an answer.

[Subdivisions]

7. Generally speaking, is he or is he not credible? Yes or no?

Your question to my question could leave one with the impression that, should I specify an area in which to determine/question whether or not Olson is credible, that there would be areas in which he is not credible.

So, GENERALLY SPEAKING, is Ted Olson credible?

[LARED]

8. You've answered your own question

Is this some kind of stupid game? If you're looking for cheerleaders to reinforce idiotic CT notions you may harbor about Olson I'm not your guy.

If you're asking do I think him credible about the phone calls he received from his wife, the answer is yes.

[Subdivisions]

9. Good. Now we're getting somewhere. Now, I'll be more specific. Do

you believe his representation of Bush v. Gore was honest and credible and that he conducted himself in the highest professional manner with the best interest of the American People in his mind and heart?

And, to save time I'll also ask this: Do you believe his representation of Reagan during Iran-Contra was honest and credible and that he conducted himself in the highest professional manner with the best interest of the American People in his mind and heart?

[LARED]

10. Frankly I'm not entirely familiar with his work back then

and what this has to do with 9/11 is quite the mystery. But to answer you're question I would assume given these issues the answer is no.

[Subdivisions]

11. Alot that's not about 9/11 is discussed in this forum including JFK and UFOs. So,

then what you are saying is that you are willing to give Olson the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his 9/11 testimony but you are not willing to give him the same credibility where it concerns the fact that he respresented george w. bush in the coup that took place in the 2000 election as well as his responsibility as Ronald Reagan's attorney in the Iran-Contra hearings?

[LARED]

12. Perhaps this escapes many CT'er

But in Olson's role as a lawyer for political purposes his credibility is certainly in question. When it comes to testifying about his dead wife I am inclined to take him at his word. I also find it despicable that CT'ers drag the dead through their infantile fantasies about 9/11.

So unless you have something better than "Olson is a Republican so he's guilty" please take your fantasies elsewhere

[Subdivisions]

14. You don't have the right to tell me to go elsewhere. And you are a CT.

Please show me where I stated that Olson is guilty of anything or that because "Olson is a Republican so he's guilty".

It's clear that you pick and choose what to believe based on what your assignment is. You choose to believe Olson regarding 9/11 but you choose not to place any credibility on his involvement with the 2000 coup or his Iran-Contra defense.

And waving your arms around about my dragging Barbara's dead body around in my fantasies has absolutely no effect on me whatsoever.

[LARED]

15. My assignment? - more CT fantasies

Are you a no planer to?

[Subdivisions]

16. Nope. I'm am not a no-planer. Thanks, though, for playing. n/t

[LARED]

19. Good, that means your intellectual faculties are functioning. nt

[Subdivisions]

21. Why, thank you, LARED. That's a very nice thing for you to say. n/t

[NowHearThis]

27. "No planer" is a misnomer.

There were real planes flying around all over the place on 9/11. There was the fly-by plane in NYC, the C130 near the Pentagon (and perhaps near Shanksville), one flew near/towards the cuckoo's nest - but it didn't scare fearless Dick, and one even flew over
the Pentagon.

However, none crashed on 9/11. Unless you count the cartoon planes seen in the doctored videos that were used to sell the OCT.

[LARED]

28. No-planer is clearly understood to mean

an individual that believes no planes hit the WTC, Pentagon or Shanksville.

I personally would prefer a more descriptive name addressing the mental capacity of no-planers, but it would be breaking the DU rules.

[Subdivisions]

30. The same descriptive name could be used to address those

who buy the OCT. But, as you said, we can't use it.

[LARED]

31. Please don't pretend there is an equivalence between

no-planers and so called OCT'ers.

Someone with a George Bush Tattoo on one arm and a Dick Cheney tattoo on the other has more on the ball than a no-planer.

[Subdivisions]

34. Deleted. n/t

[Subdivisions]

29. Ok, you're making me have to say this...

I do not support the notion that no planes crashed that day. I don't want to get into an "inter-truther" debate with you about it. Just wanted to state that for the record. I do, however, believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by a cabal that includes, but is not limited to, dick cheney and the Neocons.

[AZCat]

35. Congratulations!

You've taken the first step! For your sake I hope this doesn't end with you being run out of the "truth movement" on a rail.

[NowHearThis]

5. No. no. And hell no.

He even bragged in a speech that it's okay for the Government to lie.

[Subdivisions]

13. Yes. And he's also a trusted member of the BFEE and has been

for quite some time. Also, it took him less than a year to get over his wife's tragic death in order to hitch up with Lady Booth, who later became his fourth wife.

He was also http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Olson&fname=Theodore">a financial supporter of Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign this past election cycle. When Giuliani dropped out, he then donated to John McCain's campaign. He has also been a contributor to Susan Collins (ME), John Cornyn (TX), Specter (PA), Lungren (CA), and Rohrabacher (CA), and both bushes.

[NowHearThis]

17. All true. Also, I'm pretty sure I read that brother Ted...

was seen drowning his sorrows about Barbara while consuming many liberal libations of a 90 proof nerve tonic and in the company of
a comely blonde, only weeks after her (involuntary) ultimate sacrifice on behalf of BUSHCO and a terrified nation of sheep.

[Ohio Joe]

36. Do you have a source for that? - nt

[NowHearThis]

38. Yes. DU,

nt

[Ohio Joe]

39. Link please

Sorry, I thought it would be understood I wanted to see the source of this information.

[SDuderstadt]

40. This is just more of NHT's total bullshit...

he'll never provide you with anything for the simple reason he doesn't have anything.

[NowHearThis]

42. See post #41

nt

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

43. It was YOUR fucking assertion, NHT!

I knew you couldn't back it up because it's simply more of your bullshit.

[NowHearThis]

44. Slow down, little fella. I didn't ASSERT anything.

I said that I remember reading about Ted and Barbara. See post #41

[SDuderstadt]

46. That's an assertion, dude...

Your verbal gymnastics are really unimpressive. In case you try to deny it again, here's what you said, dude:

Also, I'm pretty sure I read that brother Ted was seen drowning his sorrows about Barbara while consuming many liberal libations of a 90 proof nerve tonic and in the company of a comely blonde, only weeks after her (involuntary) ultimate sacrifice on behalf of BUSHCO and a terrified nation of sheep.

[Ohio Joe]

51. I did look before I asked

I have noticed that you do not seem to ever offer any type of evidence for your claims. I don't suppose you will offer any evidence of your new assertion that Ted had something to do with family member deaths?

[NowHearThis]

52. I guess your research skills aren't the best. Maybe bb will help out.

I can understand your interest. It really is fascinating information. About both Ted AND Barbara.

[SDuderstadt]

53. Don't you just love the way NHT makes claims, then...

pretends it's YOUR duty to prove them? Pathetic.

[Ohio Joe]

54. Your reasoning is faulty

Unfortunately, never backing up claims will only reflect on you, not the person that questions them. I have been polite and patient trying to get any type of proof from you regarding some extremely vile claims and your response is to belittle me. Anyone reading will clearly see that and any validity that you think is behind your claims vanishes.

[LARED]

18. Absolutely shocking

Olson remarried in 2006 and supports Republicans.

Clearly this is incontrovertible evidence he was part of the 9/11.

[Subdivisions]

20. Did I say that, LARED? I merely stated facts. But, if you want to believe

that his associations make him suspect in the crimes of 9/11, be my guest.

[LARED]

22. But you do believe Olson was part of 9/11 - yes? nt

[Subdivisions]

24. He did offer the information about the phone call from his wife. So, yes,

in so much as that is a fact. Whether he was part of the conspiracy or not, I don't know. That is just one of the thousands upon thousands of reasons we need a new un-tainted investigation. And, if you truly believe in your convictions concerning 9/11, then a new investigation should not be a problem for you. If you are correct that there is no over-arching conspiracy on the part of the BFEE, and a new investigation bears that out, I will gladly declare my concession and humbly accept the ridicule/jesting of you and your buddies.

[William Seger]

23. Look who's talking

You think http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=246042&mesg_id=247067">it's okay to lie, too.

[NowHearThis]

That's exactly what I remember you wrote way back when.

If you have access to the archives, take a look back at some of Spooked911's early posts and maybe you'll find the one
I'm referring to. I think you might have been new to DU, also. The reason I say that is because right up until you
told someone else that you're a software engineer, I believed you were a pilot. In the post where you wrote that, you
didn't say that you were a "Flight Simulator pilot". If you HAD said that, I would have NOT assumed that you wanted
people to think that you are a commercial airline pilot.

Maybe you MEANT to say that you were only a "MS Flight Simulator pilot" and maybe you were in a hurry to finish your comment
that in your haste you forgot to include the modifying phrase.

[William Seger]

33. No, you are simply lying (n/t)

[William Seger]

25. Is Nancy May (Renee May's mother) credible? (n/t)

[Subdivisions]

26. Off-topic. Please answer my question about Ted Olson. If you want

to start a new thread about Nancy May, then please do.

[William Seger]

37. Ah. I thought perhaps...

... the more general topic was whether any of the AA77 phone calls were received by credible people. You only want to talk about Olson, because.... ? What ARE you getting at, then?

[Subdivisions]

47. Please, either answer the question or move on. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Asking about Renee's phone is answering your question. n/t

[Subdivisions]

55. How in the fuck does asking about Ted Olson's credibility have

ANYTHING to do with Renee May, whom I did not even mention? Quit playing your stupid goofy games and answer the question. Or, please move along.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. How is Renee May's phone call from 77 off topic? n/t

[Subdivisions]

49. Bolo...

Where the fuck in my OP do you see the name Nancy or Renee May. My OP is about Ted Olson. Now, either anwser the question about Ted Olson or, please, move on.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Renee May was on board Flight 77. She made calls from it, the same as Barbara.

If Barbara was the only person making calls from 77, you might have a point. You Might, MIGHT have a point.

But since there were more than one person making calls from 77, your OP is an absolute fail.

Or, feel free to trash Nancy May here.

[Subdivisions]

56. Please either answer my question, which if I'm not mistaken

doesn't even mention 9/11 (as the subject of my post is Ted Olson), or move along.

And, why on God's green Earth would I trash Nancy May? If your comprehension was up to speed, you'd know that I didn't bring up Nancy. Seger, in yet another obvious lack of comprehension, did.

[vincent_vega_lives]

57. If you are not a No-Planer

why is this even an issue?

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Your question is trying to support a fallacious argument about 9/11`

and that argument is thoroughly destroyed by noting the telephone calls of Renee May from Flight 77 to her parents.

Even if you can establish the utter untrustworthy nature of Ted Olson, you still have to deal with May's calls from Flight 77. You gain nothing by impeaching Ted Olson as a witness. You are whistling through the graveyard.

So I maintain that your question is arguing a moot point. That is how this line of questioning is completely on topic. You presented that question in a context -- this forum, and several other threads about the phone calls of Barbara Olson from Flight 77. We've been here a long time, Sub. We've heard all of these arguments before. We know where you're going with them.

So stop pretending otherwise.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.