If you can ignore “artificial corrections”, “tricks”, and non-melting glaciers as evidence that there is nothing at all untoward about the great Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change Hoax, then there is nothing I can produce for you to support my opinion (this is not an analysis) that the real purpose of a civilian trial for KSM and his buds is to effectively put the Bush Administration on trial. [News Flash: This is hardly an original thought. It’s been echoed by a lot of commentators].

But, as a public service since you claim to be incapable of following this thought (a claim I believe has some merit in general, given our past discussions), I’ll spell it out in crayon for you.

Since the Obama Administration has already said the terrorists are guilty, it is legally impossible for them to get a fair trial in a civilian court where we begin with the presumption of innocence. And since Obama and Holder have publicly said that even if these terrorists somehow get acquitted, we’re never going to let these guys go.

So those of us with a modicum of common sense, and a passing understanding of the political process, know that we are left with only two choices. Given previous trial balloons about putting Bush Administration officials on trial for their actions during the war on terrorism, coupled with the calls by Obama’s leftist kook base for B&C to be tried as war criminals, the only reason to try these terrorists in civilian court is to allow for Discovery, which will effectively put Bush and Cheney on trial, and thus give the world court any “justification” it needs to prosecute them as war criminals.

There is of course a second possibility, that Obama and Holder are simply as dumb as a box of rocks, which I’m willing to accept as a possible explanation for this and other actions. Take your pick. I’m comfortable with either conclusion.

Was this really that difficult for you to understand?

Once again, with nothing at all of substance to offer, Raymond searches for a way to participate in a conversation.

I’m also aware that “Outcomes do not determine motivations”, but I haven’t seen you offer any evidence that your analysis of the Obama administration’s motives is correct. I’m sure you feel that it’s right, but it’d be nice to know why you feel that way.

So far as I can tell, you don’t think that following through on a fundamental principle of American justice is a sufficient motive, and the only other motive you can imagine is so that they can indirectly ‘get’ Bush and Cheney, or at least strive to put them in jeopardy for prosecution by “the world court”. Is that correct?

Thus Raymond’s objection is to “anything indicating that prosecution of Bush administration officials is even being contemplated.”

Could it really be that Raymond’s entire take-away from my comment was an assumption that I said Obama himself intended to put Bush on trial?

It’s the only way to remotely make sense of Raymond’s conclusions.

*** I assume this is actually a serious comment by Raymond. Hitler said he had no intention of starting a war in Europe, and in fact specifically blamed Poland for provoking German forces (the “exact opposite” statement), so I guess it really must have been Poland’s fault after all.

You do not analyze a political action by looking to whether a politician telegraphed his motives in a written document or speech. Many times what a politician says in public is not reflective of what they intend to do and why they intend to do it.

Is this even worthy of discussion?

Raymond. There’s nothing contradictory about my original statements. One thought clearly follows the others.

As for your convoluted logic, you can pursue a strategy designed to “allow for Discovery” [note the words “allow for”], which will effectively put Bush and Cheney on trial instead of the terrorists, and by doing this give the world court any “justification” [note the word “justification”, not “assure a decision”] it might need to prosecute Bush and Cheney as “war criminals.”

For my analysis to have credibility does not require that at the end of the process there will be an actual “prosecution”, meaning that if the Discovery is inadequate, or the world court’s motives are discredited the way the global warming hysterics have been discredited , or any other factors intervene and no actual prosecution takes place , the motives I described were never a factor.

[Now I know why Rahm Emanuel referred to the looney Left as “F-en retards”. It’s a crude way to make an otherwise valid point about the way these people think.]

Oh, and as to “statements by Obama or his officials to back this up”, I’m referring to anything indicating that prosecution of Bush administration officials is even being contemplated. I linked to quotes indicating the opposite.

And, again, how much are you willing to bet that discovery in trials of “KSM and his buds” leads to prosecution of “Bush and Cheney” by either a domestic or “the world court”?

Raymond “I’d be very curious to see if you have any statements by Obama or his officials to back this up.”

Now we understand how Raymond’s previous inquiry into Climategate cleared these officials. He searched for emails that said “We are deliberately falsifying our data to support a pre-conceived position.” All he found was words like “trick” and “artificial correction”, which are not the same words “deliberately falsifying”, so there’s nothing to worry about here.

This explains a lot about how Raymond looks at the world. You don’t analyze a person’s actions and decisions and come to a conclusion about them. Rather, you look at their emails and diaries to find them saying “I’m going to commit a crime/fraud”, before you can “back up” your analysis.

In the absence of a declaratory statement by the person implicating him/herself, there is no evidence.

Amazing.

*** Apparently there was. Hans Fritzsche, Frans von Papen and Hjalmar Schacht were acquitted of some of the charges.

The Obama Administration has already said they’re guilty (no surprise here), and even if they somehow get acquitted (or the case gets tossed for predjudicial comments), we’re never going to let these guys go.

There wasn’t any real doubt that those prosecuted in the Nuremberg trials were guilty, too, but we held trials anyway.

So, the only reason to put on a public show is to allow for Discovery, which will put Bush and Cheney on trial, and give the world court any “justification” it needs to prosecute them as war criminals.

I’d be very curious to see if you have any statements by Obama or his officials to back this up. (A lot of people disagree.) How much are you willing to bet on such an outcome?