Nordic's performance in his
latest diary is like the sad performance of Jake Plummer under pressure. He had a perfect opportunity to prove his case that the CIA somehow faked the Bin Laden audio for partisan political purposes. But like Jake Plummer, who threw an interception when the Broncos got a huge runback to set him up for a score that would have brought them within striking distance of the Steelers, Nordic fumbled away his chance to make his case.
It is amazing how people with unproven theories are doggedly persistant at hawking their theories here in this community. It is just as amazing how they are unwilling to do the work that is necessary to prove their theories and get the story from this community into the media.
First of all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That means that when you make a positive assertion that the latest Bin Laden audio was faked, you have to do the work to prove the theory. Not only that, you have to have very strong evidence. And if the sources you use have been proven to be unreliable in the past, then they should not be used to try to prove your case.
It is, of course, possible to fake someone's voice. It is possible to put together a audio in which it looks like Bin Laden is blustering at the Americans. It is possible that Rove could plant evidence -- he has been known to do that before. All of the possibilities that Nordic and the commenters in his diary have raised are possible.
But possibility does not mean proof. Proof means the following:
--Physical evidence;
--Expert opinions by people qualified to make them;
--Eyewitnesses.
Because this is an extraordinary claim, the sources used to prove the claim must be reliable and above reproach. That means that Wayne Madsen is not a reliable source for proving your claim or theory. To make things even clearer, let me explain in more detail:
Physical evidence:
Physical evidence that proves what you say it does must be evidence that is easily understood by an average person. When you present a piece of evidence here, most reasonable people here should be able to look at it and see what you are seeing. The Pod Videos, used by some people to "prove" that the government used pods to steer the planes into the WTC and the Pentagon, are not reliable evidence. That is because I cannot tell whether the things on the videos are pods or landing gear or a part of the plane's wing.
Videos do not qualify as physical evidence, because they can be too easily doctored, unless they come from a source that the whole community believes is reliable. Nordic is right that videos can be doctored to make it look like certain things happened. But it works both ways. All of those videos you see that supposedly prove that the government bombed the WTC on 9/11 could just have easily been doctored. And that is a nail in the coffin for Nordic's case. If they can plant the evidence for Bin Laden's audio, then some con artist can just as easily doctor up videos to "prove" his case and make a fast buck.
On the other hand, the Downing Street Memos are genuine. That is because they were published by a newspaper, The London Times, which has a proven track record of telling the truth. The Bush administration and Blair government both admitted their authenticity. These documents proved that Bush and Blair conspired to doctor facts to make a case for war in Iraq.
Experts:
An expert opinion must be an opinion delivered by a person that is reliable and which is delivered by a person with the credentials to make the opinion. None of the people making the assertion that bombs blew up the WTC building are qualified to present that opinion as proof because they do not know chemistry, physics, or forensics. One of the most common expert opinions cited as "proof" for the 9/11 bombing theory was given by a Mormon theologian - not a scientist.
On the other hand, Juan Cole is an expert who specializes in Middle East Studies. Therefore, anything he says about the Middle East is reliable and can be accepted as fact. But if he were to make an assertion about, say, El Salvador, I would have a harder time with it unless he backed it up with reliable evidence.
Eyewitnesses:
An eyewitness testimony must be delivered by a person who is reliable and who has a proven track record of telling the truth. I have a hard and fast rule about this - any person who repeatedly changes their testimony is not reliable. That is why you will not find me believing Judith Miller or Deborah Howell any time soon.
On the other hand, Melody Townsel was a believable witness when she gave the key testimony that resulted in the successful filibuster of John Bolton. She gave first-hand testimony about what kind of a jerk John Bolton was; everything she had to say was based on personal experience. She had a proven track record of telling the truth; none of her right-wing enemies that she made were ever able to unearth instances where she lied about herself. Anita Hill was the same way when she testified against Clarence Thomas and nearly brought down his nomination.
Not only must these three items be present, the case must be presented in a way in which its central assertions can be put to the test. If the diarist is unwilling or unable to put their assertions to the test, then they have not succeeded in proving their case. If Nordic or any other person wishes to try to prove their case, they need to do it in a way that makes it possible for other people to investigate on their own and find the same thing - or disprove it. He must, in other words, be willing to disprove his own theories. If he fails to do so, then he has not proven his case because it is non-falsifiable.
If you make a case that is non-falsifiable, then that would be like me trying to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe so that all people could enjoy spaghetti. That does not constitute proof, because there is no way for skeptics to disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That would seem like proof for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, except Armando, who loves a good argument, could always argue with the exact same logic that the Tooth Fairy created the universe because she liked teeth.
Now, let us put Nordic's diary to the test:
Physical Evidence:
Nordic starts with a 1999 William Arkin column demonstrating how the CIA is capable of pulling such a task. But, going back to what I said above, all that article does is prove the possibility that the CIA could fake Bin Laden's voice. Possibility does not mean proof.
By the same logic, the Salem Witch Hunters would get all hysterical about how strange such and such a person was acting and how such and such a person was therefore, quite possibly, a witch. The same thing happened with the French Revolution; the people in power looked at people who did not shout loud enough, or still went to church every Sunday, and executed them because they were capable, in their judgment, of conspiring to bring back the monarchy. The same thing happened with the McCarthyites; they used Communism as an excuse to purge the country of liberals because of the possibility that they just might be Communists.
That is the kind of sordid, twisted logic you get into when you start saying that possibility means proof. I'm sorry, but I don't buy into that logic.
Then, Nordic bases a case on the controversial website What Really Happened, which shows that the picture Osama E is different from the other four and therefore faked. But What Really Happened is not a reliable source for information. They subscribe to the debunked theory that the government and the Mossad were behind 9/11 and not Osama. Therefore, they do not have a reliable track record and therefore are not a valid source of evidence here.
Experts:
None.
Eyewitnesses:
None.
As you can see, Nordic makes the disgusting argument that possibility means proof, used by so many evil men throughout history to justify violence, hate, and terror. Just because Bush is a power-hungry, corrupt fear-monger does not mean that we should act like him in return. But most importantly, Nordic does not make it possible for people to prove or disprove his assertion.
There is one possible way for us to find out if Nordic's assertion is true - do a letter-writing campaign to Al-Jazeera and ask them how they know all these tapes are from Bin Laden. Let us put our views to the test and see if they are true or false. I suggested that course in my conversation with him in my own diary about Bin Laden. But instead, he chose to trot out the possibility = proof argument.
Nordic's diary did not convince me that the CIA planted this video.