Lately we have been graced by a true iconoclast. Daringly naming themselves "anonymous" this individual, (both here and in similar comments on the riverSbend smearsite) is apparently of the opinion:
"You are wrong as to what the intent [of the riverSbend smearblog] was all about. I think it was always about the contract. Where is the $50 million dollar contract? "
Anonymous apparently believes that the whole intent behind the blog was to dispute the Diyala Bridge contract and even provides this link where "Diego Gastor" (Troy's alias) says he can find no mention of the bridge contract.
Well Anonymous you are a joke. You are the kind of historical revisionist that would make Stalin blush with shame.
Here's what Diego Gastor might said if he had set up his blog to dispute the veracity of the bridge contract. "Check out my blog it is set up to cast doubt on the veracity of the bridge contract"
In fact what he says "It' must be a misunderstanding on the part of "river"" and links to the blog which at the time mentioned not one single word about the bridge contract
Later on in the same thread Diego Gastor, on the case as ever posts these. The first one is a (presumably inadvertant) link to the original Riverbend site. The next is a link to the smear site saying
"I found this site to be very interesting: http://riversbendblog.blogspot.com/. However, I find nothing to backup the story about the New Diyala Bridge"
Well that's a very spirited denunciation of the contract story!
And if anonymous would like to defend their ludicrous view that the whole point of the blog was *always* to dispute the bridge I'd like them to tackle this thread in detail.
Here a rather pompous self-righteous and tedious sort calling himself "Brian In Boston" tackles Mr Gastor about the Riverbend blog only to have Mr Gastor say things like "I think river, http://riversbendblog.blogspot.com/ has found herself an American boyfriend because her attitude has taken a 180 deg. turn lately."
And referring to the archives (later riverSbend's were proven fake) of the two blogs:
I look at the archives of BOTH and can only conclude that
http://riversbendblog.blogspot.com/ started posting in July and the archives on http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ started posting in
Explain how you conclude the one that started posting in July was not posting first. I would love to see how you make August be before July."
Actually there's a good question Anonymous, if the riverSbend blog was only ever intended to question that single bridge contract story then why did it fake its archives? I'll be very interested in hearing you explain away that one.
Finally on this subject I thought since Troy will probably delete this soon from his own site that I would reproduce this comment that I addressed to Anonymous at the smearblog:
If this site owner ("anonymous", Troy) really intends to reach out to a constituency that could believe all this site was ever intended for was to dispute the Diyala Bridge contract, then he should realise that goldfish, with their 6 second memory spans, do not tend to have internet access.
Us sentient humans recall the months when there was not one word on that contract here but just a really poor attempt to convince people that it was a blog written by an Iraqi "woman worker". And there are plenty of posts on Usenet by Troy's aliases where he asserts the same thing. Funny that "Anonymous" never found any of those on his google searches... :)