Actually it does, Z: And: So your assertion is hereby proven incorrect. Furthermore, Clarke & Cressey ask: Well, apparently the Bali 2002 resort bombing Al Qaeda operative and the terrorist financier in Brooklyn weren't on the same page and got caught thanks to the program. Their conclusion is laughable and rife with partisan opinion: Terrific. In other words, let the press make decisions about national security, and if the government doesn't like it, just ignore the issue. Rove strikes again! Add this to his resume of causing Katrina and personally planning 9/11. Sadly, Americans have come to expect this from has-been moonbats and their allies in the press. Next...
The article, written by experts in counter-terrorism, published in the New York Times unequivocally suggests that the reaction by the administration and the knee jerk right wingers is much ado about nothing, and more political than anything.... Of course what can you do but attack Clarke and Cressey as partisan. I mean, what else can you do? They are experts, you are not, but you know they are partisan in their article... Next....indeed....
Hi hap There are certain parts of this that we will have to agree to disagree about. Let me just address a couple of points. I also found the article that Zmoron provided (Clarke and Cressey), but I didnât want to post it, mainly because I donât know anything about the bona fides of the authors. I was sure that I would post it up and you guys would immediately point out that the authors were well known Dems and peaceniks But we see here that a couple of pros disagree with you, and feel that there wasn't a serious threat posed by this article. [EDIT: I see you have addressed that issue in your response to Z above] Yes, this is probably the best argument in favour of the treason charges. I saw that this fact had been mentioned in the article itself. Yes⦠see, hereâs where I start to have problems hap. First, I think you would agree that although the NYT authors included this lip service in the article, the underlying tone of it was 'and we donât believe a goddamn thing we are being told about how all of this is legal and above board'. If I had to sum up the article, I would say it is an innuendo piece that seeks to suggest there is something suspicious going on. So even though they mentioned this, it was lip service. The problem that people like me have is this. As you know, I feel that Gitmo is one of the lowest points in US history. After having our way of life and values attacked, the first thing we do is abandon those values and imprison these people without charges or anything. Now, I do not believe for a second that there are very many innocents in Gitmo â they most likely were either involved in or planning to be involved in terrorist activities. The point is, we had a chance to show the world â 'Look. We are going to give the people due process, because thatâs what separates us from all of you'. We should have charged them, tried them, and then executed them, if we had the evidence. The administration has made it clear that they will do anything they can do to collect all the information they can. They have made news by trying end-runs around established practice. The institutionalization of these procedures is very bothersome, outside the context of this 'war'. To tell you the truth, hap, my impression of GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest is that they would do anything they thought they could get away with to increase their personal wealth and power. This is just my belief. I donât want them to have access to my private records. It doesnât matter that this particular effort may not grant them that. It is the idea that they are pushing the line. I am happy that there are journalists trying to keep them accountable, because of you think about it, who else will do this job? I want these people making sure that the lines arenât crossed. And do I feel that way knowing we are at war? Hereâs the big problem. The only definition of this war that would work would have to include the idea that it is being fought against 1.5 billion potential combatants who are located in every country in the world. A very very tough war to prosecute, isnât it? If this were the task, it is clear that civil liberties would have to be suspended, since there is no way to fight such a war without shifting into a semi-totalitarian state. I can see how some would say 'Youâre damn straight, that is the situation we are in'. My main objection to the posts here on ET was with the suggestion that liberals want to see innocent civilians burned to death, and that we were working towards this goal. We have discussed the changing definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative'. Inasmuch as I am still a social liberal (not fiscal thatâs for sure), Iâm not too happy about the suggestion that I condone this kind of thing. Again, even though you provide a lot of supporting quotes, the question is whether or not we believe in all of that. I personally believe that this administration would do whatever they thought would get them information that they could use. I do not think they feel particularly bound by the rule of law or the ideas propounded by civil libertarians. One thing I am is a libertarian. Now I will say this - I don't think this program was being used to violate the rights of U.S. citizens. It's the prinicple of the thing, hap. If you ask me 'Do you totally reject the idea that the NYT might have published this for Pulitzer reasons or to sell newspapers', I would say no. It's possible. But do I want reporters keeping the administration in line? 100% for sure, because the question is this - if they don't do it, who the hell else is going to do it? Is this administration making the best decisions possible vis-a-vis protecting Americans on American soil from terrorist attacks? That is the thread we should start.
You don't know anything about Richard Clarke and his experience with counterterrorism? Try keeping up with current events, okay?
Z, how many times have you told me how stupid I am? And you expect me to be able to keep up? Shame on you, you should know better than that.
Z, how many times have you told me how stupid I am? Not nearly enough... And you expect me to be able to keep up? Yes, if you are going to play with the big boys outside of your sand box, yes... Shame on you, you should know better than that. I continue to hope that you might learn how to use a search engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
lol... you're so easy to incite, Z. By this time, I know exactly what to say to you to send you off into a frothing rage Owned AGAIN!!!! The only surprise is that the word fuck or ass didn't appear in your reply, since that's about all you know how to say these days in response to requests for clarifications engendered by the assertions, contradictions and outright lies in your posts. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1119187#post1119187
Ummm... one that owns you AGAIN, for the 4th time in 48 hours? Come to think of it, you're right. That would be just as juvenille as using the term 'spanked', wouldn't it? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1115289&highlight=spanked#post1115289 BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! AGAIN, I cannot BELIEVE IT!!!!! This ownage was not as bad as the other night, though...hang on, I'll post the links. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1115257#post1115257 But this is the absolute classic of all time. If I had to sum you up in a few sentences, I would post a link to this. It shows you for exactly what you are. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1115377#post1115377
Ownage? ROTFLMAO... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownage I will let you get back to your internet games.... Try to find some teenager your own age and intelligence level to play with...