Monday, June 26, 2006

Going Away For A Few days

I hope the nation will be safe from flag-burning by the time I get back.

I hope the nation will be safe from the commie pinko terrorist-loving traitors at the NY Times by the time I get back, so let's get to prosecuting them for those national security leaks.

On a serious note, I do hope the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not continue to worsen. The Washington Post reports that Maliki has announced his 24 point plan for reconciliation in Iraq while the Post reports this about Afghanistan this morning:

KABUL, Afghanistan, June 25 -- Many Afghans and some foreign supporters say they are losing faith in President Hamid Karzai's government, which is besieged by an escalating insurgency and endemic corruption and is unable to protect or administer large areas of the country.

As a sense of insecurity spreads, a rift is growing between the president and some of the foreign civilian and military establishments whose money and firepower have helped rebuild and defend the country for nearly five years. While the U.S. commitment to Karzai appears solid, several European governments are expressing serious concerns about his leadership.

"The president had a window of opportunity to lead and make difficult decisions, but that window is closing fast," said one foreign military official in Kabul who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

"This is a crucial time, and there is frustration and finger-pointing on all sides," the official said. "President Karzai is the only alternative for this country, but if he attacks us, we can't help him project his vision. And if he goes down, we all go down with him."

In markets and mosques across the country, Afghans are focusing discontent on Karzai, 48, the amiable, Western-backed leader whose landslide election in October 2004 appeared to anchor a process of political reconstruction and stability that began with the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban in late 2001.

Since then, public confidence in his leadership has soured with reports of highway police robbing travelers, government jobs sold to the highest bidder, drug traffic booming and aid money vanishing. There are no public opinion polls here, but several dozen Afghan and foreign observers expressed similar views.

Since April, an aggressive Taliban offensive across the south has resulted in the deaths of 600 people. In the past four days, more than 150 insurgents have been reported killed in battles with Afghan and foreign troops in the southern provinces of Uruzgan and Kandahar.

Late last month, a riot in Kabul, in which protesters attacked foreign facilities for hours as police vanished from the streets, raised concerns among many people here that the government is too weak to protect even the capital.

It seems both Karzai in Afghanistan and Maliki in Iraq have just a little time left to take charge of the situations in their respective countries. Here's wishing them luck and good fortune in their endeavors.

Now let's keep this nation safe from flag-burning, okay!!!

Actually the Times is not near commie pinko enough for my tastes, having sat on the spying story all through the 04 campaign.

What an embarrassment my congressman Peter King is, going after those who print the truth, to defend those who blatantly lie about it.
I laugh at the left when they bitch about people trying to suppress the first amendment rights that the N.Y. Times supposedly has to print information that might just well get people killed, but then let the N.Y. Times wipe its ass with other parts of the Constitution.
The President has stated publicly that wiretaps require court orders. I'm glad that you have no problem with his blatant lies.

Who was killed as a result of the Times exposing him for the liar he is?
There you go transposing letters again.

"Safe for burning. Safe for burning."

The president has said that DOMESTIC wire taping requires a warrant. Why am I not surprised that someone who reads the N.Y. Times cant get his facts straight?

Every time the Times reveals classified information that up to that point had been effective in mitigating terrorist activity they put Americans in jeopardy. The under-secretary to the Treasury Dept. pleaded with the Time NOT to release the information as it relates to banking records. They did it anyway in spite of the fact that the story indicates there seems to be legal ground for this to be done. Clearly, with that in mind, the N.Y. Times is morally bankrupt.
Hey Arch,

Actually, it's rather well-known the president indeed engaged in domestic wiretapping without a warrant.

According to Forbes, Arlen Specter doesn't much care for it.

The exchange came during a midterm election year in which Specter, some fellow Republicans and many Democrats are highlighting concerns about the administration's use of executive power. Specter's personal list includes Bush's warrantless domestic wiretapping program, the administration's checking of phone records and the sending of officials to hearings but saying they cannot answer lawmakers' questions on national security grounds.

And my question was this--who aws killed as a result of the Times telling the truth about this lying president?

As interesting as your unsubtantiated speculation is, I'd appreciate an answer.

NSA does not listen to or record phone conversations. All the NSA requested from telecom companies were phone records. Not recorded conversations.

I must admit, your willingness to distort or you lack of understanding this point in conjunction with the fact that you are an educator has me concerned.

Please do some homework on what NSA is and what NSA is not (media distortions do not count).

For extra credit provide examples of supposed NSA abuses by Democrat presidents. Hint: Clinton & Carter.
I regret that you have chosen to resort to personal attacks. Given the increasingly untenable argument you're making, I can't say I'm surprised.

I also regret you do not consider US Senator Arlen Specter or Forbes magazine reliable sources.

Specter's personal list includes Bush's warrantless domestic wiretapping program...

You'll pardon me if I find them more reliable than your word, which as usual, is without substantiation of any sort.

I'll ask you for the third time now, who was killed as a result of the NY Times exposing the illegal activities of this president?
Any personal attacks between you and myself where started when YOU decided to lampoon one of my posts here. As to your claims that my facts are unsubstantiated, it should be noted that on any posting here where I have been asked to provide "proof" I have done my best to provide credible evidence supporting my position. Furthermore I do not stoop so low as try and trap my opponent by asking him questions which have unsubstantiated fact in them, as that is the realm of 3rd graders.

I don’t agree with everyone here but have done my best to part of the solution and not part of the problem. Now, as I have little time for antics with semantics and would like to get to a more productive relationship with you. I extend an invitation for us to start over with the utmost respect for one another. Agreed?
Actually, Arch, comparing me to a third grader, and questioning my professional qualifications, about which you know nothing whatsoever, do indeed constitute personal attacks. There's nothing antic or semantic about it. I've yet to attack you personally, and do not intend to do so.

Despite your words about doing your "best", you have not bothered to substantiate any of the claims you've made in your discussions with me. Not one. Nor have you provided a single source suggesting my question is predicated on a falsehood.

I was not lampooning you, but your claims, which frankly, are echoes of right-wing talking points. I said not a single word about you.

However, if it makes you happy, let's leave out the part about the lying president, despite the source I've provided, and your complete lack of evidence to the contrary.

Here's a simple question:

Who was killed as a result of the Times reporting the facts (which you have not disputed) about President Bush's programs?

Who said anything about anyone being killed?
You did.

...the N.Y. Times supposedly has to print information that might just well get people killed...

Who got killed, Arch?

"Might just will" is not the same as "will"

did you then mean to ask me who might get killed?
No. I asked who did get killed.

That's less abstract, don't you think?

So who got killed?

So we are clear, this question: “Who did get killed” has been posed by yourself and not me. That being said I will do my best to explain why the SWIFT operation WAS so important.

Now, thanks to SWIFT at least one person was apprehended and convicted by the name of Hambali. Hambali apparently was the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort. The death toll there was 202.

Now, will you at least admit that if this man were not captured and convicted that it is LIKELY that he would have gone on to engage in terror and that it is LIKELY that more people would have died as a result of that terror?
If the best argument you can muster that the Times should not publish a story in 2006 involves a single arrest which happens to have taken place in 2003, it's flimsy indeed.

Furthermore, it does not remotely suggest that the Times is responsible for anyone's death. If the terrorists are indeed stupid enough not to realize that their funds are being targeted, despite very public pronouncements from President Bush, like this one:

Well, if they're that stupid, we have very little to fear from them.

As for the question, I think it's fairly clear to anyone following this conversation that I posed it, Arch, as I've asked it at least four times.

It's also fairly clear you've yet to answer it. Changing the subject, alas, does not constitute an answer.

Who got killed, Arch?

You are so caught up in your own hatred for George Bush that you cant even admit that someone caught by a formerly secret operation would have continued his acts of terror can you?
Actually, I've answered your question. I've given you reasons, and backed them up with the words of the President of the United States, no less.

You're making baseless and illogical assumptions. I've expressed no hatred for him. I've simply called him a liar, given reasons for it, and backed them up with references.

You chose to reject them, providing no substantiation whatsoever.

I'll have to assume you are incapable of answering my simple question. I'll further have to assume that it is a waste of time providing you with further facts that contradict your wholely unsubstantiated opinions.

Oh well, sorry it didnt work out
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?