« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | Meet New York's new junior Senator »

WaPo: The War on Terror is Over

I guess we can take War on Terror off of the Wizbang category list as Barack Obama has determined that we should no longer aggressively pursue our enemies and has put an end to the War on Terror with his executive orders. He insists of course that counter terrorism efforts will continue, but they sound purely defensive. It sounds like he will respond after we are attacked instead of aggressively preventing an attack. I may be misinterpreting that, but when he halts all efforts to find the terrorists who who are plotting against us before they attack, I'm not sure what else you'd call it. From the Washington Post:

While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

It was a swift and sudden end to an era that was slowly drawing to a close anyway, as public sentiment grew against perceived abuses of government power. The feisty debate over the tactics employed against al-Qaeda began more than six years ago as whispers among confidants with access to the nation's most tightly held secrets. At the time, there was consensus in Congress and among the public that the United States would be attacked again and that government should do what was necessary to thwart the threat.

Am I reading that last sentence correctly? The Congress and the public no longer believe we are going to be attacked so we no longer need to do what is necessary to prevent that attack? If so, there's only reason for that: the success of George Bush's national security program. Has it ever occurred to anyone that we have reached an equilibrium? That maybe the reason people feel so confident that we won't be attacked again is because Bush's policies and programs reached an aggressiveness that equaled the terrorists' aggressiveness so we're at a peaceful standstill? Let's not be Pollyannish here. If we start easing back in our aggressive pursuit of our terrorist enemies, our enemies will not ease back in their aggressive pursuit of us. Instead, al Qaeda will declare that we are a paper tiger once again.

Yes, George Bush's previous policies sound like they came from an episode of 24, but isn't the US government supposed zealously protect its citizens from attack? And if zealous protection is too aggressive, then to what degree of determination is the CIA allowed to pursue our enemies? I'd like to know what the US government's newly redefined obligations are for protecting its citizens. If it's not assuming we're going to be attacked and working to prevent that attack, then what is it? Is it that we assume terrorists aren't plotting to kill us unless we hear chatter that tells us something different? Do publicly released video tapes from al Qaeda's leadership saying that they will destroy us count?

What the Washington Post has just told us is that we've gone right back to treating the War on Terror as just another a criminal justice endeavor, which means we can't do anything unless they do something to us first.

And I wonder how long it will be before we get word that the wall between the CIA and the FBI has been rebuilt.

We know where this kind of national security got us.

Mark Thiessen is a lot more direct in his criticism of Obama's actions:

A week ago, former Vice President Cheney advised the incoming president to take some time and look carefully at the policies and institutions the Bush administration had put in place to protect the country before following through on campaign pledges to dismantle them. President-elect Obama said on ABC's This Week: "I think that was pretty good advice, which is I should know what's going on before we make judgments and that we shouldn't be making judgments on the basis of incomplete information or campaign rhetoric."

Less than 48 hours after taking office, Obama has begun dismantling those institutions without time for any such review. The CIA program he is effectively shutting down is the reason why America has not been attacked again after 9/11. He has removed the tool that is singularly responsible for stopping al-Qaeda from flying planes into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, Heathrow Airport, and London's Canary Warf, and blowing up apartment buildings in Chicago, among other plots. It's not even the end of inauguration week, and Obama is already proving to be the most dangerous man ever to occupy the Oval Office.

And to think I actually believed Obama wouldn't do anything rash regarding national security and our safety after hearing how positive he was about Cheney giving him advice to take time and review everything. I'm not doing that again.

Update: Jules Crittenden offers his take on Obama's pull back from the War on Terror: GWOT Over! Long Live Jihad! Oh, and Jules also informs us that al Qaeda in Germany has announced that they've got an atom bomb:

German Al-Qaeda Operative Discusses Al-Qaeda's 'Atom Bomb', Says 'Our Striking Power in This New Crusader War is Reflected in the Mujahideen's Participation in the New Arms Race,' And Warns Germans to Make the Right Choice in September 2009 Elections

Does anyone here actually think that the West's national security response will go beyond hope they're bluffing? With George Bush no longer pushing the West to grow a pair, I suspect Germany will cave.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/34077.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WaPo: The War on Terror is Over:

Comments (79)

Come on! Obama is going to... (Below threshold)
John:

Come on! Obama is going to make us safe and protect us with his shield of love and happiness from the magical rays of sunshine!

Meanwhile...in reality...former gitmo guest is now back helping Al Qaeda...via New York Times.

Thanks to Obama, more to follow.

Yes, the war is over...Obama has surrendered.

So, public sentiment agains... (Below threshold)
KathyP:

So, public sentiment against perceived abuses by the government and not hard data about the terrorists is now dictating US policy. I think I'll stay out of big cities for the next 4 years.

Obamalala is writing the co... (Below threshold)
MPR:

Obamalala is writing the commandments of his new kingdom of La La Land.
Thou shalt not suspect or harm a terrorist until he has caused great harm. If he causes great harm he shall be protected and preserved from discomfort.

If conservatives were as sc... (Below threshold)

If conservatives were as scared of heart disease as they are of terrorists we would solve that problem within a generation.

I am so glad you guys aren't in charge of anything anymore.

I'm ambivalent about this -... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

I'm ambivalent about this - for two reasons.

First - Obama's got to make his own mistakes. If they're the wrong moves, then we're going to get hit and the backlash is going to be devastating when people realize the structure that's worked for the last 7 years was dismantled by Mr. Hopey-Changefulness. (Worked as in 'no US attacks' not 'made everyone happy with the US'.)

Second - As we've found out over the past 8 years or so what's been reported rarely is terribly accurate or complete. AND, if the media suddenly realizes that security classifications suddenly mean that they're not supposed to blab classified shit as far, fast, and loudly as possible, there will likely be a lot going on that we're not going to even get a sniff of.

Obama's apparently counting on unilateral disarmnament making a difference. We'll see what results from it... I don't think it's a smart thing to do.

"And if zealous protection ... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

"And if zealous protection is too aggressive . . ."

"aggressive" is not the problem

"illegal" is the problem

Also, you cannot prove a negative.

Again the left tries to lec... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Again the left tries to lecture us on legal. I have yet to find it, but in their la la land, it is there.

Obama weakened us just as Al Queda thought GW would do, but thank God GW was steadfast.

The liberals think terrorists only hate republicans. So naive and so dangerous. ww

Maybe Obama is just plannin... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Maybe Obama is just planning to going back to the old way of doing things -- beheading terrorists on Al Jazeera and hanging the corpses on bridges...

Nah, prolly not...

Either Obama is so naive that he thinks he can unilaterally disarm America as a global peace strategy, or he plans to rely on covert Jack Bauer operatives, which will only be effective for the 20 minutes it takes for the New York Times to rat him out.

Adrian, I don't accept your... (Below threshold)

Adrian, I don't accept your premise that Bush's policies were illegal. Those who declared them illegal were Bush haters and had motive to lie. They wanted him and his policies repudiated and a Democrat in the White House. Why would I believe them?

Now, are you saying that it's more important for our CIA and FBI to follow a law that says they can't water board to get information about an attack if it means that Americans would die as a result? If so, why do you value the life of the terrorist over those of the Americans about to die?

Can I assume that you would not protect your family from an intruder by killing him if your gun were unregistered and therefore illegal?

Also, you haven't said a word about my statement that Obama is taking us back back to a policy where terrorists must strike us first before we can respond. Do you agree with my assessment and if so do you agree this is the correct way to handle terrorists actively working to attack us?

Blue Neponset #4Only... (Below threshold)
MPR:

Blue Neponset #4
Only in Obamalala La La Land would a citizen confuse the heart of a murderous terrorist with heart of an American that needs a transplant to live.

Can I assume that you would... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Can I assume that you would not protect your family from an intruder by killing him if your gun were unregistered and therefore illegal?

Give it a couple of months. There are already actual bills in draft to tax ammunition, renew and expand the assault weapons ban, and create a national registry of gun owners. They will all be made illegal.

We don't need weapons any more. The second amendment is one of those annoying old-fashioned parts of the Bill of Rights that are no longer necessary.

Article says:"Obam... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

Article says:

"Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad"

Kim reads:

"Barack Obama has determined that we should no longer aggressively pursue our enemies and has put an end to the War on Terror."

Kim, either you have a reading comprehension problem, which I doubt, or you willfully distort and exaggerate, which I believe.

The issue is not whether to aggressively pursue the terrorists. I strongly believe we should. I also believe that President Clinton was not decisive in carrying out that mission.
But neither was President Bush. "Wanted dead or alive" for the perpetrator of 9/11 soon became "not a priority." I'm as angry about 9/11 as anyone on this blog and I'm angry at George Bush for leaving Bin Laden free and letting Afghanistan degenerate once again into chaos. That is a disservice to the soldiers who who fought and still fight there.

The question is what to do with terrorists once you capture them. The President has a thorny problem to solve, but President Bush failed to solve it in the last five years. He made a convoluted mess of it and along the way shamed our country by endorsing torture. President Obama has taken decisive steps toward ending that shame. Now he has the difficult task in the next year of figuring out what to do with the detainees in Guantanamo.

For some time, we have been... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

For some time, we have been told that Hussein might surprise virtually everyone and govern "from the middle." Can we now lay that little chestnut to rest? Or is disarming in the face of thug murderers actually defined as taking the middle road!

The liberals think ... (Below threshold)
Hansel2:

The liberals think terrorists only hate republicans. So naive and so dangerous.

Lets just make these ridiculous blanket statements, why don't we? Yee of shallow intellect are so easily lead. The rest of us deal in the complexities of reality, which are beyond your comprehension.

Doesn't really matter what you scream, WW. The 75% majority of us are not listening to you and your claims carry no weight. Do you understand that, or do I have to spell it out for you phonetically?

Kim,Isn't the questi... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Kim,
Isn't the question really:

Do you want torture and indefinite detention without proper legal proceedings to be stated official policy positions of the US? Both those things always go on but do you want it to be completely open about it. Maybe that is indeed a deterrent to terrorism -- but that's not provable.

BTW A court system has to be designed so that there is a chance that a GUILTY person might go free. Otherwise, it's a sham and a joke. You try to design the system so that the chance is minimal but it has to be there.

*******
To answer your questions:

"Now, are you saying that it's more important for our CIA and FBI to follow a law that says they can't water board . . . "

That's a false dichotomy and then you come to a false conclusion about me valuing the life of terrorist.

"Can I assume that you would not protect your family from an intruder by killing him if your gun were unregistered and therefore illegal?"

No. You may not assume that. I don't understand what that has to do with the rest of the discussion.

"Do you agree with my assessment and if so do you agree this is the correct way to handle terrorists actively working to attack us?"

I don't agree with your assessment.

"Obama is taking us back back to a policy where terrorists must strike us first."

That was never a US policy. Terrorism and terrorists have always been with us and always will be.


My take on this whole thing... (Below threshold)

My take on this whole thing is that it is nothing but smoke and mirrors to appease the moonbats.

A couple of years ago, when the Democrats proudly declared, "We killed the Patriot Act!", I sensed that it was nothing but an elaborate display of theatrics. Democrats aren't stupid -- they know that if an effort to cripple our ability to apprehend and detain terror suspects is followed by a domestic terror attack, they would be finished as a majority political party, especially if the perpetrators of the attack had formerly been under surveillance or in detention.

I'm guessing that what we will have is a grandiose front-page dismissal of Bush Administration policies, coupled with a secret re-evaluation of those policies and a behind-closed-doors reinstatement of probably 90% of them, though perhaps in slightly different form, yet certified "Grade A" by Democratic party hacks like Leon Panetta. Oh, and the policy reinstatements will be reported in fine print at the bottom of page A15 in the New York Times Friday edition ... probably on Good Friday.

Maybe I'm unrealistically optimistic, but I just can't imagine that the Obama administration is that stupid.

I guess we can t... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I guess we can take War on Terror off of the Wizbang category list as Barack Obama has determined that we should no longer aggressively pursue our enemies and has put an end to the War on Terror with his executive orders.

Kim, I truly love your logic, I really do.

a. we use torture after 9-11
b. no attacks occur while torturing after 9-11.
c. Torture prevents attacks.

Very logical leap, I use it myself:

a. I started picking link out of my belly button after 9-11
b. we wern't attacked while I picked lint out of my belly button, after 9-11.
c. Picking lint out of my belly button prevents attacks.

I'm a hero Kim, and I think it is time I was treated as such around here. If I stop picking lint out of my belly button, who knows what'll happen to America.


Very logical leap, I use... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Very logical leap, I use it myself:

Thank you for summing up what passes for leftroid logic. Naturally, responding to an attack and interrogating prisoners would be too much effort for you, so you'd rather stare at your navel and declare yourself superior.

In reality, you're staring at your navel from the inside, as your head is firmly and irretrievably planted up your ass.

"Yee of shallow intellect a... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

"Yee of shallow intellect are so easily lead."

Dammit, now I've got coffee all over my screen...

Yee HAW!

If the "war on terror is ov... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

If the "war on terror is over", why did we just bomb Pakistan?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD95SUIO00

What would You expect the l... (Below threshold)
914:

What would You expect the leader of the Palestinians (Syrians) do accept disarm their neocon enemies?

Makes sense to Me.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to believe... (Below threshold)
BriansBLog:

It's IMPOSSIBLE to believe that anybody could be as ignorant as the one who wrote that. But there's your proof. The value of taking the time to learn about what our Country's politicians are doing, is that you Learn, easily, that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld put great effort into generating FEAR based on Lies. 8 years of a Fear-based campaign that many Americans are astonishingly slow to realize/admit. Why? Oil in Iraq. Can you imagine anybody not realizing this by now? As in depth as it's been covered, proven beyond a doubt every detail of every lie they generated to have a false reason to invade iraq. Terrorism, 9-11, and Iraq have NO AFFILIATION what so ever. And never did. Invading Iraq is the main reason our country is in this disaster, economically. Thousands of troops have died. Because George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Rumsfeld LIED to the American public to invade Iraq to get Haliburton filthy rich off of endless illegal no bid contracts.


90% of the terrorists responsible for 9-11 were Saudi Arabian. Did we punish the Saudi's?
George Bush jr. and sr. are in bed with the Saudi royalty on many oil deals, so of course we didn't. Dubbya invaded Iraq instead. Even though investigations from our C.I.A., and intel from every intelligent country around the world said that Iraq had nothing to do with it, and the Saudi's had everything to do with it.

How can anybody not know the truth by now and still be living in fear peering out their curtain afraid to go out?

I'm a hero Kim, an... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
I'm a hero Kim, and I think it is time I was treated as such around here.

Being "linted" to Ivy league doesn't make you a hero, jmc, neither does having an inflated ego. Or, didn't you think anyone would notice that? You have to be one of the biggest phonies I have read here. And, btw, telling people you are "so much smarter" than them, doesn't add one brain cell to your gray matter.

How can anybody no... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
How can anybody not know the truth by now and still be living in fear peering out their curtain afraid to go out?

Whom are you addressing? The real war is the NWO against the American people.

Thank you for sum... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Thank you for summing up what passes for leftroid logic. Naturally, responding to an attack and interrogating prisoners would be too much effort for you, so you'd rather stare at your navel and declare yourself superior.

Well I am superior to you John. I mean at least I understand it is a logical fallacy to equate causality with causation (don't worry I'm well aware this is over your head.)

And your right logic does pass as leftroid logic. Now if only you rightroid's wern't so hostile to it (logic that is).


No one is hostel to real lo... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

No one is hostel to real logic, jmc, you have yet to understand just what it is.

Being "linted" to... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Being "linted" to Ivy league doesn't make you a hero, jmc, neither does having an inflated ego. Or, didn't you think anyone would notice that?

Just didn't care.

You have to be one of the biggest phonies I have read here. And, btw, telling people you are "so much smarter" than them, doesn't add one brain cell to your gray matter.

And I'd be willing to bet an Amero I have more than you.

No one is hostel ... (Below threshold)
jmc:
No one is hostel to real logic, jmc, you have yet to understand just what it is.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.

In other words your an idiot.

Just didn't care.<... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Just didn't care.
I rest my case. You don't care an awful lot about your fellow man, either, which is displayed by your egotistic bloviating.
And I'd be willing to bet an Amero I have more than you.

I further rest my case. You're as dumb as a post.

In other words you... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
In other words your an idiot.

And your equally phony alter ego has no clue what he is saying. Or, didn't you care whether people would notice that, either. You and your "lint" need each other desperately to pass the time.

I rest my case. Y... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I rest my case. You don't care an awful lot about your fellow man, either, which is displayed by your egotistic bloviating.

At yet strangley I don't want to torture them, weird manifestation of my intense hatred.

And I'd be willing to bet an Amero I have more than you. I further rest my case. You're as dumb as a post.

Said the person defending the post hoc logical fallacy and claiming their was a conspracy to create a north american currency. :)

Said the person de... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Said the person defending the post hoc logical fallacy and claiming their was a conspracy to create a north american currency. :)

You just keep "hoc" ing those lougies. It's all your good for. No, say that crap to congress, Lou Dobbs, and the Secretary of the Treasury. The SOT has already shipped over a trillion ameros to China as collateral. I will say this, jmc, if you are with the elites and lying to the American people about what the govt and the CFR is doing to this country, then you will be no better off than they are. You are just another stupid shill that believes he's getting something out of the deal.

"At yet strangley I don't w... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"At yet strangley I don't want to torture them, weird manifestation of my intense hatred."

No, you're unemotional behavior towards others displays how calculating you really are. Hatred can sometimes be justified if it is honest, you are as dishonest as they come.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009:<... (Below threshold)

Tuesday, January 20, 2009:

President Obama:

"Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."

Friday, January 23

Bush's 'War' On Terror Comes to a Sudden End

Did I miss something? When did Dana Priest become White House cabinet member?

Welcome back to September 10, 2001.

A neocon is so fearful of t... (Below threshold)
Hansel2:

A neocon is so fearful of the world, they take a dump in their pants every time they simply hear the word "terrorist."

Then they'll tell you that was a dump taken in anger and strength - and you are the weakling for not taking a dump as well.

Watch out, terrorists!

It's a neocon with a load in his pants!

The left is having a hard t... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

The left is having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that Obama just made the country unsafe to score quick political points to the whacko fringe of his party. Thems the facts. I would be upset too, if I voted for him. ww

The left isn't having a har... (Below threshold)
Hansel2:

The left isn't having a hard time with him at all, WW. You are. You and your friends here are sputtering like a bad actor in a poorly written farce.

Furthermore, we don't have to be bothered. We won the election and you didn't. So keep quiet and accept the next 4-8 years. Oh, and "thems" is not a word.

No, you're unemot... (Below threshold)
jmc:
No, you're unemotional behavior towards others displays how calculating you really are. Hatred can sometimes be justified if it is honest, you are as dishonest as they come.

And your desire to torture speaks even louder. Do you do puppies in your spare time? Also, I challenge you to name an instance where i've been dishonest.

And your equally ... (Below threshold)
jmc:
And your equally phony alter ego has no clue what he is saying.

Sure he does, he's saying that claiming orture preents terror attacks is a logical fallacy. Don't worry Given your hostility to logic I don't actualy expect you to constrain yourself to the rules of logic.

You just keep "hoc" ing those lougies. It's all your good for. No, say that crap to congress, Lou Dobbs, and the Secretary of the Treasury.

As I said hostile to logic.

The SOT has already shipped over a trillion ameros to China as collateral.

I've also heard Aliens landed at roswell. Keep those conspiracys coming La med.


And your desire to... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
And your desire to torture speaks even louder.

Pfft! Some challenge! How about just now when you stated I was in favor of torture? I never said I condone it, nor do I. You just make stuff up as you go along.

I've also heard Al... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
I've also heard Aliens landed at roswell. Keep those conspiracys coming La med.

I never said aliens were real, jmc. You keep comparing the two.

Sure he does, he's saying that claiming orture preents terror attacks is a logical fallacy.

And of course you realize you just admitted to having an alter ego. I bet you have a couple of them, depending on whom you are lying to.

Pfft! Some challe... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Pfft! Some challenge! How about just now when you stated I was in favor of torture? I never said I condone it, nor do I. You just make stuff up as you go along.

And yet you react angrily when I point out the logical fallacy in cliaming torture prevents attacks.

I assume you do that because you are pro-torture, but maybe you are just anti-logic.

I never said alie... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I never said aliens were real, jmc. You keep comparing the two.

I am mocking conpiracy theories in genral, basically lumpiing you silly amero claim with the tooth fairy. I shouldn't have to exlain this LaMEd.

And of course you realize you just admitted to having an alter ego. I bet you have a couple of them, depending on whom you are lying to.
Yes, and they're all smarter than you.
And yet you react ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
And yet you react angrily when I point out the logical fallacy in cliaming torture prevents attacks.

In which comment did that happen? Or is that your alter ego talking and turning on you?

"Yes, and they're all smart... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Yes, and they're all smarter than you."

No, they are all just lying. I am bored with your egotistical stupidity. You can sit here and feign getting in the last word with your "buddies", while you continue to hijack this thread with your nonsense.

In which comment ... (Below threshold)
jmc:
In which comment did that happen? Or is that your alter ego talking and turning on you?


that would be comment 23, where you respond angrily, to my post mocking Kim's logical fallacy. Seems, along with critical thinking you have trouble with short trtm memory.

while you continu... (Below threshold)
kmc:
while you continue to hijack this thread with your nonsense.

You responded to me dummy. I ws talking to Kim.

You responded to m... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
You responded to me dummy. I ws talking to Kim.

I take that back. The post is hands down smarter than all your lying egos put together.

I take that back.... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I take that back. The post is hands down smarter than all your lying egos put together.

Which are all smarter than you. Now quit hijacking this thread.

Lay off the crazy pills, La... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Lay off the crazy pills, LaMedusa. Conspiracy theories make for good escapist fiction but that's about it.

And by the way, having taught a critical thinking (introduction to formal and informal logic) course several times, it's obvious that jmc knows what he's talking about when it comes to "logic", and that you aren't using the word properly.

Shut up, hyper. jmc is one... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Shut up, hyper. jmc is one of the stupidest men alive. You are, too, because you use the same wording about how much "smarter you are". Theories? No, just one, which shows how little you are paying attention and how little you care about what is really happening. You and your split personality buddy, jmc, can carry on now with your mutual admiration committee. Two members, and going on strong.

The good news, is people have the ability to reason beyond your assumptions and really care what happens to their families. You guys won't even know what hit you until it is too late. Logic won't save you when faith would have. You don't even look at the sources or question authority. Two word, "conspiracy theories", and you think you have it all figured out.

Hey LaMedusa,Why d... (Below threshold)
Hansel2:

Hey LaMedusa,

Why don't you go get rid of that big, steaming load in your pants. Frightened little neocon.

What's the fixation on stea... (Below threshold)
Master Shake:

What's the fixation on steaming loads in the pants, Hansel? Coprophillic much? Worried that such a thing would mean your brain fell out?

According to democrats, the... (Below threshold)
syn:

According to democrats, the War on Terror has ended yet Man-made Climate Change continues its war on the planet.

Where is the logic?

Perhaps hyperbolist can provide expert opinion.

Hansel2~Are those ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Hansel2~

Are those the dittohead talking points for the day, or are you competing for one of the world's stupidest wastes of bandwidth? I'll have to admit you're catching up to hyper and jmc at warp speed with less effort.

Hyper, JMC and the rest of ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Hyper, JMC and the rest of the liberal whacko's continually trumpet how much smarter they are then most of the rest of the population when point in fact, they are probably social retards that do not know how to converse on a grown up level.

Obama surrendered to the terrorists. We lose. ww

La,I like you more... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

La,

I like you more as depressive.

Not much more, but a little.

Another conservative writer... (Below threshold)

Another conservative writer, Pat Buchanan sees it quite differently, and viewed Obama as a neo-Reaganite in parts of his somber address to the nation.

Well, Willie, as you sit in... (Below threshold)
Hansel2:

Well, Willie, as you sit in your parent's basement munching twinkies and dreaming of Phyllis Diller, I'll head home to my sexy wife, two kids and spectacular home. Maybe I'll even give her the business tonight.

Quite the social retard I.

A stunning setback to Moham... (Below threshold)
Neo:

A stunning setback to Mohamed Atta wannabees ...

Redmond, Washington-based ACES Studio, the Microsoft-owned internal group behind the venerable Microsoft Flight Simulator series, has been heavily affected by Microsoft's ongoing job cuts.

Well I am superior to yo... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Well I am superior to you John.

Only in the sense that you are an unthinking leftroid, and I am not.

You do make a much better drone than I would, I readily admit.

Dave Noble - "But neith... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Dave Noble - "But neither was President Bush. "Wanted dead or alive" for the perpetrator of 9/11 soon became "not a priority."

And so?

Hasn't B. Hussein Obama said a similar thing in the last week? Why yes he has, (to paraphrase) 'Osama doesn't matter as long as AQ is on the run/in a cave somewhere.'

Apparently you think obl's death, assuming he's not worm dirt already, would have a great effect on AQ losing its ability to train and recruit new jihadist-cut-throats.

How so?

"Not much more, but a littl... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Not much more, but a little."

That's okay, Dave. I don't like you at all, but that doesn't mean we can't "all git along". I'm not depressive because you use the word, either. You are one of many reasons history repeats itself in the worst way. You just don't listen, nor do you test the facts.

Just like those who claim to believe in God, but don't believe he would ever really try to warn them thousands of years in advance of what is in store. That claim of faith is selective only when it's convenient, and His word is only real when they want it to be. Which explains perfectly why so many people will perish under the lie of safety under government protection, because they just don't listen.

War on Terror is over huh?<... (Below threshold)
Marc:

War on Terror is over huh?

Someone better tell this Ex-Gitmo detainee.

Al Qaeda says that Said Ali al-Shihri is now its number two man in Yemen.

It must e nice to be Mark T... (Below threshold)
darth vader:

It must e nice to be Mark Thiessen and have a crystal ball that tells you what would have happened if another choice had been made. My crystal ball only tells me what's going to happen. What's going to happen is the USA is in for some blowback because of Bush's barbaric tactics. Of course, the morons will blame Obama.

When the attack comes who c... (Below threshold)
Thomas Jackson:

When the attack comes who can doubt that the fault lies with the evil Bush and those fascist Republicans and not with the Obamamessiah?

dv - "What's going to h... (Below threshold)
Marc:

dv - "What's going to happen is the USA is in for some blowback because of Bush's barbaric tactics. Of course, the morons will blame Obama."

Well golly gee wiz dv let us scardy-cat "neocons" in on the secret.

Just what type of blowback are we about to get so we can crawl into a hole somewhere.

You know, blowback that hasn't ALREADY happened (in your mind not mine), but will AFTER B. Hussein Obama recinded some many of the Bush policies?

Shut up, hyper. j... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Shut up, hyper. jmc is one of the stupidest men alive.

That would make you one of the stupidest monkees alive, given how I've destroyed every argument you have made.


You are, too, because you use the same wording about how much "smarter you are". Theories? No, just one, which shows how little you are paying attention and how little you care about what is really happening.

No, he actually said he knows more about logic than you, it was left to the rest of us to infer how much smarter he is.


The good news, is people have the ability to reason beyond your assumptions and really care what happens to their families.

Need logic to reason LaMed, and you have demonstrated you don't understand how that works.

Logic won't save you when faith would have.

I'll stick with logic. You can stick with faith or wishful thinking as I call it.

Only in the sense... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Only in the sense that you are an unthinking leftroid, and I am not.

No you are just unthinking.

Hey, who told Marc how to s... (Below threshold)
max:

Hey, who told Marc how to spell Hussein?

It was so much funnier when he spelled it Hussien.

That's all you have max?</p... (Below threshold)
Marc:

That's all you have max?

No you are just un... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
No you are just unthinking.

You would say that, as an uninteresting, lying elitist, jmc. Your stupid crowd is why the big boys of the NWO are going to lose. Yeah, your rich buddies are going to turn on you, bigtime, and deem you worthless.

No, he actually sa... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
No, he actually said he knows more about logic than you, it was left to the rest of us to infer how much smarter he is.

I was quoting hyper from another thread. Enjoy that good life as long as you can "cheating man", wishful thinking, as you like to call faith, is about to bite you in the as*. And that's before Christ get here.

La, Again,only pul... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

La,

Again,only pulling your chain. I would not be in the least surprised to find that in your non-blog life you are a perfectly pleasant person

But as A.E. Houseman versed "Oh, Good God the verse you make! It gives a chap the bellyache.

No you are just unthinki... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

No you are just unthinking.

Heh, from you thats a compliment. We all see what you think "logic" is, and it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the actual application for critical thinking.

I'll go with my understanding of defense policy, procedure, and effectiveness of security measures gained professionally over your zealous belief in your belly lint any day.

For you, Marc, yes. ... (Below threshold)
max:

For you, Marc, yes.

Apparently, America needs t... (Below threshold)

Apparently, America needs to be rudely reawakened.
http://www.rightklik.net/

It's hilarious how quickly ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

It's hilarious how quickly this blog devolved following the shit-kicking conservatives took at the polls in November. I think it was max who summed it up as follows:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=MDthMGtZKa4

And I'll keep voting you +1, LaMedusa, so long as you keep bringing Teh Funniez for everyone else to enjoy. NWO? Man, that was one bad-ass cabal of professional wrestlers, wasn't it! As for your faith vs. logic dichotomy, it's a false one. People can think logically and still have faith in something. Not being an idiot isn't your strong suit, is it; but then you wouldn't be so hilarious if you thought a little bit harder before littering the intertubez with your precious insights, would you.
depp=true
notiz=Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Freedom!

Jason: please give an examp... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Jason: please give an example of what such a "rude awakening" might be. Another terrorist attack, perhaps?

Seems pretty treasonous to wish harm upon your nation in order to persuade people to adopt your political point of view.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy