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.






Comments (79)
Come on! Obama is going to... (Below threshold)1. Posted by John | January 23, 2009 9:45 AM | Score: 11 (19 votes cast)
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.
1. Posted by John | January 23, 2009 9:45 AM |
Score: 11 (19 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 09:45
2. Posted by KathyP | January 23, 2009 9:54 AM | Score: 12 (16 votes cast)
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.
2. Posted by KathyP | January 23, 2009 9:54 AM |
Score: 12 (16 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 09:54
3. Posted by MPR | January 23, 2009 9:57 AM | Score: 7 (15 votes cast)
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.
3. Posted by MPR | January 23, 2009 9:57 AM |
Score: 7 (15 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 09:57
4. Posted by Blue Neponset
| January 23, 2009 10:05 AM | Score: -16 (24 votes cast)
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.
4. Posted by Blue Neponset
| January 23, 2009 10:05 AM |
Score: -16 (24 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 10:05
5. Posted by JLawson | January 23, 2009 10:11 AM | Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
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.
5. Posted by JLawson | January 23, 2009 10:11 AM |
Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 10:11
6. Posted by Adrian Browne | January 23, 2009 10:19 AM | Score: -15 (21 votes cast)
"And if zealous protection is too aggressive . . ."
"aggressive" is not the problem
"illegal" is the problem
Also, you cannot prove a negative.
6. Posted by Adrian Browne | January 23, 2009 10:19 AM |
Score: -15 (21 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 10:19
7. Posted by WildWillie | January 23, 2009 10:40 AM | Score: 16 (20 votes cast)
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
7. Posted by WildWillie | January 23, 2009 10:40 AM |
Score: 16 (20 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 10:40
8. Posted by bobdog | January 23, 2009 10:49 AM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
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.
8. Posted by bobdog | January 23, 2009 10:49 AM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 10:49
9. Posted by Kim Priestap | January 23, 2009 10:50 AM | Score: 10 (14 votes cast)
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?
9. Posted by Kim Priestap | January 23, 2009 10:50 AM |
Score: 10 (14 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 10:50
10. Posted by MPR | January 23, 2009 10:59 AM | Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
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.
10. Posted by MPR | January 23, 2009 10:59 AM |
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 10:59
11. Posted by bobdog | January 23, 2009 10:59 AM | Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
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.
11. Posted by bobdog | January 23, 2009 10:59 AM |
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 10:59
12. Posted by Dave Noble | January 23, 2009 11:09 AM | Score: -10 (14 votes cast)
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.
12. Posted by Dave Noble | January 23, 2009 11:09 AM |
Score: -10 (14 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 11:09
13. Posted by OLDPUPPYMAX | January 23, 2009 11:13 AM | Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
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!
13. Posted by OLDPUPPYMAX | January 23, 2009 11:13 AM |
Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 11:13
14. Posted by Hansel2 | January 23, 2009 11:16 AM | Score: -12 (16 votes cast)
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?
14. Posted by Hansel2 | January 23, 2009 11:16 AM |
Score: -12 (16 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 11:16
15. Posted by Adrian Browne | January 23, 2009 11:22 AM | Score: -12 (16 votes cast)
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.
15. Posted by Adrian Browne | January 23, 2009 11:22 AM |
Score: -12 (16 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 11:22
16. Posted by Michael Laprarie | January 23, 2009 11:28 AM | Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
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.
16. Posted by Michael Laprarie | January 23, 2009 11:28 AM |
Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 11:28
17. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 11:33 AM | Score: -11 (19 votes cast)
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.
17. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 11:33 AM |
Score: -11 (19 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 11:33
18. Posted by John Irving | January 23, 2009 11:45 AM | Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
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.
18. Posted by John Irving | January 23, 2009 11:45 AM |
Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 11:45
19. Posted by bobdog | January 23, 2009 11:47 AM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
"Yee of shallow intellect are so easily lead."
Dammit, now I've got coffee all over my screen...
Yee HAW!
19. Posted by bobdog | January 23, 2009 11:47 AM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 11:47
20. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 11:49 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
If the "war on terror is over", why did we just bomb Pakistan?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD95SUIO00
20. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 11:49 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 11:49
21. Posted by 914 | January 23, 2009 11:53 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What would You expect the leader of the Palestinians (Syrians) do accept disarm their neocon enemies?
Makes sense to Me.
21. Posted by 914 | January 23, 2009 11:53 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 11:53
22. Posted by BriansBLog | January 23, 2009 11:57 AM | Score: -8 (12 votes cast)
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?
22. Posted by BriansBLog | January 23, 2009 11:57 AM |
Score: -8 (12 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 11:57
23. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 11:59 AM | Score: 3 (9 votes cast)
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.
23. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 11:59 AM |
Score: 3 (9 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 11:59
24. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 12:02 PM | Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
Whom are you addressing? The real war is the NWO against the American people.
24. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 12:02 PM |
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:02
25. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 12:02 PM | Score: -6 (12 votes cast)
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).
25. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 12:02 PM |
Score: -6 (12 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:02
26. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 12:04 PM | Score: 6 (10 votes cast)
No one is hostel to real logic, jmc, you have yet to understand just what it is.
26. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 12:04 PM |
Score: 6 (10 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:04
27. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 12:05 PM | Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
Just didn't care.
And I'd be willing to bet an Amero I have more than you.
27. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 12:05 PM |
Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:05
28. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 12:07 PM | Score: -1 (9 votes cast)
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.
28. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 12:07 PM |
Score: -1 (9 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:07
29. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 12:10 PM | Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
I further rest my case. You're as dumb as a post.
29. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 12:10 PM |
Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:10
30. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 12:14 PM | Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
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.
30. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 12:14 PM |
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:14
31. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 12:15 PM | Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
At yet strangley I don't want to torture them, weird manifestation of my intense hatred.
Said the person defending the post hoc logical fallacy and claiming their was a conspracy to create a north american currency. :)
31. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 12:15 PM |
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:15
32. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 12:22 PM | Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
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.
32. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 12:22 PM |
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:22
33. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 12:26 PM | Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
"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.
33. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 12:26 PM |
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:26
34. Posted by Peter F. | January 23, 2009 12:27 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
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.
34. Posted by Peter F. | January 23, 2009 12:27 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:27
35. Posted by Hansel2 | January 23, 2009 12:29 PM | Score: -5 (13 votes cast)
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!
35. Posted by Hansel2 | January 23, 2009 12:29 PM |
Score: -5 (13 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:29
36. Posted by WildWillie | January 23, 2009 12:33 PM | Score: 1 (11 votes cast)
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
36. Posted by WildWillie | January 23, 2009 12:33 PM |
Score: 1 (11 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:33
37. Posted by Hansel2 | January 23, 2009 12:47 PM | Score: -3 (11 votes cast)
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.
37. Posted by Hansel2 | January 23, 2009 12:47 PM |
Score: -3 (11 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:47
38. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 12:58 PM | Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
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.
38. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 12:58 PM |
Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 12:58
39. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 1:05 PM | Score: -1 (9 votes cast)
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.
I've also heard Aliens landed at roswell. Keep those conspiracys coming La med.
39. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 1:05 PM |
Score: -1 (9 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 13:05
40. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 1:06 PM | Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
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.
40. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 1:06 PM |
Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 13:06
41. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 1:11 PM | Score: 2 (10 votes cast)
I never said aliens were real, jmc. You keep comparing the two.
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.
41. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 1:11 PM |
Score: 2 (10 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 13:11
42. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 1:20 PM | Score: -3 (9 votes cast)
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.
42. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 1:20 PM |
Score: -3 (9 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 13:20
43. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 1:22 PM | Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
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.
Yes, and they're all smarter than you.43. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 1:22 PM |
Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 13:22
44. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 1:24 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
In which comment did that happen? Or is that your alter ego talking and turning on you?
44. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 1:24 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 13:24
45. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 1:27 PM | Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
"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.
45. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 1:27 PM |
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 13:27
46. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 1:28 PM | Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
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.
46. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 1:28 PM |
Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 13:28
47. Posted by kmc | January 23, 2009 1:30 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
You responded to me dummy. I ws talking to Kim.
47. Posted by kmc | January 23, 2009 1:30 PM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 13:30
48. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 1:33 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
I take that back. The post is hands down smarter than all your lying egos put together.
48. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 1:33 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 13:33
49. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 1:38 PM | Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
Which are all smarter than you. Now quit hijacking this thread.
49. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 1:38 PM |
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 13:38
50. Posted by hyperbolist | January 23, 2009 1:45 PM | Score: -5 (11 votes cast)
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.
50. Posted by hyperbolist | January 23, 2009 1:45 PM |
Score: -5 (11 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 13:45
51. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 2:02 PM | Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
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.
51. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 2:02 PM |
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 14:02
52. Posted by Hansel2 | January 23, 2009 2:28 PM | Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
Hey LaMedusa,
Why don't you go get rid of that big, steaming load in your pants. Frightened little neocon.
52. Posted by Hansel2 | January 23, 2009 2:28 PM |
Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 14:28
53. Posted by Master Shake | January 23, 2009 2:32 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
What's the fixation on steaming loads in the pants, Hansel? Coprophillic much? Worried that such a thing would mean your brain fell out?
53. Posted by Master Shake | January 23, 2009 2:32 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 14:32
54. Posted by syn | January 23, 2009 2:41 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
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.
54. Posted by syn | January 23, 2009 2:41 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 14:41
55. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 2:54 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
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.
55. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 2:54 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 14:54
56. Posted by WildWillie | January 23, 2009 3:02 PM | Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
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
56. Posted by WildWillie | January 23, 2009 3:02 PM |
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 15:02
57. Posted by Dave Noble | January 23, 2009 3:05 PM | Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
La,
I like you more as depressive.
Not much more, but a little.
57. Posted by Dave Noble | January 23, 2009 3:05 PM |
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 15:05
58. Posted by Paul Hooson | January 23, 2009 3:05 PM | Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
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.
58. Posted by Paul Hooson | January 23, 2009 3:05 PM |
Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 15:05
59. Posted by Hansel2 | January 23, 2009 3:08 PM | Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
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.
59. Posted by Hansel2 | January 23, 2009 3:08 PM |
Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 15:08
60. Posted by Neo | January 23, 2009 3:18 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
A stunning setback to Mohamed Atta wannabees ...
60. Posted by Neo | January 23, 2009 3:18 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 15:18
61. Posted by John Irving | January 23, 2009 3:26 PM | Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
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.
61. Posted by John Irving | January 23, 2009 3:26 PM |
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 15:26
62. Posted by Marc | January 23, 2009 4:09 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
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?
62. Posted by Marc | January 23, 2009 4:09 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 16:09
63. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 4:26 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
"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.
63. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 4:26 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 16:26
64. Posted by Marc | January 23, 2009 4:27 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
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.
64. Posted by Marc | January 23, 2009 4:27 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 16:27
65. Posted by darth vader | January 23, 2009 4:30 PM | Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
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.
65. Posted by darth vader | January 23, 2009 4:30 PM |
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 16:30
66. Posted by Thomas Jackson | January 23, 2009 5:18 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
When the attack comes who can doubt that the fault lies with the evil Bush and those fascist Republicans and not with the Obamamessiah?
66. Posted by Thomas Jackson | January 23, 2009 5:18 PM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 17:18
67. Posted by Marc | January 23, 2009 5:35 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
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?
67. Posted by Marc | January 23, 2009 5:35 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 17:35
68. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 5:46 PM | Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
That would make you one of the stupidest monkees alive, given how I've destroyed every argument you have made.
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.
Need logic to reason LaMed, and you have demonstrated you don't understand how that works.
I'll stick with logic. You can stick with faith or wishful thinking as I call it.
68. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 5:46 PM |
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 17:46
69. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 5:55 PM | Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
No you are just unthinking.
69. Posted by jmc | January 23, 2009 5:55 PM |
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 17:55
70. Posted by max | January 23, 2009 6:10 PM | Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
Hey, who told Marc how to spell Hussein?
It was so much funnier when he spelled it Hussien.
70. Posted by max | January 23, 2009 6:10 PM |
Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 18:10
71. Posted by Marc | January 23, 2009 6:33 PM | Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
That's all you have max?
71. Posted by Marc | January 23, 2009 6:33 PM |
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 18:33
72. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 8:42 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
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.
72. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 8:42 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 20:42
73. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 8:51 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
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.
73. Posted by LaMedusa | January 23, 2009 8:51 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 20:51
74. Posted by Dave Noble | January 23, 2009 9:27 PM | Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
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.
74. Posted by Dave Noble | January 23, 2009 9:27 PM |
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2009 21:27
75. Posted by John Irving | January 24, 2009 3:11 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
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.
75. Posted by John Irving | January 24, 2009 3:11 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 24, 2009 03:11
76. Posted by max | January 24, 2009 1:30 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
For you, Marc, yes.
76. Posted by max | January 24, 2009 1:30 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 24, 2009 13:30
77. Posted by Jason | January 24, 2009 7:09 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Apparently, America needs to be rudely reawakened.
http://www.rightklik.net/
77. Posted by Jason | January 24, 2009 7:09 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 24, 2009 19:09
78. Posted by hyperbolist | January 24, 2009 10:45 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
t's hlrs hw qckl ths blg dvlvd fllwng th sht-kckng cnsrvtvs tk t th plls n Nvmbr. thnk t ws mx wh smmd t p s fllws:
< hrf="http://c.tb.cm/wtch?v=MDthMGtZK4" rl="nfllw">http://c.tb.cm/wtch?v=MDthMGtZK4>
nd 'll kp vtng +1, LMds, s lng s kp brngng Th Fnnz fr vrn ls t nj. NW? Mn, tht ws n bd-ss cbl f prfssnl wrstlrs, wsn't t! s fr r fth vs. lgc dchtm, t's fls n. Ppl cn thnk lgcll nd stll hv fth n smthng. Nt bng n dt sn't r strng st, s t; bt thn wldn't b s hlrs f thght lttl bt hrdr bfr lttrng th ntrtbz wth r prcs nsghts, wld .
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Freedom!
78. Posted by hyperbolist | January 24, 2009 10:45 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 24, 2009 22:45
79. Posted by hyperbolist | January 24, 2009 10:46 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
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.
79. Posted by hyperbolist | January 24, 2009 10:46 PM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 24, 2009 22:46