Al Qaida in America23 Jun 06
Posted by M. Wright | Filed in: Uncategorized
I guess it’s time we start getting used to that phrase.
Here’s a shot of the Sears Tower taken a year ago next month when we visited Chicago. More photos of the trip are on Flickr.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
“Sweet Home, Chicago…”
Loved looking at these photos, Mick! Dan and I will be there in a couple of weeks. :o)
June 25th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
ANd if we ever get close to finding Al Qaeda, the New York Times will inform them of our methods and plans so they can adjust and come at us again.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Yeah, that tricksy al Qaeda could have never foreseen our tracking their communications and banking transactions, even when the Preznit hisself has mentioned both methods in public speeches.
.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:00 am
That tricksy al Qaeda also knows we have soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere hunting them down, so it probably wouldn’t be a big deal if the New York Times publicized their exact locations and specific operations.
.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Either way, I’m sure glad we have people publically ridiculing our leaders and voicing support of pulling out of Iraq on an arbitrary timeline. That will certainly demoralize the enemy and ensure the safe, quick return of our troops in harm’s way.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Mick: That tricksy al Qaeda also knows we have soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere hunting them down, so it probably wouldn’t be a big deal if the New York Times publicized their exact locations and specific operations.
And you’d almost have a point, if, in fact, such a thing had ever happened… outside Geraldo “I Support The War” Rivera’s reporting (not an NYT reporter, last I checked). As a fantasy, it sounds good, but in the reality-based community, it’s toilet-fodder.
.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Tom: Either way, I’m sure glad we have people publically ridiculing our leaders and voicing support of pulling out of Iraq on an arbitrary timeline. That will certainly demoralize the enemy and ensure the safe, quick return of our troops in harm’s way.
Strawman. Thanks.
A lied-into military action cannot be made right, no matter how hard one claps for Tinkerbell not to die. A man can admit a mistake, and change course.
.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
So… what do y’all think of that cut-n-run coward General Casey, suggesting the same troop withdrawal schedule as the Congressional Democrats? Ain’t that a pip?
.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Oh, and for you America Haters, I have only this to say, to you.
.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
JP (1) - You see, that’s what is called an “analogy.” I know it’s only a few letters away from “allegation,” but the two concepts are really quite different. Your reality-based community ought to look into it.
JP (2) - That’s not a strawman; that’s called “sarcasm.” And as for that “lied-into” bit, see the thread immediately preceding this one.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
JP (3) - The proposals put forth by Congressional Democrats such as John Kerry called for an arbitrary “redeployment” and were rightfully defeated overwhelmingly on a bi-partisan basis. In contrast, the Casey plan (also classified information leaked by the press, btw) is being formulated by a General on the ground making tactical decisions according to the goals the military has been charged with meeting. President Bush has long said that the generals fighting this war would help inform and make such decisions.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
JP (4) - I call for the Times to release your credit card information, employment history, criminal background check, high school report cards and photos of your first boyfriend; anything less would be an unconstitutional breach of the first amendment.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
The Congress is out of touch with America, according to every poll coming and going.
.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Okay, there’s no passing the censors.
.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Since it seems there’s some apparent “bad word filtering” going on here, for free-thinkers, my response to Mick is here, freely available for anyone to comment upon.
.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:02 am
JP - Of your four ridiculous points, the only one worth mentioning is the third:
(3) Kerry’s plan never was submitted; only a GOP mockery of it (like Murtha’s plan, before it). Grow up and fight with facts, instead of Viagra-taking Rush Limbaugh’s talking points.
Here’s a fact for you: The Kerry plan was indeed submitted (Kerry Amdt. No. 4442 ), and voted upon, on June 22, and was soundly defeated, 86-13.
Perhaps you should stick to cat-blogging. That’s more fun, anyway.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:12 am
Mick: Perhaps you should stick to cat-blogging. That’s more fun, anyway.
It truly is!
Regardless, Kerry’s amendment to the bill is in line with what Americans want; the Congress is out of touch with that, as all polls plainly show. And then, you have General Casey submitting essentially the same plan for “cut-n-run,” which demonstrates clearly that GOP legislators also want the same result, without being smeared as “cut (the crap) and run (our country!)” Republicans.
.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:16 am
And how ridiculous is it to ask what the NYT did that rises to the level of what you proposed be done to me?
Really. I want to know what you have to say about this, because as far as I can tell, the NYT did even less than the Bush administration has done in political speeches and TV appearances, in regards to revealing sources and methods on the SWIFT matter.
.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:55 am
Mick asks for my personally identifible information to be published — credit card information, employment history, criminal background check, high school report cards and photos of my first boyfriend (oh, how clever — homophobic projection) — what, pray tell, did the NYT do that was comparable?
Could I have identified any individual from the NYT reporting? No.
Just what did the NYT do that rises to that level? I wait for… no answer, as none will be forthcoming.
.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:06 am
Mick knows when to cut-n-run from a losing analogy.
.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest you also be like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:4,5
I’m not sure which of these would really apply here. It is often difficult to figure out which strategy applies when. But perhaps verse 4 is the best advice for responding to JP. I thought the topic of the post was Al Queada in America?
June 27th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Yeah, Mick knows when to cut and run. He conveniently had his uncle die on Saturday so he could hide in a car all day today on the way to the funeral. What a coward.
JP: “The Kerry plan was never submitted! It’s right-wing propaganda!”
Mick: “Yes it was, here’s the link.”
JP: “Well, yeah, but America wanted it…”
June 27th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Tom — That’s also quite a strawman you’ve constructed, there. I knew nothing of Mick’s uncle’s passing, and wasn’t even commenting on the fact that he wasn’t responding to posts I made at 2:00 a.m., but on the fact that he’s not going to be able to make a rational analogy between what the NYT has published, and his call for publishing my personally-identifiable information.
In fact, if you care to point out how anything the NYT has published regarding the illegal domestic spying story or the tracking of financial transactions that “helps the terrorists,” I’ll be happy to find you quotes from the administration (often from Bush, himself) that precede the NYT articles on either topic, giving as much or more operational detail about sources and methods.
As for my mistake in asserting that Kerry’s amendment was not submitted, I certainly own up to that. I had been misinformed that the amendment was actually re-written by a GOP Senator, and put forth. Since it has happened before, it was not inconceivable that it would have been done, again.
.
June 27th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Actually, I don’t leave until tonight.
I’m deciding not to respond on your points, JP, because I’ve already answered each of them numerous times, and also because I need to heed the wisdom John quotes above.
You have become a troll, which wouldn’t be so bad if you were also gifted with the ability to understand what you read and differentiate between basic concepts such as analogies, allegations, strawmen and sarcasm. In retrospect, it now makes sense why you also don’t seem to fathom the qualities which make a story newsworthy (such as heated debate). As my friend Neil writes:
[C]ongrats on the 50+ comment post on the newsworthiness of the 500 shells info. Each and every post no matter its position was only added
proof of your point.
So, I can’t continue to be frustrated with someone who deserves my pity. And I don’t mean that in a harsh way, but I’m unable to come up with a more generous way of putting it.
June 27th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Tom: “Here’s a sarcastic remark illustrating the stupidity of your argument.”
JP: “Strawman. STRAWMAN!”
June 27th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Mick — Not a bad move on your part, given that neither you, nor any of your readers can come up with a single instance of what specifically the NYT has published that has “helped the terrorists.” Yet, I suspect you’ll continue asserting, implying and otherwise try to perpetuate that notion, ignoring all along that President Bush, on the stump, gave as much or more operational detail about anti-terrorism efforts than the NYT ever has.
.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Anyone ever notice that even though it is not JP’s blog, he always has to get in the “last word”? Interesting.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:16 am
[...] Al Qaida in America: eleven words, a little aside, one photo, one link… and 27 [...]