Listening off-and-on to Attorney General Gonzalez testifying about the NSA spying, and had this thought:
In light of all the info we had before 9-11 that we didn't use -- such as a PDB a month earlier saying that bin Laden was "determined to attack in US" and wanted to hijack jetliners, and FBI agents dogging the hijackers because they were taking flying (but not landing) lessons while their superiors refused even to ask for a FISA warrant to inspect their computers ...
... Bush saying he needs more information and more power to stop 9-11 style attacks...
... is like a batter who just struck out saying he'd have hit a homer if the outfield fence was a little closer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
No, I think its more like a batter who hits a home run even though the opposing team moves the outfield fence in an out between pitches, then claims that, even though the hit was a line drive over second base, it is foul and when the run scores wails, "when is this game gonna be over? I want an exact time!" That's what its like, sir.
I wonder when we'll get a troll who has the cojones to at least give a website or hotmail address, instead of just posting in complete anonymity. Easy to snipe from the trees, while the troops fight out in the open. But that, I suppose, is the unique cowardice of the neocon chickenhawk.
Who, exactly, moved the fence on Bush during 9-11? Bad guys wanted to attack us. Bush was warned but failed to defend us. What in those facts makes him anything other than an abject failure in his central duty?
Just reading about Rove's hardball game this morning and was wondering: if I were to call all the republican senators to tell them to stand up to Rove and stand up for our country & constitution, what that conversation would sound like...
Specifically, what information exactly do you claim the President had before 9/11/2001 and exactly what action do you propose he shoud have taken based upon the information you claim he had? Did he even have enough evidence to get a FISA warrant? Should he have shut down all the airports? Deported some Arabs? Please try to be fair and imagine your reaction, as a leftist radical, to any such actions on the part of the President. Isn't it true that your agonized wails of protest at the unwarranted curtailment of your freedoms would have echoed across the country?
You have an odd conception of the nature of an internet troll. Apparently, you apply that label to anyone who disagrees with you or points out your failings and excesses.
No, I will not identify myself. The tactics of the left include destroying the careers and property of people who stand in their way. I won't take that risk. I will continue to post comments and observartions here from time to time unless you prohibit it.
Anon:
No, I will not identify myself. The tactics of the left include destroying the careers and property of people who stand in their way. I won't take that risk. I will continue to post comments and observartions here from time to time unless you prohibit it.
You guys have Richard Nixon, Carl Rove, secret internment camps and NSA warrantless spying, and you're afraid of US having "enemies lists"? That's the funniest damn thing I've read in a long time, and will stay up here forever as a source of sincere amusement for my readers!
I don't ask people to admit they're Clark Kent. I do ask, if they're going to post critical comments or post regularly, to tell us they're Superman and give us the Fortress of Solitude's url.
It's easy. Pick a blogger identity (e.g. "Mr. PleaseTakeMyWalletAndMyLibertyJustDon'tShootMeSir""), set up a blogger account and blog under that identity (e.g., "www.IOnlyPissMyPants WhenYouMentionAlQuaeda ButIllKickCindySheehan's Ass.blogspot.com"). Then post here all you like, because then at least my readers and I can come visit you at home from time to time.
In other words, you wouldn't tolerate an acquaintance who kept calling your cell phone whenever he wanted but refused to give you his number, right?
40 hours left or so...
Ina:
I need to pick up my paper. What's Rove up to now?
I'm sure you've seen it by now, and it's nothing new, but...
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm
Ina:
No, I haven't had a chance yet to see what the other blogs are up to today, and this is actually news to me!
This is actually a big deal, because it gives us another chance to test which Dems are serious and which are Vichy. If the Rs are holding a party line vote on a matter of national security, high crimes and misdemeanors, then we Ds need to do the same (and try to flip an R while we're at it). ANY D defections will just give the President political cover.
Sounds like the stuff of a Game Plan to me.
No answer to the substantive question then?
No answer to the substantive question then?
Sigh. You try to coddle these folks...
Anon:
You can't say I'm not giving you plenty of chances to participate here, but eventually you've got to get with the program. Below, I said this:
Here's the rule here: if you will post links to an email address (even an anonymous one like g-mail) and a website or blog (so we can see your fully-developed views and have a chance to respond to them on your turf, as you're doing on ours), then I will consider leaving critical comments like this on this site.
But I have no patience for completely anonymous posts, which display that particular cowardice and dishonesty so often seen among conservative trolls.
You've still got 24 hours. Get thee a g-mail or hotmail address. Make a blogspot.com blog. It's easy. Once you do that, and assuming you respect basic netiquette and understand and advance the purpose of this site, then we can engage in dialogue and discussion.
But, until you've set aside your need to post critical comments without even a web presence or pseudonymous identity behind them, then, no, we won't have any substantive discussion.
So, oh great master Thersites, I cannot address to you a question anonymously, but I can if I get a fake identity? Given the obvious logic of your position, I can only conclude that your answer would be just as wise. Best engage in censorship now. Why look foolish for an entire 48 hours?
I cannot address to you a question anonymously, but I can if I get a fake identity?
I started writing a whole philosophical/social explanation of why I'm insisting on folks who throw stones here having a web presence, if not leaving their real names, but it really comes down to three things:
1. It's my site, and I'm asking that if you want to participate here regularly, you ID yourself in some way. You may think it's silly to make everyone remove their shoes at the front door, but when a host asks you to, you do it, right? Because it's their house, and you're their guest?
2. It's hard to tell one anonymous from another. If someone's going to try to engage in ongoing dialogue, they'd better use SOME identity to avoid confusion. That's just good manners.
3. I don't see why I should allow someone to come here and throw stones without having the courtesy of allowing me, or my readers, a rejoinder. Let's get wild for a second and play with two hypotheticals. What if the elections in November are Republican landslides, they solidify their lock on both houses, Bush's poll numbers go soaring, and Harry Reid gets caught performing a submissive sex act on Bill Frist? What are you going to do? Come here and gloat, of course.
So what if the reverse is true and Dems take back the whole government, we successfully impeach Bush and Cheney, and President Pelosi successfully nominates Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy to the Supreme Court to replace Scalia and Thomas, who were killed in a tragic train wreck while touring male prostitute brothels in Thailand?
Answer: you'd slink away. You'd never come back here, and I'd never know where to go to stick my tongue out at you. Now, is that fair?
In reality, what I want isn't gloating privileges, just the ability to engage in dialogue if I choose to, not just when you do, and a sense that you want to be a citizen of this community, not just a guy who drives by occasionally and throws a brick at it. But the above examples should at least help you understand why a virtual presence is substantially better than none at all.
As to cutting you off early: nah, I'll keep my word. It's what we do.
Post a Comment