Oh, that liberal media
Heh!
11 Responses to “Oh, that liberal media”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 21st, 2004 at 12:24 pm
Huh, that’s funny. If the “lack of a link” was only pertinent to 9/11, then why did the Commission’s Roemer(D) and Thompson(R) go on national television last night and say that the finding was not specific to 9/11?
Sorry folks, but they make it quite clear that the scope of their “no cooperation” finding goes well beyond the 9/11 attacks. And for God’s sake, will conservatives finally stop touting the many-times-debunked “Prague meeting?” No, probably not; Let’s not let facts get in the way of our preconceived notions, right? Even NewsMax backed off the Prague thing, and bloggers still bring it up a lot…
June 21st, 2004 at 12:27 pm
Egad, sorry about the formatting. Apparently your new comments thingy doesn’t recognize the p tag.
June 21st, 2004 at 12:29 pm
So, not connected to terror turns into did not cooperate in attacks.
<moving>goalposts</moving>
June 21st, 2004 at 1:22 pm
Way to beat that strawman, Girsch. In the meantime, perhaps you can explain THIS:
June 21st, 2004 at 7:22 pm
Thibodeaux:
In the meantime, perhaps you can explain THIS:
Why should I have to explain it, when the commission already has? They acknowledge that contacts were made, most of them a decade ago, and that nothing came of them. What’s to explain?
Uncle:
You know what? You’re absolutely right. Somebody from Iraq talked to someone from al-Qaeda a couple of times a decade ago, with no results. Therefore, there IS a connection, and the President can go to whatever lenghts he deems necessary to protect us from this horrific threat. Everyone — including Democrats and Republicans — who thinks that Iraq was never a legitimate threat vis-a-vis al-Qaeda is obviously a blithering idiot. I don’t know what the hell we lefties (and some on the right) were thinking! Fortunately, it only qualifies as goal post moving when the Left holds the Right to its word, and never when the Right changes its position.
By the way, have I mentioned that I have conclusively linked Kevin Bacon with al-Qaeda? I expect Bacon’s arrest (and James Woods’ while we’re at it) post haste.
June 21st, 2004 at 7:26 pm
Let me put it in a way you can more readily understand. Suppose we were able to prove that some terrorists attended a gun show, but nobody at the gun show was willing to sell them any guns. Would that justify shutting down the gun show, killing lots of people at the gun show, and disbanding the organization that put together the gun show?
June 22nd, 2004 at 5:20 am
That’s a false analogy, but I’m not going to waste any more of my time verbally fencing with you. I’m satisfied that you’re going to resort to all the tricks you and your buddies come around here and accuse us of using.
Oh I forgot: it’s also against the rules to call someone a hypocrite.
June 22nd, 2004 at 6:21 am
One parting shot: I’m sure you can explain how this post actually supports your position, too.
June 22nd, 2004 at 8:57 am
Tom’s analogy is bad because it assumes the Iraqi government had no terrorist connections of its own. Here’s a better analogy:
Let me put it in a way you can more readily understand. Suppose we were able to prove that a group of Bloods attended an illegal gun show run by the Crips, but nobody at the gun show is willing and/or able to provide us rock-solid proof that the Crips actually sold the Bloods any guns, presumably out of fear of being killed by either Crips or Bloods, whoever got to them first. Suppose further that the Bloods and the Crips have each caused a significant amount of havoc on their own. Would lingering doubts about their collaboration be a significant reason NOT to shut down the Crips’ gun show, killing as few people as possible in the process, and ultimately disbanding the Crips?
June 22nd, 2004 at 9:39 am
Thibodeaux:
I’m sure you can explain how this post actually supports your position, too.
I dunno. Does what Lehman say actually appear in the report? If not, then that means that the commission as a whole did not agree with those statements. Has he got evidence to back up those claims? If so, that would indeed damage my position somewhat.
Xrlq:
My analogy isn’t perfect, but it’s close enough. The “connections” we have between Iraq and al-Qaeda are virtually identical to the “connections” I described in the gun show analogy. The key difference is that I didn’t give my gun show organizer a criminal record, but I don’t see how that sufficiently harms the analogy.
In your example, the reasons for shutting down the gun show have nothing to do with a suspected collaboration between the Crips and the Bloods. You wouldn’t even need that as justification. That’s where your analogy falls short; because there were plenty of other valid and legitimate reasons given for shutting down the show that have nothing to do with collaboration, and collaboration was never used as a major selling point to drum up public support for shutting the show down.
June 22nd, 2004 at 9:59 am
Oh, and Thibodeaux, it turns out that Lehman’s Meet the Press assertion was erroneous, and senior Administration officials are distancing themselves from it: