Wednesday, July 05, 2006

CIA Reorganizes

"People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." ~ A. J. Liebling

Well, the New York Slimes has done it again.

What you may ask?

Now they are reporting that the CIA is no longer interested in pursuing Osama bin Laden. This, in their typical fashion, is misleading. The CIA has not stopped looking for bin Laden. They have simply disbanded a special unit who's mission was to capture him.

They go on to say, "The decision to close the unit was first reported Monday by National Public Radio".

The first indication that should make us examine this story a little closer, is that National Public Radio reported the story. Between them and The New York Slimes, one couldn't find two more subversive, anti-American, anti-Bush News outlets.

Michael Scheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official who was the first head of the unit, said the move reflected a view within the agency that Mr. bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was.

Mr. Scheuer said that view was mistaken.

"This will clearly denigrate our operations against Al Qaeda," he said. "These days at the agency, bin Laden and Al Qaeda appear to be treated merely as first among equals."

I wonder if Mr. Scheur is the mysterious anonymous source from whom the Slimes has been getting all those National security secrets they have been disclosing to our enemies?

In recent years, the war in Iraq has stretched the resources of the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, generating new priorities for American officials. For instance, much of the military's counterterrorism units, like the Army's Delta Force, had been redirected from the hunt for Mr. bin Laden to the search for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed last month in Iraq.

Leave it to the Slimes to put a negative slant on The war in Iraq. They are attempting to make it look like we are losing, which, of course, we aren't.

An intelligence official who was granted anonymity to discuss classified information said the closing of the bin Laden unit reflected a greater grasp of the organization. "Our understanding of Al Qaeda has greatly evolved from where it was in the late 1990's," the official said, but added, "There are still people who wake up every day with the job of trying to find bin Laden."

Wait. An intelligence official who was granted anonymity to discuss classified information? By whom was this mysterious anonymous official granted anonymity? By the New York Slimes? By NPR? If any official is granted anonymity to discuss classified information, it certainly wouldn't be by a socialist News organization.

In his book "Ghost Wars," which chronicles the agency's efforts to hunt Mr. bin Laden in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks, Steve Coll wrote that some inside the agency likened Alec Station to a cult that became obsessed with Al Qaeda.
"The bin Laden unit's analysts were so intense about their work that they made some of their C.I.A. colleagues uncomfortable," Mr. Coll wrote. Members of Alec Station "called themselves 'the Manson Family' because they had acquired a reputation for crazed alarmism about the rising Al Qaeda threat."

Obsessed? Made their colleagues uncomfortable? Crazed alarmism? Oh yes, throw in another negative zinger which is totally unrelated to the decision to disband the unit.

Obviously, the Slimes is counting on the fact that most Slimes readers haven't the attention span to read the article all the way through the last paragraph. The true reason the unit was disbanded is found in the last paragraph of the article.:

Intelligence officials said Alec Station was disbanded after Robert Grenier, who until February was in charge of the Counterterrorist Center, decided the agency needed to reorganize to better address constant changes in terrorist organizations.

It is simply a re-organization. The Slimes has once again created the proverbial mountain out of the proverbial molehill. But only to create even more animosity toward the United States from the Liberals.

Liberals love to bring up the argument that bin Laden is the only person responsible for terrorist attacks across the globe, and that our focus should be his capture.

In fact, the Liberals love to bring up any argument that can further denigrate America, our troops, and the President.

But as the death of Zarqawi has demonstrated, with or without bin Laden, terrorism will still be the most imminent threat to the safety and security of the world, and will still be the reason our troops are fighting in Iraq.

There is no doubt that the capture of bin Laden is pivotal to sucess in the GWOT, but he is not the only threat to the world.

In fact, because of the constant vigilance of President Bush, and the armed forces of America, and yes, even the CIA, bin Laden has been pretty much neutralized.


Lone Ranger said...

One of my disappointments with the Republicans is they have made no effort to cut off public funding of NPR and PBS. The liberals constantly whine about the money we are spending to liberate brown children on the other side of the world, but they maintain that funding these playthings of the liberal elite is an absolute necessity. If these two entities had to earn a living through ratings, like every commercial broadcast outlet in the country, they'd quickly go the way of Air America. Typical liberals, they couldn't survive without government handouts.

Erudite Redneck said...

LR's premise is absolutely right in that the marketplace of ideas is one thing, and the marketplace is another, and the latter will not support the former. Which is why those two outlets are, and always should be, subsidized.

I'd support a righty version of NPR and PBS, too, for the same reason. The marketplace generally won't support thoughtful journalism or unpopular ideas. Generally, although there are excpetions. I mean, righties are already on government tits, just different tits than libs.

Lone Ranger said...

There is no reason to support BAD ideas. It isn't a marketplace of ideas unless the bad ideas are allowed to die. If that weren't true, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would still flourish -- to say nothing of Democratic slavery.

tugboatcapn said...

Here's a question...

Why could the NYT not have written the same article from this angle?

"Bin Laden no longer considered a high priority."


"Bin Laden's effectiveness in waging his Terror War against the U.S. has been diminished to the point that the CIA no longer feels the need to devote an entire task force to his capture."

They would have been conveying the same information, wouldn't they?

Or would they?

Here's another question...

"In recent years, the war in Iraq has stretched the resources of the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, generating new priorities for American officials.

Could the NYT's constant and systematic attempt to remove and expose the tools that our Intelligence Agencies use to detect and prevent Terrorist Activities have contributed to the re-alignment of priorities within those Agencies?

Just a thought...

tugboatcapn said...

Oh, and ER, that's the thing about tits...

They usually come in sets.

A right one and a left one.

The difference is, eventually you have to start to think about weaning yourself, no matter how big the tits are...

Erudite Redneck said...

Tell it to Big Business, Tug, and I'll tell it to the homeless shelter that gets a little slice of a CDBG grant. Also, yer right, Tug, there are as many ways to report a story as there are to skin a cat.

I just put this up at Pero's place, for what it's worth:

At July 05, 2006 12:16 PM, Erudite Redneck said…

I've no problem with any sentence in this paragraph (from Michael Barone at Real Clear Politics, which Pero had posted approvingly):

"The counterargument is that it is a dangerous business for the government to prosecute the press. But it certainly is in order to prosecute government officials who have abused their trust by disclosing secrets, especially when those disclosures have reduced the government's ability to keep us safe. And pursuit of those charges would probably require reporters to disclose the names of those sources. As the Times found out in the Judith Miller case, reporters who refuse to answer such questions can go to jail."

BUT what y'all seem to want is "prior restraint." The press IS FREE. That doesn't mean its reporting doesn't sometimes have consequences.

Just like being president. Bush has done what he's done, by prosecuting an, at best, questionable war in Iraq, at worst, an illegal one. The answer is this:

Let the Dems get Congress back this fall, and let the Congress impeach the president and vice president. If that doesn't happen, then ... well. Ya win some, ya lose some.

I used this example once: If I had what I thought was reliable information that a guy in a house a few blocks away from mine had the intention of breaking into my house and harming my family, I would be justified in going over there, knocking the door down and kicking his ass.

But if, OOPS, he really *didn't* have the resources to do me harm, and was really just blowing, I could be prosecuted for breaking into his house and doing *him* harm -- even IF in the process I discovered, oh, a meth lab and a couple of hostages. I still would have broken the law.

The ends do not justify the means. The president did what he did. OOPS. His information was faulty. The answer, at this high level of policy, international affairs and politics, is for the Congress, if it is so inclined, to impeach Bush, and the vice president. If the Dems win in November, Congress might be so inclined.

At July 05, 2006 3:12 PM, Erudite Redneck said…

P.S. Note that the reference to reporters going to jail in the graf above refers to being jailed for contempt for refusing to reveal sources, NOT being jailed for REPORTING. The day the sumbitches jail a journalist for exercising his or her First Amendment rights is the day I start using my Second Amendment rights to personally defend the Constitution.

Here's something to chew on, from Teh Progressive (hope it makes it thru yer fileter!)

By Matthew Rothschild
June 26, 2006

Back during the 1790s under the Alien and Sedition Acts, then during the Civil War and again during World War I, the government prosecuted editors.

It’s not a practice that thrills me, as an editor.

Nor should it thrill you, for that matter, because it’s about as blatant a violation of the First Amendment as there is.

But that didn’t stop Representative Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, from wanting to get the cuffs out on the editors of The New York Times.

“We’re at war,” he said, “and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous.”

King said he would ask Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to “begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times—the reporters, the editors, and the publisher.”

Dick Cheney also dumped on the Times, saying that “some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs.” This most offensive Vice President said, “That offends me.”

Taking his cue from Cheney, as usual, Bush on Monday said, “For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America.” The revelation, he added, “makes it harder to win the war on terror.”

And Gonzales himself, who is supposed to be the leading law enforcement officer of the United States and is sworn to uphold the Constitution, has also been warning ominously about prosecuting journalists.

What King, Cheney, Bush, Gonzales, and many rightwing pundits don’t seem to appreciate is that we, the American people, need to have a free press to check the excesses of government.

Such a free press has never been needed more so than today, when the Bush Administration has taken excess to the nth degree.

To my eyes, The New York Times has not been aggressive enough. It held the NSA spying story for more than a year, and it let Judith Miller cozy up to the Iraq War cheerleaders and placed some of their propaganda on the front page.

“Our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough,” Bill Keller, editor of the Times, acknowledged in a letter to readers on June 25.

He also revealed just how solicitous the Times has become of the Administration’s views.

“Our decision to publish the story of the Administration’s penetration of the international banking system followed weeks of discussion between Administration officials and The Times, not only the reporter who wrote the story but senior editors, including me,” Keller wrote. “We listened patiently and attentively. . . . We weighed most heavily the Administration’s concern that describing this program would endanger it.”

But the President doesn’t deserve a seat at the editorial meetings of The New York Times—or any other newspaper. That is not his place. He is commander in chief, not editor in chief.

It is up to reporters, and editors, and publishers to decide what is news—not the branch of government they are supposed to be covering.

Once the President takes over that job, the fourth estate has lost its function.

So before Gonzales, Cheney, Bush, and King throw Bill Keller and Arthur Sulzberger Jr in the hoosegow, they might want to consult a copy the Constitution, if they can still find one lying around.

AMEN and amen!

Erudite Redneck said...

Oh, and LR can keep pretending that nineteenth-century Democrats are the same as 21st-century Democrats, but it's silly. Today's Bourbon Democrats are the Big Business Repubs of today. A moment of silence, BTW, for the passing of one of their leaders today.

Lone Ranger said...

ER, Tell that to the Democrats who throw Oreo cookies at Maryland Lt. Gov. Steele. I suggest that you stop pretending that if you're a Democrat you're not a racist.

Erudite Redneck said...

Individual Dems are no more or less capable of racism than individual Repubs or anyone else, especially in the heat of a campaign.

Anecdotes are intellectual snackfood. Thank you sir, may I have another?

Remember Willie Horton. Ann writes at length about him in "Godless" -- oh, wait. I mean *somebody* wrote at length about Willie Horton in "Godless." Womder who?

tugboatcapn said...

And that if you are a Republican, you ARE a racist.

I have absolutely no problem with publicly funded homeless shelters.

The problem is, most of them aren't.

Most Homeless shelters are run by Churches and other non-profit or "Faith Based" groups that Liberals would OPPOSE funding because it would cross their precious immaginary line seperating "Church and State".

And I am not going to let you get away with the premise that the War in Iraq is at best,[a] questionable war in Iraq, at worst, an illegal one.

The War in Iraq was voted on and approved by our own Congress and Senate, and was taken up in order to enforce no less than 17 U.N. Resolutions which were ignored by both the Saddam Hussein Regime and the Clinton Administration over a period of Eight Years.

Never mind the fact that the U.N. Charter contains a clause that states that any member Nation may unilaterally enforce, Militarily if need be, any resolution that the U.N. displays an inadequacy or unwillingness to enforce.

So just on those grounds, the War in Iraq is legal and warranted in about 19 different ways, whether you like it or not, and in my mind, and in a lot of American's minds, (including no less than the President of the United States' mind,) this is a Legal, and Justified War.

I personally do not believe that the Government should prosecute the New York Times and their reporters.

They should throw them in jail, and ask them every two weeks who their sources were, and when (in about a year) they begin to get some names of leakers, they should prosecute the leakers, and if they are found guilty, they should be hanged for Treason.

On Pay-Per-View.

The Press is Free in America, and should remain so.

But this Freedom, just like any other Freedom any of us have ever enjoyed CAN be abused.

And IS being abused.

And because I know what you do for a living, and because I like you, and because I value each and every Freedom specifically enumerated and described within our Founding Documents, I am offering this warning to you and to everyone else in your esteemed profession.

Be Careful.

You guys have already abused the Freedom of the Press to the point that you have started a debate in this Country over whether or not you should be allowed to remain Free.

If this Freedom is taken from you, and those like you, it will be your OWN FAULT.

Erudite Redneck said...

To take this freedom away will require a change in the Bill of Rights. Good luck. Blood will run in the streets first.

Erudite Redneck said...

Actually, I take personal possibility for my own part in the war in Iraq. The president, et al., made me and millions of others believe that Saddam could hit this continent with a nuke.

We were stupid to believe him.

Never again.

Amazing! The two biggest reasons I am a Dem are your two favorite presidents. :-)

tugboatcapn said...

I love it.

Pointing out the machinations of Democrat distortions is "Anecdotes. Intellectual Snack Food. Thank you sir, may I have another."

ER, Ann Coulter's Book is Commentary.

She has as much right to her opinion as does Cindy Sheehan, Jack Murtha, or Al Franken.

I am finding her book, especially the chapter about Willie Horton, to be a fun read.

I hope that you are enjoying it as well.

Just as I hope that she enjoys spending the money that she made whenever we both purchased her book. (Or when whoever bought your copy purchased it.)

The NYT is commentary as well, they only pretend to be an unbiased news source.

At least Ann Coulter is honest about her objectives.

Dan Trabue said...

ER said:

"I mean, righties are already on government tits, just different tits than libs."

Different and much, MUCH bigger. I feel it might duty to always remind you that it is the Right-ish side that spends the vast hulking bulk of US tax dollars, not the "tax-and-spend" liberals.

Don't believe it? Look at the "liberal" programs (Welfare on which we spend ~$25 billion or Public Broadcasting at, what? less than $1 billion) vs. "conservative" expenditures (such as the HUGE military on which we spend in excess of HALF A TRILLION dollars).

So, please, don't believe or repeat the Big Lie that "liberals" are the ones spending all our money (that, of course, wasn't directed towards you, ER, just a general warning for whom the bell tolls).

tugboatcapn said...

Dan, once again I will remind you that the Constitution provides for expenditures at whatever level is deemed necessary by the Elected Representatives of the people to "Provide for the Common Defense."

I.E. Military Spending.

Nowhere is Socialism authorized in our Founding Documents.

Maybe you are living in the wrong Country...

Dan Trabue said...

There are many ways of defining "common defense."

As Wendell Berry puts it, "Surely not many nations before us have espoused bankruptcy and suicide as forms of self-defense."

Further, the Constitution does say a good deal in addition to "a common defense":

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

But nowhere is spending ourselves in to economic and moral bankruptcy is found therein. You want to define "provide for the common defense" as spending half a tril? Knock yerself out. As a fiscal conservative and responsible adult, I'll disagree and I'll remind you not to call yourself a fiscal conservative.

Further, I'll define "promote the general welfare" as being fiscally responsible with regards to our poor and our environment. Even if that requires us to spend a few million to ultimately save several more million. And I'll do so as a fiscal conservative.

You, sir, have not a single leg to stand upon - none except fear and desperation, and those are some mighty weak legs.

Myself, I'll not allow the Myth of Fiscally Conservative Republicans be repeated where it is so soundly undeserved. And so I'll repeat it once again:

You cannot advocate spending trillions and call those who advocate spending a few billion "big spenders." You do damage to the English language and ethical conservatives every time you do.

Erudite Redneck said...

I consider preserving the family farm an act of national defense. Too bad we've never actually tried to save the family farm.

Jim said...

Well said, Dan. And may I offer this interesting article (a bit long) on Why Conservatives Can't Govern. The essence of the article is, you can't govern something you don't believe in. That's why incompetence reigns with this administration and Congess.

Jenn of the Jungle said...

The problem I have with the NYT and it's ilk are that their supporters (read: Moonbats) claim that people like myself, who just happen to be Republican, are trying to suppress freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

That's not it, my problem is that just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't mean one should, or has to, actually do it.

The NYT were asked repeatedly not to print the story on the money transfers. They chose to do it regardless. They didn't have to. They had the freedom to refrain.

Oh, and I'm not on any tits,letfies or righties, but I've got some. Nice ones too from what I've heard.

Dan Trabue said...

"Oh, and I'm not on any tits,letfies or righties..."

Oh? You don't drive the car (a product of the gov't-supported auto industry) on roads (paid for by the gov't), supporting a questionably legal invasion (PAIIIIDD for in a BIG way by we the people), buying food and products from corporations (that are supported by the gov't, using petroleum kept artificially low by the gov't, transported using self-same gov't-supported petroleum)?

Come now, don't be modest.

Erudite Redneck said...

Dan, for seem reason, Tug is blind to the teats of the gubmint that he, personally, is on! I've tried for about a year now to show him. No mas.

tugboatcapn said...

Dan, ER...Seriously...

Do we really want to create a World with ONLY Left Tits?


tugboatcapn said...

You guys both insist on misunderstanding and misrepresenting my stance on Taxes and Government Spending.

I have never claimed that I recieve absolutely no benefit whatsoever from the Government, nor would I.

If I thought that, then I would be very upset.

I pay my fair share of Taxes.

My gripe is that the Left seems to think that the entire Tax Burden should rest on the shoulders of a very few Americans, and you both still labor under the mistaken assumption that Corporations can and should be made to pay Taxes.

They can't.

Corporations collect Taxes. They do not pay them.

I do not know why you guys are unable to grasp this concept.

Perhaps you have been Educated to the point that Common Sense no longer registers, or to the point that you are more comfortable discussing unproven Theories than with dealing with the way the World ACTUALLY works.

But then, It doesn't really matter to me WHY you are wrong. That's your problem.

What matters is that you are wrong, and you would both insist on basing far reaching Public Policy on your Wrong-Headed Theories, and paying for these experiments in wrong-ness with MY Tax Dollars.

And before you attack me on the "Borrow and Spend" point, I don't like that either.

But Debt is managable, if you have the income, and the Bush Tax Cuts (which YOU guys would stupidly repeal, if it were left up to you) are increasing the Revenue to the Federal Treasury by increasing Economic Activity and creating more Gainfully Employed Taxpayers.

If the Tax Cuts are not increasing Revenue fast enough to keep up with the Debt, then the logical solution is to cut Taxes MORE.

But that would not punish Rich People and Corporations (America's Employers) enough to suit you guys, so getting you to agree with a plan like that, no matter how logical, is useless.

It drives me crazy when I vote over and over for REAL CONSERVATIVE Leadership, and what I get is "Democrat Lite."

I want the size, scope, and power and budget of the Federal Government REDUCED.


WHOEVER is sucking on whichever Tit.

I want to look after myself, (and DO,) to the level that Society will allow me to.

I want everyone else, from the Homeless Bum on the Streetcorner, to the Wal*Mart Corporation, to do the same.

No Mas, huh?

Well same right back at ya.

Continue in you self important, Educated Ignorance. Both of you.

You don't bother me.

Jim said...


Did you fall overboard, because you are all wet. When I look at the annual report for the corporation I work for and others that I invest in, I see entries for Federal Taxes and State Taxes. Corporations collect Sales Taxes and FICA taxes and pass them onto the state and the Federal Government. But Corporations pay income taxes. Whether or not they pay their fair share is another discussion.

You said "If the Tax Cuts are not increasing Revenue fast enough to keep up with the Debt, then the logical solution is to cut Taxes MORE." By your "logic", we should eliminate taxes altogether.

There is some validity to the notion that cutting taxes stimulates the economy enough to eventually "pay for themselves". However, as in most economical theory, this one is based on a curve, a bell curve. At some point, further tax cuts will never stimulate the economy enought to pay for themselves. The problem is, tax-cut supporters assume that the economy is on one side of this curve without any proof. And that's a huge and unsupportable assumption.

There is no evidence that the Bush tax cuts are or ever will be paying for themselves.

tugboatcapn said...

Jim, the operative phrase in your comment is "At some point."

Of course eliminating taxes altogether would not increase Revenue to the Treasury.

Anything can be carried to the point of absurdity.

But the Bush Tax Cuts HAVE increased Revenue. That's a FACT.

And we have not yet begun to approach the level of Tax Cuts that would decrease the level of Revenue.

There is still plenty of wiggle room.

And increasing Taxes on an ever DECREASING segment of the population (The Richer and Richer) is a certain way to bankrupt ourselves, because at some point, these people will decide how much money they personally need, and stop generating money when they reach that point.

This is proven every week on a very small scale where I work.

The employees refuse to work more than about 60 hours in a given week because "After that, you are only working for the Government." (That was in quotes, by the way, and I hear it every week.)

(And these people are not "The Rich." They are hourly paid forklift operators and truck drivers.)

And I can see it on my own paycheck. After a certain number of hours on one check, the difference in take home pay is no longer worth the extra effort, and extra time away from home, because taxes eat up the extra money.

And I will remind you again...




Real, Substantive, Draconian CUTS.


The smaller the Government, the Free-er the People. (Within limits, of course. I am not an Anarchist.)

Oh, and Jim, I forgot to insult you. (Responding in kind, and what-not.)

Your'e funny looking, and your breath stinks.

(Now we're even on the "All Wet" comment.)

tugboatcapn said...

Mark, I'm sorry we got so far off track.

I did actually read your post, and it was great, as usual...

Dan Trabue said...

"if you have the income, and the Bush Tax Cuts (which YOU guys would stupidly repeal, if it were left up to you)"

Shouldn't make assumptions. Were I able, I'd cut the budget by at least $300 billion - a good sight more than you would be willing to do, I'm guessing - and return it to the people. This has been my repeated point. Y'all can't want to spend more and more and more and claim to be small gov't.

If you were in charge and cut out the entirety of "welfare" and public broadcasting and NEA, you'd be saving a few billion dollars (which society would end up paying somewhere else - at least on the welfare end. Welfare is a money-saver, not expenditure).

If I were in charge, I'd be saving hundreds of billions of dollars. WHO is for small gov't and who isn't? It's basic math, LR.

Dan Trabue said...

"But that would not punish Rich People and Corporations (America's Employers) enough to suit you guys"

I'm not wanting to punish anyone. I'm advocating personal and fiscal responsibility. In my church and community, those who have more try to pay more - that's personally and fiscally responsible. To those that have much, much will be expected.

Used to be basic conservative thinking.

Erudite Redneck said...

Tug, "Continue in you self important, Educated Ignorance. Both of you."

When did you become such a damn jerk? You went personal. Not me.

So just stay the hell out of my way, and I'll do likewise. What a bum.

I'd say that makes us square.

tugboatcapn said...

If you really mean that, Dan, then you and I are not as far apart Idealogically as we might have believed.

I do not mind Government Programs designed to help the disadvantaged, as long as these programs are managed responsibly, and are held to some standard of effectiveness.

But I also believe that Liberating upwards of 20 Million people from an oppressive regime also qualifies as "helping the disadvantaged", (whether or not that regime had WMD,) and is a worthwhile undertaking, especially when it promises to establish a loyal ally for America in an otherwise hostile part of the World.

Government Spending has gotten WAY out of hand by anyone's estimation, (and it did not start with Republicans, nor is it all the fault of Democrats) and I want it reigned in, whatever programs have to be cut back, or cut out in order to accomplish that goal.

AGAIN - Defense Spending Included. (Within Reason.)

tugboatcapn said...

"Tug is blind to the teats of the gubmint that he, personally, is on! I've tried for about a year now to show him. No mas.

Sounded personal to me, ER.

I started being a jerk when you stopped being reasonable and respectful to those with whom you disagree, and became so enamored with your own ideaology and opinions that you became unable to see logic or truth if it conflicted with them.

You were not always this way, ER.

If I am getting in your way by responding to your arrogant attitude and in kind, and to your misguided opinions by stating the truth as I see it in unfiltered English, then that is your problem.

Demonize me if you need to, but I haven't changed, and I will not apologize for expressing my opinions.

Dan Trabue said...

"If you really mean that, Dan, then you and I are not as far apart Idealogically as we might have believed."

This is what I'm saying: I don't have much use for labels. This liberal is a small gov't liberal, who advocates responsible spending of our money and personal responsibility. As do most liberals.

I disagree with a bloated military machine and gov't welfare for corporations out of fiscal responsibility. I am opposed to gov't getting in people's bedrooms, medical decisions and medicine cabinet because I am a small gov't conservative. Or liberal. Whichever.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

I was watching the news-conference on the New-York tunnel thingy yesterday and it seems that another Clinton-holdover is leaking classified info that could harm our efforts in preventing future attacks on our soil.

You've got to admit, the left is consistent in it's pursuit of injustice!

Erudite Redneck said...

Tug, this is bullcrap:

"became so enamored with your own ideaology and opinions that you became unable to see logic or truth if it conflicted with them."

If you really don't know the diference in a fact, an opinion, an assertion and an argument, and if you really mistake confidence and the courage of personal conviction for arrogance, then you've got yer own problems, dude.

You've got it exactly backwards. All of it. Not your opinios and conclusions, because those are your own, but what you think of them. You think that if once you've said your piece I, and others, don't just surrender, comnfess our sins and start lapping up YOUR version of the truth that we're the enemy. That's pretty primitive, man.

And I *do* change, as circumstances and new information warrant. It's called "thinking." You do not, as you say.

Lone Ranger said...

Don't want to butt in here, but where's Mark?

Lone Ranger said...

Rats! Moderated comments.

Dan Trabue said...

Deep undercover. That'd be my guess.

Perhaps he's posing as a Democratic Congressional candidate in a patriotic effort to undo the Demoncratic Party for the greater glory of the Motherland?

That'd be my guess...

Francis Lynn said...

If Mark disappeared, abducted by aliens, or is marching with Cindy Sheehan, whatever, then who's reading the comments to moderate & post them? Hmmm?

Dan Trabue said...

Ya know, MAYBE Mark was getting too close to the truth with his stories about the CIA, such as in this post. Anyone have contacts at Gitmo?