CM
Real links would be meaningful contact about specific operations, multiple meetings with senior people, knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen, direct financial assistance. Stuff that would be impossible to know about unless you got detailed records from some guy who seemed to keep everything.
And that’s why I’m glad you’re not leading the fight against terrorism.
I’m willing to bet that I’m gladder. I’d be terrible at having to rely on manipulation/half-truths/cherry picking to get what I want. Mind you, if I got to that level, I’m sure I’d have had years of getting used to it and perfecting it.
I breezed through this thread, so if my sentiments are duplicated I apologize.
I am so fucking sick of this pointing at someone else to justify fucking lies! Let’s assume that McAmnesty made a gaffe, it in no FUCKING way compares to the flat out lies Billary spewed forth. She lied, she didn’t mis-speak, she lied. I was mugged in Chicago, twice, and I can recount every detail of the events, which both times I was piss drunk!
As for CM’s latest veiled stab, I have this. I used to manage bars. I had to rely on my instincts as to whether someone was intoxicated. I didn’t have intelligence reports, I had to make the call as I saw it. It they stunk like booze, acted drunk, and stumbled a bit, I was confident that they were drunk. I have cut someone off that I found to be sober later, but I always erred on the side of caution. You act as though the situation with Al-Qoward and Iran can be an exact science, but it’s not, nor ever will be.
Sorry CM, you’re being a tool on this one. Your arguement is extremely childish by going after McAmnesty over Clinton’s outright lie. I now see you as defending a liar. What will that make you doing so?
She obviously lied. She’s an idiot.
Yeah but they DO have intelligence reports. So not the same. Making definitive public statements at this level, with what is at stake, requires definitive intelligence.
Also, in this thread, I’m commenting on what was presented as evidence.
However all your other points are interesting. I know another incident where a government had no “meaningful contact about specific operations, multiple meetings with senior people,...direct financial assistance”. Thank you for proving the Kennedy Administration had no involvement in the Bay of Pigs.
Yup....
Turn about is fair play and all that…
Actually, I think the US is totally in the clear now (re: I could go on all day scrubbing history with these standards). Example: A lot of those generals in charge of dealing with the Indians didn’t really have much oversight… et cetera...
It’s not a case of making excuses or finding ways to blame or not blame. It’s much more that it would seem important to have intel which shows who in Iran might be doing this. Is it everyone in the government or just a single person. Is it accurate to publically blame Iran as a whole? We know that there are various levels of power and they’re often not in agreement.
Funny how you want to declare this blaming Iran as a whole and not simply just usage of ‘Iran’ as being simpler than ‘Certain elements within the Iranian Government,’ and yet when Ahmadinejad declares that Israel should be wiped off the map, you need to clarify for him that he’s only talking about the government of Israel.
It’s not a case of making excuses or finding ways to blame or not blame. It’s much more that it would seem important to have intel which shows who in Iran might be doing this. Is it everyone in the government or just a single person. Is it accurate to publically blame Iran as a whole? We know that there are various levels of power and they’re often not in agreement.
Yeah, I never link to anything. Good one. And ironic coming from the person who, more than anyone, says ‘I just know’.
Linking to a bunch of nonsense… does not make an argument…
example, pointing to a stack of books, does not prove your point. Even citing [linking to] chapters…
If you can’t simply lay out your point well enough to ‘convince’ anyone but a partisan… well…
But good effort on obfuscation… Al Queda is not Al Queda… Iranian government organs are not Iranaian government organs, and furthermore.... they’re not Iranian… got it…
It’s not a case of making excuses or finding ways to blame or not blame. It’s much more that it would seem important to have intel which shows who in Iran might be doing this. Is it everyone in the government or just a single person. Is it accurate to publically blame Iran as a whole? We know that there are various levels of power and they’re often not in agreement.
Semantics...
So every action that can be supposedly traced back to any US group/team/whatever is automatically America’s fault (as a whole)?
Yeah, I never link to anything. Good one. And ironic coming from the person who, more than anyone, says ‘I just know’.
Linking to a bunch of nonsense… does not make an argument…
example, pointing to a stack of books, does not prove your point. Even citing [linking to] chapters…
If you can’t simply lay out your point well enough to ‘convince’ anyone but a partisan… well…
But good effort on obfuscation… Al Queda is not Al Queda… Iranian government organs are not Iranaian government organs, and furthermore.... they’re not Iranian… got it...
Where did I link to a bunch of nonsense?
I hardly think this forum is filled with ‘anyones’.
I did not say Al Queda is not Al Queda and I did not say Iranian government organs are not Iranaian government organs, and I did not say Iranian government organs are not Iranian. I simply said, and I keep saying, that what was posted here in an effort to prove something was an unnamed source has some sort of material which apparently confirms that a special unit of Iran’s Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (who report directly to one guy) is working (in some unspecificed capacity) with people who are “affiliated” (which suggests some loose connection, as anything closer would have required a stronger word) with elements of THE JACKPOT WORD.
If the boot was on the other foot you wouldn’t just accept that as compelling evidence sufficient to support definitive statements. None of you would.
But of course my main point is that McCain was obviously not sure enough of himself to know whether he was technically accurate or not.
Yeah, I never link to anything. Good one. And ironic coming from the person who, more than anyone, says ‘I just know’.
Linking to a bunch of nonsense… does not make an argument…
example, pointing to a stack of books, does not prove your point. Even citing [linking to] chapters…
If you can’t simply lay out your point well enough to ‘convince’ anyone but a partisan… well…
But good effort on obfuscation… Al Queda is not Al Queda… Iranian government organs are not Iranaian government organs, and furthermore.... they’re not Iranian… got it...
Where did I link to a bunch of nonsense?
I hardly think this forum is filled with ‘anyones’.
I did not say Al Queda is not Al Queda and I did not say Iranian government organs are not Iranaian government organs, and I did not say Iranian government organs are not Iranian. I simply said, and I keep saying, that what was posted here in an effort to prove something was an unnamed source has some sort of material which apparently confirms that a special unit of Iran’s Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (who report directly to one guy) is working (in some unspecificed capacity) with people who are “affiliated” (which suggests some loose connection, as anything closer would have required a stronger word) with elements of THE JACKPOT WORD.
If the boot was on the other foot you wouldn’t just accept that as compelling evidence sufficient to support definitive statements. None of you would.
But of course my main point is that McCain was obviously not sure enough of himself to know whether he was technically accurate or not.
Your penchant for linking to wikipedia as if its a valid source qualifies as linking to nonsense.
No your main point was that had Hillary or Obama said what McCain did, it would have been continuously looped and played. You actually attempted to claim that there is a media double standard IN FAVOR of Republicans.
If anything, your line of argument is along the line of some American kook saying the US had no hand in the bay of pigs or Guatemalan coup… since the US groups that did them… blaw blaw blaw… and I think most of us would do an eye roll at such a person… and, I can’t help doing it at you too. :(
That particular point, concerning how much is known about who is training extremists/terrorists in Iran, is simply one piece of the intelligence puzzle which supports what has been claimed. You seem to think that that particular piece of the puzzle isn’t important at all, and that definitive public statements can be made by important political people regardless. I am saying it would be useful to know, if inflammatory accusations are going to be made in public by an important political person. I am really not sure what is so ‘kooky’ about that. I’ve never said because we don’t seem to know, it invalidates the whole accusation. But given that the accusation is infammatory (because it is a definitive, strongly negative, statement about Iran) then I would want a greater degree of certainty than what I have been presented with. There may be other evidence that is out there that hasn’t been brought to light, or I don’t know about, which could prove it pretty clearly.
If some senior political figure made a strongly negative accusatory statement in public about America, I imagine a fair few Americans would want to see the evidence that was so overwhelming and obvious that it supported this person being able to stand up and say whatever it was. If it was me, I would.
Yeah, I never link to anything. Good one. And ironic coming from the person who, more than anyone, says ‘I just know’.
Linking to a bunch of nonsense… does not make an argument…
example, pointing to a stack of books, does not prove your point. Even citing [linking to] chapters…
If you can’t simply lay out your point well enough to ‘convince’ anyone but a partisan… well…
But good effort on obfuscation… Al Queda is not Al Queda… Iranian government organs are not Iranaian government organs, and furthermore.... they’re not Iranian… got it...
Where did I link to a bunch of nonsense?
I hardly think this forum is filled with ‘anyones’.
I did not say Al Queda is not Al Queda and I did not say Iranian government organs are not Iranaian government organs, and I did not say Iranian government organs are not Iranian. I simply said, and I keep saying, that what was posted here in an effort to prove something was an unnamed source has some sort of material which apparently confirms that a special unit of Iran’s Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (who report directly to one guy) is working (in some unspecificed capacity) with people who are “affiliated” (which suggests some loose connection, as anything closer would have required a stronger word) with elements of THE JACKPOT WORD.
If the boot was on the other foot you wouldn’t just accept that as compelling evidence sufficient to support definitive statements. None of you would.
But of course my main point is that McCain was obviously not sure enough of himself to know whether he was technically accurate or not.
Your penchant for linking to wikipedia as if its a valid source qualifies as linking to nonsense.
No your main point was that had Hillary or Obama said what McCain did, it would have been continuously looped and played. You actually attempted to claim that there is a media double standard IN FAVOR of Republicans.
I don’t think its a pro-Republican media bias. Its more like a McCain foreign policy pass or a narrative bias. He’s been around. He’s a war hero. Foreign policy knowledge and wisdom is the narrative of his campaign. The media loves him. And they have given him a pass on his errors and misstatements.
There are many biases in the media. To assume someone is talking about left/right bias is a rather narrow view of media bias.
I think the jury is still out on wikipedia. But it does have some that believe its fairly accurate.
I don’t think its a pro-Republican media bias. Its more like a McCain foreign policy pass or a narrative bias. He’s been around. He’s a war hero. Foreign policy knowledge and wisdom is the narrative of his campaign. The media loves him. And they have given him a pass on his errors and misstatements.
Just wait ‘til the general election and see how much they don’t love him. Right now, the fun coverage is of the Democrap Primary. They’re not interested in McCain. Up ‘til now, they’ve made like they love him ‘cuz he’s such a RINO, so he’s been far preferable to them over anybody who was even close to actually being a conservative. Come the general election though, and all that’s gonna change. The MSM is gonna be all over McCain like a pack of wolves on a stray calf.
I don’t think its a pro-Republican media bias. Its more like a McCain foreign policy pass or a narrative bias. He’s been around. He’s a war hero. Foreign policy knowledge and wisdom is the narrative of his campaign. The media loves him. And they have given him a pass on his errors and misstatements.
Just wait ‘til the general election and see how much they don’t love him. Right now, the fun coverage is of the Democrap Primary. They’re not interested in McCain. Up ‘til now, they’ve made like they love him ‘cuz he’s such a RINO, so he’s been far preferable to them over anybody who was even close to actually being a conservative. Come the general election though, and all that’s gonna change. The MSM is gonna be all over McCain like a pack of wolves on a stray calf.
They’ve already started doing that too. With that supposed Lobbyist affair. That came out right at the time McCain basically had the Republican nomination sealed up. And Obama was in the middle of his steam roll, before the derailing in Ohio and Texas. Suddenly Hillary gets some traction. Then Obama’s racist pastor gets national attention. So the media bias is still there its just currently split between Obama and Hillary. And they’ve got an old Republican Boogieman they can go after in Rush Limbaugh for urging Republicans to go out and vote for Hillary. Nevermind the Obama phonecalls that were made urging Republicans to go out and vote for him…
Once that split ends they’ll be over McCain. And its not just the Independents they have ammunition to use against him for either. There’s plenty out there they can use to poison him for the Republicans too. Not that they necessarily would know what those things are. A lot of it would be the things they like McCain for, and they can’t possibly fathom why anyone would not like that.
CM
Real links would be meaningful contact about specific operations, multiple meetings with senior people, knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen, direct financial assistance. Stuff that would be impossible to know about unless you got detailed records from some guy who seemed to keep everything.
And that’s why I’m glad you’re not leading the fight against terrorism.
I’m willing to bet that I’m gladder. I’d be terrible at having to rely on manipulation/half-truths/cherry picking to get what I want. Mind you, if I got to that level, I’m sure I’d have had years of getting used to it and perfecting it.
I breezed through this thread, so if my sentiments are duplicated I apologize.
I am so fucking sick of this pointing at someone else to justify fucking lies! Let’s assume that McAmnesty made a gaffe, it in no FUCKING way compares to the flat out lies Billary spewed forth. She lied, she didn’t mis-speak, she lied. I was mugged in Chicago, twice, and I can recount every detail of the events, which both times I was piss drunk!
As for CM’s latest veiled stab, I have this. I used to manage bars. I had to rely on my instincts as to whether someone was intoxicated. I didn’t have intelligence reports, I had to make the call as I saw it. It they stunk like booze, acted drunk, and stumbled a bit, I was confident that they were drunk. I have cut someone off that I found to be sober later, but I always erred on the side of caution. You act as though the situation with Al-Qoward and Iran can be an exact science, but it’s not, nor ever will be.
Sorry CM, you’re being a tool on this one. Your arguement is extremely childish by going after McAmnesty over Clinton’s outright lie. I now see you as defending a liar. What will that make you doing so?
She obviously lied. She’s an idiot.
Yeah but they DO have intelligence reports. So not the same. Making definitive public statements at this level, with what is at stake, requires definitive intelligence.
Also, in this thread, I’m commenting on what was presented as evidence.
Sorry to hear about your muggings!
CM, I am sorry, I was a bit harsh. I just hate it when someone tries to justify behavior, by pointing at someone else. Just this morning one of my colleagues did that very thing. Grrrr....
They’ve already started doing that too. With that supposed Lobbyist affair. That came out right at the time McCain basically had the Republican nomination sealed up.
True, but to give the editors a little credit… they didn’t wait until right before the general election. He had plenty of time to clear it up this way… Right before the general is when it’s obviously a hatchet job IMO.
They’ve already started doing that too. With that supposed Lobbyist affair. That came out right at the time McCain basically had the Republican nomination sealed up.
True, but to give the editors a little credit… they didn’t wait until right before the general election. He had plenty of time to clear it up this way… Right before the general is when it’s obviously a hatchet job IMO.
Yeah. However you can look at it from a variety of ways. First they had the story, and it could probably be determined that they’d known about it for X amount of time. So were they to try to hold something like this for the October Surprise it could backfire on them because everyone would see it as the hatchet job. This could also be considered the opening salvo. Makes one wonder what else they might have on him. Wouldn’t shock me in the least if one of the networks is working on an hour long special on McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five
CM
Real links would be meaningful contact about specific operations, multiple meetings with senior people, knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen, direct financial assistance. Stuff that would be impossible to know about unless you got detailed records from some guy who seemed to keep everything.
And that’s why I’m glad you’re not leading the fight against terrorism.
I’m willing to bet that I’m gladder. I’d be terrible at having to rely on manipulation/half-truths/cherry picking to get what I want. Mind you, if I got to that level, I’m sure I’d have had years of getting used to it and perfecting it.
I breezed through this thread, so if my sentiments are duplicated I apologize.
I am so fucking sick of this pointing at someone else to justify fucking lies! Let’s assume that McAmnesty made a gaffe, it in no FUCKING way compares to the flat out lies Billary spewed forth. She lied, she didn’t mis-speak, she lied. I was mugged in Chicago, twice, and I can recount every detail of the events, which both times I was piss drunk!
As for CM’s latest veiled stab, I have this. I used to manage bars. I had to rely on my instincts as to whether someone was intoxicated. I didn’t have intelligence reports, I had to make the call as I saw it. It they stunk like booze, acted drunk, and stumbled a bit, I was confident that they were drunk. I have cut someone off that I found to be sober later, but I always erred on the side of caution. You act as though the situation with Al-Qoward and Iran can be an exact science, but it’s not, nor ever will be.
Sorry CM, you’re being a tool on this one. Your arguement is extremely childish by going after McAmnesty over Clinton’s outright lie. I now see you as defending a liar. What will that make you doing so?
She obviously lied. She’s an idiot.
Yeah but they DO have intelligence reports. So not the same. Making definitive public statements at this level, with what is at stake, requires definitive intelligence.
Also, in this thread, I’m commenting on what was presented as evidence.
Sorry to hear about your muggings!
CM, I am sorry, I was a bit harsh. I just hate it when someone tries to justify behavior, by pointing at someone else. Just this morning one of my colleagues did that very thing. Grrrr....
No problem.
Pointing out double standards doesn’t have to equate to justifying behaviour. As I said in my first post in this thread, they all do these stupid things. They never live up to what they promise, or how they advertise themselves.
Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a “perception of drift.” The key factor in Bill’s policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have “deep misgivings” and viewed the situation as “a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform.” The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the “ethnic cleansing” by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people.
It’s hardly necessary for me to point out that the United States did not receive national health care in return for its acquiescence in the murder of tens of thousands of European civilians. But perhaps that is the least of it. Were I to be asked if Sen. Clinton has ever lost any sleep over those heaps of casualties, I have the distinct feeling that I could guess the answer. She has no tears for anyone but herself. In the end, and over her strenuous objections, the United States and its allies did rescue our honor and did put an end to Slobodan Milosevic and his state-supported terrorism. Yet instead of preserving a polite reticence about this, or at least an appropriate reserve, Sen. Clinton now has the obscene urge to claim the raped and slaughtered people of Bosnia as if their misery and death were somehow to be credited to her account! Words begin to fail one at this point.
Its funny, for the dems, you have Obama who regularly associates with men who if they were white and were to speak about black people in a way everyone would be damning them.
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
A man with poor judgemnt and is dishonest, or a woman who seeks to change the rules and lie. What great choices.
It’s not a case of making excuses or finding ways to blame or not blame. It’s much more that it would seem important to have intel which shows who in Iran might be doing this. Is it everyone in the government or just a single person. Is it accurate to publically blame Iran as a whole? We know that there are various levels of power and they’re often not in agreement.
Semantics...
It was the same “semantics” that led the idiots to attack innocent Americans for the conduct of their government, IMO.
It’s not a case of making excuses or finding ways to blame or not blame. It’s much more that it would seem important to have intel which shows who in Iran might be doing this. Is it everyone in the government or just a single person. Is it accurate to publically blame Iran as a whole? We know that there are various levels of power and they’re often not in agreement.
