Patterico's Pontifications

9/12/2006

Ellensburg/Ellers Mangles the Facts Again

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:55 am



Glenn Greenwald still can’t get over the tremendously important issue of who got a “Path to 9/11” screener. Yesterday, on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, while the rest of us were remembering the people who died that day and our own experiences, Greenwald devoted another post to this critical issue. And distorted the facts yet again, which is the only reason I mention it. He said:

Even Bill Handel, a local radio host (who coincidentally happens to be a worshipful supporter of the Bush “war on terror” at a neoconservative radio station) who did not even request a copy and evinced no interest in viewing it, nonetheless recieved a screener.

In his comments, lefty radio host Johnny Wendell said:

Glenn: Not to parse words, but I believe that at this point, Bill Handel opposes the war in Iraq (as do his afternoon counterparts, John and Ken) at KFI. Maybe that isn’t a “war on terror” oppponent, but compared to Hugh Hewitt, Bill Handel is Randi Rhodes.

I know that isn’t exactly what you posted, but do remember that Handel is the #1 morning talker in the #1 radio revenue market in America. He has an enormous audience.

My guest blogger Justin Levine says that Wendell “used to be a KFI weekend host and now has a show on the L.A. Air America affilliate. Nice guy. Leftist who doesn’t hit below the belt. He has total respect for Handel and knows that he is a class act.”

Wait . . . Wendell, a leftist, was on the “neoconservative” KFI?

Yup. Justin gave me the rundown of who is on at neoconservative KFI and their views on the war. He said that John and Ken are “outright critics of Bush & the Iraq war at this point” — which confused me, because Greenwald told us the other day that John and Ken are a “rough version of a talk radio Michelle Malkin.”

Yet, coincidentally, I had the radio on KFI as I drove home yesterday and listened as one of them spouted about how angry he is at Bush, how disgusted he was at the fact that Bush was about to speak on 9/11, and how Bush has screwed up the fight against terrorism by starting the war in Iraq and mismanaging the domestic fight against terror.

Doesn’t sound much like Michelle Malkin to me. I wonder if he got a screener, but you know, at this point I really don’t care.

Greenwald also has an update finding great significance in the fact that liberal bloggers were unable to obtain a copy. Apparently he missed my post that Instapundit, John Hinderaker, Charles Johnson, and Captain Ed didn’t get copies either.

Greenwald responded to Wendell that he was referencing Handel’s non-Iraq views. As if he knows anything about them. Handel hates Islamic fascism, which is probably all Greenwald knows about him. Does Greenwald like it?

It’s really a stupid issue. But since Justin has an “in” with Handel, I’ve asked Justin to tell Handel that someone says he is a “worshipful supporter of the Bush ‘war on terror’ at a neoconservative radio station” and see if Handel says anything interesting. It may be later in the week before we hear anything back.

41 Responses to “Ellensburg/Ellers Mangles the Facts Again”

  1. Even a causual listener to Handel or John & Ken could tell you that its clear that Greenwald has never listened to the show.

    John and Ken while supporters of taking on al Qaeda and terrorist elements are not big supporters of the President, or Congress (either Democrat or Republican) and their lackluster record of domestic security. They did buy into the argument for WMD (as most people did) and were dissapointed when the failure to find significant quantities of WMD did not materialize. To sum up Johns thoughts on the Iraq war in my own words: “Why the hell should we care about a bunch of backward Islamic zealots in the Middle East?” (yes the epitome of the NEOCON argument). John and Ken don’t choose sides in politics, they have certain opinions and they stick to them, and they have no problem blasting Republicans or Democrats when their petty posturing and lip service to “security” is so easily transparent.

    Greenwald needs to either listen longer or not speak about a topic upon which he is clearly ignorant.

    Gabriel Chapman (92e3df)

  2. John Yoo, who was one of Bush’s Justice Department chief legal theorists and an intellectual fellow traveler of Alberto Gonzales;

    “We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime the gravity shifts to the executive branch.”

    Silly me. I was certainly used to that system. I will now read again the Constitution because I missed the article about Article I, II and III being ignored in wartime.

    Without people in power who respect and obey the Constitution and Bill of Rights America is nothing but a dictatorship. Of course that is what the Right wants so they can feel safe again.
    If it takes exploiting 9/11 then so be it.

    Paul (172a23)

  3. Talk to a liberal then talk to sheetrock you will get more action from the sheetrock

    krazy kagu (f085bf)

  4. Talk of “police states” and “dictatorships” automatically qualify your opinion to the shitheap. No one can make anything close to a logical argument for the “bush fascist state” line that gets so much play in nutter circles. Be intellectually honest and try to debate what is real. How many times has the definition of fascism changed since Bush took office? Now it appears to be any action by the President equates to Mussolini executing dissenters in the streets. The hyperbole is as nearly astonishing as the lack of mental clarity.

    Your arguments will get far more respect and attention if they are based in reality and not derangement.

    Gabriel Chapman (92e3df)

  5. I direct your attention to this posting over at The RPG Site forums. Be sure to read the whole thing.

    After reading a few comments to Pat’s and Justin’s posts here I got to thinking. Could Pat, Justin, and RPGPundit be dealing with the same phenomenon? That is, the take over of a group by ravening fanboys. Is the Democratic Party being co-opted by its own version of lawn-crappers?

    Is the Democratic Party turning from being inclusive to being exclusive?

    Alan Kellogg (e1f267)

  6. So your saying that if we have people in power who disdain the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that that does not bring America closer to a dictatorship?

    I did not mention Bush or fascism before but since you bring it up and believe in intellectual honesty, do you beleive, like John Yoo and Bush, that the gravity of power shifts to the executive
    in a time of war and how is that different from fascism?

    Paul (172a23)

  7. Paul, you did say:

    I will now read again the Constitution because I missed the article about Article I, II and III being ignored in wartime
    Without people in power who respect and obey the Constitution and Bill of Rights America is nothing but a dictatorship. Of course that is what the Right wants so they can feel safe again.

    If looking into a computer seized from a foreign national known to be associated with radical elements is your definition of a fascist state, then being a non-fascist state in 2006 is the path to suicide. We are not talking about doing things that Lincoln, Wilson, or Roosevelt did in wartime. The Bill of Rights is for American citizens, not for non-citizens who may have the intent and capability to do harm to many.

    My children belong in my home, they have privileges and rights which someone walking in off the street do not have. Likewise, people coming into our country as guests do not have the same rights and privileges as citizens. The only question is where the lines are drawn. Are visitors from another country liable to arrest and torture and seizing of finances “just because”? Of course not. But using rules for search warrants the same as a US courtroom for a citizen in a domestic crime is a handicap we can’t tolerate. Should any seizure and investigation be allowed just because “Mr. Mohammed” is from Afghanistan? Probably not, but if he is known to also have friends in Germany and France that went to Afghanistan to be in an Al Queda camp, that’s a different story.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  8. Do you want a war run by judges and Congress? We will have lost before any decisions get made. The judges and Congress and the American People have the responsibility to see that a responsible person is in the Executive position. If the Executive abuses the position he/she gets removed. That’s what an executive is. The CEO of a company does not consult with a board over every decision, but at the same time serves at the request of the board and can be fired.
    It is clear that you are not one who feels President Bush is a responsible person for the job. That is your right. That does not mean your opinions of his policies are necessarily correct, especially when you imply he does not respect the Constitution because the way he impliments it is not to your taste, whether or not there is an evidential argument.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  9. MD,

    Nice try. How about you actually address the question instead of shifting to some hypothetical foreigners computer contents.

    Does the United States Constitution change in a time of war? How about for an Authorization of Use of Force? War on drugs? War on obesity?

    se (42129b)

  10. I guess that KFI’s signal doesn’t reach all the way to Brazil, so the illustrious Mr Greenwald must get his “facts” from secondary sources. Surely we can trust his secondary sources, right?

    Dana (3e4784)

  11. So your saying that if we have people in power who disdain the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that that does not bring America closer to a dictatorship?

    It would be highly advised you look up the term “dicatatorship” and get back to us.

    I will now read again the Constitution because I missed the article about Article I, II and III being ignored in wartime.

    Your ignorance of history, while no surprise to anyone reading, is appalling.

    The Ace (8154cd)

  12. John Yoo:
    “We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch.”

    In our constitution, who enacts laws in wartime?

    simple question. simple answer please.

    Seth Edenbaum (0f8888)

  13. Yesterday, John at KFI “quoted” Lindsey Graham as an example of a Republican rebellion:

    “I know Iraq is a mess and we have screwed up seven ways from Sunday. We underestimated how hard it would be.”

    but conveniently forgot to quote the rest:

    But the fundamental idea behind Iraq is still correct. If we back out of this fight … your children and grandchildren will never know peace,” – Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham, on Sunday.

    During his program, he said, “Look it up!”

    I did.

    Tom (83cda7)

  14. Dear Friends,
    I wanted to alert you to an extremely important miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” that ABC will be airing on September 10 & 11, 2006. The writer/producer, Cyrus Nowrasteh spoke at the Liberty Film Festival last year, and has produced one of the best, most pro-American miniseries I’ve ever seen on the War on Terror. “The Path to 9/11” is a $40 million miniseries starring Harvey Keitel and Donnie Wahlberg, and it deserves every conservative’s support. Here’s my review of “The Path to 9/11″ which ran on Human Events, Front Page Magazine, and Accuracy in Media ”

    I’m still waiting for the answer to my question.

    Seth Edenbaum (0f8888)

  15. MD in Philly, I agree with you in part but please…..”If looking into a computer seized from a foreign national known to be associated with radical elements….” You know that that is a straw man argument that is not to the point. Seize the computer. Look into it. Fine.

    You can be assured that all my concerns with the erosion of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution have to do with American citizens. Of course I beleive foreigners should be treated in a humane way and according to U.S. law and treaties such as the Geneva convention, which is why it disturbs me to see the Bush administration say that the Geneva Convention does not apply now and that tortue is permitted when it is against the law.

    My real point is that all the laws and rights being abridged for “terrorists” will inevitably be used against American citizens. It is allready happening. All the govt. has to do is to stick the label of terrorism on something or someone and all bets are off.

    Did you not notice the Patriot Act. All that applies to American Citizens. The Total Information Awareness program. Americans. Locked up with no trial or access to a lawyer. Americans, remember Padilla.

    Eavesdropping between lawyer and client. Americans, Just look at the current lawsuit in Oregon where the DOJ accidentally gave a paper to the plaintiff showing that they had been listening to the conversations with their lawyers.
    Maybe if you you became a little more aware of what the Bush administration was doing in the name of terrorism such as spying on Quacker peace groups you would be more concerned. It would be unfortunate if your concern only started on the day they come and take your children out of your home and then you need some of those rights you have wished away.

    Paul (172a23)

  16. Historical and legal precedent for the suspension of Constitutional rights during time of war is clearly established. One need only point to Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Truman to gain even the most basic knowledge of the subject. This isn’t selective citation (which seems to be the hallmark of the unhinged left) its historical fact. And since many in the mainstream press insist on re-defining programs that are currently being used (every news graphic shows the evil “domestic wiretapping” when discussing the interception of external calls into the US) I can almost understand how so many remain so utterly ignorant regarding the so-called “abuses of power” by Bush. Alas, under scrutiny the arguments continue to fail.

    Changing the definition of “fascism” and “dictatorship” will not legitimize your argument, in fact, it helps amplify how bankrupt the argument is. Instead of raising your voice, improve your argument.

    Gabriel Chapman (92e3df)

  17. which is why it disturbs me to see the Bush administration say that the Geneva Convention does not apply now and that tortue is permitted when it is against the law.

    You are an out and out liar.

    President Bush has said on such thing.

    Maybe if you you became a little more aware of what the Bush administration was doing in the name of terrorism such as spying on Quacker peace groups

    Another out and out lie.
    Fabrication.

    You believe in things that are not true to form your political opinions.

    The Ace (8154cd)

  18. “After reading a few comments to Pat’s and Justin’s posts here I got to thinking. Could Pat, Justin, and RPGPundit be dealing with the same phenomenon? That is, the take over of a group by ravening fanboys. Is the Democratic Party being co-opted by its own version of lawn-crappers?”

    Judging from some of the leftwing sites I’ve read, I would say yes. I’ve been amusing myself for the last week over at Echidne of the Snakes watching people jump down my throat for suggesting that yanking ABC’s broadcast license because you dislike The Path to 9/11 would be censorship (since it is a governmental function). Alas, I should have known that attempting to have normal conversations about issues would only result in greater ad hominem attacks from the faithful who genuinely believe all Republicans are fascists and that 9/11 was an inside job. What a scary worldview.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  19. 1- The Bush administration says that the Geneva Convention does not apply. It redefines ‘torture’ to mean whatever the government refuses to do.

    2- If the administration wants to tap the phones of American citizens, it should get a warrant. Otherwise, it is breaking the law.

    3- Again: In our constitution, who enacts laws in wartime?

    I’ll add one more: Do you believe in Laws or Leaders?

    Seth Edenbaum (0f8888)

  20. “it’s really a stupid issue.”
    you got that part right.

    assistant devil's advocate (2131f7)

  21. “1- The Bush administration says that the Geneva Convention does not apply. It redefines ‘torture’ to mean whatever the government refuses to do.”

    The Bush Administration argued that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to enemy combatants. We are not dealing with a traditional army here. When the Supreme Court ruled that we must apply these rules, then the administration has come out with new guidelines and is working for legislation through Congress. And “torture” has had a variety of meanings over the years and in different places. To insinuate that it has been static for eons is nonsense.

    “2- If the administration wants to tap the phones of American citizens, it should get a warrant. Otherwise, it is breaking the law.”

    As usual, this depends. We’re not talking about U.S. citizens talking to U.S. citizens. We’re talking about people in the U.S. talking to foreigners. Foreigners do not have the same rights and protections because they are not citizens.

    “3- Again: In our constitution, who enacts laws in wartime?”

    Congress enacts laws, but Presidents have a variety of powers during wartime. Your question was answered indirectly by references to Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Truman.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  22. No president in this country can become a dictator. Who ever heard of a dictator with a 2 term limit?!

    Florence Schmieg (a1e126)

  23. 1- “The Bush administration says that the Geneva Convention does not apply. It redefines ‘torture’ to mean whatever the government refuses to do.”

    Your answer: “Things are different now.” [which means ‘Yes”]

    2-” If the administration wants to tap the phones of American citizens, it should get a warrant. Otherwise, it is breaking the law.”

    Your Answer: Ignores FISA, which states that warrentless wiretaps are allowed exclusively between foreign powers. An American citizen who is a suspect is nonetheless an American citizen.
    Get a warrent.

    3-“In our constitution, who enacts laws in wartime?”

    Your Answer: Lincoln Roosevelt and Truman.
    On the first two: here’s John Dean.
    On the third: Truman LOST.

    read the whole article. It’s pretty good.

    Seth Edenbaum (0f8888)

  24. The Bush administration says that the Geneva Convention does not apply. It redefines ‘torture’ to mean whatever the government refuses to do.

    You have no proof of this, nor do you know when or where the Geneva Conventions apply.

    If the administration wants to tap the phones of American citizens, it should get a warrant. Otherwise, it is breaking the law.

    Nobody is arguing otherwise captain strawman.

    Again: In our constitution, who enacts laws in wartime?

    I love how you’re pretending this is some serious or “deep” question.

    It demonstrates your silliness.

    The Ace (8154cd)

  25. Your Answer: Ignores FISA, which states that warrentless wiretaps are allowed exclusively between foreign powers

    It actually says more than that.

    But hey, you’re busy with fabrications and strawmen, so please, keep going.

    The Ace (8154cd)

  26. Paul and Seth,

    Your posts simply assume/assert that the Bush administration is violating the Constitution in conducting its war against terrorism. Where is your evidence and argument to support these contentions? And you top it off by characterizing your political opponents as wanting or imposing dictatorship and fascism. Completely irresponsible! Finally, your comments have almost nothing to do with the topic of our host’s post. If you won’t stick to the topic or engage in rational argument, I suggest you go elsewhere.

    Tim K (7e41e8)

  27. “Your posts simply assume/assert that the Bush administration is violating the Constitution in conducting its war against terrorism.”
    I put two links in my last comment. Read them.

    You want to follow the arguments? Then read everything on this list.

    I’m out.

    Seth Edenbaum (0f8888)

  28. To se and Paul-

    As this string is based on the movie “Path to 9/11” you two either did not watch it or did not watch it carefully.

    The example of the computer is not hypothetical, but reality ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui ). Even if it was hypothetical I’m not sure it would qualify as a “Straw Man” either ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ).

    The other example referred to in the movie was the investigation of a laptop seized by Phillipine police at the site of a fire in a room used for bomb making (“We couldn’t have looked in that in the US”) that had information about plans to hijack and blow up a dozen planes or so over the Pacific.

    Please, don’t waste our time by arguing from thin air when you don’t know the facts we are referring to.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  29. You want to follow the arguments? Then read everything on this list.

    Yes, because of course that is some sort of “argument.”

    A bunch of assertions from left-wing hacks.

    The Ace (8154cd)

  30. The Geneva Convention nor civil law covers terrorists.
    The Geneva Convention explains how nation states agree to treat prisoners of war, for the humane treatment of all prisoners.
    In case you didn’t know, the terrorists like to treat their prisoners primarily by lopping off heads with TV coverage. When treatment such as that becomes the lot of over 50% of the prisoners in US custody then we all will join the Red Cross in protesting.* Until then, they should scream louder at the Islamacist Extremists and Iraq while Hussein was in power, or actually do something about the Sudan.

    Civil law would need to be made for mass murders who commit crimes against humanity within US jurisdiction.

    *A bit of hyperbole, I hope you understand. This is not a tennis match where everyone abides by the referee. it is mnore like a game where one side wants to play tennis while the other is shooting RPG’s.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  31. vote republican
    —Bureaucratic battles slowed down the hunt for bin Laden for the first two or three years, according to officials in several agencies, with both the Pentagon and the CIA accusing each other of withholding information. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s sense of territoriality has become legendary, according to these officials.
    In early November 2002, for example, a CIA drone armed with a Hellfire missile killed a top al-Qaeda leader traveling through the Yemeni desert. About a week later, Rumsfeld expressed anger that it was the CIA, not the Defense Department, that had carried out the successful strike.

    “How did they get the intel?” he demanded of the intelligence and other military personnel in a high-level meeting, recalled one person knowledgeable about the meeting.

    Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then director of the National Security Agency and technically part of the Defense Department, said he had given it to them.

    “Why aren’t you giving it to us?” Rumsfeld wanted to know.

    Hayden, according to this source, told Rumsfeld that the information-sharing mechanism with the CIA was working well. Rumsfeld said it would have to stop.

    A CIA spokesman said Hayden, now the CIA director, does not recall this conversation. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, “The notion that the department would do anything that would jeopardize the success of an operation to kill or capture bin Laden is ridiculous.” The NSA continues to share intelligence with the CIA and the Defense Department.

    . . .

    Today, however, no one person is in charge of the overall hunt for bin Laden with the authority to direct covert CIA operations to collect intelligence and to dispatch JSOC units. Some counterterrorism officials find this absurd. “There’s nobody in the United States government whose job it is to find Osama bin Laden!” one frustrated counterterrorism official shouted. “Nobody!”—

    Seth Edenbaum (0f8888)

  32. The Geneva Conventions provides distinct rights for Prisoners of War, but even those labeled “terrorists” or “enemy combatants” have limited protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention (“Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”) and the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions

    rick (ea2ac3)

  33. Sorry MD in Philly but I dont get my facts from dramatized TV shows written and produced by right wingers with an agenda. So someone in a TV show said “We could’nt have looked in that in the U.S.” Case closed.

    Tim K, I notice you did not say anything about MD, The Ace, or Gabriel for going off topic. As long as they agree with you it’s OK. I beleive this is Patterico’s site. If he want’s me off he can ask and I’m gone.

    Paul (46fc1a)

  34. Paul & Seth,

    If you feel that you’re being treated unfairly in this thread, please go and check out the quality of civility demonstrated here.

    Dan Collins (9aea6d)

  35. Huh?
    Mark Levn: “If we get attacked again, we know who to blame. Not the administration, which has worked overtime to defend the homeland, but the lawyers, courts, and members of Congress who are responsible for disastrous policies that lead to situations like this — counterterrorism officials having to purchase insurance against lawsuits by, among others, terrorists.”

    Not being treated fairy by whom?
    By Bush? By Rumsfeld?

    The Disney/ABC television program, The Path to 9/11, which began airing last night, is inaccurate and irresponsible in its portrayal of the airport check-in events that occurred on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.
    “A factual description of those events can be found in the official government edition of the 9/11 Commission Report and supporting documents.
    “This misrepresentation of facts dishonors the memory of innocent American Airlines employees and all those who lost their lives as a result of the tragic events of 9/11.”

    American said it will have no further comment beyond the statement at this time.

    M. O’BRIEN: And a final thought here. To what extent are these al Qaeda leaders in cahoots with the homegrown insurgency? And if there is a relationship, who is taking orders from whom?

    WARE: Well, this is one of the most fascinating things about it. I mean, since the inception of this war, we have seen al Qaeda global jihad introduced to a country where it never exists. And like a cancer, once one cell appears, it begins to metastasize.

    So what we have seen throughout the country, but particularly in Ramadi, is al Qaeda, through its money, its motivation, its tactic, its ideology, hijack the local fight. So in Ramadi, it’s actually the al Qaeda front line.

    Al Qaeda dominates all the other groups so effectively that it is in charge. So, this is where American Marines and soldiers go face to face every day with the very organization that attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and yet it seems that they’re being forced to do so under-resourced and with one arm tied behind — behind their back — Miles.

    M. O’BRIEN: We’ll leave it at that.—

    What am I supposed to say to be people who want to be lead- and who despise others for refusing to be lead- by idiots?

    Seth Edenbaum (0f8888)

  36. rick (#32)
    I will assume your reference is correct, and thank you for the clarification.

    This is not legal arguing,just opinion, FWIW (maybe backed by legal reasoning, don’t know). I don’t think terrorists qualify as soldiers, civilians, or “enemy combatants”. By violating all common principles of decency, including those of the majority of Muslims, they have given up the right to be treated as humans. The only reason to treat them with any mercy or dignity is to keep ourselves from descending to subhuman levels as well. In our treatment of them, revenge is not an acceptable motive, justice and prevention of more innocent casualties are the motivation.

    Paul,

    You ignore a documented case, make a derogatory off-hand comment about the main topic (concerning “The Path to 9/11”), and imply that Tim K suggested you go elsewhere for going off topic, when he included the choice of engaging in rational argument.

    When you can quote statute or legal precedent as to why Moussaoui’s computer could have been looked at earlier, but the FBI officials in charge were mistaken, let me know. (And don’t you dare say it has been changed now because of the Patriot Act).

    You claimed I had set up a “Straw man” and refuse to acknowledge my providing a documented example. Rational argument would not have made a false attack then ignore the reality.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  37. Not being treated fairy by whom?
    By Bush? By Rumsfeld?

    No, you goof; in the comments.

    Dan Collins (9aea6d)

  38. “What am I supposed to say to be people who want to be lead- and who despise others for refusing to be lead- by idiots?”

    I’m with you, Seth! Seth for Philosopher-King! All Hail Seth the Genius!

    nk (d7a872)

  39. Thanks for the link MD.

    ” A straw man argument is a bogus, distorted, or deliberately flawed interpretation of an otherwise valid position that has been altered so it can be more easily attacked, delegitimized, and disassembled …..”

    That is exactly what you did when you wrote “If looking into a computer seized from a foreign national known to be associated with radical elements is your definition of a fascist state, then being in a non-fascist state in 2006 is the path to suicide.”

    That is not in any way my definition of a fascist state nor does it in any way have bearing on the argument I was making in my previous posts, thus it was a straw man to my argument as it was a “deliberately flawed interpretation of an otherwise valid position”. The event in question may be true and genuine but in relation to my points it was a ligical fallacy as I was not in any way suggesting that by looking into this guys computer America would be closer to fascism.

    My opinions on what fascism constitutes and why I beleive America is moving in that direction are for another discussion and one I would be happy to have with anyone here.

    As for Tim K including the choice I engage in rational discussion or go elswhere, since I was allready engaged in rational discussion there was no point in bringing it up. It’s not his call to make.

    As for me making a derogatory comment about the topic, sorry, never happened. Its a perfectly fine topic. Tim K just singled me out for going off topic when practically everyone else was also.

    Paul (46fc1a)

  40. Chritopher Hitchens also got to see Path To 9/11 in advance. Here are his comments about it from ABC’s Lateline:

    CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, I actually did get to see an advance copy of that series. And I must say – if it’s ever shown unedited – it’s remarkably good as a drama/documentary. But it has all those limitations. And of course it’s true that the Clinton administration decided it was a law-and-order problem; that the only way to attack bin Laden and his people was to try to get an actual indictment against them in a New York court, which now seems a bit quaint. And it’s true that on the one occasion when they went for him physically, they depended on firing cruise missiles only and not sending in a team to try and grab him in his, identifiable then, hide-out in Afghanistan and it’s also a regrettable fact that the secretary of state decided, knowing cruise missiles were going to hit Pakistan, to tell the Pakistani – excuse me, to hit Afghanistan, but would be crossing Pakistan – to warn the Pakistani Government, who then warned bin Laden. So it is a pretty keystone-cops interlude and, of course, the Democrats and Liberals earned a terrific snip about the revelation of it and the slight fictionalisation about the role of their national security adviser Sandy Berger.

    The whole interview is good. He ridicules the host for not being able to shut up about Richard Clarke, and also blasts that Senate report about Iraq and al Qaeda.

    LoafingOaf (a90377)

  41. LoafingOaf,
    The part that you quote is just about the least interesting bit of it.

    Dan Collins (208fbe)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1477 secs.