[quote name='Veritas1204']Damn mulligan, I think I actually heard a liberal cry while reading that.
Well done.[/QUOTE]
Hold your applause.
[quote name='bmulligan']Since you work for the CIA and probably have liasons in the FBI and NSA, I'm sure you have the basis to know this as a fact. I apologize. If I had known you were a close confidant of the higher eschelon of the county's intelligence services, I wouldn't have been so flippant. Obviously your insider knowledge makes you the supreme expert on the subject and I will concede that this president doesn't care about Osama anymore.[/quote]
Delightfully deceitful sleight of hand, wherein you've not included in your quote of my post the fact that, financially and militarily, we are far more invested in Iraq than in chasing bin Laden and the al qaeda cells outside of Iraq.
Want more proof that we not following bin Laden? Here you go: Oh, to hell with it. I gave you that link in the very
ing post you're quoting in this passage of yours. That's, yet again in your post, willfully editing out select things you don't want to deal with. As a fresher-upper, the link was to a WaPo article entitled: Bin Laden Trail 'Stone Cold'. The first two passages, since you didn't read it (well, since you edit it out of my post in your response, perhaps you *did* read it) states the following:
[quote name='EvilLiberalWaPo']The clandestine U.S. commandos whose job is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden have not received a credible lead in more than two years. Nothing from the vast U.S. intelligence world -- no tips from informants, no snippets from electronic intercepts, no points on any satellite image -- has led them anywhere near the al-Qaeda leader, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.
"The handful of assets we have have given us nothing close to real-time intelligence" that could have led to his capture, said one counterterrorism official, who said the trail, despite the most extensive manhunt in U.S. history, has gone "stone cold."[/quote]
Boy, between that and the closure and reassignment of the CIA unit that was seeking bin Laden, you'll forgive me for my error: CLEARLY there is more effort to go after al qaeda and bin Laden than in Iraq.
That's two, 'cuz one ain't enough.
[quote name='EvilLiberalNYT']C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden
By MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.
The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.[/quote]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/w...79ed9b98bb9d22&ex=1309665600&pagewanted=print
Obviously his ability to thwart the UN, it's resolutions, it's inspectors, the US and a signed peace accord, and subvert billions of dollars from the oil for food program, continue to buy weapons, tanks, missiles, and chemical suits for his troops while building 30 more presidential palaces fitted with 14k gold faucets and writing 25,000 checks to palestinian martyrs was containing him. Lord knows he was so contained, that he couldn't possibly have started, planned, or initiated a nuclear or chemical weapons program becuase his every move was being scrutinized as we were starving his people with our sanctions. If we had just left him alone, he would have probably had his scientists develop a cure for cancer or aids.
Your points here are completely true, except for the weapons parts. They are merely speculative; hell, they're not even that. They're patently untrue, and the desperation in your blind alliance to your ideology betrays you from the clarity of the real world in which we live: SADDAM HAD NO
ING WMDS. My life would be easier if he did, so I could concede argument, shut my mouth, and go on with my life knowing the right thing was done (yet still poorly planned).
As for palaces and oil for food, that's certainly damnable, but also knowing as "grasping at straws." What does financial exploitation or furthering one's own extravagant lifestyle to the dismay of an impoverished populace (and I will ignore the sheer irony of you chastising someone for using their power to better enhance their lives at the expense of others, Mr. Laissez-Faire Pants) have to do with terrorism? So, given the frequently debunked "Saddam had WMDs" argument (keep trying, though!), would the public have supported a "Saddam has gold-rimmed faucets" as a precursor to invasion and overthrow of the regime? Bitch
please
Do you even bother to listen to your terrorist friends when they describe their hatred for Jews and Americans? Your finger is pointed in the wrong direction. Nowhere have I made a blanket statement claiming all muslims, pashtans, arabs, kurds, turks, or persians are terrorists. I probably get a lot more world travel time than a wanna-be professor does, especially one who specializes in catagorizing people according to their paternity and skin color such as yourself.
I, on the other hand, prefer to catagorize people according to their belief systems, or philosophy, if you prefer. The haterd I have is for the most radical jihadist muslim sects that are hell bent on destroying the United States and Isreal. Those who want to "wipe us off the face of the map," are not the same people as those who can worship their god in peace and co-exist with their fellow man without strapping a bomb to their child's waist and sending him into a shopping mall filled with "non-believers". This is quite a different basis for my haterd than that which you prefer to ascribe to me and my kind. Unfortunately, you can't bring yourself to see the reality of any of these situations and prefer to call us all indiscriminate racist killers of brown people. I guess the easy way out is the best way for a book learned fellow like yourself.
So, Mr. Philosopher, what kinds of separating lines have you come up with regarding citizens of the Middle East; in particular, the various types of people residing in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and others? How do you delineate people withing and between those nations? Get the
off your high horse and come answer the bullshit I'm calling you on. Your "Myeh, myeh, I'm a philosopher" approach is phony due to the numerous and rampant examples of you showcasing your inability to discern one resident of the middle east from another. You live in the paradoxical world of an American conservative, where you support killing the
out of terrorists and providing freedom and democracy to those who aren't. By itself, that's a fine mentality. The paradox comes in when you're too
ing ignorant to recognize significant cultural differences within a certain region, and apply that to your philosophy. Do you think Sunnis and Shiites will join together in the same terr'ist organization? How 'bout them Kurds? Will the Iranian Muslims align with the Catholics there?
Sheeeeeit, no, boyo. In the end, the paradox is that you support freedom for most and slaughter of the rest, yet can't discern between whom is deserving of whom: at the end of the day, you are suspicious of every resident of the Middle East.
Now, of course, pointing out that many of the terrorists are racist isn't doing you any favors; if we are to beat terrorists as much as humanly possible, we are to be superior to them, and not justify our shortsightedness with a childish "Myeh, they're doing it too!" You're an American citizen. Act like a reasonable person, and don't act like a terrorist. You're better than that.
But you ARE the racist here and choose to accuse your detractors of your own prejudice. You hate the american and israeli "races", prefering to group them into a neat and tidy catagory of evil warmongering murders, blanking-out the fact that there are actually groups of murders who publically express their intentions to kill indiscriminately based on a "racial" makeup of being American or Israeli. Does Bush say he wants to kill all Syrians or all muslims? No. Does Al-zarwhiri say he wants to kill all Americans or all jews? Yes.
Again, go back to my points about your philosophical paradox; you can't truly want to give freedom to a people who you are wholly suspicious of because of your own cultural inadequacies. You will remain anxious and suspicious for the rest of your life if you (or we) gave them the freedom that you espouse; your position is not logically consistent in that regard, since you clearly demand some form of control for them in order to quickly subjugate any later attempts at terrorism, and act or alliance to which you see potential in every person in that region. The source of your suspicion is the source of your inconsistency.
This may not be a first for you, myke, but it is suprising. A lack of evidence as a proof of your theory. Glad to know you can discount this logic when it comes to cataloging chemical weapons in Iraq, but validate the same "non-evidence as proof" theory for your own argument. You are de-volving into a lower form of emotional animal like most of your counterparets here on this board. I expected much more from a so-called, highly "educated" person such as yourself.
Eh, it's really my frustration that we can't get reliable data on collateral damage. It's also my frustration that, in the absence of this data, you made claims as well:
[quote name='you']We don't kill indescriminately - like our enemy does ![/quote]
So, what data source are you not using to verify that, Mr. You-did-it-too-so-why-call-me-out-on-it-pants?
When the terrorists plant a bomb on that Peace Train of yours, You can blame George Bush for not coming to your rescue fast enough.
Huh? This is the part where you deliberately edited out the WaPo article listed above. It's damning evidence that we aren't focused on bin Laden; it's damning evidence that we should have stressed his capture in Tora Bora, and it's damning evidence that you are too frightened to deal with what really goes on in the world out there, and are unprepared to deal with it. On the other hand, you find it easy to ignore the news, and discredit my lame-ass musings as if they were one and the same. I'll repeat myself: Bitch
please
s 
