New York Times defends decision not to run McCain's op-ed, says...

Noticer wrote:

The idiot occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq did nothing to stop those people from trying, and some of them from getting here in the attempt.

Do you still not understand why?

Because "al Qaida" is an amorphous entity. It is as large or as small and as fixed and as mobile as it needs to be. It's not an "army", it is a paramilitary force. And they do not wear uniforms to advertise their allegiance. One guy can be fighting with "al Qaida" today and be fighting for "Hamas" tomorrow....and "Islamic Jihad" the day before yesterday.

If we are going to defeat "terrorism" we cannot limit ourselves to the eradication of one group, for the folks with the guns and the vest-bombs in that group will simply say, "I-i-i-i-i... think I'll go over *there* for a while where they aren't shooting so much..."

This is one of the reasons that "al Qaida" has popped up all over the place: THEY are the organization that bearded the lion in his den, and every other group of hotheads want the name recognition. So instead of "Reformed Ba'ath Party Fighters" they are "al Qaida of Mesopotamia". Woooo! that makes them scarier!!

No it doesn't; it makes them the exact same type of paramilitary hotheads as every other group. Death to the West; Death to America; Israel is the 51st state.

In fact, by the consensus our very own (U.S.) intelligence agencies, the numbers of both terrorist attacks AND terrorists themselves have INCREASED since the invasion of Iraq

...which merely continues the trend of the past five decades.

Dig it, brainless, "terrorism" would have increased whether we invaded Iraq or not.

Oh yeah, and the same agencies also reported separately that al-Qaida specfically has, since the Iraq aggression, become STRONGER and has INCREASED in membership.

There's an old joke: An old southern woman, the daughter of an unreformed Confederate, was lying on her death bed. She gathered her children around her to say her last goodbyes and informed them, "Chilluns, Ah've decided to renounce my Confederate heritage and become a YANKEE."
Her children were aghast and clamored, "But WHY, mama? WHY would you become a damyankee?"
She replied, "Ah'm dyin' chilluns, and it's better for Yankees to die."

"Al Qaida" has "increased membership" mostly because of the very same phenomenon: random groups of hotheads take on the name.

Yet you feel safer, hu? The sad fact is that there is no way under the sun to prevent SOME terrorists from SOME day slipping through and wreaking SOME sort of havoc and mass murder here.

That's awfully nihilistic. Now, while you're right about some of the things you've said, I'm going to guess that you have no earthly idea WHY you are right; you certainly don't betray any knowledge of the matter in your tearful sermons.

We'd do best not to let terrorism prevail by facing this fact courageously and doing our best to detect it, and not letting U.S. warmongers, energy moguls, arms dealers, and war profiteers wreak havoc abroad in the name of "keeping us safe" and "defending our freedoms." It's crap.

And this is why I say you don't understand why you're sometimes right about a few things: you haven't a clue what this modern phenomenon of "terrorism" is, what creates it, or what sustains it.

"Oh it's just this irresistable force that can only be detected in piecemeal fashion..." baloney.

It is the same type of dispossessed rabble that has always existed for every day of the 10,000 years of human civilization; only instead of this dispossessed rabble picking swords out of their closets to go raiding and sacking and pillaging, they are now reliant on untraceable funding to provide them the weapons necessary to take on a high-tech, armored military force.

The Vandals were equivalently armed as the Roman Legions they confronted, just by what they already possessed. Panislamist yahoos are not.

Go after the funding and materiel suppliers, and "terrorism" dries up. There's only so many nations [and fewer individuals] who supply "terrorism" with what it needs to wage proxy wars. Break that chain and today's dispossessed masses will have to get jobs.

...or come here and go on welfare.

rwilymz wrote:

<quoted text>
There's an old joke: An old southern woman, the daughter of an unreformed Confederate, was lying on her death bed. She gathered her children around her to say her last goodbyes and informed them, "Chilluns, Ah've decided to renounce my Confederate heritage and become a YANKEE."
Her children were aghast and clamored, "But WHY, mama? WHY would you become a damyankee?"
She replied, "Ah'm dyin' chilluns, and it's better for Yankees to die."
"Al Qaida" has "increased membership" mostly because of the very same phenomenon: random groups of hotheads take on the name.
<quoted text>
That's awfully nihilistic. Now, while you're right about some of the things you've said, I'm going to guess that you have no earthly idea WHY you are right; you certainly don't betray any knowledge of the matter in your tearful sermons.
<quoted text>
And this is why I say you don't understand why you're sometimes right about a few things: you haven't a clue what this modern phenomenon of "terrorism" is, what creates it, or what sustains it.
"Oh it's just this irresistable force that can only be detected in piecemeal fashion..." baloney.
It is the same type of dispossessed rabble that has always existed for every day of the 10,000 years of human civilization; only instead of this dispossessed rabble picking swords out of their closets to go raiding and sacking and pillaging, they are now reliant on untraceable funding to provide them the weapons necessary to take on a high-tech, armored military force.
The Vandals were equivalently armed as the Roman Legions they confronted, just by what they already possessed. Panislamist yahoos are not.
Go after the funding and materiel suppliers, and "terrorism" dries up. There's only so many nations [and fewer individuals] who supply "terrorism" with what it needs to wage proxy wars. Break that chain and today's dispossessed masses will have to get jobs.
...or come here and go on welfare.

Every once in awhile you nmake a good point, but you are an incredibly arrogant ass. If you are so brilliant, why aren't you lecturing at some university forum instead of lecturing people here?

Davey wrote:

<quoted text>
Look at the choice they had ... Obama, Clinton, you've got to be kidding ... even they don't want to be attacked again.

Even so, with all the blather about the NYT having a "liberal media bias", you would think that the Times would have bit the bullet and chosen a Democratic candidate to endorse. By choosing John McCain, they've been fairly clear that they aren't liberal leaning. Additionally, what about the six other articles McCain wrote that the Times printed. Were they for him or against him then?

Disgusted wrote:

If you are so brilliant, why aren't you lecturing at some university forum instead of lecturing people here?

I've advised to do that type of thing, actually.

...by more than folks on the web who want me to shut up. I've been called a "good explainer".

But the same question goes to the whiny critics: if you know so much about foreign affairs and military policy, why aren't you working in that field? We might run across each other more often and you'd probably come to find out that my **opinions** of the matter are probably very close to what yours [quite obviously] are.

Let the rag go down the drain.Both candidates we can do without.One is hate America the other is open the border to THE RACE.

rwilymz wrote:

<quoted text>
I've advised to do that type of thing, actually.
...by more than folks on the web who want me to shut up. I've been called a "good explainer".
But the same question goes to the whiny critics: if you know so much about foreign affairs and military policy, why aren't you working in that field? We might run across each other more often and you'd probably come to find out that my **opinions** of the matter are probably very close to what yours [quite obviously] are.

No, sir, what we would find out for sure is that you're a pompous asshole with a little bit of knowledge and a lot of dogmatic bullshit. Had we known we were in the presence of greatness, surely we would have all bowed out much earlier and conceded to your all knowing power.

staci wrote:

No, sir, what we would find out for sure is that you're a pompous **** with a little bit of knowledge and a lot of dogmatic ****.

Your perception of my dogmatism is in direct proportion to your ideology.

But thanks...

Had we known we were in the presence of greatness, surely we would have all bowed out much earlier and conceded to your all knowing power.

Bow or don't, I don't care.

I also don't care if you personally like US foreign policy or not. Have your opinions of it with my compliments. Hell, have your opinions TWICE for all I care.

Just do not backfill your opinion with a lot of fake facts in order to make yourself feel better about your partisan self-loathing. Be honest; you don't like current foreign policy. Big deal. And since the majority of us don't,...and because the nation is a democracy ... the nation should really stop doing that foreign policy. Right?

THAT part is right.

But all the nonsense you invent to rationalize why you don't like it ... that's nonsense.

Sorry to be the one to have to tell you that, but please stop shooting the messenger.

rwilymz wrote:

<
Just do not backfill your opinion with a lot of fake facts in order to make yourself feel better about your partisan self-loathing. Be honest; you don't like current foreign policy. Big deal.

Fake facts? My, isn't the pot calling the kettle black. And it looks like you're joining the Dick "Scr*w You" policy with your "Big Deal" flip off.(When presented with the fact that the majority of Americans are against "current foreign policy" in Iraq his response was "So?")

I'll agree with other posters here that you come off as a reactionary, ideology driven know-it-all. It leads me to think that every 'fact' you present is neocon manufactured propaganda. Jusy saying, you might want to tone it down a bit, dude.

Tough Love wrote:

Fake facts? My, isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

No, it's not, actually.

And it looks like you're joining the Dick "Scr*w You" policy with your "Big Deal" flip off.(When presented with the fact that the majority of Americans are against "current foreign policy" in Iraq his response was "So?")

Yeah? And? This is a democracy. If the government doesn't do what the majority wants, then change the government until it does.

But don't go whining annd pouting about it.

It's not my doing that the government doesn't do the bidding of the majority, yet I'm the one being shot at.

Since roughly 3/4 of us want to get out of Dodge, and the last Congress was elected to do just that ... why hasn't it happened? Don't blame Bush, because he couldn't stop Congress from pulling his plug if they were serious about pulling it.

They aren't serious about it. You need to ask them why, not snipe at someone who's trying to educate the dumb masses about how these things really work.

Furthermore, I've been around the periphery of the infantile politics of foreign policy for almost three decades now, whereas none of those who are currently weeping and wailing have been around it for longer than it takes to vote a straight party ticket, and I can tell you with z_e_r_o chance of contradiction that "party" does not matter one iota in how foreigners view us as a nation, nor in any material way how we act towards foreigners.

The personality of the President...? Now that matters. His politics, not a drop.

I'll agree with other posters here that you come off as a reactionary, ideology driven know-it-all.

I certainly know more about it than anyone who's been bickering with me, but that's not knowing "all". Expertise is relative. Certain of my correspondents probably know more about it than a house plant.

And for what it's worth, I was also accused of being "ideology-driven" [in comparable anti-Clinton terms] when Clinton was in office, and I'm certain to be ditto when "Barama" comes in -- as I thoroughly expect he will.

It leads me to think that every 'fact' you present is neocon manufactured propaganda.

You are undoubtedly concluding that because it pleases you to do so; you derive some benefit from it. It does *not* please me to have to ask permission before informing others that they are essentially telling me how to do my job that I've been successfully doing for longer than most of them have been alive, and I will not start asking for permission now when you think my "tone" is a bit too high.

And for the record, the "official" label I'm given by the label-assigning superficials is MilCon. I have no use for the associated politics of "neo".

Please be accurate.

rwilymz wrote:

I certainly know more about it than anyone who's been bickering with me, but that's not knowing "all". Expertise is relative.

Need we say more, folks?

staci wrote:

<quoted text>
Even so, with all the blather about the NYT having a "liberal media bias", you would think that the Times would have bit the bullet and chosen a Democratic candidate to endorse. By choosing John McCain, they've been fairly clear that they aren't liberal leaning. Additionally, what about the six other articles McCain wrote that the Times printed. Were they for him or against him then?

See its you Obama fanatics with your head in the clouds and not a clue what's really going on ... the NY Times only backed McCain as the Republican candidate, not as who they wanted for President. They obviously had to pick a republican for a replican candidate ... make any sense up there??

Noticer wrote:

<quoted text>
My "way" has continued to be in effect AFTER 9-11 and has - as before 9-11 - managed to detect and prevent several terrorist plots on our soil that would have been quite serious had they succeeded. The idiot occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq did nothing to stop those people from trying, and some of them from getting here in the attempt. Neither did those idiot actions prevent al Qaida from successfully pulling off terrorist bombings in Spain, London, and Indonesia.
In fact, by the consensus our very own (U.S.) intelligence agencies, the numbers of both terrorist attacks AND terrorists themselves have INCREASED since the invasion of Iraq - a military aggression that has cost possibly hundreds of thousands of human lives, compromised our nation's ability to defend us from ACTUAL military threats through tens of thousands of deaths and permanent injuries among our armed forces, and is draining our nation's economy of several billion dollars each week. Oh yeah, and the same agencies also reported separately that al-Qaida specfically has, since the Iraq aggression, become STRONGER and has INCREASED in membership.
Yet you feel safer, hu? The sad fact is that there is no way under the sun to prevent SOME terrorists from SOME day slipping through and wreaking SOME sort of havoc and mass murder here. We'd do best not to let terrorism prevail by facing this fact courageously and doing our best to detect it, and not letting U.S. warmongers, energy moguls, arms dealers, and war profiteers wreak havoc abroad in the name of "keeping us safe" and "defending our freedoms." It's ****.

Your way was to use Real Intelligence and international cooperation - as the ONLY way it should be done.

Again, in my view, we should use everything in out power to fight terrorists. And one of those is our military.

You lost me at hundreds of thousands of human lives. You obviously are a believer of those who have been spreading this ridiculous lie as fact. Reason and facts will not work with you. Do I feel safer? No. Considering Barack Obama has a chance to be the Presdient of this country and there are people like you out there, no, I don't.

rwilymz wrote:

<quoted text>
I've advised to do that type of thing, actually.
...by more than folks on the web who want me to shut up. I've been called a "good explainer".
But the same question goes to the whiny critics: if you know so much about foreign affairs and military policy, why aren't you working in that field? We might run across each other more often and you'd probably come to find out that my **opinions** of the matter are probably very close to what yours [quite obviously] are.

I consider myself to be pretty knowldgeable on most things, and an expert on far less. In this area, you are a pleasure to read and discuss with. You have a clarity and understanding of the issues most do not. Well done.

Titan wrote:

<quoted text>
I consider myself to be pretty knowldgeable on most things, and an expert on far less. In this area, you are a pleasure to read and discuss with. You have a clarity and understanding of the issues most do not. Well done.

Get a room, you two.

rwilymz wrote:

<quoted text>
There's an old joke: An old southern woman, the daughter of an unreformed Confederate, was lying on her death bed. She gathered her children around her to say her last goodbyes and informed them, "Chilluns, Ah've decided to renounce my Confederate heritage and become a YANKEE."
Her children were aghast and clamored, "But WHY, mama? WHY would you become a damyankee?"
She replied, "Ah'm dyin' chilluns, and it's better for Yankees to die."
"Al Qaida" has "increased membership" mostly because of the very same phenomenon: random groups of hotheads take on the name.
<quoted text>
That's awfully nihilistic. Now, while you're right about some of the things you've said, I'm going to guess that you have no earthly idea WHY you are right; you certainly don't betray any knowledge of the matter in your tearful sermons.
<quoted text>
And this is why I say you don't understand why you're sometimes right about a few things: you haven't a clue what this modern phenomenon of "terrorism" is, what creates it, or what sustains it.
"Oh it's just this irresistable force that can only be detected in piecemeal fashion..." baloney.
It is the same type of dispossessed rabble that has always existed for every day of the 10,000 years of human civilization; only instead of this dispossessed rabble picking swords out of their closets to go raiding and sacking and pillaging, they are now reliant on untraceable funding to provide them the weapons necessary to take on a high-tech, armored military force.
The Vandals were equivalently armed as the Roman Legions they confronted, just by what they already possessed. Panislamist yahoos are not.
Go after the funding and materiel suppliers, and "terrorism" dries up. There's only so many nations [and fewer individuals] who supply "terrorism" with what it needs to wage proxy wars. Break that chain and today's dispossessed masses will have to get jobs.
...or come here and go on welfare.

.
..
...Your statement is offense ..
.I live on the side of the mason-dixon line that is in the United States

This is about WHY they choice not to run a story....
.
...You should be talking about how President Bush has manipulated the news - sinking recession into depression - two wars - inflation - foreclosures -
AND he stands there and says the economy is basically sound.
Halliburton moves headquarters to DUBAI
torture - illegal renditions - immunity for the telecoms.?.? which in reality benefits him far more than their executives
.
..AND ON AND ON
.
NOT TOO GOOD ON TRUTH -.- BUT GREAT AT MANIPULATION OF THE "FREE" PRESS
.
..

FACT: The NY times did not run McCains article because they are supporting Obama. And you can write all the BS you want, this is the same newspaper that ran an article about an affair McCain NEVER had. And journalists lined up to state they researched the same story and found NO Evidence the story was correct. However, the NY Times ran the story Anyway! Left Wing Rag!

bbednarz wrote:

This is about WHY they choice not to run a story....
.
...You should be talking about how President Bush has manipulated the news - sinking recession into depression - two wars - inflation - foreclosures -
AND he stands there and says the economy is basically sound.
Halliburton moves headquarters to DUBAI
torture - illegal renditions - immunity for the telecoms.?.? which in reality benefits him far more than their executives
.
..AND ON AND ON
.
NOT TOO GOOD ON TRUTH -.- BUT GREAT AT MANIPULATION OF THE "FREE" PRESS
.
..

hey GENIUSES, riddle me this

NAME ONE republican presidential candidate the NYT or Idiotday has EVER endorsed??

name ONE!!!

Davey wrote:

<quoted text>
See its you Obama fanatics with your head in the clouds and not a clue what's really going on ... the NY Times only backed McCain as the Republican candidate, not as who they wanted for President. They obviously had to pick a republican for a replican candidate ... make any sense up there??

Ah, another "Brilliant" man who thinks only people like him can be smart. I don't suppose it occurred to him that the NY Times could have picked a different Republican.