If we pull out is the resulting killing acceptable? Does he care?

-- shooter242

People like you, and those you admire, that fell for the deceptions took us in under the pretense that there was a stockpile of WMD. You, and those you admire, constantly asked the question to those of us who thought it foolish and wrong to go into Iraq, "What if Hussein does have nuclear and biological weapons and he uses them? Will the loss of life be acceptable?

It didn't matter what the likely-hood of that was. It only mattered that you, and those you admire, could bludgeon those who were not of like-mind. You were wrong. We were right. But does that stop you from playing the same game again? Of course not. Because you, and those you admire, have either forgotten how to state an honest question, or never knew how to begin with.

So now that you have been proven wrong about every thing you have ever said about the subject of Iraq, has the loss of life due to the bungling and wrongness of you, and those you admire, been worth it?

exactly the same way that police deter crime. Do I need to explain how that works to you?

-- shooter242

Shooter, you really should learn to say, "Ummm, good question. I'm stumped." You'd save yourself some measure of embarrassment if from time to time you would grab onto that out instead of saying something so, so, soooo damned stupid as you have in this instance.

Mind, I am not reading and interpreting you like this [should be obvious from my past letters, especially the first one in this thread]; I am just saying it can be done. And believe, it is done in Germany often enough, attenuated by the fact that many actual anti-Semites here find our allegiance to Israel 'outrageous'.

-- Dierk Haasis

Yeah, and Al Gore saying, "I took the initiative in creating the internet" can be taken as him saying he "invented the internet" if liars and lazy so called journalists choose to write it that way. Or, if then lazy and or disingenuous pundits and lazy or disingenuous so called journalists keep the lie going, well then, that's how "it can be done".

Now, if people should choose to be honest and not purposely distort or completely misrepresent another's words, well then, the lie won't find it's way around the world before the truth gets it's socks on.

So what's your point, Deirk? Beware of dishonest pundits twisting one's meanings? No shit, Sherlock, what's new?

“What we are seeing here is a government desperate to cover up its criminal and unconstitutional conduct. They now are going beyond the usual retaliation against whistleblowers who courageously come forward to report cases of government fraud, waste, abuse, and in some cases such as this one, criminal actions. Their old tactics of intimidation, gag orders, and firing, have not stopped an unprecedented number of whistleblowers from coming forward and doing the right thing. Desperate to prevent the public’s right to know, they now are getting engaged in a witch hunt targeting these patriotic truth tellers.” stated Sibel Edmonds, the Director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

Is there some equivalence in that paragraph to outing a CIA operative, Shooter? Is there some reason why we should be "outraged" that whistblowers are coming forward to expose a coverup of at least unconstitutional if not criminal activity?

...in just such a conversation. It is not his fault that both the Administration and the Democratic Party were more interested in playing politics than getting the policy right.--Pandyora

Michael O'Hanlon wrote the following on March 27th, 2006

By Michael O'Hanlon

Monday, March 27, 2006;

Administration officials have been right in recent weeks to argue that there is no large-scale civil war underway in Iraq. As long as the Iraqi political leadership remains generally united in trying to calm the situation, and as long as sectarian violence remains more sporadic than strategic (with no systematic ethnic cleansing, for example), true civil war remains a threat rather than a reality.

Most Democrats weren't "playing politics at that time. They were calling it a civil war. Don't you agree that O'Hanlon, at that late date, saying that "Adminstration officials have been right in recent weeks to argue that there is no [parsing]large scale civil war inderway in Iraq" is all you need to know about O'Hanlon's "expertise"?

As you can see from the Op-Ed today, he played and still plays a very useful role - the "even-liberal-Brookings-Institution-agrees-with-Bush" role.--GG

And James Winslow's post about NPR following your post, Glenn, makes your point painfully clear.

...previously honorable journals such as the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times are among the many journals that have lost all journalistic credibility with regards to any pretense of accurate reporting on the Iraq War. This has been clear and obvious for over 5 years, and Mr. O'Hanlon and colleagues are but a minor footnote in the ongoing sham.

snip

This is not news.

-- audiophileguy

Lost all journalistic credibilty? Says who? How is then that the "minor footnotes", O'Hanlon and Pollock, were in a position to regurgitate their swill on as many radio and TV shows as they could find the time to show up for? Have all of the networks and cable news programs "lost all journalistic credibility" too? Including NPR?

Many of them have, in my opinion. But obviously my opinion isn't carrying the day. So, consequently, I appreciate to the mountain tops that Glenn Greenwald and others are aware of the problem we face, and that he and others are working hard and putting their talents to use in getting the word out. Thank goodness we have some who can put this enormous problem into extremely well written articles that can be understood by those who aren't yet aware of the sham. The blissfully unaware would include millions of Americans.

This is, indeed, news.