I too must say that all I posted today was a couple of snarky responses to obtuse comments. I didn't go near the 9/11 stuff.

But for the record, if I had commented on the 9/11 stuff even though I didn't I would have had a good reason for it. But I'll try to be more careful from now on.

And I think you should know that.

Did you actually read the article Glenn linked to? He supported a a poppy-eradication program. Know what that means?

Considering Wakil's past support the Poppy growing Taliban, and the new U.S push in Afghanistan to destroy the poppy fields, they claim is supporting Al Quieda, he may be in trouble.

From TFA:

...had turned Wakil in because the Mushwani tribe opposed a poppy-eradication program that Wakil had begun in Kunar around the time of his arrest.

sysprog, that is one of my favorite xkcd's

I want to be reasonable about this. You've been arguing that the NYTimes is the arbiter of news (by which we mean, presumably, factual, reliable and authenticated or verifiable information). But you haven't addressed the issues of anonymity, reliability, or just plain old truth.

You'll note--as I cited earlier--that Bumiller's reporting/stenography regarding that unreleased Pentagon report, that

The conclusion could strengthen the arguments of critics who have warned against the transfer or release of any more detainees as part of President Obama’s plan to shut down the prison by January

and that, buried deep within the article, we find

Previous assertions by the Pentagon that substantial numbers of former Guantánamo prisoners had returned to terrorism were sharply criticized by civil liberties and human rights groups who said the information was too vague to be credible and amounted to propaganda in favor of keeping the prison open

and

The Pentagon has provided no way of authenticating its 45 unnamed recidivists, and only a few of the 29 people identified by name can be independently verified as having engaged in terrorism since their release. Many of the 29 are simply described as associating with terrorists or training with terrorists, with almost no other details provided.

From this one article--this one article!--we can see these fundamental problems; a problem of attribution (or lack of same, given the issue of anonymity), and the problem of reliability.

So what reality are you denying? The one that's discussed here daily; the one where people are taken off the streets and held as "enemy combatants" or whatever the term du jour may be, the reality where people are held without charge--never to be charged--because some suit says they ought to be; you know, the reality you seem to defend daily.

And about your right to opine, well, sure. Who's denied you that?

Yes I am here giving my opinions. Isn't that what' letters to the editor' is about?

But that's not been your objection. You've objected to Glenn Greenwald's analysis of how information is presented and, thus, consumed, what's included and what isn't.

And you don't like that. Now here's some opinion for you, chased with a little editorial Tobasco sauce: This runs contrary to the presentation of reality as defined by your precious NYTimes. You know that and it's beyond time you own up to it, clearly, directly and cleanly.

Say "I am a slave to the Status Quo."

Because you are.

Judy Miller couldn't have said it any better.

You are on fire today.

Re: "I just had to jump in though and correct a gross distortion"

http://xkcd.com/386/

The eradication of falsehoods sounds like a good idea to me, especially here on Glenn's threads. We should do him the honour of being as accurate as he himself no?

now I can go to bed!

I too must say that all I posted today was a couple of snarky responses to obtuse comments. I didn't go near the 9/11 stuff.

But for the record, if I had commented on the 9/11 stuff even though I didn't I would have had a good reason for it. But I'll try to be more careful from now on.

And I think you should know that.

As you know, I don't have a ban on 9/11 comments here and don't delete any discussion of 9/11 theories. I only intervene when the debate threatens to consume and crowd out everything else by doing nothing but re-iterating the same old arguments among the same people who are heavily invested in the arguments.

It's like being downwind from spontaneous combustion at a scrap tire yard.

Considering Wakil's past support the Poppy growing Taliban, and the new U.S push in Afghanistan to destroy the poppy fields, they claim is supporting Al Quieda, he may be in trouble.
— bernbart

bb, do you ever stop to even wonder if you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about?

You do realize that the Taliban banned the growing of poppies in 2000 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071809/), don't you? You do realize that poppy production only began again in 2001 with the ouster of the Taliban, don't you? You do realize that Wakil wants to enforce a ban on growing poppies, don't you? You do realize that the US wants to stop the growing of poppies, don't you?

Since you surely realize all this, could you please explain what the point of your comment is?

I was just being tongue-in-cheek about everyone feeling the need to earnestly explain themselves after your first caution.

I understand your position.

"So what reality are you denying? The one that's discussed here daily; the one where people are taken off the streets and held as "enemy combatants" or whatever the term du jour may be, the reality where people are held without charge--never to be charged--because some suit says they ought to be; you know, the reality you seem to defend daily."

I have NEVER defended the BUSH policy of holding prisoners in GITMO. I'm saying Obama is NOT Bush, he's been in office 6 months now and all you expect some kind of instantaneous results. You constantly bash the NYT one of the BEST newspapers in the country. Yes they are not perfect, and I am not stupid enough to believe everything I read. You however seem believe everything Glenn reports. What are you other sources of news besides Glenn or other blogs.

Why is that the only thing eever discussed here daily is GITMO? It;s as if there is nothing else going on in the world.

Also I do take dispute with the ongoing theory here that Obama is continuing Bush's policies. As far as Detenion. Obama 'weighed" the idea of permanent detentions. It's not been put into policy. So any of you ever recognize that Obama often puts out ideas to get reactions.