Liberal "Patriotism"
posted by Clay | 11:42 PM
In My Right Mind
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
About Me
- Name: Clay
- Location: Universal City, Texas, United States
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson
BLOGROLL!
Right Minded
- "The Little Red Hen" (Modern Version)
- ACLU Experiences Loss In Their Attempt To Ban Boy ...
- Captain China?
- Now This Is The Way Business Phones Should Be Answ...
- Which Side Do You Stand On?
- A Message To America From Gen Patton's Ghost
- Still Feel Sorry For All Of Those Illegal Immigrants?
- Democrat's Tax Cut Plan
- No Punches Pulled Here!
- A Question For Gen (Retired) Wesley Clark
133 Comments:
You're not being very specific, Clay. What article in the New York Times are you referring to, and what is it that the paper supposedly revealed?
meatbrain,
It is a political cartoon that I received via e-mail. I have no idea who the author of it is. I didn't make the cartoon.
Political cartoons are always lampooning and criticizing real world events and people, especially political figures. If they didn't, they wouldn't make any sense to any one and the wit and the point would be lost.
You would have to search the archives of the New York Times to find the exact article(s) that the cartoonist is referring to.
I remember real well what the cartoon is referring to. The New York Times was highly criticized for revealing such information.
In fact, one criticism of their actions made the point that if they had done such a thing during WWII they would have been prosecuted.
I don't know how you would have missed all of the controversy surrounding it at the time. But it sounds like you did.
I can't remember actually when it occurred. I want to say it was either before the Iraq War or during it.
At any rate the New York Times article exposed the government methods of freezing terrorists', mainly al Qaeda, financial assets.
Meatbrain,
Clay does not have an answer. He would rather shove his head up Georgies ass. Clay is typical of your below average, knuckledragging mouthbreather. Clay will hopefully remove himself from the gene pool.
kevin sims,
I have provided an answer and you, being the typical liberal, can't counter anything so, you resort to perjorative, ad hominem attacks.
Sadly, this has been my experience with a lot of liberals that I have tried to debate. Instead of attacking my stance in a rational manner, they attack me as a person.
That is just bad form and tends to demonstrate that you can't really substantiate your views in any rational manner.
I almost feel sorry for you.
"I remember real well what the cartoon is referring to. The New York Times was highly criticized for revealing such information."
What information? You have as much as admitted that you don't know what event the cartoon refers to, nor when it happened. Given the depth of your ignorance, how can you possibly know whether the cartoon's commentary makes any sense?
Or is it simply that you don't care about the facts?
What secret did the NYT reveal? Why was publishing the "information" you know nothing about such a terrible thing to do?
meatbrain,
Here's a hint. Read the cartoon.
Listen, stupid. I know what the cartoon refers to. The point is that you don't. You've admitted as much.
And you don't have the skills to find out. You don't even understand why you should have the facts before you express an opinion. I do feel sorry for you. You're going to be ignorant all your life, because you don't know how to be any other way.
PS. Your site's broken, idiot. Fix it.
meat brain,
"Listen, stupid. I know what the cartoon refers to. The point is that you don't. You've admitted as much."
How is it that I don't know what the cartoon means? And, if you do what is your point?
"Listen, stupid."
"You're going to be ignorant all your life, because you don't know how to be any other way."
"PS. Your site's broken, idiot. Fix it."
Thanks for the intellegent conversation. You are just proving my point that liberals result to name calling and ad hominem attacks.
"How is it that I don't know what the cartoon means?"
You said:
"I remember real well what the cartoon is referring to. The New York Times was highly criticized for revealing such information."
Anyone reading this can see clearly that you cannot tell us what the cartoon is referring to, nor what information the NYT supposedly revealed. You are speaking in generalities because you don't know anything about the incident.
"And, if you do what is your point?"
I have already explained that. You don't know what you are commenting on. You are speaking out of ignorance.
"You are just proving my point that liberals result to name calling and ad hominem attacks."
Instances of the usage of the word "stupid" on your site, many by you: listed here.
Instances of the usage of the word "idiot" on your site, many by you: listed here.
No hypocrisy at all in your accusation, huh, Clay? Gawd, you're hilarious...
"Anyone reading this can see clearly that you cannot tell us what the cartoon is referring to, nor what information the NYT supposedly revealed."
No, actually anyone reading this can clearly see that you cannot tell what the article is referring to, hence your "please do my research for me about something that I was totally unaware of" tactic.
"No hypocrisy at all in your accusation, huh, Clay? Gawd, you're hilarious... "
None of those quotes come from my dialouge with any commenter, but, nonetheless, this lets you off the hook...how?
I am impressed with your google skills. Now, why don't you use them to research what the cartoon is referencing if it is really all that important to you.
Stop lying, Clay. I haven't asked you to do any "homework" for me. And I discussed the NYT article in question on my blog months ago.
You were challenged to explain what the cartoon is referring to. You cannot do that. You are ignorant of the details, and you clearly intend to stay ignorant.
"None of those quotes come from my dialouge with any commenter..."
Didn't say they did, hypocrite. But you use ad hominem attacks constantly. You attack others for doing something that you do all the time. There goes your credibility... again...
"Stop lying, Clay. I haven't asked you to do any "homework" for me."
Hmm...let's see...
"You're not being very specific, Clay. What article in the New York Times are you referring to, and what is it that the paper supposedly revealed?"
"What secret did the NYT reveal? Why was publishing the "information" you know nothing about such a terrible thing to do?"
"Stop lying, Clay. I haven't asked you to do any "homework" for me. And I discussed the NYT article in question on my blog months ago."
As the above quotes demonstrate, um...yes, actually you have asked me to do your homework for you.
So, you discussed the article in the NY Times a couple of months ago in your blog.
Fine. But I don't read your blog. So, you're point would be?
"You were challenged to explain what the cartoon is referring to. You cannot do that. You are ignorant of the details, and you clearly intend to stay ignorant."
No. The only ignorant person in this converation is you. Anybody else can "get" what the cartoon's message is, except of course, you. You seem to need extensive research and statistics to understand a simple political cartoon.
"Didn't say they did, hypocrite. But you use ad hominem attacks constantly. You attack others for doing something that you do all the time. There goes your credibility... again..."
No. There goes your credibility.
You admit that the references in by blog had nothing to do with being applied to persons I was debating with in my comments.
Yet, then you still want to make your ludicrous claim that I "use ad hominem attacks constantly. You attack others for doing something that you do all the time."
Whose credibily is in question now?
Hint: yours.
"Anybody else can "get" what the cartoon's message is, except of course, you."
You can't say what the cartoon is referring to, because you don't know. Your ignorance is again evident.
"You admit that the references in by blog had nothing to do with being applied to persons I was debating with in my comments."
False. Stop lying, Clay. I made no such statement.
You can't say what the cartoon is referring to, because you don't know. Your ignorance is again evident.
"Yet, then you still want to make your ludicrous claim that I "use ad hominem attacks constantly."
I've provided solid evidence that you do just that, lying imbecile.
What secret did the NYT reveal, ignoramus? Why was publishing the "information" you know nothing about such a terrible thing to do?
"You admit that the references in by blog had nothing to do with being applied to persons I was debating with in my comments."
"False. Stop lying, Clay. I made no such statement."
Yes you did. See below.
"None of those quotes come from my dialouge with any commenter..."
"Didn't say they did, hypocrite. But you use ad hominem attacks constantly."
Since you didn't say that the quotes you pulled out of my blog were aimed at commenters that I was debating, how then are they ad hominem attacks?
"Yet, then you still want to make your ludicrous claim that I "use ad hominem attacks constantly."
"I've provided solid evidence that you do just that, lying imbecile."
You've provided no such evidence, which is why I just asked you that last question.
But as for you and ad hominem attacks here are some recent examples, (although the whole thread here is repleate with them):
"I've provided solid evidence that you do just that, lying imbecile."
"What secret did the NYT reveal, ignoramus?"
As for that last question above, the cartoon specifies what secret was revealed, the cartoon specifies what secret.
I posted a political cartoon to my blog. If you disagree with the author's views why don't you demonstrate why he or she is wrong?
Instead you keep asking me the same obvious question over and over and over again complete with nothing but ad hominem attacks.
Again, if you have a disagreement with the author of the cartoon's conclusions then spell it out.
"Since you didn't say that the quotes you pulled out of my blog were aimed at commenters that I was debating, how then are they ad hominem attacks?"
They are ad hominem attacks on the people you were calling "stupid" and "idiots". You are definitely a moron, Clay.
"As for that last question above, the cartoon specifies what secret was revealed, the cartoon specifies what secret."
Nope. Wrong. You can't tell us what article in the New York Times the cartoon refers to, and you can't tell us what it is that the paper supposedly revealed. Your ignorance is confirmed -- again.
"You can't tell us what article in the New York Times the cartoon refers to, and you can't tell us what it is that the paper supposedly revealed. Your ignorance is confirmed -- again."
I don't see why it is important that I provide what actual article in the NY Times the cartoon is referring to is so important, but as I told you earlier on, you can look for it yourself if you are really interested.
As for what the paper revealed, I have already answered that for you as does the cartoon itself point out.
"And you don't have the skills to find out. You don't even understand why you should have the facts before you express an opinion."
meatbrain, this is my blog and I will post whatever I want on it. I could care less whether or not it meets your standards or not. If you don't like my blog and what I have to say in it, then don't frequent it.
You can do whatever you want, but you are not welcome here. You have done nothing but call me names and keep asking for what has already been answered.
You haven't added one iota of intelligent discourse. If you think that the cartoonist got it wrong, where are your counter arguements?
Perhaps you have none. Apparently, the only thing you have to offer is ridiculous demands that I find for you the actual article, which you could do yourself, and call me names.
If you have something intellegent to say to refute the cartoon's premise I wish you would say it, or just go away.
On your site you claim to be a thinking person, it isn't evident here. Thinking people don't repeatedly call people names, they refute their arguements. You only have ad hominem attacks and demands in your arsenal but no actual arguements of your own.
If you're just going to continue calling me names, then I will either start doing something I don't like to do, delete your comments, or just let you go on making an ass out of yourself.
It looks like my comment to kevin sims applies to you as well.
"I don't see why it is important that I provide what actual article in the NY Times the cartoon is referring to is so important, but as I told you earlier on, you can look for it yourself if you are really interested."
As could you, Clay... but you won't. Why? Because you are ignorant, and you like being ignorant. You are determined to stay ignorant.
"As for what the paper revealed, I have already answered that for you as does the cartoon itself point out."
And both you and the cartoon are wrong, imbecile. I asked you what secret the NYT article revealed. Your answer is wrong. Of course, and further intelligent discussion of this with you is impossible until you know what that secret was -- and you don't. You refuse to go find out.
"You have done nothing but call me names and keep asking for what has already been answered."
False. Stop lying, Clay. You haven't answered my questions. What secret did the NYT reveal? Why was publishing the "information" you know nothing about such a terrible thing to do?
"Thinking people don't repeatedly call people names..."
Then you have excluded yourself from the ranks of "thinking people":
Instances of the usage of the word "stupid" on your site, many by you: listed here.
Instances of the usage of the word "idiot" on your site, many by you: listed here.
Instances of the usage of the word "moron" on your site, many by you: listed here.
Instances of the usage of the word "jackass" on your site, many by you: listed here.
"If you're just going to continue calling me names, then I will either start doing something I don't like to do, delete your comments, or just let you go on making an ass out of yourself."
When you start deleting my comments, you will simply have demonstrated your cowardice. This, by the way, is your own definition:
"Like other liberals I have encountered, this liberal coward has deleted my comments on his blog..."
"Thinking people don't repeatedly call people names..."
"Then you have excluded yourself from the ranks of "thinking people":
Instances of the usage of the word "stupid" on your site, many by you: listed here.
Instances of the usage of the word "idiot" on your site, many by you: listed here.
Instances of the usage of the word "moron" on your site, many by you: listed here.
Instances of the usage of the word "jackass" on your site, many by you: listed here."
I challenge you to find any dialouge between me and another person in the comments section where I use your modus operandi of ad hominem attacks against them personally (i.e. your a moron, stupid, embicle etc.)
As I've said before, if you have any beef with what the cartoon is saying, you are welcome to express any counter-arguements you have against it. So, far, you have failed to do so. Instead, you keep calling me names and asking me to produce the article in the NY times that the cartoon is referring to.
If you need help finding the article for yourself, maybe you have a friend that could assist you in it.
We are all adults here.
I don't have the time to be wasting with someone who can't do anything more than offer ad hominem attacks and who also can't offer any counter arguments to discuss.
When you are ready to discuss this as an adult I'll be more than happy to debate with you. Until then, I don't see the value added in trying to talk with you anymore.
"I challenge you to find any dialouge between me and another person in the comments section where I use your modus operandi of ad hominem attacks against them personally (i.e. your a moron, stupid, embicle etc.)"
Don't have to, gomer. When you call anyone a name -- commenter or not -- you're making an ad hominem argument. And you have done just that.
Where did you get the asinine idea that in order to make an ad hominem argument, you have to be attacking the person you are arguing with?
"As I've said before, if you have any beef with what the cartoon is saying, you are welcome to express any counter-arguements you have against it. So, far, you have failed to do so."
False. You're lying again, idiot. I specifically stated: "[B]oth you and the cartoon are wrong".
Any explanation would of course be meaningless to you until you educate yourself about the events the cartoon refers to. This you refuse to do. You prefer ignorance.
"If you need help finding the article for yourself, maybe you have a friend that could assist you in it."
Same applies to you. cretin. Of course, you won't look for the facts because the facts frighten you.
"We are all adults here."
Doesn't look that way to me. You're a petulant child who has stuck your fingers in your ears, and you appear to be metaphorically screaming "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" as loud as you can. You are afraid to go look up the facts. You're using your ignorance as a shield.
Run away, ignorant little coward.
"False. You're lying again, idiot. I specifically stated: "[B]oth you and the cartoon are wrong".
Simply stating "you and the cartoon are wrong" without any supporting arguments to demonstrate such as assertion is not going to cut it. Why is the cartoon's assertion wrong?
"Don't have to, gomer. When you call anyone a name -- commenter or not -- you're making an ad hominem argument. And you have done just that.
Where did you get the asinine idea that in order to make an ad hominem argument, you have to be attacking the person you are arguing with?"
And you ought to know. After all, as hominem attacks are your specialty.
"Same applies to you. cretin. Of course, you won't look for the facts because the facts frighten you."
Are you referring to your "facts", (i.e. "[B]oth you and the cartoon are wrong")?
So, are you going to get some help in finding that NY Times article? Just curious.
"You're a petulant child who has stuck your fingers in your ears, and you appear to be metaphorically screaming "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" as loud as you can. You are afraid to go look up the facts. You're using your ignorance as a shield."
No. That description sounds more like you, than me. Except I would need to add childish name-calling to it.
You've been challenged to provide arguements as to why you think the cartoonist's view is wrong. So far, all you can manage beyond hurling perjorative's at me, is to say "because I say so" (i.e. "[B]oth you and the cartoon are wrong".)
"Run away, ignorant little coward."
Looks like you're still using the same childish as you did last time you came here.
I'm not running away to anywhere. This is my blog, not yours. I keep offering you the challenge to step up and refute the cartoonist premise that you don't agree with, and you keep running away hollering perjoratives behind your back.
"Why is the cartoon's assertion wrong?"
Because the Times revealed no secret information about "how we are tracking [terrorists'] financial transactions". That information was already public knowledge, and had been for several years.
You couldn't possibly understand this, because you don't know what the Times published, when it published, or what supposed "secret" programs were discussed in that article. You are completely ignorant of all the details. And you want to stay ignorant.
"So, are you going to get some help in finding that NY Times article?"
I've known about the article for months, idiot. You don't even know when the article was published. You're afraid to go look for it.
Go find the article, ignorant asswipe. Come back when you know what the hell you are talking about.
meatbrain,
Why must you act childish? I have read through these comments and Clay speaks to the people respectfully (no matter about any difference of opinion) but you keep pulling out the childish name calling. Personally I can't believe Clay had continued this debate with you for as long as he has. If it was me, I would have just simply started to ignore you.
Those who, like Clay, deliberately choose to be ignorant do not deserve any respect.
It's a shame you feel that. It's people like you who think like that, are the people who are contributing to the degradation of society today. EVERYBODY deserves at least a level of respect.
"Any explanation would of course be meaningless to you until you educate yourself about the events the cartoon refers to. This you refuse to do. You prefer ignorance."
Clever way to dodge actually presenting any counter-arguements to the cartoon yourself. Unfortunatley, I can see right through it.
""Why is the cartoon's assertion wrong?"
"Because the Times revealed no secret information about "how we are tracking [terrorists'] financial transactions". That information was already public knowledge, and had been for several years."
So, finally you make an attempt to provide a counter-argument to the cartoon's message. It's not much of one, but it is a start so...
"Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror"
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
Published: June 23, 2006 in the New York Times
Barclay Walsh contributed reporting for this article.
As for your assertion that the article didn't reveal secret information about how we are tracking [terrorists'] financial transactions, the article itself not only states that secret methods were used to track terrorists' financial records, but then goes on to name the source and even describe it's methods, strenghts, vulnerabilities, not to mention other avenues that the government was tracking their financial transcations to boot.
Here are a series of quotes from the article bearing this out:
“WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.”
“Officials described the Swift program as the biggest and most far-reaching of several secret efforts to trace terrorist financing. Much more limited agreements with other companies have provided access to A.T.M. transactions, credit card purchases and Western Union wire payments, the officials said.”
“The Bush administration has made no secret of its campaign to disrupt terrorist financing, and President Bush, Treasury officials and others have spoken publicly about those efforts. Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value. “
“Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."
“On Thursday evening, Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, said: "Since immediately following 9/11, the American government has taken every legal measure to prevent another attack on our country. One of the most important tools in the fight against terror is our ability to choke off funds for the terrorists."
She added: "We know the terrorists pay attention to our strategy to fight them, and now have another piece of the puzzle of how we are fighting them. We also know they adapt their methods, which increases the challenge to our intelligence and law enforcement officials."
“Swift's database provides a rich hunting ground for government investigators. Swift is a crucial gatekeeper, providing electronic instructions on how to transfer money among 7,800 financial institutions worldwide. The cooperative is owned by more than 2,200 organizations, and virtually every major commercial bank, as well as brokerage houses, fund managers and stock exchanges, uses its services. Swift routes more than 11 million transactions each day, most of them across borders.”
“The cooperative's message traffic allows investigators, for example, to track money from the Saudi bank account of a suspected terrorist to a mosque in New York. Starting with tips from intelligence reports about specific targets, agents search the database in what one official described as a "24-7" operation. Customers' names, bank account numbers and other identifying information can be retrieved, the officials said.”
“The data does not allow the government to track routine financial activity, like A.T.M. withdrawals, confined to this country, or to see bank balances, Treasury officials said. And the information is not provided in real time — Swift generally turns it over several weeks later. Because of privacy concerns and the potential for abuse, the government sought the data only for terrorism investigations and prohibited its use for tax fraud, drug trafficking or other inquiries, the officials said.”
Even after being approached by US officials to not divulge the classified information, the NY Times went ahead and published it anyway, deeming it to be information that should be available to the American public.
First off, it isn't the NY Times place to make that call. The Government decides when information that was previously classified can be released as unclassified information for public consumption.
There is some information that is not for public consumption, information regarding National Security matters that needs to be protected from disclosure to our enemies. That information is classified to protect that from happening and is only releaseable to those with the proper clearance and need to know.
Shame on whoever was leaking that information to the New York Times, and even more shame to the NY Times for ignoring the government's request and broadcasting it out so that the whole world could see.
That the Bush administration was going to target al Qaeda and other terrorists' financial records was public knowledge, as you say and even the article states.
But, exposing the actual tools that the government is going to use is quite a serious matter. It narrows things down a bit for the terrorists so that they can know what to avoid, and seek other means to circumvent the US Government's access. It is in short, aiding and abetting the enemy, whether the NY Times just thought that the information should be open to the US public or not.
What do you think would have been the consequences during WWII if it was widely known that the Allied Forces were going to monitor the troop deployments of the enemy, and then the NY Times leaked exactly which roads and waterways the Allied Forces were going to monitor?
Or, what if it was common knowledge that the US was going to utilize spies to gather enemy intellegence, and then the NY Times posted an article naming all of the US spies and where they were going to focus their covert spying efforts?
What do you think would have happened to the reporter and editor of the New York Times had they done things such as this?
Maybe I'm just not getting it...but do you really think that terrorist organizations might not assume that intelligence agencies are tracking them through every avenue possible, including financial?
This is akin to news that banks have to report large deposits to checking accounts in an effort to tab possible drug dealers. I can't imagine that a crack dealer would read about it in the paper one morning and say "oh no..I never dreamed that the cops would find out about that half million I deposited in the ATM yesterday".
"Maybe I'm just not getting it...but do you really think that terrorist organizations might not assume that intelligence agencies are tracking them through every avenue possible, including financial?"
Just like they would assume we would use all intelligence assets necessary, Apache helicopters, B52s, F16s, F15s, tanks, troops etc.
Oh, happy day. You finally hauled yur Cheeto-stained carcass off Mommy's couch and did a little research -- about six days after you shot off your mouth. Do you expect a gold star next to your name for finally getting around to what you should have done in the first place?
Now, explain this, imbecile: How can the NYT be accused of revealing a "secret" when it was public knowledge as early as 1998 that the Treasury and the CIA were accessing the SWIFT database for the purpose of tracking terrorist funds?
"Oh, happy day. You finally hauled yur Cheeto-stained carcass off Mommy's couch and did a little research -- about six days after you shot off your mouth. Do you expect a gold star next to your name for finally getting around to what you should have done in the first place?"
I see you haven't gotten past your arrogant, childish ad homenum attacks. (I don't like cheetos, I don't live with my mother, haven't for over 20 years, nice try though).
Of course it's been 6 days since you shot of your mouth too, without being able to present any counter-arguments that you were repeatedly asked to do, or move on back to your blog where you post ad homenum attacks on people you don't agree with on a frequent basis. You frame entire posts on them.
"Now, explain this, imbecile: How can the NYT be accused of revealing a "secret" when it was public knowledge as early as 1998 that the Treasury and the CIA were accessing the SWIFT database for the purpose of tracking terrorist funds?"
Presuming all of that is true, why would the article itself refer to Bush's plan as a secret program if it was common knowledge since 1998? Do you think that the NY Times are a bunch of imbeciles?
Why would the government approach them and ask them not to publish any of it because it would harm National Security efforts?
Why all of the controversy over the article?
"Of course it's been 6 days since you shot of your mouth too..."
And again you miss the point, Clay. When we started this discussion, I knew the facts about the accusations made against the NYT as a result of the article. You did not.
And you still don't: "Presuming all of that is true...". Why do you have to presume, Clay? Why not go and find out for yourself?
Well, the answer to that is simple: You don't want to know the facts. You want to stay ignorant of those facts. You are desperate to stay ignorant of the facts. If you stay ignorant, you can keep making ignorant claims and spreading ignorant lies, as you did when you republished this "cartoon".
"Why all of the controversy over the article?"
Again: If you weren't determined to stay ignorant, you would have found the answer to that already. Here's a hint: There was something about the US government's use of SWIFT data that the wingnut blogosphere and the mainstream rightwing pundits wanted desperately to obscure. Go find out what that was.
"And you still don't: "Presuming all of that is true...". Why do you have to presume, Clay? Why not go and find out for yourself?
There was a reason I said, "presuming all of that is true".
You offered the arguement that:
"Now, explain this, imbecile: How can the NYT be accused of revealing a "secret" when it was public knowledge as early as 1998 that the Treasury and the CIA were accessing the SWIFT database for the purpose of tracking terrorist funds?"
Yet the article refutes such a notion. Below are some quotes from that article, that I hope you actually read.
"Under a secret [emphasis mine] Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials."
In other words, the NY Times is admitting that what they published is a SECRET.
"Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified [emphasis mine]. Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization."
Whoops. Again the NY Times is admitting that what they are reporting is "classified".
"Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden [emphasis mine] role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said."
Again, what the NY Times divulged in their article was a "secret", "classified", "hidden" tool that the US government was using to compbat terrorism and protect America from more 9/11s.
And it looks like your claim of the year 1998 falls, shall we say into the role of being false.
So much for me going on yet another "homework assignment" for you as in:
"And you still don't: "Presuming all of that is true...". Why do you have to presume, Clay? Why not go and find out for yourself?"
"Swift executives have been uneasy at times about their secret role, the government and industry officials said. By 2003, the executives told American officials they were considering pulling out of the arrangement, which began as an emergency response to the Sept. 11 attacks, the officials said."
Whoops. There is that "secret" thing again, that the NY Times exposed.
"“While the banking program is a closely held secret, administration officials have held classified briefings for some members of Congress and the Sept. 11 commission, the officials said. More lawmakers were briefed in recent weeks, after the administration learned The Times was making inquiries for this article."
Again, further refutation from the NY Times article itself, that your notion that what the exposed wasn't secret is patently false.
"Among the successes was the capture of al Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort, several officials said. The Swift data identified a previously unknown figure in Southeast Asia who had financial dealings with a person suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda; that link helped locate Hambali in Thailand in 2003, they said."
Looks like the secret program was actually working and keeping us safe after 9/11. But, the NY Times decided that that wasn't important in the end. Just divulging the secret for public consumption.
"In the United States, the program has provided financial data in investigations into possible domestic terrorist cells as well as inquiries of Islamic charities with suspected of having links to extremists, the officials said."
Once again, the secret program was working just like a charm. But, the NY Times has ended all of its effectiveness. You gotta love the liberal main stream media!
"The data also helped identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges last year, the officials said. The man, Uzair Paracha, who worked at a New York import business, aided a Qaeda operative in Pakistan by agreeing to launder $200,000 through a Karachi bank, prosecutors said."
Hooray for the secret plan of the US government's use of SWIFT, that is, until the NY Times entered the scene.
"“In terrorism prosecutions, intelligence officials have been careful to "sanitize," or hide the origins of evidence collected through the program to keep it secret, officials said."
See? It was all a secret, hence the "sanatize" procedure.
"Like other counterterrorism measures carried out by the Bush administration, the Swift program began in the hectic days after the Sept. 11 attacks, as officials scrambled to identify new tools to head off further strikes."
Whoops. After the 9/11 attacks. So much for your mythical 1998 date.
"One priority was to cut off the flow of money to Al Qaeda. The 9/11 hijackers had helped finance their plot by moving money through banks. Nine of the hijackers, for instance, funneled money from Europe and the Middle East to SunTrust bank accounts in Florida. Some of the $130,000 they received was wired by people overseas with known links to Al Qaeda."
It's too bad the government weren't accessing SWIFT back in 1998, like you claim, because surely they would have been able to interrupt that cash flow which led to 9/11.
"The idea for the Swift program, several officials recalled, grew out of a suggestion by a Wall Street executive, who told a senior Bush administration official about Swift's database. Few government officials knew much about the consortium, which is led by a Brooklyn native, Leonard H. Schrank, but they quickly discovered it offered unparalleled access to international transactions. Swift, a former government official said, was "the mother lode, the Rosetta stone" for financial data."
So, let's review. According you the government had been using SWIFT since 1998, yet under the Bush Administration, a few years later, the government was all of the sudden being enlightened about what SWIFT could offer?
"Intelligence officials were so eager to use the Swift data that they discussed having the C.I.A. covertly gain access to the system, several officials involved in the talks said. But Treasury officials resisted, the officials said, and favored going to Swift directly."
Covertly gain access to a system they had been using since 1998?
"For many years, law enforcement officials have relied on grand-jury subpoenas or court-approved warrants for such financial data. Since 9/11, the F.B.I. has turned more frequently to an administrative subpoena, known as a national security letter, to demand such records."
But, according to you they had access to SWIFT as early as 1998 under Clinton's reign.
"“Another official said: "This was creative stuff. Nothing was clear cut, because we had never gone after information this way before."
That can't be true. The NY Times has it all wrong, I mean, according to you, the government had SWIFT access since 1998. I mean after all, it was public knowledge to everyone, except of course, the government itself. Right?
"Within weeks of 9/11, Swift began turning over records that allowed American analysts to look for evidence of terrorist financing. Initially, there appear to have been few formal limits on the searches."
Within weeks of 9/11, not 1998, as you assert, SWIFT began turning over financial records.
"Despite the controls, Swift executives became increasingly worried about their secret involvement with the American government, the officials said. By 2003, the cooperative's officials were discussing pulling out because of their concerns about legal and financial risks if the program were revealed, one government official said.
How long can this go on?" a Swift executive asked, according to the official."
Again, SWIFT's relationship with the Bush Adminsitration was secret, and the NY Times leaked it for the all of the world to see.
meatbrain, I'm starting to wonder if you actually read the NY Times article yourself.
Of course, maybe you don't have any friends who can help you find the article in the first place.
Consider me a friend. You can find the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ei=5090&en=4b46b4fd8685c26b&ex=1308715200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
The cartoon I posted is referring to the NY Times article, and that article doesn't mention your (1998 government use of SWIFT) assertion.
I don't know where you got that from, but it is still irrelevant here in this post. The NY Times didn't know about it, and it is the NY Times article that is demonized in the artist's political cartoon.
Of course, maybe you think the NY Times is an idiotic, or is it, moronic, or is it, ignorant, or maybe, asswhipe organization.
Now that would be interesting if you came to that conclusion. A liberal attacking a liberal news media.
"And you still don't: "Presuming all of that is true...". Why do you have to presume, Clay? Why not go and find out for yourself?
There was a reason I said, "presuming all of that is true".
You offered the arguement that:
"Now, explain this, imbecile: How can the NYT be accused of revealing a "secret" when it was public knowledge as early as 1998 that the Treasury and the CIA were accessing the SWIFT database for the purpose of tracking terrorist funds?"
Yet the article refutes such a notion. Below are some quotes from that article, that I hope you actually read.
"Under a secret [emphasis mine] Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials."
In other words, the NY Times is admitting that what they published is a SECRET.
"Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified [emphasis mine]. Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization."
Whoops. Again the NY Times is admitting that what they are reporting is "classified".
"Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden [emphasis mine] role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said."
Again, what the NY Times divulged in their article was a "secret", "classified", "hidden" tool that the US government was using to compbat terrorism and protect America from more 9/11s.
And it looks like your claim of the year 1998 falls, shall we say into the role of being false.
So much for me going on yet another "homework assignment" for you as in:
"And you still don't: "Presuming all of that is true...". Why do you have to presume, Clay? Why not go and find out for yourself?"
"Swift executives have been uneasy at times about their secret role, the government and industry officials said. By 2003, the executives told American officials they were considering pulling out of the arrangement, which began as an emergency response to the Sept. 11 attacks, the officials said."
Whoops. There is that "secret" thing again, that the NY Times exposed.
"“While the banking program is a closely held secret, administration officials have held classified briefings for some members of Congress and the Sept. 11 commission, the officials said. More lawmakers were briefed in recent weeks, after the administration learned The Times was making inquiries for this article."
Again, further refutation from the NY Times article itself, that your notion that what the exposed wasn't secret is patently false.
"Among the successes was the capture of al Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort, several officials said. The Swift data identified a previously unknown figure in Southeast Asia who had financial dealings with a person suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda; that link helped locate Hambali in Thailand in 2003, they said."
Looks like the secret program was actually working and keeping us safe after 9/11. But, the NY Times decided that that wasn't important in the end. Just divulging the secret for public consumption.
"In the United States, the program has provided financial data in investigations into possible domestic terrorist cells as well as inquiries of Islamic charities with suspected of having links to extremists, the officials said."
Once again, the secret program was working just like a charm. But, the NY Times has ended all of its effectiveness. You gotta love the liberal main stream media!
"The data also helped identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges last year, the officials said. The man, Uzair Paracha, who worked at a New York import business, aided a Qaeda operative in Pakistan by agreeing to launder $200,000 through a Karachi bank, prosecutors said."
Hooray for the secret plan of the US government's use of SWIFT, that is, until the NY Times entered the scene.
"“In terrorism prosecutions, intelligence officials have been careful to "sanitize," or hide the origins of evidence collected through the program to keep it secret, officials said."
See? It was all a secret, hence the "sanatize" procedure.
"Like other counterterrorism measures carried out by the Bush administration, the Swift program began in the hectic days after the Sept. 11 attacks, as officials scrambled to identify new tools to head off further strikes."
Whoops. After the 9/11 attacks. So much for your mythical 1998 date.
"One priority was to cut off the flow of money to Al Qaeda. The 9/11 hijackers had helped finance their plot by moving money through banks. Nine of the hijackers, for instance, funneled money from Europe and the Middle East to SunTrust bank accounts in Florida. Some of the $130,000 they received was wired by people overseas with known links to Al Qaeda."
It's too bad the government weren't accessing SWIFT back in 1998, like you claim, because surely they would have been able to interrupt that cash flow which led to 9/11.
"The idea for the Swift program, several officials recalled, grew out of a suggestion by a Wall Street executive, who told a senior Bush administration official about Swift's database. Few government officials knew much about the consortium, which is led by a Brooklyn native, Leonard H. Schrank, but they quickly discovered it offered unparalleled access to international transactions. Swift, a former government official said, was "the mother lode, the Rosetta stone" for financial data."
So, let's review. According you the government had been using SWIFT since 1998, yet under the Bush Administration, a few years later, the government was all of the sudden being enlightened about what SWIFT could offer?
"Intelligence officials were so eager to use the Swift data that they discussed having the C.I.A. covertly gain access to the system, several officials involved in the talks said. But Treasury officials resisted, the officials said, and favored going to Swift directly."
Covertly gain access to a system they had been using since 1998?
"For many years, law enforcement officials have relied on grand-jury subpoenas or court-approved warrants for such financial data. Since 9/11, the F.B.I. has turned more frequently to an administrative subpoena, known as a national security letter, to demand such records."
But, according to you they had access to SWIFT as early as 1998 under Clinton's reign.
"“Another official said: "This was creative stuff. Nothing was clear cut, because we had never gone after information this way before."
That can't be true. The NY Times has it all wrong, I mean, according to you, the government had SWIFT access since 1998. I mean after all, it was public knowledge to everyone, except of course, the government itself. Right?
"Within weeks of 9/11, Swift began turning over records that allowed American analysts to look for evidence of terrorist financing. Initially, there appear to have been few formal limits on the searches."
Within weeks of 9/11, not 1998, as you assert, SWIFT began turning over financial records.
"Despite the controls, Swift executives became increasingly worried about their secret involvement with the American government, the officials said. By 2003, the cooperative's officials were discussing pulling out because of their concerns about legal and financial risks if the program were revealed, one government official said.
How long can this go on?" a Swift executive asked, according to the official."
Again, SWIFT's relationship with the Bush Adminsitration was secret, and the NY Times leaked it for the all of the world to see.
meatbrain, I'm starting to wonder if you actually read the NY Times article yourself.
Of course, maybe you don't have any friends who can help you find the article in the first place.
Consider me a friend. You can find the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ei=5090&en=4b46b4fd8685c26b&ex=1308715200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
The cartoon I posted is referring to the NY Times article, and that article doesn't mention your (1998 government use of SWIFT) assertion.
I don't know where you got that from, but it is still irrelevant here in this post. The NY Times didn't know about it, and it is the NY Times article that is demonized in the artist's political cartoon.
Of course, maybe you think the NY Times is an idiotic, or is it, moronic, or is it, ignorant, or maybe, asswhipe organization.
Now that would be interesting if you came to that conclusion. A liberal attacking a liberal news media.
"And it looks like your claim of the year 1998 falls, shall we say into the role of being false."
You're a fucking idiot, Clay. But we knew that already.
"You're a fucking idiot, Clay. But we knew that already."
Typical ad homenum attack from you.
You fail to add any single counter arguement to the cartoon's criticism of the NY Times (not the Washington Post). And why is that? Because you can't.
Instead, you try and use a phrase out of the Washington Post, (a newspaper not even referred to in the cartoon), to defend the NY Times.
Who's the idiot?
Hint: Look in the mirror.
As it stands now, the cartoon was right, and you, are wrong.
Thanks for playing.
"Instead, you try and use a phrase out of the Washington Post, (a newspaper not even referred to in the cartoon), to defend the NY Times."
And what did the Post article from 1998 say about SWIFT, fucking idiot?
"And what did the Post article from 1998 say about SWIFT (childish name calling part omitted)?"
Who cares. It has nothing do with the NY Times article itself.
You have failed to demonstrate in any way why the cartoon is wrong about the NY Times article.
I have presented to you more than ample quotes from the article itself that don't support the notion that the NY Times article didn't divulge any secret information.
er....I think the POINT was that the Post published the information years before the NY Times.
I wouldn't go as far to say you're an idiot, but you do seem to be having trouble seeing the obvious.
"I wouldn't go as far to say you're an idiot, but you do seem to be having trouble seeing the obvious."
At least someone around here knows how to disagree respectfully.
I am well aware of meatbrain's point. But, that is a totally different topic of discussion.
The debate was over the cartoon's message, basically its charge that the NY Times was leaking classified information in it's article. I provided meatbrain with direct evidence, from the NY Times article in question, that a. The article itself referred to the information it leaked as a secret program, the article discussed the US government's request that they not leak the classified information, but the NY Times went ahead and leaked the information because it felt the public needed to know about it.
If the public already knew about it, as early as 1998, then the excuse they gave for leaking the information to the public is inane.
Plus, no where in the article did the NY Time mention this article from the Washington Post. That would have been a convenient point that they could have made in their favor.
What did the Post article from 1998 say about SWIFT, fucking idiot?
Why are you afraid to discuss the contents of that article, fucking idiot?
What specific statement in that article proves that your accusation that I have lied is false, fucking idiot?
How can your claim that "the New York Times article exposed the government methods of freezing terrorists', mainly al Qaeda, financial assets" be valid in light of the fact that the use of the SWIFT data was public information for years before the NYT article was published?
How much longer are you going to allow yourself to be ass-raped by your own ignorance, fucking idiot?
meatbrain,
"Why are you afraid to discuss the contents of that article, fucking idiot?"
I'm not afraid to discuss the contents of that article. I have read that article and have something to say about it. I'm just through wasting my time trying to discuss anything with you.
I refuse to try and carry on a discussion with someone who obviously can't be professional in the conversation. I have shown you the respect that I would give any adult in a conversation. You however, have done nothing but insult me and litter my comments section with hateful, foul language.
If you ever decide that you can converse here with me in a civil, respectful manner, then I will reconsider debating with you. But as for now, I'm done speaking with you.
And no, I'm not running away. I'm just excercising my right to choose not to waste anymore time trying to have a civil discussion with someone who appears to be incapable of civility and decency.
And yes, you are running away, Clay. You are afraid to discuss the contents of the 1998 Washington Post article because it reveals that the use of the SWIFT data to track terrorist finances was public information for years before the NYT article was published. That renders the claim that the NYT revealed some deep dark intelligence secret last year laughable.
Who the fuck are you to claim someone else isn't "professional", when you don't bother the learn the facts before you shoot off your ignorant mouth? Is that your idea of being "professional"?
Gee, maybe it is, after all... if you are a professional moron. So far, Clay, that is the only profession you seem to be suited for.
meatbrain,
I see you still don't know how to conduct yourself in a civil manner. I mentioned professionalism because to behave professionally means you don't stoop to personal name calling and attacking your opponent's character. Instead, you present your side in a logical, well thought out manner.
"Clay. You are afraid to discuss the contents of the 1998 Washington Post article because it reveals that the use of the SWIFT data to track terrorist finances was public information for years before the NYT article was published. That renders the claim that the NYT revealed some deep dark intelligence secret last year laughable."
Did you even read my last comment? Or did you just rush to calling me more names.
Remember? I said:
"I'm not afraid to discuss the contents of that article. I have read that article and have something to say about it. I'm just through wasting my time trying to discuss anything with you."
This time it is you who is lying.
There is nothing in the 1998 article that necessarily negates the NY Time's article and its divulsion of government secrets.
I just don't want to continue trying to debate with someone who finds it more important to flout his arrogance and hurl names at his opponent instead of engaging in adult, rational discussion that doesn't involve denigrating your opponent personally.
Now do you get it?
Feel free to come back when you are ready to engage in a serious adult conversation.
I'm not running away, but you sure are running around in circles with same old tired arrogance and name calling.
"There is nothing in the 1998 article that necessarily negates the NY Time's article and its divulsion of government secrets."
False:
"The CIA and agents with Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also will try to lay tripwires to find out when bin Laden moves funds by plugging into the computerized systems of bank transaction monitoring services – operated by the Federal Reserve and private organizations called SWIFT and CHIPS – that record the billions of dollars coursing through the global banking system daily."
It was public knowledge in 1998 that the government would use data from SWIFT to track terrorist finances. Therefore, this fact was not a "secret" when the NYT published it in 2006.
Please continue lying, Clay. It's so much easier to discredit you when you are so eager to cooperate.
Here's a tip on how to be civil (and thereby make it more likely that someone will be interested in having a discussion with you):
Instead of defacing my character by accusing me of lying, therefore implying that I am liar, you could have instead asked me to explain what I meant and how I came to that conclusion.
But you didn't, affirming my decision to not continue trying to discuss anything with you anymore.
I did ask you to explain yourself, Clay:
"What article in the New York Times are you referring to, and what is it that the paper supposedly revealed?"
You couldn't provide any specific evidence to back up your claim. And as we have seen, the NYT article didn't reveal anything about the use of SWIFT that was not already public knowledge.
What you said above was a deliberate lie, Clay, because you read the 1998 WP article and knew that it revealed the use of SWIFT to track terorist finances. When you lie, you should expect that someone will point out that you are a liar.
I see you are still calling me a "liar".
You keep reinforcing my point.
When you are ready to discuss with me as an adult, let me know. Until then, you can keep calling me names until the end of time and it won't change anything whatsoever.
Oh and for the record, I have offered to discuss why I made such a statement about the 1998 article. Many times. So, if anyone is lying here it is you.
"You couldn't provide any specific evidence to back up your claim."
You can't get any more specific than direct quotes from the article itself. Which I provided plenty along with my own commentary to back up my arguement.
You never responded to any of those. Instead you continued with ad homenum attacks and tried to use a 1998 article as somehow disproving the NY Times article.
This whole exchange between you and I that you started was about the NY Times article. I presented arguments in defense of the cartoon. You ignored them and continued hurling insults at me.
Again, when you are ready for an adult civil conversation, I will be more than happy to oblige you. Until then, I don't see any reason to discuss the new topic with you.
"I see you are still calling me a "liar"."
When you deliberately make a clearly, obviously, transparently false statement ("It [the 1998 Washington Post article] has nothing do with the NY Times article itself"), what term do you think should be applied?
"I have offered to discuss why I made such a statement about the 1998 article."
Then discuss it. So far, you have chosen to avoid any discussion of that article.
"You never responded to any of those. Instead you continued with ad homenum attacks and tried to use a 1998 article as somehow disproving the NY Times article."
Wrong. I've used the WP 1998 article to disprove the winger claim that the NYT revealed a US intelligence secret when it mentioned SWIFT. Since the information had already been published, it could not have been a secret. It doesn't matter what the NYT article said about "secret information" -- we know for a fact that the US government's use of SWIFT had been published years before.
You are deliberately ignoring that fact. That is merely further proof of your intellectual dishonesty.
"Wrong. I've used the WP 1998 article to disprove the winger claim that the NYT revealed a US intelligence secret when it mentioned SWIFT."
You've done no such thing. You've merely referenced the article. You've yet to prove how it was leaking a government secret.
"When you deliberately make a clearly, obviously, transparently false statement ("It [the 1998 Washington Post article] has nothing do with the NY Times article itself"), what term do you think should be applied?"
First off, there's nothing "transparantly false" about my statement. Second, it is not a matter of a term, or rushing to call me a liar (I realize, of course with you, name calling and character attacks are most of what you have to say). You could have, instead, (and have been invited more than enough times), changed your tone to a civil one and asked me what I meant.
But instead, all I continue to get from you is name calling.
"You are deliberately ignoring that fact. That is merely further proof of your intellectual dishonesty."
First it is not a fact. Second, I obviously am not ignoring anything.
There are reasons why I don't agree with your assertion that the 1998 article trumps the NY Times magazine. But, you are too busy being rude, arrogant, impolite to encourage any desire on my part to try and have a civil conversation with you.
My offer still stands. When you are ready to lose the ugly attitude and are ready to converse in a civil, respectful manner, then I would be more than happy to explain my disagreement with you further.
Of course, if you think real hard about it and re-read that 1998 article carefully you just might figure out what is in question with your position.
You seem to have a hard time with the fact that this is my blog. I can post a picture, cartoon, or anything I want to on it, and don't actually owe you anything.
I don't have to provide any comments after any cartoon I post, or anything else if I don't want to.
I don't mind debating with someone who is worthy of my time. But, I won't waste my time with someone who is unwilling, or unable to converse with courtesy and respect for their opponent as a person.
Oh, and one more thing. You keep holding me to the fire to prove my position, but I'm suppose to give you pass when you assert something as fact without proof that it is in fact one, and not opinion?
I don't think so.
"You've merely referenced the article. You've yet to prove how it was leaking a government secret."
I have never claimed that the 1998 WaPo article "was leaking a government secret", idiot. I have pointed out that it discusses the use of the SWIFT database to track the financial transactions of terrorists. The wingnut claim is that because the NYT article of 2006 discussed the use of the SWIFT database to track the financial transactions of terrorists the NYT is somehow guilty of revealing a "secret". The 1998 WaPo article is proof that this tactic was not secret at the time that the NYT article was published. Therefore the NYT cannot have revealed this nonexistent "secret".
"First it is not a fact."
You're lying, Clay. It is a fact that the 1998 WaPo article discussed the use of the SWIFT database to track the financial transactions of terrorists, and that it was published years before the NYT article of 2006.
"There are reasons why I don't agree with your assertion that the 1998 article trumps the NY Times magazine."
I've made no such assertion, idiot. And the NYT article did not appear in the Time magazine. You're an idiot, Clay.
I am not in the least interested in civil conversation with you, Clay. You are a liar and an idiot, and I came here for one reason: to point out that you are a liar and an idiot.
"I am not in the least interested in civil conversation with you, Clay. You are a liar and an idiot, and I came here for one reason: to point out that you are a liar and an idiot."
Which is precisely why I won't answer you questions in depth about why I find the 1998 article inconsequential.
This is my blog. I can post any cartoon that I wish (I noticed that you didn't respond to this point). I don't owe you any explanations (I noticed you glossed over that too.)
You seem to think that the mere mentioning of SWIFT in the 1998 article somehow frees the NY Times article in 2006 of being guilty of exposing government secrets. This is bad logic.
"There are reasons why I don't agree with your assertion that the 1998 article trumps the NY Times magazine."
I've made no such assertion, [childish explicative omitted] And the NYT article did not appear in the Time magazine. You're an, [childish explicative omitted], Clay.
Ok. So what does Time Magazine have to do with anything?
"The 1998 WaPo article is proof that this tactic [the use of SWIFT by the US government] was not secret at the time that the NYT article was published. Therefore the NYT cannot have revealed this nonexistent "secret"."
Exactly how was the 1998 article revealing that the US was in fact using SWIFT?
I've read the article in question and find no instance within it that the US Government was using SWIFT or even considering it.
meatbrain, just keep calling me names like, "liar" and "idiot". You continue to prove my point about you.
By the way, I have a personal question for you. Of course, you don't have to answer it if it makes you uncomfortable, but, how old are you?
Just wondering whom I am dealing with.
Other comments of mine that you were (afraid?) to address:
"Of course, if you think real hard about it and re-read that 1998 article carefully you just might figure out what is in question with your position."
Apparently, you don't want to re-read the 1998 article to see if you can figure out what the problem is with your claim that it somehow makes the NY Times article in 2006 exposure of US Government secret of using SWIFT inane.
Here's another comment of mine that you conveniently ignored:
"Oh, and one more thing. You keep holding me to the fire to prove my position, but I'm suppose to give you pass when you assert something as fact without proof that it is in fact one, and not opinion?"
Instead, you back peddle with this lie:
"I have never claimed that the 1998 WaPo article "was leaking a government secret", [childish explicative omitted]. I have pointed out that it discusses the use of the SWIFT database to track the financial transactions of terrorists. The wingnut [what is a "wingnut" apart from something that holds an connection secrure?] claim is that because the NYT article of 2006 discussed the use of the SWIFT database to track the financial transactions of terrorists the NYT is somehow guilty of revealing a "secret". The 1998 WaPo article is proof that this tactic was not secret at the time that the NYT article was published. Therefore the NYT cannot have revealed this nonexistent "secret"."
Again, there is nothing in the 1998 Washington Post article that establishes that the US Government was using SWIFT as a means of tracking the financial transactions of terrorists.
So we are back to square one. If the NY Times wasn't guilty in it's 2006 article of exposing the US Government's use of SWIFT to track and obstruct terrorists' financial transactions, then where is the earlier exposure of this?
It's certainly not in the Washington Post's 1998 article.
It's time for you to google for some other source.
Good luck.
"If the NY Times wasn't guilty in it's 2006 article of exposing the US Government's use of SWIFT to track and obstruct terrorists' financial transactions, then where is the earlier exposure of this?
It's certainly not in the Washington Post's 1998 article."
You're lying, Clay.
"The CIA and agents with Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also will try to lay tripwires to find out when bin Laden moves funds by plugging into the computerized systems of bank transaction monitoring services – operated by the Federal Reserve and private organizations called SWIFT and CHIPS – that record the billions of dollars coursing through the global banking system daily."
I'm not lying.
You still haven't proved that the fact that the US government was using SWIFT had been exposed prior to the NY Times article.
Maybe you're not lying either, just jumping to unwarrented conclusions.
"I am not in the least interested in civil conversation with you, Clay."
Then I guess this discussion is over.
It's a real shame that you are incapable of civil discussion.
"I'm not lying."
False. You have claimed that there is "certainly not" anything in the 1998 WaPo article that discusses "the US Government's use of SWIFT to track and obstruct terrorists' financial transactions". The article does, in fact, discuss SWIFT.
You're a liar, Clay. That fact is no longer in dispute.
"You're a liar, Clay. That fact is no longer in dispute."
I'm sure you believe that.
Our conversation on this is over. You made your choice. I wish it could have been different.
I did have more to say on that statement in the 1998 article, but not with someone who is incabable of carrying on a civil, adult conversation.
Oh, well I tried. Probably a lot longer than any one else would.
You'll just have to go on believing that you have found something solid to debunk the NY TIMES article claim of outing government secrets but you haven't, really.
"Our conversation on this is over. You made your choice."
No, Clay. You are choosing to run away from this discussion. Stop blaming others for your own dishonesty and cowardice.
"I did have more to say on that statement in the 1998 article..."
Then say it, lying idiot. No one is stopping you.
Hello? Clay? Got the guts to say what you wanted to say?
Didn't think so.
"You'll just have to go on believing that you have found something solid to debunk the NY TIMES article claim of outing government secrets but you haven't, really."
Because! Clay! Says! So!
Of course, the facts say different. But Clay doesn't give a damn about facts. He prefers his own lies.
What does the WaPo article say, Clay? What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances? And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2996?
Run away, gutless lying moron. You don't have the intelligence or the ability to conduct an honest discussion.
"Run away, gutless lying moron. You don't have the intelligence or the ability to conduct an honest discussion."
You made your choice meatbrain. Now live with it.
The choice to run away from this discussion was yours, Clay, not mine. My choice is to keep asking you questions, and then laugh my ass off at the idiot Clay who won't discuss the facts because they don't jibe with the lies he's told.
What does the WaPo article say, Clay? What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances? And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"The choice to run away from this discussion was yours, Clay, not mine."
No. The choice was yours, and you made your choice. So, naturally the discussion is over.
"My choice is to keep asking you questions, and then laugh my ass off at the idiot Clay who won't discuss the facts because they don't jibe with the lies he's told."
This is an example of why I don't wish to discuss this with you anymore. I have treated you with respect. You, have done nothing but call me names and attack my character.
"What does the WaPo article say, Clay? What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances? And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?"
I would love to discuss that with you, but you can't get past all of the name calling. It makes me wonder if you really are capable of rationally discussing the issue. It could very well be that you can't support your position and so you hide behind arrogant name calling.
Either way, you have made your choice. Since you refuse to be civil, I'm not obligated to answer any of your questions.
At least you could show the decency to quit blaming me for the fact that you refuse to be civil. Stop lying meatbrain.
You are the one who made the decision that has stopped this discussion.
And only you can change your decision and allow this discussion to continue.
Your arrogance, rudeness and utter disrepect for another human being is your fault, not mine.
"The choice was yours..."
You're a lying coward, Clay. No one but you decided that you don't have the guts to discuss the facts. No one but you chose to run away from the facts I've presented here.
"I would love to discuss that with you..."
Then discuss it, lying coward. Stop making excuses and discuss it.
Nope. You don't have the courage, Clay. You'd rather quiver your lower lip and pretend that your delicate widdle feewings were huwt. Oh, poor baby. Everyone pity Clay, the lying coward who thinks he deserves respect for his dishonesty and ignorance.
"At least you could show the decency to quit blaming me for the fact that you refuse to be civil."
Where did I blame you for my own behavior, you lying sack of gormless dogshit? Show me the post where I blame you for anything I have said or done. Right now, show me that post.
You can't. You're lying again.
"You are the one who made the decision that has stopped this discussion."
Wrong again, asswipe. The discussion continues. I keep asking the questions, and you keep running from them.
What does the WaPo article say, Clay? What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances? And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
Run away, gutless moron.
"respect for his dishonesty and ignorance."
I'm not so sure that you really know what those words mean.
"Wrong again, [childish explicative deleted}. The discussion continues. I keep asking the questions, and you keep running from them."
No. The discussion does not continue. You were given a choice and you made it. I'm done with you. I don't care how many times you lie about me, and how many names you wish to call me. You are incapable of civil discussion.
"Run away, gutless moron."
This is my blog. I think I'll hang around. ; )
Oh, I'm hoping you do stay here at your blog, idiot. Rubbing your face in your cowardice and dishonesty is great fun. I was referring to the fact that you are running away from the questions I've been asking you.
They are hard questions, of course... well, they're hard for someone encumbered by ignorance, dishonesty, and cowardice, as you are.
What does the WaPo article say, Clay?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"I was referring to the fact that you are running away from the questions I've been asking you."
meatbrain, I haven't been "running away from the questions" you've been asking me. And you know it.
I have asked you if you are capable of discussing this issue in an adult, civil manner, to which you have replied:
"I am not in the least interested in civil conversation with you, Clay."
So, there you have it. Plain and simple.
This is why I haven't responded to your question.
Do you get it now?
These are hard questions for someone with your handicaps, Clay. No wonder you keep running away from them:
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"These are hard questions for someone with your handicaps...
The only one with handicaps is you. You seem incapable of decent, civil consversation.
Your questions are not hard at all. In fact, they're quite simple. I only had to read the article one time to discover the problem with your assertion that it leaked government secrets about using SWIFT years before the NY TIMES article.
I'm not running away. This is my blog. You however, are going to keep running in circles as long as you continue speaking to me in your rude, arrogant, condescending manner.
I know that these questions terrify you, Clay. That's why you keep hinting at "problems" with the facts -- problems that don't, in fact, exist. You'll keep running away from these questions, because ignorant cowards like you really have no other choice.
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"I know that these questions terrify you, Clay. That's why you keep hinting at "problems" with the facts -- problems that don't, in fact, exist. You'll keep running away from these questions, because ignorant cowards like you really have no other choice."
How do you know "these questions" terrify me? Especially since I have already told you that only one reading of the article gave me what I needed to know that your assertion was false.
I am not the one running away here. It is you.
Apperently, you can't do anything other than utter ad hominem attacks on my character. You apparently are trapped in the whole, rude, arrogant, condesending schict.
You have been told what you need to do and yet you keep going in the wrong direction.
When, if ever, you decide to approach me in an adult, civil manner I will be more than happy to answer your questions. Until then, you can keep running in circles for all I care.
"How do you know "these questions" terrify me?"
Because you won't answer them. Simple, direct questions always terrify those who, like you, do not have the facts to back up their lies.
"Especially since I have already told you that only one reading of the article gave me what I needed to know that your assertion was false."
You're lying. You have no facts, nothing that will change the reality that the use of the SWIFT program was public knowledge long before 2006. That is indisputable. You resemble nothing so much as the wimpy little boy on the playground, tearfully screaming "My daddy can beat up your daddy!".
I present again the questions that terrify you. I know that you will run away from them again. Lying cowards like you have no choice...
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"You're lying. You have no facts..."
Are you sure that I don't have facts, or are you just calling me a liar because name calling is your modus operandi?
"...nothing that will change the reality that the use of the SWIFT program was public knowledge long before 2006. That is indisputable."
Oh, it's disputable alright. It only took one read of the article you cite to find problems with both that quote from 1998 and your assertion as to it's significance in relation to the 2006 NY Times article.
"I present again the questions that terrify you. I know that you will run away from them again. Lying cowards like you have no choice..."
Believe me, meathead, I am certainly not terrified at all. In fact, I am confident that I can easily deal with your questions.
The only one being dishonest here is you. You know fully well why I won't discuss it with you, and you also know what you have to do on your part to have that discussion.
You are merely hiding behind character assinations.
The only lying coward here is you.
Keep running in circles for all I care. Eventually you will either tire out, or decide to come to the discussion as an adult, that is if you even can.
I call you a liar because you're a liar, Clay. You've made an absolutely false statement about the 1998 WaPo article: "It has nothing do with the NY Times article itself". That's a lie. You're a liar.
"It only took one read of the article you cite to find problems with both that quote from 1998 and your assertion as to it's significance in relation to the 2006 NY Times article."
Yet you cannot cite any such "problems". You're lying again, Clay. You have found nothing, you know you have found nothing, and you are lying.
"Believe me, meathead, I am certainly not terrified at all."
Then answer the questions, fucking liar:
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"In fact, I am confident that I can easily deal with your questions."
Then answer the questions, fucking liar:
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
Run away, fucking liar.
"I call you a liar because you're a liar, Clay. You've made an absolutely false statement about the 1998 WaPo article: "It has nothing do with the NY Times article itself". That's a lie. You're a liar."
The only one in danger of being a liar here is you meathead. I have stated no lie. Since you don't even know my argument you are completly in the dark and incapable of actually demonstrating that I am lying.
Of course, if you would calm down, take a few much needed deep breaths and re-read your article, and in particular the quote that you are so confident in, you would begin to see where the problems lie in your assertion that it was actually "leaking secret information".
I have reasons why I don't see your assertion that the mere mention of the SWIFT program in the 1998 article debunks the notion that the government's use of it, as reported in the 2006 NY Times article, was not revealing a government secret.
You seem to be good at ugly name calling like, "liar", "fucking liar", "fucking liar", fucking liar" [ad nausem]
Unless you are truly thick headed, you should already know that I am not going to discuss this issue with you as long as you keep acting like a juvenile deliquent, hot head.
If you want to discuss this, lose the childish, angry young man attitude and approach this as a mature adult.
Until then, you can just keep running around in circles making yourself look ridiculous to any reader here as much as you want.
Are you getting dizzy yet?
"I have reasons why I don't see your assertion that the mere mention of the SWIFT program in the 1998 article debunks the notion that the government's use of it, as reported in the 2006 NY Times article, was not revealing a government secret."
Wow, Clay. I mean, what a devastatingly astute, clear-headed, irrefutable counterargument that is. Or it would be, except for one little detail..
You ain't got jack shit, lying fuckwad.
You're bluffing, asswipe. That's crystal goddamn clear by now. You don't have anything, and you're hoping that if you lie often enough and loud enough about these imaginary "reasons" that "debunk" my argument, your lies will magically become the truth.
You really are that stupid, aren't you?
HERE COME THE QUESTIONS, FUCKING LIAR! RUN AWAY FROM THEM AGAIN, FUCKING LIAR!
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
Oh, and while we're at it, Clay, let's take a look at another of your fabrications:
"Of course, if you would calm down, take a few much needed deep breaths and re-read your article, and in particular the quote that you are so confident in, you would begin to see where the problems lie in your assertion that it was actually "leaking secret information"."
So... can you show me where I claimed that the WaPo article "was actually "leaking secret information""? Hmmmm?
No, you can't. Know why? Cause you're lying again, shitforbrains!
I've never claimed that the WaPo article was "leaking secret information", gormless imbecile. You won't find that phrase in any of my comments, unless I'm quoting you. You fabricated a phony quote from me, and built yet another lie around it.
Kee-RIST, you are one incredibly stupid, endlessly mendacious pile of horsecrap with delusions of being a human, Clay. I'd compare you to a bag of rocks, but it would be an insult to rocks everywhere.
"You're bluffing, asswipe. That's crystal goddamn clear by now."
No. What is crysal clear by now to everyone who reads these comments here, except of course for you, is that I will only have an adult discussion. I'm not willing to waste my time with some rude, arrogant, foul mouthed hot-head.
You can keep hurling insults at me and hopping up and down angrily accusing me of not knowing anything to your heart's content. It will continue to get you nowhere with me.
"So... can you show me where I claimed that the WaPo article "was actually "leaking secret information""? Hmmmm?"
Oh, so now you are claiming that you never claimed that the secret of the Government's use of SWIFT was revealed in the 1998 article?
So then, I guess that puts us back to the 2006 NY Times article as the source of the leak.
Either you are back paddling now and backing off, or you don't really know what you're talking about. You just want to rant and call someone else names, because it somehow makes you feel superior.
Keep on jumping up and down and hurling insults at me, and runnning in circles. It will continue to get you nowhere with me.
"What is crysal clear by now to everyone who reads these comments here, except of course for you, is that I will only have an adult discussion."
A rational adult human being, in a discussion, would not resort to lying, Clay. You have done so, therefore you are not conducting an adult discussion. And thus, you don't deserve to be treated as a rational adult human being.
"Oh, so now you are claiming that you never claimed that the secret of the Government's use of SWIFT was revealed in the 1998 article?"
Nope. You'll note that I did not say this. You have quoted me as claiming that the 1998 WaPo article was "leaking secret information". I have made no such claim. I have never used that phrase in referring to the article -- you invented this quote and have dishonestly attributed it to me. I am pointing out that you have told another lie.
I haven't called you a single name in this post, and I have used not a single expletive. You are out of excuses. Answer the questions:
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"A rational adult human being, in a discussion, would not resort to lying, Clay. You have done so, therefore you are not conducting an adult discussion. And thus, you don't deserve to be treated as a rational adult human being."
First off, I haven't told any lies. Second, because you yourself have resorted to lying and name calling it is you who don't deserve being treated as a rational human being. As I have been laboriously trying to point out to you.
"I haven't called you a single name in this post, and I have used not a single expletive. You are out of excuses. Answer the questions..."
Now this is the biggest, boldest lie you've told yet. Do you seriously expect me, or anyone else here to believe that whopper? Your comments here are repleate with names you've called me.
Unless meatbrain is more than one person writing here under that moniker, or worse, more than one personality within your head, you are flat out telling a lie.
It is not I who is out of excuses it is you.
I'm not answering any of your questions until a. you stop lying. b. lose the arrogant, rude, name calling act c. quit flip flopping and spinning.
If you can manage those things, and if you can manage to actually provide counter arguments to mine then I'd be happy to provide you with my reasons.
But, if you're just going to ignore what I say, spin around finding more inane quotes that you won't, can't defend, and just continue your childish claptrap, then I'm not really interested meatbrain.
It's as simple as that.
"First off, I haven't told any lies."
False. You lied about the content of the WaPo article, and you invented a quote and attributed it to me. Two blatant lies. Oops, three: we can count your claim that you "haven't told any lies" as a lie itself.
"Now this is the biggest, boldest lie you've told yet. Do you seriously expect me, or anyone else here to believe that whopper? Your comments here are repleate with names you've called me."
Read for comprehension, Clay. I wasn't referring to my past posts. That is what the phrase "in this post" means.
I haven't called you a single name in this post, and I have used not a single expletive. You are out of excuses. Answer the questions:
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"Of course, if you would calm down, take a few much needed deep breaths and re-read your article, and in particular the quote that you are so confident in, you would begin to see where the problems lie in your assertion that it was actually "leaking secret information"."
Here you quote me as claiming that the 1998 WaPo article was, quote, "leaking secret information".
If you are not a liar, Clay, you will be able to instantly cite the exact comment in which I used that exact phrase to make that exact claim.
Any evasion, any attempt to pretend that you said something other than what you said above, any failure to cite my exact words, and you will brand yourself a liar.
You have one chance, Clay. Make the most of it.
"False. You lied about the content of the WaPo article, and you invented a quote and attributed it to me..."
How did I lie about the contents of the WaPO article? I haven't even expounded to you anything in detail as to why I don't think it leaked the US government's use of SWIFT. (due to your refusal to have a civil conversation vice your hateful, name calling, arrogant attempts to get me to answer your questions - which never work).
What quote did I make up?
The only one lying here is you.
"Read for comprehension, Clay. I wasn't referring to my past posts. That is what the phrase "in this post" means."
"Read for comprehension", is this another attempt at an insult? Tsk tsk tsk.
Ok we seem to have different meanings for the word "post". When I use the term post in reference to a blog, I mean the what I posted originally, not the comments that follow.
But, that aside, here is what you did say about me in that last post of your comment that you are referring to:
"...resort to lying, Clay. You have done so, therefore you are not conducting an adult discussion. And thus, you don't deserve to be treated as a rational adult human being."
Take away here is: I'm a liar and don't deserve to be treated as a rational human being (i.e. I'm also irrational, or crazy, or stupid, you fill it in.).
This is a strange way of being civil and respectful of another person. In fact it's just more ad hominem attacks, name calling, just a bit more wordy.
So, nope, you are still caught in a lie.
"Any evasion, any attempt to pretend that you said something other than what you said above, any failure to cite my exact words, and you will brand yourself a liar."
Nice try, but no. You don't get to call the shots that easily. Especially, when all you have done here is hurl insults at me, ignore me when I do provide you answers and spin.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you maintained that the NY Time's article did not out the US government's secret use of SWIFT, (even though it said it did, and even provided quotes from government officials commenting on the damage that would be done should the NY Times leak the secret), because of a quote you found in a 1998 Washington Post article that somehow, at least to you, let it be known that the US government would be using SWIFT to track terrorist finances, (Which, by the way, would be a secret since, the US government does not divulge everything it does in the clear).
So, if I am to understand your position now, you are claiming that the 1998 article did not leak any secret, so, it stands to reason neither did it leak that the US Government would begin using SWIFT to track terrorists' finances. Which leads me ask, so, what then is your point? And, we are now back to the NY TIMES article, since now the Washington Post article is no longer relevant.
So. No. I am not lying.
"You have one chance, Clay. Make the most of it."
Who do you think you are issuing me "last chances"? You don't own this blog, nor this conversation. Me having chances is totally irrelevant.
Of course if you are threatening me with only one last chance to use wisely or else you will stop conversing with me, then my reply to you would be: I don't care. Goodbye. I lost any possible respect for you a long time ago.
Based upon your name calling, arrogance, ignoring of arguments presented to you, not to mention your persevation about your hatred of me that leads you to attribute an entire ad hominem post on your blog to me, I came to the conclusion that it would be a total waste of my time to try and carry on any civil conversation with you. So, believe me, I'm not going to lose any sleep whatsoever if you end your conversation with me.
In fact, you can consider this as having used my last chance to converse with you and having made the most of it.
To be fair I should reiterate to you that you too have one last chance, and that is to comply to what you have been politlely asked over and over and over and over and over again.
Even if you were able to somehow come to the conversation in an adult, civil manner, I'm not sure how to respond to you now.
I definately have my reasons why I am not impressed with your use of the 1998 Washington Post article as some sort of evidence that debunks the 2006 NY TIMES article that the cartoon of this post cites.
But you have flip flopped so much around that article that frankly, it's not clear now what you are on about.
So, as for me I'm standing by the NY TIMES article and thus the cartoon.
So, since I have already used my last chance with you and made the most of it, we are now officially through with this conversation.
Goodbye. Know that I don't wish you any ill.
"How did I lie about the contents of the WaPO article?"
Here:
"It [the 1998 WaPo article] has nothing do with the NY Times article itself."
This is a lie, since the 1998 WaPo article clearly discusses the same program that is discussed by the 2006 NYT article
What quote did I make up?
This one:
"...you would begin to see where the problems lie in your assertion that it was actually "leaking secret information"."
You invented the quote "leaking secret information" and claimed I had said it. I have not. The quote, and the attribution, are lies.
"So. No. I am not lying."
So. Yes. You have lied, and continue to lie.
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
yawn
Didn't I just use up my last chance with you? I know that I made the most of it.
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
It's not that hard to find the article in question. It's on the New York Time's website. You can read it by following this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html
You will have to register to read the article, but registration is free. There's no question that the cartoon accurately describes what the article accomplished. The title and first sentence proves that the NYT knew this was a secret program and yet they still chose to print it anyway. What's to debate?
The use of SWIFT to track the financial transaction of terrorists was revealed in a 1998 article in the Washington Post. This means that the program was not in any way, and could not be, a 'secret' when the New York Times mentioned it in an article published in 2006.
Clay knows this. He avoids answering my questions because he is terrified that doing so will reveal that he has been dishonest in his representation of the supposed 'secrecy' of the monitoring program.
Anonymous,
Your dead on about the NY TIMES article and your question about what thre is to debate about would seem apropos except, meatbrain thinks he has found something, one quote to be exact, in a 1998 Washington Post article that somehow makes the NY TIMES article claim to have leaked a US government secret null.
Meatbrian is mistaken. I would gladly have shown him why he was wrong, but I couldn't get him to calm down, stop hurling insults at me and instead have a civil discussion about this. One visit to his blog tells you all you need to know about the kind of person you're dealing with.
Anyway here is a link to the 1998 Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/eafricabombing/stories/binladen082898.htm
or you can click on the link that meatbrain provides in his comments.
And here is the quote from that article that meatbrain errouneously thinks is his silver bullet:
"The CIA and agents with Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also will try to lay tripwires to find out when bin Laden moves funds by plugging into the computerized systems of bank transaction monitoring services – operated by the Federal Reserve and private organizations called SWIFT and CHIPS – that record the billions of dollars coursing through the global banking system daily."
If you read the article and pay close attention to this quote, it won't take long to see where the flaw in meatbrain's argument is.
"Clay knows this. He avoids answering my questions because he is terrified that doing so will reveal that he has been dishonest in his representation of the supposed 'secrecy' of the monitoring program."
yawn
Clay pretends to have found a "flaw" in my argument, but is unable to articulate it. He is, in short, lying -- again.
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"Clay pretends to have found a "flaw" in my argument, but is unable to articulate it. He is, in short, lying -- again."
yawn
Clay pretends to have found a "flaw" in my argument, but is unable to articulate it. He is, in short, lying -- again.
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"Clay pretends to have found a "flaw" in my argument, but is unable to articulate it. He is, in short, lying -- again."
yawn
Clay pretends to have found a "flaw" in my argument, but is unable to articulate it. He continues to prove this every time he repeats his "yawn". He is, in short, lying -- again.
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"Clay pretends to have found a "flaw" in my argument, but is unable to articulate it. He continues to prove this every time he repeats his "yawn". He is, in short, lying -- again."
yawn just more of meathead's "liar, liar, pants on fire" childish name calling, the reason this conversation really ended a long time ago.
And again, Clay is unable to articulate the imaginary "flaw" in my argument. Someone who had actually found this supposed "flaw" would have brought it into the discussion long ago. Clay cannot do this, because he is lying about having found this "flaw"
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"And again, Clay is unable to articulate the imaginary "flaw" in my argument. Someone who had actually found this supposed "flaw" would have brought it into the discussion long ago. Clay cannot do this, because he is lying about having found this "flaw""
yawn. meatbrain is getting more and more pathetic and desperate. Of course, he was told long ago what to do if he wished to continue this discussion.
The use of SWIFT to track the financial transaction of terrorists was revealed in a 1998 article in the Washington Post. This means that the program was not in any way, and could not be, a 'secret' when the New York Times mentioned it in an article published in 2006.
Clay knows this. He avoids answering my questions because he is terrified that doing so will reveal that he has been dishonest in his representation of the supposed 'secrecy' of the monitoring program.
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"Clay knows this. He avoids answering my questions because he is terrified that doing so will reveal that he has been dishonest in his representation of the supposed 'secrecy' of the monitoring program."
yawn. meatbrain is still going on about his "Clay is being dishonest" (i.e. Clay is a liar) claptrap. This is because all that is left for him is chidish name calling. This is the best that he can offer. He still refuses to enter the discussion in a civil manner.
Clay's dishonesty is an established fact. He has lied about the content of the WaPo article, and he has invented a quote and attributed it to me. Two blatant lies.
The use of SWIFT to track the financial transaction of terrorists was revealed in a 1998 article in the Washington Post. This means that the program was not in any way, and could not be, a 'secret' when the New York Times mentioned it in an article published in 2006.
Clay knows this. He avoids answering my questions because he is terrified that doing so will reveal that he has been dishonest in his representation of the supposed 'secrecy' of the monitoring program.
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"Clay's dishonesty is an established fact. He has lied about the content of the WaPo article, and he has invented a quote and attributed it to me. Two blatant lies.
yawn
Still more "liar, liar, pants on fire" nonsense from the more and more desperate meatbrain.
He calls me a liar about the 1998 Washington Post article, yet he can't prove that I'm lying. He hasn't even heard my side yet, (due to his refusal to have a civil discussion about it).
"He calls me a liar about the 1998 Washington Post article, yet he can't prove that I'm lying."
False. Proof has already been presented. Clay lied about the 1998 WaPo article here: "It [the 1998 WaPo article] has nothing do with the NY Times article itself." This is a lie, since the 1998 WaPo article clearly discusses the same program that is discussed by the 2006 NYT article.
"He hasn't even heard my side yet, (due to his refusal to have a civil discussion about it)."
False. Clay has chosen to evade the questions I have asked because he is terrified of an open and honest discussion. He prefers to lie about the 1998 WaPo article, and to lie about what I have said.
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
""He hasn't even heard my side yet, (due to his refusal to have a civil discussion about it)."
False. Clay has chosen to evade the questions I have asked because he is terrified of an open and honest discussion.
yawn
meatbrain's idea of an "open and honest discussion" involves him hurling insults at his opponent and accusing his opponent of "lying" before he has even heard his opponent's arguements.
meatbrain is getting more and more desperate. It's actually kind of sad to see. If only he would lose his arrogant, rude attitude and enter the discussion as an adult he just might learn something.
But, alas, here we are.
Notice that Clay is unable to address the question of why he chose to lie about what I said. He prefers instead to continue running away from the simple questions he has been asked.
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"Notice that Clay is unable to address the question of why he chose to lie about what I said. He prefers instead to continue running away from the simple questions he has been asked."
yawn
meatbrain continues to lie about me lying, since he has never heard my side of the argument he can't possible know whether or lying or not.
Poor desperate meatbrain continues to run around in circles chanting "liar, liar, pants on fire".
We've already heard your lie, Clay. It's right here:
"...you would begin to see where the problems lie in your assertion that it was actually "leaking secret information"."
Show us where I said anything about any article "leaking secret information" -- using those exact words that you quote me using -- anywhere before you posted that quote.
Go on, Clay. Show us. If you're not a liar, you can certainly point out where I said that.
"yawn"
I have to say, Clay, that I admire your steadfastness in the face of meatbrain's merciless attacks. You have learned the important lesson that truthiness is always to be preferred over real, verifiable facts. You know in your gut and in your heart that the New York Times committed treason when it published its article about the use of SWIFT to track terrorist finances. The mere fact that this use of the banking system was revealed long before the article hit the stands doesn't matter. If Clay says on his blog that the NYT published a secret, then they published a secret. Who cares if it was published years before?
You've learned well the lesson that Our Sainted President has tried so hard to teach: When you feel strongly that something is true, then it's true. Facts are inconveniences, and are best left to those dreary fools who don't have the will to imagine reality as it should be.
You are clearly a true right-thinking American, and your heart swells with the patriotic loathing for mere factuality that made this country great. Don't swerve from your great crusade to subjugate reality to your beliefs, my friend. It's good to be right, and you should go right on telling people you're right and ignore any cries for silly things like facts and evidence.
"Don't swerve from your great crusade to subjugate reality to your beliefs, my friend. It's good to be right, and you should go right on telling people you're right and ignore any cries for silly things like facts and evidence."
Gywnplaine, did you actually read the exchange of comments between meatbrain and myself, or are you just a meatbrain/leftist synchophant?
I clearly told meatbrain over and over and over again that I had counter arguments to refute his claim that the 1998 Washington Post article undermined the 2006 NY Times article claim to have outed the US government's use of SWIFT to track terrorist finances.
I also told meatbrain over and over and over again that if he wanted to continue the discourse he would need to lose his arrogant, rude, name calling, modus operandi and come to the discussion in a civil manner with respect for the other person.
This is my blog and I don't have to waste my time trying to have a discussion with someone who can't be civil and adult about it. That is my perogative.
meatbrain, couldn't or wouldn't enter the discussion in a civil manner, and so, he never got to hear my side of the argument.
By the way, the left doesn't have the corner of the market in facts. But they are pretty good at hate, and personal attacks. Particularily, when it comes to actually having to hear something that they don't want to hear.
Both meatbrain's ugly behavior, and your snarky behavior aren't very conducive to rational, adult conversation. You might want to work on that. That is, if you wish to have a meaningful debate. If not, you can continue to hide behind your sarcasm. Whatever works for you.
But, you know what? If you want to go on believing that the left holds all of the facts and that the right is just a bunch of people who think they are correct without any facts to back up their arguments, then you go on with that self delusion.
After all, I'm sure that you believe it.
Clay said: "I clearly told meatbrain over and over and over again that I had counter arguments to refute his claim that the 1998 Washington Post article undermined the 2006 NY Times article claim to have outed the US government's use of SWIFT to track terrorist finances."
Yes! Exactly! That's the brilliance of your method, Clay! That's the part I admire!
You declared yourself the winner of the argument without ever having to actually present a real argument! It's a tremendous time-saver! As long as you "clearly tell" your opponent that you have a counter-argument, you've won!
Why bother actually producing that counter-argument? If you did, there's always the danger that someone might find a flaw in it. As long as you keep it hidden and simply allude to it, no one can ever analyze it or disagree with it in any way. I don't know what your counter-argument is, but it's got me convinced!
You've shown every right-thinking American how to deal with the slimy factmongering leftists. A grateful nation kneels in thanks for your genius, Clay.
"Yes! Exactly! That's the brilliance of your method, Clay! That's the part I admire!
You declared yourself the winner of the argument without ever having to actually present a real argument! It's a tremendous time-saver! As long as you "clearly tell" your opponent that you have a counter-argument, you've won!"
You must be really dense. None of the claptrap you're on about is what I am doing with meatbrain.
I have already explained to you why meatbrain got no further with me. But, if you want to live in your fantasy land and continue to dream about what took place here between meatbrain and I then, by all means keep dreaming.
"You've shown every right-thinking American how to deal with the slimy factmongering leftists."
Factmongering leftist? Hardly. It's more like hateful, arrogant, name calling leftist, or in your case, snarky leftist. Either way, meaninful dialouge breaks down once the leftist begins to let his or her feelings get the best of them.
Clay said: "None of the claptrap you're on about is what I am doing with meatbrain."
No need to be modest, Clay. Your genius is indisputable. Look at how succinctly you dealt with meatbrain: "I have read that article and have something to say about it." See? Without even bothering to say what you have to say, you say all that anyone would need to hear you say to conclude that you have something important to say! Game, set, and match! Why bother actually saying what you have to say, when you can just say that you have something to say and thus win the argument?
It's pure, it's simple, it's loaded with truthiness, it's so essentially right-wingy that I weep to think that you don't realize how perfect your own tactics are. I'd have something to say about that, but no – it's already clear that I know what I'm talking about when I praise your methods, so I don't actually have to say what I would say if I said it.
"No need to be modest, Clay. Your genius is indisputable. Look at how succinctly you dealt with meatbrain: "I have read that article and have something to say about it." See? Without even bothering to say what you have to say, you say all that anyone would need to hear you say to conclude that you have something important to say! Game, set, and match! Why bother actually saying what you have to say, when you can just say that you have something to say and thus win the argument?"
And now let's put the phrase I used in context:
"I'm not afraid to discuss the contents of that article. I have read that article and have something to say about it. I'm just through wasting my time trying to discuss anything with you.
I refuse to try and carry on a discussion with someone who obviously can't be professional in the conversation. I have shown you the respect that I would give any adult in a conversation. You however, have done nothing but insult me and litter my comments section with hateful, foul language.
If you ever decide that you can converse here with me in a civil, respectful manner, then I will reconsider debating with you. But as for now, I'm done speaking with you."
Now that's alot different than your nonsensical genious tactics you keep accusing me of having.
Why you keep going on about this is beyond me. If you just want to show off how snarky you can be, I'm not very impressed. Anyone can be an arrogant sarcastic nuisance. It doesn't really take much effort.
The same thing I told meatbrain in the quoted comment of mine to him above, applies to you.
Unless you are really interested in an adult, civil conversation, you can comment here as much as you like, but I don't have any more time to waste on you.
I have a counter-counterargument to Clay's counterargument, but I'm not telling anybody what it is because Clay once used a split infinitive, and that offended me something awful.
Cap'n Crunch,
I'm sure if you try hard enough you'll get over it.
Well, I've got a counter-counter-counterargument to Cap'n Crunch's counter-counterargument, but I'm not telling anybody what it is because Cap'n Crunch's AirHeads Berries aren't on the market any more.
You're both a couple of wussies. My counter-counter-counter-counterargument to Quisp's counter-counter-counterargument is irrefutable. I know this because I just said so. But I'm going to keep the counter-counter-counter-counterargument to myself, since I've got this bunion on my left foot and my exzema is acting up.
cap'n cruch, quisp (cool name I used to eat that cereal when I was a kid), waffelo bill,
You all don't have your own blogs to post your counter-counter-counter-arguements on?
There isn't a counter-counter-counter-counterargument in the world that can stand up to my counter-counter-counter-counter-counterargument. It's so powerful that if I was to tell anyone what it is, the fabric of the space-time continuum would rip itself apart! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together -- MASS HYSTERIA!
That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.
count chocula,
See my comment to cap'n cruch, quisp and waffelo bill.
Crybaby Clay is too fucking stupid to understand that the cereal boys have done exactly what he has done: claim to have a counter-argument and give a puerile excuse for not actually stating the counter-argument.
The truth is that Clay has no counter-argument. None at all. His claim is simply a face-saving lie. He is, after all, a known liar.
"Crybaby Clay is too fucking stupid to understand that the cereal boys have done exactly what he has done: claim to have a counter-argument and give a puerile excuse for not actually stating the counter-argument."
yawn
meatbrain's use of the word puerile fits both him, with his name calling, and his cereal buddies with their childish nonsense.
It seems that meatbrain doesn't understand that words have meanings and he has unwittingly used a word that actually describes his behavior here perfectly.
Setting civility as the tone of debate or else refusing to debate with someone who refuses to be civil and instead stubbornly continues with behavior that is rude, arrogant, and replete with puerile name calling is hardly an example of purerile behavior on my part.
"The truth is that Clay has no counter-argument. None at all. His claim is simply a face-saving lie."
meatbrain is the one telling face-saving lies, since he knows full well what he needs to do if he wants to continue the debate. He just won't because he needs to hide behind his rude, arrogant puerile behavior.
There is nothing in the world I could do that would "continue the debate", because Clay doesn't have a counter-argument. He's lying about that.
Of course, he could make a complete fool of me by actually producing one. He won't. He can't. He's lying. The counter-argument doesn't exist.
Produce your counter-argument, lying coward.
"There is nothing in the world I could do that would "continue the debate", because Clay doesn't have a counter-argument. He's lying about that."
yawn
Here meatbrain is telling two lies.
His first lie is his assertion that there is nothing he could do to continue the debate, when he knows full well what he must do - approach me in a civil manner, instead of continuing to try and insult me.
His second lie is his assertion that I don't have a counter-arguement. meatbrain doesn't know whether I do or not.
If meatbrain was as smart as he likes to think he is, he wouldn't even need me to make my counter-arguement,(although I would be more than willing to if he would approach me in a civil manner). A carefull review of the 1998 Washington Post article that he hinges his argument on, and in particular, the quote he cites from that article, would reveal to him the obvious problems with his position.
"Of course, he could make a complete fool of me by actually producing one."
I don't need to make a fool of meatbrain, he's doing a fair job of that on his own through his name calling and constant lying. He obviously doesn't need my help.
"Produce your counter-argument, lying coward."
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why he is getting nowhere with me. Apparently, meatbrain thinks that if he just keeps on ordering me around and remaining uncivil that I will comply, although, he has been told over and over and over and over and over and over this is not the right way to go about it.
Poor meatbrain doesn't grasp the fact that this is my blog, not his, and in life the best way to deal with a rude, arrogant, insulting dolt is just to ignore him.
"His first lie is his assertion that there is nothing he could do to continue the debate, when he knows full well what he must do - approach me in a civil manner, instead of continuing to try and insult me."
Clay is lying again. I did exactly what he asks, here and here. He still could not produce his counter-argument. It does not exist.
"A carefull review of the 1998 Washington Post article that he hinges his argument on, and in particular, the quote he cites from that article, would reveal to him the obvious problems with his position.
False. Clay can continue lying about this, and I will continue pointing out his lies. The 1998 WaPo article reveals that the US uses the SWIFT database to track terrorist finances. That fact was therefore not a secret when the NYT published it in 2006.
Keep lying, asswipe. I'll keep shoving your lies back down your throat.
"Clay is lying again. I did exactly what he asks, here and here."
yawn
The first place he cites where he allegedly "did what I asked", (approach me in a civil manner), is where he starts off by calling me a liar and therefor, not deserving to be treated as a "rational adult human being".
This is hardly approaching me in a civil manner. It's just more of his name calling. If meatbrain would approach me in a civl manner and treat me as a rational adult human being he would get what he wants from me.
The second place that he cites where he "did what I asked" is in fact true. It is his first comment in this post. It is the only comment he ever made that was civil and worth responding to.
Since that first comment he has done nothing but hurl insults at me.
"He still could not produce his counter-argument. It does not exist."
Like I said in my last comment, meatbrain doesn't know whether or not I have a counter-argument. So, he is lying. He also seems to be a bit confused in thinking I can't produce my counter-argument. It's not that I can't it's that I won't, until he decides to put on a civil tone worthy of rational adult debate.
"The 1998 WaPo article reveals that the US uses the SWIFT database to track terrorist finances."
the 1998 Washington Post article says no such thing. meatbrain either misread the article, or he is being disengenous and trying to make the article say something it does not say, just to support his argument. That is bad form and I'm not falling for it.
"Keep lying, asswipe. I'll keep shoving your lies back down your throat."
Poor meatbrain, he doesn't understand that he can't "keep shoving" my lies down my throat, since I haven't told any lies. He, on the other hand is telling a lot of lies.
This again, is also a good example of why I won't waste my time with him. His puerile name calling and hurling insults at me is not worth the dignity of providing him what he wants.
He knows what he must do to continue the conversation, and until he does what I have asked, he will continue to get nowhere with me.
If it wasn't so pathetic it would be actually entertaining watching him come more and more unhinged as he is reduced to nothing but lies and screaming his insults at me.
Going back to the first place that he cites as his approaching me in a civil manner - the one where he called me a liar and not deserving of being treated as a rational adult human being - begs the following questions:
Why then has he continued trying to discuss this with me?
Why would anyone in their right mind desire to converse with a liar incapable of rational adult conversation?
Of course, the converse is understandable. A liar who can't get past hurling insults at his opponent desires to continue trying to converse so that he has more opportunities to hurl his vile hatred at his opponent.
He thinks that makes him somehow superior to his opponent and that if he does it long enough his opponent will give in to him.
I don't see that happening here no matter how long he continues his puerile rants.
"The second place that he cites where he "did what I asked" is in fact true. It is his first comment in this post. It is the only comment he ever made that was civil and worth responding to."
Clay is lying again. My first comment in this thread was the first comment made, right here. Clay will lie about the smallest details. It's become a habit with him: see something, lie about it.
Notice also that Clay admits that the comment cited earlier was in fact "civil and worth responding to" -- yet he still could not produce his counter-argument. In fact, he never responded to it at all -- thus proving that, far from being willing to engage in what he calls "civil discussion", he will simply ignore anyone who attempts to ask him a civil question.
"the 1998 Washington Post article says no such thing."
Clay is lying again:
"The CIA and agents with Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also will try to lay tripwires to find out when bin Laden moves funds by plugging into the computerized systems of bank transaction monitoring services – operated by the Federal Reserve and private organizations called SWIFT and CHIPS – that record the billions of dollars coursing through the global banking system daily."
Clay has to lie about the WaPo article. If he admitted the truth, his whole argument about the Times revealing a secret would be destroyed.
Lying is what Clay does. It is the only talent he has.
"Clay has to lie about the WaPo article. If he admitted the truth, his whole argument about the Times revealing a secret would be destroyed."
yaaawwwwnnnn
What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?
"What does the WaPo article say?
What database does it tell us the feds use to track terrorist finances?
And if it tells us this in 1998, how can the use of that database be a big "secret" in 2006?"
Here is the quote from the article that I believe you are referring to:
"The CIA and agents with Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also will try to lay tripwires to find out when bin Laden moves funds by plugging into the computerized systems of bank transaction monitoring services – operated by the Federal Reserve and private organizations called SWIFT and CHIPS – that record the billions of dollars coursing through the global banking system daily."
Here are some observations about that quote:
First, this is not a quote from a government official, or any one connected to the government in any way.
Second, there aren't any transitions, either into this quote, or out of it, that would indicate that the journalist who wrote this piece got this idea from government officials.
Since the author didn't quote a government official, nor receive this insight from a government offical it can only mean that this is speculation on his part. Notice his use of the word will.
It wouldn't take anyone with a knowledge of SWIFT or CHIPS, and the ability to think outside the box in a manner that would include Information Warfare possibilites, much to come to the same speculative conclusion as to this being an option for the US Government.
But, an educated guess about what one thinks the government might do is not the same thing as proof that the government is, in fact, going to pursue that course of action.
I know of no evidence that would support that the US Government was in fact pursuing that course of action to hinder Osama Bin Laden's finances back in 1998. To the contrary, 9/11 was executed successfully without any hinderance, at least financially.
Did the author's speculation eventually become true? Of course it did. We learned that from the NY Times article. But not until sometime after 9/11, some 3 years after the author's speculation.
Just because the author's speculation became true, eventually, does not mean that the government was pursuing that option at the time he posited his guess about what the government might do.
I know of no opposition from the government to the Washington Post article like you find clearly in the NY Times article, which cleary includes quotes from government officials indicating the damange that that article would pose to National Security.
meatbrain, the 1998 Washington Post article is not the "smoking gun" that you profess it to be. Had it have been, the government would have failed in it's use of SWIFT after 9/11 to track and disrupt the terrorist's financial transactions.
After all, the terrorists would have been tipped off. It's highly unlikely that the terrorists even noticed the 1998 Washington Post article or the author's speculative guess about what the US government might do.
It's a pretty safe bet that since the NY Times article, the US Government's use of SWIFT has now been rendered useless, just as US Government officials feared might happen should the NY Times publish it's article.
So, which article is more threatening to National Security and how we conduct our war against terrorism?
The NY Times, with clear quotes and ties to the US Government trying to stop it's article.
Or, the 1998 Washington Post article with it's report of how the US Government was failing miserably at its attempts to track Osama Bin Laden's finances and it's speculative quote from the author about what course of action he thinks the US Government's next action will be with respect to SWIFT and CHIPS?
Me, I'm sticking with the NY Times as the culprit.
I really appreciate your help, Clay. Because of your fantastic work in making a complete and utter ass of yourself, I got some wonderful fodder for my latest blog post. Go over there and defend yourself, putz.
The Drooling Moron Plot
"I really appreciate your help, Clay. Because of your fantastic work in making a complete and utter ass of yourself, I got some wonderful fodder for my latest blog post. Go over there and defend yourself, putz."
Just as I thought. Once I provide what you wish, you sumararily dismiss it, only this time you don't have a quote from a third newspaper article as your implement of doging actually having to debate the issue.
And, just like when I responded to you regarding the NY Times article, all I get from you, is not counter-arguements, (of which you are not capable of), but insults.
meatbrain, I could care less about your "new post" on your blog. One only needs to visit your blog once to see what you are all about: Denigrating your opponents in seperate posts dedicated to them, in which you pretend to be so much more intelligent than them.
Once someone resorts to name calling and insults, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who the loser in the argument is.
That would be you.
You go on living in your fantasy world, in which you imagine yourself to be "meat that thinks".
In reality, you are a person that, when faced with opposition to your viewpoint, has no other recourse but to revert to name calling and posts on your blog designed to denigrate those who don't share your, factless view of things.
Just like with my arguments in support of the NY Times article, so it is with my arguments against your bogus Washington Post, 1998 article: you ignore the situation, post insults and crawl back to your blog.
I was right about you all along, (not that I ever doubted it), you aren't worth the time spent debating with you. You don't know how to debate.
The liar in all of this is you. You call for counter-arguments, and yet, you come up short every time. It is you that can't produce any counter-arguments, just puerile comments.
I suspect that you are nothing more than a college sophmore, clinging to the echo chamber of your liberal professors' ideas.
The only one making an ass of themselves here would be you.
You demand much, but can't actually deliver when it is your turn.
I think this is fear-mongering. Talk about blatant lies. I'd definitely be considered liberal, yet I'd never want 1 American hurt.
What a very sad place our country is in.
Jane said:
"I think this is fear-mongering. Talk about blatant lies."
What blatant lies?
Post a Comment
<< Home