Fear Sells Better Than Sex - Just Ask GWB

[OperaTenor]

People actually watch MSNBC??? I thought you had to have a doctor's excuse or something

I wouldn't know. Since I don't actually get MSNBC, I must rely on refferences to actually peruse.

[BigJon@Work]

we quit fighting the war on terror when we took the left turn into Iraq.

Wouldn't that be a right turn?

[OperaTenor]

we quit fighting the war on terror when we took the left turn into Iraq.

Wouldn't that be a right turn?

Maybe "right", but certainly not correct.

[Shapley]

OT,

Suppose the roles had been reversed, and the Bush administration had wanted the suspect to be allowed to go ahead with his 'dry run'. Would you then applaud them on their judicious approach, or decry the fact that they allowed people to be placed in danger by allowing a known terrorist to board a flight? I suspect the latter.

It's interesting that you accept the report, given the anonymity of the 'official sources'. They could be Charles Manson & company, for all we know.

I would call the adminstration's actions 'erring on the side of caution', by arresting a known terrorist before he boards a flight with questionable substances. What if he decided a 'dry run' wasn't sufficient? What if he panicked? What if his intent was to poison passengers, rather than simply testing to see if he could smuggle chemicals on board? Lots of questions left open there, that I suspect were discussed at high levels, perhaps higher levels than the 'unnamed sources' were privvy to.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I though arresting terrorists was part of how the left wanted the war on terror to be fought.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

I'm the wrong guy to second guess an investigation that is ongoing. It seems there would be valid reasons for waiting, and valid reasons for acting.

If only we had the gumption to actually get bin laden.

[OperaTenor]

If only we had the gumption to actually get bin laden.

Amen, brother!

Shap, if they've got the guy covered sufficiently, and it's known he's doing a dry run, there's very little risk of letting him run at arm's length.

As for GWB squandering opportunities to actually fight terrorism, I'm plenty mad at him enough for doing plenty of that already. Ever since we invaded Iraq....

As for the snarky comment about the anonymous source, you know reporters generally vet their sources and know who they are. It's not like they took anonymous chain e-mail for gospel.

[Shapley]

OT,

Given the dishonest reporting coming to us from Lebanon, already covered on this board, I wouldn't put too much stock in the 'vetting' of sources by the main-stream media.

The point is, you're willing to take any reporting that paints this President's administration in a bad light at face value, while you dismiss any report that sheds a positive light on the President as being right wing babble.

The war on terror thread points out several instances where the US media has been told by foreign authorities not to print articles because it will hamper their efforts, just as this President asked the NYT times not to print the story on the banking information exchange. The press is not interersted in winning the war on terror, and they are not friendly to this administration. The NYT article just cited, the Karl Rove witchhunt and diefication of Joseph Wilson, as well as the 'fake but accurate' CBS reports should be evidence enough of that.

V/R
Shapley

[Serenity]

[BigJon@Work]

Hi Serenity, you may find this funny, but it shows ignorance on the part of the author and is really not worthy of you to repeat it.