This should be required reading for all Democrats in Congress. The eye of the storm - Opinion - USATODAY.com :911::911::911:
I don't think anybody believes that the terrorism danger has passed, I certainly can find no evidence of such. That would be naive, indeed. But what is also naive is the notion that terrorism is our only danger or that radical islamists are our only enemy. To focus on one threat and disregard others is short-sighted and foolish.
Oldest trick in the book. If you can't defeat the argument, dazzle 'em with bullsh!t. Who said anything about radical islam? And the evidence? Feinstein and Blair both implied that "torture" is no longer necessary like it was right after 9/11. Sometimes the conservative view is the correct view, Red. You don't have to try and shoot down every point.
You didn't make an argument. You posted an opinion column that I responded to because it was misleading and unsubstantiated. Your friggin' columnist! No they didn't! That was the implication that YOU drew after this conservative columnist suggested that this constituted "a naive belief that the danger to our county has passed" . What "evidence" are you talking about? Here is what Feinstein said in the article: Clearly, she says that it was the immediacy of an imminent second attack that inhibited them from objecting. She says nothing whatsoever about "the danger to our country having passed". Thiessen made that up and then you assumed that it must mean that "torture is no longer necessary". Life is a bitch, ain't it. :grin: You have no inhibitions at all about taking shots at everything Obamic, democratic, moderate, or environmental, so pardon me if I laugh my ass off . . . :lol: When the conservative view is correct I let it stand. When a columnists opinion is held up as "evidence" of something unsubstantiated. . . then it is just asking to be shot down.
I had a point by point breakdown all set to go and erased it by mistake. Suffice it to say that your are pissing in the wind here. Feinstein and Blair were not referring to the economy or nationalized healthcare when they referenced 2001 and 2006-2009. In a pathetic attempt to help Pelosi save a little face (something the best plastic surgeons have had little success in doing) they clearly implied that torture may have been justified in 2002 but not in 2006-2009. There's only one conclusion to draw here. Is this what you have been reduced to? A defender of Nancy Pelosi? You have hit bottom. Admit you have a problem and help will come.
Oh, that's a great response . . . I'll change my position right now. :rolleye33: Typical SabanFan hubris. . . no one could possibly conclude otherwise. I just did so, are you daft? :huh: The article wasn't about Nancy Pelosi, chief. You've got Pelosi on the Brain. :insane: The article was Mark Theissen's (George Bush's chief speechwriter!) notion that Obama's policy on torture constitutes democrats believing "the danger to our country has passed" and that "torture is no longer necessary". Only Obama has said nothing of the kind, nor did he "imply" it. Here is the key Obama administration quote in Theissen's article and what he bases his opinion on. I know you are just trying to be witty, lacking an effective argument, but I'd rather you just debate the points instead. :dis:
The article was meant as a warning to Americans against post 9/11 complacency. The quotes from Fi Fi and Blair were in direct response to questions about Pelosi's feeble efforts to pin her deficiencies on the CIA.
