News NY Times discloses secret Executive Order: NSA is spying domestically

  • Thread starter Thread starter rachmaninoff
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a New York Times report revealing that President Bush authorized the NSA to conduct domestic eavesdropping without court-approved warrants in the wake of the September 11 attacks. This marked a significant shift in U.S. intelligence practices, raising concerns about potential violations of constitutional rights. Many participants express skepticism about the legality and oversight of such surveillance, with some arguing that it has been known for years that the government has extensive surveillance capabilities. Others debate the implications for privacy rights, suggesting that if individuals are not engaged in criminal activity, they should not be concerned about government monitoring. The conversation also touches on historical abuses of surveillance powers and the potential for misuse in political contexts. Participants highlight the need for checks and balances to prevent the erosion of civil liberties, emphasizing that judicial oversight is crucial to maintaining accountability in surveillance practices. The discussion reflects a broader concern about the balance between national security and individual rights in the context of government surveillance.
  • #251
2005 Continued...

· Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html) , James S. Brady Briefing Room, December 19, 2005 (8:30 A.M. EST). re Alberto R. Gonzales and Michael V. Hayden.
· georgia10, "Gonzales: Congress Gave President The Authority To Spy On Americans," (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/19/9649/0429) Daily Kos, December 19, 2005.
· Pauline Jelinek, "Gonzales Says Congress Authorized Spying," (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/domestic_spying ) Associated Press (Yahoo! News), December 19, 2005 (10:15 A.M. EST).
· George W. Bush, News Release: Press Conference of the President (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/print/20051219-2.html) , White House East Room, December 19, 2005 (10:32 A.M. EST).
· "Bush says leaking spy program a 'shameful act'. President vows to continue domestic eavesdropping," (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10530417/) NBC News, December 19, 2005.
· Terence Hunt, "Bush Says NSA Surveillance Necessary, Legal," (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AmSFvZW2OzZZmC4Shu37rG2GOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY- ) Associated Press (Yahoo! News), December 19, 2005.
· "Bush vows more eavesdropping," (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051219/ts_nm/bush_security1_dc;_ylt=Ap1ou2ksw9pF9I5Evvcv5UiGOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4b3FrcXQ0BHNlYwMxNjkz ) Reuters (Yahoo! News), December 19, 2005.
· "Bush defends phone-tapping policy," (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4542880.stm) BBC, December 19, 2005.
· "Bush faces growing storm over secret wire taps," (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051219/ts_afp/usattacksbushintelligence_051219063805 ) Agence France Presse (Yahoo! News), December 19, 2005.
· "An Impeachable Offense? Bush Admits Authorizing NSA to Eavesdrop on Americans Without Court Approval," (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/19/1515212 ) Democracy Now!, December 19, 2005.
· David Sirota, "Bush's 'Need for Speed' Argument Runs Into the Truth," (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-33.htm ) The Huffington Post (Common Dreams), December 19, 2005.
· Gail Russell Chaddock, "Congress pushes back, hard, against Bush. Blindsided by news of domestic spying, it is holding up a key bill," (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1219/p01s01-uspo.htm) Christian Science Monitor, December 19, 2005.
· Sam Rosenfeld, "Laws and Lawlessness," (http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008678 ) TAPPED, December 19, 2005.
· Ezra Klein, "One Question," (http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008673 ) TAPPED, December 19, 2005.
· John Aravosis, "Did Bush domestic spy program eavesdrop on American journalists?" (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/did-bush-domestic-spy-program.html) AMERICAblog, December 19, 2005.
· Fred Barbash and Peter Baker, "Bush Defends Eavesdropping Program. Congress 'Authorized' Domestic Surveillance in Iraq War Resolution, Says President, Attorney General," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900211.html) Washington Post, December 19, 2005 (3:57 P.M. EST).
· "No President Is Above the Law," (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-35.htm ) by US Senator Robert C. Byrd, Floor Speech, December 19, 2005 (Common Dreams).
· "Missteps in the war on terror," (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512190111dec19,0,6699370.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed ) Chicago Tribune, December 19, 2005.
· "Alan Dershowitz: Bush broke the law," (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/19.html#a6391) Crooks and Liars, December 19, 2005. "Appearing on the Situation Room, Alan slammed King George over the wiretapping scandal." WMP and QT video links on page.
· "King George's federal crime," (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/19.html#a6390) Crooks and Liars, December 19, 2005. "Jonathan Turley-on the Factor said that President Bush's spying operation is based on a federal crime." No QT or WMP links as of December 20, 2005, but to come.
· Tom Tomorrow, "Wow," (http://thismodernworld.com/2568 ) This Modern World, December 19, 2005. "Fox’s in-house legal expert, Judge Andrew Napolitano, has strayed off the reservation."
· Jonathan Alter, "Bush’s Snoopgate. The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security," (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/ ) Newsweek (MSNBC), December 19, 2005 (6:17 P.M. EST). Also see Will Bunch, "'All the news that's fit to print' -- except when it's about us," (http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002583.html) Attytood, December 19, 2005.
· John Aravosis, "Bush lied during his press conference when he said Congress had approved his domestic spying program," (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-lied-during-his-press-conference.html) AMERICAblog, December 19, 2005 (6:29 P.M. EST). Link to handwritten letter (http://americablog.blogspot.com/Intell1.pdf) from Senator Jay Rockefeller to VP Dick Cheney "expressing his concern about the secret domestic spying program."
· "Boxer Asks Presidential Scholars About Former White House Counsel's Statement that Bush Admitted to an 'Impeachable Offense'," (http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=249975 ) Senator Barbara Boxer's official Senate website, December 19, 2005.
· Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney, Amanda Terkel and Payson Schwin, "The Truth About Bush's Warrantless Spying," (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=917053#3 ) The Progress Report, December 19, 2005.
· Eric Lichtblau and David E. Sanger, "Administration Cites War Vote in Spying Case," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20spy.html) New York Times, December 20, 2005.
· Peter Baker and Charles Babington, "Bush Addresses Uproar Over Spying. 'This Is a Different Era, a Different War,' He Says as Some Lawmakers Seek Probe," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900211.html) Washington Post, December 20, 2005.
· George F. Will, "Why Didn't He Ask Congress?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900975.html) Washington Post, December 20, 2005.
· James Rainey, "Critics Question Timing of Surveillance Story. The New York Times, which knew about the secret wiretaps for more than a year, published because of a reporter's new book, sources say," (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...0dec20,0,7619720.story?coll=la-home-headlines) Los Angeles Times, December 20, 2005.
· William A. Arkin, "Inside NSA's World," (http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/12/inside_nsas_wor.html) Washington Post, December 20, 2005.
· "Congressman calls for Bush impeachment," (http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=69123 ) Associated Press (Access NorthGa), December 20, 2005.
· Doug Ireland, "A Time to Impeach," (http://www.alternet.org/story/29826/) AlterNet, December 20, 2005.
· Dori Meinert, "Democrats assail wiretaps," (http://www.pjstar.com/stories/122005/REG_B8F6VK2M.060.shtml ) Copley News Service (PJStar.com), December 20, 2005.
· "Bush in 2004: We're 'Getting Court Orders' and 'Value the Constitution.' Did He Know He Was Lying?" (http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/05/12/ana05055.html) BuzzFlash, December 20, 2005.
· Press Release: "Pelosi Requests Declassification of Her Letter on NSA Activities" (http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/press/releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=1339): "House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on her request to the Director of National Intelligence to declassify a letter she wrote several years ago to the Bush Administration expressing concerns about the activities of the National Security Agency." Posted on Rep. Pelosi's official website, December 20, 2005.
· Bruce Fein, ". . . unlimited?" (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm ) Washington Times, December 20, 2005.
· Faiz Shakir, "Conservative Scholars Argue Bush’s Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense," (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/conservative-scholars-argue-bush%e2%80%99s-wiretapping-is-an-impeachable-offense/) Think Progress, December 20, 2005.
· "The Emerging Story Behind the Wiretap Scandal," (http://www.thedailybackground.com/2005/12/20/the-emerging-story-behind-the-wiretap-scandal/ ) The Daily Background, December 20, 2005. FISA timeline.
· Chuck Dupree, "FISA, Data Mining, and Total Information Awareness," (http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/003475.html) Bad Attitudes, December 20, 2005: "All of which would only be possible if the plans for Total Information Awareness had been carried through. ... And of course you’ve read Sen. Rockefeller’s [July 17, 2003,] letter (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/rock-cheney1.html ) [posted at Josh Marshall's Talking Points], which points in that direction as well…"
· Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer, "Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest. Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html ) Washington Post, December 21, 2005.
· Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei, "Clash Is Latest Chapter in Bush Effort to Widen Executive Power," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001858.html?nav=hcmodule) Washington Post, December 21, 2005.
· James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, "Purely domestic calls were intercepted. Secret surveillance program apparently broke its own rules," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html?pagewanted=print) New York Times (San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/21/MNGQ6GB5LM1.DTL&feed=rss.news)), December 21, 2005.
· Howard Fineman, "Spying, the Constitution — and the 'I-word'. 2006 will offer up Nixon-era nastiness and a chorus of calls to impeach Bush," (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561966/) MSNBC, December 21, 2005.
· Molly Ivins, "So 9/11 Means it's OK to Spy on Americans?" (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1221-26.htm ) Daily Camera (Boulder, Colorado) (Common Dreams), December 21, 2005.
· Josh Meyer, "Officials Fault Case Bush Cited. Internal breakdowns, not shortcomings in spy laws, were at play before Sept. 11, they say," (http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...1,1,6843643.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage) Los Angeles Times, December 21, 2005.
· Maureen Dowd, "The Squires of Surveillance," (http://www.topplebush.com/oped2405.shtml ) New York Times (topplebush.com), December 21, 2005.
· Robert Koehler, "Fear of the Devil," (http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_robert_k_051221_fear_of_the_devil.htm ) Tribune Media Service (OpEdNews), December 21, 2005.
· John Atcheson, "The Real Story Behind Snoopgate," (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1222-32.htm ) Common Dreams, December 22, 2005.
· "Congress said no on war powers: Daschle," (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-12-23T095714Z_01_ROB325760_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml) Reuters, December 23, 2005: Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle "said in Friday's edition of The Washington Post [that] the [post-9/11] resolution did not grant President Bush authority to order warrantless spying on Americans suspected of terrorist ties. Daschle said warrantless wiretaps of Americans never came up in the negotiations."
· "US high court nominee urged eavesdropping immunity," (http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-12-24T044309Z_01_KRA416957_RTRUKOC_0_US-COURT-ALITO.xml) Reuters, December 23, 2005.
· Tom Brune, "Alito’s view on wiretaps. Memo he wrote in ’84 reveals he backed official who ordered warrantless wiretap of group in 1970," (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...0382.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines) Newsday, December 23, 2005.
· David G. Savage and Richard A. Serrano, "Alito Backed Immunity for Wiretapping," (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-alito24dec24,1,7614906.story?coll=la-headlines-politics ) Los Angeles Times, December 24, 2005: "Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr. said in a 1984 memo that he believed the president's top lawyer should be shielded from being sued for approving illegal, warrantless wiretaps on the grounds of national security, an issue that has flared anew and could complicate his Senate confirmation next month."
· Charlie Savage, "Alito backed immunity in wiretap case," (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w.../12/24/alito_backed_immunity_in_wiretap_case/) Boston Globe, December 24, 2005.
· Edward Epstein, "Bush to face tough questions over Patriot Act, spy orders," (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/24/MNGBOGD4FF1.DTL) San Francisco Chronicle, December 24, 2005.
· Tim Rutten, "Regarding Media. Paranoia on the left and the right," (http://www.calendarlive.com/columnists/rutten/cl-et-rutten24dec24,0,1478815.column?coll=cl-calendar ) CalendarLive.com, December 24, 2005: "WHEN George W. Bush promised that his administration would promote faith-based initiatives, who would have guessed that one of them would involve asserting the divine right of presidents? ... Well, now we know."
· Gabriel Sherman, "Why Times Ran Wiretap Story, Defying Bush," (http://www.observer.com/printpage.asp?iid=12123&ic=Off+the+Record ) New York Observer, December 26, 2005 (issue).
· "Powell Supports Government Eavesdropping," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500280.html ) Associated Press (Washington Post), December 26, 2005.
· "Powell Backs Bush on Domestic Spying," (http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-12-26-voa8.cfm ) Voice of America, December 26, 2005.
· Sydney H. Schanberg, "Checks and No Balance. The story is Bush's spying, not the story's messenger," (http://villagevoice.com/news/0552,schanberg,71325,6.html ) Village Voice, December 27, 2005.
· Gal Beckerman, "The Times and the Post Go Silent On Us," (http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/the_times_and_the_post_go_sile.php) CJR Daily, December 27, 2005.
· Joe Strupp, "Some Veteran Journalists Say Times And Post Should Have Disclosed Meeting with Bush on Controversial Stories," (http://editorandpublisher.printthis...ay.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001738089&partnerID=60) Editor & Publisher, December 27, 2005.
· "Secret surveillance up sharply since 9/11," (http://today.reuters.com/PrinterFri...25760_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml) Reuters, December 28, 2005.
· Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, "Defense Lawyers in Terror Cases Plan Challenges Over Spy Efforts," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/politics/28legal.html?pagewanted=print) New York Times, December 28, 2005.
· Anick Jesdanun, "NSA Web site puts 'cookies' on computers," (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/tech/D8EPN03G2.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc ) Associated Press (BusinessWeek), December 29, 2005.
· Jon Van, "Phone giants mum on spying. In past, industry has cooperated with U.S.," (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/natio...rint.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines) New York Newsday, December 29, 2005.
· Dana Priest, "Covert CIA Program Withstands New Furor. Anti-Terror Effort Continues to Grow," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901585_pf.html) Washington Post, December 30, 2005.

There should be something here for everyone. :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #252
SOS2008 said:
There should be something here for everyone. :biggrin:

No kidding. But what exactly does it say for you and how?
 
  • #253
crazycalhoun said:
No kidding. But what exactly does it say for you and how?
Did you follow any of the links? Are all of the authors of those papers lying or misguided? You should offer a sound rebuttal or crawl back under your bridge.
 
  • #254
turbo-1 said:
Did you follow any of the links? Are all of the authors of those papers lying or misguided?

Actually, no. And I don't see why I should follow a series of random links that address no specific charge raised by our friend.

You should offer a sound rebuttal or crawl back under your bridge.

You should string together something worth rebuttin or get to the back of the bus.
 
  • #255
crazycalhoun said:
Actually, no. And I don't see why I should follow a series of random links that address no specific charge raised by our friend.
The links are not random, and many of us who care about the future viability of our country have collected such links. These are serious concerns in a time when out country is being hijacked by the Military-Industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower (a fine Republican military man with an astute perception of politics) warned us about. If you have some credible sources to support your assertions, please trot them out. It would be nice to have an exchange with someone from the "other side" who employs any argumentative tactic besides "you're wrong, the president is right!"
 
  • #256
turbo-1 said:
The links are not random, and many of us who care about the future viability of our country have collected such links.

I'm not convinced, but you're welcome to actually present your case as to why they aren't. And while you're establishing relevance, let's establish authority as well.

These are serious concerns in a time when out country is being hijacked by the Military-Industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower (a fine Republican military man with an astute perception of politics) warned us about.

I don't think Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex per se. In fact, he said: " n the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." In that same speech, he also said: "[y]et, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." The section in question concerned principally the transition from privately funded innovation in civilian and military sectors to public institutions of Big Science and Defense. I guess you could say that the NSF and Base Closures are perfect examples of the sort of confluence of privilege and political power could produce.

If you have some credible sources to support your assertions, please trot them out.

I think for the most part I'm just disagreeing with you. If and when I have my own assertion to present, I'll keep them in mind. In the meantime, you'd do better to defend your position and whine about how I critique it.

It would be nice to have an exchange with someone from the "other side" who employs any argumentative tactic besides "you're wrong, the president is right!"

It'd be nice to have an exchange with someone who actually responds to arguments rather than his straw representation of them. :biggrin:
 
  • #257
crazycalhoun said:
I don't think Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex per se. In fact, he said: " n the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." In that same speech, he also said: "[y]et, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." The section in question concerned principally the transition from privately funded innovation in civilian and military sectors to public institutions of Big Science and Defense. I guess you could say that the NSF and Base Closures are perfect examples of the sort of confluence of privilege and political power could produce.
You may wish to research Eisenhower's comments a bit. In his initial drafts, he was calling it the "military-industrial-congressional" complex, and took out the "congressional" part before his presentation to avoid controversy. Eisenhower was appalled by what he saw going on in Washington, and rightly so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex
 
  • #258
turbo-1 said:
You may wish to research Eisenhower's comments a bit.

I don't see anything in your non sequitur that suggests I should.
 
  • #259
Interesting! Every post that you cannot repudiate in a rational fashion is a non sequitur.

I repeat (from above), the Reagan/Bush administration considered Saddam their fair-haired boy in the middle east, helping to insulate Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from the Islamic fundamentalism arising in Iran. They pumped arms, money, and intelligence his way, including the satellite intelligence that he used to gas the Kurds. They actively supported Saddam as he deprived the eastern Shiites of their wetlands and gassed the Kurds. It was not until he attacked Kuwait that Bush senior forgot how to pronounce his friend's name and started calling him "Saaadem".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Why was W so sure that Saddam had WMDs? Because Daddy and uncle Ronnie gave him those weapons.
 
  • #260
turbo-1 said:
Interesting! Every post that you cannot repudiate in a rational fashion is a non sequitur.

Aside from not being remotely close to the truth, your remarks here amount to a non sequitur; they lack any connection to my preceding post. Which was all of one line.

I repeat (from above), the Reagan/Bush administration considered Saddam their fair-haired boy in the middle east, helping to insulate Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from the Islamic fundamentalism arising in Iran.

Repetition does not make your case.

They pumped arms, money, and intelligence his way, including the satellite intelligence that he used to gas the Kurds.

1. There is no evidence that the US supplied any satellite intelligence to Hussein in connection with the Halabja attack. I think you may be confusing this with intelligence used in chemical attacks against Iran.

2. None of this has anything to do with fairness of Saddam's hair, whether or not he's a boy, or whether Presidents Reagan and Bush owned him. :biggrin:

They actively supported Saddam as he deprived the eastern Shiites of their wetlands and gassed the Kurds.

1. President Reagan wasn't in office when Hussein drained the southern marshlands.

2. What active support did President George H. W. Bush give Hussein during the 1991 uprisings?

It was not until he attacked Kuwait that Bush senior forgot how to pronounce his friend's name and started calling him "Saaadem".

Where are the tapes? :biggrin:

Why was W so sure that Saddam had WMDs? Because Daddy and uncle Ronnie gave him those weapons.

Where are the relevant Executive Orders? :biggrin:
 
  • #261
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #262
turbo-1 said:
Please educate yourself. If you wish to refute these sources (including the CIA and the State Department) please cite some authoritative sources. The trolling is getting out of hand.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#05
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html
Hear! Hear! Those who do not read links/sources provided by others, or who do not provide evidence of their own are just trolling. DNFTT.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #263
turbo-1 said:
Please educate yourself.

I'm satisfied with my education as it is, but if you wish to add to it you can start by addressing the points I've raised rather than pursuing this losing tactic of posting random links without bothering to place them in context with your previous remarks. After all, I'm not going to debate a bunch of off-site material you believe support your point of view unless placed in the context of an argument. Especially when they contradict points you've already raised. For example:

Iraq did turn its chemical weapons against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq, but the [US] intelligence officers say they were not involved in planning any of the military operations in which those assaults occurred.

Now I'm inclined to believe you simply don't consider your own evidence thoroughly; otherwise, you may have been tempted to actually incorporate it in some meaningful way. I definitely wouldn't accuse you of dishonesty. Either way, I definitely have no reason to put faith that you will represent the content of your own evidence faithfully.

SOS2008 said:
Hear! Hear! Those who do not read links/sources provided by others, or who do not provide evidence of their own are just trolling. DNFTT.

How does me-too'ing someone elses dicta constitute fact?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #264
crazycalhoun said:
I'm satisfied with my education as it is,
Now I understand why you post no sources, and offer only opinions.

I would suggest to Turbo and SOS that you simply ignore this person, since they are obviously just trolling.
 
  • #265
Skyhunter said:
Now I understand why you post no sources...

Might help if you started off by saying something factually correct. But don't let me get in the way of your me-too'ing. SOS, Turbo, I invite you and Sky to ignore me :biggrin:
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
51
Views
6K
Replies
38
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
19
Views
10K
Back
Top