See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On May 2nd, 2009 at 8:15 pm, zyzzyg said:

   On May 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm, txvet2 said: #93

   Already dealt with. In short, he had no reason to proffer an (official) opinion during the Bush Administration, since he was not (as you claimed) a member of the administration, and had nothing to do with Guantanamo or prisoner affairs. The document in question here is an official response to a solicitation from the current administration.

   Yes, Andy McCarthy was responding to a solicitation from the current Administration. But, why would the current Administration send him an invitation on this issue?

   In McCarthy’s own words from the provided link -

   ” . . . convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases . . . ”

   ” . . . It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties . . . “

   So, had his letter been read and fully comprehended one would know he had dealt with terrorism cases, had opinions, and been in several adminstrations.

   Since he had no reason to proffer an (official) opinion during the Bush Administration, I would like to know if he would say the same thing he did about the Obama Administration releasing detainees? (BTW, the Obama Administration has yet to release any detainees.) Would he be consistent? Where was his opinion when Pres Bush was releasing the detainees?

   OK, he may, or may not, have been asked by the Bush Administration to opine on the release of detainees. And, this goes back to post #7. What was, or is, his opinion. Is it the same?

   He may be silent, because he hasn’t been asked, on the fact that the Bush Administration released detainees. So, I am asking. Asking a question that has been sliced and diced, looking for implications, impugning, assigned motived, and beleived to be some sort of conspiracy on my part.

   Extremely unlikely, or you wouldn’t be doing your best to impugn his honesty.

   I did not know a question could impugn anyone’s honesty. I only thought an accusatory statement could do that. There is a difference between asking someone if they are liar, and saying unequivocally that they are a liar. Without proof the later opens one to libel.

   When asked, and then answered, the question goes away. When stated, an accusation remains until resolved in a libel case.

   [Please, cut and paste where I called McCarthy a hypocrite.]

   And, ‘loaded’ now means that you can’t ask about consistentcy? And, what is to fear about ‘loaded’ questions? OH Yeah, answering the question inconsistently makes you a hypocrite.

   LOL.

   That is from my post #84 in response to post #80.

   To my knowledge Andy McCarthy has not answered the question, . . . consistently, or inconsistently, therefore I, or no one, can conclude that he is, or is not, a hypocrite.

   I stand by my statement, that anyone who answers inconsistently any question, is a hypocrite.

   Besides, I did not say McCarthy is a hypocrite, I said, “answering the question inconsistently makes you a hypocrite.”

   One more time. Did McCarthy answer the question? I am guessing no he did not. Hence without any answer it can not be concluded that McCarthy is a hypocrite.

   Nice try.

   Once again, it wasn’t phrased as a solicitation for information, but as an attempt to impugn by implication. But, if you seriously wanted to know his opinion prior to this letter, you could have done your own search. Which adds “lazy” to your resume.

   Had I made the statement, not asked a question, but the following statement, “This guy was no where to be found when Pres Bush released detainees, and said nothing about it.” At that point it would be incumbent upon me to demonstrate my accusation. To back up my statement. To determine and deliver proof that he was silent, and/or approved the decision.

   I am typing it slowly, so please read it slowly. There is a difference between a question and an accustion.

   Serious question, do you know and recognize the difference between and accustaion and a question?

   I think we’re done here. On to the next thread.

   OK.

   It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties.

2. #102
   On May 2nd, 2009 at 8:26 pm, Ragspierre said:

   texvet;

   As you have by now ascertained, the z troll is past a waste

   of

   time.

   You, and everyone else, will know it by its true colors when next it rears its soft-mouthed slimy little head.

3. #103
   On May 2nd, 2009 at 8:52 pm, zyzzyg said:

   On May 2nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm, Joy said: #95

   Fear – There you go again. Typical troll behavior. Use an inflamatory word to attempt to place yourself above those who refuse to be baited.

   LOL.

   Of course, there I go again. Why? Because, you have yet to answer the question from post #7. My conclusion for someone not answering a question is that they are afraid.

   Repeating for your benefit, because you did not acknowledge it the first time -

   Was fulldroolcup’s question to me in post #67 loaded? And, did I answer it in post #69? Loaded or not, simple or not, I have no fear in answering a question. Others do, and I call them ostriches.

   Will you acknowledge and respond this time? (1)

   As for the use of inflammatory words, is “troll” not inflammatory? (2) Like it or not, that is part of the blog world.

   Not baiting, just asking. Of course, if you don’t, you know what my conclusion will be. And, I know what what your response will be. “There you go again” and “troll behavior.”

   OK, how about stopping the cycle, and at least answer these two most recent questions?

   Absolutely amazing you DEMAND answers from others to a so-called question that you admit you don’t have an answer to. How disingenuous can you get?

   Head spinning in disbeleif, Huh? Do you ask questions that you already have the answers to? Why ask the question then? Questions are often asked because people do not know the answer.

   As for ‘demanding’, I think not. I have never used the word demand, and suggest you cut and paste where I did. I have called out their fear. I have challenged people repeatedly by asking, over and over again, but no, I have never ‘demanded, anything.

   You seem to have difficulty in differentiating between a question, assigning motive to it, and an actual statement. Not to mention your penchant for seeing things that are not there.

   Yes, I admit I do not know the answer, and that is why I asked the question. I have said it many times.

   Take a deep breath and think about it. Re-read some of the olde posts. Count to ten.

   What are YOU afraid of Z-troll? Why won’t YOU answer your own question? Fear got your tongue?

   LOL.

   Whoa, is that inflammatory language?

   Answering your questions, as I have done before, as I have done with fulldroolcup (no matter how silly), and as I will always do.

   I am afraid of women with mustaches, little else, well snakes too, but certainly not of answering questions.

   Repeating for your beneift -

   I don’t know, and that is why I asked the question, to know, and to get the facts. I have said so in many posts.

   Nope. Fear does not have my tongue. How about you?

4. #104
   On May 3rd, 2009 at 1:41 am, txvet2 said:

   On May 2nd, 2009 at 8:26 pm, Ragspierre said:

   It’s never a complete waste of time to smoke them out and poke holes in their facades. As I would guess is also the case with you and others, I don’t respond to trolls to convince the trolls. It obviously can’t be done.

5. #105
   On May 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 am, Ragspierre said:

   It’s never a complete waste of time to smoke them out and poke holes in their facades. As I would guess is also the case with you and others, I don’t respond to trolls to convince the trolls. It obviously can’t be done.

   I know…and its fun.

   They are like earth augers…the more they spin…

   the deeper they dig themselves in…!!!

   The z troll is whirring!!!

6. #106
   On May 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 am, fulldroolcup said:

   Heh.

   When I asked z an obviously loaded question in #67 to point out the kind of fallacious argument he is making, he not only didn’t “get it”, he took the bait.

   Heh.

   For your edification, z, my question in #67 IS a loaded one, just as was your original about McCarthy.

   My question wasn’t based on FACT any more than yours was.

   My question simply ASSUMED reprehensible behavior on your part, just as yours did McCarthy.

   QED.

7. #107
   On May 3rd, 2009 at 11:59 am, Ragspierre said:

   Full;

   Exactly…!!!

   And, between the two of you, and with his unwitting assistance, you provided an excellent “teaching moment”.

   I love demonstrating…and demolishing…the tactics of leftists.

   Thank you for joining me in our little exercise here!

8. #108
   On May 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm, zyzzyg said:

   On May 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 am, fulldroolcup said: #106

   Heh.

   When I asked z an obviously loaded question in #67 to point out the kind of fallacious argument he is making, he not only didn’t “get it”, he took the bait.

   Heh.

   For your edification, z, my question in #67 IS a loaded one, just as was your original about McCarthy.

   My question wasn’t based on FACT any more than yours was.

   My question simply ASSUMED reprehensible behavior on your part, just as yours did McCarthy.

   QED.

   Did you even bother to read my repsonse in post #69?

   For your benefit I’ll give you the first two lines.

   LOL.

   Not taking you seriously here, but I will play along.

   You are quick to note ‘implications’, what is the ‘implication’ of me not taking you seriously? That I took the question seriously, but not you? What is the ‘implication’ of the words ‘play along’?

   I deconstructed your question pointing out exactly where you assumed facts not in evidence, and where you made assumptions. Not going to do it again, go back and re-read it. You very well may learn something.

   And once you learn it, come back and deconstruct my question from post #7 the same way.

   Please pay special attention to any fact in that question that is wrong. Where assumptions are made. Don’t complain about the question, don’t offer any implications, don’t tell me about your feelings and opinions, don’t mention any words that aren’t in the question, just lay out the factual inaccuracies of the words used in the question. As I did to your question from post# 67.

   Show me where in the question I assumed, or assigned, any reprehensible behaviour on the Part of Andy McCarthy.

   And, here is some real bait. Put up, or shut up. Show me the lack of facts, show me the assumptions.

   Again for your benefit, the original question -

   Where was this guy and his opinion when the Bush Admnistration released 60 odd detainees from Gitmo?

   Demonstratum?

   The Ball is in your court.

9. #109
   On May 3rd, 2009 at 4:23 pm, Ragspierre said:

   The Ball is in your court.

   But, as demonstrated, the z troll has no “balls” to put in the court…

10. #110
    On May 3rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    We’re just making the rubble bounce here, but :

    your question assumes that McCarthy should have objected then to what Obama and Holder are proposing now, even though (a) McC was never invited then to sit on a “task force” to chew the fat over a policy decision that Holder has already reached; (b) the policy decision McCarthy is primarily objecting to is discontinuance of waterboarding, not release of prisoners, and (c) at no time did the Bush administration ever threaten Clinton lawyers in the DOJ for their legal opinions on, say, rendition of prisoners to countries like Egypt that lack our fastidiousness about treatment of terrorists—yet Obama has left the door open to exactly that (a fact you curiously ignore).

    To your specific question: At no time has McCarthy ever objected to the release of every Gitmo prisoner, as he and every other serious person following the cases remember that some detainees were considered to have swept up by mistake, or to have been “small potatoes”.

    He, unlike you, also recognizes that some of those released have since gone back into active service with the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

    So ya think he might now argue that, based on our experience, those still at Gitmo, having been through several rounds of interrogation and the vetting of the circumstances of their detainment, are too dangerous to release?

    YA THINK?

    As John Maynard Keynes was wont to say: “When the facts change, I change my mind — what do you do, sir? …

    Finally, it very gratifying to serious Americans of every political persuasion to see Obama and Holder in fact quietly ratifying and continuing MANY of the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism positions, on Gitmo, rendition, wiretapping, the “state secret” defense, and the continued use of military tribunals.

    Go over to the lefty sites and see the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth over Obama’s perfidy:

    “How can we charge Bush and Cheney with war crimes if “we” are doing the same things??”

    To borrow a line from The Rolling Stones, you’ve just been schooled with a strap across your back. Want more?

11. #111
    On May 3rd, 2009 at 7:36 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    I guess z decided he’s had his “fair share of abuse”, to borrow another Rolling Stones line.

    QED.

12. #112
    On May 3rd, 2009 at 8:19 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On May 3rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm, fulldroolcup said: #110

    We’re just making the rubble bounce here, but :

    Nope. We’re finally getting you to be specific.

    your question assumes that McCarthy should have objected then to what Obama and Holder are proposing now,

    Nope. No such assertion.

    If anything I assumed he had an ‘opinion’ then, and asked why didn’t he share his ‘opinion’ then.

    even though (a) McC was never invited then to sit on a “task force” to chew the fat over a policy decision that Holder has already reached;

    I didn’t address invitations in my question. I didn’t address AG Holder in my question.

    I had hope you would avoid speaking to things I did not say in my question. Typical liberal tactics, going on a tangent.

    (b) the policy decision McCarthy is primarily objecting to is discontinuance of waterboarding, not release of prisoners,

    Again, not in my question.

    The question does not speak to what are his objections, but to being consistent in giving his opinion. And if he were consistent, would he say the same things about what Pres Bush did?

    [Note: To date pres Obama has not released any detainess, while Pres Bush already has.]

    Andy McCarthy objects to several things, and I listed a few in post #7, of which, waterboarding was not mentioned, but release of detainees is.

    and (c) at no time did the Bush administration ever threaten Clinton lawyers in the DOJ for their legal opinions on, say, rendition of prisoners to countries like Egypt that lack our fastidiousness about treatment of terrorists—yet Obama has left the door open to exactly that (a fact you curiously ignore).

    Again, I did not mention Clinton, rendition, possible Bush Administration threats, or what doors Pres Obama left open in my question. More liberal tactics of redirection, diversion and distraction.

    And, no I am not ignoring any facts. Were the issue was what Pres Obama is doing, I would certainly address that.

    I thought you would be responding to my request that you deconstruct my question.

    In the next discussion we can exchange veiws on Pres Obama’s policy.

    I truly, truly, had hope you would avoid speaking to things I did not say in my question.

    To your specific question: At no time has McCarthy ever objected to the release of every Gitmo prisoner, as he and every other serious person following the cases remember that some detainees were considered to have swept up by mistake, or to have been “small potatoes”.

    Again, not in my question from post #7.

    And, McCarthy said the following in his open letter, linked by MM, ” . . . I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities . . . ” Sounds like an objection to me.

    OK, maybe McCarthy never objected to the release of every Gitmo prisoner, . . . until now.

    He, unlike you, also recognizes that some of those released have since gone back into active service with the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

    Again, not in my question, and more liberal tactics of destractions, diversion and changing the subject.

    And, how would you know what I think, beleive, or know? You can try asking, but you seem to have a thing about questions. So, in the next discussion we can exchange veiws on what I know, think, or believe, about what the detainees released by Pres Bush are doing.

    So ya think he might now argue that, based on our experience, those still at Gitmo, having been through several rounds of interrogation and the vetting of the circumstances of their detainment, are too dangerous to release?

    Again, not in my question.

    I do not know what Andy McCarthy thinks, believes, or knows. But, I would certainly ask him. Just like I did in my question from post #7. I don’t know, so I ask.

    YA THINK?

    My position on the detainees is that they should be tried. And, that it should not have taken seven years of kicking the can down the road.

    Glad you asked, but that wasn’t in my question either. Taking a tangent, yet more liberal tactics.

    As John Maynard Keynes was wont to say: “When the facts change, I change my mind — what do you do, sir? …

    I am still waiting for you to point out the facts in my question that you take issue with. You said in post #106, “My question wasn’t based on FACT any more than yours was.”

    When I am presented with the facts, or non-facts, from my question, I will let you know if what Keynes says has any bearing on the issue.

    So, please, please, stop your liberal tactics of redirecting, distractraction, and changing the subject and tell me about the absent facts from my question.

    Finally, it very gratifying to serious Americans of every political persuasion to see Obama and Holder in fact quietly ratifying and continuing MANY of the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism positions, on Gitmo, rendition, wiretapping, the “state secret” defense, and the continued use of military tribunals.

    OK.

    Though it could be argued that the Obama Administration is doing some of it slightly differently. Detainees will continue to be held, but eventually not at Gitmo. A difference without true distinction.

    OH, again, this does not address any part of my original question.

    Go over to the lefty sites and see the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth over Obama’s perfidy:

    “How can we charge Bush and Cheney with war crimes if “we” are doing the same things??”

    I could care less about what an anonymous liberal is saying. You and I are having a discussion. Your liberal blog references do not help you deconstruct my question.

    To borrow a line from The Rolling Stones, you’ve just been schooled with a strap across your back. Want more?

    Want more?

    LOL.

    I am still waiting for you to point to where in my question I suggested Andy McCarthy is ‘reprehensible’, and that facts do not exist in it. Still waiting for your detailed explanation of how the question is ‘loaded’.

    Since you asked, no I do not want more, I just want you to prove, by deconstructing my question, your assertions.

13. #113
    On May 4th, 2009 at 1:33 am, Politicalguano said:

    Is waterboarding, conducted within the listed guidelines really torture, or just really boring? I can hold my breath for 40 seconds under water let alone with a towel on my face. After an accident while exercising, I developed a severe chronic pain syndrome that is truly torture. Nothing these Gitmo Islamic mass murderers ever got compares to what I go through every day. The only sympathy they would ever get from me is a painless death. I give my thanks to the Bush administration for keeping the US safe despite the best efforts of democrat traitors.

14. #114
    On May 4th, 2009 at 8:58 am, Ragspierre said:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/05/01/torture_no_except

    Krauthammer usually says it clearly and well. This is another good example.