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

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.

QED.

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?

The Ball is in your court.

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

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.

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!

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.

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!!!

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.