What's Mallard raving about today?
Terrorist plots, The New York Times.
Sorry for the late post, for 2 straight days the Chronicle site hasn't been displaying Mallard at night.
Anyway, today Mallard is agog over the Kennedy terrorist plot (which the New York Times put on page 37, but Mallard made no mention of for over 2 months), thus proving the point he started to make yesterday.
You can divide the world into the Post 9-11 Bed Wetters (who will go down in history alongside the supporters of the Alien & Sedition Acts, Internment, and Joseph McCarthey) and those who want to adhere to core American values no matter what the threat.
3 comments:
You mean the plot where the "terrorists" never had any explosives, and the plot they devised simply wouldn't have worked? You mean the people who were caught by law enforcement, in a criminal, not military operation, just as John Kerry said they should be? You mean the saps who, just like all the other saps caught in supposed terror plots, were really just idiots who were completely incapable of coming up with any kind of realistic plan, and were goaded into their cabal by government informants? Yeah, that should be front page news. And that's what we should be focused on this Sept. 11, ludicrous keystone krooks who can't afford gunpowder, while Bush's friend Osama is still out there, because we pulled all the resources focused on him, and put them in a country that posed no threat to us whatsover.
And Tinny gets to draw another funky-looking airplane.
He's been bitching his tiny, empty little head off about airport security (and this week about airline delays), but not today! No, on 9-11 he completely changes his attitude and issues a deliberately vague "be thankful" statement.
Why so vague and seemingly-inclusive? Because otherwise it falls apart. He wants you to think "Oh! Yes! Be thankful to George Bush and the neoconservatives! They saved us from, um, POST 9-11 attacks! They really dropped the ball on 9-11 itself, but...hey! Those damned liberals, amirite?"
Wrong. "When WE thwarted?" Who's this "we," Tin-Tin? What role did you play? It was cops--the cops you like to depict as donut-snarfing losers, after you got busted a few times. And the terrorists who carried out the bombings of the USS Cole and the WTC parking garage were pursued and captured under that damned Clinton--who, as he left office, warned Li'l Dubbie that Osama bin Laden planned attacks on US soil.
It was Li'l Dubbie and his handlers who ignored that warning, and it was Li'l Dubbie and his handlers who were preoccupied with a stupid photo-op on the morning of 9-11, and it was Li'l Dubbie and his handlers who have let Osama bin Laden get away with it (revisionist TV-movies notwithstanding).
I remember that every day since 9-11. I don't need to make a holiday out of tragedy--or some pathetic propaganda comic strip--to remember what matters.
And as Ianrey pointed out, the JFK "terrorist plot" was simply not feasible. Maybe THAT's why it was put on page 37, Tin-Tin honey. You're trying to make it sound like another liberal media conspiracy because they didn't print SHIT YOUR PANTS IN SCREAMING TERROR! on the front page, but you're just displaying your idiocy. Again.
Uh, Tinny? Regarding your news reports, and lack thereof?
They shouldn't tell us when they thwart plots, just as you don't play battleship while sitting in front of a mirror. Logic dictates that the failures are publicized because they are failures and successes are not because a strategy will work more than once if the enemy doesn't know what it is.
Not that I'm entirely for this secret ops stuff, it just sounds so Big Brother to me. I'd rather live in fear of terrorist attacks from foreigners who hate me because I show my hair and ankles than from the government I elect, financially support, and place my trust and my rights in.
Strange, huh?
Post a Comment