Quote :

"Salty McPinchburger."

Quote :

"Pinchy McSaltburger."

whatever. i just get hard thinking about how hard hooksaw gets thinking about him







[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 1:19 AM. Reason : ]

5/7/2008 1:18:42 AM

Quote :

"I'm gonna go masturbate while thinking of Hooksaw. . . ."

Quote :

"i just get hard thinking about how hard hooksaw gets. . . ."

JoeSodomy

Please immediately remove any thoughts of me--erotic or otherwise--from your mind, such as it is. Thank you.

5/7/2008 4:57:51 AM

The Times hates the CIA, too.

NYT reveals name of KSM's chief interrogator — against CIA's wishes

Quote :

"Too bad, because an otherwise fascinating story about the scramble to build a counterterror apparatus after 9/11, the merits of coercive vs. non-coercive interrogation, and the stings that nailed Abu Zubaydah and KSM is going to be submerged in a debate over their decision to publish the lead interrogator's name against his wishes and those of CIA chief Michael Hayden. Here's the obligatory editor's note justifying the decision. Quote: After discussion with agency officials and a lawyer for [the interrogrator], the newspaper declined the request, noting that [the interrogator] had never worked under cover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news stories and books. The editors judged that the name was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article. The Times' policy is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely, most often in the case of victims of sexual assault or intelligence officers operating under cover. Read the piece and you'll see that credibility and completeness have nothing to do with it. It's not a story about him; he's just the springboard to explore the themes I mentioned earlier. They could have as easily used his initials, an alias, or no name at all and the article wouldn't suffer a bit. As for credibility, that's easy: Just make a deal with Hayden that in return for withholding the name he'd agree to go on record and vouch for the fact that the identity of the agent as known to the Times was correct. Did they even offer? Doesn't sound like it. The real motive here in disclosing his name, quite obviously, is to avoid setting a precedent by which they'd feel obligated to withhold names every time a government agency asked them to. That's fine in the abstract, but it can be handled on a case by case basis. If your subject is known to be an antagonist of some of the world's most dangerous terrorists, and his former boss is telling you he has reason to believe it'd be better if his name wasn't divulged, why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Here's a better question. The Times mentions in the story that the interrogator refused to be interviewed for it; everything in it is based on interviews with his colleagues — some of whom, do note, aren't named. If he had cooperated and talked to them, would they have agreed not to identify him in return? There's no way to tell but I suspect so, which makes the decision to name him essentially … punitive. Especially the gratuitous detail about who his current employer is and what he's up to these days. As I say, though, don't let it stop you from reading the piece. The part about Poland being the 51st state is alone worth the price of admission. Exit quotation: Mr. Mohammed, according to one former C.I.A. officer briefed on the sessions, 'would go through these emotional cycles.' 'He'd be chatty, almost friendly,' the officer added. 'He liked to debate. He got to the stage where he'd draw parallels between Christianity and Islam and say, "Can't we get along?"' By this account, [the interrogator] would reply to the man who had overseen the killing of nearly 3,000 people: 'Isn't it a little late for that?' Update: Commenters in the Headlines item are comparing the Times's stance here to its stance on Plame, but Plame was apparently undercover when her identity was leaked whereas the interrogator here was, allegedly, never covert. The objection isn't that the Times published classified info; it's that they published sensitive info, against the CIA's wishes, for no apparent reason."

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/21/nyt-reveals-name-of-ksms-chief-interrogator-against-cias-wishes/

6/25/2008 7:05:53 AM

Quote :

"The Times' policy is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely, most often in the case of victims of sexual assault or intelligence officers operating under cover."

The guy wasn't under cover. So what's the big deal?

The NYT's is using its 1st Amendment rights to investigate issues that one day might impact Americans' 8th Amendment right. Heaven forbid, Uncle Joe.

6/25/2008 8:01:54 AM

^no one is arguing that wheather they have the "right" to do it or not.......Do you think his name has does any justification to the story? I dont. The whole world now knows who this CIA interrogator is. What does that have to do with the story????

Any interrogated or tortured US prisoner could be released and come hunt this guy down. You dont have a problem with this?

6/25/2008 8:29:35 AM

Fuck the CIA. More light needs to be shined in there. Maybe some day they'll stop acting like a bunch of unamerican third world dictators.

6/25/2008 9:06:52 AM

^^Well by that standard, we should withhold names of police officers and judges involved in criminal cases.

I think "completeness" is a compelling reason to include names.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 9:12 AM. Reason : ^^]

6/25/2008 9:12:25 AM

if his name wasn't given, people would be bitching that it's yet another unnamed source so it can't be trusted.

6/25/2008 12:47:47 PM

Quote :

"Fuck the CIA. More light needs to be shined in there. Maybe some day they'll stop acting like a bunch of unamerican third world dictators."

are you serious? Please tell us why you dont like the CIA.......or do you think we live in some fantasy land where no one wants to do us harm??!

6/25/2008 1:08:43 PM

I knew from the title that this was going to be yet another retarded hooksaw thread.

It must be hard work to be so indignant all the time.

6/25/2008 1:10:27 PM

Quote :

"are you serious? Please tell us why you dont like the CIA.......or do you think we live in some fantasy land where no one wants to do us harm??!"

I don't think anyone would have a problem with their basic role.

It's their historically awful tactics that any informed person would at least be a little uneasy with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Organizational_history

6/25/2008 1:17:41 PM

For the idiots:

Quote :

"Read the piece and you'll see that credibility and completeness have nothing to do with it. It's not a story about him; he's just the springboard to explore the themes I mentioned earlier. They could have as easily used his initials, an alias, or no name at all and the article wouldn't suffer a bit. As for credibility, that's easy: Just make a deal with Hayden that in return for withholding the name he'd agree to go on record and vouch for the fact that the identity of the agent as known to the Times was correct. Did they even offer? Doesn't sound like it. The real motive here in disclosing his name, quite obviously, is to avoid setting a precedent by which they'd feel obligated to withhold names every time a government agency asked them to. That's fine in the abstract, but it can be handled on a case by case basis. If your subject is known to be an antagonist of some of the world's most dangerous terrorists, and his former boss is telling you he has reason to believe it'd be better if his name wasn't divulged, why not give him the benefit of the doubt?"

Quote :

"Commenters in the Headlines item are comparing the Times's stance here to its stance on Plame, but Plame was apparently undercover when her identity was leaked whereas the interrogator here was, allegedly, never covert. The objection isn't that the Times published classified info; it's that they published sensitive info, against the CIA's wishes, for no apparent reason."

6/26/2008 5:51:13 AM

N.Y. Times Op-Ed Page Rejects McCain Iraq Piece

Quote :

"Prospective authors don't usually make a big announcement when their prose is rejected by the New York Times Op-Ed page. But John McCain's campaign is telling the world that the liberal opinion and commentary page turned down his submission on Iraq, just days after publishing a similar piece by Barack Obama. The Obama article made the case that his administration could 'safely redeploy' most U.S. forces from Iraq over a 16-month period. The McCain camp, sensing an equal-time opportunity, submitted its Iraq piece Friday. 'The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops,' it said. 'All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first 'fact finding' trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months.' About two hours later, David Shipley, the paper's opinion editor, wrote: I'd be very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page. However, I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach. The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. [ ]To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. Sounds like a pretty high bar. Shipley, by the way, served as a speechwriter and special assistant to then-President Clinton.And the McCain camp was already steamed at the Times over that much-criticized news story about his relationship to a female lobbyist."

But I'm sure this Shipley is a conservative, right?

7/21/2008 7:14:51 PM

bump by request

6/4/2009 5:49:38 PM

Gunman Kills Soldier Outside Recruiting Station

Quote :

"A version of this article appeared in print on June 2, 2009, on page A16 of the New York edition."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02recruit.html

Don't you think this story deserved more prominence than page 16? How about the front page?

If a conservative had shot a liberal anywhere in the world--instead of a Muslim shooting a soldier down in the street--it would've been front page, I can assure you. This kind of thing just gets old.

6/4/2009 7:01:25 PM

you know what else gets old?

no.... no, you probably don't

6/4/2009 7:12:45 PM

^^ did any newspapers run it on the front page?

And that "liberal" gunman is probably farther right than even you.

[Edited on June 4, 2009 at 7:47 PM. Reason : ]

6/4/2009 7:46:37 PM

NEW YORK SLIMES

WASHINGTON COMPOST

RALEIGH NEWS AND DISTURBER

ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTIPATION

You should commit your life to uncovering the great conspiracy against America by the newspapers. Do you seriously think that in a time of declining revenues they're sitting down and deciding on what they cover based on a political agenda? Or are they reporting what we, the general public, want to read about. A newspaper is a business, and a business will die if it doesn't give the customers what they want (whether they should be reading other stories or not, the public isn't always smart).

6/5/2009 11:19:45 AM

Ok, I left myself open there. Newspapers are hurting...but not because of material, the ratio of liberal opinion pieces to angry letters to the editor is still running about normal

I just want to hurry up and get to the age of online new media-based newspapers so I can have a more stable job.

[Edited on June 7, 2009 at 11:10 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2009 11:06:57 PM

^^^^ You know, you're free not to post in this thread, agentlion. And if it's so "old," why don't you just leave it alone?

And I would like a legitimate response from each of you concerning the following question:

Do you think that page 16A was the proper placement for the story of a young soldier gunned down on a U.S. street by a Muslim extremist, yes or no?

6/8/2009 6:48:50 PM

No

Now let's get angry on the internet about it.

6/8/2009 7:05:33 PM

^ I want to be clear: You're indicating that you disagree with the NYT placement of the story in question?

6/8/2009 7:10:04 PM

why are you assuming the muslim is a liberal and the recruiter is a conservative?

6/8/2009 7:41:34 PM

Quote :

"Do you think that page 16A was the proper placement for the story of a young soldier gunned down on a U.S. street by a Muslim extremist, yes or no?"

Yeah, definitely, what page do you think it deserved, 14A? ooooo, maybe even....13A?

6/8/2009 9:40:53 PM

Quote :

"I want to be clear: You're indicating that you disagree with the NYT placement of the story in question?"

Why do you phrase your questions like you're a prosecutor?

Yes. Because radical Islamists are a threat. They should be publicized so that people know there is a threat posed by a certain political segment of Islam.

Did I ever say anything that led anyone to think I didn't believe this? Oh, was it because I didn't support us going into Iraq, a nation whose gov. had no known ties to this form of Islam, unlike the Taliban in Afghanistan.

There is real danger in treating the threat of radical Islamists as some sort of cosmic war against a monolithic evil, however.

You really do think we're all caricatures, don't you?

[Edited on June 11, 2009 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2009 10:48:07 PM

Q. Do you think that page 16A was the proper placement for the story of a young soldier gunned down on a U.S. street by a Muslim extremist, yes or no?

PinkandBlack: No.

Fail Boat: Yes.

Wolfman Tim: Asked ridiculous question.

6/11/2009 10:56:49 PM

You should probably make a good-looking cover sheet and maybe hire a dude to draw up some tight graphics for this very important TSB opinion project.

6/11/2009 11:00:22 PM

"hooksaw" Proves Once Again. . .















. . .that he's a fucking idiot.

6/12/2009 1:37:30 AM

^ Just answer the question please:

Q. Do you think that page 16A was the proper placement for the story of a young soldier gunned down on a U.S. street by a Muslim extremist, yes or no?

6/12/2009 1:48:00 AM

OH MY GOD NOT ITALICS YOUR STYLISTICALLY DIRECT QUESTION HAS INSTANTLY CONVICTED ME OF EXTREME LIBERAL BIAS

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 1:49 AM. Reason : .]

6/12/2009 1:48:55 AM

i say it shoulda been on like page 2 at most and 7 at worst

6/12/2009 1:50:05 AM

Here's what we have so far:

PinkandBlack: No.

Fail Boat: Yes.

Wolfman Tim: Asked ridiculous question.

Str8Foolish: Called me some version of a poopyhead.

not dnl: Yes. In a herculean intellectual effort for him, not dnl forms a coherent thought.

6/12/2009 1:55:28 AM

well, at first when i saw the NYT i was like



then i thought about it some and was more like



after pondering this issue for a few days i was feeling more like



if you ask me, your response to this question should be more like

6/12/2009 2:03:19 AM

hooksaw put me for yes but i said i didnt agree with a page 16

6/12/2009 2:36:10 AM

^ You're right--it's late!

Quote :

"PinkandBlack: No. Fail Boat: Yes. Wolfman Tim: Asked ridiculous question. Str8Foolish: Called me some version of a poopyhead. not dnl: Yes. No. In a herculean intellectual effort for him, not dnl forms a coherent thought."

6/12/2009 2:39:14 AM

Now here's my question. Since the initial story that was placed on page 16A has the NYT written any kind of followup story and if so, where was it placed? And no, for the record, I do not personally think that 16A is an appropriate location for such a story.

6/12/2009 6:17:42 AM

^ I'm not sure about your question. I'll check and report back.

And thanks for the legit answer. I really appreciate it.

Quote :

"PinkandBlack: No. Fail Boat: Yes. Wolfman Tim: Asked ridiculous question. Str8Foolish: Called me some version of a poopyhead. not dnl: No. In a herculean intellectual effort for him, not dnl forms a coherent thought. HockeyRoman: No."

6/12/2009 6:31:05 AM

im confused.

Bill told me the government was evil.

but im suppost to love the military?

CONFUUUUUSINNNNGGGGGGGGG

6/12/2009 9:56:21 AM

Quote :

"PinkandBlack: No. Fail Boat: Yes. Wolfman Tim: Asked ridiculous question. Str8Foolish: Called me some version of a poopyhead. not dnl: No. In a herculean intellectual effort for him, not dnl forms a coherent thought. HockeyRoman: No. Dentaldamn: Claimed he was 'confused.'"

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 5:49 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2009 5:48:08 PM