Free Republic

Today’s reports from Dubai said the “suspect” pool had risen to 26. Much as I admire BiBi and the boys, I just can’t see the Institute fielding a 10 or 15-man kidon team for a single Hamas thug. Sure, some may have been just katsas, but when you go above 5 or 6 shooters for something like this, you’re really pushing Mr. Murphy’s tolerance set-point. If your intel is spot-on, you can even get by with 2 or 3 max.

Well, there are only two parts of your rant worthy of discussion:

O'Reilly favors bans on late term abortion.

Actually, he believes the practice approaches outright murder. However, if you can point to a specific instance where he has championed a call for a federal ban on the procedure, I'll gladly concede this minor point within the larger abortion debate; although he has intimated that he might support such a law provided it could be tailored narrow enough to survive the woman's health vs. woman's life judicial review. If you cannot, well....

Right, you're toiling in Texas League ball under the mistaken notion that you possess the talents of a major leaguer. You don't. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of posters here who can teach you something. But guys/gals like you never learn because you already know it all.

The consequences of success/failure in the arena I and my team operate in dwarfs your piddling notions of any consequence that may arise from those who refuse to acknowlege "what you believe" or "what you feel".

As far as "knowing it all"...quite the contrary. I challenged you to offer up accurate documentation to support your assertion. You came back with one item that encompasses a relatively rare accurrance within the larger debate; hardly a provable "smoking gun" from an objective perspective.

As an aside, you basically typed a lot of words without really refuting a single point that was made. It's just a function of your belief in the validity of your own position with absolutely nothing to back it up; again, hardly an objective endorsement.

On the other hand, the objective opinions on analysis/intentions rendered up by "the team" (and several others quite like it) and the ability of "the teams" to turn that data into successful, targeted interdictions has a track record of sustained superior performance that in no small way, has contributed to the fact that (among a few other small things) this nation has suffered no more 9/11-type attacks since that odious day; your personal beliefs or opinions to the contrary are completely irrelevent.

Now after reading this, my guess would be that you'll probably want to puff up and spew forth another 300 words or so, or, decline to say anything (hardly a rocket science deduction).

In either case, while I don't anticipate anything constructive will be gained from further discourse, I'd still like to thank you for at least offering the opportunity for me (and others) to break the long periods of boredom between the short periods of adrenaline intrinsic to our jobs.

Sooooooooo.........rant on, if you must.

Three strikes, go sit on the end of the bench where you belong.

Oh stop it! I and my team get paid a whole lot a money by lotsa folks to do what we do. We can access every TV show by any host; currently going back almost 20 years (assuming our archivists continue to do the stellar job that they do); usually by topic. It took us less than 30 seconds to bring up every comment from every show where BOR even mentioned abortion.

My characterization of BOR's abortion position is accurate based upon his comments, opinions and assertions that are available to anyone who chooses to look (YOU said it wasn't; now YOU offer the documentation to backup YOUR assertion...you can't).

Your assertion of slander is just as ludicrous. I simply drew the conclusion I did based on precisely what I've read on this board on quite a few BOR threads as well as various other blogs and print media. Your problem resides with those who have written/posted what they did, there-by indicting themselves; not with the one who simply drew the conclusion.

You have done precisely what the Libs are famous for; set out a premise with no accurate, objective data to support it, then used the "legitimacy" (in your own mind) of the premise upon which to attempt to denigrate a conclusion you disagree with while at the same time, offering no data or accurate evidence to continue to support your argument. You then continue in this vein by throwing up an emotional strawman ("entire group who happen to be pro-life") as a non-sequitor to gain emotional sympathy rather than approval of your position based on logic and accurate, objective data. And for the record, your "entire group" (which, in my original post, I referred to as "some", but "not all") is a rather small percentage of those who view themselves as social conservative; not just "pro-life" personally, but so absolutist in their belief that they completely reject anyone who doesn't mimic their "my way, or the highway" approach, and for whom, ideology trumps any attempt at rational discourse.

I could continue, but you get the general idea; you're out of your league...seriously, you are.

On the flip side, you have, in fact, provided those in my shop with their daily laugh.

...and his pandering to whatever opinion he thinks will help his numbers.

Your documented proof of this is..........................? Didn't think so.

My tagline does, in fact, apply to you.

Struck a nerve, did I? ROTFLMAO

Really? You are kidding are you?

Actually, I'm not. I would be interested in you providing documentation to support your argument. And, as far as the SBV are concerned, I suspect, that I, like you, deep in our hearts know that the SBV were for real.

However, as he explained to Mary Mapes, when you bring forth a story that has the potential to cast a presidential candidate as seriously lacking the necessary leadership skills and which paints said candidate as nothing more than an opportunist, the journalistic standard you had better have is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"....period; before you run the story.

All emotion and personal belief aside, at it's heart, the SBV vs. Kerry argument came down to a "he said/she said" with documentation for and against but no glaringly obvious "smoking gun" to prove either side (except for the "true believers" on both sides); they were all there...we weren't...whom to believe? In our hearts, we knew the SBV's were for real, but "in our hearts" isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

This means you are left with a standard of proof of "preponderance of the evidence". The American people did so, and rendered up their decision accordingly on election day.

When BOR first hired on a security detail, several of them had been trained by me or asociates of mine when they were in the military. They tell interesting stories from their time.

All debate aside, he'd be a good assest to have on your side because he is capable of divorcing emotion from critical thought and following through with decisions that the available data points to; rather than an emotional reaction. His opinions are grounded in careful research of factually derived data; not emotion...another trait that drives the we-know-what's-best whack-jobs mad.

A great many people have a tendancy to label supreme self-confidence and self-sufficiency with arrogance; usually to their own detriment.

Why do so many Freepers hate Bill O'Reilly?

Well, it isn't freepers in general, mind you...just the ones for whom any dissent from their personal belief is considered sacrilege. The genesis for this hatred is - as always with the conservative ideological "purists" - is abortion. He believes, like many do, that while it's an odious practice that destroys life, what a tax-paying law abiding female of legal age does with her own body is her choice and any repercusions should remain between her and God; as long as the rest of society isn't paying for it. Probably a better way of putting it is this: he believes that a far-right whack-job who "knows best" is just as bad as far-left whack-job who "knows best"; not just on the subject of abortion, but on every critical issue. That, and his effictiveness and cable ratings drive the whack-jobs on both sides crazy.

I suspect that if the composition of a human belief structure could be accurately measured, O'Reilly's would probably be about 60% conservative, about 30% liberal and the remaining 10% or so on a sliding scale divided between constructive anarchism and destructive anarchism depending on the issue.

Of course, it goes without saying that the self-righteous on this board will probably flame away. But I challenge them to offer factual documentation to support their argument. Most will fail in that regard. Which of course, means, my tagline applies to them....LOL.

I think we should just use this detestable piece of garbage as an example of what the radical left REALLY believes but are to chickensh*t to really say it. That having been said, I seriously doubt he'll ever venture to Idaho...which is probably a good thing for me, LEO and his NOK.

"So why tungsten? Why not just lead, or iron? And why three grand each? How does that compare to a standard HE round?

Tungsten was chosen for the balls because it's ballistic and penetration physics are better than lead or steel.

God forbid the author of this piece even mention that an armed population would likely mean the end for walking pieces of human debris like the one he writes about. Absolutely can't have those nasty ole firearms in the hands of normal people....just can't have em! Bless his pointy little head.

I don't understand - maybe someone can help me out - if they had solid intelligence that he was in this house, why didn't they set up a perimeter and capture him when he "escaped"?

There is a difference between "solid intelligence" (from a trusted source) and "actionable intelligence" (having the logistics in the right place at the right time).

One can have solid intelligence about the location of an adversary but if the logistics involved can't be brought to bare in a timely manner, then one can't "act" upon it.

Patience...

IB4Z

And when he gets to Heaven,
To Saint Peter he will tell,
Another Marine reporting, Sir.
I've served my time in hell.

The anti-Bush coalition is not yet crazed enough to risk an attempt at assassination. But that does not mean they are not considering the possibility of setting up the conditions where that scenario could be carried out, if their fingerprints can be kept off any such planning or execution. The Dem'crats have some masters at that.

Don't go there, dude...seriously.

Yes, three ships. Supposedly circling in the Indian Ocean, stopping briefly in t-friendly ports, with no flags of origin, from 11/02 to 2/03. Story broke 2/19/03. Quick search finds no follow-up reporting, just blog/post commentary.

And there won't be any follow-up reporting, either. Not everyone at CIA/NSA is asleep at the switch.

Mr. Chirac epitomizes my tagline...

I wonder what these scum would do if the good doctor's head showed up one day mounted on a plaque with half an antler rack jammed in each ear...afterall, animals and humans are the same...right?

Rahimullah Yousefzai.........We need to talk with this guy.

Where's Mitch Rapp when ya need him...?

There are many modern ways to get information from POWs short of using the rack. But if we must use the rack, so be it. We are in a war of extinction

Were it up to me, on September 12, 2001, I would have issued an Executive Order dictating rules of engagement/interrogation methods as follows:

1. All combatants engaged in hostilities against US forces will be given one chance to surrender. If they refuse, they are to be shot on site; regardless of where they are found.
2. If prisoners are taken, they will be normally interrogated, followed up by a polygraph, then a PSE test and finally, chemical induced questioning. At the conclusion of the interogation, if they have been a participant in any other atrocities other than enaging US forces in combat, they will be summarily hanged.

I would then go on national television, explain this EO and then tell my political opponents that if they don't like this, try to muster up the votes to impeach.