Originally Posted by boondoggie
That article could have been published on Sept 10, 2001 and all the arguments would have been the same.
No, it couldn't have been published then and there. And and it wouldn't have had the same arguments from the same author either.
Originally Posted by boondoggie
Zero? I think the Lakawanna Six would disagree with you. And the cell in Lodi. And the plots that were foiled as a result of KSM's waterboarding.
That's barking up the wrong tree. The "Lakawanna Six" were never plotting a terrorist attack, and certainly not one in the US. They don't even qualify for consideration as part of hardcore Al-Qaeda types -- especially since being on good terms with Yemeni shias, as they were, would have ruled them out from any meaningful Al-Qaeda terrorist acts and would do no more than result in being sent as cannon fodder against the proto-"Northern Alliance".
And "the cell in Lodi" wasn't much of an Al-Qaeda cell either.
Regarding plots foiled as a result of KSM's waterboarding and more, to which are you referring? Would KSM even recognize such as a real Al-Qaeda plot in the operational stage? I have my doubts with some of them.
Originally Posted by boondoggie
If there are no terrorists here, then why all the hubbub about the NSA listening in on international calls between Al Qaeda members and domestic US receivers?
So few "foreign terrorists" in the US and so much monitoring of foreign -- and domestic
-- calls is exactly why there is all the "hubbub" about the NSA's activities within the US (and through offshore facilities as well).
Originally Posted by boondoggie
You might want to read a few of Mueller's other articles, like the one where he says WMDs really aren't that bad.
Is this off-topic reference meant to smear the writer of an article so that you don't have to address the on-topic article's merits (diminishing as they are given our government's strategic follies)?