Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Gutsy Decision?


“This is a Viet Cong captive being waterboarded,” I said to the class after fast-forwarding through a videotape from Stanley Karnow’s “Vietnam: A Television History.” We were studying the Vietnam War in the context of the Cold War.

“You can see that South Vietnamese intelligence officers have placed a cloth over the captive’s face and are pouring water on it. This gives the captive the feeling that he is drowning as the water goes into his mouth and up his nostrils when he tries to breathe.” After viewing the whole clip, I asked: “Does this look like torture to you?”

Each had watched intently but none would offer an opinion. Then I explained that after we captured the third-highest-ranking official in al Qaeda, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he was waterboarded and gave up information that eventually led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden. “And,” I told them, “Khalid Sheik Mohammed planned the September 11th attack for Osama Bin Laden.”

I waited for that to sink in and said, “Is this torture?”

“It was worth it if it led us to Bin Laden,” said a boy.

“Okay,” I answered, “But is it torture?”

He shrugged his shoulders.

“Well, Khalid Sheik Mohammed wasn’t a prisoner of war. He was a terrorist, so I don’t think the Geneva Conventions apply to him,” said another boy.

“Is it torture?” I repeated.

“I don’t know,” he said. “Maybe.”

“Left-wing journalist Christopher Hitchens agreed to be waterboarded to see what it was like,” I explained. “He said it doesn’t simulate drowning: ‘You are drowning, or rather being drowned. . . . Believe me, it’s torture.’”
I played the Hitchens clip from Youtube.

“So what do you think?” I asked. “Is it torture?”

“It’s all right if it was done on the guy who planned the September 11th attacks,” said a girl. “He killed 3000 people.”

Back in September I’d shown them a “Today Show” recording of the events of that day to give them a feel for what happened in 2001 when they were only four years old. “The Bush/Cheney Administration called waterboarding one of their ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’” I explained. “Is that a euphemism for torture?”

“It’s all right if it’s against terrorists,” said another boy.

“Is it torture?”

“Yeah, I guess.”

“Open your books to page 885,” I said. “Look at the Eighth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.” I asked a girl to read it.

Dutifully, she read: “‘Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.’”

“Thank you,” I said. “The part where it says, ‘nor cruel and unusual punishments imposed’ is what I wanted you to see. Our country has a long tradition of outlawing torture, but that would be against American citizens.”

“Yeah,” said the boy. “These people were not citizens and they weren’t prisoners of war either. They were terrorists. They had no rights. It was all right to waterboard them to get information that would be useful in fighting them.”

“Obama’s CIA Director, Leon Panetta, said the information about who Bin Laden’s courier was - someone who carried messages back and forth between him and others in al Qaeda - came from Khalid Sheik Mohammed while he was being waterboarded during the Bush Administration,” I said. “With that information, the CIA tracked him down and began following him. He led them right to the house where Osama Bin Laden was living with three of his wives. Without waterboarding, the USA might never have gotten Bin Laden. Other officials in the Obama Administration, however, deny that.”

“So, who thinks it was all right to waterboard KSM?” I asked.

Half raised their hands.

“Who things it was wrong?”

Three hands went up.

“Eric Holder, Attorney General in the Obama Administration, is investigating our CIA agents who waterboarded KSM and two other terrorists while Bush was president. He’s trying to build a case against them for war crimes,” I explained. “That might be one reason other officials in the Obama Administration deny that waterboarding had anything to do with discovering where Osama Bin Laden was hiding.”

President Obama was interviewed about killing Bin Laden on “60 Minutes” Sunday night, but Steve Croft didn’t ask him any tough questions,” I continued. “However, Obama’s National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon was interviewed on “Fox News Sunday,” and Chris Wallace asked him, ‘Why is shooting an unarmed man in the face legal and proper . . . but [waterboarding] Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who is just as bad an operator, isn’t?’”


“Donilon said, ‘[Waterboarding] is not consistent with our values.’”

“Then Wallace said, ‘But shooting an unarmed man in the face is consistent with our values?’”

“Donilon said, ‘We’re at war with Osama Bin Laden.’”

“Wallace said, ‘We’re at war with Khalid Sheik Mohammed.’”

I played the above exchange for the class and asked, “Did Donilon answer Wallace’s questions to your satisfaction?”

“Not really,” said a boy.

Other students shook their heads.

“Another thing,” I continued. “Generals appointed by President Obama made new ‘rules of engagement’ for our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan - many of them former students from this classroom - under which our guys can’t shoot until they’re shot at first. And, if they’re shot at from a group of civilians, they can’t shoot back at all.”

“That’s ridiculous,” said another boy. Others nodded agreement.

“And now, even in cases where they capture Taliban terrorists who they’ve videotaped planting IEDs or ‘Improvised Explosive Devices,’ or ‘roadside bombs’ as they’re sometimes called, which have killed hundreds of our soldiers, and these terrorists have been tested to reveal explosive residue on their hands, they have to be released after 96 hours. Our soldiers know they’re going to plant more bombs and still they have to release them! This is discouraging to say the least, and it makes it much more risky our our guys.”

“Our Commander-in-Chief is putting our soldiers at risk with these rules of engagement,” I continued, “but his staff is telling us what a ‘gutsy decision’ Obama made by approving a strike on Bin Laden from the comfort and safety of the White House.”

49 comments:

Yevrah said...

You can't say it any better. It is time to get the current residents out of the White House. I hope that happens in 2012!

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Yevrah! I agree - you said it clearly and concisely, Tom. (By te way, it is "courier" not "currier"...

Tom McLaughlin said...

Thanks. I made the correction.

Rick said...

Tom, could you tell me where you got the information that "Leon Panetta said the information about who Bin Laden’s courier was came from Khalid Sheik Mohammed while he was being waterboarded "?

Steve Bradford said...

Typical partisan crap. You question whether Obama made gutsy decisions regarding the capture of Osama??!!?? How do you expect to be taken seriously? Oh, I get it. You know you are a joke and just want to make your pathetic attempts to diminish any great accomplishment of the president. Give the rabid haters what they want, huh?


YEEEAAAAAHHHHHH, Obama!!!!! Bush couldn't get the job done, but a great president did it!!!!!

Congratulations - a great time to be an American. At least for those of us who are patriotic.

Anonymous said...

It was obvious that Tom would try some lame attempt to spin this story. I thought he might go the Bush "sour grapes" route and pretend that capturing Osama was not a top priority, but he instead chose the equally dopey route of questioning the gutsiness shown by our president.

It is obvious that the general population sees the greatness in Obama's actions and decisions though, hence his approval rating shooting up to 60%.

Obama could single-handedly come up with a cure for cancer and people like Tom would still find a way to belittle the deed. That is just the way people with no personal integrity are.

Brian said...

I too was wondering about Tom's stating to his class that the courier name was gotten through waterboarding. I would hate to think that he just fudges around with facts to get his "point" across to children he is supposed to be teaching.

I will refrain for now making the attacks that a teacher lying to his class would justly deserve and wait to see what Tom shows us as evidence for making that claim. Surely he has something....

Anonymous said...

Tom does not care what truths he has to twist when he trys to brainwash his students. He gives them information about "Rules of Engagement" that he got off some wacky website that got their info from a few soldiers and not from any real documents or official statements. He does NOT tell his students that despite these claims a review of every combat fatality over the past year has found no evidence that the rules restricted the use of lifesaving firepower.

"We have not found a single situation where a soldier has lost his life because he was not allowed to protect himself," one of the officials said.

If troops are in imminent danger, there is no restriction on the use of airstrikes or mortars. "The rules of engagement provide an absolute right of self-defense," the official said.

Oh, details, shmetails.


btw, these rules of engagement were devised by Bush's man Gen. McChrystal who Obama forced to resign for insubordination reasons. I guess Tom has to give Kudos to Obama for getting rid of him.

Debbie said...

Please Tom, enlighten us also as to where you got the information that soldiers cannot shoot back if they are fired upon by civilians.

If you cannot defend these statements that you give as facts to your students than you are a shameless, horrible teacher who should not wait until the end of the year to leave the classroom. Please defend yourself - I would hate to think of such a teacher in the classroom with our kids.

Anonymous said...

Tom states that detainees "have to be released after 96 hours". This sure sounds like they HAVE to release them no matter what. Very misleading, as I suspect that is what Tom wanted to do with his students and his readers. Why give the wohole truth when it takes away from his agenda? From the very article he cites he ignores the following:

The detainees are "screened and a decision is made whether to release the individual, transfer them to appropriate Afghan authorities, or to the detention facility in Parwan [at Bagram Air Base]."

What happened to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Tom McLaughlin said...

Hmm. Moonbats all stirred up over this one, huh?

Rick, Brian, et al:
See here:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/today-today_news/t/cia-chief-waterboarding-aided-bin-laden-raid/

Anon:
Obama appointed McChrystal. See here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8044899.stm

Then he fired him after being criticized by McChrystal and appointed Petraus.

Then he re-appointed McChrystal to another White House commission last month.

And, Obama's rules of engagement have resulted in the deaths of many troops, regardless of what his commission of minions says. See here:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/09/08/75036/were-pinned-down-4-us-marines.html

Tom McLaughlin said...

I realize you moonbats aren't going to believe anything you don't see on Media Matters, but for the rest of the readers here, you might want to look at this clip from Fox News. Soldiers in the field are frustrated over Obama's rules of engagement:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4020653/

Rick said...

I don't know how much clearer I can re-ask my question. Where did you see that the couriers name was gotten due to waterboarding like you said it was? I read your link and this was not answered....so where did you get it from?

Try again or give up and admit you lied to your students?

Debbie said...

I guess you are not even going to attempt to defend your remarks I brought up about shooting back against civilians?

Or how about Anon's about the 96 hours?

And it looks like you haven't even answered Rick yet.

And what does the Rules of Engagement even have to do with Obama's gutsy decisions and the operation that killed Osama? Diversion?

Is "moonbats" your term for people who insist on taking facts into consideration before spouting off?

Tom McLaughlin said...

No Deb. Moonbats are people who insist on their own beliefs in spite of contradictory evidence.

It's not a gutsy decision when all he risked was losing the moonbat votes in 2012. And what else was he going to do when presented with the opportunity to kill Bin Laden? Refuse? He had to go along with it even though Valerie Jarrett - the other half of his brain - told him he shouldn't. He would have been exposed as a wimp if he didn't. Panetta would have gone ahead with it anyway.

Jock MacGregor said...

When you ignore facts and rely on your heightened sense of social justice, i.e.feelings, as outlined in daily talking points from the media. Count me among those who think that Tom is spot on in his review of the history of Bin Laden's shabby, inhuman career. I happen to be old enough, and interested enough, to have observed the events leading up to 9/11 (no I wasn't prescient)and was familiar with left's agenda to see the hypocrisy of those who, so vocally, condemned enhanced interrogation techniques done under the Bush Administration and applaud President Obama for having the "courage" to give a shoot to kill, rather than capture order to the Seals.

Debbie said...

So "moonbats" means "people who insist on their own beliefs in spite of contradictory evidence".

I see. So a moonbat then would be somebody who believes that Panetta said that the courier was named due to waterboarding with no evidence to back it up? Or claims that detainess HAVE to be released after 96 hours? Or somebody who lies to his students about soldiers not being allowed to fire back when fired upon by civilians?

You have had your chance to defend yourself about lying to your students because of your political hang-ups and were appearently unable to do so. Disgraceful. Are you able to look yourself in the eye at the mirror? Hold on children, a better teacher is almost here.

Anonymous said...

I'm supposed to listen to what is "gutsy" coming from a dishonest teacher? I think maybe somebody like John Brennan, who was the director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center under Bush, and was a spy for the CIA to know more about guts. And he called Obama's moves gutsy.

He "had" to go along with it? Is that like the army 'has' to release detainess after 96 hours. Calling for the SEALS instead of ordering a drone attack was brilliant and gutsy, pretending otherwise because you are a partisan sheep is outlandish.

Face it, the world got a good look at the cool, collected nerves of Obama. And you hate it.

lol

Anonymous said...

Jock, the order Obama gave was capture OR kill, the decision to be left to the disgression of the SEALS.

Bush failed.

Obama succeeded!!!!!!!

Greg Gallo said...

One of your lame attempts at taking away from Obama's glory is by insinuating that his decision couldn't be gutsy because it was made "from the comfort and safety of the White House.”

So tell me, Tom, what gutsy presidential decision from the past are you thinking of that was made from some other location, some uncomfortable, unsafe location?

Writing an article this unabashedly desperate and weak in it's attempts to find chinks in Obama's armor really makes it obvious how much this particular success of Obama hurts you.

Hmmm, are you worried that, as the polls are already reflecting, that the public loves to see it's president making such ballsy calls while maintaining his cool?

Worried about 2012, are you?

Anonymous said...

Picking out lies Tom tells his students is like picking out screaming girls at a Justin Beiber concert. It makes one doubt almost everything that comes out of his mouth. Like this statement:

"...officials in the Obama Administration deny that waterboarding had anything to do with discovering where Osama Bin Laden was hiding.”

Really? I know that Tom is already dodging all the other things he was called out on, but just in case he really does have a source for this one I'm ready to hear it.

Anonymous said...

“I do believe the President did a gutsy, good job on this.”
Bill O'Reilly



O’Reilly also stated that Obama should not receive any criticism from conservatives over his handling of this situationn, saying criticism would be “not only unfair, but just crazy unreasonable and you know you want to make your case in a very fair and balanced way"

Getting called "crazy unreasonable" by O'Reilly must be a real honor for radical crackpots, eh, Tom?

Anonymous said...

Bernard Goldberg recently said that "what’s going to happen if the right starts attacking him , the independents will re-elect Barack Obama. Because they will say it’s unfair.”

I am almost certain now of a suspicion I have long had. I really believe that Tom may not be a real conservative but a liberal in disguise. Coluymns like this, as Goldberg says, only help Obama. What better help can obama get then 'conservatives" making mean-spirited attacks that are full of lies and obviously over-the-top obnoxious in their views? He has admittd to being a liberal in his youth - is he now a liberal undercover? Either way he is serving a good cause - giving Cons a bad name. Thanks, Tom!

JOHN R-BRIDGTON said...

VOLENTEER TO BE WATERBORDERED THEN TELL US IF IT'S TORTURE.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Tom, see what happens when you try and pull your crap with grown-ups and not children!

Tom McLaughlin said...

These are grown-ups? Could have fooled me.

Steve said...

So, Tom pops out of his hiding place to admit that he is fooled and does not know the difference between children that he can lie to and adults that call him out on it.

But Tom does NOT come back with any defense whatsoever for his numerous lies to his students. And why not? How hard would it be to cite some sources that verify his statements? Surely he did at least a little research? Does Tom refuse to answer his students questions as well?


Tom must be overwhelmed by all the different lies he has been called on here, so let me sort it out for him:

*The couriers name was gotten through waterboarding.

*Soldiers can not fire back at civilians firing at them

*Detainees must be released after 96 hours

*Officials in the Obama administration claim that waterboarding had nothing to do with finding Osama

And then there is the question of what gutsy presidential decisions were made in some unsafe, uncomfortable location.

As for Tom pretending that he doesn't think Obama made gutsy decisions, he is entitled to his "opinion".....even if he can't justify it through honest statements.

Typical Con.

Funny that Tom's column is about having guts, and Tom does not have enough guts to man up and either admit his lies/mistakes, or defend them.

I couldn't imagine the shame involved at being caught in his poition. But then again, I am not completely void of personal integrity.

Winston Smith said...

Truly unbelievable...Considering OBL has been dead for ten years this is a complete farce that will serve for an excuse for us to attack pakistan or see another domestic terror attack. The story behind the supposed raid has changed many many times--he was armed, no he wasn't, he hid behind his wife, no he didn't, etc. etc.. OBL had a serious illness--Madeline Albright admitted he was dead in 2003 on Fox!!! Hello!! DO you want to give up more of your rights in the name of fake-staged terrorism? Burial at sea? You really buy this BS? The most wanted terrorist in the world--and you didn't detain him? Question him? Nah---Why would you? What a crock!!

DR. Steven Pieczenik was interviewed on the Alex Jones radio show last week four times. Dr. Pieczenik is an MD, holds two PHD's and worked under four different administrations in D.C.. He was the inspiration for the Tom Clancy character Jack Ryan. In fact, he co-wrote some of Clancy's novels...Point being--a staggering amount of experience and wisdom--research it yourself. Listen to what this guy has to say before you start yelling "conspiracy theorist"---this is big folks--we are in big big trouble-----you think the patriot act was invasive and illegal? Just wait---

Please, Please stop buying the BS they are selling you with this fabricated, staged OBL killing. Research it for yourself!.

And no Tom--Sorry, I am not some sadistic freak who gets off on torturing make-believe terrorists.. Torture? You realize top CIA officials, et al, will tell you it NEVER works!!! Torture? I cannot believe I live in a country that not only fakes killing terrorists but condones torture!! You hear that? It's our founding fathers rolling in their graves...

Maybe in your retirement you can re-learn the history of this country and stop believing the text books meant for children printed by those in charge giving you their version-----kind of like 1984.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjtNiTm99e8

Winston Smith said...

OBL had Marfan syndrome. He was treated by CIA dr.'s in Dubai years ago!!!
Also kidney failure!

Anonymous said...

ok, NOW I understand what is mean't by MOONBAT.

Chris E. said...

Tom

I always enjoy your blog! It's good to see a teacher that makes there students think instead of just treating them like a herd of sheep. Most of the teachers I had just told us there opinion and then tested us on it.....The only day we had to think in there classrooms was on a test day and that was just a memory test....You make kids want to think and do research. You make them question you. You make them learn how to learn! Thats something most teachers don't understand never mind will they ever be capable of it. Your last day of teaching will be a very sad day for the Oxford Hills, Maine, and the whole country. One less teacher that actualy can teach in the system.

Chris E.

Anonymous said...

DId you happen to mention to your students that the incident at the gulf of tonkin never happened!!
Or, do you lie to them?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Hal Dietz, a geneticist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who first mapped Marfan mutations, said the theory That Osama was inflicted with Marfan isn’t valid.


But bin Laden didn’t have deep-set, downward-slanting eyes of those with Marfan syndrome. He had no skeletal deformities and no evidence of heart problems that might have resulted in an aortic tear or rupture. There seems to have been no sign of the dominant genetic disorder in his children, Dietz said.

In fact, Dietz – who is so familiar with the signs he often spots people with Marfan in public places like restaurants and theme parks – says he wouldn’t have flagged bin Laden as a potential patient at all.

“I think it’s pure speculation with minimal basis in fact,” Dietz said.

Anonymous said...

Chris has a good point about Tom's "teaching":

"You make kids want to think and do research. You make them question you."

Absolutely! I didn't think of that. The kids see through the lies and/or shoddy research and question what the truth really is. They don't want to end up as foolish! Tom motivates them to NOT be like him! They see that you can't just yank stuff out of your arse to fit your agenda, but instead need to do real research and back up your points with facts.

Winston Smith said...

“I think it’s pure speculation with minimal basis in fact,” Dietz said.

Sorry--but no. Dr. Steve Pieczenik, who worked for/with the CIA under four different presidents is a more valid source than some shill from JHU.
This guys (Pieczenik) has more experience and is more credible than the last four presidents combined.
CIa doctors knew he had Marfan and treated him in Dubai in the late nineties!!

Anonymous said...

Winston, you are calling the Dr. a shill? Because he disagrees with you? What do you know about him and his credentials? You think Pieczenik is more knowledgable on the subject than the genetisist who first mapped the disease? Why?

Anonymous said...

Wow, censorship? OBL has been dead for ten years. do you really think if we captured the most wanted terrorist we would bury him at sea? really? The story has changed many times, they can't keep it straight. Madeline albright declared him dead in 03 on fox. Dr. Steven pieczenik has stated any intelligence official worth their salt already knew this...why are buying an obvious li? For an election? Amazing. Please research this for yourself. The raid never happened. Ya think that Pakistan bombing today is any indication of our real intent?

Anonymous said...

Tortue has never been proven effective by any credible source..listen to John McCain, I thought I would never utter those words but he is absolutely correct. As far as I see it you support torture you are no better than a terrorist. Please leave my country if you want to condone torture.
What do you think the founding fathers would say to all this?

Anonymous said...

Steve Bradford. Do you realize the Germans felt the same way about hitler you brainwashed fool. War mongering huh? Proud to be American.

Anonymous said...

Winston, I have some questions for you. I can understand having some skepticism about our government…they have lied to us before and will do so again. Knowing this I can understand that some people may have some doubts as to the whole Osama story. But why do you act 100% certain about your version of events? There is no proof that Osama died years ago, only speculation and guesses. So why the attacks and name calling (like calling the doctor a shill) against people that present evidence to the contrary? I’m willing to listen to what you have to say but your close-mindedness is a turn-off.

Anyway, I’d be more willing to believe your story were it not for some questions I’ve been mulling over. For one, why would Al-Queda admit that Osama was killed in the US attack? If they knew he was long dead and pretended otherwise, why now give credit to the USA for killing him? Recruitment purposes? I don’t buy that. They could have pretended Osama was killed by the US at any time if that is what they wanted Muslims to believe. Do you realize what Al-Queda could accomplish by presenting evidence to the world that the great USA had just lied to their own people about the attack?!? Do you think they would skip the opportunity of rubbing it into our faces that we never got Osama but only pretended to?!?

Keep an open mind.

Winston Smith said...

Do you realize al queada was created by the CIA? So Anything they say or do is suspect. My god we supported Osama vs. Russia. It's all lies and propaganda. And it works! As far as dismissing the jhu doctor goes I'm sorry but I have no more patience for this nonsense. I go with my gut and reason and it seams to me that dr. Pieczenik is a credible source, and according to him the intelligence community has known that he had marram and other complications and died years ago. There are other people reporting his marfan syndrome years ago. In addition Madeline Albright stated he was dead in 2003.

But that is almost beside the point as none of the story meshes. There were armed guards, no there weren't, he was armed, nom he wasn't, there was a 40 min firefight, no there wasn't, on and on. Then situation room pic was staged. Fact. Now they are trying to cover it up. How could they all be watching the raid if ps Etta said the video feed was cut off? The first photo they gave the press was a fake. I mean come on now! People are actually buying this stuff. Amazing.

And I do keep an open mind, obviously, or I would be blinded by the corporate news machine. But my patience has worn thin and I cannot stomach to see this country being led total destruction as it is. Libya? Now Pakistan. More tsp groping at airports, more video cameras, less freedom. All in the name of fighting a nameless faceless stateless enemy. Convenient huh? Especially if you are in then war business. The worst though, the absolute take-the-cake worst is how the bankers on wall st have gotten away with murder. Truly unbelievable. And no protests in the streets? What? No one doing jail time. No one. They did more to harm this country than any terrorist ever could have. Truly. And they are free. Heck they got raises. And the attack on the middle class, teachers, retired, is the second biotech offensive and insulting thing we have to endure. Again, people are actually defending this, they believe it's true.

Winston Smith said...

Again, al quaeda is essentially the boogeyman. I don't think they exist in the capacity they would want us to. They are the enemy that will never go away. Coupled with the anti Muslim propaganda spread throughout this country and they are evil incarnate...but they don't really exist. We created them. We did. The USA. And I thought they were helping to fight quaddafi?

gaffer said...

It is obvious that you cannot win a fight if you are at a disadvantage of having one arm tied. It is also obvious that you cannot beat the enemy if you cannot fight them with equal methods as they fight you. If the terrorists kill 3000 innocent people to makea a point, why are we held back from waterboarding to gain the knowledge to prevent furher such attacks?
When in Rome do as the Romans do!

Anonymous said...

"why are we held back from waterboarding to gain the knowledge to prevent furher such attacks? " Gaffer.

Because it DOESN"T work!!!!

Anyone condoning terrorism can kindly leave my country, thank you.

Anonymous said...

OK, Winston, I will not write you off as a crackpot, or a "moonbat" just because I don't believe your theories. And I certainly won't brand you a coward or a liar, because unlike some people you do make an honest attempt to explain why you say thing things you do, and not just state untruths and hide like a wimp when called on it.

Anonymous said...

I bet Tom cannot wait until he can put up a new column and rid himself of that cowardly feeling that must be eating him alive as he hides from discussion about his lies.

I'm loving every minute of it!

If you can't face the heat - cower and hide!

lol

Anonymous said...

I think that calling Tom a "liar" might be uncalled for. Yes, he does state as facts to his students and his readers things that he cannot back up with facts, but I noticed he did try to verify one of his statements regarding the tortured courier. No, the link did not back up his claim at all, but it was a long article and I think that he really might have thought it did back up his statement. This could be shoddy researching or it might be a case of "seeing what you want to see". I have read articles showing that people with very strong convictions often do not have their minds changed with facts - sometimes being disproved actually strengthen their convictions! Maybe in Tom's mind there is "proof" that he did not lie.

In any case it is very fitting that this article comes right after his column on it being time to leave teaching. Amen to that.

Tom McLaughlin said...

Yeah. The sooner I can be replaced by a more traditional NEA-approved teacher, the better. Then kids will be able to learn all those facts contained in "An Inconvenient Truth" and in movies by Michael Moore. And, they can study that NEA-recommended "Rules For Radicals."

In economics, they can learn how spending $864 billion successfully stimulated the economy in the wonderful Democrat tradition of Roosevelt - who got us out of the Depression by prolonging it for eight years.

Our public schools can go on "improving" the way they've been for the past forty years under the full control of union moonbats.

Anonymous said...

Tom, are you saying that the reason you are lying to your students is because you think that other more liberal teachers are also lying?

Wow!


I love seeing radical crackpots taking shots at Roosevelt! It must really bug you that Reagan always admired Roosevelt, whose "New Deal" provided jobs for his father and brother during the depths of the Depression.

But that is getting off topic, something you like to do when getting blasted for your lies.