Perhaps...but that's a far cry from the "laborious process" mentioned in the article.

No, but they do need to be fingerprinted and are generally treated like criminals none the less.

The more likely reason for less US travel is a foreign press that is hostile to our country and competition from other venues.

Did you even read the original article or the above post?

Steve, do you even read my responses? I didn't complain that you were pointing out flaws or whatever. I said it's kind of weird that you take one piece of something and make like it's the linchpin of the statement. which is not at all what you claim. I used to think this was just some weird tick of yours, but I'm beginning to think that it's your primary mode of argument. Bizarre.

There is no "hatred, loathing and outright mistrust" of foreigners.

Okay Steve. Whatever you say.

That is a common misconception played up everywhere.

I've always lived by the saying that if someone doesn't get the message I intended, it was my fault in communication. I guess you live by the opposite.

If they took offense for the "freedom fries" thing then they are overly sensitive.

Yes, I'm sure that's all there is too it.

No it's not magic pixie dust but a firm understanding of the power of the press to form opinions.

That and a pony will get you a pony.

Especially bad opinions of a people who have no opportunity to defend themselves from such slander.

? My lord, you really do have an enormous victim mentality.

Rather than rolling on the floor over the other venues argument why not counter it with something of substance.

How on earth could I come up with anything that compares to your carefully constructed, well documented, logically constructed and well presented arguments?

You didn't give me other examples. In fact after researching Malkin I found even she doesn't call for internment camps as you claim. She did write a book in support of internment camps during WWII. I disagree with her but I apparently disagree with Roosevelt's position as well.

It's not weird to take the most outrageous statement included in your post and point out it is flawed.

There is no "hatred, loathing and outright mistrust" of foreigners. That is a common misconception played up everywhere. If anything Americans are neutral and seldom give thought to the subject. If they took offense for the "freedom fries" thing then they are overly sensitive. By the way, they are "French fries" and always have been.

No it's not magic pixie dust but a firm understanding of the power of the press to form opinions. Especially bad opinions of a people who have no opportunity to defend themselves from such slander. You mention 7 years of euro bashing, realize if such bashing occurred it was the apparently blameless press transmitting the message. The press is not responsible for everything but they are irresponsible about many things.

Rather than rolling on the floor over the other venues argument why not counter it with something of substance.

Are you looking for more sources?

In any event, it's kind of weird that you take one piece of something and make like it's the linchpin of the statement. To be a bit more pedantic, what I was saying is that the hatred, loathing and outright mistrust of "foreigners" is having exactly the effect we're seeing and such things are hardly a surprise. Further, all the Euro bashing y'all have been doing for the last 7 years isn't going unnoticed by them.

The more likely reason for less US travel is a foreign press that is hostile to our country

My word. It's like magic pixie dust for you, ain't it? "The press" is simply responsible for everything from your POV...

Oh, and "competition from other venues" has me rolling on the floor. I mean, really. That's rich.

So Malkin is the only one making "load and continuous calls"? I hardly see that has anything to do with less travel to the US.

There is no widespread movement for internment. There is no movement for internment at all. So far there is your example of one opinion.

The more likely reason for less US travel is a foreign press that is hostile to our country and competition from other venues.

Director of Central Intelligence? Fired.
Head of the NSA? Fired.
Head of the FBI? Fired.
Head of the NSC? Fired.
Secretarty of Defense? Resigned.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Fired.
Secretary of State? Resigned.
President on whose watch this happened? Forced to testify in front of congress, alone, under-oath and in public about his actions; formulated a comprehensive, intelligent, and effective response; and yet still not re-elected.
Previous Presidents and Heads of Agencies? Similarly questioned under-oath and in public.

Oh wait. None of those things happened.

Okay, upon hearing this and rereading about 5 times, I'll withdraw my rant.

What do you choose to point out and poke? The bureaucrats.

Who's blaming the bureaucrats in this one?

I'm pointing the finger at administration-level grand strategy: The "religion of peace" business, unwillingness to take the hit on profiling, and the CYA mentality of the alert levels. None of those policies are being made by clerks but rather cabinet secretaries and the president.

And, again, I was making those criticisms from the beginning of the blog. (Actually, well before that but without a paper trail.)

Do I think there are gray areas between torture and legitimate interrogation techniques? Do I recognize the political pressures of the blame game and why CYA is at least understandable? Or that some of the criticisms of the administration are over-the-top? Sure.

My general approach to analysis of policymaking, which I apply to the other side as well, is to presume that they're decent people motivated by both different policy preferences but also the constraints of The Game.

What do you choose to point out and poke? The bureaucrats. Which is entertaining and plays to a particular audience, but surely is like homeopathy in that you're addressing the symptoms and mistaking it for the disease.

Perhaps. And granted, this is just my personal observation colored by my own biases, but when you "oppose" something, you always put so many qualifiers around it as to make it meaningless. This could always be a matter of interpretation, but you've "opposed" torture and in the same breath say that you're going to defer to the administration and perhaps definitions need to be changed, etc, etc. It seems, imho, to make the "opposition" completely meaningless.

I'm reminded of Revelations 3:16

So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

Not that forceful, of course, but that's the sentiment.

Granted, it's just my ultra communist, super socialist, terrorist apologizing, Islamofascist enabling, nanny state liberal POV.

Guess you haven't heard of Michelle "round 'em up" Malkin.

Geebus.