home

Tuesday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:40:02 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I have an unpleasant day ahead, with no time for blogging.

A graveside funeral for my first federal drug client from 1976 with whom I've remained in contact (he was 62, had a stroke and died on Friday), followed by client visits at the jail, followed by court and a fourth attempt at bail for a client in a current drug case (bail was granted by the federal magistrate, overuled by the District Court Judge, his denial of bail was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit, and it's now back in front of the same District Court Judge.) And how kharmic is this: the judge in my bail case today was the prosecutor in the 1976 case against my client whose funeral I'm attending. How times change, and how they remain the same. Definitely one for the memoirs I probably will never write.

Anyway, I'm counting on readers (although TChris or Last Night in Little Rock might be around, so check back) to take over for the day. I'll be back tonight.

< Gonzales Says Fitzgerald Likely to Be Reappointed | Marri Challenges Confinement Conditions >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Open Thread | 62 comments (62 topical)
    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    Very weird connection. Good luck!

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by MikeDitto on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    The US Army has expelled another gay serviceman, violating the spirit of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy (as they usually do), by trolling through Tim Gill's political/community web site Connexion.org and finding the serviceman's profile. This is a guy who was happily out of the closet, working in advertising, when at age 32 felt compelled to answer the call to service, and so enlisted in the army and went to Iraq, and served honorably, only to have the military boot him out for being gay. As Dan Savage said, we seem to live in a "nation that seems to hate its gay citizens so much more than it values its own security." It's absolutely shameful.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    Uncle Sam must have a lot of straight dudes from Central America in line to take his place? There's a good idea for anyone in the military who wants to get outta Iraq: write an online profile saying your gay.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    A question for legal types I read this and my first reaction was WTF?
    In the first hint of how he will steer the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge John G. Roberts Jr., Senator Arlen Specter, the Judiciary Committee chairman, said Monday that he would press the nominee for his views on specific cases involving the authority of Congress to pass broad social legislation, a power that Democrats fear will be rolled back by a more conservative court.
    The article goes on to say that Democrats and liberal groups are "elated" and lists all kind of laws that have been overturned by the court: environmental laws, gun control provisions, etc. But I think we should worry that Specter might be attempting to chip away at the court's power when he says "the Senate is determined to confirm new justices who respect their role." That's right, those jumped up pantry boys of the Supreme Court must learn their place. Am I being alarmist?

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    TL, We've had our disagreements and always will. But good luck. This sounds a rough patch for you. Remember, it will end.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    Cindy Sheehan to Be Arrested? From a thread on a Google search for information about Cindy Sheehan:
    According to a poster on Daily Kos, Cindy Sheehan, a mother whose son was killed in Iraq, has been informed that she and her group will be arrested Thursday as a "threat to national security" for protesting the war on a road near Bush's "ranch" in Crawford, Texas. Cindy says that she and others plan to be arrested. Sheehan has vowed to continue protesting until Bush meets with her.
    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    Almost forgot! Check out the following link for good information about the ongoing saga of Cindy Sheehan. You owe her an explanation, Mr. President!

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    “You owe her an explanation, Mr. President!”
    In my estimation the US hasn’t engaged in an ‘honorable’ war, by the standards of the peace mongers who frequent this board, in generations. Given as much, it seems more appropriate for her son to be the one to explain why he joined the service given this record. My point, it was her sons choice and her sons sacrifice. She hasn’t any more moral credit to spend than the parents who willingly gave their child or the parents who gave no child at all.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    Labyrinth13... You owe her an explanation, Mr. President! No he doesn't. As I said in another post, he has explained why we went to war...several times. If she doesn't get it by now she never will. Her son joined.... he was aware of the risks. Don't want yourself (or your child) in that situation...don't join!

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    No he doesn't. As I said in another post, he has explained why we went to war...several times.
    The point is he lied. She wants the truth.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    peace mongers
    I hope I am included in this group!

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    In my estimation the US hasn’t engaged in an ‘honorable’ war, by the standards of the peace mongers who frequent this board, in generations.
    ?? WWII was honorable Given as much, it seems more appropriate for her son to be the one to explain why he joined the service given this record. My point, it was her sons choice and her sons sacrifice. She hasn’t any more moral credit to spend than the parents who willingly gave their child or the parents who gave no child at all.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    Damn, I hit post instead of preview. WRT to that last paragraph, givrn that the premise is false, its a straw man. In any case, some one may join believing in the "cause" only to find out that it was a pack of lies. The people who sent him off to Iraq using lies to justify the war should be held accountable, but they wont.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    The first and only federal conspiracy trial arising out of civil resistance to the Iraq War begins September 19 in Binghamton, NY. also a Tribunal in the evenings September 18 - 22 Binghamton, NY A 5-night tribunal to articulate the legal, moral, and historical defense for civil resistance to this illegal war. CONFIRMED: Ray McGovern, Medea Benjamin, Camilo Mejia, Kathy Kelly, Jon Bonifaz, Cindy Sheehan, Jimmy Massey, Liz McAllister, U.S. Rep. Hinchey, and others. NEEDED: A Thousand Jurors of Conscience. Find out More www.stpatricksfour.org

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    Soccerdad... The point is he lied. Is the left EVER gonna get past this? HE didn't lie...let me repeat for the thousanth time... Every major intellegence agency on the planet, including a vast majority of the Democratic party, (not to be confused with the term "intellegent") agreed he had WMD's! PERIOD!!!!

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    Yes, he lied. Nobody could believe that the President would lie about such things, so they believed him. Now the right is using this to make others complicit in the lie. As we say down here, "that dog won't hunt"

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    Meanwhile the violence continues..
    A suicide bomber struck near a U.S. convoy in Baghdad and gunmen opened fire on police patrols around the city Tuesday in attacks that killed at least 16 people.
    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    BB...Lied, less than truthful, that's just semantics. The fact is we were whipped into a fear frenzy with the "mushroom cloud" scenario, and every reasonable person knows that was not the case. Iraq was a long ways from having the ability to attack America. I never trusted this admin. to begin with, the Iraq war proved my suspicions correct. Our military men and women signed up to defend America, this war was not necessary for our defense. I appreciate this poor woman holding the president to account. The press sure as hell hasn't. That this woman and her supporters now face arrest as a "national security threat" disgusts me. Teddy Roosevelt taught us to always hold the president accountable and to always question his leadership, for the greater good of the nation. Imagine what he would think of this woman being deemed a "threat to national security". I hope we get our country back one day.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    PW writes:
    In my estimation the US hasn’t engaged in an ‘honorable’ war, by the standards of the peace mongers who frequent this board, in generations. Given as much, it seems more appropriate for her son to be the one to explain why he joined the service given this record. My point, it was her sons choice and her sons sacrifice. She hasn’t any more moral credit to spend than the parents who willingly gave their child or the parents who gave no child at all.
    I will contend that no war has ever been or ever will be "honorable", but the men who fight and die for our country are. He went over there and stood on that wall so that we could stay here and blog on a website about how wrong the war is and how we should/shouldnt be over there. Perhaps the parents and families of these men deserve a detailed list of the reasons our men went over there in the first place, a list of all the criteria considered when making the decision to send our boys over there. Once we know that, I mean the entire story, real and honest truth, then we can have educated discussions on whether it was right or not. The media, websites, and all other information will only tell bits and pieces that may not be easy to put together to understand the entire long and short of it. But the nature of our government is to keep us guessing and that's the problem. Until we know their criteria, all arguments on whether it was right or not are virtually meaningless, but the families of our fallen soldiers deserve to know for sure what their sons died for, one not more than others but all equally. My point, the entire story, good and bad, should be told, politics and political parties be damned, so that at least the families can have some closure.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    he has explained why we went to war...several times.
    Haw. And the explanation was different every time.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    SD-
    “WRT to that last paragraph, givrn that the premise is false, its a straw man.”
    First, a straw man is a trivially dispatched opposing argument, peripherally related to the point at hand, which is set up to raze in place of more relevant arguments; a rhetorical slight of hand. I sincerely believe the point, and it certainly wasn’t set up to falsely characterize an opposing point of view for an easy sendoff. No strawman. Second, simply claiming the premise is false and demonstrating as much are very different. I certainly don’t believe, and I’m sure most here would agree, that this war was any more or less apolitical or otherwise ‘legitimate’ than the South American covert wars or the proxy battles of the Cold War which has defined the modern use of the US military. With the full history of the modern misuse of US military force this kid joined the military and was killed. Blame it on youthful hubris, blame it on ignorance; but don’t feign surprise at the use of the military to back the fool’s errand of US foreign policy. P-
    “ no war has ever been or ever will be "honorable", but the men who fight and die for our country are.He went over there and stood on that wall so that we could stay here and blog on a website about how wrong the war is and how we should/shouldnt be over there.”
    The point is debatable. Many of the kids fighting in Iraq joined the active and reserve military after it became clear Iraq wasn’t the impending threat. Given the way most folks here feel about the consequences of military operations in Iraq there is a logical disconnect between that and the sentiments for the well-informed perpetrators of these acts, that is the soldiers I described above. Remember, for the most part these folks are volunteers or, more aptly, voluntary employees. Also, the kids fighting in Iraq today are not securing my freedom of speech, or any other fundamental freedom for that matter. They are there trying to hold security long enough for the Iraqi’s to construct a reasonably democratic government and secure their own country.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    Right on peac, but it will never happen. Bush ain't man enough to look this woman, and others like her, in the eye and admit this could have been avoided. It ain't their kids or loved ones, they couldn't care less. Kings and presidents, they never feel the pain. Just the average Joes and Janes.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    PW writes:
    Also, the kids fighting in Iraq today are not securing my freedom of speech, or any other fundamental freedom for that matter. They are there trying to hold security long enough for the Iraqi’s to construct a reasonably democratic government and secure their own country.
    All in an effort to preserve your fundamental freedoms and those of your children...At least that is the purpose of even having a military in the first place. Now that Iraq has a new government that cant really take care of itself, the people who brought about the big change are, and should be, trying to help them rebuild. Otherwise, their system would probably fall and the whole thing would be for nothing. So, we must arrive at the original question of why exactly did we take down the previous government in the first place. A partial answer and bits and pieces of the truth, you know, only telling what makes a politician or political party look good, just doesnt cut it. It's just another example of politics getting in the way of the progress of a DEMOCRATic REPUBLIC(AN).

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Second, simply claiming the premise is false and demonstrating as much are very different.
    Claiming the premise is true and demonstrating it are two different things?

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    I certainly don’t believe, and I’m sure most here would agree, that this war was any more or less apolitical or otherwise ‘legitimate’ than the South American covert wars or the proxy battles of the Cold War which has defined the modern use of the US military. With the full history of the modern misuse of US military force this kid joined the military and was killed. Blame it on youthful hubris, blame it on ignorance; but don’t feign surprise at the use of the military to back the fool’s errand of US foreign policy.
    They don't teach the truth in schools and the Govt. doesn't advertise it. Stop being a Govt apologist.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Posted by BB Labyrinth13 . . . You owe her an explanation, Mr. President! No he doesn't. As I said in another post, he has explained why we went to war...several times. If she doesn't get it by now she never will. Her son joined.... he was aware of the risks. Don't want yourself (or your child) in that situation...don't join!
    Yes, he does. All Cindy Sheehan is asking Bush for is an explanation as to why her son died. As a parent, let alone as the Commander in Chief of the United States, Bush should honor her request. I might add that Bush has never encouraged the Bush twins to do the noble thing and join the military to fight the war in Iraq. Really makes one seriously question the Bush family’s own loyalty to our country, doesn’t it? It is people like you who make me believe that the right wing in this country has either truly lost all sense of decency or has absolutely no clue as to what is actually happening in Iraq.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Kdog... The fact is we were whipped into a fear frenzy with the "mushroom cloud" scenario, and every reasonable person knows that was not the case. Well I disagree..... Who would have believed that these terrorist could have taken down the WTC and killed 3,000 plus people before 9/11? Not many people in the USA would have thought that possible. I'm guessing you Mr. Kdog would have bet against that too? Having said that, I'm certainly convinced that, if they had nukes, they would have used them. Do you disagree with that? Iraq was a long ways from having the ability to attack America.....this war was not necessary for our defense..... Again I respectfully disagree. If Saddam continued with his nuke program (or chemical weapons for that matter) the chances of him selling (or giving) these to American hating terrorists groups was very real. I never trusted this admin. to begin with, I think that is the key here dude... LOL That this woman and her supporters now face arrest as a "national security threat" disgusts me I agree with that ...but I also heard this is what she intended all along? Labyrinth13... All Cindy Sheehan is asking Bush for is an explanation as to why her son died. And what could he possibly tell her that would appease her...or anybody else on the left for that matter? Bush has never encouraged the Bush twins to do the noble thing and join the military So... Are you saying Cindi Sheehan did that? If she did, then she needs to redirect her question to herself. If she didn't ..your point is moot! It is people like you who make me believe that the right wing in this country has either truly lost all sense of decency Why..because I don't think this woman deserves 'special' treatment? How about the other mothers? or has absolutely no clue as to what is actually happening in Iraq. Well...I would respectfully submit you are the clueless one. If all your info comes only from the "left" blogs or the "left" media...then you truly don't know the real story. I know someone there and he paints a very different picture than ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN...etc..etc does!

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Sheehan is doing a good deed -- she is showing America that the supposed C-in-C is a coward as well as a LIAR and WARMONGER: * George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year Air National Guard tour of duty. Specifically refused overseas deployment. * Dick Cheney: did not serve. * Karl Rove: did not serve. * Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve. * Richard Perle: did not serve. * Douglas Feith: did not serve. * Eliot Abrams: did not serve. * Dennis Hastert: did not serve. * Tom Delay: did not serve. * Bill Frist: did not serve. * Mitch McConnell: did not serve. * Rick Santorum: did not serve. * Trent Lott: did not serve. * Jeb Bush: did not serve. * Rudy Giuliani: did not serve. * George Pataki: did not serve. * John Bolton: "I didn't want to die in some South Asian rice paddy. . ." What a bunch of HEROES these chickenhawks are. Gold Star Mother Sheehan is a better man than any of these so-called men who promoted and fostered and triggered war, but were afraid or too smart to serve in them. And now Baby Bush, on his 50th vacation (one for each state, nearly one for each month in office), is being shamed by Army Specialist Chris Sheehan's mom. What a coward, the Littlest Prince and his complicit Secret Service, and his Blackwater thugs.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    nice work Paul. Keep this list handy for upcoming elections when certain Dems are deemed unworthy of positions because they have little or no military service.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Greg Z... Good post. I'll go you one better... Unless Mr. La La can prove he was in the military, he too isn't qualified to even talk about it anymore!

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Henry Kissinger told Paul in LA he didn't have to join the military.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    let me get this straight. Paul in LA isn't qualified to post the careers of those in office? BB your rambling is making no sense today.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    BB pulled his head out of the sand to spew: And what could he possibly tell her that would appease her...or anybody else on the left for that matter?
    How about the truth?
    Bush has never encouraged the Bush twins to do the noble thing and join the military So... Are you saying Cindi Sheehan did that? If she did, then she needs to redirect her question to herself. If she didn't ..your point is moot!
    No, but her son sure joined the military while the Bush twins enjoy a life of wealth and privilege while other people’s sons and daughters are fighting and dying. I just see a huge imbalance there, while you have your head in the sand about it.
    It is people like you who make me believe that the right wing in this country has either truly lost all sense of decency Why..because I don't think this woman deserves 'special' treatment? How about the other mothers?
    What special treatment? All she is asking is for Bush to answer her question. As for the other mothers of dead soldiers, yes, they should get the same.
    Well...I would respectfully submit you are the clueless one. If all your info comes only from the "left" blogs or the "left" media...then you truly don't know the real story. I know someone there and he paints a very different picture than ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN...etc..etc does!
    My info comes from all sorts of sources, while your's obviously comes from Fox News. You don’t do anything respectfully as far as I can tell. Shame on you for dishonoring the mother of a dead war hero. You get zero respect from me.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    PIL is not out there starting wars and sending people to die, now is he? Damn two responses and no one's mentioned Clinton yet...you wingnuts are slipping.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    I am somewhat amazed this story is getting mentioned in the MSM. This is the first time I can recall where they have picked up anything that would question the validity of the war. The Downing Street memos were almost totally ignored until the ignoring of them became the story. I guess the news editors figure the audience has the intelligence of a five year old and this story is one they can understand, i.e., "Mommy wants to know why her boy died". Plus it has a certain "reality TV" quality to it. Camping out in a ditch and all... Ooooh, but I would love to hear the strategy sessions now going on at the RNC on how to smear her.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Posted by GregZ at August 9, 2005 03:03 PM nice work Paul. Keep this list handy for upcoming elections when certain Dems are deemed unworthy of positions because they have little or no military service. Democrats --see how many you know! * Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71. * David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72. * Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72. * Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade. * Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam. * Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII. * John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts. * Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea. * Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. * Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53. * Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. * Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91. * Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. * Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal. * Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit. * Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart. * Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V. * Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star. * Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57 * Chuck Robb: Vietnam * Howell Heflin: Silver Star * George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII. * Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311. * Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy. Graduate of Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD. * Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953 * John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters. * Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. * Paul Hackett: Major, USMC, Operation Iraqi Freedom. -- My point is not that service=good government. But taking the country to a vanity war for profit is NOT something that ANY of these Democrats have ever done or would ever do. As Jim was saying, 'A lack of concern with the results of such decisions is linked with failure to HAVE those sorts of experiences.' Not going to any of the 1,840 military funerals to date is another way to avoid being sad -- aside from 50 vacations and a pile of bloody cash to count.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    GregZ - Let me help PIL: FDR didn't serve. Hillary Clinton didn't serve. Bill Clinton didn't serve. John Edwards didn’t serve. Labyrinth13 writes:
    My info comes from all sorts of sources, while your's obviously comes from Fox News.
    I'm always interested in new news sources. And these you write of are??? BTW - The President is CINC. He isn't this lady's Priest, Minister or Counselor. I understand her grief, but she has no more claim than anyone else. If she really wanted to meet with him she could ask for a private meeting. But she doesn't want that. In her hurt and anger she wants to strike out. To blame someone. Understandable, but counter productive.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    PPJ wrote: I'm always interested in new news sources. And these you write of are???
    Google News
    BTW - The President is CINC. He isn't this lady's Priest, Minister or Counselor. I understand her grief, but she has no more claim than anyone else. If she really wanted to meet with him she could ask for a private meeting. But she doesn't want that. In her hurt and anger she wants to strike out. To blame someone. Understandable, but counter productive.
    So, this is the voice of “compassionate conservatism”, huh? Unimpressed with your "compassion," to be sure. You righties are so full of it, you squeak. Here’s to hoping the next Iraq victim is not your son, daughter, husband, wife, or loved one and that you aren’t relegated to a position in Sheehan’s ditch waiting for a simple answer.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    PPJ grasping for straws wrote: GregZ - Let me help PIL: FDR didn't serve. Hillary Clinton didn't serve. Bill Clinton didn't serve. John Edwards didn’t serve.
    Quite telling how your list sure is a lot shorter than the chicken hawk list above, ain't it, bubba? Most unimpressive!

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    One final note, and in the words of Cindy Sheehan herself:
    Why do the right wing media so assiduously scrutinize the words of a grief filled mother and ignore the words of a lying president?
    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    First PW astutely observes...
    "but don’t feign surprise at the use of the military to back the fool’s errand of US foreign policy."
    ...and after providing us with a definition of the "strawman" fallacy of argument, he or she then provides us with the red herring that is the so-stated goal of the Iraq occupation:
    They are there trying to hold security long enough for the Iraqi’s to construct a reasonably democratic government and secure their own country.
    Hundreds of billions committed. Thousands dead. All for Iraqi freedom. Yeah right.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#43)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Lab13 - Nope, I just picked them out of the air on my way out the door. No research, no effort. I maintain that when we decide that a person must have military experience to be elected we are well on the way to losing our democracy. FDR and Lincoln are two obvious examples of those who did not. Truman and Eisenhower are two examples of those who did. Neither Hillary or Bill could open the door for any one of these four. But, if you really think it is important, Nixon and McCarthy served. It is a good BS issue, providing many opportunities for snarking. Lab also writes:
    You righties are so full of it, you squeak. Here’s to hoping the next Iraq victim is not your son, daughter, husband, wife, or loved one and that you aren’t relegated to a position in Sheehan’s ditch waiting for a simple answer.
    First, I am not a conservative, and I am not particularly compassionate about some things. Military service, particularly in war, involves activities that are dangerous. I have sympathy for her loss, but her actions have removed any sympathy I might have had for her as a person. I think she is being used, and is getting some very bad advice. If I could tell her anything it would be this. We live in a wired world. Your actions are being seen around the globe, including the terrorists we fight against, and very possibly the person who killed your son. If they think your actions, and those who “support” your position will weaken our military’s morale, and force a political solution and withdrawal from Iraq, they will be emboldened and empowered and will fight longer and harder. Go home. Help those who remain in the fight. BTW – I’ll cut off the next phase of the argument, which always is: Well, why don’t you go. I served 10 years in Naval Aviation. I have said good bye to friends, been to funerals of those who served and heard Taps played. Have you served at all?

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#44)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    TS - Did you support Kosvo? I ask because I did not. I thought we had no national interest there, and that it should be handled by Europe. However, when the troops when in, I shut up. We were in the fight and discussion time was over.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    PPJ: First, I am not a conservative
    Yeah, sure you aren’t.
    and I am not particularly compassionate about some things.
    Like how the mother of a dead soldier feels? Yeah, we know.
    Military service, particularly in war, involves activities that are dangerous. I have sympathy for her loss, but her actions have removed any sympathy I might have had for her as a person. I think she is being used, and is getting some very bad advice.
    Again, you are so full of it, you squeak . . . and too often.
    If I could tell her anything it would be this. We live in a wired world. Your actions are being seen around the globe, including the terrorists we fight against, and very possibly the person who killed your son. If they think your actions, and those who “support” your position will weaken our military’s morale, and force a political solution and withdrawal from Iraq, they will be emboldened and empowered and will fight longer and harder. Go home. Help those who remain in the fight.
    And If I were Cindy Sheehan and if you had the guts to walk up to me and say this to my face, I’d feel compelled to spit in yours.
    BTW – I’ll cut off the next phase of the argument, which always is: Well, why don’t you go. I served 10 years in Naval Aviation. I have said good bye to friends, been to funerals of those who served and heard Taps played. Have you served at all?
    Four years in the Coast Guard, eleven years in the Merchant Marine. (And I wasn’t going to use that argument). You make me sick and get zero respect from me.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Lab - Glad to know you served in the Coast Guard. As for the rest, I'll just put you down as an anti-war person who will use anything to attack the country's position, including a mother's grief for her son. And that's pretty shabby.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#47)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Lab - BTW - Do some reading in the blog, and then tell me I'm a conservative. I'm a pro national defense social liberal, and an ex-Democrat. There are millions of us. Which is why the Demos can't beat the Repubs when they should be able to without breaking a sweat.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Greg Z... Paul in LA isn't qualified to post the careers of those in office? Sure ...Paul can (& does) post any drivel he wants. Not sure why I have to explain this... but... My point was... if the lack of military service makes these people unqualified for office.. (and your response was that would include any Dems too) ..Paul's lack of military service should exclude him from commenting on it. PPJ.... It looks like we both get .."Zero respect" from Labyrinth13. Will you be able to deal with that? Labyrinth13... No, but her son sure joined the military while the Bush twins enjoy a life of wealth and privilege? Let me try and explain it one more time... It is a volunteer force... meaning you don't have to join. Nobody forced this woman's son in... he volunteered. Bush's offspring (like every one elses) are free to not join if they chose. Get it now? All she is asking is for Bush to answer her question. She already met with Bush right after her son was killed! She was ok then... Why does she want to meet with him again... any clue ? Shame on you for dishonoring the mother of a dead war hero. I'm not dishonoring her...she doing that to herself! Ernesto... Damn two responses and no one's mentioned Clinton yet...you wingnuts are slipping. We're waiting for Paulie to go off on how the elections were stolen first.. LOL Which BTW has been proven to be BS!

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    BB- Do us all a favor and enlist. They can use a few good men like you.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    She already met with Bush right after her son was killed! She was ok then... Why does she want to meet with him again... any clue ?
    BB...read this.
    She says she and her family met privately with Mr. Bush two months later, and she is sharply critical of how the president acted. He did not know her son's name, she says, acted as if the meeting was a party and called her "Mom" throughout, which she considered disrespectful.
    Bush was either drunk or totally out of touch with the gravity of the situation. Remember, he has never been in a war and has had lower class people do all the heavy lifting for him his entire life. He has been shielded from reality during that time, so it makes sense that when meeting with the families of the deceased, he had no idea whatsoever on how to act or react. He's clueless to the fact that there is a tragic price being paid for his actions. But that's OK, there are plenty of people like that in the world (and you appear to be one of them). What is unforgiveable here is that he is still being shielded by his handlers to the reality of the consequences of his policies and he has NEVER given a specific answer as to what he is sending people to die for in Iraq.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Squeaky... BB- Do us all a favor and enlist. Sorry...been there done that. I served in Viet Nam. Too old now. How about you?

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Enesto... This was my favorite part... "and, let's face it, August is a slow news month". she arrived in a bus bearing the slogan "Impeachment Tour" - Yeah... I know if I was president I'd go out of my way to meet with someone that came to my house like this! The administration seems reluctant to have the president take part in events that would direct widespread attention to soldiers' funerals or to the thousands who have returned with serious injuries. C'mon Ernesto...No president in any war has done what you expect Bush to do. If we want the 'public' to have 'widespread' attention to something.. why not show videos of people jumping out of the WTC? Why did the news decide to not show that? Any ideas Ernesto? He continues to stay on message, as he did with the platitude he offered last week: "We will stay the course; we will complete the job in Iraq." So what else do you all want him to say? How many ways does he need to explain it to you blockheads? The public knows that things in Iraq are not going well on any number of levels All the public knows is what the left biased press feeds them. Ask somebody that is there if you really want to know. How many news clips have you seen on schools opening... women now getting educated... electric power on...water running...etc..etc. NONE I bet. And is that bescause it isn't happening? NO... it's becuase they'd rather show you death & destruction...and you all goble that up don't you?

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    BB, lying as usual: "My point was... if the lack of military service makes these people unqualified for office.. " Here's what I said, you liar: "My point is not that service=good government. But taking the country to a vanity war for profit is NOT something that ANY of these Democrats have ever done or would ever do." "Paul's lack of military service should exclude him from commenting on it." Bush, Cheney, and the rest's LACK OF COMBAT EXPERIENCE disqualifies them from understanding the damage they are doing to our troops and their families. Not going to a SINGLE military funeral is one example of the hostility and disrespect Bush feels toward the troops and their families. Scaroo the orphans. Scaroo you too, BB.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Now I understand why you are so crazy. My heart goes out to you, hope the VA pays enough for a good shrink and plenty of meds. That is if Bush has not already gutted programs that can give you treatment you desperatly need.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Paul... Here's what I said, you liar: Boy you love to throw that liar word around don't you? I know what you said...(in your second post)..my comment was to GregZ who called you out on your first post and the fact there are plenty of Dems that never served also. All I was saying is.. if you claim they don't qualify cause they didn't serve...the you don't qualify to comment on the military if you didn't serve. Jeez...do any of you people have a clue? Does any levity get through to any of you? Do you actually read the posts?

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Squeaky... Now I understand why you are so crazy Yeah it was touch & go for awhile there...I was actually a liberal back then. But thankfully... I did get better. Thanks for caring...

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    BB- I see your point. Bet the conversion made things a whole lot simpler for you. What a relief your sell out must have brought you. Was a lobotomy involved; there have been rumors that the VA was urged to adopt this effective proceedure to compensate for Bush's gutting the VA budget.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Posted by PPJ aka Jim spewed: As for the rest, I'll just put you down as an anti-war person who will use anything to attack the country's position, including a mother's grief for her son. And that's pretty shabby.
    PPJ: I don't believe I have witnessed such a full-on, blathering idiot like you in quite a long time. As for your comments above, you can go f*ck yourself. I know that this message board is not supposed to be used for personal attacks, but you have crossed the line with me here with your nasty comments. I find your lack of sensitivity to certain issues (especially your callousness at the death of service men and women) appalling. The deaths of soldiers in an unjust war is not some sort of intellectual exercise that you or anyone else should be playing words games with while you are sitting comfortably behind your computer, eating Cheetos. You and all of the war-lovers on here who keep trying to justify all of the killing in Iraq make me sick. I apologize to the admin here at TL for this and my other posts where I've let my anger show. And I realize fully that my comments above may get me banned, but sometimes these conservative idiots are just asking for it. As such, I’m just going to “ban” myself for awhile, and if I still have posting privileges on here after this rant, I may come back. But I’ve had it for now. (And yeah, yeah, go ahead with the wise-ass comments about good riddance, don’t let the door hit you, etc., etc, ad nauseam).

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Geez, Jim chased off another one. First Conscious Angel, now Labyrinth13. At this rate, it will just be him and Paul in LA calling each other idiots by the end of the year.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#61)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
    William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941)

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#62)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    desertswine I think a more appropiate variation might be You can never defeat an intellectually dishonest person in an argument. Labyrinth13 having been were you are my advice would be that you have to realize that PPJ is a bully and a dishonest one at that. One of his main goals besides monopolizing threads and distracting people from important issues is to provoke people by thinly veiled insults and snarks. Arguing with him just lowers you to his gutter, why do you care what some one like him says. He pretends to be the great moral arbiter, but in fact he has been shown over and over to be intellectually dishonest and let me repeat a bully. "Don't wrestle with a pig. The pig loves it and you just get dirty"

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#63)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    I am rightly corrected.

    Re: Tuesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#64)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    The other day Jim posted one of my comments and wrote: "I rest my case." If only.

    Tuesday Open Thread | 62 comments (62 topical)