home

Monday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 01:10:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm flying back to Washington today for Tuesday's closing arguments in the Scooter Libby trial. Since today is a holiday, I don't know how many people will be online, but I figured I'd give those of you who are a place to talk.

My live-blogging Tuesday will be over at Huffington Post. My nightly wrap-ups will appear both there and here.

A big thanks to TalkLeft readers who helped make possible my three trips to cover the trial and to Arianna Huffington , Firedoglake and Media Bloggers for the press passes.

< The Worst Argument for Libby's Acquittal | How the Congress Can Get the US Out of Iraq >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Open Thread | 115 comments (115 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    URL's must be in html format (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 09:42:21 AM EST
    I had to delete three comments by one poster because the urls were so long they skewed the site.  Please use the link button at the top of the comment box to post urls.  This is clearly stated in the comment rules to the site.

    re a "sex offender" suicide (none / 0) (#2)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 09:51:09 AM EST

    a handicapped and developmentally disabled man was 9 years ago engaged in some child play with another child and was convicted of indecent exposure to a child under 14 or whatever.  He himself was a minor at the time.

    He killed himself when he was 20.  At the time of the "crime," he was 11.  He was charged and considered a "sex offender" and the girl was told she was a victime of a sex crime.  They had showed each other their private parts.

    The neighborhood where he lived recently put up signs saying child rapist--a false accusation, and one made despite
    1) the sheriff's office concluding he was not a threat to anyone;
    and
    2) the family of the victim, both parents and "victim," regarding the guy as a friend, having "forgiven" him and at times visiting him.

    the guy, with the mental capacity of a 10-year-old, killed himself.

    link maybe (none / 0) (#5)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 10:21:28 AM EST

    wondering if this works.  
    If not, the story is at cnn.com and was there yesterday.

    The local DA shows no remorse or regret, basically saying that the guy killing himself is what he deserved due to his own "crime."  I could be wrong, but 20-40 years ago, this was a "crime" that 20-60% of kids played at some point.  If you have the attitude the Nazis had back in 39, then yes, these people should all just die and make life easier for the rest of us.

    If you believe that every person is valuable, then, you would regard the actions of the community as unchristian and wrong.

    Parent

    Just type the name of the source (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 10:03:44 AM EST
    or example, CNN reports

    Then use your mouse to highlight CNN, click on the link button and a popup will give you a place to paste in the url, beginning with http, the colon and two slashes.  You must use that.

    It's really easy.  If you don't get it right, delete your comment and try again.

    I can't modify comments or fix them, only delete them under the Scoop platform.

    The buttons above the comment box (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 10:21:17 AM EST
    don't appear in all browsers. Here is a one page tutorial on How to Make Hyperlinks, manually.

    Parent
    Counterinsurgency as Malpractice (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 11:43:12 AM EST
    A very well researched and insightful piece from the new Harpers, by Edward Luttwak, about why our much belated counterinsurgency shift in Iraq does not stand much of a chance of succeeding -- unless we want more murderous and bloodthirsty than we could imagine  

    Dadler (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 11:53:22 AM EST
    So, we are engaged in a war.

    People are fighting and killing each other.

    And your solution is that we surrender.

    Glad you weren't around during WWII...

    Parent

    I'm not suggesting "surender" (none / 0) (#8)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 12:06:23 PM EST
    People are fighting and killing each other.

    And your solution is that we surrender.

    Surrender is laying down your arms and placing yourself at the mercy of your opponent.

    Instead, I suggest that we keep our arms and just go home, instead of acting as a crossfire target between the Saudi-financed Sunni and the Irani-financed Shiites.

    That would not meet any part of the description of the word "surrender."

    Parent

    Yes, It is surrendering. (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 03:37:26 PM EST
    We defined our mission as regime change, the destruction of WMD's.

    Well, we did the latter, there were none, if we can believe what we have been told. And we stopped his attempts to get back into the WMD business.

    Now what haven't we done??? We have partially completed the regime change. We have an elected person in, a new constitution inplace, but...

    Terrorists are trying to overthrow the new regime...

    Now. What do you call it when you leave a job not done?

    Quitting?? Surrendering??

    Okay. If you don't like surrendering, I'll go with quitting.

    Parent

    Definitions (none / 0) (#22)
    by Al on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 04:00:41 PM EST
    We defined our mission as regime change, the destruction of WMD's.

    Well, the mission was variously defined, as each bogus goal collapsed under its own weight. But according to Bush, the mission, whatever it was, was accomplished already long ago. Didn't you get the memo?

    The job not done is this: The legislation that would give foreign oil companies control over Iraq's oil. From The Independent:

    "Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis," said Mr Muttitt [Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry]. "The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had."

    So much for your interest in the elected government and the constitution of Iraq. I have a feeling that the "terrorists" that most upset you are the ones bombing the pipelines.

    Parent
    Read the essay then rebut (none / 0) (#67)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    If you actually read Luttwak's piece and then vehemently disagreed with his thesis based on a reasoned dissection of its evidence and assertions, then I'd have no problem respecting your differing opinion.

    However, you irrationally reduce the quite rational arguments of others down to wildly inaccurate and empty slogans -- which have no basis in those rational arguments of others.

    Parent

    Occupation vs. War (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    Digby, as usual, nails it again:

    The fact is that when the oil is challenged in the Saudi oil fields and the Straights of Hormuz are closed, we'll be fighting even by your definition.

    [The] Right. They aren't even pretending anymore.

    I think the great public intellectual and conservative philosopher Ann Coulter said it best:

    "Liberals are always talking about why we shouldn't go to war for oil. But why not go to war for oil? We need oil.

    There you go.



    Stopping an illegal occupation (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 12:10:42 PM EST
    is not a "surrender".

    Parent
    Judge to force Padilla's jailers to testify (none / 0) (#11)
    by scribe on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 01:19:33 PM EST
    In the torture-into-furniture case against US citizen Jose Padilla, the trial judge has ordered that the United States produce some of his jailers, to testify regarding his treatment while in the naval brig at Charleston, SC.  

    U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke ordered a Pentagon lawyer and seven military and civilian prison employees to appear for questioning at a hearing on Thursday to determine if Padilla is mentally competent to stand trial on terrorism charges.

    "Things happened to him at that place. It might be an entirely pleasant experience, I don't know," Cooke said.

    That's a judge being snarky, by the way.

    Cooke ruled that since a psychiatrist's judgment that Padilla was fit to stand trial was based partly on conversations with doctors and staff at his military brig, their testimony was relevant for Padilla's mental competency hearing.

    In other words, the government was too clever by half when they had the Bureau of Prisons shrink decree Padilla fit for trial - the shrink talked to people who actually worked at the prison to find information to support the opinion, and that made the workers' knowledge relevant to the discussion.  Therefore, they have to testify.

    Not that they want to, or otherwise could:

    Most of the brig workers had refused, or been denied permission, to speak to defense lawyers, Padilla's attorney Anthony Natale said.

    And, don't put it past the government to conveniently lose information which might be critical to the defense case:

    Two years' worth of medical records from Padilla's time in the brig were also missing, Natale said.

    Cooke voiced skepticism when a prosecutor told her that the government could not find one of the evidentiary tapes she had ordered them to give to Padilla's lawyers. She questioned how it "just got mislaid."

    "Do you understand why this is a little frustrating?" she asked the prosecutor. "Where could they be? Why would it be so hard?"

    It's hard only because they don't want it seen by outside eyes, judge.

    As I suspected, the Government wants no one to see (none / 0) (#14)
    by scribe on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 02:07:50 PM EST
    what was going on.  Here's a quote from the WaPo's coverage (Saturday, page A17) of the judge compelling the jailers' testimony:

    Federal prosecutors objected strenuously to allowing the testimony, arguing that the focus of the competency hearing should be on Padilla's psychological state, which they believe is adequate, and not necessarily on what past events might have caused post-traumatic stress disorder, as defense attorneys allege.

    During a hearing Friday, U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke grew tired of the government's objections.

    "The only thing that comes to mind is: 'Methinks the lady doth protest too much,' " she told prosecutors.

    Cooke ordered four people to appear at a hearing scheduled for Thursday: Sandy Seymour, who was technical director at the brig; Craig Noble, brig psychologist; Mike Reheuser, a Defense Department attorney; and Andrew Cruz, a brig social worker.

    They doth protest too much.

    The basic claims of torture we are, sadly, too familiar with:

    Padilla, 36, and his attorneys have claimed that while incarcerated at the brig in Charleston, S.C., he was forced to stand hooded in painful stress positions, given a drug as a "truth serum," subjected to noxious odors that made his eyes and nose run, and forced to endure sleep deprivation, extreme cold, and harsh lights.

    But, here, we get more from Padilla, though indirectly:

    He told a psychologist that at the brig that he sometimes begged his guards not to put him in "the cage," but he would not say what went on there. The conditions of his incarceration have rendered him unable to assist in his own defense, his attorneys said.

    What went on in the cage??

    And this, from the defense psychiatrist:

    "When approached by his attorneys, he begs them, 'Please, please, please' not to have to discuss his case," according to psychiatrist Angela Hegarty, who interviewed him for 22 hours.

    But the government's argument is sophistic, in the extreme:

    A Bureau of Prisons psychologist has found Padilla competent to stand trial, and prosecutors argue that by relating his claims of torture to his attorneys, Padilla has shown his psychological competence to assist in his own defense. But the court-appointed psychologist from the Bureau of Prisons, Rodolfo Buigas, did not interview Padilla, who refused to cooperate. Instead, Buigas talked with brig officials and others about Padilla's behavior.

    In other words, if you can tell someone you were tortured, you are not allowed to bring that out, because the ability to tell someone about yur torture means you're still competent to assist your counsel in your defense, even if the torture-conditioning you went through implanted a wall of fear in your psyche which precludes you from helping your lawyers.  Or, said another way, if you're able to tell someone you were tortured, you weren't tortured enough to prevent us from trying you.

    Niiiice.


    Parent

    and, here's the Miami paper (none / 0) (#16)
    by scribe on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 02:40:15 PM EST
    on the hearing.

    The Judge said: "It's not like Mr. Padilla was living in a box. He was at a place. Things happened to him at that place," Cooke said.

    Beg to differ, Judge.  He was exactly "living in a box".  No windows, no light (or no darkness), no other people, nothing on the walls, nothing to read, nothing to do except sink into delusion and insensibility.  He, and the closed-case files in storage in my basement (I've been cleaning out storage lately) have a lot in common.  They got put in a box and left there for several years until they were old enough to come out and get tossed in the trash.

    The Miami paper notes that two of the jailers ordered to testify, Seymour and Noble, might not work at the brig any more and one, Andrew Cruz, a brig social worker has "since been deployed to Afghanistan".

    Torturer Corps (R), much?  Like I wrote about in this thread, here, and especially, here:

    The point of Gitmo and keeping people in the Charleston brig, it seems, probably never was to extract from them information about terrorism and plots.  Actionable intelligence, it would appear, was derived rather rapidly in-theater, in places like Bagram, Poland, Rumania, odd apartments or houses in Pakistan, and elsewhere.  Remember, we are told the CIA developed great respect for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed because he was able to withstand water-boarding for a few minutes.  Not hours, days, weeks, months or years.  Minutes.  And then he sang.

    So, why go through all these repetitive interrogations, extended stays of months without seeing a human face (or anything other than gray walls) or hearing any sounds?

    It seems unmistakeably clear that the "information of enormous value to the nation" being "developed" was not intelligence.  Rather, and first, it was the creation of an institutional memory and structure for the extended, expanded use of torture tactics by the US government.  Remember how the FBI and reluctant-to-participate military were driven out of Gitmo, when they protested against using torture?  They didn't get that the Real Program (which they weren't getting with) was not getting information from these subjects.  Rather, it was sieving out those who would be in the new Torturer Corps (R) from the mass of military, CIA and medical personnel.  An employment interview, if you will.

    Second, it was training of interrogators  - torturers - in the craft of their new trade.  
    * * *
    Gitmo is the place where those torture specialists are being trained and their methodologies worked out with scientific rigor.  Padilla, al-Masri, and so many more at Gitmo were, in reality, lab rats.  They were both the subjects of experimentation - answering the questions "what works to break a man, and how well?" - and training exercises for those interrogators.  And, while the Gitmo detainees were more for the purpose of working out the procedures, Padilla and al-Masri were and are the precedents for doing it here, on US soil.  But, it mattered not that it was Padilla, qua Padilla.  He was just a convenient, sufficiently-bad guy on whom a tag "Dirty Bomber" could be hung regardless of facts, let alone guilt.

    So, as bad as the atrocities were, there is little doubt in my mind they were also pointless in the intelligence-gathering sense.  There was no intelligence to be gathered, but I think Rummy and Haynes and Scooter and Deadeye and The Unit and all their henchmen knew that, when they ordered it to take place.  This was all about creating a duplicate system, based on torture and outside the law, to terrorize ordinary people into silence.

    But, if the Government is to be believed, none of this is relevant to whether the Torturer Corps (R) has succeeded in making this month's Designated Bad Guy a drooling idiot, or just too scared to defend himself in his (reluctantly granted) show trial.

    Remember, the point of Cheka/NKVD/MVD/KGB interrogation techniques (torture, a/k/a "brainwashing") was not the mere infliction of pain.  Rather, it was the creation in the Designated Bad Guy a genuineness in his confession - even to the most outlandish, egregious, out-of-character allegations - that would withstand the cursory view the public and the judiciary would get, in the few moments of his show trial when he would "confess".  Those who would go back on their confessions, or not be sufficiently sincere to convince the judge, would get a continuance in their trial, followed by more work with the interrogator.  Until their genuineness and eagerness to confess met standards.

    That our Torturer Corps (R) is using the same techniques and tactics 'murcans, and especially Rethuglicans, decried so loudly during The Cold War speaks volumes about the perfidy which has made the entire Unitary Executive Branch septic.  I recall, from the 80s (by which time the worst of it was over), National Review and other conservative organs time and again decrying the Soviet practice of placing dissenters into psychiatric institutions, and the general perversion of the psychiatric profession in the Soviet Union.  How the worm turns.

    Or, as the Doobies titled an album:  "What were once vices, are now habits."

    Parent

    And here are the names of the witnesses (none / 0) (#118)
    by scribe on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 11:26:55 AM EST
    to the torture of Padilla (From Thursday's Miami Herald):

    Cooke said she would allow Padilla's lawyers to question these eight witnesses: Defense Department attorney Mike Reheuser; brig technical director Sandy Seymour; brig psychologist Craig Noble; brig social worker, Maj. Andrew A. Cruz; Miami Federal Detention Center employees Jorge Luis. Dr. Victor Shoukry. Dr. Lisa Feldman and Dr. Hoa Ngo.

    Before the judge's ruling, the U.S. attorney's office had already moved to quash the defense subpoena for Seymour, court records show.

    Well, who are these guys?

    Parent

    The majority (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 01:41:51 PM EST
    of the Iraqi citizenry, the U.S populace, and troops stationed in Iraq want us to "surrender" too.

    Only the chickenhawks have "the steely resolve" to continue this debacle.

    if their resolve is so steely and stiff (none / 0) (#13)
    by scribe on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    they should go down to the recruiter and sign on the line.

    Until that time, they should STFU.  The less they say, the better.

    Parent

    scribe (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 04:14:17 PM EST
    If service is a qualification for commenting, then I am sure that you have directed your vulgar personal attack of STFU to Edger, squeaky and all the others on the Left who have not served, as well as those on the Right.

    This, of course, will leave the debate between those of us who have served.

    Since I have served, I am sure you welcome my comments about the war, and the military in general, as I do yours.

    Of course if we apply the same principle to other things, then we can't discuss education unless we were/are teachers, fianace without being bankers or brokers.... oh well, I'm sure you get the idea......

    BTW - I am sure I would find your critique of Lincoln and FDR's leadership in our two largest and most bloody wars most interesting. Seeing how FDR never served and Lincoln only for, I think, about 90 days in the state milita during the War With Mecico. (He never saw combat.)

    Parent

    BTW - watch yer factual errors, Jimakappj (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by scribe on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 05:50:14 PM EST
    I am sure I would find your critique of Lincoln and FDR's leadership in our two largest and most bloody wars most interesting. Seeing how FDR never served and Lincoln only for, I think, about 90 days in the state milita during the War With Mecico. (He never saw combat.)

    WRT FDR, claiming he never served overlooks three salient facts:

    1.  He was Assistant Secretary of the Navy from 1913 through 1920, i.e., through the entire pre-, during and post-WWI.  I believe his youth and military service age did not really correspond with any (major) conflicts.
    2.  In his later years, his legs were, uh, pretty well useless due to polio.
    3.  FDR's sons all served (some as enlisted soldiers), and his relative Teddy, a son of Teddy Roosevelt, was a D-Day commander, going ashore (I think at Utah) with the first or second wave.  He later died of a heart attack brought on by/thru the stress of combat.  And another relative, a brother of the Teddy who died in WWII, was KIA as a fighter pilot in WWI.

    WRT Lincoln, you overlook an well-noted incident, in which a young Oliver Wendell Holmes, then of the 20th Massachusetts regiment was in command of a fortification protecting Washington, and Lincoln came to visit.  
    In 1864, 23-yr-old Holmes the soldier was at Fort Stevens, near Washington, D.C., while it was under Confederate assault. He screamed at a tall civilian in a suit and top hat recklessly peering over the fortress wall: "GET DOWN, YOU DAMNED FOOL!". The civilian was President Lincoln, who immediately complied.

    While some may question the accuracy of the story quoted above (I think the questioning goes to the exact words spoken), I read it in Smithsonian magazine some years ago, and I generally accept their reports as being both well-sourced and fact-checked.  There appears little doubt that Lincoln, on that occasion, did in fact see battle, and was in personal danger from Confederate fire.

    And, of course, you also overlook the fact that Lincoln's assassin, Booth, did so as an act attempting to re-ignite the Confederate cause.  As many have said, Lincoln may well have been the "last casualty of the Civil War", though that is a bit more poetical than accurate as both guerilla warfare and deaths from combat wounds continued for some time after Lincoln's passing.

    As to telling chickenhawks to STFU in their criticism of those of us who want these wars to end, and now, it needs be remembered that anyone who wants to urge a course of continued war should be willing to put their bodies where there mouths are driving others.  Otherwise, they are not worthy of the time spent listening to them.  Comparing the military service of those two prior Presidents to the current crop of chickenhawks and their children points out the latters' severe lack of moral standing to urge others to war, and the corresponding lack of reason to listen to them.  

    War is different, Jim, and I stand by telling chickenhawks to STFU.

    Parent

    scribe (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 06:18:58 PM EST
    Please. Surely you aren't going to try and claim that FDR's stint as Asst Sec of the Navy as "military service." But if you want to, I guess Bush's 6 years as CIC counts as miliatry service.

    As to what his sons did, I commend and admire them, as I do FDR. He is tied with Jackson and Jefferson as my favorites, but that has nothing to do with the question in hand.

    As to whatever Lincoln did and didn't do at whatever battle, if you want to say that he served because he was CIC, I refer you again to my comment about Bush. Actually Bush served longer than Lincoln. But so what Lincoln is dead and Bush has two years left.

    Frankly sir, I thought better of you.

    And that's not what you said.

    You wrote:

    (chickenhawks) they should go down to the recruiter and sign on the line.

    Until that time, they should STFU.

    That is a clear statement that those who haven't served should STFU. Now, if you want to modify and say:

    Only those who have served, or only those who are in opposition to the war may speak.

    that is your right. But let's both recognize that what you are doing is demanding that we have no debate on this subject.

    Funny, when I point the harm that the anti-war demonstrations, etc., are doing, I am always very quickly reminded that it is their right.

    So I'll just put you down as someone who has now joined the Left in defending my right to agree with them, but who will yell STFU at any who disagree.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    In the words of St. Ronald Reagan (none / 0) (#43)
    by scribe on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 09:52:46 PM EST
    "there you go again", dissembling where you can, distracting at every opportunity, and making it up with glee in your heart.  Not unlike the commie Evil Empire St. Ronnie so fought against.

    Dissimulation #1:  Lincoln was under hostile fire in the battle I referenced.  Actual bullets whizzin' by his lanky frame and exposed on the parapet.  On his day o' destiny, Bushie froze, then hid on AF One, while Deadeye burrowed into a bunker and, later, various huntin' lodges.

    Distortion #2:  You reference FDR's service as Assistant Secretary of the Navy as somehow equivalent to Bushie hiding out in Alabama and failing his flight physical, rather than play at soljer in the TxAFNG (no slight on the Guard intended, merely on Bushie's service therein).  The problem is, in FDR's case, as Assistant Secretary, he actually was second in command at the Navy Department.  In those pre-1947 unified Department of Defense days, the Navy Department was the co-equal of the Department of War, and therefore half the defense establishment.  And, in that capacity, FDR was pretty much in charge of actually building a Navy (and moving the Navy from coal to oil fuel, going through a generation or two of capital ship development, and the genesis of naval aviation) during, and for, an actual world war (which we won).  Bushie, on the other hand, has managed to pretty well wreck his entire military (save the Air Force and some of the Navy) and, in the process, managed to lose all the wars he's fought.  He let bin Laden get away to Pakistan, where, today's news tells us, he's busily rebuilding his terrist infrastructure and base camps, this time in a country (a) his folks have thoroughly permeated and (b) with indigenous nukes.  And, Bushie busted his teeth on Iraq.

    Moreover, you also fail to note that FDR was able to use his service as Assistant Secretary many years later in choosing admirals.  IIRC, Admiral King, who headed the Navy in WWII, had been a destroyer captain during WWI who refused an order from FDR, embarked on his destroyer, to take it in closer to the Maine shore for a better look at something on shore.  Decades later FDR chose King for the big job for exactly that reason - King (for all his difficult personal traits) had the integrity and strength of character to do the right thing, consequences be damned.  Compare that to Bushie's and Rummy's treatment of those who even express the slightest hint of disagreement;  viz. Lt. Commander Swift.

    As to my inalterable position that chickenhawks who haven't (and won't) march on down to the recruiter and sign on the line should STFU, I remind you that they're free to speak, but their fundamental moral, physical and intellectual cowardice makes it worse than unseemly.  Their advocating that others, poorer or less-advantaged than they, should shed blood so the chickenhawks can continue raking in big bucks and partying every Thursday, Friday and Saturday night, making contacts and networking their way to the top of whatever ladder they're climbing, is reprehensible.  When I tell them to STFU, I'm actually trying to help them;  to do them a favor.  Much like one might tell a friend their shirt's hanging out, or they have a booger on their face.

    Remember, Oliver Wendell Holmes' 20th Massachusetts was called the "Harvard Regiment", because it was primarily comprised of Harvard men who voluntarily went into the meatgrinder that was the Civil War.  Cowardly self-indulgence seems more the rule at Ivies and elsewhere in the elite today.

    Parent

    Google is your friend (none / 0) (#57)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 09:53:24 AM EST
    Lincoln VOLUNTEERED for service during the Black Hawk War in 1832, and was elected by his fellow Illinois volunteers to be captain of their unit.  

    Lincoln did not serve during the Mexican War because by then he was past military age and he had already been elected to the House of Representatives.  His criticism of the phony excuses used to get us into that war echo was codified in a bill submitted to the House of Representatives on December 22, 1847 in which he demanded that the president supply to the House all records pertaining to how we entered that war.

    Sound familiar?  Should the current House emulate Lincoln and demand all documents leading up to the invasion of Iraq?

    Parent

    I think it is more (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 02:43:56 PM EST
    a "grim" resolve to try to rescue a battered reputation in the face of abject failure, rather than any kind of "steely" resolve.

    Parent
    Wrong. (Yawn) (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 03:51:06 PM EST
    Oh, really?? Investors Business Daily says that 66% of Americans think that a US victory is very or somewhat important.

    Now when we lose, and when the public figures out who the party of defeat and surrender is, the Demos will lose all of the gains they won in 2006.

    Americans don't like to lose. After Vietnam it took about 6-8 years for them to figure out it was the Demos. With channel news and the Internet, it won't take that long this time around.

    Parent

    Squeaky.. You need to know this (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 03:55:43 PM EST
    Drat it. I hate it when I hit the post button too soon...

    squeaky.... The same poll shows that 43% of Democrats are HOPEFUL that we suceed. That means 57% are not hopeful.

    Can anyone on this blog tell me why in God's name any American would not be hopeful we succeed?

    Tell me again about how you support the troops.

    Parent

    Admittedly... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 04:03:29 PM EST
     that's a vaguely worded question (and so a terrible one for a poll), but I'd assume the question was taken in by most to mean:

    do you have hope he will win and not "do you hope we win

    Parent

    Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 04:21:10 PM EST
    Well, the question says what the question says.

    "How hopeful are you that we will succeed?"

    That is not vague. You are either hopeful that we succeed, or you are not.

    Parent

    Hopeful? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 05:35:03 PM EST
    I'm not even hopeful that we will ever get a definition of "success."

    Parent
    Hope (none / 0) (#32)
    by roy on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 06:08:40 PM EST
    Hope is a broad concept.  When people say they're hopeful, it just means they think it would be nice.

    I hope I win the lottery, but I don't spend all my money on it.  Or do you think the fact that I still have money in the bank implies that I don't really hope to win?


    Parent

    Roy, thanks for helping me. (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 06:24:48 PM EST
    Hope is a broad subject.

    It is the qualifiers that pin down the subject.

    You are hopeful you win the lottery.

    43% of the Demos and 80% of the Repubs are hopeful

    we win in Iraq.

    Hope is a broad subject. But "lottery" is specific as so is "winning in Iraq."

    Parent

    Americans aren't stupid (none / 0) (#26)
    by Al on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 04:22:14 PM EST
    PPJ, the failure of the invasion of Iraq (in other words, "losing") has already happened, and it's your fault. Your strategy seems to be to pretend that you haven't failed for as long as you can still convince some people, and then try to blame the Democrats for your failure when you can't.

    Your four-year-old attempted invasion is in a shambles, and you blame ... who, exactly? Bill Clinton? Nancy Pelosi? Henry Waxman? Hillary Clinton? Al Gore? Barack Obama? Jesse Jackson? Jane Fonda? Who?

    It's meaningless to talk about being "hopeful" of a victory in Iraq, when you've already lost. Even the attempt to railroad the Iraqi "government" into handing over the oil to foreign companies is meaningless, if it can't be enforced.

    Meanwhile, people continue to die.

    Parent

    Al (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 04:30:48 PM EST
    If it is meaningless, then why do the American people not think so?

    Your attempt to pop up the strawman, of "let's not talk because the war is lost," is recognized.

    Nice try but no cigar.

    BTW - The war will not be lost, by either side, until that side withdraws.

    BTW - Are you really so lacking in military history that you think that because something is in shambles, that the war, or even that battle is lost?

    What kind of shape do you think our troops were in during the Battle of the Bulge? What kind of shape do you think the Soviet defenders of Stalingrad was during Hitler's attack?

    Wars are not lost just by battles. Wars are lost by one side loosing the will to fight. Why are you trying to destroy our will with such statements that you have just made??

    BTW - I trust you have served, or else scribe wants you to STFU..... ;-)

    Me? Nope, I want you to talk.

    Parent

    Polls (none / 0) (#36)
    by Al on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 07:09:49 PM EST
    All right, let's see what the American people think. Here's an AP/Ipsos Reid poll conducted Feb. 12-15, 2007. [Link].

    "As you may know, the Bush Administration has begun to significantly increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to help stabilize the situation there. Do you favor or oppose this?" Favor: 38%. Oppose: 60%. Unsure: 2%.

     "Do you think the war in Iraq is a worthy cause or a hopeless cause?" Worthy: 39%. Hopeless: 56%. Both: 2%. Neither: 2%. Unsure: 1%.

    Interestingly, of various options on what to do about the Iraq war, the most favored one is "Setting a time-table for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year". In favor: 63%. Opposed: 35%. Unsure: 2%.

    I guess 63% of Americans are quitter surrender monkeys, eh PPJ?
                       

    Parent

    PPJ on war (none / 0) (#37)
    by Al on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 07:24:49 PM EST
    The war will not be lost, by either side, until that side withdraws.

    What do you think this is, a game of checkers? And really, by your own idiotic definition, do you seriously think you're going to get the insurgency to withdraw any time soon? You've had four years, and it just keeps getting worse.

    The Battle of the Bulge was one battle, between conventional forces on both sides. It's totally irrelevant to what is happening in Iraq. The defence of Stalingrad is more relevant, but I have to tell you, the Russians were the insurgency, successfully fending off the supposedly vastly superior German army. If there's a parallel to be drawn, it's exactly the opposite of what you intend.

    What pisses me off is not that you're out of your mind. I mean, who cares. It's that people die because you're out of your mind.

    Parent

    Despair (none / 0) (#15)
    by David at Kmareka on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 02:30:09 PM EST
    Apropos of none of the aforementioned comments, I was contemplating earlier today as I was driving home from the grocery store of all that is wrong with this country and the world, and I found myself overwhelmed with despair.  And I did not want to feel despair, which unchecked can fill your pockets with stones and drown you.  But I wondered aloud, "how do you not feel despair?"  And after some reflection, I realized that despair is a fairly rational response to the pervasive cruelty and incompetence and greed and tragedy that surrounds us.  So the question is not: "how do you not feel despair?"  The question is: "how do you not just feel despair?"

    The answer, I think, is to make room for light amid the darkness.  To lighten the load by admitting as much laughter and love and music and beauty and human connection as possible into one's life.  In that spirit, here is a link to a video I created a short while ago that features the glorious voice of Patty Griffin and beautiful images of the natural world.  May it take you away for a moment...

    Heavenly Day

    Beautiful, David. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 02:46:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Hang in there, David (none / 0) (#27)
    by Al on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 04:23:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Throughout history (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 05:02:18 PM EST
    occupations have been lost from the day they began because they run into resistance called insurgency.

    The only way an occupation could conceivably be "won" would be by forcing the people of an occupied country to submit utterly through threat of more violence and sowing of fear.

    Or by killing them all.

    Of course, the occupiers never call it an occupation. They have to try to convince those who oppose what they do to agree that it is a "war" instead to be able to justify themselves and be able to blame their loss on their opposers.

    And so goes the War On Thinking... run by losers.

    edger (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 06:27:07 PM EST
    Have you ever heard of the occupation of Germany and Japan????

    Do you agree that they were a success and that the new countries were, and are, a better place?

    Parent

    So what do you think the difference is? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Al on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 07:38:51 PM EST
    That there wasn't a resistance. In fact, the Allied soldiers were welcomed. And of course, the subsequent prosperity and well-being of Germany and Japan should be attributed mostly to the German and Japanese people themselves.

    Iraq is totally different. Iraqis hate your guts. They wish you would leave. The occupation of Iraq has brought them nothing but grief. Iraq is not a better place because it is occupied, and never will be. It will take generations of Iraqis to overcome the destruction that you unleashed there.

    Parent

    Al (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 09:52:08 PM EST
    That is totally wrong.

    There was resistance in Germany and Japan. It was dealt with quickly and very harshly.

    Link

    The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946, 1998, comes to a very different conclusion. According to Biddiscombe; Retreating to the Black Forest and the Harz mountains they continued resisting the occupation until at least 1947, possibly to 1949-50, effecting the undermining of peace and stability.

    Most of Japan's actual resistance happened in the Phillipinces and othetr islands, and was not thought to be serious, although there were several groups dedicated to fighting to the death....a  great deal of tension existed as the new constitution was implemented, especially over women's rights.

    Parent

    PPJ, PPJ (none / 0) (#49)
    by Al on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 01:20:33 AM EST
    Don't you ever learn? Do you think I'm not going to read the links you provide?

    The first sentence in your reference to Wikipedia reads:

    The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946, 1998, comes to a very different conclusion.

    Wait; different conclusion? Different from what? Well, let's see:

    It originally had about 5,000 members recruited from the SS and Hitler Youth, and specially trained in guerrilla tactics. It even went so far as to establish front companies to ensure continued funding after occupation (all were discovered and shut down within eight months). However as it became increasingly clear that the Alpine Redoubt was yet another grandiose delusion, Werwolf was converted first into a terrorist organisation, and then largely dismantled by Heinrich Himmler and Wilhelm Keitel in the last few weeks of the war.

    Disorganized attempts were made to bury explosives, ammunition and weapons in different locations around the country (mainly in the pre 1939 German-Polish border) to be used by the Werwolf in their terrorist acts after the defeat of Germany, but not only were the amounts of material to be "buried" prohibitively low, at that point the movement itself was so disorganized that few actual members or leaders knew where the materials were, how to use them, or what to do with them. A large portion of these "depots" were found by the Russians. Almost none of these materials were actually used by the Werwolf.

    On March 23, 1945, Joseph Goebbels gave a speech, known as the "Werwolf speech", in which he urged every German to fight to the death. The partial dismantling of the organized Werwolf, combined with the effects of the "Werwolf" speech, caused considerable confusion about which subsequent attacks were actual Werwolf attacks, as opposed to solo acts by fanatical Nazis or small groups of SS.

    The tactics that the organization could use included sniping attacks, arson, sabotage, and assassination. The plan included things like home-made explosives production, using simple things like "a can of soup" and pencils as detonators, and training every agent in how to jump into a guard tower and strangle the sentry in one swift movement, using only a metre of string. Werwolf agents were supposed to have at their disposal a vast assortment of weapons, from fire-proof coats to silenced Walther pistols. In reality this was merely on paper; the Werwolf never actually had the necessary equipment, organization, morale or coordination.

    and

    Recently the history of Werwolf has been employed in arguments about the American-led occupation of Iraq [1] [2] [3]. Some aspects of Werwolf which are relevant to this discussion are:

       1. Werwolf was principally a war stratagem of the Nazi government. It withered by the month after German surrender, because the German people were tired of war.
       2. As a war effort, Werwolf was severely limited by the policy of accepting defeat on the Western front to avoid Russian occupation.
       3. Werwolf had a mythological reputation which was deliberately fostered by Nazi propaganda. Its perceived influence went far beyond its actual operations, especially after the Nazi regime surrendered.
       4. Despite its historical and mythological significance, Werwolf was incomparably weaker than many other guerrilla insurgencies, for example, those in Vietnam and Iraq.

    Looks like your pal Biddicombe is out on a limb there, PPJ.


    Parent

    Al (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 08:18:09 AM EST
    He wrote what he wrote and I quoted what he wrote.
    You are free to believe what you will. Some more information.

    According to Biddiscombe, the Werwolf was a very active guerrilla organization that refused to surrender to the Allies even after their government had done so. They retreated into the Black Forest and Harz mountains to fight until at least 1947 and some say until the end of the 1940s.

    The Werwolf is thought to have had about 5,000 members. Both the British and Americans were attacked by them. Major John Poston, who had been with Field Marshal Montgomery in the desert, in Sicily and in northwest Europe, and served as a liaison officer for the field marshal, was ambushed in his jeep and killed. On 24th March, 1945, the Lord Mayor of Aachen was assassinated by Werewolf agents. He was not the only US appointed official to die at the hands of the partisans, but he was the most important. The Commander of the 3rd Armored Division, General Maurice Rose, was allegedly assassinated by Werewolf agents in Padeborn.

    There was a Nazi resistance movement in post-war Germany that continued to disturb peace and stability for several years after the war, until at least 1947, perhaps even until 1949-1950. There was debate on how significant this movement was. At the time, many in the US were obsessed by it and many military mistakes were made by focusing too heavily on it. Americans, Britons and innocent Germans died at the hands of the Werwolf.

    Back in those days, American retaliation was ruthless and swift. The Americans were overwhelmed by the notion that the Werwolf presented a serious threat and that there was a distinct possibility that a major resistance movement would take hold once again in an Alpine redoubt

    Link

    Werwolf's most prominent victim was Dr. Franz Oppenhoff, the new anti-Nazi mayor of Allied-occupied Aachen, who was murdered outside his home in March of 1945. Alleged victims include

    Link

    Parent

    Anybody else see the glaring fallacies (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 07:25:42 PM EST
    in ppj's inept troll attempt?

    Parent
    aaaaah, with PPJ (none / 0) (#40)
    by scribe on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 09:25:44 PM EST
    it's not a matter of "(his) rock blunts (my) scissors", it's more like "(my) knife sharpens on (his) "stone".

    Parent
    scribe (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 10:14:11 PM EST
    Yes indeed, demonstrating that you are against free speech was one of your finer moments.

    Parent
    Well ... DUH! (none / 0) (#41)
    by Sailor on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 09:35:56 PM EST
    To Peaches, et al; there is a reason I did not reply to your attacks on my comments about 'OFF TOPIC TROLL POSTING.'

    It was because any reply on my part would have been furthering that exact problem.

    If the subject of the post is about how badly Veterans are being treated and some commenter goes off on a tangent about Lincoln and slaves, that's off topic.

    Especially when the commenter says It is not our troops I am concerned about.

    I'm not interested in 'scoring points', I'm doing my best to stop more Americans dying in yet another war founded by politicians on lies.

    Parent

    Sailor... and another thing (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 10:41:50 PM EST
    BTW - Since you like to partial link so that you can show things out of context, here is the
    Link to the thread where the Lincoln comment cropped up.

    Since the thread is about Hillary's plan to pull out in 60 days, the issue of Iraqi terrorists came  up.

    Now everyone who wants to can go see where bx58
    tried to say that a American Rebel soldier was the same as an Iraqi terrorist and I just naturally pointed out a few things.

    If that bothers you Sailor,you'll just have to be bothered. But comment on points made in error within another comment is not off subject. That's why we have the nested option.

    A

    Parent

    'nuff said (none / 0) (#47)
    by Sailor on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 11:03:39 PM EST
    I double dog dare you


    Parent
    Sailor (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 10:12:58 PM EST
    Sailor - I double dog dare you to try and make an issue of the veteran care issue and/or my comment re my concern.

    I have them saved and ready to display and show how you try to make up things, and will do so with great pleasure.

    As Dirty Harry said:

    "Make My Day."

    WOT??? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 07:36:12 AM EST
    The War On Thinking was doomed from the beginning, because it depends on recruiting losers who can't think to help spread the memes.

    Their problem, among their personal shortcomings, is that they are trying to spread the memes among people who can think.

    It's no wonder the results they get were a foregone conclusion. ;-)

    Edger (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 08:42:09 AM EST
    Love you edger.

    Whenever you ae faced with the reality of what you are doing, you immediately attack Bush, as if Bush was the enemy!

    Guess I can put you in that 57% group of Demos who are NOT hopeful that America wins the war.

    I thought about that a bit, and I can't understand it. It makes no sense.  If we win we will have a Democracy in Iraq and a demonstration to the radical Moslems that we have the resolve to do so. To the moderate Moslems we will have demonstrated that we have the resolve to do so.

    I think that would be good. Good for Iraq and bad for the radicals. Good for human rights, especially women, gays and lesbians, all over the world.

    The only thing I can see is that the Left hates Bush so badly that they can not stand for him to have success. So they attack the war. And if America wins, it will be seen as a victory for Bush, and that can not be tolerated.

    Parent

    DA (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 08:20:06 AM EST
    See my reply to Al.

    Don't argue religion with a Moslem (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 08:54:51 AM EST
    taxi driver...

    Let's see, isn't this about the third incident with a Moslem attacking... Over in NC at the either the UNC or was it NC state... Up in Seattle at the Jewish center..

    A Nashville taxi driver accused of trying to run over two students after a heated discussion over religion Sunday had at least two other run-ins with police during the past year, including a high-speed chase through downtown Nashville.

    Ibrahim Ahmed, 37, is charged with attempted criminal homicide after police said he hit Ohio student Jeremie Invus with his United Cab Co. van about 2:45 a.m. Sunday. Another student, Andrew Nelson of Dayton, Ohio, dodged the van as it sped toward them.
    Don't present numbers out of context (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by roy on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 10:36:53 AM EST
    There are about 16,000 murders and negligent manslaughters in this country per year.  Depending on who you ask, 0.4 to 2.2% of the population is Muslim.  So we should expect at least 6 Muslim killers per year, and 300 aggravated assaults by Muslims, if they're only as violent as the general population.

    I couldn't find stats on the religion of convicted criminals.

    Parent

    roy - Context?? (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:55:29 AM EST
    How many are over religion??

    Parent
    You tell me. (none / 0) (#70)
    by roy on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 12:35:46 PM EST
    I guess you're not implying that Muslims are particularly likey to commit violent crimes, but rather that they're particularly likely to commit religiously-oriented violent crimes?

    Either way, you've got a pretty heavy burden of proof on your shoulders.

    If you have stats related to that accusation, either accusation for that matter, I'd love to see them.  All I could find was anecdotes.

    Parent

    Roy (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:38:01 AM EST
    I appreciate your concern over facts and figures, I assume you are an attorney.

    But I'm not.

    I'm not trying to prove anything, just noting three recent actions by Moslems that are connected to religion.

    Sweeping the religious connection between these acts under a mass of figures that have nothing to do with the motive of the acts does nothing to solve the problem.

    And by noting the problem, I am not suggesting any solution.

    Parent

    IANAL (none / 0) (#95)
    by roy on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:54:36 AM EST
    I guess we're done discussing this issue, but I don't want to leave anybody with the mistaken impression that I'm a lawyer.  I'm not.  

    I'm an engineer.  Or maybe just a so-called "engineer", there's legitimate debate over whether it's fair to give software engineers the title.  Because of that training, when I see numbers like "three", or data presented out of context like stories about Muslims doing terrible things, I dig.

    Wasn't it Judge Alito who pointed out that in international law, if you look around the world long enough you can find something to justify any ruling you want?  The same problem applies to finding stories to make some group of people look like the bad guys.

    Parent

    roy (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 12:48:37 PM EST
    You appear to see things in black and white, which is not unusal for an engineer.

    The comment was not out of context. It was correct and I did not write, or imply, that the actions of these three should apply to all Moslems.

    They are what they are and the common thread is that they are all connected to religion, and evidently rage associated with that religion.

    Using your, I guess, logic that you can't mention motive when discussing/reporting things, no one should have ever called the whites who killed blacks during the civil rights struggle, "racists."

    Sorry. I think they were, and I think it was good that it was said because it let everyone understand their basic motivation.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#108)
    by roy on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 01:12:00 PM EST
    You have a slippery way of writing -- or maybe my black & white mind just wants you to be as precise as a technical manual -- so I thought you were trying to support a claim of a general trend within the Muslim population.  If you were just pointing out and condemning specific incidents, then I misunderstood.  Hopefully I wasted at least as much of my own time as I did of yours.

    Parent
    of course! (none / 0) (#59)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:08:31 AM EST
    gee, jimmy, better grab your prayer rug or stay out of the crosswalks!

    Of course by those standards christians are a much worse threat.

    Parent

    Crosswalk? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:35:45 AM EST
    Why should he worry about the crosswalk? They're under his bed and in his closet.

    They're coming for him and he knows it. Bush told him they would.

    Bush wouldn't lie. Would he?

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:40:33 AM EST
    After Bush's performance the past few years you can't blame them for coming after him, now can you?

    Parent
    Edger blames Bush (dog bites man) (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 12:01:12 PM EST
    I knew it! Edger would blame Bush for a Moslem cab driver loosing his temper and running over people!

    Way to go Edger! You hold the 2007 Award for the farest reach...

    But don't give up folks! I'm somebody can out do him!

    Parent

    stupid is as stupid writes (none / 0) (#77)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 03:36:15 PM EST
    Edger would blame Bush for a Moslem cab driver loosing his temper and running over people!
    Nah, he's blaming bush for playing on the fears of dupes like. Good think you're in an ever increasing minority of shrill bsuhlickers screaming about little brown men coming to get you.

    Parent
    sailor (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    No problem sailor. Just wanted to keep you up todate on the activities.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Looks like they're not only coming after him (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 12:20:06 PM EST
    They've caught him, and they've taken over his mind.

    I hear they always go for the easy targets first though. ;-)

    Parent

    Next thing you know he'll be (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    blaming a Moslem cab driver for Bush loosing(?) his temper and massacre-ing a few hundred thousand Iraqis.

    Which just might have pissed a few of them off.

    But then again the wingnuts always have insisted they would create their own reality........

    Hmmmmm. This could be a problem for them.

    ^^
    OO

    Parent

    Stop that, DA! (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 04:18:33 PM EST
    I'm at work and now people are wondering what I'm laughing so hard at. Jeeze.

    Parent
    One of their other problems, (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 09:31:36 AM EST
    perhaps their biggest problem, is wilful refusal to admit their wilful refusal to see that their wilful refusal to see is a problem:

    Reid: Iraq war 'worst foreign policy mistake' in U.S. history

    "This war is a serious situation. It involves the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

    "So we should take everything seriously. We find ourselves in a very deep hole and we need to find a way to dig out of it."

    Asked whether he considers it a worse blunder than Vietnam, Reid responded, "Yes."

    Comparisons to Vietnam are nothing new, but a "worse than" designation from a top lawmaker is.

    Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican who has been one of the war's most outspoken critics, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in January that President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq "represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."
    ...
    "I believe it's one of the worst blunders, certainly is," New Mexico's Democratic Governor Bill Richardson told "Late Edition." "And the focus now should be on how we can get our troops out and leave Iraq with a chance for sustainability in the future."
    Desperado... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 09:42:35 AM EST
    ...why don't you come to your senses
    You've been out ridin' fences,
    for so long, now.
    Ohh you're a hard one.
    I know that you've got your reasons.
    These things that are pleasin'you
    Can hurt you somehow.

    Don't you draw the queen of diamonds boy
    She'll beat you if she's able.
    You know the queen of hearts is always your best bet.
    Now it seems to me, some fine things
    Have been laid upon your table.
    But you only want the ones
    That you can't get.

    it's lying time again ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:43:59 AM EST
    ... one standard tactic constantly used by a certain commenter is to use a lie to try to distract a comment thread.

    e.g. take a lie that was disproved repeatedly and crank it back up to full steam with zero supporting facts:

    BTW - Did you know that the cost of one cross country trip in her (demanded) new jet will cost $30,000.
    she did not 'demand' the jet. So this commenter lied on purpose, repeating a rethuglican lying point.

    the facts?

    "Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives requested a jet that can make it to California non-stop. According to the Sergeant-at-Arms,
    "The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable."
    Now we will discuss the lie about the costs. Where did the $30k come from? Certainly no factual based place.

    And one would think that a commenter that constantly squawks '10 years in naval aviation!' as if it was a red badge of courage would do a better  (read 'more honest') job of computing the actual flight costs.

    For the jet pelosi used costs under $3k/hr, (including parts, labor and fuel), and takes about 4.75 hours to fly from DC to SF. (See Gulfstream C37 for specs and do your own math.)

    The most dishonest thing of all, is this egregious lie was used in yet another attempt to distract a comment thread.

    So there you have it, the anatomy of an OFF TOPIC TROLL POST.

    Sailor - is trapped again (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 01:15:02 PM EST
    Sailor - Thanks for taking the bait. As the following links and quotes show, I was correct in noting that she wants a bigger jet.

    So, I am sure your Dear Leader has told the Sergeant at Arms that she doesn't want it? Oh, she hasn't?? Why FANCY THAT??

    And then this??

    The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable."

    Oh, really? Making a stop on a DC to San Francisco is a security problem? Gosh.... Somebody tell the traveling public that they must take only non-stop flights..

    BTW - The C37, aka G7 has a range of 6300 nautical miles, way more than enough to make the trip. Now, given that it has the range, and doesn't need land, can we agree that the Sergeant At Arms wasn't asking for a C37? He was asking for a bigger plane.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has requested access to a large Air Force passenger jet that can make nonstop flights to her home district of San Francisco, such as this Boeing
    C-32

    Want more?

    She's effectively taking a bird out of the fleet," said a defense source.....

    The congressional source said the speaker's office requested an Air Force plane to take her to a weekend Democratic retreat in Williamsburg, but the Pentagon declined.

    Link

    Want to know what aircraft your Dear Leader wanted?

    Go   look at a Boeng 757.

    The C-32 provides safe, comfortable and reliable transportation for our nation's leaders to locations around the world. The primary customers are the vice president, using the distinctive call sign "Air Force Two," the first lady, and members of the Cabinet and Congress.

    Features
    The C-32 is a specially configured version of the Boeing 757-200 commercial intercontinental airliner. The C-32 body is identical to that of the Boeing 757-200, but has different interior furnishings and 21st century avionics. The passenger cabin is divided into four sections:

    -- The forward area has a communications center, galley, lavatory and 10 business class seats.
    -- The second section is a fully enclosed stateroom for the use of the primary passenger. It includes a changing area, private lavatory, separate entertainment system, two first-class swivel seats and a convertible divan that seats three and folds out to a bed.
    -- The third section contains the conference and staff facility with eight business class seats.
    -- The rear section of the cabin contains general seating with 32 business-class seats, galley, two lavatories and closets.

    I won't try and argue the cost of operating. But I don't think $30,000 is out of line. Perhaps your vast experience in aviation management can give us some links that show the cost... BTW don't forget crew costs, depreciation, etc...

    As for your claim of Off Topic, I'll just note that it was made in reference of Water Reed needing replacement, but won't be available until 2011 unless we start spending more money on it.

    I think, as I noted then and was spot on, that your Dear Leader should be saying:

    Let's get this done for the troops, and tell that Master at Arms he misspoke himself. I'll save $30,000 or whatever and put it on Walter Reed.

    I mean, she does support the troops, doesn't she?

    Parent

    all lies (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 01:54:07 PM EST
    she did not make teh request.

    She did not want a 757, just a 12 passenger Gulfstream. The 'non-stop' was part of the security arrangements that were made for the 3rd in line of succession after 9/11.

    Quoting a lie in the washingtontimes that even the WH debunked just makes you a look even worse than usual. It never happened, just your fellow liars making $hit up again.

    No wonder you keep going off topic, there is no way you can deal with reality.

    Parent

    Sailor makes my point. (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    Here is what the Sergeant At Arms said, according to  SAILOR:

    "Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives requested a jet that can make it to California non-stop. According to the Sergeant-at-Arms, "The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes,unless such an aircraft is unavailable."

    Now since a C37 has a more than enough range (6300 nautical miles) to fly to San Franciso non stop, it is obvious that he was requesting a larger plane. That would be the C32 or the C40B, which is a 737-700.

    Guess us old Naval Aviation types know a bit, eh?

    ;-)

    You again make my point. It isn't the first time, and it won't be the last.

    Parent

    you lied again (none / 0) (#78)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 03:47:51 PM EST
    Hastert used a C-20.

    Capt. Herb McConnell, the spokesman for the 89th Airlift wing at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, said the C-20 is sometimes "able to make a coast-to-coast flight at times during the year, but not when there are strong headwinds such as during the winter."

    Guess us old Naval Aviation types know a bit, eh?
    Obviously you don't know $hit about aviation, I'm starting to think you even lied about that.

    Parent
    Sailor - I'm laughing now, (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 08:28:03 PM EST
    The C20 was not even in discussion...but I'm happy you have brought it up.

    Range: C-20A/B, 4,250 miles (3,698 nautical miles) long-range; C-20H, 4,850 miles (4,220 nautical miles) long range

    Anyway, Sailor's original contention was:

    she did not 'demand' the jet. So this commenter lied on purpose,

    Well, this quote from SAILOR's link sounds like a demand to me:

    "I want an aircraft that will reach California," Pelosi told reporters Wednesday afternoon, insisting that she doesn't care what kind of plane it is as long as it can fly nonstop to her home district...."

    So, tell us again how making a stop is beneath your Dear Leader's dignity? Millions of tax paying Americans book flights with stops because they are
    cheaper than non-stops. Is she better than them?
    (She obviously thinks so.)

    There is another probem we also need to look at.
    The airmiles from Dulles to Dever is 1464 and from Denver to San Fran is 956. That is a bit under 2500 miles, and way below the 2800 miles listed in  the link. And I just confirmed that by looking at a globe... You do understand about using the globe when air travel is involved, don't you my private pilot friend...? So I think the 2500 is right.

    And I think when he said 2800 miles he was thinking of coast to coast, which would be NYC to San Fran, or about 2800 miles... But anyway, the range of the C20B is 4250 miles, or, using the WRONG distance of 2800 miles it has 1450 miles to spare.

    Even with headwinds, there will be a lot of alternate airports they can go to... or they can GASP stop in Denver and refuel...

    Oh my God! The pain! The Humanity! Your Dear Leader might have to make a stop!!!! That is when the WINTER headwinds MIGHT be stong enough to eat up the spare 1450 miles.....

    What a joke.

    Parent

    even a lineboy would not be as ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:40:17 AM EST
    ... ignorant as this commenter is of aviation. By your continued lies I can only assume you do it on purpose.

    Haster flew the C20.

    The sgt at arms called for non-stop as a security measure, pelosi's office was not involved.

    Pelosi volunteered to fly commercial, but not even a dem hating WH would allow the 3rd inline of succession to take that security risk.

    And even a lineboy would know you have to have fuel reserves; The max range is calculated at optimal cruise/optimal altitude and involves a trade off between fuel and passengers/cargo. Aircraft do not fly point to point, they need to follow their assigned routes and waypoints. The fuel comsumption goes way up at low altitudes, where wx & routing delays are likely to occur.

    And yet another example of your support for our servicemen you call the AF Cap't in charge a liar when he clearly stated for the record
    Capt. Herb McConnell, the spokesman for the 89th Airlift wing at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, said the C-20 is sometimes "able to make a coast-to-coast flight at times during the year, but not when there are strong headwinds such as during the winter."

    oh and btw, "my private pilot friend" I ain't your friend and you left out my degree in Aviation Engineering. In the future you can address me as Dr Sailor.

    Have a nice day, lineboy.


    Parent

    sailor insults our military (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 11:06:58 AM EST
    In your comment at 9:40, three times you make snarky, nasty comments trying to denigrate me by referring to me as a "lineboy."

    Let me explain something to you. People who work the line do such things as help launch and recover aircraft. They work in some of the most God awful conditions in the world, and in jobs that are extremely dangerous.

    Your remarks and attitude about these highly trained, skilled, courageous and hard working people is truly despicable and is a visible public display of your real thoughts about our military.

    I have never been in a line crew. But I will tell you this. I would consider it an honor to be considered one.

    I thank you.

    Parent

    Yeah yeah (none / 0) (#98)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 11:18:40 AM EST
    Always with the personal insults when jimminy no facts goes ballistic. The shouting in that hollow chamber must make his ears ring

    And the sheer hubris to think an insult to him is an insult to our troops. Putting ppj down is a service to our troops who don't need another always wrong cranky old man telling them they need to go die for a lie.

    Yes, I'm sure he would have been proud to be promoted to lineboy, obviously his skills and knowledge of aviation did not elevate him that far.

    But in honor of his service I'll give him an honorary promotion.

    So ... see ya 'round lineboy!

    Parent

    Sailor, no. Does not compute. (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 12:39:19 PM EST
    Try to understand this.

    You write:

    And the sheer hubris to think an insult to him is an insult to our troops.

    If you intend to insult me by calling me a "lineboy" then you must consider the word "lineboy" insulting.

    Have a nice day, Sailor.

    Parent

    Sailor proves my point, again (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 11:26:58 AM EST
    You write:

    Haster flew the C20.

    So, what is your point? No one is saying he didn't.

    You write:

    The sgt at arms called for non-stop as a security measure, pelosi's office was not involved.

    Perhaps her office wasn't, but  this is what Pelosi said according to the ABC news link that YOU provided in your comment at 3:47PM on 2/20.

    "I want an aircraft that will reach California," Pelosi told reporters Wednesday afternoon, insisting that she doesn't care what kind of plane it is as long as it can fly nonstop to her home district.

    Now. Let's review this. You say that the C20 can not be used based on Captain McConnell's statement that sometimes during the winter headwinds prevent it from flying coast to coast. Okay. I think he misspoke himself when he referred to 2800 miles, I think he was referring to NYC to San Fran, but so what? I'll take his statement.

    Because McConnell's statement shows that the C20 is disqualified to do what Pelosi has requested. Mrs. Pelosi is impeached by her own statement and the facts as provided by Capt McConnell, which you so thoughtfully provided.

    Now, your next insult was:

    And even a lineboy would know you have to have fuel reserves;

    Now, what did I write?

    But anyway, the range of the C20B is 4250 miles, or, using the WRONG distance of 2800 miles it has 1450 miles to spare.

    Even with headwinds, there will be a lot of alternate airports they can go to... or they can GASP stop in Denver and refuel...

    What do you think you use to go to alternate airports? FUEL RESERVES.

    But heck, I thought even you knew that. Instead, you go into a spasm of spouting information that we already know.

    And you still didn't address the question as to why Pelosi should demand a non-stop.

    I repeat. Is she better than the US taxpayer's who routinely don't take non-stops because of price???

    You write:

    you call the AF Cap't in charge a liar when he clearly stated for the record

    What did I write?

    And I think when he said 2800 miles he was thinking of coast to coast, which would be NYC to San Fran, or about 2800 miles...

    Why do you spout such easy to disapprove charges? I clearly said "I think he was thinking." That is not by any stretch of the imagination calling anyone a liar.

    So there you go. We have the Airforce saying the C20 can't do the job and Pelosi demanding an aircraft that can. She wants a bigger jet. One with a longer range. No stops for Dear Leader will be tolerated..

    I have proven my point.

    As for your degree, so what? Nothing we have discussed required one. However. I do think you have a "Masters of Insult and Misquoting."

    Have a nice day, Sailor. I hope whatever in your world that causes you to attack and insult people by calling them "liars" goes away. I do hope you don't do such things outside the Internet. If you do, then you must live in an interesting world.

    Parent

    Well, at least he spoke the truth once (none / 0) (#73)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 01:56:23 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 07:58:38 PM EST
    You can run, but you can not avoid this fact. It is not our troops I am concerned about.
    Sailor .You are trapped again. Wow. (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 03:07:57 PM EST
    Here . Read this link and you will discover that you have been caught making things up, again.

    Start at comment #34 if you want a summary, or be my guest and read the whole thing.

    You make things sooooooooo easy. Didn't I tell you I'd have all the facts ready if you started flapping your jaw incorrectly?

    Parent

    you wrote it ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 03:53:24 PM EST
    ... don't try to deny it.

    Here's your whole comment:

    You can run, but you can not avoid this fact. It is not our troops I am concerned about.

    What I have noted is that it is the enemy who is cheered by the various demonstrations, and now Congressional Resolution.
    So spare me the straw horses and face the facts.

    That's not out of context, that's your whole comment. I really don't understand why you hate America and our troops.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 07:40:34 PM EST
    Sailor - Your avoidance and unwillingness to read the whole thread is most typical of you. We all know  it, so I only mention it in case some stranger comes by.

    That's why I have provided a link as well as the highlights, just to pull your fangs before you strike.

    Parent

    In case a stranger comes by (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    The "we" that jimakappj refers to exists only in his delusions. There is no "we" that he is a part of. He is simply the local wingnut troll.

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    If he reads the whole thread, why does he make inacurate claims and statements?

    BTW - Should we go back to 1/25/07 where you called me a liar and them refused to apologize, even after admitting that I had not?

    Parent

    Paging Dr. Freud (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 02:13:27 PM EST


    Tears in my eyes (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 06:34:01 PM EST
    Riverbend is back after two months with a story that makes me ashamed to be an American:
    They abducted her from her house in an area in southern Baghdad called Hai Al Amil. No- it wasn't a gang. It was Iraqi peace keeping or security forces- the ones trained by Americans? You know them. She was brutally gang-raped and is now telling the story. Half her face is covered for security reasons or reasons of privacy. I translated what she said below.

    riverbend

    Branding America

    squaky (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 07:37:44 PM EST
    In related news, the soldier who raped and killed a 14 year old Iraqi girl will be sentenced to life in prison.

    He is lucky. Most of us would have hanged him.

    Crimes have always been committed by military personnel, so it isn't as if it is something new.

    So be assured that we are all disgusted and outraged by such acts.

    The difference between us is this. I have confidence we will investigate and do our best to find the criminals. And if they are US military, indict, try and convict.

    You don't. We understand that.

    Parent

    Just can't stop lying (none / 0) (#85)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 08:25:06 PM EST
    In related news, the soldier who raped and killed a 14 year old Iraqi girl will be sentenced to life in prison.
    Really!? Since he made a plea agreement and hasn't been sentenced how would you know!?

    It really does compare to Riverbend's post. If it wasn't for the media neither story would have come to light.  And it remains to be seen what penalty will the perps be given.

    He is lucky. Most of us would have hanged him.
    No civilized person or country in the world still believes in lynchings.

    Parent
    Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:47:22 AM EST
    Sailor, you have slipped back into the "you're lying" bit. That is most uncivilized and very unecessary. It adds nothing to the discourse and proves only that you can not debate with out using inflamatory charges, time and time again.

    It is my understanding, based on information that I heard on a local radio news broadcast that he has agreed to plead guilty in return for a life sentence. Both sides have accepted.

    Now, if that turns out to be incorrect, I urge you to point that out.

    Parent

    Also Sailor, it appears that (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:03:34 AM EST
    he is unable to stop accusing you, and others, of excactly what he does himself, repeatedley. Projection. Simple minded, mindless, projection.

    Parent
    Why do you think I used the qualifier? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 11:37:43 AM EST
    No civilized person or country in the world still believes in lynchings.

    And it's amazing he expects me prove what the voices in his head were saying. No wonder he shouts so much, all those voices echoing in such an small empty space.

    OTOH, he certainly distracted the thread from Riverbend's comments via Squeaky.

    Parent

    I guess he just has to read himself (none / 0) (#101)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 12:02:28 PM EST
    to believe he exists or is in any way relevant or of any use to the world, other than to come here and be a punching bag clown who can contribute nothing to any discussion except feeble attempts at distraction, and being as annoying as possible. What high achievements....

    -----

    It was good of Squeaky to give us the heads up about it. As unpleasant as reading the story is, it is nothing compared to Sabrine's experiences and the experiences of all Iraqis since the invasion. Riverbend's posts about Sabrine Al Janabi so outraged me I couldn't write this morning - so I just reprinted her posts here.

    Parent

    Sailor goes out of context, again. (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    Shall we review what I said?

    He is lucky. Most of us would have hanged him.

    Since the subject under discussion in my comment at 7:37 was the soldier's sentence, any reasonable person would know that I was speaking of a sentence of hanging, which, I believe, the military still uses.

    Thanks for showing again that you continually take things out of context to attack.

    Parent

    PPJ's Delusion (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 04:41:49 AM EST
    I will let riverbend speak to your delusions. And calling your state of mind delusional is being kind.

    And yet, as the situation continues to deteriorate both for Iraqis inside and outside of Iraq, and for Americans inside Iraq, Americans in America are still debating on the state of the war and occupation- are they winning or losing? Is it better or worse.

    Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts: It's worse. It's over. You lost. You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq's first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile.



    Parent
    The Iraqi security officers who raped her (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 06:04:40 AM EST
    have learned well from the example of the invaders:

    So he said to me, `We take what we want and what we don't want we kill. That's that.'


    Parent
    squeaky (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    Riverbend seems very pleased to announce we lost.

    Do you agree?

    Parent

    It's just his (4.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:18:36 PM EST
    Reading and Learning [about] Disorders

    Parent
    Puppetry (none / 0) (#112)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:12:14 AM EST
    Is the Bush administration becoming Maliki's puppet over this case now, in a kind of Faustian reversal?

    The BBC is reporting today that Maliki has fired the head of the Sunni Waqf (religious endowments authority), Ahmed Abdul-Ghafour Samarrai, following criticism of what  could be Maliki's attempts at manipulation of US officials into supporting his Shia Government by helping him try to arrange to cover up the rape in the face of widespread and growing Sunni anger.

    The BBC article notes that: "The allegation and ensuing controversy comes as the Shia-led government is pushing a new security plan that will see mainly-Shia police units being deployed in predominantly Sunni Muslim districts.", and that Maliki has "released a copy of a US medical report saying no rape had taken place", even though "a nurse, speaking on condition of anonymity, said she had treated the woman at a clinic in her neighbourhood of Amil and had seen signs of sexual and physical assault" according to a report by the NYT.

    The BBC also says that "US military officials have neither confirmed nor denied the authenticity of the document [and they] added that they did not know how confidential medical records had ended up at the prime minister's offices."

    Is Maliki blackmailing Bush with a "If you don't back me, my government falls, and for Bush that's a fate worse than impeachment" threat?, and "is this what we have now reduced ourselves to in Iraq, that we acquiesce in covering-up rape cover-ups perpetrated by our alleged puppets?", sarabeth writing at 1115.org asks.

    Parent
    Apologist Spinmeister ppj (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 08:58:12 AM EST
    The Patriotic Poker Player speaks
    Crimes have always been committed by military personnel, so it isn't as if it is something new....

    ....The difference between us is this. I have confidence we will investigate and do our best to find the criminals. And if they are US military, indict, try and convict.

    Well the difference between you and me is that I am not falling for your BS propaganda about how the US military is so honorable when it comes to prosecuting rape of Iraqi citizens.

    So you say that rapes have always been committed by military personnel, time immemorial I assume.

    So, ppj, so how come only one rape has been prosecuted in the last four years of our occupation?

    Have the US soldiers in this occupation acted differently than others, time immemorial? Or has any allegation of rape just been swept under the carpet like this one has.

    The latter is clearly the case here.

    Rape in Iraq

    Parent

    I think he is being honest when he says (none / 0) (#114)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 09:38:48 AM EST
    I have confidence we will investigate and do our best to find the criminals

    But as with his definitions (or lack of them) of things like evidence, imminent threats, lies, torture, war crimes, and of many other things, his definition of "do our best" is the key in his phrase. His defintion of "we" leaves something to be desired also...

    Parent

    Wingnuts (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 10:01:02 AM EST
    Yes, Edger, you are right. By definition (their own) the wingnuts are never wrong.

    Last week I transported a small painting to Europe for a show. The painting was secured in a small wooden box by wingnuts. When I arrived to the museum I opened the box and undid the wingnuts. That is when I understood why the term is so apt: with one flick of a finger the wingnuts spun and spun until they became unscrewed. Of course the wingnuts prefer the opposite action: spinning and spinning until we are screwed.

    In either case they spin and spin in a dance between insecurity and security....no wonder they are all bedwetters.

         

    Parent

    LOL!!! (none / 0) (#116)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 10:22:46 AM EST
    I have to go get more coffee. The first cup is all over my monitor now. Thx, Squeaky!

    Parent
    LMHO (none / 0) (#117)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 10:35:16 AM EST
    Wingnuts finally figure out what to do about Iraq.

    They hope they can hand it to Democrats.

    Here's the best response to them.

    Parent

    Hiram (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 11:05:30 AM EST
    does have a thing about hanging, dosnt he? I'd like to know who specifically the "us" is, though I suspect its the same us that said "seventeen ropes for seventeen necks" the first time news of the much-supported-troops disobeying an order came to light.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 01:07:27 PM EST
    Can you provide us a link? I'd like to read what Hiram wrote.

    You wouldn't wolf us would you??

    Parent

    Sailor and Jim (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 01:15:36 PM EST
    Sailor, stop the personal insults and accusations please. Attack the argument, not the writer.  Both of you know the rules here.

    Wheres (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 02:56:28 PM EST
    the indication in Riverbends post that she's "pleased"?

    That (none / 0) (#111)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 03:12:08 PM EST
    "most of us would've hung him" tradition is quite a venerable one in the military; apparently during WWII and the post-occupation, 79% of the men executed were black.

    No wonder Mr. Red State has such an obvious affinity for it.

    Monday Open Thread | 115 comments (115 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment