home

Sunday Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your turn. One point, if you are a supporter of the Iraq Debacle, especially if you agreed with McCain and Bush that starting the Iraq Debacle was the right idea, please say so when discussing McCain's positions on Iraq. In that way, when you write that "McCain has been right on Iraq from the onset," we will know where you are coming from.

This is an Open Thread.

< The Der Spiegel Maliki Interview Transcript | Todd: Economy Issue To Drive VP Choice >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Open Thread | 127 comments (127 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Is anyone other than me concerned (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:51:34 PM EST
    about Sen. Obama's promising to send more U.S. military forces to Afghanistan?  Do you find this inconsistent with the CW he is the anti-war candidate who was correct from the beginning as to invading Iraq?  Yes, I know they are different venues and it would have been better to just go into Afghanistan after Sept. 11 and with more troops.  But seven years have passed.  

    Anti-War? (4.80 / 5) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:59:19 PM EST
    Obama is not anti-war, he is against the Iraq war, but has clearly stated that he is not anti-war as a rule. Obviously, regarding Afghanistan war, it is the Democratic foreign policy platform at this point, Hillary is for it as are most of the congresscritters.

    I think is it wrong. IMO, we should bring all the troops home and shut down the WOT. Reevaluating war in Afghanistan is fine, but lets do it by first withdrawing all troops.  

    Parent

    Correct, according to the reports of (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:01:51 PM EST
    the 2002 speech.  Maybe Sen. Obama is just pandering in Afghanistan and will go back to the drawing board when he's elected?

    Parent
    I Wish (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:03:41 PM EST
    But war in Afghanistan is very popular. I am afraid that Americans, and their Pols, have developed a taste for war.

    Parent
    The "smart war" (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:19:40 PM EST
    is Afghanistan, whereas, the "dumb" war is Iraq. Moreover, this position seems to be more immunization against fear of the right-wing plague as seen in the FISA vote;  we are not cutting and running in Iraq, we are just redeploying to the right country to set things straight there.  If the situation worsens in Iraq we can redeploy from Afghanistan; if the situation, once again, deteriorates in  Afghanistan, we can redeploy from Iraq.  It is the refined  "see saw" strategy: troops go up and down, but the costs only go up.  By the way, all that see sawing only involves combat troops. Non-combat troops and Blackwater contract-types will stay behind in each country as critical residual forces.  Now a word about Pakistan------

    Parent
    Sure looks that way. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:17:16 PM EST


    Parent
    I'd say it's trouble on many levels. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:58:43 PM EST
    Obama's been proposing a surge in Afghanistan whilst he's been saying that the surge failed.

    Why wouldn't it work there if it does work in Iraq?

    Then you wonder why the Democrat i howcasing an escalaton of combat anywhere in the world at all.
    No wonder GE and Raytheon and Boeing love the dude.
    He's the only fellow who could sell the next round of planned combat.


    Parent

    I think it's all tough talk (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:06:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Obviously You Would Think That (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:10:49 PM EST
    Otherwise your head would explode. I am with you on that. My head has exploded. Not much choice on that front, imo.

    Parent
    He doesn't have much to throw at (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:20:38 PM EST
    Afghanistan, maybe a kitchen sink ;) but that's about it and he claims he doesn't like it when people throw those.  How best to make sure that everyone understands that McSame is a total wussy loser though?  Plan the withdrawal out of the illegal and lost war McSame is staying the loser course on and start checking into making it right with the fight that should have been fought.  You don't have to fight it, you get kudos just for investigating and making a few suggestions and entertaining a few possibilities.  If he had something he could stir some real trouble up with without simply bombing someone back to the stone age I might get concerned (and as much I really don't care for him he just doesn't seem like the bombing back to stone age type to me).  I guess Oculus is pointing out that his base could view this tough talk as abandonment though, I can't seem to find my way to that.  Maybe because I can't consider myself part of his base ;)

    Parent
    I Hope It Is A Charade (1.00 / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:26:09 PM EST
    And Obama basically withdraws all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and reevaluates the whole BushCo construction WOT.

    But, I think he is going to redeploy the troops to Afghanistan.

    Parent

    I hope he doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:38:06 PM EST
    He will have troops in my opinion a bit happier to be in Afghanistan than Iraq, I think it will be a short lived happiness though.  The troops are so tired.  Not sure Obama can handle disgruntled troops and be abusive enough to make them feel guilty for questioning command and shorting their duty as well as Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld can and could.  Gates is pretty quiet, doesn't showboat, I almost forget he's there sometimes and if I were him that is exactly how I would play it too this close to the "We Are Giant Losers" finish line.

    Parent
    Did anyone else (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:32:50 PM EST
    catch this curious moment last week?  

    "McCain Aide:  Obama Mirrors Bush's Stubbornness on War"

    Attacking Obama by tying him to Bush is definitely an... interesting strategy.

    agreed (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:52:16 PM EST
    this isn't the first time though that Obama (and his campaign) have been likened to Bush - at least in the blogosphere. Obama's campaign tactics were blatently Rove-esque - and some of Obama's fan-base acted just as loony as some members of Bush's did in 2004.

    Remember Sean Wilentz' "Race Man"?

    Parent

    The WSJ had an editorial in the same vein (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:12:27 PM EST
    so this idea is not new.

    We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of "George Bush's third term." Maybe he's worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate who's running for it.


    Parent
    I don't think Obama (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:20:55 PM EST
    is Bush III.  By any stretch of the imagination.  

    I do think the McCain campaign's move to make Obama out to be like the current leader of their own party, whilst they strenuously uphold Bush's policies, is hilarious.

    Just a note.

    Parent

    thx for the link valhalla (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:37:58 PM EST
    Didn't Nixon pull the same bait-and-switch in '68?

    Didn't he promise an honourable end to the Vietnam war?  Didn't he promise a reduction in troop levels?

    Despite his catagorical unconditional withdrawal of the primaries, I always suspected he was basically a Dem version of Nixon when it came to the war.

    Parent

    Secret plan (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:21:18 PM EST
    Nixon promised a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. Turned out the plan was actually eight more years in Vietnam. And an ignominious ending.

    Parent
    Obviously The Latest GOP Talking Point (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:24:05 PM EST
    It is called hot potato, who gets stuck with being the most like Bush.

    McSame is flailing here and no matter how much he moves to Obama's positions he will still be a GOP borg. Lockstep all the way, save for a few minor trimmings.

    Parent

    Amazing Editorial (none / 0) (#68)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:57:06 PM EST
    That, and Krauthammer's recent column should be mandatory-reading for every American voter who thinks he/she's got Obama all figured out.

    Most important is the matter of Mr. Obama's political character - and how honest he is being about what he truly believes. His voting record in the Senate and in Illinois, as well as his primary positions, would make him the most liberal Presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972. But he clearly doesn't want voters to believe that in November. He's still the Obama Americans don't know.


    Parent
    yah, read that article earlier today (1.00 / 0) (#82)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:41:23 PM EST
    Krauthammer's article was hilarious - and spot on, as anyone who actually listened to and watched that pompous usurper's victory speech could not honestly deny.

    Parent
    This might be a good spot for a question? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:14:31 PM EST
    (Not a debacle supporter, btw.)

    When Kerry was running for president, he had some ideas about Iraq which didn't sound too bad.  One of the main ideas (as I remember) was the notion that other countries might be willing to be more involved with peacekeeping and security and such if the US made it clear that there'd be no permanent bases in Iraq and the US didn't plan to be there forever.

    Is anyone talking about this now?  If the US pulls back, there will still be concerns (by Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia for instance) that the three Iraq factions might not play well together in the next decade or so.

    Bush's statement "As the Iraqi's stand up, we'll stand down," was insincere, but it isn't a bad idea.  But has anyone talked about being able to add "..and new coalition members become more engaged" to the equation at all?  

    Hillary also (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by BernieO on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:20:05 PM EST
    frequently talked about the need to get the other nations in the region involved.

    Parent
    Read the Der Spiegel interview of (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:31:20 PM EST
    Maliki below.

    Parent
    You are in a different discussion (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:52:19 PM EST
    which is interesting, as well, of course.  The same things you say were said many times in our history.

    You probably know how far vituperation got then, too.

    Nonsense. Dichotomies (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:54:32 PM EST
    rarely further understanding or discussion.  There are more than two choices even for voters.  And then, there are non-voters.

    Dems are the ones who ought be wary (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:59:07 PM EST
    of whom their leadership is bedding with lately, seeing the result of their divisive actions.

    Me, I'm not a Dem anymore, I'm an Independent.  We just date a lot but don't get into long-term relationships.  They're disastrous enough romantically.  Why do them politically, too?

    Breaking: Samantha Power (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:07:16 PM EST
    and Cass Sunstein got married.  I swear.  See NYT blog.  

    I saw that. (none / 0) (#127)
    by lilburro on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:15:39 PM EST
    I still can't figure out Samantha Power.  What on earth was she thinking when she called Hillary a monster?  Or undermined and revised Obama's Iraq plans?  

    I dunno.  Her role in that campaign still bothers me.  At least the Clinton camp was upfront with their ruthlessness.  

    Parent

    My image of Cass Sunstein is of an (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:20:56 AM EST
    elderly man, smoking a pipe, wearing a tweed jacket with corduroy patches on the elbows.  Kind of a Saul Bellow image.  Power:  doesn't edit before she speaks.

    Parent
    good question (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:13:01 PM EST
    I was very Pro-Clinton and don't really care for either candidate that is left standing, but where do we go from here?

    I'm trying to form my own rationale for not voting for either candidate. My angry and revengeful side says "revolution" by contributing to a Obama loss. I was present at the DNC meeting in DC 5/31 and I so wish I had not gone. It was so disturbing and wrong in almost every way that I lost most of my passion for politics. Therein lies my anger and revenge (plus the MSM, some prog blogs).

    At this point I will not vote for McCain. How about just waiting to see what happens in the next 3+ months?  

    That's the best I came up with today.

    I Pretty Much Feel The Exact Same Way (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:32:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Ditto. Had I been there at the RBC (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:50:58 PM EST
    well, I cannot imagine how angry you must be.  I watched it all, as I had watched the previous meeting, and it just did it for me after a lifetime of political involvement.  They're all corrupt.

    And won't it be interesting if the Obama backers  flipflop about my state in a few months and says it matters, after all?  We'll see then -- but for now, I'm grateful to not be in a swing state, after all.

    I just hope they mean it and don't inflict endless campaign commercials on us again in my state.  Ugh.  I've already tuned out of the so-called news networks to avoid the candidates.  So I hope they don't put commercials on my other channels.

    In that, I am heartened by the fundraising shortfall and scaling back of expenditures by the Obama campaign.  I hope that means their money gets inflicted elsewhere.

    Parent

    Okay...imagine you are a woman who (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:33:16 PM EST
    has decided, after much thought and whatever kind of support you approve of, to terminate a pregnancy.

    Imagine you live in that bastion of choice - South Dakota.

    As a result of a ruling in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals:

    "...doctors in South Dakota are now required to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the procedure "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being."

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit last week lifted a preliminary injunction that prevented the language from taking effect. A spokesman for Planned Parenthood, which runs the state's only abortion clinic, said doctors will begin reciting the script to patients as early as this week.

    [snip]

    The doctors' script that officially took effect Friday has been tied up in court since 2005, when Planned Parenthood challenged a law that instructed physicians what to tell abortion patients. Under the law, doctors must say that the woman has "an existing relationship" with the fetus that is protected by the U.S. Constitution and that "her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated." Also, the doctor is required to say that "abortion increases the risk of suicide ideation and suicide."

    The message must be delivered no earlier than two hours before the procedure. The woman must say in writing that she understands.

    And, doctors are also required to ask patients if they want to see a sonogram of their fetus.

    South Dakotans will also have a broad anti-abortion referendum on the ballot in November - one that will have exceptions for the life and health of the mother.

    Tell me again how Roe is going to preserve the right to choose?

    IF Sen. Obama would speak out (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:42:00 PM EST
    against this kind of law and court decision, wouldn't this assure the Clinton supporters would, in fact, vote for him?

    Parent
    Certainly (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by misspeach2008 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:46:37 PM EST
    more of them would. But he hasn't, and if he does at a later date, it will be suspect now.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:50:59 PM EST
    I just don't understand why he refuses to speak out on women's issues. It would accomplish a lot.

    Parent
    I attribute it to his game plan of (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    reaching for the support of evangelicals.  

    Parent
    not feeling the rapture here... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:23:35 PM EST


    Parent
    He Did! (4.00 / 1) (#138)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:35:48 PM EST
    I clearly remembering when he said this, "Nobody has done more for woman's issues than I have"

    Parent
    He Was The Only Senator (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    To send a letter to the Governor of SD condemning the abortion ban that they tried to pull of in 06 according to Lorna Brett Howard.

    Parent
    Good. But what has he done for (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:13:31 PM EST
    women's choice lately?

    Parent
    letters are nice but votes are the real deal! (none / 0) (#123)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:38:40 PM EST


    Parent
    His Votes Are 100% (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:30:40 PM EST
    Pro choice. And yes that is exactly what counts.

    Parent
    She has made herself (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:50:46 PM EST
    a suspect source, so I wouldn't be sure he was the only one.  That he did so is good.

    But that was bygones.  About the current attacks on women's rights, even in recent weeks . . . nada.  

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:11:34 PM EST
    I took a practice bar exam just the other week that had that exact scenario as a question.  Based on a 2006 decision from the same court, the correct answer was that the law was unconstitutional because it impermissibly compelled speech on the part of the doctors.  It sounds like this new decision says exactly the opposite.

    Parent
    You just go on thinking that (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:45:41 PM EST
    and I'll just keep sitting back and watching it all with fascination, as it harks back for me to earlier political splinter that proved to be not at all what you apparently expect.  (Those splinter movements also brought together people who had been disaffected in a series of parties; so what?)

    And then we will see in November.  At least this is making it interesting along the way, as the campaign otherwise has become not worth watching.  Especially when watching one of the likely nominees just give me the willies, with historical precedents that tell me where he could be heading us.

    Really? (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:46:38 PM EST
    That means there are loyal Democrats and loyal Republicans and nothing else?

    Politics is a bit broader than that and there will be more than two choices for President on my state's ballot.  Probably Green, Libertarian and Natural Law as well as Democrat and Republican.  Overlooked, often ignored, but still there, election after election.

    Exactly right... (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:21:00 AM EST
    look at your ballots folks, there are always more than two names on there.

    Pick the best one based on your beliefs.

    Parent

    Um... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:49:40 PM EST
    that link is kind of ridiculous.

    Obama's move (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:53:47 PM EST
    Lately I have been reading and hearing about Obama's plan to withdraw combat forces from Iraq.

    He has a great idea.
    He wants to send them to Afghanistan.  

    He is saying that this is the war we cannot lose.

    I am gnashing my teeth.

    But, I seem to be alone.
    Nobody gives much of a hang.

    FUBAR once? FUBAR squared? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:02:10 PM EST
    I frankly tire of the whole unilateral discussion.  The only strategy worth a dime is to get the regional powers together to agree to salvage Iraq because it is in their interests to do so.  So far I've heard nothing of the kind.

    Parent
    but they don't need to (none / 0) (#86)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:47:32 PM EST
    because by most meaningful measures Iraq seems to salvaging itself quite nicely and will continue to do so no matter how much poo-poo-ing goes on in the Press this side of the Atlantic.

    If Iraq continues on its present course we will have succeeded.  There's no undercutting or getting around that: barring some catastrophic military or political failure, Iraq will be enjoy economic growth rates that rival Chinas.

    Parent

    Rosy. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:32:31 PM EST
    Iraq will enjoy all this wonderful economic growth you predict,  I'm sure.

    In the meantime, it would be nice if they had clean water and some electricity.

    Parent

    hmmm (none / 0) (#99)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:22:38 PM EST
    Let's see.  
    Iraq

    Their economy is in shambles.  Their government is not in great shape.  There are millions of internal and external refugees stressing the neighboring countries.  The infrastructure is still a mess and a frequent target of attacks.  It has deep political and cultural divisions and those groups will will fight for control of the oil constantly.

    And every country near them will be doing what they think is in their best interests, even if it is supporting sectarian violence.  We've already got Israel and Palestine in a state of chronic unresolved conflict.  Imagine Iraq in the same state, with money and arms and fighters flowing in across the borders to fuel constant fighting.  Oh, did I forget to mention that Iraq's borders are unsecured?

    It's a mess.  And it's a mess with or without our troops there.  It will just be a different kind of mess.

    Parent

    Don't Think... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:12:29 PM EST
    It was $10 million. It was $5 million and it was proven somewhere -- can't recall exactly where, but I think someone mentioned it here. And it was all done by individual donations of $20.08, apparently. Four million may seem like a lot, but I don't doubt the number is big -- and significant enough to spur the recent actions by the DNC

    Oy! (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:27:58 PM EST
    From WashPo:

    "Sen. Barack Obama's campaign said today that his speech in Berlin on the future of trans-Atlantic relations will be delivered in front of a Prussian war monument... the 226-foot column honors Prussian triumphs over Denmark, Austria and France.

    (The monument) stood in front of Germany's parliament building, the Reichstag, until the late 1930s, when Adolf Hitler's architect, Albert Speer, moved it to its current location in the middle of the Tiergarten park."

    Speaking of vetting, . . . (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:31:34 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:36:12 PM EST
    The Brandenburg Gates have been spared!

    But, why in the first place does he find it essential to give a speech in Germany? As I recall, he's running to be the president of the United States. Why subject the Germans/Europeans to the numerous speeches we've all had to endure these last seven months.

    Is it going to be a "Best Of" of his U.S. speeches?

    If he felt he was incomplete without the weekly dose of the teleprompter and glare of the media spotlights, he could have just chosen to speak at a stadium (Germany's got lots of nice ones since they hosted the soccer World Cup in 2006) or an indoor arena or conference hall.

    Geez, all the stage craft, and in a foreign country? Tsk tsk! Who's paying for all this?

    Parent

    Ummm (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:40:57 PM EST
    But, why in the first place does he find it essential to give a speech in Germany?

    Could it be that Germany is one of our closest allies? Or could it be that many here at TL and elsewhere say that he is has no foreign policy experience?

    Seems like taking the temp with our allies is a good thing for the next POTUS to be doing, no?

    Unless you would like to see him lose, than you are right. bad idea. It makes him look too presidential.

    Parent

    Well, we could use France, too (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:44:15 PM EST
    but the French are not going to appreciate this -- considering what the monument means to them.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:54:01 PM EST
    We will see how your prediction plays out.

    Some people are behind him, though, and I do not think that Obama's speech in front of the monument is going to change their minds.

    Otherwise he still seems very popular in France.


    Parent

    Obama's monument tour... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:00:24 PM EST
    What's next? A sentiment journey to Bitburg?

    Parent
    Ah Bitburg (1.00 / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:34:10 PM EST
    My favorite beer. Bitte ein bit?

    Parent
    Interesting -- some things in that story (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:50:42 PM EST
    seem like an odd read of the situation, per a colleague who researches peoples of color in France -- and in Quebec.  They will be watching as well.  

    Anything that raises the history of the German domination of France raises horrors for many.

    Parent

    Clue for Obama and his apologists: (5.00 / 8) (#92)
    by tree on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:06:52 PM EST
    Giving a speech in Germany does NOT equal foreign policy experience. Listening to our allies, good thing. Dialogue, even better. Giving a speech, no. I'm so-ooo over the idiotic idea that a speech equals action.

    Parent
    How about doing your job (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by BernieO on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:29:09 PM EST
    as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommitte on European/NATO affairs for a start. That is how Biden got his foreign policy education. Not glamorous but very important.

    McCain is trying to bring up the fact that Obama has never had one meeting of this committee since he became chair in January 07, except for routine approval of Bush's diplomatic appointments. When Jim Demint tried to bring it up the campaign played their favorite "pot kettle" defense by pointing out that Demint had missed a meeting in April to approve some diplomatic appointment as if missing a pro forma meeting to rubber stamp a couple of ambassadors is the same as not having oversight hearings on such silly things as NATO's handling of the war in Afghanistan. (Obama's response to that charge is that other committees are involved in that.)
     Instead he acted like his shirking his responsibility was perfectly reasonable since he was running for president. Apparently it never occurred to him that if he really did not want to do the work of this important committe he could have resigned and given the post to someone who would take it seriously.

    Parent

    Isolationist? (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:08:17 PM EST
    Like BushCo?

    Parent
    Being in favor of dialogue (5.00 / 6) (#110)
    by tree on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:46:55 PM EST
    and listening to your allies is now the new isolationism? Who knew?

     Speaking to our allies but not listening? Very Bush.

     Thank dog the Obama campaign finally listened to Merkel and nixed the BGate. It was exceedingly stupid to pointlessly ruffle German feathers over a mere campaign speech. Not a good example of foreign policy creds. But did they really nix it because of Merkel, who had been against it weeks ago, or because they were getting bad press(well deserved) for the hubris of it all?

    Parent

    What? (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:22:17 PM EST
    He's giving a speech in Germany to show that he has foreign policy experience? Are you kidding?

    And talk about allies - he should be going to Canberra.

    Face it.

    This is show biz.

    "Ich bin ein..." The Return.

    Let's all party with Obama under the monument placed there by Albert Speer. Mozeltov.

    Parent

    Appeasing Merkel (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:00:17 PM EST

    The Siegessaeule is one of Berlin's best-known monuments and stands about a mile from the historic Brandenburg Gate where Obama had wanted to speak. The gate is a symbol of the Cold War and the spot where former President Reagan delivered a memorable speech.

    However, Chancellor Angela Merkel made it clear she didn't like the idea and Obama's campaign has sought to minimize any controversy.

    link

    Parent

    The Chicago Tribune is reporting that (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by BernieO on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:35:59 PM EST
    the Brandenburg Gate is visible from there so they will probably position him so that the Brandeburg Gate will be visible in the background. As if that will compensate for the symbolism of imperial aggression against other countries. Well, they say Obama is big on irony.

    Parent
    Damn Liberal Press (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:09:16 PM EST
    WaPo left out that little tidbit, for some strange (cough Cough ) reason.

    Parent
    Hmmmm... (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:37:22 PM EST
    The germans don't seem to mind it:

    Since German reunification, the column has become known as the central location for Berlin residents to party.

    What does that say about the Germans? And Obama?


    Parent

    Given his new choice of site, (4.00 / 1) (#85)
    by misspeach2008 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:47:30 PM EST
    is Berlin where Obama is going to make his speech on Gay and Lesbian issues?

    Parent
    Michael Dever Redux (none / 0) (#146)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:37:53 PM EST
    Maybe Senator Obama considers one of the Reagan administration's good ideas to be Michael Dever's organizational efforts for President Reagan to visit the Bittenberg graveyard.  Oops.

    Parent
    Wow, way to impress the European countries.... (none / 0) (#151)
    by sallywally on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:05:31 AM EST
    what an odd and stupid choice.

    Parent
    I meant this to go after Lentinel's comment (none / 0) (#152)
    by sallywally on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:08:27 AM EST
    announcing the Prussian war monument location. Don't know how it got way down here.....

    Parent
    I think that analysis is right on. (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:39:26 PM EST
    I rather think that all along the Dem leadership was counting their chickens before they hatched, and now they're mad at the eggs.
    We went to see the new Batman yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:01:37 PM EST
    Since our Joshua is eight now I'm getting more than what I would consider my fair share of superhero movies.  I did like Transformers though and Ironman.  The new Batman is absolutely stunning.  I still haven't been able to process the whole movie, I think I would like to see it again in the theatre and we will certainly own it.  I'm not wild about much of anything, I try to do all things in moderation but I do really love movies so I would say that is one of my indulgences.  After Brokeback Mountain I so so looked forward to Heath Ledger's acting career.  I thought I would be enjoying his work for the rest of my life and was saddened by his loss.  For me it was like a young Pacino left us before he ever really got to begin.  My spiritual beliefs are Buddhist and Ledger's Joker was so stunning when attempting to gauge good and evil.  My husband says it is easily one of maybe three of the best movies he has seen in years.

    We've Lost (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:25:19 PM EST
    Real Men Vote for McCain
    Top 10 reasons why.
    By Lou Aguilar

    .....

    10. McCain is endorsed by Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Obama gets support from Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, and every weenie in Hollywood. Plus, Susan Sarandon has vowed to leave the country if McCain gets elected. Case closed.

    digby

    Got Zukes?! (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:42:18 PM EST
    Just wanted to let all you veggie and garden folks know that Iron Chef was Challenge Zucchini tonight. They replay the show throughout the week, so check Food Network for the times. Lots of good ideas. I liked using it for noodles personally. I can run with that idea, lol!~ I'll be cooking some Asian dishes this week (Thai Basil in the farm share) so I may try it there. And I'll freeze some because the other dishes I'm trying are Mex and Tex/Mex, although I'm sure I can incorp zukes in those also. Zuke salsa anyone? Yes, I have my fair share of summer squash!

    Some of the ideas are pieces of bigger dishes, like chips or wrapping a strip around scallops. Fun stuff ;)

    Channeling (1.00 / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:55:13 PM EST
    "I never thought I would hear myself saying this," Dobson said in a radio broadcast to air Monday. "... While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might."

    God is working in mysterious ways to elect McSame. Dobson is about to explode with enthusiasm for McSame.

    Go figure...

    A small thing (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by misspeach2008 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:24:52 PM EST
    But you would be taken more seriously here if you called him "McCain". I'm not a McCain supporter, but  we try to be polite in our reference to all candidates.

    Parent
    Thanks (1.00 / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:28:23 PM EST
    I think McSame is too good to pass up. Sorry, I am ok if you do not take me more seriously.

    Parent
    Jeralyn ok'd McSame (none / 0) (#149)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:49:50 PM EST
    Jeralyn actually approved that name.  She felt it was a legitimate campaign strategy of tying him to Bush.  An insult to be sure, but strategy.

    Parent
    Then 'Backtrack' Obama is ok? n/t (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:56:29 AM EST


    Parent
    Oh yeah... (none / 0) (#2)
    by CK MacLeod on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:52:49 PM EST
    ...I'm a big supporter of the "Debacle."  How could anyone not stand up in favor of a Debacle?  

    If you're honestly interested in a discussion, maybe you might want to consider putting it under a somewhat slightly less completely prejudicial heading.  Of course, it's your site, your thread - goes without saying that you can conduct it however you like.  

    Heck, I'd be willing even to accept provisionally that the war has been a "debacle," or has included several debacles.  As Clemenceau put it, more or less, "War is a series of catastrophes leading to a victory."  So, if I have to argue that my debacle is better than your debacle, I can do that, too, even under the obvious and inevitable disadvantage that no one knows for sure what would have happened if we hadn't jumped into the Real Existing Debacle when we did.  

    McCAIN SUPPORTER (beware)  

    Save us all some time if you put (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:56:25 PM EST
    your disclosure at the top.

    Parent
    When you invade a nation... (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Dadler on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:36:33 PM EST
    ...that has done nothing to you and poses no threat to you, in the end, you will be visited by failure and more of it.  We are on the Roman Empire route to destruction, going against EVERTYING our founders warned us about militarily.  Do you honestly think we can plan a future of military bases all over Iraq?  And that the Iraqi people won't fight to the death to keep that from happening?  Do you honestly think they want us there?  Would you want the murderer of your loved one hanging around the house to "help" in the aftermath?    

    We have become what we despise.  What we rebelled against 200+ years ago.

    And the failures will not lead us to victory in these cases today, because you can't win something that never existed in the first place.  When you are not genuinely defending your nation in going to war, you are simply killing another's.  You are simply a killer.

    Parent

    Friends, Romans... (none / 0) (#58)
    by CK MacLeod on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:40:48 PM EST
    (McCAIN SUPPORTER AND POSSIBLE ROMAN IMPERIALIST - beware)

    Actually, conquest wasn't the cause of the Roman Empire's destruction:  It was the means of the Roman Empire's construction.  The project fell apart when, among other things, technical limitations made administering and defending (much less extending) its far-flung borders and huge population impractical.  Still, considering that our republic has lasted only 230+ years, while the Roman Empire lasted 500 or so (1500 if you consider the East, 2000 if you include the Roman Republic), then among alternatives the Roman model might not be such a bad one.  Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, it's no guarantee, since virtually every nation that's ever existed has done so at some precursor's ultimate cost - as is true for the nations that rose up on the ruins of Rome in the West, or for the nation that finally destroyed the Eastern Roman Empire by outright conquest.  Those particular conquerors, Islamists as it happens, have had their ups and downs, but are still awaiting the retributive extinction you seem to consider inevitable.

    As for Iraq in particular, I don't believe, as you seem to, that somewhere around late 2002 or early 2003, Saddam & Sons were mildly pursuing affairs of state, minding their own business, moping the days away in a distant land about which we knew little and which mattered even less to us.  I actually believe that if Al Gore had gotten a few thousand more votes in Florida in 2000, his administration also would have ended up in a shooting war in Iraq.  His "Inconvenient Truth" speech would have been about justifying pre-emptive war in the new era, and by today a hawkish Lieberman/Clinton ticket would be trying to co-opt the anti-war left on the basis of their New Deal- or Great Society-like payoffs... and sites like TalkLeft, after much soul-searching, would probable be supporting them.  It scares me even to guess what DailyKos would be about...

    ;)

    (McCAIN SUPPORTER AND POSSIBLE ROMAN IMPERIALIST - beware)

    Parent

    Too bad for us (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:59:58 PM EST
    the Dems are acting like the tribes of Britain.

    And some here would say we've missed out on our Boudica...

    Parent

    well we had on but then those caucuses! (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:15:40 PM EST


    Parent
    True re Roman decline (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:45:24 PM EST
    as it could be said that it was due to attempting too big a tent.  As it were.

    Parent
    in your Gore '00 - '08? alternate world (none / 0) (#96)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:17:49 PM EST
    you assume that 9/11 still occurs, correct?

    Was that inevitable in your eyes?  Coming from the angle of Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies.

    Parent

    In Gore 43 (none / 0) (#109)
    by CK MacLeod on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:40:35 PM EST
    Absitively, I think it's fair to presume a 9/11 for the Gore 43 universe, though I think there would have been escalation with Saddamite Iraq sooner or later even without a 9/11.

    Parent
    naw (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:19:46 PM EST
    Dontcha think Clarke and the CSG would have been given a little more prominence and viewed a little less suspiciously as a clinton relic?

    What's the 43 reference?

    Parent

    Don't see why we should presume... (none / 0) (#128)
    by CK MacLeod on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:17:16 PM EST
    ...that it would have made enough of a difference, and it's obviously self-serving for anyone implicated in the run-up to 9/11 shift the blame elsewhere.  I'm not really clear how Gore and his ca. Y2K security mavens felt about Clarke, and I don't believe even Clarke has claimed to have had provided some anti-9/11 magic bullet that someone else failed to fire.  

    PS:  GHW Bush = 41st Prez.  Clinton = 42nd.  W = 43.  JSM = 44.  


    Parent

    Thanks for the disclosure (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:55:34 PM EST


    Parent
    No Past, Only Future (none / 0) (#5)
    by stevenb on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:56:35 PM EST
    On both sides of the fence, both Obama and McCain have made statements or took positions that ultimately did not pan out or were false...so where do we go from here?  That is the real question.  Can't change the past, only learn from it and prepare for the future.

    So, IF (and a big if) the current situation in Iraq does look like it is beginning to repair itself and Iraq is settling into the only democracy in the Middle East, AND the surge was/is a success, then shouldn't that be recognized?

    Also, I'm sorry, but if America supported or allowed itself to create the Iraq Debacle, then it seems only appropriate to support that country in every way imaginable until it is self-sufficient and safe.  Otherwise, I can only think that America did more harm than good, and that doesn't bode well for any future international policies or actions, no matter whether Obama or McCain becomes President.

    wouldn't that be self-evident? (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:56:45 PM EST
    In that way, when you write that "McCain has been right on Iraq from the onset," we will know where you are coming from.

    gee, how predjudiced a heading could "Sunday Open Thread" possibly be? did i miss something there?

    If you're honestly interested in a discussion, maybe you might want to consider putting it under a somewhat slightly less completely prejudicial heading.

    do you have something personal against sunday, or open threads? come on now, out with it!

    you conveniently deleted (none / 0) (#8)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    my post from which you crudely misquote me, BTD.

    I stated that McCain had been right on Iraq from the onset of the war.

    There was no reference in my post to McCain being right on the lead-in to the war.

    Overall, I find it fairly disturbing that you would erase my post.

    You are most vulnerable on Iraq - because on almost every other issue that I've read on your posts you have indeed held Obama's "feet to the fire" as you claim you do. You just don't do it for Iraq and you instead choose to post the Obama brief (to borrow a term from someone close to you).

    Watch this.

    http://www.johnmccain.com/videolanding/documentary.htm

    It's interesting.

    You claimed you were a centrist, well, if you're a card carrying member of the club, then I'm surprised nobody let you in on our common practice of hearing both sides of the story ;)

    Right "from the onset.." (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:43:11 PM EST
    This is like giving an arsonist big props for his after the fact fire fighting knowhow.

    Parent
    I suppose, if the arsonist (none / 0) (#44)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:12:42 PM EST
    was Bush, and then we add that the decision to set the to-be-scorched structure fire after hundreds of individuals deliberated subsequent to a series of intelligence pieces each of which claiming that the to-be-burned structure was chalked full of rabid Al-Quaeda operatives and known budding-genocidal murderer was attempting to acquire nuclear material.

    Also, that it then cost 750 billion dollars and five years to put the fire out (which is still smoldering) and help erect in its place a newer and improved post-burned-structure - and so rather than finishing up with everything nearly in place - we'll just cut and run and pretend it never happened...

    I'd rather finish helping to build a better building and then calling it a happy day.

    If we can hold the Bush administration accountable at the end of the day (legally I mean) - all the better.

    I don't see how that transfers to McCain though.

    Parent

    Dr. Jim Callin' (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:47:25 PM EST
    The patient's got a bad case of the flip-flops. It usually surfaces 3-4 months before the November elections, and no politician -- especially the inexperienced and light-weight -- is immune to it. Although in past outbreaks, it has hit those who were once thought to be inoculated against it.

    The recommended treatment I beieve is a really large dose of Clintonesta, a daily pill that might not only eradicate the disease, but also end the patient's intention of ruling, I mean, leading the country. There are no side-effects, at least not for the future of this country.

    Parent

    Axelrod had a strong primary campaign plan (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:23:13 PM EST
    but not an equally strong GE plan.

    To some extent, this makes sense.  The primary campaign was largely strategic and not issue-driven.  For the most part, Obama could focus on one primary at a time, and speak to one or two audiences at a time, emphasizing whatever would win the most votes that day.

    Now, with no primaries to focus on, both campaigns are rather unmoored.  It's hard to be strategic in the same way when you have to face, or try to get attention from, many audiences at once and juggle many issues at once.

    When Clinton suspended her campaign, it was like when the Berlin wall fell for the U.S.  A huge cause to celebrate, but an event that left the country without a primary 'evil' to focus on until  9/11 came along.  McCain as the big evil just isn't working for Obama the same way now that we're talking about the GE.

    Parent

    You make a good point Valhalla (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:33:36 PM EST


    Parent
    didn't you see the documentary? (1.00 / 0) (#53)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:32:05 PM EST
    nothing happened except the politics of whatever year it happened to be.

    It's like Obama's supporters are so sensitive to what happened to Kerry, their reactions (BTD included) at the slightest whif of the FF-word puts them into a frenzy.

    It reminds me of the Maginot line the French built after WWI.

    It isn't healthy. The blogosphere and the MSM opted for a "swift-boat proof" nobody candidate: "he's been against the war in Iraq since the birth of the universe!" "there's no way Rove can harpoon this guy!" but then totally forgot to vent his credentials and instead engaged in a process of mass-hypnosis where nobody bats an eyelid when the candidate delivers a speech half of which was delivered by another politician not so many years before!

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#129)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:19:35 PM EST
    "I am like whaaaat?? ..."

    heck look no further than BTDs reactions to some of my posts (he ended up deleting one of them and opened an open thread to shoo a couple of us away) I am half expecting to be booted for saying that McCain happens to have been right on Iraq war since its onset (I have to now follow this with the obvious disclaimer that in no way I am refering to the lead-up to the war). Yikes.

    Parent

    I never did get (none / 0) (#156)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:58:19 AM EST
    why Lewinski mattered so much to people.  Plus it was one of the lamest gripes I heard this primary.  Either a sign of CDS or of sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

    (Women at the dentist's office were talking about B. Spears kid sister getting pregnant.  I mentioned the irony of getting pregnant by a guy she met at church.  Conversation over.  Sacred cows and all that.)

    Parent

    I phone 3g questions (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpa1 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:10:49 PM EST
    While sitting in the pool yesterday, I got a phone call on my cell phone.  Unfortunately, the phone was with me.  Now, I have to decide on a new phone, as my old plan allows me to get one on Wednesday.

    I used the Samsung A700 Sync as a modem, tethering it to my laptop, when I went away.  The monthly plan for the tethering was $20 and if I wasn't going away, I could cancel it and re-order later.

    I hear that ATT has a new plan for tethering and that's $65 a month and that is ontop of the $30 a month for a push email plan and of course ontop of the regular monthly calling plan.  The IPhone 3G does not do tethering at all, that other plan is for the Blackberry.  However, the Iphone 3G or I3G has much better Internet access and html.  So, I am thinking that to get a boarding pass on Southwest, I can do that all on the I3G.  I can look up things on the I3G.  If I have to email a report that I wrote from my laptop, I can sync it into the I3G and attach it to an I3G email.  So, even thought the Blackberry tethers and the I3G does not, I don't see where I am missing that much by having to use the I3G on the Net rather than my laptop.  Does anyone think that is logical?  I am sure that sooner or later someone will write an app to allow the I3G to tether.

    If I am correct, then only real shortcoming to the I3G for me is the battery is not removable.  

    i think an important question would be (none / 0) (#15)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:41:42 PM EST
    have they resolved the software issues on the new phone.

    Parent
    Presidential nicknames (none / 0) (#26)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:37:47 PM EST
    some complimentary like Old Hickory and Honest Abe some not so complimentary like Tricky Dick, Teflon President and Slick Willie.  I wonder what Obama's nickname will be?

    The Opossum? (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:49:01 PM EST
    With his own personal Latin inscription of Vero possumus! on his personal presidential seal and all.

    Parent
    The Manly Marsupial! (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:30:26 PM EST
    That mouth full of sharp, pointy insect eating teeth!  That threatening hiss!  That pale color!  

    Well, maybe not the pale color.  Quick!  Someone breed a melanin-enhanced possum.

    Parent

    How about Drama Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:35:11 PM EST


    Parent
    shoud be complementary (none / 0) (#28)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:39:23 PM EST


    Parent
    this is snark (none / 0) (#29)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:39:53 PM EST


    Parent
    What's the prize? (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:45:59 PM EST


    Parent
    I dont know (none / 0) (#33)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:48:52 PM EST
    Universal acclaim???

    Parent
    How about (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by misspeach2008 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:34:50 PM EST
    "Flipper"?

    Parent
    Buyer's Remorse n/t (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:56:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Whether anyone can live (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    or not live with the reality of the result of the actions taken by the DNC is not a question.  It is the reality.  What the result will be is probably up to Diebold, regardless of any splinter movements.

    Here's one for the criminal defense (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:23:13 PM EST
    readers here:
    Man falls overboard in Mission Bay; SDPD rescues him; man is combative, hits an officer with SDPD Taser; man grabs for an officer's gun; another officer shoots man.

    LAT

    I'd be checking (none / 0) (#57)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:40:16 PM EST
    for outstanding warrants & waiting for the toxicology report.  The man's behavior was odd.

    Parent
    Total speculation... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:32:18 AM EST
    kinda sounds like the guy was trying to off himself, and when the cops intervened it became a suicide by cop scenario.

    Or he was mentally ill.

    Or the cops set him off somehow.

    Parent

    On another earlier thread someone (none / 0) (#126)
    by Rhouse on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:51:17 PM EST
    wondered what Democrats got for their FISA votes, well, by way of Glenn Greenwald, here's one item the DNC got.

     http://tinyurl.com/5wfhdx

    Who says it doesn't pay to advertise,  they get a convention and a loverly reusable tote bag - go green!

    Sunday Open Thread | 127 comments (127 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment