Sunday Night Open Thread

It's taken me ten days, but I have finally watched all 75 episodes of Pablo Escobar: El Patron del Mal. The version with English subtitles starts here and ends here.

The series does not use real names for most of the characters, but the characters are all real. If you do watch the series, be sure to read about who they are in real life, and what happens to them.

Of course, the real story of how Pablo Escobar was killed is much more interesting than the series reveals. As the result of a FOIA lawsuit, the U.S. had to release a treasure trove of documents, which are available here. The involvement of the U.S. military (to enable finding Escobar's location through phone-tracking technology), the Pepes, the Cali cartel, the CIA, the DEA, and corrupt Colombian politicians, police and military officials is enlightening, to say the least.

On to Breaking Bad. And the season premiere of Boardwalk Empire. This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< On Syria: A return to the UN and a proposed AUMF | Appeals Court Orders Released Somali Pirate Negotiator Back Into Custody >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 122 (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:50:15 AM EST
    Mayor Bloomberg... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:49:03 PM EST
    gives an interview to The New Yorker to cement his legacy as a major-league out of touch arsehole...mission accomplished Mikey!

    The Congressional Progressive (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 02:49:39 PM EST
    Caucus has sent the WH a list of questions on Syria; questions can be found here.

    There are 67 questions.

    Here are the first 15 of them:

    1. What is the threat to U.S. national security from Assad using chemical weapons in Syria?

    1. What is the threat to U.S. national security if the U.S. does not use force in Syria?

    2. What is biggest possible downside if the U.S. DOES NOT attack?

    3. If the U.S. does not attack, how will it affect our credibility and what impact will that have on U.S. national security?

    4. What concerns do you have for Israel if the U.S. does not attack?

    5. What concerns do you have for Israel if the U.S. does attack?

    6. Would the Administration support an option allowing limited military action that would
    only be authorized once certain prerequisites have been met?

    1. What is the role of the [United Nations] Security Council in authorizing use of force?
    2. What other countries have made a commitment to join in the attack by launching missiles or dropping bombs? What, exactly, have France and Turkey and Kuwait and the UAE promised to do, if anything?

    3. The United Nations Charter forbids unilateral military action by any nation against another. Does the U.S. proposed attack violate the U.N. Charter?

    4. There are 189 signers of the Chemical Weapons Convention. How many of them have pledged to participate in a military intervention in Syria?

    5. If we do not attack Syria, will any other nation?

    6. What new approaches is the Administration taking towards Russia, Iran, China and other key actors to advance a political solution -- or in the case of Russia, in particular, ensure that their military support for the Syrian regime is reduced or ended, especially in light of Assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people?

    7. Why is NATO unwilling to participate in this attack? Why is the Arab League unwilling to participate in this attack?

    8. What the Administration claims Assad has done is a punishable offense under international law, and could be prosecuted. Has the Administration taken any action within the International Criminal Court, or any other international body, to bring Bashar al-Assad to justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity?

    Still working my way through the rest of them.

    In real news today (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:08:22 PM EST
    obama shoots self in foot, but everyone else in America will pay for it
    The report came as Brazil is preparing to auction rights to tap some of the largest oil finds in the world in recent decades, deposits trapped under a salt layer off its Atlantic coast. State-run Petrobras, Brazil's largest company and a source of national pride, made the discoveries in recent years and will be a mandatory partner in developing all of the new deep-sea fields.

    Yahoo tries to save face (and customers) (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 02:19:50 AM EST
    by filing a lawsuit against the NSA.

    Yahoo filed a suit in the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court, which provides the legal framework for NSA surveillance, to allow the company to make public the number of data requests it receives per year from the spy agency.

    Withholding the information creates mistrust, Yahoo said. Companies are forbidden by law to say how much data they provide.

    Yahoo, in its motion, said it and other electronic communication providers have been intensely and publicly scrutinised for their alleged "participation" in government surveillance: "Yahoo has been unable to engage fully in the debate about whether the government has properly used its powers, because the government has placed a prior restraint on Yahoo's speech."

    Criticising news coverage, specifically by the Guardian and the Washington Post, Yahoo said media outlets were mistaken in claiming that the Prism program allowed the US government to tap directly into the servers to collect information. It said that claim was "false".

    "Yahoo's inability to respond to news reports has harmed its reputation and has undermined its business not only in the United States but worldwide. Yahoo cannot respond to such reports with mere generalities."

    Microsoft and Google joined in. It must be hard to make billion$ on cloud computing when customers don't trust the cloud.

    I'm sure the feds assured these companies that (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by caseyOR on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:09:27 AM EST
    no one would ever find out about their cozy little relationship with the NSA.

    And, if no one had spilled the beans, thank you, Edward Snowden, these companies would have been happy to keep it all secret. Now they are trying to save face or customers or share price or all of the above.


    Yahoo's Record is Good (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:48:30 AM EST
    Yahoo's current lawsuit is in keeping with their principles not just a commercial act to win consumer love. Back in Yahoo was one of the few or only tech companies that rejected the NSA order to cooperate with PRISM, while Microsoft was essentially a partner..
    . SAN FRANCISCO -- In a secret court in Washington, Yahoo's top lawyers made their case. The government had sought help in spying on certain foreign users, without a warrant, and Yahoo had refused, saying the broad requests were unconstitutional....

    .."Even though they have an awful reputation on consumer privacy issues, when it comes to government privacy, they generally tend to put their users first," said Christopher Soghoian, a senior policy analyst studying technological surveillance at the American Civil Liberties Union. "There's this libertarian, pro-civil liberties vein that runs through the tech companies."..

    ... In addition to Yahoo, which fought disclosures under FISA, other companies, including Google, Twitter, smaller communications providers and a group of librarians, have fought in court elements of National Security Letters, which the F.B.I. uses to secretly collect information about Americans.

    NYT (June 13)


    Assad interview (4.75 / 4) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:27:02 AM EST
    He says he is also fighting Al Qaeda.  This is true in some respects.

    White House sends Dept national security advisor Ben Rhodes out in front of the hot lights to say a dictator gassed 100s of children.  He says letting Assad get away with it sends a message to any terrorist or dictator that they can use chemical weapons.  Somehow he was able to hold himself back from saying that this will lead to a smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud.  He was so hopped up it was almost panic.

    What they accomplished today was make me completely firm on saying NO to this Syria plan.

    And if that wasn't enough, Kerry's (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:03:18 AM EST
    increasingly angry/dismissive/imperious comments might do it...

    comments like this:

    When asked by a reporter whether there was anything Assad's government could do or offer to stop any attack, Kerry said:

    "Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week - turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting (of it) but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done."

    I mean, what the heck?  I don't care how ticked off they all are that neither the Congress or the American people are rolling over and accepting the meager and questionable "intelligence" they have so far afforded us, those are not the remarks of someone with even a remote interest in a diplomatic solution.

    I saw a clip of Kerry responding to Andrea Mitchell, and Kerry nearly went off the deep end - waving his arms and all but asking if people were trying to be as stupid about this as they seemed to be, and severely offended that no one was just trusting that they weren't trying to manipulate the public.

    I know Kerry really wanted this job, but so far, I am not at all impressed.


    The Syrians took Kerry up on it (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:16:26 PM EST
    and the Russians are saying they'll help get it done, too.

    Egg on your face, much, Kerry?


    Why egg? (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    if accomplished, that is achieving the actual goal.

    How Many Times Have you Heard... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:43:42 PM EST
    ...there are no other options from Kerry and other admin officials ?  I could make a 5 mins clip with all the hawks making some version of that statement.

    Seems like Russia located a fairly obvious one.


    You seem to have missed (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    Kerry offer the option this morning.

    Then He... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:53:30 PM EST
    ...lied to make his case for bombing, there were other options.  Not sure what he announcing it has to do with anything, he was pushing to bomb two weeks ago.

    PBS interview (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:28:06 PM EST

    Seems like some aspect of what Russia proposed was discussed between BHO and Putin in the G20 meeting. It is quite possible that the President had already communicated to the Russian President the only thing that would be acceptable to the USA during the G20 meeting and the SoS just repeated that today!


    Two leaders pulling up chairs in a corner (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:38:07 PM EST
    And another 18 at the G20 wishing they could know what was being said. Sometimes the best work takes place when no other ears are around.

    MadMan Diplomacy? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:51:01 PM EST
    Funny... Obama is almost always criticized for being a wimp, too conciliatory. But now that he is steadfast, despite the jitters of the rest of the world, he is seen as arrogant and a poor leader..

    Well despite the fact that he can't win.. and I am no fan, looks like the madman technique is working out after all.


    The importance of strong pressure (none / 0) (#120)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:18:01 PM EST
    Whether it is "mad man" theory or just hard, harsh hammering that shows you intend to do what you say ....  We have a way to go yet; since this could be a stalling technique.  But, the weighing in--bit by bit (almost as if it were deftly coordinated by State or something, even??)--of several principal components of the whole puzzle, such as the EU, Germany in addition to the earlier 10 of the G20, and the UN Secretary General's comments today should keep the pressure on Putin/Assad.  That is why I have been arguing for continued strong determination at the WH and the support of Congress ... because that, in itself, can cut through a lot of cr*p.

    I disagree about the value (none / 0) (#122)
    by sj on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:28:51 PM EST
    That is why I have been arguing for continued strong determination at the WH and the support of Congress
    I think if the WH had had the support of Congress we would already be at Go Time. I think the hesitation of Congress was way more valuable than the rubber stamp support would have been.



    sj: As to value (none / 0) (#126)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:43:55 PM EST
    Yes, this discussion, debate, and the upcoming one are extremely important ... I'm guessing we might be in agreement that the discussion about "what the heck do we want our foreign policy to be in the 21st century" got way more than waylaid by the 9/11.  In many ways--in the midst of the Syrian horror and imbroglio--it feels like we have resurfaced for air after a long time of post-9/11 cowering.

    The hard drive that the WH has been engaged in since August 21st has an important value as well, imo.  That value has to do with matching the "diplomacy" to the situation.  While not meaning to be premature--because only samplings of potential resolution have been seen publicly today--I very much believe that the only kind of "negotiation/diplomacy" that KGB Putin and Assad, Dictator & Son of Dictator, react to is a real and inescapable threat.  Again, this is only my view ... but, the coming together of several pressures today (with the timing of the inspectors' report this week)could be historical accident, or there might have been "method in the madness" that some saw coming from the WH.  If it is the latter, the argument could well be made that Obama's positioning boxed-in Putin/Assad.  But, I'll leave that to history's review.  It is still early; and, I don't want to get too optimistic that there may be an opening for a solid resolution.


    If that's what you want to think (none / 0) (#133)
    by sj on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:47:03 PM EST
    that's fine with me.

    It's this part of his statement (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by sj on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:13:34 PM EST
    "...but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done." that has the potential to make Kerry look bellicose and non-serious. I guess it depends on what the goal is. If the goal is really CW prevention then it's all good.

    If, on the other hand, the goal is bombing, and CW is merely an excuse, that's a completely different situation. Remember, that Saddam Hussein insisted that he had no WMDs and that the inpections would show that. But Bush didn't need no stinkin' inspections. We still invaded his a$$.


    Says the gambler (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:50:30 PM EST
    Who probably plays a mean game of poker :)

    I agree though

    This gets it done

    And if Assad and Russia didn't think we were serious, they would have never placed this on the table.

    If Assad gives up his chems and no tomahawks flew and no giant power vacuum visits Syria via our hands, what a trifecta!


    His boss wants war (4.40 / 5) (#111)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:53:46 PM EST
    and Kerry's slip of the tongue, or arrogant challenge he never expected to be picked up, has been picked up.  The US reports on the Russian response are missing this, but the German radio reports I've been listening to have made clear the Russians are almost gleeful in agreeing to do it.

    I've said it elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here.  If one is looking for a historical analog to Kerry, one needs to look to the reaction of the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Ministry in July-August 1914.  A bunch of radicals had whacked the putative heir to the throne, who no one liked.  No one outside government got particularly exercised - they hardly noticed.  But the Emperor was p*ssed and his advisors wanted war.

    The Austro-Hungarians gave Serbia a list of ten demands which were written in such a demeaning tone and demanded so much of Serbia's sovereignity be surrendered that it was clear the Austro-Hungarians wanted them to reject them, so there would be war.  The Serbians immediately agreed to 9 and part of the 10th, and asked for a little more time on the rest of the 10th.  And when that wasn't good enough for the Austro-Hungarians the Serbians' friends/guarantors, the Russians were there to stand alongside them.

    We all saw how that turned out.


    And speaking of Serbia: (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:35:17 PM EST
    OMG! (none / 0) (#136)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:06:54 PM EST
    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:44:45 PM EST
    Why isn't President Obama doing something about the Austro-Hungarian menace?



    Why Egg? (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:39:11 PM EST
    Seems like Kerry's histrionics may have been the mad man type bargaining that Assad and the Russians needed... no?

    Kerry as madman (none / 0) (#119)
    by sj on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:16:22 PM EST
    It's an interesting concept.

    I think all the cr@p he's had injected in his face (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:44:52 PM EST
    recently has gone to his brain and made him crazy.

    That is why it may have been effective (none / 0) (#121)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:21:58 PM EST
    The UN is onboard (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:59:40 PM EST
    with the new plan. Now if they are able to get it on paper, with what I suspect will be a veto proof agreement from the UN Security Council that Syria follow through with the deal, the high drama could revert back to your average civil war with one less nation producing chemical weapons and easing the fears of their immediate neighbors.

    CG: 'Have been ruminating on (none / 0) (#142)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:52:11 PM EST
    what might have been said in Petersburg at the previously unannounced Obama & Putin meeting.  Hmmmm.  I'm holding off saying more, seriously; the best, wisest statement, of course, is the President's statement that--if all were to work as presented today--"a pause" would be "absolutely" in order.  (For all the early consternation, maybe--just maybe--Secretary Kerry is dumb-like-a-fox.)

    Or they could have just been discussing (none / 0) (#145)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:12:17 PM EST
    Putin's Super Bowl ring. Either way, let's hope today's developments continue on a productive path as the week progresses.

    if you say so (none / 0) (#124)
    by sj on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:37:33 PM EST
    There's been a lot of magical thinking (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:11:30 AM EST
    on this thread about this issue.

    I'm not saying that it hasn't been entertaining.


    I like that they are applying pressure for (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:19:41 AM EST
    Him to turn his chemical weapons over.  I think that is one technique.  But Kerry is issuing a threat he means to carry out so, it's not really a technique in this instance.

    Unfortunately though, Assad is making threats too.  That will probably be his undoing and will probably sway the House to vote for the President's plan.

    Assad had the majority on his side, and then he threatened to unleash chemical weapons on the whole region.  What a dummy.


    Any Assad threats against Israel (none / 0) (#13)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:32:34 AM EST
    could undo him.

    Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for a military response by a nation that has been attacked--no need for Security Council authorization in that instance.  (And, no, I am not breathlessly  crazed trying to find a basis to attack, as I think we already have that justification.)  Assad is getting closer to that line.


    The media is on fire now (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:44:10 AM EST
    The national security advisors and others want him so bad, they can probably get him now too.  The interview will continue to spread too with more weighing in.

    Kerry is starting (none / 0) (#140)
    by desertswine on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:40:51 PM EST
    to look really weird.  His face is beginning to look like its made out of wax or plastic, or maybe he's wearing really heavy makeup.

    Or maybe he's been taken over by one of those lizard people.. Brrrr...


    The air of desperation (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:13:56 AM EST
    does not help.  This seems very uncharacteristic of Kerry.  He has a long track record of being an effective debater, of being emphatic without being desperate.

    Kerry is usually much more effective.  It appears he believes he will lose the vote in Congress.


    Assad threatened us (Kerry) too (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:22:48 AM EST
    I think he has screwed himself :) My consent doesn't even matter :). That was the dumbest interview ever.  He had everyone in his pocket until he started threatening.

    Assad's threats against the U.S. (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:25:12 AM EST
    should be ignored as p.r. bluster.  Assad has no military capability of hitting the U.S. or even its planes or ships in theater.

    Our issue is his use of chemical weapons (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:27:46 AM EST
    He says if we hit him he is going to unleash his chemical weapons.  What a deal

    Why did he do that? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:37:36 AM EST
    He was close to winning this whole thing.  The Congress was likely to vote down the use of military force.

    The idea behind the need to strike him is to deter him from future use, and so he says he will use chemical weapons (again, for the third or fourth time)?

    Assad's threats validate what has been said about him.  And further, Assad's threats imply he does have personal control over the chemical weapons.


    The consensus (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:59:35 AM EST
    seems to be that there are three people that have control over Syria's chemical weapons: President Bashar al-Assad, the president's younger brother General Maher al-Assad, and at most one other General, with Maher being the one carrying the biggest chip on his shoulder.

    Sleuthin! (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:02:21 AM EST
    I'm watchin the bluster

    We are in full bluster :)


    I think he is as crazy as we have (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:39:55 AM EST
    Been led to believe he may be.  Dictators always lose it :)

    And I thought he was (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:10:10 AM EST
    an uncrazy, rational, fairly bright despot.

    If I were him, I would work a deal to spend the rest of my life in the comfort of Paris.  But these guys just can't help pushing the envelope.


    Hey that was my idea! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:20:54 AM EST
    And you poo-poo'd it. ;)

    This is not where we offer this to Assad (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:29:45 AM EST
    This is where he asks for that.

    That's not gonna happen though it would seem.


    If I were (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:49:00 AM EST
    him, I would do that.  Toot-sweet.

    If I were us, I would strike him, then negotiate an exit for him.  


    Striking Assad... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:53:20 AM EST
    has never been proposed, we're talking about striking other nameless persons for what Assad has allegedly done.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#125)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:40:55 PM EST
    Idi Amin looks like a genius at times-- a horrible murderous possibly cannibalistic despot yes, but a guy who knew when to fold his cards- Saddam, Qaddafi, Milosevic- all had some outs but pushed the bluster a bit too far.

    You know they are rabid for him now (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:29:13 AM EST
    Though.  I am almost afraid for him.

    Fire up the drone. (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    Drones run this country... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:22:26 PM EST
    It's somehow fitting that drones handle our foreign policy too.

    Kerry has a real psychological conflictk, IMO (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:42:53 AM EST
    After all, to be doing what he is doing now he MUST reject everything he did post-Vietnam as the sympathetic-to-commies ravings of a traumatized upper cruster. Because those commies were just as much of an existential threat as these Islamists and ME Dictators (well, at least the dictators who don't suck up to us and do what we want). Right, Mr. Secretary? How odd is must be to spend your life being an artificial person, which is what so many of these creeps do, have to do, to get the level of power that gets their little toothpicks hard.

    It Appears to Me... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:15:43 AM EST
    ...that Kerry is getting to live out his fantasy.

    He is Secretary of State, not the President, but you would never know it from his speeches, which are forceful and threatening, the exact opposite of his actual job.

    It's also crystal clear that Kerry was not up for running the country in 2004.  What I see on the TV of Kerry is not what I saw in the election and his pretending to be someone he's not, isn't working and not good in the long run for US diplomacy.

    I don't think Kerry is secretly a hawk who played pacifist for decades.  I think he is pacifist who has been forced to play hawk for the interest of the country and of course give him the opportunity to look and act like President for a day.

    I truly hope the Kerry on TV of late is not the person representing the US and trying to increase good relations, globally.


    I think the Syrian crisis (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:51:39 AM EST
    needs a mediator--between Kerry and the American people.  He seems to have hung-out with McCain and Lindsey too much.  That dynamic duo was very supportive of Kerry's appointment as Secretary of State, but not so much, for Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.  

    The administration is trotting out other spokespersons, hopefully with a little less militaristic fervor.   Although, tapping Susan Rice, who engendered a credibility problem (unreasonably in in my view) in her Sunday Talk Show explanations of the Benghazi tragedy to speak to Republicans in  Congress may not be a sterling idea.  


    re 2004...he was more capable than the other guy (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 11:00:28 AM EST
    hawk pacifist hawk pacifist hawk pacifist (none / 0) (#153)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:18:52 AM EST
    sister daughter sister daughter...

    No Jake!  It's KerryTown!

    To paraphrase Gore Vidal: The Empire of America has one political party, the party of war.


    What does BTD say? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:48:30 AM EST
    Pols are pols and they do what they do.

    Well, that assumes that (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:54:15 AM EST
    striking Assad for his use of chemical weapons is just like Vietnam.  I do not think the two are alike.

    I think he is over-doing this because he has wanted to be Secretary of State his whole life and he is losing the effort to convince Congress to strike Assad.  His first real test and he is not able to pull it off.

    I think it is a fear of failure that is making him act desperate.


    The entire Middle East is Vietnam: (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:24:47 PM EST
    Dominoes and oil.

    You DO have a way with words! (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:17:34 PM EST
    "Green Garden" by Laura Mvula (4.50 / 2) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 08:27:49 PM EST
    On Letterman last week. Great new song, great new singer. She was a receptionist a year ago. (link)

    Nervous about a follow-up mammogram my wife has to have tomorrow. Should be nothing, some of her friends who've had to have a follow-up have told her it's pretty standard, don't stress out. Still, it's been a nagging little unspoken anxiety with us all weekend. Glad to have it out of the way tomorrow.


    Good luck (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by desertswine on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 11:25:27 PM EST
    with that mammogram tomorrow.  Here's hoping its nothing.

    Usually nothing (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:23:51 AM EST
    Fingers crossed, toes crossed

    Hoping for the best... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:59:06 AM EST
    my good man...easier said than done I know, but try not to worry until you have a reason to worry my man.

    I hope your wife gets a good report... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:11:15 AM EST
    my mom's surgeon, whom she still sees for follow-ups after her lumpectomy three years ago, started a program at the Breast Center he's in charge of, called "No More Sleepless Nights:"  

    Although every woman knows the importance of her annual mammogram, for many the prospect evokes fear about what might be found. Mammography often involves additional views and studies and, for some, a biopsy. Although the overwhelming majority of women receive a negative result, the process produces ongoing anxiety.

    Recognizing this, Dr. Michael J. Schultz envisioned a different experience for women when he developed The Breast Center at St. Joseph Medical Center.

    "With advanced digital imaging techniques, up to 40 percent of women need additional views. At other facilities, this can take weeks. If something requires a biopsy, a surgical consultation and the biopsy add additional weeks, all fraught with sleepless nights," says Schultz, who has 30-plus years of experience.

    That's why The Breast Center created No More Sleepless NightsSM, a unique fast track that reduces this lengthy period to just a day. Usually, a pathology report and follow-up consultation can be obtained within approximately 24 hours after a biopsy. In the event the biopsy demonstrates a malignancy, patients have all the necessary diagnostic and treatment facilities in The Breast Center's compassionate, patient-centered environment.

    This was pretty much the story with my mom, and let me tell you, when they do say "cancer," the one reassuring thing is that they're not making you wait weeks to deal with it.

    Needless to say, I hope the follow-up settles any questions, and you all can breathe again; please keep up posted.


    The follow up mammogram... (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 01:39:15 PM EST
    ...and sonogram were negative. Phew. We are both very relieved. My otherwise incredibly calm and low maintenance wife was pretty anxious last night, I could tell. So happy right now, tho. I would be worthless, a man in the gutter, without that woman.

    Thanks for all the good wishes, I appreciate it genuinely.

    A SONG FOR MY WIFE - "Trouble" by Ray Lamontagne (link)


    And AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 121 (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 08:29:53 PM EST
    Kerry (3.67 / 3) (#52)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 11:07:40 AM EST

    John Kerry: U.S. Attack on Syria Would Be `Unbelievably Small'

    So the administration wants an "Unbelievably Small" act of war just to send a message.  If the message is American ineffectiveness that should come through loud and clear.


    Ya got me. I don't believe it either. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:25:31 PM EST
    Hillary is scheduled to speak out (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:37:28 AM EST
    Today on Syria and support the President.  Man, Assad should not have made any other chemical weapon threats.  Obama to speak this afternoon with Blitzer.  Rice is being sent to rally the congressional black caucus.  Full media blitz.

    I only wish I could stand her now (2.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:48:47 AM EST
    Hillary is irrelevant to me at this point. Once she came out against Snowden and said the most vile, tyrannical bullsh*t, she proved herself no longer even a marginally decent person. She proved herself to be not even a fully sentient human being. Her and Bill can literally drop dead, they are so essentially useless to making the country better.

    And if she supports is, you know what? It must be batsh*t crazy, ego based, and wrong as wrong can be. If she really believes what she believes about American's being spied on and having no real essential political freedom anymore, then she is a wretch and needs to walk onto some railroad tracks with her co-dependent husband.

    When do we get real leaders with real minds and ANYthing resembling a free American imagination?

    Never is when.

    That said, phuck Assad. Problem is, we're just about as phucky if you want to really look at the scope of violence we perpetuate in this world.


    It was implied this morning that (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:57:22 AM EST
    They hope to swing public opinion with Hillary.  Others are working the congress.

    I don't hate Hillary.  She was the head of the State Department, she is never going to be okay with Snowden.  If she was she could never have been a credible Secretary of State or a credible President.  If she loved Snowden she'd be unelectable.  She's never going to be okay with Snowden just like soldiers will never be okay with Manning.  The leakers undermine their ability to do their jobs.  This is a democracy though and others can support Manning and Snowden and an important balance can be struck.


    So much for the parsing (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:04:33 AM EST
    here of her prior statement in support of Obama's policies with respect to Syria.

    I did not think she was as tricky, or brilliantly evasive (as someone here put it), as to try and have it both ways in her prior statement.


    I never expected her to do anything less (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:27:53 AM EST
    than fully support the president, but I think her statement - given in the early stages, before there was all this chatter - was designed to work no matter what the outcome was - that's just smart political strategy, and no one's better at it than the Clintons.  

    If Obama had managed to find almost any other spot for Hillary in his administration, I think I'd be feeling much more positive about seeing her run in 2016, but her hawkishness has really put me off considering her if she does, in fact, decide to run.

    John Kerry has jumped the shark, and I have to wonder how effective he can be going forward, since he is just hysterically cheerleading for war.  How do you pull that back?

    Maybe the Kerry Effect will be to goose the UN - and the rest of the world - out of its essential dysfunction, and if the administration can swallow its pride and give diplomacy a sincere and focused effort, maybe all will not have been lost.

    But they may have to find people other than the bellicose Kerry and Power to do the public talking - and the guy they had all over the Sunday shows isn't it.


    So, Hillary's prior (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 11:12:13 AM EST
    statement was in classic Clintonian fashion brilliantly evasive?  And she made that statement when the issue was in doubt.

    Now that she may well be on the losing side of this debate, she makes her position clear?  How is that great politically for her?

    I don't buy it. Her original statement was clear given the context.  She is a hawk on this.  Your contortions make no sense.


    Why is this so hard for you? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 11:59:17 AM EST
    If Clinton never said another word on the subject, what she said last week works no matter how it all plays out.

    But, as it turns out, that isn't going to be her only word on the subject - she's going to do her good-team-player thing and add her voice to the chorus - and what she says will not get held up against her prior statement as inconsistent because it was so generic.

    That's the political part of this - that her credibility won't be damaged now in light of what she said last week.

    Which was my whole point all along.  

    Now, it may well be that coming out in full-throated support could be a problem for her if she decides to run, but that's another issue.

    Yes, she's a hawk, and I don't like it - I never have.  


    It is not hard for me (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:19:21 PM EST
    It is hard for you.  That is why you twist and contort.
    The only place I read or heard of your interpretation is here.  No one is reporting it your way.  The context was clear.

    Show me anyone outside this blog who has agreed with your interpretation.

    But no matter, I suppose, as she will reiterate her position, and, natch, apparently even lobby for it.


    "tricky, or brilliantly evasive," etc... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:34:56 PM EST
    Yeah, well that's the result of working for a grade-A crap artist like our "Words matter" Mouther-in-Chief.

    Power is the only reason our politicians get away with incessant, convenient lying.

    "Words matter."  <guffaw> Sure they do.


    You don't think today will be parsable? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:17:08 AM EST
    Me either :)

    Today will be "interesting" (none / 0) (#55)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 11:41:01 AM EST
    Interesting because: (1) Within 2 hours of Kerry's combo statement--i.e., threat sounding with the injection that we would withhold if Syria immediately turns over/reduces chemical weapons--the Russian Minister Lavrov says that Russia would be willing "to urge" Syria to reduce chemical weaponry, etc. (2) UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon follows with a statement that he is considering "urging" the Security Council to act to have Syria reduce (or words to that effect) its CW should the imminently-expected inspectors' report show illegal use of CW in Syria.  He made the statement underpinning this that the use of CW against citizens, would be "abominable" and cannot be allowed to stand, etc. (Note: Somehow, since the Sec.Genl didn't have to make such a comment now, one might guess that he suspects/knows the upcoming report's conclusions and that this statement is a nudging prelude.) (3) Into the mix, of course, will be the highlighted statement at the WH today of one whom many Democratic legislators are already speaking supportively of her for 2016 ... Hillary Clinton. (4) All this is added to the statements of support for firm, strong action (without defining) over the weekend from the EU, Germany, and the earlier 10 members of the G20. (France coordinates as well with the UN.) (5) In Washington: Briefings for Congressional members, extensive media interviews with the President, the President's speech tomorrow.

    Lo and behold ... this must all be happenstance :)Or maybe the hard push had something to do with Russia now offering to talk. Maybe, uh.
    Obviously, we don't know anything yet ... except maybe something might have pushed Russia to make this announcement.  It could be just a stall or diversion to get hopes up, or it could be in response to a strong military threat, or maybe Putin woke up in a good mood and thought that now would be a good time to talk.  

    In some form or other, the Manchin-Heitkamp proposal still holds promise.


    Hillary (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:01:00 AM EST
    is not even a "fully sentient human being?"

    Come on.

    She has always had a hawkish side to her.  From what has been reported, it was she, Rice and Samantha Powers who convinced Obama to intervene in Libya.  And interesting that she teamed up with Powers, who really blew it in an inexcusable personal attack on Hillary in 2008.

    And, I think your post does reinforce the point that much of the reluctance to militarily respond to Assad's use of chemical weapons stems from the NSA issues.  Obama lost the Left Blogosphere over that one.


    If you want to be President of the United States (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:38:05 AM EST
    You must be capable of protecting the United States.  If you are not capable of making those very difficult calls you will not be elected.  If there is evidence that you ever placed your nation in danger due to indifference or fear, you will not be elected.

    It also helps to be a sociopath (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:38:35 PM EST
    The point is, in business one spends dollars.  In Presidentin', one spends lives.  To do that and sleep at night, it really does help to be a sociopath.

    I don't believe that (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:41:27 AM EST
    I do not think that Hillary, the current topic of this discussion,  or Obama are sociopaths.

    I do not think that Bush was a sociopath, either.  He was subject to some very, very bad ideas and lacked any interest in learning...apparently anything.  He should have stayed owner of the Rangers.


    I don't think these people are sociopaths, (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:58:13 AM EST
    but I think that, in order to be effective at what they do, they often have to take the emotion out of it, because I'm pretty sure that every decision they make has someone or something on the other side that has the potential to tug at their emotions, with the cascading potential to paralyze them into inaction if they give in to it.

    And I'm pretty sure that even as they wall off that emotion to make some of their decisions, those emotions inevitably come roaring back when people suffer from the consequences of those decisions.

    Sociopaths are incapable of empathy and emotion, and I don't for one minute believe that describes either Obama, Clinton or Bush.

    I honestly have no idea why someone would want the job.


    So almost every President we have ever (none / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:43:21 PM EST
    Had was a sociopath?  I think that's absurd.

    I said "it helps" (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:55:40 PM EST
    Get past the candy-coating of history and look at the day to day, and you'll see how it helps.

    Candy coating? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 05:51:58 PM EST
    As if you don't protect yourself, and as if the hierarchy of needs does not exist.  Those who do not comprehend that scale are considered dysfunctional, not the other way around.

    Exhibit A of a sociopath (none / 0) (#164)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:35:26 AM EST
    Florida's AG Pam Bondi, requesting an execution be delayed so she can have a fundraiser.

    Remember, too, this is the law enforcement official who fired the investigators in her office who were pursuing financial frauds in the mortgage industry, in an obvious bid to curry favor with the bankers.

    When the history of this is written, expect it to be glossed over at best, and more likely ignored.


    Just your average wedding singer (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:37:49 AM EST
    And....Russia pushes Assad to turn his (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:33:44 AM EST
    chemical weapons over, place them under some sort of international control.

    Russia enters finally!

    That's a huge win (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    Thanks for link (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:48:12 AM EST
    I'm watching news

    This is awesome though


    Russia also asking Syria to (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:44:26 AM EST
    ratify the Convention on Chemical Weapons.

    If this suceeds... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:51:47 AM EST
    I nominate Russia to take over for Dirty Barry as World Cop! ;)

    What good is a Russian mob thug (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:57:58 AM EST
    if he can't broker a deal with another thug?

    Whatever it takes, at this point....


    Putin could use some (none / 0) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 11:02:26 AM EST
    good will, or, at least, a little less bad will.  He was apparently taken aback by the broad-based reaction to Russia's anti-gay laws, and with the Olympics coming up and all.

    We could do split duty... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 11:10:23 AM EST
    we'll poice our dictators, Russia and China police theirs.

    Since not supporting dictators at all is apparently off the table.


    Is that the title of the sequel to (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:35:29 PM EST
    Team America:  World Police?

    Dirty Barry, World Cop?

    You are aware that, when the part of Harry Callahan was first conceived and written, the writers wanted to make clear he was a psychopath.  And they were appalled when he became a heroic figure.

    Then again, I'm pretty well convinced anyone who wants to be President (of any country) pretty much has to be a sociopath.


    Good if Syryia (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 11:03:03 AM EST
    does ratify the treaty, but not necessary.

    Although I have been ridiculed for discussing International Law, it is relevant.  Even if Syria has not signed the treaty, it is still bound by international norms against the use of chemical weapons.  

    It would be a Crime Against Humanity under the Nuremberg Principles. In modern parlance, it would violate Customary International Law.

    "Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice is generally recognised as a definitive statement of the sources of international law. It requires the Court to apply, among other things, (a) international conventions "expressly recognized by the contesting states", and (b) "international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law". To avoid the possibility of non liquet, sub-paragraph (c) added the requirement that the general principles applied by the Court were those that had been "the general principles of the law recognized by civilized nations". As it is states that by consent determine the content of international law, sub-paragraph (d) acknowledges that the Court is entitled to refer to "judicial decisions" and the most highly qualified juristic writings "as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law".

    Good indeed. (none / 0) (#58)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:05:40 PM EST
    If that happened, perhaps there would be some momentum that would lead to the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention by Israel and Myanmar. A quid pro quo would be a good thing imo.

    Then let's go for Angola, Egypt, North Korea and South Sudan to sign.


    Next: Let's deal with the exponential proliferation of nuclear weapons. Talk about mass destruction!

    Outlaw 'em and shoot them all into some black hole a zillion miles away.


    Israel will take nothing off the table (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:13:35 PM EST
    Just because.  Whether they have them or not, or would use them or not.

    Especially, if Assad has them.


    Assad (none / 0) (#115)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:59:25 PM EST
    claims that he did not in fact use them.

    It seems to me that you are saying that you can understand why Israel would not ratify the convention because Assad has them.
    I could go with that.

    But why would you think that Syria would feel any differently about ratifying the convention if Israel has them?


    Because Russia has asked them to sign (none / 0) (#117)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:08:03 PM EST
    I didn't (none / 0) (#157)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:39:49 AM EST
    ask why, if Syria were to sign, would they do it.

    What I asked was why they would feel any differently about Israel having chemical weapons and refusing to ratify the convention, than Israel or anyone else would feel about Syria refusing to ratify.


    The baseball antitrust exemption (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 05:49:08 PM EST
    I once heard an explanation for why Major League Baseball was exempt from the anti-trust laws: Baseball is different.  Everyone loves baseball.  Consistency?  So what?

    Israel is different.  Maybe that is not fair or justified, but that is the real if unstated reason....And there are other reasons one can give....but the best explanation imo is just simply Israel is different.


    Here's to creative solutions (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:56:32 AM EST
    With Russia (none / 0) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 11:07:08 AM EST
    playing that trump card, it solidifies the global stance against Syria's chemical weapons stash and puts the US and Russia on the same page at least for today. My guess is Assad's brother is spewing a string of expletives right about now.

    And you and I thought the season (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:04:13 PM EST
    Premier of Boardwalk Empire was last night :)

    Maybe Pres. Obama will try to persuade (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    Ms. Clinton to replace Mr. Kerry.

    Well, she helped run Tricky Dick out of town (none / 0) (#68)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:38:09 PM EST
    Maybe she can help run Assad out of town.

    AFIK, Kerry has never run anybody out of any town.


    Patience is a virtue... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    unless you're an Arkansas SWAT team, in which case gas the 107 year old deranged man, bumrush the house, shoot the old bastard, and be home in time for dinner.

    On second thought, maybe the old man wasn't the deranged party here...

    minor detail (none / 0) (#74)
    by nyjets on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 01:31:06 PM EST
    The man was armed and was shooting at the police officers. This was after he had pointed his gun at 2 people. Just because he was 107 does not mean he was not dangerous.

    Duly noted.... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 01:42:15 PM EST
    hence the "patience is a virtue"...he's a hundred and freakin' seven years old...just wait a couple hours he'd fall asleep and be easily apprehendable.  Don't AK paramilitaries like time and a half?

    But I guess that's no fun.


    Predictable--but when I read the (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 01:46:41 PM EST
    article yesterday, I thought the law enforcement action was justified though tragic.

    Technically justified, sure... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 01:52:26 PM EST
    but there's an obvious better more peaceful way to diffuse the situation, imo.

    Given law enforcement responded to (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 02:00:48 PM EST
    a call the man had fired a gun at two people outside the house, and that he fired a the officers when they arrived, what alternatives should they have employed?  He was definitely a danger to the officers and anyone in the house or outside the house.

    Surround the house and wait him out... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    what's wrong with that?  They had a camera in the room to know when he let his guard down...poor guy probably had dementia or something.

    Not a viable option as he was shooting (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 02:05:46 PM EST
    at people outside. Suicide by cop, IMO.

    Fair enough... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 02:50:06 PM EST
    surround the house at a safe distance and wait him out.

    Part of the reason for the suicide by cop phenomenon is our cops are so happy to oblige.  But I still think dementia is more likely than suicide by cop.


    Did You Read the Same Story? (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 02:44:01 PM EST
    Shooting at people outside????

    The suspect, 107-year-old Monroe Isadore, had pointed a gun at the two people.
    Police ushered out the two victims and Isadore barricaded himself in a room.

    When officers tried to get into the room, Isadore shot at the door and so the officers retreated to a safer area.
    A SWAT team was then called in and a negotiator tried to speak with Isadore.
    When negotiations were unsuccessful, SWAT inserted gas into the room.

    gain, Isadore shot at the officers inserting the gas from outside a bedroom window.
    No officers were injured in the shootout.
    Shortly after throwing gas into the room, the SWAT team attempted to enter the room and Isadore started shooting.
    The entry team shot back and killed Isadore.  

    No, I did not read "the (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 02:53:19 PM EST
    same story."  

    As I noted:

    Predictable--but when I read the (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:46:41 AM PST
    article yesterday, I thought the law enforcement action was justified though tragic.

    Parent | Reply to This


    Link? (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:12:18 PM EST
    There is no story that I came up with that says the police responded to a 107 year old man shooting at people outside.

    You must have made that up as a mental defense to justify the horrible death. Or something..

    The shots came after the police escalated the situation.

    The situation began when local police responded to a complaint. The elderly man, Monroe Isadore, allegedly pointed a gun at two people. Over the next three hours, the situation escalated


    Responding to a domestic disturbance on Saturday, police were told that Monroe Isadore had pointed a weapon at two other people.


    According to reports, police officers responded to a domestic disturbance involving an aggravated assault against two people at a residence in Pine Bluff, where suspect, Monroe Isadore, was on Saturday evening. The victims allegedly said Isadore had pointed a gun at them. They were quickly led out of the house by police, arkansasmatters.com reported.


    The Pine Bluff Police Department got a call about an aggravated assault at a home early on Saturday evening, according to Pine Bluff Lt. David Price.
    When officers arrived, they were told by two people at the residence that Monroe Isadore, 107, had threatened them with  a gun, Price said.

    Sounds like kdog's POV is right on the money. The police wanted to get lunch... so they speeded up things. Clearly they could have waited it out...  or attempted to wait it out.


    you are missing somthing (none / 0) (#129)
    by nyjets on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 05:04:18 PM EST
    Either I am misreading the article or you are missing something.
    The guy starting shooting at the cops almost immediately after the police arrived.
    They also tried negotiating with the guy and only after that proved to be fruitless did they try to use gas. (BTW, the guy shot at the police officers when they tried to use the gas.)
    Sorry, while the death was tragic, the guy with the gun was responsible for what happened.

    Wow. Just wow: (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    Bachman and King in Cairo. It turns out the Muslim Brotherhood attacked the U.S. on 9-11. And heck of a job, Egyptian military. Keep up the good work.


    Embarassing... (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 01:21:54 PM EST
    I think I'd rather have Dennis Rodman speak for us in Cairo than Bachman and King.

    Forgive us Egypt!


    I'm wondering if Rodman might be (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 01:36:43 PM EST
    amenable to brokering the Syria crisis. Of course, it isn't his job.

    The nutcase does not just think (none / 0) (#150)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 11:04:16 PM EST
    that the MB attacked the U.S. on 9-11. She thinks that they infiltrated the US. link

    She is scary dumb.


    You forgot the Third Stooge: (none / 0) (#151)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:00:53 AM EST
    Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Moons of Jupiter), who accompanied them, and told the Egyptian military junta that they reminded him of George Washington.

    Does anyone think (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    Hank will be a goner next week on Breaking Bad? I think it's either that or Gomez gets killed and Hank gets fired for setting up the unauthorized plot to use Jesse to catch Walt. I also think the finale will be a dust-up between Walt and Uncle Jack's guys.

    We know Walt survives (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 01:32:14 PM EST
    and is not in jail....

    Hank must be gone.

    Just let Jessie be okay.


    Gomez is toast.... (none / 0) (#78)
    by magster on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 01:40:14 PM EST
    and I wonder if Hank is too. They should be or the neo-Nazi hitmen are the worst shooters in firearm history.

    Hank's phone call to Marie was too final.... (none / 0) (#82)
    by magster on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 01:53:37 PM EST
    I will change "I wonder if...." above to "I bet...."

    That's exactly what I was thinking ... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:01:19 PM EST
    magster: "They should be or the neo-Nazi hitmen are the worst shooters in firearm history."

    ... as the gang opened up with a $Hi+load of automatic weapons fire, and Hank and Gomez are inexplicably still standing -- out in the open, no less! -- and returning fire after the initial fusillade.

    Maybe everyone will somehow survive the shootout and find religion as a result, like Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) in "Pulp Fiction."



    One thing that's awesome about this show.... (none / 0) (#86)
    by magster on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 02:16:09 PM EST
    is that it's taken 5 seasons to get through one year of story-telling (contrast Downton Abbey going from 1912 to the mid-1920s in 3 seasons without anyone aging). Fortunately Walt Jr.'s hormones hit early as he stated on Talking Bad that he started the show when he was 15 and is now 21. He hardly seems older at all (nor do any of the other characters for that matter).

    Interesting that Walt Jr. has cerebral palsy in real life and is not an actor pretending he has CP.

    I love this show.


    I wonder what Walt's plan was.. (none / 0) (#123)
    by AmericanPsycho on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:30:16 PM EST
    before everything went awry. Did he actually decide to throw in the towel or was there a more sinister plan at work :)

    He might have been relying on the ... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by magster on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 05:59:26 PM EST
    "confession" premise to pin all the money on Hank.

    I think it's too bad we couldn't see if ... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:53:13 PM EST
    ... Hank's license plates on his SUV read "LV4EVR." For sure, that would've been a dead giveaway -- bad pun intended.


    I think there's a very good possibility that when the smoke clears next Sunday, both Hank and Gomez are goners (and perhaps Jesse, too), and Walt suddenly finds himself subjected to an extended stint of indentured servitude, courtesy of the timely intervention by Uncle Jack and family.


    I'm hoping (none / 0) (#187)
    by kmblue on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:57:20 PM EST
    Hank bites it.  I can't stand him.  I really got mad when he said something like if Jesse gets killed, we'll have it all on tape.  However, if Hank dies, I would become afraid of Hank's wife.

    Gomie is a nice guy, but I think he will die too.  And that was such a great episode!  An Old West shootout, complete with fingers on triggers.

    Will someone go for the gun Walt dropped on the ground?


    I'm hoping (none / 0) (#188)
    by kmblue on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:57:21 PM EST
    Hank bites it.  I can't stand him.  I really got mad when he said something like if Jesse gets killed, we'll have it all on tape.  However, if Hank dies, I would become afraid of Hank's wife.

    Gomie is a nice guy, but I think he will die too.  And that was such a great episode!  An Old West shootout, complete with fingers on triggers.

    Will someone go for the gun Walt dropped on the ground?


    The Worm is heading back to North Korea (none / 0) (#87)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 02:21:35 PM EST

    If nothing else, it says something profound about the lack of intelligence and imagination and everything else in our government, that as oddball a guy as Rodman has more "diplomatic" skills than all the dopes in the American establishment. Not saying he's going to change anything, but he's there, talking, and we can't even do that. Because we are stupid at the top. Dumb as bricks. Mentally retarded.

    Pitiful comment on the leadership of this country.

    Beyond pitiful. Absurdly inexcusable.

    Back in Florida and back in the news (none / 0) (#88)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 02:30:28 PM EST
    Voldemort picked up by the police for questioning in a domestic related dispute

    You are late! (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 02:40:11 PM EST
    Can't avoid (none / 0) (#91)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 02:48:31 PM EST
    my local rag makes it the lead story.

    Google news places it third. (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    What kinda... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:01:04 PM EST
    4th amendment end around is this "investigative detention" sh*t?  

    I also am curious. I assume (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:03:49 PM EST
    the person detained must be under arrest based on probable cause and must either be arraigned or released w/in the SCOTUSandated time period. This ain't Gitmo.

    It ain't Gitmo. It's Florida. (none / 0) (#100)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:19:07 PM EST
    Possibly worse.

    He was questioned and released (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:35:27 PM EST
    Chicago Tribune says she isn't (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:55:54 PM EST
    pressing charges. I wonder if her father will.

    Father-in-law also declines. (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:03:55 PM EST
    state can still press charges (none / 0) (#134)
    by DFLer on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:40:02 PM EST
    if they so choose

    Yes. In my city, a former city attorney (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:52:42 PM EST
    did so frequently.

    Unless it was a phone sex thing... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:41:16 AM EST
    with a 911 operator, I don't see much merit in her suspicions about an affair.  When would he have time, and who would f*ck him? ;)

    Pablo Escobar (none / 0) (#112)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:55:24 PM EST
    Where did you find them ?

    I have seen several documentaries on it, but 75 episodes, that has to be some damn throughout research.

    you can watch them all (none / 0) (#154)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 02:16:20 AM EST
    at Mun2TV online. The segments are 22 minutes with English subtitles.

    The full hour episodes also airs Mon - Thurs on Mun2 (channel 303 and 603 on Xfinity here) at 8 pm and again at 11. But you'd have to watch a bunch online to catch up. They are maybe around 1/3 through.

    You can also buy the DVDs. I recommend BestMedia on Ebay. Make sure you get the version with English subtitles. They are in three parts, each with five DVD's and each DVD has four or five hour long episodes. Th entire series runs 3200 minutes --  53 hours. I watched for hours every night and hours on the weekends for the last ten days and just finished last night. I would watch another 30 hours if they had them.

    I watched the first 30 or so online, and then bought the third set of DVD's from BestMedia on Ebay. I paid $16.00 for the third set with free shipping. Link here.

    It is Caracol TV's most ambitious telenovela. There is a cast of around 1,300, and it was filmed in more than 450 different locations. The acting is really good and it never gets boring.  


    I Will Check it Out Online First (none / 0) (#178)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:38:32 AM EST
    I don't mind a subtitled movie, but I don't know about 53 hours.  Thanks for the info.

    ESPN has a 30 for 30 called The Two Escobars.

    Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, many believe, Pablo Escobar's Medellín Cartel and the Cali Cartels were largely responsible for financing and building the Colombian National soccer team into one of the world's best. But in an early match against the United States in the 1994 FIFA World Cup, a Colombian defense man named Andres Escobar-no relation to Pablo-committed an own goal that led to the team's elimination. Less than ten days later, Escobar was gunned down outside a bar in a suburb of Medellin. He was shot 12 times, and the murderer shouted "goal" each time the trigger was pulled. Was Escobar's murder an isolated incident, or were gambling organizations controlled by the cartels responsible? Award-winning director Jeff Zimbalist will examine the mysterious events leading up to and surrounding Andres Escobar's death.

    Even if you don't like sports, ESPN's 30 for 30 Series are fantastic.  Neflix cycles through them.


    Bridge for sale by "coalition of one" (none / 0) (#147)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:08:53 PM EST
    Foundations rotted out, but they're underwater where you won't notice them. Cheap. Prepayment required before delivery. No refunds.

    Sunday Sept. 08 Evangelism:

    White House Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough went on the Sunday talk shows to drum up support for what he called a "targeted, limited effort" that will change "the momentum on the battle field" in Syria. Yet he also acknowledged on CNN that the evidence that ties Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the Aug. 21 attack outside Damascus that allegedly killed 1,429 people has more to do with a "common-sense test" rather than "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence."

    "We've seen the video proof of the outcome of those attacks," McDonough said. "All of that leads to a quite strong common-sense test irrespective of the intelligence that suggests that the regime carried this out. Now do we have a picture or do we have irrefutable beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence? This is not a court of law and intelligence does not work that way."

    Frank Zappa was right.

    Well sure (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by desertswine on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 10:54:31 PM EST
    Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.
    Frank Zappa

    Blogs becoming more popular again? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:08:09 AM EST
    It looks like Social Media Professor Ryan Arrington has recently become an avid follower of  blogosphere comment streams and while conducting a new academic research study was so impressed by his discoveries that he was motivated to publish a summary of his findings not only to dry academic journals that no one reads, but also publicly with the hope they may foster enlightenment.

    It's enough to bring a tear to your eye...

    Courage requires us to remain steadfast in our beliefs. It asks that we stand by the convictions we express and never give an inch, no matter what the cost. However off base, wrongheaded, or patently false a position we've staked out may be, courage nonetheless demands that we blindly pound home our stupid f*cking point, never letting up.

    True valor is the moment in a conversation when you realize that what you're saying is completely and utterly wrong, but you continue to say it over and over again anyway, only louder.

    Suppose you're discussing current events with a group of friends, one of whom politely challenges an assertion you've made about a particular issue. In such congenial gatherings, it can be tempting to back down, especially when someone has just put forth evidence that soundly debunks everything you've been saying. The courageous path takes more discipline. It means looking that friend in the eye and--though you know full well that you are totally wrong--saying, "No, I'm right."
    Can you make statements you know to be false in a determined and measured tone of voice? Can you then continue to reel off untruths by pulling idiotic examples out of your a$$ to further illustrate your faulty point, all the while giving no one else a chance to respond? Can you look basic common sense in the face and laugh?

    Because that is what courage asks of us.
    Is courage scary? Sure. It can be terrifying. Do you think it's easy to stand there while someone looks at you with an expression that says, "Wow, I don't even think you believe what you're saying"? Or to suddenly realize that everything you've been saying is moronic, but to forge ahead anyway, no matter what bullsh*t comes flying out of your mouth?

    No, that takes balls of steel. But courage has its rewards, too. Sticking to your guns means never, ever having to own up to your mistakes. And it's hard to put a price on that.

    Personally I think he may be dreaming, and that not very many will grasp the timeless truths contained in his study findings. I hope I'm wrong and remain open to be convinced otherwise.

    But I won't hold my breath (none / 0) (#161)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:30:45 AM EST
    Heh. The evolution of strategic foot in mouth disease.

    "Barack Obama: Syria does not pose 'significant' retaliation threat"
    -- The Guardian reports

    "retaliation" obviously needs to be designated as a serious war crime. Of course. @@


    Another huge development on Syria today (none / 0) (#160)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:08:32 AM EST
    as China also agrees with the Russian proposal to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons. That will make the new plan veto-proof at the United Nations when France puts the idea before the UN Security Council if all parties hold their current positions.

    Game set and match (none / 0) (#162)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:30:54 AM EST
    to Putin.

    Great job Obama.  Your bumbling team hands over exactly what Putin wants.   A Syria run by Assad for the foreseeable future.

    Could have gotten that two years ago.


    The issue was chemical weapons (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:33:10 AM EST
    Not which bad guys controlled the country.

    Shows how ignorant you are on the topic (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:40:31 AM EST
    Regime change has never been the goal. Try to move into this decade. Your stance as a bloodthirty Dick Cheney-type mouthpiece is so passé.

    And if that was your view (none / 0) (#167)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:44:24 AM EST
    where were you when I was supporting a strike on Syria?  I clearly was advocating a minority view here.  You were not supporting the use of force.

    And, I agree with what Hillary said yesterday:  It was the credible threat of the use of force that elicited the current offer.


    Oh christ.. (none / 0) (#175)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    you guys know that if Obama turned water into wine, Slado-Rush would say he was just promoting underage drinking..

    Slado, the age of unilateral, hyper-libertarian "deciders" was over a long time ago; if it ever existed in the first place. The world is interconnected and we have to compromise with the interests of Syria and Russia - and they with ours - whether the 101st keyboard division likes it or not.


    There was always a credible threat.. (none / 0) (#177)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:23:11 AM EST
    it's not like the U.S is the Society of Friends..

    So the question remains:with Syria so much under the world's microscope, how could the Assad regime make such a potentially disasterous miscalculation?

    Something stinks outloud about all this..


    Hey, CG - this may get lost here, but (none / 0) (#168)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:47:50 AM EST
    this morning I sat down and read the transcript of Lawfare's podcast on Syria, which was - in my opinion - really, really good.  The panel managed to clarify some basic issues, provide their assessment of the consequences of various actions, and give me a lot to think about.

    One passage I found particularly incisive was this one:

    And the thing I want to say that it's really obvious is, here we've got a President who, for two years, showed not just a reluctance - he basically informed the American public, more or less - if he didn't, then members of his administration did - that intervention in Syria is pure folly. Nobody can seriously argue that President Obama has been looking for a pretext to get involved here.

    Add another factor - public opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to this. I mean, I think that's also obvious.

    So, a third factor - the military doesn't want to do it. I mean, I have never seen body language less supportive of a military action than what I saw in the Chairman in the hearings, right?

    So, the President doesn't want it, public opinion doesn't want it, the military doesn't want it. And here we are, talking about a proposal to
    intervene in Syria, put forth by the President.

    To me, this is an incredible statement that the President, up until this point, has not defined American interests correctly in Syria. And that's been my point all along, is that interests are objective things out there in the world. It's the meeting point between objective things out there in the world and the way you conceive of them.


    So, therefore, I think there has to be a redefinition of what our interests are, has to be a paradigm shift and recognize that we're here for a reason. This slippage that you described is not something that happened because people weren't trying to slip that way - they weren't careful - they were, all along, trying to hold the line, and they defined it incorrectly so that they couldn't hold the line.

    It's long - 59 pages, printed out - but it's sane and rational and thought-provoking and manages to bring some things into better focus for me.


    Without threateing a strike (none / 0) (#169)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:52:27 AM EST
    you do not get the current offer to disarm.

    I'd suggest you read the whole thing, if (none / 0) (#174)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:10:13 AM EST
    you have the time; I didn't offer the link to counter the latest developments, only to provide what I thought was a rational, reasoned, informative look at many aspects of the situation.

    I do think it's important that we define what our interests are, because if what we have is what the panel referred to as a "yadda-yadda-yadda" approach, as in:

    When I was in the government, I saw a lot of plans to topple the Assad regime, but not many plans to stabilize Syria. This is what I came to call, following Seinfeld, the "yadda, yadda, yadda doctrine." We will topple Assad, yadda, yadda, yadda. There will be stability and democracy in Syria.

    And I think, as Elaine put it on Seinfeld so well, we yadda, yadda, yadda-ed the most important part - and that is how to bring stability. We've never figured out how to do that in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and I think
    there's little confidence in the U.S. government or beyond that we could do it in Syria.

    there is huge potential for terrible things to happen.  I know the talk has not been about toppling Assad - but in the context of limited strikes to degrade CW ability, there's some important stuff in between "lobbing missiles" and "problem contained."

    I hope we won't get to that point - that whatever's on the table now will make strikes unnecessary.  I still think the Lawfare panel podcast on Syria was well worth listening to or reading.


    I refer you to Hillary's (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:53:53 AM EST
    comments given during a speech about wildlife trafficking yesterday.

    I'm tempted to troll rate you for this (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:01:49 AM EST
    comment, given that I offered in good faith a link to an excellent discussion about the Syria situation, one that encompassed different views on a variety of aspects of it.

    I'm sorry you've chosen to offer a petty, juvenile response instead of taking the time to read the transcript.

    Your loss.


    It was a serious response (2.00 / 1) (#179)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:38:50 AM EST
    I thought her remarks were accurate and to the point.

    Your remarks are behind current events by at least 24 hours.....and missing very important developments.


    "My remarks" were in response to a (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:54:32 AM EST
    very well-done podcast by Lawfare, the content and substance of which are informative even in light of the most recent developments.  I believe I mentioned my awareness of those developments, so your little bullying tactic isn't going to work.

    I'm sure you've made the assumption that because the podcast comes with a recommendation from me, that it totally supports the views I've expressed here with regard to Syria, but it does not.  I found it to be well-balanced and offered a diversity of opinion from people who clearly have the expertise to do so.

    Whether you support the president's position - whatever it happens to be at any moment - or you don't, the panel offers much food for thought, and will inform whatever opinions and beliefs people might choose.

    Since you've shown no hesitation to go out and comb through all manner and form of materials in support of your position, I'm surprised you are apparently passing on the opportunity to further your knowledge.

    Again, your loss.  


    Not bullying (2.00 / 1) (#182)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:02:25 AM EST
    To the point...

    Somehow (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by sj on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 03:24:20 PM EST
    ... bullies never admit they're being bullies.

    Really (none / 0) (#189)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:34:30 PM EST
    I thought most bullies were proud of being bullies...

    Nope (none / 0) (#190)
    by sj on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 04:35:58 PM EST
    Not the ones that I've known. They were just proud of being stronger.

    Since you want to wade (none / 0) (#191)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 05:42:00 PM EST
    into this dispute, how in the world was my comment bullying?

    You guys oppose the content of what I say, and veer off into some really unsupported statements.....


    Much the same way this one is (none / 0) (#192)
    by sj on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 06:15:47 PM EST
    but not exactly. This one starts out challenging my right "wade into this dispute" as if this wasn't an open forum for all registered users.

    And now you are pugnaciously (bullyingly?) accusing others of doing exactly what you did. To wit, you "waded into" Anne's shout-out to CG with the patented appears-to-be-pithy remark of:

    "Without threateing [sic] a strike ... you do not get the current offer to disarm."
    An opinion (not a fact), offered without even bothering to read the article or listen to the podcast. And then veer off into something Hillary said as if that supported your dismissal of something you never even bothered to read.

    I don't care if her remarks were made from Mount Sinai (and I have no doubt they were well-considered), using them the way you did was intended to demean and dismiss what Anne was providing to a named someone else, because seriously?

    Your remarks are behind current events by at least 24 hours.....and missing very important developments.
    How much more insulting could you possibly be? Not no mention officious, patronizing and utterly without substance.

    Now go away and bully someone else. I much prefer it when you believe I'm beneath your bullying notice.


    It was a point (1.00 / 1) (#193)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:11:17 PM EST
    that you apparently disagreed with.  

    Too bad, you cannot just stick to that.


    Oh, and to use your own tactic (2.00 / 1) (#195)
    by sj on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:21:03 PM EST
    with greater honesty than you used it...

    It was actually your question which answer you dismissed. Too bad you cannot stick to that. What dishonest behavior you have, to ask a question and then tailor your response is if you had never asked.

    I think you are incapable of the more honest mode of Q and A. You might even be interesting instead of ... what you currently are.


    Non-stop ad hominem (3.00 / 2) (#196)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:24:09 PM EST
    with some of you guys...

    I understand I have a minority viewpoint here, but good grief....  


    Good grief indeed (1.00 / 0) (#197)
    by sj on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:25:32 PM EST
    I think your house must have no mirrors.

    BS (1.00 / 0) (#194)
    by sj on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:15:56 PM EST
    You often make good points whether I agree with them or not -- although so far not so much on this thread. That has nothing to do with your obnoxious behavior. And once again you ask a question, completely disregard the answer and then respond with generic hostility.

    Pfft. I see this behavior escalating if the past is anything to go by.


    Giving you the benefit of the doubt (none / 0) (#180)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:49:26 AM EST
    Maybe it was the reference to wildlife trafficking that you found offensive.

    That was the anomalous setting to her remarks.  It was during a panel discussion about wildlife trafficking.  It had been touted that Hillary would weigh in on the Syria issue.  I clicked on the link to watch live the event where she would speak.  And it was a panel discussion on wildlife trafficking.  And she did speak to that.

    But she did comment on Syria. I thought her comments were very good.  And she was put on the spot as events were changing by the minute and the Russian offer had just been announced.  She commented that without the threat of force, there would have been no offer, and she wanted us to be sure that this offer was not an attempt at delay.  Pretty impressive I would say.

    So, I guess you all can now call me a Hillary bot--since that undoubtedly will come next.


    So the U.S is now going to issue (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:09:52 AM EST
    a formal apology to the world for helping Saddam gas the Iranians and initiate a complete crackdown on American companies that traffic in known chemical weapons ingredients?

    Right after we stop selling surveillance equipment
    to the Chinese..


    I'll see if I can get through it (none / 0) (#173)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:08:12 AM EST
    Once I get much past about a dozen pages on a screen I'm usually rooting for it to be in a book.

    For someone that is a walking contradition...a pacifist that isn't offended by hard stands... recent Syrian developments are one of those rare times where a host of nation's leaders shock me when in unison they reach a come-to-jesus logic moment for the good.


    You can also listen to the podcast; (none / 0) (#176)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:13:04 AM EST
    the link to that is here

    I don't think you'll be sorry you listened.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 123 (none / 0) (#183)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:03:57 AM EST