home

Monday Open Thread

Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< Elian Gonzalez Would Like to Visit U.S. | Another Name Floated for Abu Sayyaf >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Josh sold enough FFA fruit that he got (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 02:36:19 PM EST
    To go deep sea fishing today with other FFA members.  He texted that they were headed back.  I asked him if he caught anything.  He texted back yes.  I can't wait.  I want hear it all in person though, not by text, so I have to wait.  But it's hard.

    Josh caught a Mahi and a Redfish (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 09:29:31 PM EST
    Dorado and Redfish, both in the same day. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:31:51 AM EST
    There are people who travel thousands of miles just to chase those two species, congrats to Josh!

    Parent
    Thanks to Jeb, says Paul Krugman, in his (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 18, 2015 at 02:37:20 PM EST
    NYT column, May 18, 2015, for a discussion of the Iraq war that we should have had a decade ago.  We need to go past  Jeb's serial blundering of the FOX questions and think of his foreign policy team that is led by people who were involved in concocting a false case for invasion.  Krugman states that Iraq was not an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on basis of intelligence that turned out to be wrong.  No, the Bush administration wanted a war. And, we were lied into war.  Not a mistake, but a crime.  

    At a wedding reception (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon May 18, 2015 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    Sat. I mentioned Jeb's conflicting statements to a total stranger, who replied that Zpres. Obama's biggest mistake was not prosecuting GW Bush and Cheney.

    Parent
    I would back it up a bit. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 18, 2015 at 03:09:41 PM EST
    A mis-judgment was made by Nancy Pelosi, in November 2006, when she took the position that when the Democratic majority takes over (the election outcomes based, in large measure, on the Iraqi war dissatisfaction), impeachment of President Bush was "off the table."   "Democrats pledge civilized bipartisanship in the conduct of the work here and we pledge partnership with Congress and Republicans, and the president, not partisanship."  

    The sigh of relief out of Bush and Cheney's offices could be heard down in South Florida.  Pelosi, apparently, believing everything in history is the same and, therefore, repeats itself in the same way, seemed to look to the soaring polling results in the Republican's attempt to convict President Clinton after his impeachment.

    Removal from office for lying America into a war and botching almost everything that could be botched thereafter, was not a civil thing to do. And, it would equate with Affaire d' Lewinski.

    But, President Obama's let's look forward, did have it  backwards

    Parent

    How well I remember the (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 03:27:00 PM EST
    Impeachment off the table, and keeping powder dry.  If anyone ever uses that idiom around me again I might tweek.  The Democrats BROKE the importance of dry powder forever :). Their powder was so dry, it blew away when a stiff breeze hit it.  It makes me want to scream.

    Parent
    Hindsight's always 20/20. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 18, 2015 at 04:17:10 PM EST
    Coming only eight years after President Clinton's impeachment for the ginned-up political kerfuffle that was prompted by revelations of his extra-marital sexual dalliance with Monica Lewinsky from 18 months prior, there was no guarantee that such proceedings would have reached a satisfactory and acceptable conclusion from our standpoint as critics of the Bush administration. President Bush's impeachment and ouster was hardly a slam dunk proposition.

    In a similar vein, I think the passage of time has led many of us to believe that President Nixon's August 1974 resignation for the Watergate scandal was somehow an inevitable and foregone conclusion by that point, when in fact it was anything but that at the time of its occurrence.

    Had the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against federal prosecutors a few weeks prior and allowed Nixon to keep his White House tapes, which contained the key evidence of his criminal wrongdoing that triggered the sudden collapse of his public support across party lines once it became public knowledge, he would have likely survived the scandal and finished his term in office.

    The forced removal or dislodging of a head of state, whether achieved by legal means or otherwise, is a traumatic political experience for any nation and its people, from which it takes no small amount of time to recover. It's certainly not a step which should be taken so lightly and cavalierly, as was apparently the case in Washington back in 1998-99. We should never unsheathe such a sword from our legal arsenal for something so monumentally trivial as political payback upon the opposition.

    For those reasons, I agreed with Nancy Pelosi's analysis of the politics as it existed in the fall of 2006 and winter of 2007, which led to her decision as Speaker to not seek President Bush's impeachment.

    We certainly deserved congressional public hearings into the matter of the Iraq War and its origins, and for that I believe that Pelosi can rightly be criticized. But for her to have publicly announced or even imply in December 2006 that she would seek Bush's and Cheney's impeachment and removal for Iraq, that would have created a firestorm and likely sparked a serious public backlash.

    That said, I very much disagreed with President Obama's subsequent decision upon taking office on January 2009 to drop any and all inquiries into the matter of the cooked intelligence on Iraq, and its direct impact upon public opinion and congressional decision making. It will probably stand as the most shortsighted decision of his presidency.

    Bush and Cheney still need to be held to account for all that they did relative to the Iraq War, from their patently false claims to Congress to their institution of a regimen of torture for political and military prisoners in our hands. And fortunately, they still can be. Hopefully, should she be fortunate enough to be elected president, Hillary Clinton will not repeated the mistake of her immediate predecessor in the Oval Office.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    There is wisdom in much of (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:10:21 PM EST
    what you proclaim.  However, there is an important difference between Mrs. Pelosi publicly announcing or even implying in December 2006 that she would seek Bush's and Cheney's impeachment and removal for Iraq than that which she did publicly announce: namely, that impeachment was off the table.

    "Off the table," may be construed as meaning that the question doesn't make sense, or is impossible to occur, hence the citizens don't care about it. And, that the remedy of impeachment is not available or capable of being considered. And, for the Bush Administration, it apparently meant that they were home free.

    Off the table had more than a chilling effect on investigation, it made it a cold case.  Not a matter of 20/20 hindsight, but one of seeing that what was before her at the time and reading the election results that gave her party the majority.  

    Parent

    That may well be. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 18, 2015 at 06:08:55 PM EST
    KeysDan: "'Off the table,' may be construed as meaning that the question doesn't make sense, or is impossible to occur, hence the citizens don't care about it. And, that the remedy of impeachment is not available or capable of being considered. And, for the Bush Administration, it apparently meant that they were home free."

    But it's probably best to consider her particular phraseology within both the entire context of her remarks, and the particular time in which they were offered.

    Pandering to and feeding a political base's emotions might garner you a short-term electoral advantage, but it's terrible policy in terms of its potential long-term consequences, because once that genie is uncorked in public it's not easily rebottled -- as many Republicans such as Bruce Bartlett are only now beginning to grasp.

    (If you're looking for a good read this evening, I highly recommend Bartlett's "How Fox News Changed American Media and Political Dynamics," because he nails it.)

    So, given everything that had happened in the previous 20 years prior to Ms. Pelosi becoming House Speaker, with the accompanying devolution of politics into a relentless series of tit-for-tat confrontations, recriminations and beat-downs, I'd offer that both she and later President Obama were playing the part of statesman by trying to dial it back on our side.

    It's truly a shame that their GOP counterparts didn't reciprocate by doing the same on their own side, rather than seeing such extensions of olive branches not as a measure of good will, but as a sign of weakness to be ruthlessly exploited.

    And so once again, our hindsight proves to be 20 / 20. Given how Republicans are behaving nowadays, going to DEFCOM 5 at the slightest of perceived slights, it may be that our only realistic hope lies in seeking the GOP's political demise, and a reconstituting of conservatism in a less hyperbolic and confrontational mode.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    If you want your doctor you can keep your doctor (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 18, 2015 at 04:31:00 PM EST
    If you like your clinic you can keep your clinic.

    And that's just for starters.

    Parent

    Pope says its moral (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:04:03 PM EST

    VATICAN CITY (AP) -- The United Nations and Vatican joined forces Tuesday to warn about the dire effects of climate change, gathering religious leaders, Nobel laureates and heads of state to present a united front ahead of make-or-break environment talks later this year in Paris.

    U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon praised Pope Francis for framing the need to combat global warming as an urgent moral imperative, saying his upcoming encyclical provided an "unprecedented opportunity" to create a more sustainable future for the planet.



    Parent
    So you are now relying on that noted (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:33:47 AM EST
    scientist, Pope Francis, for moral guidance?

    U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon praised Pope Francis for framing the need to combat global warming as an urgent moral imperative,

    Well, personally I've never really considered the catholic Popes as good purveyors of "moral guidance." Partly because of their belief in consensus.

    Just ask Galileo.

    ...on the following day, Pope Paul V instructed Bellarmine to deliver this result to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions; should Galileo resist the decree, stronger action would be taken. On February 26, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered,

    to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
    --The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.[3]



    Parent
    The thing is, Jim (none / 0) (#135)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:21:15 AM EST
    the Church changed its stance in the light of irrefutable evidence that Galileo was correct.  This guy can explain it for you:

    The literal answer to your question is not enlightening.  You may be lacking in perspective on the matter.

    Here's the short and skinny: The Vatican has no VALID position on astronomy.  It never has, and it never will.  The scientific community will figure out what the facts of science are, and the Vatican can leave their nose out of it.

    What the Catholic church had in 1633 was authority over a lot of people.  And they exercised that authority via the inquisition.  So anything perceived as being against scripture, including science, was taken as heretical, and persecuted.  The problem for them was that they didn't have infinite reach -- in particular they couldn't touch Kepler, who continued the scientific investigations of astronomy unmolested and undeterred by the church.  (Though the equally enlightened Lutheran church went after his mother for being a witch.)  You see, science kept marching forward, and the Church remained steadfast in its position against heliocentrism for a long time.

    It was that bifurcation right there that sealed the Catholic church's fate, in a sense.  This clarified matters for real scientists -- avoid the Catholic church at all costs, but in the mean time engage in the practice of science since it is a very hot field, and lots of progress was at everyone's fingertips.  In the long run as the Catholic church's power decreased, their opinion became irrelevant.  It was only from a position of extreme embarrassment and being tarred with the reputation of being so scathingly anti-scientific that the Church decided to change its tune.  But of course, by then it was too late.  Nobody looked to the Jesuits for science, and nobody sought the Church's approval to publish.  They never patronized any serious scientist, and their reputation in the scientific community was in the toilet.  In condemning Galileo, the church condemned themselves.

    So yes, they changed their tune.  But nobody cares -- it is too late for them.  They will wear the albatross of the persecution of Galileo for as long as they exist.  If any real scientist considers the Vatican at all it is with nothing but disdain for what they did, and will never seek their approval or council.  The "apology" issued by the pope in 1992 fell on deaf ears -- or more accurately was not heard by any practicing scientist.  Oh, and in case you think this is undeserved and overly harsh assessment of them, consider the words of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger from 1990 (just two years before John Paul II felt the need to issue this apology for Galileo):

    "Today, things have changed.  According to [Ernst] Block, the heliocentric system - just like the geocentric - is based upon presuppositions that can't be empirically demonstrated."

    Someone better go tell NASA, one of these days they are going to send out rocket ships and find that Newton's laws of physics don't work the way they think they do.  They never learn.

    So with this perspective I can tell you that the real answer is that over the centuries the Church did the following 1) lifted then ban on discussions of heliocentrism, but left the ban on Galileo's work, but released their own censored copy of Galileo's and Copernicus' works (1758), 2) lifted the ban on Copernicus' and Galileo's works (1835).  Essentially, as the disdain for the church grew, and their power decreased, they made more concessions.  Until in 1992 John Paul II was begging for forgiveness.  And the Church's official position on astronomy? Irrelevant.



    Parent
    Nice try at changing the subject (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    which is not about what the church has or has not done over the centuries but what was done to a person, Galileo, because the consensus was that he was wrong.

    Galileo was interrogated while threatened with physical torture.[40] A panel of theologians, consisting of Melchior Inchofer, Agostino Oreggi and Zaccaria Pasqualigo, reported on the Dialogue. Their opinions were strongly argued in favour of the view that the Dialogue taught the Copernican theory.[46]
    Galileo was found guilty, and the sentence of the Inquisition, issued on 22 June 1633,[47] was in three essential parts:
    Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions.[48]
    He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[49] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
    His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[50]

    Today he would be called a denier and not be interviewed on PBS.

    lol

    Parent

    Oh, please, Jim! (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:34:39 PM EST
    He didn't change the subject. Besides, you move goal posts here so often that it's all but your profession.

    Parent
    Please yourself (none / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:11:48 PM EST
    Both of you knew my point.

    Parent
    It's going to be really interesting (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:23:40 PM EST
    to see how long you cling to this.   I suspect you have been acting under the assumption that you would not live to see everything you have been preaching proven wrong.   It's looking more and mor like you miscalculated.

    It will be interesting to watch.

    Parent

    If you can do balloon animals (none / 0) (#192)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:15:54 PM EST
    you can entertain at children's parties now that you've mastered mind-reading.

    "You all know I'm right!"

    Not a very convincing slogan, Jim, no matter how you parse it.

    👽

    Parent

    Yes, putting the matter you bring up (none / 0) (#163)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:21:34 PM EST
    In perspective is changing the subject.

    And Jim wins again!!

    Parent

    The thing is, Jim (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:27:43 AM EST
    the Church changed its stance in the light of irrefutable evidence that Galileo was correct.  This guy can explain it for you:

    The literal answer to your question is not enlightening.  You may be lacking in perspective on the matter.

    Here's the short and skinny: The Vatican has no VALID position on astronomy.  It never has, and it never will.  The scientific community will figure out what the facts of science are, and the Vatican can leave their nose out of it.

    What the Catholic church had in 1633 was authority over a lot of people.  And they exercised that authority via the inquisition.  So anything perceived as being against scripture, including science, was taken as heretical, and persecuted.  The problem for them was that they didn't have infinite reach -- in particular they couldn't touch Kepler, who continued the scientific investigations of astronomy unmolested and undeterred by the church.  (Though the equally enlightened Lutheran church went after his mother for being a witch.)  You see, science kept marching forward, and the Church remained steadfast in its position against heliocentrism for a long time.

    It was that bifurcation right there that sealed the Catholic church's fate, in a sense.  This clarified matters for real scientists -- avoid the Catholic church at all costs, but in the mean time engage in the practice of science since it is a very hot field, and lots of progress was at everyone's fingertips.  In the long run as the Catholic church's power decreased, their opinion became irrelevant.  It was only from a position of extreme embarrassment and being tarred with the reputation of being so scathingly anti-scientific that the Church decided to change its tune.  But of course, by then it was too late.  Nobody looked to the Jesuits for science, and nobody sought the Church's approval to publish.  They never patronized any serious scientist, and their reputation in the scientific community was in the toilet.  In condemning Galileo, the church condemned themselves.

    So yes, they changed their tune.  But nobody cares -- it is too late for them.  They will wear the albatross of the persecution of Galileo for as long as they exist.  If any real scientist considers the Vatican at all it is with nothing but disdain for what they did, and will never seek their approval or council.  The "apology" issued by the pope in 1992 fell on deaf ears -- or more accurately was not heard by any practicing scientist.  Oh, and in case you think this is undeserved and overly harsh assessment of them, consider the words of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger from 1990 (just two years before John Paul II felt the need to issue this apology for Galileo):

    "Today, things have changed.  According to [Ernst] Block, the heliocentric system - just like the geocentric - is based upon presuppositions that can't be empirically demonstrated."

    Someone better go tell NASA, one of these days they are going to send out rocket ships and find that Newton's laws of physics don't work the way they think they do.  They never learn.

    So with this perspective I can tell you that the real answer is that over the centuries the Church did the following 1) lifted then ban on discussions of heliocentrism, but left the ban on Galileo's work, but released their own censored copy of Galileo's and Copernicus' works (1758), 2) lifted the ban on Copernicus' and Galileo's works (1835).  Essentially, as the disdain for the church grew, and their power decreased, they made more concessions.  Until in 1992 John Paul II was begging for forgiveness.  And the Church's official position on astronomy? Irrelevant.

    Now, you can say that the Pope's stand on issues you disagree with him about are irrelevant, but I trust this puts an end to your simple-minded citation of the RCC vs. Galileo.

    Or as Carl Sagan put it:

    The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
    Broca's Brain (1979), p. 64



    Parent
    You can (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 18, 2015 at 06:01:58 PM EST
    There is such a thing as out of network but the GOP is relying on people who are ignorant about insurance. So in reality you can keep your doctor if he's not on your insurance but you have to go out of network for said doctor.

    Parent
    He said what he said (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:21:26 AM EST
    and your explanation is wrong because if your old doctor isn't under your new insurance then you lose him.....

    unless you go out of network. Of course Obama didn't say that.

    What parsing. Let me see, I like my doctor and want to keep her but can only do so by paying additional money.

    Obama lied and you are echoing his lie.


    Parent

    How many people who didn't have (none / 0) (#120)
    by Anne on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:34:53 AM EST
    any insurance at all even had regular doctors?  

    With employer-provided plans - which is how most people are covered - it wasn't anticipated that much would change, other than the new mandates.  In many plans, there were changes to deductibles and co-pays, changes to the tiering of prescription drug coverage, changes in premiums, and so on - and it's possible some providers elected not to participate in some of the plans.  So what? It happens - and it happened on a regular basis long before the ACA was a gleam in anyone's eye.

    Ask anyone who has coverage through his or her employer whether they've ever had to change doctors over the years when their employers went with a new plan, and I think you'll hear a resounding "hell, yes."

    So, what does this mean?  That you're nit-picking and parsing so you can keep calling Obama a liar.

    Nothing new there.

    Parent

    I agree there is nothing new (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:18:25 PM EST
    Obama lied. Repeatedly. Just admit it.

    And all your excuses and covering claims are meaningless. And....

    So, what does this mean?  That you're nit-picking and parsing so you can keep calling Obama a liar.

    This from someone who calls Bush a liar??

    Really??

    Pot - Kettle - black.

    lol

    Parent

    Jim your (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:55:25 AM EST
    ignorance of insurance is what allows the GOP to continually keep lying to you.

    You still get to keep your doctor do you not? Yes, you do and you are proving my point.

    Comments like these assure me that we are going to see crazy as the GOP nominee in 2016.

    Parent

    NO Ga (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:20:52 PM EST
    and claiming what I don't know is a silly way to argue that what Obama didn't say was that you could keep your doctor IF H/SHE WAS PART OF YOUR NEW PLAN BUT OTHERWISE YOU WOULD HAVE TO PAY ADDITIONAL.

    He lied.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:26:58 PM EST
    you can keep your doctor. That is what Obama said and you can't say well, if he didn't say what I said he was lying.

    So if you don't say what I think you should say you are now lying? Whether someone lies or not is based on the facts not whether they say what you want them to say.

    And that is the crux of your problem. You think everybody is lying who doesn't say what you want them to say regardless of the facts and you can't accept the that the facts back up George W. Bush lied repeatedly to you and everybody else in the country when it came to Iraq.

    And this is why the GOP is so freaking insane because most of them are as irrational as you are.

    Parent

    Forget it, Ga -- it's Jimbotown. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:49:17 PM EST
    If the old man wants to believe that the Marxist Kenyan Socialist lies to him on everything from health insurance to the economy to Iraq and woo hoo, BENNGHAAZEEEeee!!!, you're certainly not going to dissuade him otherwise. One wastes one's time arguing with someone who's obviously knitting with only one needle and missing that one final screw. At this point, Jim's in seventh right-wing heaven, having once again gotten everyone dancing to his tune by repeatedly answering his ignorant nonsense. It's classic blog-clogging.

    Parent
    Have you ever (none / 0) (#191)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:14:38 PM EST
    heard of lying by omission???

    Why yes. Yes you have.


    Parent

    Wrong-o. The biggest piece of (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by scribe on Mon May 18, 2015 at 04:30:25 PM EST
    political malpractice by Obama - and there have been many - was his failure to prosecute and force the removal of Clarence Thomas over the false/misleading statements on his financial disclosure statements.  

    Though I will agree that failing to prosecute Bush and Deadeye Cheney is right up there.

    Parent

    Suspicions of perjury are no stranger (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:20:14 PM EST
    to Clarence Thomas.  Of course, there is the Anita Hill matter that continues to be widely discussed, but there is also, the less noticed matter of Thomas's claim during his confirmation hearings that he had no opinion or never discussed Roe v Wade.

    Parent
    Practical question (none / 0) (#50)
    by christinep on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:43:13 PM EST
    scribe: My personal feelings on the matter of moral (and possibly legal) justice might mirror your statement here, but there is a pragmatic aspect that cannot be ignored in a democracy. It takes time, money, dedicated effort to govern ... to govern in the now and for the days to come requires almost all available energy.

     In determining what course should have/should be followed, I'm reminded that the electorate votes every four years for the executive ... we have wisely or luckily avoided coups or the appearance of coups by pouncing on whoever held the post earlier.  We've avoided the specter of Egypt's Morsi ... and, by so doing, we don't get trapped in the grudges that we witnessed in Bosnia or the outcomes common to the Kings, Queens, Tsars of yore.  Look ... I came of real political age during the Nixon Watergate drama and, as a federal employee who spent time travelling to DC and awaiting the early morning WashPo advancement of the story in those days and wanting to see him imprisoned with the key thrown away and bemoaning President Ford's pardon, etc., I understand fully the need for justice to be served.  Dare I say, the cry for blood lust in each of us probably lurks not too far beneath the surface.  "A pound of flesh" was my mantra ... in the name of justice, in my mind.

    So, I'm older. Maybe wiser, but definitely older.  For some time, my retrospective is that Gerry Ford did the right thing (says I grudgingly) BECAUSE it freed the country--all of us--to move beyond that political and governmental devastation.  That was more important, in the long run, than my need for political blood justice.  Today, I think the same about Pelosi's demurral; and, about Obama's moving forward on Iraq.

    There is every reason why my personal need for comeuppance and more for Bush/Cheney/et al should have dominated my conclusion in a fashion that I would not rest until they were convicted for a war crime.  The night of April 29, 2004, I watched in horror and sadness at the first pictures from Abu Ghraib ... and, called my sister Rita who lived in the same building (and had not felt well that day) to tell her not to watch because it would be hurtful.  I'll never know it she watched; because my dearest friend & only sister I found on the floor the next morning, and she died en route by ambulance to the hospital.  Yep ... I have lots of personal, political and legal reasons to see those Bush a@*)oles behind bars; but the reality is that getting steeped in the past wrongs and retribution in a democratic society cannot do anything other than detract from the present/future challenge and reality of governing today.  

    The challenge always is to learn from the past, and to move forward.  Don't succumb to the faults of the past; and, don't repeat the same mistakes.  Let me also add a special note for my sister, my best friend and a political advocate who always believed in prospects for peace: On May 19th, we will toast you on what would have been your birthday. Love and Peace to you. Chris

    Parent

    The myth of "moving on." (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Anne on Tue May 19, 2015 at 06:52:31 AM EST
    The people will and do move on no matter what; they have lives to live, they still have to get up and go to work every day, or to school.  They still have to cook dinner and help with homework, ferry the kids to and from their after-school activities.  They still take care of aging relatives, welcome new babies into the world, they marry and divorce, they struggle and they celebrate.

    What happens when the government moves on, when those we call leaders fail to lead, fail to hold people accountable, is that the weed of corruption, of deception, of lust for power, takes root. If left alone, the roots go deeper, they branch out and spread.  

    The things that Nixon and Reagan and Bush did go to the heart of the democracy; to imagine that all is well because we've chosen to ignore their misdeeds out of some mistaken belief that that's better for the people, is denial and ignorance of some magnitude.

    We're moving on regardless.  If hearings and committees and legal proceedings are all over my TV and radio and newspaper, does that keep me from going about my daily routine?  No, it does not.  Does the business of the country grind to a halt?  No, it does not.  

    So, let's please get over the idea that holding people accountable will take over people's lives; not holding them accountable has a far greater chance of affecting our quality of life, as well as the health of the democracy.

    A lot of things are hard, but that doesn't mean they don't need doing.

    Parent

    What was learned by not holding (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 19, 2015 at 07:14:50 AM EST
    anyone accountable was that the president and his minions are above the law.

    Parent
    The error in 1974 was not necessarily (none / 0) (#73)
    by scribe on Mon May 18, 2015 at 09:18:58 PM EST
    Ford issuing the pardon.  Rather, it was in Rodino dropping impeachment proceedings when Nixon quit.  Doing so, he deprived the American people and history of a full airing of Nixon's crimes.
    That, in turn, made possible the Republicans' running death squads in Central America in the early 1980s, and doiong what they did in violation of the Markey Amendments which prohibited the use of US funds for certain activities in Central America.  The Republicans had learned 2 things from Nixon's aborted impeachment:  that the Democrats would fold when push came to shove on issues of respecting Congress's intent, and that they could spin it as "criminalizing policy differences" or something similarly anodyne when caught out.

    This led, quite directly, to Iran-Contra:  when Congress finally got around to putting teeth in their resolve to not spend US funds on overthrowing Central American governments, the Republicans ran it off the budget with foreign money.  

    When caught out on that, the first thing done when the Republicans gained the WH in 2000 was for Dick Cheney to convene a meeting of many of the participants in Iran-Contra to go over lessons learned.  And the prime lesson was that by running it out of the President's staff/office, they subjected themselves to Congressional oversight, while there was no such oversight over the Vice President's office.  So, all the shenanigans we saw during the Bush-Cheney administration were largely conceived and run out of the Vice President's office.

    When Democrats started talking impeachment, the only memory most of the people had was of the Clinton impeachment.  Gingrich and the RWNM had made impeachment of Republicans impossible by bringing one for one of the stupidest reasons in history - lying about a bl*wjob.  All the vast mass of the public could say was "not this bullsh*t again" when, in truth, most of the Bush-Cheney administration deserved to spend decades in prison for their conduct.

    But, given that the Democrats had shown and continue to show themselves to be simpering cowards when it comes to standing up for anything other than their corporate funders, we shouldn't have expected anything more, nor should we expect more in the future.

    Parent

    Pragmatism (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Mon May 18, 2015 at 10:04:51 PM EST
    Interesting comments EXCEPT for what seems to be the blustering conclusion.  Bravado and bluster sound good, sometimes ... but, they often don't get the job done.  See, e.g., the "mission accomplished" fiasco and all the attendant "bring 'em on" talk of George W.  No, the fact that one, that several, that a party chooses to ignore the enticing--yet deceptive--path doesn't testify to anything other than a disagreement in approach.

    You indicate yourself that the "vast mass of the public" would not have been supportive of the impeachment path.  That is an understatement.  Trying to find a description of what people felt, let's say that we wouldn't be far off to guess that extensive legal maneuverings against those who got us into the Iraq War would have stood the proverbial "snowball's chance in h*!!."  In this democratic republic, the view of the public should count ... not just the arguments of activists like ourselves etc. etc.  For that reason, at the very least, Congresswoman Pelosi's position is not only defensible, but it borne of understanding the mood of the country, the reality of politics and government ... she and others like her astutely decided for the hard work of government and smartly eschewed the fleeting satisfaction of attractive hardball response.

    Taking a path other than what you might prefer doesn't make it cowardly--that is simply name-calling; because we can only speculate what would have happened under either pathway, all we really can say with any certainty is that there existed two principal pathways <concerning Nixon after resignation as well as concerning Bush/Cheney et al after January 2009> and that political activists differ on what course should have been followed.

    Parent

    I was just rereading an article though (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 10:20:59 PM EST
    Written by a scout sniper who served Iraq. And he described his PTSD as " moral injury" and also touched on the fact that many recent soldiers are now coming under this specific form of PTSD.  Because there were no WMDs and soldiers were still forced into harms way tour after tour, a form of abandonment PTSD was formed in many of them.  Some psychologists are saying that it is very difficult for them to experience moral healing when the perpetrators get off completely free right in serving soldiers faces.

    I suppose there was a lot of moral injury PTSD via the Vietnam War too but it wasn't understood yet.

    Anyhow, allowing Bush and company to just skate appears to have psychologically damaged a large swathe of those who served in Iraq.

    Parent

    I think that what happened (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by christinep on Mon May 18, 2015 at 10:55:34 PM EST
    Or--more precisely--I think that the Bush/Cheney contingent perpetuated a moral wrong on many levels in Iraq.  What you describe here is an example of the genuine pain and harm done to our own soldiers by our own leaders.  

    Even with the indescribable hurt of this misbegotten war--as with other morally wanting policies that hurt so deeply from time to time--it may be that many living victims may never be made whole.  Sometimes there is no satisfactory nor just solution.  The real resolution may come down to both individual resilience as well as societal response ... unless we can see a clear, workable, realistic pathway to and remedy in the Hague, the public and the individuals within are left to chart their own course.

     Absent a pound-of-flesh, I think it wouldn't hurt to talk about what happened ... especially now that Jeb's flub and other related comments have re-opened the door.  What the goal is, I don't know; but, what we might want to aim for is LEARNING FROM OUR LOSS and GROWING FROM IT INTO SOMETHING BETTER.  That may sound bland; but, actually putting learning to work may work for all of us.

    Parent

    I think our American society needs to evolve (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 11:14:05 PM EST
    emotionally into a much more condemning emotion towards Bush and Cheney.  Iraq should be viewed in the same light of betrayal to the nation that Vietnam is. I think the one thing that has prevented that is the pain and confusion that pain brings over the 9/11 attack.  It was such a hit, such a loss.  I was recently in NY with oculus, and we got to attend opening day of the Whitney.  From the top level outdoor deck is the most amazing view of the new World Trade Center and Statue of Liberty in the distance to the right across the water.  It was a very healing view for me.  I hope the nation follows.  The one thing that I believe will help suffering soldiers is if and when the nation really emotionally grasps the betrayal of the Iraq War as we did Vietnam.

    Parent
    Won't happen (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 07:42:06 AM EST
    best evidence for that is the "answer" the main stream media seems to be looking for-

    If we knew what we know now,if we knew the intelligence was "wrong", no.  I wouldn't have invaded.  

    No.  Thanks for playing but it was not about bad intelligence.  It was about ignored intelligence.  It was about lying to create a narrative. It was about making half the country think Saddam was behind 9/11.

    You will not hear this or any related follow up question on a Sunday show.  There will be no evolving.  

    Sh!t, the entire team that was responsible are now the foreign policy team of the assumed republican presidential candidate.
    And no one even mentions THIS.

    Parent

    Capt. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 19, 2015 at 08:16:24 AM EST
    IMO, this is probably the best and most accurate comment on the subject.

    The information was there. It was ignored and replaced with LIES that fit the desired outcome.

    Parent

    Yes, Lies and more lies. (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:40:05 PM EST
    And, ignore, ignore anything that might counter--Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, constant monitoring, no-fly zone over half of Iraq since the Gulf War (Bush I), Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague  (says Cheney), the charlatan Chalabi an expat for years and years feeding the Administration information for a price  with plans for his rise on return, yellow cake uranium from Niger (a mysteriously formulated lie, probably from Italian sources, read by W. in, no less than, the State of the Union, although it had been debunked by our intelligence a year earlier), mushroom clouds (Condi Rice), conflating poison gases and nukes into WMD, Saddam's use of poison gas on his own people (in the 1980s), aluminum tubes, deadly powder bandied about by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell during his UN speech (using the so called credibility of Powell tipped  the scales in favor of the war for many naive citizens, e.g. then Air America host, Al Franken.  And, of course, "everyone"  thought there were WMD.   And, the list goes on and on.  And, continues.  

    Parent
    I guess I will always hope (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 07:54:34 AM EST
    For the sake of the suffering.  I suppose I will always argue it too.  Too bad it isn't a profession that pays, truth telling so the damaged can heal.

    Parent
    After (none / 0) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:15:24 AM EST
    12 years of mountains of evidence showing the complete folly of the invasion and the press finally starts asking questions. Unfortunately they are simple questions with simple answers such as "mistakes were made" being enough to satisfy our mighty watchdog journalists.

    The real problem is that these "mistakes" were actually crimes. Maybe in another 12 years the press will ask the real questions, but more likely we will have to wait until the 12th of never for that to happen.

    Parent

    We have documentation (none / 0) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:49:39 AM EST
    I even hang onto stuff, because Conservatives keep trying to rewrite the history.  With this new focus on moral injury PTSD and the people we need to heal, maybe we can eventually get there.

    Parent
    The media's responsibility (none / 0) (#152)
    by christinep on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:53:06 AM EST
    Doesn't it strike you that the media is only looking for the answer <as you phrased it> in a limited way BECAUSE that the epitome of the media--the NYTimes & WashPo--beat the old war drums harder than anyone.  Ah, Judith Miller .... Heck, the media stood right there, unquestioning, with Cheney & Wolfowitz & ....  

    The role of the media in the make or break control of mass communication cannot be expected to support a pinpointed "accountability" approach in the legal sense BECAUSE the media bore the rat-a-tat enabling culpability.

    Parent

    That phrase "cultural divide" (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by christinep on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:28:13 AM EST
    While I agree completely with your statement about the need for emotional healing, I believe that you also are very tuned into the truism that people move through their emotions quite differently.  The national loss--the parts of the country's psyche that were ripped by Vietnam and Iraq--will probably always defy a single response because (1) People experience loss in similar but unique ways; and, the national pain associated with these two wars mirrors that duality AND (2) Even today groups of individuals--often divided by culture and background--view what transpired in both instances in stark divide; and, the polarization in our country is magnified by people's expectations about and reaction to war.

    In the cases of Vietnam and Iraq, it does appear that most people have grown to believe that those military undertakings were wrong.  That is a start (at long last.)  Caution, tho, seems appropriate when thinking about the reasons that view is held ... consider, e.g., that casual conversations with people in your own neighborhood (and my neighborhood as well) likely will show that a lot of individuals firmly hold that going into such wars was wrong from the get go, but a sizeable segment--Fox News & beyond--reach the conclusion only because we didn't use all our force once entering and "blow them to kingdom come."  That divide--in a land where portions of Dixie are yet fighting/re-fighting the Civil War and where other border states may have had continuing upsurges in authoritarian violence--will call for more than textbook definitions of accountability to bring resolution.  Why? Because that elusive "closure" means different things to whole segments of the populace.

    Learning.  When you describe the longing for people to understand and "emotionally condemn" the Bush/Cheney co. war wrongs, I join in that desire.  Where I pull back is not from your approach--nor, btw, is it from fear or other personal reluctance--but, rather I strongly advise a few others here that SOCIETAL ACCOUNTABILITY FROM a government means a lot more than dragging someone's rear-end into a courtroom ... it is much more expansive and it should be in accord as much as possible with the disposition of the public. We have needed that real discussion and debate for a long time since the national wrong that was Vietnam as well as since the Iraq War ... as a democratic republic, we re-elected Nixon in 1972 and we re-elected Bush in 2004.  IMO, we all need to explore what we want to see to avoid the next invitation to war.

    Thanks, Tracy.

    Parent

    Saying or thinking that punishing (none / 0) (#113)
    by Green26 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:47:52 AM EST
    Bush et al would help moral PTSD sounds like a bunch of BS to me.

    Parent
    It would wouldn't it? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:26:20 AM EST
    It disrupts how you have compartmentalized the war.  It would disrupt how many have compartmentalized it in order to remain free of guilt or responsibility for all the blood, death, and betrayal.

    Whether Bush and Cheney and crew are gone after in an official capacity or those who served finally become strong enough to go after them in a social capacity, it's going to happen.

    Everyone guilts the soldiers though by telling them they should have never volunteered then.  Or they try to shame them back into silence by getting out that pedestal and talking about how there is no higher honor.  If you don't want to be and sound exactly like the Jihadis though, that doesn't really float either.

    The truth is the Bush administration broke a trust with the volunteer forces, and when the volunteers started splitting they forced them to stay and fight their war of lies.  They broke faith with the troops and the troops have been shamed into silence but I get this feeling that is about to turn around.

    Parent

    The truth is that war, and especially combat, (none / 0) (#132)
    by Green26 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    is tough and ugly. Some people can handle it; some can't. Killing people, or seeing people/friends get killed or hurt, is tough. Again, some people handle it better than others. These things are much much more important than whether someone thinks a war is justified.  My view is that punishing Bush et all would have absolutely zero impact on people who supposedly have moral PTSD.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    perhaps the doctors should get a shot of truth serum that would allow them to honestly reflect the facts regarding Saddam and WMD's.

    WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 - The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
    "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

    DoD News

    And then:

    One of the biggest knocks against George W Bush is that he lied about WMDs in Iraq.  Even today, liberals still spew those lies.  Before the Iraq War started under Bush, trailer load after trailer load of what is suspected to have been WMDs were moved from Iraq to Syria.  But even with all that movement, large amounts of weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.  The CIA was even able to buy 400 Borak rockets filled with pure Sarin gas.  And on top of that, our troops found 5,000 WMDs that the Pentagon kept secret until last year.

    The CIA is still not talking about buying WMDs in Iraq in 2005 and 2006.  They do acknowledge the number and the fact that the gas was extremely active, even though it had some age on it.  They refuse to discuss specifics.

    WMD's found

    And then:

    In 1998 President Clinton said: "If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. . . . And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them." In 2002 Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke about the weapons of mass destruction issue: "If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Clinton voted to authorize the war and voted to prevent the requirement that President Bush request another congressional vote before invading Iraq. Bush's war? Come now.

    Link

    Parent

    So funny, both you and Green jump (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:08:43 AM EST
    Right in here viscerally.

    Smelling blood on the water....but it is your ideology bleeding here.  There's going to be a lot of upset people as we enter into this form of healing the damaged.


    Parent

    Part of healing any spiritual harm (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:24:12 PM EST
    is knowing and accepting the truth.

    What you are claiming is that the doctors are telling these men that they are right rather than pointing out all the facts.

    That is despicable and a disservice to those who have served.

    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 18, 2015 at 03:30:50 PM EST
    The intelligence on Iraq that was touted by Bush administration officials was obviously cooked, and clearly based not upon any hard evidence but rather, the proponents' own wishful thinking. Its eminently avoidable result was, without a doubt, the greatest single unforced error in the history of U.S. foreign policy.

    The American people deserve a full and truthful recounting of all the decision making in the months and days leading up to this monumental fiasco. And further, we shouldn't have to wait forty years for its definitive account, much as we did for an earlier U.S. military disaster at Pearl Harbor.

    Gordon Prange's magnificent book At Dawn We Slept, a meticulously researched work co-written with Donald Goldstein and Katherine Dillon, is considered the gold standard of the various histories since written about the Battle of Pearl Harbor. It was only first published in 1981, over a year after its principal author's death, and quickly shot to the top of the bestseller lists upon its release.

    The success of Prange's book shows that while our own memories of shocking events might recede into the recesses of our minds with the passage of time, the subsequent outpourings of emotion that such events unleash in their immediate wake are never, ever forgotten by those people who lived during those times.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The question I would love to see Jebbie (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by scribe on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:18:18 PM EST
    face is this one:  "Hasn't your family already done enough damage?"

    Parent
    These are stupid, gotcha questions (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Mon May 18, 2015 at 03:06:19 PM EST
    Because it is asked as one question, to wit, "Would you have gone to war in Iraq?" That really should be two questions: "if you had the same intelligence that we had in 2002, would you have made the same decision to go to war?" and "Looking back, do you think it was a good idea (and if not, do you see any merit to what was done and how would you deal with the mess that was created because of our decision to go to war?". (Ok, that's really three questions).  This is definitely a "gotcha" to see if old Jebbie will throw his brother under the bus, but he still should have been prepared for it.  And Marco Rubio ABSOLUTELY should have been prepared for it.

    That being said, however, why no questions about Ronald Reagan's handling of the Soviet Unuon, when we are still dealing with ramifications of that foreign policy?  Why no questions about decisions made during Clinton's and Carter's times in office?

    Parent

    There are people who still will not let (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Anne on Mon May 18, 2015 at 03:27:51 PM EST
    go of the belief that no one was cooking the intelligence on Iraq, that all that stuff Colin Powell told the UN, all the breathless reports about aluminum tubes, and the yellowcake, and the chemical weapons, was the God's honest truth.

    But, see, Bush/Cheney DID know then that it was all a bunch of BS - so all this nonsense about "if you knew then what we know now" is ridiculous.  "If you knew then that it was all a work of fiction, how are you feeling now about how it all turned out?"

    Let them squirm - they deserve far worse.

    Parent

    And Ditto For... (none / 0) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 18, 2015 at 04:08:43 PM EST
    ...the non-sense about D's voting for it.  They voted because they were told lies.

    Parent
    The information came via the CIA (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 18, 2015 at 04:38:17 PM EST
    and perhaps you can tell is what CIA type has said he lied to Bush??

    Parent
    Tony Blair (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Repack Rider on Mon May 18, 2015 at 07:35:39 PM EST
    ...gave away the show.  He said the war was a given, only the excuse was a matter of debate.

    Here's an article in Time, published nearly a year before the invasion, that shows it was a foregone conclusion.  Edited out of the quote was the lead in, "@#$% Saddam!"

    Two months ago, a group of Republican and Democratic Senators went to the White House to meet with Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Adviser. Bush was not scheduled to attend but poked his head in anyway -- and soon turned the discussion to Iraq. The President has strong feelings about Saddam Hussein (you might too if the man had tried to assassinate your father, which Saddam attempted to do when former President George Bush visited Kuwait in 1993) and did not try to hide them. He showed little interest in debating what to do about Saddam. Instead, he became notably animated, according to one person in the room, used a vulgar epithet to refer to Saddam and concluded with four words that left no one in doubt about Bush's intentions: "We're taking him out."


    Parent
    The head of Britain's MI6 told PM Blair ... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 18, 2015 at 10:20:02 PM EST
    ... in the infamous "Downing Street Memo" from July 23, 2002 that:

    "[President] Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Bush and Cheney lied to Congress and the American people about the presence of WMD in Iraq. The evidence shows that conclusively and at this point in time, only someone who's either entirely disingenuous or a true moron would continue to insist otherwise.

    ;-|

    Parent

    That is meangingless (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:22:24 AM EST
    Things are always "fixed" around something. And that doesn't mean that they are wrong.

    fix:

    fasten (something) securely in a particular place or position.
    "fix the clamp on a rail"
    synonyms:    fasten, attach, affix, secure; More
    lodge or implant (an idea, image, or memory) firmly in a person's mind.
    "he turned back to fix the scene in his mind"
    2.
    direct one's eyes, attention, or mind steadily or unwaveringly toward.
    "I fixed my attention on the tower"

    So what you have done is take an action and add an unproven assumption and make a claim.

    Parent

    You're simply not in command of the facts. Bush and Cheney lied. And by insisting otherwise, you're proving yourself to be no better than they are at telling the truth.

    Parent
    I am as much (none / 0) (#202)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    in command, if not more so, than you.

    Either way, I just showed how you are using an undefined word to bolster your claim.

    You sure you write applications for government money??

    Parent

    some call it (none / 0) (#27)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 18, 2015 at 04:57:32 PM EST
    lies some call it stovepiping, One name "Curve Ball" perfectly describes the scam.

    Parent
    Is a former head of the CIA enough (none / 0) (#60)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon May 18, 2015 at 06:27:34 PM EST
    Of a type for you?

    "There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat," he writes of a war that has already resulted in more than 3,300 American military deaths, at least 60,000 Iraqi civilian deaths and already cost more than $420 billion. Nor, he adds, was there "a significant discussion regarding enhanced containment or the costs and benefits of such an approach versus full-out planning for overt and covert regime change."

    Mr. Tenet's book also ratifies the view articulated by former military, intelligence and Coalition Provisional Authority insiders that the White House repeatedly ignored or rebuffed early warnings about the deteriorating situation in post-invasion Iraq. Mr. Tenet writes that the C.I.A.'s senior officer in Iraq was dismissed as a "defeatist" for warning in 2003 of the dangers of a growing Iraqi insurgency, though it was already clear then that United States political and economic strategies were failing. Although the trends were clear, he adds, those in charge of policy "operated within a closed loop." In that atmosphere, he says, bad news was ignored: the agency's subsequent reporting, which would prove "spot-on," was dismissed.

    As for the C.I.A.'s role in the lead-up to the Iraq war, Mr. Tenet admits that the agency's reports about W.M.D.'s, cited in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, were flawed. He adds, however, that he himself believed Saddam Hussein possessed W.M.D.'s and he contests allegations that the C.I.A. caved to pressure from administration hard-liners on the matter of W.M.D.'s: "Intelligence professionals did not try to tell policy makers what they wanted to hear," he writes, "nor did the policymakers lean on us to influence outcomes."

    Mr. Tenet also disputes the allegation made by Tyler Drumheller, the C.I.A.'s former head of the European division, that he -- Mr. Drumheller -- had raised serious questions about the credibility of a key source known as Curveball with top agency officials before the invasion. He does not, however, come to terms with Mr. Drumheller's other allegation, made on "60 Minutes," that a C.I.A. source in Mr. Hussein's inner circle said in the fall of 2002 that the dictator had no active weapons-of-mass-destruction program and that this information was ignored.

    Hey, he didn't lie to the President, at least, even if he wasn't listened to when it would've mattered.

    Parent

    The fact that Teney says there (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:17:06 AM EST
    was no serious debate does not mean that Bush lied or that the CIA lied to him.

     

    He adds, however, that he himself believed Saddam Hussein possessed W.M.D.'s and he contests allegations that the C.I.A. caved to pressure from administration hard-liners on the matter of W.M.D.'s: "Intelligence professionals did not try to tell policy makers what they wanted to hear," he writes, "nor did the policymakers lean on us to influence outcomes."

    Mr. Tenet also disputes the allegation made by Tyler Drumheller, the C.I.A.'s former head of the European division, that he -- Mr. Drumheller -- had raised serious questions about the credibility of a key source known as Curveball

    And we have this rather clever parse by the article writer.

    He does not, however, come to terms with Mr. Drumheller's other allegation, made on "60 Minutes," that a C.I.A. source in Mr. Hussein's inner circle said in the fall of 2002 that the dictator had no active weapons-of-mass-destruction program and that this information was ignored.

    What does that mean?? He didn't address it seems to be the most logical answer. Why? Because he believed, as he stated, that Saddam had WMD's.

    And for Drumheller's claim:

    ...the dictator had no active weapons-of-mass-destruction program..

    We know that MAY have been true. We also know from David Kay's report that Saddam was planning to get back into the WMD business. Plus, we know that he purchased rockets with a range greater than the UN restrictions. Why purchase rockets capable of delivering ABC warfare components if you don't plan to use them?


    Parent

    Yes, he was equally gullible as his superiors. (none / 0) (#181)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    And your point exactly is what?

    Parent
    My point is that you have no proof of your claim. (none / 0) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:27:50 PM EST
    And I used your own source to prove it.

    Parent
    You mean this claim? (none / 0) (#204)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:30:03 PM EST
    Hey, he didn't lie to the President, at least, even if he wasn't listened to when it would've mattered.

    Parent
    You mean this claim: (none / 0) (#206)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:32:18 PM EST

    Hey, he didn't lie to the President, at least, even if he wasn't listened to when it would've mattered.

    And you really believe that he would admit lying on the President in his memoir of the time?

    You're so naive, Jim, you take public officials at their word when their last names aren't Clinton or Obama.

    Parent

    Stupid, But Not a Gotcha Questions... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 18, 2015 at 04:27:06 PM EST
    ...in that it was Fox News throwing him what should have been a softball.  It's times like that when you realize that criticizing a fellow republican is like pulling teeth, which is why Fox posing the question was so perplexing.

    I would say we aren't looking back because their foreign polices didn't lead to a war that is considered a monumental failure and basically the catalyst for our current problem, ISIS.

    Plus, there is that thing with him being the brother.

    Parent

    Don't normally quote Laura Ingraham (none / 0) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:42:36 PM EST
    "You can't still think that going into Iraq, now, as a sane human being, was the right thing to do," Ingraham said on her radio show.

    "If you do, there has to be something wrong with you," she added.
    ...
    "You have to have someone who says, look, I'm a Republican but I'm not an idiot! I'm not stupid!" she said. "I learn from the past and I improve myself."

    link

    Good luck with finding that someone.

    Parent

    The problem (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 18, 2015 at 03:12:49 PM EST
    is and this is a problem for all Repbulican candidates and it is that the people who vote in the GOP primaries believe that Iraq was not a mistake. Something like 2/3 of them think that we actually found WMDs in Iraq.

    If they say it was a mistake then they are going to definitely not going to be the nominee. If they say it was a good thing they are going to kill themself off for the general election. So therefore as you see Rubio and Bush are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to not answer the question at all. I mean even Fox News is asking this question.

    Parent

    It's odd, Conservative soldiers still serving (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 07:40:31 AM EST
    Who also served in Iraq, I can't find even one around here who doesn't think Iraq was a horrific mistake.  People who didn't serve seem to be the individuals arguing that no real mistake was made until Obama took office.

    Parent
    It's indicative (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 08:27:11 AM EST
    in general IMO as to how out of touch the beltway is with the rest of the country at this point in time.

    Parent
    Of course it was a mistake (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:51:52 AM EST
    but the war was essentially over when Obama cut and ran.

    That's what angers the average military guy that I know.

    Parent

    That you know people in your area (none / 0) (#127)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:56:15 AM EST
    active or retired military who feel the way you do doesn't mean they represent the "average military guy" overall.

    Parent
    We have no way of proving this (none / 0) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:26:08 PM EST
    but I'd give odds that I know a heck of a lot more active/retired military men than you ever will.

    Parent
    Stop Already. (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:44:46 PM EST
    Jim, you don't speak for the military, ever.  And no one cares what you friends think, obviously since you are posting it they are going to have opinions that you write.  It proves nothing, not even that you know people or have friends.

    You are disrespecting people who have served by implying they agree with your ridiculous notions.  You can't possibly know what the average person in the military thinks.

    I for one disagree with you and I have been in and also know people, many at one point, who are in the military.  I don't pretend to know what they think about politics.

    If you want to state how many people agree with you who have served, state that.

    Parent

    That you sample size is bigger than mine (none / 0) (#178)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    doesn't mean anything,

     I dare say it would take a bold type, retired or active, to say anything pro-Obama in your hearing.

    Parent

    Gosh (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:24:17 PM EST
    That you sample size is bigger than mine
    doesn't mean anything,

    homicide, deficit vs debt, subtraction and now this.

    Parent

    If you understood statistics, (none / 0) (#208)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    you would know that having a biased, larger sample size over an unbiased, lower sample size, isn't always a good thing

    but keep trotting out your pathetic victories over me, Jim, my satellite dish is out and I can't watch Loonie Tunes today.  You're an acceptable substitute.

    😇

    Parent

    Gosh (none / 0) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:24:17 PM EST
    That you sample size is bigger than mine
    doesn't mean anything,

    homicide, deficit vs debt, subtraction and now this.

    Parent

    So thousands (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:13:30 AM EST
    more lives lost and trillions more should have been spent for a mistake is what you and your friends are saying?

    Parent
    That is such an overhead question (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    It's a "gotcha."

    What I have argued is:

    1. Bush went to war based on the incorrect info he had.

    2. But based on that info he was right.

    3. A mistake was made in handling the Iraqi military immediately after their defeat.

    4. This was corrected by the surge and the war "won."

    5. Obama made a huge mistake when he pulled the military out.

    6. Obama's mistake allowed ISIS to expand.

    7. His failure to use all resources to stop ISIS now is a mistake that we will have to pay for in the future.

    8. Imagine prolonged ISIS type attacks within the US.


    Parent
    And argued and argued and (none / 0) (#183)
    by Anne on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:01:33 PM EST
    argued, to the point where you just sound like a dysfunctional parrot.  "Brrrrawwwk! Obama lied!  Brrrrrawwwk!  Bush was right!"

    And you can keep making these same arguments, but that's not going to make you right, any more than Bush/Cheney using bad intelligence they never questioned gets them off the hook for waging an unnecessary war that has had terrible consequences.

    Consequences for which they have paid nothing.  At least in this life.

    I see your comments and all I can think, is "crap - someone changed the channel to Fox again."

    Here, have a cracker.

    Parent

    But the people who kept their own (none / 0) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:26:28 PM EST
    doctor who wasn't in the new policy have paid and paid.

    Obama lied. We have proof. You have none re Bush.

    Wants some cheese for your cracker?

    Parent

    Yes, Marco Rubio looked (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 18, 2015 at 03:24:13 PM EST
    pained and dehydrated when attempting to field similar questions so infamously put to Jeb.  Perhaps, Marco needed more time to consult with his consultant,  Elliott Abrams,  to know what to think now so he could know what to think then.  Marco did accomplish something that is difficult to do--he made his interviewer, Chris Wallace, look good.  

    Parent
    So what exactly are you saying, jb? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 18, 2015 at 04:32:21 PM EST
    Are you of the opinion that Jeb Bush should never have been questioned by media about the biggest foreign policy fiasco in our country's history, which his own brother concocted and instigated as president?

    Because that what it sounds like to me and further, you also appear to be seeking to equate the Iraq War with some unidentified events on Clinton's and Carter's respective watches, which is absolutely preposterous.

    I'm going to give you an opportunity here to clarify and expound upon your remarks, which could otherwise be interpreted as an attempt on your part to deflect public attention away from Jeb Bush and toward elsewhere.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Apparently you can't read (3.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jbindc on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:30:19 PM EST
    To repeat, here's what I'm saying, since you didn't get it the first time:

    This.Was.A.Gotcha.Question.  Understand, now? Let's see Jeb throw his brother under the bus.  

    I think more relevant foreign policy questions should be asked - not about what happened 13 years ago. I mean, why not ask about the fall of the Soviet Union, Iran-Contra, and Vietnam?? (And if you feel it's fair to ask about what he would do instead of his brother, then let's ask Hillary Clinton what her policy on hiring and managing interns will be. I mean, her husband's inability to keep it in his pants and lack of candor cost taxpayers lots of money - money that could have been used for more productive things. And while the whole Lewinsky episode was stupid, let's not forget that, but for Bill Clinton's idiocy, none of the impeachment nonsense, hearings, depositions, etc. would have happened because Ken Starr had nothing on the land deals, but Billy gave them lots of ammunition to keep coming for him.)  And since the meme is already coming down in liberal circles that Hillary shouldn't necessarily be held to every decision he made (because she's her own person in a different time, doncha know?), then I don't know how it's fair to hold Jeb to account for GWB.  But maybe in your happy world, that's ok.

    But hey, if we're gonna play the, "Let's travel back in time," game I absolutely think the Dems should absolutely he held to defend every position Clinton, Carter and Johnson made. Actually, it would be nice if Hillary Clinton actually answered ANY questions.  I mean - why even announce at this point unless you're willing to answer some questions? And Bernie Sanders?? Haven't heard any real tough questions directed his way yet.

    Personally, I would find it more instructive and productive to ask what a candidate plans to do then engaging in parlor games where no answer would be satisfying to the masses.  Let's face it:  whatever Jeb Bush said people like you weren't going to like it and would criticize it. He was stupid for agreeing to the question and then not having an answer for it. That's what we get for having presidential elections for 18 months.  But calling out stupid is also fair game.  This was stupid.

    And yes, now it's time for all those here who have marginal IQs and who will now think I am supporting Bush or whatever to chime in. Apparently meaning you support one side means you aren't allowed to use critical thinking skills.

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 18, 2015 at 06:04:36 PM EST
    actually in the past this has happened like having to explain Carter's foreign policy but apparently there is a time limit on it and since we're still in the middle east I would say the question is relevant.

    Parent
    News (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 18, 2015 at 06:26:34 PM EST
    Flash! After 12 years of navel gazing, the press has finally decided to ask some question about the wisdom of W's folly, Bush  stumbles into the headlights, Rubio steps on the rake and the rest of them hem and haw. Gdm liberal media.

    Parent
    He's hired a lot of the Iraq War creators (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 10:53:13 PM EST
    Can't imagine how this is a gotcha question given that fact

    Parent
    All he had to say was, (none / 0) (#62)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon May 18, 2015 at 06:40:50 PM EST
    "Knowing what we know now, I wouldn't invade Iraq."  Full stop. That would've been the end of it.

    Parent
    What do we know now (none / 0) (#68)
    by Repack Rider on Mon May 18, 2015 at 07:37:34 PM EST
    ...that I didn't know then?

    Other than the final tab, of course.

    Parent

    McCain on FOX today (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 07:51:26 PM EST
    We Blown the Surge ? (none / 0) (#115)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:08:10 AM EST
    What happened to the surge being a sucess ?

    These guys can't even keep their own talking points straight.  Which is good, because fewer and fewer people are buying any of it, including that Obama focked it all up.

    The idea that 20,000 troops would have kept that country stable is beyond absurd IMO.

    Parent

    This is Good For the Country... (none / 0) (#128)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:00:11 AM EST
    The more things change, the more they stay the same. No matter how many times his talking points on Iraq supposedly being stable when we left the country, or that "the surge" worked, or that we supposedly "won" the invasion "war" in Iraq, John McCain won't stop repeating the same fairy tale.

    ...to finally air it out without an entire party claiming Iraq was absolutely necessary.  It is showing real growth by a party that rarely has any.

    Even Fox News is talking about republican failures.  Sure they are acting like the intelligence was the cause, but the fact they they are framing the entire discussion as a huge mistake.  We are finally recognizing reality and allowing us to discuss it like adults.

    Parent

    But that said, methinks the lady doth protest too much, and I must say that you're sure giving people any number of reasons to believe that's probably the case.

    The question posed to Jeb Bush was most certainly a relevant question, given that his own brother's administration was the architect of such a spectacular clusterphuque of a policy. Further, since many of his brother's foreign policy advisors are now acting in the same capacity for Jeb, people want and need to know if he's capable of repeating that disastrous experience someplace else. And his four days' worth of dissembling on the subject is hardly going to inspire anyone to think and believe otherwise.

    The line of questioning directed at Bush is both pertinent and necessary since he's actively seeking the presidency, and YOU don't get to decide for us otherwise, or what questions are of the irrelevant or "Gotcha!" variety. Given both your comments here on this subject and your penchant for offering up false equivalencies and non sequiturs about Democrats whenever someone here notes various GOP idiocies, you're clearly not qualified to make any such judgments.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Prior to being asked that question, (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 18, 2015 at 10:56:51 PM EST
    Jeb decided that he would announce that one of his main advisers on the M.E. was George W. Bush.

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -
    Jeb Bush cited his brother, former President George W. Bush, as one of his main advisers on the Middle East in a private meeting in Manhattan on Tuesday, according to three people who attended the off-the-record event.

    He has also taped some of Dubya's advisors who were main players in the debacle.

    A list of advisers provided to Reuters by a campaign aide includes Paul Wolfowitz and Stephen Hadley, as well as former George W. Bush Homeland Security Secretaries Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, and Bush adviser Meghan O'Sullivan.

    Seems to me that Jeb has set himself up for these type of questions.

    Parent

    You'll notice that nobody said (none / 0) (#151)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:48:10 AM EST
    Dick Cheney for advisor.

    Throughout this discussion the emphasis has been on Bush, We shouldn't forget that Bush's primary advisor was his Vice President, and that, towards the end of his term, the two had some sort of falling out.

    My guess is that Cheney lied to everybody, including the President.

    p.s. Not to mean I'm letting Bush off the hook. Just saying.

    Parent

    The focus of the question(s) (none / 0) (#30)
    by christinep on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    rightly was the Iraq War, jbindc.  At this juncture, the question to a would-be successor to the brother--and, a potential 3rd Bush (a situation also quite unique)--had to be asked for a lot of reasons.  Foremost among those reasons is that people want to know how much Jeb Bush is like and/or would follow the policies & approach of George W Bush.  Add to that the widely-held belief by Americans that the Iraq War was ill-considered, at best ... well, it would have been stupid not to ask the question about Jeb's position and what he might have learned.

    In one respect, Jeb is lucky that the obvious question about what he (we) have learned from headlong entry into that war was asked so early in the 2016 campaign process.  He may have time to do a little smoothing over the months. Another thing, tho, is the negative fall-out certainly furthers the take that Jeb Bush is not the brightest bulb in the pack (and, even more so, the situation again with Marco Rubio.)

    At some point, people may want to talk about Reagan or any previous President and their decisions respecting foreign policy.  I would hope so.  BUT, the question of the still-volatile question on matters Iraq was a foregone conclusion.  Why would the brother not comprehend that?  

    The next question, it seems to me, should zero in on foreign policy precursors with more precision.  THE BIG QUESTION: Is it true that Jeb Bush' foreign policy advisors now essentially duplicate the advisors of George Bush who led us into the Iraq War? Corollary: If so, what reason would we have to expect an approach different than military escalation in the Mideast (or anywhere) when confronted by the inevitable conflict in the region?  Again ... obvious and very good questions.

    Parent

    If that's the goal (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:15:26 PM EST

    Foremost among those reasons is that people want to know how much Jeb Bush is like and/or would follow the policies & approach of George W Bush

    There's an easy way-

    Given that Jeb has tried mightily to distance himself from his brother, whose administration used false assertions to launch the still highly unpopular Iraq War, this touting of W.--even at a behind-closed-doors session of Republican donors--seemed odd. But perhaps more noteworthy is that Jeb Bush has embraced much of his brother's White House foreign policy team. In February, his campaign released a list of 21 foreign policy advisers; 17 of them served in the George W. Bush administration. And one name stood out: Paul Wolfowitz, a top policy architect of the Iraq War--for the prospect of Wolfowitz whispering into Jeb's ear ought to scare the bejeezus out of anyone who yearns for a rational national security policy.


    Parent
    I ask you (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:28:17 PM EST
    how easy would it be to make a killer campaign ad using that information?

    Parent
    The campaign (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:31:48 PM EST
    ads against Jeb have already written themselves. His most trusted advisor is his brother. He's proud of awful behavior during the Teri Schiavo debacle. Honestly he's so bad I can't imagine the GOP would be even that stupid to nominate him but then you never know. At this point the only way I see him getting the nomination is by being the last man standing and with candidates being funded by wealthy individuals I'm not even sure that one would work.

    Parent
    More and more (none / 0) (#47)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:36:44 PM EST
    I am thinking he will punt the ball to his boy Rubio.

    Parent
    I'm thinkin Walker (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:39:21 PM EST
    but I read a scary thing today from Ann Coulter saying she was absolutely sure that after Jeb flamed out Mitt would come in as the white knight.
    He's she bee raising his profile lately.  

    Google Mitt Evander

    Parent

    Oh, my (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 18, 2015 at 06:21:21 PM EST
    I saw that Ann Coulter thing. She wants Scott Walker. Does she not realize what he's been saying? But I guess if Walker is the best you have things are pretty sad. He definitely seems not ready for prime time though looking at the current cast of clowns I can see why someone would be looking to Romney. He might be a bad politician but darn he doesn't creep people out like the rest of them do.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 06:57:55 PM EST
    she wants Romney/Walker.

    But she's, you know, Ann Coulter.

    Parent

    Which is weird (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 07:01:13 PM EST
    because she is the one who famously said "if we don't run Chris Christie Romney will be the nominee and we will lose"

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 18, 2015 at 06:54:11 PM EST
    thought has crossed my mind. Romney absolutely declared himself to be in "fighting shape". The plot thickens. GOP 2016 "Game of Clowns" streaming free on news networks everywhere.

    Parent
    These are (none / 0) (#35)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:15:46 PM EST
    not frigging gotcha questions, these are frigging fundamental questions that should be asked  every day from now until the ignorant human race finally offs itself.

    Parent
    Then the reverse should be asked (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:32:32 PM EST
    Every Day of Bernie Sanders. What would you have done differently?  If you thought the intelligence was bogus, what would you have done as president? You think you had better ideas - what ARE your ideas about foreign policy?

    Hillary Clinton:  What would you change?

    Every.Single.Day.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:47:08 PM EST
    ask this question of
    every
    candidate every day if needed. Whether you ask it forward or backward. Ask it.

    Parent
    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:47:12 PM EST
    has answered that question repeatedly already. The problem is the GOP can't figure out how to answer it. Therefore it is entertaining and they get asked the same question repeatedly.

    Even Laura Ingrham gets it. I don't know why you can't.

    Parent

    To chime in a bit, jbindc (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by christinep on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:55:09 PM EST
    Your attempts at deflection in the matter of The Question and Jeb Bush should be commended ... The "yes-but-what-about-the-other-person (a Democrat)" laser line is almost without equal :)

    Parent
    Now you're creating bogus questions (3.50 / 2) (#53)
    by sj on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:48:15 PM EST
    If you thought the intelligence was bogus, what would you have done as president?
    If anyone else was president, there likely wouldn't have been any bogus intelligence.

    The question was lazy. I agree that it was a "[l]et's see Jeb throw his brother under the bus" question.  The press loves that kind of cr@p.  I don't really get all the gloating, but was that worth all the time and words you've spent refuting it/them? Not in my opinion. You've stated your opinion. Which is just as valid as anyone else's opinion.

    No need to digress to this level.

    Parent

    Done differently? (none / 0) (#109)
    by CST on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:14:49 AM EST
    Not invade Iraq?  I mean, they weren't a problem.   I don't understand the implication here that "something" had to be done about Iraq.  Also, he's been a senator for years, his foreign policy positions are fairly well established.  It's not like he's a governor that hasn't been involved in international affairs.  Also, I bet Bernie would love to be asked questions every single day about his stances.  It would mean people are actually paying attention.

    Regarding Hillary - she was SOS.  She hasn't exactly been quiet about where she disagreed or pushed Obama on certain issues.

    And let me get this straight - the fact that Jeb Bush was asked one obvious question once, means that Dem candidates have to be asked the same question every day?

    Parent

    Honestly (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 18, 2015 at 03:08:57 PM EST
    I hope Hillary has the cojones to go after this, release all the info and everything to the public. Let us see exactly what lies George W. told the public. We already know the biggest one was that Sadaam had ties to Al Qaeda. Did he withhold contradictory information about WMD's as well as withholding the information about Saddaam?

    And Obama's turn the page strategy has solved nothing, done nothing, just let the questions hang out there.

    Parent

    And while she's at it (2.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 18, 2015 at 04:35:45 PM EST
    she can explain why she voted for the war.

    And maybe explain her private emails and servers and how they can't be seen because they really have nothing to do with the $250,000,000 she and Bill have pocketed over the past year or so..

    Making speeches are hard and require so much time, talent and opportunity.

    Parent

    Hyperbolize much, Jim? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:21:38 PM EST
    The Clintons have earned less than $30 million in the last 16 months -- not the cool quarter-billion that you so very wrongly assert.

    Pray tell, did you ever begrudge the six figures that Ronald Reagan used to pull down per speech, including $2 million for two speeches in Japan? Did you criticize him for accepting the fancy digs in Bel Aire, CA from wealthy benefactors, who purchased the property and gifted it to him and wife Nancy?

    How about George W. Bush's $15 million payday from the 2011 sale of the Texas Rangers baseball club, which represented a 1,500% return on his original investment -- while the city of Arlington, TX picked up the tab for the eminent domain claims invoked during the construction of the Rangers ballpark, which occurred on Dubya's watch as team president?

    Did we hear any criticism from you regarding Dick Cheney's decision to stay on Halliburton's payroll per "deferred compensation" from his time as that company's CEO, while simultaneously serving as vice president?

    No, we did not, on all counts -- which is yet another reason why your IOKIYAR-prompted hypocrisy deserves our scorn and attracts our ridicule.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    No, (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:28:09 PM EST
    making all that money is fine as long as it is stolen from the taxpayers like Bush and Cheney did. Actually going out and having to work for the money by giving speeches not so much. Much better to have the taxpayers funding you.

    Parent
    Gee, did the taxpayers (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:29:27 AM EST
    buy the Texas Rangers?

    The things I do learn.

    lol

    Parent

    The stadium (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    silly. George W. bilked the tax payers of Texas out of millions with that stadium.

    So like I said apparently to conservatives if you earn your money bilking tax payers it's fine. If you earn your money by giving speeches bad.

    Parent

    Really??? (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:48:29 PM EST
    You mean a spots franchise talked government into building them a new stadium?

    Gollyeeeee, Sgt Carter! Who has ever heard of such?

    lol

    And at least we know paid for it!

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:54:57 PM EST
    for confirming the fact that bilking the tax payers is a conservative goal. Those of us around here already knew it but I'm glad you're backing us up now.

    Parent
    Then the city of Denver (none / 0) (#207)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:33:10 PM EST
    is ran by conservatives??

    Wow.

    The things I do learn.

    Parent

    Either educate yourself about the ... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    ... history of the Texas Rangers baseball club and the nature of crony capitalism, or be quiet on both subjects, because just like every other topic in the open thread, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. George W. Bush and the other members of the consortium then controlling the Texas Rangers fleeced the city of Arlington, TX on that stadium deal.

    Parent
    City finance stadiums is (none / 0) (#210)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:38:23 PM EST
    nothing new nor unique to Arlington, TX.

    And you know that.

    Bush owned 1.8%. Bill and Hill own 100% of their slush fund project which has made more money than old George made.

    Now, if you want to condemn all government/private partnerships, fine. Most of'em stink.

    But you might want to first review all the projects your are, or hopeful to, working on.

    Parent

    Awwwwwe, ... so sad (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Yman on Mon May 18, 2015 at 07:18:30 PM EST
    It's almost like you want to make an accusation, but can't quite work up the guts to spit it out, just because you have no evidence.  Not sure why it's stopping you now.  It's never been a problem for you in the past.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:11:39 PM EST
    are you now saying Obama was right?

    No one cares about the stupid emails. Even the republicans are demoralized over that one.

    And if she was a republican you would be lauding her as a "job creator" for making all that money.

    Sorry your candidates are so bad Jim that Hillary is all you have to talk about. They sure are providing a lot of comedy for the country though!

    Parent

    She did last year (none / 0) (#61)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon May 18, 2015 at 06:35:47 PM EST
    but if you watched Fox News you probably wouldn't have been told that:

    In "Hard Choices," Clinton, a former secretary of state and former U.S. senator who is exploring a 2016 presidential campaign, writes: "[M]any Senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake become (sic) more painful."

    Clinton continues, "I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."



    Parent
    Why Hillary bothers you (none / 0) (#112)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:44:15 AM EST
    and other observations by Josh Marshall:

    Clinton Foundation-palooza Hurtles Toward Its Vince Foster Moment
    ..............
    But as Brian Beutler noted here, all of these claims of pay-for-play deals are merely claims based on circumstantial evidence and are in their nature unfalsifiable.Unless Clinton acted against the interests of every individual, corporation or country that ever gave any money to the Clinton Foundation, then her acts are under a cloud. In none of these cases is there any proof or frankly even any strong suggestion that Clinton took any action whatsoever to further the interests of her husband's Foundation's donors.

    None.

    But of course we've already moved on to the stage where the Foundation hasn't just been compromised by donors desire to give in return for proximity or favors. Indeed, the entire Foundation is a corrupt enterprise. And by this logic, everyone who contributed money to the Foundation was contributing to a corrupt enterprise even if they didn't have any pecuniary interests that could be served by doing so. Thus, George Stephanopoulos has to apologize for contributing to the Clinton Foundation since ... since in doing so he would be compromised and give more favorable coverage to the Clintons?

    Here's my take on the Clintons. They've used their fame and power to enrich themselves, which is of course an outrage since it makes them always indistinguishable from the Bush family. (In other words, we need Jeb to bring honor and dignity back to the Oval Office.) On the Foundation, Bill Clinton has dedicated years of his life both to charitable activities and to perpetuating his most presidential of post-presidencies. They play close to the line. And part of the exhaustion of observing them is their refusal to play by rules tighter than those applied to anyone else, fully knowing the scrutiny that will later be applied to them -- and all of this entangled with the freak show conspiracy theories that inevitably bubble up around them, a symbiotic embrace of grievance, aggression and derp. It's painful to admit, but the two sides feed on each other. I start out thinking, I'm happy to let them deal with this on their own. And yet the charges become so overblown and nonsensical, the conventional wisdom in the press marches us so wildly in advance of any actual facts, it just becomes too much for me to take. Seeing them again at the center of these wild and carnivalesque conspiracy theories, grand overstatements and or simply evidence-free accusations puts me in the mind of Michael Corleone's infamous line: "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me in!"



    Parent
    The Emails... (none / 0) (#134)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:20:42 AM EST
    ...are in the State Department hands.

    And I don't remember you being so gung-ho when Romney wouldn't even let the public know how much money he actually made because his returns, for some reason, were never made public.

    If I don't know better I would say you have different rules for different party affiliation...

    Parent

    No, her private emails are not in (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:33:33 AM EST
    the DoS hands nor is her private server.

    And Romney's tax returns were made public.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:42:48 AM EST
    Jim thanks for confirming once again that the GOP wants the private stuff. I guess pilfering through her underwear wasn't enough. You guys are like some creepy perverts--mandatory ultrasounds all the way to sniffing crotches and underwear.

    Parent
    There is no private stuff (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:50:04 PM EST
    when you are SoS.

    Comes with the job.

    Don't like it, don't take it.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:53:21 PM EST
    there's no private stuff when you're a tea partier either. You're part of a 501C organization so hand over all your private emails.

    And while you're at it make Scott Walker hand over all his private emails.

    Parent

    Alright... (none / 0) (#194)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    ...let me know where I can find Collin Powell's and Condoleezza Rice's personal emails while in office.

    Still waiting on Mitts returns.

    Parent

    Yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:04:57 PM EST
    ...you let us know when one GOP candidate has handed over private emails.

    Jim you are seriously disturbed, the entire time it was her SOS emails, and now that she had done that, it the private emails.

    The key word being 'private', which apparently to you means for public distribution.  Remind me again what party is the champions of privacy.

    Send me a link to the Romney Returns.

    Parent

    Anything that went through that (none / 0) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:57:24 PM EST
    server is most likely in Iran, China and the whole list of our other enemies hands..and probably some friends...

    So we should also know...

    The point is that she ain't some outside sales dude wanting to keep his contact with other companies' recruiters from his boss. What she did was and is important.

    Here's one. You can get the rest for yourself.

    Parent

    I am shocked (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 18, 2015 at 04:28:12 PM EST
    Yes shocked to read that such an unbiased source as
    Krugman decided to try and make the same old wore out been shown to be wrong claims again.

    But rewriting history is a dark and lonely job that takes much dedication and hard work.

    What's next?? That Obama actually wanted to keep enough troops in Iraq to maintain its stability?

    Parent

    Jim, You Most Certainly Would be an Expert on: (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 18, 2015 at 04:57:03 PM EST
    But rewriting history is a dark and lonely job that takes much dedication and hard work.


    Parent
    I found it interesting that Krugman (none / 0) (#111)
    by Green26 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:41:52 AM EST
    used what I believe is a lie, to criticize the Iraq war for being justified by a lie. I know a lot of you believe the liberal mantra that the Bush administration lied about the WMD and intelligence. In reality, most of the world believed that Iraq had WMD, and relatively few people were saying that Iraq did not have WMD.

    Parent
    What the world believed was (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Anne on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:09:24 AM EST
    driven by the lies it was told - that's how people came to believe all the things Bush/Cheney wanted them to.  

    And they had the mostly-full cooperation of the media, which dutifully wrote down whatever it was told and didn't ask any hard questions.  It became truth by default - but that didn't mean it was all true.

    We believe we were lied to because we were lied to - it's that simple.  

    Parent

    Nope, they weren't lies (2.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Green26 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:21:37 AM EST
    And various intelligence in the world wasn't driven by what the US intelligence was, or what Bush et al were saying. It was independent. The revisionist history that comes from some people is quite amazing. You pick out a half dozen examples of contrary intelligence or views, from literally 100's and 100's of sources, and then declare the prevailing view as a lie. I just don't understand why some people can't be objective.

    Parent
    I beg to differ, and offer you (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Anne on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:38:43 AM EST
    Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq for your reading pleasure.

    They built a case for war on lies.  If "lies" is too hard for you to accept, perhaps you're more comfortable with "bad intelligence."

    They wanted war, and that's what they got.  

    Parent

    It (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:47:43 AM EST
    was absolutely proven that Bush spent years lying to you and everybody else about Sadaam having connectionss with Al Qaeda. Ten days after 9/11 the CIA came back to Bush with the truth about Sadaam having no connection to AQ.

    You know, the GOP has said that if you repeat a lie 5 times that people will believe it. Well, that apparently is true with Republicans. Republicans have to be the most gullible people ever. No matter what the GOP tells them they will swallow it whole.

    Parent

    Even if (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:53:22 AM EST
    In reality, most of the world believed that Iraq had WMD
    The narrative was a false one based on lies, a lie is a lie no matter how many people "believe"

    The "relatively few people" who saw through the lies were ignored, marginalized or punished by the Bush administration. Its easy to sell B.S. if you control the information.

    Most of "evidence" that was used to sell that false narrative was pretty much debunked in real time. Nuclear engineers knew the aluminum tubes were unsuitable for centrifuges, the Italians suspected and Wilson proved that the yellow cake claims were false, The Germans knew Curve Ball's allegations were laughable. The mother of all smoking guns, the Downing Street memo shows exactly what British intelligence was thinking and it sure wasn't slam dunk belief.

    Yet the Bush administration continually pushed all that and more as "slam dunk" proof. They promoted falsehoods and suppressed the truth. You may not think that's lying but plenty of us do.

    Sure they fooled plenty of people, they fooled me at the time, but just because there are plenty of suckers falling for a scam does not let the con-men of the hook.

    Parent

    No parsing, please (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    First, there is no evidence that the CIA lied to Bush. See my response up thread to Mondriggian.

    I would be interested to see who were

    .. marginalized or punished by the Bush administration.

    and what was done.

    I have explained to Donald what the Downing Street memo doesn't say.

    There is no way that "nuclear engineers" knew anything that was reliable enough to bet the farm on. (Yes, intelligence is a dicey game and if you're wrong NYC may become an ash heap.)

    And Wilson confirmed what Bush said. That Iraq had tried to purchase yellow cake.

    ....Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

    SOTU 03

    ....Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(                    redacted) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations"to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

    snip

    U) In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations."The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.

    snip

    The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, (                    ). The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective.                      SENTENCE DELETED                      The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

    Link

    Parent

    Jim I will (none / 0) (#209)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:36:20 PM EST
    waste a few minutes of your comic book time.

     The Bush administration was waving around the forged Italian Documents as "proof", Wilson unequivocally shot that down, he was attacked and his wife outed as a result. He proved that Bush was pushing false evidence full stop. All you can come up with is a "report" of an "interpretation" of the "thoughts" of an Iraqi delegation. Thoughts that were never even vocalized  or followed up on, pretty thin gruel.

    I know you are kind of "dicey" when it comes to all that science stuff, but the Intelligence agencies and Nuclear experts knew exactly what kind of aluminum tubes Iraq was buying. They could not be used for a nuke program, full stop.

    We all know what the memo said, Jim, that's what's important. We could spend eternity "parsing" what they didn't say. They didn't say the moon wasn't made out of cheese, so I guess that is still up to debate in your mind. They also didn't say Bush and Cheney were lying sacks of dung, but they should have.

    Parent

    Right, Because the Intellegince... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:27:42 AM EST
    ...they released indicated one thing, while the actual intelligence indicated another.  You are basically blaming people for believing the lies they crafted.

    Doesn't it bother you that your son was sent into harms way to settle a vendetta or whatever reason we have yet to know.  This isn't a guess, it's fact; they were forming intelligence to match the policy, which was to get rid of Saddam using the military.

    That has been proven.  The fact that you keep ignoring the mountains of proof presented here seems to be an indication that you simply don't care about the truth or refuse to believe that you, like many of us, were duped into a war.

    Parent

    So with your example (none / 0) (#114)
    by fishcamp on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:53:22 AM EST
    of logic, are you saying the Bush administration did not lie?

    Parent
    GAWKER (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 04:57:55 PM EST
    Three weeks ago, a Nassau County Supreme Court justice ended a bitter three-year custody dispute between Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly and his ex-wife, Maureen McPhilmy, by granting custody of the couple's two minor children to McPhilmy. Though nearly all documents pertaining to New York family court cases are sealed, Gawker has learned that the justice in the case heard testimony accusing O'Reilly of physically assaulting his wife in the couple's Manhasset home.

    According to a source familiar with the facts of the case, a court-appointed forensic examiner testified at a closed hearing that O'Reilly's daughter claimed to have witnessed her father dragging McPhilmy down a staircase by her neck, apparently unaware that the daughter was watching. The precise date of the alleged incident is unclear, but appears to have occurred before the couple separated in 2010. The same source indicated that the daughter, who is 16 years old, told the forensic examiner about the incident within the past year.

    The apparent domestic violence assault would be the latest in a series of revelations about O'Reilly's disturbing treatment of his family members, and his ex-wife in particular.



    Welcome news from Obama (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by sj on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:30:07 PM EST
    Obama restricts military-style gear for police
    Instead of repealing the programs, Obama issued an executive order that required federal agencies that run the programs to consult with law enforcement and civil rights and civil liberties organizations to recommend changes that make sure they are accountable and transparent.

    So not perfect but very well done. I'd like to see the programs done away with definitively, but this is good.

    You know of course (none / 0) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 18, 2015 at 10:15:37 PM EST
    that these restrictions are being turned into Obama TAKING AWAY weapons from the police.

    People do not even stop to catch their breath before they continue making that claim when asked what the police need with grenade launchers. Sometime I dispair.

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 07:33:25 AM EST
    you should hear the outraged howling from the local boys.   More than anything they loved those toys.   They imagined they were living in a new golden age of militarized police.  They are crushed and confused and angry and in pain.

    I suggested a support group.  They hate me I think.

    Parent

    Of course they are (none / 0) (#196)
    by sj on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:24:16 PM EST
    Of course proponents would howl about it. And LE in general is used to getting what they want in this "tough on crime" nightmare.

    They have evaded oversight and accountability and the gathering of data. Of course they're not going to like having their toys taken away.

    Sometimes I despair, too. Making even this step was actually kind of brave.

    Parent

    White Waco biker myth (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Redbrow on Mon May 18, 2015 at 09:19:44 PM EST
    I have seen the predictable race baiting comments by Shaun King/ daily kos, huffinton post and other progressive media sites who are wrongly framing the Waco biker thugs as exclusively white.

    Now that more mug shots and names are being released it is obvious they jumped to the wrong conclusion based on prejudice and stereotypes.

    Will they admit to their prejudice and rush to judgement?

    I highly doubt it.

    More silliness (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Mon May 18, 2015 at 10:59:52 PM EST
    Really?  The HuffPo/Kos said this was "exclusively white", yet you can't bother to post links.

    Yeah, ... we white people are always the victims.

    It's hard, huh?

    Parent

    I am unable to post links (none / 0) (#89)
    by Redbrow on Mon May 18, 2015 at 11:54:38 PM EST
    Using the preferred message because it crashes safari on my on my iPad.

    The title of the huff po article is:

    White-On-White Crime Strikes Again In Waco
    Posted: 05/18/2015 1:16 pm EDT Updated: 05/18/2015 2:59 pm EDT

    Shaun kings inflammatory diary is currently the highest recommend on DK. Here is a direct quote:

    "That's why, in part, it is so disturbing to see men, apparently all white men, who actually murdered and maimed others, treated with so much dignity and deference."

    Parent

    "Apparently" all white men (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Yman on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:07:55 PM EST
    Shawn King qualified guys statement.  He was discussing the disparate treatment received by AA males and white males, by both the police and the media.  Whether the were some Latino males involved in the biker case, his point remains.  Not to mention the fact that, for someone who's objecting to generalizations about white people, you may want to use a smaller brush while using one opinion piece to smear "progressive media sites".

    Parent
    Even tho I think you are trollish (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 07:23:30 AM EST
    allow me to share how I get around the linking problem.  It's a pain but it works.  

    Open the page you want to link to - copy the link.

    Then close all browser pages - then the browser.

    Then open some other app, like weather - close it.

    Reopen the browser with ONLY ONE PAGE-talk left, open.

    NOW try opening the linking box and try the linking process.  You will still have the link you copied.

    Then if you want to quote text you have to reopen the linked page to grab the text.

    This is a pain but it's the only way I have found to get around the way the linking box freezes my iPad.

    Parent

    You can also use (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 07:29:56 AM EST
    tiny URL dot com.

    To make a tiny URL.

    Parent

    The Bandidos are NOT (none / 0) (#92)
    by Chuck0 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:39:31 AM EST
    exclusively white. Bandido membership in Texas at least, includes many, many Hispanics (most likely of Mexican descent). I am former Texas biker. I know of what I speak. By the same token, very few major bike clubs are exclusively white as they have become international. The Hells Angels have chapters all over the world, including Africa, Asia and South America. The Bandidos and Outlaws are in Asia. The HA's have had Asian members since the 60s in their Frisco charter. Stephen Yee, currently in federal custody is/was a member of their Cleveland charter. Both the Mongols and Vagos have white and Hispanic members. I knew an American Indian with the Pagans in Maryland.
     

    Parent
    I didn't say they were n/t (none / 0) (#138)
    by Yman on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:23:05 AM EST
    Parsing becomes you. ;-) (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:04:03 PM EST
    FACTS (none / 0) (#182)
    by Yman on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    ... don't become you.

    Parent
    Hillary just answered (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by MKS on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:37:24 AM EST
    some press questions.

    My first reaction is what a difference between her and the goofball GOP candidates.  She came across as crackerjack smart and poised.

    She is good at answering questions.....

    The latest press obsession with Hillary is that she received emails from Sidney Blumenthal that had information about Libya.   She passed these emails to others at State to evaluate....

    My god, so what?  It looks like she was doing her job.  And that is made to sound scandalous?....The anti-Hillary press is at times comical....

    So she took care of a few (2.00 / 1) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:07:24 PM EST
    from Sidney...

    What about the thousands of others??

    Parent

    Well, if you listened (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:42:54 PM EST
    to what Hillary said, she wants State to release them as soon as possible.

    Parent
    Why did she erase what was on the server (none / 0) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    and when will she turn it over??

    Parent
    Obviously, (none / 0) (#189)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:13:14 PM EST
    you believe they contain certain evidence of wrong-doing, although you can't state with any certainty what laws they would prove she violated in the first place.

    Have I got that right?

    Parent

    You are (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:21:00 PM EST
    hysterical. Don't you know that everybody gets rid of their stuff when they are done with their computer?

    Oh, that's right. You have DIFFERENT rules for her but not the same rules for the tea party morons. Gotcha.

    Parent

    Extreme sports legend dies (none / 0) (#7)
    by McBain on Mon May 18, 2015 at 03:10:09 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/lt36lwu

    Dean Potter died doing one of those BASE jumps with a flying squirrel suit. He was also renowned for his climbing and tightrope walking.  

    I'm not even sure I would do something like that if you could guarantee my safety. Not wild about heights.  

    No new limit on police use of force (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Mon May 18, 2015 at 03:22:24 PM EST
    In dealing with mentally unstable peoole.

    Wow, Lindsey Graham is going to announce (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 04:39:27 PM EST
    Is this plan B since Jeb obviously really isn't the smart Bush?  He has honed his Iraq arguments to a fine point.  I need LexisNexis to find all the past information to counter his factiness, serial scary dude right now...woo!

    Will Bush steal Lindsey's talking points?  Doubt he can sell em.  Graham can because of his position for years on the Armed Services Committee.  He can parse this $hit. He can sell.  He can have us arguing with Republicans in parking lots.

    The problem (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:13:10 PM EST
    is even his own constituents don't seem excited about him running. I personally find him hysterical.

    Parent
    If Conservatives want to outrun the Iraq War (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 09:25:34 PM EST
    He's got it down cold until someone gets really serious and goes toe to toe with him. I don't know who helped him map out his talking points and the debate as he presented it...but he obviously has some real campaign talent he's hired. He was on his game today.  Made Jeb look like a blithering idiot.

    Parent
    And that (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 06:17:52 AM EST
    is precisely why no one in the GOP seems to be very excited to see him running. Like I said above they still can't really admit it was a mistake.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:23:35 PM EST
    got Al on in the background and he has Jay Dobyns on to talk about the bikers. If you don't know who that is, Google.
    It's worth it.  Images especially.

    Anyway, Jay clearly had his beard done for a round of TV interviews he knew he would get fm this.  AMAZING!!
    Check this interview out when it's up.

    Check out the beard of exquisite awsumness (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 08:17:40 AM EST
    it appears about 1 minute into the video.

    Ps
    I just used the pain in the a$$ method of linking I described above.  It really does seem to work about every time.

    Try testing the lock up by opening the ink box with no other pages open and no link copied.  It should open without freezing up.

    Parent

    Origins: I'd like to buy the world a coke... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Mr Natural on Mon May 18, 2015 at 08:06:24 PM EST
    I just found (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 18, 2015 at 08:16:21 PM EST
    out that Jeb Bush was one of the original signers of Project for a New American Century the organization that was advocating for war with Iraq  since its founding in 1997. The press should have asked him about that.

    "Mad Men" is over. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 18, 2015 at 11:00:12 PM EST
    Now what do we do?

    =|:-O>

    Have to find (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 06:19:52 AM EST
    another Sunday night show I'm guessing. Some people didn't like the ending but I did.

    Parent
    Sunday (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 07:28:02 AM EST
    is the most packed night on TV.  I usually spend Monday watching all the shows I grab on Sunday

    Parent
    I do (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 07:37:11 AM EST
    a lot of Netflix. Mad Men actually was one of the few shows I watched other than Revenge and once Mad Men came back on I lost track of Revenge.

    Right now i'm watching Hope and Frankie. These Netflix original series are pretty good. I also watched the Incredible Kimmie Schmidt.

    Parent

    "Halt and Catch Fire" (none / 0) (#108)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:01:29 AM EST
    It very consciously is trying to do for the eighties computer industry what "Mad Men" did for sixties advertising.  And it isn't as good as "Mad Men".  But how many shows are?

    Still, it's very good.

    The second season premieres next week (I think) in the "Mad Men" slot on AMC.

    The first season is available on Netflix.

    Parent

    I liked the ending (none / 0) (#159)
    by ruffian on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:16:29 PM EST
    I was at first not pleased with the placement of a couple of the scenes...a little jarring to have Peggy and Stan's rom-com moment immediately after that heartrending scene with Don and Peggy, but I guess that's life, and that was the point.

    I liked how the episode was in a lot of ways a microcosm of the whole series.

    Fashion - the first dress Peggy wears in the episode was sooo Mary Tyler Moore show. Awesome!

    Don being the character most that was always most open to California lifestyle, I loved how Weiner took an idea of Don making that particular Coke commercial and brought in all the elements that got him there over the last couple of episodes.

    I miss those characters already.

    Parent

    What a treat... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:35:20 AM EST
    the Tedeschi Trucks show was last night...an excellent kick-off to Summerstage and The kdog Summer Concert Series.  

    Sharon Jones was in the house to sing a couple numbers with Susan, talk about a special guest.  They sand Sam Cooke's "Comin' On Home To Me" and Etta James "Tell Mama".  Holy F*ckin' Sh*t.  

    Derek was on fire, the band was tighter than ever.  No specific BB King tribute except for the blues standard "Key to the Highway" which all the greats recorded.  Killer cover of The Beatles "I Got A Feelin'" and some Derek and The Dominos stuff too.

    They remind me of a classic soul r&b revue with their own sh*t too...little else like it on the road today.  Top notch.

    TTB touring with Sharon Jones and The Dap-Kings all summer long so I strongly suggest y'all get on that! You can thank me later.

    From Amy Chocik's (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:19:36 AM EST
    latest NYT column on Hillary Clinton:

    I

    n 2004, the Democratic nominee, John Kerry, who battled an image of being effete, took a well-publicized hunting trip dressed in camouflage, hoping to show he could relate to voters who drive pickup trucks with gun racks.
    "That was authentic, but perceived as inauthentic," said Mark Mellman, a pollster who advised Mr. Kerry. "The truth is, he did actually bag a lot of birds on that trip."
    "Changing people's deeply held views," he added, "is the hardest thing to do in politics and in life."


    My pet peeve..the 'perceived' (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by ruffian on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:20:52 PM EST
    as inauthentic, or effete, or divisive, fill in the blank... trope. People did not come to those perceptions on their own. They were hammered into them by the press.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:59:11 PM EST
    the same idiots that bought into a peppy moron from CT who went to ivy league schools and was the ulitmate trust fund baby was just a "regular" guy. These kinds of things are why the press is held in such low regard by the majority of Americans.  

    Parent
    Maybe the Times (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:39:30 AM EST
    will recognize even is role in wrongly attempting deamonize Hillary when she has done nothing wrong....

    Parent
    Garo Yepremian... (none / 0) (#168)
    by desertswine on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:33:55 PM EST
    has passed away.  A fine placekicker, he will always be remembered for this unfortunate mis-play in Super Bowl VII.

    Bernie Sanders.... (none / 0) (#180)
    by kdog on Tue May 19, 2015 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    Godfather of the Vermont punk rock scene?  

    Why yes, he kinda is...let's make him our first punk rock president.  

    It's the simple little things like this that might make him the greatest president of all time...if Democratic voters have the guts to risk defeat for the chance at a far greater, and meaningful, victory.

    I don't. Have the guts to risk defeat, (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    that is. I respect your choice, my friend, but the destruction that would be rained down upon us if any one of the GOP contenders became president is too awful for me to take the chance, especially with the GOP almost certain to keep control of the House, and possibly the Senate.

    The Republicans in charge of the White House and the Congress, the very thought is a dystopian nightmare.

    If Bernie wins the primary I will support him in the general. I will support whoever wins the Democratic nomination because, like I said, a GOP win would be disastrous for the country.

    Right now Hillary looks to be the best choice to win the WH, but things change. The election is more than a year off.

    Parent

    Goldman Sachs... (none / 0) (#203)
    by kdog on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:29:57 PM EST
    is counting on our cowardice...I'll suffer dystopia to spite a bankster;)

    Sh*t Casey the GOP field is so crowdedly weak, I think Bernie beats their anointed clown just as easy as Clinton, if not easier.  They love to hate Hillary (why I don't know, she's a Republican from 30 years ago), they don't know Bernie.  This is the big chance we've been waiting for!

    They will tar and feather Hillary with all the same names anyway...commie, socialist, blame America person, etc...if in the eyes of the right no matter who D's pick it's a commie pinko, may as well nominate an actual pinko no? They ain't voting for either, and Clinton gets 'em fired up to vote against in a way Bernie may not.

    Think of this way...Bernie wins votes away from third parties from anti-Clinton liberals like me, what votes does he lose?  Lloyd Blankfein's?

     

    Parent

    It is not ok to assume (none / 0) (#190)
    by Redbrow on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:14:23 PM EST
    People of all races besides Caucasian can not be possibly be in a biker gang.

    It is a racist stereotype.

    Get it?

    It marginalizes (none / 0) (#199)
    by Redbrow on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    Non-white bikers, just as assuming the right wing is exclusively white and labeling it such marginalizes all of the non-white right wingers.

    Oh, I see (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by sj on Tue May 19, 2015 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    You're worried about minorities being marginalized. Well. That's different then.

    oy

    Parent

    kdog, mi compadre, if Bernie (none / 0) (#213)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 19, 2015 at 06:16:59 PM EST
    wins the Democratic nomination I will support him whole-heartedly. What I will not do is vote third party, donate third party, vote for a Republican, or simply not vote at all.

    And, while I disagree with Hillary on some issues, especially foreign policy, she has not been a Republican for 30 years. No Republican fights the fights she has for women and children. It just does not happen. Her domestic positions are, while not as far to the left as I am or I would like, actually much further left than Obama's or Bill Clinton's or the Democratic Party in general these days.

     

    We're over limit here, a new (none / 0) (#214)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 19, 2015 at 07:43:40 PM EST
    open thread is here. This one's closed now. Thanks everyone.