Tuesday Night Open Thread

Our last open thread is in overflow mode. Here's a new one, all topics welcome.

Update: The Bachelorette guys chose the right one. I couldn't take a whole season with choice #2. She cries way too much. Glad that drama's over.

Update: The Voice Finale -- John Fogarty and Sawyer Frederick, just terrific. What a great season this was, so much talent and so many great voices.

< Another Name Floated for Abu Sayyaf | U.S. Releases Documents Seized From Bin Laden Raid >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Bernie has a fabulous idea (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 07:58:34 PM EST
    issues a bill to make 4 years of college tuition free

    By taxing Wall Street.

    It will be interesting to see what Hillary thinks of this.

    And Wolf Blitzer (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 08:16:17 PM EST
    interviews him and says the Republicans won't go for it and then says what's Hillary's stance on it. Ugh. Such is the pathetic state of journalism these days.

    Doesn't matter what Rethugs say today (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 20, 2015 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    Sanders pushes the debate and the window left. Keep talking Bernie, keep pushing.

    Oh, I know (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 20, 2015 at 02:50:48 PM EST
    It's just this solidifies in my mind there's really no reason to waste your time talking to the press at this stage of the game. He handled it well but unfortunately he can't keep Wolf from screeching stupid distracting things during the interview.

    I know (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 20, 2015 at 04:02:08 PM EST

    What republicans will and will not (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 08:18:00 PM EST
    go for may be far less consequential in 2017.

    True (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 19, 2015 at 08:27:14 PM EST
    especially if we get a campaign based on issues and not personalities.

    I think this idea of Bernies (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 08:32:41 PM EST
    will have wide and deep support.   No one thinks Wall Street can't afford it (other than elected republicans) and even republicans have kids who want to go to college and can't afford it.

    This seems like it might be an issue made for an election year.


    There is more to Bernie's (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:02:51 PM EST
    bill than the tuition part. It would also deal a huge blow to the sorry trend among colleges of hiring part-time adjunct faculty to teach classes. These adjuncts rarely, if ever, get any benefits and are paid a pittance.

    Bernie's bill would require that 75% of classes be taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty.

    This has no chance of passing the current GOP controlled Congress. It is an important issue for not just those aspiring to the presidency, but for everyone running for Congress, and, since this bill would require the states to kick in part of the money, it is an excellent idea to question those running for governorships and all state legislatures.


    Yep (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:05:46 PM EST
    i did that for a while in the 80s at Pratt in NY.

    Pittance is right.


    Ok, prof, what did you teach? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Mr Natural on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:07:52 PM EST
    3d modeling and animation (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:29:19 PM EST
    i participated in creating one of the first (Possibly the first, I'm not really sure) CG degree programs in  the country.  I taught at both the Brooklyn and Manhattan locations for about five years in the early 80s.

    This is how early it was-I was brought in, along with about a half dozen others, because I was a well known CG professional in the area having been a CG freelancer there doing broadcast and commercial animation starting in about 80-81.  I do not have a college degree and I was not the only one but that requirement was waived because what they needed was people who knew the tools and the industry.  A person with a degree in the field simply did not exist yet.  We were creating the first ones.


    To be clear (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:58:33 PM EST
    "animation" meant something very different then that it does now.  It did not mean "Frozen/Lego Movie" animation.  That had not been invented yet. It would be several years before the inverse kinematic animation software that makes that possible would come along.

    Then animation meant motion graohics.  Less charitabley known as flying logos.


    It will kill high frequency trading (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Tue May 19, 2015 at 08:55:42 PM EST
    All those algos will have to be converted to slomo shaft machines.  lol.  we can return to the days of watching the stock market once a day, in our local paper.

    I saw this (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:03:19 PM EST
    1.) is it true

    It seem like they could find a way to tax Wall Street without this being true

    2.) is it bad if it's true


    Sh*t... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kdog on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:34:15 AM EST
    we can probably fund it with bankster fines...they just got whopped for another 5.6 billion for market rigging.

    Another legislative idea in my daydreaming craw is the "Wall St. Main St. Criminal Justice Reconciliation Act", which will make all non-violent Main St. crimes punishable by fine only, just like Wall St. crimes.  More equality under the law, and greatly reduced prison population, woo hoo!  With fines payable on layaway for
    99%ers, max annual payment 5% of after tax income.  


    Nebraska (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 08:51:03 PM EST
     votes tomorrow on a bill to abolish the death penalty.  The gov has threatened a veto but right now it has a veto proof majority.

    That would be a good thing (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:01:00 PM EST
    And, how ironic is it (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:50:54 PM EST
    that rock-solid, right wing, Republican Nebraska is more enlightened than our Federal Government?

    More enlightened... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by kdog on Wed May 20, 2015 at 01:27:23 PM EST
    than the likely Democratic nominee for President even.

    The whole country has become (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:37:50 AM EST
    embarrassed and repelled by the example of Texas.  

    Texas is to the Capital Punishment what school shooters are to the 2nd amendment.


    Wiki States... (none / 0) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:35:03 AM EST
    Three individuals convicted of murder have been executed by Nebraska since 1976. All were executed by the electric chair. On April 21, 2011, the Nebraska Supreme Court set the first execution date an execution via lethal injection for June 14, 2011. On May 26, 2011, the Nebraska Supreme Court stayed the execution due to objections that the sodium thiopental that Nebraska purchased from a Mumbai company failed to comply with U.S. pharmaceutical standards.


    Seems like getting rid of the DP might keep a lot of minds from fixating on a legal way to kill people.


    Mosby's response (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Redbrow on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:17:29 PM EST
    To the motion of recusal has been released by the Baltimore Sun.

    The unprofessional rhetoric it contains only serves to strengthen the case for her recusal.

    Only An Unprofessional Troll... (3.00 / 2) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 01:34:47 PM EST
    ...would post FG rhetoric in the wrong thread.

    Or should that say professional troll ?  Not sure there is much of a difference.

    I am guessing professionalism to the right wing means dropping all charges and giving the cops the keys to the city if they don't already have them.


    What part of (2.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Redbrow on Wed May 20, 2015 at 02:06:55 PM EST
    "all topics welcome." do you trolls have trouble understanding?

    Whoa! easy, Redbrow. (4.20 / 5) (#90)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 20, 2015 at 02:15:28 PM EST
    You are in the wrong here. Jeralyn was quite clear when she started posting Freddie Grey threads that all comments/discussion of that case should take place on those designated Freddie Grey threads and not on Open Threads.

    We play by Jeralyn's rules here. If you don't like it, well, take it up with the management instead of lobbing insults at other commenters.


    From the Urban Dictionary: (3.67 / 3) (#91)
    by Anne on Wed May 20, 2015 at 02:20:17 PM EST
    Red Brow

    A person who has redness around the eyebrows obtained by slapping himself in the face and saying, "Stupid!Stupid!"


    I'm sure it was just an oversight on her part, but in the weeks following Freddie Gray's death, Jeralyn has set aside separate threads for all-things-Freddie, and made mention of them when she posts an Open Thread, which is why you were pointed there.

    Try to keep up.


    Heh (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:28:44 PM EST
    In a response filed Monday, Chief Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow wrote that Gray was detained "well before the arresting officers knew he possessed a knife."

    The often-stinging 11-page rebuttal comes as prosecutors are asking a judge to impose a gag order on the participants in the case. A judge has not ruled on the request.

    Monday's filing is the prosecution's first detailed response to attorneys for the six Baltimore police officers charged in the case. They have asked that the charges be dismissed and that Mosby recuse her office from the case for what they say are conflicts of interest.

    Schatzow wrote that the defense arguments in that motion "bounce from one ridiculous allegation to another, like a pinball on a machine far past 'TILT.'"

    "Whether born of desperation, the desire for publicity, or a gross effort to taint the grand jury and potential petit jury pool, the motion is absurd," he wrote.

    Thanks for starting my day with (none / 0) (#28)
    by Anne on Wed May 20, 2015 at 06:29:21 AM EST
    a good laugh.

    "Unprofessional rhetoric?"  What's unprofessional is the defense's initial motion and the weakness of its arguments.


    Forgot to add: this discussion - (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Anne on Wed May 20, 2015 at 07:39:37 AM EST
    if there's going to be a discussion - should be moved to the Freddie Gray thread #3 that has plenty of room for comments.

    "Unprofessional rhetoric" (none / 0) (#29)
    by Yman on Wed May 20, 2015 at 06:41:18 AM EST
    I haven't even read it and you have me laughing.  No details, no link, ... blah, blah, blah ...

    Will put link in the Freddie Gray (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Anne on Wed May 20, 2015 at 07:40:27 AM EST
    thread #3.

    Bipartisanship... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed May 20, 2015 at 10:14:24 AM EST
    at it's finest...Senators Paul and Wyden teaming up to try to stop Patriot Act renewal.  A filibuster could be in the works.  Let's wish them luck.  You know our boy Sanders is down too.

    And what I'm hearing about the surveillance reform bill in the House, the USA Freedom Act, is not good.  Though it contains some reforms/curtails of surveillance power, all told it will probably strengthen the surveillance state apparatus rather than weaken it.  And since Congress is Bizarro World, the name is a dead giveaway.  Any act named "Freedom" can't be good.  

    imo we should be rotting for the Patriot Act and USA Freedom Act to both die.

    And on the other hand, you have (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Anne on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:07:29 AM EST
    Obama working with the GOP to get both Fast Track and the TPP done.

    The Obama administration and Senate Republicans worked in unusual harmony Tuesday to advance major trade legislation opposed by many rank-and-file Democrats, an expanding struggle already leaving a mark on the 2016 campaigns for the White House and control of Congress.

    In rapid-fire order, the administration threatened to veto a proposed change in the trade bill to require U.S. negotiators to target currency manipulation more directly in trade talks, and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said his party was prepared to vote down the amendment.

    The administration's veto threat came in the form of a letter from Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew to the bill's leading supporters. He warned that approving the amendment could cause trade partners to walk away from talks on a 12-nation deal among countries that border the Pacific Ocean "and cause us to lose ground on holding countries accountable on currency."



    Now that is the brand... (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by kdog on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:37:45 AM EST
    of bipartisanship I'm more used to...if it's a bad scene for the common people, D's and R's will always find a way to bridge the gap. Their mutual paymasters demand no less!  

    good sleuthing... (none / 0) (#104)
    by fishcamp on Wed May 20, 2015 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    Feminism rears its (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:49:03 AM EST
    ...  Not gonna complete the metaphor.

    One of my favorite bloggers, Tbogg, has picked up on the panic among Manly Men (tm) in the wake of the latest entry in the Mad Max franchise.  Mr. Gibson has obviously aged out of the role, but Charlize Theron has not.

    Wait.  Charlize Theron?  A vagina-American?  (Naturalized, of course, born in South Africa.)


    As a guy who served in the military, worked as a rock band roadie and a piano mover, got married and stayed married, I don't seem to have the insecurity about my masculinity that pervades the right wing.

    Does anyone here have an explanation for the terror on the right that a woman might kick some ass?

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:04:37 PM EST
    other than apparently conservative men are massively insecure it appears. You apparently don't have that insecurity.

    And i guess if a woman can beat off the bad guys all by herself then these men think it somehow undercuts them.

    For some reason conservative men have this thing where women need to be dependent on them to be worthy. I don't understand it.


    Well they haven't been very good to their (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 20, 2015 at 02:43:47 PM EST
    Women Repack.  There's probably some repressed hostility in their relationships with the women in their lives. You might fear a pillow over your face too after you've passed out if you were them :). You might feed the dog some of your dinner before you take a bite too :)

    OMG (none / 0) (#111)
    by sj on Wed May 20, 2015 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    That post is seriously funny. Those guys must be gnashing their teeth that Mad Max had such a good opening.

    Why does anyone fear ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:18:08 PM EST
    ... a potential loss of both hierarchical dominance and its accompanying social privileges? I've long concluded that it's really a matter of limiting or eliminating the competition, even if it's being asserted in such an irrational fashion.

    And for the record, misogyny and fear of women in power aren't necessarily traits which are exclusive to the right. Sadly, I know any number of people on the left -- including not just a few liberal women -- who've apparently long harbored a distinct disdain for strong and assertive women, though of course they'd never admit to any such feelings publicly.

    But eventually, their own words and actions will betray them. We need only review the noxious and seething rants of a certain liberal blogger (who shall remain unnamed here out of respect for our host) during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary season, to see that less than flattering personal trait on full-peacock feathered public display. Personally, I was stunned and stung by the vehemence and vitriol of those posts, and that's when and why I stopped reading stuff from that website, and have since never looked back.



    Concur with a qualification (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:51:48 PM EST
    misogyny and fear of women in power aren't necessarily traits which are exclusive to the right.

    Some individual liberals might be misogynists, but the liberal agenda does not include passing dozens of anti-woman laws.  The liberal agenda is strongly supportive of women's issues.

    Would you agree that this is an important difference between isolated instances of "liberal misogyny" that have nothing to do with legislation, and the GOP mainstream, "everybody does it" version?


    in all its years (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 20, 2015 at 03:43:33 PM EST
    i have never actually watched Letterman.  I may have to tonight.  It has the smell of history.

    I was a huge Letterman fan in 80s. (none / 0) (#116)
    by McBain on Wed May 20, 2015 at 06:55:40 PM EST
    Loved the Chris Elliot/NBC years.  haven't been a fan in a long time.

    Calling Chris Wallace. (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 20, 2015 at 04:13:15 PM EST
    Another question for Marco Rubio (to fumble):  If you knew then what you should know now, would still have Jennifer Lakawski on your campaign team?

    Ms. Lakawski was recently a registered foreign agent (at $45,000 a day) for Gambia, a west African country, headed by His Excellency Sheik Jammeh.  His Excellency is a human rights disaster who, among quirks, has called for the beheading of gays.   Pasamba Jow, spokesman for the Democratic Union of Gambia has called for Rubio to remove Jennifer from his team.  

    Rubio, as with the Iraq question, may not understand the question, so Chris Wallace may follow-up with how this all squares up with his criticism of President Obama, who, Rubio, says has "embraced regimes that systematically oppose every principle our nation has long championed."  Although, Rubio may not see this as an issue, let alone a principle of our nation.

    Holy Hell (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 21, 2015 at 07:26:33 AM EST
    i woke up to early and turned Joe.   I just heard a most
    remarkable thing.  

    Halperin was talking about a republican focus group and remarked that many had problems with Jeb because of his name.
    Then Joe strokes his chin and says "isn't it interesting that republicans have trouble with the Bush name but democrats don't seem to have trouble with the Clinton name?  Why is that I wonder?"
    The table was baffled and all agreed with this piercing insight that it was truly and mystery they did not understand and could not explain.

    Are you f$cking kidding me?  Could this possibly be sincere?  Is it even possible they are this insular and clueless?  Honestly.  I almost spit up my coffee.  Sincere or not this is the most concise and revealing moment of TV that I have maybe EVER heard.

    I changed the channel.

    This is going to be an exhausting election.

    On names and clues. (none / 0) (#186)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 21, 2015 at 10:18:56 AM EST
    A rose by any other name is still a rose.  A stinkweed by any other name still stinks.

    Today, McDonalds' Shareholders... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 21, 2015 at 09:21:28 AM EST
    ...were greated by thousands of low wage protestors.
    CHICAGO -- Thousands of protesters calling for a $15 minimum wage and a union have descended near the McDonald's headquarters as newly-installed CEO Steve Easterbrook gets ready to address annual shareholders meeting on Thursday for the first time as the company's chief executive.
    Key to Easterbrook's(new CEO) turnaround plan is boosting the hamburger chain's stock price is a stock buyback plan that will return up to $9 billion to shareholders in 2015 after expending $3.2 billion on buybacks in 2014, or roughly 132% of its net income.

    They got $9B for shareholders, but nothing for their employees. Imagine that.

    And I did not know this:

    Organizers predicted an even bigger turnout for a protest outside this year's shareholders meeting, which comes just two days after the city of Los Angeles voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour for large businesses.

    The wage increase in the nation's second largest city will be gradually phased in over the next five years, and is the union's biggest win in the push to hike the minimum wage to $15 that started nearly three years ago.

    Good for them.

    Great stuff... (none / 0) (#183)
    by kdog on Thu May 21, 2015 at 09:42:55 AM EST
    making real progress thanks to the people power push.  All hope is not lost.

    I think it's only a matter of time now till $15 becomes the blue state minimum wage, or at least blue city minimum.  


    Anne, thanks for link to Mother Jones/Lies (1.50 / 8) (#36)
    by Green26 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:53:57 AM EST
    timeline/article. I'm into 2003 and still reading.

    Yes, I'm more of a bad intelligence guy and not a lies guy. While I have thought for years that Bush et al had various reasons for wanting to topple Hussein (he was a bad guy and was tough on the Sunnis, he was a threat to the region and the West (part of the Axis of Evil), etc.), in addition to WMD's including a possibility of moving into nuclear weapons; believed Bush had seized upon WMD's as the best argument to justify toppling Hussein and gaining UN and voter backing; and assumed Bush had marshaled the arguments for WMD; I have never believed, and still don't, that Bush et all didn't believe there were WMD's and lied about their existence. As part of the marshaling of arguments, they put together what they thought was the best intelligence and best case, and ignored and deemphasized some of the contrary views. Nevertheless, the prevailing view of US intelligence and much of the rest of the world's intelligence sources was that Iraq did have WMD's. I just don't know how one can ignore that prevailing view. And that view and that intelligence didn't just come from the US. It came from other countries.

    It makes zero sense that Bush would make such an important decision based on what he knew was false, or a lie. Had Bush thought there weren't any WMD's, he would have built his case around the various other reasons.  It just doesn't make sense that Bush would build the case for war around a big lie, when the lie would be exposed right away, there would be large repercussions, and there were other justifications that could have been used.

    I suppose one could look at this as something similar to "confirmation bias", which has been a buzz word in the Rolling Stone/U VA sexual assault article and related situations. Bush thought Hussein was bad and had WMD's, so he looked for support that Iraq had WMD's and built the case for it to the exclusion of contrary views (which were then in the minority) and good analysis of the intelligence.

    In looking at the article/timeline, I've had to chuckle that Mother Jones is criticizing Bush et al for cherry-picking, ignoring contrary intelligence and not fully vetting intelligence sources--but Mother Jones seems to be doing the exact same thing. I.e. cherry-picking contrary intelligence and assuming contrary sources or statements are accurate--and not including the intelligence reports that had supported the existence of WMD's. It looks to me that the MJ article is marshaling facts and evidence, some of which looked different at the time, to support MJ's view that Bush et al lied about this. Confirmation bias again, in my view.

    Wrong! (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 09:39:33 AM EST
    Jeb Bush Gave the Right Answer the First Time

    Mr. Bush has tried to defend himself and his brother by arguing that the intelligence was faulty: "mistakes were made." That is yet another of his responses. But many of those mistakes were not mistakes at all; they were the result of the deliberate political abuse and fabrication of intelligence. The deliberately cherry-picked intelligence was concocted in order to influence the decision that led to the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands of Americans, countless hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the quagmire in the Middle East in which we have been enmeshed for the past decade. As the head of British intelligence reported back to his government after meetings in Washington in June, 2002: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Alan Foley, the Director of the CIA's Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) told his people in late 2002 or early 2003: "If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so."

    Chris Matthews (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    conducted an interesting interview of Mike Morell, former Deputy Director of the CIA, who was the briefer for President George W. Bush.  Interesting, in that Tweety seemed out of character and actually asked penetrating questions with relentless follow-ups.  Morell  was pushing his new book, but appeared to get more than a marketing opportunity.  As flat out if Cheney lied when he stated that Saddam had re-constituted nuclear weapons, Morell, after bobbing and weaving to avoid an answer, finally said that Cheney was not telling the truth.  In fact, that was not what the intelligence agencies said.  Of course, Morell said it was not his job to watch TV or pay attention as to what Cheney or Bush said after briefings,  so he did not note that the intelligence was false. Worth a watch.  

    I was hoping that Chris Matthews would have brought up the fact that Bush gave the CIA Director, George Tenet, the Presidential Medal of Honor. Not the usual way for a president to show his anger at getting everything wrong and contributing to his failed presidency.  Not to mention, Paul Bremer who also got that prestigious award


    Fixing things around a policy or decision (none / 0) (#52)
    by Green26 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:41:06 AM EST
    to support the policy/decision is something that is done frequently in government ad business. That doesn't equate to lying and making stuff up.

    I suggest you research the Dodgy Dossier (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:08:48 PM EST

    The claims contained in the 'September' and 'Iraq' Dossiers were called into question when weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were not found in Iraq, and the dossiers were encompassed by House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry. The Committee subsequently reported that the sources should have been credited, and that the dossier should have been checked by ministers before being released. The dossier had only been reviewed by a group of civil servants operating under Alastair Campbell. The committee stated that the publication was "almost wholly counter-productive" and in the event only served to undermine the credibility of the government's case.

    The controversy over the Iraq Dossier was mentioned frequently in the government's conflict with the BBC over the claim in the September Dossier that Iraq could deploy biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so, and the controversy surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly. Andrew Gilligan, the BBC journalist who wrote a report which claimed that the September Dossier had been deliberately exaggerated, stated before the Hutton Inquiry that recalling the February Dossier had led him to file his report based on his interview with Dr. Kelly without seeking confirmation from other sources. Whether or not the September Dossier was inconsistent with the original intelligence, it was altered in ways that made it inconsistent with itself.[9]



    "Fixing things" ... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Yman on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:38:41 PM EST
    ... is not something a POTUS should do when deciding whether to take out country to war and kill thousands/millions, whether he knowingly lied out just distorted the evidence to fit his agenda.

    Fixing things is just getting one's ducks (none / 0) (#127)
    by Green26 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:09:39 PM EST
    in a row, in my parlance. Note that it was not the US who said they were fixing things, so that was someone else's wording and interpretation. When decisions are made, or made in principal, or on the verge of being made--and things need to be marketed or approval obtained--many people and organizations line up their ducks. When the US wants approval of a UN resolution, and the decision is made to seek approval, you don't put in the contrary arguments. You put your best foot forward.

    Some of you must be in odd lines of work, if you think you don't present your best arguments when seeing approval or seeking to sell something.


    So you distort the evidence ... (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Yman on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:31:46 PM EST
    ... by presenting only the facts you like to support your agenda.  That's not the job of the POTUS when deciding to go to war.  If you think distorting the truth to falsely convince people of the need to go to war is just like trying to sell a car, you must be in an odd line of logic.

    But keep trying to parse.

    It's amusing.


    Speaking for myself only, ... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:59:58 PM EST
    ... I would never present any such arguments without first being sure that I can also offer supporting documentation to that effect, if and when called upon to do so. To do otherwise is, in a word, dishonest.

    The primary problem that ultimately confounded and tripped up the Bush administration in Iraq can be neatly summed up by the following -- and rather cynical, IMHO -- quote from Andrew Card, Bush's former White House chief of staff, who told the New York Times in September 2002 (and this article certainly bears re-reading, in light of the present discussion):

    "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

    As I said earlier, we were talking about a grave issue of war and peace -- and rather than engage the public on that mature level, the Bush administration consciously managed the discussion as though they were merely trying to sell us a new car.

    And while the Bush administration undoubtedly succeeded in the short term, and as a result got the war the president and vice president so desperately craved, that cynical and disingenuous approach ultimately has had some profoundly adverse consequences for them over the long run.

    There is a direct correlation between that administration's subsequent loss of institutional and personal credibility, and people's gradual but inevitable realization that they'd been had, once no WMD were found and Iraqi insurgents stepped up their violent efforts against the U.S.-British occupation.

    Once the public's blinders were blown away by Team Bush's catastrophically inept response to Hurricane Katrina in September 2005, it really didn't take long for people to then revisit the subject of the Iraq War. Thus, many Americans also discovered in retrospect that the proponents' arguments for invasion were actually much less compelling at second glance, than they were three years prior when Mr. Card's marketing plan was first offered for public consumption.



    Are you serious? (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:46:59 PM EST
    Green26: "Fixing things around a policy or decision to support the policy/decision is something that is done frequently in government ad business. That doesn't equate to lying and making stuff up."

    When arriving at important decisions in your own life, did you first decide what you wanted to do based upon nothing more than gut instinct or personal desire, and then cherry-pick your facts ex post facto to that decision, in order to convince yourself and family members that it was the right thing to do?

    If the president and his entire administration were not "lying and making stuff up" about Iraq, then how exactly would you characterize people who spoke with such authority and certitude about a very grave matter of war and peace, yet as we now know, had absolutely nothing in the way of concrete evidence to support any of their very serious charges and contentions?

    And what can you say in defense of a vice president who deliberately fed misleading information to a New York Times reporter about Iraq seeking / possessing weapons-grade uranium, then had the nerve to appear on the Sunday talk shows subsequent to the publication of her articles, and cite tose articles to the American people as evidence to that effect?

    These are no longer mere matters of speculation and conjecture, and speaking for myself only, I sure know what I'd call it.

    Given the more than considerable evidence that Congress and the American people were deliberately misled by the Bush administration into supporting a war of personal choice on the president's part, at an ultimate cost of 4,500 Americans killed and another 33,000 wounded -- not to mention the 1,500 contractors who were also killed and 43,000 of the same who were wounded -- at what point will you cease fooling your own self and stop defending what is so obviously indefensible?



    The US used much more than gut instinct (1.60 / 5) (#129)
    by Green26 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:13:45 PM EST
    and personal desire to make the Iraq decision. There were years of information and intelligence in the decisions. Then, they presented and sold what they thought was the best case. Many of the things stated by the US government had backing and support, and was in fact shared and believed by much of the western world. Jeez, do think Hillary and the dems who voted to go into Iraq had not looked at anything other what Bush and other top people had said?

    Some of you just can't look at the big picture. You are stuck cherry-picking things that support your view, and things that were learned after the fact.


    You are the one who (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by MKS on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:26:51 PM EST
    doesn't see the big picture.

    Iraq is an artificial construct of the West.   In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration supported Saddam Hussein because he was a check against Iran.  Thus, the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.

    Bush I understood that taking out Saddam Hussein would destabilize the Mid-East, and so he did not do that.

    Bush II and Cheney wanted a war against Iraq, and lied, yes, lied about the what the intelligence said.  So Bush invades Iraq and takes out the Baathist (Sunni) rulers.  Thus, Iran was immediately benefited.  

    With the Sunni Awakening, or the Sunni Chieftains turning on Sunni Al Qaeda, a lull ensued. But that occurred while the U.S. was running the show.  After the Shias take over and start marginalizing the Sunni, the country was bound to fly apart.  Again, Iraq was like Yugoslavia--a false construct bound to fragment once the lid of military rule and dictatorship was lifted.

    As to a residual U.S. force, there is no evidence that 10,000 troops (the actual number being discussed was 1,500)  would have made a difference.  Without Sunni co-operation, 100,000 U.S. troops could not keep the peace.  If we had 10,000 troops in Iraq, the most likely result given past history, would be our troops engulfed in a war, just like 2006.

    The CIA deputy chief who briefed Bush and Cheney said their representations to the American people about WMD were false.  That means they lied.


    MKS, the initial troop amounts being discussed (none / 0) (#150)
    by Green26 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 10:53:06 PM EST
    were at 50,000, then dropped, and dropped again, and ultimately to the very low number you mentioned. That low amount is cited by some as something Obama did intentially because he knew Maliki would lose interest and it would be not worth it for him to take agreement to his congress.

    "That low amount ... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Yman on Thu May 21, 2015 at 05:48:34 AM EST
    ... is cited by some" = BS that someone has no evidence to support, so they say "cited by some".

    You do a lot of mindreading (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:21:35 PM EST
    allowing you to fill in whatever you want....

    Lack evidence?  Just state as fact your opinion on someone else's state of mind.....gives you a blank canvas to state whatever.....

    The right wing does this a lot.


    (Sigh!) As I said above, ... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 09:58:02 PM EST
    ... the only person you're fooling here with your rather overly-laborious parsing is yourself. From my particular standpoint, you seem to be perpetually flummoxed by the question of whether the Iraq War was merely a mistake on the part of the Bush administration, or was a war crime as so many of us are otherwise contending here.

    That's probably because you're viewing and discussing both concepts as though they are somehow mutually exclusive, when they're actually not. Whereas, I'm offering that the Iraq War was both a serious mistake of overall conceptualization and physical execution, AND a serious war crime due to its patently false rationale and construct, and the disingenuous manner in which it was initially presented to Congress and the American people.

    Sadly but hardly surprising, the war's architects and proponents within the late Bush administration and the Republican Party have thus far studiously refused to take any responsibility whatsoever for the ensuing debacle, and instead seek to deflect it elsewhere, anywhere but where it should properly be.

    And at this point in time, these people have proved themselves utterly incapable of looking at the subject with any degree of rationality and objectivity, since they quite obviously have a dog in the hunt, and any admission of culpability to that effect on their part could have legal consequences.

    Therefore, it's simply foolish to look to them and somehow expect that some honest answers will be forthcoming from that quarter. Your apparent attempt to rewrite that history for their own selfish purposes is the hallmark of an enabler and an apologist, which fails to cast you in a very flattering light here.

    So, if you really seek the truth about Iraq as you claim to be doing, then you first need to open your eyes to the actual evidence that's laid out in front of you and follow it where it leads you, rather than continue to pound square pegs into round holes, as you're doing here.

    Because for anyone who's really and truly being honest with themselves, that evidence can lead them to no other conclusion than that:

    • The American people were clearly misled into accepting battle in Iraq under some appallingly false pretenses; and further
    • The repeated deceptions we endured en route to this profound tragedy were not merely the result of some honest mistakes by the Bush administration, but were instead due to some entirely deliberate and conscious choices on their part.


    Nobody has said (none / 0) (#181)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 21, 2015 at 09:24:45 AM EST
    that the Bush administration did not have some willing partners in their dance of deceit. They had no lack of them at the CIA
    Jeez, do think Hillary and the dems who voted to go into Iraq had not looked at anything other what Bush and other top people had said?
    well pretty much yes.

    Bob Graham no slouch when it comes to intelligence, requested the 2002 NIE. When it was delivered he was one of the few senators who read past the alarmist, incorrect statements of the summary to find

    that reading the full, classified 2002 NIE led him to vote against the war resolution. He had urged his colleagues to read the entire 92-page classified report prior to the vote. Graham said in a National Public Radio interview in June 2007 that he found the report to be "pocked with dissent, conditions, [and] minority opinions on a variety of critical issues."
    Hillary of course did not read it.

    History has proven that the conclusions of the conclusion of the NIE were absolutely false. The Senate committee that investigated found

    A groupthink dynamic led analysts, collectors and managers to interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program.
    Groupthink was so pervasive that formalized IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and groupthink were not utilized.
    In a few significant instances, the analysis in the Iraq NIE suffered from a "layering" effect whereby analysts based assessments on previous judgments without carrying forward the uncertainties of the underlying judgments.
    I will grant you that much of this groupthink already existed but the evidence overwhelming points to extreme efforts by the administration to force that group think to remain on their side even as the rationale for it was rapidly falling apart.

    Cherry picking maybe, but remember the Bush administration and their cronies in the intel agencies had the whole frigging bowl of cherries in front of them and every single one they picked was rotten, it seems to be that it would take  considerable effort to be that wrong. Do you really think George Tenant got the Medal of Freedom for being spectacularly wrong about everything?  


    Hans Blix issued two written reports (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by MKS on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:49:27 PM EST
    pre-invasion stating he could not find any WMD in spite of unfettered inspections.  He said he would need a few more weeks or months but less than a year to complete his inspections...

    Bush ran a PR campaign knowing that the evidence was not as he said.  That's a LIE.


    Yes, and part of (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 20, 2015 at 01:15:33 PM EST
    that campaign of scare tactics was to use the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction."   A conflation (blurring)  of chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons.  All scary, but that "capability" for a mushroom cloud that Condi Rice offered, that's worth an invasion. And, fast.  

    Saddam had (at one time) chemical weapons, had biological weapon "capabilities," and desired to "re-constitute" a nuclear weapons program (that desire included a desire to obtain the bogus yellow cake from Niger--known to be bogus one year before Bush put that ominous line in his state of the union speech).

     Of course, half of Iraq was a no-fly zone for over 10 years, UN inspectors were all over Iraq, but "mistakes were made."   But, here are some lies to explain that, from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."

    ABC's This Week, March 2003. Q. Is it curious to you that given how much control US and coalition forces now have in the country, they have not found any WMD?
    A. (Rummy): Not at all.  If you think-let me take that, both pieces --the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial.  It happens not to be the area where WMD were dispersed.  We know where they are.  They're in the areas around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.    


    Yeah, I remeber that (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by MKS on Wed May 20, 2015 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    Rummy saying the WMD were basically everywhere and nowhere...

    Blix did not say that Iraq did not have (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Green26 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:16:32 PM EST
    WMD's. In fact, he went out of his way not to say that. If he was so damn sure, what didn't he speak up louder and more clearly? Can you not see the difference between "we haven't found any WMD's" and "Iraq does not have any WMD's"? He knew what the US was planning to do. Why didn't he speak more forcefully? Probably because he knew he didn't know.

    Read the reports (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MKS on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:32:51 PM EST
    He published them in writing for all to see.  The Neocons refused to acknowledge what he said.

    Blix more than anything wanted more time to confirm his initial findings that there were no WMD.  But for Cheney saying that Iraq already had nukes, the American people would have waited for a few more months (Blix said he could finish within a year.) Then we would have known for sure there were no WMD at all, let  alone nukes.

    This was why the lie about nukes was so insidious and devious--we could not wait for more inspections; we had to invade now because as Cheney said Iraq already had nukes....


    This is Your Arguement ? (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 21, 2015 at 08:56:20 AM EST
    If he was so damn sure, what didn't he speak up louder and more clearly?
    Why didn't he speak more forcefully?

    His job was not to convince anyone, his job was to inspect Iraq for WMD's and put it in a report. He did his job, the people who ignored his reports did not do theirs.

    Green, it is painfully obvious you are not interested in the truth.  The rational you are using is wearing thinner and thinner, to the point of blaming the inspector for not speaking louder and more forcefully.

    That is shameful.  Not only were you deceived, now you are being complaint in that deceit by misplacing the blame onto people who do not, and never did, deserve it.


    "Probably" (none / 0) (#140)
    by Yman on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:34:21 PM EST
    The guy who's complaining about "cherry picking" facts has to resort to blaming Hans Blix while trying to read his mind.

    Now you're trying to be funny.


    Yes, you note the (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:37:30 PM EST
    very curious and prominent phenomenon of conservatives refusing to acknowledge clear facts....that contradict their beliefs.....

    We all can see that characteristic cut across many, many issues.


    I knew Bush was lying (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 20, 2015 at 10:00:38 AM EST
    The reason I began reading DailyKos was that it seemed to have more accurate information about the invasion of Iraq than the New York Times.

    Using the power of hindsight, I know now that DailyKos nailed every aspect of the fabrication.  DK called the lies what they were, and DK has been vindicated absolutely by facts that are now irrefutable.

    Using the power of hindsight, we also know that the NYT has surrendered any right to be the newspaper of record.

    That's the wonderful thing about the Internet.  You can compare what people said then to what they say now, and you can pay more attention to the people who were right about Iraq.  Like me and a few tens of millions other Americans.  Try it.


    At the time, (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by lentinel on Wed May 20, 2015 at 05:24:43 PM EST
    I did not personally know or run across ANYONE who believed what Bush was pitching.

    ... you tend to keep some rather exclusive company and not mingle personally with the masses.

    Because on the eve of our invasion of Iraq on March 2003, polls were showing that over 70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was harboring WMD and further, was likely behind the 9/11 atrocities.

    And in the wake of Baghdad's fall in May 2003, the same month that Bush prematurely declared "Mission Accomplished," a Gallup Poll found that 80% of Americans felt that our invasion of that country was justified, regardless of whether or not WMD were eventually found. Only 19% of respondents were then insisting that the Bush administration offer concrete evidence that Saddam had indeed possessed such weaponry.

    And even now, while a decisive majority of Americans now admit that the Iraq War was a mistake, some four in ten Americans still erroneously believe that weapons inspectors found WMD there, and that includes a clear majority of Republicans.



    I get out plenty (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:13:15 PM EST
    But my friends tend to be military vets and liberals, you know, people like myself.  People who are smarter than average and have experience in the real world.

    Even THEN I could not believe people like you were falling for a con as old as every bogus war provocation in history, from Poland and the Gulf of Tonkin to The War of Jenkins Ear.

    My mother, then 83 and now 95, who worked in the Liberty Ship yards during WW II, protested the invasion, so she knew more than you did.  She also told me in 1952 that Richard Nixon was a crook, so she has always been smarter than the general public.  Critical thinking runs in my family.  Sorry to hear about yours.

    Uncritical thinkers like yourself and everyone who thought invading Iraq was a good idea are what put our country in the mess it is in.

    Thanks for nothing.


    I certainly hope that ... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 10:12:48 PM EST
    Repack Rider: "Uncritical thinkers like yourself and everyone who thought invading Iraq was a good idea are what put our country in the mess it is in. Thanks for nothing."

    ... you're not talking to me. I opposed the Iraq War from the very moment it became readily apparent in the fall of 2002 that the Bush administration was not at all interested in determining conclusively whether or not Saddam had WMD and nuclear capability, but were instead determined to invade and occupy Iraq in any event.

    The Gallup Poll in March 2003 showed that Americans by and large not only supported the Iraq War but did so by a rather unambiguous and decisive margin. That is a basic and well-documented fact of history. Let's please not engage in a rewriting of that history for whatever our own political purposes, lest we show ourselves to be no more honest than the wingbats we decry.



    I don't understand the need to (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Anne on Thu May 21, 2015 at 06:45:51 AM EST
    berate someone, or call their lives into question, because they weren't buying what the Bush administration was selling; it just feels so gratuitously mean.

    There were a lot of people who weren't buying it - as Repack reminds you, there were people in the streets expressing their non-belief in many cities across the country. People wrote letters to the editor, called and e-mailed their elected representatives.  

    You've accused - insulted - lentinel by saying she must not get out much, but in fact, it may have been the people who only got their news from the networks and didn't get out much into the wider world of information who bought the sales pitch.  Where is your scorn for those people?

    I think you've got a bug up your butt about lentinel, Donald, and you may as well admit it.  You jumped all over her for not caring for Obama's overly-effusive remarks at the dedication of the GWB library - remarks that grated on my ears given his history.  "What else was he supposed to say?"  

    Well, there are platitudes, and then there are outright insults to one's intelligence and sensibilities, and Obama's remarks managed to cover all of those bases.  

    At a minimum, how about he not invoke on my behalf God's blessing of one of the worst presidents ever?  He stole an election, Obama's mistaken cowardice for courage, and seriously, if "love of country" is responsible for the Bush debacle, I guess we can be grateful he didn't love it more.


    Once again, (3.33 / 3) (#142)
    by lentinel on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:35:31 PM EST
    you have to resort to personal insult to make whatever point it is that you are trying to make.

    To whit:

    .. you tend to keep some rather exclusive company and not mingle personally with the masses.

    It is what you call, "the masses" to which I am referring.

    Cab drivers.
    Friends of mine.

    The only ones I was aware of who went for it were pundits and political operatives.

    If you wish to proudly proclaim that in your circle of acquaintances, you all went for it hook line and sinker, you are welcome to do so.


    Oh, go cry me a river, lentinel. (1.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 10:54:16 PM EST
    Your evidence is entirely anecdotal at best and further, it clearly flies in the face of what numerous polls strongly suggested contemporaneously to our 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    So, either you live in some exclusively liberal enclave that's just this side of Nirvana, a magical place where everyone thinks and believes just as you do, or many of the people with whom you're presently conversing are probably not being honest with you about the subject, perhaps because they've instead chosen to rationalize their own initial feelings subsequent to the event, in order to recast themselves in a more flattering intellectual light given what actually happened in Iraq.

    And that's no small wonder, since few people will readily admit in public without some prompting that they totally got it wrong back then, and / or acknowledge that they willingly got taken for a spin by our own president. That's why so many declared and prospective Republican presidential candidates are presently twisting themselves into pretzels while trying to explain their own respective positions regarding Iraq.

    So really, the notion that EVERYBODY you knew back then opposed the war and didn't believe the Bush administration's arguments for invasion is just this side of preposterous, IMHO. And that's because the odds of that actually being the case simply do not correlate statistically with the numerous public polls that were conducted on the question, both prior to the March 2003 invasion and after the seizure of Baghdad by U.S. forces and President Bush's declaration of "Mission Accomplished" less than two months later.

    72% of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003. So, if you honestly don't know ANY of these people, then as best as I can surmise from such an admission / claim:

    (1) You've been keeping some remarkably exclusive company during these past many years, since all your relatives, friends and acquaintances are members of that remaining 28% demographic; or

    (2) You have been and are currently living an extraordinarily cloistered existence, politically speaking; or

    (3) You've consciously or unconsciously chosen to block out everything and everyone that doesn't comport to your particular worldview.

    And in that regard, I say it's Door No. 3. Aloha.


    I don't bother with polls (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:17:37 PM EST
    ...to decide matters of fact.

    As I said, my then 83-y.o. mother was out on a corner with a couple of dozen other seniors holding protest signs.  Tens of thousands of people marched in the streets of San Francisco, millions across the country.  They got no coverage whatever.  The sane people were there in millions, but the media were in on the fix.

    I don't have to show you numbers to know how my family, friends and I felt.  We did everything we could to draw attention to the lies we knew were being told.

    I live in a county that voted 83% for Gore in 2000.  I guess it is a liberal enclave, so my experience with actual smart people may have spoiled me for caring what the ignorant and mostly wrong masses think.  I don't eat fast food or give a rip about the Kardashians either, which would be another example of being smarter than the "average" Americans represented in polls.


    ... any of the Bush administration's codswollop about WMD in Iraq, there were nevertheless an awful lot of people who swallowed that bait hook, line and sinker and gave the president their blessing to do what he subsequently did.

    And in that regard, we were certainly never going to convince those fellow Americans otherwise by deriding them publicly as little more than useful idiots, though in this instance they indeed behaved as such, by allowing themselves to be stampeded into supporting a war of choice on what amounted to nothing more than blind faith.

    Most people, myself included, really do want to trust their president on such vital matters of national security. And in that regard, once Bush had determined to abuse the trust given to him by the public after 9/11 for his own grievously shortsighted ends, there was really nothing that you and I could have done to stop it. All we could do was watch and protest, albeit helplessly.

    As maddening as it may be sometimes, our personal adherence and commitment to democratic principles requires us to accept the fact that the public enjoys the right to sometimes be wrong on a whole host of issues, some of which might be vitally important to our public well being. And sadly, this was not the first time that public opinion got things very wrong, nor will it be the last, I'm afraid.

    What we need to do in those instances is not to stand in self-righteous judgment of public ignorance or foolishness, even though it's often hard to not lament it. Rather, we ought to recognize that the public also enjoys the right to learn from and rectify their mistakes, and instead prepare for the inevitable time when our fellow citizens come to regret their errors.

    Finally, we dearly need to do a better job of ensuring that the public has all the readily available information during such momentous times of decision. That, IMHO, is the truly sad thing that happened with the Iraq War, because the Bush administration ensured that the public was either ignorant of key facts or else hopelessly confused, and thus everything was reduced to a matter of trust in our national leadership. And that's most always the case in any disastrous instance of public decision making.



    Well, I live in a state that's so blue ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 21, 2015 at 12:52:55 AM EST
    ... it's sometimes a wonder that we don't get lost within a map of the Pacific Ocean. Obama took over 70% of the popular vote in Hawaii during both the 2008 and 2012 elections. ;-D

    But I also recognize that public opinion in Hawaii isn't necessarily reflective of where the rest of the country might be as a whole at a given moment. And in 2003, we were not most definitely not in the majority. In the 1988 presidential election, we were one of only six states which went for Michael Dukakis.

    That subsequent events in Iraq later proved the minority opinion to be right is entirely beside the point in a democracy, where the majority rules in most any event. And whether that majority decides to be entirely bellicose and d*ck-swinging, or completely wimpy and subservient to its leadership's selfish interests, its prevailing opinion is generally going to hold sway. And that's what happened here.



    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by lentinel on Thu May 21, 2015 at 10:25:11 AM EST
    my "evidence" is anecdotal.
    I am recounting my experience.

    What I said was that every single person I ran into, if we discussed what Bush was up to, would unhesitatingly say, "what a bunch of b.s.".

    You are not in a position to question my experience.

    I also witnessed a huge demonstration in New York City -- where many thousands expressed their dismay at being railroaded by Bush, and his unthinking lackies in the media and in both political parties.

    The implication of my anecdote, which I suspect is what rankles you, is that, since so many "ordinary" citizens could see though the b.s., why is it that so few politicians in Congress could see through it --- or if they could see through it (as I believe Hillary did), or could have seen through it, why they went along with it anyway.

    Your reply is not a response..

    Nice reference to Monty Hall though.


    I think there are/were several things (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anne on Wed May 20, 2015 at 09:45:26 AM EST
    at work.

    One, these people were living in an echo chamber, or preaching to the choir, or however you want to call what happens when everyone's working toward the same goal, and there's not much in the way of disagreement.

    Two, there was a lot of ego attached to a lot of this; they really did believe in their own hype, that they were that brilliant that something like this could be engineered with surgical precision and be of limited investment of time, money and personnel.  Remember how we were told we were going to be greeted as liberators?  How this wasn't going to cost a lot because it was just a matter of getting in and getting Saddam?  For the rest of us, living in the real world, that made no sense, none.  

    Three, I think they took full advantage of the underlying suspicion that perhaps Saddam still had chemical and biological weapons, because he had a history of using them.  And when they tried to connect Saddam to al Qaeda and by extension to 9/11, they were able to inject just enough fear that people were willing to let them do just about anything as long as it kept us "safe."

    The whole thing makes more sense when you look at it through a lens distorted by power, ego and chutzpah - and because we're not looking through that same lens is why it doesn't make much sense to us.

    This was all so much more than just making mistakes; this was so much more deliberate, and that's what's so hard to take.


    Anne, I agree with most of what you said but (none / 0) (#50)
    by Green26 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:38:37 AM EST
    I still don't believe Bush et all didn't think Iraq had WMD's and that it was all a big lie. Had they known there were no WMD's, they could and would have chosen other justifications, as there were other ones. Yes, some things may have been deliberate, but, again, I don't believe the whole WMD's thing was deliberate. And yes, numerous mistakes, and some huge ones.

    I think in the sense that they knew the (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Anne on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    American people were terrified of another 9/11-style attack, the decision to make WMD the centerpiece of their sales pitch was quite deliberate.  They figured out what would sell, and they worked it until it was clear - to me, anyway - that we were going to war.  Period.

    It's possible they thought they would find them, eventually, and that they would be fully vindicated once they did, but persisting in that kind of thinking, to the exclusion of numerous reports that suggested it was going to be a fool's errand, was an insult to the American people and a betrayal of those who were asked to fight.


    Good observation (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:44:38 PM EST
    American people were terrified of another 9/11-style attack, the decision to make WMD the centerpiece of their sales pitch was quite deliberate.

    Cowardice is central to Republican values.

    Since 9/11 somewhere between 80 and 100 times as many Americans have died at the hands of other Americans, either with firearms, or drunk behind the wheel.

    My chances of being killed by a terrorist are less than the odds that I will be struck by lightning, but we spend hundreds of billions every year based on this minor threat.

    My chances of being killed by another American, either drunk or armed, are hundreds of times higher than the odds of my dying in a terrorist attack, but the government spends no significant money on these very real threats.

    Cowardice sells to conservatives, while liberal like me laugh at their fear.  I do not hide in my house because other Americans are drunk or armed.  If a terrorist wants to kill me, he will probably succeed, but I would rather take my chances in a free society than cower like a conservative.


    Green, the problem (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by FlJoe on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:31:36 PM EST
    with your analysis here:
    Had they known there were no WMD's, they could and would have chosen other justifications, as there were other ones
    is that they really had no other good reasons to sell the war, at least none that they could sell to the American people.
    Going to war because "Saddam is a bad guy" just wouldn't cut it, they created the Casus Belli and ran with it, truth be damned.

    Even If they were "lied" by the intelligence agencies it was "lies" that they themselves solicited. Cheney was  definitely not stalking the halls a Langley looking for a new heart:

    Michael Sulick, deputy chief of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, will later recall, "It was like they were hoping we'd find something buried in the files or come back with a different answer." As a result of these visits, Sulick believes that agency analysts became "overly eager to please.".....  According to Ray McGovern, a 27-year veteran CIA analyst, these visits were "unprecedented." ....... In 2006, author Craig Unger will call the visits "a highly irregular occurrence." ........ Former DIA analyst Patrick Lang will say: "Many, many of them [CIA analysts] have told me they were pressured



    Joe, I guess we don't agree on this. (none / 0) (#133)
    by Green26 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:24:13 PM EST
    I think Bush et al would have picked another reason or two, and sold it, if they thought there were no WMD's. I truly don't think they would just make this up. I also don't think that Cheney and a few others could magically make intelligence in multiple countries put out reports saying that Iraq had WMD's. That's just not plausible, in my view.

    I (none / 0) (#149)
    by FlJoe on Wed May 20, 2015 at 10:25:16 PM EST
    just don't see plausible alternative reasons that they could provide. Do you have any suggestions?

    I think that the idea that "the whole world thinks he has WMDs" canard has always been overstated. There was plenty of skepticism in most intelligence agencies. The "common wisdom" of the time was more politically driven then based on  any kind kind of hard intelligence.Obviously there was never any hard evidence of a program that didn't exist.

    Bush and Cheney kept insisting that they had hard evidence that did not exist, they knew it, they used it even after it was debunked. They lied.

    Even if you want to drink the kool-aid and believe that they were some how mislead by an incompetent, yet convincing intelligence community, You have to admit that the Al-Qaeda Saddam link that they pushed was a total fabrication, I know of know intelligence agency that believed that. They lied.


    The buck stops with the President, but (none / 0) (#55)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:00:40 PM EST
    what hasn't been discussed here is Cheney's role as Bush's top advisor. There's no question Cheney was almost consumed with the idea of taking out Saddam, so how truthful was the information he fed Bush? It was Cheney who spent more time at the CIA than he did in his own office. And, most of the reports I read indicated his time there was spent more in trying to get them to "bend" the facts to his preconceived desires, than in the actual facts.

    I wonder what the famous falling out between Bush & Cheney towards the end of his administration was all about? It felt to me that Bush had, finally, discovered that Cheney not only lied to the American public, but to the President himself.


    Incomplete (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:23:57 PM EST
    what hasn't been discussed here is Cheney's role as Bush's top adviser.

    As well as the fact that Cheney, former Chairman at Halliburton, was still getting more money from Halliburton than his VP pay, and that Halliburton came away with billions in profit from the war.

    Could have been a coincidence, I suppose.


    While (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:08:25 PM EST
    that all maybe true what does it say about George W. Bush? Certainly that either he wasn't bright enough or wordly enough to be president of the US if he couldn't check things out himself. I mean even his father's advisors were sending W. messages through the press DONT DO IT and why did he listen to Cheney instead of more knowledgable sources? I'm guessing because perhaps Cheney was telling him what he wanted to hear.

    And certainly Bush was told about Sadaam not having an assocication with Al Qaeda but continued to tell that lie for years afterwards.


    Cheney was beside himself (none / 0) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:12:27 PM EST
    when Bush would not grant a full pardon for Scooter Libby.  Only a commutation of sentence so as to avoid jail.

    That's true, and (none / 0) (#63)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    while the Valerie Plame betrayal didn't affect as many people as the Iraq debacle, it stands out, in my mind anyway, as an act so vile that words are simply inadequate to fully express it.

    Did you see that Judith Miller (I think), (none / 0) (#136)
    by Green26 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:30:42 PM EST
    whose testimony sunk Libby, recently realized her testimony had been mistaken? After she read someone's book recently, she realized that she had misinterpreted her notes from a conversation with Libby, and then incorrectly testified. I believe she was the only link to Libby having divulged Plame info prior to someone else divulging it. Also, I read that the independent prosecutor knew that someone else had divulged the Plame information previously, but didn't provide it to the defense. This article was from a conservative, so I take it with a grain of salt.

    Here's a story about the Wall St Journal article (none / 0) (#141)
    by Green26 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:34:23 PM EST
    Berkowitz's silly claims ... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Yman on Wed May 20, 2015 at 09:04:17 PM EST
    ... are funny.  But a WND article citing a WSJ article citing Judith Miller claiming she was "manipulated" is seriously funny.

    BTW - Being the first one to leak her name does not magically mean that other leakers are not guilty of doing the same thing.  her name was being put out during the same timeframe by several people in the administration.


    ... then she's obviously an even bigger fool than I've thus far ever credited her with being.

    ... President Bush was particularly incensed over the vice president's insistence that Scooter Libby be pardoned, because when the Valerie Plame story initially broke and a special counsel was appointed to investigate the leak, Bush had summoned both Libby and Karl Rove into the Oval Office and specifically asked them point-blank if they had anything to do with it, and they both categorically denied any involvement to his face.

    And because the facts as later presented by the special counsel clearly showed that Libby and Rove were at the very heart of the scandal, the fact that both men had lied to Bush about the matter is supposedly why -- according to these same insiders -- he refused to grant Libby a full pardon, even as he commuted his sentence, and why Rove was pressured / asked to resign.

    While such contentions are quite obviously self-serving in Bush's case, they also sound perfectly plausible.



    It would be interesting (none / 0) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 20, 2015 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    to ponder what Bush's response would have been had Libby/Rove fessed up and told him the truth.

    Or, what was once implied to be true, ... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 03:30:06 PM EST
    ... never really was in the first place. And you know, what's pi$$ing me off royally right now is the fact that at this late date, we're still having to suffer the disingenuous and poisonous musings about this entire sorry enterprise from the wretched likes of Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, John Bolton and Judith Miller.

    As a direct result of what these people did, nearly 37,000 American military personnel were killed and wounded in Iraq, all in the name of assuaging President Bush's ignorance and ego. May Heaven help the next pathetic wingbat who shows up here to defend these Grade-A a$$wipes, because he's likely going to find himself strung up and beat like a piñata.



    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 20, 2015 at 03:58:58 PM EST
    You show them facts. They move the goalposts or make excuses. Until the GOP can get over their love affair with George W. this is going to be the way it is. The far right 30% will never accept that Bush lied to them and that is the way that it is.

    Well, screw 'em all, Ga. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 05:08:24 PM EST
    I'm no longer even going to go through the pretense of being polite to these crackpots any more, because they really and truly don't deserve even that superficial level of respect. As the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once observed, there is nothing more dangerous in this world than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. These right-wing jackasses are placing the well being of the entire country at considerable risk.

    And then again, (none / 0) (#108)
    by lentinel on Wed May 20, 2015 at 05:33:17 PM EST
    there's good old Obama.

    Here's but one tasty quote from him - presuming to speak our all of our behalves. I'm sure you will feel it to be as heartwarming and accurate as I do:

    Mr. President, for your service, for your courage, for your sense of humor, and, most of all, for your love of country, thank you very much.  From all the citizens of the United States of America, God bless you.  And God bless these United States.  (Applause.)

    Full text here.

    These folks stick together - and the rest of us can go fkourselves.


    We're not talking about President Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 06:17:49 PM EST
    Rather, we're talking about the Republican right, and the run-up to the Iraq War.

    Regardless of whatever you choose to think about Obama -- and speaking for myself only, I believe that given the totality of your comments about the man over the years, your hatred of him borders on pathological -- the two are not interchangeable.



    Once again, (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by lentinel on Wed May 20, 2015 at 06:37:04 PM EST
    you impose yourself as moderator.

    I am referring to a specific text - in which the current President is extolling the man that you and others including myself have excoriated.

    It is, I believe, my right to do so on this forum.


    Look, if you want to babble on about ... (3.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 06:57:06 PM EST
    ... the resident evil that's Barack Obama, then please, go ahead and knock yourself out. Just be advised, the fact that you've already been doing so here on an all-but-daily basis for years now doesn't make your hate-oozing rants about the guy any more reality-based or coherent.

    I get it, lentinel -- you really, REALLY don't like him. But as long as you continue to purposefully single out the man for often no other reason than to satisfy your daily fix of Obama-bashing, you can expect me to respond in kind by pointing out that you're really no different than our other resident Obamaphobe -- you know, the guy who insists that global warming is all somehow a liberal hoax.

    In that regard, as long as you two are determined to reside in the Obamapaloozaland of your own respective but equally fevered imaginations, you are indeed the company you keep.



    You like (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by lentinel on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:27:59 PM EST
    to change the subject, and then emote.

    The subject to which I was responding was about how Republicans have not been able to come to grips with the horror that was the Bush presidency. And to the manner in which he embroiled us in a cruel and unjust war.

    I don't believe that Democrats in the Obama mold have come to grips with it either. And I hold Obama at least partially responsible for that.
    He gave us a bs "move on" mantra - when what we needed was a clear call for accountability.


    PS. I suggest you read the speech to which I linked. That was my subject. Maybe you agree with what Obama said. If so, you are free to say so.


    Oh, for crying out loud, lentinel! (2.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:08:34 PM EST
    Were you born yesterday? President Obama was speaking at the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Library in Dallas, TX, which was an entirely ceremonial occasion. Of course, it's going to be a kiss-a$$ speech.

    Seriously, what would you have had Obama say publicly to the attendees at that particular event -- that his predecessor was a lying sack of crap who should be on trial in The Hague for crimes against humanity, rather than hosting his own library's opening gala?

    You really need to get a better grasp on reality.


    Here's the key 2002 US CIA intelligence report (none / 0) (#153)
    by Green26 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:07:53 PM EST
    and a quote from the beginning. Looks like plenty of support for WMD's here. Happy reading.

    "Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions.  Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as
    well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.    
    Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq's WMD efforts.  
    Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.  
    Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons;
    most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

    • Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled.
    • Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
    • Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
    • Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them."

    Full report.

    Clearly, you are not someone with whom ... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:10:51 PM EST
    ... we can rightfully expect to have a serious and substantive conversation on the subject.

    Have a nice evening.


    In that case (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:24:01 PM EST
    ...you must be aware that nothing in that "report" was true.

    But it only cost $2T to find out.

    Thought experiment: if you screwed up at work, and your screw-up cost $2T and killed 4000 of your colleagues along with 100,000 people who weren't your colleagues, would you be asked to explain why you were wrong, what sources you used, and what could be done to prevent the same thing from happening again?

    (IOKIYAR is not an answer.)


    Amen, brother. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 21, 2015 at 12:02:42 AM EST
    But I really don't think we're going to get an honest answer from the Greenmeister, even though it was good that you said it. We can only hope that one day, he'll really and truly get it -- finally. And then, well, better late than never.

    Aloha. I'm calling it an evening.


    That CIA report shows that there was (none / 0) (#163)
    by Green26 on Thu May 21, 2015 at 05:33:45 AM EST
    considerable belief and support for Iraq having WMD's. Some of you act like Bush and Cheney just make up the intelligence, and the whole world then produced similar intelligence. They didn't. Yes, it turned out that Iraq didn't have WMD's. That doesn't mean the CIA report, and many others like it, were a lie. Some of you seem to want to us to believe that Bush, Cheney and some neocons wanted to get rid of Saddam, so they magically got US intelligence and the intelligence arms and heads of state of many western countries to produce the same or similar lies about Iraq having WMD's. Sorry, I just don't believe that. Cheney might have been a strong VP, but I don't believe he was capable of having the intelligence arms of the US and other countries to tell a lie for him.

    Repack, I don't understand your point. Bush, Cheney, etc. are no longer in office. They've paid a significant price. The Iraq war decision still haunts republicans.


    Funny... (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 21, 2015 at 09:01:39 AM EST
    ...I notice how you don't specifically state that it haunts Bush and Cheney.
    Repack, I don't understand your point. Bush, Cheney, etc. are no longer in office. They've paid a significant price. The Iraq war decision still haunts republicans.

    What price have the two paid, exactly ?


    Scott, if it makes you happy (2.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Green26 on Thu May 21, 2015 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    yes, haunts Bush and Cheney too. Thought that was so clear that it didn't have to be said, but I guess I can't take anything for granted around here.

    Cheney and Bush "haunted" by (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by MKS on Thu May 21, 2015 at 11:18:18 AM EST
    the lack of WMD?

    There is no evidence of that at all.  Cheney in particular takes an in-your-face tack.....

    Show me any evidence that Bush or Cheney has any regrets at all.

    You are just making up stuff....


    Cheney wasn't popular enough (none / 0) (#176)
    by CST on Thu May 21, 2015 at 09:09:18 AM EST
    to run for president.

    The poor thing.


    Beg to differ (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by Repack Rider on Thu May 21, 2015 at 09:41:53 AM EST
    That CIA Report shows that there was considerable belief and support for Iraq having WMD's.

    How was it then that so many of us were better informed than the CIA?

    Easy.  As I pointed out, that's when I started reading DailyKos, because DK was the first to bust Colin Powell for lying to the UN, and the bust was made before he even finished speaking.

    That was interesting, I thought.  Why did General Powell feel he had to lie?  Then there was G.W. Bush, changing the rationale for the invasion.  He was going to demand a "whip count" in the UN to support the invasion, then realized he would lose that vote.  So it didn't happen.

    Then there was Hans Blix, making it clear that he had found no WMD.  Mr. Bush ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, while SADDAM INVITED THEM TO STAY.

    Then there was Ambassador Wilson, who wrote an op-ed to point out that Bush had lied about yellow cake from Niger.

    And of course we had heard a year earlier that G.W. Bush had burst into a room in the White House where several senators were meeting, and told them excitedly "F#ck Saddam!  We're taking him out!"  Apparently it was settled then, and only the excuse was in doubt.

    In short, so many people were lying, and had their lies exposed, at least in the media I was reading, that once again I will point out that I could not believe anyone, especially a majority, would fall for such crap.

    I didn't have the benefit of hindsight then, but we both do now.  Was DK right?  Yes.  Was the CIA wrong?  Yes.  Would any sentient being trust a "CIA Report" in the future?  Not this one.

    So please do not feed me the crap about the CIA.  I didn't have a security clearance, neither did millions of others, but we figured it out.

    I said then that there were no WMD.  Was I right about that?  Was the CIA wrong?  Why didn't anyone at the CIA lose a job?  Why isn't somebody who was RIGHT now in charge of the CIA?


    Yes, repack, much in the report (none / 0) (#193)
    by Green26 on Thu May 21, 2015 at 10:58:52 AM EST
    was not accurate. Still doesn't mean that the everything the CIA said in the report was a lie. That's been the whole point of my discussion. You can point to certain things that certain people said as untrue or completely untrue, and perhaps make a case that it may have been a lie (as opposed to a mistake), but I don't see any validity or support for saying the CIA report, and similar reports/conclusions from around the world, were lies.

    The George Castanza defense (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Repack Rider on Thu May 21, 2015 at 11:44:50 AM EST
    "It's not a lie if you actually believe it."

    You do your best to parse the fact that the CIA report was WRONG.  At the same time you avoid addressing the fact that millions of Americans, without benefit of security clearances, were better informed on the WMD than the CIA.

    The CIA said Iraq had WMD.  All the real-time, not hindsight, evidence I looked at indicated that this was a lie.  Not "wrong."  A lie.

    Which of us was right, the CIA or the people who said there were no such WMD?

    THERE WERE NO WMD.  Do you think it matters to the taxpayers and the dead people whether it was a "simple screw-up" or a lie?  Do you believe that the American taxpayers deserve accurate intel?

    If, as you say, it was just a "mistake" ($2T, 100,000+ dead), why was there no analysis of how such a mistake came to be, who made it, and what might be done to prevent such "mistakes" in the future.  I submit that the failure to act as though it was really a "mistake" by making such inquiries gives away the store.  Anyone who made a "mistake" that bad would have been pilloried in public to protect Dubya's backside.

    What is your BEST GUESS as to how I, my mother and millions of other Americans were able to discern that what we were being told was not the truth?


    The crux (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 20, 2015 at 10:17:48 AM EST
    of this is it is a huge problem for the GOP going forward. The GOP continues to make excuse after excuse after excuse for George W. Bush and even something like 2/3 of Republicans think we actually found WMD's in Iraq. The GOP itself is making the case that they should never be trusted to make another foreign policy decision.

    So you have the GOP base who actually votes in the primaries believing every crazy thing George W. said about Iraq and then you have the candidates trying to reconcile that with the fact that about 70% of the country thinks it was a mistake. Therefore you have a bunch of Republicans twisting themselves into a pretzel and trying to weasel their way around this issue and in the process looking like a bunch of idiots.


    When no amount of evidence (none / 0) (#85)
    by christinep on Wed May 20, 2015 at 01:55:23 PM EST
    When you want to believe something--particularly a situation or circumstances that may have shaped a central belief system as to war and politics--it can be the case that you will not accept any contradictory information.  A person who has invested time and self in holding to a belief or narrative that facts lately prove to be false or unlikely or highly suspect has a real dilemma ... because the longer a discredited conviction is clung to the harder it is to release the hold without feeling stunning personal loss.

     Think about societies that have been notoriously misled and lied to--Germany and Japan in the WWII era may be foremost as examples of societies that had to learn/re-learn the facts leading to defeat.  While the factual non-truths and/or lies preceding the Iraq War cannot be compared to WWII in scope and intent, the populace of Japan & Germany had to learn and did learn that an emperor was not a sun deity and that Jews were factually subjected to genocide. Yet, they had to learn (and did) for any societal healing and progress to occur.

    It is difficult to read your comments Green26 without wondering whether you are simply locked into what you wanted to believe in 2003 OR whether you will one day open to the facts-on-the-ground. One telling thing about the narrative to which you hold is your insistence about what all the world believed then ... in that regard, consider well the UN report(s) issued by Hans Blix and armament experts <to which MKS refers here.>  IMO, the Blix report and testimony about the unfettered international inspections-- coupled later with the info about Niger from former Amb. Joseph Wilson and CIA operative Valerie Plame--reveals more about the warlike intentions of the Bush administration than most arguments combined.  Essentially, Bush & Co. did not want to hear anything that didn't support the march to war.  At the very least, that beans-in-the-ears approach can only be characterized as reckless disregard of the facts while sending soldiers to face injury or death in a foreign conflict.

    Politics aside ... Wherever you eventually find yourself in the matter of the Iraq War, bear in mind that even my Catholic Church came to accept--after a few hundred years--that Galileo was right and should not have been excommunicated for his finding that our Earth revolves around the Sun in contrast to earlier faulty belief.  We can all learn and change, if we want.


    To the Bostonians at TL: (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 19, 2015 at 08:18:53 PM EST
    What's up with Boston's bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics? According to this article in the Los Angeles Times, rumor has it that the bid could potentially be in trouble:

    "Boston's campaign has suffered from consistently low support among residents and did not get any help from comments made by a USOC member speaking before the Boston City Council this week. Angela Ruggiero said there was 'no guarantee' the USOC would stick with Boston when the deadline for bid applications comes around this fall. The USOC quickly backtracked, saying it remained fully committed to its selection."

    I really believed that Boston was an inspired choice for the USOC, when it was first announced. Is the city actually going to meet the upcoming deadline for its formal bid? I initially figured here that someone was merely blowing smoke up the L.A. Times' a$$, but now Boston's WCVB-TV News is basically reporting the same thing, which is that the USOC is apparently having second thoughts.

    It would be a shame if that's true.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jbindc on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    They are feeling deflated and just not up to it.

    Well played... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:33:21 PM EST
    and if you deprive the Olympic Torch of air, it will extinguish.

    We had a hell of a winter (none / 0) (#170)
    by CST on Thu May 21, 2015 at 08:46:35 AM EST
    Where our infrastructure failed miserably and spectacularly.  As soon as that happened support for the Olympics plummeted.

    The city is growing faster now than it has in my lifetime.

    It's a small city, space is already a huge issue, and a lot of people aren't willing to give up what room we do have to the IOC.  Not to mention, they're not exactly known to be honest brokers.

    Personally - the infrastructure issue is the one reason I would support the Olympics, as it may provide the funding (and more importantly political will) to make the massive changes necessary for the city.  But it's a hard sell these days.


    Hostings the Olympics is a (none / 0) (#7)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 19, 2015 at 08:48:59 PM EST
    costly venture for cities. The host city ends up on the hook for the costs of building the needed venues and other hosting duties. And all too often the structures built for the Games are good only for the games. Useless to the city afterward.

    If I lived in Boston I doubt I would support the city's bid to host.

    Yeah, but the runup to the inevitable fiscal (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mr Natural on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:04:33 PM EST
    fiasco provides full time employment for real estate industry parasites and consultants, peddling TIF and other equally destructive preferential tax treatments, to insure that those who do make out like bandits do so precisely because they bear none, or as little as possible, of the financial risk.  Some people will get a bit of employment during the building.  JOBS, the promoters intone.  Other people get part time service gigs while the cameras and athletes and crowds are in town.  A public accounting firm will rake in big bucks disguising the real cost from the local taxpayers.  Another will rake in big bucks pretending to audit the first.  Sports business as usual.

    Here's a good short column (none / 0) (#27)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 19, 2015 at 11:10:53 PM EST
    on the subject:

    The good news is that municipal and state decision-making, which may be gridlocked under normal circumstances, is forced to overcome political bickering to approve financing for construction projects. Some of these projects may be long-delayed, needed improvements to the city's infrastructure. Hosting the Olympics may catalyze their undertaking. Insofar as the Olympics impels cities to finally do what was long overdue, hosting the games has a potential benefit. Such a potential benefit is more alluring to a less developed city, such as Athens, than to a fully developed and congested city, such as London or New York. Athens, after all, lacked a modern communications infrastructure and had significant deficiencies in its transportation infrastructure.

    The challenge here is that the environment in which the preparations for the Games takes place is not conducive to rational, effective planning. Sports venues and stadiums must be built and infrastructure serving those edifices takes priority. The other challenge is that the budget, initially bloated, only grows over time as construction costs escalate over the ten-year preparation period, bells and whistles are inevitably added, and initial drawings are revealed to be overly optimistic.

    Once the 17-day extravaganza is over, the city must then attempt to find productive use of the dozens of venues it has built. These projects often cost hundreds-of-millions of dollars to construct, take up 10 to 20 acres of valuable urban real estate (frequently for decades), and cost tens-of-millions of dollars to maintain each year. Despite this, many of these former Olympic venues are scarcely used, as is the case with Beijing's Bird's Nest and Water Cube, or many of the venues built for the Athens games. The list of white elephants is long.

    The economy right now (none / 0) (#172)
    by CST on Thu May 21, 2015 at 08:51:38 AM EST
    Especially in real estate is already taking off.

    You have a situation right now where the places they want to put Olympic events are already being developed.  And there's not a whole lot of space for much else.

    It's not like the city is in desperate need of more sport facilities.

    The only real upside I can think of is infrastructure improvements.  But a lot of people think of it differently (ie. our infrastructure fails now, how will it handle the Olympics).


    Too many babies. Birth rate for (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:06:29 PM EST
    active duty females is higher than for civilian females. Congressional remedy:  birth control. See today's NYT.

    Wait - who is going to pay (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:14:21 PM EST
    for the birth control?

    I thought the majority Republican Congress was fighting paying for women to get  birth control.


    Your federal tax dollars. (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:36:37 PM EST
    It's called situational ethics!

    Yes, The Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:26:10 PM EST
    have a "firmly held belief" in situational ethics.   This is the part of that situation:  Active duty servicewomen have coverage without co-pays through Tricare.  Family members who are not on active duty have access to birth control products at no charge in military pharmacies and may have minimal co-payments at retail outlets or mail order.   And, the House bill also says women should, whenever possible, have access to "a sufficient supply" that will last for their entire deployment.

    I'm looking at the Times (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mr Natural on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:14:06 PM EST
    So, before I move to the front page, here's a story about a wedding Justice Ginsberg handled yesterday, despite Preacherman Franklin Grahams' fervent facebook prayers.

    Here's your article.

    Lawmakers Back Broader Access to Contraceptives for Women in the Military


    Justice Ginsburg (none / 0) (#23)
    by Peter G on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:15:35 PM EST
    not "Ginsberg"

    Though... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kdog on Wed May 20, 2015 at 09:44:30 AM EST
    Alan Ginsberg would have made an interesting SC Justice.  I can hear the opinion now...

    I saw the lawmakers of my generation destroyed by madness, fat hysterical naked, dragging themselves through K Street at dawn looking for a money fix, and devilheaded lobbyists burning for the ancient corrupt connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of the state


    A phive four that Howell, kdog, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:40:03 AM EST
    evun iff eye kant spel itt.

    Spelling is over-rated... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:46:08 AM EST
    misspelling can inspire Mr. Natty!

    Well, even though I agree with that sentiment (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Peter G on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:19:19 PM EST
    to some extent, it doesn't apply to people's names. Spelling folks' names right is an expression of respect.

    True Peter... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by kdog on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:37:28 PM EST
    but an honest spelling mistake isn't necessarily disrespectful.

    Now when I spell US Rep. Jim Senselessbrenner, that's disrespectful and intentional;)  


    lol, of course, and its always (none / 0) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:25:57 PM EST
    amused me how many job applicants haven't gotten that message when botching the name of the employment official they send their resume to.

    Your take-off on Howl (none / 0) (#80)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 20, 2015 at 01:27:22 PM EST
    gave me an idea, Kdog.  I've been looking for a way to mock a local pol named Sam.

    I'm going with Dr. Seuss.

    I do not like your half a$$ed scams; I do not like them, Sam I Am.  blah blah blah

    Come to think of it, Dr. Seuss is too good for this bozo.


    Cab Calloway?... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Wed May 20, 2015 at 01:33:39 PM EST
    Folks here's a story about Sammy the Scammer...

    Hungry veteran... (none / 0) (#19)
    by desertswine on Tue May 19, 2015 at 09:24:57 PM EST
    calls 911 for food.  It's wonderful that there are operators like the one who answered his call for help.  It's a shame that he had to make it.

    What a sad (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 20, 2015 at 07:06:17 AM EST
    embarrasing story that is.

    Calling fishcamp (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 19, 2015 at 10:23:59 PM EST
    I have a Florida Keys report.

    What's up CG? (none / 0) (#30)
    by fishcamp on Wed May 20, 2015 at 07:00:37 AM EST
    Probably the best fish sandwich ever (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 20, 2015 at 07:43:36 AM EST
    The yellowtail sandwich at Lazy Days in Islamorada may be the best damn fish sandwich ever.

    Thanks for the suggestion.


    No, That's not the best fish sandwich (none / 0) (#37)
    by scribe on Wed May 20, 2015 at 09:02:46 AM EST
    in the world.  The title for that goes to a little seaside place about halfway up the coast of Maine, where the fried haddock sandwich rules.

    If I ever run the coast of Maine (none / 0) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 20, 2015 at 10:31:56 AM EST
    I'll be sure to find the name of the place and give it a try so as to offer a valid comparison.

    Hey now, how did you do? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 20, 2015 at 02:51:21 PM EST
    Still alive to talk about it (none / 0) (#107)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 20, 2015 at 05:26:06 PM EST
    Took the age group which wasn't difficult since half my age group were DNS's due to the heat. Temps made it up to 91. Serious leg cramping took a toll from about mile 26-36. I'm guessing full recovery is getting close. Ran on Saturday and I think it's Wednesday lol.

    That's why they run the race.

    The past several months have been pretty low mileage for me, due to other commitments, but you are inspiring me to get back up where I belong!


    Double Standard with Waco (none / 0) (#57)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:08:06 PM EST
    Yesterday, the NYT, in a headline on the front page (above the fold), referred to the incident in Waco as a "melee".


    I cannot imagine that word being used if the participants were black, brown or people we describe as "terrorists", who are also almost always black and brown.

    Can you imagine the NYT describing an incident with ISIS that resulted in the death of nine people as a melee?

    Or how about a conflict between rival gangs in East LA that resulted in nine deaths?

    In many ways, this type of insidious racism is more damaging than the recent police shootings.  Because this is the cultural background noise that causes black people to need a video to be believed.

    It's one of the reasons I'm against police body cams.  There's a much easier solution:  Start believing black people.

    I'm not one to shouts "racism!" as a matter of course.  But this one was so blatant, and insidious, that I couldn't let it pass without comment.  

    "I'm not one to shout racism!" (none / 0) (#62)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:20:08 PM EST
    and yet that's exactly what you are doing.

    And yes, a melee is an excellent description. I've never heard of participants in a bar fight described as terrorists.

    You're reaching so far on this one you might fall overboard.


    Terrorist... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kdog on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:44:15 PM EST
    is a stretch, I concur...if they were black/brown, it would be thugs rioting or something like that as a description.  Not a melee.

    And if they were white college kids rioting after a big bowl win, they'd be...umm, good kids with behavioral challenges or something like that.


    Also look at the first paragraph... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 20, 2015 at 03:34:53 PM EST

    In the denim-and-leather world of Texas motorcycle gangs, the Bandidos and Cossacks are warring tribes in a unforgiving landscape.

    That could be an article about a fashion show.  Or even an art exhibit.

    Compare it to the opening of the Nigeria story to the right:

    Hundreds of women and girls captured by Boko Haram have been raped, many repeatedly, in what officials and relief workers describe as a deliberate strategy to dominate rural residents and possibly even create a new generation of Islamic militants in Nigeria.

    The ISIS story to the left is similarly full of yellow journalistic scare tactics.


    Because (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Wed May 20, 2015 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    "Melee" means "a confused, hand to hand fight among several people,". While " riot" is defined as, "a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting another group..."  (or, "a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes.")

    They aren't even remotely the same thing.


    In this instance, both terms are correct. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 01:30:35 PM EST
    "Melee," according to Merriam-Webster, is generally defined as "a confused struggle or fight involving many people." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Merriam-Webster's full definition of the term is "a confused struggle; especially, a hand to hand fight among several people," in which that latter phrase is cited as a common example of the term, hence the use of the semi-colon and italicizing of "especially." Thus, a melee can involve several people, or it can involve many more.

    A bar / parking lot brawl stemming from a blood feud between rival gangs is not necessarily a "riot" although in this particular case, given its sheer magnitude involving upwards of a couple hundred bikers and scores of police, that term is most certainly applicable, too.



    OMGF (none / 0) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 20, 2015 at 02:03:52 PM EST
    I'm not one to shouts "racism!" as a matter of course.

    Then why are you ?

    Just for fun I Googled NYT and melee:

    • Review: 'The Hobbit' Wraps With a Middle-Earth Melee
    • Police Hunt for 6 in Brooklyn Bridge Protest Melee
    • Police Investigate Death of Unarmed Man in Melee
    • Toy Factory Melee Set Off Western China Violence

    There are literally hundreds of instances in which the NYT used the word in a headline.

    Just because you can't imagine them using the word doesn't mean they don't.  Seem like the problem is your imagination rather than the Times' use of a word you think has some sort of racial tone.

    FYI, most of my first person shooter games have 'melee attack' as one or the hand to hand combat functions.

    Get a grip.


    we are a big pup tent (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 20, 2015 at 04:04:21 PM EST
    Pastor Matt Makela, a married father of five, reportedly routinely argued gay people should sublimate their same-sex desires-while he was simultaneously chatting up guys on the app.

    In the screenshotted messages, published by Queerty, the good rev tells a potential date, "I love making out naked. Oral and massage. And i top. Also love to cuddle." Meanwhile, publicly, on his now-deleted Facebook page, he compared homosexuality to alcoholism and posited less-than-charitable views about transgender people...

    According to Queerty, Makela did confirm the Grindr profile is real but declined to comment beyond that. He's reportedly resigned from his associate pastor job at St. John's church.

    In the meantime, the church is urging its congregation not to read or turn on the television so that they might avoid inadvertently discovering what happened to that nice pastor man.

    And meanwhile, south of the border, ... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 07:45:07 PM EST
    ... down Argentine way -- you know, the place where former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was last seen hiking the Appalachian Trail:

    The Daily Beast | May 20, 2015
    Argentine Judges Dismiss Rape of 6-Year-Old Because Child Is "Gay" -- "Two judges in Argentina decided that a soccer coach who raped a 6-year-old boy shouldn't be held entirely responsible because the child had already been traumatized by previous alleged abuse -- and because he supposedly showed 'homosexual tendencies.' The ruling, which was sealed when it came down last year but was leaked to the press, has caused an uproar in Argentina. It has also revealed a pair of judges with a long record of reducing sentences for sexual and gender-based crimes, including justifying a pastor's rape of two teenage girls because they belonged to a lower economic class."



    Holy sh!t (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 20, 2015 at 07:53:18 PM EST
    thats a job for Dexter.  

    Probably just doing research. (none / 0) (#110)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 20, 2015 at 05:57:03 PM EST

    What do you think the odds are ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 07:12:05 PM EST
    ... that the good reverend will actually use that as an excuse? I think better than even.

    Schadenfreude can sometimes be oh so sweet in such circumstances. I still get a chuckle over then-CA State Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield), who led the charge on getting Prop. 8 qualified for the ballot, only to be pulled over after the election for DUI, in the company of a rentboy he picked up at a gay nightclub in Sacramento.

    Asburn was subsequently outed as a result of that arrest, and the right's pathetic whining afterward about him being an imaginary victim of some non-existent gay witch hunt only rendered it more of a garish spectacle that it already was.

    And Schadenfreude got a double-down when Ashburn himself sheepishly and finally admitted that yes, he was gay -- but that he only led the charge on Prop. 8 because his Bakersfield constituents are so incredibly narrow-minded and bigoted, they'd expect nothing less from him.

    Now, I don't believe in outing people as a general rule, because I think that's a decision which under normal circumstances should be left exclusively to an LGBT individual.

    But in cases like these, the vile hypocrisy of such people compels me to gladly make an exception for them -- as I did for our former Republican governor, a closeted lesbian who was involved in a personal relationship with her own Health Dept. director, yet still vetoed a reciprocal beneficiaries bill passed by our legislature in 2009, which would've conferred all the rights of marriage to LGBT couples without calling "marriage." They should get what they deserve.



    Never been big on outing (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 20, 2015 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    except in cases like the ones you mention.   In those it's a wonderful thing.  

    My favorite part of that (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 20, 2015 at 07:38:55 PM EST
    is the last paragraph.  Cause you know, teenagers being what they are, the odds are great that someone is going to be hearing, "Mooooom,  isn't this Pastor Matt?  It sure looks like him.  Wow, he shaves his pubes!"

    And just so everyone can see what ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 07:52:55 PM EST
    ... we're talking about, here's the article in Gawker, complete with photos from the good reverend's Grindr profile.

    I can only imagine that all the repressed young teenaged girls in his now-former congregation would stare at that and say, "Wow, what a sick and perverted hunka hunka burnin' love."



    Ha (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 20, 2015 at 07:54:51 PM EST
    i was avoiding that because I think he looks like a doofus with his clothes on or off.

    Well, for the record, I think he does, too. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:57:03 PM EST
    But then, beauty is always in the eyes of its beholder, isn't it? In that regard, I bet there were probably more than a few gay guys willing to partake in an unholy communion with the good Rev. Matt, so to speak.

    You know, maybe it's either due to my age (54) or my own personal reticence on such matters, but I've never really totally understood or gotten the appeal of cybersex, sexting, etc. But given how many people engage in those sorts of activities, and while it's certainly not my place to judge others in that respect, I honestly don't think many of them quite grasp the potentially adverse consequences of their online proclivities, even in the wake of Anthony Weiner's dicpix, etc.

    I had to talk to my then-18-year-old nephew a few years ago, because he had foolishly posted a photo of himself from some high school party, holding a rolled-up dollar bill to his nose with his face bent down toward a mirror and several lines of coke, all in plain view. (And he should consider himself lucky that it was me who discovered that particular online post, and not my brother or sister-in-law.) That's why I always warned the girls to be very careful and fully cognizant of what they chose to post online to Facebook, et al.

    Because the following bears repeating, even here: Once you throw this stuff out there into the ether, it's going to be floating out there in perpetuity even if you eventually delete it from your page, thread, etc. And it can come back to haunt you at some future date and inconvenient occasion, when you neither expect nor welcome someone else perusing your personal retrospective of private times past.



    The pastor (none / 0) (#126)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:03:09 PM EST
    is a sad and seemingly tormented soul. But, my empathy for him is not extensive.  HIs anti-gay preaching, including his comparisons to alcoholism, is damaging.   And, then there is that congregation.

    It's easy to think so (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:20:47 PM EST
    but honestly I don't think so on this case.  Take a good look at those pics.   IMO that is not a tormented man.  I have known tormented men.
    Just because a person leads a double life and is a lying two faces a-hole doesn't necessarily mean they are not perfectly happy with that or are even the tiniest bit conflicted about the lies and the pain they cause to others.   As long as they get what the want.  I've know them too.

    Oh I don't doubt he will be very sorry now.

    I have zero sympathy for that person.   Zero.


    This (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:32:52 PM EST
    guy really sounds like a fleece the rubes kind of guy. He was telling his congregation what they wanted to hear and then was doing what he wanted. So yeah, I'm not seeing this guy as tortured in the least. I see him as a flim flam man.

    Pan (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 20, 2015 at 08:02:10 PM EST
    It makes me a bit sad that the version I believe to be the best Peter Pan

    which happens to be the one I worked on in 2003-4

    Is probably about to be supplanted by a better one

    Pan is an upcoming 2015 British-American fantasy film directed by Joe Wright. It stars Hugh Jackman, Garrett Hedlund, Rooney Mara, Amanda Seyfried, and Levi Miller as the titular character. It is an origin story of Peter Pan and Captain Hook.

    This thug (none / 0) (#167)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu May 21, 2015 at 08:25:02 AM EST
    thought he got away with it but he's now kicking himself in the ### for not doing what his momma probably told him:

    EAT THE CRUST -- it's good for you.

    Maybe they can save it for him and serve it to him for his last meal.

    You really love that word don't you? (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 21, 2015 at 08:38:41 AM EST

    It's like, everyone know what I mean but I dont have to actually say it.   It's so cool!!!!!


    Can you (none / 0) (#169)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu May 21, 2015 at 08:45:32 AM EST
    suggest a more appropriate word for this lowlife?

    Why don't you just use the word of choice (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 21, 2015 at 08:46:48 AM EST

    "Suspect", "Accused", .. (none / 0) (#185)
    by Yman on Thu May 21, 2015 at 10:12:09 AM EST
    ... or if/when charges are filed, "Defendant".

    Are you using the word "Thug" to describe the Baltimore police officers in the Grey case?  I didn't even need to look at the photo once you used that word ...


    equate (none / 0) (#188)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu May 21, 2015 at 10:31:23 AM EST
    It's nice to know that you equate psychopaths who eat pizza while they torture and kill and burn their victims with police whose only crime was giving a van ride to a drug dealer.

    What other equations can we expect from you?


    "police whose only crime was (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Anne on Thu May 21, 2015 at 12:02:22 PM EST
    giving a van ride to a drug dealer."

    Well, except for the part where the occupant of the van winds up dead as a result of a severed spine that didn't sever itself.

    Rich, white family: victims

    Poor, black man: oh, what's the difference?  He dies now or someone shoots him dead or he dies of a drug overdose later - who cares? if the cops "helped" the process along, we should probably be thanking them, not charging them.

    One of the many differences between you and me is that I think both the family and Freddie Gray are victims, and you don't.  


    It turns out (none / 0) (#196)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 21, 2015 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    the suspect and the victim knew each other.

    Does that make him legit or the rich guy a thug?

    I'm so confused.


    America's Most Wanted (none / 0) (#201)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu May 21, 2015 at 11:56:35 AM EST
    the suspect and the victim knew each other

    According to the news conference Wint had worked for the father's Iron Works business.

    Wint is now on the run in the New York area.

    He has jumped to the top of America's Most Wanted.

    Hopefully they will put his seatbelt on when they catch him.


    I am (none / 0) (#191)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 21, 2015 at 10:46:53 AM EST
    with you on this one Chip, when did the word thug become so racially charged ? It's been one of my go to words when describing criminal elements of all stripes for a long time. I usually reserved it for the youngish, more violent, male variety, but I certainly saw nothing racial about it. Suddenly it's being equated with the N word, I don't get it. Political correctness is killing the language.

    Right now, it's the best word to describe (none / 0) (#195)
    by McBain on Thu May 21, 2015 at 11:37:16 AM EST
    a violent criminal.  It's not a racial thing.  It's a crime thing. Only people looking for something to complain about have a problem with the word "thug".  

    Of course it is (none / 0) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 21, 2015 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    And (none / 0) (#198)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 21, 2015 at 11:43:30 AM EST
    by "right now" do you mean since the other word became a liability?

    Thug and the N word are not the same (none / 0) (#200)
    by McBain on Thu May 21, 2015 at 11:48:29 AM EST
    that's your hang up

    More Race Baiting... (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 21, 2015 at 09:10:18 AM EST
    ...from the champ.

    Why, it seems like just (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Anne on Thu May 21, 2015 at 09:17:26 AM EST
    yesterday I was reading that DC police had a suspect, and now it seems there's been an arrest, a trial and a conviction!  My, but the wheels of justice move swiftly, don't they?

    What?  You say there's been no trial?  And they're still investigating?  Huh.  

    I guess your definition of "rush to judgment" is more of a situational thing than a principle thing.


    The Yes Men (none / 0) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 21, 2015 at 09:07:53 AM EST
    I just saw this

    A comedic documentary which follows The Yes Men, a small group of prankster activists, as they gain world-wide notoriety for impersonating the World Trade Organization on television and at business conferences around the world. The film begins when two members of The Yes Men, Andy and Mike, set up a website that mimics the World Trade Organization's--and it's mistaken for the real thing. They play along with the ruse and soon find themselves invited to important functions as WTO representatives. Delighted to represent the organization they politically oppose, Andy and Mike don thrift-store suits and set out to shock unwitting audiences with darkly comic satire that highlights the worst aspects of global free trade. Written by Sujit R. Varma

    I think this is the whole 90 minute doc

    Wonderful twisted and hilarious.  The international McDonalds plan had me howling.

    More (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 21, 2015 at 09:10:13 AM EST
    The Yes Men is a brilliant and hilarious documentary by the filmmakers of American Movie. I checked it out at last year's Toronto film festival.

    The film centres around a small group of anti-globalization activists who went around the world posing as WTO representatives at major industry conferences. Their appalling presentations were often met with applause by world business leaders.

    The only problem is that the documentarians mentioned they did not have promission to shoot what they were filming and thus are having a difficult time getting the rights to the images from the conferences they were at. It would be a real shame if The Yes Men was not allowed to be released in theatres.

    Crooks (none / 0) (#184)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 21, 2015 at 10:09:14 AM EST
    plead guilty in huge international finance scam, face serious punishment. Or not.

    "Everyone is talkin' 'bout crime... (none / 0) (#189)
    by kdog on Thu May 21, 2015 at 10:40:41 AM EST
    Tell me, who are the criminals?"

    - Peter Tosh, Equal Rights


    No Way Jeb Gets the Nod After This (none / 0) (#190)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 21, 2015 at 10:41:51 AM EST
    For the first time since pursuing a possible presidential run, Jeb Bush on Thursday laid out an area of policy disagreement with his brother, former President George W. Bush.

    "Are there differences? Yeah sure, I think that [in] Washington, during my brother's time, Republicans spent too much money," he said during an event in New Hampshire. "I think he could have used the veto power."  


    I guess Jeb would not have sent everyone a rebate check while in a war

    Then he proceeds to with non-sense:

    "That seems kind of quaint right now, given the fact that after he left, budget deficits and spending have gone up astronomically," he added. "But having constraints on spending across the board during his time would have been a good thing."

    From the urban dictionary (none / 0) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 21, 2015 at 12:00:47 PM EST
    for the confused and the pearl clutchers-

    thugs  gangsta  gangster  ghetto  hood  pimp n!gg@ gang  wigger  n!gg€r  rap  black  coon  cool  g  life  criminal  thug life  gay  punk

    Maybe you thought he was gay?   That's probably it.

    Memorial Day gift (none / 0) (#204)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 21, 2015 at 12:47:52 PM EST
    Someone on Google Maps just labeled President Obama a very bad word.

    A reader points out that if you enter a search for "N*** king" -- which contains a particularly offensive racial epithet for African Americans -- Google Maps will point you to the White House. We tested the claim on Tuesday night and confirmed that, yes, this is a thing. It even zooms the camera in, automatically. (For sensitivity's sake, we partially obscured the search term and the autocomplete responses in the GIF below.)


    An Arkansas family was horrified to discover racial slurs written inside of a pizza box after receiving an order from a Pizza Hut restaurant.

    The Huffington Post reports 19-year-olds Brian Reed and Somante Wallace ordered pizza from the restaurant in Bryant, Arkansas, over the weekend, and after going to pick up their second pizza of the day from the establishment. They were shocked to discover racial slus, a swastika and KKK all written inside (video below).