Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
That's kind of -- what's the word I'm looking for -- weasely.

But see, Ty doesn't say weasely. He says "Bush Lied!, Bush Lied! Bush Lied!!!!! He Lied I tell you, he Lied!!!!"

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm sorry, who didn't know we were looking but hadn't found anything?

Well, anyone who believed Bush, because he didn't just say we were looking, he said the WMD existed. Period. As though he had access to information that the rest of the world did not. And the idea that he might have special information is not entirely implausible, since he is POTUS.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
If you are a Dem, all the outrage is focused on someone having to wear panties on their head.

It's true. Ask my kids. I go positively apeshit when I see my kid even lightly shoving another kid out of the way on the playground, but if that other kid turns around and smacks my kid in the face, my first thought is for tending to the physical and psychological well-being of my offspring, not revenge --- or, to use your euphemistic term, "outrage" --- against the perp. I guess that makes me a total pussy. And if you're the kind of person always going on about how everything your kid did is being blown out of proportion, well, I know what that makes you.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You act as though this was some clanestine behavior. It was all in the security assessment materials which were made available to congress, and any of the 535 members had the opportunity to call bullshit if they thought the evidence was too flimsy. None did on these grounds, not even JFK.

Now this is an interesting point, if true. You have a cite for this assertion?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Not Me
If you are a Dem, all the outrage is focused on someone having to wear panties on their head.

Ya know what I like about that joke? It just never gets old, no matter how many times you trot it out. Hilarious!

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You act as though this was some clanestine behavior. It was all in the security assessment materials which were made available to congress, and any of the 535 members had the opportunity to call bullshit if they thought the evidence was too flimsy. None did on these grounds, not even JFK.

Bitch, please. When we were having that self-same debate on these boards (and their predecessors), the neo-con army was saying that we had even better intel that we obviously couldn't disclose, because otherwise GWB wouldn't be making the case for war. Now you tell us all the cards were on the table? Nothing was held back? Nobody hinted that we had dead-bang proof that was top secret? Horseshit.

ETA: We'll never know whether the Administration put all its cards on the table in closed committee sessions. Only the Administration is allowed to leak national security information.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I would love to believe we can fight and win this war without getting our hands dirty, but I fear this is not the case. These people do not play by the rules. They are absolutely ruthless and without discernable morals.

On some level I agree with you. Back when they caught Khalid Sheikh Muhammad I was on record as being all for letting the Pakistanis do the interrogating so that we wouldn't have our own hands tied (which is itself a violation of the conventions the US has signed).

But at some point you are painting too many people with the AQ brush. What about the people in Abu Ghraib who were picked up in sweeps who weren't doing anything "terrorist" except looting a washing machine? Are they acceptable collateral damage? What about the kids that throw rocks at the US troops because they want Iraqis to run their own country. Do they deserve the gloves-off al Qaeda treatment? Is it truly impossible to differentiate between different types of detainees?

Part of our strength in this fight is our moral authority. If we sweep this prisoner abuse under the rug we lose even more of that than we already have. If the inquiry indeed shows that this was a big party atmosphere and thus the wrongdoing of a few low-level GIs, then fine, I welcome that news. But it seems like the system was flawed, that contractors were instructing MPs on how to soften people up, that detainees who under our own procedures should have been released were kept in interrogation mode, etc.

I think the quote that resonates the most for me on this whole issue came from Lindsay Graham on Meet the Press last Sunday:

This is not just about humiliation, Tim. The allegations in this report involve rape and murder. Please, don't leave this whole scenario thinking that this is just about a humiliating experience. This is about system failure. This is about felony offenses. And if there's more to come, let's get it out, as a nation work through it and show the world that Republicans and Democrats may disagree on the policy and the war in Iraq, but we have the ability to make sure those accountable are going to be held accountable. And it's just not going to be six privates and sergeants. Other people are going to be held accountable. But Republicans and Democrats need to come together to prove to the world that our system works. Let's get it out.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
You met the criteria for that list a long time ago. I only continue to respond to you because it amuses me to bat you around like a cat batting around a mouse.

Ah. A Tom and Jerry reference.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
. Now you tell us all the cards were on the table? Nothing was held back? Nobody hinted that we had dead-bang proof that was top secret? Horseshit.

ETA: We'll never know whether the Administration put all its cards on the table in closed committee sessions. Only the Administration is allowed to leak national security information.

It doesn't make the case stronger for the dissenters/dems to say not all the cards were on the table, yet still they failed to object on insufficiency grounds.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It's true. Ask my kids. I go positively apeshit when I see my kid even lightly shoving another kid out of the way on the playground, but if that other kid turns around and smacks my kid in the face, my first thought is for tending to the physical and psychological well-being of my offspring, not revenge --- or, to use your euphemistic term, "outrage" --- against the perp. I guess that makes me a total pussy.

So in this analogy, are you likening the Iraqi with the panties on his head to your kid?

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
And if you're the kind of person always going on about how everything your kid did is being blown out of proportion, well, I know what that makes you.

Having children is such an ordinary thing to do. I am above it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Bitch, please. When we were having that self-same debate on these boards (and their predecessors), the neo-con army was saying that we had even better intel that we obviously couldn't disclose, because otherwise GWB wouldn't be making the case for war. Now you tell us all the cards were on the table? Nothing was held back? Nobody hinted that we had dead-bang proof that was top secret? Horseshit.

Cite please?

edited to fix tags

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
he is supposed to the father of her future baby, so I bet he's in some of the movies. but he's charged to, so we got that high up the chain- and when you have film of you having sex with multiple partners in front of prisoners.......well i've gotta say, I show the film at least as to the credibility of her statement about "being ordered " to hold the dog collar.

To be clear with you Hank, I too consider it very unlikely that Lynndie was ordered to hold the leash for that pic, or to point and smile at the naked Iraqis in that other pic. So I think you and I are not so far off on how we view that aspect of the chain of command thing.

My problems lie more in the system that led to this result, where mil intel types and perhaps even contractors* were telling MPs how to do more to soften these guys up, and on a larger scale people weren't being released from the prison even though there was no value to us in keeping them there. The DoD leadership claims that those weren't their policies. If that turns out to be true, then I don't believe they should be fired. But they damn sure better be on the forefront of fixing this so it doesn't happen again.

* this is why I find it interesting that Lynndie mentions people in her chain of command but doesn't name them. If it turns out she's referring to that Stefanowicz guy from CACI, she's even further up shit creek than she would have been if she had said nothing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Well, anyone who believed Bush, because he didn't just say we were looking, he said the WMD existed. Period. As though he had access to information that the rest of the world did not. And the idea that he might have special information is not entirely implausible, since he is POTUS.

Lots of ballplayers get hits, even homers, there first time at bat in the big leagues. Of course, most struggle, in above their heads and strike out- back to the minors, and eventually just stories about the real players that had once known. Alas..........

Bush said repeatedly "We know he had X, and he can't verify that he destroyed them." And I'm sure there are sound bytes where he inadvertantly moved away from that, but the big speeches followed the above. I at least knew that. He never said "for sure, they're there." And given the liklihood they were there it was not prudent to keep Sadaam around. Period.

Why did the UN keep sanctions running that were killing kids? Because of the WMD's*

*we now know why actually, but still the UN had a public face the weapons were there.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
he is supposed to the father of her future baby, so I bet he's in some of the movies. but he's charged to, so we got that high up the chain- and when you have film of you having sex with multiple partners in front of prisoners.......well i've gotta say, I show the film at least as to the credibility of her statement about "being ordered " to hold the dog collar.

conf to fringe: I not making a statemtn that sexually active girls are bad- I'm just saying the two behaviors do have relevance to each other.

I don't understand what "I show the film at least as to the credibility of her statement about "being ordered" to hold the dog collar" means. I think you are missing a word.

It might be more on point and less seeming like you are saying women (whoops, I mean girls) who are sexually active are not credible if you made it a bit clearer that perhaps you are saying "The filmed soldiers/MPs taped a lot of inappropriate behavior, and some of the stuff seems like it is very unlikely to have been ordered by superiors (e.g., having sex with different people in front of the prisoners). If some of the filmed activities were not performed under orders, it makes it less likely that none of the activities were performed under orders."

Which sounds kinda stupid, but whatever. Yeah, I think it has an eeensy bit of probative value, but not a ton. I mean, if I have a camera set up in my office to film me with the co-managing partners, and that camera is also used to tape a hearing, that doesn't mean that my activities (including dog collars etc. etc.) with the managing partners were ordered by anyone. In fact, I do the ordering.

My office is very, very clean.

ETA mostly I wanted to get in the dominatrix stuff. I dunno whether they were ordered to film the stuff. I could see where having it on film and threatening to show the film to the families and communities of the men involved in the activities would bring pressure to bear on them.

So, she was having group sex with a bunch of the guys?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I think the quote that resonates the most for me on this whole issue came from Lindsay Graham on Meet the Press last Sunday:

I agree that this was a system failure. As Taguba said, it was a failure of the command structure in that these yahoos weren't being supervised properly. Those pictures indicate to me that they had no fear at all that they would be caught.

Taguba placed the blame on Janice Kapinsky (sp?) on down.