Politics: J'accuse!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Client? Him?

I'm getting the feeling that IRL you are a black woman with large fake boobs who fucks men for money.

What's fucked up, is that I'm so clearly not the kind of black woman who'd get a boob job.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Comfortable with someone being able to make a profit doesn't mean that we are so stupid we don't believe that it would influence someone or bias them.

I don't know whether Clarke is lying and I don't know if Ashcroft is lying. All I can know is what they said and whether there is any evidence to back up what they said, like documents and others' testimony that agrees with their version of events.

But just because Clarke said one thing and Ashcroft said another thing doesn't prove that Ashcroft is lying.

Often times two people attend the same meeting or witness the same event and their recollections of the meeting or the vent are different. This doesn't mean one is lying, necessarily, though. Sometimes people have faulty memories, sometimes their memories are colored by subsequent events, and sometimes they are falsifying facts. You figure out what actually happened by looking at any objective evidence that is available and getting others' versions of the events in question.

But you don't just jump to the conclusion that the person whose version best suits your political agenda must be the giving an accurate account.

Ashcroft's statement was absurd on its face. Are you saying there were no covert snatches under Clinton (this one's yours, Hank. Go to town)? Mir Amal Kansi may disagree with you if you say there were none.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm getting the feeling that IRL you are a black woman with large fake boobs who fucks men for money.

You think that of me or Hank?

I'll tell you, there are days at this job when I start to think that being a whore doesn't sound like it would be so bad.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You must only know boys

Are you saying that if you were with this totally hot looking woman (great body, pretty face) and she just kind of layed there while you were doing it, you would think that was a bad experience?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
WOOOOO, slow down. You mean women can have an orgasm too?

How can you make this post immediately after chastizing me for saying that the men I know think sex with a good looking woman is always good?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Ok, it wasn't that bad. I give him a B- (a real B-, not say a Stanford B-, which is a D everywhere else).

What I heard on the radio -- not all of it -- was just so awful. It's no wonder he doesn't do this more often.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Ashcroft's statement was absurd on its face. Are you saying there were no covert snatches under Clinton (this one's yours, Hank. Go to town)? Mir Amal Kansi may disagree with you if you say there were none.

Did you even read the quote I posted from the NYT? It was about the wall between law enforcement and intelligence agencies (put in place in 1995) and how that impeded the transfer of information inter-agency (something many people think hurt our ability to protect ourselves from terrorists). Stay on point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/p...03ff212&ei=5062

Why is Gorelick on this panel?!?!? Hardly unbiased.

I would say the Patriot Act has a good chance of being renewed.

• NYT quote: Mr. Ashcroft said that to the contrary, he personally went to the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, on March 7, 2001, and urged her to scuttle what he characterized as an ineffective policy of the Clinton administration specifying that Mr. bin Laden had to be captured, and only in a way that lawyers would approve.
  
  "Even if they could have penetrated bin Laden's training camp, they would have needed a battery of attorneys to approve the capture," Mr. Ashcroft said sarcastically.
  
  Mr. Ashcroft said that he wanted "decisive, lethal action" and had told Ms. Rice, "We should find and kill bin Laden."
  
  The attorney general sounded almost contemptuous as he spoke of a "legal wall" put into effect in 1995 to separate criminal investigators from intelligence agents in an effort to safeguard individual rights.
  
  Far from protecting individual rights, Mr. Ashcroft asserted, the wall has been an obstacle to protecting the American people.
  
  Referring to the 1995 document that constructed the figurative wall, Mr. Ashcroft went on to say, "Full disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum is a member of the commission."
  
  Mr. Ashcroft was a referring to Jamie Gorelick, a Democratic member of the independent, bipartisan, 10-member commission, who was deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration.
  
  Under questioning, Mr. Ashcroft said he differed with former Attorney General Janet Reno, who testified earlier today that the so-called wall did not, in fact, bar the sharing "the vast majority of counterterrorism information."
  
  "No," Mr. Ashcroft said firmly. "I believe that the understanding of the wall that was prevalent in the Justice Department and among attorneys was that individuals who shared information from a criminal file or from an intelligence file to a criminal file might be subject to serious discipline."
  
  Eventually, court rulings and the passage of the "Patriot Act" in 2001, after Sept. 11, effectively lowered the wall — but that was too late, Mr. Ashcroft said.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What I heard on the radio -- not all of it -- was just so awful. It's no wonder he doesn't do this more often.

Worse than a B-?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Ashcroft's statement was absurd on its face. Are you saying there were no covert snatches under Clinton (this one's yours, Hank. Go to town)? Mir Amal Kansi may disagree with you if you say there were none.

Fred Kaplan, in Slate, writes about how the commission let Ashcroft off easy. For example:

• Ashcroft insisted that he added more money to the Justice Department's budget for counterterrorism than for any other function. This is patently untrue. It has been disputed by the commission's staff, several previous witnesses, and public budget-documents. Yet none of the commissioners called him on it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Worse than a B-?

Much. It was like he couldn't think for more than a sentence at a time. He would start somewhere, and then you could see how each sentence would kinda relate to the one following, but he'd end up somewhere that had nothing to do with what he started on.

But I only heard a bit of it, so maybe I missed the lucid parts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Did you even read the quote I posted from the NYT? It was about the wall between law enforcement and intelligence agencies (put in place in 1995) and how that impeded the transfer of information inter-agency (something many people think hurt our ability to protect ourselves from terrorists).

Do you know anything about this 'wall" other than what you read in the NY Times about Ashcroft's testimony? If so, please describe.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
Much. It was like he couldn't think for more than a sentence at a time. He would start somewhere, and then you could see how each sentence would kinda relate to the one following, but he'd end up somewhere that had nothing to do with what he started on.

But I only heard a bit of it, so maybe I missed the lucid parts.

I saw the last half of it. He was...okay.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I saw the last half of it. He was...okay.

Here's a fine description that matches what I heard:

• The transcripts are just coming out, and there will be plenty to pull from George W. Bush's press conference to show that he's ignorant, clueless and an embarrassment to our country. For instance, Bush made the absolutely stunning claim that his administration was somehow successful in breaking up A. Q. Khan's "dangerous network," which is crazy considering that Khan's "dangerous network" is otherwise known as the government of Pakistan. It's a success to find out ex post facto that our supposed vital ally in the war on terror provided the means for North Korea to develop a nuclear weapon?
  
  Some of the press conference was a rerun of typical Bush behaviors. He suggested that criticizing him or our actions in Iraq sends a bad message to our troops and our enemies--i.e., dissent is treason. He also kept talking about the war on terror, as if it's still the shibboleth that signals to the press that he knows they're not going to ask uncomfortable questions. (Unless, of course, he's "got some must-calls," at which point the Washington Times' correspondent springs forth to give him a brief respite.)
  
  But this press conference was also different, in large part because of the reporters in the room. Bush approaches the world as if the good things that happen to him are the result of virtue and the bad things the result of environment, but with other people it's the exact opposite. We're all susceptible to that mistake. But with Bush it's reached a truly bizarre level, and makes listening to him an unsettling experience. When he's not questioned or challenged, or things are going swimmingly, he comes across as confident and resolute. But when the environment changes--like tonight, when even NYT correspondent Elizabeth Bumiller (!) asked a slightly pointed question, and the White House press corps showed signs that they're embarrassed about their performance over the last three years, Bush resumes smirking and becomes that smug jerk we all hated in high school.
  
  Whenever asked about the effects of his actions, Bush answered by affirming his virtuous motives. When asked about a situation or development, Bush answered by referencing himself, often with strange third person-like observations of himself. He failed to give even an approximation of an answer to all but a couple of the questions. And most damning, despite being given numerous opportunities, Bush showed he's constitutionally prohibited from accepting responsibility--not blame, responsibility.
  
  The problem of troop strength in Iraq got punted to Abazaid and Sanchez. The failure to anticipate 9-11 was because "I can't make good decisions if I can't get good information." (He surely failed to notice how that standard could be applied to the bad information he accepted on WMD and Iraq's supposed connection to 9-11.) Instead of demonstrating evidence or making an argument, several times he resorted to "I know." "I hope you have a sense of my convictions." "When I say something, I mean it." In short, for Bush it's all about his internal purity of purpose vs. the external threats to his success--and maybe even his salvation.

from here

The last thing reminds me of his father ("Message: I care.").

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Here's a fine description that matches what I heard:

from here

So I take it you are pretty happy that Cheney and Rummy run the show then.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Here's a fine description that matches what I heard:

(Kos critique, [sarc]which is stunning in its rationality on a good day.[/sarc]

So he's toned down a bit since announcing that he was pleased at the killing of the Americans a few days ago?