Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Hank Chinaski]

I knew this shit would come out, and make clear how doltish Kerry's "global test" was. I think i speak for 70% of america when I say, I'm glad it didn't come out post-election to make people second guess what would have been a mistake in policy on Iraq.




http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138617,00.html

Officials Double Saddam's Oil-for-Food Theft
NEW YORK — Saddam Hussein's regime made more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting the U.N. Oil-for-Food program (search) through surcharges, kickbacks and smuggling oil — more than double previous estimates, according to congressional investigators.

The figures are based on troves of new documents obtained by an investigative panel of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs (search), which was presenting them at a hearing Monday in Washington. The documents illustrate how Iraqi officials, foreign companies and sometimes politicians allegedly contrived to funnel vast illicit gains to the Iraqi government.

The findings also reflect a growing understanding by investigators of the intricate schemes Saddam used to buy support abroad for a move to lift U.N. sanctions.

In one document, a letter obtained by investigators, Russian ultra-nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky (search) — who campaigned for the lifting of sanctions on Iraq — invites an oil company to negotiate a price for an oil allocation the Iraqi government awarded him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Hoosiers to be saved from the stain of sexual interstate scandal.

• John Hostettler, the Congressman representing the 8th district of Indiana, has been convinced by local religious groups to introduce legislation in the House that would change the name of an Interstate 69 extension to a more moral sounding number.
  
  There are plans to extend the interstate from Indianapolis through southwestern Indiana all the way through Texas into Mexico in the coming years. While most believe this highway will be good for the state’s economy, religious conservatives believe “I-69” sounds too risqué and want to change the interstate’s number.
  
  Hostettler, a proponent of the interstate extension, agrees. “Every time I have been out in the public with an ‘I-69’ button on my lapel, teenagers point and snicker at it. I have had many ask me if they can have my button. I believe it is time to change the name of the highway. It is the moral thing to do.”
  
  ....
  
  “Naming the road I-63 not only follows numbering guidelines, it doesn’t have the sexual undertones that I-69 has,” says Hostettler, “It is a win-win situation.”

What's more, think of the public safety benefits! Studies have well-documented the dangers of cell-phone use while driving. Those dismayed by the earlier challenges in recruiting participants for this study can now be comforted by the fact that this problem will soon be moot.

Were highways ever renumbered during the Clinton years? If so, Hank thinks this is OK.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No one said that. What Gatti said -- I believe -- is that the idea of "reforming" the CIA by sacking people who aren't loyal to the President is a Bad Idea.

so he was questioning in a non-partisan manner the questioning of firing government employees- okay.

how does he feel about sacking employees in the WH travel office?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Were highways ever renumbered during the Clinton years? If so, Hank thinks this is OK.

63 reminds me of anal. I think we need to rethink.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so he was questioning in a non-partisan manner the questioning of firing government employees- okay.

What does "non-partisan" mean in this context? Do you think that when Democrats talk about national security, they presumptively are interested in party politics instead?

how does he feel about sacking employees in the WH travel office?

You could ask him, but I'm going to take a wild guess and suggest that he doesn't think it raised the same concerns about national security and foreign policy.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I thought the point was that since you guys take everything Bush does as a hard deviation from the norm, we need some way of checking. Since there has only been one other President in the internet age, the only sanity check is the Clinton administration. Thus, we check your conspiracies against Clinton's actions- as long as they don't involve dirtying dresses or selling secrets to the Chinese, similar actions in the Clinton administration imply that maybe the policy isn't so strange. The same point has been made wrt keeping hecklers away, as you may recall.

In that case, you could also compare who Clinton and Bush have brought in, respectively.

Clinton exercised poor judgment by placing John Deutsch, who had a regrettable proclivity to leaving shit lying around unsecured. Not a good trait for a DCI.

Clinton then introduced Tenet, who (up until recently) was thought of as a GOP good guy given his inclination to be independent of Clinton.

Bush, by contrast, brought in a Republican Congressman, who brought in his Congressional Staff to run things. Do you really see these as equivalent?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What does "non-partisan" mean in this context? Do you think that when Democrats talk about national security, they presumptively are interested in party politics instead?

no. It was clear from my post that I thought both adminstrations did similar things for similar, and at least vaguely proper, reasons. You and Gatti implied Bush has done everything from Day 1 for party political reasons- isn't that what you meant Gatti?

I'm just saying that showing Clinton did it is evidence that maybe something else was at play.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I thought the point was that since you guys take everything Bush does as a hard deviation from the norm, we need some way of checking. Since there has only been one other President in the internet age, the only sanity check is the Clinton administration. Thus, we check your conspiracies against Clinton's actions- as long as they don't involve dirtying dresses or selling secrets to the Chinese, similar actions in the Clinton administration imply that maybe the policy isn't so strange. The same point has been made wrt keeping hecklers away, as you may recall.

Exactly

[Tyrone Slothrop]

We won't have Safire to kick around much longer.

[ilikenewsocks]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We won't have Safire to kick around much longer.

If only CNN would do the right thing and put Novak out to pasture.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Exactly

What you two goofballs seem to be forgotting is that Clinton's failing as a President, if it could be called that, was a lack of discipline. No one could possibly complain that Clinton erred on the side of too zealously forcing government agencies to jump when he said jump. This is certainly true of the CIA and other foreign-policy apparatus. Bush tends to err in the other direction. This is why saying, "well, Clinton did it too" is particularly stupid in this instance. The salient point here is that the CIA acted as something of a check on the Bush White House in the past four years by occasionally -- though not often enough -- reminding the ideologues there that the actual world did not mirror their beliefs. What this country does not need is a bunch of "yes men" in the CIA.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What you two goofballs seem to be forgotting is that Clinton's failing as a President, if it could be called that, was a lack of discipline. No one could possibly complain that Clinton erred on the side of too zealously forcing government agencies to jump when he said jump. This is certainly true of the CIA and other foreign-policy apparatus. Bush tends to err in the other direction. This is why saying, "well, Clinton did it too" is particularly stupid in this instance. The salient point here is that the CIA acted as something of a check on the Bush White House in the past four years by occasionally -- though not often enough -- reminding the ideologues there that the actual world did not mirror their beliefs. What this country does not need is a bunch of "yes men" in the CIA.

1. Whatever

2. There is a difference between a "yes man" and a man that is hostile to the president's policies.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ilikenewsocks
If only CNN would do the right thing and put Novak out to pasture.

CBS fired a news producer for breaking into a TV show to announce Arafat's death.

What do you think the punishment would be for creating a faked news story based upon obviously faked documents and trying to tool a presidential campaign?

[SlaveNoMore]

ilikenewsocks
If only CNN would do the right thing and put Novak out to pasture.

Oddly enough, the first 2 answers I thought of in the "If only [_____] would do the right thing and put [_____] out to pasture" game were CBS and Rather.


Courage!!!!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What do you think the punishment would be for creating a faked news story based upon obviously faked documents and trying to tool a presidential campaign?

You won, ok. Don't take Jon Stewart away from us, too. There's no way we're going to make it through the next four years without fake news.