Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
This pales beside Hank's Clinton "hit list," which I'm just not sure he's joking about any more.

you mean the page that seemed to blame Hillary for 9/11? ummm, that was meant as a joke. Only Ty ventures that far (in the opposite direction of course) from sanity in his beliefs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Sebby, meet Alan Dershowitz -- he's got your back.

Here's a post by Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy:

Judges Sentelle and Henderson Are Anti-Bush Hacks, Dersh Says: Over at Huffington Post, Alan Dershowitz makes the case that the D.C. Circuit judges who denied Libby's appeal — a panel that included Federalist Society favorite David Sentelle and solid conservative Karen LeCraft Henderson — are anti-Bush political hacks who only denied Libby's appeal for partisan political reasons.

Now, I know what you're thinking — the court's order was only two sentences long. How could Dershowitz know what the judges were thinking? The answer seems to be that Dersh just knows. He writes:

• That judicial decision was entirely political. The appellate judges had to see that Libby's arguments on appeal were sound and strong — that under existing law he was entitled to bail pending appeal. (That is why I joined several other law professors in filing an amicus brief on this limited issue.) . . .
  
  But the court of appeals' judges, as well as the district court judge, wanted to force President Bush's hand. They didn't want to give him the luxury of being able to issue a pardon before the upcoming presidential election. Had Libby been allowed to be out on appeal, he would probably have remained free until after the election. It would then have been possible for President Bush to pardon him after the election but before he left office, as presidents often do during the lame duck hiatus. To preclude that possibility, the judges denied Libby bail pending appeal. . .
  
  [T]hat was entirely improper, because judges are not allowed to act politically. They do act politically, of course, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's disgracefully political decision in Bush v. Gore. But the fact that they do act politically does not make it right. It is never proper for a court to take partisan political considerations into account when seeking to administer justice in an individual case.

I love Dershowitz's reason why the two-sentence order shows that these two very conservative judges (together with Judge Tatel) acted out of partisan political animosity against Bush: Libby's arguments were so strong that it's the only explanation. Of course.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, for the first time since about a couple weeks after boots hit Afghan soil, all of my relatives who are or were in the military are back home. This led to some interesting discussion around July 4 when the family got together.

The officers were uniformly livid about how many times Bush and Co. talk about al-Qaeda; they are firmly convinced that we are turning local disputes into international ones and building up al-Qaeda; folks like al Sadr apparently have many times the resources of al Qaeda and are potentially much more dangerous, but because we've built up al-Q as the big guys we're afraid of, many smaller groups are driven to allign with al-Q because it helps with recruiting and gets them some more resources. Apparently the army avoids any mention of al-Q in Iraq, and the biggest difficulty is that Bush, Cheney, Condi and others posing for the American media market insist on talking about al-Q in their speaches and press releases.

They're also all convinced that al-Sadr will eventually govern in all or most of Iraq (even including Kurdistan), and that Bush knows this and just wants it to happen on someone else's watch, so right now they feel like they're just playing for time and potentially making the situation worse.

The discussion included relatively high ranking officers - mostly Democrats but there was no argument on these points from the one brother-in-law who is a vocal R or from the guy who's a registered independent and swing voter.

Interesting. What do they think Sadr's agenda is?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sebby, meet Alan Dershowitz -- he's got your back.

Here's a post by Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy:

If you can, follow the links back to Dershowitz's article and look at the comments page. He gets called to the carpet by his readers.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
... a choice between telling the truth about his little cabal who were busily outing a CIA agent for political gain or breaking the law yet again. He chose to break the law yet again.

Here we go again...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Here we go again...

Slave, if I admit that Fitzpatrick may have made the right decision in declining to bring criminal charges against Libby for the leaking, will you admit that Libby misused classified information in a way that violates "the law" -- statute, regulations, etc. -- even if that violation didn't form the predicate for a criminal offense? (If not, is it because you don't know key law or facts?)

[SlaveNoMore]

You cannot make stuff like this up:
---

CLEAR LAKE, Iowa, July 4 — As thousands of people cheered along the Fourth of July parade route here, it was the tall man with the familiar white hair who made the crowd go truly gaga.

“Bob Barker! It’s Bob Barker!” two women shrieked upon seeing the former president, Bill Clinton, in the distance, as he and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York marched hand-in-hand.

When the women realized who it really was, they seemed just as thrilled, shouting, “Ohhhh!” and clapping madly.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Slave, if I admit that Fitzpatrick may have made the right decision in declining to bring criminal charges against Libby for the leaking, will you admit that Libby misused classified information in a way that violates "the law" -- statute, regulations, etc. -- even if that violation didn't form the predicate for a criminal offense? (If not, is it because you don't know key law or facts?)

I assume you put the word law in scare quotes because of not what the law actually is, but what the law - according to you - should be?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I assume you put the word law in scare quotes because of not what the law actually is, but what the law - according to you - should be?

No -- there actually are statutes, regulations and other sources of law that pertain to these things and that say you don't disclose state secrets. Whether or not disclosure is a criminal offense is another question. Sorry if my poor punctuation obscured that point.

[Shape Shifter]

As linked on Drudge:

• Pool Drain Pulls Small Intestine Out Of Young Girl
  
  Heather Brown
  Reporting
  
  (WCCO) Minneapolis A 6-year-old Edina, Minn. girl has been hospitalized after a horrific accident at a swimming pool.
  
  Abigail Taylor was severely injured Friday when she sat over an open drain hole in a wading pool at the Minneapolis Golf Club.
  
  Now Abigail's father has a warning to other families: Pool and hot tub drain accidents are a hidden danger that many of us don't understand.
  
  Abigail has big brown eyes, a dazzling smile and at just 6 years old she has already competed in local swim meets.
  
  "She loves to swim," said her father Scott Taylor.
  
  Her love of swimming is why her family didn't think twice when she played at a kiddie pool at the family's golf club on Friday night.
  
  Taylor said as Abigail was getting out of the pool, she fell.
  
  "She more or less blacked out, she passed out, fell face-first onto the pool decking," he said. The family thought it was a seizure.
  
  An ambulance rushed her to Children's Hospital in Minneapolis. Several hours later a surgeon said Abigail was lucky to be alive.
  
  "The suction had caused a two-inch tear in her rectum and had basically disemboweled her by pulling out her small intestines, almost all of it," said Taylor.
  
  Her father said a search of the pool filter turned up Abigail's intestine. He said Abigail was seriously wounded because the cover of the drain had been removed.
  
  In most public pools the drain cover is screwed in and cannot be pulled off. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the pressure on some pool drains can be as strong as 300 pounds per square inch.
  
  "It never even crosses anybody's mind that potential at the bottom of that pool is enough force to literally disembowel a child, an adult," said Taylor.
  
  Abigail will have to be fed intravenously for the rest of her life and will have to have a colostomy bag.
  
  "We view it as a miracle that she's still with us," her father said.
  
  She is improving. Wednesday morning she stunned her family by asking a question.
  
  "She said, 'Am I going to be on the news?' She said, 'Why do you ask?' She said, 'Because I want to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else,'" recalled Taylor.
  
  Since 1990, 170 people, mostly children, have been caught in drains and 27 of them have died. Legislation is pending that would require pools and hot tubs to have multiple drains to ease the suction.
  
  Some pools have a safety vacuum cutoff which shuts down if someone is trapped. New drain covers which cost less than $50 can also help.
  
  According to the Associated Press, an official at the golf club expressed sympathy for the family and said he didn't think anything was wrong with the pool, but referred questions to the club's attorney, who declined to comment.

http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_185085504.html

If ever there was a need for trial lawyers, it would be to address cases like this.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
100 mph, in a Prius? Impressive.

The more impressive part was that he was able to hit 100mph on the 405 in any car, much less a Prius. When did he get stopped? 2am?

ETA: Shit, I should read more closely. Matter of fact, it was 2am.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
100 mph, in a Prius? Impressive.

Green, indeed. Like a 10,000 square foot green house.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're like a Marxist in your capacity to eliminate complexity and detail in order to reduce things to a simple, deterministic world view. I was wondering whether you would respond with anything about what actually happens, but I'm not surprised that you didn't.

We all know about issues between Bush and the CIA since 2000. This doesn't mean that the CIA is controlled by or answering to Democrats. They have other reasons to be pissed, one of which is that the White House ruined the career of one of their people to score political points. That has everything to do with the CIA's institutional interests, and nothing to do with whatever you mean by "Democrats in power" -- there weren't any in Washington at the time we're talking about, a fact that either eludes you or is too inconvenient for your "it's all politics, all the time" worldview.

Which Democrats told the CIA to do something it didn't want to do anyway? What was their leverage? You had Republican congressional leadership that wasn't letting House Democrats hold meetings in conference rooms, so I'm curious about the "power" you have in mind. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee was Jay Rockefeller, who since 2000 gladly let himself get rolled on just about every occasion where it was possible, and some where it probably wasn't but he did it anyway. What "power" did he exert over the CIA.

And then there's DOJ. Tell me about the supernatural political powers possessed by Democrats that let them force John Ashcroft's DOJ to open an investigation, and then to get him to recuse himself, and then to get Fitzpatrick to get appointed by James Comey.

Did you even know who James Comey was? Or is your commitment to the idea that it's all political so profound that you can just repeat that mantra without knowing much of anything about what actually happened.

Fitzpatrick then got Republican-appointed judges to preside over a jury trial -- the unanimous jurors who voted to convict were clearly the pawns of unnamed but resourceful Democratic politicians who bent their feeble minds to the interests of the Democratic party, as we all know that only a partisan could look at evidence and decide that it shows anything beyond a reasonable doubt, right? -- and to affirm the conviction. Never mind that these judges had the sort of connections and careers that got them appointed to the bench by Republican presidents, and never mind Article III, which gives them life tenure -- you just know that these judges, too, were acting because of some sort of pressure from Democratic politicians. Do tell.

At other times, you are happy to post here about how useless and hapless the Democratic Party is, a party which didn't do much else to control the actions of the Bush Administration over the last several years. Yet here they had amazing powers.

eta: Sorry, no blog posts or evidence -- I figured you would more appreciate whatever rhetorical flair I could muster.

In order (skipping your "Marxist" intro):

1. I didn't say "controlled." You said controlled. I said some Dems put pressure on the right people holding the right levers. You're trying to make my allegation broader to attempt to paint it as absurd. The CIA's interests and the Dems' interests dovetailed here. That does not mean the Dems were not pulling strings. Your bizarre argument that no Democrats had any power in the run up to the Iraq War is amazing. What do you think? that when the GOP has a majority, the Dems are all locked in a cage in the Capitol basement? You think they suddenly lose all the sway they had, all the favors they're owed and all the connections they've built? And you're calling me simplistic?

2. Do you think that the parliamentary rules, and the committees people like Rockefeller head are the only instruments of power in DC? Do you think the bigger decisions are made in committees, with minutes kept? You know litigation, right? Ever called a clerk and gotten a favor? Ever gotten a trial bumped by dealing with a Federal Magistrate you'd been before a couple of times and knew liked you? Imagine that sort of soft gladhanding at 100X the "chumminess" level. We're talking about a city where Abramoff made $30 million lobbying in two years and basically owned congressmen. You rail against the GOP mightily. Why on earth would you think the Dems operate any differently? You and I will NEVER know exactly what favors were called in and what levers were pulled by the Dems, or which dems did it, to take this non-issue and balloon it into a controversy. But to suggest they weren't is just plain silly.

3-5. Disingenuous arguments all. Once the investigatory and prosecutorial mechanisms were operating and the press had its claws into the story, I agree with you, the political games ended.

Here, in plain English:

The Dems' "hit" here wasn't forcing the judges or prosecutors to convict Libby. It was getting the investigation and prosecution of such a non-issue started in the first place.

You're clonflating those very different acts to try to make my position look absurd because you know damn well the Democrats were working behind the scenes to force this to an investigation and prosecution.

6. Again, you're conflating two things in a flaccid attempt at a rhetorical haymaker. That I call the Dems politically hapless in their poor choice of candidates (Hillary) and backward political views doesn't at all equate to an indictment of their ability to work the political machine in DC. My prime criticism of the Dems is their love of, and exploitation of, the political system. The Libby "hit" was masterful. It's a classic Dem move. I've always given them credit for that type of thing. But you knew that.

Your rhetorical flair I like a lot more.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
As linked on Drudge:

• Pool Drain Pulls Small Intestine Out Of Young Girl
  
  Heather Brown
  Reporting
  
  (WCCO) Minneapolis A 6-year-old Edina, Minn. girl has been hospitalized after a horrific accident at a swimming pool.
  
  Abigail Taylor was severely injured Friday when she sat over an open drain hole in a wading pool at the Minneapolis Golf Club.
  
  Now Abigail's father has a warning to other families: Pool and hot tub drain accidents are a hidden danger that many of us don't understand.
  
  Abigail has big brown eyes, a dazzling smile and at just 6 years old she has already competed in local swim meets.
  
  "She loves to swim," said her father Scott Taylor.
  
  Her love of swimming is why her family didn't think twice when she played at a kiddie pool at the family's golf club on Friday night.
  
  Taylor said as Abigail was getting out of the pool, she fell.
  
  "She more or less blacked out, she passed out, fell face-first onto the pool decking," he said. The family thought it was a seizure.
  
  An ambulance rushed her to Children's Hospital in Minneapolis. Several hours later a surgeon said Abigail was lucky to be alive.
  
  "The suction had caused a two-inch tear in her rectum and had basically disemboweled her by pulling out her small intestines, almost all of it," said Taylor.
  
  Her father said a search of the pool filter turned up Abigail's intestine. He said Abigail was seriously wounded because the cover of the drain had been removed.
  
  In most public pools the drain cover is screwed in and cannot be pulled off. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the pressure on some pool drains can be as strong as 300 pounds per square inch.
  
  "It never even crosses anybody's mind that potential at the bottom of that pool is enough force to literally disembowel a child, an adult," said Taylor.
  
  Abigail will have to be fed intravenously for the rest of her life and will have to have a colostomy bag.
  
  "We view it as a miracle that she's still with us," her father said.
  
  She is improving. Wednesday morning she stunned her family by asking a question.
  
  "She said, 'Am I going to be on the news?' She said, 'Why do you ask?' She said, 'Because I want to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else,'" recalled Taylor.
  
  Since 1990, 170 people, mostly children, have been caught in drains and 27 of them have died. Legislation is pending that would require pools and hot tubs to have multiple drains to ease the suction.
  
  Some pools have a safety vacuum cutoff which shuts down if someone is trapped. New drain covers which cost less than $50 can also help.
  
  According to the Associated Press, an official at the golf club expressed sympathy for the family and said he didn't think anything was wrong with the pool, but referred questions to the club's attorney, who declined to comment.

http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_185085504.html

If ever there was a need for trial lawyers, it would be to address cases like this.

or a good fiction writer. http://www.ecrivains.org/IMG/pdf/Gut..._Palahniuk.pdf

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In order (skipping your "Marxist" intro):

1. I didn't say "controlled." You said controlled. I said some Dems put pressure on the right people holding the right levers. You're trying to make my allegation broader to attempt to paint it as absurd. The CIA's interests and the Dems' interests dovetailed here. That does not mean the Dems were not pulling strings. Your bizarre argument that no Democrats had any power in the run up to the Iraq War is amazing. What do you think? that when the GOP has a majority, the Dems are all locked in a cage in the Capitol basement? You think they suddenly lose all the sway they had, all the favors they're owed and all the connections they've built? And you're calling me simplistic?

2. Do you think that the parliamentary rules, and the committees people like Rockefeller head are the only instruments of power in DC? Do you think the bigger decisions are made in committees, with minutes kept? You know litigation, right? Ever called a clerk and gotten a favor? Ever gotten a trial bumped by dealing with a Federal Magistrate you'd been before a couple of times and knew liked you? Imagine that sort of soft gladhanding at 100X the "chumminess" level. We're talking about a city where Abramoff made $30 million lobbying in two years and basically owned congressmen. You rail against the GOP mightily. Why on earth would you think the Dems operate any differently? You and I will NEVER know exactly what favors were called in and what levers were pulled by the Dems, or which dems did it, to take this non-issue and balloon it into a controversy. But to suggest they weren't is just plain silly.

3-5. Disingenuous arguments all. Once the investigatory and prosecutorial mechanisms were operating and the press had its claws into the story, I agree with you, the political games ended.

Here, in plain English:

The Dems' "hit" here wasn't forcing the judges or prosecutors to convict Libby. It was getting the investigation and prosecution of such a non-issue started in the first place.

You're clonflating those very different acts to try to make my position look absurd because you know damn well the Democrats were working behind the scenes to force this to an investigation and prosecution.

6. Again, you're conflating two things in a flaccid attempt at a rhetorical haymaker. That I call the Dems politically hapless in their poor choice of candidates (Hillary) and backward political views doesn't at all equate to an indictment of their ability to work the political machine in DC. My prime criticism of the Dems is their love of, and exploitation of, the political system. The Libby "hit" was masterful. It's a classic Dem move. I've always given them credit for that type of thing. But you knew that.

Your rhetorical flair I like a lot more.

No Democrat in Washington -- or anywhere else -- had enough pressure, or a lever long enough, or a string tied in the right place, or enough favors, to get the John Ashcroft-led DOJ to investigate senior members of the White House staff, such as Dick Cheney's chief of staff.