Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ironweed
The velcro shoes are suprising

I would have thought this occasion would warrant the fancy black velcro shoes. Huh.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This from yesterday's Washington Post:

• Given several opportunities at yesterday's press conference to express his opposition to torture, President Bush responded repeatedly with a legalistic answer that leaves him vulnerable to continued speculation about the role he and his top advisers played in setting interrogation rules in the war on terror.
  
  Dana Milbank and Dana Priest write in The Washington Post: "President Bush said Thursday that he expects U.S. authorities to follow the law when interrogating prisoners abroad, but he declined to say whether he believes torture is permitted under the law. "Pressed repeatedly during a news conference here about a Justice Department memo saying torture could be justified in the war on terrorism, Bush said only that U.S. interrogators had to follow the law. Asked whether he agrees with the Justice Department view, Bush said he could not remember whether he had seen the memorandum."
  
  James Harding writes in the Financial Times: "[W]hen asked whether he had authorised the use of aggressive interrogation techniques to fight the war on terrorism, Mr Bush resorted repeatedly to a legalistic formulation: 'The authorisation I issued was that anything we did would conform to US laws and would be consistent with international treaty obligations.' " Shannon McCaffrey and Sumana Chatterjee write for Knight Ridder Newspapers that Bush "sidestepped a question about whether torture was ever justified."

So much for the whole thing about Lynndie acting alone.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
As for resources, the last few paragraphs of the article detail how different people are getting different things. Apparently, they are exercising some discretion in the building. Contrast that to public housing's one-size-fits-all 8 room romper-pads.

Again, I think you're reading what you want to read. The article says a family of 12 got a three story house, while another couple got a 600 square foot apartment. The guy from the couple is griping because the the apartment is too small in light of the fact that he and his wife "will have children soon." So the only discretion I can see the UN exercising is the discretion not to build housing for potential offspring, something that I would think a person who has shown himself to be the sworn enemy of welfare moms everywhere could get behind.

And, by the way, can you explain to me how you can criticize the UN for both not screening the recipients of their aid and for exercising discretion as to who gets what house? Wouldn't the screening amount to an exercise of discretion?

Whereas, I'm not sure I've seen any articles about the U.S. bestowing such benefits on individual Iraqis. So, "I guess I'd be interested in seeing a cite on that one".

Wait a minute. This is a trick question, er, statement. As I have read here many times, the press doesn't report the stories about the US bestowing benefits, so there can't be any such articles. You are indeed clever.

You also steered this query away from what I was originally getting at. For example, in Najaf there was an uprising, which included some local Shi'ites. During the fighting, buildings were destroyed. I would argue that the members of the Mahdi Army firing guns at our troops are just as much "the enemy" as the terrorists in Jenin. Yet I would be very surprised to hear that before we rebuild any buildings in Najaf we are screening the inhabitants of that building to make sure they were not with the insurgents. And, frankly, I have no idea how well we would be able to do that if we tried. That was my point...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Wondering what it's like up there? Reagan sends Peggy Noonan a letter from the Great Beyond. Worth reading.

[Gattigap]

In this space, I've expressed incredulity that McCain would ever seriously consider joining a Kerry ticket.

Seems that even though the answer is still no, McCain is taking the offer, and has considered it, seriously.

I still think it's unlikely, but am surprised and impressed that McCain's people have tried to think it through, and think that the idea has merit beyond those of the simple acquisition of power.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This from yesterday's Washington Post:

• Given several opportunities at yesterday's press conference to express his opposition to torture, President Bush responded repeatedly with a legalistic answer that leaves him vulnerable to continued speculation about the role he and his top advisers played in setting interrogation rules in the war on terror.
  
  Dana Milbank and Dana Priest write in The Washington Post: "President Bush said Thursday that he expects U.S. authorities to follow the law when interrogating prisoners abroad, but he declined to say whether he believes torture is permitted under the law. "Pressed repeatedly during a news conference here about a Justice Department memo saying torture could be justified in the war on terrorism, Bush said only that U.S. interrogators had to follow the law. Asked whether he agrees with the Justice Department view, Bush said he could not remember whether he had seen the memorandum."
  
  James Harding writes in the Financial Times: "[W]hen asked whether he had authorised the use of aggressive interrogation techniques to fight the war on terrorism, Mr Bush resorted repeatedly to a legalistic formulation: 'The authorisation I issued was that anything we did would conform to US laws and would be consistent with international treaty obligations.' " Shannon McCaffrey and Sumana Chatterjee write for Knight Ridder Newspapers that Bush "sidestepped a question about whether torture was ever justified."

So much for the whole thing about Lynndie acting alone.

Slave. Mark this one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Slave. Mark this one.

Make a prediction about this yourself, assclam. What do you make of Bush's answers? He doesn't usually sound like he's been prepped by a lawyer.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Slave. Mark this one.

Because you don't think there will be continued speculation? You underestimate the speculating power of the godless liberal media.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Slave. Mark this one.

Since it turns out that menacing the Abu Ghraib prisoners with unmuzzled dogs was expressly authorized by military intelligence, according to the dog handlers, I'm afraid the "abuse was policy, not frolic" story has more legs than you're willing to admit.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience

And, by the way, can you explain to me how you can criticize the UN for both not screening the recipients of their aid and for exercising discretion as to who gets what house? Wouldn't the screening amount to an exercise of discretion?
Wait a minute. This is a trick question, er, statement. As I have read here many times, the press doesn't report the stories about the US bestowing benefits, so there can't be any such articles. You are indeed clever.

What's wit you Californians anyway? Last year I raised my voice at Atty G for misquoting me. My quote from the second post where I raised screening was "the U.N. is incompetent for not screening the recipients of their aid to determine the individual's justifiable and compensatable need for relief". I understand that "justifiable" might be a bit vague, but it certainly narrows the meaning of "screening" to something that would seem to exclude those with AKs and M16s who barge in and threaten you.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience

You also steered this query away from what I was originally getting at. For example, in Najaf there was an uprising, which included some local Shi'ites. During the fighting, buildings were destroyed. I would argue that the members of the Mahdi Army firing guns at our troops are just as much "the enemy" as the terrorists in Jenin. Yet I would be very surprised to hear that before we rebuild any buildings in Najaf we are screening the inhabitants of that building to make sure they were not with the insurgents. And, frankly, I have no idea how well we would be able to do that if we tried. That was my point...

Whoa, assumes facts not in evidence. Like that we are rebuilding inhabited homes. I, personally, am against and hope that we are not. Charity begins at home.

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Since it turns out that menacing the Abu Ghraib prisoners with unmuzzled dogs was expressly authorized by military intelligence, according to the dog handlers, I'm afraid the "abuse was policy, not frolic" story has more legs than you're willing to admit.

Oh, so those must be the drug-sniffing dogs being misused? Lord knows you don't want the bite-em-in-the-ass-when-they-run-from-you dogs anywhere near our military. Sounds like the misuse might be cruelty to animals too. Better call PETA.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Since it turns out that menacing the Abu Ghraib prisoners with unmuzzled dogs was expressly authorized by military intelligence, according to the dog handlers, I'm afraid the "abuse was policy, not frolic" story has more legs than you're willing to admit.

nnnnhhh, sorry no. This was for interrogation. You have to distinguish being vicious for no reason to innocents from interrogating people who know shit. I know you have a problem with interrogation, but believe me this story only has legs because of the cruel for no reason angle.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
nnnnhhh, sorry no. This was for interrogation. You have to distinguish being vicious for no reason to innocents from interrogating people who know shit. I know you have a problem with interrogation, but believe me this story only has legs because of the cruel for no reason angle.

As I recall, some of the photos captured the "before" and "after" of a detainee being bitten in the leg by one of these dogs, so your choice of body part in characterizing the story is apt, no?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Oh, so those must be the drug-sniffing dogs being misused? Lord knows you don't want the bite-em-in-the-ass-when-they-run-from-you dogs anywhere near our military. Sounds like the misuse might be cruelty to animals too. Better call PETA.

I didn't say it was misuse, I said it was authorized. But this seems like a lot of work to train a dog to bark at the end of a leash at a naked man. Hank gets that basically for free. Then again, we spent $189,000 on Lynndie Englund so she could get gang-boffed on a concrete floor.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
What's wit you Californians anyway? Last year I raised my voice at Atty G for misquoting me. My quote from the second post where I raised screening was "the U.N. is incompetent for not screening the recipients of their aid to determine the individual's justifiable and compensatable need for relief". I understand that "justifiable" might be a bit vague, but it certainly narrows the meaning of "screening" to something that would seem to exclude those with AKs and M16s who barge in and threaten you.

I didn't quote you, so I'm not sure where I misquoted you. On top of that I think you see screening as much more of a science than I do. Screening could easily be "Omar's house was knocked down, but we know Omar used to hang out with that kid who blew himself up at the security checkpoint, so that means Omar is a terrorist, so he gets no relief." That to me is an exercise of discretion, even more so than "you are a childless couple, so you get a 600 sq ft apartment, not a house" is. I think that criticizing the UN for doing one and not doing the other is contradictory.

Whoa, assumes facts not in evidence. Like that we are rebuilding inhabited homes. I, personally, am against and hope that we are not. Charity begins at home.

You're right. I have no idea what we're doing in terms of destroyed homes. That was just as an example.

To dodge your policy viewpoint on repairing homes, if I used repairing sewer systems for Fallujah as a hypo, would that be aid and comfort to those who hung the bodies from the bridge, fought our troops, and as yet have not been brought to justice?

I just don't think the US is doing any screening even though there are areas in Iraq which are quite infested with our "enemies". That's why I asked you for a cite.