Politics As Usual

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
When you get to the part about Johnny Chung and James Riady, please post it here because I want to see what Clinton has to say about Chinagate but I don't want to buy the book.

TIA!!!!

And if there's some part that explains what he has against cigars to treat them that way- please post. tia!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Actually, that's cutting off the head of every serpent that you see. And their brother, uncle, best friend, progeny, milkman, Not_, er, armchair quarterback. Haven't seen too many Syrian resistants once Ole Uncle Assad shelled whatchamacallit back in the day, have ya? That swamp was drained.

I think totalitarian regimes like Syria are the swamp we're trying to drain, but you'd better ask sgtclub or bilmore, since they seem to be the ones with the faith that we can rebuild the Middle East stronger, faster and better than it is now.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think totalitarian regimes like Syria are the swamp we're trying to drain, but you'd better ask sgtclub or bilmore, since they seem to be the ones with the faith that we can rebuild the Middle East stronger, faster and better than it is now.

What's that thing Patton said about the Germans? Something about, they'll be okay as long as they are our sons of bitches. THe rest of the sons of bitches must die.

Well neither the Syrians or the Fallujahns are our sons of bitches. They therefore must die.

Hello

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
What's that thing Patton said about the Germans? Something about, they'll be okay as long as they are our sons of bitches. THe rest of the sons of bitches must die.

You're thinking of what FDR said of Somoza: "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." Considering that this, our Nicaragua policy, did not obtain unqualified success until 1989, one wonders if it is wise now to extend the Monroe Doctrine so far afield of our sphere of influence, since the timelines might be even longer still.

[Atticus Grinch]

• US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of aggressive tactics to frighten Guantanamo Bay detainees, according to newly-released documents.
  
  * * *
  
  He also approved the forced shaving of facial hair, stripping prisoners naked and the use of dogs to induce fear - tactics of particular interest as they were later used in Abu Ghraib.

BBC.

Given that the defense thus far has been this didn't come from a high level, is there really any room left to defend this? I'm keen to hear how the brightest minds on the board can explain how we done good here.

My prediction: Bush announces days after 6/30 that Rumsfeld will not serve as Secty in Term II, but will complete tenure in Term I. After the election, if 43 wins, he'll appoint him to some other post as a big FU to the 70% of Americans who wanted him gone in disgrace. Ambassador to France, maybe?

ETA: Meanwhile, in Colin Powell's No-Spin Zone, the restated financials for the War on Terror are out. The number of deaths due to terrorist attacks in 2003 was 200% of that reported in the Administration's first version of the report. (Insert bitter Arthur Anderson joke here.) The word from the Terrorist Threat Integration Center is that the intelligence mistakes leading up to Cofer Black's crowing about the beneficial effect of U.S. initiatives against terror were entirely innocent and non-partisan, but anyone now doubting this is engaging in non-innocent and partisan attacks on the Administration. See how they turned that around on us pre-emptively? That's leadership in action.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch [list]US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of aggressive tactics to frighten Guantanamo Bay detainees, according to newly-released documents...
BBC.

In typical fashion, you quote the BBC*. Why don't you follow the lead of your buddy Tyrone and read all the blogs and report the full story - that Rumsfeld refuted such techniques as early as December 2002

Given that the defense thus far has been this didn't come from a high level, is there really any room left to defend this?
I'm keen to hear how the brightest minds on the board can explain how we done good here.

Not that you deem me a "bright" one around here, but my dimm [sic] bulb can see a clear difference between the initial rules laid down for stateless-combatants at Gitmo, then evaluated and renounced thereafter, and refuted before becoming the MO at Abu.

My prediction: Bush announces days after 6/30 that Rumsfeld will not serve as Secty in Term II, but will complete tenure in Term I.

Can I sue you for plagiarism on this? Do a search.

After the election, if 43 wins, he'll appoint him to some other post as a big FU to the 70% of Americans who wanted him gone in disgrace. Ambassador to France, maybe?

I never pondered this, but why not. After all**, the Dems chose to illegally seat a dead person, and, as a result, you got AG Ashcroft. What comes around, goes around.



* Typical BBC anti-American/British nonsense, as reported just today by Sullivan:
"THE BBC ON THE BEHEADING: Never averse to presenting the other side in dealing with terrorists who behead innocent civilians, the BBC had this to say about South Koreans' views of yesterday's atrocity and the policy implications:

The South Korean troops to be deployed in Iraq are due to be involved in humanitarian and rebuilding work, and the area they are to be based in, near Kurdish-controlled Irbil, has been largely peaceful. But the BBC's Charles Scanlon in Seoul says that internet chat sites suggest a majority of Koreans believe their troops should not be taking part in what they see as an immoral occupation.

Ah the scientific polling of the BBC. Anything to promote the idea that a war against terror and fascism is futile.

If this isn't enough, try this


** Talk about "opening the door"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
the Dems chose to illegally seat a dead person, and, as a result, you got AG Ashcroft. What comes around, goes around.

Careful -- this could get you arrested for threatening Supreme Court justices.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch [list]

ETA: Meanwhile, in Colin Powell's No-Spin Zone, the restated financials for the War on Terror are out.

Is there a way to blame Clinton for this? Culture of dishonesty and all that?

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

Not that you deem me a "bright" one around here, but my dimm [sic] bulb can see a clear difference between the initial rules laid down for stateless-combatants at Gitmo, then evaluated and renounced thereafter, and refuted before becoming the MO at Abu.

You give yourself too little credit. You can obviously see the triple-secret laydown/renouncement/refutation that the professionals at AG were too dim to comprehend. They skipped straight from laydown to MO, the stupid bastards.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
Is there a way to blame Clinton for this? Culture of dishonesty and all that?

We'll have to wait till 2010, see if Powell writes a book saying it was important for the country that he fights these charges, and that he's proud he fought them.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

• US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of aggressive tactics to frighten Guantanamo Bay detainees, according to newly-released documents.
  
  * * *
  
  He also approved the forced shaving of facial hair, stripping prisoners naked and the use of dogs to induce fear - tactics of particular interest as they were later used in Abu Ghraib.

BBC.

None of which are torture. What's the problem? How do you expect we are to interrogate these monsters, just ask them nicely?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What's the problem?

Would you feel that way if our soldiers were treated similarly? I find that hard to believe.

It's worth noting that according to a report I heard about on the radio yesterday, 70%-90% of the people detained were innocent.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Meanwhile, in Colin Powell's No-Spin Zone, the restated financials for the War on Terror are out. The number of deaths due to terrorist attacks in 2003 was 200% of that reported in the Administration's first version of the report. (Insert bitter Arthur Anderson joke here.) The word from the Terrorist Threat Integration Center is that the intelligence mistakes leading up to Cofer Black's crowing about the beneficial effect of U.S. initiatives against terror were entirely innocent and non-partisan, but anyone now doubting this is engaging in non-innocent and partisan attacks on the Administration. See how they turned that around on us pre-emptively? That's leadership in action.

Do they continue to exclude car bombings and suicide attacks in Iraq from the count of terrorist attacks? 'Cause that was the real stroke of creativity.

I guess now we know what happened to all the Arthur Andersen folks.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do they continue to exclude car bombings and suicide attacks in Iraq from the count of terrorist attacks? 'Cause that was the real stroke of creativity.

I guess now we know what happened to all the Arthur Andersen folks.

But wait...if they're terrorists then we can dog-collar them, right? If they're soldiers then we can't, but if they're soldiers then this isn't terrorism, right?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
None of which are torture.

What about when the dogs bite?


(Who let the dogs out?!?!)