Politics: J'accuse!

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by andViolins
During the great Board crash of April '04, the original Ty seems to have been completely erased from the Matrix. However, like Agent Smith in II and III, Ty seems to have spawned new, different Tys. One has some bizarre purple whacked out loping dino avatar and the other is a monstrosiTY. There could be others. Whatever you do, don't let him put his hand into your chest.

aV

edited to add that although I was late, I like my explanation the best.

Well, except for the purple part.

[Not Me]

How awful.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr29.html

[Beauty]

Originally posted by andViolins
During the great Board crash of April '04, the original Ty seems to have been completely erased from the Matrix. However, like Agent Smith in II and III, Ty seems to have spawned new, different Tys. One has some bizarre purple whacked out loping dino avatar and the other is a monstrosiTY. There could be others. Whatever you do, don't let him put his hand into your chest.

aV

edited to add that although I was late, I like my explanation the best.

I like this explanation the best, too. I'm going with it. But I think the weird loping thing is chartreuse.

[Not Me]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/po...ex=1083816000&

• WASHINGTON, April 28 — A Pentagon intelligence report has concluded that many bombings against Americans and their allies in Iraq, and the more sophisticated of the guerrilla attacks in Falluja, are organized and often carried out by members of Saddam Hussein's secret service, who planned for the insurgency even before the fall of Baghdad.
  
  The report states that Iraqi officers of the "Special Operations and Antiterrorism Branch," known within Mr. Hussein's government as M-14, are responsible for planning roadway improvised explosive devices and some of the larger car bombs that have killed Iraqis, Americans and other foreigners. The attacks have sown chaos and fear across Iraq.

[Beauty]

This is the last paragraph of a NYT editorial today:

• The president's aides have also been arguing that making the event anything more than a "meeting" or informal discussion would establish a pattern that future chief executives would be forced to follow. That is true, in a way. If Mr. Bush or any of his successors have the tragic misfortune to be in command at a time when terrorists strike the country, killing thousands of innocent civilians, they should be expected to cooperate with the official investigations, and to do so in a way that puts their statements on the record and into history.

Medic! Man down!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Beauty
But I think the weird loping thing is chartreuse.

Sounds like aV has some sort of colorblindness.

Here, diagnose yourself:

http://www.vischeck.com/examples/
http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckURL.php

[Not Me]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118540,00.html

• WASHINGTON — More lawmakers are joining the chorus calling for a member of the commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to testify before the panel, saying that as a former high-ranking Justice official in the Clinton administration, she has a conflict of interest.
  
  Thirteen U.S. senators recently asked Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, chairman and vice-chairman of the National Commission on Terror Attacks Upon the United States, to reconsider their decision on allowing former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick to publicly testify before the panel.
  
  The senators wrote that they "particularly interested" to learn that the Gorelick has already testified before the commission in private, "and we presume not under oath."
  
  The lawmakers wrote that there are "significant unresolved differences" in the public statements of Gorelick and Attorney General John Ashcroft, and others involved in the "wall" issue — separating criminal and terrorism/intelligence gathering investigations.
  
  "Conflicting versions of who created the wall, how the wall was created, when it was created, and what dots were not connected because of it, all require that the commission pursue fully the facts," the senators wrote.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
After listening to cries of "we've murdered a million Iraqi children" during the sanctions, I just think this is rich. It confirms for me the total venality of those countries and institutions who wanted to appear to be opposed to a war on humanitarian grounds - they were, in fact, more concerned that their theft from the Iraqi people might be slowed.

These are the people to whom Kerry would like to grant veto power over our actions.

Your case is stong enough, don't weaken it by hyperbole.

The charges of corruption and self-interest clearly don't apply to all of the anti-war countries and institutions. I'd bet that (to name a few that come to mind) the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church, South Africa (and Mandela/Tutu), Mexico, and Amnesty International come out of this scandal reasonably unscathed.

Nor would Kerry give the UN a veto over anything he actually wanted to do as President. You don't think he'd flip on that in a second?

S_A_M

[Beauty]

If Gorelick has already testified privately, and if the commissioners don't have any further questions for her,*then the only purpose served by having her testify again in public is to facilitate the GOP efforts to discredit the commission by painting it as a partisan exercise. Since Kean et al. seem to be above this, it's not going to happen. It's a good thing that there are grown-up Republicans, like Kean, who care about national security and want to place it above the interests of the GOP in the next election. If we didn't have such a crappy press, the GOP might pay more of a price for acting out of self-interest in this way.


* Distinguishes her from Condoleeza Rice.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Beauty
This is the last paragraph of a NYT editorial today:

• The president's aides have also been arguing that making the event anything more than a "meeting" or informal discussion would establish a pattern that future chief executives would be forced to follow. That is true, in a way. If Mr. Bush or any of his successors have the tragic misfortune to be in command at a time when terrorists strike the country, killing thousands of innocent civilians, they should be expected to cooperate with the official investigations, and to do so in a way that puts their statements on the record and into history.

Medic! Man down!

Now is not the time for this partisan bullshit when our country is at war. If the 9/11 Commission was really about gathering information, it would have been held after the elections and Gorelick would be testifying under oath, not in private with her buddies on the Commission.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The charges of corruption and self-interest clearly don't apply to all of the anti-war countries and institutions. I'd bet that (to name a few that come to mind) the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church, South Africa (and Mandela/Tutu), Mexico, and Amnesty International come out of this scandal reasonably unscathed.

As fun as it is to boil the views of entire countries down to simple caricatures, in the same way that different Americans feel differently about the war, we might also allow the possibility that while there are the corrupt French, there are also principled, non-corrupt French.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by Not Me
Now is not the time for this partisan bullshit when our country is at war.

Translation: Do not criticize President Bush, ever, or we will wave the flag at you.

If the 9/11 Commission was really about gathering information, it would have been held after the elections and Gorelick would be testifying under oath, not in private with her buddies on the Commission.

Doesn't the word "testify" mean that there was an oath? Or is "sworn testimony" not redundant? Honest question.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Beauty
the possibility that while there are the corrupt French, there are also principled, non-corrupt French.

which were the ones voting at the UN (or pushing for the votes)?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Your case is stong enough, don't weaken it by hyperbole.

I'd bet that (to name a few that come to mind) the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church, South Africa (and Mandela/Tutu), Mexico, and Amnesty International come out of this scandal reasonably unscathed.


S_A_M

How many of those sit on the Security Counsel?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Beauty
Translation: Do not criticize President Bush, ever, or we will wave the flag at you.

No, don't engage in partisan mud-slinging about who is to blame for 9/11 while we are at war.

Originally posted by Beauty
Doesn't the word "testify" mean that there was an oath? Or is "sworn testimony" not redundant? Honest question.

I don't think she was under oath in her little cozy meetings with her buddies.

FYI - the first defintion of testify does include under oath.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/70/T0127000.html

BTW - keep in mind what Kean said about people staying out of the Commission's business before you start heaping praise on him.