Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. - Page 258

sgtclub · 07-14-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Yeah, actually. And (i) US sponsored sex/HIV education in Africa is inconsistent and all fucked up by the abstinence loons and (ii) with all due respect to Africans, this isn't Africa and we aren't Africans.

Now, if you want to make the argument that, in the third world, sex/HIV education is of limited value in places where a majority of the population (a) is far more worried about eating and not getting killed than learning nifty safe sex tips, (b) doesn't have even the most basic education (and, un-PC though it may be to point it out, may be so malnourished as to be mentally limited, see (a) above), (c) has no access to condoms even if they did somehow manage to get and understand the educational message, and (d) is led by self-serving ignornant tribal leaders to reject educational efforts and/or believe they are really an evil plot against them by colonialist westerners, I'd probably agree with you. The main problem there isn't that education itself doesn't help, it's that education is not that useful in the face of overwhelming poverty, corruption, ignorance and/or backward cultural attitudes.

But I thought we were talking about the US.

We are, but Africa serves as a good, although severe, example of the limits of education to transform behavior. So does drug education in this country. It would be nice to think that all we have to do is educate people and they will make better choices. That works at some level, but not with the vast majorities.

Shape Shifter · 07-14-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
My follow up post noted that I lament that they could not have been neutralised in a more strategic manner.

They could have been effectively neutralized -- in fact we would have never heard of Wilson and Plame -- had Bush simply not lied. He could have just said we were going to war in Iraq because SH was a bad, bad man. Further, in deference to bilmore's sensibilities, we will go to war with wall countries who engage in torture . . . oops, scratch that.

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-14-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
This would be a good story if it were actually true. The truth is that Cooper called Rove to discuss welfare reform. Towards the end of the call, Cooper turned the subject to WMD, and Rove, knowing that Tenet was going to be giving a press conference that day on the subject, warned Cooper not to go to far out on a limb on the Wilson story. This was not a hit.

Only two people could know this "truth", and you didn't get it from Cooper. Rove has been misleading people for a long time know about his role in this affair, so why are you regurgitating his talking points as the "truth"?

Shape Shifter · 07-14-2005, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
It was a joke. Lighten up.

It was not your best material.

dtb · 07-14-2005, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
It was not your best material.

I think velour is his best material.

ltl/fb · 07-14-2005, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
This would be a good story if it were actually true. The truth is that Cooper called Rove to discuss welfare reform. Towards the end of the call, Cooper turned the subject to WMD, and Rove, knowing that Tenet was going to be giving a press conference that day on the subject, warned Cooper not to go to far out on a limb on the Wilson story. This was not a hit.

What better way to spread crap than to drop it into the end of some other conversation? It's like in the trashy romance novel I read, where the Hero believed what he overhead the Villain saying about having fucked the Heroine, because the Villain was talking to other people (not directly to the Hero) and was somewhat drunk. However, the dastardly Villain actually knew the Hero was around, and deliberately said it in that situation so that it would be all the more believable.

And if some trashy romance novel writer can come up with this kind of reasoning, I would hope that one of the premier political operatives in the US today could do the same thing.

sgtclub · 07-14-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Only two people could know this "truth", and you didn't get it from Cooper. Rove has been misleading people for a long time know about his role in this affair, so why are you regurgitating his talking points as the "truth"?

Fair enough on your first point. I'm not sure I agree on the second and, frankly, it doesn't ring true to me given that Rove signed the waiver in 2003.

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-14-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Dissent. See the Lord Butler report.

Please see this. The report to which you refer does not suggest that Wilson was wrong or that Iraq actually was buying yellowcake -- it only suggests that the intelligence people had some basis to be concerned about it at the time. You can use this to defend the state of mind of people in the White House -- arguably they weren't lying -- but it does not change the facts that (a) Iraq was not acquiring Niger yellowcake, (b) the White House and the CIA now say the 16 words should not have been the State of the Union address, and (c) Wilson was fundamentally right to expose the fact that the White House was scaring people with misinformation.

ltl/fb · 07-14-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
We are, but Africa serves as a good, although severe, example of the limits of education to transform behavior. So does drug education in this country. It would be nice to think that all we have to do is educate people and they will make better choices. That works at some level, but not with the vast majorities.

So . . . social darwinism? "They" aren't educable, have a zillion kids, can't be taught not to take drugs, and thus are really ideally suited to ask if "we" want fries with that? !!!!!!

Penske, I think I am learning at your knee.

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-14-2005, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Fair enough on your first point. I'm not sure I agree on the second and, frankly, it doesn't ring true to me given that Rove signed the waiver in 2003.

The White House said he wasn't involved. Oops. I've seen a clip of Rove saying essentially the same thing.

Rove publicly gave that waiver, but the reporters -- well, Cooper at least -- felt that he was coerced and did not think it was operative. Cooper decided to spill the beans only when he saw the WSJ quote Rove's attorney as saying that whoever Cooper was protecting, it wasn't Rove.

sgtclub · 07-14-2005, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please see this. The report to which you refer does not suggest that Wilson was wrong or that Iraq actually was buying yellowcake -- it only suggests that the intelligence people had some basis to be concerned about it at the time. You can use this to defend the state of mind of people in the White House -- arguably they weren't lying -- but it does not change the facts that (a) Iraq was not acquiring Niger yellowcake, (b) the White House and the CIA now say the 16 words should not have been the State of the Union address, and (c) Wilson was fundamentally right to expose the fact that the White House was scaring people with misinformation.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The Brits and the CIA have concluded that Saddam was likely trying to by yellow cake - which is what Bush said in the 16 words.

sgtclub · 07-14-2005, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The White House said he wasn't involved. Oops. I've seen a clip of Rove saying essentially the same thing.

Rove publicly gave that waiver, but the reporters -- well, Cooper at least -- felt that he was coerced and did not think it was operative. Cooper decided to spill the beans only when he saw the WSJ quote Rove's attorney as saying that whoever Cooper was protecting, it wasn't Rove.

But if Rove was involved in some machievellian (sp?) plot to out Plame, why the waiver?

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-14-2005, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sorry, I should have been clearer. The Brits and the CIA have concluded that Saddam was likely trying to by yellow cake - which is what Bush said in the 16 words.

I think they concluded that the original British intelligence was not unfounded, but that's different from saying that Hussein was, in fact, trying to buy yellowcake. Based on what we now know about Iraq's nuclear program -- that it was defunct at the time -- it makes no sense for them to have been buying yellowcake. What would they do with it?

This is the significance of what Wilson was saying at the time, without regard to all of the details about his wife's name and all that crap. Iraq was not pursuing its nuclear program, and Iraqi acquisition of yellowcake from Niger was something we need not have worried about.

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-14-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
But if Rove was involved in some machievellian (sp?) plot to out Plame, why the waiver?

I think the reporters felt that he was coerced to say publicly that he waived the confidentiality of their conversations, but that he did not really mean it. In either of their shoes, I think I would conclude as much.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 07-14-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
But if Rove was involved in some machievellian (sp?) plot to out Plame, why the waiver?

Because as a political move, Bush had DOJ send around a generic, full-blown waiver to all WH employees. What are you going to do, not sign?

Bush did that to forestall the criticism. It worked for a year. Too bad Rove didn't speak up then.