Politics: J'accuse!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Has Franks confirmed that he actually said this Woodward?

Why don't you ask him. If you're going to pretend that Franks lied to Woodward, you could also pretend that stories confirming this were lies, too.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you are mixing things up. club was talking about an article, perhaps timed to take advantage of the prison abuse, that tries to imply water dunking Mohammed is wrong. No one is trying to say the prion abuse is okay, but if dunking Mohammed gets us to stop a cell or an attack- great. I don't care who is doing the dunking, and I don't care if some entity in Belgium starts an investigation. that is seperate from the prison stuff- the prison stuff is being used to justify reconsidering dunking Mohammed- I say lets dunk him some more.

Ah, an argument as old as the star chamber. Though back then they were dunking Bruce and Ewan.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why don't you ask him. If you're going to pretend that Franks lied to Woodward, you could also pretend that stories confirming this were lies, too.

Remember, Woodward is selling a book for profit. Not Me prefers to receive news from unbiased non-profit sources like fox news and the NY Post.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
September 6, Franks tells Bush we haven't found a single WMD.

Has Franks confirmed he said this? If not, you shouldn't be stating it as if it were a fact.* That is misleading. Ty Lied! Ty Lied!

* Instead, you need to say that Woodward says that Fransk said.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think the fact that they filmed themselves having sex with each other in front of the prisoners INCREASES the likelihood that they were improperly supervised and that inappropriate activities were, at the absolute minimum, tacitly approved.

So, yeah, probative value. Just maybe not probative of what you want it to be probative of.

How'd all the exhibitionists end up in the same unit? Bizarre. Were they using condoms?

ETA I thought she was having sex with multiple partners?

sugar, we're all going on rumors from the Post article, but the article does say there were multiple partners.

As to the facts the article reports, we must agree. As to the inference that might be drawn from those facts, I'm going to keep to my belief more people would see it my way then yours. Were they poorly supervised? Duh. but it goes to always poorly supervised- see your side is not just supervised, but actually orchastrated.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Has Franks confirmed he said this? If not, you shouldn't be stating it as if it were a fact.* That is misleading. Ty Lied! Ty Lied!

* Instead, you need to say that Woodward says that Fransk said.

He cited to the book in his original post. Why do you continue to do this? Why, Bilmore?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You act as though this was some clanestine behavior.

No, I'm saying that his top general told him one thing, and he told reporters something different.

It was all in the security assessment materials which were made available to congress, and any of the 535 members had the opportunity to call bullshit if they thought the evidence was too flimsy.

Cite, please. Please recall that there was a lot of material that was shown only to people on the intelligence committees, and that stuff was selectively classified so that people like Senator Graham could not tell the public about the stuff that cut against the administration's case. The NIE was a bogus document, cooked up so that the administration would have something to show Congress. If this was a Democratic Congress, you would have people going apeshit about the separation of powers problems here, but the GOP is suppressing this in the name of party unity.

In any event, none of this makes a difference to the point I'm making, which is that Franks told Bush they hadn't found WMD, and Bush told reporters something else.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
sugar, we're all going on rumors from the Post article, but the article does say there were multiple partners.

As to the facts the article reports, we must agree. As to the inference that might be drawn from those facts, I'm going to keep to my belief more people would see it my way then yours. Were they poorly supervised? Duh. but it goes to always poorly supervised- see your side is not just supervised, but actually orchastrated.

When did I say orchestrated? I say, encouraged at a minimum, and then poorly supervised. Not a good combo. Very irresponsible. Perhaps I should have your children over, encourage them to play with a tea set, toilet bowl cleaner, bleach, ammonia and that lime-away stuff, and then leave them in the house alone.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So do you think Janice gets the ticket to the Hague?

None of the goes to the Hague. You see, the Hague is for war crimes of grave magnitude, say mass murders or genocide.

This is what I mean about perspective. Panties on the head are not war crimes. Failure to supervise your underlings leading to panties on the head is not a war crime. Every violation of the Geneva Convention is not a war crime.

Geesh, perpective, people, perspective.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ah, an argument as old as the star chamber. Though back then they were dunking Bruce and Ewan.

I was just trying to be controversial to increase my street cred. I agree with you, lets make mohammed swear on a Bible to tell the truth, and get on with the trial. He committed a crime for goodness sakes! We are not barbarians, and giving up the Sears Tower is worth not falling to the level of torture guys like Mohammed, who really is mostly bugged about US impearialism.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why don't you ask him. If you're going to pretend that Franks lied to Woodward, you could also pretend that stories confirming this were lies, too.

I don't know him personally, do you? Have there been reports that he confirmed he said this?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
I saw the hearings and i heard Taguba say that. I agree with him. I also heard the contradiction by the other guy. That doesn't mean that Taguba didn't say what he said. He put the blame on Kapinsky. The fact that someone else disagrees doesn't change what he said.

Slowly now, so you can follow:
1. Taguba, in both his report and before Congress, said that the intel officers were put in command of the MPs at AG.
2. Taguba said that order came from above Janis's head.
3. He was contradicted by the Pentagon rep at the witness table.
4. The fact that the Pentagon contradicted him does not change the fact that Taguba, the man you were citing in your prior post, said that the intel officers were put in command of the MPs at AG and that that order came from above Janis's head.

In other words, the Taguba report was not two words long ("Blame Karpinsky") with a bunch of pictures attached.

etft

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Every violation of the Geneva Convention is not a war crime.

Um . . . never mind.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I was just trying to be controversial to increase my street cred. I agree with you, lets make mohammed swear on a Bible to tell the truth, and get on with the trial. He committed a crime for goodness sakes! We are not barbarians, and giving up the Sears Tower is worth not falling to the level of torture guys like Mohammed, who really is mostly bugged about US impearialism.

Please, don't distort what I said.

I'd let Mohammed swear on the Qoran.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
He cited to the book in his original post. Why do you continue to do this? Why, Bilmore?

And you do have to admit that his new approach of "citing-to-a-book-as-conclusive-proof" is a step above his previous approach of "citing-to-a-blog-as-conclusive-proof."