Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
As you seem to acknowledge, the law ultimately devolves into the law of the gun. If you harbor terrorists, it may be considered an act of war. So don't harbor terrorists if you want to avoid a war. In the case of Russia and Dubai, I'm not suggesting that Russia is right merely based on the legal logic of the Bush Doctrine. I'm suggesting that Russia is right (also) based on the fact that they can kick Dubai's ass.

We agree. Sorry, I guess I should have been clearer that my response was more of a spitball on the logic of the doctrine, not necessarily the specific whys and wherefores of the Russia situation.

At the same time, I think the Bush administration might find it in their interest to put a leash on independent anti-Iran forces that can be controlled on U.S.-controlled territory.

Why? They certainly haven't done this.

In fact, I think we could argue that we are tolerating the anti-Iran forces as a proxy for us in an undeclared war, based on Iran sheltering Al Quaida operatives from our wrath. If Iran wants to increase the noise on this issue, they are more than welcome. Something tells me they won't though.

This seems more like the admin's CW than previous quote. Not without its logic. btw, Iran did make a good bit of noise on this issue back when it happened, but unsurprisingly our attention was elsewhere.

Still, Dubai should back out of hostile activities against another nation that can kick its ass within the realm of the Bush doctrine. The immediately preceding sentence is probably a good summary of my answer to your "why".

My point was only that in some ways that summary sentence would work better if you deleted the words following "ass". And I think that's only partially because I dislike reading the words "Bush Doctrine" referring to anything besides "making sure to chew pretzels fully before swallowing."

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Why? They certainly haven't done this.

By "leash", I don't mean necessarily restraining them entirely. Rather, restraining them do doing our bidding. I thought these guys were put in a guarded camp that is basically a large informal prison. I'm sure the U.S. is letting them come and go to collect information we can use. But have you heard of them attacking anyone lately (in, e.g., Iran?)

Then again, some Iranian diplomats have been assassinated in Iraq. I swear its easier to pin that on Al Zarqawi types intent on creating as much friction between all parties as they can.

That "Bush Doctrine" was pretty well pinned down by the 50+ page article Bilmore linked to a few weeks (a month or more?) ago. The article wasn't perfect, or perfectly consise or precise, but it had a few tenets that were clearly laid-out after 9/11, and which I think its useful for us to hold out in the modern world for ourselves as a matter of self-interest.

Start with the idea of others conducting war by proxy against us by shielding terrorists who attack us. The doctrine is:

We will strike you preemptively.
We will strike anyone who knowingly/willingly assists terrorists who attack us.
American will do what it can to maintain and foster Democracies.

There were a few other points (from recollection) that were more wishy-washy (the third is fairly well there).

It didn't mention anything about how Republicans will do whatever is necessary to ensure Republicans stay in control until the war (WWIV) is over, but I'm sure that went without saying.

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while seated on the shoulders of her father, Phil Parlock, after having their Bush-Cheney sign torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters on Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at the Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va. Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards made a brief stop at the airport as he concluded his two-day bus tour to locations in West Virginia and Ohio. (AP Photo/Randy Snyder)

[Say_hello_for_me]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...home-headlines

The AP story in the LA Times was posted at 3:19 (pacific?) and indicates that the first of the bloggers to publicly question the authenticity of the Killian memos based on technical stuff is a GA (Georgia) lawyer who might accurately be described as a conservative activist.

1.) He ain't doing interviews;
2.) He posted a technical deconstruction 4 hours after the CBS story ran.

Both of which raise flags. But neither of which answers the questions of a.) motive (preempting the overall story?) or b.) how he could engineer CBS and its chief democratic mouthpiece describing the documents as coming from an unimpeachable source.

I'm not sure what to think of the LA Times information, though I know it doesn't do one thing to absolve CBS and Rather.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


Three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while seated on the shoulders of her father, Phil Parlock, after having their Bush-Cheney sign torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters on Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at the Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va. Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards made a brief stop at the airport as he concluded his two-day bus tour to locations in West Virginia and Ohio. (AP Photo/Randy Snyder)

So it turns out that this is the third election in a row that Parlock has complained publicly that a renegade Democrat has ripped a sign out of his (or his daughter's hands). Funny how this always happens to him, huh?

• Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, August 27, 1996, Page 3C
  
  Phil Parlock's experience was less calm.
  
  The Huntington man said he was knocked to the ground by a Clinton supporter when he tried to display a sign that read "Remember Vince Foster," the deputy White House counsel who committed suicide in a Washington, D.C., park. His death has become the subject of much debate among Clinton opponents.
  
  "It must have been a strict Democrat who did this," Parlock said, feeling the red abrasions on his face. "Everyone with the exception of him was real peaceful about our protest."
  
  Parlock said some of the crowd tried to make other anti-Clinton demonstrators feel unwelcome. He estimated that about 150 Dole supporters attended the rally, but their signs couldn't be seen for most of the rally.
  
  
  Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, October 28, 2000, pg. 1A:
  
  Phil Parlock didn't expect to need all 12 of the Bush-Cheney signs he and his son Louis smuggled in their socks and pockets into the rally for Vice President Al Gore.
  
  But each time they raised a sign, someone would grab it out of their hands, the two Huntington residents said. And sometimes it got physical.
  
  "I expected some people to take our signs," said Louis, 12. "But I did not expect people to practically attack us."
  
  The two said they didn't go to the Friday morning rally to start trouble.
  
  "I came to support Bush and try to change some people's minds," Louis said.

But it gets better. The man in that photo that (allegedly) tore the sign out of his little daughter's hands bears a striking resemblence to his sons:



As Atrios pointed out, the guy wins the Father Of The Year award for enlisting his little girl in this scheme.

eta: Here's a description of him from someone who apparently knows him, on the board linked by Atrios:

• Phil has an incredible ability to provoke anyone in any situation very quickly. I've seen him do it in situations that needed no provocation on several occasions. It's just his nature. I think Phil set it up to cause as big a stink as possible. That's also his nature.

That kid's going to need some therapy, or something.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...home-headlines

The AP story in the LA Times was posted at 3:19 (pacific?) and indicates that the first of the bloggers to publicly question the authenticity of the Killian memos based on technical stuff is a GA (Georgia) lawyer who might accurately be described as a conservative activist.

1.) He ain't doing interviews;
2.) He posted a technical deconstruction 4 hours after the CBS story ran.

Both of which raise flags. But neither of which answers the questions of a.) motive (preempting the overall story?) or b.) how he could engineer CBS and its chief democratic mouthpiece describing the documents as coming from an unimpeachable source.

I'm not sure what to think of the LA Times information, though I know it doesn't do one thing to absolve CBS and Rather.

Hello

Democrats have been repeating the story of how Karl Rove planted a bug in the office his own candidate to engineer a story that sucked all of the oxygen out of the campaign. But I thought that was pretty much paranoid thinking until I read this post.

A blogger who doesn't want to talk to the press or blow his own horn? Definitely very, very suspicious.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The AP story in the LA Times was posted at 3:19 (pacific?) and indicates that the first of the bloggers to publicly question the authenticity of the Killian memos based on technical stuff is a GA (Georgia) lawyer who might accurately be described as a conservative activist.

Hmmmmm. This IS suspicious. The guy who outed the forgeries is a computer-savvy lawyer, used to authenticating docs, and a devoted and activist Republican.

Also, I understand that they're already building the new stockades in the woods of the Florida panhandle for all the Kerry workers who will be rounded up right after Bush's Diebold-delivered "win".

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So it turns out that this is the third election in a row that Parlock has complained publicly that a renegade Democrat has ripped a sign out of his (or his daughter's hands). Funny how this always happens to him, huh?

It might even be better than all that. There was one story (I don't remember where I saw it) about a Republican campaign office that took a stray rifle shot through the front window one evening a few weeks ago. There was some speculation it was self-staged. The story was examined today at DU, and it turns out that one of the office occupants at the time of the shooting was . . . . this guy.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Democrats have been repeating the story of how Karl Rove planted a bug in the office his own candidate to engineer a story that sucked all of the oxygen out of the campaign. But I thought that was pretty much paranoid thinking until I read this post.

A blogger who doesn't want to talk to the press or blow his own horn? Definitely very, very suspicious.

This won't make any difference in the election. But this may:

Fla. Supreme Court Puts Nader on Ballot

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._el_pr/nader_3

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So it turns out that this is the third election in a row that Parlock has complained publicly that a renegade Democrat has ripped a sign out of his (or his daughter's hands). Funny how this always happens to him, huh?

• Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, August 27, 1996, Page 3C
  
  Phil Parlock's experience was less calm.
  
  The Huntington man said he was knocked to the ground by a Clinton supporter when he tried to display a sign that read "Remember Vince Foster," the deputy White House counsel who committed suicide in a Washington, D.C., park. His death has become the subject of much debate among Clinton opponents.
  
  "It must have been a strict Democrat who did this," Parlock said, feeling the red abrasions on his face. "Everyone with the exception of him was real peaceful about our protest."
  
  Parlock said some of the crowd tried to make other anti-Clinton demonstrators feel unwelcome. He estimated that about 150 Dole supporters attended the rally, but their signs couldn't be seen for most of the rally.
  
  
  Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, October 28, 2000, pg. 1A:
  
  Phil Parlock didn't expect to need all 12 of the Bush-Cheney signs he and his son Louis smuggled in their socks and pockets into the rally for Vice President Al Gore.
  
  But each time they raised a sign, someone would grab it out of their hands, the two Huntington residents said. And sometimes it got physical.
  
  "I expected some people to take our signs," said Louis, 12. "But I did not expect people to practically attack us."
  
  The two said they didn't go to the Friday morning rally to start trouble.
  
  "I came to support Bush and try to change some people's minds," Louis said.

But it gets better. The man in that photo that (allegedly) tore the sign out of his little daughter's hands bears a striking resemblence to his sons:



As Atrios pointed out, the guy wins the Father Of The Year award for enlisting his little girl in this scheme.

eta: Here's a description of him from someone who apparently knows him, on the board linked by Atrios:

• Phil has an incredible ability to provoke anyone in any situation very quickly. I've seen him do it in situations that needed no provocation on several occasions. It's just his nature. I think Phil set it up to cause as big a stink as possible. That's also his nature.

That kid's going to need some therapy, or something.

Maybe the incident was faked, but I believe it accurate.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Hmmmmm. This IS suspicious. The guy who outed the forgeries is a computer-savvy lawyer, used to authenticating docs, and a devoted and activist Republican.

You and I are also computer-savvy lawyers, used to authenticating docs, and devoted and activist Republicans. But, my bosses ask me to obtain and examine documents and give an analysis on the fonts, spacing, history of typewriters and computers, and whatever else in four hours, and I'm probably jumping out of the window. You gonna be able to do this that quickly?

I'm actually wondering how quickly the documents were made available for inspection by 60 minutes. Were they posted on the CBS site immediately?

But hey, as my spokesman, if you say its all good, then its all good.

Hello

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Hello

It's all good.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Maybe the incident was faked, but I believe it accurate.

POTW. Took me awhile to get it. You aren't as dumb as your avatar looks.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You and I are also computer-savvy lawyers, used to authenticating docs, and devoted and activist Republicans. But, my bosses ask me to obtain and examine documents and give an analysis on the fonts, spacing, history of typewriters and computers, and whatever else in four hours, and I'm probably jumping out of the window. You gonna be able to do this that quickly?

Clearly, you are not a copyright lawyer.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Maybe the incident was faked, but I believe it accurate.

Nice save, Hank. Still a loss, I'm afraid, but you retained your dignity. Kind of like a Rocky versus Apollo Creed the first movie sort of thing.