Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So if we have another disputed election, it is possible that the SCT will be deadlocked at 4-4? Who breaks that tie?

That is a good question. What happens if he dies? Is there some procedure in place other than the standard appointment process?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Why? I mean, I wish Rehnquist a speedy recovery, but I don't think it's inappropriate to use his hospitalization as an illustration that in the next four years it is very likely that one or more Supreme Court Justices will have to be replaced and whoever wins next week (plus the month of bickering over results) will be the one to do the replacing (plus the three months of bickering in the Senate).

I have heard that Chile is a very nice place to visit at this time of year, though.

Summary for you, SS and Coltrane: Supreme Court replacements as a general topic: fair game. Raising it in the context of someone's current illness: not a good idea for either side, too many people will view it as extremely tacky or desperate or whatever. OTOH: if you raise it benignly as an illustration that the next President is always likely to have a hand in the next Supreme Court (for example, some Justices even now are ill), than I guess I wouldn't flinch. I'd flinch more at the idea of anyone using him in a very issue-specific context (If Kerry picks Rehnquist's replacement, we'll never see Roe overturned!).

Maybe another way to put this is, the more shrill the voice raising this is, the more I'll flinch at it as being tacky.

Chile': Far and away the country I like the most (after the U.S.) in the Americas. Its seen huge strides in the last 50 years, and I believe it will continue to make more. And yup, I don't care if they lean towards Democrats more than Republicans, they are still good people.

Hello

ETA: and, just for the sake of anyone else reading this, I reiterate that single-issue abortion voters are 2 or 3 times more likely to be pro-Life than pro-choice according to studies. That's why I'm suggesting that its way more likely that the Reps will be tacky and raise a shrill voice here. If the Dems do it, they'll both look shrill and be raising an issue that galvanizes more pro-Life votes than pro-choice. No upside to it, at least for the abortion question. All of this said, I think some pro-Life group or another is gonna jump the ropes on this one and start screaming.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Not Me
Its easy for you armchair generals to sit around posting on internet board criticizing the US forces in Iraq. I wonder how it feels to read this kind of crap when you put your life on the line serving your country? I don't know because I don't do it. Neither do you. The difference is that I don't criticize those who do.

This is such a fucking cheap way out of this argument. No one is criticizing the troops. You make yourself look even dumber for saying this.

As a pseudo armchair general, I can and will criticize the ACTUAL (armchair) generals, who are not only NOT putting their lives on the line, but are putting one of my family members on it.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Not Me
Its easy for you armchair generals to sit around posting on internet board criticizing the US forces in Iraq. I wonder how it feels to read this kind of crap when you put your life on the line serving your country? I don't know because I don't do it. Neither do you. The difference is that I don't criticize those who do.

I haven't seen anybody here criticize the troops. Now, the man who sent them there, well, that's a chimp of another color.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

That said, if anyone tries to make political hay out of this over the next week, I'm gonna seriously consider buying my ticket to Chile'.

Hello

Its already political hay. Bush has already been courting the waterheads who vote exclusively on this issue.

Kerry doesn't want to touch abortion because, due to his religion, its a tricky issue for him. He'd rather duck it. Bush is the one who slips the "climate of life" statement into all of his speeches.

The GOP serves with the gay marraige amendment and then cries foul when Kerry volleys with Mary Cheney. The GOP puts abortion on the front burner and now, presumably, will cry foul when the Dems cite a Justice's cancer surgery as proof that this election could change Roe? Come on... you can't have it both ways.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Chile': Far and away the country I like the most (after the U.S.) in the Americas. Its seen huge strides in the last 50 years, and I believe it will continue to make more. And yup, I don't care if they lean towards Democrats more than Republicans, they are still good people.

Hello

Regardless of your political party, I think we can all agree that Chilean women are ridiculously hot.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I'm not criticizing troop movements and strategic goals. Securing arms is pretty basic.

Yes, you are criticizing the troops. From the reports, the troops were sent to investigate where these explosives supposedly were back in the spring of 2003 and they didn't think they were there so they didn't secure them. They were there, the soldiers just got it wrong. However, I have no fucking idea how hard it would be to find them if they were hidden and neither do you. So I don't criticize those who are risking their lives so I can live in safety.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And aside from the military criticism, the military has known about the missing explosives since Spring of '03. Why did Rice only find out about this a month ago?

You've got your facts wrong about that.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
No one is criticizing the troops.

Yes, you are. The troops were sent to secure the site but they didn't find any evidence the explosives were there so they didn't secure the site. I have no fucking idea how hard it would be to find hidden explosives and neither do you. I don't try to turn it into some partisan argument to vote for my candidate, though.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Summary for you, SS and Coltrane: Supreme Court replacements as a general topic: fair game. Raising it in the context of someone's current illness: not a good idea for either side, too many people will view it as extremely tacky or desperate or whatever. OTOH: if you raise it benignly as an illustration that the next President is always likely to have a hand in the next Supreme Court (for example, some Justices even now are ill), than I guess I wouldn't flinch. I'd flinch more at the idea of anyone using him in a very issue-specific context (If Kerry picks Rehnquist's replacement, we'll never see Roe overturned!).

Maybe another way to put this is, the more shrill the voice raising this is, the more I'll flinch at it as being tacky.

Chile': Far and away the country I like the most (after the U.S.) in the Americas. Its seen huge strides in the last 50 years, and I believe it will continue to make more. And yup, I don't care if they lean towards Democrats more than Republicans, they are still good people.

Hello

ETA: and, just for the sake of anyone else reading this, I reiterate that single-issue abortion voters are 2 or 3 times more likely to be pro-Life than pro-choice according to studies. That's why I'm suggesting that its way more likely that the Reps will be tacky and raise a shrill voice here. If the Dems do it, they'll both look shrill and be raising an issue that galvanizes more pro-Life votes than pro-choice. No upside to it, at least for the abortion question. All of this said, I think some pro-Life group or another is gonna jump the ropes on this one and start screaming.

Come now, counselor.... Just about anyone can raise this issue with tact and not look "despicable".* Here, I'll do it right here (Kerry... use this):

"We all wish Justice Rehnquist the speediest recovery, and we hope the he remains the pre-emminent jurist and guiding hand of the Supreme Court that he has been for so long, but ladies and gentleman, make no mistake. His unfirtunate illness does remind us that the Supreme Court, made up of some of the wisest minds, who have come to their wisdom partly through age, are not getting younger, and God forbid illness should befall any of them, or they decide to retire, the next president will be able to shape the Court for decades to come. Ladies and gentlemen, do not forget that the most activist righist jurists on the panel - the ones Bush admits favoring the most - are also the youngest. Should Bush get to appoint another of like mind, there could be a Scalia/Thomas dominated court. You know what that would bring. (then add some crap about how the Court needs to be evenly split and fair)."

* And don't think I didn't note the fact that in your first post you didn't merely say it would LOOK despicable - you said it would BE despicable.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'd call that Orwellian, but it would confuse and anger Hank.

I'm not sure a direct quote is "ian". Coltrane is, however, always Orwellian in the sense of the protangonist from Aspidistra.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
We checked to see the explosives were there and then we left.

Do me a favor. Go check to find a single war where there weren't fuck ups, and lots of them. Name a war, and if 2 minutes of Google doesn't find a list of bluders perceived in the aftermath, then I shall ..... well I don't know.

I do know there are cave paintings in France calling out Ugh, the chief of the Cro-Mags for screwing up and leaving the fire unattended when he attacked the Neanderthals.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Come now, counselor.... Just about anyone can raise this issue with tact and not look "despicable".* Here, I'll do it right here (Kerry... use this):

It should surprise no one to discover that your view on "tact" is not mine.

Could this be done even more subtly, and yet equally clearly, without capitalizing on someone's illness? Yes. In fact, the two candidates discussed this issue fairly tactfully in the debate, and without mentioning who was most likely to die next. Anyone want to bet that they, and particularly Kerry, will continue to do so?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do me a favor. Go check to find a single war where there weren't fuck ups, and lots of them. Name a war, and if 2 minutes of Google doesn't find a list of bluders perceived in the aftermath, then I shall ..... well I don't know.

I do know there are cave paintings in France calling out Ugh, the chief of the Cro-Mags for screwing up and leaving the fire unattended when he attacked the Neanderthals.

That's not really the point, hank. One very strong plank in Bush's platform has been the idea that "Kerry will screw up the war." (I think that he said something like "how can Kerry win a war he opposes?" in the debates.) I think that the polls show that this has been an effective line for him.

So, he's opened up the way things have been handled for debate in the election. Bush denies that any mistakes have been made. The fact that we didn't secure this site is clearly a mistake -- and, no Not Me, I don't think that anyone could argue that the failure to secure a site identified by the UN (elBaradi's nuke inspection group) as the locale for shaped munition trigger charges was a patrol-level mistake. The responsibility for this one lies a bit higher up than with Sgt. Smith of Bravo Company.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Yes, you are criticizing the troops. From the reports, the troops were sent to investigate where these explosives supposedly were back in the spring of 2003 and they didn't think they were there so they didn't secure them. They were there, the soldiers just got it wrong. However, I have no fucking idea how hard it would be to find them if they were hidden and neither do you. So I don't criticize those who are risking their lives so I can live in safety.

You've got your facts wrong about that.

Ty quotes from the Nelson Report:

Despite pressure from DOD to keep it quiet, the IAEA and the Iraqi Interim Government this month officially reported that 350-tons of dual-use, very high explosives were looted from a previously secure site in the early days of the US occupation in 2003. Administration officials privately admit this material is likely a primary source of the lethal car bomb attacks which cause so many US and Iraqi casualties. In the first presidential candidate debate, on foreign policy, Democratic nominee John Kerry charged that captured munitions and weapons were being turned against Coalition Forces, with US troops suffering 90% of the casualties. But the specifics of the losses from the Al Qa Qaa bunker and building complex, only now being reported, were apparently unknown outside of DOD and the US occupation authorities. The Bush Administration barred the IAEA from any participation in the Iraq invasion and occupation process, and blocked IAEA requests to help in the search for WMD and other dangerous materials. As part of the UN sanctions regime still in place when the US invaded, the IAEA had “under seal” 350 tons of RDX and HDX explosives, since singly, and in combination, these materials can be used in the triggering process for a nuclear weapon. However, the explosives were allowed to remain in Iraq due to their conventional use in construction, oil pipe lines, and the like. Since the explosives went missing last year, sources say DOD and other elements in the Administration sought to block the IAEA from officially reporting the problem, and also tried to stop the new Iraqi Interim Government from cooperating with the IAEA. But finally, on Oct. 10, the Iraqi’s formally notified the IAEA, and on Oct. 15, the IAEA formally notified the Bush Administration. In press guidance prepared for release in the event news got out, but not released until today, when requested by The Nelson Report, State Department spokesmen confirmed the Iraqi government and IAEA report dates, and that 350 tons of dual use high explosives could not be accounted for. State says DOD has now authorized the Iraq Survey Group to investigate the situation, which, by all accounts, took place in April, 2003. The official press guidance claims “no indications of WMD” at the Al Qa Qaa site, but concedes that the IAEA-sealed explosives were already missing at that time. Some sources say that in addition to the explosives, 20,000 RDX-armed rockets were lost, but we cannot confirm this. However, sources do say that parts of Iraqi Scud engines, and other metal components, have turned up in scrap metal yards in Amsterdam.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc..._24.php#003777

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
That's not really the point, hank. One very strong plank in Bush's platform has been the idea that "Kerry will screw up the war." (I think that he said something like "how can Kerry win a war he opposes?" in the debates.) I think that the polls show that this has been an effective line for him.

What I heard him say is "how can he ask our soldiers to die, and our allies to help, in the wrong war at the wrong time." As to how to prosecute the war, I believe the President has been consistant that he defers that to the generals.

So, he's opened up the way things have been handled for debate in the election. Bush denies that any mistakes have been made. The fact that we didn't secure this site is clearly a mistake -- and, no Not Me, I don't think that anyone could argue that the failure to secure a site identified by the UN (elBaradi's nuke inspection group) as the locale for shaped munition trigger charges was a patrol-level mistake. The responsibility for this one lies a bit higher up than with Sgt. Smith of Bravo Company.

Again, what I heard was that certainly there have been things that he would do differently now, but that the big decision "do we go into Iraq" he does not see as a mistake. I do recognize the spin from your side on this point was different, and was that everything he ever decided was just a-ok.

And I would hope that it was not up to a political appointee to decide to secure an ammo dump. Do you really think that is for Bush to tell the Generals? War is crazy- mistakes happen. Eisenhower screwed up before the Battle of the Bulge. He was still found an adequate President.