Politics: J'accuse!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...1654-1495r.htm

[quoting Washington Times story on Clinton national security paper]

This story sounds pretty bogus to me, based on what Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum say about the underlying report.

Drum:

[F]ar from considering terrorism a mere law enforcement activity, terrorism gets an entire paragraph in the section titled "Military Activities":

• We must continue to improve our program to combat terrorism in the areas of antiterrorism, counterterrorism, consequence management, and intelligence support to deter terrorism. We will deter terrorism through the increased antiterrorism readiness of our installations and forward forces, enhanced training and awareness of military personnel, and the development of comprehensive theater engagement plans. In counterterrorism, because terrorist organizations may not be deterred by traditional means, we must ensure a robust capability to accurately attribute the source of attacks against the United States or its citizens, and to respond effectively and decisively to protect our national interests. U.S. armed forces possess a tailored range of options to respond to terrorism directed at U.S. citizens, interests, and property. In the event of a terrorist incident, our consequence management ability to significantly mitigate injury and damage may likely deter future attacks. Finally, we will continue to improve the timeliness and accuracy of intelligence support to commanders, which will also enhance our ability to deter terrorism.

They're right -- that paragraph doesn't mention OBL or Al Qaeda. I guess that casts doubt on Clarke's entire account.

Yglesias

A fair criticism to make of this document would be that it has a very Clinton-ish laundry-list quality to it that stands in sharp contrast to Bush's focus -- both at home and abroad -- on a handful of key priorities. That, indeed, was the main criticism one heard from Condoleezza Rice and other Clinton critics from the right during the 2000 campaign. He was too unfocused. The critics were probably right about this. Unfortunately, and as we've seen several times before, when Rice had the chance to draw up her short list of priorities, she left multinational terrorism off it altogether.

That means terrorism got less attention than it did under Clinton -- a mistake, not only in retrospect, but one that many people saw was mistaken at the time. This is not to say that the Clinton administration was as focused on the issue as, in retrospect, it's clear they should have been. But this, in turn, doesn't mean that Bush didn't take a bad situation and make it even worse.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
All the porn you can eat.

please use the proper buffet lingo. "all you can eat" has been replaced with "all you care to eat" as the ever increasing obesity levels shocked the buffet-providing community into taking the dare out of the phrase.

Atticus, all the porn you care to eat.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

This is bad. This is Dukakis sitting in a tank bad.

[Effete Liberal Snob]

Originally posted by baltassoc
This is bad. This is Dukakis sitting in a tank bad.

They said the same thing about me when I ordered my steak sandwich in a quaint Philadelphia bistro with swiss cheese, lettuce and tomato.

Despite the attempts by the right-wing conspiracy to paint me as someone out of touch with the working class... I mean, quite frankly, I cannot imagine the common man prefers to eat some exotic import from France called "Chez Whiz" or something over good, old cheese from one of our strongest Allies - yet I still was able to secure the Democratic nomination

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Many researchers believe it occurs even earlier than that - at least as early as the completion of organogenesis when the peripheral and central nervous systems have formed (about 9 weeks). The fetus at that point has been observed to react to painful stimuli.

So do bugs. I thought the question was whether it was human life, not whether it was life at all.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How hard-core is this? I thought all they had was hotel-room level porn

Either you stay at the wrong hotels, or you watch some seriously hard-core shit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So do bugs. I thought the question was whether it was human life, not whether it was life at all.

Of course it's human life. I thought the question was how you balance the different principles.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So do bugs. I thought the question was whether it was human life, not whether it was life at all.

I don't think anyone, not even the supreme court, doubts a fetus is human life. You might want to read the USSC opinions if you think I am wrong on that.

The issue is whether the mother's right to control her own body (a privacy issue) outweighs the state's interest in unborn human life.

The USSC opinions are very clear on what the issue is. The courts do not address whether an unborn fetus/baby is human life or not. They address the mother's rights and whether and to what extent the state can pass laws regulating the mother's ability to do what she sees fit with her body.

[mr. bob dobolina]

NY's Junior Senator, Shrillary Clinton, is at a party and goes up to The Golden State's GoldenBoy Governor Arnold "the Terminator" Schwarzenegger and says, "If you were my husband, I would poison your drink."

Arnold replies, "If you were my wife, I would drink it."

I'm here all week!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
All the porn you can eat.

remember, for him tiger Beat is porno.







hasn't anyone seen happiness?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
remember, for him tiger Beat is porno.

I thought that was S^2, not AG.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
hasn't anyone seen happiness?

I am a bitter, nasty cunt of a spinstress who really needs to off herself. I wouldn't know happiness if it slapped me in the face.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I thought that was S^2, not AG.
I am a bitter, nasty cunt of a spinstress who really needs to off herself. I wouldn't know happiness if it slapped me in the face.

to be fair, i offered you happiness of a sort, but you weren't willing to share. My reference was to the movie. Those of you who appreciate anything I have done on these boards* should rent "Welcome to the dollhouse" then "Happiness."

* its presumptous to assume you haven't, and this is probably a whiiff, but if you haven't, i think you'd like these movies- note rent in that order.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
The issue is whether the mother's right to control her own body (a privacy issue) outweighs the state's interest in unborn human life.

"unborn human life" is somewhat different than (born) human life, isn't it?

And if you understand this so well, why does the ability of the fetus to feel pain seem so significant to you as a factor in this debate?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
"unborn human life" is somewhat different than (born) human life, isn't it?

It is significant in that the unborn human life occupies a woman's uterus and the courts have determined that her rights to do what she wants with her body outweigh the state's interest in the unborn human life.

The courts have never gotten into the issue of whether the fetus has rights. The courts have looked at the issue of the mother's rights and the state's rights.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And if you understand this so well, why does the ability of the fetus to feel pain seem so significant to you as a factor in this debate?

Pain experienced by a fetus has never been a factor used by a court to analyze the constitutionality of any laws regulating abortion that I am aware of. Legislatures may have looked at that factor when they pass laws, for instance the partial birth abortion laws.

For me, it is more of a moral issue that I think women need to be aware of when they decide about abortion. If a woman feels compelled to have a late term abortion, they can ask their doctor to first kill the baby with a potassium injection before the doctor goes in there and hacks it to pieces. I hope any woman considering such a procedure would have enough compassion for her unborn child to investigate this issue and take measures to minimize the pain the child would feel.

I understand that many late term abortions are done because of birth defects. But unless the child is anencephalic (and presumably cannot perceive pain since the child has no higher brain structures), the baby will feel being hacked to death. Just because the child has a birth defect is no reason not to have compassion for what he or she will endure during an abortion.

[sgtclub]

Senator Dodd's recent comments on Senator Byrd:

It has often been said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. ROBERT C. BYRD, in my view, would have been right at any time. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation's 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country. Certainly today that is not any less true.

Sound familiar? Let's see if he is persecuted like Lott was.*

*He, like Lott, should be.