Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
In a tactical sense, that exchange struck me as wonderful PR. In a strategic sense, it made clear that Rice was more interested in managing PR than she was in informing the commission, which of course is the larger problem that led her to be testifying.

She did inform the commission for 4 hours of testimony. But the commission wanted a public performance. The commission is the party most interested in the PR. Otherwise they would have been satisfied with her prior testimony.

Kerrey is just grandstanding to try to bolster his own career. I bet you his price for giving a speech doubles or triples after his performance on this commission.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) I don't see his actions as anti-American. I don't think that being pissed as hell about the 9/11 attacks, and the failure of our government to stop it is anti-American. I don't think that beating up witnesses from both sides of the aisle with hard questions, or being pissed when they blatantly evade answering questions in order to give speeches, is anti-American. I also don't think that asking hard questions and really trying to figure out what happened, why, how it could be fixed, and who might be responsible for screw-ups is anti-American.

That is not the behavior that I was calling anti-American.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
. . . it made clear that Rice was more interested in managing PR than she was in informing the commission, which of course is the larger problem that led her to be testifying.

Ah, so Rice was too busy doing PR to stop Atta, et al.? And the tactical/strategic thingy has no bearing on "why didn't you take a proportionate action to an attack that happened on Clinton's watch?", when the answer was, instead of continuing the swatting flies approach, we (Bush) wanted to basically wage war on AQ (Kerrey's asymetrical approach)?

Honestly, I don't know what your theme is today.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
She did inform the commission for 4 hours of testimony. But the commission wanted a public performance. The commission is the party most interested in the PR. Otherwise they would have been satisfied with her prior testimony.

One of the commissioners admitted just this in an interview yesterday, saying that they thought it was important for the public to see her.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(b) Is that the incident in which a number of innocent civilians died? At the risk of sounding callous, too damn bad.

S_A_M

If you want to read a bit about that incident, click on this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/ma...4d0636&ei=5070

For the record, I don't condemn Kerrey for what he did in Vietnam. I am sure that he and the others believed that what they did was necessary to save their own lives and to protect the lives of other US military personnel. I just brought up that incident (for lack of a better term) because you cited his Medal of Honor as immunizing him from charges of bad behavior.

This commission has the potential to do something valuable for this country, notably ascertain what went wrong not to assess blame, but to fix what is broken so that we can better prevent future attacks against America. What I think is anti-American behavior is this idea that because those who attacked us call themselves a religion we are doing something wrong by fighting back against a religious group. A religious group (i.e., radical islam) attacked us and did so because they claimed their god told them to do it. They are continuing to attack innocent civilians in Iraq and Europe and are actively trying to do it to the US again. They recruit terrorists to commit their crimes in Mosques. And moderate muslims do little to help to stop this and even contribute to charities that funnel money to these terrorist groups.

You are damn right this is a war against radical Islam. That is who attacked us. I understand why politically we have to pretend this is something other than what it is. But don't go so far as to condemn America for fighting back against a religious group when that is who attacked us.

Those 9/11 murderers did what they did in the pursuit of what they believed to be their religion. There is no getting around that. They believed and the terrorists who are still carrying out and planning future attacks against us and our allies believe that they are carrying out the mandates of their god.

9/11 and the terrorism carried out by islamists is all about their religion.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I see Clinton as the guy who's not only going to cock-block you at every turn, but also stick you with the check.

Yes, and I like drinking with you, too.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I crap biggar'n you

Hi, Fluffy!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
For the record, I don't condemn Kerrey for what he did in Vietnam. I am sure that he and the others believed that what they did was necessary to save their own lives and to protect the lives of other US military personnel. I just brought up that incident (for lack of a better term) because you cited his Medal of Honor as immunizing him from charges of bad behavior.

No one suggested that Kerrey's Medal of Honor immunized him from charges of bad behavior. Just that it is a little much to call him "anti-American."

I've seen a little of the testimony and read a little more, and I don't understand what you're so upset about -- your anger goes past normal partisan disagreements. The one comment from Kerrey that relates to what you've said is that the Admin has minimized that this is really a war on radical Islam, not just on terror. He didn't say that's it's wrong to go to war on radical Islam; in fact, by using the modifier "radical" it's pretty clear that he was suggesting that this is right.

Can you identify the specific comment by Kerrey that has you so pissed off? This is a serious question -- if you are going to accuse anyone, particularly a CMH honoree, of being "anti-American," you should be able to identify the specific comments to which you refer.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The one comment from Kerrey that relates to what you've said is that the Admin has minimized that this is really a war on radical Islam, not just on terror. He didn't say that's it's wrong to go to war on radical Islam; in fact, by using the modifier "radical" it's pretty clear that he was suggesting that this is right.

As a sidelight, he writes a nice op-ed for the WSJ yesterday.

(Don't know if someone linked to this already, but . . .)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110004923

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
As a sidelight, he writes a nice op-ed for the WSJ yesterday.

(Don't know if someone linked to this already, but . . .)

Nice indeed.

Yep, he sounds anti-American to me. He sounds like "radical Islam's" best friend.

And I want some of Not Me's drugs for the weekend.

[Not Me]

SPEE - religious nut cases nailing themselves to crosses in the Phillipines:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_556466.html?menu=

Well, at least they aren't flying planes into skyscrapers or strapping bombs to their kids to kill jews.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
SPEE - religious nut cases nailing themselves to crosses in the Phillipines:

That's nothing. I hear tell of a sect (that even has branches here in the US) that regularly pretends to be chewing the flesh and drinking the blood of their god. Yuck.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by bilmore
That's nothing. I hear tell of a sect (that even has branches here in the US) that regularly pretends to be chewing the flesh and drinking the blood of their god. Yuck.

Oh, dude, I've heard of those guys! Some of them are so nuts they don't even believe they are pretending, but after their shamans perform magical rituals they think what they are eating actually IS the flesh of their god. Yuck indeed.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No one suggested that Kerrey's Medal of Honor immunized him from charges of bad behavior. Just that it is a little much to call him "anti-American."

Read the NYT article I posted a link to if you want to know Kerrey's own thoughts about his medal of honor. I don't believe it immunizes him from charges of anti-American behavior.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch He didn't say that's it's wrong to go to war on radical Islam; in fact, by using the modifier "radical" it's pretty clear that he was suggesting that this is right.

That wasn't how I interpreted his comments. If he really meant what you are saying he meant, then he wasn't clear in what he said and it came across in a way that made it subject to other interpretations.

I believe he and a few other of the commissioners are acting more in their own self-interest and their political party's interest than in the best interest of the American people.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Can you identify the specific comment by Kerrey that has you so pissed off? This is a serious question -- if you are going to accuse anyone, particularly a CMH honoree, of being "anti-American," you should be able to identify the specific comments to which you refer.

I have in several posts and even provided a link to a transcript of the exchange in one of my posts.

Perhaps you are right and I misinterpreted his meaning. But when I heard the exchange, it came across to me as if he was condemning the war against terrorists who attacked us to the extent it is being waged against radical islam. If he didn't mean that, well, it wasn't clear to me.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
That's nothing. I hear tell of a sect (that even has branches here in the US) that regularly pretends to be chewing the flesh and drinking the blood of their god. Yuck.

But only if you are anti-abortion. If you are pro-abortion, they don't let you eat the flesh or drink the blood.