A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes - Page 68

bilmore · 01-05-2005, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
LONDON (Reuters) - Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri failed to appear before a British court Tuesday, complaining his toe nails were too long and he could not walk.

British law recognizes all sort of rights, and imposes all sorts of protections, that we ignore. The prosecution of the 1979 IRA Belfast bombing cell took months longer than predicted, simply because the prisoners kept claiming "bad hair days."

sgtclub · 01-05-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So no reaction from any of the Bushies to the notion that we use terror as a tactic? Come on kids, I was baiting you with this.

Haven't we had the conversation at least a zillion times? The US has always used terror as a tactic, and always will.

sgtclub · 01-05-2005, 04:53 PM

The director of a Detroit food bank wants to know what happened to 60 turkeys -- 720 pounds of frozen birds -- that his charity gave to members of U.S. Rep. John Conyers' local staff two days before Thanksgiving to give to needy people.

Conyers' Detroit office promised an accounting of any turkey distribution by Dec. 27, but the Gleaners Community Food Bank had received no paperwork as of Tuesday, said the charity's director, Agostinho Fernandes.

Fernandes said he became suspicious that the turkeys didn't get to poor people after hearing from a friend that a federal court worker had said he was offered free turkeys from a member of Conyers' staff.

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/turkey5e_20050105.htm

Sidd Finch · 01-05-2005, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm puzzled by that article. It goes against virtually everything I've heard about our experiences over there, most of which have been from people who are either there or just returned. What I hear is that sensibilities are respected, relationships are valued, - in short, nothing like this Economist reporter reports. Puzzling.

I (obviously) don't know who those people are or how you know them, but if they are soldiers is it possible that they don't want to talk to you, or to anyone, about the kinds of abuses reported in the Economist?

Secret_Agent_Man · 01-05-2005, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Haven't we had the conversation at least a zillion times? The US has always used terror as a tactic, and always will.

Heck, American "insurgents" hid behind trees to shoot at the British. Some didn't even wear uniforms, and melted back into the local population.

S_A_M

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-05-2005, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Which part? Wilson told interviewers/reporters that his wife had no part in getting him the slot. The investigation later revealed that she did, in fact, provide the main recommendation for his selection.

I can understand how you get to this characterization of the facts, but -- based on my recollection -- I don't think a neutral observer would put it this way. Be that as it may, whatever you think of Wilson's veracity, people weren't talking about his wife's role or lack thereof until Novak told everyone about her job.

bilmore · 01-05-2005, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I can understand how you get to this characterization of the facts, but -- based on my recollection -- I don't think a neutral observer would put it this way.

Um, that's pretty much exactly how quite a few observers put it back then. Neutral? Dunno - is there such a thing? I think the NYT phrased this part this way.

ltl/fb · 01-05-2005, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Um, that's pretty much exactly how quite a few observers put it back then. Neutral? Dunno - is there such a thing? I think the NYT phrased this part this way.

What does Wilson's veracity have to do with whether Novak outed Plame or not? Are you saying that Wilson was making assertions about his wife's role (or lack thereof) in getting him the job before it came out that she was CIA? I honestly don't know the chronology, and can't tell if the issue under discussion is (a) who is to blame for outing Plame or (b) whether or not she had a role in getting her husband his job/assignment (and the husband's truthfulness in discussing this).

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-05-2005, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Neutral? Dunno - is there such a thing? I think the NYT phrased this part this way.

I will concede the point about Wilson's testimony, whatever it was, in exchange for your concessions that the NYT is neutral and (implicitly) that none of this mattered until after Novak defenestrated Plame.

bilmore · 01-05-2005, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I will concede the point about Wilson's testimony, whatever it was, in exchange for your concessions that the NYT is neutral and (implicitly) that none of this mattered until after Novak defenestrated Plame.

I threw in the NYT as a source that you probably wouldn't call a right wing hacksheet. And I still don't know what a fenster is.

bilmore · 01-05-2005, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What does Wilson's veracity have to do with whether Novak outed Plame or not? Are you saying that Wilson was making assertions about his wife's role (or lack thereof) in getting him the job before it came out that she was CIA? I honestly don't know the chronology, and can't tell if the issue under discussion is (a) who is to blame for outing Plame or (b) whether or not she had a role in getting her husband his job/assignment (and the husband's truthfulness in discussing this).

My understanding was that the conversation started with the applicability of the specific statutory language, and then sort of wandered from there.

sgtclub · 01-05-2005, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What does Wilson's veracity have to do with whether Novak outed Plame or not? Are you saying that Wilson was making assertions about his wife's role (or lack thereof) in getting him the job before it came out that she was CIA? I honestly don't know the chronology, and can't tell if the issue under discussion is (a) who is to blame for outing Plame or (b) whether or not she had a role in getting her husband his job/assignment (and the husband's truthfulness in discussing this).

Ground Hog's (or is it Hogs') Day

ltl/fb · 01-05-2005, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
My understanding was that the conversation started with the applicability of the specific statutory language, and then sort of wandered from there.

Applicability of what statutory language to what? The "don't reveal our spies" language as applicable to Novak?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 01-05-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What does Wilson's veracity have to do with whether Novak outed Plame or not?

Well, he definitely outed Plame--the question is whether that was illegal, or the outing to him was.

But none of it's relevant to that question, just to the question of who's the most odious in the whole debacl--Wilson, the WH, or Novak, and whether one person's odious behavior justifies the same from another.

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-05-2005, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, he definitely outed Plame--the question is whether that was illegal, or the outing to him was.

But none of it's relevant to that question, just to the question of who's the most odious in the whole debacl--Wilson, the WH, or Novak, and whether one person's odious behavior justifies the same from another.

Bilmore seems to think that the non-veracity of what Wilson later said to people about how he got the gig justifies what Novak et al. did to his wife. Even if you think Wilson is not odious -- and I
haven't seen anyone around here bothering to defend him in quite some time -- this strikes me as peculiar for at least two different reasons that bilmore is not bothering to respond to.