This is just in and it may turn out to be the JOKE of the year---It seems Martin Sheen thinks he is ready for the real thing and may throw is hat in the political ring---his script writer forgot to tell him about the facts of life just like Martin forgot to tell his son Charlie not to do drugs. Can you imagine Martin Sheen----President of the US-----that's even a bigger joke than Al "theWimp" Gore.
Sheen apparently didn't notice how the American people reacted to the Dixie Chicks----
yeah your right perception the sales of Dixie Chicks has skyrocked. your gut feeling about a number of things seems to be out of kilter with reality; Dixie Chicks score record sales
Dixie Chicks are one of the biggest country acts in the world
Country stars the Dixie Chicks have had a record day for ticket sales as their concert tour raked in $49m (£30.5m).
The Grammy award-winning trio sold out all 867,000 tickets in a day, surpassing the popularity of tours of stars such as Madonna and Sir Paul McCartney.
U.S. Central Command has not commented on the Times report
Why should anyone comment on anything the NYTimes reports---It may turn out that they were also on Saddam's payroll or at least made a deal similar to the "deal" made by CNN.
I also wonder about the possibility of finding evidence of Hans Blix and Scott Ritter being on Saddams payroll.
Both of these gentlement were very vociferous about protecting Saddam and trying to prevent the US from going to war against Saddam----what exactly were their motives if not money?
Maybe a bunch of guys wanted to see the "Chicks" without their clothes on-----some people will do anything for a little publicity.
once again perception, nice segue out. what do they call that, avoidence?
Dys
I don't know what a "seque" is----I'm not an intellectual like you. BTW is that avoidence with an "e" or is that avoidance with an "a"?
perception wrote:Blatham wrote:
Pluralism, criticism and dissent, multiple viewpoints/decision points, and over-arching legal regimens (Kyoto, WCC) function as impediments to administration efficiency. Authoritarian or totalitarian states always seek to avoid these sorts of impediments - that's how we spot them. Napoleon and Hitler had very efficient administrations.
Really Blatham----I think you ought to consider switching "Pot" dealers----that stuff you're on is apparently too strong.
Pretty infantile attempt at an insulting reply from the resident bastion of positivitity and intellectualism.
How's my spelling, perception?
Snood
Before you insert foot in mouth about insults I'm reposting one that Blatham made to James Morrison which was completely uncalled for. JM replied to Blatham in a very gentlemanly manner and what does he get in return----a kick up the backside.
James
First off, that the US acted because of a perceived threat to it's own security is a red herring the size of Pittsburg. Perhaps it is your choice from among the nexus of herrings, but it is contradicted by rather too much which I and many others have written here and elsewhere, not least of which is the neocon documents since 1992 arguing that Sadaam ought to go. Unless, of course, you want to do the slight of hand argument that security and interests are exactly the same thing.
Your argument regarding the UN is circular - it's dead because it was dead. Not terribly valuable. And there's your analogy to that body as an infant (with the US administration as wise and loving paternal force, no doubt) - well, that's also really compelling stuff.
You have some problem with a state such as France working purposefully against US hegemony. France is clearly not alone either in this concern or in such actions, it's in the majority.
But the most egregiously pompous and short-sighted argument you make is that 'this is what nations always do when threatened'. So, what ought China to do now, threatened by a foreign nation's desire for world hegemony (remember, this is stated policy from your pres at Annapolis). Ought it to follow the same policy recommendation? It's a might makes right argument, and it is sophmoric and foolish enough that one wouldn't bother despising it, except that folks like you actually think it great policy.
Where do you go with you 'real politik' notion James? You know, if you look ahead fifty years. Are you just going to trust in the godliness of your flag and country (ignorning the scores of historical examples of the US being a selfish international ****)?
The irony of a Jeffersonian republic setting out on such a course is, in great part, why the US has become such a pariah state.
Glad that reponse to James Morrison was reposted -- I'd missed it and I think Blatham is quite right. Dissent and democracy will not be squeezed out by pomposity and ignorance, thanks to the likes of Blatham.
You make my point for me, perception. Blatham disagreed with JM's opinions, and went to lengths to explain why. Granted, he was pointed and his choice of words could have been better, but the whole point of your post was ridicule - "you're high" kind of thing. And my feet would be much better suited, IMHO, leaving copious amounts of boot leather up tight-assed individuals asses than being placed in my mouth.
If you're trying to be clever Snood be advised that it doesn't suit you.
Great way of putting it, Snood!! I suspect Perception is routinely closer to "high" than most.
The two most beloved members of the reality denial support group are busy slapping each other on the back----I heard Baghdad Bob wanted to join you guys because you seem to be on his freqency--------I haven't heard from "Bob" since that night he went off the air because he failed to look out the window to see that Marine coming to arrest him----you know when he told his last lie----seems the Americans were "bogged down" in a sand storm.
perception wrote:If you're trying to be clever Snood be advised that it doesn't suit you.
Rest assured that considering where I rank your opinion among those I value, I won't be losing any sleep because you think so.
Now that we have the niceties out of the way----may I suggest you post something meaningful if you can regain your composure---just think how dull it's been while I've been gone fishing.
Now here's some Really Clear Thinking from Our Illustrious Secretary of Defense (never at a loss for words, and hit don't matter much what the words mean):
Quote:The Pentagon has now admitted it is holding, and interrogating, children aged 13 to 15 in its secretive Cuban prison camp. But Donald Rumsfeld says that's O.K., because these kids are so dangerous they bend the laws of space and time and become "not children."
I'm going to run long today, with apologies, and quote at length from the official transcript of Rumsfeld's Friday press conference:
Q: "Mr. Secretary, are you concerned -- regarding Guantanamo Bay, do you care how it looks to the rest of the world that you're holding juveniles at Guantanamo Bay without legal representation? And what assurances can you give the families of those juveniles, who don't have access to them, that you're looking after their welfare?"
Rumsfeld: "Well, your question suggests that you know what the rest of the world thinks and you characterized it. I'm not sure you do know that. I don't know.
"I do know that we care what the rest of the world thinks. We live in a free system here, and we try to conduct ourselves according to our values and generally accepted values in the world, which are quite different from those of the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein and, indeed, quite different from a number of countries in that part of the world. So we do care, and that's why we invite in the International Committee of the Red Cross to meet with and interview and be with all of the people in Guantanamo Bay. They have reported on that. I'm not going to characterize their reports. Someone would say, 'Well, you didn't characterize it perfectly.' But you can go read it and see what they have to say. And I think you'll find that the care they are getting and the treatment they are getting reflects the fact that we believe that treating people properly is important, and that the rest of the world ought to know that. We have a long history in this country. And we are treating those people properly."
You're probably confused by his rambling on about Red Cross reports he isn't going to characterize. That's because there aren't any. Not really. As a condition for access to the camps, the Red Cross has agreed not to speak to the public of what it sees. Rumsfeld knows this; so his effort to suggest the Red Cross has somehow endorsed the camp is, at best, sly cynicism. Besides, he didn't answer the question.
Rumsfeld then let General Richard Myers add his two cents:
"I would say, despite their age, these [juveniles] are very, very dangerous people. They are people that have been vetted mainly in Afghanistan and gone through a thorough process to determine what their involvement was. Some have killed. Some have stated they're going to kill again. So they may be juveniles, but they're not on a little-league team anywhere, they're on a major league team, and it's a terrorist team. And they're in Guantanamo for a very good reason -- for our safety, for your safety."
So ... they're in the prison camp because they've been judged to be dangerous killers (though only "some" have killed). Who judged them as such? If it was the same people who "vetted" them in Afghanistan, that doesn't bode well: According to an April 23 report in the Los Angeles Times, the juveniles -- some then, apparently, as young as 12 -- were captured in Afghanistan, shipped to Cuba, and only there, after a "detailed medical examination," "discovered" to be teenagers.
It's one thing to argue a suspect must be detained, without access to any outsiders, because he's potentially got information about future terror attacks. It's something else again to argue that a handful of children can be judged anonymously -- not by courts but by politically appointed civil servants -- as killers to be locked up forever, "for our safety." Even the journalists at Friday's briefing were discomfited enough to return to that logic -- only to find Rumsfeld more wordily dismissive then ever:
Q: "Mr. Secretary, in that -- going back to the case of the juveniles in Guantanamo, why isn't there a formal legal process for adjudicating those cases, as well as the other -- the cases of the other people who are contained there? General Myers said that these juveniles have killed people, but there hasn't been a trial, there hasn't been a tribunal, there hasn't been a hearing."
(Pause.)
Rumsfeld: "I mean, I'll answer. The president announced a policy. It has been tested and looked at legally, and we are proceeding on that basis -- that the people gathered in Guantanamo we would prefer not to hold. We would like to have arrangements with other countries that they would take their nationals on a basis where we could get future access to them, in the event additional intelligence comes up, and where we have reason to have confidence that they would not simply release people that are a danger to the lives of American men, women and children.
"Now we're keeping them down there to keep them off the street. These -- this is a worldwide network that -- the al Qaeda is, and these folks and the Taliban were part of that and were fighting in Afghanistan and killing people.
"We have them in Guantanamo, they're being examined and interrogated by an interagency process. The president has several ways he can proceed. He can put them into an Article 3, United States Article 3, our Constitution, court; he can establish a military commission and try them that way; or he can keep them for the duration of the war and keep them off the street so they don't kill other people.
"Now, everything that is being done is being done legally and properly. And this constant refrain of 'the juveniles,' as though there's a hundred of children in there -- these are not children. Dick Myers responded to that. There are plenty of people who have been killed by people who were still in their teens.
Q: But there's no -- they're being held indefinitely. There's no process for handling --
Rumsfeld: I just explained the process.
Q: Well -- I mean --
So there you have it. The president has a policy. Everything is being done legally and properly. These children aren't children (never mind that a "detailed medical examination" proved otherwise). And anyway, plenty of people have been killed by children. Which part don't you understand?
http://www.thenation.com/outrage/index.mhtml?bid=6
Tartarin, don't get me started on Guantánamo Bay.
