oliver north
Quote:Winning this one is too, if the sacrifices being made today are to be worth anything.
It is a long-held moral and rational truism that the loss of life in military operations retroactively justifies those operations and justifies further loss of life. For example, everyone understands that the nazis had an undeniable moral compunction to continue battling against ghetto jews once a german military life had been tragically lost in the operation. Likewise, once an American solidier had been lost in Somalia, the clear moral duty to continue on was evident to all, for otherwise, that death was worth nothing at all.
McG, the statement that the boots agree with their commander-in-chief about Iraqi progress is anecdotal. I wager a valid poll would show a different result.
Bush, were he not so bull-headed and undeservedly self-confident, should be very depressed. His own appointees (e.g., Gates, Pace, et al.) are contradicting him on the progress of the war, the ISG essentially refers to him as an incompetent loser, he is polling at 27%, members of the administration are leaking classified documents like a sieve, Rep pols are distancing themselves from him, etc.
His statement about actually reading the ISG report is just too sad.
Well, I didn't vote for the moron.
No offense to Gates, I like the guy and believe he will be an outstanding Sec. of Defense, but he isn't SoD yet and therefore does not have access to all the data on what is happening. He has an opinion at this point, and it is valid. Yet of all the headlines that has come from his appointment hearings, all you read is that Gates said "no, sir."
McGentrix wrote:No offense to Gates, I like the guy and believe he will be an outstanding Sec. of Defense, but he isn't SoD yet and therefore does not have access to all the data on what is happening. He has an opinion at this point, and it is valid. Yet of all the headlines that has come from his appointment hearings, all you read is that Gates said "no, sir."
Not surprising - it's a mental and emotional step that many on the Right seem incapable of making, and it was a smart thing for him to say, because it is true.
Cycloptichorn
Gates is the only intelligent person with enough guts to contradict Bush. That alone, speaks volumes.
It is interesting that Fox, George Will, and other stuffed shirts in Washington think that Jim Webb was unduly rude in his contemptuous retort to Bush. But why should anyone be other than contemptuous to a war criminal. Here is an interesting analysis of this issue.
http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=577&Itemid=35
BTW, in the spirit of full disclosure, one could argue that Webb was himself a war criminal relative to his actions in Nam. As you may know, we killed over three million there, and virtually destroyed the country, without good reason. Webb was in the thick of that conflict.
Judge weighs torture claim vs. Rumsfeld By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
28 minutes ago
A federal judge appeared reluctant to give outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld immunity from torture allegations but also said Friday that it would be unprecedented for him to allow Rumsfeld to face a civil trial.
"What you're asking for has never been done before," U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan told lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU is suing on behalf of nine former prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. The lawsuit contends the men were beaten, suspended upside down from the ceiling by chains, urinated on, shocked, sexually humiliated, burned, locked inside boxes and subjected to mock executions.
The Justice Department argues that government officials are immune from lawsuits related to their jobs unless they violate a constitutional right. Because foreigners held in overseas prisons do not normally have constitutional rights, the Justice Department wants the case dismissed.
Hogan questioned the scope of that immunity and asked whether it protects the government officials from liability for everything.
"Would you take the same policy if the argument was one of genocide?" Hogan asked. "Are you saying there could be no inquiry done?"
Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. Frederick Beckner III said abuse claims should be handled by the military, which has prosecuted more than 100 such cases.
Hogan said he would rule quickly on whether to dismiss the case but did not make a decision Friday.
cicerone imposter wrote:Gates is the only intelligent person with enough guts to contradict Bush. That alone, speaks volumes.
They seem to be popping up like spring wildflowers, CI, and with this long cold winter where rational thought has been frozen, they are as welcome.
Quote:
GOP Senator: Iraq War "May Be Criminal"
By Justin Rood - December 8, 2006, 1:14 PM
It's the kind of thing you'd expect to hear on Pacifica Radio, not in a speech by a Republican senator.
"I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal," declared Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), a 10-year veteran of the Senate, in a speech last night.
Did he mean it? Senators rarely throw around words like "criminal," especially when talking about actions by their own party. What's he going to do about it? Well, Gordon has been known to act on his convictions when he thinks a president has broken the law: he voted to convict President Bill Clinton in 1999, following the president's impeachment by the House.
The speech in its entirety below the jump.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002104.php
Another thing that is so striking and extremely sad in this senator's speech is the complete disregard for the those who have suffered the most, the people of Iraq.
It's sad that some Americans have lost sons or daughters, aunts or uncles, fathers or mothers, nieces or nephews but one would think that when you have fucked up so royally that the focus would be on your error, not on how badly Aunt Minnie is feeling, not on how much money you've spent.
Why is it always America's loss that gets the attention? Y'all should be on your knees until they bleed, begging the people of Iraq for forgiveness and you should be screaming to the heavens for a war crimes tribunal to stop these types of monsters from ever again performing these unconscionable deeds.
JTT, Amen! Some counts put the death of innocent Iraqis at over 50,000. Where's the American People's disgust and cry for justice!
Oh dear...
I guess there were Democrats talking like this back in the day...
But it sure suggests a long road back to reality:
PoliPundit
Quote:I guess we have truly reached a tipping point regarding the GWOT. The US Democratic party does not want America to win that war. The overwhelmingly liberal media share this view. The American public, fat, dumb, and happy, apparently does not care.
Yeah, blame the people. They're just too stupid to realise the genius of conservative thought.
The funny thing is, that the same pundit amply rants against "Blame America" Democrats. Apparently its wrong to blame America, but fine to blame the American people.
All very interesting. How long will the meltdown last? How deep will it go?
nimh wrote:Oh dear...
I guess there were Democrats talking like this back in the day...
But it sure suggests a long road back to reality:
PoliPundit
Quote:I guess we have truly reached a tipping point regarding the GWOT. The US Democratic party does not want America to win that war. The overwhelmingly liberal media share this view. The American public, fat, dumb, and happy, apparently does not care.
Yeah, blame the people. They're just too stupid to realise the genius of conservative thought.
The funny thing is, that the same pundit amply rants against "Blame America" Democrats. Apparently its wrong to blame America, but fine to blame the American people.
All very interesting. How long will the meltdown last? How deep will it go?
The American Democrat of 1941 was far to the right of the average Conservative of any party today. The huge majority of all Americans in 1941 were far to the right of the average Conservative of today. And considering the 'stomach' and "will to win" of that generation compared to the modern generation, I think the genius of conservative thought is well worth re-exploring. We have learned to do a lot of things much better than we did back then. But there is also much that is positive that we could learn from them.
Quote:The American Democrat of 1941 was far to the right of the average Conservative of any party today. The huge majority of all Americans in 1941 were far to the right of the average Conservative of today.
By what set of measures or studies to you make this assertion?
The only academic study I have read about (an economics study, thomas may well know of it, and it was referenced by Krugman in a speech several years ago at the London School of Economics) measured bills passed by American congresses from the period of Eisenhower's administration through the Clinton administration and it found that those bills showed a steady progression to the right - such that Clinton's administration showed itself to be further right than did Eisenhower's.
nimh asked
Quote:All very interesting. How long will the meltdown last? How deep will it go?
It looks to be deep enough to be terminal. That is, the disciplined co-operation of the diverse elements making up the modern conservative movement appears to be over. It was some thirty years in the developing/evolving and became the most effective and formidable force in US politics. But it has now reached a point, it seems evident to me, where it has spun itself apart.
Watching the talk radio/fox crowd eating their own now is simply sterling entertainment.
JTT, you make an excellent point about the dearth of reporting of the suffering and destruction of Iraqis. Some time ago, I wrote to my local paper to complain about this. Happily, there has been a little improvement.
I recall our destruction of Falujah, a city of 300,000, to defeat a handful of insurgents. Almost nothing was said anywhere of horrors we inflicted on the innocent Iraqis. Of course, we didn't stay to occupy the city, but immediately left the people to their misery.
blatham wrote:Quote:The American Democrat of 1941 was far to the right of the average Conservative of any party today. The huge majority of all Americans in 1941 were far to the right of the average Conservative of today.
By what set of measures or studies to you make this assertion?
The only academic study I have read about (an economics study, thomas may well know of it, and it was referenced by Krugman in a speech several years ago at the London School of Economics) measured bills passed by American congresses from the period of Eisenhower's administration through the Clinton administration and it found that those bills showed a steady progression to the right - such that Clinton's administration showed itself to be further right than did Eisenhower's.
Did Krugman suggest that the Eisenhower administration was in the 1940's? If so he is less bright on assessment of American society than I thought and I've never thought he was very bright on that score.
Foxfyre wrote:blatham wrote:Quote:The American Democrat of 1941 was far to the right of the average Conservative of any party today. The huge majority of all Americans in 1941 were far to the right of the average Conservative of today.
By what set of measures or studies to you make this assertion?
The only academic study I have read about (an economics study, thomas may well know of it, and it was referenced by Krugman in a speech several years ago at the London School of Economics) measured bills passed by American congresses from the period of Eisenhower's administration through the Clinton administration and it found that those bills showed a steady progression to the right - such that Clinton's administration showed itself to be further right than did Eisenhower's.
Did Krugman suggest that the Eisenhower administration was in the 1940's? If so he is less bright on assessment of American society than I thought and I've never thought he was very bright on that score.
As far a clutching at straws goes, that's quite a rejoinder.
McT, Their imagination goes where no man has gone before...
Not at all McTag. It is no secret that I think Krugman to be a negative, angry, old man with nothing good to say about much of anything which all by itself blows his credibility to pieces as far as America and Americans are concerned. Does he remind you of anybody you know?
Isnt' it strange that McG can attack the messanger, but not the message.
