tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post6367665580511840769..comments2024-03-28T15:48:48.514-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: "Happy Slapping" and other gallic perversions...David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32147220848014243992007-03-15T21:28:00.000-07:002007-03-15T21:28:00.000-07:00This is the time for decent conservatives to stand...<I>This is the time for decent conservatives to stand up and save their country. Save their movement. By first accepting that it has been taken over by bona fide monsters.</I><BR/><BR/>Here is a good decent conservative for you:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2362755.ece" REL="nofollow"> The Independent - Chiquita banana company is fined $25m for paying off Colombian paramilitary groups</A><BR/><BR/><B>The Chiquita banana company, one of the world's biggest and most powerful food companies, has admitted paying "protection" money to Colombian paramilitary groups identified by the US government as terrorist organisations - and has agreed to pay a $25m (£13m) fine to wrap up a federal investigation.<BR/><BR/>The settlement was quickly denounced as too lenient by human rights groups, which have long said that Chiquita's bananas are "stained with blood", accusing the company of paying paramilitary groups not only to protect workers, but also to target union leaders and agitators perceived as going against the company's commercial interests.</B><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070315/NEWS01/703150398/-1/CINCI" REL="nofollow">Chiquita paid terrorist group</A><BR/><BR/><B>The payments in question came before chairman and chief executive officer Fernando Aguirre joined Chiquita in January 2004, and started when Cincinnati-based American Financial Group and Carl Lindner controlled the company. A Lindner spokeswoman could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>This would be the same <A HREF="http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtedetail.asp?cycle=2004&ein=201041228&format=&type=c&tname=Swift%20Vets%20&%20POWs%20for%20Truth" REL="nofollow">Carl Lindner who donated a measly 350 G's to the swift vets campaign</A> and is a <A HREF="http://www.citizen.org/prezview/articles.cfm?ID=10407" REL="nofollow">Bush Ranger</A>, proof that one man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter, in this case freedom from Unions and various pesky environmental & labor regulations.Don Quijotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355584994080980478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56489717064790374332007-03-15T20:19:00.000-07:002007-03-15T20:19:00.000-07:00"Natural allies" against al Qaeda, which is just d..."Natural allies" against al Qaeda, which is just diplomatic rhetoric because al Qaeda isn't a real threat. But neither is Iran.<BR/><BR/>-M.D.W.B.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04048881524085910509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45354233584286077082007-03-15T13:09:00.000-07:002007-03-15T13:09:00.000-07:00Down here in the comments section, I am going to h...<I>Down here in the comments section, I am going to hand the microphone over to my friend Russ Daggatt, who sends out these old-fashioned email screeds instead of doing what he oughta and blogging for more people to see. Here's Russ:</I><BR/><BR/>Last week, Newt Gingrich admitted what was already widely known: At the same time he was leading the effort among Republicans in Congress to impeach Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair, he was himself engaged in an adulterous affair.<BR/>Most people would probably see a certain element of hypocrisy in this. But the Republican partisan warriors can always explain away these things. You see, the Clinton impeachment wasn't about blow jobs, it was about LYING about blow jobs. It wasn't the substance of the matter that had Republicans so outraged. They would have been just as outraged if the lying had been about, oh, let's say ... outing an undercover CIA operative working on Weapons of Mass Destruction as part of an effort to cover up pre-war lies?<BR/>Except, of course, they aren't.<BR/>The Wall Street Journal, the National Review and the Weekly Standard -- and virtually all the other leading voices of the Republican right -- have all called for "Scooter" Libby to be pardoned.<BR/>Let's all agree lying is bad. Lying under oath is even worse. But there is a difference between Clinton lying about blow jobs in a civil suit and Libby lying under oath in a Federal investigation about outing a CIA agent. <BR/>Clinton was giving a deposition in a private lawsuit that had nothing to do with his actions in office (and, in fact, the Paula Jones suit related to matters that allegedly occurred prior to Clinton becoming president). It was literally unprecedented for a sitting president to be deposed in a private law suit -- never happened before. The same Supreme Court that later installed George Bush in office allowed that private lawsuit to proceed saying that it was, "highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of [the President's] time." (Now was that a finding of fact or a legal holding?) The Paula Jones suit was financed by an offshoot of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and was basically a set-up to use discovery powers to dig up dirt on Clinton -- and to pull a Perry Mason ambush of Clinton (under oath) with Starr's previously undisclosed knowledge of the Lewinsky affair. The case was ultimately dismissed by the trial judge who found that, "There are no genuine issues for trial in this case."<BR/>As a purely legal matter, while Clinton lied under oath in the Jones case deposition, he did not commit the legal crime of perjury. Perjury has three elements. It is a false statement under oath, the speaker must know it to be false, and it must be material. Material means likely to affect the outcome of the case. In the Jones case the judge explicitly ruled that the Lewinsky affair, if true, was not material and the case was dismissed on a 12(b)6 motion for failing to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Hence, Clinton could not have committed perjury. He still lied. And that was wrong. But he didn't commit a crime.<BR/>By contrast, Libby lied to FBI agents investigating the leak of the identity of an uncover CIA operative working on WMD matters. He also lied to a Federal grand jury investigating that matter. He was convicted not only of perjury but also of making false statements to FBI investigators and obstruction of justice. That WAS illegal. And wrong. And the entire right-wing noise machine is outraged -- not by his perjury and obstruction of justice but by his conviction.<BR/>MORE HYPOCRISY<BR/>So what the heck was the Clinton impeachment all about? As Louis Armstrong said when asked "what is jazz": "Man, if you have to ask, you'll never know."<BR/>Those who were genuinely upset by the adultery should have a lot of fun with the current Republican presidential contenders. From the Washington Monthly:<BR/> <BR/>High Infidelity<BR/>What if three admitted adulterers run for president and no one cares?<BR/><BR/>By Steve Benen<BR/>... Until relatively recently, a self-confessed adulterer had never sought the presidency. Certainly, other candidates have been dogged by sex scandals. In the 1828 presidential election, John Quincy Adams questioned whether Andrew Jackson's wife was legitimately divorced from her first husband before she married Old Hickory. Grover Cleveland, who was single, fathered a child out of wedlock, a fact that sparked national headlines during the 1884 election (though he managed to win anyway). There have been presidential candidates who had affairs that the press decided not to write about, like Wendell Wilkie, FDR, and John F. Kennedy. And there have been candidates whose infidelities have been uncovered during the course of a campaign: Gary Hart's indiscretions ultimately derailed his 1988 bid, and in 1992, during the course of his campaign, Bill Clinton was forced to make the euphemistic admission that he "caused pain" in his marriage.<BR/>But it wasn't until 2000 that McCain, possibly emboldened by Clinton's survival of his scandals, became the first confessed adulterer to have the nerve to run. Now, just a few years after infidelity was considered a dealbreaker for a presidential candidate, the party that presents itself as the arbiter of virtue may field an unprecedented two-timing trifecta.<BR/>McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof, "aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich." McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife's family money. In 2000, McCain managed to deflect media questioning about his first marriage with a deft admission of responsibility for its failure. It's possible that the age of the offense and McCain's charmed relationship with the press will pull him through again, but Giuliani and Gingrich may face a more difficult challenge. Both conducted well-documented affairs in the last decade--while still in public office.<BR/>Giuliani informed his second wife, Donna Hanover, of his intention to seek a separation in a 2000 press conference. The announcement was precipitated by a tabloid frenzy after Giuliani marched with his then-mistress, Judith Nathan, in New York's St. Patrick's Day parade, an acknowledgement of infidelity so audacious that Daily News columnist Jim Dwyer compared it with "groping in the window at Macy's." In the acrid divorce proceedings that followed, Hanover accused Giuliani of serial adultery, alleging that Nathan was just the latest in a string of mistresses, following an affair the mayor had had with his former communications director.<BR/>But the most notorious of them all is undoubtedly Gingrich, who ran for Congress in 1978 on the slogan, "Let Our Family Represent Your Family." (He was reportedly cheating on his first wife at the time). In 1995, an alleged mistress from that period, Anne Manning, told Vanity Fair's Gail Sheehy: "We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'" Gingrich obtained his first divorce in 1981, after forcing his wife, who had helped put him through graduate school, to haggle over the terms while in the hospital, as she recovered from uterine cancer surgery. In 1999, he was disgraced again, having been caught in an affair with a 33-year-old congressional aide while spearheading the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. ...<BR/> <BR/><I>DB comments: Oh but this is the tip of the iceberg. It goes back to when the boundary of licentiousness was to have even one divorce... that is until divorced Ronald Reagan ran for president, at which point the right shifted that boundary with such alacrity that the obviously strong and resilient Clinton marriage gains that couple no "family credibility" while the MAJORITY of the House Prosecutors who pursued impeachment hurled stones, despite having had gruesome divorces.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, I hope Giuliani gets the nod. First, there will be a long awaited schism on the right, when the sincere though loopy fundie-theocrats go completely over the edge. Second, most American women will simply rebel. Women tended to forgive Clinton for a lapse that did not wreck a marriage. What they really despise is not as much brief affairs as men who dispose of marriage, treating divorce the way they might shop for a new car.<BR/><BR/>I'd love to see a simple statistic - average number of marriages per office-holder by party. If the dems had a statistically significantly lower ratio, it could be very telling.<BR/><BR/>But Russ D shows a crack in the "vast right-wing conspiracy," once typified by Richard Mellon Scaife, reclusive heir to the Mellon banking fortune, spent more than $2 million investigating and publicizing accusations about the supposed involvement of Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in "corrupt land deals, sexual affairs, drug running and murder."<BR/><BR/></I>But now, as Mrs. Clinton is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. Scaife’s checkbook is staying in his pocket. Christopher Ruddy, who once worked full-time for Mr. Scaife investigating the Clintons and now runs a conservative online publication he co-owns with Mr. Scaife, said, "Both of us have had a rethinking." "Clinton wasn’t such a bad president," Mr. Ruddy said. "In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick feels that way today."<BR/><BR/><I>Wow. <BR/><BR/>But Russ saves his special praise for a lengthy piece in Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leaving_iraq_the_grim_truth/print) about the Iraq War called "Beyond Quagmire." </I><BR/><BR/>Even more important (must read!) is an article by <B>Christiane Amanpour suggesting on strong evidence that VERY strong elements in Iran want friendship with the US. </B> Calling us "natural allies." <BR/><BR/>A position that I -- and a very few others -- pushed way back in autumn of 2001. One more case of getting no credit, even when you were early, nearly alone, and overwhelmingly right.<BR/><BR/>http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/21/btsc.iran.amanpour/index.htmlDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31191619496191122472007-03-15T12:38:00.000-07:002007-03-15T12:38:00.000-07:00My theory on the Iraqi WMDs:Prior to Gulf War I, S...My theory on the Iraqi WMDs:<BR/><BR/>Prior to Gulf War I, Saddam had far smaller stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons than his records showed. This is because his underlings were corrupt and stole money that was supposed to be used for building weapons. The underlings then reported that they had, in fact, produced far more than they actually did. When the UN inspectors tried to find the weapons in Iraq, they first looked at Saddam's records and determined that they said he had some amount. They then found and destroyed some smaller amount. Iraq was unable to account for the difference between the amount they supposedly had and the amount that was found, because nobody was going to admit that they lied to Saddam about the amount of weapons that they had! That left everyone worrying about phantom weapons that could never be found because they only existed on paper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71631935175411110032007-03-15T12:08:00.000-07:002007-03-15T12:08:00.000-07:00Nate--I think you overestimate the importance of W...Nate--<BR/><BR/>I think you overestimate the importance of WMD=nukes in the pre-war runup. All Bushco needed was a generally recognized <I>casus belli</I>, and threat from <I>any</I> WMD was adequate for their purposes. They had virtually the whole country foaming at the mouth to do something, so the argument was for international, rather than domestic, consumption.TheRadicalModeratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671143818738683349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17495509584329435802007-03-15T11:16:00.000-07:002007-03-15T11:16:00.000-07:00Regarding the soft sciences, there is another prob...Regarding the soft sciences, there is another problem: with more studies, there are more studies that confirm a false hypothesis. This holds for theoretically falsifiable hypotheses.<BR/><BR/>See<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/09/why_most_publis.html" REL="nofollow">Why Most Published Research Findings are False</A> at Marginal RevolutionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87622266302335541542007-03-15T11:15:00.000-07:002007-03-15T11:15:00.000-07:00NateThanks for the link, looks like an interesting...Nate<BR/>Thanks for the link, looks like an interesting read when I have a bit more time. I did not mean to imply that the anthrax incident WAS done by Iraq, only that the threat of anthrax was plausible, and did not seem to require a high profile base. The whole anthrax incident has some odd, odd features. I could almost get Brinian in my conspiracy theories! Tabloids! Senators! Proximity to 9/11 plotters!<BR/>But what we know is little.<BR/>Tacitus2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19724785843000005742007-03-15T11:06:00.000-07:002007-03-15T11:06:00.000-07:00Tacticus2: I completely agree with you that Iraq h...Tacticus2: I completely agree with you that Iraq had no halfway plausible nuclear threat. That was most of my point. The Bush administration played up the threat of "WMD" specifically as nukes. Thus President Bush's line about "we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." The Bush administration knew full well that Iraq didn't have nukes. The invocations of "WMD" were designed to blur the line between nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and make people scared of nukes.<BR/><BR/>Whatever happened with that guy who was mailing anthrax around to the media and Congress? Seems to have disappeared down the memory hole. I'm not convinced Iraq could or would have done anything like that, though.<BR/><BR/>As for Iraq's chemical and biological weapons after Gulf War 1, as I understand it, the vast majority of it was destroyed by the UN inspectors and some by Iraq. <A HREF="https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html" REL="nofollow">Here's the CIA's take</A>.<BR/><BR/>The thing about those though, that I wonder again, is if the Bush administration knew where the weapon sites were, why didn't they secure them immediately when they were reached? Or did they know there weren't any weapons to worry about securing? Or were they just THAT massively incompetent? The last can't be ruled out, since they didn't bother to secure the conventional weapon stockpiles, which is where a lot of the explosives for IEDs have been coming from, looting in the first few weeks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-61460904288430569872007-03-15T10:40:00.000-07:002007-03-15T10:40:00.000-07:00NateI won't speak for others, but the concept that...Nate<BR/>I won't speak for others, but the concept that WMD=nukes does not necessarily hold. The only half way plausible WMD threat Saddam had was release of anthrax or smallpox by agents on the ground here in the US. Plausible? Sure, looks like one guy pulled it off alone in the immediate post 9/11 time period. Nukes, chemical weapons, heck you need a delivery system.<BR/>Now, since there are present those of insight and passion, can somebody direct me to some info?<BR/>Given that Iraq had WMD pre Gulf War I, and did not have them post Gulf War II, where did they go?<BR/>We have documents by the warehouse load, and no shortage of people motivated to give us answers....and mostly I hear silence.<BR/>Dumped into the Tigris?<BR/>Transhipped to ___________ (not gonna fill in that blank, I share your horror at going after anybody else at this time).<BR/>Best info, please.<BR/>Tacitus2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56961815083349904002007-03-15T05:15:00.000-07:002007-03-15T05:15:00.000-07:00NY Times - If Elected ...Clinton Says Some G.I.’s ...<A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp" REL="nofollow">NY Times - If Elected ...Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain</A><BR/><BR/><B>Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.<BR/><BR/>This is the first in a series of interviews with the 2008 presidential candidates in both parties about how they would handle the issues they would confront as president. Future articles will look at the positions of the other candidates on Iraq and on other national security and domestic policy matters.<BR/><BR/>In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.<BR/><BR/>In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.” <BR/></B><BR/><BR/>If you like the war, vote for Hillary, she'll make sure you'll get plenty more.Don Quijotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355584994080980478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71506132958308322902007-03-15T04:23:00.000-07:002007-03-15T04:23:00.000-07:00http://i.thefairest.info/funniest_thumbs/yptUbx.jp...http://i.thefairest.info/funniest_thumbs/yptUbx.jpegB.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04048881524085910509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79889188981456622132007-03-15T02:58:00.000-07:002007-03-15T02:58:00.000-07:00Thanks, Nate, for the Hilzoy link. I'll forward th...Thanks, Nate, for the Hilzoy link. I'll forward this to my fellow ostriches; this is the sort of thing I think they'll be interested in.<BR/><BR/>-Max WilsonB.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04048881524085910509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5784846888374726612007-03-15T02:53:00.000-07:002007-03-15T02:53:00.000-07:00I don't care if Janet Reno did the same thing. It'...I don't care if Janet Reno did the same thing. It's too late to do anything about her. The investigations targetting Democrats sound suspiciously like harassment, however, and I'm definitely interested in the public hearing more about it.<BR/><BR/>-M.D.W.B.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04048881524085910509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60032031729644059792007-03-15T02:50:00.000-07:002007-03-15T02:50:00.000-07:00RadicalModerate,Forgive me, but according to the m...RadicalModerate,<BR/><BR/>Forgive me, but according to the materials I'm reading right now, if the question isn't material it *isn't*perjury*. Even if it's a lie. I should say that's important to understanding the Clinton trial.<BR/><BR/>-M.D.W.B.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04048881524085910509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79393699365042540382007-03-14T23:06:00.000-07:002007-03-14T23:06:00.000-07:00And Re: Attorneys, I'll leave the explanation up t...And Re: Attorneys, I'll leave the explanation up to <A HREF="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/03/us_attorneys_th.html" REL="nofollow">hilzoy</A>, who's a better writer than me and has obviously kept up with the news better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1776044620104575402007-03-14T23:00:00.000-07:002007-03-14T23:00:00.000-07:00Okay, woah, hang on here a second guys. First, Dr...Okay, woah, hang on here a second guys. First, Dr. Brin, you shouldn't use the "WMD" phrase, because that (deliberately) confuses nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons all under the same umbrella.<BR/><BR/>And let's be honest here. Whenever the President or anybody in the administration was talking about "WMD" in the build-up to the Iraq war, they meant nukes. Because nukes are scary and threatening. "Can't wait for the smoking gun in the forum of a mushroom cloud." anyone? Except... We knew Iraq had no nukes. And it's turned out they didn't really have anything much in the way of chemical or biological weapons either, but they definitely had no nukes and were nowhere near getting any. And this was known before the war. And, does anybody know offhand how many of the US troops in the first invasion had NBC gear in case of Saddam deciding to the B or C parts of NBC that he might have had? Because if they weren't, then the people in charge knew they weren't going to run into any "WMD" beforehand.<BR/><BR/>But yeah, the WMD threat was just a method of scaring people into going along with the war George W. Bush had wanted all along.<BR/><BR/>And RM, Fitzgerald didn't prove there was no underlying crime in the exposure of Valerie Wilson's CIA status. He couldn't prove it to the standards of the law, in large part because of at least one of the witnesses lying under oath and obstructing justice. Since he successfully obstructed justice, that doesn't mean there wasn't a crime committed.<BR/><BR/>And even if it couldn't be proved to the foreknowledge and malice level required by the relevant laws, exposing the identity of a CIA agent, working on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and thereby exposing and destroying or weakening most of her network, is at the very least, colossally stupid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82678778214129496172007-03-14T22:33:00.000-07:002007-03-14T22:33:00.000-07:00Guess I'm taking all the bait this evening. Will ...Guess I'm taking all the bait this evening. Will somebody please explain to me how Gonzales firing 8 US Attorneys is substantively different from Janet Reno firing <I><B>all</B></I> of them? Other than Clinton not having a political tin ear and realizing that he could get away with it during the post-innauguration honeymoon?TheRadicalModeratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671143818738683349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34397334650104074562007-03-14T22:26:00.000-07:002007-03-14T22:26:00.000-07:00David--You're just flat wrong when you say that th...David--<BR/><BR/>You're just flat wrong when you say that the intelligence community warned there was no WMD. There was virtually unanimous opinion that the chem/bio program was active in Iraq pre-war. This consensus dated back well into the mid-90's and was remarkably bi-partisan in both the intelligence bureaucracy and in Congress.<BR/><BR/>Now, there was all kinds of debate over "imminent threat." And I will not pretend that WMD was anything other than a convenient but legal <I>casus belli</I>. It was obvious to <I>everybody</I> that Bushco had decided--foolishly, it turned out--to do the "nation building thing" in what you have previously and correctly described as a complete about-face. But please don't beat the tired old "lied about WMD" drum. It's incorrect and ultimately irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>I also must object on the hounding of Clinton for moral peccadilloes. The hounding was for perjury. Yes, Starr tried to embarrass him and ultimately went on a fishing expedition, just as Fitzgerald did upon establishing that there was no underlying crime during Plamegate. What got Clinton in trouble wasn't Monica, it was lying about Monica to mitigate political damage, just as what got Libby in trouble wasn't Plamegate but lying about a moderately unsavory bit of political hardball, again to mitigate political damage.<BR/><BR/>Guess what? Libby's going to <I>jail</I> for perjury, just as the law prescribes. Meanwhile, Bill got to skate for committing another slam-dunk perjury. (That's lying under oath, materiality of the question notwithstanding.) Turns out there were flaws in selecting his jury pool--they appeared to have pre-judged the facts. Oh, well. Perhaps we should hold the President to a lower standard than other citizens.<BR/><BR/>There. You successfully sucked me into the same old tired arguments. They are <I>irrelevant</I>. You want to argue about the underlying neocon strategy, and the criminally stupid planning, and the corrosive happy talk that destroyed domestic confidence, and the lack of proper interrogation training that caused the biggest black eye to American prestige since My Lai? I'm with you. So let's dispense with the stupid stuff.TheRadicalModeratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671143818738683349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34039077201518488252007-03-14T21:58:00.000-07:002007-03-14T21:58:00.000-07:00Oooh. That's a great point. Instead of focusing ...Oooh. That's a great point. Instead of focusing on the eight who were fired...<BR/><BR/>...we ought to be focusing on the 85 who were not! <BR/><BR/>Almost by definition, the fact that they were NOT fired by this administration pretty much means that they were doing Karl Rove's bidding, like good GOP appointees. Putting party ahead of country. Intimidating the professionals below them. Preventing accountability.<BR/><BR/>There is a silver lining. The coming Democratic administration will not <I>have</I> to appoint party hacks in order to retaliate. All they will need to do is retore honest government and then let nature take its course. <BR/><BR/>One method: simply promote frustrated professionals from WITHIN the US officer Corps, the Intelligence Community, the Justice Department, picking those who had the guts and fortitude to keep fighting and keep doing their jobs. These years have been a test of mettle that should make such appointments trivial.<BR/><BR/>First advantage, the blatant contrast between contempt for professionalism and respect for it.<BR/><BR/>Second, the unleashed energy, ripping veils away from kleptos who have become fat and indulgent, should be edifying and unambiguous.<BR/><BR/>Third, Even the expected Bush Pardon Tsunami should do some good, pointing a flashing arrow of attention at every fellow who gets a free-felony pass and letting prosecutors scourge and scour the henchmen and little crooks surrounding each of them.<BR/><BR/>Henchmen and little crooks, take notice. Now may be the time to be making plans. To gather evidence and turn it, guaranteeing yourself hero and celebrity status, instead of waiting till your Bush-crony boss gets his pardon and leaves you swinging in the wind.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72327963822874327942007-03-14T21:50:00.000-07:002007-03-14T21:50:00.000-07:00You know, I almost -- almost -- feel sorry for Gon...You know, I almost -- <I>almost</I> -- feel sorry for Gonzales right now.<BR/><BR/>He's probably going down for doing the deed, and <I>good riddance</I> because the country deserves someone heading the Justice department who wasn't hired because of his long history as Bush's personal law-rationalizer, but the firings <I>probably</I> weren't his idea.<BR/><BR/>I suspect it was Karl Rove was the guy who actually peed on the third rail, but Gonzales was caught, um, holding it for him and aiming.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73157493756495400092007-03-14T21:23:00.000-07:002007-03-14T21:23:00.000-07:00Oh yes... and a little piece of Hilaire Belloch to...Oh yes... and a little piece of Hilaire Belloch to summarise the current conundrum the conservatives find themselves in: <BR/><BR/>"Matilda told such dreadful lies,<BR/>It made one gasp and roll one's eyes!<BR/><BR/>Her aunt who, from an early youth,<BR/>had held a strict regard for truth,<BR/>endeavoured to believe Matilda.<BR/><BR/>... the effort very nearly killed her."Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53256407660241127162007-03-14T21:12:00.000-07:002007-03-14T21:12:00.000-07:00Just a follow up from the last post.HH pointed to ...Just a follow up from the last post.<BR/><BR/>HH pointed to the astonishing disparity in the number of low level republicans and democrats being investigated, and now <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6448133.stm" REL="nofollow">Matt Frei</A> of the BBC is putting two and two together (and cleverly inserting this into a piece on the number of presidential candidates from both sides):<BR/><BR/>"<I>... Just as the heads stopped rolling in the Walter Reed scandal another ugly patch [of mould] appeared.<BR/><BR/>This involves the sacking of eight US attorneys.<BR/><BR/>They testified before a Senate committee that they had been forced to step down because they didn't do the bidding of Karl Rove, the president's supreme fixer.<BR/><BR/>Their job is to prosecute acts of political malfeasance - but they all told the Senate they had been pressed by the White House to investigate Democrats before the elections last November.<BR/><BR/>All had immaculate records in office. All had been appointed by the Republicans.<BR/><BR/>And if these eight weren't doing their jobs, then others clearly were.<BR/><BR/>Under the Bush presidency, 375 cases have been brought against local politicians: 10 were against independents, 67 against Republicans and 298 against Democrats.<BR/><BR/>It has also emerged that Harriet Miers, the president's personal lawyer who never got a seat on the Supreme Court, suggested sacking all 93 US attorneys after the election - but Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says he advised against it. </I>"<BR/><BR/>...'Oh, stand up, ye meaty robots!'Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76769796160578164732007-03-14T19:52:00.000-07:002007-03-14T19:52:00.000-07:00I think a thousand explanations for "left-right" a...I think a thousand explanations for "left-right" are possible. e.g. which group of pretty and over privileged people did you most resent or dream of joining, in college? The preppie frat kids who seemed to be having all the fun? Or the groovy hippies who seemed to be having all the fun? You think I'm kidding? This is a very valid way of psycho-analyzing the Wolfowitz-Nitze-Perle crowd, who got humiliated and screamed at by the latter, and driven off campus and (worse) never got any sex... but who were flattered by the frat kids into doing their homework for them.<BR/><BR/>feh. The real difference is simple. The tyrannically anti-enlightenment left exercises cruelly stupid excess of authority... in a couple of hundred English and social science departments, and does not even control a political party.<BR/><BR/>The tyrannically anti-enlightenment right exercises cruelly stupid excess of authority... over our entire civilization, propelled by TRILLIONS of dollars and some deadly dogmas and (deep behind the curtain) by some types who want us to be slaves. Or dead.<BR/><BR/>I answered Max in the previous comments section and I doubt most of you saw it, so I'll repeat here. He spoke of how many conservatives reflexively "tune out" the left. I replied:<BR/><BR/>Replace that with "reflexively tune out reality."<BR/><BR/>Anyone who can make up excuses to perceive the WMD episode as anything other than outright and highly treasonous lying, is simply a genius of delusion. (in other words, human. But that doesn't excuse it.)<BR/><BR/> I can tell you this, the entire intelligence community considers all of these guys pathological liars. One of a thousand sins of modern conservatism is turning your backs upon the skilled professionals, just as soon as the things said by the pros stopped fitting your dogmas.<BR/><BR/>All right, so the hypothesis (far fetched) is that the WMD and terror-link justifications ("trust us!") weren't deliberate lies. All right. Um... suppose the Bushites were sincere and sent us to war... that is W... A... R... based upon an innocent mistake...<BR/><BR/>...um does not THAT kind of astoundingly incompetent delusional mistake DISQUALIFY someone from being considered a wise "decider" of public policy? <BR/><BR/>Like the way the same team subsidized and coddled Saddam for ages, then left him in power when he was in the palm of our hand.<BR/><BR/>When does an endless litany of either lies or "honest mistakes" make a group less qualified to "decide" than a guy who did everything RIGHT for eight years... but blurted out a fib about his personal life, when being asked a legally immaterial question during a cosmically unjustified and hypocritical witch hunt?<BR/><BR/>We now know that 75% of the men hounding Clinton for moral faults were DEMONSTRABLY and OVERWHELMINGLY less moral in their personal lives. Men who sneered that the Clintons had no love and would split up the moment they left office, now sneer some more... from their third or fourth feckless, loveless marriages.<BR/><BR/>Oh, the hypocrisy is as amazing as the delusional psychosis that lets decent american citizens concoct such rationalizations. The absolutely stunning genius of Ostrichus Americanus Conservativus is amazing... at finding a SPECK of dirt to rationalize tucking the head under, in order to avoid realizing that THIS IS THEIR TIME.<BR/><BR/>This is the time for decent conservatives to stand up and save their country. Save their movement. By first accepting that it has been taken over by bona fide monsters. And then doing wht Barry Goldwater would have wanted.<BR/><BR/>Standing up and being counted on the side of civilization.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6968220893350686402007-03-14T18:46:00.000-07:002007-03-14T18:46:00.000-07:00Max,So I guess my "voice" is a bit strident for so...Max,<BR/><BR/>So I guess my "voice" is a bit strident for some folks tastes? Not surprising, in meat space I produce the same effect particularly with midwesterners and fairly conservative Americans. I was wondering how much of it was the substance of what I said, and how much was form.<BR/><BR/>The dichotomy one surprises me - but my neuroscience comments don't. I piss off most neuroscientists also (the others love me!)<BR/><BR/>It does bring up the question though, how much of the left/right divide isn't really about policy, but instead about cultural styles? How many folks become liberals because they are loud-mouths, and more loud-mouthism is accepted among some folks on the left, and then they just rationalize it as politics? How many people end up accepting conservative politics because they just like conservative people more, and then rationalize it by accepting their political views?RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31815519073481637542007-03-14T18:38:00.000-07:002007-03-14T18:38:00.000-07:00Oh, wait. I think I misunderstood Sociotard a litt...Oh, wait. I think I misunderstood Sociotard a little--he was arguing for the possibility of determinism EVEN IF we're more than just meat.<BR/><BR/>-MaxB.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04048881524085910509noreply@blogger.com