Discussion
Your Daily Vent III
Posted 7/23/08 7:04 PM
Your Daily Vent III
What's on your mind today? Here's your place to sound off on the issues that are eating at you. So vent away!
NOTE: You will need a ThirdAge username and password to post your comments.
The Vent II discussion has now been archived. You may still read archived posts, but new posts should be made on this board.
Posted 11/23/09 12:20 PM
The Trial
A Trial That Will Convict Us All
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Republican members of Congress and what masquerades as a “conservative” media are outraged that the Obama administration intends to try in federal court Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11, and four alleged co-conspirators.
The Republican and right-wing rant that a trial is too good for these people proves what I have written for a number of years: Republicans and many Americans who think of themselves as conservatives have no regard for the US Constitution or for civil liberties.
They have no appreciation for the point made by Thomas Paine in his Dissertations on First Principles of Government (1790):
“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
Republicans and American conservatives regard civil liberties as coddling devices for criminals and terrorists. They assume that police and prosecutors are morally pure and, in addition, never make mistakes. An accused person is guilty or government wouldn’t have accused him. All of my life I have heard self-described conservatives disparage lawyers who defend criminals. Such “conservatives” live in an ideal, not real, world.
Even some of those, such as Stuart Taylor in the National Journal, who defend giving Mohammed a court trial do so on the grounds that there are no risks as Mohammed is certain to be convicted and that “a civilian trial will show Americans and the rest of the world that our government is sure it can prove the 9/11 defendants guilty in the fairest of all courts.”
Taylor agrees that Mohammed deserves “summary execution,” but that it is a good Machiavellian ploy to try Mohammed in civilian court, while dealing with cases that have “trickier evidentiary problems” in “more flexible military commissions, away from the brightest spotlights.”
In other words, Stuart Taylor and the National Journal endorse Mohammed’s trial as a show trial that will prove both America’s honorable respect for fair trials and Muslim guilt for 9/11.
If, as Taylor writes, “the government’s evidence is so strong,” why wasn’t Mohammed tried years ago? Why was he held for years and tortured--apparently water boarded 183 times--in violation of US law and the Geneva Conventions? How can the US government put a defendant on trial when its treatment of him violates US statutory law, international law, and every precept of the US legal code? Mohammed has been treated as if he were a captive of Hitler’s Gestapo or Stalin’s KGB. And now we are going to finish him off in a show trial.
If the barbaric treatment Mohammed has received during his captivity hasn’t driven him insane, how do we know he hasn’t decided to confess in order to obtain for himself for evermore the glory of the deed? How many people can claim to have outwitted the CIA, the National Security Agency and all 16 US intelligence agencies, NORAD, the Pentagon, the National Security Council, airport security (four times on one morning), US air traffic control, the US Air Force, the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, all the neocons, Mossad, and even the supposedly formidable Dick Cheney?
Considering that some Muslims will blow themselves up in order to take out a handful of Israelis or US and NATO occupation troops, the payoff that Mohammed will get out of a guilty verdict is enormous. Are we really sure we want to create a Muslim Superhero of such stature?
Originally, according to the US government, Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11. To get bin Laden is the excuse given for the US invasion of Afghanistan, which set up the invasion of Iraq. But after eight years of total failure to catch Osama bin Laden, it became absolutely necessary to convict some culprit.
Unfortunately, there will be no such sensible outcome. David Feige has told us what the outcome will be (Slate, Nov. 19). The prosecution doesn’t need any evidence, because no judge and no jury is going to let the demonized “mastermind of 9/11” off. No judge or juror wants to be forever damned by the brainwashed American public or assassinated by right-wing crazies. Keep in mind that the kid, John Walker Lindh, termed “the American Taliban” by an ignorant and propagandistic US media, was guilty of nothing except being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Despite the complete trampling of his every right, he got 20 years on a coerced plea bargain.
The price that Mohammed will pay will be small compared to the price we Americans will pay. The outcome of Mohammed’s trial will complete the transformation of the US legal system from a shield of the people into a weapon in the hands of the state. Feige writes that Mohammed’s statements obtained by torture will not be suppressed, that witnesses against him will not be produced (“national security”), that documents that compromise the prosecution will be redacted. At each stage of Mohammed’s appeals process, higher courts will enshrine into legal precedents the denial of the Constitutional right to a speedy trial, thus enshrining indefinite detention, the denial of the right against damning pretrial publicity, thus allowing demonization prior to trial, and the denial of the right to have witnesses and documents produced, thus eviscerating a defendant’s rights to exculpatory evidence and to confront adverse witnesses, The twisted logic necessary to disentangle Mohammed’s torture from his confession will also be upheld and will “provide a blueprint for the government, giving them the prize they’ve been after all this time--a legal way both to torture and to prosecute.”
It took Hitler a while to corrupt the German courts. Hitler first had to create new courts, like President George W. Bush’s military tribunals, that did not require evidence, using in place of evidence hearsay, secret charges, and self-incrimination obtained by torture.
Every American should be concerned that the Obama administration has decided to use Mohammed’s trial to complete the corruption of the American court system. When Mohammed’s trial is over, an American Joe Stalin or Adolf Hitler will be able to convict America’s Founding Fathers on charges of treason and terrorism. No one will be safe.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.
Posted 11/22/09 8:14 AM
Sweeteners for the South...
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Staffers on Capitol Hill were calling it the Louisiana Purchase.
On the eve of Saturday's showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn't secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.
And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote -- and to trumpet the financial "fix" she had arranged for Louisiana. "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix."
It was an awkward moment (not least because her figure is 20 times the original Louisiana Purchase price). But it was fairly representative of a Senate debate that seems to be scripted in the Southern Gothic style. The plot was gripping -- the bill survived Saturday's procedural test without a single vote to spare -- and it brought out the rank partisanship, the self-absorption and all the other pathologies of modern politics. If that wasn't enough of a Tennessee Williams story line, the debate even had, playing the lead role, a Southerner named Blanche with a flair for the dramatic.
After Landrieu threw in her support (she asserted that the extra Medicaid funds were "not the reason" for her vote), the lone holdout in the 60-member Democratic caucus was Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Like other Democratic moderates who knew a single vote could kill the bill, she took a streetcar named Opportunism, transferred to one called Wavering and made off with concessions of her own. Indeed, the all-Saturday debate, which ended with an 8 p.m. vote, occurred only because Democratic leaders had yielded to her request for more time.
Even when she finally announced her support, at 2:30 in the afternoon, Lincoln made clear that she still planned to hold out for many more concessions in the debate that will consume the next month. "My decision to vote on the motion to proceed is not my last, nor only, chance to have an impact on health-care reform," she announced.
Landrieu and Lincoln got the attention because they were the last to decide, but the Senate really has 100 Blanche DuBoises, a full house of characters inclined toward the narcissistic. The health-care debate was worse than most. With all 40 Republicans in lockstep opposition, all 60 members of the Democratic caucus had to vote yes -- and that gave each one an opportunity to extract concessions from Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) won a promise from Reid to support his plan to expand eligibility for health insurance. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) got Reid to jettison a provision stripping health insurers of their antitrust exemption. Landrieu got the concessions for her money. And Lincoln won an extended, 72-hour period to study legislation.
And the big shakedown is yet to occur: That will happen when Reid comes back to his caucus in a few weeks to round up 60 votes for the final passage of the health bill.
Republicans also knew that a single defection would kill the bill, so they tried to pressure the holdouts. "That's what we've got to choose today: Do we choose life or do we choose death?" declared Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). "We just need one vote, one vote on the other side."
But Landrieu had already made up her mind. She went to the floor during the lunch hour to say that she would vote to proceed with the debate -- but that she'd be looking for much bigger concessions before she gives her blessing to a final version of the bill.
"My vote today," she said in a soft Southern accent that masked the hard politics at play, "should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end." Among the concessions she'll seek: more tax credits for small business and a removal of the version of the "public option" now in the bill.
That turned all the attention to the usually quiet Lincoln, who emerged from the cloakroom two hours later to announce her decision. Her attire was school-principal prim -- blue suit with knee-length skirt, orange silk scarf tied tightly at the neck -- and she was clearly uncomfortable in the spotlight. She spoke with the diction of somebody giving a dramatic reading, and she stumbled more than once as she read, botching the crucial line: "I will vote to support, of, the, the, will vote in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill."
She argued, a bit too strenuously, that "I'm not thinking about my reelection" in 2010. All the same, she made clear that Democratic leaders would have to give more if they want her to vote yes as the health-care debate continues. Specifically, she demanded removal of the public option. "I am opposed to a new government-administered health-care plan," she warned, further cautioning that "I will not vote in favor of the proposal . . . as it is written."
By the time this thing is done, the millions for Louisiana will look like a bargain.
Posted 11/22/09 1:50 PM
Health care is a human right
Health care is a human right in all western democracies, except in the US. Makes me wonder how much of a democracy we are, or is it just lip service. Here we have one kind of health care for those who have it paid for by an employer as part of their benefits, then we have health care for those over 65, then we have health care for those who are below a certain income, but we have no health care for those who have a pre-existing condition, but they work. Don't tell me that is a democracy, that is capitalism and capitalism does not rhyme with human rights. (but we make debts to fund so-called wars! go figure).
Posted 11/22/09 11:54 PM
Gee juila, three out of
Gee juila, three out of four isn't too bad. So let's fix the part that needs it, not ruin the entire system. To borrow a quote for Jesse Jackson :"mend it, don't end it"...
BTW, what does rhyme with human rights ?
Posted 11/22/09 11:44 AM
Shadow, it was on the news
Shadow, it was on the news this morning that this pet program will be paid for by cuts and increased costs to Medicare. As usual it's take from those who earn theirs and give to those who don't. Whatever the bill looks like now it's not likely to even be recognizable by the time it gets to be law - if it ever gets to be law. It just doesn't make sense to me for the idiots to concentrate on rushing through "comphensive" health care change when incremental changes made over a period of time would give a much better result in the long run and would be safer too. They are all jockying for political advantage and will end up throwing out the good with the bad and replacing the good with bad and the bad with worse. Politicians never change. They all need to be kicked out on their fat lazy butts.
Posted 11/22/09 5:53 PM
Actually they say it is to
Actually they say it is to save medicare, which one should know will run out in 2118. Do sure how, but I rather believe them politicians than your. Experts have been studying this for decades. Bad bad bad
Posted 11/22/09 11:46 PM
re :"Do sure how, but I
re :"Do sure how, but I rather believe them politicians than your." ???
Posted 11/22/09 1:36 PM
TK, whatever the cost they
TK, whatever the cost they estimate will most likely be way off and not in our favor. Medicare only cost about ten times what was estimated!I once was a idealistic young liberal. I was a big JFK (my distant cousin) supporter. I thought medicare was a wonderful idea... Heck we are a wealthy country,we should care for our elders... Social Security was a good idea. There are many, many well intended plans out there that haven't lived up to expectations. The usual "fix" for most plans is to simply spend more money. Plus, every election year -- "they" line up with promises as to how "they" are going to fix all the broken plans better than the other candidate! Well look how many years they have been trying to fix them.
We do need reform... We need reform in many areas.
I would love to see everyone covered. I just don't trust politicians,especially this bunch!
Posted 11/22/09 5:49 PM
Get real, nothing lives up
Get real, nothing lives up to expections. Be grateful for the times they are exceeded.
Posted 11/22/09 5:39 PM
Shadow I am sure you know
Shadow I am sure you know that the military budget is over 50% of the GNP and had almost doubled under the Bush administration. I really don't see how the Republican can complain about excessive government spending when they were the ones putting us into the hole.
Posted 11/22/09 11:38 PM
Julia I don't know that the
Julia I don't know that the military budget is over 50% of the GNP... What is your source?
One main reason that military spending increased under the Bush administration was that were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania, after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C. There were no survivors from any of the flights.
2,976 victims and the 19 hijackers died in the attacks. The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 90 countries. The United States responded to the attacks by launching a War on Terrorism, invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda terrorists, and enacting the USA PATRIOT Act. Many other countries also strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Some American stock exchanges stayed closed for the rest of the week following the attack, and posted enormous losses upon reopening, especially in the airline and insurance industries. The destruction of billions of dollars worth of office space caused serious damage to the economy of Lower Manhattan. ...From Wikipedia.
Please Note: that all the terrorist were Muslim... but that does NOT mean all Muslims are terrorist!
The Republicians showed us/US that they can be as wastful as the Democratics!
Again I use a quote by Paul Harvey: " Politics is a dirty bussiness, run by dirty people!"
" Good Day"
Posted 11/23/09 1:39 AM
http://www.globalissues.org/a
Posted 11/23/09 11:09 AM
Great article Stan, it
Great article Stan, it clearly makes my point. We spent 54% of the GNP on defense, 6.2% on education and 5.3% on health care. This makes us look like a dumb, sick and paranoid nation.
I have been wondering, if father Bush would not have invaded Iraq, the 9/11 attack might have never happened. In the past I have heard that Hussain made an assassination attempt on Bush one time while he was visiting Iraq and for that reason he invaded to take him out. Eventually he was found.
Posted 11/23/09 6:32 AM
Stan.... Thanx for
Stan....
Thanx for that excellent website. The pie charts are especially startling.
Posted 11/23/09 11:27 AM
I don't think it is a
I don't think it is a "source" that can be dismissed as left wing or crackpot. On a previous search for this info I came across a site with a ".gov" domain name. It probably still exists but I found this one first. The point, for those who demand sources, is that it's no bunch of unAmerican hippies compiling the data.
Posted 11/23/09 12:17 AM
Then Wall Street did it to
Then Wall Street did it to itself Black Friday.
Posted 11/23/09 12:13 AM
he Geopolitics behind the
he Geopolitics behind the phoney US war in Afghanistan
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Afghanistan/...
Here is another reason, I am not sure anyone is suppose to hear about or believe.
Posted 11/22/09 6:04 PM
Read they put military
Read they put military pensions in the welfare budget to please people like TX. Not sure it is true.
Posted 11/22/09 4:30 PM
TK and Shadow, I agree we
TK and Shadow, I agree we need medical care for all, but this is a sham. They have added on so many 'sweetners" to get votes, that it doesn't even look like the original. By the time it is voted on in the Senate, it will nolonger have anything to do with what it was intended for.
I can't wait until Reid, Polosi and several other Democrats are voted out. Its going to happen. Wait and see.
Posted 11/21/09 3:06 PM
is harcane stil comng
is harcane stil comng harcan ktrna bd almos kil me n teenie bd pepl n sprdom hrt teenie i sav teenie i hrt bd pepl mk thm lev teenie lon
Posted 11/22/09 12:17 PM
Hi Ogress, glad to see you
Hi Ogress, glad to see you still here. I thought you had already given up on us. We need some new people in here. I don't think we have any hurricanes coming this way. There was one down in the gulf a few days ago but I haven't heard anything about it for a while so I think it's already passed. You are a Katrina survivor? We had a flood of Katrina refugees stay in Lufkin for a long time. All the shelters were crammed full and a lot of churches opened their doors to refugees. Traffic was jam packed too. About the time that settled down Rita came along and was even worse here in East Texas. Some of the refugees liked it here enough that they stayed here. What happened to you in the Superdome? Did someone attack you?
Posted 11/20/09 10:36 AM
Angry Congress lashes out at
Angry Congress lashes out at Obama
http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=34057664
Posted 11/20/09 10:08 AM
The Scoop on Sarah Palin By
The Scoop on Sarah Palin
By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman.
As posted in comments on Greta's article referencing the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin.
The last 45 of my 66 years I've spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska. I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here's the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, rhetoric, it's about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.
1. Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor's office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican's "Corrupt Bastards Club" (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits. The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.
2. Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES." Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, "don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out." They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.
3. The other thing she did when she walked into the governor's office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as "pork." She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the "when-hell-freezes-over" stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor's jet because it was extravagant. Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning - I imagine – that she's packing heat herself). I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
4. Now, even with her much-ridiculed "gosh and golly" mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.
5. For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn't start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. Then, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.
6. President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewable resources by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that's just a cover-up. I'm still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won't be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.
You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the democratic party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents' wives.
So "You go, Girl." I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals. I rest my case. Only FOOLS listen to the biased national media.
--
Posted 11/22/09 5:45 PM
Let's not forget Alaska
Let's not forget Alaska actually took the bridge to nowhere money. What does that make her?
Posted 11/20/09 6:53 PM
Nice propaganda piece.
Nice propaganda piece. How did she get at 50% Renewable Energy in Alaska? Very suspicious.
This leaves out a lot of negative mistakes. Yes, she kicked at Exon's trying to eliminate the annual oil rights payments to citizens, but that was popular by the majority & only the Democrats were pushing it. so it was a electorial move.
She made many faux pauxs, like her undue firing, w/o due process of a lieutenants arresting a relative. Her just quitting being governor of a frontier state, after year & a half, to play a national big shot, did not impress too many Alaskans.
Good to hear about the gas deal if true. It has been in the works for decades, & is dependent more on the Canadian billionaire's bidding. Not particular good timing pricewise.
Posted 11/20/09 10:46 AM
Good one Ms. Nancy. Of
Good one Ms. Nancy. Of coarse some of our libbies are going to screech and squall though. Let em, it means nothing. That's just the opinions of the self riteous.
Posted 11/19/09 10:11 PM
Eric Holder -- the clown "in a circus atmosphere"...
Senator Lindsey Graham handed Attorney General Eric Holder his "hat" at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday (11/18).
While Holder had just claimed to have the best people working on what he perceives as an "Open and Shut" case, Graham ripped Holder apart and made him sound like a bumbling idiot for ever considering bringing TERRORIST Khalid Sheik Mohammed to an American courtroom.
The confided Holder was not prepared for what was awaiting him. Not too good for the head of America's Justice Department. Now if he can't prepare for a hearing like this, how could you have faith in his department to prosecute and convict KSM?
Graham is right, Holder is making history but, not in a good way.
What do you think is the real motive behind moving the trials to the Federal Court System?
To expose Bush, Cheney, Rove, the CIA, and anyone else associated with the former administration as law breaking, over zealous right wing radicals hell bent on taking America down the path to destruction? You betcha ... the far left has to have "a tingling sensation going up their leg" over this. If this were simply about taking out a terrorist, KSM would have already gone through a military tribunal.
Both Obama and Holder have made the point that this action is necessary to show fairness and equality in the American legal system. However we also heard that if there was no conviction, we could still hold 'em. Kinda like the old western where they say:" yeah, you'll have a fair trial...then we'll hang ya!"
So what' s next? We will no doubt see this circus played out in NYC at a cost of about 300 million dollars that you and I will have to pay. No to mention putting the citizens of NYC at unneccessary risk .
Listen to Attorney General Holder & Senator Lindsey Graham at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday... Pitiful !
Posted 11/20/09 7:08 PM
Alas, Holden's reasoning
Alas, Holden's reasoning parting givern. Makes sense, especially if they expect to execute him. The trial will still be in NYC, Bring on the accountants & tingling feelings.
Posted 11/20/09 7:39 PM
I thought it was so dumb of
I thought it was so dumb of Graham to ask Holden what punishment he would have for Bin Laden if caught. He had this "gotcha" look on his face and his aid in the back snickered. It is naive to think Bin Laden will ever get caught, he is the mouth piece of all the Muslims who hate the west and he is well protected and I don't for a moment think he is this biblical-looking figure he shows himself as.
Posted 11/21/09 5:57 AM
Osama bin Laden... I
Osama bin Laden...
I reckon that if "they" really wanted to capture old Osama, they would have had him by now. ..long ago. But no-one would dare to capture him, let alone bring him to the International Court or any other court.
Meanwhile, as long as bin Laden remains such a mysterious mystical creature, we can all conveniently keep alive the hatred that fuels both the war on terror and the reasons for the terror itself.
Posted 11/22/09 6:10 PM
The CIA team got close I
The CIA team got close I heard on the radio. George's moving resources to Iraq, even after the major showdown battle in Afghanistan, pretty much ended US trying to get him. $200M wasted on trying to find WMDs in Iraq.
Posted 11/22/09 1:24 AM
Not to mention the original
Not to mention the original excuse for going into Afghanistan.
Posted 11/22/09 4:40 AM
Stan.... Was it
Stan....
Was it really only all about getting Osama bin Laden?...if only..!! Two of the biggest and mightest empires on earth had already failed to subdue Afghanistan, but for some strange reason wee Georgie thought he could do better.
Posted 11/22/09 12:15 PM
By "excuse," I meant the
By "excuse," I meant the reason given the witless public. Rabid patriotism and revenge seem to work every time. It's very interesting, Afghanistan's historical role in humbling aggressive empires. The USA deserves special mention for achieving this status in record time. We're not even 300 years old.
Posted 11/19/09 2:47 PM
Globalisation - yes or
Globalisation - yes or no.
Posted 11/19/09 5:01 PM
Polls and
Polls and Polls...
The first obvious thing about that poll is the disproportionate numbers of people per population who were interviewed in some of the countries. Countries with smaller populations (Australia and New Zealand) had the most people interviewed. So, clearly the results can't possibly represent a fair sample compared to the results from USA and UK which had a much smaller percentage of population interviewed. The second obvious thing is the type of questions. The way they're worded is so wide and vague that many people will pick the nearest answer despite it not really being what they think.
For example...the question about technology developing too fast. Many people would tend say yes to that...and not only because they're not following the trends or using new technology, but also because technology is moving very fast, and faster than most people need to learn anyway. The other question about keeping up with the latest technology...well most people don't need to keep up with all the latest technology developments, so that's clearly another question with results that have very little value as well.
And as for the question about globalisation...what exactly does it mean? Globalisation has many forms. It's such a wide and vague question, that no-one could ever possibly give one accurate answer in a Yes, No, Don't Know type of questionaire.
And finally, I noticed that this poll was conducted/published in 2006. A lot has happened in the world since then.
Posted 11/20/09 10:56 AM
Well pearl, I knew you
Well pearl, I knew you would come up with some bs objection. Percentages are percentages no matter how many people are polled. The only difference that makes is that the more people polled the more accurate your results. Also I expected you would think it too ancient a poll to be valid today - I've come to expect that from the person who never misses a chance to dredge up something in America's past that occured in the century before last. You have a double standard pearl. The rest is just your rationalization for declaring the poll invalid. At least you are predictable, you've never let me down in that area.
Posted 11/21/09 6:04 AM
Texas... Not a bs
Texas...
Not a bs objection at all....merely pointing out the obvious technical flaws in this particular poll. Polls can be useful and even enlightening. But some, like this one are badly done, because it asks such vague questions. The results of this poll really don't tell us anything useful. If I submitted a poll like this as a research assignment, I'd get very low marks for it.
Posted 11/19/09 7:11 PM
Pearl, very observant
Pearl, very observant comments.I seem to remember, one of the countries was Indonesia, one cannot compare Indonesia to America. The poll seems to favor anti-globalisation, seems to promote the isolationism we have been practicing here in the US where the majority of people simply is not interested in how things are in other parts of the world. We are the best, case closed, don't argue with us, we will bomb you for it, at least you will get economic sanctions. That was the Bush/Cheney attitude which Obama is trying to undo.
Posted 11/20/09 11:04 AM
Get real julia. We are far
Get real julia. We are far from isolated here. All the world trading we do and you say we are practicing isolationism? All the trade with China alone would demonstrate how wrong that is, not to mention all the other countries where we trade, export jobs, send foriegh aid to and have politicians all over the place.
Posted 11/20/09 6:02 AM
Julia... Part of
Julia...
Part of studying welfare is learning to interpret polls and statistics, and about how they can be used and mis-used. Whenever someone with a clear agenda says most people agree with them, it's often simply because most people they talk to agree with them. It's really not too hard to figure out how these things work. The Morgan polls are well-known here, but they're a commercial operation that conducts polls for clients.
Isolationism is rather old hat now, I think. Surely no-one can think it has any value, except maybe in North Korea and Zimbabwe. I also think President Obama has already done an enormous amount to salvage America's international reputation, in his willingness to engage directly with a variety of other countries.
Posted 11/18/09 5:54 AM
"in a circus atmosphere"..."the full O.J. Simpson treatment" !!
Holder's trials and errors
By Michael Gerson
Washington Post
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Eric Holder -- distinguished prosecutor, judge, foe of public corruption, basketball enthusiast, mentor to disadvantaged youth -- seemed a reassuring choice for attorney general. When Holder affirmed during his confirmation hearing that America remains at war with terrorists, Sen. Lindsey Graham enthused, "I'm almost ready to vote for you right now."
So how did Holder become the most destructive member of Barack Obama's Cabinet?
Holder launched his tenure by showing disdain for the work of career federal prosecutors when it fit his ideological predispositions. In 2004, a task force from the Eastern District of Virginia investigated allegations of misconduct against the CIA and found insufficient evidence of criminal conduct or intent. Holder ignored the views of these respected prosecutors and appointed his own special prosecutor, appeasing a political constituency that wanted the CIA to be hounded and punished. As a result, morale at a front-line agency in the war on terrorism has plunged. What possible reason could a bright, ambitious intelligence professional have to pursue a career in counterterrorism when the attorney general of the United States is stubbornly intent on exposing and undermining his colleagues?
Now Holder is displaying an exaggerated respect for the work of career federal prosecutors in New York, also when it fits his ideological predispositions. He is asking them to make the case against five Sept. 11 conspirators, in a circus atmosphere, with an uncertain chain of evidence (gathered on a battlefield), under a cloud of torture allegations that Holder himself has encouraged.
There is one serious argument for this course: that a civilian court will provide greater legitimacy for the imposition of the death penalty than a military tribunal. But the guilt of these terrorists is not in question. And it is difficult to imagine that those repulsed or impressed by Khalid Sheik Mohammed's confessed crimes will care much about the procedures surrounding his sentencing.
In exchange for a marginal public relations advantage, America will be subjected to the airing of intelligence sources and methods, to the posturing of mass murderers fully aware of their terrorist star power, to the possibility of mistrial and procedural acquittal, and to an increased threat of revenge attacks against New York. Holder seemed to concede this last complication by asserting that New York is "hardened" against possible terrorism. If I were a New Yorker, that would fall into the category of chilly comfort.
In the end, Holder made a decision memorable for its incoherence. He declared American military tribunals constitutional and appropriate for some terrorists -- then awarded Sept. 11 mastermind Mohammed a presumption of innocence and the full O.J. Simpson treatment.
In the original plan for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to the report of the 9/11 Commission, Mohammed was supposed to be on the only hijacked plane that landed. He would kill all the men aboard, then make a dramatic speech to the world. At his trial, he will now get his wish.
Holder's choices do not reflect the normal policy shifts between administrations. It is not typical that seven former directors of the CIA have publicly denounced Holder's assault on the institution they served. It is not typical that Holder's immediate predecessor, Michael Mukasey, has called the plan for trials in Manhattan a risky "social experiment" that will raise the risk of attack "very high." Something unique and frightening is taking place: The ACLU is effectively being put in charge of the war on terrorism.
Holder contends that if people will "in a neutral and detached way, look at the decision . . . and try to do something that's rare in Washington -- leave the politics out of it and focus on what's in the best interest of this country -- I think the criticism will be relatively muted." Holder clearly views himself as Atticus Finch, dispassionately defending the rule of law against the howling mob. In fact, Holder is taking the legal path blazed by former attorney general Ramsey Clark, who defined legal objectivity as indifference to the soiled interests of his country. Holder's liberal principles have become "detached" from the real-world struggle against terrorism: Let justice be done, though the heavens, and buildings, fall.
Wartime American presidents such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt have understood that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. So enemy combatants consistently have been judged by a different and harsher legal standard than American citizens. Whatever his initial assurances, Holder does not believe America is at war with terrorists. Even worse, he seems determined to undermine those who do.
Posted 11/18/09 7:13 PM
Exactly Stan. Whose circus
Exactly Stan. Whose circus was Gerson in? I keep on waiting on Holden's constitutional justification to be stated.
Posted 11/18/09 2:40 PM
The point of this article
The point of this article appears to be nothing less than promoting the "war on terrorism." Note that the writer uses the term "believe." Holder, we are told, is bad because he does not "believe" in the "War on Terrorism." Of course we also have people who will tell us we are bad if we don't believe in Jesus Christ as our personal savior.
Whether there is an actual war on terrorism, or the term is being used to justify American aggression and occupation in other countries, is up to question by anyone short of the most rabid right wing hawks, uber-patriots and CEOs of weapons industry corporations.
That Gerson brings the ACLU into it is a strong giveaway. Bashing the ACLU is a big favorite among the far right (heaven forbid some damn liberals might want to defend our civil liberties - the contradiction is comical: the same folks who promote foreign wars "to defend our freedoms" vilify those who actually do so right here at home.
The only thing missing from the article is a seething rant against Ted Kennedy.
Ads by Google
More on Hobbies & Projects
The ThirdAge Download Store
Is Now Open!
Is Now Open!
Newsletter Sign up
Sign-up for our free ThirdAge newsletters to receive the latest articles, advice tips and more!
