ThinkFast: October 25, 2007
ThinkFast: October 25, 2007
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will announce “new sanctions against Iran” today that “accuse” the Quds division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps of supporting terrorism and “the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps of proliferating weapons of mass destruction.”
The Washington Post reports that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) “has become the Bush administration’s worst nightmare: a Democrat in the majority with subpoena power and the inclination to overturn rocks.” Today, Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to testify before his committee.
“President Bush embarks this morning on a tour of the wildfires ravaging California to showcase his administration’s ability to respond better to natural disasters than it did after Hurricane Katrina two years ago.”
In a letter to Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey yesterday, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined with his Democratic colleagues “in questioning the basis for” Mukasey’s assertion that the president “can act outside the law” on national security issues.
After yesterday denying that it “watered down” congressional testimony by the head of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Bush administration officials are now acknowledging that “they heavily edited [her] testimony on global warming.” Officials, for example, took out the line: “CDC considers climate change a serious public concern.”
“The U.S. Embassy on Wednesday began offering tens of thousands of dollars in payments to victims and families of victims of the Sept. 16 shootings in Baghdad involving security guards from the firm Blackwater.” Several family members turned down the compensation, saying they still wanted “to sue Blackwater in an American court.”
Secretary Rice acknowledged that the administration may have mishandled the case of Maher Arar. “We do not think that this case was handled as it should have been. We do absolutely not wish to transfer anyone to any place in which they might be tortured,” she said.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and William Delahunt (D-MA) will soon introduce legislation — the “American Anti-Torture Act of 2007” — to “ban torture of detainees by any U.S. government agency, including the CIA or other intelligence units.”
And finally: “Sen. Larry Craig is still traveling back to his home state of Idaho these days. … But one thing about his travel plans is different since his widely publicized arrest. … [H]e’s now connecting through the Denver airport. He’s apparently had enough embarrassment in Minneapolis to last a lifetime.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sanctions against Iran won’t work. The administration’s carrot policy towards Iran will fall flat. There are enough regimes out there that can take up the slack for Iran. If we are serious about tackling this, here what needs to happen:
1) Destroy the country’s strategic military infrastructure
October 25th, 2007 at 9:16 am2) Stand prepared to protect the country from unwanted attention from neighbors such as Pakistan and Syria
Oversight of the administration is a good thing. Witch hunts are not so good. Waxman’s actions smack more of the latter in many situations. Either way, the executive should be able to buck these pesky gnats.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:17 amBombing Iran won’t work either, genius.
Also, where is the proof of “the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps … proliferating weapons of mass destruction.â€?
October 25th, 2007 at 9:18 amCraig should stay. He has done a lot for the state of Idaho.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:18 amAwful early in the morning to have the $hits.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:19 amGetting hard proof is asymptotic in nature – you’ll never find it. That should not be the standard in taking actions to protect our National Security.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:20 amI’m pretty sure that Bush et al. disregard all oversight attempts and do what they please anyhow. So, Waxman has been left with the “death by a 1000 cuts” approach.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:20 amSecretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will announce “new sanctions against Iran†today that “accuse†the Quds division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps of supporting terrorism and “the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps of proliferating weapons of mass destruction.â€
Uh-oh Hillary. Almost time to start explaining your Kyl-Lieberman vote.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:20 amAlways ready to please, Nevar
October 25th, 2007 at 9:21 amFirm blamed for Baghdad embassy flaws gains new jobs
By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers
The Kuwaiti contractor that’s building the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad — behind schedule and plagued by allegations of shoddy construction and safety flaws — is still winning lucrative new contracts to build U.S. diplomatic installations overseas. » read more
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/
Our tax dollars hard at work lining the pockets of Bush cronies.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:22 amI agree Lupeyg2. That’s the way it ought to be.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:22 amThe naivete put on display in #1 is breathtaking. Let me guess, idiot: it will be a cakewalk. You sound like one of those super macho pale flabby “men” at AEI.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:23 amToday, Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to testify before his committee.
Anyone want to bet that they don’t require that she be sworn in? It is unconscionable that our Congress allows the Bush Crime Family to testify without being sworn in. That way they can lie with impunity.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:23 amVerbalKint,
IT won’t be a cakewalk. Most things in life aren’t – including assumptions about freedom being free
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 9:24 amSo tell me, hits, why aren’t you in Iraq fighting them over there? I’ll bet you are of fighting age.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:24 amBig talk, armchair general.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:25 amBullshit hits, proof is not asymptotic. And, given the stakes, the previous actions of Bush et al. (lies on the same issue), and their hard-on for preemptive bombing – any sort of accusations should be backed up by facts.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:25 amI ain’t no general VerbalKnit
October 25th, 2007 at 9:25 am#6 – “Getting hard proof is asymptotic in nature – you’ll never find it. That should not be the standard in taking actions to protect our National Security.” Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 9:20 am
OK, then we need to attack and kill all neo-cons for their support of anti-American al Quida terrorists.
Since this is a National Security issue, we don’t have to prove any assertion, we just have to kill all neo-cons.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:26 amthe Quds division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps of supporting terrorism and “the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps of proliferating weapons of mass destruction.â€
So what are these “weapons of mass destruction” they are proliferating? The Bush Crime Family certainly is ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iran. But, I have a feeling that no one but the members of Club 24 are believing them. They have cried wolf way too many times for it to work again.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:27 amVerbalKint,
I don’t fight them over there, because I pay to maintain a willing band of folks who are stronger than me to fight for me – it’s called the military.
Thanks
October 25th, 2007 at 9:27 amHits
Lupeyg2,
Proof is always asymptotic, even if it doesn’t appear to be the case. Even Newton’s laws were “proven” to be true, before Einstein showed a more general proof. And guess what, Einstein ain’t “right” either.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 9:29 amPlease ignore the troll hits. He is undoubtedly michael or jake back to yank our chains.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:29 am>I don’t fight them over there,
where? iraq? how many were in the saddam controlled section of iraq before we attacked?
October 25th, 2007 at 9:30 amThe Washington Post reports that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) “has become the Bush administration’s worst nightmare
Yawn. Unless they’re willing to consider impeachment, so what? He can turn over all the rocks he wants, but what’s he going to do when he finds something under them?
October 25th, 2007 at 9:30 amDemocrat Soldier,
If you believe what you said, all you have to do is find enough people who agree with you to act, and you should be fine.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 9:30 amBilbobaggins,
Ignorance is bliss indeed.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 9:31 amNot a lot, chocolate Jesus; but that’s besides the point
October 25th, 2007 at 9:32 amIgnorance is bliss indeed.
And that’s from an authority on the subject.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:32 am#21 – “I don’t fight them over there, because I pay to maintain a willing band of folks who are stronger than me to fight for me – it’s called the military.” Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 9:27 am
So, you’re FOR socialized defense. I also take it you’re for socialized infrastructure (highways, roads, bridges), and socialized recreation (national forrests and parks), and socialized safety (police and fire departments).
Are you also for socialized health care as well, or is that the only level of socialized programing for which you are against?
October 25th, 2007 at 9:32 am“President Bush embarks this morning on a tour of the wildfires ravaging California to showcase his administration’s ability to respond better to natural disasters than it did after Hurricane Katrina two years ago.â€
I saw some guy affiliated with the National Guard say on TV, with a straight face, that the lack of the National Guard and it’s equipment was “in no way” affecting the ability to fight the fires in California. Talk about delusional.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:33 amI ain’t no general VerbalKnit
Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 9:25 am
You sure do shoot your mouth off, though. For your information, a**hole, people are dying out there in very large numbers and almost all of them are innocent.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:34 amAfter yesterday denying that it “watered down†congressional testimony by the head of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Bush administration officials are now acknowledging that “they heavily edited [her] testimony on global warming.â€
Every time I hear “You can’t handle the truth”, I think about the Bush Crime Family. Anyone want to bet that the woman who gave the CDC report needs to retire soon to spend more time with her family.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:34 amGary Kleppe,
I am not an authority on anything. My opinions are distilled from my own observations. Ya’ll should form your own opinions.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 9:34 am#26 – “If you believe what you said, all you have to do is find enough people who agree with you to act, and you should be fine.” Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 9:30 am
Well, at least you are consistent!
OK, so what you’re saying is that if a group within the US begins targeting neo-cons and claims their reasons are for “National Security” that their actions should not be questioned and proof should not be requested for their actions?
October 25th, 2007 at 9:35 am“The U.S. Embassy on Wednesday began offering tens of thousands of dollars in payments to victims and families of victims of the Sept. 16 shootings in Baghdad involving security guards from the firm Blackwater.â€
Hush money, of course. And we get down to the question of “how much is a human life worth?”
October 25th, 2007 at 9:35 amI am not an authority on anything.
Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 9:34 am
Bingo. First right thing you’ve said.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:35 amDemocrat Soldier,
I don’t understand the concept of “Socialized”. I do believe in institutions, and I believe in survival
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 9:35 amThis is one mean little troll we have here today.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:36 amVerbalKint,
I see your point on the innocence of folks who are dying. Again, your empathy to their death is of less importance to me that my perception of my own survival. That’s the essence of my point.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 9:37 ami fully admit i have no proof of what i am about to say and anyone can take it with a grain of salt, but looking at a picture of erik prince in a newsweek magazine last week i became exceedingly creeped out and unsettled.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:37 ama strange, nearly tangible malignancy seemed to ooze from the guys eyes. the feeling was so strong i began getting physically uncomfortable and had to flip the page. this has never happened before, except with a few of the larger pictures of dick cheney i have seen, but even then, it was nothing compared the discomfort this picture of prince made me feel. there is something very, very, very wrong about this guy….i suspect that he’s sexually aroused by death and mass murder and probably gratifies himself to pictures like the one from vietnam of the naked little girl running away from the napalm explosion crying…. i dont claim i have any evidence of this but my intuition is usually pretty spot on about people,and i dont think im off base saying this prince guy is completely creepy and unnerving..
“The U.S. Embassy on Wednesday began offering tens of thousands of dollars in payments to victims and families of victims of the Sept. 16 shootings in Baghdad involving security guards from the firm Blackwater.â€
Now this really pisses me off. Why in hell should we pay compensation to the victims for something that Blackwater did? It is up to Blackwater to compensate them. It also pisses me off that we pay death benefits to the families of Blackwater employees who are killed in Iraq. And we pay them much more than we pay the families of our soldiers who are killed in Iraq. What a sweetheart deal Blackwater has. All it’s employees are “contractors” so they don’t have to pay taxes on them and our tax dollars pay for their mistakes and for their death benefits. And then, don’t forget, that Blackwater employees make $600 a day.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:38 amDemocrat Soldier,
You should also be willing to convince enough people not to prosecute this (hypothetical) group of yours, and grant them legal legitimacy. If these conditions are met, I am in agreement with your statement
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 9:39 am>Not a lot, chocolate Jesus; but that’s besides the point
really?
October 25th, 2007 at 9:39 amThis is one mean little troll we have here today.
Comment by VerbalKint
So why are you talking to him? Give him all the attention he deserves, which is NONE!
October 25th, 2007 at 9:39 amVerbalKint,
I can repeat that for you – I am not an authority on anything. I do have opinions, distilled from my own observations. Feel free to ignore, or feel free to be influenced.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 9:40 am“We do not think that this case was handled as it should have been. We do absolutely not wish to transfer anyone to any place in which they might be tortured,†she said.
We do not wish to transfer anyone to any place in which they might be tortured, but we do it anyway.
There, Condi, I fixed it for you.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:41 amFeel free to ignore, or feel free to be influenced.
Comment by hits
Folks, please take him up on his offer and ignore the creep.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:42 am“President Bush embarks this morning on a tour of the wildfires”
Some residents, upon seeing the President, were surprised to see he was carrying a bag of marshmallows.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:42 amBilbobaggins,
Do not worry. You can bask in all the attention you need. I crave for none.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 9:42 amthe “American Anti-Torture Act of 2007†— to “ban torture of detainees by any U.S. government agency, including the CIA or other intelligence units.â€
Why stop there? This does nothing about our government “rendering” victims to foreign countries where they are tortured.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:43 amI see your point on the innocence of folks who are dying. Again, your empathy to their death is of less importance to me that my perception of my own survival. That’s the essence of my point.
If appeals to basic decency don’t work, maybe this will: Consider that your attempts to ensure your survival are actually counter-productive. You’re supporting an administration that’s causing immense suffering among people who mostly had no beef with you in the first place. That’s creating far more people who want to kill you than were there in the first place.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:43 amMissmolly, I’m more concerned about who the money is coming from. Is it U.S. taxpayers’ money, or is it from Blackwater?
October 25th, 2007 at 9:44 amHush money, of course. And we get down to the question of “how much is a human life worth?â€
Comment by missmolly — October 25, 2007 @ 9:35 am
Also, why is the US Embassy making the offers? Blackwater is the liable party – why aren’t they the ones seeking to compensate?
October 25th, 2007 at 9:45 am#43 – “You should also be willing to convince enough people not to prosecute this (hypothetical) group of yours, and grant them legal legitimacy. If these conditions are met, I am in agreement with your statement” Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 9:39 am
The neo-cons are not hypothetical, and their threat to the US is highlighted by their disregard of the US Constitution and their flauting of the law.
Based on your argument, they represent a threat to the National Security and I need to have no proof at all for prosecuting them.
Remember, you are the one who said that when National Security is invoked that no proof for any accusation is required at all, and that the actions taken in defense of the National Security seem to be acceptable to you.
Or did I not completely understand your stance on National Security?
October 25th, 2007 at 9:47 amI’m all for paying huge amount’s of money for the mistake that Blackwater made in killing innocent’s in Iraq but I want to know who is footing the bill? Seem’s to me it should be the one’s doing the killing.(Blackwater and cheney for hiring these terrorest’s)…It also seems more than reasonable that they should loose their contract and be removed from Iraq along with trial’s for their crime’s…Our present administration has run fast and loose with no law’s touching them and runaway spending for gencide on an innocent country, to continue with all this funding make’s all the representatives as guilty as the blackwater murderers with the gun’s..It also put’s guilt on the back’s of the war supporter’s….Blessings..Peace.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:47 amComment by dim wit
Great minds, my friend. I’m hoping the Embassy is just handing out the payments, but Blackwater is providing the funds.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:47 amI think that if we actually attack Iran I may take the advice given by trolls all too often and “get the f*** out.”
October 25th, 2007 at 9:47 amGary Kleppe,
Counter-productive, relative to what? I actually agree with you that the administration’s policy creates more people wanting to destroy me than not – only in the short to medium term. My assertion is –
1) Over a large amount of time, most of these folks will want to destroy me (figuratively speaking).
2) The administration’s actions are scrunching this “hatred” into a short period of time, where we have control and supremacy
3) That’s a good thing in the grand scheme of things.
Congratulations on making a good argument, though
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 9:48 amBy the way, if Fox News is right, and the wildfires were caused by Al Qaeda, then we have had our first major terrorist attack since 9/11!
Bush’s strategery of fighting them over there didn’t work!
Torture, secret wiretapps, Patriot Act, Guantanamo….nothing Bush did kept us safe from this terrorist attack!
October 25th, 2007 at 9:48 amHere we go again… with weapons of mass destruction!
Most probably another lie, preparing the path to execute a plan that must already be in development: to bomb Iran.
Well, the gang is not worried about the cost of Iraq/Afganistan, so why to worry with another one? We the people are going to pay either we aprove it or not. No choice.
This gang is not going to be stopped! They are destroying America for good and we are going to suffer the consequences in the years to come.
The amazing is that the most popular Rep candidates are those who support an ongoing war.
I don’t get it? I really don’t!
October 25th, 2007 at 9:48 amComment by Wilco — October 25, 2007 @ 9:47 am
yes, it appears you were quicker with the “enter” button, though.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:49 amWell done Mr. Bush! Every country who sells or trades heavy arms should be punished!
I wonder what country in the world looms largest in the arms trade….
Cause man, we should take them out…
http://www.tshirtinsurgency.com
October 25th, 2007 at 9:50 amDemocrat Soldier,
I think you do understand my view on National Security. My comments are more from the practical point of view of actually accomplishing (again, hypothetical) the destruction of neocons you are contemplating. You see, you will actually need to convince the real institutions of the judiciary, the executive and the legislature that your actions are justifiable.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 9:50 am#59 – “1) Over a large amount of time, most of these folks will want to destroy me (figuratively speaking).
2) The administration’s actions are scrunching this “hatred†into a short period of time, where we have control and supremacy
3) That’s a good thing in the grand scheme of things.
Congratulations on making a good argument, though” Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 9:48 am
I take it you’ve never heard of the Israeli/Palastenian conflict? It’s been “scrunched” into a relatively small country and it’s been going on for over 50 years. No “short period of time” in which the Isralies who have “control and supremacy” have successfully addressed this conflict.
Actually, you’ve just proven that the US is setting the US up for 50 more years of the Iraq quagmire.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:51 amAnother day, another outrage, another free pass. Operation ongoing nightmare continues with no end in sight.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:52 am#64 – “You see, you will actually need to convince the real institutions of the judiciary, the executive and the legislature that your actions are justifiable.” Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 9:50 am
I wonder why this was never accomplished with Iraq, yet we are still occupying that country as we fight to control the oil?
October 25th, 2007 at 9:53 amDemocrat Soldier,
You are in fact making the point I am making. You see, Israel does not have the degree of supremacy it needs to destroy its enemies – it is superior, but not vastly superior. My point is that the hatred of the USA is not going to go down – they will want to destroy us because of what happened in the past – a past we cannot change. Given that situation, we should use these unique points in time when we actually do have vast superiority to destroy these folks. Or else, risk becoming another Israel. See my point?
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 9:55 amIt appears that the trolls have been given their marching orders (talking points) in defense of the indefensible White House.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:56 amThe press sec’y denies one thing on Wednesday, and the WH has to admit it on Thursday.
The propaganda network revives a 4 year old e-mail, puts a fresh date on it and claims we have AQ in California. It doesn’t occur to them that claiming AQ in California defeats their mantra of “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.”
But never fear, the trolls will defend the double-speak into eternity. They will blindly follow their corrupt leader into hell before they admit they have been wrong, terribly wrong in (s)electing G.W.Bush.
As long as they continue to line their pockets with the (sp)oils of this war and its profiteering advantages, nothing else matters to them.
And with the anti-torture bill, didn’t one pass just last year? You know, the one where Bush added his signing statement completely nullifying it?
October 25th, 2007 at 9:56 amHow is this one supposed to be any different?
Democrat Soldier,
I actually believe we should be out of Iraq now. I do not think it is an optimum use of my tax dollars at this stage, and I do not think it is a threat to national security at this stage.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 9:57 amOversight of the administration is a good thing. Witch hunts are not so good. Waxman’s actions smack more of the latter in many situations. Either way, the executive should be able to buck these pesky gnats.
Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 9:17 am
Just what is your threshold for wrongdoing? You consider it a witch hunt when one Congressman refuses to allow the tyranny of this administration go unchallenged.
Please go through this checklist and defend (if you can) the following actions Waxman and other members of Congress object to:
1) Manipulating and cherry-picking through intelligence in order to lie about invading Iraq. An offense worth investigating, or a witch hunt?
2) Approaching telecom companies and asking them to spy on Americans BEFORE 9/11. An offense worth investigating, or a witch hunt?
3) Firing U.S. Attorneys for two reasons — to get rid of U.S. Attorneys who refuse to ignore offenses made by Republicans, or refuse to hound Democrats, or refuse to influence elections; and to make room to install cronies in “interim” roles without Senate confirmation. An offense worth investigating, or a witch hunt?
4) Outing a senior covert CIA agent working on a special project to derail Iran’s nuclear program — in order to punish a man who dared to contradict White House lies. An offense worth investigating, or a witch hunt?
5) Authorizing torture. An offense worth investigating, or a witch hunt?
6) Getting rid of e-mails and other communications that are supposed to be public property. An offense worth investigating, or a witch hunt?
7) Giving no-bid government contracts to incompetent cronies. An offense worth investigating, or a witch hunt?
There’s more to list, of course, but for the moment, let’s stick with these. You will probably claim that each of these actions is “necessary for national security” and should be left unchallenged. But please consider this — IF IT WAS A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE, WOULD THESE ACTIONS STILL BE OK? WOULD YOU STILL TOLERATE RUNNING ROUGHSHOD OVER THE CONSTITUTION IN THE NAME OF “NATIONAL SECURITY”?
October 25th, 2007 at 9:57 amMissmolly,
You posit that this administration is tyrannical. That’s the basis of your rather long exposition. Given that extreme position, my articulation of Waxman’s actions as a witch hunt seems rather meek!
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:00 amThe practical side to Iran, is don’t attack.
1.) China depends upon Iran for a the majority of its energy needs.
2.) The US owes China billions.
3.) Russia doesn’t want to see a US attack in Iran either.
4.) our military is already to the breaking point, and Iran is not only far larger then Iraq, but hasn’t been laboring under economic sanctions for 10+ years.
Air strikes aren’t enough to destroy the nuclear facilities, and we don’t have enough troops to pacify Iran. Hell we don’t have enough troops to pacify Iraq.
I don’t even want to get into what the price of a barrel of oil will shoot up to, and China’s reaction to any attack on Iran.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:00 amMissmolly, I’m more concerned about who the money is coming from. Is it U.S. taxpayers’ money, or is it from Blackwater?
Comment by Wilco — October 25, 2007 @ 9:44 am
My guess it’s coming from the State Department, since Blackwater is THEIR baby and they are doing everything they can to defend them.
Which means, of course, WE are paying for it.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:01 amOk, 39 out of 72 posts are by hits or responding to hits.
Congratulations hits, you are the undisputed winner of this thread.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:01 amBilbobaggins,
Collateral damage?
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:02 amWhich means, of course, WE are paying for it.
Comment by missmolly
You are correct missmolly. We (our tax dollars) also pay death benefits to the families of Blackwater employees killed in Iraq. Blackwater considers it’s employees as “contractors” so they pay no taxes on their income and pay no death benefits. It’s pure profit for Blackwater. What a sweet deal they have.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:03 amDoes the propaganda network think about what they are told to say?In claiming that AQ is responsible for the fires in California, doesn’t it imply that Bush has not kept us safe?
October 25th, 2007 at 10:04 amYou posit that this administration is tyrannical. That’s the basis of your rather long exposition. Given that extreme position, my articulation of Waxman’s actions as a witch hunt seems rather meek!
Hits
Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 10:00 am
You’re ducking my question by challenging me on my position. OK — let’s take the supposition of tyranny out of it and let the same list stand — treating each offense just at face value. Which of these offenses do you think should be challenged and which ones should be left alone — regardless of who is in the White House?
October 25th, 2007 at 10:06 am#68 – “You see, Israel does not have the degree of supremacy it needs to destroy its enemies – it is superior, but not vastly superior.” Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Actually, the Isreali’s are vastly superior than the Palastenians. Israel has nuclear weapons, and the Palestenians do not. Israel have hundrends of tanks, and the Palestenians have no tanks at all. Israel has hundreds of jets/gun-ships/helicopters, and the Palestenians do not. The hate between both countries/races/ethnicities has increased over the past 50 years with no end in sight.
You’ve therefore proven, yet again, that the US is setting the US for 50 years, or more, of the Iraq quagmire.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:06 amDoes the propaganda network think about what they are told to say?In claiming that AQ is responsible for the fires in California, doesn’t it imply that Bush has not kept us safe?
Comment by Marie — October 25, 2007 @ 10:04 am
The propaganda network is remembering the lessons taught them by Karl Rove regarding the attention span of Americans. It’s this same principle that causes them to swing wildly between the positions of “we’ve got Al Qaeda on the run” and “Al Qaeda is a big, big boogeyman — be very afraid.” It just depends on whether they need cheerleaders or scaredy cats at any given moment.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:10 amMissmolly,
Let’s take one example – “manipulating the intelligence”. That’s the first section of your first sentence. You have again loaded that statement with your bias. How do you expect me to see through your bias and then come to a logical conclusion on Waxman’s actions? Assume I am a 5 year old and please educate me.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:11 amIn claiming that AQ is responsible for the fires in California, doesn’t it imply that Bush has not kept us safe?
Comment by Marie — October 25, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Bush has failed to keep America safe since 9/11/01, so nobody should be surprised if the fires are, in fact, Al Qaeda-related. Bush is a big supporter of Al Qaeda, and best friends with their funding sources, as well as the source of most of the 9/11 hijackers, Saudi Arabia. There is no bigger danger to America than the Bush regime.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:13 amDemocrat Soldier,
You are partially correct – Israel does have vastly superior weapons. However, it doesn’t have the financial and other lateral institutions to support the barrage that will follow from EU and (possibly) the US after a strike!
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:14 amAssume I am a 5 year old and please educate me.
Hits
Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 10:11 am
any 5-year-old is more educable than you; it’s obviously a waste of time to deal with a blind ideologue like you. Your anti-Americanism is clear for all to see.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:15 am>Ok, 39 out of 72 posts are by hits or responding to hits.
Ok, let me lower the ratio a bit.
I also suspect, but have no proof, that dick cheney’s perversions include
scataphelia, pedophelia and sadism/masocism, and i beleive don rumsfeld has at least fantazied about cannibalism. I can see him getting into the whole aztec “eat your opponents heart to gain his courage” idealogy.
I don’t even say these things just because I don’t like them. For instance, I also suspect Micheal Jackson of being a pedophile as well, but since he’s not a mass murderer, makes some enjoyable tunes, and generally seems to love and give massive amounts of money to his youthful paramours, I don’t judge him as harshly as genocide dick and holocaust rummy.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:16 am#83 – “You have again loaded that statement with your bias. How do you expect me to see through your bias and then come to a logical conclusion …” Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Sort of reminds me of someone saying “It’s OK to do something with no proof if you claim it’s for National Security reasons”. Of course, it turned out that there were no WMD’s, no programs for WMD’s, and iraq was not supporting al Quaeda at all. In other words, Iraq posed no threat to the US, yet we’re still occupying their country.
What was that biblical verse about the beam in ones eye and the splinter in anothers? ;-)
October 25th, 2007 at 10:16 amLefty Patriot,
You make a point without support. Weak argument.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:19 am#85 – “However, it (Israel) doesn’t have the financial and other lateral institutions to support the barrage that will follow from EU and (possibly) the US after a stike!” Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 10:14 am
And, because the US DOES have the “financial and other lateral institutions”, the US can attack any country for any reason at all, or for no reason, and it’s all fine and we should not take any responsibility for our actions in any way, shape, or form.
Hmmm. You are sounding very much like the neo-cons of which I’ve warned you about! ;-)
October 25th, 2007 at 10:19 amLooks like a new troll is spamming TP. “Hits” needs to be flushed.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:21 amLet’s take one example – “manipulating the intelligenceâ€. That’s the first section of your first sentence. You have again loaded that statement with your bias. How do you expect me to see through your bias and then come to a logical conclusion on Waxman’s actions? Assume I am a 5 year old and please educate me.
Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 10:11 am
No, that’s not bias. There is evidence that the intelligence given to Congress wasn’t complete — that it was screened, edited, and cherry-picked especially to convince Congress to give Bush the power he needed to invade Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39864-2004Jul9.html
So my question is this — if there is evidence (even anecdotal) that this happened, should the matter be pursued further or would that be a witch hunt? And remember to consider from the standpoint of “what if it was a Dem in the White House who did this?”
October 25th, 2007 at 10:22 amlmpj1,
Hits is a short hand for my actual name
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:24 amDemocrat Soldier,
Yes, the US should – but only for its own survival. Is that what you call neocon? I didn’t know.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:25 amZooey,
You are free to ignore me and my rationale.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:25 amYou make a point without support. Weak argument.
Hits
Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 10:19 am
Not an argument; a statement of fact. That’s why you don’t understand it.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:25 amLooks like a new troll is spamming TP. “Hits†needs to be flushed.
Comment by Zooey — October 25, 2007 @ 10:21 am
He gets a couple more chances to answer my questions, but if he continues to duck them and merely accuse me of “bias” (a pathetically weak argument), I will assume he can’t answer them, has nothing intelligent to say, and I promise I will ignore him.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:26 amMissmolly,
The Wash Post article you have indicated qualifies as anecdotal evidence, in my opinion. Given the oversight responsibility that Waxman has, such a report can be cause for him to start looking through information. It doesn’t matter if it was a Dem in the WH.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:27 amI promise I will ignore him.
Comment by missmolly — October 25, 2007 @ 10:26 am
I have a feeling it doesn’t matter either way. Hits is here to spam, nothing more.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:27 amSee, Democrat Soldier, hits has no morals. Killing innocent people because arms dealers lie about them is fine with him, because he lacks the judgment of any normal 5-year-old. he is the worst possible American, the Good German reborn.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:27 amLefty Patriot,
Your definition of “statement of fact” seems too feeble to stand up for reason.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:28 amI don’t understand the term “morals” Lefty Patriot. Care explain it to me?
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:29 amYour definition of “statement of fact†seems too feeble to stand up for reason.
You’d be the last to know anything about “reason”.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:29 amZooey,
Define spam in this context?
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:29 amI don’t understand the term “morals†Lefty Patriot. Care explain it to me?
Glad you’ve admitted it, but we’ve already determined your inability to follow a train of thought.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:30 amah, hits is little mikey the coward. another p sockpuppet, no doubt.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:31 amI’m waiting for one of the other personnas of the troll to show up and start giving reccomends to all of his posts. Ought to keep it busy for a while…
October 25th, 2007 at 10:34 am“the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps of proliferating weapons of mass destruction.â€
that sounds familiar.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:35 amhmmmmmm? where have i heard that one before?
The Wash Post article you have indicated qualifies as anecdotal evidence, in my opinion. Given the oversight responsibility that Waxman has, such a report can be cause for him to start looking through information. It doesn’t matter if it was a Dem in the WH.
Hits
Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 10:27 am
OK, so you say that if there is evidence that intelligence may have been manipulated for a political agenda, and if a Congressman follows up on that evidence, that’s OK — it’s not a witch hunt.
What about my second example? If a telecom company claims that the administration approached them and asked them to conduct wiretaps without a warrant in violation of the fourth amendment, would that merit further investigation? Or would that be a witch hunt?
October 25th, 2007 at 10:36 amI just reported the troll´s abuse.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:38 amMissmolly,
Going for more information under that situation wouldn’ be a witch hunt either
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:40 am#95 – “Yes, the US should – but only for its own survival.” Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 10:25 am
But that’s just it! The survival of the US had nothing at all to do with attacking Iraq! In fact, this may jeapordize the US, because it’s been proven that the whole rationale for the war in Iraq was based on lies.
Oh well, neo-cons will lie and nobody will believe it until it’s too late.
Time to get to work!
October 25th, 2007 at 10:40 amJuan C.,
That’s one way to squelch debate. Do you realize the amount of arguments that have been thrown up to support your point of view, just because of my presence?
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:41 amFunny, I never mentioned who the troll was…
October 25th, 2007 at 10:42 am“Hits is a short hand for my actual name”
The S belongs at the beginning.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:43 amFunny, I never mentioned who the troll was…
Comment by Juan C. — October 25, 2007 @ 10:42 am
**snort**
October 25th, 2007 at 10:43 amFunny, I never mentioned who the troll was…
Comment by Juan C. — October 25, 2007 @ 10:42 am
well, we know who the lonely attention-grabber is now, don’t we?
October 25th, 2007 at 10:43 amJuan C.,
I understand that I am considered a troll here. I accept that.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:45 amGoing for more information under that situation wouldn’ be a witch hunt either
Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 10:40 am
OK, I’m claiming my point made, since going down my list one by one is a waste of this thread. Getting back to your original post — what actions of Waxman’s DO you consider to be in the category of witch hunting, and why? And, again — would it count as a witch hunt if it was a Republican Congressman in charge of oversight and a Democrat in the White House?
October 25th, 2007 at 10:48 am“I understand that I am considered a troll here. I accept that.”
Hits
Will that be for the record?
October 25th, 2007 at 10:48 amItalians ‘cannot try US soldier’
“We’ve given up trying to find the truth about what happened to Nicola Calipari. The arrogance of America, which never wanted this trial, has won.”
Oh, friendship…
Bush pledges to keep Cuba embargo
It is a confirmation that the current policy of the Bush regime is regime change in Cuba, including through the use of force
Felipe Perez Roque, Cuban FM
No, Felipe, it is about Castro-Al-Qaeda connections, Cuba WMDs and freedom…
October 25th, 2007 at 10:51 amHey, Zoo!!! ;)
October 25th, 2007 at 10:51 amHey, Juan! :-)
October 25th, 2007 at 10:54 amGood day Lady Z and Juan C…….Blessings
October 25th, 2007 at 10:55 amMorning, Juan, Zooey, Witch, missmolly, Nevar and everyone else (mostly).
Anyone watching Condi on CSpan 3?
October 25th, 2007 at 10:56 amMissmolly,
Numbers 4, 5 and 7 are examples of witch hunts, in my opinion, unless you clarify further. The others can degenerate into the category of witch hunts, depending on the nature of the interaction between WH and Waxman.
Merely initiating an inquiry does not necessarily qualify as a witch hunt.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:57 amGood morning, Great Lady.
Fantastic moon last night — then the wind storm came through. :D
October 25th, 2007 at 10:57 amNevar,
Indulge yourself.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 10:57 amAnyone watching Condi on CSpan 3?
Comment by Candyce — October 25, 2007 @ 10:56 am
Sorry, no TV.
And if I had TV, no gun. :|
October 25th, 2007 at 10:58 amHi everyone (mostly), still waiting for the call.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:02 amIn the meantime I get to enjoy a beautiful fall day.
Good morning, Raven. :)
It’s a gorgeous day here as well. Cold, but gorgeous.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:03 amWhen sanctions were put against Iraq under Saddam, it worked very well because Iraq was the ideal country to sanction. Surrounded by neighbors whom Saddam turn to enemies, like Kuwait in south,Syria to the west,Iran to the east.
Iraq also did not have big sea shores.It worked.
But with Iran..it will not work because Iran has good frienship with all its neighbors including Iraq and Afghanstan where we have troops there.
Iran also produces just about everything they need.
Iran instructed buyers of its exported oil to pay in their own currencies rather than the dollar like China and Japan.
The sanctions for over 29 years by the USA turn Iran to be independent and industrious.
Iran now produces all military equipments they need for their army,navy and airforce and they export military gears to many countries.
Iran has achieved many scientific advances due to sanctions.
Will adding sanctions against Iran work?!!.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:05 amPast experiences of sanctioning Iran proved to be fruitless,because Iran is much stronger before we began sanctioning them.
We lost business in the billions by sanctioning many countries.The more countries we sanction, the more exports we lose..the sanctioned country will look somewhere else.The days that a country can monopolize exported items are gone.
There is nothing that the USA produces that cannot be bought somewhere else.
The longer the list of sanctioned countries by us,the more we lose business…
My feathered friends were all gathered around the birdbath this morning, looking askance at the hard shiny surface…
October 25th, 2007 at 11:05 amMy feathered friends were all gathered around the birdbath this morning, looking askance at the hard shiny surface…
Comment by Nevar — October 25, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Such needy things… :)
October 25th, 2007 at 11:07 amNumbers 4, 5 and 7 are examples of witch hunts, in my opinion, unless you clarify further. The others can degenerate into the category of witch hunts, depending on the nature of the interaction between WH and Waxman.
Merely initiating an inquiry does not necessarily qualify as a witch hunt.
Hits
Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 10:57 am
they’re only witch hunts if nothing turns up. If there is nothing to fear, then there is no reason not to proceed. Sounds like you don’t want the administration’s guilt exposed. so much for your feigned patriotism.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:10 amCondi’s version of “I don’t recall” is “Senator, I’ll have to get back to you on that.”
October 25th, 2007 at 11:10 amSuch needy things… :)
Somewhat dependent, yes, still they never complain!
October 25th, 2007 at 11:11 amLefty Patriot,
I do not consider myself a Patriot – partly because I do not understand that concept.
Hits
October 25th, 2007 at 11:15 amYo, President Moron – please – STAY HOME.
Just send money.
Thank you.
- California
October 25th, 2007 at 11:15 amcaption:
“Dearly despised, we are gathered here together to join the concept of greed and corruption in an unholy union destined to create suffering, misery, and violence throughout the world….”
October 25th, 2007 at 11:16 amReps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and William Delahunt (D-MA) will soon introduce legislation — the “American Anti-Torture Act of 2007†— to “ban torture of detainees by any U.S. government agency, including the CIA or other intelligence units.â€
Considering that Bush has already said “we don’t torture”, it should be interesting to see who votes against this.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:18 amElection news…
Tancredo to drop out the GOP primary if the Rockies lose.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/10/romney_passes_o.html
Romney, proving he is a Sox fan, wisely declines to make a similar bet.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:20 amSomewhat dependent, yes, still they never complain!
Comment by Nevar — October 25, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Always a plus!
October 25th, 2007 at 11:22 amGreat post’s Nevar……Good to see you all here today…Pretty moon last night Lady Z, should be bigger tonight..Candyce, my cable co doesn’t do c-span3 only 1&2…….Good thing I can’t see bush’s war whore today..Had enough and gonna go hug some tree’s…..Beautiful day here…..Blessings all
October 25th, 2007 at 11:23 amI do not consider myself a Patriot – partly because I do not understand that concept.
Hits
Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 11:15 am
we all knew that already.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:25 amHello, Sharon and Candyce!
Good morning to you too. I am freezing my ass. 4 °C (or 40 °F) here.
Turkey: US will not stop Iraq incursion
I guess it is MULTI MEGA INVASION MOMENT!
October 25th, 2007 at 11:26 amCandyce, whats up with Condi?
What do we have to fear now? :)
October 25th, 2007 at 11:30 amYo, President Moron – please – STAY HOME.
Just send money.
Thank you.
- California
Comment by Leftside Annie — October 25, 2007 @ 11:15 am
You raise an interesting point — and a good one. Why is it that we always insist our president visit disaster areas? It doesn’t matter who the president is, the logistics of presidential travel requires a lot of resources just for security alone. In a disaster area, this can seriously impede efforts to mitigate the disaster or its effects.
Of course, I expect the president to care about 9/11, about Katrina, about the wildfires, and about any disaster affecting the American people. And if I was the president, my first inclination in the face of a disaster would be to rush to the area affected, survey the damage, and reassure the people.
But in order to keep operations running as smoothly as possible, I think we need to find another way for the president to show his concern.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:32 amI guess it is MULTI MEGA INVASION MOMENT!
Comment by Juan C. — October 25, 2007 @ 11:26 am
#
The scary thing with this is iit is a lose-lose scenario. If we back Turkey, the Kurds have a lot of friends in the international community, and we would be wreaking havoc on the only stable part of Iraq. If we back the kurds, we stand to lose a very important supply route through Turkey that would adversely affect our troops in northern Iraq.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:32 amMissMolly – if he really gave a damn, I wouldn’t mind so much.
But I have absolutely no interest in being subjected to the spectacle of the Chimp-in-Chief playing dress-up in his fireman costume (complete with Presidential Seal), giggling and grinning about the brushfires here:
“Heheh – you’ve got a lot of burned stuff here! Heheh – cleared the brush bettern’ I could! Heheheh!”
And then inflicting more of that “state and local” crap upon us.
Blech. He should stay home.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:37 amJuan C, Remember she is the queen of mushroom cloud’s…..Think the pupett is going to do cheney’s bidding and create one in Iran…..Or here..Any one with oil under their home should think of moving…Quickly…
Stay warm Juan, sound’s like bundeling time……Blessings
October 25th, 2007 at 11:37 am“But in order to keep operations running as smoothly as possible, I think we need to find another way for the president to show his concern.”
Comment by missmolly
Like………… resign.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:47 amBush wants WWWIII for ethnic cleansing, profit and complete hegemony.
God must be speaking to Chimpy again : bomb Iran.
Hubris at it’s worst.
fasten your seatbelts.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:47 amI clearly meant WWIII.
oops.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:48 amAny one with oil under their home should think of moving…Quickly…
Nailed it.
Stay warm Juan, sound’s like bundeling time……Blessings
Comment by Witch1
Im OK. You are a great person. Thanks. :)
October 25th, 2007 at 11:49 amToo bad we don’t still have Valerie Plame keeping wmd out of Iran.
Heckuva job, Dubbie!
October 25th, 2007 at 11:56 amBack at ya Juan C…….Blessings
October 25th, 2007 at 12:04 pm“But in order to keep operations running as smoothly as possible, I think we need to find another way for the president to show his concern.â€
Comment by missmolly
Like………… resign.
Comment by Nevar — October 25, 2007 @ 11:47 am
No, no — although I know what you mean, and I assure you I feel your pain.
I was talking about ANY president (since disasters tend to occur during every president’s term). If Bush and Cheney resigned or were removed from office, this would still apply to President Nancy Pelosi.
Presidential visits are an inconvenience no matter who the president is, and any president would be in the way in the middle of a disaster.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:04 pmPresidential visits are an inconvenience no matter who the president is, and any president would be in the way in the middle of a disaster.
Comment by missmolly
I understand your view, missmolly, and I wholeheartedly agree.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:18 pmIn this day and age of instant communications, there is no reason to further confuse the issue by bringing in more commotion and confusion to an already disastrous situation.
I’m sure most people affected by the fires don’t give a rats ass about Bush, and will probably resent his obvious political pandering.
75% or better in this nation recognize George Bush for the incompetent fool he has always been, and more and more will begin to ignore him and his utterances.
Numbers 4, 5 and 7 are examples of witch hunts, in my opinion, unless you clarify further. The others can degenerate into the category of witch hunts, depending on the nature of the interaction between WH and Waxman.
Merely initiating an inquiry does not necessarily qualify as a witch hunt.
Comment by hits — October 25, 2007 @ 10:57 am
I thank you for your evaluation and your response. I think your general take on the subject of witch hunts is that if “there is no ‘there’ there”, it’s a witch hunt — and I tend to agree. And if there is any evidence that wrongdoing has been committed, it deserves follow-up — and if the follow-up doesn’t clear it, it deserves investigation.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:27 pmWhen you find things under rocks you are supposed to bash them with that rock Henry.
Buck Fush
October 25th, 2007 at 12:27 pmWinds dying down in California, maybe helping firefighters get the fires out – here comes georgejr in a helicopter, flying low, propellers whipping up embers again.
Wish he’d go on vacation again.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:25 pm