Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I believe my position was we should attend to investigating and punishing as appropriate. I think that is what happened.
The thing I didn't understand from you then was what you thought different should happen. You seemed to imply that the incident should point to something more dramatic- leave Iraq? torture some of us to make up? Fire Bush?
Oh, wait , now I remember. You didn't have any point beyond complaining. Business as usual.
Were you on the Kerry campaign?
|
Let this be an example to the board. I've gone to the trouble of going back and looking, and giving credit where credit was due.
I will charatibly characterize Hank's response here as reciprocation, though perhaps I am expecting too much of his vocabulary and social graces.
Hank, my argument was that the Federal Government was being
less than cooperative in releasing documents relative to investigations on the torture allegations. Encouraging the Administration to comply with the law instead of resisting the airing of uncomfortable information seems to be a reasonable request.
In your usual rhetorical style, you demonstrated your mastery of argument in responding by
shitting on it so badly that not even Atticus could pause to admire its smell.
Insisting that you've taken the high road, and that others have no point "beyond complaining" is easy if you choose not to concern yourself with whether the investigations are being unduly restricted. I suppose you're also a fan of Bush investigating himself for Katrina, too.
