Politics: J'accuse!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Iniquity
I don't tie this to Bush. Do you?

This wasn't going to be a nut-case sock, but the cool avatar Less sent me was too big, and I'm crushed. So I may be cranky for a while yet.

this is my last post tonight...

you should do Nas...Ty, and be belligerant and all.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Abuses that occur in our prisons on a day-to-day basis do not justify committing war crimes.

Amen. There's also the "They can't do that to our pledges; only we can do that to our pledges" aspect of provisional government. I guess it's to America's credit that we're total fucking novices at the etiquette of colonialism. Or, at least, at this particular side of the colonialism equation.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD70604

Crown Prince Abdallah on Saudi Television

"This is seduction. You all know who is behind it all. Zionism is behind it. It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. I don't say, I mean... It is not 100%, but 95% [certain] that the Zionist hands are behind what happened.

"What can we possibly do, they [the perpetrators] are our sons. They have been seduced, and they fell for it.

"But we say that Allah's will is everything. Allah's will is everything. But what we and you must do is to be patient, reflect, and act, because now even silence... Even one who keeps silent will be accused of being one of them. Even one who keeps silent...

"In the past, we have said that perhaps foreigners seduced them, and so on. But we are speaking of your sons who killed their brothers, killed those who protect you.

See this is where lots of the Arab world appears to be. So when we do things that might "enflame" it, I don't get how. Unless this guy's point was the subtle Zionists caused good Saudis to become terrorists, by making the Saudis hate so much they lash out (that is the seduction was not intentional, but a by-product), how do things get better there?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Not agreeing with you, but so what? A DWI detainee is not a POW privy to the protections of the Geneva conventions to which the U.S. and Iraq are signatories. You have fallen into the trap that Hello has pointed out. Abuses that occur in our prisons on a day-to-day basis do not justify committing war crimes.

I'm sorry, but I think I must have a higher threshhold for using the phrase "war crimes" than do you.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Remember the Bukowski short story where he was at the track taking a dump, and he hears the guy going into the next stall start cursing because the last guy shit, but didn't flush:

Buk- You know, life's just fucked. I know plenty freaks who'd love to walk in on a fresh pot of turds, but they never seem to, its always the ones who want it least...

I can't believe you guys talked this all day.

Well, Hank, not all of us can sit around quoting Bukowski from memory, so we had to discuss the news. You must have spent a lot more time with Hustler magazine than most.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Some of the US soldiers behaved in a manner such that they should go to prison. When we send them to prison we show how we are not this way. . . . But big picture, this does not change in any way whether the war was right, etc.

That's true, but big picture, I think this makes it harder to get what we wanted from the war.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The Arab world is angry? Well any of them who watch and see that we don't stonewall, but deal with the problem and actually punish the guilty should get a big ass lesson in the difference between our gov't and at least Saddam.

Again, true. But it won't heve nearly the same impact. How many people see the original news story, and how many see the correction the next day? How many people will follow the U.S. military justice process -- which will take up to six to eight months? How many of those will care?

I think it is tough to overstate how much this hurts us long term.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Well, Hank, not all of us can sit around quoting Bukowski from memory, so we had to discuss the news. You must have spent a lot more time with Hustler magazine than most.
S_A_M

My point was I couldn't believe people tried to say it was okay, and argued the point all day. On the other hand, once to "it happened, its wrong" I guess I don't see where the blame takes us.

And all my Bukowski readings were from trade pulp. I've never seen a Buk story in the original mags. But you say Hustler had them? Your looked at Hustler for the articles?

[bilmore]

Interesting take on why Clinton is publishing in June:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/23640.htm

(Hint: Hilary.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD70604

Crown Prince Abdallah on Saudi Television

[i]"This is seduction. You all know who is behind it all. Zionism is behind it. It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. I don't say, I mean... It is not 100%, but 95% [certain] that the Zionist hands are behind what happened.

This is actually seen as diplomacy in the middle east. They've moved from 100% to 95% responsible.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Interesting take on why Clinton is publishing in June:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/23640.htm

(Hint: Hilary.)

This strikes me as a stretch:

Clinton is deciding to publish now because he wants to deprive Kerry of momentum. He realizes that if Kerry wins, Hillary will probably never be president. He knows that she won't be able to run in 2008 because a victorious Kerry would undoubtedly seek re-election. Even in 2012, it is Kerry's vice president who would be the likely nominee. And, if he or she wins, he'll run for a second term in 2016. By 2020, Hillary will be 73.

At most, Hillary has to wait until 2012 if Kerry wins. It's not like Gore was a compelling candidate; why would Kerry's VP be one?

Besides, I have my doubts that Clinton will actually get the book out by June. CNN is reporting he's working "around the clock", which I'm sure is BS, because even Bill can't sustain that pace, and he's not even gotten to teh white house years!

Also, sister's connections tell me he's not even close to a complete manuscript (consistent with CNN). How can they possibly finalize, edit, and publish in less than two months? I just don't see Billy Jeff letting out an insta-book on his presidency.

Of course, that may just push the release to July 27.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
Interesting take on why Clinton is publishing in June:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/23640.htm

(Hint: Hilary.)

Morris used to be fairly astute (when he was a GOPer), but he is usually wrong these days. I read his column weekly, just for kicks, and it usually is interesting and well-reasoned, but has a short shelf life.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Morris used to be fairly astute (when he was a GOPer), but he is usually wrong these days. I read his column weekly, just for kicks, and it usually is interesting and well-reasoned, but has a short shelf life.

Does "short shelf life" mean, it's usually quickly disproven? (I don't normally read his stuff.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
Does "short shelf life" mean, it's usually quickly disproven? (I don't normally read his stuff.)

Yes - most of his columns contain predictions of one type or another, which usually don't pan out.

[sgtclub]

So now we've seen the numbers for both enlisted and national guard staying strong. So much for the low-moral theory.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118890,00.html

[dtb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So now we've seen the numbers for both enlisted and national guard staying strong. So much for the low-moral theory.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118890,00.html

Haven't we established the low-morals of certain of the troops? (Ba-dum-bum tssssss)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by dtb
Haven't we established the low-morals of certain of the troops? (Ba-dum-bum tssssss)

Timmy.

But we knew that.