The President's Global War of Terror

posted by tom on 04/05/2007 @ 3:46pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (144)

Subscribe Now

On Tuesday, meeting with the press in the White House Rose Garden, the President responded to a question about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria this way: "[P]hoto opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror." There should, he added to the assembled reporters, be no meetings with state sponsors of terror.

That night, Brian Ross of ABC News reported that, since 2005, the U.S. has "encouraged and advised" Jundullah, a Pakistani tribal "militant group," led by a former Taliban fighter and "drug smuggler," which has been launching guerrilla raids into Baluchi areas of Iran. These incursions involve kidnappings and terror bombings, as well as the murder (recorded on video) of Iranian prisoners. According to Ross, "U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or �finding' as well as congressional oversight." Given past history, it would be surprising if the group doing the encouraging and advising weren't the Central Intelligence Agency, which has a long, sordid record in the region. (New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has been reporting since 2005 on a Bush administration campaign to destabilize the Iranian regime, heighten separatist sentiments in that country, and prepare for a possible full-scale air attack on Iranian nuclear and other facilities.)

The President also spoke of the Iranian capture of British sailors in disputed waters two weeks ago. He claimed that their "seizure� is indefensible by the Iranians." Oddly enough, perhaps as part of secret negotiations over the British sailors, who were dramatically freed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday, an Iranian diplomat in Iraq was also mysteriously freed. Eight weeks ago, he had been kidnapped off the streets of Baghdad by uniformed men of unknown provenance. Reporting on his sudden release, Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times offered this little explanation of the kidnapping: "Although [Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar] Zebari was uncertain who kidnapped the man, others familiar with the case said they believe those responsible work for the Iraqi Intelligence Service, which is affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency." The CIA, of course, has a sordid history in Baghdad as well, including running car-bombing operations in the Iraqi capital back in Saddam Hussein's day.

And don't forget the botched Bush administration attempt to capture two high Iranian security officials and the actual kidnapping of five Iranian diplomats-cum-Revolutionary-Guards in Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan over two months ago--they disappeared into the black hole of an American prison system in Iraq that now holds perhaps 17,000 Iraqis (as well as those Iranians) and is still growing. As Juan Cole has pointed out, most such acts, and the rhetoric that goes with them, represent so many favors to "an unpopular and isolated Iranian government attempting to rally support and strengthen itself."

In addition, just this week, the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and other ships in its battle group left San Diego for the Persian Gulf. Two carrier battle groups are already there, promising an almost unprecedented show of strength. As the ship left port, US military officials explained the mission of the carriers in the Gulf this way: They are intended to demonstrate US "resolve to build regional security and bring long-term stability to the region."

And stability in the region, it seems, means promoting instability in Iran by any means possible. So, the President's Global War on Terror also turns out to be the Global War of Terror. Noam Chomsky recently put the matter this way, when thinking of U.S. attitudes toward Iranian influence in Iraq.

"It is useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?"

The rule is simple enough on this one-way planet of ours: If they do it, it's "terror," if we do it, it's foreign policy, its America's "strategic interest."

Comments (144)

"So, the President's Global War on Terror also turns out to be the Global War of Terror."

I don't know how long I've been saying this. Hopefully this sentence starts to surface more in the mainstream dialogue.

It's irrefutable that this President has dove head-long into uncharted Presidential territory. We need more public figures to call the "War on Terror" what it is...a Reign of Terror. I'd love to see a Dem candidate have the cojones or thatchers* to say something like this.

* Thatchers = femaale cojones (thanks Colbert)

Posted by BlueTexan at 04/05/2007 @ 3:58pm
Reminds me of the scene in the movie Borat at the rodeo. Borat, playing to the audience proclaims for his countrymen...."we support your Global War of Terror." You got that right Borat.

Posted by OneVote at 04/05/2007 @ 4:05pm
See, this is the problem....

We're both destabilizing Iran (above)...and HELPING Ahmadinejad, by not negotiating with him or helping him by playing to his use of Iranian paranoia abou the US. (numerous reports on the the effects of our failure in Iraq)

If we're destabilizing Iran...and it's working...then we're not propping up Ahmadinejad.

If we're propping up Ahmadinejad and helping the Iranians by setting up a Shiite government in Iraq....then we're not destabilizing Iran.

Or one or the other is a collossal failure...but both can't be.

Posted by Mask at 04/05/2007 @ 4:14pm
find me an intelligent right winger who can appropriately respond to chomsky's comments. because the situation he describes is precisely the point, but in reverse.

americans do indeed feel they are the best on earth.

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 4:37pm
Yep, it's typical. For some reason, the whole world's supposed to sit quietly while Americans install spies and military bases and soldiers and naval carriers on other people's land and in their waters.

Posted by RLawrence at 04/05/2007 @ 4:40pm
for as much one may hate the iranian government, you have to admit that releasing those soldiers (and also treating them well), really made the americans look BAD.

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 4:44pm
Posted by DARLADOON 04/05/2007 @ 4:37pm

find me an intelligent LEFT winger who can appropriately respond to chomsky's comments on the Robert Faurrison affair.

Such as...

"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust."

(quoted in Noam Chomsky's Search for the Truth)

Posted by Mask at 04/05/2007 @ 4:46pm
Posted by DARLADOON 04/05/2007 @ 4:44pm

DARLA....what was the part that came BEFORE they released them?

Posted by Mask at 04/05/2007 @ 4:47pm
regarding chomsky's comments: in this case, they are irrelevant. next question. (mask, if you want to debate, stick to the issue at hand).

regarding the hostages: the iranians treated the hostages well.

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 4:53pm
not only did the hostages say so, but there is no evidence to the contrary.

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 4:53pm
Diplomacy seems to have worked for Blair. Perhaps our "volunteer" ambassador to Belgium, Sam "Swift Boat" Fox will take a page from Tony's book as he carries out his mission.

The NY Times reported that Harriet Miers was counseling Bush on the same stunt for John Bolton -- how to keep him at the UN somehow as a volunteer even after November 7 made clear that Bolton would never get a permanent appointment.

You know: "We didn't lose! We won, really, we won! See -- we'll put him at the UN anyway! We didn't get punk'd by John Kerry and the Foreign Relations Committee! Wait, wait, write the headline our way -- really, we're winning!"

Sad. It's a miracle Tony got his sailors back with this lot sabotaging reason at every turn.

Posted by RLawrence at 04/05/2007 @ 4:59pm
Posted by DARLADOON 04/05/2007 @ 4:53pm

First, Mr Englehardt brought up Chomsky and YOU backed him...so it IS one of the issues at hand. And the dear Doctor has writings that Ahmadinejad would be proud of....

onto Iran. The part BEFORE they released them, DD was....

the part where they CAPTURED them and (in Gonzales-like form) violated their Geneva Convention rights.

But...oddly...many on the Left seem to have FORGOTTEN that part?!?!?!

And now say "See, see...what a great bank robber, he used that $100,000 he stole to bump up his credit rating...but just gave it back and the people he's holding the gun to their heads said he was a 'nice guy'!"

Posted by Mask at 04/05/2007 @ 4:59pm
mask, again: chomsky's other quote is irrelevant. admit you lost that one....

second, the iranians violated their geneva conventions? well, so did we (and in a much, much, much, much worse way----in effect, we breached the agreement years ago, and continue to do so), so i guess between the USA and Iran, there is no contractual agreements on that level. and if you want to compare what was done, i think there is no comparison.

third, your arguments are weak.

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 5:02pm
the USA has run roughshod over the UN for 5 straight years, mask.

if we want to hold other countries to UN agreements, then we need to follow them as well. sounds clear to me....

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 5:03pm
The Belgian newspaper De Standaard reported that Fox contributed money to a "lastercampagne" against John Kerry. That's Flemish for "smear campaign" -- "laster" is defined in my beginner's Flemish dictionary as "wholly bad things being said about someone, and those things aren't true." Well put, Flemings.

Have fun in Belgium, Mr. Fox -- and with that Belgian legislation giving Belgium jurisdiction over war crimes committed anywhere in the world. Funny how the rest of the world doesn't understand America's Manifest Military Destiny.

Posted by RLawrence at 04/05/2007 @ 5:07pm
"regarding the hostages: the iranians treated the hostages well."

Unbelieveable....

You know Darla, Dr. Mengele also had nice music playing to calm the fears of the camp vicitms(where, I am sure if you had lived there you would be in the first group up the chimneys)before he gased them...but he was nice...had a calming voice...spoke their languiage, asked them questions..

"not only did the hostages say so, but there is no evidence to the contrary. "

So, there you have it.

Posted by john maasch at 04/05/2007 @ 5:17pm
"Sad. It's a miracle Tony got his sailors back with this lot sabotaging reason at every turn."

How do you know we didn't whisper in Amryjihads ear..."let my friends go or you will lose the only oil reinery you have...and see how the Mullahs like your leadership as you and your shakey economy run out of gas...and we will use our Irainians inside your country who hate you and the mullahs?

Ah, but I guess that might make us the terrorists...we should have sent Carter...

Posted by john maasch at 04/05/2007 @ 5:20pm
Maasch-I can't find the proper words to describe the level of sickness it took for you to write your comment about Mengele.He's probably one of your heroes.We didn't threaten Iran.Ahmadinejad would have loved that and kept the Brits.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/05/2007 @ 5:34pm
So, Bush thinks Pelosi is staging a "photo op"? The other day he said the Judiciary Committee was holding a "show trial."

Maybe Pelosi should hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner above her head, and Congress can call its investigations "Guantanamo military hearings."

Posted by RLawrence at 04/05/2007 @ 5:37pm
Posted by DARLADOON 04/05/2007 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person

Darla, have you ever been gardening and accidentally, you dig up a worm. When that happens, the worm goes into a brief frenzy of twisting and turning and writhing.

Now we all know about Mask's penchant for responding to nearly every post of every writer at The Nation, by trying to find some way to attack and criticize...usually by picking out a word or phrase or sentence and attempting to manufacture some imagined hypocrisy or contraversy or disagreement. Occasionally, Mask has to go into full-fledged 'freshly-dug-up-worm' writhing to try to manufacture his little criticisms.

This would appear to be one of thiose occasions.

Posted by Lillian at 04/05/2007 @ 5:40pm
maasch, what did you expect the iranians to do, put a bag over their heads and electroshock them? the hostages were, by our own very standards, treated more than well; they were basically given the red carpet----and then let go!

you seem to forget that we put "their" hostages into secret prisons, to be tortured, possibly executed, without any chance for appeal.....

where are the iranian hostages taken by the americans, maasch? any ideas?

lillian, yes i see now....

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 5:53pm
maasch et al can't possibly fathom that the iranian government might have actually done something conscionable. well, they did---and not only that, but they made us look ridiculous.

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 5:54pm
More U.S. "do as I say, not as I do":

New Amnesty International report: Conditions worsening at Guantanamo. . "Conditions at Camp 6, which opened in December 2006, are described as �cruel and human'."

Summary article at:

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-050407-feature-eng

The page has a link to the full report.

Posted by RLawrence at 04/05/2007 @ 5:58pm
You know Darla, Dr. Mengele also had nice music playing to calm the fears of the camp vicitms(where, I am sure if you had lived there you would be in the first group up the chimneys)before he gased them...but he was nice...had a calming voice...spoke their languiage, asked them questions..

"not only did the hostages say so, but there is no evidence to the contrary. "

So, there you have it.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH

It's always strange to hear the right wingers reference the Nazi crimes while attempting to defend their crimes. They are one in the same! Do you really think the Nazis thought they were bad? No, they rationalized their heinous actions with the same logic you use, you old lying coward.

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/05/2007 @ 6:04pm
the only difference between the iranians and the nazis is:

the iranians didn't gas their prisoners

as a jew, i find maasch's comments to be very offensive.

(is there any other difference i need to point out for the slow learning maasch?)

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 6:07pm
This should be a better link to the Amnesty International summary of its new report on Guantanamo:

Guantanamo Conditions Worsening [web.amnesty.org]

Posted by RLawrence at 04/05/2007 @ 6:11pm
A third carrier group? Something's gonna happen. It will probably be an accident, too. With all that power concentrated in such a small area, it's virtually inevitable that some sort of spark with set off a big fire. This is utterly irresponsible.

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/05/2007 @ 6:12pm
You know Darla, Dr. Mengele also had nice music playing to calm the fears of the camp vicitms(where, I am sure if you had lived there you would be in the first group up the chimneys)before he gased them...but he was nice...had a calming voice...spoke their languiage, asked them questions..

"not only did the hostages say so, but there is no evidence to the contrary. "

So, there you have it.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH

Did Mengele use stress positions, water boarding, extraordinary renditions, you old lying coward?

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/05/2007 @ 6:14pm
why the wa-po editorial board botched the criticism of pelosi's trip to syria:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200704050010

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 6:17pm
Unbelieveable....

You know Darla, Dr. Mengele also had nice music playing to calm the fears of the camp vicitms(where, I am sure if you had lived there you would be in the first group up the chimneys)before he gased them...but he was nice...had a calming voice...spoke their languiage, asked them questions..

"not only did the hostages say so, but there is no evidence to the contrary. "

So, there you have it.

Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks. Your comment may be edited or removed at the discretion of Nation staff. Our goal is not to stifle debate but to keep it relevant.
Why would she be in the first group up the chimney exactly? I'm trying really really hard not to sink to your level. I do believe that was the most ignorant, hateful thing I've seen you post. Good Job! Way to increase your crediblity and make yourself appear intelligent! All us knee-jerk liberals are sure to listen to you now!

Posted by TheCraftyB at 04/05/2007 @ 6:31pm

how far does the white house have to go before the right wingers on this board lose faith in them?

today, on rush limbaugh (cheney's only audience), cheney AGREED with limbaugh that the senate's refusal to appoint fox (ambassador to belgium) was "stalinist".

fox contributed $50,000 to the swift boats---a group deliberatedly organized to SLANDER (which is incidentally a crime) john kerry's vietnam war service. you can't get much lower than that.

and now the senate is stalinist? and cheney agrees??

can someone tell me how dick cheney is STILL in power? this man is so horrible it defies explanation.

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 6:32pm

Rio-There is no difference between rese,plunger,LvLiberty,Maasch and you.All of you need group therapy.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/05/2007 @ 7:20pm

Or mebbe just a smack upside the head.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/05/2007 @ 7:26pm

I take humor in all this. Blind, following sheep are fun to watch. It is a little sad though....

Hey Maasch, I'm still waiting for your response, and I'm sure it will be well thought out and very intelligent.

So why would she be in the first group? What exactly did you mean by that? Hmm?

Posted by TheCraftyB at 04/05/2007 @ 7:28pm

crafty--

i assume he knows that i'm jewish, and (hopefully) feels tremendous (to put it mildly) guilt.

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 7:32pm

Darla-Maasch believes in exploiting people for profit.I don't think guilt is something he feels.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/05/2007 @ 7:36pm

OOPS, neo's got it wrong again.

Bush met General Vladimir Shamanov in March as part of a U.S.-Russian commission on missing soldiers. A spokeswoman said it was "unlikely" Bush would have met Shamanov if he had known about the abuse allegations.

In Crawford, Texas, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Bush appreciated the concerns raised by the human rights groups in their letter and would reply soon.

"The president was unaware of the allegations made against Gen. Shamanov," he said. "In light of these allegations, the staff should not have recommended the photo opportunity."

Russian expert at the State Dept?

Posted by crabwalk at 04/05/2007 @ 8:03pm

It seems Iran has become the new paradise for the likes of Darla. We can hardly wait for the announcement that you will be relocating to that haven

have you been to iran, liberty? it's a beautiful country, wonderful people, splendid cafes. unfortunately, i have no desire to relocate there.

oh, did i mention i saw an image of you in my diaharrea when i was sick last week? yeah, right as it was flushing down the toilet.

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 8:04pm

LvLiberty-I love the way you arrive at your strange conclusions.Not one person has described Iran in terms of anything near paradise.You desperately try to twist things to fit your preconceived beliefs rather than read it for what it says.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/05/2007 @ 8:07pm

Ahmadinejad looks like the winner here. He got great mileage out this whole affair. US Military already making Brits diplmatic resolution (and Tony Blair) look weak in the knees. US Military saying if they ever tried to do something like that to US they would wouldn't hesitate to attack. Brits have been part of the "coalition" and this is the payment they get....upstaged by US military given the order by the CIC to put the take no prisoners spin on threatening hypotheticals. Unreal.

The British soldiers looked like they were well cared for, relaxed, and happy to be home. Maybe we should take this as a lesson that a little "diplomacy" works wonders. Having 15 soldiers come home in body bags is not saving face.

Posted by OneVote at 04/05/2007 @ 8:10pm

Let's not forget that the Administration had to overrule the analysts and fabricate and twist intelligence to get their wars going. Here's an article about an idiotic Doug Feith Power Point presentation, released by Senator Levin.

Feith on Facts [tpmmuckraker.com]

Posted by RLawrence at 04/05/2007 @ 8:11pm

gingrich sums up the neoconservative mind perfectly, in an interview with the nauseating hewitt:

HH: Now let's get to the first major issue of the day, which is Iran. Mr. Speaker, if the United Kingdom feels obliged to use force, if diplomacy fails to get their people back, will you applaud? NG: I think there are two very simple steps that should be taken. The first is to use a covert operation, or a special forces operation to knock out the only gasoline producing refinery in Iran. There's only one. And the second is to simply intercede by Naval force, and block any tankers from bringing gasoline to Iran --

HH: Would you do, would you urge them --

NG: And say to the Iranians, you know, you can keep the sailors as long as you want, but in about 30 days, everybody in your country will be walking. HH: So how long would you give them, to give them that ultimatum, the Iranians?

NG: I would literally do that. I would say to them, I would right now say to them privately, within the next week, your refinery will no longer work. And within the following week, there will be no tankers arriving. Now if you would like to avoid being humiliated publicly, we recommend you calmly and quietly give them back now. But frankly, if you'd prefer to show the planet that you're tiny and we're not, we're prepared to simply cut off your economy, and allow you to go back to walking and using oxen to pull carts, because you will have no gasoline left.

HH: I agree with that 100%.

you see, to these guys, the entire point of foreign policy is to look tough (not necessarily smart, just tough). maasch, liberty, rio, none of these guys have ever been to the middle east. none of them speak arabic or persian. none of them have any persian or arabic friends. and yet they insist on waving their dicks around like they know what they're doing. their only interest is in kicking the crap out of them.

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 8:15pm

Why would she be in the first group up the chimney exactly? I'm trying really really hard not to sink to your level. I do believe that was the most ignorant, hateful thing I've seen you post. Good Job! Way to increase your crediblity and make yourself appear intelligent! All us knee-jerk liberals are sure to listen to you now!

Posted by THECRAFTYB 04/05/2007 @ 6:31pm

I will be more than happy to explain my post..

The Nazis had no concious and were of the opinion that no one but themselves had the right to live..as a result, they, as a policy killed of officialy, Jews, homosexuals, and any one else they decided were untermensch..they also believed blascks wee untermensch...my point id Darla were there she would have no chance since she is part of all 3 groups that were killed off as sport...I am not sure what you read into this..

By Daralas self decription, she is a black jewish lesbian. Given the Nazis history, I think it safe to state that if Darala were alive in Germasny at that time and her back ground know to them(nazis), she would be at risk of death...and given the efficiency of the Nazi killing machine, I would ask you...would you think Darla could survive living in Dachau?

Lest you missunderstand completely my post,..my great grandmother was Jewish and my immediate superior at the one company I work is a black female and I grew up in a German speaking house.

I find Darla and others ridiculous when they compare the US to the Nazis..and I am offended when Bush is called nazi like..even tho I can't stand him it is poor taste at best..

MT is more offensive than anyone here.

Posted by john maasch at 04/05/2007 @ 8:15pm

And saying the Iranians were nice to people they kidnapped ...a group that wants to eliminate Israel off the map, I say Daral is ridiculious standing up for. Iran....suicidal, IMO..

For if Armyjihad ever got his hands on Darla..I submit she would be at risk as much as she would be in Germany..he is anti jewish, anti homosexual, and anti US..as far as black, I have no idea, but 3 out of 4 descrptions of oneself in a nation that wants to kill those very traits off should be noticed.

Posted by john maasch at 04/05/2007 @ 8:19pm

If I am still understood...then ban me and celebrate the intellectual prowness and verbage of MTs and DR Decibal....

Posted by john maasch at 04/05/2007 @ 8:20pm

"maasch, liberty, rio, none of these guys have ever been to the middle east. none of them speak arabic or persian. '

Actually I have and one of the guys we lived with at Marquette was from Iran...his father ran the Education Ministry and the peace loving followers of Kommeni peacefully had his father, uncles and cousins along with one brother beheaded and stole their homes...peacefully of course..

Darla, you are perfect for those in the ME who would wish you dead.. You will end up supporting the very people who wish you dead and you will help them and not even know it.

Posted by john maasch at 04/05/2007 @ 8:26pm

'I work part-time at my own business and am a full time Pastor of a church.'

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/05/2007 @ 3:04pm | ignore this person

You are like no Pastor I have ever known Liv. Maybe thats why there are folks out there in this world that think "good Christians" have nothing to offer but hate and intolerance, and are blind to their own hypocrisy even when quoting scripture. I don't think I would like to be part of your congregation.

Posted by OneVote at 04/05/2007 @ 8:26pm

Posted by LILLIAN 04/05/2007 @ 5:40pm

Darla, have you ever known somebody who is so obsessed with one particular blogger...primarily because that blogger has embaressed them by re-posting their view on "creative quoting"...which THEY used to use as an attack on others?

If so...let's take them fishing. Got a fresh can of worms.

Posted by Mask at 04/05/2007 @ 8:29pm

uh, maasch, there is one fundamental point which you continue to neglect:

the iranians didn't gas the prisoners and then freed them

to compare this action to the nazis is not only stupid, it's wrong.

second (and this goes without saying): i have never, ever compared bush to hitler, or the GOP to the nazis.

so, if you'll kindly point out your two glaring mistakes, then let's move on.

lastly, i believe that if i was "captured" inside iran, that my captors would not kill me. the iranian government is not, to my recent knowledge, in the business of killing innocent civilians (especially americans). if they are, please provide evidence. and i'm talking evidence of the iranian govnt doing so, not "terrorists".

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 8:30pm

Newt Gingrich has had lots of bright ideas, like shutting down the government so people can't get their services -- to prove, somehow, how irrelevant government is.

And we're supposed to trust these people to protect U.S. interests at home and abroad. As if.

Posted by RLawrence at 04/05/2007 @ 8:30pm

Darla, you are perfect for those in the ME who would wish you dead.

which people are you talking about?

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 8:30pm

Posted by DARLADOON 04/05/2007 @ 5:02pm

1st....if somebody said that "denying the Holocaust isn't necessiarly anti-Semitic"....I'm going take any OTHER quote they make with a grain of salt. And if it was somebody on the Hard Right, so would you.

2nd....didn't realize that US violating Geneva meant that Iran could do it "a little bit" and get a pass from you as well.

3rd....No, you just don't have a solid response to my arguments and it makes you mad.

Posted by Mask at 04/05/2007 @ 8:31pm

neoconservatives have no idea who (in the ME) wants to kill "us" and for what reason.

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 8:32pm

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 8:32pm

btw,,

mask, you are back on the ignore list.

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 8:33pm

and, furthermore, if somebody really wants to kill me, and for no reason, go right ahead. there is little i can do about it. nor will do about it.

if they have a non-abstract reason to kill me? well, perhaps i deserve it. but at this point, i'm not going to be worried about iran, people.

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 8:34pm

i'm sure neo-cons long for the days when reagan pulled out his big dick and freed the hostages. guess it feels like castration to have the iranians beat us to it. hmmmm?

oh btw, your "weak" carter? at least he won a nobel prize. reagan......didn't even win an oscar.

Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2007 @ 8:43pm

mask, you are back on the ignore list.

Posted by DARLADOON 04/05/2007 @ 8:33pm

Means I've really pissed her off...I contradicted her and actually used facts and data to do it.

1- Nancy contradicted by Olmert...over what she said Olmert said.

2- DD loving on Noam Chomsky, and I DARE to quote the good Doctor on Holocaust denial.

3- She says it's "okay" if Iran violates Geneva "because we did".

Her response? Not to refute what I said with alternative data or some logical argument...."back on the ignore list"...and she thinks SHE won.

Posted by Mask at 04/05/2007 @ 8:45pm

How do you know we didn't whisper in Amryjihads ear..."let my friends go or you will lose the only oil reinery you have...and see how the Mullahs like your leadership as you and your shakey economy run out of gas...and we will use our Irainians inside your country who hate you and the mullahs?

Ah, but I guess that might make us the terrorists...we should have sent Carter...

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/05/2007 @ 5:20pm | ignore this person

Yeah John...all that show of strength is really working wonders on the nuclear program which is what this all about. Brilliant analysis. How about Blair was in no position to make any demands and Iran followed the High Road and let them go? You ever entertain that possibility? I doubt it. If you conceded that, there might be one less bogeyman for you to vent your paranoia on. How about Iran cuts off the oil to Europe and forces the world economy into economic crisis? How about Russia threatens US with nuclear retaliation if US uses nukes on Iran? We don't have the ground forces to take Iran, so just how the hell is US going to exert its mighty military will over Iran?

Posted by OneVote at 04/05/2007 @ 8:47pm

Where are the screams and curses from the hypocritical leftwingers?

Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/05/2007 @ 8:56pm | ignore this person

There have been no allegations of wrong doing. In this country, I would hope that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Shameful Rio.

Posted by OneVote at 04/05/2007 @ 9:03pm

Posted by DARLADOON 04/05/2007 @ 8:33pm

Means I've really pissed her off...I contradicted her and actually used facts and data to do it.

Posted by MASK 04/05/2007 @ 8:45pm | ignore this person

Facts Mask? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Like this one...

2- DD loving on Noam Chomsky,...

So Mask, why don't you show everyone here the exact words Darla used so you can prove that statement is actually a fact.

Posted by Lillian at 04/05/2007 @ 9:09pm

I also noticed Mask that it was YOU who claimed than when the Iranians took the British sailors they "violated their Geneva Convention rights". Are you sure about that? Is that a 'fact' as you see it? Can you prove that as a 'fact'...without resorting to wingnut talking points?

If so, please do.

Posted by Lillian at 04/05/2007 @ 9:14pm

Oh and Mask, since with the Chomsky quote, you're now claiming to "DARE to quote the good Doctor on Holocaust denial", please show us exactly where Chomsky denies the holocaust so you can prove this new 'fact' of yours.

Posted by Lillian at 04/05/2007 @ 9:16pm

Don't worry, Rio. It's all part of God's plan.

Posted by masquerade at 04/05/2007 @ 10:10pm

Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/05/2007 @ 8:56pm | ignore this person

Where are the screams and curses from the hypocritical leftwingers?

Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/05/2007 @ 8:56pm | ignore this person

This story should be investigated Rio. Feinstein, as I recall, also was instrumental in questioning performance of US DA Carol Lam. I think Lam's investigation into military contracting may have been making her a just a little bit more nervous than the immigration issue.

March 21-27, 2007 home | metro silicon valley index | news | silicon valley | news article

Pencil her out: Sen. Dianne Feinstein resigned after six years on the Military Contruction Appropriations subcommittee. Feinstein Resigns Senator exits MILCON following Metro expos�, vet-care scandal

By Peter Byrne

SEN. Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.

As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.

Advertiser Links Foreclosures - Real Estate Investing Your Online Real Estate Investing Resource.

San Jose.com Real Estate Relocating to San Jose or Silicon Valley? Let San Jose.com introduce you to some expert area real estate agents.

Perhaps she resigned from MILCON because she could not take the heat generated by Metro's expose of her ethics (which was partially funded by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute). Or was her work on the subcommittee finished because Blum divested ownership of his military construction and advanced weapons manufacturing firms in late 2005?

The MILCON subcommittee is not only in charge of supervising military construction, it also oversees "quality of life" issues for veterans, which includes building housing for military families and operating hospitals and clinics for wounded soldiers. Perhaps Feinstein is trying to disassociate herself from MILCON's incredible failure to provide decent medical care for wounded soldiers.

Two years ago, before the Washington Post became belatedly involved, the online magazine Salon.com exposed the horrors of deficient medical care for Iraq war veterans. While leading MILCON, Feinstein had ample warning of the medical-care meltdown. But she was not proactive on veteran's affairs.

Feinstein abandoned MILCON as her ethical problems were surfacing in the media, and as it was becoming clear that her subcommittee left grievously wounded veterans to rot while her family was profiting from the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. It turns out that Blum also holds large investments in companies that were selling medical equipment and supplies and real estate leases--often without the benefit of competitive bidding--to the Department of Veterans Affairs, even as the system of medical care for veterans collapsed on his wife's watch.

As of December 2006, according to SEC filings and www.fedspending.org, three corporations in which Blum's financial entities own a total of $1 billion in stock won considerable favor from the budgets of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs:

Boston Scientific Corporation: $17.8 million for medical equipment and supplies; 85 percent of contracts awarded without benefit of competition.

Kinetic Concepts Inc.: $12 million, medical equipment and supplies; 28 percent noncompetitively awarded.

CB Richard Ellis: The Blum-controlled international real estate firm holds congressionally funded contracts to lease office space to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It also is involved in redeveloping military bases turned over to the private sector.

You would think that, considering all the money Feinstein's family has pocketed by waging global warfare while ignoring the plight of wounded American soldiers, she would show a smidgeon of shame and resign from the entire Senate, not just a subcommittee. Conversely, you'd think she might stick around MILCON to try and fix the medical-care disaster she helped to engineer for the vets who were suckered into fighting her and Bush's panoply of unjust wars.

Posted by OneVote at 04/05/2007 @ 10:11pm

-This is completely off topic-

The beauty of private enterprise in healthcare:

77-yr-old woman pays Long Term Care premiums for twelve years and when she requires assisted living her insurer tells her to drop dead. [tinyurl.com]

article may require registration

Posted by fromredbird at 04/05/2007 @ 10:14pm

Rio-To many of us attacking a country that was not acting in an aggressive manner is a war crime.You have received many facts concerning the way we were mislead into war through cherry picking intelligence and in the way many were willfully mislead into believing that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 by bush etc using Osama,Iraq,Saddam,9/11 in the same sentence or in close proximity to one another in speeches and on news shows.Polls showed most of the country thought saddam did 9/11 because of it.Your boys conned this country into war for no reason related to national defense.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/05/2007 @ 10:15pm

Doubling or more of her net worth since the March 2003 war in Iraq. Yep....sure looks like their is a connection here. Of course, all her wealth is in blind trusts.....like Cheney's.....

From Wikipedia:

In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth wealthiest senator, with an estimated net worth of $26 million. [5] By 2005 her net worth had increased to between $43 million and $99 million dollars [2]. Her 347 pages financial disclosure statement[3] -- characterized by the San Francisco Chronicle as "nearly the size of a phonebook" -- draws clear lines between her assets and those of her husband, with many of her assets in blind trusts.[6]

Posted by OneVote at 04/05/2007 @ 10:22pm

You must not read many of the threads leveling the same type of allegations at Bush and Cheney with NO, nada, none, or even a slightest shread of evidence!? Here is substantial proof of conflict of intrest and you see nothing wrong with it! Speaks volumes!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/05/2007 @ 9:54pm | ignore this person

Rio....I was yanking your chain and using the logic that you and guys like LivLib use to support Bush administration. I have been disgusted with Nancy Pelosi from the start, and wouldn't vote for Hilliary Clinton under any circumstances. I agree with the column I included above. This senator should be thoroughly investigated and I think her resignation is prima facie evidence of potential wrongdoing. I'll bet you there is plenty there. How she can get away with avoiding conflict of interest rules for these years is just unbelievable.

Posted by OneVote at 04/05/2007 @ 10:33pm

Oh, dear...Okay LIL

So Mask, why don't you show everyone here the exact words Darla used so you can prove that statement is actually a fact.

Posted by LILLIAN 04/05/2007 @ 9:09pm

"because the situation he describes is precisely the point, but in reverse."---Posted by DARLADOON 04/05/2007 @ 4:37pm

". Are you sure about that? Is that a 'fact' as you see it? Can you prove that as a 'fact'...without resorting to wingnut talking points? If so, please do."---Posted by LILLIAN 04/05/2007 @ 9:14pm

Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

Unless you want (as an Iranian apologist) to make the case that parading them on Iranian TV "apologizing" was "all in good fun"?

please show us exactly where Chomsky denies the holocaust so you can prove this new 'fact' of yours.

Posted by LILLIAN 04/05/2007 @ 9:16pm

Learn to read, LILLIAN. Chomsky wasn't denying the Holocaust, nor did I SAY SO. I QUOTED him as saying that denying the Holocaust wasn't "necessarily" anti-Semitic.

Again...want to be an apologists for Holocaust deniers (as Chomsky did with Faurisson)....that should put you in good EVEN MORE with Ahmadinejad.

Posted by Mask at 04/05/2007 @ 10:39pm

This ain't no Democrat. This is west coast Joe Liebermann. No wonder we can't get out of Iraq. Just disgusting.

From Wikipedia

U.S. Senate career

Sen. Feinstein listens to testimony at a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.In 1992, Feinstein won a special election to fill the Senate seat which became vacant in 1990 when Pete Wilson was elected governor.

Feinstein was re-elected in 1994, 2000, and 2006.

Feinstein is a member of the U.S. Senate Committees on: Appropriations, Rules and Administration, Intelligence, Judiciary, and Energy and Natural Resources. She is the only woman on the Judiciary Committee and is the ranking member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security. In the upcoming 110th Congress, she will retain all of her committee assignments, while assuming the chairmanship of the Rules and Administration and U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland

From Wikipedia:

Security committees.

Feinstein is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

[edit] Political positions and votes Feinstein is generally regarded as a moderate in the Senate. Because of her record of compromising with Republicans, Feinstein is distrusted by some on the political left. She is often labeled unfavorably by them as pro-business, as she has voted for most lawsuit reform measures and was a co-sponsor of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. She voted for the first tax cuts in 2001 and also for the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003. Both positions were unpopular with many in her own party.

[edit] Iraq Feinstein supported the Iraq war resolution in the vote of October 11, 2002; she has claimed that she was misled by President Bush on the reasons for going to war. However, former UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter has stated that Feinstein in summer 2002 acknowledged to him that the Bush administration had not provided any convincing intelligence to back up its claims about the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction [7].

The Center for Public Integrity has reported that Feinstein and her husband, Richard Blum, are making millions of dollars from Iraq and Afghanistan contracts through his company, Perini[8]. According to the Bay Area alternative Metro Newspapers, Feinstein resigned from the Senate Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee in March 2007 after a series of articles partially funded by the progressive Nation Institute exposed ethical problems.[7] While on the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms[9]. In April 2007, Feinstein's office denied there is a conflict of interest.[8] There have also been critics who argue that Feinstein's support of policies that are friendly to the Chinese government are because of her husband's extensive China-related business holdings.

In February 2007, Feinstein warned Republicans not to block consideration of a measure opposing President Bush's troop increase in Iraq, saying it would be a "terrible mistake" to prevent debate on the top issue in America, according to NewsMax.com. [9]

[edit] PATRIOT Act Senator Feinstein was the original Democratic co-sponsor of a bill to extend the USA PATRIOT Act. In a December 2005 statement, Senator Feinstein stated, "I believe the Patriot Act is vital to the protection of the American people." [10]

Posted by OneVote at 04/05/2007 @ 10:48pm

"Yeah John...all that show of strength is really working wonders on the nuclear program which is what this all about."

Actually I believe this was about oil...Iran has one refinery and has to import gasoline and othe distillates..her economy is in shambles and Armyjihad is under pressure frrom within...to capture the Brits in a rubber boat would and has cost them nothing..they want to destablize oil prices as the spend EVERY DIME they make...and can't afford to cut off Europe or anyone else..they need the cash..

"You ever entertain that possibility? I doubt it. If you conceded that, there might be one less bogeyman for you to vent your paranoia on. How about Iran cuts off the oil to Europe and forces the world economy into economic crisis? "

I have thought about another senario...the Iranians take US sailors in a similar manner, they would most likely be SEAlS,who would in all likelyhood shoot it out with them and win...if they were held like circus elephants on a parade route, the US would come and get them, destroying Tehran is the process...the Brits pose no such threat...

and add to the fact, this US admin would not let US hostages sit for 444 days in an Iranian kangaroo jail or court...they know we would come and get our people(unless a dem was in the WH, and they know this, too) or make the Iranians pay a very heavy price...

The Brits, they know, wouldn't do that..in the same manner they knew Carter was impotent after the botched raid and for even allowing Kohmennie's plane to even make it to Iran, they also knew Reagan would come and get the hostages or destroy a huge part of Iran in doing so...in a like manner they knew Bush would also come and get them , as they know a DEM president will not, given the votes in the Congress for sure.

It was a safe ploy to take the Brits...no risk.

Posted by john maasch at 04/05/2007 @ 10:56pm

We just never learn. The rest of the world hates us for a reason. they do not think the way we do. They may be on to something there.

Posted by FRANKGRITS

Maybe you hate us too, Frank. Or, maybe you just hate yourself. Maybe we're onto something here.

Posted by davebarlett at 04/05/2007 @ 11:41pm

If Feinstein is guilty (which certainly seems to be the case) then she should be removed from office.

Nobody on the left has argued this point, but the lemmings keep bringing it up - "See?! It's not just the Republicans who are thieving scum!"

I don't recall anybody ever saying that the Democrats are perfect - in fact, the liberals/progressives on these pages criticize Democrats almost as often as the lemmings do.

Now if Feinstein was a Republican, there would be all kinds of cries of political witch hunts, partisan over-prosecution, and all sorts of spinning and rationalizing by the lemmings.

Funny how one group of us can criticize and condemn our own when justified, and another group never finds flaws in their own, regardless of the circumstances and/or truth.

Posted by Turk33 at 04/05/2007 @ 11:49pm

It was a safe ploy to take the Brits...no risk.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/05/2007 @ 10:56pm | ignore this person

I see. And pray tell why did the US come to the rescue?

Posted by OneVote at 04/05/2007 @ 11:52pm

Posted by MASK 04/05/2007 @ 10:39pm | ignore this person

So Mask, now your pretending that this...

"because the situation he describes is precisely the point, but in reverse."

Posted by DARLADOON 04/05/2007 @ 4:37pm

...supports your assertion that Darla was "loving on Noam Chomsky"?

I hate to tell you this Mask honey, but on planet Earth, in this reality...where the rest of the world lives...that doesn't even come close.

So much for that 'fact' huh?

Posted by Lillian at 04/05/2007 @ 11:54pm

Posted by ZERO 04/05/2007 @ 10:59pm | ignore this person

This is just a pathetic disgrace. I had no idea she had all these connections. This woman needs to resign from the Senate.

Posted by OneVote at 04/05/2007 @ 11:55pm

I heard an interesting bit of information this morning on our local Leftwing, Socialist, Hate America First radio station that I listen to on the way to work.

I believe the person being interviewed was a retired Colonel and he was saying that he didn't understand how the British sailors and Marines could have been captured given they were backed up by a frigate or a destroyer 2 miles away. Other larger warships were 6 miles away. There was no helicopter support. The whole operation was just unprofessional from a military point of view. The Brits didn't fire a shot and just handed over their weapons. Very strange.

Do we have here another Gulf of Tonkin that just didn't work out as planned?

"Anyone, who truly wants to go to war, has never truly been there before!" - Larry Reeves

Posted by COProgressive at 04/06/2007 @ 12:10am

Now, as to your attempt to support your 'fact' regarding Iran violating Geneva Convention rights, you posted an excerpt from Article 3...not the whole thing...just an excerpt. Here's the title of that full section, of which Article 3 is a part, Mask...

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Hmmmm, "prisoners of war". Now I know Great Britain is part of the "coalition of the willing" and all, and there's an armed conflict between them and Iraq, but...

...remind us all Mask, when did the war break out between Great Britain and Iran?

Posted by Lillian at 04/06/2007 @ 12:16am

Let's see, while Great Bitain claims the British sailors were in Iraqi territory...the Iranians claimed they were in Iranian waters. Now, in spite of the fact that the British (and their American masters...er...partners) have lied about pretty much everything leading up to this war, Mask has swallowed the wingnut propaganda hook, line, and sinker...and rod and reel and keel and boat and anchor. Including the 'hostage taking' and 'parading them' rhetoric. ..without a single question or doubt. (Or maybe that's just what he's paid to say.) Not only that, when, over the last week or two, our own government was 'parading' around the 'freely obtained' ''confessions' of the Arab 'hostages'...er...'enemy combatants'...that they've been torturing...er...detaining...in Gitmo and in secret CIA prisons throughout the world, why...imagine our big surprise when you uttered not a peep.

Gee, I wonder why everyone here, from those on the extreme left, to those on the extreme right, to everyone else in the vast middle, considers Mask to be a wingnut shill?

Posted by Lillian at 04/06/2007 @ 12:18am

...be an apologists for Holocaust deniers (as Chomsky did with Faurisson)....

Posted by MASK 04/05/2007 @ 10:39pm | ignore this person

And finally, let's take a look at this 'fact'...Noam Chomsky...apolgist for Holocaust denier Faurisson.

Here's more of what Chomsky says concerning Faurisson...that Mask hopes nobody will look at...

"Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East, where I describe the Holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). "

Hmmm..."Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold..." Odd...that doesn't sound at all like Chomsky is apologising. So let's read more...

"But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy. "

Oh my...it looks to anyone with a brain can see that Chomsky is defending fee speech...not apologizing for anything or anyone.

But what of the Chomsky quote that Mask posted...well...let's look further at Chomsky's words...

"In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue."

Ah, so Chomsky made the absolutely rational point that someone who can't fathom the Holocaust isn't necessarily anti-semetic. Hmmm...let's look further...

"It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested."

So, Chomsky is defending the right to free speech...even of those who's opinions he detests. How very...American of him. So why is Mask trying so hard to paint him so poorly?

Gee, I bet it's just a total coincidence that the effort to do so is...a wingnut talking point!

Posted by Lillian at 04/06/2007 @ 12:40am

"It brought Japan to it's knees and ended the war but at what price. The world has never been free from terrorism since."

The price was over 1 million Americans and perhaps 3 times as many Japanese....alive.

" The world has never been free from terrorism since."

OR BEFORE..

The world has always had terrorism Frank, ask the Chinese after the japanese went through their land....ask the Russians after the Wehrmacht finally ground to a halt in Lenningrad...

Frank, where do you come up with this stuff? I admit, they are priceless.

Posted by john maasch at 04/06/2007 @ 01:22am

Frank, where do you come up with this stuff?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/06/2007 @ 01:22am | ignore this person

Much better question John...where did you come up with this...

The price was over 1 million Americans and perhaps 3 times as many Japanese....alive.

Was that from another of those old, thouroughly debunked emails your wingnut buddies like to recycle? Like the one you posted from them the other day with all those 'facts' about social security?

Posted by Lillian at 04/06/2007 @ 01:40am

"Much better question John...where did you come up with this...

The price was over 1 million Americans and perhaps 3 times as many Japanese....alive"

History classes from high school through college, History channel, from books written by McCollugh(Truman) to a Japanese documnetary on WW2 seen on PBS(I can't recall the title) The series from the BBC called "World at War'..Frontline series on the spread and history of nuclear weapons,and from a professor I had who was on the Vadivostock(sp) arms treaty negoitation team under Ford for Salt 2,among others.

Ever since I can remember, the figures of 1 million Americans in a land invasion to 3 million Japanese in an island to island, house to house fighting..if Okinawa was any example of things to come. I believe those numbers have been published and rehashed for over 50 years..I would venture most military historians and vets of the era would agree to those estimates,they may even be pentagon estimates,..but..hey, ...you are probably a better expert, right?

Why, do you doubt the need to nuke them? If so, then why did it take 2?

Posted by john maasch at 04/06/2007 @ 02:03am

As far as social security...it is a dead program...you will not collect and neither will I ...they will have to put our collecting beyond our life span or tax your children at 70% levels, of which I am sure you approve.

Posted by john maasch at 04/06/2007 @ 02:04am

Crafty,

Posted by THECRAFTYB 04/05/2007 @ 6:31pm

Have you read my post and explanations?

Any comments?

Posted by john maasch at 04/06/2007 @ 02:06am

Once again My (friend) Dick Cheney is insisting on a link between AQ and Saddam pre US invasion. This on the very same day that the Pentagon issued another report dismissing the purported link.

Now the Dickster's insistence upon this isn't quite as myopic or ridiculous as denial of the Holocaust, but he his really starting to look like a complete fucktard.

He is proof of an aphorism my father imparted to me years ago when he said, "There are more horses asses in the world than there are horses."

And we thought Chimpy was the dumb one.

Posted by skeletonman at 04/06/2007 @ 04:22am

The world has always had terrorism Frank, ask the Chinese after the japanese went through their land....ask the Russians after the Wehrmacht finally ground to a halt in Lenningrad...

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/06/2007 @ 01:22am

Stalingrad, Maasch. ;-)

Ever since I can remember, the figures of 1 million Americans in a land invasion to 3 million Japanese in an island to island, house to house fighting..if Okinawa was any example of things to come. I believe those numbers have been published and rehashed for over 50 years..I would venture most military historians and vets of the era would agree to those estimates,they may even be pentagon estimates,..but..hey, ...you are probably a better expert, right?

Why, do you doubt the need to nuke them? If so, then why did it take 2?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/06/2007 @ 02:03am

Time for a history lesson.

The intelligence services of both the Army and the Navy of the United States were in fact at this date already convinced that the final downfall of Japan would be a question of a few more weeks. Alfred McCormack, Military Intelligence Director for the Pacific Theatre of War, recollects that "we had such complete control of the air over Japan that we knew when and from what port every ship would put to sea. The Japanese had no longer enough food in stock and their fuel reserves were practically exhausted. We had begun a secret process of mining all their harbors, which was steadily isolating them from the rest of the world. If we had brought this operation to its logical conclusion, the destruction of Japan's cities with incendiary and other bombs would have been quite unnecessary. But General Norstad declared, at Washington, that this blockading action was a cowardly proceeding unworthy of the Air Force. It was therefore discontinued."

The surrender of Japan could not only have been achieved by intensification of the blockade. The chances of bringing it about by clever diplomacy were even more favorable. For Japan was at that time more than ripe for capitulation. The country was to a great extent willing to capitulate. At the end of April Fujimura, the Japanese Naval Attach� in the Third Reich, who had gone to Berne when Germany collapsed, was introduced by Dr. Friedrich Hack, an anti-Nazi German, to three close colleagues of Allen Dulles, resident in the Swiss capital as chief of the American intelligence organization, the O.S.S. Fujimura told them he was ready to bring pressure to bear on this government with a view to inducing it to accept American capitulation terms. Almost at the same time the Military Attach�, General Okamoto, acting independently, approached the Dulles organisation, through the Internation Settlements Bank at Basle, with a similar proposal. But both these plans came to nothing, as Washington did not wish to commit itself to a precise statement of terms and Tokyo gave no support whatever to the efforts of the two Japanese in Switzerland.

But another attempt made by Japan for the earliest possible restauration of peace might have been taken more seriously. At the suggestion of the Japanese Emperor a movement was initiated to end the war with the United States through the Soviet Union. The first steps toward that goal were taken July 12 -- the very day on which the first consignment of components for the Alamogordo test of the atom bomb left Los Alamos. But the Russians had little interest in bringing the war to an end before they themselves entered it against Japan as had been determined at Yalta in the previous February. They accordingly at first did all they could to avoid consultation with the Japanese emissaries. When Ambassador Sato was at last given a hearing, the Russians only passed on Tokyo's proposals to the Americans after intentional delay, making light of their importance.

Washington, however, had long known of these maneuvers, for the Americans had deciphered the Japanese secret code. They had been reading, ever since the middle of July, the urgent instructions sent by radio to Sato in Moscow by Prime Minister Tojo, as well as the replies of the Ambassador. Among other messages, they had read the words: "Japan is defeated. We must face that fact and act accordingly."

But Truman, instead of exploiting diplomatically these significant indications of Japanese weakness, issued a proclamation on July 26 at the Potsdam Conference, which was bound to make it difficult for the Japanese to capitulate without "losing face" in the process. The President had at that date already been informed by General Groves, in an impressive report, that the experiment at Alamogordo had succeeded beyond all expectations. The American historian Robert J.C. Butow, who has made a comparative study from both American and Japanese sources of the events that preceded the collapse of Japan, is of the opinion that at this point the war could very well have been brought rapidly to an end by diplomatic measures

[...]

But probably the main reason why the American government remained blind to the possibility of such measures was the knowledge that it possessed the atomic bomb. Instead of patiently undoing the knot it appeared more convenient to cut it with a slash or two of the shining new weapon.

It would no doubt have required considerable courage on the part of the responsible politicians and strategists concerned to renounce employment of the bomb for the time being. For they could not help fearing that the entire Manhattan Project, which had hitherto swallowed up nearly two billions of dollars, might perhaps be described, after the war, as a senseless waste of money. In that case the praise and fame they might otherwise expect would turn to mockery and censure.

Robert Jungk, Brighter than a thousand suns -- a personal history of the atomic scientists, Berne, 1956.

So there you have it: the story of the million lives of American servicemen saved by the nuking of Japan is complete and utter bullshit. It is true, however, that the Japanese acted like complete idiots by approaching the Soviets, who couldn't wait to enter the war in the East and scoop up as many Japanese territories as possible before the guns fell silent. Then again, the Japanese didn't know what was about to hit them.

And why two bombs? Because the Japanese still didn't know what had hit them after it had hit them. Shock. Political chaos. Even the idea of retaliating with an atom bomb of their own, which some generals figured would still win Japan the war if it was completed in six months. Also, the Americans didn't give themselves much time to think before nuking Nagasaki.

Now, I'm not making any statements here, I'm merely stating historical facts. I'm not accusing Truman of genocide, because I can understand why he did what he did. The nuking of Japan wasn't a last resort, but it had become unavoidable. And while it didn't save as many lives as it destroyed, to many - American servicemen, but also many British slave labourers elsewhere in Asia and many Dutchmen in Japanese concentration camps in the current Indonesia - it was a blessing.

Posted by Amsterdam69 at 04/06/2007 @ 05:40am

LILLIAN,

Sometime in the future, I'm going to quote ANONYMOUSLY "somebody" saying "even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention." and then say I'm merely exercising a HYPOTHETICAL (remember your love of them from me?) about some "person unfamiliar with 20th Century history just 'wouldn't believe it" and various semantical defenses.

And then let's see how your fellow intellects on the Left will react to me saying that. And after they've finished LOGICALLY painting me as whatever they will...I'll tell them who the quote is from.

As for the Iranians and no need for Geneva Convention since the UK and Iran are not at war....again, I'll quote YOU next time some discussion is made of giving Geneva Convention rights to the guys in Gitmo who were NOT captures in Iraq or Afghanistan, but were rounded up by the FBI in non-combatent situations.

And I'll simply say "Oh, they're getting treated a LITTLE worse than the Brits in Iran...but it's simply a matter of nuance of Geneva". You'd make Alberto Gonzales proud!

So congratulations....you've come out in support of "hypotheticals", cryptic defenses of Holocaust denial, and nuanced looks at Geneva Convention....all because you have a knee-jerk leftist need to defend ANYBODY who is against "the bad guys" (i.e. the US or the UK).

Posted by Mask at 04/06/2007 @ 07:43am

Posted by AMSTERDAM69 04/06/2007 @ 05:40am

That you for your post.

There are a few of us who did not come here for the pissing contests.

Posted by drhammer at 04/06/2007 @ 07:43am

Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/06/2007 @ 12:49am

Yep, FRANK, I will...after some sleep.

BTW, labelling Harry Truman a "terrorist" is a key sign of the post-60s radical Left and by accepting that premise a key symptom of why, upto Bush's disaster in Iraq, that Democrats (associated with "liberals" such as yourself) have suffered from the stereotype of being "weak on defense" and "Blame America Firsters".

And why, smart Democrats distance themselves from folks like you at every opportunity. (Hopefully they'll continue to be smart)

Posted by Mask at 04/06/2007 @ 07:46am

Posted by AMSTERDAM69 04/06/2007 @ 05:40am

I too would like to thank AMSTER. But I think that unfortunately it gets extends beyond "We could have ended the war WITHOUT the nukes" to the virulent "anti-patriotism" of some on the Hard Left (like FRANK) who want to paint Truman as a monster, and of course America as a "terrorist state" for doing it.

And as I noted, that attitude is a KEY reason that Democrats went (from FDR to Truman to Kennedy) as EQUAL or BETTER, in the public mind, to the Republican on national defense....to the "weak on defense" stereotype (yes, STEREOTYPE, before I get attacked...but one that poll after poll for over 20 years showed existed).

Posted by Mask at 04/06/2007 @ 07:52am

I believe a few things need to be clarified -- sorry for slipping off topic.

Noam Chomsky's view on Holocaust denial is as clear as his view on free speech. (1) Holocaust denial is wrong. (2) Free speech is a categorical, universal, inalienable right.

Therefore, Chomsky's view is that Holocaust deniers, though every one of them is dead wrong, have the right to deny the Holocaust -- because to deprive them of this right would restrict everybody's freedom of speech.

I have no idea where "Mask" dug up the quotation in which Chomsky allegedly said "Holocaust denial is not necessarily anti-Semitic" or some such thing. However, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that he did say this.

There is a joke that goes like this: "I hear that you never eat meat, eggs, or dairy products!" -- "Yes, I eat only vegetables. I am a strict vegetarian." -- "You must love animals!" -- "No, I hate plants."

I am sure that nearly all of the Holocaust deniers who exist in reality are anti-Semites, just as nearly all vegetarians who exist in reality like animals and do not hate plants. However, it is conceivable that somebody would deny that the Holocaust ever happened for some other reason.

Suppose a person loves the Jews, believes that they truly are God's chosen people, and simply doesn't want to believe that God could have let the Holocaust happen. Wouldn't it be a better world if God had intervened to save the Jews from mass murder? How God could have done this, I don't know -- all the millions of survivors believed dead must be hiding somewhere. But maybe somebody wants to believe this simply because he or she doesn't want to accept the alternative: that God really doesn't intervene with dramatic miracles to prevent genocide from happening. Maybe this person hopes that millions of Holocaust survivors, perhaps including millions more of their descendants, will unexpectedly turn up somewhere.

Of course, it's extremely difficult to claim that the Holocaust didn't happen, no matter what one's motives. There's just too much evidence that proves that it did happen -- and this has consequences for our belief in divine Providence.

But it's at least theoretically true that a Holocaust denier need not be an anti-Semite. I therefore must theoretically agree with what Chomsky theoretically claimed.

Posted by JakobFabian at 04/06/2007 @ 09:21am

Mask-The "weak on defense" and "blame America first" nonsense is nothing more that right wing propaganda made up by people like you and repeated by people like you.It goes along with the repeat the lie propaganda.We know from modern history that the right is weak on defense.Bin laden and his bunch are still running around.We know the right is going to blame America if we "lose"in Iraq.Mask,you and the other right wingers need to learn that a particular leader isn't America.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/06/2007 @ 09:27am

Posted by MASK 04/05/2007 @ 4:46pm

Channeling Rese?

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/06/2007 @ 09:43am

Check out Tricky Dick Cheney still claiming AQ and Saddam were linked. He needs to be checked for mental health and admitted as soon as possible.

Posted by BlueTexan at 04/06/2007 @ 10:00am

What George and Richard have is a Global war of Error.

what nonsense is Cheney spewing now? Who believes him? What are his approval ratings, like 15%.

That is a shame for America.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/06/2007 @ 10:16am

Posted by AMSTERDAM69 04/06/2007 @ 05:40am

I think your analysis on Japan is really really interesting, though there do seem to be some areas of substantial ambiguity. First of all, how credible was the information we were getting from the Japanese diplomats? In our experience up to that point, the last time we were approached with potential peace offerings, they were followed with a surprise attack. Also, overtures to the Soviet Union don't seem all that convincing, since the Soviet Union clearly had a vested interest in continuing the war (as the Japanese probably knew). Oh, also, the blockade argument is not a particularly compelling one, remembering how amenable the Japanese military was to economic sanctions lasttime...

Second of all, what exactly was Truman's motivation in all of this? For one thing, it seems dubious to suggest that the money spent on the Manhattan project would actually be perceived as wasted, particularly since those nuclear weapons could easily be seen as having a defensive purpose (as they have been for over 50 years now). Additionally, even if the military had a vested interest in having their programs perceived as utile, Truman didn't, which means that he wouldn't really be motivated to detonate one just so the program would be seen as worthwhile. In fact, given what he knew about how devastating the bomb would be, it seems pretty reasonable to suggest that it would take a lot of persuading for him to be willing to drop it.

Third, the attribution to the Japanese military and political structure of a willingness to capitulate seems very strange given what our military had observed up to that point. On many of the islands on which we engaged their troops, they would continuously fight to the very last man, even when it was clear that they were hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned. What reason would we have to believe that this tendency would suddenly disappear?

Posted by Thrawn at 04/06/2007 @ 10:21am

LILLIAN, I thought I had found something to agree on with JOHN, and you blew it out of the water the other day.

Very disappointed John. I knew you were wrong about Irans links to Alqaida, the threat of the evil left, the effectiveness of the Global War of Error, not to mention the whole reasons for our war on the Iraqi people. But, I thought we could agree on the reasons for Soc Sec running amok. Guess not.I will get a box of Kosher salt to take with your words. I know we agree on more than would be apparent from our sparring here, but I will double check your words now. It may be time for you to list all the things you neo-cons have been wrong about and revisit your paradigms.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/06/2007 @ 10:22am

BlueTexan-A couple of days ago in Fort Irwin Bush was back to saying 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence.Bush/Cheney know their base is pathetically uninformed and play on that.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/06/2007 @ 10:36am

Twenty people were killed and 30 wounded in Ramadi today when a suicide bomber drove a truck loaded with explosives and chlorine gas toward a residential complex, police said.

And there it is. Why should AlQaida bother with factories to produce chem weapons, they are already around. It is only a matter of time before it happens here. What is being done to protect our infrastructure here? Chem companies have been given carte blanche to secure their own plants. I don't trust them, do you?

Posted by crabwalk at 04/06/2007 @ 10:37am

MT is more offensive than anyone here.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH

At least I am not a lying coward!

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/06/2007 @ 10:42am

Come on Crab,

Do the mnath on SS. It is not viable....every president had to either raise taxes, raise the age of eligibility or both since it was hatched.

20 people to fund in the begining and now we are down to what, 3 ? We are living longer than in the 40s and for Gods sake, it is our own money and we have lost the ability to do with it what is best for us..

No one believes the SS is a healthy and sound program...if it were, Wall Street would have many models and many programs being sold paralleling the SS model,instead is is used correctly as an example of what NOT to do with your money or who to give control of your money over to, and we all run away from anything that produces such a silly return on our dollars than SS. In fact, we would sye our finacial planner if he gave us returns like SS..

SS was designed as a supplimental boost to what one already has...not a proigram to give everyone alive some kind of check, from blind people to prisoners..

If LIL thinks she de bunked me or anyone else, ask her if she would be willing to invest more of her savings and retirement into SS if her broker suggested this strategy..or...who she would rather have in her retirement fund, Haliburton or Exxon stock dividends...as Michael Moore does...or SS returns on her money as she gets old.(Of course we know she will have fine govt care of her health as she ages in a govt home).

Further statements about LIL blowing me(or anyone) out of the water, we we all just smile and look at one another and say.."Yeah, LIL, you won that one...and wink..."

Posted by john maasch at 04/06/2007 @ 10:46am

Open Question (asked seriously; would prefer answers from conservatives, but will take any intelligent answer).

The right wing blogs continue to be ablaze with the recently resolved British Navy / Iran "hostage" situation (dissenting opinion is prohibited on right wing blogs so I can't ask my question there).

From Iran's "official" perspective the British Naval personnel were in Iranian waters, so they were taken into Iranian detention. Of course, such a hostile act pisses off both the Brits and the American's but cooler heads prevailed and the "crisis" was resolved.

In the meantime, the American government continues to hold thousands of citizens from a whole host of different nationalities. These people have not been charged with crimes and we label them "enemy combatants". Why not call them "hostages"?

Posted by freedomplease at 04/06/2007 @ 10:47am

Posted by ONEVOTE 04/05/2007 @ 11:55pm

Gee. Do you think Dick Cheney should resign as vP because of his ties to Halliburton? Had a good laugh today. Dead Eye Dick was a guest on the Rush Limbaugh show. Seems Rush is the only one who takes Dickie serious anymore. Two losers laughing it up with each other at the expense of honorable democrats. It really was quite amusing.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/06/2007 @ 12:02am | ignore this person

Yep! Cheney and Feinstein can share a jail cell.

Posted by OneVote at 04/06/2007 @ 10:49am

I don't think anybody here would use the word nigger to describe another soul, why should we accept the word nazi? Both should be "n" words.

Bush may do some nazi-like things, kidnap, torture, declare illegal war, rule by ignorant fear, but that does not make him a nazi. Nazis killed millions of people, gassed them, performed incredibly horrible experiments on children and waged a full blown war over 2 continents. There is no comparison.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/06/2007 @ 10:51am

But it's at least theoretically true that a Holocaust denier need not be an anti-Semite. I therefore must theoretically agree with what Chomsky theoretically claimed.

Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/06/2007 @ 09:21am

Sure, JAKOB, but do those that deny the Holocaust TEND to be merely engaging in some historical analysis with NO political agenda?

Would the same "leeway" to Dr Chomsky's granting of benefit of the doubt extend to people who think that Africans and African-Americans are intellectually inferior. After all "theoretically" a person can discuss the possibility of white European intellectual superior as a "product of genetics" and not "necessarily" be a racist by that standard, right?

Or perhaps saying that women are shouldn't be in positions of leadreship, since historically they have NOT been in leadership..."theoretically" one could argue that and not necessarily be a sexist.

Ultimately, what's interesting is that if ANYBODY on the political Right had extended the same benefit of the doubt to Robert Faurisson....we all know where people like LILLIAN and DARLA would come down on them, same side I did on Chomsky. It's a double standard because Chomsky is on the Left.

To deny that is the real intellectual dishonesty. Of course, double standards are the mark of the political idealogue.

Posted by Mask at 04/06/2007 @ 10:52am

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/06/2007 @ 10:46am

I don't disagree that SS is in big trouble. But your blaming of ONLY dems for the bureaucratic nightmare it has become was pretty well discounted by LIL.

IF we had real leadership we might be able to find an alternative. But Chimpy had such a stupid replacement and totally failed to sell it to even the sheep.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/06/2007 @ 10:55am

Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/06/2007 @ 09:27am

First, I notice your reading comprehension STILL isn't up-to-par. Since you seemed to "miss" the fact that I said that "Democrats are weak on defense" was a STEREOTYPE and a false one.

Second, the reason it has credibility with some (and resonated with the public) is ...people like FRANKGRITS, who when recounting the "beginning of terrorism" in the 20th Century...doesn't start with the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians...or the Soviets against the Ukrainians in the "Holodomor"....or the Germans against Jews with "Kristallnacht"...or the Japanese against the Chinese with the Rape of Nanking...

but with an AMERICAN President and the use of atomic weapons during a war, against a nation-state that launched a surprise attack AGAINST us.

So when FRANK comes up with the beginning of terrorism in the 1900s...does he Blame-Turkey-First?...no. Blame-the Soviet Union-First?...no. Blame-Nazi Germany-First?...no. Blame Imperial Japan First?....no.

Who DOES he Blame First?

And if FRANK, proudly on the Left, and part of the base of the Democratic Party, is not that much out of his own group on that belief....who does it reflect on, the Republicans or the Democrats?

Posted by Mask at 04/06/2007 @ 10:57am

"At least I am not a lying coward!

Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/06/2007 @ 10:42am |

You are worse.. you are a fraud.

So what...you served and good for you, millions have made that choice and 10s of millions chose something else..military service was defered until after college if drafted . So what? After the war and college I chose not to enlist. Big deal. Why are you not still in the service? For you to judge is patheic. You are unqualified.

What are you doing now? Clinton and his military experience is an example of a con man and a liar with respect to his draft board letters and ROTC if you want an example of lying about military service....as I said in the past, I had a college deferment, went to school, had a high draft number and did not enlist and made no statements otherwise..

You are a coward in the voting booth...and therefore, in my opinion, are an empty shrill voice that just bitches and produces nothing. I know 14 year olds who earned more respect than you...you are patheic and shallow. A loudmouth chump.

Now, show your stuff and call more names and swear!!!!!Give us here another example of your best!!!You should make us proud.

Happy Easter.

Posted by john maasch at 04/06/2007 @ 10:58am

BTW, if ANY major Democratic politician fully embraces Noam Chomsky or believes that the Iranians were somehow "within their rights" to treat the Brits the way they did or thinks of Truman as a "terrorist"....

I guess I'll consider myself "out of the Democratic mainstream" and some "right-winger".

Until they do....DD, LIL, and FRANK are the ones on the Fringe.

(Willing to be proven wrong...but has even DENNIS KUCINICH taken up those ideas and claimed them for his own????....hehe)

Posted by Mask at 04/06/2007 @ 11:01am

"But your blaming of ONLY dems for the bureaucratic nightmare it has become was pretty well discounted by LIL."

I didn't do that..read it again, I re printed an email..with which I do not entirely disagree...I do blame anyone who wants a big beaurocratic cripple to do their work for them...and watching SS, why would you give your health care over to the same crowd? Moronic choice..

The dems invented SS and it is not doing what is was designed to do now...and is headed for the cliff...wanna put all your money in it? LIL? The govt need suckers like us to do this..

A bigger question...

If it wasn't taken from you before you cashed your paycheck, would you send them a check every pay period if you had a choice?

Posted by john maasch at 04/06/2007 @ 11:04am

Mask-You're reaching again in order to be "right" just as you were reaching when you claimed that parading the Brits on Iranian TV violated the Geneva conventions.People who deny the holocaust have to believe in a conspiracy involving millions of people over several generations which would make them mentally ill and not anti Semitic.My first job out of college was working with psychiatric patients who had beliefs such as this as well as other massive conspiracy beliefs.I learned to never argue with crazy people and just give them their medications and they get over such beliefs.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/06/2007 @ 11:06am

BCCI is back in the news, that cannot be good for the Bushes. This snakes nest of money laundering makes the Oil for Food scandal look like a Girl Scout Cookie scam. Some interesting names pop up. Hussein, Bin-Laden, Kissinger, Bush, Scowcroft, Faisal.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/06/2007 @ 11:08am

If it wasn't taken from you before you cashed your paycheck, would you send them a check every pay period if you had a choice?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/06/2007 @ 11:04am

hehe. Fat chance.

But, like I wrote the other day, I think every guvt program should undergo 10 year reviews. And i think Gores "lock box", silliness aside, was not a bad idea.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/06/2007 @ 11:12am

"IF we had real leadership we might be able to find an alternative. But Chimpy had such a stupid replacement and totally failed to sell it to even the sheep.

Posted by CRABWALK 04/06/2007 @ 10:55am | ignore this person

He never fought for his plan and it was never even discussed except in emotional "They are goona steal your money and give it to Wall Street" histronics....well, I 've got news for you...your money was already stolen..it is not there, there is an IOU with your name on it...thanks... but to put a smaller amount away IF YOU SO CHOOSE, in a stock account, which given history, will leave you with much more than SS...is an idea that should be tried..but, it would remove some cash from govt control...can't have that. Despite the fact you couldn't touch it any faster than you can SS. They give you Roth IRA $ 2,000...wow. Thanks.

The cuurent crop of congress will have one effect..

PLAN LESS AND SCHEME MORE ...my recommendation...in order to stay even with these guys..

.Whats the statement..Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result is what?

Watch the same tax increase and age raising...and same complaints, warnings and failure...

enough already..I don't care about SS and I will not collect much anyway..they will eventually steal it from those who paid in by saying "you have too much and therefore don't need it, so we are going to give to LIL over here who doesn't have as much as you", regareless of the choices LIL made or I made...

Thas the future of SS..they will steal it from the "rich"...all that is left is to decide what "Rich" is...my 15 year old understands this..... perfectly.. and so do the Democrats. Honesty is lost there ,too.

Posted by john maasch at 04/06/2007 @ 11:17am

But, like I wrote the other day, I think every guvt program should undergo 10 year reviews. And i think Gores "lock box", silliness aside, was not a bad idea.

Posted by CRABWALK 04/06/2007 @ 11:12am |

Agreed...except it wasn't Gores idea...it was in a lock box..some one opened the box...LIL?

Posted by john maasch at 04/06/2007 @ 11:19am

LvLiberty-The Brits caved shortly after being captured and are now desperately trying to excuse their behavior.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/06/2007 @ 11:34am

I'll quote YOU..."Oh, they're getting treated a LITTLE worse than the Brits in Iran...but it's simply a matter of nuance of Geneva".

Posted by MASK 04/06/2007 @ 07:43am | ignore this person

I have absolutely no doubt whatsover that is exactly what you will do Mask. And you'll put the quotes around it...just like you did here...and pretend those were words I spoke...

...when, in reality, I never said those words.

Amazing how the entire concept of 'quoting' some one, is so far beyond your feeble ability to understand, Mask.

Posted by Lillian at 04/06/2007 @ 12:33pm

Dear "Mask,"

I don't know whether I agree entirely with Chomsky's First-Amendment absolutism. (I hesitate to declare myself in full support of the ACLU until it has the guts to support campaign finance reform.) There is a law in Germany against public denial of the Holocaust, and I do not believe this law has had a "chilling effect" on free speech generally.

I believe it is remarkable that Chomsky, a radical leftist, defends the right even of fascists to express themselves. How many radical rightists defend the right of communists to express themselves?

There is an anecdote told about a conservative newspaper owner of the old school who refused to print the article of a known communist journalist -- until some government officials pressured him to do precisely this. At this moment, the newspaperman said: "I'll be d--d if I'm gonna let the government tell me what to do" -- and he printed the article.

This attitude is like dear old Voltaire's, who said: "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."

True libertarians like this, on either the right or the left, are few and far between.

One more thing. Many people mis-interpret First-Amendment absolutism as endorsement of the views of crackpots. This is always unjust.

Likewise, many people mis-interpret criticism -- such as the claim that somebody is a crackpot -- as censorship. This is also always unjust.

It is possible BOTH to claim that everybody has the right to speak AND to claim that somebody is a crackpot whose views aren't worthy of respect. This is neither inconsistency nor intellectual "dishonesty."

Posted by JakobFabian at 04/06/2007 @ 12:43pm

Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/06/2007 @ 12:43pm | ignore this person

Exactly!

Posted by Lillian at 04/06/2007 @ 12:46pm

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/06/2007 @ 11:28am | ignore this person

Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/06/2007 @ 11:34am | ignore this person

This is the same Leave Liberty who, when the much, much worse treatment by American soldiers of prisoners at Abu Graib was revealed, was using the 'it was no worse than college hazing' rhetoric.

Posted by Lillian at 04/06/2007 @ 12:49pm

Mask-You should never say that others lack reading comprehension skills.The definitions of socialist and progressive are quite different and,yet,you are unable to grasp the differences despite the fact that it involves simple concepts.You right wingers try the most idiotic of put downs.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/06/2007 @ 12:52pm

Mask-You stated that "weak on defense" was a stereotype.Saying it's a stereotype isn't the same thing as saying it's untrue since stereotypes exist because they contain truth in them.Next time give these things some thought before putting someone down.I comprehended what you wrote quite well.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/06/2007 @ 1:00pm

LvLiberty-When have I ever claimed to believe what Gitmo prisoners say?All I have said is that information gleaned by torture is unreliable.To my knowledge Gitmo prisoners have never instantly caved in and admitted guilt as these Brits did and I've heard military people putting them down on news shows and not leftist military people,but your more conservative variety have put them down for caving so quickly.Doing that makes their claims unreliable since they could be charged for doing it.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/06/2007 @ 1:31pm

Lillian-luvvy must have gone to a rough college if he thought it was akin to frat hazing.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/06/2007 @ 1:42pm

LVL,

The Brit's were captured because according to Iranian understanding of lines of demarkation the Brits were in their waters. Then situation was resolved and then the Brits were let go.

Diplomatically, the Iranians basically admitted with their actions that they erred in taking the Brits.

The US is holding thousands of foreign nationals "hostage". In some cases we've admitted our error and freed them....this has typically taken years of detention first (not a week as in the case of the Iranian error).

Why are the Iranians so much less stubborn at admitting their mistakes than we are?

Posted by freedomplease at 04/06/2007 @ 2:25pm

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/06/2007 @ 1:22pm

We have pictures of Abu Graib, we know several CD's of pics have been withheld because releasing them would cause a huge uproar over the disgusting acts performed by a few our troops, we have the Canadian Guvt saying that at least one of their citizens was tortured by Syrian agents. We know Gonzo thinks anything up to organ failure or death is fine by him, and probably Chimpy and Dicky. We are pretty sure the CIA has used secret facilities in Eastern Europe. Now, why would they do that other than to avoid US law?

this in no way excuses Iran, it just leaves the US with ZERO moral authority. Zero room to complain about mistreatment.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/06/2007 @ 2:32pm

Well, it leaves your side with no moral authority.

My "side" gets to keep ours.

NOBODY, seminaries can be interesting places. I bet Rev. Haggard had a nickname.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/06/2007 @ 2:36pm

Posted by LILLIAN 04/06/2007 @ 12:33pm

No LILLIAN, like your post on "quoting" JOHN MAASCH by recounting what you've ASSUME from previous posts...I'll quote this-

I also noticed Mask that it was YOU who claimed than when the Iranians took the British sailors they "violated their Geneva Convention rights". Are you sure about that? Is that a 'fact' as you see it? Can you prove that as a 'fact'...without resorting to wingnut talking points? If so, please do.---Posted by LILLIAN 04/05/2007 @ 9:14pm

And then...From the "Daily Mail"--

* We were blindfolded and subjected to interrogation * We were told we faced seven years in prison if we did not 'confess' * Iranians entered Iraqi waters deliberately to detain us. Fighting back was not an option * We were 1.7 nautical miles away from Iranian waters * We were under psychological pressure and mind games * Faye Turney was isolated in a cell away from the rest of the crew * Iranian state TV says crew's comments were 'dictated' by British Ministry of Defence

The British sailors released by Iran have today told how they were kidnapped and blindfolded and subjected to 'constant psychological pressure'.

The sailors and marines were told if they did not admit they had strayed into Iranian waters they faced seven years in prison.

And then I'll ask..."Why is it that LILLIAN grants the benefit of the doubt to the IRANIANS and not the people who were taken hostage?"

Posted by Mask at 04/06/2007 @ 3:20pm

Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/06/2007 @ 12:43pm

JAKOB, Dr. Chomsky wasn't merely arguing for Faurisson's "right to speak". I would do that.

He was offering as a rationale for not censoring Faurisson that just because he was denying the Holocaust, didn't necessarily mean he was an anti-Semite, nor did Chomsky think Faurisson was...

"Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion." (my bolds)

What did Faurisson say....exactly this...

'The Problem of the Gas Chambers' (note 1) or 'The Rumor of Auschwitz'

No one questions the use of crematories in certain German camps. The mere frequency of epidemics throughout Europe at war demanded the cremation, for example, of the bodies of typhus victims (see the photographs).

It is the existence of "gas chambers," veritable slaughterhouses for humans, that is called into question. Since 1945, the questioning has been growing. The mass media is aware of this.

In 1945, the official historiography affirmed that the "gas chambers" had functioned in the former [pre-1938 German] Reich as well as in Austria, Alsace and Poland. Fifteen years later, in 1960, it revised its judgment: "gas chambers" had operated, "above all" (?), only in Poland. (note 2) This drastic revision of 1960 reduced to naught a thousand "testimonies," a thousand "proofs" of supposed gassings at Oranienburg, at Buchenwald, at Bergen-Belsen, at Dachau, at Ravensbr�ck, at Mauthausen. Appearing before British or French judicial bodies, the heads of Ravensbr�ck camp (Suhren, Schwarzhuber, Dr. Treite) had admitted the existence of a "gas chamber" whose functioning they had even, in a vague manner, described. A comparable scenario had been acted out by Ziereis, of Mauthausen, or by Kramer, of Struthof. After the deaths of the condemned men, it was discovered that those gassings had never taken place. Flimsiness of testimonies and confessions!

The "gas chambers" of Poland -- as will surely be admitted in time -- were no more real. It is to the Polish and Soviet judicial bodies that we owe most of our information about them (see, for instance, the horrifying confession of R. H�ss, Commandant of Auschwitz).

Today's visitor to Auschwitz or Majdanek discovers, in the way of "gas chambers," facilities in which any gassings would have spelled catastrophe for the gassers and their entourage. A collective execution by gas, supposing that it were practicable, cannot at all be likened either to a suicidal or to an accidental gassing. In order to gas a single convict at a time, with his wrists and ankles shackled, the Americans employ a special gas [hydrogen cyanide] within a small space, from which, after its use, it is extracted and subsequently neutralized. So then, how could two thousand people (and even three thousand) be held in an enclosure of 210 square meters (!), at Auschwitz, for example, to have a common and powerful insecticide called Zyklon B poured onto them; finally, just after the victims' deaths, how could a team be sent, without gas masks, into that place saturated with hydrogen cyanide, in order to remove the corpses infused with cyanide? Some too little-known documents (note 3) show, moreover: 1) That the structure in question [at Auschwitz-Birkenau Krema II], which the Germans are said to have blown up shortly before their departure, was nothing but a typical morgue (Leichenkeller), built underground (to protect it from the warmth of the air) and fitted with a single small door for entry and exit; 2) That the Zyklon B could not be evacuated by a rapid ventilation, and that it needed at least 21 hours to evaporate. Whereas thousands of documents on the Auschwitz crematories (including invoices precise to the last Pfennig) are in our possession, there exists neither a directive to build, nor a study, nor an order of material, nor a blueprint, nor a bill, nor any photograph, as regards the "gas chambers," which, we are told, adjoined those crematories. At a hundred trials (Jerusalem, Frankfurt, etc.), no evidence has been produced.

"I was at Auschwitz. There were no 'gas chambers' there." Those who dare bear witness on behalf of the accused by pronouncing that sentence are hardly listened to. They are prosecuted. Still in 1978, anyone in Germany who speaks out in favor of Thies Christophersen, author of "The Auschwitz Lie," risks a conviction for "defaming the memory of the dead."

After the war, the International Red Cross (which had investigated "the rumor of Auschwitz"), (note 4) the Vatican (which had been quite well informed about Poland), the Nazis, the collaborators, all declared, along with many others: "The 'gas chambers'? We did not know." But how can one know of things that did not exist?

Nazism is dead and gone, together with its F�hrer. There remains today the truth. Let us dare to proclaim it. The non-existence of the "gas chambers" is good news for poor humanity. Good news that it would be wrong to keep hidden any longer. (note 5)

-- Le Monde, December 29, 1978, p. 8

Now will DARLA, LIL, and all the Chomsky fans out there agree with Dr Chomsky that such statements are not necessarily the statements of somebody who is anti-Semitic or a Nazi apologist? Sure they will...because Chomsky is on the Left (the extreme Left, noted by his minimal political support).

Would they say the same thing, all things being equal, if some RIGHT wing professor had said he didn't think Faurisson was an anti-Semite or neo-Nazi?.....no.....because they're hypocrites.

Posted by Mask at 04/06/2007 @ 3:33pm

And then I'll ask..."Why is it that LILLIAN grants the benefit of the doubt to the IRANIANS and not the people who were taken hostage?"

Posted by MASK 04/06/2007 @ 3:20pm | ignore this person

Oh poor Mask...continually regressing...still can't quite grasp that asking the questions I did...

...could never be considered by any individual with more that 2 brain cells firing as "...LILLIAN grants the benefit of the doubt to the IRANIANS and not the people who were taken hostage?"

Here Mask...let me help you understand (poor baby)...

Asking questions...is the OPPOSITE of "granting the benefit of the doubt."

You might want to remember that the next time you find yourself blindly repeating those wingnut talking points...

...without asking any questions about them.

Posted by Lillian at 04/07/2007 @ 12:28am

Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed at Jewish[1] persons as a religious, racial, or ethnic group. Instances of antisemitism range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution. Extreme instances of persecution include the Spanish Inquisition, eviction from Spain, various pogroms, and, above all, Adolf Hitler's Holocaust.

Antisemitism can be broadly categorized into three forms:

Religious antisemitism, also known as anti-Judaism, focuses on the practice of Judaism itself.

Racial antisemitism. Racial antisemitism is the concept that the Jews are a distinct and inferior race.

New antisemitism is the concept of a new form of 21st century antisemitism coming simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, which tends to focus on opposition to Zionism and a Jewish homeland in the State of Israel,

Posted by Lillian at 04/07/2007 @ 12:36am

Now will DARLA, LIL, and all the Chomsky fans out there agree with Dr Chomsky that such statements are not necessarily the statements of somebody who is anti-Semitic or a Nazi apologist? Sure they will...because Chomsky is on the Left (the extreme Left, noted by his minimal political support).

Posted by MASK 04/06/2007 @ 3:33pm | ignore this person

Actually Mask, I have no problem agreeing withg Chomsky...not becuase he's on the left...but becuase what he stated is absolutely correct.

Although I'm perfectly willing to consider YOUR argument that what Faurisson said IS anti-semetic. Please show us Mask, which of the three forms of antisemitism (the definition is printed above for your convenience) Faurisson statements fall under.

Then explain how Chomsky's statements, in defending Faurisson's freedom of speech, also fall under one of those three forms.

Posted by Lillian at 04/07/2007 @ 12:44am

Would they say the same thing, all things being equal, if some RIGHT wing professor had said he didn't think Faurisson was an anti-Semite or neo-Nazi?.....no.....because they're hypocrites.

Posted by MASK 04/06/2007 @ 3:33pm | ignore this person

Of course I would. And I challenge you to prove otherwise.

If you can't prove otherwise, that makes you a LIAR doesn't it...but wait...everyone already knows that about you Mask.

hehe!

Posted by Lillian at 04/07/2007 @ 12:49am

Here Mask, let me give you an out...

find me an intelligent LEFT winger who can appropriately respond to chomsky's comments on the Robert Faurrison affair.

Posted by MASK 04/05/2007 @ 4:46pm | ignore this person

Actually Mask, although that's what you asked for, it's not at all what you wanted, was it.

Posted by Lillian at 04/07/2007 @ 12:54am

LILLIAN....I just wait.

See, you've built yourself a ticking time bomb and eventually it's going to go off. Sooner or later, here at "The Nation", there'll be some article about some RIGHT-wing nutjob, some guy that Bush shook hands with and called a "pard'ner in the war on terr'er", and some writer will point out that the guy denied the Holocaust and was an anti-Semite...or something similar....and I'll go back in the archives to the "BLOG | Posted 04/05/2007 @ 3:46pm The President's Global War of Terror byTom Engelhardt" thread....and start cut & pasting.

Or more likely, Ahmadinejad will hold another "Holocaust Conference" and some SANE "Nation" liberal will post on it, calling it the travesty that it is....and I'll say "What? Hey, just because they're denying the Holocaust, doesn't mean they're anti-Semites!" and wait for somebody to call me a "Nazi" and say

"But I'm just quoting Noam Chomsky and LILLIAN!!!!"

Meanwhile....just try to ignore that ticking sound...and hope my memory isn't as good as it is.

Posted by Mask at 04/07/2007 @ 09:13am

Meanwhile....just try to ignore that ticking sound...and hope my memory isn't as good as it is.

Posted by MASK 04/07/2007 @ 09:13am | ignore this person

OOOOOO...that's so scarey Mask! Mask has laid me a trap and can't wait to spring it! Whatever shall I do??

BTW, I'm going to hold to that whole 'cut and paste' thing. No fair making words up, placing quotes around them, and claiming that's what I said, OK?

hehe!

Posted by Lillian at 04/07/2007 @ 2:55pm

And, and BTW Mask, I notice you couldn't rise to the challenge and actually defend the BS you posted. Here, let me re-issue that challenge...in case you missed it...

Please show us Mask, which of the three forms of antisemitism (the definition is printed above for your convenience) Faurisson statements fall under.

Then explain how Chomsky's statements, in defending Faurisson's freedom of speech, also fall under one of those three forms.

Posted by LILLIAN 04/07/2007 @ 12:44am | ignore this person

I noticed that, instead of discussing what you've said here, right now, you've jumped off into some future imagined future event, made ASSumptions about what will be said by everyone else, and are now trying to pass that off as 'inevitable'.

How very 'Maskian' of you!

Posted by Lillian at 04/07/2007 @ 3:00pm

find me an intelligent LEFT winger who can appropriately respond to chomsky's comments on the Robert Faurrison affair.

Posted by MASK 04/05/2007 @ 4:46pm | ignore this person Actually Mask, although that's what you asked for, it's not at all what you wanted, was it.

Posted by LILLIAN 04/07/2007 @ 12:54am | ignore this person

Posted by Lillian at 04/07/2007 @ 3:01pm

JM they also knew Reagan would come and get the hostages or destroy a huge part of Iran in doing so...in a like manner they knew Bush would also come and get them ,

Like he did in Lebanon? No wait, he sent arms to Iran. Carter only returned Iranian assets that he had frozen as a negotiating tool to beging with.

Posted by brunowe at 04/07/2007 @ 5:32pm

Excellent article. It confirms what I have thought for several years.

Posted by Desdichado at 04/09/2007 @ 10:12pm

hmm, Looks like Johny boy and company don't realize people take advantage of that "ignore person" option next to the username

So far, this has been one long circle-jerk

seriously, this shit is better off over at LGF

Posted by blah at 04/10/2007 @ 12:05am

Well I beleive that Borat, or Sacha Cohen, beat you all to that punch. In the movie "Borat", the title character makes a speech to a rodeo crowd and declares his support for America's "War of Terror", to which the crowd cheers uproriously. Genius!

Posted by pgennace at 04/10/2007 @ 09:24am

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Greg Kaufmann (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Kai Wright (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

February 2010

January 2010

December 2009

November 2009

October 2009

September 2009

Subscribe to The Nation RSS Feed

Atrios

Arts and Letters Daily

The Caucus

Campus Progress

Crooks and Liars

The Daily Gotham

Daily Kos

Echidne of the Snakes

Ezra Klein

FAIR

Feministe

Feministing

Firedoglake

Glenn Greenwald

Gothamist

In these Times

Hendrik Hertzberg

Huffington Post

Hullabaloo

Matthew Yglesias

Media Matters

Mother Jones

My DD

New York Review of Books

Openleft

Pam's House Blend

Pandagon

Political Wire

The Progressive

RaceWire

Real Clear Politics

Roberto Lovato

Romenesko

Swing State Project

Talking Points Memo

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Tapped

Tech President

Tompaine

The Washington Note

Utne Reader

Wonkette

ZNet

The President's Global War of Terror

posted by tom on 04/05/2007 @ 3:46pm

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Greg Kaufmann (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Kai Wright (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

The President's Global War of Terror

posted by tom on 04/05/2007 @ 3:46pm

Share this article

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Greg Kaufmann (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Kai Wright (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation