There's two sides to the story'

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat May 08, 2004 5:59 pm

Originally posted by Moonbiter
Wahey! And the Brits have just been spoiling for a way to get rid of that creep since the invasion began. I can't wait to see what parliament is gonna make of this one... The little brownnoser has been remarkably silent since this whole thing broke.

To give Blair his due, I think he possibly saw the Iraqi invasion as a chance for the two major powers of the European theater in WWII to join up in a new war. Whether this was what he thought or not, I know he disseminated opinions along this line, and I never felt they made anymore sense than Shrub's "evil axis," WMDs or "he tried to kill my daddy" reasons for invasion. Bush got what he wanted: oilfields. Blair got took. A shame, because he's done many good things for the UK over the years. But now, it seems he can't leave 10 Downing Street without stumbling into this ever-increasing Iraqi pothole and its wonderfully varied, aromatic contents.

Would that Bush had his problems. A recent poll shows that 43% of my fellow Americans still think he's doing a good job.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat May 08, 2004 9:31 pm

Originally posted by fable
A recent poll shows that 43% of my fellow Americans still think he's doing a good job.

IMHO polls are not reliable. I also believe the main thing a poll is good for.... to sway public opinion.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat May 08, 2004 10:30 pm

Originally posted by Weasel
IMHO polls are not reliable. I also believe the main thing a poll is good for.... to sway public opinion.

Could be. And I hope I'm wrong. I truly hope that many other Americans are finally waking up to what Shrub has been allowed to do for four years, now.

But let's remember, the average American *still* hasn't demanded a recall because they had a president picked for 'em by the Supreme Court. If they let that one slip through without a murmur, who's to say they really have enough brain cells left to evaluate Bush's record? I'm inclined to think the control's set on automatic, and many people are still accepting whatever they're told by their favorite Conservative entertainers.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat May 08, 2004 11:30 pm

Originally posted by fable
Could be. And I hope I'm wrong. I truly hope that many other Americans are finally waking up to what Shrub has been allowed to do for four years, now.

Jobs are coming..still no climb in the 'polls'

for Bush.

(EDIT to get my point across, I believe the polls are inflated in Bush's favor..a lame duck president will not draw viewers or people to papers. Money is made in a 'tight' election. see point two below to see IMHO Kerry running close and not saying anything different..)

Someone needs to wake them up...something (IMHO) Kerry is not doing. Dean until the meltdown did wake up some. The good old boy get behind the candidate network..National Democratic Party (the same as the RNC) froze him out tying their hopes to Kerry. And I have heard nothing from him to make me want him. I'm not going to go the route of anybody but Bush, exchanging one extreme for the other.

So I'm left with ...not voting or writing in someone else, either way throwing my vote away.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Sun May 09, 2004 2:58 am

I saw that there's been generated some jobs... about 200 000 I think, and I started to wonder what the heck he was doing right. Then I thought "a-hah!" and started checking out what KIND of jobs had been generated, and lo and behold, it's singularily stuff like pumping gas and pushing burgers, and a lot of short-term employment. The few more solid factory jobs are, no wonder there, in the arms industry. It's bollocks.

EDIT: I just wanted to add...

OHMYGAWD!

The foot in mouth virus is on a rampage.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun May 09, 2004 10:07 am

Shrub's latest Sunday radio address was devoted, of course, to the Iraqi prison abuse and torture. In it, he said, "Those responsible will be held accountable." I wonder how many listeners stared in goggle-eyed amazement at the effrontery of that remark. Given that Bush's own Defense Secretary had information relating to allegations for the last year from a reliable source, and had two full, detailed reports since February but chose to do nothing about the situation, the lack of accountability from Rumsfeld only makes a mockery of those words. Hell, even Rumsfeld himself admitted his responsibility for what happened, publically--but I suspect it was nothing more than Bush's meted-out "punishment." Neither of them has taken it seriously: words, words, words. Cynicism at the highest level of government.

The question is, will his pompous-derriere'd Democratic opponent let Shrub and Company get away with it? And will all those Americans who can't think save in primary color terms, get out their mental crayons and do the math?

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Sun May 09, 2004 10:36 am

Open trial of a prison guard starts in Baghdad on May 19. Putting on a show, letting the small guys take the fall, and I have a strong feeling those "primary colours" people are gonna buy it, hook, line & sinker.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Sun May 09, 2004 2:28 pm

It's not clear how much President Bush knew before he saw the "graphic images" on 60 Minutes II. But it is clear that what he's most upset about is that the public has found out what has been happening. According to the news articles I've read, Bush has scolded members of his administration (especially Secretary Rumsfeld) because he didn't know about the photographs earlier (and the damage they would cause when they became public). In other words, he's not sorry that it happened; he's sorry that the people who did it got caught.

And of course, he's also sorry that the rest of the world can't see the true nature and the true heart of the United States.

In any case, what happened wasn't really so bad (according to people like Rush Limbaugh), and we don't really need to apologize for it since the people who attacked us on 9-11 never apologized (according to people like Senator Joe Lieberman). Besides, the reason why it happened is because we have women in the military and because our universities have become so liberal, we no longer have the "best people" serving in our military. (Yes, that really has been put forth as a "serious" argument.) I haven't read Instapundit or many of the other "conservative" bloggers out there, so I'm sure that I haven't presented an entirely "balanced" point of view. I should be ashamed of myself.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sun May 09, 2004 5:45 pm

Originally posted by VonDondu

(according to people like Rush Limbaugh)

(according to people like Senator Joe Lieberman)

(Yes, that really has been put forth as a "serious" argument.)

And at one point I was thinking about maybe relaxing the laws on drugs...sadly this crack pot shows what drugs can do to a person. "Get the Rush"

and this was one of the people the DNC put forth for vice president....where oh where is Dan!

The boom of the Clinton years..good if you have generals who can train the soldiers in the reserve...extremely bad if you have morons with nice shiny metals and the mentality of nothing is wrong with promoting their pals.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Mon May 10, 2004 7:03 am

Originally posted by VonDondu
…I haven't read Instapundit or many of the other "conservative" bloggers out there, so I'm sure that I haven't presented an entirely "balanced" point of view. I should be ashamed of myself.

Indeed.

Well, I guess I’m about the closest this site has to a “conservative” (I’m not, of course, but I play one on GB – ha!) so I’ll throw the other side’s* links down for your edification.

We can start with Glenn Reynold’s since you bring him up. He’s looking for the “silver lining” in the words of Iraqi bloggers. (He has so many posts on this subject, though, this is just the one I came across first.)

Andrew Sullivan is still clinging to the last shreds of his belief in the noble war.

The lovely and brilliant Jane Galt calls for Rummy’s head to roll!

Baldilocks draws distinction between some of the offenders and others.

Dan Drezner’s comment: “Not good.”

Dean Esmay reminds us it is “not inappropriate” to point out differences between evils done by us, and evils done by them.

The Gweilo Diaries pretty viciously examines the perps, and asks if the 372nd may have recruited from the Jerry Springer Show.

”Leaning Towards the Dark Side” Bill takes Weasel’s dim view of the “two sides of the story” appeal.

The incomparable Moxie, member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC), never directly comments on subjects of the day, but I always get a laugh out of her posts.

The inimitable Frank J, who says: “Abusing Prisoners Is Wrong” – with one caveat.

Pejman puts in his two cents.

Sergeant Stryker uses lots of perfectly applicable words like “depravity, disgrace, shame.”

Reason writer Michael Young has a rather lengthier article in the Daily Star pointing out “a number of significant facts” that may have been lost in the brouhaha.

Tacitus says disband the 372nd.

Macallan (of Tacitus) points out the logical implications of asking for Rummy’s resignation.

There. Now we have a “balanced point of view.”

Personally, I agree with some of what is said in those links, and also with some of what has been said here. If ever a time called the military slang of SNAFU, this is it.

*Disclaimer: I have no idea whether the people running these sites would consider themselves “conservative.” I won’t link to people like Limbaugh (who certainly would proudly claim that title) as I feel he, and others like him, are whackos. EDIT: 'Course, some of y'all will think the links above are "whackos," too. Just a matter of perspective, perhaps.

Therion · Post by **Therion** » Mon May 10, 2004 1:18 pm

Originally posted by VonDondu
It's not clear how much President Bush knew before he saw the "graphic images" on 60 Minutes II. But it is clear that what he's most upset about is that the public has found out what has been happening. According to the news articles I've read, Bush has scolded members of his administration (especially Secretary Rumsfeld) because he didn't know about the photographs earlier (and the damage they would cause when they became public). In other words, he's not sorry that it happened; he's sorry that the people who did it got caught.

And of course, he's also sorry that the rest of the world can't see the true nature and the true heart of the United States.

Ah.. but whether he knew or not, he has the final responsibility.. I don't have that much knowledge of American government structure, but I'd guess Rumsfeld has responsibility regarding his administration and if he fails it's up to Bush. Rumsfeld was not chosen (was he? I don't think so, correct me if I'm wrong) by the american people.. Bush was.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 10, 2004 1:31 pm

Originally posted by Therion
Rumsfeld was not chosen (was he? I don't think so, correct me if I'm wrong) by the american people.. Bush was.

Technically, you're correct: a president is elected, and that president appoints each cabinet secretary. It has become a courtesy over the years to allow the Congress to approve or disapprove secretarial nominees, but there is no legislation requiring that a president get their approval.

However, in this case, the president wasn't elected. The Supreme Court closed off the first attempt to recount votes in Florida, declaring George Bush the elected president, based on the votes at that time. As it happens, Bush would have won if they'd continued, but still...

One other point. Bush wasn't chosen by the American people. The US has an antiquated electoral system for presidents, set in place by those wealthy landowners who ruled things through the 1820s. Basically, it allows the electoral college of each state--a group of people whose number reflects a state's population--to cast their votes. The electoral colleges can vote differently than the plurality of voters, and that has happened twice in US history: once, during the election of Hayes over Tilden in the 1880s, and once with the election of Shrub over Gore. Gore had the greater number of votes from "the people." Bush had the electoral college votes.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Mon May 10, 2004 1:50 pm

Originally posted by fable
Technically, you're correct: a president is elected, and that president appoints each cabinet secretary. It has become a courtesy over the years to allow the Congress to approve or disapprove secretarial nominees, but there is no legislation requiring that a president get their approval.

Continued

During the time congress is not 'working'...the President can appoint someone without even going to congress, something that was rare once upon a time ........ it is called skirting the ways to get who you want.

Judges

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Mon May 10, 2004 3:06 pm

JJJÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆ!!!!!! RIGHT!

Depending on which side of the creek they vote?

The most outdated legal system in the galaxy, but don't you try to tell me that, or I'll sue ya!

Back on track:
A "non" person has now shown up and claims all the picks are fake, and staged to harm the "democratic liberation" of Iraq.

What say?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Mon May 10, 2004 3:29 pm

Originally posted by Moonbiter
[

Back on track:
A "non" person has now shown up and claims all the picks are fake, and staged to harm the "democratic liberation" of Iraq.

What say?

A fool, the soldiers already told they did..for MI.

No how can this person explain the soldiers admitting to something that he/she/it claims didn't happen.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon May 10, 2004 3:43 pm

LOL! Quite an elaborate scheme, yes? Granted, this administration acts like a bull in a china shop quite regularly...however, I fail to see the advantage in heaping further controversy on themselves (when this invasion and continued occupation is controversy enough on its own) by owning up to something that never happened. Like Weasel said, you basically have a number of soldiers looking at many years of breaking large rocks into smaller rocks at Ft. Leavenworth over this (said Ft. being the Big House for military convicts, a maximum security Federal prison), politicians making apologies at press conferences, investigations being done by military brass, etc. Fake? Not a chance.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Mon May 10, 2004 3:53 pm

This is a f.... ferdunkanik joke. A clean cut, aryan, well bred little quarterback from the green-green grass of home stands up and says it's all a plot to besmirch the Coalition. As THE bookie... Gimme the odds of Shrub either finding WOMD or OBL before September.....

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Mon May 10, 2004 5:11 pm

Neither I predict OBL dieng of a heart attack in many years... weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iran before IRaq.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 10, 2004 6:17 pm

Seymour Hirsch of the New Yorker, who's been publishing documents and pictures of the Iraqi prison torture, says he's seen a twelve minute video which shows dogs being led to attack a chained prison, and then guards kneeing him in the back, as he lay, covered with bites. What Hirsch (who was interviewed on the BBC) found interesting was that none of the guards in this video, whose faces are clearly visible, match up with the group already known--scotching the idea that Bush has been pushing of "a few bad apples."

He went on to point out that it's probably pretty widespread, because General Sanchez had given an order last year turning over authority for the prisons to Military Intelligence. Now, he points out, we know that the pictures were made available in February, when Sanchez quickly ordered an investigation, and sent the matter immediately to Rumsfeld's desk. Why, as he put it, didn't Rumsfeld order a cease-and-desist of all intelligence-related treatment of prisoners at that time?

Stay tuned for the next episode in As the Stomach Turns...

Therion · Post by **Therion** » Mon May 10, 2004 6:30 pm

Yeah, truly.. it is like some bizarre piece of fiction. A sick piece, too. One up for the human race, once again!