Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
LAWBNick
Published Letters: 5
She then hit her biggest applause line, concluding the point by reminding the audience, "It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it might take another to clean up after the second Bush."
This may have been her biggest applause line (or was it that CNN was going to commercial?), but it's worth noting that Sen. Clinton was at best begging the question here, and at the very least contradicting herself. For those of us who take the dynastic question seriously, her implication that her surname somehow qualifies her for office is hardly reassuring. Isn't that exactly the opposite of being judged by her own merits?
I've seen her respond to this question a few times and it's always the same canned, unsatisfactory answer. Lame.
"I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."
This reminds me of Nixon's "secret" war in Cambodia. Who exactly was that a secret from? Certainly not the Cambodians.
In the same way, it's no surprise to those on the receiving end of detainee abuse- and their families and communities generally- that these things occured. It seems clear to me that Obama's decision has mostly to do with domestic political considerations.
I find that repugnant.
... but really, is this column edited at all before it's published? How can this paragraph be allowed to let slide?
If, however, anyone is actively engaged in a conspiracy to violate the laws of this country and to do violence against its citizens, the conservative response is to arrest the conspirators, charge them, give them a fair trial in front of a jury of their peers and, if they're convicted, to jail them for a very long time.
This is laughable coming from a member of the Bush White House. Theoretically I can see the point of airing the wingnut point of view, as it would be useful to have a true believer explain the mind-numbing contradictions and delusions inherent in this way of thinking. But wouldn't it be more useful for the editors to challenge the author to make a coherent argument, before this goes to press? I don't know how GW can possibly be satisified with his/ her own argument, as it's plainly too stupid for a sentient person to take seriously. If the point of this column is to demonstrate that the modern right is plagued by hypocrisy and sloppy thinking then I guess it's done its job. Unfortunately it doesn't do anything to advance the conversation it addresses itself to, which I thought was the point of running it in the first place..
The pseudonymous former interrogator, said this about his time in Iraq:
Anyone who served in Iraq, and veterans on both sides of the aisle have made this argument, knows that the foreign fighters did not come to Iraq en masse until after the revelations of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I heard this from captured foreign fighters day in and day out when I was supervising interrogations in Iraq. What the former vice president didn't say is the fact that the dislike of our policies in the Middle East were not enough to make thousands of Muslim men pick up arms against us before these revelations. Torture and abuse became Al Qaida's number one recruiting tool and cost us American lives.
How does that square with the Cordesman statement?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
