Letters to the Editor
-
@prunes
prunes,
"How do people not realize that their "own" reasoning just so happens to match the government propaganda every. single. time?"
With respect, I've stopped imagining the shooter242 as anything other than an agent dispatched to sow discord. Whether true believer of the 28% kind, or shill, is almost irrelevant at this point. That's the great thing about being an agent provacateur, I suppose: the agent doesn't even have to believe what the agent sows, or even pay much attention to the words at all. The check (or other validation) comes regardless. One reason I keep hoping that ultimately the shooter242 will be completely ignored, and find at least one kind of validation removed.
Thanks for your contributions the last few days: I've enjoyed reading them and they've added much to the discussions. Of late, the already elevated discourse at this forum has achieved new heights, I think, and it only saddens me that such elevation has occured in response to the national policy tragedy plumbing still greater depths. Still, that thought gives me hope, too, and every good contributor's post bolsters my thoughts that we rise to meet the challenge.
No kings,
Robert
-
How about the venture capital?
That's what really caught my eye, after I saw Ori on the list. Remember, Israel is a small country - the Israeli elite even smaller. You often have folks playing multiple roles at the top levels - in intelligence, running private companies, teaching in academia... They really marshal their intellectual and political muscle.
Thanks Ondelette and Ames for the refresh. The fact that Narus wasn't a national scandal still shocks me to this day. At least an investigation is warranted.
-
Let's put the situation this way...
Mr. Comey's testimony is the stuff of film stories - speeding cars - sirens - urgent orders conveyed in terse language over cellphones. I can go to work and ask, "Did you hear what happened?" However, the story I tell lacks certain dramatic elements. There was no shooting and no explosions. The only threat is to some abstract ideas contained in some old pieces of paper. How can I personalize that threat? How can I tell that story and make it connect with someone who doesn't share my passion for the subject?
Good question, Diana. I think a good way to present it is to look at what was wrong with that specific situation:
"Have you ever had a parent, grandparent, relative, or friend in a hospital dealing with major surgery or a serious accident? What if you visited them in the hospital right after surgery, and the first thing you saw when you entered the room was a bunch of lawyers browbeating them on the hospital bed to modify a will, or to change the terms of a mortgage, or to drop a lawsuit? How would you react? What would you think about people who were willing to try such a sleazy and disgusting move?"
(BTW, I also signed up for Digg to advance this story. Keep Digg-ing, folks!)
-
@ kwiatal
Well, there was that business about Newt's divorce papers. Unpleasant jerks think alike, I guess.
-
AUMF very narrow, plus extremely doubtful about the thousands of lives saved by NSA spying
Then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle made sure that the AUMF was very narrow, despite administration efforts to broaden it to include the entire Middle East area. It was narrowly worded to use "military force" against the perpetrators of 9/11.
How does that allow NSA wiretapping? Why don't people contest this prima-facie stupid assertion?
Also, the repeated claim that NSA wiretapping has saved untold thousands of lives is no doubt as bogus as Iraq's WMD and other bald assertions (and outright lies) foisted on the public by this administration.
Think of the great terrorist breakthroughs that we have seen in the news that have amounted to just the silliest plots and IQ-negative cabals. Just more lies under the rubric of "secret for national security reasons".
We have more than ample proof that the safest bet is to simply disbelieve EVERYTHING this administration says.
-
Dawggone bites it.
Your first point: There is no statute requiring the AG to sign off. Follow this logic and the President is king without restraint.
OK fine, you decided not to read the whole transcript and are making stupid accusations. Comey stated specifically there was no statute. Whether he or Ashcroft refuse to sign is meaningless. Don't like it? Sue.
Something happened that made a die hard Bushie loyalist so blanche that he said "Enough" and repeated that assertion while incoherant in a hospital bed with his wife by his side. Hmmm I wonder what changed his mind?
Your word, "incoherence". Do you think that with a deadline coming up Ashcroft would just say "no thanks" when asked to sign without discussing it with someone other than Comey? How is it that only Comey has this insight into why Ashcroft would do something out of character?
Comey made it clear that Ashcroft ordered him not to sign off, refused to sign off himself, and on his hospital bed refused to sign off on Card and Gonzo's order and directed them to speak to his (according to you) rebellious context changing Asst. A.G. What part of "No" don't you understand?
Exactly. From out of nowhere comes this change of heart. Sorry, I don't buy it. I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth. On something this big, one would think he'd have something to say about it.
I'm sure if Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neil had rushed into Ronald Reagan's hospital room shortly after he was shot and heavily medicated (as was disoriented Ashcroft) to get him to sign off on a bill retracting his tax cuts, you, Shooter would be the first to call George Bush I for being a thug for stopping them.
Bless your heart. You can't help it can you. You're trying to reconcile something uncharacteristic for Ashcroft with another person's assertion. Sorry bud, I'm not taking Comey's word for anything. He is after all the guy that brought in Fitzgerald to lay perjury traps in the already resolved Plame investigation. Yes I know, that makes him your hero.
Point 5: Glenn can't tell us what the White House is still successfully keeping hidden. Therefore he must be lying.
More precisely, noone can tell if he isn't. Ordinarily one has some evidence when making accusations, but as usual, IOKIYAD.
Yeah, that's the ticket! If I kill someon and hide their body and the murder weapon then I must be innocent.
As far as I know, that's exactly right. Habeus Corpus and all that. But I thought you said you were a lawyer. No?
I then, using my Decider Guy hat order that they immediately make the changes, rendering me incapable of doing anysuch thing, to make things legal.
This is the perfect example of why liberals can never be happy. Not only does Bush accept the DAG's view that it's not something he can sign off on, he asks that changes be made to ease his legal objections. Now this is your hero were talking about making changes, not Bush. Because you folks are incapable of recognizing any actions that might mitigate your hatred, it's not worth Bush worrying about what ever you have to say.
You can't be pleased, so why bother trying. A sensible approach to fanatics.
Comey's refusal to address a secret program is not a denial of everything Glenn, I and soon, so many others have read.
LOL. It's certainly not an affirmation, leaving you two to howl like the junkyard dog, restrained by the chain of ignorance. Tsk.
Steve Allen wrote about about this type of illogic called "Dumbf." You might want to read it.
No need, I'm witnessing it in action.