»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
OOPS!
| The Alley |
|
OOPS! |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President-elect Barack Obama "absolutely" stands behind Timothy Geithner, his choice for Treasury secretary, despite "a big mistake" involving his failure to pay some taxes, the incoming White House chief of staff said on Sunday. Geithner made a "big mistake," Rahm Emanuel, the incoming chief of staff, said in a interview on the NBC program "Meet the Press." "But he's the right guy for this job," and Obama backs him "absolutely." Obama, who is to be sworn in as president on Tuesday, said last week that Geithner, who as treasury secretary would oversee the tax-collecting Internal Revenue Service, had made an "innocent mistake." Hopefully, with him in charge, we will all be forgiven such "innocent mistakes" when not paying our taxes on time! A fellow caught failing to pay his taxes selected as Treasury secretary which oversees the IRS....no comedian could make this stuff up!  |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Define "forgiven," Mike. Most people will pay a penalty and interest. Just like Geithner will. In the absence of fraud, that's pretty much the way the IRS works. You make a mistake, you pay for it. Usually, in spades. That presumably applies you, Mike, to me, and apparently to Geithner, too. When you look at the actual mistakes that were made, most were understandable. The biggest mistake, for example, was not paying self-employment taxes while he was an employee of the International Monetary Fund. Employee? Yea, that's the wacky part. He was an employee, but the IMF requires U.S. Citizens to file their taxes using Schedule SE. Essentially, it transfers the burden from IMF to the employee. Any American company that tried that would get smacked on the wrist pretty quick. In an ideal world, of course, the man slated to run the IRS would know every possible permutation of the U.S. Tax Code. Do we really think that's a realistic expectation, though? Does anyone actually know the Tax Code that well? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
In an ideal world, of course, the man slated to run the IRS would know every possible permutation of the U.S. Tax Code. Do we really think that's a realistic expectation, though? Very generous of you, Ron. I don't think knowledge of every possible permutation of the US tax code was necessary in this case. I do, though, expect excuses to be made for him. Obama promised there would be change.A man who was caught failing to pay his taxes on time being picked to oversee the IRS is certainly change. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The second concern involves Geithner's taxes while he worked for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). According to a statement released by the committee, Geithner failed to pay self-employment taxes while the IMF paid him from 2001 to 2004. In 2006, the Internal Revenue Service audited Geithner for tax years 2003 and 2004, and he paid $16,732 for the taxes and interest for those years, the statement said. After Obama nominated him for treasury secretary, Geithner voluntarily amended his taxes for 2001 and 2002, paying $25,970 for those taxes and interest, the committee said. So he hadn't paid the self-employment taxes for four years. Who thinks he had no idea he was supposed to pay those taxes? Who thinks the company sent no memo or reminder to employees that they were responsible for those taxes? After he was audited and told he owed money for 2003-04, who thinks that did not make him aware that he must also owe back taxes for 2001-02? Did he pay them in 2006? No, he paid them only after Obama nominated him for treasury secretary. Who thinks that he would have voluntarily paid them had he not been Obama-picked? Come up with all of the justifications you want, Ron. They don't wash. |
||
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Good grief, are we going to have 4 years of this sort of petty political point scoring Mike? You're just about to get a new President upon whom the hopes of the world rest, in one of the most difficult periods the human race has faced for decades, and all you can do is pick over the detail of an appointee's tax return and giggle derisorily. I think your nation has in Obama a President of stature and vision, a President you deserve. If too many people do what you're doing though, I guess he will be entitled to ask whether he has the nation he deserves. If not for yourselves, at least for the sake of the rest of us I sincerely hope America can get past the pedantic bickering that seems to be more and more prevalent in modern society and set an example of mature leadership. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Oh, I don't know, M. There's something to be said for having watchdogs, isn't there? On the other hand, a numbness sets in at some point and these points, especially as they move farther down the ladder of power, eventually succumb to their own irrelevancy. I see nothing wrong with vigilance. I just don't understand why this side or that side gets upset when the other side engages in the same thing. In that, perhaps we all are guilty of hypocrisy. |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
This sort of political point scoring is inevitable, Moonbeam. The left did it in 2000 and 2004. Here are a few of the highlights the Democrats loved to scream about that you might remember: 1) He deserted from the Air National Guard 2) He took cocaine as a youngster in college 3) He owned an oil company, therefore, he is only interested in gouging the poor Americans so he and his cronies can get rich. And so many more that we can all sit back and reminisce about by the fire. Such is American Politics. Those who win take the heat from those who do not. Those who win also complain about it to everyone, regardless of whether they are interested in listening. And, now, you know the rest of the story... What would you attempt to do...if you knew you could not fail? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I’m with you on this one Mike. The guy obviously doesn’t understand your tax laws - he had no obligation to repay the tax for 2001-02 because there’s a three year limitation on IRS assessments - if they don’t audit your return and tell you that you owe it in that period then, by law, you don’t owe it. Unless of course you’re stupid enough to sign a waiver and ask them to assess you beyond that three year limit, which, by the sound of it, is what he did. Personally though I’d be more concerned with the question of why the IRS were so inept they didn’t issue a correct assessment in 2003-04 rather than castigating the one idiot that seems to be rewarding their ineptitude. How many more people aren’t paying the right amount of tax? How many of them are going to volunteer to stump up beyond the legal three year period. I definitely wouldn’t - on principle.  |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Exactly Brad. Yes Ringo they did, but I'm not taking a partisan approach here. It doesn't make it right or productive. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Good grief, are we going to have 4 years of this sort of petty political point scoring Mike? LOLOL! Gotta love it. We have just gone through eight years of the petty political point scoring (some of which you engaged in) and, now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's all petty stuff. You want to call it petty? Be my guest. After having endured 8 years of some of the most ridiculous point scorings imaginable attempted by Democrats, I can assure you that, yes, it will continue every time there is a questionable point. If you didn't complain about the Bush bashing involving him and everybody associated with him, don't complain now. I see nothing wrong with vigilance. I just don't understand why this side or that side gets upset when the other side engages in the same thing. In that, perhaps we all are guilty of hypocrisy. Well said, Brad  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
grinch, thanks for the info. The last I was told was that records had to be kept for seven years. Since I have that many years or records and receipts stored away, if it really is three years, then I can save some space in the office. I'll check into that. Why wasn't the IRS efficient and how many people are paying the wrong amount of taxes??? I'm assuming that's a joke. One has to search far and wide to find an agency more bungling. Efficiency is not their strong point. [This message has been edited by Ron (01-19-2009 06:43 AM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "You're just about to get a new President upon whom the hopes of the world rest, in one of the most difficult periods the human race has faced for decades . . ." If he walks on water I'll hold his robe, so long as I too get a jug of that special wine after . . . . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Hey, Mike, If the guy was wrong, the guy was wrong. Perhaps you could give me some notion, though, of what you think the consequences should be. I agree that he should have known better or should have gotten better tax advice or both. I agree that he owes whatever he owes and whatever he works out with the IRS for penalties and interest. Because he is in the position he's in, I doubt he's likely to get the possible breaks that somebody with a good lawyer might get. That's probably as it should be as well, since as a nominee it would be impossible to say that anything less would be as a result of political influence. This seems a bit harsh to me, but fair. Beyond that, it's up to the Senate as to whether they wish to confirm the man or not. If Obama feels he's a good candidate and the Senate can make up its own mind and the IRS will act fairly, I'm unclear what your beef is. With at least one of the situations you bring up about Bush, the charges appeared to amount to desertion in Wartime. This is not something usually dealt with administratively, as I understand it, but a potentially Capital Charge. It seems unlikely that those charges will ever be investigated fully at this point, given that they bear upon the honor of a soon to be former President of The United States, and we try to be more considerate of the office here — mostly. I personally think that those particular charges against President Bush would have been Charges the President would have wished to have cleared up, since they had been hanging over him before and continue to do so today. I can understand why he would chose not to, however. I would not mistake the severity of those accusations — accusations which might potentially involve the Death Penalty — and what appears to be a tax glitch. Death Penalty or Fine; death penalty or fine: One of these definitely seems to be more serious than the other, and the fine is not it. Making a mistake on one's taxes is not the same as (possibly) deserting in time of war. Calling attention to desertion in time of war (or the possibility of it) seems to rise to a more serious level than "bashing." I would imagine. Similarly, I would suggest that one's president doesn't go out for a casual bike ride one day, stop in at a seven-11, buy a Doctor Pepper and on the way out of the store slip and accidently cause the torture of perhaps a thousand or more people whose connection to terrorist activities is for the most part unprovable. I'd define "Bush Bashing" as saying that I thought the man has a goofy laugh. In fact I do think the man has a goofy laugh. I like to think of what I've been doing for the past eight years as something a bit more serious than "Bush Bashing." Both I and a large part of the country have some substantive quarrels with the man. If you think the Nominee for Secretary of the Treasury is off base, though, this would be a good time to call your Senators. Myself, I think he messed up and I'm willing to let the Senate decide, because I don't think it's all that bad, but I'm fine with whatever the senate goes with. That's their job. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
no suprise. Bahama has a long list of questionable friends, and now they are getting political positions. You think this is the end of his cabinet scandals? Au contraire, mon frere. I think this is another case where the General watches from the Hill with immunity while his hand-picked soldiers get picked off one by one. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: At least be accurate Mike. I supported Bush for a very long time: I was there watching live with a friend (from PiP actually) on the memorable "night of the chads" cheering him on. I agreed with the dubious tactics which allowed him to bomb Iraq, and I carried on supporting him way past his first term. And however much coffee you spill I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican by conviction. Regarding Bush, you accuse me of not liking him in the last few months. Actually as a person I like him a lot. He always makes me laugh, and I think people underestimate his intelligence and kindness. Nevertheless, to compare the sniping that's been going on against Bush with that against Obama is frankly facile. When Obama has started a disastrous war, presided over an orgy of spending and failed miserably in 8 years to even begin to resolve the middle east situation then you'll find me sniping at him right alongside you. On other recently prominent Republicans: I actually liked McCain and I think he'd have been an ok President. Palin I disliked, but not for party political reasons, simply because I distrusted her character from what I could see of her views in certain key areas that I care about. (Thanks Ron - too much coffee flying around  )[This message has been edited by moonbeam (01-19-2009 10:17 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
For the hopes of the world to rest on one man, any man, (other than the God/Man, Jesus Christ) is pretty pathetic, in my opinion, and the world will be sorely disappointed. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Personally, I think the IRS is one the biggest oopsies America ever unleashed. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
You are right Denise it is pathetic. America has far too much power, and the American system of governance is erroneously conceived in that it gives too much power, and perhaps more importantly too much prestige, to one man. The rest of the world has been taught, largely by America, to look to America in times of trouble. Add that lot up and you get the result you call pathetic. Fortunately in Obama you may just have picked someone who can emulate Christ and walk on water. Don't berate yourself Denise, don't be downhearted, don't be disappointed - give him time, and your support would help him too. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Similarly, I would suggest that one's president doesn't go out for a casual bike ride one day, stop in at a seven-11, buy a Doctor Pepper and on the way out of the store slip and accidently cause the torture of perhaps a thousand or more people whose connection to terrorist activities is for the most part unprovable. That's actually quite a sad commentary, Bob. Interesting that, in the last several posts you have submitted since your return, torture seems to be your mantra. You have basically ignored the rest of the mud slung at Bush, as if just saying "torture" absolves everything else. In the first place, torture is quite a broad term. The way you toss it out there, it could mean drawn and quartering, cutting off toes and fingers, using electrical wires on testicles or anything else the word conjures up. If you look back at what all of the "torture" mileage was about, you'll find waterboarding, loud music, sleep deprivation, not giving them the food they want, etc, etc, etc. I don't condone torture of any kind (possible exception of extreme circumstances) but just to throw out the word torture with a pointing finger doesn't give a lot of validity to your point. Second, how does that all land on Bush's plate. I've never seen that any other time in American history. Instead of going after the privates at Abu Ghrab, for example, or their superiors or any number of people in the chain of command, you (as your above quote demonstrates) and the Democratic leadership simply went right after Bush, as if he personally picked up the phone and said "Torture those people now!". You speak as if Gitmo never existed before Bush, as if harsh interrogation tactics were unheard of before Bush, and the only people sleep deprived or who were tortured with rap music came only as a direct result of Bush orders. Come on, Bob. The torture chant against bush is just another mud against the wall democratic tactic. I fully expect you to try to justify every smear campaign against Bush over the years, even the ones you have failed to address here, but that's what it is...an attempt at justification. I also fully expect others to scream "petty" for whatever comes up that could put Obama in an unfavorable light. ...and, for the record, I think Bush has a goofy grin. too [This message has been edited by Ron (01-19-2009 12:16 PM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Fortunately in Obama you may just have picked someone who can emulate Christ and walk on water." I can't imagine anyone seriously thinking this. It's not thought but whorship. . |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
"Fortunately in Obama you may just have picked someone who can emulate Christ and walk on water." quote: Lol I hope that was a Freudian slip Huan! But seriously, I cannot imagine how anyone cannot hope that it isn't possible and true. Sometimes it's better not to think too much. Sometimes what nations need to drag themselves up out of trouble are not dry packages of economic measures presented by experienced politicians, but the psychological uplifting that can only be engendered by inspirational leadership. Obama is already a great man, and what he has already achieved is great. The world is at war and in turmoil on all sorts of fronts, and in times of war and turmoil I'd rather have a Churchill or Obama in charge than a Bush or Brown (God help the UK). And collected by the CS Monitor correspondents around the world: "Saudis … did not really believe in the American version of democracy. How could they when all the presidents of the so-called ‘melting pot' were Anglo." - Eman Al-Nafjan, Saudiwoman's Weblog "We always feel we are lower-class people… But if someone of Kenyan origin becomes president there, it will make us feel we are on the same level." George Anyango, shopping mall employee in Kenya "[Barack Obama is] what the rest of the world dreams America can be." - Jacques Mistral, transatlantic specialist at the French Institute for International Relations in Paris "If an African-American can do it and become president, then people in Africa think, maybe … people who are struggling for democracy in Zimbabwe can do it, and those in power can do what is in their power to change their countries for the better." - David Monyae, independent political analyst in Johannesburg, South Africa "We can now think of ourselves dreaming again with the Americans, dreaming about better relations, about a real future." - Harold Herman, lawyer in a Paris firm "Obama's story shows that identity is not a fact of nature that locks men up inside their births, but [is shaped] by a conscious adherence to democratic principles…. For the first time in a long time, the New World deserves its name." - Laurent Joffrin, editor of the French daily newspaper Libération "I have the feeling that he is another bearer of the ‘American Dream.' " – Liu Na, China |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Sometimes it's better not to think too much" Or at all apparently . . . . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I feel compelled to note: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center . |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
RE: "Sometimes it's better not to think too much" Isn't this what Sancho Panza was trying to tell Don Quixote? As I remember, though, Don Quixote was the hero and Sancho Panza the fool. We need both of them, of course, but if forced to emulate one or the other, I'd say, bring on the windmill. Of course I care what happens after tomorrow, when Senator Obama becomes President Obama, but tomorrow will be a day of worldwide effect, not not just a parochial transfer of power. What happened in the last ten or twenty years to turn an impossibility to a possibility to a reality? Are we growing up? I think so. Jimmy |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
From the treasury secretary to the "magic negro"? The next few years are going to be fun. M. and Jim, Yep, that's pretty much what I see and hear over here too. Obama, as a symbol, is the return of the American dream. This has gotta be a good thing. If it makes a few white people feel better about themselves, I see nothing wrong with that. Now, let's see if he -- we -- can fix the mess we're in. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Geesh. Spike Lee coins a phrase and it ends up in the LA Times to describe a President elect-- Who's not up for a damn Oscar. Where's people's heads?? They have to equate Obama to a fictional character when he has enough real character to win Head of State? Like it or not, place him in the history books as a successor who'd better be more successful than a lame duck. What's magical about that? |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Regina, revered member of my tribe whom I haven't spoken in too long. Mostly, I don't understand your references, but then, I can be dense. I don't know about Obama being magical or comparable to a fictional character. I wasn't suggesting that he is Don Quixote, though you have to admit his journey was Quixotic at the start, as was Senator Clinton's, but that's the stuff of heroes. They try to do what can't be done, and do it. They ain't fluffy bunnies. Brad: Obama has done more than make a "few" white people feel good. It made a lot of white people feel realy hopeful again, but I'm not sure that was your point. Either way, I celebrate the raised consciousness of a nation, and wish the President-elect the best as President. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Hey, Jim my kith and kin, good to see you a'bouts here. No, not you or your post, but the link John posted had Ehrenstein's 2007 LA Times article on Obama, which he stole the term then and it doesn't even apply now. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Fortunately in Obama you may just have picked someone who can emulate Christ and walk on water. You know, Moonbeam, the scary thing is I actually think some people believe that. Don't berate yourself Denise, don't be downhearted, don't be disappointed - give him time, and your support would help him too. I don't berate myself. Why should I? I didn't vote for him. I am downhearted and disappointed though for, among other things, the law he will sign today, The Freedom of Choice Act, doing away with every States' laws regulating abortion, and the reinstitution of Federal money to pay for abortions here and in other countries. So he will have to make a go of his presidency without my support. I'm sure he'll do just fine, though, with his vast legion of disciples. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Obama, for good or for bad, is living proof that the United States is STARVING for a hero. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "They have to equate Obama to a fictional character when he has enough real character to win Head of State?" His "character" was manufactured by hope, guilt, and a six hundred million dollar war chest, to the extent any inconvenient real history was discounted or ignored, (20 yrs of Wright’s venom for example). Who has been elected is a fantasy figure about the actual whom most who supported and voted for still know little or nothing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o Charles Krauthammer characterized him as the least qualified candidate in living memory and that is who in fact is in office now. If the nation wants to play American Idol, fine. My concern is the real world represented by leaders like Putin, and Ahmadinejad who no doubt are less than impressed by anything other than the opportunities just given them, (Biden himself anticipated a test in the first six months). . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, I won't try to convince you to be happy. I can see this is a tough day for you. When I saw in your post that you seemed convinced that President Obama would sign The Freedom of Choice Act into law today — quote: — I felt compelled to check. While President Obama is in favor and would, apparently, sign the bill happily today as the first thing he would do as President, the bill would have to be presented to him by Congress, first. I was not aware that the 111th Congress had prepared any such bill for President Obama. When I did some Google research, it appeared that I was correct. The last time the bill was available for signature was in 2007, near as I can tell. I suspect that it may not be available for a while, even with a Democratic Congress, especially without encumbering amendments that would justify a veto, though the last part is simply speculation. I would like it to happen today, mind you, on a purely personal basis, but I suspect you will be able to sleep well tonight and probably for some little time to come. It's one thing to propose a bill you know will be vetoed, as was done in this case in both 2004 and 2007 with this bill. It's quite another to propose a bill with potentially heavy political costs attached and with the certainty that the bill will be presented to you and your party come election time. I suspect that the first order of business is building some bipartisan consensus on economic recovery, and Abortion is somewhat further down the list. It'll be interesting, though, to watch and see what happens. My money is still on President Obama being Republican Lite. This means he's probably where he should be in terms of the general voting public, someplace in the center; and much too far to the left for you, and somewhat too far to the right for me. I'll be pleased if he can repair the economy and the damages to civil rights and the constitution, and if he can get some of the power of the Presidency shifted back toward the congress. These I think are structural problems that really need to be addressed. I hope the grandkids are doing well and that Christmas and New Year went well for you and your family. All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, All leaders are mythologized in one form or another. It's a function of group dynamics. Even the messianic hope is a fairly frequent event in both large and small group dynamics. The late W.R. Bion wrote a wonderful short book about this stuff called Experiences in Groups. It should be in the Library, and I think it may still be in print. As a President it will be a measure of Obama's success how well he's able to return the sense of hope to the people of the country he serves. The extent to which he retains that idealization for himself will, over time, be a measure of how far he will fall short of his goals. Any thoughts? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
OK, some will see this as racist, but anytime race is discussed, that card gets dropped by somebody onto the discusser. So be it: I think Obama is proof that the worst part of racism is over with in this country. The people in DC aren't just cheering Obama, they are cheering the Black Man's biggest accomplishment: the Presidency of the most influential nation in the world. And you see there are just as many white people cheering this. Deep down, people don't want to see a person of color and think anything negative. Everyone knows that that is not a 'healthy' feeling for all involved. I believe Obama is a metaphor for a collective change in perception for Blacks by whites in general. There is finally a mentor figure in Black culture besides MLK. Few men of color have made the white person's mentor list (except, unfortunately, for athletes and actors.) The US was due for an escalation of proper attitude toward race. This could very well be a mind-changer for several closet-racists or fence-sitters. Finally, whites can collectively say: there's a man of color we can all admire, and has reached the pinnacle. Surely ANYTHING is possible in the United States." One has to remember that Obama had a white hippie mom and a couple of marriages, and didn't have the typical golden path to stardom. Got to give him credit: he appears to be a true self-made man. He didn't depend on Mayor Daly or Chicago for any of his reelections and essentially took on the Chicago political machine and won. He doesn't seem beholden to any special group at all (except possibly for ACORN.) Blacks need a hero father figure. For confidence, for inspiration, for validation of worth. On top of all this, he's pushing against the grain, so to speak, for change against the Old Boy Network of Washington. I have to root for that 100%!! Whether he is a paper tiger remains to be seen. I tend to see the Inaugaration as more of a national tribute to a success story, rather than: "Hooray we just elected a Democrat." By the way, this is the MOST you will ever hear me schmooze Obama. But the historic and inspirational significance is not lost on me, or people all around the world. [This message has been edited by threadbear (01-20-2009 07:42 PM).] |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
There is something really funny about that. I am starting to feel bad for Obama. Everyone he picks seems to be tangled in some problem. But com'on he had three months to fix that little problem. -Juju |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks for the well wishes, Bob. We had a lovely holiday season! I hope yours were as well. I had read that when he addressed the National Organization for Women, that pro-abortion group, he said that he would sign that bill on "day one", similar to what he said about Gitmo. Just political hot air, I imagine. The sad thing is he will sign it, whether it's today, next week or next month. I don't share your view, Threadbear, that he is a self-made man, taking on the Chicago political machine. I believe he was just as much a part of that machine as Daly and Blago. Also his connections with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn benefited him politically in Chicago. And I don't for a minute think he is pushing against the grain of the Old Boy Washington Network. Most of his appointees are part of the old Clinton establishment. To me it makes no difference if he is black, white, half and half, or purple. That shouldn't have been anybody's criteria in a candidate. And he shouldn't have used the race card in the campaign. And he's the only one who did. And he shouldn't have come here to Philadelphia and given a speech essentially saying that whites just have to understand where people like Rev. Wright are "coming from" and that he could no sooner disown him than he could a member of his own family, and in the next breath throw his grandmother under the bus by saying she was just a 'typical white person' because she was fearful one time when a black panhandler was harassing her at the bus stop. Is the Rev. Jesse Jackson also a 'typical white person' for admitting to the same fear? He came here and 'lectured' the white national audience to deflect attention away from his 20 year association with Wright and his church by trying to turn the tables around and making it seem that the problem was with white people's perceptions of the Rev. Wright and others in the Black Liberation Theology mindset. By doing that he showed me his lack of character. As far as I am concerned Obama is the racist, as well as is the Rev. Wright, and he is not the person qualified to lecture anybody about racism. Juju, maybe he was too busy conferencing with his three law firms in his effort to keep his past, from birth onward, sealed from public scrutiny, to give as much attention to his appointees as he should have. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, I hate what the word Racist itself has done for dialogue about race in this country. Near as I can tell, everybody qualifies as racist in some way or another, including myself. I guess we have to be open to how it shows up and how it screws up our thinking from time to time, and be willing to compensate when we recognize it; but all I saw in your comments was an attempt to understand something about the American Race situation and the American dream. I also thought it was an interesting set of speculations, and I hope you're right. Maybe other people feel differently, though? Curiously enough, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, You may be right. His job, in my opinion, is more difficult than the way you envision it. I mean no offense to your viewpoint here, though we do disagree; it's simply that I think he sees the Presidency differently than the last folks. At least I hope he does. The difference that I have in mind here is that (Gosh, I hope so) that Obama may feel that power needs to be returned to Congress rather than flow toward the President. If this is the case, he won't be working through so many back channels to institute policy, there hopefully won't be any signing statements, and he won't be looking for intelligence to support pre-decided positions based on ideological positions. The pro or anti abortion stuff and the legislation on fairness in media will have to come from Congress, though he'll sure have a hefty input into that material. Also, as a point of honor here, I'd like to suggest to you that there is no such thing as somebody who is pro-abortion except perhaps in your own mind. Nobody likes the thought of abortion, even women who have them, if only on the basis of the fact that it's painful. Nobody except folks with significant problems actually seeks pain in this way. People seek abortions because abortions seem to them to be the best possible solution to a difficult life situation at that time. I understand you don't believe that that's enough of a reason, and that you feel profoundly disturbed that anybody would disagree with you about this in a serious way. The disagreement doesn't mean that there's anybody leading a group of cheerleaders for the procedure. It's basically a misunderstanding of these other people that allows you to call them "pro-abortion." I can't imagine that this would matter to you except for one factor. Should you actually wish to change hearts and minds, you are more or less obligated to understand them first the way they actually are. In order to find that out, you must listen to them. I must say that the reverse holds true as well. For women who are Pro-Choice, if they are to have any chance of changing your heart or your mind, they must understand you as you experience yourself and your viewpoints. This means at least a sincere attempt on both sides not to see each other as distorted stereotypes. Normally, I'd think this totally impossible, but you have the advantage, at least a fair number of you on both sides, of being women. You're well aware that I'm Pro-Choice in this matter, but I think that's actually secondary. I think a solution becomes possible here only if everybody, but most especially the women involved, can open their hearts to each other. To expect men to do so may be expecting more from men at this point than our pointy little heads and hearts can contain; women may need to lead here the way the lead in so many things in life. But first and foremost by listening to each other. Should men try, I'm afraid our heads would explode. A few crude thoughts from the peanut gallery. If you can tolerate offering a response, I'd be interested. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: How so? When people all over the world were utterly fascinated by what progressed, purely because of his color first, then his credentials, second (including his religious background.) I do think he and his staff did flash the race card, but I don't believe he was the only one. He could have denounced the elements of race, just as Hillary could have denounced the sex card, Huckabee the religion card, and McCain the status card. McCain thought he was above certain protocols as a decorated Veteran. Saying things like this: "Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? — Because Janet Reno is her father," proved to be only one of his oops. It takes all kinds I guess. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-poem.html?_r=1&ref=books “Words failed not only Obama, as Sanger noted, but his preacher and poetess as well. The Reverend Joseph Lowery, an old civil rights campaigner of Martin Luther King's generation, concluded his benediction with a jingle: " ... help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right." There was depth in Lowery's triviality. Lowery's sing-song had aesthetic merit to the inaugural poem [1] recited by one Elizabeth Alexander, a teacher of African-American Studies at Yale University. Alexander tried to rise from the ordinary to the elevated, but managed to reach only the oxymoronic: "What if the mightiest word is love, love beyond marital, filial, national. Love that casts a widening pool of light. Love with no need to pre-empt grievance." Perhaps she meant, "no need to avenge grievance". It is not clear how one can pre-empt a grievance, which is a response to an objectively injurious act. One can pre-empt the injurious act, but not the response, for the response presumes the act. One can pre-empt a poem, by dismissing the poet. Even better, you can visit the Adolescent Poetry Generator at elsewhere.org and get a new (and often better poem than Alexander's) every time you refresh the page.” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/KA22Aa01.html http://www.elsewhere.org/hbzpoetry/ . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Sigh. John, I think you might want to change your password. It seems like someone from the Asia Times is speaking for you now? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Huan I don't get it. You keep posting these trivial observations made usually by other people, without any original comment. Do you have any interesting conclusions to draw from the playground taunts of these writers? Is it actually of the remotest significance in this world of unjust wars, collapsing economies and climatic catastrophes, that a poet, president or preacher stumbled over a word or two? . . . . . . (I hope that's ok Ron?) |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, Sorry, but I read through two articles to get to this one which I felt expressed better than I could a healthy skepticism during this adulation,(when I want to be creative I don't do it here but on the poetry side of PIP). And let's be honest, someone with credentials can say things we can't without being labeled, ("This half-Luo tribesman from Hawaii whose African father had no connection whatsoever with the West African ancestors of American slaves, was not imbued, but rather hued, with significance. His melanin carried the meaning, which is to say that he was judged by the color of his skin rather than the content of his character, in a precise reversal of Martin Luther King Jr's famous phrase."--"OK, some will see this as racist, but anytime race is discussed, that card gets dropped by somebody onto the discusser.") The earlier post was a lead hoping others would read the article, though I found amusing the adolescent poetry generator as a topic in itself. John . |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
Denise was correct in her assumption that this Presidential Order will occur. Please see the link below for the news report. Officials: Obama to sign order reversing abortion policy |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Larry C., No sir. Denise was concerned that Obama would sing a particular piece of legislation that has been before the Congress on at least two separate previous occasions. The purpose of this legislation was to make Abortion legal in all fifty states pretty much without reservation — at least this is how I understand it. I'm pretty much in favor of that legislation, myself, since I think that women ought to have that choice. I also understand that many, many people are not in favor of that legislation, and that it would therefore be best to allow a very full and complete debate on the matter in both the House and the Senate before bringing such legislation up for a vote for the President's signature. And there would be a very good chance indeed of that bill never getting to the President's desk in the first place. I want that debate as much as I want the passage because the debate humanizes both sides and may help heal the country, especially if it respectfully conducted, no matter what the outcome. Call me naive. Then let the President have a look. What happened with the Presidential order has to do with the way we has out foreign aid. The last President has prevented funds being given to organizations that even mention the choice of abortion in their family planning counseling. This action pretends that our own domestic debate has already been settled, and it has been settled in a way that is contrary to the way the law currently reads in the United States. You may be fine with this on religious grounds or moral grounds. On legal and constitutional grounds, you should not be fine with this; it acts as though there was an established religion that we were supposed to follow. This is expressly against the dictates of the constitution. In fact, it has gone back and forth depending on which party controls the white house as a matter of Presidental orders since the Reagan administration. While Denise was concerned with Abortions Overseas, she mistakenly thought that they we governed by The Freedom of Choice Act. The Freedom of Choice Act has not yet been mentioned, though , as I said, I'd like it to be. The Executive order goes back and forth, as I stated, between parties, and this is no more than business as usual. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's right, Bob....business as usual, a phrase that does not generally go hand in hand with "time for a change". I expect we are going to see a lot more business as usual and less time for a change as time progresses. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, At what point did I say anything other than Obama was Republican Lite? At what point did you begin criticizing him for not being with wild eyed left wing communist radical that you kept categorizing him as during the election? I kept saying that he would be more toward the center than toward the extreme left. You kept holding out, like Denise, for him being a Marxist. To be fair, you weren't as rigid about this as Denise, and I shouldn't suggest that your point of view was as far to the right as was hers. How much actual change do you feel you can deal with, though, Mike? I suspect you would like some, because I don't think you were entirely happy with President Bush, but exactly what that would be, I'm not sure about. I know you don't want too much, but I'm not clear what that would be for you in any sort of specific way either. Myself, I like that he's closing Gitmo, and that he's at least trying to toss out torture as an instrument as policy. This is a change. I heard that the Republicans examining the guy up for Attorney General want assurances that there won't be any prosecutions for war crimes before they'll vote for confirmation. I think that suggests that they've at least been listening over the last eight years, even though they haven't been willing to do anything about it. I can be glad of that much. And yes, I do have a bee in my bonnet about torture. Why don't you? assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you don't. I'm a science fiction fan, and have been reading a series of entertaining science fiction novels where torture is part of the plot. A Desert Called Peace is one of the recent ones by Tom Kratman, I think. Also John Ringo does a lot of the same sort of thing. Both write entertaining fiction, though I have to work a bit around the torture bits, but it's fiction. As is 24. In fiction you don't have to deal with reality very much, like interrogators who keep at it until you tell them what they want to hear, whether it's the truth or not. Among other things. You could get a group of people to confess to being witches under torture, Mike. You could get them all to agree on the same group of facts. It's been done before; it could be done again. You could get people to confess to being traitors to the Revolution without know what the acts were that were so traitorous, and to which they were confessing. Anyway, enough for now. Nice to speak with you again. I hope that everything down there in Florida is going well for you. All my best, Bob Kaven. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The jury is still out on whether he will close Gitmo or not, Bob. Yes, he gave orders to close it within a year but a year is a long time with a lot of wiggle room in it. As in many things, the devil is always in the details. The administration seems to think that, once we show the world how fairly we will treat prisoners, some of the other countries will be willing to take some of them. Ya think? Harry Rheems claims that they would be as well controlled in american penitentaries as they are in Gitmo. Perhaps he is reading the same science fiction as you are. I fully expect that, within the year deadline, extenuating circumstances will come up to delay the closing, along the same lines as the extenuating circumstances that have recently caused Obama to state that he cannot comply with his campaign promises, which everyone knew he wouldn't be able to comply with as he was promising them. What I find so interesting is that, at a time that the economy is on life support, unemployment high, businesses failing, bailouts being the order of the day, two wars continuing, ...all of this going on and Obama chooses to make Gitmo one of the "highest" priority items that gets the most newspaper coverage. I'm not sure the tens of thousands out looking for work really care if Gitmo is open or not. As far as torture is concerned, you simply do the same thing you have been doing in your other posts....throwing the word torture out there in a generic way, as if the word alone should be enough to make your point, as if the word should bring up draw and quartering, burning at the stake (with reference to your witches under torture comment), cutting off body parts, hot irons poking out eyes, and whatever devilish means used in your science fiction novels. Talk to us about the "torture" used at Gitmo or Abu Ghrab and will will have the basis for a valid conversation. Speaking of science fictions stories and witches has little relevence. Hope all is well in sunny California, Bob... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yes Larry, he did, and without "coverage by the media". I think much of what he will do will be without benefit of media coverage. Thank God we have the internet and conserative political action committees and groups that will dig for, and report, everything that the so-called media, who proved during the campaign to be nothing more than Obama cheerleaders, will not cover or report. Actually Bob, I was concerned about both issues, his signing the Freedom of Choice Act, and the signing of the executive order reinstituting federal funding for abortions overseas. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Here's a link to an npr show in 2007. One author (out of two) is talking about a book of documents obtained by the Freedom of Information Act about Gitmo and Abu Gharib and the techniques used there; she with the aclu. An npr defense reporter appears as well, as a sort of bridge. Lastly a lawyer that worked in the Reagan White House and Bush 43's first term White House appears: Something for everybody, Left, Center, and Right. I thought that this would be a decent conversation opener because it covered the spectrum. It will seem a little dated because the Bush White House was at that time still denying anything to do with torture. It's last position, as I recall, was that it had always acknowledged that there was torture going on and that it had played a part in it. I think there was some sort of intermediate position where only a few rogue low level people were doing it, or something like that. If it sounds confusing, that's because the stories those folks were telling were confusing. Before you start trying to defend the positions the White House was expressing then, you should probably check to see what the most recent ones were before they left office. If you remember, Rumsfeld said that it was OK to interrogate up to the point of organ failure, which sounds on the surface fairly humain. But when you think about what organ failure amounts to in actuality, it may change your thinking a bit. What's organ failure for, say, a heart; or a kidney; or an eye; or an ear; or an intestine? And what do you need to do to produce organ failure to any of these systems? If you are confused about the definition of torture for these guys, they thought that anything less than organ failure was okay. Remember? Things in California are slightly on the chill side. My dad died the day after Christmas and I'm still trying to get a handle on it. I've been woken up a couple of times this week by the sound of his voice calling my name — hypnogogic auditory hallucinations are fairly common following a major stressor like that, but it's still fairly unnerving. It's also reassuring, I guess, to feel that I've got a piece of the old wolf inside me, which is probably why he's letting me know he's there. Best to you, Mike. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The networks also don't cover the annual March for Life in DC either. I guess 20,000+ participants is not newsworthy. And although pro-life signs were forbidden in DC on Tuesday, there was no lack of Bush hatred signs and even an effigy of Bush at which people were invited to throw shoes. And in the Agenda section of the White House website, some of Bush's policies are referred to as displays of "unconscinable ineptitude." Yeah, Barry is a real first class act. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I see where you mentioned a link but don't see the link. Am I overlooking it. As far as rumsfeld is concerned, everyone knows he was a blowhard. If he wanted to speak of organ removal to scare the bejesus out of terrorists, that's fine with me. Had you heard of ANY case where that was performed? I can assure you, with our press, it would have been discovered and been front page material for months. No, what made the front pages were prisoners walking around naked, being made pyramids out of, being shamed by female soldiers, having music played too loudly and the big one, waterboarding, which has served to become the rallying cry for Democrats against Bush. I would go so far as to say that, if there were a Democratic president in office, Abu Ghrab and Gitmo would not have even been an issue, but it was too ripe a vehicle to go after Bush so it became what it is. These "torture tactics" would make McCain and people who actually went through true torture laugh. You have my sympathies on the other, Bob. That must make Christmas hold a wide range of emotions for you. As far as your father's presence showing up to feel a part of you, it won't be me to claim that is poppycock. You were blessed to have had a father you cared about enough to make you feel that way. Be well.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Here it is, Mike: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15121696 The phrase was "organ failure." It did not make Senator McCain laugh. First he came out strongly against it, then he came out for it, and during the election he came out strongly against it once again. At no time did I hear him laugh. At no time did I hear any of the people who were trained to withstand some of these techniques in the escape and evasion training in special forces and the air force laugh about them, and they knew that they would not be killed as part of the training, and that the training was defensive in nature. At Gitmo, and at Abu Gharib, it was applied offensively, and there were no such assurances. A high proportion of the people confined in both places had nothing to do with terrorism, especially this was clear at Abu Gharib since the information on weapons of mass destruction they were trying to find was non-existent, and it was as a result of the treatment of people in that place that a lot of the terrorists were produced. In the case of Gitmo, there is no proof that very many of those guys were terrorists at all, yet torture was used without discrimination. It became a terrorist production factory because of that treatment. Torture an innocent man, produce a radical. Thanks for your support about my dad, Mike. I appreciate it. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I see it suts you purpose to take my "laugh" in literal form, even though you know how I meant it. Did you hear of anyone being injured at Abu Ghrab? I never saw one instance of it in the newspapers. What exactly that happened at Abu Ghrab do you attribute directly to Bush? Yet torture was used without discrimination at Gitmo? Where did you happen to come up with that assumption, Bob, or is that what you just imagine happened there? Did you hear of any organ failures happening there? How did you come by the information that many of the interees there were innocent? Another supposition? Let's try facts, instead, like the facts that over 10% of those set free have rejoined Al Qaeda? As far as Obama closing Gitmo and ending the "horrible" things that happened during interrogations, he has his fingers crossed behind his back. He decreed that interrogators must follow techniques outlined in the Army Field Manual when questioning terrorism suspects, even as he ordered a review that could allow CIA interrogators to use other methods for high-value targets. Also, while a new White House rule limits staffers' previous lobbying activities, exceptions were made for at least two senior administration officials. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090125/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_first_week_7 It would appear so far that whatever moves he makes have built-in exceptions...perhaps that's the "change" he refers to? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. There seems to be in our Middle East policy a silent belief that Israel, in its own defense, would ultimately do what it deems necessary; equally there’s a quiet faith that some renegade American intelligence faction would do what it thinks is required regardless in the face of an imminent threat to the United States and accept the consequences; they’re each in their own way a pathetic sort of religion. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, You may have forgotten the articles a few months back that revealed that bush as well as Rumsfeld and other top administration officials not only knew about the torture but actually approved much of it on line, live, step by step as it escalated. The C.I.A. was not exactly thrilled with the orders it was getting. As I recall we even had an on line discussion about that, though I can't remember where. In general, this isn't a bad link: http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/highest-level-bush-administration-officials-approved-discussed--post-911-torture-program If you want details about some of the deaths at Abu Gharib, you might listen to the npr link I sent you last time, which mentions some of them. A number of the deaths in custody were ruled homicides by the army in that prison. One was from tying a suspect up in a sleeping bag and leaving him there until he smothered. The well-known photo of the M.P., Grainer, a Sargeant I think, flashing a thumbs up over the corpse would be another. That guy was beaten to death. The npr interview makes reference to 20 or 30 as of 2004, but that may be off. And of course you didn't hear about it. If you give the npr interview a listen, it will give you some idea. The Reagan-Bush guy at the end gives a bit of a rebuttal, though a fairly weak one in my opinion. At least he gives it a shot, and he didn't know the various events that would come out over the next few years. If we stop torturing people as a matter of policy, that would be a good start. Acting embarrassed would be nice. Apparently we have people that we can't bring to trial who are clearly involved with the 9/11 plot because the use of torture has so compromised the federal case there's nothing left of it. There are one or two folks that I'd really like to see rotting in prison for the rest of their lives that we're going to have to let go, I'm afraid, because we can't charge them. At least I don't think so. Anyway, I don't mean to be offensive about this, Mike, but we really did torture people. The way we got prisoners for Gitmo is by offering $5000 bounties for them, and what we got was anybody the locals thought they could get rid of who wasn't a relative. The way we set things up, nobody was able to call witnesses in their defense or even have an actual trial, only a tribunal, and that was much later. Still no witnesses and they weren't allowed to see what the evidence was, if in fact there was any. Out of 770 people, we let at least 500 of them go very quietly. If these were the worst of the worst as Rumsfeld and Bush said, and torture was justified, why release them? Anyway, best to you way down there. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...and out of the 500 we let go, over 50 of them are back working with Al Qaeda, documented, one of them being the deputy director of operations in Yemen. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'm sure that's true, Mike, or something like it. Have you had a chance to listen to the NPR segment? Ot have a quick look at the other link? I'm actually surprised it's so few. I'd have imagined that an experience like that would have radicalized a lot more of them, and I'm almost shocked it didn't. If 10% was the number of actually guilty people that were caught, that would make more sense to me, but then I'd still be at a loss to explain why there weren't more people radicalized by the experience. You don't think it was only 10% that were guilty, do you? Even I think that would be a bit low. If you or I were innocent and put through an experience like that, I'd like to think that we'd at least consider joining the anti-British resistance or the anti-Nazi resistance or whatever. I'm not about to tell you things that make sense to me are silly, simply because you say them. It would be nice if you acknowledged that I did actually come up with real deaths, by the way. You don't have to take my word for it; all you have to do is google Deaths at Abu Gharib or Torture at Gitmo and have a look around. There are actually defense department studies on the subject. The Army was very upset about the way the prison was run, though it was more or less forced to do a cover-up. The army doesn't like this sort of thing at all because they know that when their own guys get captured, they'll have a worse time of it if the U.S. has a bad reputation. And that enemy soldiers (with information to share) are less likely to surrender if they feel they're in danger of ill-treatment. It's bad policy. Go back 2500 years and Sun-tsu, the Chinese general who wrote The Art of War, the classic text on warfare that's still studied at war colleges around the world, including West Point, makes a point of emphasizing how important good treatment of captives is. It's not recent knowledge, and it's not simply theory. When you say, by the way, back working with al qaeda, you must mean non Iraqi prisoners, since there were no al qaeda folks in Iraq until at least a year or two after the invasion. And those were mostly foreign imports. While Cheney was still claiming that there were al qaeda in Iraq, Bush was saying that he'd never said any such thing, and that there were no al qaeda in Iraq. There were no al qaeda in Iraq except for in Kurdish territory, which Sadam Hussein was excluded from; it was part of the no-fly zone, and his troops were barred from that area as well. Cheney was actually lying, as a look at Google will tell you if you look at reliable source material — Christian Science Monitor, BBC, The Economist, and avoid the far left or far right sources with drums to beat. Our Military and our country were betrayed by our government in any number of difficult ways. The Democrats will not be the world's best solution. I are one, I ought to know. But the errors will have at least some corrective elements to them. Stopping torture as an element of national policy is a good start/ Heck, trying to stop torture as an element of national policy is an improvement. That isn't asking so much, is it? You'd think I was asking people for money, or their first born. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I confess that I haven't yet gotten to your links but I will do when when I get home tonight. I'm sure there is good info there or you wouldn't have brought it up and they may show me some things about Abu Ghrab I wasn't familiar with. Having said that, I think your notion that the poeple going back and working for Al Qaeda did so because of the harsh treatment that traumatized them enough to become terrorists is like the 10 year old screaming "The Devil made me do it!", after setting the neighbor's cat on fire. Of COURSE you are asking for money! You're a democrat, aren't you? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Got any Money, Mike? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
