Polarization Machine in Full Swing

[keaggy220]

Obama's next step in keeping the hate flowing... Okay, I'm getting the picture, release documents in April, photos in May, congressional hearings in June.

Defense Department to Release Photos Showing Detainee Treatment in Iraq, Afghanistan
The Department of Defense announced late Thursday that at least 44 photos depicting treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan will be released.

FOXNews.com
Thursday, April 23, 2009


The Department of Defense -- on the heels of the firestorm over the release of Bush-era memos on CIA interrogation techniques -- said Thursday it plans to make public at least 44 photos depicting potentially abusive treatment of detainees at prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The decision to release the photos was announced Thursday in a letter filed in a federal court in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2004.

It sets a May 28 deadline for the Department of Defense to produce 21 images that the court in 2006 ordered the government to release and 23 additional related images, as well as "a substantial number of other images" in the Army's possession.

The images were part of the military's investigation of potential abuse of detainees by U.S. personnel at facilities other than Iraq Abu Ghraib, though the photos apparently aren't as shocking as those that set off a prisoner abuse scandal in 2004, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Even so, Defense officials say they worry that the new release of photos could set off a backlash in the Middle East against the United States, the Times reports.

The Bush administration had refused to disclose the images after the ACLU's request made in 2003, claiming that the public disclosure of such evidence would generate outrage and would violate U.S. obligations towards detainees under the Geneva Conventions.

The decision to release images comes on the same day that congressional aides said President Obama resisted pressure from Democrats to investigate Bush-era interrogation techniques, though Obama also has been under fire since last week from Republicans and former Bush advisers for releasing memos from 2002 and 2005 justifying the interrogation techniques used by the CIA.

The ACLU says making public additional images of detainee treatment is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse.

"These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib," said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU.

According to the Times, additional disclosures will include transcripts of detainee interrogations by the CIA, a CIA inspector general's report that has been kept mostly secret, and background materials of a Justice Department internal investigation into prisoner abuse.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 ... se-photos/

[jbuck919]

Oh, I get it--you mean the photos were taken with Polaroid cameras! Clever.

[keaggy220]

Oh, I get it--you mean the photos were taken with Polaroid cameras! Clever.

What's a Polaroid camera?

[nut-job]

Obama's next step in keeping the hate flowing... Okay, I'm getting the picture, release documents in April, photos in May, congressional hearings in June.

Some would say, its keeping the truth flowing.

[karlhenning]

Obama's next step in keeping the hate flowing...

You are an unwitting master of irony.

Cheers,
~Karl

[keaggy220]

Obama's next step in keeping the hate flowing... Okay, I'm getting the picture, release documents in April, photos in May, congressional hearings in June.

Some would say, its keeping the truth flowing.

Dude, you can't handle and you don't want the truth. If you want the truth and if the ACLU wants the truth then we need to see photos of the victims of 9/11. We need to see photos of Mr. Pearl without his head. We need to see the hate that is taught to the children in Islamic schools and temples. We need to read the confessions of those who went through enhanced interrogations and where those confessions led.

The ACLU and those supporting them are driven by their hate of Bush and Cheney and nothing else.

[Guitarist]

I find it hard to comprehend why trying to restore a sense of common decency and dealing with situations in a positive rather a negative/bullying manner is a sign of weakness.

[keaggy220]

I find it hard to comprehend why trying to restore a sense of common decency and dealing with situations in a positive rather a negative/bullying manner is a sign of weakness.

I'm afraid we will soon find out.

[karlhenning]

I'm afraid we will soon find out.

Thank you for the non-answer!

And again, thanks for the rich amusement of a thread here in The Diner (coincidence? read the book!) with "Polarization Machine" in the subject header!

Cheers,
~Karl

[keaggy220]

I'm afraid we will soon find out.

Thank you for the non-answer!

And again, thanks for the rich amusement of a thread here in The Diner (coincidence? read the book!) with "Polarization Machine" in the subject header!

Cheers,
~Karl

I certainly hope my answer is a non-answer.

[nut-job]

Dude, you can't handle and you don't want the truth. If you want the truth and if the ACLU wants the truth then we need to see photos of the victims of 9/11. We need to see photos of Mr. Pearl without his head. We need to see the hate that is taught to the children in Islamic schools and temples. We need to read the confessions of those who went through enhanced interrogations and where those confessions led.

The ACLU and those supporting them are driven by their hate of Bush and Cheney and nothing else.

Actually we have seen most of those things. The proper response to those horrible things is not to do something equally horrible, and to hide it. There is no hiding the fact that at more than 100,000 (possibly many more) Iraqi's are dead in the aftermath of US action in Iraq.

[keaggy220]

Some would say, its keeping the truth flowing.

Dude, you can't handle and you don't want the truth. If you want the truth and if the ACLU wants the truth then we need to see photos of the victims of 9/11. We need to see photos of Mr. Pearl without his head. We need to see the hate that is taught to the children in Islamic schools and temples. We need to read the confessions of those who went through enhanced interrogations and where those confessions led.

The ACLU and those supporting them are driven by their hate of Bush and Cheney and nothing else.

Actually we have seen most of those things. The proper response to those horrible things is not to do something equally horrible, and to hide it. There is no hiding the fact that at more than 100,000 (possibly many more) Iraqi's are dead in the aftermath of US action in Iraq.

Equally horrible? Sorry, you are mad.

And let's not forget the millions Hussein killed...

While liberal Americans continue to wallow in the negative and self-defeatism of Iraq, here's how actual Iraqi citizens (without a political axe to grind) feel:

Dramatic Advances Sweep Iraq, Boosting Support for Democracy
ABC News/BBC/NHK National Survey of Iraq

ANALYSIS by GARY LANGER
March 16, 2009 —

Dramatic advances in public attitudes are sweeping Iraq, with declining violence, rising economic well-being and improved services lifting optimism, fueling confidence in public institutions and bolstering support for democracy.

The gains in the latest ABC News/BBC/NHK poll represent a stunning reversal of the spiral of despair caused by Iraq's sectarian violence in 2006 and 2007. The sweeping rebound, extending initial improvements first seen a year ago, marks no less than the opportunity for a new future for Iraq and its people.

While deep difficulties remain, the advances are remarkable. Eighty-four percent of Iraqis now rate security in their own area positively, nearly double its August 2007 level. Seventy-eight percent say their protection from crime is good, more than double its low. Three-quarters say they can go where they want safely triple what it's been.

Few credit the United States, still widely unpopular given the post-invasion violence, and eight in 10 favor its withdrawal on schedule by 2011 or sooner. But at the same time a new high, 64 percent of Iraqis, now call democracy their preferred form of government.

Remaining challenges are serious. Many views have not recovered to their pre-2006 levels. Violence continues, even if much abated. Basic services such as medical care and clean water, though better, are still in short supply. Even with their confidence vastly improved, Sunni Arabs remain far more vulnerable personally and skeptical politically. Sunni/Shiite segregation has increased sharply. Kurdish-Arab relations are tense. And issues from corruption to suspected vote fraud and political gridlock cloud the horizon.

Still, the number of Iraqis who call security the single biggest problem in their own lives has dropped from 48 percent in March 2007 to 20 percent now. Two years ago 56 percent called it the single biggest problem for the country as a whole; that's down to 35 percent now, including a 15-point drop in the last year alone. Fifty-nine percent now feel "very" safe in their communities, up 22 points from last year and more than double its lowest. Recent local fighting among sectarian forces is reported by 6 percent, compared with 22 percent a year ago.

Optimism and confidence have followed. Sixty-five percent of Iraqis say things are going well in their own lives, up from 39 percent in 2007 (albeit still a bit below its 2005 peak). Fifty-eight percent say things are going well for Iraq a new high, up from only 22 percent in 2007. Expectations for the year ahead, at the national and personal levels, also have soared, after crashing in 2007. And the sharpest advances have come among Sunni Arabs, the favored group under Saddam Hussein, deeply alienated by his overthrow, now re-engaging in Iraq's national life.

Confidence in the national government, local governments, the army and police all are at new highs. And the growth in support for democracy, bolstered by successful provincial elections in January, is critical a 21-point gain from March 2007 to a new high in polls since 2004. As Sunni Arabs have stepped back from their preference for strongman rule, so have many Shiites dropped their preference for an Islamic state.

Among the many other telling results in this poll: A majority of Iraqis, 57 percent, now say it's time for the millions who fled the country during the height of its violence to return to Iraq. A year ago fewer than half, 45 percent, held that view.

This survey, based on random, in-person interviews with 2,228 Iraqi adults across the country, is the sixth in Iraq since 2004 sponsored by ABC News and media partners. Together their tracking of Iraqis' attitudes over time tells a story of initial optimism, crushed hopes in waves of violence, nascent improvement and now a robust recovery. They mark a notably different path from Afghanistan, where ABC's fourth national poll in January found sharp declines in public attitudes, amidst broad strife and struggling development.

AND THE U.S. For all the gains in Iraq, the toll of the invasion and ensuing years of violence continues to weigh heavily on Iraqis' views of the United States. Most, 56 percent, say it was wrong for the United States and its coalition allies to invade six years ago this week. Never in these polls has a majority of Iraqis supported the U.S.-led war.

Other views of the U.S. presence remain weak as well. Just 27 percent are confident in U.S. forces (albeit nearly double its low). Just 30 percent say U.S. and coalition forces have done a good job carrying out their responsibilities in Iraq. Still fewer, 18 percent, have a positive opinion of the United States overall. Barely over a third think the election of Barack Obama will help their country.

The improvements in Iraq have followed the surge of U.S. forces there in 2007 and the successful U.S.-led efforts to bring Sunni groups into security arrangements. But what that apparently has not done is to mitigate Iraqis' anger at the widespread violence that came before. In March 2007, one in six Iraqis said someone in their own household had been hurt or killed; more than half reported an immediate relative or close friend harmed.

Today, the transfer of power is a work in progress; 53 percent of Iraqis think the United States still "controls things in our country." Nonetheless 59 percent think Iraqi forces are ready now to take up security without U.S. and other coalition forces present, and most of the rest think they'll become ready in the next year or two.

Thus 81 percent either support the current timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces by 2011 (35 percent) or say it should be speeded up (a plurality, 46 percent).

Some doubts and sectarian divisions underlie these views. Confidence that Iraqi forces are now capable of taking up security soars among Shiite Arabs, whose leaders control most of the security apparatus. But from 75 percent among Shiites this confidence drops to 45 percent among Kurds (long protected by the United States) and 38 percent among Sunni Arabs (still fearful of Shiite domination).

Also, a substantial number of Iraqis, 42 percent, are concerned that security may in fact worsen after U.S. forces leave. But few are "very" concerned. Most Iraqis appear eager to move ahead under their own steam.

COMMERCE, CONFIDENCE and CONCILIATION For Iraq itself, where security has led, other conditions have improved. Sixty percent of Iraqis now rate their personal finances positively, up from a low of 36 percent in March 2007; six in 10 can obtain basic household goods, steady from last year and well up from the dark days of 2007. While jobs, medical care and clean water remain problematic, the availability of electricity a perennial problem and, especially, of fuel supplies, has soared.

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story ... 272&page=1

[karlhenning]

Of course, "The ACLU and those supporting them are driven by their hate of Bush and Cheney and nothing else" is an extraordinary statement in any case. Probably the work of a polarization machinist ; )

Cheers,
~Karl

[RebLem]

Obama's next step in keeping the hate flowing... Okay, I'm getting the picture, release documents in April, photos in May, congressional hearings in June.

The story which followed the above nonsense directly contradicted your accusation that Obama is responsible for the release of the photos. Its a result of a court order. Obama has no choice. Its rare to find a Repug agent provacateur who is an even more outrageously partisan pit bull than FAUX News, but you're it. Reminds me of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FxSM88H-G4

Dude, you can't handle and you don't want the truth. If you want the truth and if the ACLU wants the truth then we need to see photos of the victims of 9/11. We need to see photos of Mr. Pearl without his head. We need to see the hate that is taught to the children in Islamic schools and temples. We need to read the confessions of those who went through enhanced interrogations and where those confessions led.

Why should we see the pics of the 9/11 victims? So Ann Coulter can make fun of their relatives again? As for Mr. Pearl, we had the opportunity to see that video, because the perpetrators themselves, for some damn fool reason, were proud of them, and posted them on the internet. US webmasters were the ones who took them down. I think we have seen plenty of stories about the hate that is taught, particularly against Israelis, and often against Jews in general, and others, in Islamic schools. Often, the targets in Sunni schools are Shiites and the targets in Shiite schools are Sunnis. Interrogators got all the information of real value to our forces by legal means. Torture was used to extract false confessions to things that fit in with the Cheney agenda and their justifications for the war.

And let's not forget the millions Hussein killed...

For a minute, I couldn't figure out what you were talking about here. Then, I thought of our president's middle name. Then I realized you were referring to Saddam Hussein. Very clever way of trying to subliminally associate the two. And you say Obama is the one keeping up the hate?

[Barry]

Its rare to find a Repug agent provacateur who is an even more outrageously partisan pit bull than FAUX News, but you're it. Reminds me of this video:

So sayeth a veritable fountain of left-wing hate. I can't remember the last time you addressed a conservative poster or discussed a conservative politician on here when your post wasn't dripping with venum. You're our very own Keith Olberman (and I realize you probably take that as a compliment, but I can assure you it's not intended as such). And by the way, accusing the Bush administration of being behind the anthrax letters kind of kills your credibility.

[RebLem]

Its rare to find a Repug agent provacateur who is an even more outrageously partisan pit bull than FAUX News, but you're it. Reminds me of this video:

So sayeth a veritable fountain of left-wing hate. I can't remember the last time you addressed a conservative poster or discussed a conservative politician on here when your post wasn't dripping with venum. You're our very own Keith Olberman (and I realize you probably take that as a compliment, but I can assure you it's not intended as such). And by the way, accusing the Bush administration of being behind the anthrax letters kind of kills your credibility.

Its spelled venom, not venum, and Olbermann has two n's, not one. I do note that your argument is purely an ad hominem one, with no logical train of thought at all.

[Barry]

Its spelled venom, not venum, and Olbermann has two n's, not one. I do note that your argument is purely an ad hominem one, with no logical train of thought at all.

Oh, it's plenty logical to anyone who reads your posts on a regular basis. And it's perfectly on point as a response to your decision to take a shot at someone else for being a Repug pitbull. That would be a polite term to describe the way your regularly refer to the opposition.

[RebLem]

Its spelled venom, not venum, and Olbermann has two n's, not one. I do note that your argument is purely an ad hominem one, with no logical train of thought at all.

Oh, it's plenty logical to anyone who reads your posts on a regular basis. And it's perfectly on point as a response to your decision to take a shot at someone else for being a pitbull. That would be a polite term to describe the way your regularly refer to the opposition.

I apologize. It wasn't an ad hominem attack. It was an attack based on a double ad hominem. The mere mention of Keith Olbermann gets the right wing Pavlovian pit bulls salivating--that's the first ad hominem. Then you associate me with Keith Olbermann--the 2nd ad hominem in a precarious house of cards. One more level of card house building, and you, too, can get a job at AIG.

[keaggy220]

Obama's next step in keeping the hate flowing... Okay, I'm getting the picture, release documents in April, photos in May, congressional hearings in June.

The story which followed the above nonsense directly contradicted your accusation that Obama is responsible for the release of the photos. Its a result of a court order. Obama has no choice. Its rare to find a Repug agent provacateur who is an even more outrageously partisan pit bull than FAUX News, but you're it. Reminds me of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FxSM88H-G4

Dude, you can't handle and you don't want the truth. If you want the truth and if the ACLU wants the truth then we need to see photos of the victims of 9/11. We need to see photos of Mr. Pearl without his head. We need to see the hate that is taught to the children in Islamic schools and temples. We need to read the confessions of those who went through enhanced interrogations and where those confessions led.

Why should we see the pics of the 9/11 victims? So Ann Coulter can make fun of their relatives again? As for Mr. Pearl, we had the opportunity to see that video, because the perpetrators themselves, for some damn fool reason, were proud of them, and posted them on the internet. US webmasters were the ones who took them down. I think we have seen plenty of stories about the hate that is taught, particularly against Israelis, and often against Jews in general, and others, in Islamic schools. Often, the targets in Sunni schools are Shiites and the targets in Shiite schools are Sunnis. Interrogators got all the information of real value to our forces by legal means. Torture was used to extract false confessions to things that fit in with the Cheney agenda and their justifications for the war.

And let's not forget the millions Hussein killed...

For a minute, I couldn't figure out what you were talking about here. Then, I thought of our president's middle name. Then I realized you were referring to Saddam Hussein. Very clever way of trying to subliminally associate the two. And you say Obama is the one keeping up the hate?

Yes, it's a court order, that's common knowledge. I thought it was also common knowledge (apparently not) that a President has many options to delay court orders and even take the case to the Supreme Court? So, in fact, he does have choices. Obama made his choice for a reason and it appears to me that it's laid out in an orderly manner - April documents, May photos, June hearings...

If Obama decides to pursue the ridiculous congressional hearings then yes, everything should be on the table - 9/11 victims, beheadings, uncovered plots through effective interrogations and wiretaps, the millions killed by Hussein, how children are being taught to kill westerners. This is the only way we can properly place the U.S. effort in the context of the real world around us.

[RebLem]

Yes, it's a court order, that's common knowledge. I thought it was also common knowledge (apparently not) that a President has many options to delay court orders and even take the case to the Supreme Court? So, in fact, he does have choices. Obama made his choice for a reason and it appears to me that it's laid out in an orderly manner - April documents, May photos, June hearings...

If Obama decides to pursue the ridiculous congressional hearings then yes, everything should be on the table - 9/11 victims, beheadings, uncovered plots through effective interrogations and wiretaps, the millions killed by Hussein, how children are being taught to kill westerners. This is the only way we can properly place the U.S. effort in the context of the real world around us.

You're conveniently "forgetting," more likely, ignoring something. Dickie Cheney wants it ALL released now. How successful would Obama have been in an appeal in the face of Cheney's about face on this issue?

Let me also say something that is obvious to everyone, except, apparently, you, keaggy. If congressional hearings are pursued, they will be pursued by <<< dramatic drum roll, please! >>> CONGRESS! Personally, I am against congressional hearings. I'm in favor of a special prosecutor. I even know who I want to be the special prosecutor. There's this guy who teaches constitutional and national security law at Pace University, is on the board of the Lower Hudson Valley Civil Liberties Union, has been a police officer, and a military intelligence officer in Vietnam, name of Ralph Michael Stein, who has an ideal cv for the job.

What I don't want is guilty people getting off because, like Ollie North, their testimony was compelled by Congress. Once you have done that, you run into a 5th Amendment problem if you try to prosecute. A congressional hearing would be appropriate only after the special prosecutor's work is done.

I also note that you have no shame. Even after I called you on your attempt to subliminally connect Barack Hussein Obama with Saddam Hussein by using the name Hussein only to refer to the latter, you persist in this disgraceful tactic. There are millions of people in the world named Hussein, including Abdul Hussein Alavi, an Iranian American who is the only person I have ever sponsored for American citizenship. I deeply resent your tawdry attempt to tarnish the reputation of everyone with that name, including, most especially, our president, and my personal friend.

[Cosima__J]

Sheesh Reb Lem, that's really pathetic to think that someone who refers to Saddam Hussein as "Hussein" is trying to subliminally remind people that Obama has the same middle name as a hated, cruel dictator! Your pathological hatred of conservatives/Republicans is on full view.

[keaggy220]

Sheesh Reb Lem, that's really pathetic to think that someone who refers to Saddam Hussein as "Hussein" is trying to subliminally remind people that Obama has the same middle name as a hated, cruel dictator! Your pathological hatred of conservatives/Republicans is on full view.

You and Reb are woefully paranoid and/or overprotective of your Savior. I was having a brain freeze and I couldn't remember if it was Saddam or Sadaam. I know of at least three pronunciations which doesn't help.

[keaggy220]

Yes, it's a court order, that's common knowledge. I thought it was also common knowledge (apparently not) that a President has many options to delay court orders and even take the case to the Supreme Court? So, in fact, he does have choices. Obama made his choice for a reason and it appears to me that it's laid out in an orderly manner - April documents, May photos, June hearings...

If Obama decides to pursue the ridiculous congressional hearings then yes, everything should be on the table - 9/11 victims, beheadings, uncovered plots through effective interrogations and wiretaps, the millions killed by Hussein, how children are being taught to kill westerners. This is the only way we can properly place the U.S. effort in the context of the real world around us.

You're conveniently "forgetting," more likely, ignoring something. Dickie Cheney wants it ALL released now. How successful would Obama have been in an appeal in the face of Cheney's about face on this issue?

Let me also say something that is obvious to everyone, except, apparently, you, keaggy. If congressional hearings are pursued, they will be pursued by <<< dramatic drum roll, please! >>> CONGRESS! Personally, I am against congressional hearings. I'm in favor of a special prosecutor. I even know who I want to be the special prosecutor. There's this guy who teaches constitutional and national security law at Pace University, is on the board of the Lower Hudson Valley Civil Liberties Union, has been a police officer, and a military intelligence officer in Vietnam, name of Ralph Michael Stein, who has an ideal cv for the job.

What I don't want is guilty people getting off because, like Ollie North, their testimony was compelled by Congress. Once you have done that, you run into a 5th Amendment problem if you try to prosecute. A congressional hearing would be appropriate only after the special prosecutor's work is done.

I also note that you have no shame. Even after I called you on your attempt to subliminally connect Barack Hussein Obama with Saddam Hussein by using the name Hussein only to refer to the latter, you persist in this disgraceful tactic. There are millions of people in the world named Hussein, including Abdul Hussein Alavi, an Iranian American who is the only person I have ever sponsored for American citizenship. I deeply resent your tawdry attempt to tarnish the reputation of everyone with that name, including, most especially, our president, and my personal friend.

I'm not sure what Dick Cheney has to do with me or my opinion.

And if you think Congress will leave this to a special prosecutor without getting out the parade floats you are sadly mistaken. This will be a spectacle shaming the U.S. Congress and nothing will happen in theend except higher ratings for the cable news channels and Rush L.

Your "call out" was and continues to be paranoid, without bases and wrong, so I didn't address it. I just did address it on another post since another parroted your paranoia.

[Cosima__J]

keaggy, I don't understand your last post. I was scoffing at Reb Lem.

[RebLem]

Sheesh Reb Lem, that's really pathetic to think that someone who refers to Saddam Hussein as "Hussein" is trying to subliminally remind people that Obama has the same middle name as a hated, cruel dictator! Your pathological hatred of conservatives/Republicans is on full view.

You and Reb are woefully paranoid and/or overprotective of your Savior. I was having a brain freeze and I couldn't remember if it was Saddam or Sadaam. I know of at least three pronunciations which doesn't help.

OK, keaggy, I accept your explanation. It happens to me, too. When it happens to me, though, I do one of three things: abandon the post, leave the screen up, go away and do something else hoping it will spontaneously appear in my brain, or Google it. Sometimes, its difficult to decide what to put in the search bar, but “Iraqi political history” seems pretty obvious in the present case.

Also, keaggy, I think you speed read Cosima’s comments and misunderstood her, which is pretty hard to do, as her agreement with you seems pretty obvious. Yet your comment suggests you thought she was agreeing with me. Methinks brain freeze is getting to be a chronic problem for you.

Now, Cosima:

I think perhaps you read my most recent post without having read my earlier post on the subject, and others, of 4/24, 15:00 hours, in which I developed this theme, and others, more fully. I suggest you read, or re-read, it before commenting again. Though I want you to keep in mind that I now accept keaggy’s explanation, I must insist that my view was a reasonable one in light of the information available at the time. And, there’s a lot else in there about subjects other than the name comparison.

It is not true that I hate all conservatives or Republicans. Among those I respect and admire are David Gergen, David Brooks, Alan Simpson, Charles Grassley, Richard Lugar, Arlen Specter, Ron Paul, George Will, Chuck Hagel, and Ben Bernanke and his predecessor at the Fed, Alan Greenspan. Even Pat Buchanan has his compensations. But my alleged political hatreds, pathological or otherwise, are beside the point. Even if it were true, it does not necessarily invalidate my argument. You attack was an ad hominem one, not based on the merits of the argument, but on your perception of my mind-set.

[RebLem]

I'm not sure what Dick Cheney has to do with me or my opinion.

And if you think Congress will leave this to a special prosecutor without getting out the parade floats you are sadly mistaken. This will be a spectacle shaming the U.S. Congress and nothing will happen in theend except higher ratings for the cable news channels and Rush L.

Your "call out" was and continues to be paranoid, without bases and wrong, so I didn't address it. I just did address it on another post since another parroted your paranoia.

Unfortunately, I strongly suspect that you are right that my advice regarding congressional investigations will not be followed by Congress. Whether or not it will be a shameful spectacle remains to be seen. But it will be a set of hearings in which all manner of crimes are revealed which will then be unprosecutable because of the mere facts of compulsory self incrimination and the compromising of the jury pool.

I reject the statement that I am paranoid, and, in any event, even if I am it is beside the point. Not all statements by paranoids are necessarily invalid. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you. You are a prolific poster of other people's words, but are very sparing in your own commentary. This suggests that other people do your thinking for you, that you're just getting all this nonsense from Townhall.com and maybe a few other websites, and that you either know I am right and haven't the decency or grace to admit it, or you still "think" (if you can call it that) that I am wrong, but haven't the intellectual acument to counter my arguments.

[keaggy220]

keaggy, I don't understand your last post. I was scoffing at Reb Lem.

Sorry, I didn't read your post carefully. I was in the middle of an emergency at work and I was switching screens quickly between work email, CMG forums and Bejeweled - all while on the phone! I almost never post on CMG while I'm working on something intense, but yesterday I was working from home so I thought I could pull it off. Apparently not...

Hopefully I didn't screw up the thing at work too - it was for one of the much maligned Intelligence agencies!

[keaggy220]

I'm not sure what Dick Cheney has to do with me or my opinion.

And if you think Congress will leave this to a special prosecutor without getting out the parade floats you are sadly mistaken. This will be a spectacle shaming the U.S. Congress and nothing will happen in theend except higher ratings for the cable news channels and Rush L.

Your "call out" was and continues to be paranoid, without bases and wrong, so I didn't address it. I just did address it on another post since another parroted your paranoia.

Unfortunately, I strongly suspect that you are right that my advice regarding congressional investigations will not be followed by Congress. Whether or not it will be a shameful spectacle remains to be seen. But it will be a set of hearings in which all manner of crimes are revealed which will then be unprosecutable because of the mere facts of compulsory self incrimination and the compromising of the jury pool.

I reject the statement that I am paranoid, and, in any event, even if I am it is beside the point. Not all statements by paranoids are necessarily invalid. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you. You are a prolific poster of other people's words, but are very sparing in your own commentary. This suggests that other people do your thinking for you, that you're just getting all this nonsense from Townhall.com and maybe a few other websites, and that you either know I am right and haven't the decency or grace to admit it, or you still "think" (if you can call it that) that I am wrong, but haven't the intellectual acument to counter my arguments.

I am sparing, mostly because of time constraints due to raising a family with two small children, a full time job (which requires an unbelievable amount of email correspondence at all times of the day and night,) the pursuit of many personal interests - and only 24 hours to do it all in. Also, I'm only one step (okay two steps) removed from Twitter generation.

I usually find stories that interest me and post them with minimal commentary (usually pointing out what I consider to be illogical) and watch as others expand on the topic. There were several stories posted this week on CMG that I would have loved to have added my commentary, but by the time I found a moment to write something it had already been said... This happens all the time, but I enjoy it just the same.

[keaggy220]

Sheesh Reb Lem, that's really pathetic to think that someone who refers to Saddam Hussein as "Hussein" is trying to subliminally remind people that Obama has the same middle name as a hated, cruel dictator! Your pathological hatred of conservatives/Republicans is on full view.

You and Reb are woefully paranoid and/or overprotective of your Savior. I was having a brain freeze and I couldn't remember if it was Saddam or Sadaam. I know of at least three pronunciations which doesn't help.

OK, keaggy, I accept your explanation. It happens to me, too. When it happens to me, though, I do one of three things: abandon the post, leave the screen up, go away and do something else hoping it will spontaneously appear in my brain, or Google it. Sometimes, its difficult to decide what to put in the search bar, but “Iraqi political history” seems pretty obvious in the present case.

Also, keaggy, I think you speed read Cosima’s comments and misunderstood her, which is pretty hard to do, as her agreement with you seems pretty obvious. Yet your comment suggests you thought she was agreeing with me. Methinks brain freeze is getting to be a chronic problem for you.

Now, Cosima:

I think perhaps you read my most recent post without having read my earlier post on the subject, and others, of 4/24, 15:00 hours, in which I developed this theme, and others, more fully. I suggest you read, or re-read, it before commenting again. Though I want you to keep in mind that I now accept keaggy’s explanation, I must insist that my view was a reasonable one in light of the information available at the time. And, there’s a lot else in there about subjects other than the name comparison.

It is not true that I hate all conservatives or Republicans. Among those I respect and admire are David Gergen, David Brooks, Alan Simpson, Charles Grassley, Richard Lugar, Arlen Specter, Ron Paul, George Will, Chuck Hagel, and Ben Bernanke and his predecessor at the Fed, Alan Greenspan. Even Pat Buchanan has his compensations. But my alleged political hatreds, pathological or otherwise, are beside the point. Even if it were true, it does not necessarily invalidate my argument. You attack was an ad hominem one, not based on the merits of the argument, but on your perception of my mind-set.

There was a two hour time period of severe distractions for me yesterday and I shouldn't have been posting, I do usually google items when I have a brain freeze, but I was already doing way too much "multi-tasking" to add yet another screen.