home

Friday Night Open Thread

I'm so glad it's the weekend.

In the news: NPR has a new report on "Guantanamo North: Inside Secretive U.S. Prisons" focusing on CMU's (Communications Management Units.) The surveillance and restrictions are over the top.
Guards and cameras watch the CMU inmates' every move. Every word they speak is picked up by a counterterrorism team that eavesdrops from West Virginia. Prison officials budgeted more than $14 million for the snooping operation last year, according to appropriations documents and congressional testimony.
The Center for Constitutional Rights has been representing the inmates in a civil lawsuit. They say:
"6 percent of the national prison population is Muslim, and somewhere in the neighborhood of between 66 and 72 percent of prisoners at the CMUs are Muslim."
Of the 100 inmates NPR was able to identify who have been housed at the units in Terre Haute and Marion, IL, it says 2/3 are American citizens. (John Walker Lindh is at the unit in Terre Haute.) BOP says there are 81 inmates in CMU's.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Feds Charge Jared Loughner With Murder of Federal Judge and Child Victim | Bradley Manning: Get Him a Nightshirt >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Manning's forced nudity to occur daily (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by dead dancer on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 10:07:35 AM EST
    Where is the outrage? Even (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 12:57:24 PM EST
    their lies are not good ones--they can't say why they are keen on showing his privates during sleep and outside his cell while at attention because of his "privacy" rights.

    Parent
    Seinfeld & celebrities (none / 0) (#1)
    by Yes2Truth on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 08:47:21 PM EST

    My take on the Seinfeld show is that the characters

    were portrayed as celebrities and the public ate it up because the public  loves anything having to do with celebrities.

    On Huffpo today, there was an article about Seth Rogan's weight. That got me thinking.  Anything having to do with a celebrity can be the basis for an article.  Even nothing.  Seth got up this morning
    and weighed himself.  That's a show.

    What say you?

    Baseball on TV (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 09:16:12 PM EST
    Red Sox beating the Yankees and Peavy pitched two good innings for the White Sox.

    YAY!!!!!! (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:02:07 PM EST
    I was hoping to find baseball on TV tomorrow to putz in the garden and kitchen with, so this is excellent news :)

    Parent
    Dodgers (none / 0) (#10)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 11:33:06 AM EST
    I was glad to hear that the commissioner blocked the 200 M deal that McCourt and Fox cooked up. He's strip mined the team enough.

    Maybe if the well dries up the team can get an owner that wants it for more than his personal ATM.

    The Dodgers should be one of the premier teams in baseball

    Parent

    How automation is changing the legal profession (none / 0) (#4)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 08:30:57 AM EST
    Great news (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 09:43:24 AM EST
    Not, seeing as this is exactly what I do.  Not exactly a surprise, as we in the industry been hearing about these types of software programs for years.

    But it's always nice to find out that my work is now worth 1/500th of a computer, and it's a matter of time before I'm obsolete.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#7)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 10:12:24 AM EST
    Outsourcing and automation replaced lots of manufacturing and science and engineering jobs in the last couple of decades when lawyers, MBAs, executives, bankers and politicians turned giddy with excitement in shifting the US economy from its manufacturing base to a "service based" one.
    If lowly computer scientists and IT workers whose jobs were outsourced can replace overpaid lawyers, executives, bankers, doctors and politicians with their products, it will be a case of the karmic wheel turning full circle.

    Parent
    Overpaid is a joke (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 10:29:46 AM EST
    Maybe law firm partners, but people who do what I do - review documents at the first level - are not "overpaid".

    This type of work is done all over, but New York and DC are really where the bulk of this type of work is done.

    We are temps, paid by the hour, which means, if we don't work, we don't get paid.  For example, the firm I am currently working at was closed last Monday for President's Day - I didn't work, and I don't get paid for holidays, so I lost a whole day's pay. I get paid sick days, thanks to a DC law, but I have to work for my agency for 1000 hours before that takes effect.

    In the last two years, I have seen my hourly rate go down around $7 / hour (about $15K, not counting OT loss).  And before you think I get to bill huge amounts like a law firm partner or associate, think again.  I get paid $30 / hour.  And yes, empirically, I understand that's a good rate compared to what most people make.  But I also went to law school and passed the bar (and have $100K in student loan debt).  And since this work is primarily done in NY and DC, I live in a market where the housing prices, along with everything else, is outrageous.

    $30 / hour is about $62,400 a year. I know of some projects (in NY) that are paying attorneys $22 / hour. Sometimes projects offer OT hours, which pay time and a half (but those are getting rarer).  But then again, I've also gone 4 weeks between projects (and I know people that have gone months), so that means I earned $0.

    So no, I don't consider the potential for someone with a law degree and a license to $45K - $80K as "overpaid".

    Parent

    Good Lord - you could make (none / 0) (#16)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 04:08:04 PM EST
    more money as a paralegal, for heaven's sake; I work in the Baltimore market and make in the neighborhood of $50/hour, with 4 weeks paid vacation, and 2 weeks of sick/personal time...I'm assuming your area is litigation, whereas mine is Estates and Trusts (and I've been in the field for over 30 years, which is also a factor), which may account for some of the difference.

    I know the market got swamped with lawyers who were let go from firms when the recession hit, but many are hiring again - I'm assuming you would prefer a permanent position - duh - doing something more substantive and with more growth potential than document review.  The large firms want to own you for years, which is one reason I never took the next step from being a paralegal (although what I do in my firm is the equvalent of what associates are doing in smaller firms) - I wanted a life.

    It gets harder and harder, as the new lawyers hit the market every year, and with experienced lawyers also looking for work...

    What kind of law are you most interested in?  Is there an area that appeals to you, that was your reason for going to law school to begin with?

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 11:49:15 AM EST
    3 years ago when I came to DC, the market was good, and there was lots of OT to be had.  People made six figure incomes doing this job.  But frankly, in the last two years, with the OT drying up, and the projects not being as plentiful, I've seen my income cut by about 35-40% in the last two years.  Unfortunately, housing prices have not decreased in the area, so last week, I moved in with a roommate - a 25 year old guy I met on craigslist!  (I haven't had a roomie in 20 years, so this looks to be an adventure!)

    I wanted to go to law school because, frankly my MBA wasn't doing anything for me, and the company I was working for in Michigan, got hit with a 40% drop in the stock price one day in 2000.  The next day, my department was told we had 30 days to find a job within the company, or we would be let go.  I decided to do something else with my life, so I thought about law school (stupid move). I did manage to find a job in the company, and hang on for another 2 years, but nothing in a "career path".  I can't say I had a burning desire for the law, but I thought I could get into business / transactional work with my MBA.  When I came out of law school, that's the time things started really crashing in the Detroit area, so I realized I could waive into the DC bar (and I had a sister that lived out here), so I moved east.  Been doing this doc review ever since.

    I don't really want to "practice law", but I'd like to get into something where I could use my business and law backgrounds.  Looking for jobs in practice support, e-discovery vendors, etc.

    Or, I just may open a food truck and park on the DC streets......  :)

    Parent

    What about practice support sales? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 04:59:21 PM EST
    Or something along those lines...where you could combine what you've learned about document review and discovery to sell those kinds of services?

    As you no doubt know, clients have become a lot more mindful of the cost of litigation, and are fly-specking the charges for document review and discovery like never before.  Firms have had to become more flexible in how they bill in order to sell themselves to clients.

    Even in estates and trusts, where there isn't usually a lot of litigation, clients are just not as willing to pay the kinds of hourly rates that are the norm these days; shoot - I couldn't afford my own services, which are billed out at $275/hour!  And I'm not even an attorney...

    Now, the food truck...that sounds like a lot of fun - hard work, but fun!

    Parent

    You may have less to worry about than you (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 10:24:26 AM EST
    think. From the article:


    The computers seem to be good at their new jobs. Mr. Herr, the former chemical company lawyer, used e-discovery software to reanalyze work his company's lawyers did in the 1980s and '90s. His human colleagues had been only 60 percent accurate, he found.

    "Think about how much money had been spent to be slightly better than a coin toss," he said.

    Being a poker player I can tell you that Herr's assumption is flawed. First, at some point, the numbers will become exactly 50-50. At that point, if you continue to flip the coin the numbers may become 80-20 or some other combination. The coin has no memory.

    A human has a memory. So you can take that 60% accuracy and redo the task and expect an improvement. You can do it again and expect a further improvement.

    Given that the program is not changed then subsequent runs will not yield additional information.

    So if I need a lawyer, science fiction aside, give me a human, please.


    Parent

    I think you have no idea (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 12:56:18 PM EST
    regarding how artificial intelligence and software work.
    If Deep Blue could defeat Kasparov in chess and Watson could beat Jeopardy champions, there is no reason to think that lawyers are indispensible.
    Computers have vast memories and algorithms to retrieve information can be continuously improved.

    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 02:05:14 PM EST
    I've worked with some of this types of software - it's not infallable either and usually needs a human to go behind it and do clean up.

    Parent
    "these" not "this" (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 02:05:27 PM EST
    Oh, I have a fair understanding (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 10:20:14 PM EST
    And the point is, as you noted... "continuously improved."

    That means a program change, which is expensive and time consuming.

    So, in the long run which is the less expensive and most accurate?

    Parent

    You've just proven Politalkixs' point (none / 0) (#22)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 10:30:04 PM EST
    No Harry, (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 10:09:27 AM EST
    I had written.

    A human has a memory. So you can take that 60% accuracy and redo the task and expect an improvement. You can do it again and expect a further improvement.

    Given that the program (computer) is not changed then subsequent runs will not yield additional information.

    Politalkix just noted that computers can be improved.

    I agreed with Politalkix.

    And the point is, as you noted... "continuously improved.
    "

    I added:

    That means a program change, which is expensive and time consuming.

    So, in the long run which is the less expensive and most accurate?

    So the question is how much time and how much money will it cost the computer/software company to make the change and how much will it want to sell the new package for.

    The law firm must then decide if it wants to invest in the new computer and will the program improve the accuracy enough to warrant the purchase.

    And the article doesn't tell us how good the machines are.

    The computers seem to be good at their new jobs.
     

    "seem to be" is quite a qualifier. Would anyone want their doctor to give them a drug that seems to be good? Would you want a lawyer who you have hired to keep you out of jail to use a tool that seems to be good at its job?

    And the article doesn't tell us is how much an improvement the computer search actually made.
    Mr. Herr says that it discovered that humans in the 80's and 90's were only 60% accurate.

    And was the improvement 10%? 20% More? Less?

    Did he give the computer the time frame and say, "find me all that relates" or did he give the computer what had previously been found and say, "find me additional that relates?"

    So while interesting, the article raises more questions than it answers.

    Parent

    Re: Update (none / 0) (#32)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 04:36:01 PM EST

    That means a program change, which is expensive and time consuming.

    Nope, many times it means an updated version, not a completely new program that has to be written from scratch, and updates are neither expensive or time consuming IMHO.

    The law firm must then decide if it wants to invest in the new computer and will the program improve the accuracy enough to warrant the purchase.

    Mr. Herr has already listed the reasons why programs are preferable to people:

    "From a legal staffing viewpoint, it means that a lot of people who used to be allocated to conduct document review are no longer able to be billed out," said Bill Herr, who as a lawyer at a major chemical company used to muster auditoriums of lawyers to read documents for weeks on end. "People get bored, people get headaches. Computers don't."

    Thanks as always for the feedback.

    Parent

    Really? You said: (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 06:18:46 PM EST
    Nope, many times it means an updated version, not a completely new program that has to be written from scratch, and updates are neither expensive or time consuming IMHO.

    I had no idea you were an expert on software engineering.

    My experience has been the opposite. Every update created numerous problems, especially where the equipment/program installed database was flaky and where more than one upgrade had to be installed before the next version was installed and why we needed 6 more months and another $50K or so per site.

    But hey! I was just a sales type explaining all that stuff to the customer.

    And yes, mechanization is always a "good thing." As long as the new equipment can be kept producing product (revenue). Why? Because capital investment cannot be laid off. Nor can it be easily "trained" to do other tasks.

    I see computers as aids, but when people start to rely on them 100% I see problems on the way.

    Parent

    Re:Engineering (none / 0) (#41)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 06:55:26 PM EST

    I had no idea you were an expert on software engineering.

    My experience has been the opposite. Every update created numerous problems, especially where the equipment/program installed database was flaky and where more than one upgrade had to be installed before the next version was installed and why we needed 6 more months and another $50K or so per site.

    We're talking about personal computers here, not the mainframes you used to service in your business days.

    You might as well compare the days of "Number, please" to MagicJack, in terms of how far technology has changed since then.

    But hey! I was just a sales type explaining all that stuff to the customer.

    So, you don't have any first-hand experience in software engineering except from the sales side.

    That's like if I called myself a nuclear physicist because I sold nuclear medical products at one point in their life.

    And yes, mechanization is always a "good thing." As long as the new equipment can be kept producing product (revenue). Why? Because capital investment cannot be laid off. Nor can it be easily "trained" to do other tasks.

    I don't know what that has to do with anything I've written on this thread, but OK.

    I see computers as aids, but when people start to rely on them 100% I see problems on the way.

    The only reliable spell-checker is the one between the ears, you'll get no argument with me on that point.

    Thanks as always for the feedback.

    Parent

    Times have changed (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 07:12:18 PM EST
    But the upgrade issues, costs and time requirements can't have changed all that much.

    And we're not talking Windows here, but rather a specific application dedicated to the legal profession. That means a large but finite market so the per installation price will be much higher.

    As for the machine vs people comment, it was just pointing out what a reasonable business manager for a law firm will need to think about.

    Parent

    Re:General Groves (none / 0) (#47)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 09:07:48 PM EST

    "The (atomic) bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."

    But the upgrade issues, costs and time requirements can't have changed all that much.

    No, given that you can buy a notebook computer for 100$USD in a store these days that has more computing capability than the mainframes you're talking about, there can't have been that much change since you retired.

    My sincere apologies on that score.

    And we're not talking Windows here, but rather a specific application dedicated to the legal profession. That means a large but finite market so the per installation price will be much higher.

    The following is an example, it is not an endorsement of TunnelVision or any other discovery software as such:

    TunnelVision Dramatically Reduces the Cost of eDiscovery

    Quickly and inexpensively identify what data has been collected, sample and validate patterns within the data in order to find the most effective reduction strategy, and export only materials responsive to the discovery request to sharply reduce downstream costs related to hosting, attorney review and production.

        * Flexible pricing models allow for practical decision making at a fraction of the cost of traditional methods.
        * TunnelVision's `Pay as you Go' pricing model allows clients to scale resources to meet the demands of any case as the need arises without incurring annual licensing fees.
        * Cost effectively process, manage and filter data sets of any size.
        * Reduce manual costs associated with rework resulting from changing case requirements and reporting on results as well as up front data preparation.
        * Control and sharply reduce downstream review and production costs through TunnelVision's powerful filtering and search capabilities.
        * Create an iterative process to identify review sets allowing for the ongoing refinement of strategy through review in order to further target relevant information.
        * Reuse data for ongoing or future matters.

    Click or Tunnel Vision Me.

    These days, the client or customer doesn't even have to run the software on their machines or machines they lease out on site, look up 'cloud computing' when you have a few minutes in the next few days.

    Parent

    Oh Jim! (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 10:11:45 PM EST
    You sound like the US Patent Director, Charles Duell, who in 1899 said "Everything that can be invented has already been invented".
    Enormous advances are taking place in the field of software and artificial intelligence at this time that is going to reshape society in the next 10 years in ways that even experts find difficult to predict. So don't be so confident in your predictions just because you are not comfortable with these changes.

    I will also make the following points
    (1)Look, nobody is talking about 100% of lawyers getting replaced. However even if 60% of jobs in the legal profession get replaced because of software, a lot of people will be losing their jobs (unless they can adapt to changes quickly enough).
    (2)When US engineers/scientists/manufacturing employees started getting replaced by workers in other countries/automation, every skill that a US worker had or all responsibilities that they performed, did not get duplicated. Nevertheless, these workers got replaced. Same can happen with people in the legal profession or in other professions.

    Parent

    Typo (none / 0) (#55)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 10:17:00 PM EST
    "When US engineers/scientists/manufacturing employees started getting replaced by workers in other countries/automation, every skill that a US worker had or all responsibilities that they performed, did not get duplicated."

    I meant replicated, not duplicated.

    Parent

    What changes would those be? (none / 0) (#56)
    by sj on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:02:04 AM EST
    (1)Look, nobody is talking about 100% of lawyers getting replaced. However even if 60% of jobs in the legal profession get replaced because of software, a lot of people will be losing their jobs (unless they can adapt to changes quickly enough).

    Seriously.  What changes would make the difference?  Because we software engineers have been dealing with this for at least the last 10 years.  Do we need retraining?  In MS Excel or maybe MS Word, perhaps. Or maybe learn how to set up a small business using eBay.  Please.

    The "adaptation" is all too often in insecure, less professionally satisfying world of consulting.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    Just pointing out that someone will always be ready to tell you that things are terrible but will be okay if you give them your money.

    Evidently you never bought a MS product.

    ;-)

    Parent

    percentage of suicide bombers? (none / 0) (#17)
    by diogenes on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 04:54:25 PM EST
    "6 percent of the national prison population is Muslim, and somewhere in the neighborhood of between 66 and 72 percent of prisoners at the CMUs are Muslim."

    And one hundred percent of recent terrorists and attempted terrorists who need their communications monitored are Muslim.

    Just the ones who make the news (none / 0) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 12:52:17 AM EST
    are Muslim. For instance, the bomb found on the parade route for the Spokane, WA MLK Day parade has received no real coverage in the the US press. Of course, the thinking is that the Spokane bomber is a white racist, not a brown Muslim, so, you know, move along, nothing to see here.

    The Spokane bomb was a very real explosive device, discovered quite by accident before it was detonated. Its potential for doing actual harm was big. Contrast that with the fake bomb built by the FBI in Portland, the bomb the Feds used to lure a, wait for it..., a brown Muslim kid into a plot with the Feds, and all the publicity and news coverage that generated.

    On the one hand a real bomb suspected of being set by a white person gets crickets. On the other hand, a fake bomb built by the FBI for a brown kid gets the usual hysteria on the news.

    Parent

    The scary part (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 10:47:47 AM EST
    and one that you seem to want to ignore is that "Muslim kid," as you term him, wanted to do what he did. He did not know that the bomb was fake.

    Plainer. His motive was to kill. No different than the motive of whoever placed the MLK parade bomb. No different than the young German Muslim who recently attacked and killed our servicemen.

    And given that the MLK bomb and the Portland bomb was placed in a crowd I don't see how the fact that it was a MLK parade means the attempt was not made by a Muslim terrorist. Both places had crowds.(And yes, I note that the fact it was a MLK parade does bring a Skinhead Terrorist into the picture.)

    Parent

    This was pretty scary (none / 0) (#35)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 05:58:56 PM EST
    and no Muslims were involved, AFAIK:

    The Tyler poison gas plot was an American attempt at domestic terrorism thwarted in April 2003 with the arrest of three individuals in Tyler, Texas and the seizure of a cyanide gas bomb along with a large arsenal that included at least 100 other conventional bombs, machine guns, an assault rifle, an unregistered silencer, and 500,000 rounds of ammunition.[1][2] The chemical stockpile seized included sodium cyanide, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid and acetic acid.[1]

    The three individuals were linked to white supremacist and anti-government groups. They were:[1]

    William J. Krar, originally from New Hampshire
    Judith Bruey, Krar's common-law wife
    Edward Feltus of Old Bridge, New Jersey
    Feltus was a member of the New Jersey Militia. Krar was suspected of making his living travelling across the country selling bomb components and other weapons to violent underground anti-government groups.[1] Federal authorities had their eye on Krar since at least 1995 when ATF agents investigated a possible plot to bomb government buildings, but Krar was not charged.[2] Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks their attention was focused on middle-eastern terrorist activities and were only alerted to Krar's recent activities by accident when he mailed Feltus a package of counterfeit birth certificates from North Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia, and United Nations Multinational Force and Defence Intelligence Agency IDs.[2] The package was mistakenly delivered to a Staten Island man who alerted police.[1]

    On May 4, 2004 Krar was sentenced to 135 months in prison after he pled guilty to building and possessing chemical weapons. Ms. Bruey was sentenced to 57 months after pleading to "conspiracy to possess illegal weapons". [3]

    Click or Wiki Me

    In medicine, the saying goes, "When you hear hoofbeats, don't expect to see zebras."

    Thinking the MLK parade bomb could be Muslim terrorists is seeing zebras, IMHO.

    Parent

    When you have some (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 06:02:27 PM EST
    factual information re the MLK parade bomb, let us know.

    Parent
    If you want to be informed (none / 0) (#40)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 06:47:12 PM EST
    I'm always glad to oblige:

    The discovery before Monday's parade for the slain civil rights leader raised the possibility of a racial motive in a region that has been home to the white supremacist Aryan Nations.

    "The confluence of the holiday, the march and the device is inescapable," said Frank Harrill, special agent in charge of the Spokane FBI office. "But we are not at the point where we can draw any particular motive."

    He called the planting of the bomb an act of domestic terrorism that was clearly designed to advance a political or social agenda.

    Click or Fox News Me.

    If you have any clues or reliable sources that there was Islamicist terrorism, you might want to give your local FBI office a call, it's just a suggestion.

    Oh, and the link I used?

    Fox News is a reliable source this time, just as even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.

    Any questions?

    Parent

    You just defined the (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 06:58:57 PM EST
    motive of the Muslim youth in Portland and the Muslim German youth in Germany.

    He called the planting of the bomb an act of domestic terrorism that was clearly designed to advance a political or social agenda
    .

    As for the MLK parade, I have already noted that I'm open to the deed being Skinhead action.

    Parent

    Re:Muslim Youth (none / 0) (#46)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 08:46:26 PM EST
    This is what Glenn Greenwald had to say about that one:

    It may very well be that the FBI successfully and within legal limits arrested a dangerous criminal intent on carrying out a serious Terrorist plot that would have killed many innocent people, in which case they deserve praise. Court-approved surveillance and use of undercover agents to infiltrate terrorist plots are legitimate tactics when used in accordance with the law.

    But it may also just as easily be the case that the FBI -- as they've done many times in the past -- found some very young, impressionable, disaffected, hapless, aimless, inept loner; created a plot it then persuaded/manipulated/entrapped him to join, essentially turning him into a Terrorist; and then patted itself on the back once it arrested him for having thwarted a "Terrorist plot" which, from start to finish, was entirely the FBI's own concoction. Having stopped a plot which it itself manufactured, the FBI then publicly touts -- and an uncritical media amplifies -- its "success" to the world, thus proving both that domestic Terrorism from Muslims is a serious threat and the Government's vast surveillance power -- current and future new ones -- are necessary.



    Click or Glenn Greenwald Me

    motive of the Muslim youth in Portland and the Muslim German youth in Germany.

    Yes, but that doesn't mean that was the case behind the Spokane bomb.  It was built by someone who almost knew what they were doing, which wasn't the case with the Portland or Times Square cases, the competence demonstrated by either suspect or perp in those cases being at a much lower lever.

    As for the MLK parade, I have already noted that I'm open to the deed being Skinhead action.

    But not any other racist wacko group?

    I'm open to it being any member of a nativist group, just call me cynical.

     

    Parent

    If you pay much attention to (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 09:34:30 PM EST
    Greenwald I will call you naive and misguided.

    Parent
    Jeralyn has him on her Daily Fixes (none / 0) (#50)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 09:40:11 PM EST
    list of links, perhaps you should express your concern about relying on him to her as well.

    ;-)

    Parent

    harry stop the baiting (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 09:47:26 PM EST
    No one is interested in reading personal spats between commenters, and I'm not interested in hosting them. Move on to another topic or leave the thread.

    Parent
    I'm sorry, I guess I am naive and misguided (none / 0) (#52)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 09:51:20 PM EST
    so I'm outta here.

    Parent
    factual info. (none / 0) (#53)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 09:59:07 PM EST
    Fine. It's facts ya want, it's you'll get.

    The fact is that a bomb was planted, found and disarmed before an MLK parade in an area known for aryan nations nonsense.

    Moreover, you've provided your customary bupkis for evidence that it was planted by Islamic terrorists.

    What's more, continuing to confine ourselves to the factual, your ludicrous offer to be "...open to the deed being Skinhead action." while offering nothing more by way of evidence than the fact that the Portland and Spokane bombs were both planted in crowded areas with a motive to kill requires proof that they're not connected to Islamic terrorists is pathetic even by your less than lofty standards.

    Clearly, you're new in these parts and are not familiar with our system of justice.

    Ya see, it's like this. The burden's on you to make your case. As is your custom, the only thing you've managed to prove is that ya can't do that either.

    Alas, those facts were never in dispute.

    But not any other racist wacko group?

    Parent

    I provided no evidence (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:43:00 PM EST
    of who built and placed it. Didn't try to.

    I merely noted that the motive in Portland, the MLK parade and in Germany are the same.

    Kill people and spread terror because you hate them.

    As to why you, and others, are so willing to attack the FBI while excusing the actions of the terrorist I do not know.


    Parent

    The reelection campaign (none / 0) (#18)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 05:18:41 PM EST
    is coming early to a theatre new you.
    link

    From the article
    "Strategically, Obama's team is thinking aggressively. Messina said it is too early to talk seriously about the general election map and targeted states, but at a time when some analysts on the other side suggest that Obama's options will be more limited in 2012 than in 2008, Messina believes just the opposite."
    "I understand the challenges of any reelection campaign," he said, "but we're going to go into this with an expanded map and a bigger map in the beginning than in '08."
    For example, Messina has his eye on states like Arizona, where he argues that McCain's absence from the ballot will give the president a better chance this time around. But there are others on his list, too, suggesting that just as in 2008, Obama's team is determined not to let the 2012 election be decided in Ohio and Florida."

    Query whether the unions (none / 0) (#19)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 05:39:09 PM EST
    will again play a key role in certain states in getting out the vote; will be interesting to see if the Admin can continue to say some things that are pro-union and then do nothing to support the unions and rely on affected constituents.  

    I truly believe so much depends on the Repubs' nominee.  

    Parent

    Is he for real? (none / 0) (#20)
    by dead dancer on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 08:24:44 PM EST
    Well, he sounds good (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 10:18:44 AM EST
    until it comes to national defense.

    I'd need some additional information, like... what would he have done had he been Prez in 1993 and onward as the terrorist attacks escalated?

    And... what he believes our energy policy should be.

    Parent

    Jim Jim Jim (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 04:23:52 PM EST
    Do you want him to say that he would  
    (1) have negotiated with American hostage takers in Iran like Reagan did
    (2) have got America involved unnecessarily in the Lebanese civil war and then cut and run like Reagan did after the Beirut barracks bombing.
    (3) not have been able to prevent the WTC attack in 2001 like GWB
    (4) turned a blind eye towards the Saudis from where most of the WTC attackers came to protect oil business interests
    (5) made a deal with Gadaffi to provide the Libyan govt immunity from all Lockerbie bombing lawsuits like GWB did by signing executive order 13477.

    Parent
    You need to read my comment no 34 (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 05:59:50 PM EST
    And don't expect me to defend anyone's mistakes.

    Parent
    But he'll post (none / 0) (#39)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 06:40:11 PM EST
    about possible mistakes made to to be made by the current WH incumbent until the cows come home.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Well, off the top of my head,.... (none / 0) (#30)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 03:53:57 PM EST
    Well, let's see. Just off the top of my head, he wouldn't have fallen asleep at the switch on 9/11, botched Afghanistan, invaded the wrong damned country or lied us into an intractable, unjustified and unjustifiable war.

    Then, of course, there's that whole wrecking the economy thing.  

    Parent

    The facts in evidence are different (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 05:56:12 PM EST
    Bush's administration warned all the agencies on 7/5/2001 of an expected attack.

    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    Facts overcome false claims.

    BTW - That was over a month before the infamous 8/8 PDB where Bush became angry that what he was being given was OLD information and over two months before 9/11.

    Were the agencies asleep? Yes, and Bush should have fired the heads of them as an example that failure would be punished.

    As for Afghanistan we chased the Taliban into the high mountains. And left them there. And they are still there. No one, including me and Obama, wants to pay the price in troops killed in the task of fighting in an area in which our technology would be of little advantage.

    As for Iraq, Hussein was clearly aiding terrorists and was clearly in hot pursuit of regaining possession of WMD's.

    As UN investigator Kay said.

    We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

    Did Bush's military and diplomatic people botch the handling after the battle? Yes. But they finally got it right. The question now is, can Obama hold it?

    Parent

    Was that the same July 5 meeting ... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 08:03:45 PM EST
    ... where he attendees reported they couldn't actually disseminate the information to their own people in the field?  The one that focused on overseas threats?  The one where, because of the focus on overseas threats, the domestic agency reps were not questioned about their plans or told what was expected of them?  The one where, despite the fact that they (unlike the overseas agencies) did not have a "game plan", weren't even instructed to come up with one?

    This lack of direction was evident in the July 5 meeting with representatives from the domestic agencies. The briefing focused on overseas threats. The domestic agencies were not questioned about how they planned to address the threat and were not told what was expected of them. Indeed, as noted earlier, they were specifically told they could not issue advisories based on the briefing. The domestic agencies' limited response indicates that they did not perceive a call to action.

    wow.

    BTW - Re: David Kay's remarks, you should read some of his remarks shortly after he resigned from the Bush administration, where he changes the "focus" of his prior remarks.

    I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction. We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on."

    Iraq's weapons and facilities, he says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign.

    He said Baghdad was actively working to produce a biological weapon using the poison ricin until the American invasion last March. But in general, Dr. Kay said, the C.I.A. and other agencies failed to recognize that Iraq had all but abandoned its efforts to produce large quantities of chemical or biological weapons after the first Persian Gulf war, in 1991.

    Link

    "Hot pursuit" of WMD sounds almost as good as "imminent threat", but your expert says otherwise.

    Parent

    False premises become you (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    1. They were told there was a threat. They were, and are, expected to run their turfs. They didn't have to give details, just see that their people knew a threat was expected.

    2. The briefing clearly focused on an expected attack. The FAA and Customs, for example, are concerned with security here.

    Frankly their claims read like a classic CYA.

    In the meantime:

    In person, however, Kay's message is clear. "I was convinced and still am convinced that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction at the time of the war," he told the Guardian in an interview in Washington. He now believes that any weapons the Iraqis had were probably destroyed before 1998. "There were continuing clandestine activities but increasingly driven more by corruption than driven by purposeful directed weapons programmes," argued the 63-year-old former diplomat and sleuth.

    Nothing like having rogue groups developing and selling WMD's to the world's worst terrorists, eh?

    Bush acted based on the information he had. I pray that Obama, given the same type/level information that Bush had, acts the same way.

    But I think I have a false hope.

    Parent

    Silly premises become you (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:22:23 PM EST
    They were told there was a threat. They were, and are, expected to run their turfs. They didn't have to give details, just see that their people knew a threat was expected.

    Sure - you already said that.  Of course, it's only half the story.  They were given a general warning of a threat.  The meeting focused solely on overseas threats.  They were given no direction as to what to do with the generic threat information, other than being prohibited from actually issuing advisories (i.e. telling the people out in the field who could actually do something).

    Nothing like having rogue groups developing and selling WMD's to the world's worst terrorists, eh?

    Apart from the fact that Kay (and your linked article) state no such thing, the premise is just tooooooo funny.  What WMD's?  You mean the one's that Kay just said didn't exist?  You know what?  I think I'm okay with that.  Let them sell all the imaginary WMDs they want.

    BTW - My premises and statements were not false - they're 100% accurate.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 06:57:40 PM EST
    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    So your claim that the meeting was about foreign attacks only is not correct.

    Link

    You write:

    Apart from the fact that Kay (and your linked article) state no such thing, the premise is just tooooooo funny

    So why do you think the corrupt and rogue groups would be developing WMD's? Do you see that as a hobby?

    Good gosh.


    Parent

    Really? What "special measures" ... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:03:10 PM EST
    ... specifically.  That may be what Condee claimed in her interview on Fox News, but her claims are contradicted by the 9-11 Commission Report and everyone else who attended the meeting.  According to them:

    A second cause of this disparity in response is that domestic agencies did not know what to do, and no one gave them direction. Cressey told us that the CSG did not tell the agencies how to respond to the threats. He noted that the agencies that were operating overseas did not need direction on how to respond; they had experience with such threats and had a "playbook." In contrast, the domestic agencies did not have a game plan. Neither the NSC (including the CSG) nor anyone else instructed them to create one.

    This lack of direction was evident in the July 5 meeting with representatives from the domestic agencies. The briefing focused on overseas threats. The domestic agencies were not questioned about how they planned to address the threat and were not told what was expected of them. Indeed, as noted earlier, they were specifically told they could not issue advisories based on the briefing.

    But Condee had a job to do on Fox ... cover the administration's behind ...

    Parent

    They did, eh? (none / 0) (#45)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 08:32:44 PM EST
    Did Bush's military and diplomatic people botch the handling after the battle? Yes. But they finally got it ri
    ght.

    They did, eh? Where? When? How?

    Is this the part where ya tell me Poland invaded Germany on the morning of 9/1/39 and those WMD are bound to surface any day now?

    I'm not buying your brain-dead, bogus, bait and switches any more than I'm buying rummy's thoroughly-discredited revisionist rubbish.

    That bluff didn't fly in '04. Ya had nothin' for cards then and you've got nothin' now. The facts aren't doin' ya any favors now, either.

    As for Obama's role as the latest black guy to be stuck cleaning up one of shrub's constant clusterfoxes, Powell was right:

    Bush broke it, we bought it and you've got your customary bupkis for cards.

    It's still never a bad play to call your bluff.

    So, in the interest of time and space,  now that I own your house, ya wanna just give me the keys to your car and get it over with?

    Always a pleasure.

    Parent

    The first (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:05:33 PM EST
    mistake was in not telling the Iraqi army to return to their barracks and if they did and stayed there they would be paid and fed.

    The second mistake was in not working with the existing Iraqi police force in capturing and returning the thousands of criminals that were turned loose by Hussein's people in the final days.

    The third mistake was in not closing the borders and killing anyone trying to get in. That would have kept out thousands of al Qaeda troops.

    The fourth was in not immediately demanding a "surge" of fresh troops. Enough to do what we finally did. Take and hold the ground long enough to get some reforms started.

    Will what we have done hold? Doubtful. Iran and al Qaeda know that Obama will not come back in after the troops have gone.

    Vietnam redux in many respects.

    BTW - Your poker comments prove one thing. You just want to bait me and you know nothing about poker.

    Parent

    You continue to channel Chapman (none / 0) (#62)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:19:41 PM EST
    Well, you're consistent. I'll give ya that much. Ya never quit when you're losin'.

    Apart from your predictably-pedestrian ploy to assert your absence of evidence is proof of guilt, in all matters constitutional, historical and factual you continue to channel Mark David Chapman repeatedly muttering to himself, "I heard the words but I didn't get the meaning." after his assassination of John Lennon.

    Clearly, there remains no topic or instance you won't willfully, mischaracterize, misinterpret, misconstrue, mistake or just generally draw the wrong conclusion and take the wrong lesson from.

    As for your vintage Vietnam redux rubbish, kudos on your broken clock moment du jour.

    You're right for all the wrong reasons.

    Your consistent cluelessness remains your calling card.

    Always a pleasure.  

    Parent

    Speaking of Vietnam (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 07:00:32 PM EST
    I see that you have adapted the Democrat strategy of declaring victory and leaving.

    Didn't work then. Doesn't work now.

    Parent

    Actually,... (none / 0) (#66)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 07:47:30 PM EST
    Actually, Senator George Aiken of Vermont was a gop before, during and after he suggested that as the best course of action with respect to Vietnam in '66.

    Feel free to check.

    Kudos, your 0-everything streak remains intact.

    Always a pleasure.

    Parent

    Aiken was a Repub (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 08:33:44 PM EST
    like a duck is a fish.

    Perhaps I should have said Democrats, Lefties, Fellow Travelers and other Useful Idiots.

    Parent

    So, what you're sayin' is.... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 08:55:39 PM EST
    So, what you're sayin' is that - like all tea baggers and useless idiots - ya got no case, no clue, no reason, no knowledge of relevant subject matter or applicable law.

    Gee, thanks for clearin' that up.

    Havin' even the slightest idea what you're talkin' about would have been a prudent step in the right direction.

    Of course, that applies to all your endeavors.

    Always a pleasure.

    Parent

    Perhaps what you don't know (none / 0) (#68)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 08:40:37 PM EST
    about Aikens is more like it:

    During the Vietnam war, Aiken is widely believed to have suggested that the U.S. should declare victory and bring the troops home. Actually, what he said was that "the United States could well declare unilaterally ... that we have 'won' in the sense that our armed forces are in control of most of the field and no potential enemy is in a position to establish its authority over South Vietnam," and that such a declaration "would herald the resumption of political warfare as the dominant theme in Vietnam." He added: "It may be a far-fetched proposal, but nothing else has worked."[1]

    He was a proponent of many progressive programs such as Food Stamps and public works projects for rural America, such as rural electrification, flood control and crop insurance. He also had a great affection for the natural beauty of his home state, saying "some folks just naturally love the mountains, and like to live up among them where freedom of thought and action is logical and inherent."[2] His views were at odds with those of many Old Guard Republicans in the Senate. Vermonters showed Aiken such respect and affection that he reportedly spent only $17.09 on his last reelection bid. A north-south avenue on the west side of the public lawn at the Vermont State House has been named for him, as well as the state's maple research center at the University of Vermont.

    Click or Wiki Me

    Yep, he sure sounds like those pinkos FDR and LBJ, slipping in governmental control under the guise of 'rural electrification'.

    Along with valuing the mountains for their beauty instead of their resources, he sounds like an environmental Benedict Arnold.

    Thanks for warning us about him, PPJ.


    Parent

    Actually, Nixon was a Republican (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 08:50:41 PM EST
    ... and he was the CinC when he declared victory and pulled out of Vietnam.

    Parent
    Don't confuse... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:05:54 PM EST
    Don't confuse the wee lad with the facts. He's got some issues with reality. They don't speak.

    Then again, they've never met.

    Parent

    What I am saying is that (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:12:09 PM EST
    that you are not here to debate. Like Harry and Yman you are here to insult and debate.

    I stand by my comment re Vietnam, claim victory, etc.

    Have a nice night.

    Parent

    Debate's a wee bit beyond ya... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:28:51 PM EST
    That's a good one.

    Debate's a wee bit beyond ya. Shoot, at this point, I'd settle for some semblance of an actual argument to pick apart and pass the time.

    To date, it's all shred it and forget it.

    Always a pleasure.

    Parent

    Provide some links to support your claims (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:24:40 AM EST
    if you know how.

    Parent
    insult and bait (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:12:56 PM EST
    The facts are (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:23:27 PM EST
    In January of 1973, President Richard Nixon approved the Paris Peace Accords negotiated by Henry Kissinger, which implemented an immediate cease-fire in Vietnam and called for the complete withdrawal of American troops within sixty days

    What happened when Democrats in Congress cut off funding for the Vietnam War?

    Historians have directly attributed the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the cessation of American aid. Without the necessary funds, South Vietnam found it logistically and financially impossible to defeat the North Vietnamese army.

    Link

    It was not Nixon who declared victory and left. He had an agreement. But it was the people I identified that declared victory and left.. How? By denying funds.

    No charge for the education.


    Parent

    It WAS Nixon who declared victory ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:51:53 PM EST
    Read my link to his speech.

    Throughout the years of negotiations, we have insisted on peace with honor. In my addresses to the Nation from this room of January 25 and May 8, [1972] I set forth the goals that we considered essential for peace with honor.

    In the settlement that has now been agreed to, all the conditions that I laid down then have been met...

    Your steadfastness in supporting our insistence on peace with honor has made peace with honor possible...

    The important thing was not to talk about peace, but to get peace and to get the right kind of peace. This we have done.

    It was also Nixon who ordered us out of Vietnam.  Nixon, as it turns out, is a Republican.  "Mission accomplished", Republican-style.

    But nice try at blaming the Democratic Congress for "declaring victory and leaving", three years after Nixon had already declared victory and pulled our troops out.  I particularly enjoy the link to an intern at HNN as "authority" for your twisted logic.

    Funny stuff.

    Parent

    Nixon had a treaty (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:20:13 AM EST
    The Democrats turned tail and rain... Of course there were more than a few Repubs right behind them.

    But it was the Left, aided by false reporting by Cronkite and other icons of the Lame Stream Media that who did the damage.

    Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
    A:  It was essential to our strategy.  Support of the war from our rear was completely secure  while the American rear was vulnerable.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.  to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence  that we should hold on  in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

    Bui Tin in the Wall Street Journal

    Parent

    As the Snopes.com article (none / 0) (#80)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:30:01 AM EST
    notes about Mr. Tin:

    (The article notes that this interview was conducted after Bui Tin became "disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism" and left Vietnam to live in Paris, so it's possible that his comments may have been influenced by his changed outlook.)


    Click or Snopes Me


    Parent

    What you are claiming is that he is (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:59:48 AM EST
    lying.

    Yet you have offered no proof.

    And to think that the riots, bombings, demonstrations and comments by Fonda, etc., had no did not encourage those who were killing Americans is highly naive.

    Parent

    Examining the motivations of an apostate (none / 0) (#86)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:13:46 PM EST
    isn't saying that he's lying, PPJ.

    He's not saying it as the confident member of the Vietnamese Communist party, he's saying it as an exile living in Paris, France.  These are facts, not accusations as such.

    Thanks for demonstrating your dedication to civility and debate yet again, PPJ

    Parent

    In other words, ya got no cards and no proof... (none / 0) (#90)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:30:40 PM EST
    In other words, ya got no cards, no proof, no evidence and no clue so you're gonna try and bluff your way through with some dimwitted, delusional, discredited, domino theory dreck.

    What, no general giap slop?

    Oy, ya might as well just pin the rap for Khadafi  Thomas Jefferson and all his successors for their failure to establish and maintain an occupation of Libya with the Barbary Pirates thing and top it off by telling us how you'd remedy the economy.

    That's entertainment.

    Parent

    Never ceases to amaze me (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 04:30:11 PM EST
    how easily that "turned tail and ran", "purple band-aids" characterization comes to Rectal Cysts, Newt and other chickenhawks who've never been closer to Vietnam, or any other war front, than a few thousand miles..

    Yet they still have images of Hanoi Jane bedeviling their sleep and spoiling every war they never had the courage-of-conviction to volunteer for..

    One of those things that makes you not know whether to laugh or cry..  

    Parent

    So what if he had a treaty? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:34:16 AM EST
    The "turning tail and running" (your characterization) occurred three years before funding was pulled by Congress - we were long out of Vietnam by that point.  Contrary to your original claim, it wasn't a Democratic strategy of "declaring victory and running" in Vietnam.  Nixon was the one who declared victory.  Nixon was the CinC who pulled our forces out of Vietnam.

    Nixon was a Republican.

    Parent

    No, that is incorrect (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:02:37 PM EST
    Nixon had a treaty.

    When Congress cut off the funding and refused to help South Vietnam.... that was the running.

    We have paid the price since then time and again.

    Iran, Lebanon and onward to 9/11.

    Parent

    Yep - read it the first couple of times (none / 0) (#88)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:19:17 PM EST
    Isn't any more logical or factual with repetition.  

    But the Iran, Lebanon, 9-11 link was pretty funny.

    Parent

    Nixon had a treaty (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:05:18 PM EST
    It was the Democrats, by denying funding to help South Vietnam that did the running.

    And we have paid the price ever since then...Iran. Lebanon and onward to 9/11.

    Parent

    sorry (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    I'm some issues with my computer...

    Parent
    Then it's officially unanimous. (none / 0) (#89)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:09:54 PM EST
    Then it's officially unanimous.

    Well done.

    Parent

    Progressives want energy efficient buses (none / 0) (#25)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 08:59:33 AM EST
    Not just high speed trains, we want energy efficient buses too that will cut down on pollution from fossil fuels. Better environmental protection, less dependence on foreign oil should be our goal.
    link