The Belgravia Dispatch: No-Brainer

October 26, 2006

No-Brainer

Q I've heard from a lot of listeners -- that's what we do for a living, talk to good folks in the Heartland every day -- and I've talked to as many who want an increased military presence in Iraq as want us out, which seems to be the larger debate, at least coming from the left -- cut and run, get out of there. One fax said, when you talk to the Vice President, ask him when shock and awe is coming back to Iraq. Let's finish the job once and for all.
And terrorist interrogations and that debate is another example. And I've had people call and say, please, let the Vice President know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives. Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do agree. And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided us with enormously valuable information about how many there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth, we've learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that.

The Congress recently voted on this question of military commissions and our authority to continue the interrogation program. It passed both Houses, fortunately. The President signed it into law, but the fact is 177 Democrats in the House -- or excuse me, 162 Democrats in the House voted against it, and 32 out of 44 senators -- Democratic senators voted against it. We wouldn't have that authority today if they were in charge. That's a very important issue in this campaign.

Are we going to allow the executive branch to have the authority granted and authorized by the Congress to be able to continue to collect the intelligence we need to defend the nation.

Q Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the Vice President "for torture." We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.

And thanks to the leadership of the President now, and the action of the Congress, we have that authority, and we are able to continue to program.

When will this nightmare (running on torture, gross dissembling, demagoguery etc.) end?

UPDATE (via WaPo):

The White House said yesterday that Vice President Cheney was not referring to an interrogation technique known as "waterboarding" when he told an interviewer this week that dunking terrorism suspects in water was a "no-brainer."
Instead, press secretary Tony Snow said, Cheney was talking literally about "a dunk in the water," though Snow declined to explain what that meant or whether such a tactic had been used against U.S. detainees.

"We don't talk about techniques; that would include waterboarding," Snow said. "He does neither -- he neither confirms nor denies its use, neither supports nor shows a lack of support for it."

Snow added later: "A dunk in the water is a dunk in the water..."

...The ambiguities in the waterboarding debate were most evident during two contentious news briefings yesterday as Snow was repeatedly questioned by reporters who did not accept his explanations of Cheney's remarks. Snow repeatedly insisted that Cheney was not referring to waterboarding or any other technique, although he was at a loss to explain how being dunked in water would not also qualify as a method of interrogation.

Snow joked at several points about needing to avoid water-related metaphors in his comments, as when he accused reporters of "fishing" for answers. He declined to say what Cheney meant by dunking terrorism suspects in water but said he would get back to reporters with a fuller explanation, which did not materialize yesterday.

At one point during the first briefing, a frustrated reporter asked: "So the detainees go swimming?"

"I don't know," Snow responded. "We'll have to find out."

Preposterous.

Posted by Gregory at October 26, 2006 04:09 AM

Comments

When the opposing party forces it to, Gregory, and not a moment before. That may be after January 2007, or -- if the administration is determined to bull ahead (and surely no one has any more doubt that we are being governed by three megalomanics) -- it may take until Jan. 2009, since we will never, under any circumstances, be able to gain 2/3 in the Senate for a conviction vote. (Yet another respect in which our outdated Constitution is destroying us.)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 26, 2006 04:49 AM | Permalink to this comment

Hey, I agree with Cheney -- waterboard terrorists all you want to if it means you will get information that will prevent another terrorist attack.

Of course, the problem for me is that we're torturing people who have no information of any value -- and we're torturing people who do have information who will provide false information to stop the torture.

Of course, Cheney would never subject himself to someone who questions him about torturing people who turn out to not be terrorists....

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 26, 2006 06:00 AM | Permalink to this comment

Hey, I agree with Cheney -- waterboard terrorists all you want to if it means you will get information that will prevent another terrorist attack.

Of course, Cheney would never subject himself to someone who questions him about torturing people who turn out to not be terrorists....

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 26, 2006 06:00 AM | Permalink to this comment

Hey, I agree with Cheney -- waterboard terrorists all you want to if it means you will get information that will prevent another terrorist attack.

Of course, Cheney would never subject himself to someone who questions him about torturing people who turn out to not be terrorists....

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 26, 2006 06:05 AM | Permalink to this comment

Note that Hennen and his fans favor torture being used as a ROUTINE tool of wartime interrogation, rather than one reserved for extreme emergencies -- it should be used whenever "it saves American lives"; that is, ANY number of American lives. (Aficionados of black humor, however, will at least get a kick out of watching McCain squirm when confronted with this transcript.)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 26, 2006 06:17 AM | Permalink to this comment

Your question assumes a fact not in evidence....i.e. that the "nightmare" WILL end. I suspect that with plenty of people like p.lukasiak in our nation it will not end. It has only begun in fact.

In the BBC drama I Claudius, there is a line where, referring to Caliguia's reign's Herod Agrippa warns Claudius to 'watch out when the money runs out' .

Watch out when failure overtakes this nation. As it soon will. Bush et al are gonna be on the hunt for 'villians' to blame. Then the real nightmare begins.

Posted by: jonst at October 26, 2006 12:44 PM | Permalink to this comment

I prefer to substitute "to eat a kitten" for "a dunk in water" for the last question, because mecha-Cheney does not feel your 'human' emotions.

Posted by: norbizness at October 26, 2006 01:54 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Dunking" a terrorist? Sounds like one of those games at a company picnic. Let's strap the "journalist" to a board and submerge him/her head-first for as long as it takes to feel that he/she is drowning.

Next they'll liken it to bobbing for apples.

Posted by: Tom S at October 26, 2006 02:54 PM | Permalink to this comment

No-brainer... heh. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I love it when people volunteer OTHER PEOPLE for things, like bringing "shock and awe" back to Iraq, like it's a Phish tour or something. Maybe, to offset the costs of the War on Terror (TM), the govt should have some Shock and Awe Tour 2006 t-shirts made up so armchair warriors everywhere can feel like a part of it. But without all that unpleasant being shot and blown up and stuff, 'cause getting shot or blown up can really harsh your buzz. And they could make the war interactive, like American Idol. Let the viewing audience here in America pick which Iraqi city we shock and awe next.

Then "robust interrogation program"... first it was "tough treatment" (it's like "tough love", only without the love), now it's "robust interrogation." Robust, like a fine wine or a tomato sauce. Very civilized.

And finally, when exatly is the Bush administration going to collect intelligence? Do we have a timetable on that? Any day now, Dick. Dick? George? Have you gotten any intelligence yet? Just let us know when that happens...

Posted by: LL at October 26, 2006 04:43 PM | Permalink to this comment

"When will this nightmare (running on torture, gross dissembling, demagoguery etc.) end?"

Never.

Bush et al. have awakened a fascistic beast in the American soul, and found it very useful for getting and keeping power. And they will suffer no meaningful consequences whatsoever for having done so: no charges, no jail time, no death penalty - not even a Nuremberg-style Commission.

Let's see: enormous power, enormous wealth, and no consequences. Why should it end? What's the downside for the people who commit these atrocities? What's the downside for the people who support and enable them?

There has also been no meaningful examination by former Bush supporters as to why they voluntarily surrendered their capacity critical thinking, why they supinely went along with every bit of lying agitprop the Bush Admin and its mouthpieces peddled, why they turned on their fellow citizens with such vituperation and contempt.

That's the most important factor: not why did Bush et al. have a horror show to sell, but why were they able to sell it?

If you really want to know when it will end, you need to look into your own mind and soul and figure out why you were one of the people who let it happen in the first place.

Why? Why? Why?

What was going on in your mind, that you bought what Bush was selling? What was going on in your mind that you dismissed as fantasy or mere partisanship or surrender-monkeyism everything that Bush's opponents were saying - even as the list of people saying them grew longer and longer, and included people who had been loyal functionaries in other Republican Administrations?

I'm serious. I'm deadly serious. If you want to stop fascism, you have to recognize its early symptoms. There were a LOT of people trying desperately to warn us what was going on, and - just as has happened in so many other countries where fascists were able to play the citizens off against each other - the ones trying to warn us were without exception hooted down as cranks.

Posted by: CaseyL at October 26, 2006 04:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

I suspect that with plenty of people like p.lukasiak in our nation it will not end. It has only begun in fact.

geez, you all better hope not....because I'll give them everyone's name here if they even threaten to take away my morning coffee! :)

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 26, 2006 06:53 PM | Permalink to this comment

OK, so now can we admit that the idea of sending the upper 2-3 tiers of the Cheney administration to an international tribunal isn't some loopy leftie revenge fantasy, but a necessary act of housecleaning?

Posted by: sglover at October 26, 2006 06:54 PM | Permalink to this comment

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/10/the_vicepreside.html

The quote from Cheney's spokesperson is golden.

Posted by: Matt at October 26, 2006 07:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

And thanks to the leadership of the President now, and the action of the Congress, we have that authority, and we are able to continue to program.

Isn't he admitting here that previously, they did not have the authority and were breaking the law? Maybe we need to dunk him and find out.

Posted by: Ugh at October 26, 2006 09:14 PM | Permalink to this comment

Meanwhile, some previews of the Baker report, via Salon:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/10/26/iraq/

"The Iraq situation is not winnable in any real sense of the word 'winnable,'" said Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who was chief of the Middle East desk of the National Security Council for the elder Bush and director of policy planning in the State Department during President Bush's first term, last week. Haass' views are a surrogate for Baker's, as well as those of Brent Scowcroft, who was the former President Bush's national security advisor and who remains close to both him and Baker.

In "A New Middle East," an article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a shorter version of that article in the Financial Times, Haass lays out the outline of the Baker plan that will be presented to Bush. His analysis ruthlessly casts aside Bush's high-flown rhetoric and attributes its emptiness to Bush's failures. He writes:

"Visions of a new Europe-like Middle East that is peaceful, prosperous and democratic will not be realized. Much more likely is the emergence of a new Middle East that will cause great harm to itself and the world.

"The American era was one in which, after the Soviet Union's demise, the US enjoyed unprecedented influence and freedom to act. What brought it to an end after less than two decades? Topping the list is the Bush administration's decision to attack Iraq and its conduct of the operation and resulting occupation."

Posted by: Mitsu at October 26, 2006 10:20 PM | Permalink to this comment

"when you talk to the Vice President, ask him when shock and awe is coming back to Iraq. Let's finish the job once and for all."

When America goes to war, most Americans want us to kick ass and take names. The Cheney/Rumsfeld approach was "save your ass and name Chalabi." The strategy of minimizing the number of troops, justified by the idea that the Iraqis would peacefully support a rapid, orderly transfer of power to someone like Chalabi, set up this disaster. The subsequent failure to adapt tactics to a different reality created the disaster. The fact that we're out of tactical options but can't swallow a change in goals has deepened the disaster.

Re Mitsu's point about the likely Baker report conclusions:

But from the point of view of U.S. security, Iraq is just a (poorly chosen, failed) battle in the war against Islamic terrorism. It's about like Vietnam in the context of the Cold War, at least in that respect. How we extricate ourselves from this mess ought to be determined by considering how we should position ourselves for future battles in that war, not directly by the shape we leave Iraq.

Likewise, the policy to torture prisoners needs to be considered in the light of how it positions us with respect the next phase of the war. I think Cheney's approach to this is immoral, is criminally in breach of our treaty obligations (Geneva) and is repugnant to American values, but I also think it's a mistake to immediately jump to this sort of argument. Doing that, for me, implicitly concedes Cheney's argument that torture is the most effective way to gather intelligence. I would suggest that before making that concession, read Slow Burn by Orrin DeForest, who was the key US intelligence officer in the Delta in Vietnam. He's pretty convincing on the practical superiority of humane interrogation techniques.

Posted by: Matt at October 26, 2006 11:14 PM | Permalink to this comment

In that connection, note tonight's story at http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usbritainiraqmilitary :

"An Al-Qaeda terror suspect captured by the United States, who gave evidence of links between Iraq and the terror network, confessed after being tortured, a journalist told the BBC.Iban al Shakh al Libby told intelligence agents that he was close to Al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and 'understood an awful lot about the inner workings of Al-Qaeda,' former FBI agent Jack Clonan told the broadcaster.

"Libby was tortured in an Egyptian prison, according to Stephen Grey, the author of the newly-released book 'Ghost Plane' who investigated the secret US Central Intelligence Agency prisons that housed terror suspects around the world...

"Libby was apparently taken to Cairo, Clonan told the broadcaster, after being captured in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

" 'He (Libby) claims he was tortured in jail and that would be routine in Egyptian prisons,' Grey said. 'What he claimed most significantly was a connection between ... Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. This intelligence report made it all the way to the top, and was used by Colin Powell as a key piece of justification ... for invading Iraq,' he told the broadcaster.

"Powell claimed in a UN Security Council meeting in February 2003, weeks before a US-led coalition invaded Iraq, that the country under Saddam Hussein had provided weapons training to Al-Qaeda, saying he could 'trace the story of a senior terrorist operative', whom Grey alleges is Libby. 'At the time, the caveats to say this intelligence was extracted under torture were not provided,' Grey said.

"Grey said that, after being held in Egypt, Libby was transferred to a secret CIA facility in Bagram, just north of Afghanistan's capital Kabul. The journalist said he had also met other people held in that facility who describe the torture that Libby faced at the CIA facility.

"Since then, 'he disappeared', Grey said. 'Like hundreds of other people arrested after September 11, he's vanished into a sort of netherworld of prisons where astonishingly, President Bush now says the prisons have emptied.' "

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 27, 2006 04:54 AM | Permalink to this comment

So somebody please keep an eye out for McCain reacting to this. He better. Oh wait, Midterms.

Posted by: Klaus at October 27, 2006 12:05 PM | Permalink to this comment

McCain's reaction will be a carefully studied reaction, just like any other professional actor. The McCain who actually gave a f*ck about this, enough to place stopping it over a (snowball's) chance (in hell) at the presidency died many years ago.

Posted by: Barry at October 27, 2006 02:11 PM | Permalink to this comment

Most Americans say we can win the war against terrorism without using
torture and vast majorities disapprove of waterboarding, according to
the polls. On the other hand, nearly half say sleep deprivation is
acceptable.

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_proposals_detail.cfm?issue_type=americas_global_role&list=14

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_proposals_detail.cfm?issue_type=americas_global_role&list=15

Posted by: Public Agenda at October 27, 2006 08:44 PM | Permalink to this comment

Most Americans say we can win the war against terrorism without using
torture and vast majorities disapprove of waterboarding, according to
the polls. (http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_proposals_detail.cfm?issue_type=americas_global_role&list=14). On the other hand, nearly half say sleep deprivation is
acceptable (http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_proposals_detail.cfm?issue_type=americas_global_role&list=15).

Posted by: William Hallowell at October 27, 2006 08:49 PM | Permalink to this comment

Bruce, thanks for the post. It highlights one of I think 3 questions that we need to ask about torture before we even consider the moral arguments:

1) Does it result in information we could not otherwise obtain?

2) Does it result in reliable information?

3) Does it further radicalize people so that we've got to either execute them or warehouse them indefinitely?

4) Does it have more propaganda value for the enemy than it has intelligence value for us?

Posted by: Matt at October 27, 2006 09:19 PM | Permalink to this comment

In wartime, it's impossible EVER to separate "moral" from "strategic" arguments -- the question, always is whether such-and-such a policy does more total good than total harm (and that means "good" for humanity as a whole -- the Nuremberg Trials disposed once and for all of the idea that the only moral consideration is what benefits yourn own country).

In this connection, note three facts:

(1) When the Red Brigades kidnapped (and later killed) Aldo Moro, it was sugested that some of the imprisoned Brigadiers be tortured for info on where Moro might be held. The very tough-minded general who led the ultimately successful campaign against the Brigaades, replied: "Italy can survive the loss of Aldo Moro. It cannot survive the introduction of torture." That is, he was acutely aware of the danger of the Slippery Slope where the use of torture is concerned (which Greg has also talked about).

(2) During WW II, Imperial Japan not only refused to follow the Geneval Accords, but took intense glee in torturing and killing American POWs. Although the American people -- who were already mad as hell -- would certainly have approved of our reciprocating, the FDR Administration flatly forbade mistreatment of Japanese POWs, even for information. Why? For the simple reason that the Administration knew that, after the war, we couldn't occupy Japan permanently -- thus they wanted a Japan which was independent but not anti-American -- and they knew that refraining from torturing japanese POWs was a very cost-effective way to encourage that. Now consider how much more important this is in our current conflict with a large, globally distributed part of the entire billion-strong Moslem community -- which we cannot even begin to occupy.

(3) In those infrequent cases where torture may be morally justified -- the genuine "Ticking Bomb" scenarios involving the need to torture to prevent mass deaths -- even if such torture is illegal, the chances that any jury would convict the torturer are precisely zero, even if any prosecutor would indict him. It would fall under the category of "justifiable assault for the protection of others". So the only possible reason to leagalize torture in the manner of Bush and company is if you intend to use it so ROUTINELY that there will be frequent cases in which all the members of a jury would regard its use as morally unjustifiable.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 27, 2006 09:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

As described in the Washington Post, a Japanese soldier was given 17 years for "dunking" (waterboarding) a US POW.

Posted by: Tom S at October 27, 2006 09:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

Bush, of course, is denying today what Cheney said yesterday, because they don't discuss individual interrogation techniques. My question is how does the Military Commissions Act provide any clarity whatsoever if they refuse to address specific methods of interrogation.

Posted by: Tim at October 27, 2006 11:53 PM | Permalink to this comment

It doesn't. McCain has even awkwardly admitted it doesn't. The man can't quite steel himself yet to give up any chance of the Presidency in order to avoid allying with what he knows perfectly well to be evil. It will be interesting to see what side he finally comes out on -- and even more interesting if (as I think likely) he sells out and then is deprived of the GOP nomination by the right wing ANYWAY, thus having not only sold his soul but not even gained the world in return.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 28, 2006 01:36 AM | Permalink to this comment

Gregory: You supported Bush in 2004. At the time of the election I read a great many blogs, including yours After the election I cut back. I have another life.

When did you turn against Bush in his handling of Iraq? Can you refer me to a blog entery that explains why?

I am a Republican. I support the Republican party. Iraq is not the only issue before the country. I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

With that behind me, let me say that I opposed the Iraq war in the beginning for two reasons: 1. Wars have unintended consequences. 2. I knew if things got tough, the Democrats would do everything they could to undercut the President. But after the war began, I supported my country and the troops.

Just imagine if the Democrats put aside their desperate desire for power and supported the President. Don't tell me a united nation could not handle this situation. What if the Democrats supported sending more troops to Iraq? Bush can't advocate that, because the Democrats would tear him apart. I will admit there was a time when he might have been able to send more, but that is only a possibility. In insurgents and Islamic fascists just figure that they can continue their killing and wait for the divisions in this country to force us out.

Now I know one of your readers would say I am calling them unpatriotic. Of course I am not. Neither has the President. It is just with sadness I say I do not think they have any sense.

Now I must also say that I have never really believed we would be able to establish a democratic Iraq. Muslims currently do not think in terms of democracy, (They never will until they suffer through a Reformation and a period like the Enlightenment)

I know I am just a peon. However, right after our destruction of the Iraqi regime in 2003, I felt the country should be divided into 3 states. I still do. Iraq was just a figment of the imagination of some British map maker after World War I. Why are we bound by such foolishness?
I guess these folks in the Middle East just hate anyone who is different - Kurds, Jews, etc.

If we establish a Kurdish state, why could we not withdraw our troops there and to Kuwait? We could make it clear that we would come back with overwhelming force if the new governments in Bagdad and the Shiite south allowed a terrorist threats to develop. A problem: that would require Democrat support. I do not understand how we can get that. I truly believe many of them are determined to have a result that will completely discredit Bush,

Now I hear many on the left talk about Bush and Cheney establishing a fascist state or caring out fascist policies. When they say that, I just stop listening. It is difficult to carry on a discussion with a crazy person.

One more point: THIS IS NOT BUSH'S WAR. It is Tony Blair's war. Bush would never have been able to go to war without his support. Do the Bush haters hate Blair with like venom? Was Blair just stupid as they say Bush was? Or, was he just a dupe? The continued Bush baiting and name calling is of no help

Jim Russell
West Memphis, AR

Posted by: Jim Russell at October 28, 2006 03:03 AM | Permalink to this comment

My paragraph above about folks hating the Kurds left some sentences from my original typed statement What was left out was that we should establish a Kurdish state. We should force Turkey to accept a Kurdish state. I do not understand the opposition to such a state. Then the thought about hating. Sorry about my error. I am not a good typist.

Jim Russell
West Memphis

Posted by: Jim Russell at October 28, 2006 03:17 AM | Permalink to this comment

Jim:

(1) At this point, virtually no one has any confidence in the Bush administration's ability to handle or USE a larger number of troops with any confidence -- certainly there are very few Americans who would trust him with a military draft. Even in cases where US military strength is higher priority -- such as preventing Iran from acquiring the Bomb, or keeping North Korea under control -- we're starting to see evidence that the Administration would bungle those efforts, too. (Seymour Hersh quotes observers who say that the Bushites, if they stage an aerial attack on Iran, will actually devote most of the bombing not to actually trying to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, but to trying to destabilize its government -- that is, trying to bomb the people of Iran into supporting a pro-American regime. Rightio. That worked so well before.)

(2) The Bushites never ASKED for more troops for Iraq, even when a sizable number of Democrats (as well as Republicans) were saying we SHOULD send more. The Dems never got a chance to turn him down.

(3) Your suggestion that we try to stay in Kurdish Iraq is excellent, and a lot of other people support it as well. But as for trying to formally divide Iraq into three pieces at this stage: it's probably too late. The chaos has become too extreme. In any case, there are enough places whose ownership would be fought over -- inclusing Kirkuk and Baghdad itself -- that the idea probably never had a chance to work.

My own feeling from before the war onward has been that preventing the possibility of nuclear terrorism is, by an overwhelming margin, our highest priority -- far higher even than trying to prevent biological terrorism (which won't be nearly as murderous as nuclear weapons for decades, and which in any case is almost impossible to control through offensive, as opposed to defensive, military action). And I initially supported the Iraq war precisely because I figured that Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Neocons, however selfish or venal they might be, were at least sensible enough to recognize the same high priority, and so were telling the truth when they talked about Saddam having restarted an energetic Bomb program despite the sanctions. I was wrong -- they're not only selfish, but fools. They convinced themselves that occupying and reforming Iraq would be such a "cakewalk" (to quote Ken Adelman's phrase, which seems likely to live in infamy) that we could do so with just a sprinkling of troops and then use the new pro-American Iraq as a staging ground for equally cakewalky military overthrows of the Iranian and Syrian governments. They were, in fact, so insanely overconfident of this that they felt justified in lying about the strength of Saddam's nuclear program (and his ties to al Qaeda) to trick Congress and the public into backing the war -- and, for the same reason, they made absolutely no contingency plans in the event we fell into the cake. Now see the results. We may very well have to back a Bush-run military campaign against the Iranian nuclear program, but I shudder to think how the Three Stooges will run it without constant supervision by a very skeptical and hands-on Congress.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 28, 2006 10:14 AM | Permalink to this comment

Oh, and Greg: "Preposterous" is not the right word for Snow's recent performances. "Disgusting" is the word. The man makes Ron Ziegler look like George Washington. Remember how he was going to charm us all into backing the administration? His actual tactic turns out to be openly sticking his tongue out at the press and the public and verbally insulting them for trying to get any actual information (something which not even Ziegler, Fleischer or McClellan ever did; they were just evasive). That ain't gonna fly much longer.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 28, 2006 10:22 AM | Permalink to this comment

Jim Russell, thank you for giving us a real-sounding name and a hometown. That makes you look ever so much more authentic than the usual bit of astroturf. I think we'll see many more like you soon.

I think you shouldn't have to retype messages for the net. You should be able to download the text and just cut and paste. It's a ridiculous waste of your time to receive your messages on paper and have to retype them. Ridiculous.

So anyway, you want to blame the war on Blair because Blair failed to stop Bush. But consider -- you were one of Bush's most loyal followers and you opposed the war, but you also failed to stop him. So by the same logic we could say that the war isn't Bush's fault, it's your fault. That line of thought is stupid. This IS Bush's war. It's silly of you to deny it.

You say that voting against Bush's repubican supporters in Congress is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Maybe we shouldn't throw the bathwater out either, maybe we should waterboard the baby ijn it. ;) But joking aside, tell us about the other issues that are so much more important than the war.

Perhaps you're afraid that democrats would spend too much, too much pork, increase the deficit?

Maybe you think the democrats wouldn't save Social Security, and we need a Republican congress to follow Bush's bold Social Security plan?

Tell us about it. Tell us about the issues that are so much more important than Bush's war.

For myself, I'm not sure that Democrats are the answer. I'm undecided between votind Democrat and voting Libertarian. I think you should seriously consider voting Libertarian this time around. A vote for a Libertarian is a vote for traditional Republican values. A vote for a Republican, any Republican, is a vote for corruption.

Posted by: J Thomas at October 28, 2006 02:31 PM | Permalink to this comment

bruce m: re: disgusting v preposterous-agreed.

Posted by: greg djerejian at October 28, 2006 05:10 PM | Permalink to this comment

I must say, that's actually the first time I've read anyway blame Blair for this war. Quite original, that. Everyone knows the Brits had fuck all to say about this matter, and that is what Blair was hewn down for.

Posted by: Klaus at October 28, 2006 07:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

anyway = anyone

Posted by: Klaus at October 28, 2006 07:49 PM | Permalink to this comment