Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 471 To 480 Of 839 Comments
WATERBOARDING: THE S.E.R.E. STRAWMAN
I had a fairly up-close view of Watergate. I lived in downtown DC, worked (as a library flunky and occasional researcher) for a politically-involved law firm. The thing that made Watergate so deadly to Nixon was the drip, drip, drip.
I think with Torturegate Obama's actually tried to avoid that. He's trying to get everything out as quickly as possible, maybe give a nice speech, and then move on to his agenda.
But right now we are in that phase where we get the drip, drip, drip and everyone is suddenly paying close attention, waiting for the next drip. Watergate didn't start out with people thinking we were going to impeach Nixon. But after a while the logic of the on-going story made that inevitable. The long, drawn-out pursuit made a resolution necessary. Suspense demands a pay-off.
This is why SecDef Gates was right to back release of the memos and Panetta was wrong. Gates said in effect, it's coming anyway, let's just turn on the faucet and get it over with. It's the suspense that will prove dangerous.
And it's also why Cheney is doing his own cause such damage. He's playing the Nixon role. He's giving people a villain, which just makes the story work that much better. If Cheney went out and gave a speech acknowledging that mistakes were made, they overreacted, did some things they aren't proud of in retrospect, he would do himself a world of good.
But of course he won't. He'll play the Nixon role, snarling and sneering to the end.
Only Obama can stop this now. He obviously wants to. But Dick Cheney is making it harder every time he opens his mouth.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 25.04.2009 @ 09:47
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PARTISANS TO 'OUT' GAY REPUBLICANS
President Clinton committed perjury, lying under oath in a sexual harrassment suit. It’s appalling to think that perjury and keeping one’s private life private are the same line.
And all law-breaking must be prosecuted. Right?
Like, say, conspiracy to torture? I really want to hear your answer here. I want you to tell me that we had to impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job because the law is the law.
Because you know what, my friend? If the law is the law and we cannot help but prosecute, I think we may see Dick Cheney in handcuffs.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.04.2009 @ 21:19
I knew some knucklehead would try and equate the two. Unbelievable that any rational human being could possibly make a connection between a lawful investigation that ended up proving the president told a lie under oath and the destruction of the lives and careers by partisans acting in a private manner - and about to make a lot of money doing it.
Try again. And is it my imagination or are you devolving into one of the biggest partisan hacks who comments on this site?
I know it irritates you when people point out that partisan behavior on your side sometimes results in blowback.
No, I won't equate the two, because what you guys tried to do -- remove a duly-elected president on a pretense -- is far worse. The GOP made it crystal clear that it would sink to any depths to gain political advantage.
The GOP made itself the party of witch hunts and take-no-prisoners attacks under Atwater and Rove and Ken Starr and Dan Burton and Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich and on and on and on.
So don't come crying that some magic line of discretion has gone away when you are the ones who did so much to erase it.
By the way, do you really want to play that old song about having to follow the letter of the law and prosecute every offense? Because I can name a president, a vice president, and various cabinet officers who seem to have conspired to break the law on torture. You want to apply the letter of the law? Then you'll have no problem when Holder arrests Don Rumsfeld.
I'm actually opposed to prosecuting Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld for their gross violations of the law, which would make me rather less of a political hack than anyone who still dares justify the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.04.2009 @ 11:20
Where's the line? Obliterated when Republicans tried to take down an American president for lying about a private sex act.
Republicans didn't "out" anybody. The revelation was part of a government investigation - partisan if you will - but nevertheless, legitimate under the law.
I knew some knucklehead would try and equate the two. Unbelievable that any rational human being could possibly make a connection between a lawful investigation that ended up proving the president told a lie under oath and the destruction of the lives and careers by partisans acting in a private manner - and about to make a lot of money doing it.
Try again. And is it my imagination or are you devolving into one of the biggest partisan hacks who comments on this site?
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.04.2009 @ 09:31
CDOR:
It has come to this: conservatism now means having no sense of honor, of allying oneself morally with war criminals, with people we ourselves executed as war criminals. It means sinking to the level of our enemies and despising our laws, our treaties and our history.
You despise the American soldiers who refused to participate in this torture. You despise the FBI who refused to participate in this torture. You despise even those CIA agents who counseled against this torture. Instead you embrace the practices of the Japanese Imperial army, the Chinese communists and the Gestapo.
You should think long and hard about the line between "conservative" and "fascist." People like you don't protect me or anything else about this country. You are far more dangerous to this country, to its traditions, laws, constitution and moral standing than any of our current enemies.
We can withstand hits from terrorists. We would not survive people like you in positions of power.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.04.2009 @ 17:55
ECS
We have always drawn a line between what we do in battle and what we do to a helpless captive. We've tried and executed people for ignoring that line. we have court-martialled American soldiers for this. Churchill rejected it. The Luftwaffe rejected it.
That's not a line I draw, it's a line drawn in American law, and in our treaties, and in our differentiation of ourselves from our enemies. It's one of the things that makes us the good guys.
You want to wallow in human gutter with North Korea, North Vietnam, the PRC? That's your business. But stop pretending you're some kind of patriot. The patriots resisted this. It was the cowards, the panicky, the weak who leapt at the chance to commit torture: draft dodger Dick Cheney and draft dodger George W. Bush.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.04.2009 @ 21:52
ECS:
Don't play the tough guy with me. The Army objected to torture. That would be the United States Army. Our army. The FBI refused to participate. You know who supported torture? Fat, pale Washington lawyers and bureaucrats.
You know who else believed in waterboarding? The Chinese communists. The Japanese Imperial army. You know: the enemy.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.04.2009 @ 19:33
ECS:
No, the question is not who tortured. The question is who we are.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.04.2009 @ 19:06
You have to make it a three-way race.
You're all trying to add 2 plus 2 and come up with 5. Not enough Republicans, and not enough Republican-leaning indies. So you're screwed.
You can't even figure out how to draw a circle that includes Money Republicans, Bombs Republicans and Jesus Republicans. And all those sects together only amount to 25% of the vote. You need 100% of that 25% and you need to add about 60% of the indies while keeping the GOP in one piece.
It's not going to happen short of a complete Obama meltdown. Only Obama can save you now, and then only in the short term. Since the demographics are increasingly disastrous for you long-term your position is weakening further all the time. You're in orbit around a black hole.
The thing is, the far right nuts make a certain amount of sense: you're done as a coalition. The only way to win is for one or more elements of the GOP to stop being what they are, surrender their core identity.
The solution is simple: say good-bye to the GOP. Split the party into Nuts and Normals. (You may prefer some other nomenclature) The Nuts go away and the Normals form a moderate party that can appeal to Indies and moderate Dems. In a three-way race it's an open game. In a two-way race you're dead.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 22.04.2009 @ 16:31
WHY DO CONSERVATIVES SEE RED WHEN OBAMA TALKS GREEN?
When I was living in Tuscany (sorry, I know how that sounds) I learned a couple of useful energy facts:
1) Italy has to buy most of its power from France. Why? Because France is heavily into nuclear and Italians rejected it. So Italians can't run clothes dryers or air conditioning and they pay a fortune to the French.
2) The whole country -- much of the continent -- drives diesel. I drove several while I was there. The mileage is absolutely amazing, even on normal-sized cars. We could cut our gas usage drastically, almost overnight, with very available technology. And with the new cleaner diesels we'd sacrifice absolutely nothing.
3) Part of the reason Italians drive diesels is that the government taxes the sh*t out of fuel. So while their government was stupid on nukes it was smart on fuel. Government intervention can sometimes be a good thing. It should also be noted that France's decision to go nuke was a government decision.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 21.04.2009 @ 09:34
