Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 631 To 640 Of 657 Comments
Brilliant.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 9.08.2007 @ 11:41
If it gets your readers an informed view of what' going at the convention, take as long as you need.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.08.2007 @ 10:05
OBAMA: NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME - EVER
@steve:
I can agree to a point. Certainly, a rogue state does not have to send us a polaroid of the Anthrax before we defend ourselves. But going back to the list of rogue states I mentioned before, which of them are being open and honest? I (perhaps naively) assume that the designation rogue state generally implies a reluctance to be open. It WAS demonstrated to the satisfaction of Mr. Blik, who was actually there and had vast ammounts of experience on the topic, but the Administration didn't seem to care.My concern is exemplified in your line " . . .to our satisfaction." If the Administration wanted to get him before 9/11 (which it seems pretty clear they did), were they looking at the information objectively, or through "kill Saddam" tinted glasses?
What sets off my "lying antenna" is after we invaded. As the lack of WMDs became clear, the administration (Cheney, Rummy) kept deflecting questions with versions of "we are absolutely sure the WMDs are there." At the time, I assumed that they had super-secret-ninja intelligence that overrode what we in the public saw. In hindsight, they clearly did not -- they were just so determined to invade that if Saddam ordered Twinkies from a deli they would have interpreted it as code to kill Americans.
It reminds me of when I drink. Alcahol doesn't effect me. I can drink all I want, and I stay the same. Everybody around me, however, turns into an argumentatve bastard. Now, most people say I'm the one that is drunk, but since I know I'm completely unaffected, they all must be wrong. If the Administration wanted to invade (regardless of cause), then they were going to see cause (even if everybody else who looked at the evidence didn't see squat).
This, to me, is why I can't believe the Admin on pretty much anything. IMO, they decide the "right" thing to do, then look at the facts with their "I've already decided" glasses on. Since there is no global warming, all reports that say it exists are rife with inaccuracy (even if they have to edit them to make it clear), and any reports debunking it are pure gold (even if the peer community disagrees). Since Republicans are the Party of Good, pressuring governmental agencies to help Republicans (even though blatantly illegal) is justified. Since overthrowing Saddam will not only cause Democracy to flower in the Mideast but get some payback for the failed GW assination attempt (dead or alive, baby!) then he must be the biggest threat of all dictators.
If we invaded for self-defense (which is what we claimed at the beginning), then the Administration decided "well, since we have to go in anyways, lets start democracy, spread freedom, and create a better world", then I'm disgusted. You fight a war for one purpose: to win and end it. Its not a classroom exercise -- you don't send college interns to run the CPA, you send the best.
Two possible fact patterns: either (a) the CIA ran to the Administration and said "Saddam's getting active! We gotta take him out now!!" or (b) the Administration went to the CIA and said "We gotta take him out now! He's getting active, right?" If its the latter, then by definition he wasn't the biggest threat; he was a target of opportunity.
Anyways, thats my two cents. It seems to be a judgement call, so I don't think either of can be "right", but I certainly respect your position and appreciate the discussion.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.08.2007 @ 12:32
@Steve:
Hmmmm . . . if you take out "he's got anthrax tipped missles ready to go right now!" argument for invasion (which, given what I was told by this administration, I heartily agreed with), I don't see the other reasons distinguishing him from any other dictator. He supported terrorists who hate us? So do dozens of countries, as far as I know the biggest one being Saudi Arabia. Heck, the Provos in Ireland were primarily funded by citizens in the United States. The US funded the Afgan resistance fighters (now today's terrorist). We've worked with "terrorist groups" in Central America, the mideast, etc. for decades.
Saddam hated us (after we worked together in the Iran-Iraq war) for good reason -- we wouldn't let him grow in the MidEast, and spanked him hard when he tried. While he may have supported some terrorists (definitely NOT Bin Laden and company), he wasn't (IMO) trying to attack us. I'm sure he was pleased as punch when we were attacked, but if the worst he did against us was support people who may eventually attack us on their own, well, as I said before we did that too, since we signed Bin Laden's paycheck all those years in Afganistan.
WMDs . . . again, I'm sure he wanted them, but so do lots of countries. In hindsight, its clear he wasn't close to getting them, and its also clear that us flying F-16s over his airspace for a decade made it pretty difficult for him to do more than just wish for them real hard. Again, how is his dreaming of WMDs different from Quaddafi? Jong Il? Any of a host of sycopaths in Africa?
I do agree that the idea of "sending a message to the other jerks" sounded like a good, albeit naive, idea on paper. Problem is, even if executed flawlessly thousands of people would have to die (not all of them black hats).
Another mideast war would be bad for us, but how was he going to attack when we had sorties going overhead every day? Everytime he thought about flexing his muscle, we blew something up.
If we're gonna kill people because they threaten us, well and good. Self-defense is a long recognized principle. If we're gonna kill people because we don't like the way they're eyeballing us, then I think we go to far as a nation, and there are WAY too many nations giving us the stinkeye for us to fight them all.
Yes, IF he was actively seeking WMDs, IF he was aggressively co-ordinating terrorists to act as proxies against us, IF he was attacking other Mideast countries, IF attacking him deterred future attacks by third parties . . . lots of ifs. Too many ifs, in my opinion.
I don't think we should EVER start a war without cause. Cause to me is more than paranoia and mabyes. By the ifs, we should invade Pakistan (harbors terrorists, brutal regime, WMDs, instability). And Iran (WMDS, supports terrorists, send message, sway Mideast political landscape, etc.) And North Korea (he's friggin' insane). And Venezuela. Probably Lybia as well to be on the safe side. Chad. Sudan. Syria. And so forth. What made Saddam #1 on the list? Aside from "he tried to kill my daddy"?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.08.2007 @ 01:37
@ Steve and Rick:
This was the problem with the Administration's "Tough Texan" talk. When they kept going on with "we've gotta invade Iraq becuase he's a cruel dictator who hates us" talk, the obvious next question was "why this dictator?" In terms of evil bastards oppressing their citizens, he was kind of a garden variety bastard, and if we're gonna do it for him, we've set a precedent for dozens of other countries. Either we invade everybody, or we look (again) like we just spout rhetoric when it suits us, but have no real beliefs or convictions.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.08.2007 @ 10:15
Roughly 18 presidential candidates, and not one of them can give a resoned answer to a question. Everything is emotional soundbites.
Is this really the best of the best in our country?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.08.2007 @ 11:55
@Bill Arnold:
"I believe (perhaps naively) that this organization [the NSA] really does not institutionally want to be involved in domestic politics."
For some inexplicabe reason, so do I. I try to rationalize it by believing if I had ultimate, 007, super-ninja-spy powers, I really wouldn't give a damn what was going on in the White House -- I'd just go off doing my super-spy thing in Kamchata or something.
BUT, wanting to do it and pushed to do it are two different things. As the GSA briefings (and, what, 15 others at this point? The frickin' Peace Corps?) show, put a few key team players in a few key positions, and you can "re-direct" an agency. Then, if you can "re-direct" the Agency that is supposed to act as oversight for the first Agency, you're home free.
I think this is my main problem with Dubyas House -- the machinations they are clearly using to exert power can only be justified if you are trying to do something dirty.
"What can we do to help our people?"
"get back to me off-the-record."
"oh, yeah, right -- as long as we're gonna do something about this."Amazingly, of the 8 or so people in the room who were present for the above conversation (not an exact transcript but IMO pretty damn close), the only two people who don't remember the above comments were the two people speaking. How can you doubt that? Its the same behavorial logic I apply to Rep. Jefferson's odd financial storage plan: You may have a good excuse (highly unlikely), but storing $90,000 in marked bills in your freezer is pretty much a good reason to doubt EVERYTHING about you.
Whether or not I trust the NSA, I feel compelled as a citizen at this point to simply assume wrongdoing under such suspicious circumstances. I used to trust the DoJ the same way, knowing that the "high priests" of the legal community were almost robotic in their (heavy) evenhandedness. Sure, you had a rogue ASUA here or there, but the agency overall stood for virtue. Ahhh, the good old days.
As r4d20 noted, Dubya has been playing FISA games for years, and so far all of them have been either (a) counterproductive (refusing offers to update) or (b) illegal (DoJ revolting over spying, recent secret ruling, etc.). Now the bad situation looks even suspicious and morally suspect.
btw, has anybody heard if Jefferson has offered an explanation for the money-in-the-freezer thing? I'm dying to hear this tapdance.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.08.2007 @ 11:11
@analogboy:
Dead on accurate. It seems like its gone beyond "liberal/conservative" to "Bush lovers/haters." As you said, reason and debate can't dent faith, on either side (I'm firmly in the "hater" category).
I suppose this is the fabled "Cult of Personality."
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.08.2007 @ 12:34
@ Slimguy:
"If a government wanted to spy on someone they would do it outside the government with more controlled small sized staffs regardless of the law."
The fact the the government would break the law anyways means we should just let them do it under official coverage?
"The NSA program has strict safeguards, audits of all usage and review by the FISA courts of the audit quality.
Each probe has a designated tasking and scope limits."
Since we (the citizens) haven't the slightest idea what the heck they are doing, how can you assure me that the above two statements are true? The only thing that you can argue (I think) is "the Administration totally promised they aren't breaking any rules."
We know (per the FBI) that at least one of the publicly disclosed aspects of the program (NSA letters) were mishandled/abused. We also know that, when these facts came to light in the Administration, we were told "no worries" (see Gonzales assuring that there were no abuses under oath).
Why on Earth would I trust them to oversee themselves? Heck, why on Earth would I trust ANYBODY to police themselves? If self-policing was effective, we wouldn't need oversight. Or police.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.08.2007 @ 11:45
@Slimguy:
"FISA is a old law and just think of all the new technical means for communication today. IM’s , ICQ, Web base Email, File Sharing networks etc."
This assumes that FISA has been gathering dust since it was enacted in the 1970s. Its been updated, to keep pace with new and emerging technologies, roughly 50 times since it was passed. Its been reported that the law has been updated almost a dozen times since 9/11.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.08.2007 @ 11:38
