Where are all the Einsteins who want to be on the cutting edge for the Government?
We have a government that for 8 years has tried to outsource as many of its functions as possible to private firms that pay much better than the government itself. Geez, let me guess where smart people are hiding...
Nope, I can turn around and walk out, or I can show them my ID and board the plane. I have a choice, and thus, I am in control.
So your idea of "being in control" is to accept one of two choices that someone else has created for you? If Door One leads to the firing squad and Door Two to the gas chamber do you feel equally "in control"?
However, you must give up SOME control before boarding the plane.
Getting your baggage, carry-ons and person x-rayed, forfeiting liquids and grooming items, and having the wand used and/or being patted down more than adequately fulfills that requirement.
I'd bet this rule comes about as a result of screeners failing to follow procedure.
So why complicate things by having different outcomes for refusal to show id versus making up an excuse? Why not anyone who doesn't have an id, for whatever reason, gets patted-down. If simplicity for the staff is the issue, that would be simpler.
that refuse to go along with the pack and surrender all of their rights when asked in a confident voice by an authority figure.
Bingo. They could not have made the intention any more transparent. It's not about security - otherwise why is pat-down good enough for people who just make up an excuse? It's about control and making the population submissive. We learn to bend over at the airport and it makes it easier to do it at the checkpoint, the federal building, the state border, or while jogging in a neighborhood in which they think you don't belong.
But are your company planning on making your company's 25Gb data available for free?
Because they would get sued. Every real-time data service I have used very explicitly stated that redistribution was a no-no.
That doesn't make it right - I think the gov could make a pretty good case that exchanges need to provide free data as a transparency mechanism - but that's where things stand now as far I know.
and it has already generated quite a bit of attention outside of slashdot
I read the article earlier in the week and it is indeed thought provoking. It's a shame it was posted on Slashdot at this hour on a weekend. At the time I post this at least 50 other people have posted and if a single person actually read the article they have chosen to hide that fact. It's a damn shame because there is much in it that would interest people here if they took the time.
That's just the thing. Would he accept such a statement about lack of proofreading from Bush about the WMD intelligence? I doubt it. By using crappy figures, emotional rhetoric, and exaggerations, he does a disservice to the point of view he would like to support.
Well I am guessing that you didn't mean to equate some guy writing a quick post on Slashdot to someone who had the entire machinery of the federal government at his disposal. It seems the latter was more of case of Bush's willful rejection of facts and opposing viewpoints than clerical error.
I agree with your overall point on the rape comment, however. It struck me a tangential and gratuitous swipe that detracted from the larger point.
Say what?...it sounds like we're not on the same page.
It seems to me we are very much on the same page.
Perhaps it was poorly phrased but what I meant by the military working well is that it performs its function superbly, regardlessly of the dubious and sometimes obscene missions it is given and the costs involved. Sadly, if you were to take a poll of the one thing the world thinks America currently excels at it would almost certainly be military related. Well, maybe prison technology. Certainly not telecom, broadband penetration, health care delivery, educational achievement, industrial base growth, etc.
Your point is well taken and many more examples could be offered - e.g. NASA, space race with Soviets, etc. I think we agree that giving the military buckets of money and being satisfied with whatever technology filters out accidentally into the commercial arena ten years after the fact isn't the most productive use of our national treasure.
I am too much of cynic to become overly optimistic but it would be great if a certain candidate's message of hope (as opposed to fear) actually sunk into people. This country is always at its best when it dares to dream, not cower in fear.
Fine, if it makes you feel better. I guess he didn't have time to run it past the proof readers before posting. Most people could tell from the context of the discussion what he meant and it in no way diminishes his point.
He isn't exaggerating much, if at all. The budget numbers are always cooked, never more so than by this president. One of the biggest games played is to throw in entitlement programs like social security and medicare into the numbers when it is convenient and leave them out when it isn't. When you look at discretionary spending, it is MORE than 50%. From the article that you cited:
FY 2007 Supplemental Funding : For FY 2007, $70 billion has already been approved, while the President's FY 2008 Budget requests an additional $102 billion. If approved by Congress, total FY 2007 spending for DoD/WoT would be $673 billion, or 64% of the net discretionary budget. FY 2008 Budget Proposal : For FY 2008, the President has requested the following: The Defense Department Base Budget - $481 billion. WoT(non-DoD) Base Budget - $73 billion. Supplemental Funding for WoT - $145 billion. Total requested Dod/WoT spending is $699 billion, or 65% of total net Discretionary spending.
Just think, one day, the R&D that Nintendo put into Wii bowling could end up influencing basic training.
Are we suppose to be proud or excited by this? Arguably the military is one of the few things left in the US that works well. Get back to me when the government puts a decent size fraction of what they spend on the military into energy research, healthcare, education and career retraining. I'll be thrilled when Wii research ends up in a surgeon's hands than an Air Force cadet.
You have spent at least the last three messages in a desperate attempt to have the last word by shamelessly trying to summarize the discussion to make your position (and you) seem sensible. Regardless of how much you twist the text, or try to put new words into my mouth, you convinced no one. The record is right here.
And here is the killer - you never knew who you were dealing with or how soon events would make you look so incredibly foolish.
Remember this in my original post: (1) Candidate X, what in the first month of taking office will you do to roll back the executive branch's power grab of the last 8 years and restore civil liberties?
To which you replied: , one month in office is way to early to undo something that another president has done without knowing exactly why it was done and how it effects your position as president.
Read it and weep for you ignorance. Vow to never shoot your mouth off without thinking again. Then be a man and apologize to me.
Of course you probably won't do that. Like your buddy Bush, you won't learn from your mistakes. You will just attack Obama (and me) and generally act like a weasel. Why not just surprise everyone be take the adult road?
it is reality and the way it is. If anyone would actually look around,
Your burden is heavy indeed, little buddy. Why, oh why, can't the rest of the world see things as you do? Rave on, dear fellow, and convince these mere mortals!
Let recap,
Dear, dear. All this self-serving work gone to waste on someone who won't play with you anymore. A pity, for such a good tale it is. You emerge like a hero. Nay, a god!
but we all know your whacked.
Bah-bye now. And don't forget to turn up the a/c in the trailer a bit when your imaginary friends are over.
And that would work because no Canadian ever needs to travel to the US and the US is never above arresting a visitor for something that they did somewhere else.
Or any other nationality. Certainly never to this guy.
Yes, it is all a plot against you controlled by dark forces. Your thoughts are so brilliant there are no lengths people won't go to suppress them. Fear not, oh valiant one, the truth shall conquer all in the end.
Truly, you are a delusional little man. Now please stop writing to me and hold witness to how easily forgotten you really are.
Can't imagine how much American news stations profited from showing that
That's close to the truth. One call back to Langley and Google would have been told to ignore old Joe. They want this stuff shown. Who would host their Osama videos? It's one arrow in the quiver for keeping us scared and throwing bags of money at them. They want to eliminate these videos from YouTube as much as anti-virus companies want people to stop writing viruses.
Now if AQ were to start making videos of calm, reasonable arguments of their grievances THAT would have to stop.
Actually, I started off by calling candidates who would support your ideas idiots. So you can cut your half a dozen times down quite a bit.
Your better defense would have been to admit that you don't write well enough for anyone to discern precisely who you are insulting. Given that you have spewed insults on a couple of continents of people it is pretty clear you aren't that discriminating anyway.
Well, first off what did he lie to congress about? Are you talking about the state of the union address that was corrected the very next day and anyone with access to a radio, TV, or newspaper would have known that.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that 2nd sentence was a question. It's as good a place to start as any because it is utter nonsense and fiction, as usual.
Ignoring the significant evidence otherwise, let's assume the Niger uranium story made its way into the speech "by accident". You would be the only person to remember such an immediate correction. I refuse to play the game where you pull something out of your ass and I spend time proving you're lying. So show me the proof. Give me a traceable citation from January 29, 2003 to prove what you say. It should be easy, right?
Or are you talking about the WMDs that there was specific inteligence (sic) to support. Hell, All during the Clinton years, the idea was the same and then all the after 2 years in office we are supposed to ignore all that because france said it wasn't true. well, here's a hint. France hasn't won a war in so long, nobody trusts their positions because they know it leads to defeat.
Wow, right out of the right wing lunatic play book. Never admit mistakes. Blame Clinton and the French, instead. Keep running that play for another election cycle or two, please!
Yup, a brilliant Bush move. Ignore the French. So what if they had much better contacts within the Hussein government than the US? They eat cheese! And ignore the Germans. And the UN. And even the British who wanted to wait on the UN. And, god forbid, don't wait for the UN inspectors to finish their work - they might report there was nothing to find and we would be denied shock and awe!
And now, Mr. SumDumAss, who trusts us "knowing" it leads to defeat?
How it is unconstitutional to use signing statements of the law can't be passed to cover him in the first place.
Not that I really understand that sentence but...it isn't unconstitutional to issue signing statements, it's unconstitutional to use them to pretend that the president can ignore parts of the bill to which it is attached because he issued them. The signing statement is a footnote, not a line item veto.
You see, here is where the problems arise, You don't know what all of his signing statements are and you just assum that congress has the ultimate authority over the other branches by passing a law. Well, here is a hint for you. The roles and positions the different branches play can't be don't by another branch because the constitution gives each of those branches the power ha
As for insulting me, I think if you look hard enugh, you can be true to form and find a way to insult me. I mean after all, I disagree with something you want to believe in. That alone should be enough for asshats like you to go off on a tangent with not constructive information.
Oh, you gutless little bitch, trying to play the victim. Read back. Who started this by responding to my original post calling me an idiot at least half a dozen times and ending with "you should be executed or at least castrated and forbidden to speak to children to remove the extreme stupidity you present from the gene pool." Now you are going to get all whiny on me and pretend to be so high minded and, boo hoo, you simply disagree with me. PISS OFF.
Yes, they are all known. And there has been a case made for their neccesities.
When did Bush explain to the American public why he lied to Congress? I definitely missed that. (And don't try to weasel with that "we had bad intelligence" crap. Even you aren't stupid enough to swallow that.)
When did he say he would no longer use signing statements as an attempt to (unconstitutionally) evade enforcing laws he didn't like? Missed that too.
Of course most of what you listed has already stopped so I guess your candidate of choice could just enter office and claim they already stopped torture
No, it is claimed that water torture has been stopped. Stress positions, isolation, temperature extremes, sleep deprivation, humiliation, etc., remain as popular as ever with your crowd.
However, you sitting on the outside claiming they are bad and should be done away with is nothing close to knowing if they are actually needed or not.
It has nothing to do with me or where I (or anyone else) is sitting. The vast majority of experts agree that torture is pointless and counter-productive. The military, given the chance to decide on their own, doesn't want anything to do with it. It is only the arm chair pussies like Rumsfeld and Cheney who wanted it. The new president, be it Obama or (especially) McCain isn't going to spend a split second even considering it, no less six months. That's "getting real".
Are you attempting to say your (sic) a carnies (sic)?
You are nothing if not funny - in a 3rd grade kind of way.
I never said I supported those program, I said you are a fucking idiot for thinking something should be done about them without the ability to assess the situation. 1 month is entirely too short
And I am telling you that you are putz, a rube, if you think there is "secret data" that in any way justifies any of this. The reason this stuff is "secret" is to hide the illegalities. That's it. There are no smoking guns. Be absolutely sure that if there was anything substantive the Bush administration would have been on in prime time trying to scare us and let us know what good job they were doing saving us. You know, like having John Ashcroft interrupting a Moscow visit to breathlessly announce that Jose Padilla was arrested - a month after he was actually arrested. There is no there there! It's all smoke and mirrors to hide the crimes of this incompetent administration. The only people who will be looking at that stuff six months after inauguration is the new Justice Department.
Would you be willing to admit that a month is significantly less the 100 days?
You're kidding. This is the best you could dredge up? Has it escaped you that the "first 100 days" starts on the FIRST day? Or that the plan starts being laid well before even the nominating convention?
I wouldn't know if they (Fox News) covered it or not, I don't watch them. However it seems like you might want to look into a more accurate news source.
First, one month in office is way to early to undo something that another president has done without knowing exactly why it was done and how it effects your position as president.
Yes, habeas corpus, torture, provisions of the Patriot Act, use of signing statements, lying to congress, hiding behind national security directives are all great mysteries at this point. It's not as if most of this information has long been in the public domain or that former members of the Bush administration have written a dozen or so books trying to justify their actions. There must be some super-duper SECRET reason only someone sworn in as president can be allowed to know before forming an opinion and plan of action to restore the Constitution. You know, some documents where W and the Gang lay down their really deep thoughts and let the new guy in on all that scary "intelligence" information that would make the rest of us just shit our pants if we knew.
Rubes like you get taken by the Carnies every single time and never have the intellectual strength to pull back the Wizard's curtain.
Only an idiot would make a claim of doing something within a month of being in office and they don't deserve to be the president.
We'll just skip the fact that every president since FDR has come in with some version of The First 100 Days Plan - or why. Let us live in your little world where the new president tests out the new desk and reads old documents for a couple of months getting up to speed. Sure, that's what happens. Really.
Second, None of the other countries would arrest a sitting or past diplomat or government official as long as the government they represented is still in power.
I'm guessing Fox News didn't cover Spain's (followed by Switzerland and Sweden) efforts to extradite former Chilean ruler Augusto Pinochet for crimes against humanity, including genocide and terrorism, during Pinochet's rule in Chile? What a surprise! Too busy covering Anna Nicole Smith?
One of the most fundemental (sic) rules of diplomacy is that you don't endanger the lives of your heads of states or diplomats by doing something with another countries (sic). The only exception to that is for spying
Cool. Education by Hollywood movies and Tom Clancy novels. So much easier and quicker than the real thing!
Why do you think that neither the UK, US, or any of the other countries that went to war in Iraq prosecuted Saddam for war crimes and it was left to the new Iraqi government to do? Because you don't fuck with present or past officials of other countries over something they did as that official and expect your officials to be safe.
Let us try to get our little heads around your thoughts.
We went to war with Iraq against the wishes and advice of the UN and most of the world, killed a million or so people while displacing many millions more, broke the society and contributed to starting a civil war. But we were afraid that the Iraqis (and the world) would be oh-so-mad at us for executing a former dictator we didn't do THAT. It would be SUCH a breech of protocol.
This is so clueless on so many different levels, including the real reasons Iraq executed Saddam, I can't properly insult you. Your reasoning has moved beyond the realm where simple language could express adequate contempt.
if the response from any sitting president is less then all out war, I will be the first to lead the charge of impeachment or assassination on him....any leader of official of the United State of America...deserves the full unfettered protection of the United States.
Glad to see you have your priorities straight. They may be war criminals but they are OUR war criminals, eh? Your impassioned stance makes Americans everywhere ever so proud.
Slashdot Mirror
Where are all the Einsteins who want to be on the cutting edge for the Government?
We have a government that for 8 years has tried to outsource as many of its functions as possible to private firms that pay much better than the government itself. Geez, let me guess where smart people are hiding...
In short, it is well-settled law that some executive entities are not covered by FOIA
Does this even matter very much? So they escape the FOIA, are they still not subject to the Presidential Records Act and possibly the Hatch Act?
What better than a massive hyperlinked encyclopedia-like information repository for this?
I believe Mr. Cheney is quite satisfied with his man-sized office safe, thank you.
Nope, I can turn around and walk out, or I can show them my ID and board the plane. I have a choice, and thus, I am in control.
So your idea of "being in control" is to accept one of two choices that someone else has created for you? If Door One leads to the firing squad and Door Two to the gas chamber do you feel equally "in control"?
However, you must give up SOME control before boarding the plane.
Getting your baggage, carry-ons and person x-rayed, forfeiting liquids and grooming items, and having the wand used and/or being patted down more than adequately fulfills that requirement.
I'd bet this rule comes about as a result of screeners failing to follow procedure.
So why complicate things by having different outcomes for refusal to show id versus making up an excuse? Why not anyone who doesn't have an id, for whatever reason, gets patted-down. If simplicity for the staff is the issue, that would be simpler.
that refuse to go along with the pack and surrender all of their rights when asked in a confident voice by an authority figure.
Bingo. They could not have made the intention any more transparent. It's not about security - otherwise why is pat-down good enough for people who just make up an excuse? It's about control and making the population submissive. We learn to bend over at the airport and it makes it easier to do it at the checkpoint, the federal building, the state border, or while jogging in a neighborhood in which they think you don't belong.
People can still afford to fly?
But are your company planning on making your company's 25Gb data available for free?
Because they would get sued. Every real-time data service I have used very explicitly stated that redistribution was a no-no.
That doesn't make it right - I think the gov could make a pretty good case that exchanges need to provide free data as a transparency mechanism - but that's where things stand now as far I know.
You aren't new here? Sorry... your high UID tells me otherwise.
Reminds me of some New England neighborhoods where after 6 years they still refer to you as "the new family down the block"! :)
and it has already generated quite a bit of attention outside of slashdot
I read the article earlier in the week and it is indeed thought provoking. It's a shame it was posted on Slashdot at this hour on a weekend. At the time I post this at least 50 other people have posted and if a single person actually read the article they have chosen to hide that fact. It's a damn shame because there is much in it that would interest people here if they took the time.
And before someone asks - no, I am not new here.
Well I am guessing that you didn't mean to equate some guy writing a quick post on Slashdot to someone who had the entire machinery of the federal government at his disposal. It seems the latter was more of case of Bush's willful rejection of facts and opposing viewpoints than clerical error.
I agree with your overall point on the rape comment, however. It struck me a tangential and gratuitous swipe that detracted from the larger point.
Say what?...it sounds like we're not on the same page.
It seems to me we are very much on the same page.
Perhaps it was poorly phrased but what I meant by the military working well is that it performs its function superbly, regardlessly of the dubious and sometimes obscene missions it is given and the costs involved. Sadly, if you were to take a poll of the one thing the world thinks America currently excels at it would almost certainly be military related. Well, maybe prison technology. Certainly not telecom, broadband penetration, health care delivery, educational achievement, industrial base growth, etc.
In the US, money gets spent on fear.
Your point is well taken and many more examples could be offered - e.g. NASA, space race with Soviets, etc. I think we agree that giving the military buckets of money and being satisfied with whatever technology filters out accidentally into the commercial arena ten years after the fact isn't the most productive use of our national treasure.
I am too much of cynic to become overly optimistic but it would be great if a certain candidate's message of hope (as opposed to fear) actually sunk into people. This country is always at its best when it dares to dream, not cower in fear.
Fine, if it makes you feel better. I guess he didn't have time to run it past the proof readers before posting. Most people could tell from the context of the discussion what he meant and it in no way diminishes his point.
Exaggerate much?
He isn't exaggerating much, if at all. The budget numbers are always cooked, never more so than by this president. One of the biggest games played is to throw in entitlement programs like social security and medicare into the numbers when it is convenient and leave them out when it isn't. When you look at discretionary spending, it is MORE than 50%. From the article that you cited:
Just think, one day, the R&D that Nintendo put into Wii bowling could end up influencing basic training.
Are we suppose to be proud or excited by this? Arguably the military is one of the few things left in the US that works well. Get back to me when the government puts a decent size fraction of what they spend on the military into energy research, healthcare, education and career retraining. I'll be thrilled when Wii research ends up in a surgeon's hands than an Air Force cadet.
You have spent at least the last three messages in a desperate attempt to have the last word by shamelessly trying to summarize the discussion to make your position (and you) seem sensible. Regardless of how much you twist the text, or try to put new words into my mouth, you convinced no one. The record is right here.
And here is the killer - you never knew who you were dealing with or how soon events would make you look so incredibly foolish.
Remember this in my original post: (1) Candidate X, what in the first month of taking office will you do to roll back the executive branch's power grab of the last 8 years and restore civil liberties?
To which you replied: , one month in office is way to early to undo something that another president has done without knowing exactly why it was done and how it effects your position as president.
Read it and weep for you ignorance. Vow to never shoot your mouth off without thinking again. Then be a man and apologize to me.
Obama asked what he hoped to accomplish during his first 100 days in office
Of course you probably won't do that. Like your buddy Bush, you won't learn from your mistakes. You will just attack Obama (and me) and generally act like a weasel. Why not just surprise everyone be take the adult road?
it is reality and the way it is. If anyone would actually look around,
Your burden is heavy indeed, little buddy. Why, oh why, can't the rest of the world see things as you do? Rave on, dear fellow, and convince these mere mortals!
Let recap,
Dear, dear. All this self-serving work gone to waste on someone who won't play with you anymore. A pity, for such a good tale it is. You emerge like a hero. Nay, a god!
but we all know your whacked.
Bah-bye now. And don't forget to turn up the a/c in the trailer a bit when your imaginary friends are over.
And that would work because no Canadian ever needs to travel to the US and the US is never above arresting a visitor for something that they did somewhere else.
Or any other nationality. Certainly never to this guy.
Yes, it is all a plot against you controlled by dark forces. Your thoughts are so brilliant there are no lengths people won't go to suppress them. Fear not, oh valiant one, the truth shall conquer all in the end.
Truly, you are a delusional little man. Now please stop writing to me and hold witness to how easily forgotten you really are.
Can't imagine how much American news stations profited from showing that
That's close to the truth. One call back to Langley and Google would have been told to ignore old Joe. They want this stuff shown. Who would host their Osama videos? It's one arrow in the quiver for keeping us scared and throwing bags of money at them. They want to eliminate these videos from YouTube as much as anti-virus companies want people to stop writing viruses.
Now if AQ were to start making videos of calm, reasonable arguments of their grievances THAT would have to stop.
There isn't a corporation in the US that's a match against the power of the federal government.
True but they are getting closer.
Your better defense would have been to admit that you don't write well enough for anyone to discern precisely who you are insulting. Given that you have spewed insults on a couple of continents of people it is pretty clear you aren't that discriminating anyway.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that 2nd sentence was a question. It's as good a place to start as any because it is utter nonsense and fiction, as usual.
Ignoring the significant evidence otherwise, let's assume the Niger uranium story made its way into the speech "by accident". You would be the only person to remember such an immediate correction. I refuse to play the game where you pull something out of your ass and I spend time proving you're lying. So show me the proof. Give me a traceable citation from January 29, 2003 to prove what you say. It should be easy, right?
On the other hand, here is a statement from the White House 2 and 1/2 months later repeating the same lie.
Wow, right out of the right wing lunatic play book. Never admit mistakes. Blame Clinton and the French, instead. Keep running that play for another election cycle or two, please!
Yup, a brilliant Bush move. Ignore the French. So what if they had much better contacts within the Hussein government than the US? They eat cheese! And ignore the Germans. And the UN. And even the British who wanted to wait on the UN. And, god forbid, don't wait for the UN inspectors to finish their work - they might report there was nothing to find and we would be denied shock and awe!
And all that "intelligence". You know, the plagiarized student papers, the the forged documents, the blurry satellite photos, and aluminum tubes, among so much other fabricated material. Whoever could have seen through that? Certainly not a Yale graduate or his entire administration and military!
And now, Mr. SumDumAss, who trusts us "knowing" it leads to defeat?
Not that I really understand that sentence but...it isn't unconstitutional to issue signing statements, it's unconstitutional to use them to pretend that the president can ignore parts of the bill to which it is attached because he issued them. The signing statement is a footnote, not a line item veto.
Oh, you gutless little bitch, trying to play the victim. Read back. Who started this by responding to my original post calling me an idiot at least half a dozen times and ending with "you should be executed or at least castrated and forbidden to speak to children to remove the extreme stupidity you present from the gene pool." Now you are going to get all whiny on me and pretend to be so high minded and, boo hoo, you simply disagree with me. PISS OFF.
When did Bush explain to the American public why he lied to Congress? I definitely missed that. (And don't try to weasel with that "we had bad intelligence" crap. Even you aren't stupid enough to swallow that.)
When did he say he would no longer use signing statements as an attempt to (unconstitutionally) evade enforcing laws he didn't like? Missed that too.
No, it is claimed that water torture has been stopped. Stress positions, isolation, temperature extremes, sleep deprivation, humiliation, etc., remain as popular as ever with your crowd.
It has nothing to do with me or where I (or anyone else) is sitting. The vast majority of experts agree that torture is pointless and counter-productive. The military, given the chance to decide on their own, doesn't want anything to do with it. It is only the arm chair pussies like Rumsfeld and Cheney who wanted it. The new president, be it Obama or (especially) McCain isn't going to spend a split second even considering it, no less six months. That's "getting real".
You are nothing if not funny - in a 3rd grade kind of way.
And I am telling you that you are putz, a rube, if you think there is "secret data" that in any way justifies any of this. The reason this stuff is "secret" is to hide the illegalities. That's it. There are no smoking guns. Be absolutely sure that if there was anything substantive the Bush administration would have been on in prime time trying to scare us and let us know what good job they were doing saving us. You know, like having John Ashcroft interrupting a Moscow visit to breathlessly announce that Jose Padilla was arrested - a month after he was actually arrested. There is no there there! It's all smoke and mirrors to hide the crimes of this incompetent administration. The only people who will be looking at that stuff six months after inauguration is the new Justice Department.
You're kidding. This is the best you could dredge up? Has it escaped you that the "first 100 days" starts on the FIRST day? Or that the plan starts being laid well before even the nominating convention?
Yes, habeas corpus, torture, provisions of the Patriot Act, use of signing statements, lying to congress, hiding behind national security directives are all great mysteries at this point. It's not as if most of this information has long been in the public domain or that former members of the Bush administration have written a dozen or so books trying to justify their actions. There must be some super-duper SECRET reason only someone sworn in as president can be allowed to know before forming an opinion and plan of action to restore the Constitution. You know, some documents where W and the Gang lay down their really deep thoughts and let the new guy in on all that scary "intelligence" information that would make the rest of us just shit our pants if we knew.
Rubes like you get taken by the Carnies every single time and never have the intellectual strength to pull back the Wizard's curtain.
We'll just skip the fact that every president since FDR has come in with some version of The First 100 Days Plan - or why. Let us live in your little world where the new president tests out the new desk and reads old documents for a couple of months getting up to speed. Sure, that's what happens. Really.
I'm guessing Fox News didn't cover Spain's (followed by Switzerland and Sweden) efforts to extradite former Chilean ruler Augusto Pinochet for crimes against humanity, including genocide and terrorism, during Pinochet's rule in Chile? What a surprise! Too busy covering Anna Nicole Smith?
Cool. Education by Hollywood movies and Tom Clancy novels. So much easier and quicker than the real thing!
Let us try to get our little heads around your thoughts.
We went to war with Iraq against the wishes and advice of the UN and most of the world, killed a million or so people while displacing many millions more, broke the society and contributed to starting a civil war. But we were afraid that the Iraqis (and the world) would be oh-so-mad at us for executing a former dictator we didn't do THAT. It would be SUCH a breech of protocol.
This is so clueless on so many different levels, including the real reasons Iraq executed Saddam, I can't properly insult you. Your reasoning has moved beyond the realm where simple language could express adequate contempt.
Glad to see you have your priorities straight. They may be war criminals but they are OUR war criminals, eh? Your impassioned stance makes Americans everywhere ever so proud.