I understand about OPSEC and agree that blowing a spy's cover is bad. I didn't know about the covert operations, or the CIA request, as I made the mistake of getting some of my early information from the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
I agree with you. Half-way. I don't believe Libby did anything wrong. The base accusation concerns a non-leak that he may not even have started. Plame wasn't a covert agent. It's not illegal to point out that guys who work at Langely every day probably work for the CIA. Plame was in that category, so how was there any cover to blow?
However, this commutation is an embarrassment. Libby was convinced in a court of law. That conviction was upheld on appeal by another, different court of law. The sentence should have stood until either new evidence suggesting his innocence, or a new appeal demonstrating the unfairness of his trial and appeal, had arisen. The friends of the rich and the powerful walk free while the rest of us get to wonder - if I get in trouble, how will I pay my lawyer?
I did read my link. I picked up on and highlighted their punch-line - Apples aren't green enough when they're made - rather than the worldwide recycling bit.
It does sound like standard old-soldier grumbling, but I can't fault you for it.
I'll express it in Perl:
foreach (@foo) {
print "The $foo has." }
You name it, it has. Army, Air Force, The Corps (by which I mean the USMA Corps of Cadets, not those crazy leathernecks), etc.
If the public can't hear the troops celebrating what works - including what they're doing that works - and bitching about what doesn't, that's a problem. However, even under the tightest of OPSEC controls, there's still one recourse for bad equipment: break it, fix it, toss it, or bring your own. Our soldiers have been doing this since the beginning.
If you find any such references, please share them. If you are remembering correctly, such an offer on the part of the Iranians would be interesting and worth remembering.
Ok. Do you think that's more impeachable than a blowjob?
At what point did I mention, imply, or otherwise infer any connection - logical or otherwise - between these impeachment proceedings and those against Bill Clinton? Please, point it out to me, because I'm not seeing it. I never said I opposed the proceedings as a whole. I said I'm unconvinced on this specific point - his impact on our relations with Iran and whether he has been acting in good faith on our behalf in that case.
I didn't say their hostility isn't understandable, or justified, or intense. It's all three. I said I can't how understand Cheney's actions could have made it worse. I read the paper too. My point is that I'm unconvinced that he has in fact lied or betrayed the public in re Article III.
I'm confused. Has the Iranian government, at any time in the last 30 years, been the least bit friendly to the United States? How is it possible to negatively impact or 'destabilize' relations with a government whose foreign policy toward the US can be summed up as 'Death to the Great Satan'?
Iran is building up nuclear infrastructure. It's been doing it for years, usually in defiance of UN attempts to regulate said development. Some people say it's dangerous for the Iranians to do this, and that an Iran with nuclear capabilities is a threat to the interests of the United States.
In sum, Kucinich's position appears to be "I think Cheney lied about Iraq, so he must be a nasty lying liar about Iran, too." After all, no one with any common sense could imagine an nuclear Iran using its newfound clout to, for example, threaten US shipping or hold foreign nationals hostage. They've never, ever done anything like that before. Why is mean, old Cheney threatening the poor harmless Iranians?
It may be a case of competing nationalisms. The stereotypical French 'Everything French is wonderful and everything American is crap' attitude is annoying.
We're much more likely to think of our Founding Fathers as being influenced by English ideas than by French ideas. I can point through the writings of Thomas Jefferson back to John Locke. The impact of Jean-Jacque Rousseau, for example, is a harder to pin down.
Also, a great many Americans are probably uninformed as to the course and extent of the Napoleonic Wars. We remember (maybe) the Battle of Waterloo and (maybe) that Napoleon's attempt to conquer Russia was an unmitigated disaster (which would make Hitler's attempt to do the same thing with the same results rather amusing, if not for the massive cost in human life), but the general course of those wars isn't really detailed in our pre-Undergraduate textbooks.
I can agree that the Free French and the resistance helped immensely where the Normandy landings are concerned. But there's also the Vichy government to keep in mind.
1) Based on the works of T.S Eliot, aka real literature. Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats.
2) Innovative concept and execution
3) Book and lyrics by talented writers
Granted, Cats isn't Cabaret or Phantom of the Opera, which I think are musically superior and thematically deeper. It is, however, important, both on its own technical merit and as the longest running Broadway Musical in history. By contrast, a musical of a movie of a comic book, as produced by activist rock stars who are too cool for real names, probably will and probably should to find the kind of success that graced Boy George and Rosie O'Donnell's "Taboo".
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and she's not even from the People's Republic of Austin!
I understand about OPSEC and agree that blowing a spy's cover is bad. I didn't know about the covert operations, or the CIA request, as I made the mistake of getting some of my early information from the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
I agree with you. Half-way. I don't believe Libby did anything wrong. The base accusation concerns a non-leak that he may not even have started. Plame wasn't a covert agent. It's not illegal to point out that guys who work at Langely every day probably work for the CIA. Plame was in that category, so how was there any cover to blow?
However, this commutation is an embarrassment. Libby was convinced in a court of law. That conviction was upheld on appeal by another, different court of law. The sentence should have stood until either new evidence suggesting his innocence, or a new appeal demonstrating the unfairness of his trial and appeal, had arisen. The friends of the rich and the powerful walk free while the rest of us get to wonder - if I get in trouble, how will I pay my lawyer?
I'm not worried. His 'manifesto' will probably involve reprogramming other robots to do the 3 Stooges' comedy routines.
And just as a guess, the techs would all be SmartASSes?
At last, the elusive second step:
1) Take pictures of other planets
2) release pictures to geeks
3) Scienc^H^H^H^H^H^HProfit!
But he never actually invented it. He merely wondered what might happen if he invented it.
Having spice would be interesting, but I hear the withdrawal symptoms are murder.
I did read my link. I picked up on and highlighted their punch-line - Apples aren't green enough when they're made - rather than the worldwide recycling bit.
Interestingly, Greenpeace has responded already, demanding more action, specifically, the products being green from the outset. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/tastygreenapple
It does sound like standard old-soldier grumbling, but I can't fault you for it.
I'll express it in Perl:
foreach (@foo) {
print "The $foo has."
}
You name it, it has. Army, Air Force, The Corps (by which I mean the USMA Corps of Cadets, not those crazy leathernecks), etc.
If the public can't hear the troops celebrating what works - including what they're doing that works - and bitching about what doesn't, that's a problem. However, even under the tightest of OPSEC controls, there's still one recourse for bad equipment: break it, fix it, toss it, or bring your own. Our soldiers have been doing this since the beginning.
And thank you for your service.
A very valuable variety of evasion, provided everyone volunteers not to violate everyone overusing 'V'.
I've heard of making movie previews and other commercials unskipable, but that's ridiculous!
But if you only give them a part of the door, wouldn't that be a violation of the license? You have to give the whole door to everyone who asks.
Ow. That is painful indeed. Best of luck and no hurry. I'm surprised, though, that the New Yorker doesn't have an online instance.
If you find any such references, please share them. If you are remembering correctly, such an offer on the part of the Iranians would be interesting and worth remembering.
Considering the time period, shouldn't that be "floor mosaic or it didn't happen"?
I didn't say their hostility isn't understandable, or justified, or intense. It's all three. I said I can't how understand Cheney's actions could have made it worse. I read the paper too. My point is that I'm unconvinced that he has in fact lied or betrayed the public in re Article III.
I'm confused. Has the Iranian government, at any time in the last 30 years, been the least bit friendly to the United States? How is it possible to negatively impact or 'destabilize' relations with a government whose foreign policy toward the US can be summed up as 'Death to the Great Satan'?
Iran is building up nuclear infrastructure. It's been doing it for years, usually in defiance of UN attempts to regulate said development. Some people say it's dangerous for the Iranians to do this, and that an Iran with nuclear capabilities is a threat to the interests of the United States.
In sum, Kucinich's position appears to be "I think Cheney lied about Iraq, so he must be a nasty lying liar about Iran, too." After all, no one with any common sense could imagine an nuclear Iran using its newfound clout to, for example, threaten US shipping or hold foreign nationals hostage. They've never, ever done anything like that before. Why is mean, old Cheney threatening the poor harmless Iranians?
Unfortunately, they'll have to do it all over again in a few years . . .
It may be a case of competing nationalisms. The stereotypical French 'Everything French is wonderful and everything American is crap' attitude is annoying.
We're much more likely to think of our Founding Fathers as being influenced by English ideas than by French ideas. I can point through the writings of Thomas Jefferson back to John Locke. The impact of Jean-Jacque Rousseau, for example, is a harder to pin down.
Also, a great many Americans are probably uninformed as to the course and extent of the Napoleonic Wars. We remember (maybe) the Battle of Waterloo and (maybe) that Napoleon's attempt to conquer Russia was an unmitigated disaster (which would make Hitler's attempt to do the same thing with the same results rather amusing, if not for the massive cost in human life), but the general course of those wars isn't really detailed in our pre-Undergraduate textbooks.
I can agree that the Free French and the resistance helped immensely where the Normandy landings are concerned. But there's also the Vichy government to keep in mind.
Cats succeeded for any number of reasons:
1) Based on the works of T.S Eliot, aka real literature. Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats.
2) Innovative concept and execution
3) Book and lyrics by talented writers
Granted, Cats isn't Cabaret or Phantom of the Opera, which I think are musically superior and thematically deeper. It is, however, important, both on its own technical merit and as the longest running Broadway Musical in history. By contrast, a musical of a movie of a comic book, as produced by activist rock stars who are too cool for real names, probably will and probably should to find the kind of success that graced Boy George and Rosie O'Donnell's "Taboo".
I'm just impressed that the next to last step is specified.
Approximately "Mira! Un camera! Vamos a destruirlo!"
And yes, my Spanish is rusty.