Comments on: Bad Ideas http://firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/ Firedoglake weblog Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:44:27 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: barry http://firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337824 barry Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:47:08 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337824 <p>I recall that in his early days as Bush’s sec def Rumsfeld had all the pentagoners watch Algiers. Some day when the Bushies are all gone to their jobs in the private sector, we can discuss whether Rumsfeld was a smart man in the service of idiots or an idiot himself.</p> I recall that in his early days as Bush’s sec def Rumsfeld had all the pentagoners watch Algiers. Some day when the Bushies are all gone to their jobs in the private sector, we can discuss whether Rumsfeld was a smart man in the service of idiots or an idiot himself.

]]> By: gmoke http://firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337798 gmoke Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:32:10 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337798 <p>I had the opportunity to ask Adam Nagourney about torture twice. </p> <p>The first time, at Harvard, i asked about the ticking time bomb scenario in which we torture the wrong person, and asked what is our responsibility to that victim of torture? Nagourney responded by asking me about my position on abortion.</p> <p>The second time was in Las Vegas when I showed him how to get to the conference center at the Riviera Hotel where YearlyKos was happening. He remembered me from Harvard and said he had to be very careful about such questions as torture because he couldn’t afford to be seen as “too political.”</p> <p>Adam Nagourney will be at Harvard again tomorrow. This time I intend to ask him whether the Times or any other media establishment he knows of will be fielding reporters to pay extra-special attention to voting irregularities this year and if not why not considering that, even without the electronic voting machines, there are plenty of questions about the 2000 and 2004 elections.</p> <p>I doubt I’ll get a straight answer to that one either but at least I’ll raise the question.</p> I had the opportunity to ask Adam Nagourney about torture twice.

The first time, at Harvard, i asked about the ticking time bomb scenario in which we torture the wrong person, and asked what is our responsibility to that victim of torture? Nagourney responded by asking me about my position on abortion.

The second time was in Las Vegas when I showed him how to get to the conference center at the Riviera Hotel where YearlyKos was happening. He remembered me from Harvard and said he had to be very careful about such questions as torture because he couldn’t afford to be seen as “too political.”

Adam Nagourney will be at Harvard again tomorrow. This time I intend to ask him whether the Times or any other media establishment he knows of will be fielding reporters to pay extra-special attention to voting irregularities this year and if not why not considering that, even without the electronic voting machines, there are plenty of questions about the 2000 and 2004 elections.

I doubt I’ll get a straight answer to that one either but at least I’ll raise the question.

]]> By: Geralyn Horton http://firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337647 Geralyn Horton Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:35:00 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337647 <p>I have no enthusiasm for Hilary. I cannot help but hold her personally responsible for the triumph of the right-wing conspiracy and the present distress and disgrace of this nation. Whether considered from the POV of principle or of pragmatism, it was Hilary’s patriotic duty as First Lady to protect the office of the presidency and the constitution her husband took the oath to serve. She wasn’t able to persuade Bill either to abstain from hanky-pank during his term of office or to conduct his affairs with a discreet, mature, and loyal mistress. Everyone–except Bill, apparently–knew that his enemies were poised to take him and the Democratic party down if he slipped from the straight and narrow. If she could not avoid this predictable train wreck, how can we trust her to steer the nation?<br /> Once Bill was caught, there were two courses open to true patriots: her husband must resign and apologize, or– better– make the ultimate sacrifice: quickly court assassination or a fatal accident. A martyred president, killed while trying to serve in spite of the harassment of a gang of power-mad hypocrites, would have been followed by a successful Gore presidency, with moderates or even liberals appointed to the Supreme Court. Republicans in congress would have served as watchdogs against Democratic corruption, instead going on a spree of greed, warmongering, and corruption. As a tragic widow Hilary might well have been appointed Vice President, and after her excellent service in that position (or as senator) she could easily have won the 2008 election. Our beloved country would have been spared the impotent last years of the Clinton administration and whole Bush II disaster– a disaster which may well spell the end of not only the America we know and love, but of the habitable planet itself. Mrs. Clinton and her husband chose to hang on to the office and put the country though the humiliating ordeal of impeachment, to the detriment of everything we elected Bill Clinton to preserve and protect. For the good of the nation, she must step aside and throw her support to the Democratic candidate who best represents the values she might once have represented herself.</p> I have no enthusiasm for Hilary. I cannot help but hold her personally responsible for the triumph of the right-wing conspiracy and the present distress and disgrace of this nation. Whether considered from the POV of principle or of pragmatism, it was Hilary’s patriotic duty as First Lady to protect the office of the presidency and the constitution her husband took the oath to serve. She wasn’t able to persuade Bill either to abstain from hanky-pank during his term of office or to conduct his affairs with a discreet, mature, and loyal mistress. Everyone–except Bill, apparently–knew that his enemies were poised to take him and the Democratic party down if he slipped from the straight and narrow. If she could not avoid this predictable train wreck, how can we trust her to steer the nation?
Once Bill was caught, there were two courses open to true patriots: her husband must resign and apologize, or– better– make the ultimate sacrifice: quickly court assassination or a fatal accident. A martyred president, killed while trying to serve in spite of the harassment of a gang of power-mad hypocrites, would have been followed by a successful Gore presidency, with moderates or even liberals appointed to the Supreme Court. Republicans in congress would have served as watchdogs against Democratic corruption, instead going on a spree of greed, warmongering, and corruption. As a tragic widow Hilary might well have been appointed Vice President, and after her excellent service in that position (or as senator) she could easily have won the 2008 election. Our beloved country would have been spared the impotent last years of the Clinton administration and whole Bush II disaster– a disaster which may well spell the end of not only the America we know and love, but of the habitable planet itself. Mrs. Clinton and her husband chose to hang on to the office and put the country though the humiliating ordeal of impeachment, to the detriment of everything we elected Bill Clinton to preserve and protect. For the good of the nation, she must step aside and throw her support to the Democratic candidate who best represents the values she might once have represented herself.

]]> By: prostratedragon http://firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337454 prostratedragon Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:18:45 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337454 <p><a href="#comment-336914"><em>EvilDrPuma @<br /> 88 </em></a></p> <blockquote><p><a href="#comment-336906"><em>Oklahoma kiddo @ 80</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>If Democrats, (moderates, left, and progressive types) don’t get busy and start supporting an alternative with money etc., Clinton is going to bag the nomination. That is, if the Senator hasn’t already done so. There really is no time to waste. Do we want to be sitting here, say five years hence bemoaning the Iraq War and God only knows what other war follies that we may be into?</p></blockquote> <p>Has Clinton even made a public statement to suggest she’s <em>trying</em> for the ‘08 nomination? The GOP has been using her to scare voting-age children for years already, and I’m not convinced yet that all this talk is anything more than people with REAL reasons to object to her politics jumping on a bandwagon the wingnuts built.</p></blockquote> <p>What EvilDrPuma said. Have <i>never</i> been convinced she was running. But the Rovian Spinners talked it up so much that it must have started seeming like a good way to build a war chest.</p> EvilDrPuma @
88

Oklahoma kiddo @ 80

If Democrats, (moderates, left, and progressive types) don’t get busy and start supporting an alternative with money etc., Clinton is going to bag the nomination. That is, if the Senator hasn’t already done so. There really is no time to waste. Do we want to be sitting here, say five years hence bemoaning the Iraq War and God only knows what other war follies that we may be into?

Has Clinton even made a public statement to suggest she’s trying for the ‘08 nomination? The GOP has been using her to scare voting-age children for years already, and I’m not convinced yet that all this talk is anything more than people with REAL reasons to object to her politics jumping on a bandwagon the wingnuts built.

What EvilDrPuma said. Have never been convinced she was running. But the Rovian Spinners talked it up so much that it must have started seeming like a good way to build a war chest.

]]> By: Clay Fink http://firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337449 Clay Fink Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:10:48 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337449 <p>I’m afraid that it is this kind of equivocating (a better term is “bullshitting”) is why a lot of people have trouble getting excited about the Democratic party. If the likely future leader of an opposition party cannot stand up and speak the truth about one of the most important issues of the day, then why should we bother supporting them?</p> I’m afraid that it is this kind of equivocating (a better term is “bullshitting”) is why a lot of people have trouble getting excited about the Democratic party. If the likely future leader of an opposition party cannot stand up and speak the truth about one of the most important issues of the day, then why should we bother supporting them?

]]> By: Greg in Madison http://firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337417 Greg in Madison Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:11:56 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337417 <p><a href="#comment-337036"><em>Cozumel @ 192 </em></a></p> <blockquote><p><a href="#comment-337016"><em>Eureka Springs, AR @ 184 </em></a></p> <blockquote><p>Feingold Edwards Clark in that order. I won’t include Gore since he is telling us not to. I don’t relish the idea of <strike>Clark</strike> a military leader since we need to stop using our military and focus on so many other issues which both Russ and John have had more preparation time and experience.</p></blockquote> <p>I dunno about Feingold and <b>ONLY</b> because he hasn’t been “battle tested” on the big stage. Divorced three times, could be a <em>woman scorned </em> there somewhere.</p></blockquote> <p>Feingold is twice divorced, not three times, and both of his former wives are on the record that he was a great husband and a father. The second divorce was primarily because his wife didn’t want to go through the strain and trauma of a nasty presidential campaign. No “woman scorned” to be found here.</p> Cozumel @ 192

Eureka Springs, AR @ 184

Feingold Edwards Clark in that order. I won’t include Gore since he is telling us not to. I don’t relish the idea of Clark a military leader since we need to stop using our military and focus on so many other issues which both Russ and John have had more preparation time and experience.

I dunno about Feingold and ONLY because he hasn’t been “battle tested” on the big stage. Divorced three times, could be a woman scorned there somewhere.

Feingold is twice divorced, not three times, and both of his former wives are on the record that he was a great husband and a father. The second divorce was primarily because his wife didn’t want to go through the strain and trauma of a nasty presidential campaign. No “woman scorned” to be found here.

]]> By: cbear http://firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337206 cbear Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:15:52 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337206 <p>TeddySanFrancisco,</p> <p>“I wonder if Jane was tasered before she started in on TRex?”</p> <p>Jane started in on Trex?<br /> What did I miss?<br /> Where?</p> TeddySanFrancisco,

“I wonder if Jane was tasered before she started in on TRex?”

Jane started in on Trex?
What did I miss?
Where?

]]> By: CJ http://firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337138 CJ Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:33:45 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337138 <p><a href="#comment-337016"><em>Eureka Springs, AR @<br /> 184 </em></a></p> <blockquote><p>Feingold Edwards Clark in that order. I won’t include Gore since he is telling us not to. I don’t relish the idea of <strike>Clark</strike> a military leader since we need to stop using our military and focus on so many other issues which both Russ and John have had more preparation time and experience.</p></blockquote> <p>FYI (although I would think that someone from AR would know this) - Clark was against Iraq long before we invaded. He testified in the congressional hearing - you can find it on CSPAN - think it was September of ‘02. Also, in case you haven’t noticed … it isn’t the <em>military leaders</em> that got us where we are today. My order would be Clark, Feingold and leave pretty boy Edwards off the list, along with Hilary.</p> Eureka Springs, AR @
184

Feingold Edwards Clark in that order. I won’t include Gore since he is telling us not to. I don’t relish the idea of Clark a military leader since we need to stop using our military and focus on so many other issues which both Russ and John have had more preparation time and experience.

FYI (although I would think that someone from AR would know this) – Clark was against Iraq long before we invaded. He testified in the congressional hearing – you can find it on CSPAN – think it was September of ‘02. Also, in case you haven’t noticed … it isn’t the military leaders that got us where we are today. My order would be Clark, Feingold and leave pretty boy Edwards off the list, along with Hilary.

]]> By: Marshall http://firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337097 Marshall Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:55:54 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337097 <p>Torture is my third rail - touch it, and I will never vote for you.</p> <p>I have never worried much about Hillary - I know a wide variety of people, and <b>I don’t know, personnally, anyone who wants her to be President</b>. Not one person. Likewise, in 194 comments on this blog, has one person supported her ? To become President money is not enough — at some point, people have got to vote for you.</p> Torture is my third rail – touch it, and I will never vote for you.

I have never worried much about Hillary – I know a wide variety of people, and I don’t know, personnally, anyone who wants her to be President. Not one person. Likewise, in 194 comments on this blog, has one person supported her ? To become President money is not enough — at some point, people have got to vote for you.

]]> By: Eureka Springs, AR http://firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337055 Eureka Springs, AR Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:17:51 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/15/4985/#comment-337055 <p>Coz - Oh man, I didn’t know it was three. That is a toughy, but, I have a sense he would give McCain a hell of a fight. I would prefer he continue to serve in the Senate than in a VP seat.</p> Coz – Oh man, I didn’t know it was three. That is a toughy, but, I have a sense he would give McCain a hell of a fight. I would prefer he continue to serve in the Senate than in a VP seat.

]]>