|
|
 |
|
 |
Member since: November 22, 2008
|
|
|
|
Scott's perception that I "shout[ed]" is odd, considering that there were neither any exclamation marks nor any usages of all-capitals in my comment (the two most common markers of "shout[ing]" in a text-based means of communication such as the Internet).
Nor is his secondary remark about aspirin-factory bombing really meaningful, given that: first, I did not undertake to defend any policies of the Democratic Party or its members in my comment, which means Scott's comment is almost entirely a non-sequitur (putting entirely aside the logical issues involved in reaching the conclusion); and second, that I did in fact post links to evidence that American "intelligence" actually contradicted the Bush administration claims, which renders meaningless the question of the quality of "intelligence" (now, if he had disputed that evidence, that would have been meaningful; but he did not).
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Glee3d re: prosecution of government officials; that is, *all* government officials who have committed crimes. Full investigation and accountability. Although re: the claim that the Republicans would have saved the world re: FNMA/FHLMC: a bit obsessive; anyway, I'm sure those specific people have violated other laws, so prosecute them anyway! Speaking of which-- Actually, every member of congress that voted for war funding (which is pretty much all of them, minus one or two) in any of America's criminal wars of aggression is a war criminal under international law. Much of the American military is guilty of war crimes as well. And, well, obviously, the people referred to in Rall's column are also criminals. Nearly all of the rest of the government officials can probably be gotten on taxes or other corruption.
Now, we'd basically have no government after that-- which shouldn't be taken to mean that I would object on practical grounds, because I wouldn't. What Glee3d expresses appears to demonstrate a mythologization of American politicians (particularly Republicans; of the five politicians identified for prosecution, three are Democrats and two are identified by their association with the Democratic president; I wonder if he realizes too that Geithner was appointed by George W. Bush in 2003 to head the NY Federal Reserve...); they (American politicians) are *all* guilty of something or other (exceptions are of course possible, but they are highly unlikely)-- again, that shouldn't be construed as objection to prosecution of American politicians' crimes just because "they all do it".
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
"[George W. Bush] has been viciously denounced as a liar and an idiot".
Paul Kengor needs to look in the mirror. The essential premise of Kengor's piece is that George W. Bush did not know the truth*; and that, despite not knowing the truth, George W. Bush believed what the media told him. The very premise of Kengor's column thus presumes George W. Bush to be an idiot, even as he ostentatiously denounces those who make such a claim.
* nb: the sole "evidence" provided for Kengor's presumption of George W. Bush's ignorance is the media's cheerleading for war... Not that I would ask him to prove a negative, except inasmuch as he could have at least tried to build the case that American "intelligence" believed the lies to be truth.
The larger problem that Kengor appears to be having is the difficulty that comes when you try to defend someone who was wrong (speaking generally); when someone is wrong (that is, when they make a factually incorrect statement) -- particularly someone in a powerful position like the US presidency -- they are either a) stupid (or gullible), b) lying, c) drunk or otherwise lacking control of what they're saying, or d) tricked by a massive conspiracy -- if George W. Bush was not a) or b) (as Kengor seems to be attempting to argue), then he must be either c) or d); c) is unlikely, particularly given the sheer amount of time that altered state of consciousness would have needed to last, and d) would have required that American "intelligence" had made a concerted effort in pushing the lies as truth. The evidence[1][2] is fairly clear in demonstrating that even American "intelligence" was ambivalent at best about the case for war; which of course means that George W. Bush (along with other administration officials) either lied, or believed a media narrative over official "intelligence" channels (i.e. acted stupidly).
[1] For example: http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
[2] And: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments
I'd ask for smarter Republicans (than Kengor) again, but I think this is the best we're going to get...
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Glee3d
Paul Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/pity-the-poor-corporations/
"Now, the thing you have to realize about corporate taxes is that the statutory rate — the rate you pay after allowed deductions and all that — means very little. That’s because corporations have lots of potential deductions — and can hire the very best accountants to find them, and lawyers to justify them. So any time you see a table that compares the nasty 35% US rate with other countries, you know you’re being snowed.
"A much better indicator is the amount of taxes corporations actually pay ... basically the United States looks normal [compared to other countries]. This whole fuss is much ado about nothing — or rather, it’s about the ability of special interests to create a firestorm of publicity over the alleged need to do something that, whaddya know, would improve their bottom line."
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
I take issue with this:
"... President-Elect Barack Obama - a self-identified liberal Democrat who campaigned as a champion of human rights ..."
I'm fairly certain that, technically, Obama hasn't actually "self-identified" as "liberal"; now, I may be wrong, but the people who called Obama "liberal" the most seemed to be those on the Right (and, of course, they used the term as a negative), and I don't believe Obama has actually used the term to describe himself ("progressive", which he has called himself, is another matter [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/obama-addresses-critics-on-centrist-moves/]). And one thing that runs somewhat counter to self-identification as a "liberal" is when Obama protested against being characterized as, in his words, "wildly liberal" during a debate with McCain [http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/09/wildly-liberal.html]. Finally, I'm not quite sure about whether Obama "campaigned as a champion of human rights"; I do not think that I would say that that was the theme of his campaign.
Other than that, I think this article is fantastic -- it's good to see someone in print critiquing Obama from the left.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
Read All 7 Comments »
|
|
|
|
