OH NO HE GAVE HER AN iPOD AND SHE ALREADY HAD ONE AND IT WAS FILLED WITH HIS SPEECHES (EVEN THOUGH IT WAS REALLY FILLED WITH CLASSICAL MUSIC BUT IT SOUNDS BETTER IF I SAY IT WAS FILLED WITH NOTHING BUT SPEECHES) AND IT WAS MAYBE ILLEGAL HE SHOULD GO TO JAIL THE HORROR THEN HE CALLED GREAT BRITAIN ENGLAND WHICH EVERYONE IN THE WORLD DOES FOR SHAME HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER I KNOW I WOULD KNOW BETTER AND NEVER MAKE A FAUX PAS AND I WON'T EVEN MENTION THE ABSOLUTE SELFISHNESS OF GIVING A FEW DVDS TO MY PAL GORDON WHEN THERE ARE REGION RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE I KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY THAT THEY WON'T PLAY ON HIS DVD PLAYER BECAUSE I KNOW FOR CERTAIN BARAK BOUGHT THEM AT BLOCKBUSTER SO HE COULD GET THREE FOR TEN DOLLARS!

Seriously, everything you said there is pretty fucking stupid.

Sorry it's not going as well as you'd hoped.

I dunno. Obama must be doing pretty good if the best Joxur can do is iPods, DVD's and England.

I hate it when my profound statements get stuck as the last post on a page...

This is how you can tell your political opposition is out of ideas, when this is all they can find to complain about. Seriously guys? A politician promises something we know he can't deliver and you're scandalized? Prepare to have your minds blown in the coming months and years, my friends, as apparently you never caught on to how things work in politics; you promise a feast and settle for a morsel. It amazes me how anyone expects any different. To me, it just says that some of you still actually are under the delusion that we can make most of these things politicians promise actually happen. It's a fundamental flaw in the American psyche really; we have come to appreciate only the gimmick for so long that we expect the gimmick to come true and when we realize the truth behind the gimmick, we don't blame ourselves for believing it in the first place, but our leaders for having successfully sold it to us.

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

This, on top of giving Gordon Brown a bunch of DVDs that won't even play on British DVD players because of the region code,<b> giving the Queen of England an iPod (she already had one)</b> loaded with his speeches (let's not discuss the fact that the EFF thinks giving her that ipod may have been illegal) or referring to Britain as England.[/quote]


Uh... the queen sort of asked for an iPod... And she got just that. Oh and a pretty cool songbook. ;P

I thought the Queen's gift was way tackier. A signed picture of yourself? REALLY?!

But if both sides liked it, who the fuck cares. Considering that the President can't even KEEP gifts if they're over a certain dollar amount, it's probably nicer to give something small and personal than some bullshitty item that ends up dusty in a museum somewhere!

And here's the 17th century tea cup with the kittens on it, gifted to our nation...blahblahblah.

I do think giving DVDs they can't play there is funny as hell though.

_________________

Wow, look at all the reax. It's a shame most of you can't participate in actual policy discussions. Gaffes always bring people out of the woordwork.

Double standards are fun, too.

No doubt.

Obama keeps shifting the focus from one "OMG Crisis" to the next "OMG CRISIS" without proposing or doing ANYTHING. They spun people into a tizzy over the Rush Limbaugh/Jim Cramer crap masking the fact that the Treasury Secretary went before Congress claiming the sky is falling and he didn't have a plan. Then the AIG bonus crap hits; the administration and Congress is all kvetching about when they wrote the bonus exemption into the bills! Now the administration is mobilizing their grassroots "hit squad" not on Republicans but Democrats that have not suppored 100% of the Obama wishes. He is not conducting himself lie a president he is still a community organizer that is acting like Oz ("pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, look a puppy!"). To me it seems like they are playing the populous for a bunch of fools (distract them with BS so we can do what we wanted to anyway).

Take your Obama is my savior glasses off and really look at what this incompetent administration has tried to pull over on us.

Bearne's litmus test is that Obama just be... not Bush. heh. Just so long as he's not one of the worst presidents ever, it's a successful presidency. Who's cynical, again?

I think that's just human nature though. I believe Bush has lowered the bar at least for the short term, particularly with foriegn relations.

Oh, please.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

There's no doubt. The bar to be better than Bush is pretty low. The bar to be a good president is still high.

What's up with this notion that we should set grandiose goals like eliminating nuclear weapons while at the same time holding the man that's supposed to do it to the lowest of possible standards? Dare to dream big.. except when it comes to politicians.. the people who have to.. you know.. enact the big dreams. heh. Our standards aren't high enough to hold them to promises and the most basic knowledge about a subject, and yet somehow we think they'll achieve anything remotely like eliminating nuclear weapons.

Regarding that topic. Check this out from today:

Iranian nuke plot vaporized in the city: NY banks unwittingly aided in material transfers, says DA
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/04 ... ty_-2.html

I'd say issues like these are more urgent, but that's just my opinion. There will always be people out there trying to get a hold of this, and setting goals that are impossible to achieve might, just might, divert attention away from stuff like this. To take a page from Leo's book, we need to invest more money in port detection technology, etc. I'd rather see a commitment to fixing many of the things outlined in the 9/11 commission report that are still unresolved.

Maybe you should go read Glenn Greenwald's column from today and yesterday and let me know how you feel.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html



And the most important part as it relates to your delusion that Obama is better on torture:

Is your position, Bearne, that since Obama said 'we won't torture" - that all of the other things he does, including using the state secrets argument to throw cases out of court outright, the extensive coverup's, etc.. means that we've substantially advanced our cause - the one you and I argued side-by-side together on these boards for years on? That decree is enough for you?

Greenwald is awesome, and depressing.

That's just it for me. After Bush, I'm at least more content with an average Presidency. It'd be stupid of me to expect a Lincoln every time. What were our options, really, this time around? LolMcCain. Some of the lesser known/appreciated Republican and Democratic primary contenders may well have been better, though even there we didn't have a superb selection. I don't recall anyone(at least on this board) suggesting that Obama was the second coming of Jesus, but he's certainly better than almost any of the options we had.

I think the sad thing is, detractors may well help cause Obama to fail because it's a rather strong force that doesn't want him to succeed and doesn't believe it is possible. Keep saying that the economy is going to fail, the plans are going to fail, and with enough people on board with pessimistic outlooks and actions - you end up fulfilling that destiny yourself. Not to say Obama's actions are excusable, but he may have trouble succeeding if too many people are against him.

Approval rating 66%
Not currently a problem.

Yep. Don't mistake Joxur's bleating as the heartbeat of America here.

True, that's down slightly from post-inauguration if I recall correctly despite the recent upsurge. Course, numbers usually go down as time since that passes. He got an 80-some odd percent approval rating of how he handled his transition.

I suppose I'm more referring to the loudness and vulgarity of the blogosphere and general opposition climate of late. Believe me, far be it from me to judge that based on Joxur =D Sadly, his mouth-breathing "oppose a sneeze uttered by Obama" type is not an isolated problem from what I've seen.

Oh, and Venen, I'm waiting on your response to my rebuttal.. you know, the one where you got almost all your facts wrong.

I guess you had sky on ignore, not that I blame you for that.

In all fairness, all presidents have to overcome this. There are (and always will be) a mass of people hoping and praying the other side fails. This goes all the way back to the beginning, Lincoln had plenty of people rubbing their hands together in eager anticipation of his failure. The idea is you have to succeed in spite of all this, and I'm hopeful that Obama is up to the task. Time will tell.

Jox, I agree that we need to increase port security, but let me take the other side of the argument for a second, because I think it's been neglected.

Increasing port security would, in theory, lead to enemies seeking alternative routes that are less secure. It would be akin to not building bombs into shoes if you're going to the airport. Strategies change, but the threat remains more or less the same.

Instead, if you go after the source of the problem... in this case, the stockpile of existing nuclear weapons and foreign nations' perceived need to own them... if you go after that, you reduce the threat globally, in essence, making your ports -- and all other potential targets/points of entry -- more secure.

Just a thought.

Eh, a number of people didn't have a whole lot of bad to say about him, but being notably skeptical about those who would say nothing but bad about the politician in question is understandable as well. I'm not sure that saying almost nothing but positive about someone is automatically indicative that you think they're the second coming =) An indication that they believed there were no other options though? Certainly that could be the case.



I'm not saying otherwise, I figure this probably goes without saying. I'm just mentioning it because it's important for both supporters and the opposition to realize that opposition to a President's policy is different from wanting to see a country succeed in things. I felt the same way with Iraq - it wasn't something I wanted to have anything to do with, but I would have rather it not have turned into a quagmire even though I didn't want Bush to bury us further. The scary thing though to me is that sometimes it seems a select group of people actually want to see the economy fail to prove that Obama was wrong. In reality, if that comes to pass and there's that much opposition, it might not have been Obama's fault but those who detracted from him so.

So, granted it's something every President has to face and try to overcome, but it's an important point to keep in mind I think. I tend to think it's particularly troublesome for the economy, because everyone has a stake in it and can shape the outcome themselves. I remember seeing a political ad before the election with a guy saying that he would move his company merely if Obama became President because he thought his fiscal policies would lead to his company's ruin. That's what I mean by "making it happen", particularly without even giving it a try.

I disagree, Leo. I think the threat has more to do with materials that can be used to create that one bomb that they can get inside our country, or some other country, than the danger of Russia, China or some other country launching 1,000 nukes. MAD worked pretty effectively for a long time. No, with the news out of New York of 118 indictments, involving Iran, China and others, this is a bigger threat.

Remember the NIE released a in 2007 (link), saying that Iran was NOT actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. This story really contradicts that, doesn't it? You could conclude that our intelligence was pretty far off the mark. My conclusion is that we need to spend a lot more time and attention on preventing things like this than on Russia reducing their nuke stockpile from 3,000 to 1,500 (made up numbers).

Just this week, in direct contrast to Obama's pie in the sky view of nuclear disarmament, we've had North Korea test the delivery method for nuclear weapons that could reach our soil and a plot by the Iranians to secure material to build a bomb. What were the consequences for North Korea? Absolutely nothing. Our commitment to eliminate nukes can't even get a strongly-worded statement from the UN Security council, much less any direct action. All of our diplomatic efforts couldn't even stop the North Koreans from successfully developing the weapons. The policy of eliminating nukes has no teeth when we can't even prevent new countries from obtaining them.

Oh, and Jox, normally I'd be happen to return the favor in terms of the 50+ times you've ceased responding when you're proven wrong, but I'll indulge:



Well duh, I'm merely speaking of the specific surge of 5k in question. That was the big political move, regardless of any additional troops he sent in the meantime, and it had the most impact politically.



Wrong, you linked a source that was dated before the NATO meeting took place. Laughable.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04 ... index.html

"Around 3,000 forces from allied and partner nations will provide security leading up to Afghan elections later this year. Of the 3,000, the major contributors will be Britain, with 900, and Germany and Spain, with 600 each."



Your point being? That's pretty much expected, and it's practically a necessity to keep a stablization force there with the current climate. It's a load better than our current situation, and it's a massive scaling down and less of a burden on the U.S. It's laughable to think of what Bush or even McCain might have done given their track records for troop increases =)



Obama IIRC was in support of most of them, despite not having a direct say in the original bailouts. Bush started it, Obama agreed with it, Obama continued the trend. GM may declare bankruptcy now, but it will be an organized one without the kind of economic fallout we'd have seen if they had imploded without restraint.



He specifically stated that he would abide by the law, and that noncoercive means were everything they needed to get the job done. He said he would go to the President(the one who, you know, signed the new rules) to attain permission. And it's still up in the air. It's a "what if maybe" scenario, not a "that's a law I can point to where Penetta specifically contradicted the President's new rules!".

Now, the continued rendition policy is certainly of serious concern. If I had to fault anything, that's something I would fault the Obama administration for. I would like to see that go, or at least see drastic changes and oversight into how they carry things out in that regard.

Still, the new rules are at least a step in the right direction, and I'm glad that - for example - the Red Cross will now be able to see these detainees.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_off ... alRecords/

The key difference here being that Obama has re-instated the 30-day rule in which the President has to review the records before they are made public. IIRC Bush had made it vague and put no specific time limit on making records public.



It's not quantifiable, but it's no less important to have good relations with one's allies. It's still something I think most reasonable people will agree Obama has been excelling at much more than Bush.

Both of your links there were before the G20 summit, and I think particularly in the case of Merkel and Sarkozy - they were trying to get the message out that they want a solid plan and message from Obama, rather than just have him cakewalk through Europe and hug everyone. It was a strategic move to try and get him to be more substantive during the trip.

I'd say most of the press since the trip had seen its main events has been almost unanimously positive, with the exception of criticisms about his non-nuclear ideas(which more or less just stated the obvious, and didn't even take into account what Obama said about not being able to do it within his lifetime even - his focus has been on reduction, not complete elimination).

That's not the argument I'm making. I'm with you in saying that a single device is now more of a threat than an MAD-type situation. The argument remains the same though, that by having countries destroy their weapons, we decrease the availability to rogue nations or terrorists, if done right.

The "we can have them, but you can't" attitude doesn't work.

Boy, where to start, Venen.

How does that logic work? He sent 17,000 troops, then committed another 5,000. Your claim is that the second deployment was more significant? You claim that it had more impact politically, but you can't quantify that, either.

To recap, you said we committed 5,000 troops and that NATO had "followed suit", which is completely false. 5,000 combat troops does not equal 5,000 trainers and non-combat troops.

I said combat forces. I am right.

NATO pledges more troops for Afghanistan, but not combat forces
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 5744.story

The administration sought more troops to directly combat the Taliban and did not get them. The only person claiming Obama got anything positive from NATO is you.

He pledged during the campaign to end all combat operations within, what, 16 months?

And yet it speaks to the mistaken belief that torture can garner accurate information, something that's been disproven AGAIN as recently as a month ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 66_pf.html

A promise is a promise. We're either going to torture or we're not. There's no black and white and no "doomsday scenario" that makes it ok. It doesn't work! And I'm pretty sure that most of the people who got sucked into the downward spiral that is torture never did so thinking they were under a pretty dire threat at the time. It's ok for the Democrats to torture in dire emergencies but not republicans?

It's never ok.

And Obama's coverup, as pointed out ad nauseum on the boards by myself and others, will do NOTHING to keep it from happening again. We won't prosecute those responsible. The Red Cross - the fucking RED CROSS - released a report yesterday outlining a lot of the things we, the United States, did to people we abducted off the street. Nothing will be done about this report. Obama, the shining knight of justice, will do nothing to prosecute - or even investigate - what happened.

Furthermore, he won't even allow due process for those whose rights were violated by this process, claiming and even expanding the state secrets claims that the Bush administration took to a whole new level.

Was he more substantive, in your view? If so, give me some links on what exactly he did that was substantive. Here's some links that I think show otherwise.

It's the economy, stupid: Why Obama needs to learn to promise less and deliver more
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... -more.html

Obama's Non-Stop Naivete
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... ivete.html

Confused on North Korea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02717.html

Obama's Unreality Tour
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123906007566594937.html

Obama brings home a mixed bag from Europe
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edi ... 6963.story

With a rocket, Obama's hope is shot back down to earth
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... pons-obama

But Leo, they weren't trying to smuggle "a bomb", wholly made and stored in some bunker in Russia. It was components from various places. Reducing stockpiles won't prevent what they were trying to do.

You're talking about a single incident and I'm talking about a possible future incident. Either way, by moving our country into a less threatening posture (and yes, I realize this is not universally true), we reduce the threat we face.

We don't need to reduce only the supply of material, we also need to reduce the supply of wackos crazy enough to use it.

Hmm, how do you do that?

I didn't say it was quantifiable, but I think anyone can reasonably conclude that when he made the bulk order of 5k troops on one particular occasion, it's going to have more political impact than if you simply ooze in troops bit by bit.





I didn't say combat troops specifically - you did, which was an irrelevant point. But, you're still wrong in that 3000 of those troops will be providing security, while the others will be providing training.

The bottom line here is that you said what I said was "completely false", when in reality, they ARE sending troops over. Whether you nitpick over them being combat troops is somewhat irrelevant, they ARE sending troops over... and the article you linked is still laughable in that it suggested that NATO would help with almost nothing.



Do you even understand what ending combat operations means? We've ended combat operations in Japan and we still have forces there. They are now there for strategic purposes as a base of operations in Asia, but just after WW2 ended, we remained there for a time for stabilization and repair.



I must have missed the part of the article that disproved it. Yay for anecdotal evidence.

But no, it really doesn't speak to that, because Penetta was not specific in what he would do, or if he even WOULD, do it. If the rules state that you cannot raise your voice more than 0.00001% of a decibel and Penetta asks permission for that, would that be torture? I think not. We would need more information on what might be asked for to know if it "speaks to the mistaken belief". Hogwash.



Per above, you need to point to where Penetta specifically said torture would ever be applicable. We need specifics to what he's asking for before you cry about the sky again. The arbitrary "he may or may not be pointing towards this philosophy, even though he's not even DOING anything or revising any laws" is pretty funny, and just goes to show how weak your argument is.



Rendition, is again, the only serious issue here of the bunch. You'll need to point to specifically where Obama is expanding state secrets, because I'm not seeing it anywhere. At worst, it's the same as it was under Bush. Yay for hyperbole, I'm guessing.



You're kidding, right? No leader goes to a foreign country and plans out anything substantive in a speech to millions of people. That stuff always happens behind closed doors. Just shouting "nuclear disarmament" for example is nice for letting the people know that something is underway, but it's not like he's going to give us detailed plans as to which facilities, how many warheads, and how they're being dismantled. Lincoln told us the country would remain one. FDR told us we would win WW2. Kennedy told us we'd go to the moon. Substantive discussion on HOW these things happen goes on behind closed doors, and always will - and that's likely what Merkel and Sarkozy were aiming for.

Anyhoo, most of those links are nothing beyond incredibly minor gaffes. Oh noze, Obama made a slightly bigger deal about North Korea(at least in the Washington Post's esteemed opinion) than he should have? There's almost no substance there, and that's become rather expected and tired from the Nobama Mamas of late. I love Rich Lowry's "soft sell, but he got nothing of it" while he didn't manage to elaborate how he got nothing. This is classic stuff =)

I'm guessing no comment on the new order regarding Presidential records and their release? Not that it's anything major, but I suppose since it has little to no potential for Obama bashing, it's easy to let slide. Then again, what happened to the President expanding secrecy? /chuckle

lol no one's gonna read that shit except joxur and maybe krby but he'll probably just quote off joxur

_________________

I read it. Any my earlier posts were longer.

Thanks for your contribution, Mr. Trombone player!

i do what i do

_________________

Krby: There are lots of different tactics, but it'd say there's a spectrum that moves through the points of killing them all (which seemed to be Bush's preferred method) and appearing less threatening (which Obama is attempting). There's no single correct solution that will work for all of them.

It's a boring post anyway Randy =/ Frankly, these arguments aren't incredibly constructive or informing.

You're not missing much by glossing over either mine or Joxur's posts =p

He's made two troop announcements. 17k and 5k. Which of the two would you save qualifies as "oozing" in? The larger number or the smaller number?

You implied that the troops NATO would send over were significant - they are not. You also said, outright, that Bush would not have been able to get that from NATO, but you're wrong. Previous NATO commitments were much stronger.

You're comparing Japan to an occupied Iraq? They are the same, in your eyes?

Really, you think that by the time we've removed all but the residual force, that our mission will be the same as it was in Japan? That's what you think? So, would you say the mission is... accomplished? heh

So it's a matter of degrees, then. If we only torture, what was it.. 0.00001% of our prisoners, it's ok? But wait, you realize that the number of people we actually waterboarded was quite small, right? Does that make it ok?

We're dealing with the court of public perception, and ANY torture is enough to damn us in the eyes of the world. Our rejection of torture has to be unequivocal. That's what I believe. Do you believe that? It sounds like you think there is grey area here.

Ok. This is what Panetta said during the confirmation hearing: "If we had the ticking bomb situation and I felt that whatever we were using wasn't sufficient, I would not hesitate to go to the president and request any additional authority that we would need"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/fe ... nfirmation

THIS is what Obama signed into law with his executive order ensuring lawful interrogations: "c) Interpretations of Common Article 3 and the Army Field Manual. From this day forward, unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance, officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government may, in conducting interrogations, act in reliance upon Army Field Manual 2-22.3, but may not, in conducting interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army Field Manual 2-22.3, and its predecessor document, Army Field Manual 34-52 -- issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009. [emphasis supplied]"

That's a loophole.

I've already posted about this, quite a bit. Go read Glenn Greenwald.

They are tossing entire cases out of the courts based on state secrets.

Start here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html



Ok, so.. you claimed that people were trying to get Obama to be more substantive. I asked you if you thought he was.. and then you went on a tirade about how politicians are never substantive on trips like these. Do you see the contradiction? For perspective, this is what you wrote: "It was a strategic move to try and get him to be more substantive during the trip.".

It's a simple question. Was Obama more substantive? If not, does it give credence to their criticism?

Hey, you're not wrong all the time Still, your batting average is pretty abysmal.

BTW, here's another area we should spend a whole lot more time on than eliminating nuclear weapons, Leo.

Electricity Grid in U.S. Penetrated By Spies
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123914805204099085.html



There's just too many areas that need attention right now that never bubble to the top when we're focusing on the impossible. Doesn't grab the headlines though.

The Daily Show's take on the Nuclear weapons thing was funny last night.

Well, apparently this time you've made it pretty easy for me with particularly crappy points. Let's see here...



The 5k troop surge was immediate IIRC(and, frankly, from what I saw garnered more attention at the time in the media particularly because it took some liberals by surprise), whereas the 17k promised is going to.. /drumroll.. be oozed in, some will be deployed short-term and the rest will be in place by the summer.



1) Any support at this stage we can get from European countries is significant in my eyes because of how little Bush could get later on. Besides, 5k troops is nothing to sneeze at and is at least something to help provide additional stability.
2) No, Bush would not have gotten that from NATO beyond a certain point in the timeline. He got significantly more early on, yes, but he lost support rather quickly. As I recall he went to NATO several times later on in the war and NATO refused his requests.



No, I'm not comparing Japan to Iraq. Try and read a little more carefully. I'm saying that there is a significant difference in terms of what constitutes "combat operations" when we take out a large swath of our forces and leave a small number for security purposes. Ending combat operations does not = mission accomplished, it means we're done with whatever we were trying to do there, whether we succeeded or not. At some point, you have to pull out, especially since it's clear we're not going to get everything we want over there. Leaving a contingent of troops over there to ensure the situation doesn't worsen is hardly a continuation of the original mission over there.



Again with the reading comprehenion. Torturing a small number of prisoners does not equal not torturing at all.

Certainly there is a grey area, but you can't say we've crossed it by raising your voice 0.00001 decibels. There comes a POINT where it becomes less grey. Interrogation techniques may not even need to employ physical stress to a person to become torture. It's pretty hard to define that line I would say, definitely. And it's going to be damned hard for the public to figure that line out as well.

So, again, the question becomes "What does Penetta mean when he says he will ask for further permissions?". And, again, if it includes something akin to raising your voice by that degree, I would have to say that's not much for him to ask. Which is why we need to know *what* he is asking for. It could be as little as that, it could be a lot.

There's not enough info there, but you're jumping to the extreme conclusion as usual to make your bad point.



I assume you're referring to the Attorney General portion? /shrug, I think it's pretty important to not have a hard and fast law here. You risk encaging yourself completely. The public may not this little clause, but it's something that allows for more room in the case that something was overlooked or to utilize a means that might not even be torture anyway.

You failed to point out where Penetta said torture would be applicable as well. Per above, he may ask for little, he may ask for a lot.



Depends on the case. Again, this is concerning, though I would hesitate to get all up and excitable about each and every case simply because it had to do with rendition. In some cases, there may very well be a potentially lethal harm to our intelligence community. I'm all for stopping rendition, I'm not on board with recklessly damaging the country's intel gathering capabilities. In short, I'm not in favor of using a rocket launcher to blow up a rat's nest.



Reading comprehension take 3. Politicians CAN be substantive on trips, but behind closed doors.

Now there's a fallacy if I've ever seen one. You've gone from whining about it being a bad idea to reduce nukes to saying there are other things that need our attention. "X is bad, even though we can accomplish many things at once as a nation, because there are other Y bad things out there" doesn't exactly bolster your argument, chief.

And you apparently still don't understand that the current goal of reducing nuclear arsenals is not impossible. Please re-read Obama's speech, thank you.

Jox: No need to inform me of our cybersecurity risks. Understanding that is part of my job. No doubt we need more work in that area, but saying we can only do one or the other is fallacious, even accepting the fact that money, personnel, and time are limited resources.

Link?

What will 5k support troops do to provide additional stability? What will embedded trainers to do increase our ability to stabilize additional areas? What capability does this give us to fight the Taliban directly?

Please, find me a story from any major publication that points out how NATO sending 5,000 additional *support* staff will increase our capabilities, OR that it isn't LESS than what Obama was seeking.

NATO is committing nothing significantly above what they have been in recent years. The One hasn't done jack shit to get any concessions out of NATO.

The was no insurgency in Japan. There were no suicide bombers. Japan was in nothing like the civil war Iraq has been in and out of. Furthermore, there were no Japanese using Iraq as a training grounds to commit terrorist acts against us. They are in no way, shape or form alike.

Guess what, Sparky? After 2010, there will still be an insurgency. Most think, and I feel, that there will be a renewed level of violence and a much worse conflict after we've drawn down than when we were there. We'll be in the thick of it with a reduced force. The situations in Japan and Iraq could not be ANY MORE DIFFERENT. We need to get out, completely, or stay in, completely. You don't seem to get that half-measures don't fucking work. Obama got it during the campaign, didn't he?

What additional info do you need? Have you read the report from the Red Cross produced *this week*? The info is there, you just can't see it past Obama's balls in your mouth.

It's NOT hard to define torture. There's a DEFINITION of it, a treaty we've signed, and a fucking code manual that defines exactly how we treat prisoners. It IS defined.

This kind of thinking is what leads people to bend the rules. Waterboarding is out. Let's find a new way that isn't technical illegal and go with that, shall we? Until we have the messy, embarrassing Abu Graib-like photos to outlaw THAT particular method. Oops. Time to move the goalposts again.

Dude, believe and sanction whatever you want. You just signed up for the Bush brand of torture, BTW. There's always room for interpretation, and loopholes are there to be used. Our record of using those kinds of loopholes is as recent as two months ago, in Guantanamo, as guards tortured people mercilessly AFTER Obama was elected. Fact.

Panetta said he reserved the right in a ticking time bomb scenario. Seriously. Are you stupid?

The case in question ISN'T EVEN ABOUT RENDITION. It's about FISA and warrantless wiretapping.

Here, if you won't take my word for it. Read Keith Olbermann. He's the guy DP'ing you with Obama these days, isn't he? What does he have to say about the state secrets expansion under Obama? Let's find out!

Keith Olbermann's scathing criticism of Obama's secrecy/immunity claims
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... criticism/

Can you point to any single article outline closed-door gains made by Obama on this trip?

Venen, way to pull a Fribur and give up

Leo, I hear your point, but I disagree. I've been part of a large organization long enough to know that if you want to achieve visionary goals, you have to focus on them completely.

Another new development:

Iran claims to install 7,000 centrifuges
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090409/wl ... 0409143636

So within 7 days of his proclamation, NK has tested an ICBM (a failure) and Iran has announced major progress, whether true or not, and been caught trying to smuggle massive amounts of materials in to the country. What's the next phase? Israel bombing Iran? If that happens, I would call that a pretty huge failure on the part of the administration. Eliminating nukes is impossible. Better to go for deterrance and focus on other things.

One thing I've learned over the past few years -- the hard way: politics is not the same as business. Things you can say in the business world would get you laughed out of politics and things you can say in politics would get you fired in the business world.

The Apollo Program wasn't the only thing that took up Kennedy's time (or Johnson's), yet based on presidential leadership and posturing, we were able to send men to the moon.

It takes more than just the focus of one individual to achieve visionary goals. It takes the commitment of many people, but not necessarily the 100% attention of any one. In fact, relying on only one person for that leadership is a recipe for disaster... or at least some good on-the-job training for disaster prep.

Nice post. I will leave it at that.. I don't think it's gonna happen, but I like your post enough to leave it alone

No one has posted this yet?

http://www.truemajorityaction.org/bensbbs/

Huh. Why the fuck do we have so many nuclear weapons? Even as a redundancy, you'd think a tenth of that would be plenty. Hell, a hundredth.

_________________

cuz cuz cuz.. commies!

I can think of a few reasons. Strategic placement so that no one particular place can get wiped out and dissolve nuclear response(this reason is going to cover the most nukes probably). Older nukes that are still in our arsenal and plenty operational. I'm guessing it's also a part of the military industrial complex(at the very least someone provides materials), and so there's encouragement to build new, more reliable and efficient nukes(much talk about mini-nukes). Perhaps another reason might also be deterrence if they decide to make it easy to find out where they're placing nukes.

Only around half are operational.

Great and very sad quote.