Quote:
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.
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?
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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 ... nfirmationTHIS 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.
Quote:
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.
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.htmlQuote:
You're kidding, right? No leader goes to a foreign country and plans out anything substantive in a speech to millions of people.
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?
Quote:
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
Hey, you're not wrong all the time
Still, your batting average is pretty abysmal.