FYI

[swede]

The primary is over, but I love the exercise of having two discrete bodies of closed-minded people throwing information at each other in the hopes of winning the hearts and minds of the opposition.

The problem for conservatives is that other side has so little of the latter.

Anyway, to help Obama out with the actual context of his "I know a Captain whose platoon has no ammo" story.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/02/twweeeetttt-fla.html

[Freak Out]

The primary is over, but I love the exercise of having two discrete bodies of closed-minded people throwing information at each other in the hopes of winning the hearts and minds of the opposition.

The problem for conservatives is that other side has so little of the latter.

Anyway, to help Obama out with the actual context of his "I know a Captain whose platoon has no ammo" story.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/02/twweeeetttt-fla.html

Do you have a transcript or a link to one of this speech?

[Freak Out]

Nader is on Talk of the Nation right now.

[swede]

Anyway, to help Obama out with the actual context of his "I know a Captain whose platoon has no ammo" story.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/02/twweeeetttt-fla.html

Do you have a transcript or a link to one of this speech?

I believe the remark came about during the debate in Texas. Obama had heard from a captain whose platoon had been split up so that only a small portion of a full strength platoon had gone into Afghanistan. The sense of the remark was that direct information from an American military officer with first-hand knowledge supported Obama's contention that the "better" war in Afghanistan was being poorly supported because arms and men were directly siphoned to the war in Iraq.

Initial reactions from those who know the military were that the story almost certainly had to be factually false. Captains, for one thing, don't lead platoons; lieutenants do. And fighting forces are never deliberately split up at the platoon level, ever, to go to different geographic areas. Weapons and ammunition have simply not been a problem in either theater that anyone has heard.

Here is a helpful link in which the actual captain--yes, he was once a lieutenant--did have some things happen so that some guys went to Afghanistan and other guys got reassigned roundaboutly and may have ended up in Iraq.

The sense I get is that Obama's organization was able to spin this inconsequential anecdote into a clearly negative impression of great consequence without stepping across the line and actually telling fibs. With this talent of taking a few grains of truth and building phantasmagoric smears Obama should take a break and make a few hundred million suing tobacco, pharmaceutical, and oil companies. He'd be able to outright buy the Presidency in ten years.

Here's the link to the Captain's tale:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html


And for comparison remember to read this anecdotal account of service in Afghanistan:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/02/twweeeetttt-fla.html

After reading both we will pick the source that confirms our beliefs and call it more credible than the other.

AND.. fwiw...

Why is it that whenever I hear Afghanistan I reflexively think Bananistan and am filled with an overwhelming urge to let you open someone else's safety deposit box?

[Freak Out]

Anyway, to help Obama out with the actual context of his "I know a Captain whose platoon has no ammo" story.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/02/twweeeetttt-fla.html

Do you have a transcript or a link to one of this speech?

I believe the remark came about during the debate in Texas. Obama had heard from a captain whose platoon had been split up so that only a small portion of a full strength platoon had gone into Afghanistan. The sense of the remark was that direct information from an American military officer with first-hand knowledge supported Obama's contention that the "better" war in Afghanistan was being poorly supported because arms and men were directly siphoned to the war in Iraq.

Initial reactions from those who know the military were that the story almost certainly had to be factually false. Captains, for one thing, don't lead platoons; lieutenants do. And fighting forces are never deliberately split up at the platoon level, ever, to go to different geographic areas. Weapons and ammunition have simply not been a problem in either theater that anyone has heard.

Here is a helpful link in which the actual captain--yes, he was once a lieutenant--did have some things happen so that some guys went to Afghanistan and other guys got reassigned roundaboutly and may have ended up in Iraq.

The sense I get is that Obama's organization was able to spin this inconsequential anecdote into a clearly negative impression of great consequence without stepping across the line and actually telling fibs. With this talent of taking a few grains of truth and building phantasmagoric smears Obama should take a break and make a few hundred million suing tobacco, pharmaceutical, and oil companies. He'd be able to outright buy the Presidency in ten years.

Here's the link to the Captain's tale:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html


And for comparison remember to read this anecdotal account of service in Afghanistan:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/02/twweeeetttt-fla.html

After reading both we will pick the source that confirms our beliefs and call it more credible than the other.

AND.. fwiw...

Why is it that whenever I hear Afghanistan I reflexively think Bananistan and am filled with an overwhelming urge to let you open someone else's safety deposit box?

Thanks for the links and time...I'll give them a read.

[red]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

not those infamous letters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i cringed when i saw them, and my blood pressure started to rise

[Freak Out]

Logistics can be a goat fuck.

[Freak Out]

FYI

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html

[BallHawk]

Did something happen to Rick DeMulling? :shock:

[LL2]

FYI

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html

What is this an account balance for? The U.S. has a negative 747 billion in its bank account? That wouldn't surprise me, since the U.S. gov't operates like a college student with 5 maxed out Visa cards.

[swede]

FYI

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html

What is this an account balance for? The U.S. has a negative 747 billion in its bank account? That wouldn't surprise me, since the U.S. gov't operates like a college student with 5 maxed out Visa cards.

Hello, this is Ghana.

Hey, Ghana, USA here. Say I wonder if you could front me a few trillion until after the elections. I kinda have a consumer confidence thing going here. I promised to send the taxpayers a few hundred million prebate checks, and I see where AutoZone has got some cool spinners on sale. I thought I could to trick out some Humvees and mail trucks since it's such a good deal and all.

I tell you last time, USA, no more money. I have children to feed and you never pay me back.

Hey, that's harsh man. I almost paid you back last week until the weather kinda went goofy and I had a bunch of FEMA bills. I'd take a few goats if you're short of cash. Mexico is usually good about giving me thirty cents on the dollar for goats.

No goats! No money! Don't call again! (click)

(sigh...boop boop beep beep boop boop beep)

Hey, Tanzania! Howzitgoin man? World's biggest superpower here. You got a second?

[Freak Out]

FYI

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html

What is this an account balance for? The U.S. has a negative 747 billion in its bank account? That wouldn't surprise me, since the U.S. gov't operates like a college student with 5 maxed out Visa cards.

Hello, this is Ghana.

Hey, Ghana, USA here. Say I wonder if you could front me a few trillion until after the elections. I kinda have a consumer confidence thing going here. I promised to send the taxpayers a few hundred million prebate checks, and I see where AutoZone has got some cool spinners on sale. I thought I could to trick out some Humvees and mail trucks since it's such a good deal and all.

I tell you last time, USA, no more money. I have children to feed and you never pay me back.

Hey, that's harsh man. I almost paid you back last week until the weather kinda went goofy and I had a bunch of FEMA bills. I'd take a few goats if you're short of cash. Mexico is usually good about giving me thirty cents on the dollar for goats.

No goats! No money! Don't call again! (click)

(sigh...boop boop beep beep boop boop beep)

Hey, Tanzania! Howzitgoin man? World's biggest superpower here. You got a second?

:lol:

Classic....

I like to check out the latest dirt on the CIA and State Dept websites before traveling just for grins and had to laugh when I came across that CIA ranking. I kept scrolling down thinking "I wonder if they put the US on the list?"......lol.

[Freak Out]

The Audacity of Hopelessness
By FRANK RICH

WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign, they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq.

It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.

The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.

That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since. And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance. But he’s actually not even all that loyal. Mr. Penn, whose operation has billed several million dollars in fees to the Clinton campaign so far, has never given up his day job as chief executive of the public relations behemoth Burson-Marsteller. His top client there, Microsoft, is simultaneously engaged in a demanding campaign of its own to acquire Yahoo.

Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.

But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.

In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.

This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.

Given that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama offer marginally different policy prescriptions — laid out in voluminous detail by both, by the way, on their Web sites — it’s not clear what her added-value message is. The “experience” mantra has been compromised not only by her failure on the signal issue of Iraq but also by the deadening lingua franca of her particular experience, Washingtonese. No matter what the problem, she keeps rolling out another commission to solve it: a commission for infrastructure, a Financial Product Safety Commission, a Corporate Subsidy Commission, a Katrina/Rita Commission and, to deal with drought, a water summit.

As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.

Bill Clinton knocked states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because “they disproportionately favor upper-income voters” who “don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn’t won in “any of the significant states” outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the “insult 40 states” strategy.

The insults continued on Tuesday night when a surrogate preceding Mrs. Clinton onstage at an Ohio rally, Tom Buffenbarger of the machinists’ union, derided Obama supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.” Even as he ranted, exit polls in Wisconsin were showing that Mr. Obama had in fact won that day among voters with the least education and the lowest incomes. Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Obama received the endorsement of the latte-drinking Teamsters.

If the press were as prejudiced against Mrs. Clinton as her campaign constantly whines, debate moderators would have pushed for the Clinton tax returns and the full list of Clinton foundation donors to be made public with the same vigor it devoted to Mr. Obama’s “plagiarism.” And it would have showered her with the same ridicule that Rudy Giuliani received in his endgame. With 11 straight losses in nominating contests, Mrs. Clinton has now nearly doubled the Giuliani losing streak (six) by the time he reached his Florida graveyard. But we gamely pay lip service to the illusion that she can erect one more firewall.

The other persistent gripe among some Clinton supporters is that a hard-working older woman has been unjustly usurped by a cool young guy intrinsically favored by a sexist culture. Slate posted a devilish video mash-up of the classic 1999 movie “Election”: Mrs. Clinton is reduced to a stand-in for Tracy Flick, the diligent candidate for high school president played by Reese Witherspoon, and Mr. Obama is implicitly cast as the mindless jock who upsets her by dint of his sheer, unearned popularity.

There is undoubtedly some truth to this, however demeaning it may be to both candidates, but in reality, the more consequential ur-text for the Clinton 2008 campaign may be another Hollywood classic, the Katharine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy “Pat and Mike” of 1952. In that movie, the proto-feminist Hepburn plays a professional athlete who loses a tennis or golf championship every time her self-regarding fiancé turns up in the crowd, pulling her focus and undermining her confidence with his grandstanding presence.

In the 2008 real-life remake of “Pat and Mike,” it’s not the fiancé, of course, but the husband who has sabotaged the heroine. The single biggest factor in Hillary Clinton’s collapse is less sexism in general than one man in particular — the man who began the campaign as her biggest political asset. The moment Bill Clinton started trash-talking about Mr. Obama and raising the specter of a co-presidency, even to the point of giving his own televised speech ahead of his wife’s on the night she lost South Carolina, her candidacy started spiraling downward.

What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.

[Harlan Huckleby]

her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco.

It is pure emotionalism to use that vote as a litmus test of experience or judgement. (no point in trying to use rational arguments to dispell a feeling.)

Frank Rich analyzes the stupidity of the Clinton campaign and ignores the most giant factor: Obama is far more popular than Clinton. I don't think this election or most elections are decided by strategy, it is a cheap thrill to pick apart the supposedly fatal tactics of any losing campaign. The Obama side has a personally appealling person to sell, money is not pouring into their campaign due to their comparatively brilliant strategizing.

If Frank Rich thinks he could have packaged Hillary and whipped Barack Obama, well, I'm only sorry he wasn't on the Clinton team. :D Just a cheap and hollow column.

[swede]

her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco.

It is pure emotionalism to use that vote as a litmus test of experience or judgement. (no point in trying to use rational arguments to dispell a feeling.)

Frank Rich analyzes the stupidity of the Clinton campaign and ignores the most giant factor: Obama is far more popular than Clinton. I don't think this election or most elections are decided by strategy, it is a cheap thrill to pick apart the supposedly fatal tactics of any losing campaign. The Obama side has a personally appealling person to sell, money is not pouring into their campaign due to their comparatively brilliant strategizing.

If Frank Rich thinks he could have packaged Hillary and whipped Barack Obama, well, I'm only sorry he wasn't on the Clinton team. :D Just a cheap and hollow column.

This is a dangerous point of view Blue Dawg.

Basically, you are saying that the factors that caused us to vote for the cool guy in the sixth grade presidential race are still at work on the national level.

Scarily enough, you are probably right.

[Freak Out]

Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.


Incompetence will kill you every time. If he wins the nomination will the McCain campaign cut him such slack?

Rove/Bush proved that certain selective campaign strategies can play a pivotal role in any election.

[Freak Out]

her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco.

It is pure emotionalism to use that vote as a litmus test of experience or judgement. (no point in trying to use rational arguments to dispell a feeling.)

Frank Rich analyzes the stupidity of the Clinton campaign and ignores the most giant factor: Obama is far more popular than Clinton. I don't think this election or most elections are decided by strategy, it is a cheap thrill to pick apart the supposedly fatal tactics of any losing campaign. The Obama side has a personally appealling person to sell, money is not pouring into their campaign due to their comparatively brilliant strategizing.

If Frank Rich thinks he could have packaged Hillary and whipped Barack Obama, well, I'm only sorry he wasn't on the Clinton team. :D Just a cheap and hollow column.

This is a dangerous point of view Blue Dawg.

Basically, you are saying that the factors that caused us to vote for the cool guy in the sixth grade presidential race are still at work on the national level.

Scarily enough, you are probably right.

Probably? Come on Swede.... :lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Rove/Bush proved that certain selective campaign strategies can play a pivotal role in any election.

Bush was viewed as more personable than Kerry, and certainly more likeable than the 2000 version of Gore.
(Gore is warm and fuzzy now, though. :D )

[hoosier]

It is pure emotionalism to use that vote as a litmus test of experience or judgement. (no point in trying to use rational arguments to dispell a feeling.)


Not if her vote showed flawed judgment. I know you think that's not the case (that her vote didn't reflect political stupidity), but then the real disagreement is over whether or not it was possible to see, back in 2002 or whever it was, that the war was ill conceived and the authorization vote was a terrible idea. Or maybe the disagreement is over whether the war was flawed in principle or just in its realization.

But in any event the position that Hillary's vote reflects bad judgment isn't necessarily based on emotion (hatred of Hillary's personality), it's based on the conviction that her authorization vote was motivated by poor judgment or political cowardice.

In trying to disqualify the anti-Hillary position (as being based purely on emotion) you're actually doing the same thing you accuse them of doing: you portray yourself (or Hillary) as the reasonalbe one and the other side as having gone beyond all reason.

[swede]

By following Blue Dawg's theory--that the middle belt of American voters who actually select presidents make their decisions using the shallowest of emotional impressions--I hereby proclaim Barack Hussein Obama to be the next President of the United States.

But I also predict that this story, linked below, will be Obama's Whitewater Affair. It was a careless grab for real estate made possible by consorting with unsavories looking for influence.

At this point, the ethical and legal problems are complex enough that the American unintelligentsia will miss the point of the story so they'll go on backing Barack. Didn't see that coming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece

[The Leaper]

Bush was viewed as more personable than Kerry, and certainly more likeable than the 2000 version of Gore.
(Gore is warm and fuzzy now, though. :D )

Gore is only warm and fuzzy when we can allow him to do his little environmental tricks on the side stage. He becomes a freakish robot whenever he trots near the main stage though.

[The Leaper]

But I also predict that this story, linked below, will be Obama's Whitewater Affair. It was a careless grab for real estate made possible by consorting with unsavories looking for influence.

Obama has a few skeletons in his closet. Hillary doesn't have the balls to drag them out...I'm not sure why. She's kept the gloves on during the Dem primaries. I guess the Clintons were scared off when Bill got yelled at early in the process for yapping too loudly.

The Swift Boat type groups on the right...they won't have any trouble taking the gloves off with Obama.

[Freak Out]

But I also predict that this story, linked below, will be Obama's Whitewater Affair. It was a careless grab for real estate made possible by consorting with unsavories looking for influence.

Obama has a few skeletons in his closet. Hillary doesn't have the balls to drag them out...I'm not sure why. She's kept the gloves on during the Dem primaries. I guess the Clintons were scared off when Bill got yelled at early in the process for yapping too loudly.

The Swift Boat type groups on the right...they won't have any trouble taking the gloves off with Obama.

The majority that make it to Congress and beyond have a skeleton or three in the closet and have received a few $$ along the way from someone they might come to regret later. The story points out that Clinton has said all along that Obama could never withstand the Republican hell hounds that will be released from Roves basement soon and she could be right. But she and McCain have a few "issues" of their own to defend.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2008/db080226.gif

[Harlan Huckleby]

It is pure emotionalism to use that vote as a litmus test of experience or judgement. (no point in trying to use rational arguments to dispell a feeling.)


Not if her vote showed flawed judgment. I know you think that's not the case (that her vote didn't reflect political stupidity), but then the real disagreement is over whether or not it was possible to see, back in 2002 or whever it was, that the war was ill conceived and the authorization vote was a terrible idea. Or maybe the disagreement is over whether the war was flawed in principle or just in its realization.

But in any event the position that Hillary's vote reflects bad judgment isn't necessarily based on emotion (hatred of Hillary's personality), it's based on the conviction that her authorization vote was motivated by poor judgment or political cowardice.

In trying to disqualify the anti-Hillary position (as being based purely on emotion) you're actually doing the same thing you accuse them of doing: you portray yourself (or Hillary) as the reasonalbe one and the other side as having gone beyond all reason.

There was a reasonable argument to be made for either voting for or against that authorization. (Based on his past statements, Obama might very well have voted for it too.) The "emotion" I refer to is anger over the course of the war, not hatred at Hillary.

Notice that you are defining that vote as a pro or anti Hillary postion. How did that happen? :lol:

[Bretsky]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

not those infamous letters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i cringed when i saw them, and my blood pressure started to rise

Somebody go find Tex as JS; he'd be so excited to be a part of this :lol:

[red]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

not those infamous letters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i cringed when i saw them, and my blood pressure started to rise

Somebody go find Tex as JS; he'd be so excited to be a part of this :lol:

that old ignorant bastard can't still be alive, can he?

[FavreChild]

Somebody go find Tex as JS; he'd be so excited to be a part of this :lol:

Bretsky, don't make me kick your ass. You know I could do it. 8-)

[Iron Mike]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

not those infamous letters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i cringed when i saw them, and my blood pressure started to rise

Somebody go find Tex as JS; he'd be so excited to be a part of this :lol:

that old ignorant bastard can't still be alive, can he?


TEXINEXILE
Member

Total Posts: 1,419
Last Post: 2/26/2008
Member Since: 11/2/2006



Saying Green Bay isn't "able to sign free agents" is just wrong. It's a matter of Thompson and others before him making the conscious and intelligent choice NOT to throw money at free agents from other teams who are very unlikely to be worth what it takes to sign them.

As for potential cuts next fall, this probably will be the first year in a long time when it is painful to do the cutting--due to an abundance of good talent. I agree with some, although certainly not all of those mentioned in the first post. Some, though, like Jason Hunter, maybe Ruvell Martin and a couple of others who may end up gone will be tough to lose, as they are pretty good players.

I think also Hodge gets cut, but Tracey White has hung around quite a while as a good STer. I doubt he goes. If Nall goes, I think it will be voluntary, as IMO, he's plenty good enough as a #3 QB. I also think both Morency and Wynn are gone. I wouldn't be surprised Corey White from the taxi squad steps in as a backup along with Brandon Williams. I don't think Koren Robinson gets cut unless his knee is a lot worse than reported.

There's a significant possibility for an upgrade from Ryan, maybe even the guy who competed with him in camp last season. Also, I've been campaigning for a long time to get rid of Rob Davis and replace him with a position player who can long snap.

I don't see any problem with keeping Nick Collins as a backup, maybe even cross train him as a corner. He's athletic enough, and his well publicized lack of instincts or smarts or whatever would do less harm at corner. Bush might go, but Frank Walker is more likely. Peprah also would seem to be replaceable by a decent rookie.

KGB could go either way. I have come around to what some are pushing about going after a quality free agent DE for about the same money. If that doesn't happen, though, KGB is decent enough to hang around another year, even for fairly big money. I also think Montgomery stays. Daniel Muir could be the odd man out in the DLine, unless somebody gets injured.

[Freak Out]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

not those infamous letters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i cringed when i saw them, and my blood pressure started to rise

Somebody go find Tex as JS; he'd be so excited to be a part of this :lol:

that old ignorant bastard can't still be alive, can he?


TEXINEXILE
Member

Total Posts: 1,419
Last Post: 2/26/2008
Member Since: 11/2/2006



Saying Green Bay isn't "able to sign free agents" is just wrong. It's a matter of Thompson and others before him making the conscious and intelligent choice NOT to throw money at free agents from other teams who are very unlikely to be worth what it takes to sign them.

As for potential cuts next fall, this probably will be the first year in a long time when it is painful to do the cutting--due to an abundance of good talent. I agree with some, although certainly not all of those mentioned in the first post. Some, though, like Jason Hunter, maybe Ruvell Martin and a couple of others who may end up gone will be tough to lose, as they are pretty good players.

I think also Hodge gets cut, but Tracey White has hung around quite a while as a good STer. I doubt he goes. If Nall goes, I think it will be voluntary, as IMO, he's plenty good enough as a #3 QB. I also think both Morency and Wynn are gone. I wouldn't be surprised Corey White from the taxi squad steps in as a backup along with Brandon Williams. I don't think Koren Robinson gets cut unless his knee is a lot worse than reported.

There's a significant possibility for an upgrade from Ryan, maybe even the guy who competed with him in camp last season. Also, I've been campaigning for a long time to get rid of Rob Davis and replace him with a position player who can long snap.

I don't see any problem with keeping Nick Collins as a backup, maybe even cross train him as a corner. He's athletic enough, and his well publicized lack of instincts or smarts or whatever would do less harm at corner. Bush might go, but Frank Walker is more likely. Peprah also would seem to be replaceable by a decent rookie.

KGB could go either way. I have come around to what some are pushing about going after a quality free agent DE for about the same money. If that doesn't happen, though, KGB is decent enough to hang around another year, even for fairly big money. I also think Montgomery stays. Daniel Muir could be the odd man out in the DLine, unless somebody gets injured.

Texinexile? Must be a Bush lover.

[red]

he probably moved out of the country when he realised that theres a strong chance the country could be run by a damned woman, or a colored fella after the election

[Bretsky]

Somebody go find Tex as JS; he'd be so excited to be a part of this :lol:

Bretsky, don't make me kick your ass. You know I could do it. 8-)


yadayada

Maybe you and an army of chicks :lol: :wink:

[Freak Out]

Rose Mary Woods lives!

Analysis Details Missing White House E-mails

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 26, 2008; 4:12 PM

A 2005 technical analysis found that up to 1,000 days of e-mails were missing from White House servers during a 2-1/2 year period, amounting to more than 1 million separate e-mail messages, according to statements from a former White House technology manager released today.

Steven McDevitt also said in written answers to questions from a House committee that the White House's e-mail system was so "primitive" that there was a high risk that data would be lost.

McDevitt, who formerly oversaw many of the White House's computer systems, said he oversaw a wide-ranging study that found e-mail missing for hundreds of days from January 2003 through August 2005. He also told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that security was so lax that e-mail could be modified by anyone on the computer network until the middle of 2005.

The statements from McDevitt, which were released during a hearing today by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), provide further details into the problems that have plagued the White House e-mail system throughout the Bush administration.

House Democrats had previously reported that the study overseen by McDevitt had found at least 473 separate days in which no electronic messages were stored for one or more White House offices. But McDevitt's statement indicates the same study found the total number of missing days could have been as high as 1,000.

Waxman accused administration officials of "sandbagging" lawmakers by refusing to provide answers until President Bush leaves office.

Several administration officials defended their efforts to fix the problems, however, and said they were still working to locate and identify e-mails that have been identified as missing.

"We are very energized about getting to the bottom of this," said Theresa Payton, chief information officer at the Office of Administration.

Payton also reiterated administration contentions that the 2005 study by McDevitt may be flawed and is not reliable.

McDevitt said in his statements that the analysis included participation by a wide array of government technology officials and outside contractors, and that the full report--which has not been given to Congress--was approximately 250 pages long.

The competing claims are part of an ongoing dispute over whether the Bush administration has complied with long-standing statutory requirements to preserve official White House records -- including those reflecting potentially sensitive policy discussions -- for history and in case of any future legal demands.

[Freak Out]

Somebody go find Tex as JS; he'd be so excited to be a part of this :lol:

Bretsky, don't make me kick your ass. You know I could do it. 8-)


yadayada

Maybe you and an army of chicks :lol: :wink:

Naked chicks....wrestling.

[Bretsky]

Somebody go find Tex as JS; he'd be so excited to be a part of this :lol:

Bretsky, don't make me kick your ass. You know I could do it. 8-)


yadayada

Maybe you and an army of chicks :lol: :wink:

Naked chicks....wrestling.


Girls doing some :bump: :duel:
and
Guys doing some :alc: :glug: :wave:

[red]

see, now this is how an FYI thread should be

all about hardcore lesbian cat fights

[MJZiggy]

:roll: :roll:

[Bretsky]

:roll: :roll:

See Red,

Zig didn't show face in this thread til we brought up the lesbian cat fights. We know she's on board :!:

[Harlan Huckleby]

By following Blue Dawg's theory--that the middle belt of American voters who actually select presidents make their decisions using the shallowest of emotional impressions--I hereby proclaim Barack Hussein Obama to be the next President of the United States.

You're right, BHO is the next president, I say swear him in now and skip all the fuss.

I just noticed that in Texas there is a 40 point gender gap in voter preference. 20% more men go for Obama, 20% more women for Clinton. The only way you can explain such a gap is that people are making a choice on emotion, deeply held prejudice.

[red]

:roll: :roll:

See Red,

Zig didn't show face in this thread til we brought up the lesbian cat fights. We know she's on board :!:

i hear ya b

she must have a certain sense for these things, like spiderman

lessie senses

[MadtownPacker]

This thread sucks without TexasPackerBacker. Anyone know how to contact him?

Too much freelove hippie crap from that knob-bobbler Harlan.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

This thread sucks without TexasPackerBacker. Anyone know how to contact him?

Too much freelove hippie crap from that knob-bobbler Harlan.

Please, we don't need his racist bs here.

If i have to read how good, normal americans do things and how the spiteful america hating leftists and the complicit MSM are ruining this country i may be forced into a tri state killing spree.

[MadtownPacker]

Please, we don't need his racist bs here.He was racist? I never noticed.

Best shut your mouth flower power freak. That's a good American youre talkin bout there. You and your commie friend Harlan can ride that VW bus all the way to hell. That's what you deserve for not knowing how to quote just what youre replying to.

But HH deserves to go just for being himself.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Please, we don't need his racist bs here.

If i have to read how good, normal americans do things and how the spiteful america hating leftists and the complicit MSM are ruining this country i may be forced into a tri state killing spree.

hah! At first I thought you were talking about me, and my chest puffed out. But you mean Tex. :( I hate people of color too!

[Harlan Huckleby]

That's a good American youre talkin bout there.



:lol: :lol: I remember Tex's only problem with waterboarding was he thought local police should be allowed to do it too.

[MadtownPacker]

:lol: :lol: I remember Tex's only problem with waterboarding was he thought local police should be allowed to do it too.Alright man Im not up to date on torture methods. What the hell is waterboarding?

[swede]

This post moved to "The Fervor of Obama" thread.

[swede]

:lol: :lol: I remember Tex's only problem with waterboarding was he thought local police should be allowed to do it too.Alright man Im not up to date on torture methods. What the hell is waterboarding?

Remember in cowboy movies when the bad guys would duck somebody's head in the horse trough until he spilled the beans to keep from being drowned.

Waterboarding is a refinement of the near-drowning torture process.

[MJZiggy]

:roll: :roll:

See Red,

Zig didn't show face in this thread til we brought up the lesbian cat fights. We know she's on board :!:

Actually, B, I was rolling my eyes at you. Red just snuck his post in there while I was posting it. I didn't go back and clarify because I figured an eye roll a piece should be fine.

[Bretsky]

:roll: :roll:

See Red,

Zig didn't show face in this thread til we brought up the lesbian cat fights. We know she's on board :!:

Actually, B, I was rolling my eyes at you. Red just snuck his post in there while I was posting it. I didn't go back and clarify because I figured an eye roll a piece should be fine.


Doesn't matter Zig; was just pointing out to Red that you only started paying attention when we started discussing Grailism

[Partial]

That's a good American youre talkin bout there.



:lol: :lol: I remember Tex's only problem with waterboarding was he thought local police should be allowed to do it too.

Dude, I am sick of all the sally's that think this is a bad thing. I see nothing wrong with waterboarding a terrorist. They'd rather die than share there secrets and in that case you need to do what it takes to get it out of them.

Personally, I think US Special Forces should be put through water boarding. We all know the terrorists will do it to them in a second to break them.

[Freak Out]

That's a good American youre talkin bout there.



:lol: :lol: I remember Tex's only problem with waterboarding was he thought local police should be allowed to do it too.

Dude, I am sick of all the sally's that think this is a bad thing. I see nothing wrong with waterboarding a terrorist. They'd rather die than share there secrets and in that case you need to do what it takes to get it out of them.

Personally, I think US Special Forces should be put through water boarding. We all know the terrorists will do it to them in a second to break them.

Certain people in the US military are waterboarded...many have come out against it.
What if the "terrorist" is innocent? It's ok to torture an innocent person? Ooops! We did it again!

[Partial]

That's a good American youre talkin bout there.



:lol: :lol: I remember Tex's only problem with waterboarding was he thought local police should be allowed to do it too.

Dude, I am sick of all the sally's that think this is a bad thing. I see nothing wrong with waterboarding a terrorist. They'd rather die than share there secrets and in that case you need to do what it takes to get it out of them.

Personally, I think US Special Forces should be put through water boarding. We all know the terrorists will do it to them in a second to break them.

Certain people in the US military are waterboarded...many have come out against it.
What if the "terrorist" is innocent? It's ok to torture an innocent person? Ooops! We did it again!

How many innocent people would be killed if that person wasn't broke and they were a terrorist?!?1 Gotta look at both sides.

I was unaware US soldiers were ever waterboarded. I thought the extent of US torture is breaking any non-major bone. That's what our tennis coach told us but I really have no idea.

[BallHawk]

They'd rather die than share there secrets and in that case you need to do what it takes to get it out of them.

And what? You torture them, they give in, they tell you where the bomb is and the day is saved? What incentive does the "terrorist" have to tell you the correct information. He could just say whatever the hell he wants. If it's a time-sensitive situation you don't have time to look into his claim. You've gotta act. And you'd be acting on the word of a desperate man in a desperate situation.

[MadtownPacker]

After reading the posts about waterboarding it's OK with me. I dont even mind if they do it to Partial or BH or any of you in fact. Sounds no different than a little excess force by cops.

[Freak Out]

After reading the posts about waterboarding it's OK with me. I dont even mind if they do it to Partial or BH or any of you in fact. Sounds no different than a little excess force by cops.

You should be familiar with waterboarding considering you paddled your ass across the Rio Grande on one.

[MJZiggy]

:roll: :roll:

See Red,

Zig didn't show face in this thread til we brought up the lesbian cat fights. We know she's on board :!:

Actually, B, I was rolling my eyes at you. Red just snuck his post in there while I was posting it. I didn't go back and clarify because I figured an eye roll a piece should be fine.


Doesn't matter Zig; was just pointing out to Red that you only started paying attention when we started discussing Grailism

No, I just started paying attention when I got home from work. Sorry to disappoint.

[Joemailman]

After reading the posts about waterboarding it's OK with me. I dont even mind if they do it to Partial or BH or any of you in fact. Sounds no different than a little excess force by cops.

You should be familiar with waterboarding considering you paddled your ass across the Rio Grande on one.

Does Mad know how Tex feels about illegal immi...er...undocumented workers?

[Bretsky]

:roll: :roll:

See Red,

Zig didn't show face in this thread til we brought up the lesbian cat fights. We know she's on board :!:

Actually, B, I was rolling my eyes at you. Red just snuck his post in there while I was posting it. I didn't go back and clarify because I figured an eye roll a piece should be fine.


Doesn't matter Zig; was just pointing out to Red that you only started paying attention when we started discussing Grailism

No, I just started paying attention when I got home from work. Sorry to disappoint.
[u]


Ya sure I believe ya; keep telling yourself that

[Partial]

They'd rather die than share there secrets and in that case you need to do what it takes to get it out of them.

And what? You torture them, they give in, they tell you where the bomb is and the day is saved? What incentive does the "terrorist" have to tell you the correct information. He could just say whatever the hell he wants. If it's a time-sensitive situation you don't have time to look into his claim. You've gotta act. And you'd be acting on the word of a desperate man in a desperate situation.

OK, and you could say that about any torture technique. Torturing is a good thing nancy boy. Someday you'll grow up and realize that things never will be as rosy pink as Barack has led people like you to believe it can be. Waterboarding and torturing will never stop illegal or not. That right there is the truth. I am so sick and tired of people exploiting the freedom given to them and using it to bitch about the techniques the people who provide the freedom use. Sadly, Jack Nicholson hit it right on the head in that movie.

[BallHawk]

They'd rather die than share there secrets and in that case you need to do what it takes to get it out of them.

And what? You torture them, they give in, they tell you where the bomb is and the day is saved? What incentive does the "terrorist" have to tell you the correct information. He could just say whatever the hell he wants. If it's a time-sensitive situation you don't have time to look into his claim. You've gotta act. And you'd be acting on the word of a desperate man in a desperate situation.

OK, and you could say that about any torture technique. Torturing is a good thing nancy boy. Someday you'll grow up and realize that things never will be as rosy pink as Barack has led people like you to believe it can be. Waterboarding and torturing will never stop illegal or not. That right there is the truth. I am so sick and tired of people exploiting the freedom given to them and using it to bitch about the techniques the people who provide the freedom use. Sadly, Jack Nicholson hit it right on the head in that movie.

Partial, you do know that I'm 100% for using torture, right?

[Partial]

Certainly doesn't sound like it. Waterboarding isn't immoral and actually safer than breaking a major limb.

[BallHawk]

Certainly doesn't sound like it. Waterboarding isn't immoral and actually safer than breaking a major limb.

I'm not against waterboarding. What annoys me is when people are so naive that the think waterboarding will come in and save the day. It's not going to work if you're using it as your main source of intel in a pressure situation. Hell, if you want to detain some "terrorists" and torture them on a daily basis to get some information out of them, go for it. They do it in other places around the world, why not make it a level playing field?

[Partial]

It isn't guaranteed to work. It's the best technique they have, though.

[Iron Mike]

Hmmm.....I don't know when you both went to 97E school, but when I did, nothing like that was instructed.

http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/mos/intelligence/97e.html

[Freak Out]

It isn't guaranteed to work. It's the best technique they have, though.

:bang: :bang: :bang:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Besides being immoral and putting us on the level of the terrorists it reduces our standing in the world. THis country was supposed to be a beacon on the hill for the rest of the world to aspire to be.

Clearly it doesn't help us when we tell other countries about human rights. You can't be a hypocrite.

But, forget that...it clearly violates due process for those U.S. citizens that are tortured..ie, brown vs. miss. Not to mention violiating international law.

Torture is unreliable. There hasn't been one example of someone being tortured that led to lives being saved in this current war.

Good intel is what has helped us, not torture.

Mark Ritz, Ceo of Team Delta..and former u.s. interrogator:
"Short-term, it can be an effective technique to use physical [pain]. It can be. But it's never reliable -- ever. See, this is the issue."

Dinah PoKempner, the general counsel for the watchdog group Human Rights Watch in New York, stresses that information provided under duress is inherently unreliable.

"The problem is that torture is not only morally reprehensible, it's also extremely ineffective. The body adjusts to pain. You often have to really ratchet up the treatment in order to get someone to talk to you. And then when they talk to you, they are talking to stop the treatment and not necessarily to tell you the truth," PoKempner says.

But, can we get valuable info from torture...let's let the guys in the field tell us.

In Iraq where interrogators saw an increase of 50 percent more high-value intelligence after coercive practices were banned. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the American commander in charge of detentions and interrogations, stated "a rapport-based interrogation that recognizes respect and dignity, and having very well-trained interrogators, is the basis by which you develop intelligence rapidly and increase the validity of that intelligence."

Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.

Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.

You guys can talk about torture and I recognize your bloodlust, but the fact is that it is an almost completely worthless technique.

[Deputy Nutz]

You want to know what fucking tourture is? How about paying 4.00 dollars for a gallon of gasioline this spring and summer? How about that? I guess I am going to shit can any automobile trips this summer with the family, we have to eat ya know.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You want to know what fucking tourture is? How about paying 4.00 dollars for a gallon of gasioline this spring and summer? How about that? I guess I am going to shit can any automobile trips this summer with the family, we have to eat ya know.

In the words of my dad, "it ain't no vacation being in the car with you kids."

[hoosier]

Besides being immoral and putting us on the level of the terrorists it reduces our standing in the world. THis country was supposed to be a beacon on the hill for the rest of the world to aspire to be.

Clearly it doesn't help us when we tell other countries about human rights. You can't be a hypocrite.

But, forget that...it clearly violates due process for those U.S. citizens that are tortured..ie, brown vs. miss. Not to mention violiating international law.

Torture is unreliable. There hasn't been one example of someone being tortured that led to lives being saved in this current war.

Good intel is what has helped us, not torture.

Mark Ritz, Ceo of Team Delta..and former u.s. interrogator:
"Short-term, it can be an effective technique to use physical [pain]. It can be. But it's never reliable -- ever. See, this is the issue."

Dinah PoKempner, the general counsel for the watchdog group Human Rights Watch in New York, stresses that information provided under duress is inherently unreliable.

"The problem is that torture is not only morally reprehensible, it's also extremely ineffective. The body adjusts to pain. You often have to really ratchet up the treatment in order to get someone to talk to you. And then when they talk to you, they are talking to stop the treatment and not necessarily to tell you the truth," PoKempner says.

But, can we get valuable info from torture...let's let the guys in the field tell us.

In Iraq where interrogators saw an increase of 50 percent more high-value intelligence after coercive practices were banned. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the American commander in charge of detentions and interrogations, stated "a rapport-based interrogation that recognizes respect and dignity, and having very well-trained interrogators, is the basis by which you develop intelligence rapidly and increase the validity of that intelligence."

Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.

Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.

You guys can talk about torture and I recognize your bloodlust, but the fact is that it is an almost completely worthless technique.

I have the feeling you're trying to convince someone who is impervious to reason. It's like putting water in the mixer and trying to make whipped cream.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Besides being immoral and putting us on the level of the terrorists it reduces our standing in the world. THis country was supposed to be a beacon on the hill for the rest of the world to aspire to be.

Clearly it doesn't help us when we tell other countries about human rights. You can't be a hypocrite.

But, forget that...it clearly violates due process for those U.S. citizens that are tortured..ie, brown vs. miss. Not to mention violiating international law.

Torture is unreliable. There hasn't been one example of someone being tortured that led to lives being saved in this current war.

Good intel is what has helped us, not torture.

Mark Ritz, Ceo of Team Delta..and former u.s. interrogator:
"Short-term, it can be an effective technique to use physical [pain]. It can be. But it's never reliable -- ever. See, this is the issue."

Dinah PoKempner, the general counsel for the watchdog group Human Rights Watch in New York, stresses that information provided under duress is inherently unreliable.

"The problem is that torture is not only morally reprehensible, it's also extremely ineffective. The body adjusts to pain. You often have to really ratchet up the treatment in order to get someone to talk to you. And then when they talk to you, they are talking to stop the treatment and not necessarily to tell you the truth," PoKempner says.

But, can we get valuable info from torture...let's let the guys in the field tell us.

In Iraq where interrogators saw an increase of 50 percent more high-value intelligence after coercive practices were banned. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the American commander in charge of detentions and interrogations, stated "a rapport-based interrogation that recognizes respect and dignity, and having very well-trained interrogators, is the basis by which you develop intelligence rapidly and increase the validity of that intelligence."

Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.

Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.

You guys can talk about torture and I recognize your bloodlust, but the fact is that it is an almost completely worthless technique.

I have the feeling you're trying to convince someone who is impervious to reason. It's like putting water in the mixer and trying to make whipped cream.

Touche.

[swede]

I agree Tyrone.

This country has to be better than that and rise above the inclination to use torture against bad people.

Even if a person is a terrorist it is cruel to make them kneel on a board and drag them behind a fast-moving boat.

[Deputy Nutz]

I agree Tyrone.

This country has to be better than that and rise above the inclination to use torture against bad people.

Even if a person is a terrorist it is cruel to make them kneel on a board and drag them behind a fast-moving boat.


I like tourture. I especially like to take bad guys to the Happy Acres Dog Kenels and sick the dogs on their asses for about 5 minutes. If that don't get them talking a hammer and a chisel will work just fine.

[The Leaper]

Personally, I don't like the option of torture...however, at the same time, dealing with radical Islamic terrorists is quite different than dealing with most other POW situations.

To think that rational, respectful dialog is going to reap any benefits from radical terrorists is looney IMO. The entire point of rational, respectful dialog is that BOTH sides have the respect.

Clearly, al Qaeda has zero respect for any Americans...and never will. So, how do you build a rational, respectful working relationship with that blantant fact staring you in the face?

Options like waterboarding should not be our first option...but I do not agree with the notion that they should be taken off the table. The only elements I feel are off-limits are ones that actually put the life of the prisoner at risk.

By most accounts, waterboarding is a MENTAL TORTURE technique...no different than bombarding Noreiga's compound with 130 decibel rock music 24-7.

IMO, the use of tazers in this nation by our police is a much greater torture actually exhibited against US citizens. Can you cite an example where a prisoner we held has died because of waterboarding? I can cite dozens of examples of people dying due to being tazered by police.

Where is your outrage for that?

[swede]

This country has to be better than that and rise above the inclination to use torture against bad people.

Even if a person is a terrorist it is cruel to make them kneel on a board and drag them behind a fast-moving boat.

I just got a pm informing me that I had confused waterboarding with kneeboarding.

Never mind.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Personally, I don't like the option of torture...however, at the same time, dealing with radical Islamic terrorists is quite different than dealing with most other POW situations.

To think that rational, respectful dialog is going to reap any benefits from radical terrorists is looney IMO. The entire point of rational, respectful dialog is that BOTH sides have the respect.

Clearly, al Qaeda has zero respect for any Americans...and never will. So, how do you build a rational, respectful working relationship with that blantant fact staring you in the face?

Options like waterboarding should not be our first option...but I do not agree with the notion that they should be taken off the table. The only elements I feel are off-limits are ones that actually put the life of the prisoner at risk.

By most accounts, waterboarding is a MENTAL TORTURE technique...no different than bombarding Noreiga's compound with 130 decibel rock music 24-7.

IMO, the use of tazers in this nation by our police is a much greater torture actually exhibited against US citizens. Can you cite an example where a prisoner we held has died because of waterboarding? I can cite dozens of examples of people dying due to being tazered by police.

Where is your outrage for that?

Don't taze me bro!!

The issue of torture isn't whether it is mental or physical. Besides all the ethical, moral, and legislative issues..it isn't effective.

Tazers: I'm with you on that...despite it being a local business. We actually had a case of an officer, pissed about the way the "criminal" had run from his cop girlfriend hold the tazer for like 50 seconds or so..killed the guy.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

xdd

[Freak Out]

Obama is just the right amount of black. (Second City)

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't believe in capital punishment.

I think our government is too big.

I believe in state's rights.

I think all citizens should own at least one rifle or shotgun.

Tex, what do you think?