Disqus - Latest Comments for shaun

Re: Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne

shaun — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:35:25 -0000

I cried twice this morning. Once when I heard that Kennedy had died and then when I read this piece.

Re: Self Destruction, Not Self Examination As The GOP Lurches Into The Future

shaun — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:30:13 -0000

JWest:

I'm not going to get into a linkathon with you. I stand by my remark.

Instead, why don't you come out of your cave long enough to delineate how you believe your beloved Republican Party can get its mojo back if not through the way that I suggest -- and hope it does.

The ball is in your court. It's time to be proactive and not reactive for a change.

Re: Suspect in Murder of Dr. Tiller Allegedly Member of ‘Operation Rescue’ Forum

shaun — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:39:53 -0000

CStanley's mantra surely is "Technically I'm sure you're correct."

Here once again a thread is hijacked through anal-retentive nit-pickiness with nary a thought given to the fact that for some of us, a true hero for women's reproductive rights has been struck down.

Might you comment on the substance, CStanley, and not keep biting at the hem of Dr. E's skirt?

Re: Sonia Sotomayor & Ethnic Identification

shaun — Wed, 27 May 2009 09:44:44 -0000

Bellisaurius:

Terrific point and all the more relevant as America becomes ever more the melting pot with succeeding generations of inner marriage.

Although it is somewhat the exception, my brother lives on a street in a North Jersey neighborhood where he is only one of two whites among a half-dozen husbands and wives. The others are Filipino, Indian, Russian, Chinese and Korean, all but two of the couples marrying across ethnic and racial lines.

I myself have Irish, German, English, Scotch, Welsh, Swedish, Moorish and Lenni Lenape blood, so what does that make me other than an obnoxious butthead?

Re: Is Colin Powell a Republican? You bet your donkey he is.

AustinRoth — Sat, 23 May 2009 01:13:16 -0000

Shaun -

My views, and my daughter's, differ from yours on this war, its justness, and service and war in general.

She is only recently joined, and we did indeed discuss the possibility of her death in duty. She said to me that while she has no desire to die defending her country if it can be avoided, if that is what happens, then she is OK with it. Others have died before her so that she could have the freedoms and life she enjoyed as a child and young adult, and she fully understood and accepted the commitment she was making to future generations, to do the same if that is what happens.

The arrogance is yours Shaun, that you believe that your feelings toward the Iraq war are the only legitimate ones. I actually respect your right to feel the way you do, but you have shown no respect whatsoever towards those who disagree with your positions.

And you insist on projecting a level of malice towards those who did do what they thought was right to defend the country. I do not agree with everything done in the GWOT, but unlike you, I do not have to demonize those who made the decisions.

Enough for me now on this as well.

Re: Is Colin Powell a Republican? You bet your donkey he is.

shaun — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:42:07 -0000

That's it for me, AR.

But first a final thought on this Memorial Day Weekend eve: How fortunate that the wheel of life didn't turn a little differently and you would be visiting your daughters grave site at Arlington National Cemetery. No good would have come from that except that it might have banished the hubris and arrogance that you share with the Bushes, Cheyneys and Rumsfelds since even you would probably then understand that your loved one had perished in a war started on false pretenses for political folly and not national need.

Peace to you.

Re: Is Colin Powell a Republican? You bet your donkey he is.

AustinRoth — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:12:47 -0000

Shaun -

My mention of my daughter (who is indeed in the armed forces) was not directed at you, but at someone else I owed an apology to, and wasn't part the discussion between us at all. Nor do you have the right to tell me who or what to write about anyway.

What did I read into your post that was not there? You, in your own words, said Bush was 'complicitous', and "a direct line can be pretty much drawn from the Oval Office, with a slight detour to DefSec Rumsfeld's, to her bloodied vagina." Very moderate on your part, I must say.

It is interesting to me to see you go off on a revisionist history tangent as well. I seem to to remember you arguing for less troops, not more, indeed a full withdrawal from Iraq. Now suddenly, it is a lack of troops that led to this psychopathic young man committing his crimes.

I served in the Air Force and the Navy, so I have no need to justify myself to you on that front, either.

Re: Is Colin Powell a Republican? You bet your donkey he is.

shaun — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:45:47 -0000

AR:

Moderates do not apologize for the excesses of the last eight years. They are ashamed of them. And your ability to read much more into my post on the rape-murder and comments thereon is positively Cheney-esque. So find something else to call yourself, because a moderate you ain't.

I am to presume that your daughter is or was a member of the armed forces.

Good for her, but unless she has some special insight from time spent in Iraq or Afghanistan, keep her out of the "discussion." I participated in one war and covered several others, so don't pull the American flag lapel pin crap with me.

I know of what I speak and write concerning war. You don't know jack.

Re: Is Colin Powell a Republican? You bet your donkey he is.

AustinRoth — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:26:01 -0000

Shaun -

That twisted logic can be applied to any leader of men, in any armed conflict, in any war throughout history.

It is as twisted as saying the rape is Carter's fault for funding what became the Taliban, which begat Al Queda, which lead to 9/11, which led to the rape.

Or do you go back to the CIA re-instating the Peacock throne? Or Leonidas at Thermopylae?

This time you are just coming off like a nut, Shaun. Truly demented.

Re: Is Colin Powell a Republican? You bet your donkey he is.

shaun — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:21:11 -0000

AR:

To say that Bush is not complicitous in the disaster that the Iraq war was from the outset, to intimate that willfully ignoring pleas from his generals for more troops was not a major factor in the situation that bred such hostility and such unacceptably high casualty rates in Mahmoudiyah, that by necessity lowered the bar on who was an acceptable recruit by the time that Master Green arrived in country, is being willfully ignorant.

Bush did not rape Abeer, AR, but a direct line can be pretty much drawn from the Oval Office, with a slight detour to DefSec Rumsfeld's, to her bloodied vagina.

Re: Is Colin Powell a Republican? You bet your donkey he is.

AustinRoth — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:58:16 -0000

Shaun -

You mistaken seeing my fighting back against your flaming polemics, such as trying to lay blame at the feet of Bush for the actions of a disturbed serviceman, as my defending any criticism of the Republicans.

Hell, I was going to compliment you on that article overall, as a very powerful piece of writing, until YOU felt the need to unnecessarily drag Bush into it and try to lame the blame at his feet. Are you claiming that only under Bush have soldiers committed crimes? Or only under Republican Presidents? Utter rubbish, and indicitive of your lack of perspective due to BDS, or more accurately RDS.

And I am indeed a Republican moderate, in my politics and my voting. I only come across so Right-wing because SOMEONE has to stand up to the DU-level smears, lies and distortions of posters like you and Kathy.

You know I have been around a long time on this board, and I do not deny that I am to the right of most of the posters and commentators, but only become so incensed because you and others tend to be zo unatic-fringe leftist at times, like GD's attack on the military that I got so upset at the other day.

BTW - despite the true, deep anger I still feel at him for those smears at our servicemen and servicewoman, and by association my daughter, I admit I stepped over the line in my response to him, and apologize to him and the board in general for expressing that which I should have just kept to myself.

But I have stood up before and pointed out that I am definitely on the left side of the Republican Party.

I believe in abortion rights for women (although not in Roe v. Wade, but that is a separate issue); I am firmly opposed to any and all attempts to add 'creationism' to education; I am not opposed to gay marriage, as long as it is implemented via legislative or voter actions; while I support the email/voice monitoring programs for anti-terrorism, in general I believe the Fourth Amendment has been completely trampled on by drug and alcohol test rulings, asset forfeiture laws, no-knock raids, and the attempts to weaken Miranda and the associated rulings; I have consistently stated my opposition to the lack of habeas corpus for US citizens and US nationals (but not non-uniformed enemy combatants); I have also been clear that while I believe in the purpose of the 'enhanced interrogation' memos, that they did define the line between lawful and unlawful techniques, and as such anyone shown to have exceeded those limits should be prosecuted; and many other examples of 'unorthodoxy'. I am even an atheist, which according to some people's thinking, should make it impossible for the Republican party to accept me. Bu they dio.

I am not claiming to be right-leaning Democrat in disguise, but I am claiming that I am not the the extreme right-winger I find myself being here too often in reaction to what are, IMO, over-the-top attacks from the other direction.

Re: Is Colin Powell a Republican? You bet your donkey he is.

shaun — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:08:06 -0000

Austin Roth and JWest nicely represent, albeit unintentionally, two of the tumors in the cancerous Republican Party body. (Corpse?)

AR consistently attacks leftie liberals like myself when I deign to dime the GOP, but with a post like this comes out from his cave long enough to claim that Republicans are really inclusive people even if they don't act like it and he is actually one of the moderates, so we shouldn't be put off by his fright wig and right-wing crossing dressing.

JW is more candid: Anyone who doesn't agree with his extremist views, the very ones that have marginalized his beloved party to raisin-like size, are not welcome in his cave. This includes Colin Powell, and for good measure JW goes Limbaugh by calling this great American and African-American a "political whore."

Good word, lads. I'm sure you'll keep it up if your drool cups don't overflow on your Dockers.

Re: Is The Torture Debate Over Bar The Shouting?

shaun — Fri, 15 May 2009 08:18:37 -0000

Kathy:

You can't have it both ways. Neither can I.

So let me ask you a simple question, no hedging allowed: Which do you want to see happen first -- health-care reform or prosecution of Bush administration perps?

If your answer is prosecution, then you can kiss health-care reform goodbye.

A footnote: There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. Health-care reform can't wait.

And another: I am currently quoting something you wrote at your blog in the quote box of my blog masthead: "Torture does work if you’re trying to sell a war."

Re: Mahmoudiya: An atrocity in our names

shaun — Mon, 11 May 2009 11:55:59 -0000

First of all, no blog post that I have written in the past four years has generated as much traffic as a takeout I did on the entire rape-murder-cover up. The vast majority of those readers have come from outside the U.S. and that again was the case when there was a huge spike in readers of the post after Green's conviction last week. Read what you may into that.

Secondly, Should Green's life be spared when he took four others? I don't have it in my heart to play God with this one.

But I do know that Green was unfit to wear an Army uniform, but he not only was fast-tracked through basic training and sent off to Iraq, his readily obvious homicidal tendencies were merely acknowledged and dealt with by medication, "Atta boys" and pats on the back as he was repeatedly sent back into the hell hole that was the region where Abeer lived.

It wasn’t likely that Green would trigger something awful while he was in Iraq, it was inevitable, and the war was a perfect crucible: Not enough troops, vague and changing rules of engagement, negligible efforts to win over an occupied people, and an Army mental-health system that betrays its own soldiers just as their president betrayed his country.

Re: GOP Gitmo Fearmongering Continues

shaun — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:46:43 -0000

Beyond the fear mongering, which is indeed a tool of the party not in power but most recently by that same party when it was in power, the ad is dishonest.

As we learned from the bi-partisan (gasp!) 9/11 Commission investigation and elsewhere, the Bush administration had ample warning that attacks on high-density targets using hijacked passenger jets was in the offing.

Bush's CIA had, in fact, identified three of the hijackers as being in country. Bush's FBI had, in fact, identified two others.

But that vitally important information was not only suppressed, it was never shared although both Rice and Cheney had been separately warned of the possibility of an imminent attack. Both, of course, were still fighting the Cold War; Rice at least has had the guts to admit that.

Gitmo will be closed. Real-live terrorists and suspects deemed too dangerous or problematic to be sent back to their homelands will be incarcerated in maximum security federal or military lock-ups in the Lower 48 with spotless escape records. Casualobserver's mother-in-law will not be savaged by some jihadist who walked off a county work farm. The world will go on.

Re: The State Secrets Privilege Power Grab: As Dubya Goes So Goes Obama?

shaun — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:24:57 -0000

ChrisWWW:

My attempt at humor failed.

Re: Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan

shaun — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:31:28 -0000

I'm devoting the rest of the day to pulling wings off of flies while blowing cigar smoke in their widdle faces, but I think the estimable Hilzoy has done about as good a job as any blogger in putting these grotesqueries in perspective:

"If most people tried to make the case that prosecuting their criminal acts was just 'looking backwards,' or a sign that the prosecutor was motivated by a desire for retribution, they'd be laughed out of court. Imagine the likely reaction if your average crack dealer were to urge the judge not to dwell on the past, or if someone who used accounting fraud to flip houses told offered a prosecutor the chance to be 'very Mandelalike in the sense [of] saying let the past be the past and let us move into the future,' or if I were pulled over for speeding and, when asked if I knew how fast I was going, replied that 'Some things in life need to be mysterious . . . Sometimes you need to just keep walking.' I don't think any of us would get very far."

Re: Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan

shaun — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:05:29 -0000

CStanley:

Points well taken. The smoking light is now on.

Re: Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan

shaun — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:33:04 -0000

CStanley:

It is obvious that you missed school the day they were teaching about:

* The myriad Watergate investigations and hearings, hours of latter broadcast on daytime TV.

* The United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, better known as the Church committee.

And the score at the end of regulation is:

The Persistence of History = 1
CStanley = 0

Re: Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan

shaun — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:07:50 -0000

CStanley:

Last try. Any number of presidential commissions could not be more different in substance. The JFK assassination commission, space shuttle Challenger commission and 9/11 commission being examples.

I am not comparing the substance of the 9/11 Commission with a possible torture commission. You are. What I am comparing -- and you do not address -- is the partisan rancor surrounding the run-up to the 9/11 commission and similar rancor on the torture issue.

If you don't care to address why the 9/11 Commission WAS DIFFERENT IN YOUR VIEW IN THAT RESPECT, then fine.

But if you want to address my point -- now proffered three times, then please do so.

Re: Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan

shaun — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:51:24 -0000

CStanley:

Not even close and certainly no cigar.

So you are saying that the partisanship displayed in the run-up to the eventual formation of a 9/11 Commission and the partisanship today are not analogous?

Just what are you saying?

Re: Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan

shaun — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:41:27 -0000

No, DaGoat, that was last month's issue.

This month's issue is what, if anything, to do about key Bush administration enablers now that there is a fairly widespread consensus (yes, including conservatives beyond that Shep Smith) that what occurred what textbook torture and, except for the morally and politically impaired, torture is not an acceptable government policy.

Re: Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan

shaun — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:30:15 -0000

CStanley:

Nice try but no cigar.

My intent is not to ignite a flame war, let alone a side debate, but the 9/11 Commission and what to do about torture are precisely analogous insofar as the partisan angle.

Re: Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan

shaun — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:44:39 -0000

CStanley:

According to many accounts at the time, the calls for a 9/11 Commission were partisan and it was conveniently parsed as such by a White House that did NOT want to get to the bottom of the events leading up to that horrible day because, as we were to learn, it had much to hide and feared a witch hunt.

And so by your crude calculus calls for a thorough investigation of what most people would now consider to be torture cannot be given their due because they too are being portrayed as partisan.

Therefore, I can reasonably conclude that you would have opposed the 9/11 Commission, correct?

Re: Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan

shaun — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:53:43 -0000

Well, I guess we're going to read and hear just about anything as the torture debate rages on. But accusing a blogger who has been out in front of this story for a couple of years of being too passionate and praising a veteran Inside-the-Beltway journalist who lost his mojo even more years ago for wishing the whole sordid mess away is a first.

Job well done, Mr. Sanders!