home

Monday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:28:02 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm spending the day writing briefs instead of blog posts, so if there's something you'd like to discuss, here's the place.

Let's also keep giving the holiday gift of traffic. Feel free to put links to your own blog posts in the comments -- so long as they are in html format (long urls skew the site and I can't edit comments on Scoop, I can only delete them.)

You might start with Mike's Blog Round-Up over at Crooks and Liars. Avedon Carol has Notes from the Blogosphere. Christy at Firedoglake has a great post on Habeas, Sentence First, Verdict Later. John Travolta defends Scientology against charges it is homophobic.

Your turn.

< Praise for "The Second Chance Act" | Rudy: Deal With Terrorism Like Organized Crime >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Open Thread | 85 comments (85 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    No Bail- Jail (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 12:04:32 PM EST
    CNN: Libby loses bid to remain free on bail.

    TPM

    Ouch! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 12:06:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Ouch is right! (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 12:33:09 PM EST
    The court unanimously rejected the request.

    the appeals court turned down Libby in a one-paragraph order, ruling he has not shown that his appeal 'raises a substantial question.'

    Parent

    Unanimous Decision (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 12:34:09 PM EST
    Libby may be behind bars within weeks under the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which denied his request for release during his appeal

    TPMM

    Ouch is right.

    Parent

    Old America (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:37:15 PM EST
    Things sure have changed:

    A Short Guide To Iraq

    via Counterpunch

    Make an effort to know the culture (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:26:58 PM EST
    The White House might have learned some valuable lessons, like don't touch the Iraqis, or look at their women.

    The Iraqis have a word that is an important clue to their culture:

    A former Britannica editor has a few questions about US foreign policy, and "Sahel"
    From this most interesting article in the New York Times we learn that the Iraqis have a unique word in their language, one not shared by other Arabic-speaking lands. The word is sahel, and it means "to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets." As the author points out, having a single word for such a concept is evidence that it is a powerful element of the culture. Knowing about this certainly casts new light on the seemingly unquenchable violence between religious factions in that unhappy land.


    Parent
    a post about a book on blogs (none / 0) (#1)
    by teacherken on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:56:28 AM EST
    Aaron Barlow of dailykos and e Pluribus Media has a book about the blogs which I explored today at dailykos.   The diary was on the recommended list for a number of hours, and includes a number of comments by Aaron.  Take a look at it here

    Gee, it looks like Apple ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    ... just made another bad business decision [/snark]
    Opening weekend sales of iPhones may have reached 500,000, according to an analyst's estimate, as Apple's much anticipated product saw sales that lived up to and even exceeded its hype.

    Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster released a report Sunday night estimating that the iPhone sales would reach that mark through the close of business Sunday. He had previously forecast first weekend sales of 200,000 of the device, which sells for either $499 or $599.

    "Overall, Apple met strong demand over the weekend with adequate supply," he wrote in the report. "We were surprised by the rate at which Apple was able to sell the handsets, with 50 cashiers processing up to 1,000 iPhones an hour in some stores."
    sailor (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:15:28 PM EST
    Perhaps you can provide us a link to who said this new product was a bad business decision???

    My comment was that the decision to marry software to Apple's hardware only was a bad decision 20 years (or so)ago and almost put the company out of business when it prematurely announced the availability of the Mac and when that was delayed had no alternative source of revenue. In the meantime, Apple's inexperience with working with other vendors is causing problems. Simpler. When you control everything the problems are much easier to identify and solve.

    Spokespeople for AT&T and Apple insist there are no significant activation issues but tell that to the dozens who are posting that - 24 hours after they bought the phones - they still can't get them working.

    Free Press reader Liz Smith Yeats has been sharing her frustrations with me via e-mail. She's called Apple and AT&T repeatedly with no success.

    And while the problem may, or may not be, exclusively ATT or Apple, both will be blamed.

    One report I read said that the problem was related to the user having the wrong software... not updated...and couldn't contact Apple for assistance.. oh well

    These, of course, are all problems related to marketing success.. But problems with very high priced gadgets have a way of being spread, and will usually depress the price, losing part of the anticapted high margins and profits.

    And waiting in the wings:

    Another thing that hits consumers hard is Apple's FairPlay Digital Rights Management, which is present in the iPhone just like the iPod. Although people seemed to accept the iPod fairly well, it seems to be a dirty trick that Apple's doing right now by forcing you to buy an iPod/iPhone if you want to play your songs on a device, and forcing you to buy from the iTunes store if you want to play songs on your iPod/iPhone. You could call it a lose-lose situation for some. Apple again claims it's not their fault, and that "the record labels forced them to do it". Well, obviously they were forced to apply some sort of DRM scheme to the songs, but certainly they could open up this technology to other companies?

    And then,

    Link

    The Universal Music Group of Vivendi, the world's biggest music corporation, last week notified Apple that it will not renew its annual contract to sell music through iTunes, according to executives briefed on the issue who asked for anonymity because negotiations between the companies are confidential.

    So this ROF doesn't have Apple on his "buy" list.
    Too big of a gamble even for a poker player.


    Parent

    Don't know what you're babbling about (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:24:13 PM EST
    and don't really care because I'm not responding to your ignorance and dishonesty any longer.

    have a nice day.

    Parent

    et al (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:51:53 PM EST
    Simpler

    Sailor made a mistake but doesn't want to talk about it.

    Parent

    FairPlay (none / 0) (#45)
    by roy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:46:13 PM EST
    One of the articles you quote has one detail wrong:

    ...forcing you to buy from the iTunes store if you want to play songs on your iPod/iPhone

    You can play songs from various sources on an iPod or iPhone.  I do this all the time with my iPods, with some music bought from iTunes, some ripped from CDs I own, and some downloaded from (cough) other sources.

    Works great.

    The flip side, that you can't play songs purchased through iTunes on non-Apple devices, is true enough as these things go.  It's not a "dirty trick" though, since afaik customers know about it up front.  It's just something that would be nice if it weren't so.

    I doubt the complaints about FairPlay -- even the true ones -- really hurt Apple much; "people seemed to accept the iPod fairly well" is such a wild understatement that I have to doubt the writer's credibility.

    Parent

    DRMs (none / 0) (#48)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 03:11:34 PM EST
    Apple pretty much had to come up with a DRM to get the music conglomerates onboard at the start. Apple and EMI now offer a DRM free service at higher ACC quality for 30 cents more.

    I also think that Universal maybe shooting themselves in the foot with their limited renewal stance since the only expanding part of the market is in digital downloads.

    Parent

    Roy (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:00:59 AM EST
    Hmm... Since I don't have either, I can add only what the author wrote.

    As I said before, I'm neutral on Apple, and was just responding to Sailor's snark.

    Still the error seems to be huge. If I understand it correctly, Apple has agreed with the providers to place a code on it that means it can be played only on iPod/iTune.

    Perhaps sailor can tell us. He has to be good for something.  ;-)

    Parent

    Another call... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 12:04:06 PM EST
    for a "surveillance nation"....this time by authoritarian Lieberman.

    Link

    Who's watching me
    I don't know anymore
    Are the neighbors watching me
    Who's watching
    Well, is the mailman watching me
    Tell me, who's watching
    And I don't feel safe anymore
    Oh, what a mess
    I wonder who's watching me now

    - Rockwell
    It seems to me that we often have people (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 12:56:45 PM EST
    on TL who rail against our citizens being put in jail, jailed for crimes in which no one got hurt, and/or too-long jail sentences, etc.

    Yet here we have a guy who's gonna do time, who - despite all the devious and insidious things some might think he did (in marked contrast to what he was actually convicted of doing) - essentially hurt no one except a couple gvt employee's feelings.

    I guess it's just normal human nature to only care when it's your own ox that getting gored...

    He's been a willing participant (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    in an administration who's actions have resulted in a hundred thousand people getting gored, s.u. Its stretches the meaning a little of "one's own ox".

    Parent
    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:21:57 PM EST
    He's been a willing participant
    by jondee on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    in an administration who's actions have resulted in a hundred thousand people getting gored,

    So you care nothing for a person has actually been convicted of, but what group he is a member of.

    That historically has been the position of some very odious people that I wouldn't think you would want to be associated with.


    Parent

    I care about both, (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:40:00 PM EST
    and a person of normal intelligence -- such as some of the judges at Nuremburg -- knows that often the two aren't mutually exclusive.

    Parent
    Jondee (2.00 / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    Nonsense.

    Punishing someone for group association rather than what he is convicted of is bad.

    I am amazed you even try to argue the point.

    Parent

    Im assuming Libby supports (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:30:24 PM EST
    the policies of the administration, which I consider criminally short-sighted, under-handed, homocidal and productive of disasterous long-term consequences for the nation. Your job is to encourage a Yazza Boss responce to the afore mentioned. We'll just agree to disagree, I guess.

    Parent
    Hey jondee (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:33:42 PM EST
    Can you believe that some commenters here are so addicted to the kool-aids that they write:
    So you believe it is okay for an individual to assume the role of judge and jury???
    While completely ignoring that only republicans, mostly appointed by bush, AND a jury chosen by republicans, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced scooter for federal crimes?

    Parent
    Well, do you?? (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:08:29 PM EST


    Parent
    sailor - why did you leave off the best part... (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:10:53 PM EST
    You know. The part that adds context.

    So you believe it is okay for an individual to assume the role of judge and jury???

    Libby was convicted and sentenced. To seek greater punishment because of his group "memebership," for lack of a better word is just wrong and raises terrible images of things done in the name of this belief.

    Now. Do you believe in punishment because of a group that someone is a memeber of???


    Parent

    No, we won't. (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:08:05 PM EST
    So you believe it is okay for an individual to assume the role of judge and jury???

    Libby was convicted and sentenced. To seek greater punishment because of his group "memebership," for lack of a better word is just wrong and raises terrible images of things done in the name of this belief.

    Parent

    Go Tell (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 03:10:52 PM EST
    Simon Wiesenthal that.

    Parent
    Well, to be clear, (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:21:57 PM EST
    he wasn't convicted of any of that, ie.,
    we have a guy who's gonna do time, who, [in the case in question] - despite all the devious and insidious things some might think he did (in marked contrast to what he was actually convicted of doing) - essentially hurt no one except a couple gvt employee's feelings.
    my []'s.

    Parent
    perjury and obstruction are very ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:28:34 PM EST
    ... serious crimes, especially, as the judge noted, when carried out by high gov't officials.

    His behavior was so egregious that republicans and bush appointees have been solely responsible for his charging, trial sentencing.

    Parent

    Sailor (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:51:07 PM EST
    Hmmmm

    Actually it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is...

    BTW - I am not sure. Could you provide proof that Bush appointed the Judge??

    Parent

    BTW (1.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    Never mind... found a link.

    Parent
    We would put him in jail for what he did (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:24:23 PM EST
    but he'd rather lie for hours about what he did soooooo if you are going to commit a crime right in front of our faces I guess we'll have to do something about that.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:49:15 PM EST
    Wow.

    Your logic is unbelieveble..

    Did you ever write for the "I Love Lucy" show??

    Parent

    Some Trolls aren't tolerated here.. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:53:58 PM EST


    Parent
    How is my logic (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:00:18 PM EST
    in this instance flawed Jim?

    Parent
    What Libby participated in gored my ox (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:17:52 PM EST
    When he involved himself in shutting up Joe Wilson to ensure that my husband would go to war in Iraq he gored my ox man and a lot of innocent people have died because of that too.  To jail with you Libby and I look forward to jailing your friends someday too that aided and abetted in CREATING the Iraq War.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:22:30 PM EST
    See my reply to Jondee.

    Parent
    The guy committed a crime (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    when trying to prevent investigation of the crime he committed.  For me the group that he belongs to is secondary but I won't forget about it cuz fool me once shame on you and fool me twice........well ummmm errrrr.......I can't be fooled again kay? He isn't doing time because of who his friends are........he's doing time because he obstructed justice so stop it Jim puleeeeeaze.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:14:49 PM EST
    Well, it looks like Fitzgerald missed a lot of people.. You gonna round up a posse and go get'em???

    Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn't it?

    Armitage: His wife works for the agency.

    Woodward: Why doesn't that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?

    Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.

    Woodward: Everyone knows?

    Armitage: Yeah. And they know 'cause Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off 'cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he's all pissed off.

    Woodward: But why would they send him?

    Armitage: Because his wife's an analyst at the agency.

    Woodward: Oh. She's the chief WMD...?

    Armitage: No. She's not the...

    Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go."

    Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].

    Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was...?

    Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don't know if she was out there. But his wife's in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?



    Parent
    Tracy - wrong again (1.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:28:16 PM EST
    When he involved himself in shutting up Joe Wilson to ensure that my husband would go to war in Iraq

    The activities that Libby was wrongly convicted of all happened AFTER the invasion of Iraq.

    You hatred is showing.

    Parent

    Indignation isnt "hatred" (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:36:04 PM EST
    Your (second hand) imbecility is showing again.

    Libby willfully climbed into a pig pen and got slimed. Deal with it.

    Parent

    ppj's comment is ammazing ... (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 03:13:28 PM EST
    ... seeing as how he wants to nuke the ME to make sure some terrorists get killed.

    Parent
    Does that mean we must let Iran slide?? (1.00 / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:33:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Jondee writes (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:20:54 PM EST
    Your (second hand) imbecility is showing again.

    At least I know enough to understand that wanting to punish someone based on their group association is a road that leads straight into some places and groups that we as a society have tried to eliminate.

    I think you need to deal with your own attitudes that you have cheerfully displayed for all of us to see.

    Parent

    Association with AND cooperation with (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 05:18:53 PM EST
    And the "punisshment" should be every chronic non-combatant from Shrub on down trained, equipped, and redeployed to the frontlines of the war zone they helped create. Hell, they could even give their unit one of those colorful nicknames like "The Fightin' Chickenhawks"..

    Parent
    Jondee (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:23:35 PM EST
    The facts remain that "they" have been convicted of no crime.

    Libby was convicted, and sentenced. Yet you demanded harsher punishment because he was part of the Bush Administration.

    I again urge you to reconsider such statements. You and I both know the groups who used such odious acts against people in other times.

    Do not give them a reason to claim, "See, Jondee did it. See, The Left did it."

    Parent

    You've used that very same approach (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:40:39 PM EST
    to "the Left" and against those you percieve as being on it so many times here, that Im aghast that you would have the hypocritical cajones to accuse someone else of it. lol

    Thanks for the laugh, ppj. You're truely an amazing case study in denial and intellectual dishonesty.

    Parent

    Justice (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:30:17 PM EST
    Doesn't matter what he was convicted of. Justice is served.

    Parent
    You hatred is showing ;) (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    No my indignation and disgust is showing.  If you saw me in a hatred state you would never see again......it's like seeing Medusa.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    Please, it's okay. Let it all out.

    Parent
    It's sort of hard to just conjure up hatred (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:10:44 PM EST
    as long as I have available to me resources that will allow some sort of justice to be found. In that case I will probably remain disgusted and indignant about things like Scoot and his buddies.  I can't just pull strong yet unattached to my life circumstances emotions like hatred out of my hat, some people can but I can't.  My emotions match what I'm living or I suppose what I'm surviving right now.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:15:47 PM EST
    It's okay...

    Let it rip.

    Parent

    Let what rip? (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    You're kind of goofy huh?

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 2) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    Your anger. Let it rip. Don't hold back. I understand that no one has been affected by the terrorists attacks but you.

    Parent
    Where did I say I was the only one (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:29:12 PM EST
    affected and do you see the family members of those who lost their lives in 9/11 frothing at the mouth on television about not nuking Iraq and Iran?  No, in fact you see many of the surviving family members on the television very saddened by what this administration did stearing us into Iraq, draining all of our resources into Iraq when Iraq was never the source of our problems, and the United States still remains very vulnerable because we really haven't dealt with how to deal with terrorism or terrorists.  See Jim, those of us who have really lost things because of Bush and Cheney and the rest of the thugs want real solutions because we lost real things and real people not make believe things and fake people.

    Parent
    AND, I have never discovered (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:33:39 PM EST
    truth or participated in truth via lying.  I know anything is possible but I personally have never bundled up a batch of lies and acted on them and had the outcome be the solution needed....NEVER.

    Parent
    Speaking of truth (1.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:38:14 PM EST
    If you had some ham we could have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.

    Acting on a belief that is not true is also dangerous.

    Parent

    Tell us more, Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:14:09 PM EST
    I mean before the Iraq war no one has ever suffered.

    No wives were left behind to be widowed and raise children alone...

    No sons were ever lost...

    Just you.

    You have just got to be a Boomer.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:20:51 PM EST


    Parent
    You are out of bounds (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:22:00 PM EST


    Parent
    No (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:42:29 PM EST
    If Tracy wants to claim that there has been no lossess before the Iraq war, and that the Bush administration is the sole cause I have every reason to use some sarcasm.

    Especially when  she writes:

    When he involved himself in shutting up Joe Wilson to ensure that my husband would go to war in Iraq


    Parent
    If you can't figure out why your comments (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:46:07 PM EST
    are out of bounds, you are no Southernor.



    Parent

    MB (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:05:10 AM EST
    And if you can't understand why a southener would object to some of Tracy's comments then I have my doubts about you.

    Parent
    Now I know (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 06:52:06 AM EST
    that's not how you was raised.



    Parent

    Jim, if you want me to play by your (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:21:24 AM EST
    rules fine.  I'm a Yankee, we won the war, we beat you because we were God's army and God was on our side and you were evil and everything I say and do is right because God says so.  He chose me over you and we won the war.  There, now you and I and Bush all have something in common......we are freak idiots.

    Parent
    You forgot the act of treason of firing on (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 06:49:05 AM EST
    the US Flag with the attack on Fr. Sumner!



    Parent

    Good Lord I did! (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:29:51 PM EST
    Thank You Molly B.

    Parent
    No sons were ever lost.. (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    and no one ever ducked walking their talk while devoting themselves to making sure more sons were lost.

    what a beautiful world that would be.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:35:32 PM EST
    Your anger. Let it rip. Don't hold back. I understand that no one has been affected by the terrorists attacks but you.
    THE TOPIC IS SCOOTER LIBBY.

    Parent
    Poor, poor sailor......he wrote (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:18:59 PM EST
    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK

    THE TOPIC IS SCOOTER LIBBY.

    SAILOR. CATCH A CLUE. THIS AN OPEN THREAD.

    GUESS LIBBY'S WIN TODAY PUSHED YOU OVER THE EDGE.

    GET HELP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. WE WILL MISS YOU.

    LOL.

    Parent

    I think Libby's win today pushed YOU over (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:27:48 PM EST
    the edge or something and you actually believe that your attacks have some sort of value or credibility now because a man who sits in the White House and who doesn't care who you are or what you think or believe in decided that the law doesn't apply to him and those who serve him.  That is some pretty wild projection and you might want to back off on ingesting what YOU seem to believe is some kind of special mojo with your name on it.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:34:19 PM EST
    The overdone bold type reveals his psycosis.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 10:07:25 PM EST
    Tracy - You made a completely inaccurate statement regarding:

    When he involved himself in shutting up Joe Wilson to ensure that my husband would go to war in Iraq

    All of Libby's "crimes" occurred after the war started. When I corrected you, and noted that your hatred is showing, you of course denied it.

    And you did again, and again despite what I see as just that. Hatred of Bush and his administration. Why else such a statement regarding a person who was a mere staff person.

    You then go into the standard response:

    No, in fact you see many of the surviving family members on the television very saddened by what this administration did stearing us into Iraq, draining all of our resources into Iraq when Iraq was never the source of our problems,

    In my view, trading on the widows and widowers of this war and 9/11 is... how can I say this... in very poor taste.

    Thus my comments about anger, and pointing out that others have lost things..in other wars in other places... yet you come back to "I." That is the signature of many boomers.

    In the real world, we invaded Iraq because Saddam kept on violating UN sanctions.

    Do you think that Clinton attacked him in 1998 because he just wanted to? Do you think all those intelligence reports and all those comments were done by Bush for some wacky personal reason??

    Why do you think that a President would want us at war?? This country hasn't been happy with wars since Truman and Korea. Do you think maybe someone reminded that to Bush, and how that could hurt his Presidentancy??

    Sadly, I must say that you don't see the connections between the sanctions, and intelligence reports and the terribly hard decsion Bush had to make. In the end, Tracy, it came down to this:

    If the reports are right then I must act to protect the country.

    Parent

    Wow, one liar commutes another liars (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:56:03 PM EST
    sentence and reality just doesn't have to exist for you anymore.  That's okay though, this is just the internet and you aren't the only one who doesn't get out in the real world often enough.

    Parent
    Tracy (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:49:58 AM EST
    BIORN I am your best friend in this matter.

    Just do some research. Look at all the facts, which, by your comment re Libby starting the war, you have very little, if any, grasp of.

    As a military wife you are much loved and valuable to the Left, at this time.

    As soon as the this is past you will be, at best, tolerated as the wife of a military person. Who should know better than even be around the military.

    Parent

    That's right, Jim (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    everyone on "the Left" feels that way.

    As a former chickenhawk, the Right no doubt throws you a bone or two also; as a tribute to your staying power.

    Parent

    MT, I don't have any problem with how you (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:27:41 PM EST
    - or anyone for that matter - feels about him or the war.

    He was not tried nor convicted of "aiding and abetting in CREATING the Iraq War."

    Parent

    Didn't say he was. (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:31:27 PM EST
    Only said I was looking forward to jailing his friends that did that.  A girl can dream.

    Parent
    Fair point..... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:02:39 PM EST
    By my own odd-ball standards, Libby's crimes should not be jailable offenses...yet I'm not bothered by him going to jail.  

    When I question myself on the contradiction, I think of my friend locked up pushing 4 years now for some bullsh*t, and am glad somebody who is such a player in our system is getting a taste of the criminal justice system's medicine.  Misery loves company and all that.

    These feelings are not something to be proud of, to be sure, but I feel them none the less.  I'm sure Libby has family and friends who will be hurt by his incarceration, not to mention his own suffering....but I'm as flawed and irrational human being as the next guy I guess.

    Short version...there's a long list in front of Libby on my sympathy scale.

    Parent

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again. (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    You're an honest man kdog.

    Parent
    An amazing man passed... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:53:03 PM EST
    RADM Eugene Fluckey died.  MOH winner, awarded four Navy Crosses, submarine pioneer, his men sunk a train on one of main islands of Japan.  The only Americans to land on the main islands of Japan during the war.  

    Where is the Outrage for Bong Hits? (none / 0) (#50)
    by agar8 on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 03:53:58 PM EST
    It seems as though there is a cavalcade of sheep jumping into the frey of steroids in wrestling and the "injustices" poor Mr. Libby is suffering (?).  Yet the Supreme Court shat upon freedom of speech yet again and shushed our nation's youth at a time when freedom to express should be more important than ever.  I understand there is no monumental social message to Bong Hits for Jesus (unless you travel in norml circles), but did anyone else have a gut wrenching recoil after this news?  Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to have faded very quickly from the collective conciousness.
    It's hard to keep track.... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 03:59:45 PM EST
    of my gut-wrenching recoils these days, it seems to happen far too often.

    I guess I kind of expected an anti-freedom ruling...once any mention of reefer enters the picture all sanity goes up in smoke.

    Parent

    I'm completely outraged about that (none / 0) (#52)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 04:36:41 PM EST
    It was one of the more bizarre twistings of the constitution I have ever seen. The kid wasn't on school property and didn't go to school that day. They should have had no ability to punish at all.

    Parent
    Very good points (none / 0) (#53)
    by agar8 on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 05:12:24 PM EST
    The combination of Jesus and Cannabis was far to juicy for the nation's lemmings not to cry out against.  I may be overstepping, but the media swung the gavel here friends.  You would have gotten the same reaction if the sign read "Apostles for Pot"...the intertwining of god and weed on the same sign far to "dangerous" to be allowed...after all look at all the people it hurt sigh.  Meanwhile, under the footage of the sign, on the 'news ticker' we see the day's body count from "The War that Never Was".

    If I was the child's parent, I would make the sign into a T-Shirt and wear as I enrolled him in home schooling....HELP!

    Parent

    Video (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:27:37 PM EST
    Keith Olbermann interviews Joe Wilson

    Springing Libby Shows Administration Is "Corrupt to the Core"

    Appearing in an audio interview on MSNBC's "Countdown," Wilson called the move the latest evidence that the administration is "corrupt to the core." He added that it meant that the president was now participating in the "obstruction of justice."

    Wilson called on both the president and Libby's former boss, Vice President Cheney, to "come clean" on their roles in the leaking of his wife's name, now that Libby has been spared prison. He called the leaking of the name "treasonous."

    Asked by host Keith Olbermann if there was a "quid pro quo" - Libby would remain silent about crucial details of Cheney's role in the case in exchange for a pardon or commutation - Wilson answered, "absolutely."
    Monday Open Thread | 85 comments (85 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment