home

Tuesday Open Thread

The TL kid is in town for a few days, fresh from taking the NY bar exam, so my blogging will be light today. Here's an open thread for you.

< FBI Relaxes Hiring Rules for Former Drug Users | AFL-CIO Democratic Candidates' Debate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    throwing oil on gasoline (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:18:28 PM EST
    U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan

    The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

    The Prime Minister's Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a "bonus" the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram.

    The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel.



    at-risk apes (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Sumner on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 02:31:31 PM EST
    Anyone who enjoyed Anthony Hopkins' performance as "a noted anthropologist who left society to live in the jungle", in Instinct (1999), might appreciate this.

    150 guards and rangers killed. Shocking. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:36:39 PM EST
    Mountain gorillas... (none / 0) (#73)
    by desertswine on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 03:59:49 PM EST
    This is a great setback because there are so few of these marvelous animals remaining.

    There are now a total of 380 gorillas in 30 social groups in the Virungas and a total of about 320 in Bwindi. However, the Mountain Gorilla continues to be considered critically endangered on the IUCN Red List of Endangered Species. It faces an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild due to habitat loss, poaching, human disease, and war.

    There are estimates that by 2100 half of all plant and animal species will have fallen to extinction. In other words, we are losing more than a species a day; every day.

    Parent

    Leakers beware (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:43:39 AM EST
    Looks like the days of a free pass to people who leak information is over.

    About time.

    FBI agents searched the home of a former Justice Department lawyer last week in an effort to determine who leaked details of the warrantless eavesdropping program to the news media, Newsweek magazine reported yesterday, citing two anonymous legal sources.

    The agents, who had obtained a classified search warrant, took Thomas Tamm's desktop computer, two laptops belonging to his children and some of Tamm's personal files, Newsweek reported.

    Washington Post

    IOKIYAR (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:18:36 AM EST
    cheney leaked
    libby leaked
    ari leaked
    and boehner leaked
    An ethics watchdog charged Monday that House Minority Leader John Boehner broke the law and endangered national security by releasing classified information last week in a Fox News interview.

    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has asked the Justice Department's Counterespionage Section to investigate whether Boehner violated US law by releasing the information.

    And no one extreme wrongwingers thinks the DoJ is anymore than a tool of bushco these days. The political guys have interferd in investigations, given unconstitutional advice and suppressed minority voting.

    Parent

    Let me know (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 09:24:17 AM EST
    when the FBI starts investigating him.

    Parent
    as I said IOKIYAR (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 05:04:12 PM EST
    The fbi, like every gov't agency, is now in the political control of the WH.

    Parent
    Your dreams fulfilled (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:01:46 AM EST
    The Fourth Reich

    Parent
    How about a thumbnail report from the (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:04:06 PM EST
    TK kid on taking the NY Bar?

    As soon as he wakes up (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:08:40 PM EST
    I'll ask him about it. (It's only 11 am here.)

    Parent
    Good point. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:14:27 PM EST
    Now that I'm awake... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Nic Geman on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:37:01 PM EST
    I'm happy to post a thumbnail.

    Well, true to form and predictions, the NY Bar was a debacle of comedy and irony for the would-be criminal masterminds, shady corporate promoters, less-than-honest real estate developers and the ever-present cheating spouses.

    Day one served as a reminder for a few time honored legal maxims: Don't forge a check and then sue the bank for cashing it; never loan money held in trust and always sign your will; always timely file and correctly serve defendants; and separation and custody hearings are no fun for anyone.

    As for day two, it was a mess of old common law and new and fun fact patterns.  The drunk now drive Ferraris instead of Pintos.  Covenants are now breached by day care centers instead of strip malls.  Widgets are now iPods and the attempting murderers now poison Godiva chocolates instead of apples.

    All told it was the same fun-filled rite of passage.  Two days of seven hours exams designed to garble the mind.  I had the benefit of taking the examination in the New Balance sports facility on Astroturf.  Now, with a little fake grass between my toes and a cramp in my writing hand, all I can do is sit and wait...and hope they can read my handwriting!  


    Parent

    When I was your age, at home on break from school, I would often wake up around noon, cook a big mess of scrambled eggs, bacon and toast, and then go right back to bed for a few hours. That was the life.

    Fingers X'd for your exam.

    Parent

    Nice To Hear You (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:48:18 PM EST
    Talk about the grueling experience with a bit of humor. We are all rooting for you to pass.....and you will, if not this time around certainly the next.

    With your special combination of Nurture and Nature growing up as the TL Kid I am sure that you are a natural advocate. I am confident that you will make a fine Lawyer,

    Parent

    I see a "law + humor" (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:38:47 PM EST
    [or vice versa] blog in your future. The bar exam couldn't have been all that much fun. Best wishes on the results and your next step. P.S. Any UCC questions on the exam?

    Parent
    Best Wishes, Nic! (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:51:02 PM EST
    OMG you are funny.... (none / 0) (#78)
    by dutchfox on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 03:35:06 AM EST
    and you do it with panache. All good wishes. With a mom like Jeralyn, how can you not? :-P

    Parent
    oops....addendum.... (none / 0) (#79)
    by dutchfox on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 03:36:21 AM EST
    I mean with a mom like Jeralyn, how can you not pass. (it's 4:35 a.m. in Vermont, and I'm up to milk the cows.)

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 04:13:39 PM EST
    Milk cows? Wow.

    Parent
    Beauchamp Recants (none / 0) (#5)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:32:21 PM EST
    BTD had a post on this a week or so ago but it now appears the Weekly Standard was on to something when they questioned the validity of the auther and the magazine.

    TNR has once again has been taken for a ride by an author with a great immagination.

    I actually watched the movie about Glass last week (great Movie), ironic they didn't learn any lessons.  

    Is it TNR's fault or the writer?

    Beauchamp-Recants

    the weakly standar is not a credible source (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    unless you just want to swiftboat someone.

    At first the wrongwingers stated that beauchamp didn't exist, then it was proved he did so the wingers started on characrter assasination and getting him in trouble with his superiors ... let's look at a few facts, not a extreme wrongwing opinion mag.

    Parent

    Beauchamp (none / 0) (#8)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:34:46 PM EST
    Few "wrongwingers" claimed he didn't exist. Some questioned that he was a soldier, but many cautioned that he may well be a soldier telling fabulous tales. It turns out that not only did he tell fantastic tales, the premise of his pieces falls apart if one looks at the times involved.

    The article "Shock Troops," which got everyone's attention, starts with this line, referring to the woman whose face was badly burned by an IED and who Beauchamp claims to have mocked mercilessly:

    I saw her nearly every time I went to dinner in the chow hall at my base in Iraq.

    The moral of the story, according to TNR was:

    Beauchamp's latest, a Diarist headlined "Shock Troops," was about the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war. The piece was a startling confession of shame about some disturbing conduct, both his own and that of his fellow soldiers.

    It has now been discovered that Beauchamp's encounter with the woman--if it even occurred--was in Kuwait before Beauchamp ever entered the warzone. In other words, Beauchamp apparently had some character issues (to put it politely) before he even came close to the "morally and emotionally distorting effects of war."

    You accuse "wrongwingers" of character assassination, but Beauchamp pretty well seems to have assassinated himself.

    Parent

    Only approximatly (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:40:41 PM EST
    as much as you assassinate yourself by fixating on one detail of questionable significance in the context of a discussion on the dehumanizing effects of war.

    This tack from the same chickenhwk quarter that suggested that Kerry and Cleland's wounds were self inflicted and that Clinton had Ron Brown bumped off.

    You wouldnt know "character" if it bit you in the as* and gave you aother tax cut during a time of "national sacrifice".

    Parent

    Sad, sad. (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:01:27 PM EST
    jondee, there is more than just "one detail" wrong in Beauchamp's stories, as you would know if you were following the stories.

    At this point, the people left defending Beauchamp are just sad, sad examples of folks who want something to be true so badly that they'll ignore all evidence to the contrary.

    Parent

    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:48:25 PM EST
    Look, I understand. They never happened, he made them up....  Now, what can we say... Oh yeah!!

    Fake but accurate!!

    Hahahahahahahahaha plus

    two giggles and a snicker.

    Parent

    The expected juvenile responce (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 02:47:05 PM EST
    from the kind of adolescent fantasist who never saw a war he didnt think was neato enough to marshall the guts to fight in.

    Check your blood sugar, General.

    Parent

    Some soldiers consider sitting on those (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:45:55 PM EST
    bases outside the Iraq border "Iraq".  A whole bunch of them following Macaca Allen around during 2006 campaigns called Kuwait Iraq in front of thousands of witnesses.  I don't find this argument that credible.

    Parent
    here is how wringwingers support the troops (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:10:39 PM EST
    Few "wrongwingers" claimed he didn't exist. Some questioned that he was a soldier
    golly, what a strawman. Of course he 'exists', but all your chickenhawk fellow travelers claimed he wasn't a soldier. Then claimed he was a liar. And then have to resort to 'but that was proved to happen in kuwait, not iraq.'

    Gabe, you are a TRUE BELIEVER, sign up and go to the Iraq and prove your support for the war. NO MORE CRAP about the folks who are serving and report their observations, go there and tell us YOURS!

    Pfft, chickenhawks, they won't serve, they just bawk, bawk, bawk.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#29)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:33:48 PM EST
    I was quoting you, smart guy. You wrote:

    At first the wrongwingers stated that beauchamp didn't exist, then it was proved he did...

    So I responded to you directly:

    Few "wrongwingers" claimed he didn't exist. Some questioned that he was a soldier

    So think I'll just take a page from your book and say: golly, what a strawman! Of course he exists.

    Parent

    Latest word on all the right wing (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 03:07:30 PM EST
    Blogs is that the faceless woman used herself as a human shield in an attempt to strengthen opposition to the war, embolden terrorists everywhere, drive Israel into the sea (warheads and all) and jump start Cidy Sheehans's congressional run.

    Parent
    Jondee, links please. (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 09:01:44 AM EST
    Oh relly??

    Haven't seen that.

    Do you have some links??

    Parent

    Obviously you dont get (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 01:57:04 PM EST
    get satire, Einstein. Not suprising when you live in one.

    Parent
    This seems somewhat credible (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:42:13 PM EST
    in the world I inhabit

    Nothing public has been heard from Beauchamp since his statement standing by his stories, which was posted on the New Republic website at 6:30 a.m. on July 26. In their August 2 statement, the New Republic's editors complained that the military investigation was "short-circuiting" TNR's own fact-checking efforts. "Beauchamp," they said, "had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you."

    Nothing like a good old fashioned military investigation to shut everyone and their dead dog up since those sorts of things don't respect the rights of individuals like they do in the civilian world. The military does like itself a good fall guy these days that isn't in the chain of command if they can get one too.  Nothing caused grunts to completely lose their voice and active memory better than the spectacle that was the investigation and accountability for Abu Ghraib.

    Parent

    He signed a statement... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:40:29 PM EST
    saying he made it up.

    The military confronted him with evidence and he admitted lying.   Are people suggesting that he did so against his free will?

    If not there is no more debate.   The stories where false.

    Parent

    really? how do you know? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:53:52 PM EST
    He signed a statement... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:40:29 PM EST
    saying he made it up.
    a single wrongwing blog sez that he was pressured into signing a statement ... how do you know that is true?

    Parent
    lamb contradicts weakly standard (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 12:19:32 PM EST
    Your a few links behind... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:46:46 PM EST
    TNR has reponded and the Weekly Standard has responded back.

    I guess your arguement is a lefty opinion mag is more accurate then a righty one?

    What is that based on.

    This sound familiar to Glass, Blair and memogate.

    We all know he made these stories up.  It's just a matter of how much we want them to be true.

    You appear to want it pretty bad.

    Parent

    have some more kool-aid (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:15:06 PM EST
    all you can do is quote a wrongwing blog about their lies. The truth from the TNR:
    We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."
    Got anymore wrongwing memes you'd like to blather about?

    Parent
    Major Lamb (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:38:37 PM EST
    From none other than Major Steven F. Lamb comes this official statement:

    An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.


    Parent
    A lovely Major (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 07:36:06 AM EST
    Seems to have made claims to have asked a few enlisted soldiers about whether or not they played around with the corpses of dead children and everyone goes mum.  This is not earth shattering if it is even true and does not prove that the incidents did not take place........only that those soldiers have no blue falcons among them.

    Parent
    Can you say Tillman? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 12:22:05 PM EST
    What a surprise, the army investigates itself and finds it did nothing wrong ... but they won't release any evidence or allow Beauchamp access to a laptop or cell phone.

    You all certainly have weak(ly) standards.

    Parent

    Sailor leans something (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:45:00 PM EST
    You want names and sources? Well, you now have names and sources.

    Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:

    "An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."

    According to the military source, Beauchamp's recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military's investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, "I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name."

    TNR should no longer be regarded as reliable.

    Parent

    Lamb denies it (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:05:05 AM EST
    Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own."

    The Army is holding Beauchamp incommunicado and the alleged army statements are being made anonomously.

    When will the weakly standard retract their lies?

    Parent

    Don't mislead. (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 09:12:35 AM EST
    No. He didn't change his comment that the army had investigated and found it to be untrue.

    He said that he had no knowledge of Beaucamp signing a statement that he made it all up.

    Big difference.

    Parent

    the WS lied? (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 11:32:34 AM EST
    sailor ducks (1.00 / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 04:11:18 PM EST
    You read the WS??

    Heh

    Parent

    not ducking (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 05:00:01 PM EST
    the WS said that lamb had talked to them, lamb denies it, the WS said Beauchamp had retracted, Beauchamp denied it.

    Where oh where is the castigation of the WS for making $hit up?

    p.s. The Army is not a credible source for investigating themselves, remember Tillman?

    And now the army won't even let Beauchamp contact his family, they are holding him incommunicado even tho lamb said no charges are being brought.

    Parent

    The Weekly Standard sucks Camel dookey (none / 0) (#45)
    by Aaron on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 11:31:58 PM EST
    As I stated in an early debate over this issue at TNR, the folks at The Weekly Standard had an ulterior motive for pursuing this issue all along.  Calling Shock Troops into question was just a ruse employed for the purpose of rooting out the soldier in question, so he could be identified, singled out, and punished. This was their design from day one.

    How dare an American soldier tell it like it is, how dare he bring the American character into ill repute, how dare he cause young impressionable high school kids, some of whom might be considering joining up to become cannon fodder in Iraq, how dare he cast the shadow of doubt upon their decision to throw their lives away" fighting for the biggest nothing in history."

    Michael Goldfarb and everyone else over at The Standard understand the realities of war and global domination, they understand that America's Armed Forces need to be entrenched in the Middle East so that the zombielike, just won't die, neoconservative/neocolonial dream of having a foothold in the oil fields, necessitates a certain number of our kids getting turned into al Anbar burgers.

    They know that we can't have more soldiers like Scott Beauchamp relating their experiences and discouraging other young Americans from joining up to fight for good old Uncle Sam.  Otherwise those who read and support The Weekly Standard might have to get up off their fat lazy Republican asses and actually start working for a living, God forbid.  They will do anything to prevent that eventuality, and no doubt the overseers that do their bidding under the countenance of the US military and the immunity that those uniforms provide, have put this young man under the lash, threatening the futures and perhaps even the lives of his compatriots.  No doubt they have begun applying white-hot slats to this boy's feet in order to get him to recant.

    The folks who work for and read The Weekly Standard, have become far too accustomed to the high returns from their stock portfolios and there preferred shares in the oil companies, under the loving care of the Bush administration.  So if a few American kids have to take a few, EFP's (explosively formed penetrators) white-hot hypervelocity jets of molten plasma in the face in order to keep them in the style to which they've become accustomed, then so be it.  It's an insignificant price to pay for freedom in America, the economic freedom to squeeze every last drop of profit out of some far-off land inhabited by uncivilized backward Arab tribes who, for some inexplicable reason, just won't lay down and died whilst we siphon off their Black Gold.  The stubborn fools, don't they know who we are?

    It's the same old story, these primitives just don't understand how to capitalize on what they've got right under their feet, so we helpful Americans are just assisting them out with a little American ingenuity... and the Marine Corps.  

    All we needed to do is let our armed forces give them a little push in the right direction, and they've set about exterminating each other under our close tutelage.  We're training Iraqi "policeman" here in the states right now, teaching them how to slaughter anyone who can be dubbed criminal with industrial efficiency.  All we we need do now is keep switching sides in their tribal and ethnic conflicts, whittling down the strongest opposition, until there is no one left to oppose our designs, and before you know it we'll have unfettered access to a product that everyone needs, and is willing to pay a premium to get.

    After all Americans believe in free markets, and we never allow anyone or anything to get in the way of those "free-market forces", or to cloud our judgment when it comes to protecting our thinly veiled mercantile economy, certainly not the interests of ephemeral people, people are entirely replaceable, but profits, profits are fleeting and precious, they must be protected at all costs.

    I have no doubt that each day they rally the troops over at The Weekly Standard with rousing cheers...

    All hail the new American Empire!  

    Long live our imperious leader, God Emperor Bush!!!  

    Parent

    Scott Thomas Beauchamp's old blog (none / 0) (#46)
    by Aaron on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 11:36:27 PM EST
    Scott Thomas Beauchamp's old blog

    Some of nasty messages threatening Beauchamp and his family

    Parent

    Aaron (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:28:53 AM EST
    There have been many books about the horrors of war.

    "All's Quiet On The Western Front," "Red Badge of Couage," "The Naked and the Dead."

    But these were clearly labeled fiction.

    Beaucamp's were not. Instead of talent and writing power to sieze his audience and make this point, he cloaked himself in a fake mantle of reality.

    TNR bought his fake stories because they, as you also, wanted to believe his stories. TNR and you trapped yourselves.

    Parent

    Have any evidence Jim? Of course you don't. (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Aaron on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:24:33 AM EST
    So far no one at the Weekly Standard has provided any evidence whatsoever that his accounts were fictitious, nor has anyone in the Army at the forward operating base in Iraq where he is stationed, come forward and denied any of Beauchamp's accounts, to date.  The only fact that didn't check out was the location of one of the incidents, which apparently occurred in Kuwait and not Iraq, but the particulars of his various stories have been verified by numerous other soldiers, which you would know if you've been keeping up with the information available. Of course the Weekly Standard conveniently avoids mentioning any of this.

    As to his writing, it's pretty average, nothing particularly compelling from a literary perspective, nor did anyone in the conservative camp question any of his earlier personal accounts until he portrayed himself and some of his fellow soldiers in an unflattering light, in fact they praised his early accounts.

    Did you actually read them Jim, there's nothing particularly unbelievable or outrageous in any of them, they all fall into the category of pretty typical young male behavior.

    As I said, this is a witch hunt instigated by The Weekly Standard, which is itself nothing more than a right wing propaganda machine, but I imagine you get all your information them now don't you Jim.


    Parent

    Burden of proof (none / 0) (#67)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 12:27:15 PM EST
    Once upon a time, we'd be asking the originator of a claim (for example, the claims of the Baghdad Diarist) to provide evidence to back it up. You're so eager to believe what Beauchamp wrote that you've shifted that burden and now demand of others "Yeah? Well, you prove that his stories aren't true!"

    Parent
    The claim is that Beauchamp recanted (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 12:41:10 PM EST
    The burden of proof being asked for is for that. There's no proof outside the self-interested claims of Michael Goldfarb.

    I used to respect you for your clear, informative, and often brilliant comments here Gabe. What's happened to your thinking process?

    Parent

    Alien's strawman (1.00 / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 09:10:01 AM EST
    Nope. The issue is that I, and others, don't believe Beaucamp's stories.

    As proof I have quoted Major Lamb's comments and others.

    You, sailor, et al, have provided no proof.

    Your turn.

    Parent

    nobody cares what you believe (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    lamb denied talking to the weakly standard, beauchamp denied recanting, so the weakly has a burden of proof for their allegations.

    Parent
    Interestingly (1.00 / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 02:14:21 PM EST
    two of the three books mentioned were written by combat veterans whose depictions of "the horrors of war" have never been attacked for their veracity, regardless of who, according to the ever present choir of non-combatant chickenhawks like Kristol, O'Reilly and Jim, might be "emboldened".

    Btw, if it wasnt the horrors of war that kept you away, what was it, Jim?

    Parent

    Sounds like there's (none / 0) (#35)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 08:34:45 PM EST
    no recanting in the least, just more lying from the Weekly Standard:

    We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."

    And after all, the Weekly Standard did rely on a rather unreliable source for their claims that Beauchamp's story was untrue in the first place:

    Among all the active duty soldiers used by Goldfarb to undermine Beauchamp, only one is cited by name: Matt Sanchez, a corporal in the Marine reserves. "Frankly, I don't believe ANY of this story," Sanchez proclaimed in the Standard about Beauchamp's diary. Who is Sanchez? According to Goldfarb, he is simply a soldier "who stands behind his work."

    But Sanchez is more than a mere man in uniform. As I reported for Media Matters today, Sanchez is also a conservative pro-war activist whose bio includes a stint as the gay porn actor Rod Majors, (star of such filmic classics as "Beat Off Frenzy") and an illustrious part-time job as a male prostitute -- facts he has acknowledged "leaving ... off my curriculum vitae."

    More importantly, Sanchez has been under investigation by the Marine Corps for fraud. According to an April 1 Marine Corps Times article, Sanchez was informed in a March 22 email from Reserve Col. Charles Jones, a staff judge advocate, that he was under investigation for lying "'to various people, including but not limited to, representatives of the New York City United War Veterans Council [UWVC] and U-Haul Corporation' about deploying to Iraq at the commandant's request." The email added: "'Specifically, you wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq' by coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC and $12,000 from U-Haul."

    I'm agnostic on the status of the original story, but I don't see any reason to take the word of the Weekly Standard on this. They have nothing to back them up except what they say "Maj. Lamb" told them and which TNR says he disavows. WS says there was "an authorized statement" but there's no corroboration for that - all the references to it, including on Yahoo, go back to...the same original source, Goldfarb in the Weekly Standard! The Right-Wing Noise Machine vomiting up its dreck and consuming it again.

    Give me a .mil link to that supposed "authorized statement" from the military and that will settle the question.

    Parent

    Alien (1.00 / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 08:53:17 PM EST
    Great gobs of goose mess....

    We have a direct quote from a US Army

    Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:

    who says it didn't happen, and you guys are still arguing??

    That is just...well, unbelieveable....

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:12:50 PM EST
    We have a direct quote from a US Army

    No we don't. We have the lying rag of a Weekly Standard claiming there's been such a statement. They call it an "authorized statement." An authorized statement is one that's put out officially. If there has been such a statement, link to it - to an official source, i.e., at an official military site - and then I'll believe it.

    Right now this "direct quote" is solely on the say-so of Michael Goldfarb - the writer of the original Weekly Standard story. Why would anyone think he's an appropriate source for confirmation? Obviously he's not.

    Parent

    Appropriate now? (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:20:06 PM EST
    Well suck it up, boys. None other than the NY Times itself has the story now, and they've got word from Major Lamb. It claims:
    "We are not going into the details of the investigation," Maj. Steven F. Lamb, deputy public affairs officer in Baghdad, wrote in an e-mail message. "The allegations are false, his platoon and company were interviewed, and no one could substantiate the claims he made."


    Parent
    You suck it up Gabe (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 11:04:09 PM EST
    This is very strange:

    Maj. Steven F. Lamb, deputy public affairs officer in Baghdad, wrote in an e-mail message.

    An email message to whom? To Michael Goldfarb? Sorry, not buying it. This looks like it's going back to nothing but the Goldfarb statement in the WS. Nothing more than the Right-Wing Noise Machine busy bamboozling unwary or complicit NYT reporters. Again.

    Give me a link to an official statement to this effect on a proper military site and I'll accept it. Not until.

    Parent

    Offical Statement? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 11:21:04 PM EST
    You mean from someone like Gonzales, Rove or Cheney? Or do you mean someone that one of those liars give orders to?

    Parent
    You should have read the entire NY Times article.. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by aj12754 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:01:55 AM EST
    even they found it a bit strange that the Army wouldn't say anything other than the investigation showed the story to be false. Nothing on what the evidence was that they based their conclusion on.  And Beauchamp himself now incommunicado because he has had his computer and cell phone taken away.  

    Next thing you know, we'll be hearing an executive privilege claim. The very idea of questioning authority is anathema to you isn't it?

    Connect the dots buddy. Or if you are not capable of it, boogie on over to Talking Points Memo and let Josh Marshall do it for you.

    Parent

    Heh (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:35:22 AM EST
    You wrote:

    Nothing on what the evidence was that they based their conclusion on.

    "An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."


    Parent
    Funny.... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by aj12754 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:56:02 AM EST
    no names mentioned at all.  No details about which portions of the story were found to be false.  That's one blanket denial there.  And you believe this why?

    You really will fall for anything as long as it's presented to you by an authority figure.

    Parent

    And oh yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by aj12754 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:17:30 AM EST
    from today's Post

    "A military official, who asked not to be identified because the probe is confidential, said no charges were filed against Beauchamp. Instead, the official said, the matter is being handled administratively, with Beauchamp punished by having his cellphone and laptop confiscated for an undetermined period."

    Things must have changed an awful lot since my Army days if this is the kind of "punishment" they are handing out nowadays.  

    You really can't smell the stench coming off the Army's version of things here?

    Parent

    aj (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:35:17 AM EST
    Why would they give out names of his company members and platoon??

    This is not a trial, or a TV series. What it is is a denial by the US Arrmy that Beaucamp made all this stuff up.

    You should understand something. The army doesn't give a flip if you believe it or not.

    So if you want to cling to a pathetic world view advanced by a few fake articles written by a soldier who himself has said weren't true, be my guest.


    Parent

    yeah (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by aj12754 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:13:01 AM EST
    right -- a denial with not one shred of evidence to back it up.  If they have a signed statement that he recanted, produce it. Better yet, produce him. Let him tell us.

    THE BETTER QUESTION IS WHY wouldn't they give out names of his company members and platoon? It's not like it's classified or anything.  Oh wait -- maybe there was an executive privilege claim advanced by the army this am.

    You must live in lala land if you seriously think the Army doesn't care if we believe them or not.  

    Parent

    From the storm trooper (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 02:56:21 PM EST
    wannabe who's on record advocating the public stringing up of young soldiers who disobey orders.

    Reality dosnt give a flip about your fantasies of being spokesperson for a branch of the service you've never been closer than 500 miles to.

    Parent

    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 09:15:43 AM EST
    Huh??

    Spokesman??

    500 miles??

    Hmmmm... are you okay?? Should we send help??

    Parent

    I just did. (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:30:16 AM EST
    Your denial is pitful.

    Parent
    YYYYAAAAAAWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by aj12754 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:58:17 AM EST
    Lamb denies it (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:08:37 AM EST
    Foer said the New Republic had asked Maj. Steven Lamb, an Army spokesman, about the allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, and that Lamb had replied: "I have no knowledge of that."

    Parent
    Nassau County's First Victim..... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 01:28:45 PM EST
    of the social host law got pinched.  Link

    First of many I'm afraid...who needs parents when you have Nassau County playing mommy and daddy?

    Why the Rush on the Protect America Act? C-SPAN? (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimcook on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:37:14 PM EST
    Why was there such a sudden rush by the Bush White House to pass the Protect America Act to legalize warrantless wiretapping of telephone, email... and perhaps more? Why would September be too late for George W. Bush? What would it be too late for?

    An imminent terrorist attack on U.S. soil?  Raise your hand if you believe that one.  Anyone?  Didn't think so.

    OK, then.  What does this timeline tell you?

    * July 20, 2007: A public unclassified brief, filed by Bush administration lawyers in the bundled cases of Al-Haramain Islamic, et al v. Bush and Hepting v. AT&T, shows a particularly urgent desire for the consideration of what constitutes "electronic surveillance" to be quashed:

    "Litigation of plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory claims would require careful consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the TSP and any application of the TSP to plaintiffs (including facts concerning whether any surveillance constituted "electronic surveillance" within the meaning of FISA)-an inquiry foreclosed by the state secrets privilege."

    * July 24: Judge Vaughn Walker rejects the "state secrets" assertion of the Bush administration in pending citizen lawsuits, and allowed consideration of the facts of the cases under consideration, and their fit under the definition of "electronic surveillance," to proceed.

    * July 24 and July 25: As Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico introduces a bill  to Congress on July 24 -- the very same day of Walker's ruling -- changing the definition of "electronic surveillance" under FISA law.  The very next day, Republican Party leader John Boehner of Ohio adds his vocal support for that bill.

    * July 30:  The Docket entry for this day in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for the bundled Hepting/Al-Haramain reads, "This court is in receipt of C-Span's application for permission to videotape oral argument for later broadcast. The application is granted."

    * July 31: The Docket entry for this day in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for the bundled Hepting/Al-Haramain reads, "The governments unopposed motion regarding oral argument is granted. On August 15, 2007, the court will hear separate arguments in Hepting v. ATT, Nos. 06-17132, 06-17137 and Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush, No. 06-36083. The government in Hepting will take place first. The parties in Hepting will have thirty minutes per side for argument, and the parties in Al-Haramain will have twenty minutes per side for argument."

    * August 1:  The Protect America Act of 2007.  A curious redefinition of the term "electronic surveillance" at the top of the text of the bill.  Lawsuits against telecommunications executives for cooperation with warrantless surveillance activities are legally prohibited.

    * August 5: After the House and Senate meet in late-night weekend sessions to vote on this bill that Senator Dianne Feinstein says she doesn't understand yet votes YES on, George W. Bush signs the bill into law.

    * August 6: Congress goes home.

    ** August 15: The scheduled date arrives for arguments in Hepting v. AT&T and Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush, televised by C-SPAN, concerning the extent of Bush administration surveillance and the complicity of telecommunications corporations.  

    Do you think that televised arguments will be allowed to take place on that date?  Or will the Protect America Act of 2007 take its first legal victims?

    ===
    I'm not a lawyer, so please forgive any unclear language on that point.  I'm just a citizen who finds this to be really fishy.  I'd appreciate feedback from any legal pros.  If you find this to be a plausible account, please spread the work.  Thanks.

    great post, you've got chops, jimcook (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Sumner on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:05:33 PM EST
    This is all about TSP and always has been.

    It is a no-brainer that the forces that manage perception for this outrage are working feverishly to concoct a panoply of misdirection and disruption of critics.

    SAIC executive Brian Hicks probably chose former United States National Security Advisor (to President Ronald), Admiral John Poindexter, to front the Total Information Awareness, owing to his heavy political-weight and national security prowess.

    SAIC's black contracts include the planning for destablizing of counties and regions and lesser such entities.

    Total Information Awareness is a lynchpin for the Totalitarian State.

    Parent

    No. (3.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:58:39 PM EST
    Your broader point is well taken: the Bush Administration would like to limit telcom liability and alter FISA.

    But your list of "fishy" dates has nothing to do with the fast tracked bill. The Ninth Circuit proceedings are going to be about whether Judge Walker correctly applied the state secrets privilege. It was not going to include discussion of the details of the Administration and telcom spying activities. In other words, there's no need to fast-track anything in relation to the Ninth Circuit proceedings, because there's no danger of information about the spy programs coming out.

    Rather, the fast-tracked FISA adjustment arose because Congress wanted to go on its scheduled August break, but increased fears about an attack while Congress is vacationing combined with pressure from the president led them to act now. They didn't want to be on record as saying "no big deal" before they ran off to their mansions and their yachts.

    Parent

    A few minor points ... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:22:44 PM EST
    ... the telcoms broke the law when the conspired with bush to spy on American's w/o a warrant.
    There was actually no hurry because, if Rep Boner spoke the truth, that ruling had been made months ago.
    bush will be 'clearing brush' the whole time when HE should be standing watch at the WH, if the threats are credible and not just crap made up by bush.
    One one hand we have bush, who already has a record of dismissing the briefer who warned him OBL determined to attack in the US with a petulant 'OK, you've covered your a$$' and then 9/11 happened.
    OTOH is the fact that the current scare mongering apparently has no basis in fact, including the scary, scary news about recent 'dry runs.'

    Summation: chertoff has a 'gut feeling', there are no 'credible threats', and the 'dry runs' were all explained and not pursued or prosecuted.

    Hey chicken little, I got a bridge to sell you ... in Minnesota.

    Parent

    Sailor loves strawmen (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:06:57 PM EST
    who already has a record of dismissing the briefer who warned him OBL determined to attack in the US with a petulant 'OK, you've covered your a$$' and then 9/11 happened.

    This is one of the most favorite pieces of nonsense from the Left that I just love to see posted. Why??

    Because just 32 days before that, NAS Rice had called the troops together and:

    "At the special meeting on July 5 (2001) were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    Link

    So why do you keep repeating your paean of false information?? Who else could she had told? Bill Clinton? Heck, he would have said:

    "Guess me attacking that asprin factory didn't do much good."

    Parent

    faux news is not a reliable source ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:13:21 AM EST
    ... and apparently you believev that bush should stay on vacation when OBL is determinded to attack in the US and bush insults the briefer.

    rice and bush got caught with their pants down and lied to the rethuglican mouthpiece because the knew faux news would just take steno and not do any fact checking.

    the best you ever have is quotes from liars (and condi is a proven liar) and a lying propaganda media. sheesh, faux news, powerlie, rush, no wonder you are among the 27%ers who still believe that crap.

    Parent

    sailor loves starwmen (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 04:03:50 PM EST
    WASHINGTON --  Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, spoke to reporters at the White House on Wednesday to discuss charges made by Richard A. Clarke, a former counterterrorism official, that the Bush administration did not take the threat of terrorism seriously enough. Rice also talked about why she has not publicly testified before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Following are excerpts of the interview.

    So let us understand this. Condi Rice, Bush's NSA, gave a PUBLIC interview to multiple reporters and their organizations.

    In this interview she specified a meeting, gave the date, the subject and who was there.

    Six years and 34 days later no news organization has come forth to say that she lied.

    Yet you want us to believe she lied.

    This, of course, is just a strawman to try and remove the focus from a ray of truth that I shined on your outrageous and nonsensical comment trying to imply that Bush was unaware and that no one in the government had been warned.

    Pitiful. Totally pitiful.

    Parent

    Of course she lied (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:28:15 PM EST
    Condiliar:CLAIM: "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network."

    FACT: Newsweek reported that "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor al-Qaida suspects in the United States." Additionally, AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months," thus terminating the reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. [Sources: Newsweek, 3/21/04; AP, 6/25/03]

    CLAIM: "The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power -- intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military -- to meet this goal."

    FACT: 9/11 Comissioner Jamie Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

    CLAIM: "We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets."

    FACT: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: "The Age of Sacred Terror," 2003]

    CLAIM: "We moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaida."

    FACT: According to AP, "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]

    CLAIM: "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies."

    FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

    CLAIM: "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke."

    FACT: Rice's statement finally confirms what she previously - and inaccurately - denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that "No al-Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration." [Washington Post, 3/22/04]

    CLAIM: "When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity."

    FACT: Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing in their strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI." Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until Oct. 1, 2001, said during the summer, terrorism had moved "farther to the back burner" and recounted how the Bush Administration's top two Pentagon appointees, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, "shut down" a plan to weaken the Taliban. Similarly, Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying "We are going to be struck again" by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not "above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen." [Sources: Washington Post, 3/22/04; LA Times, 3/30/04]

    CLAIM: "The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to...manner of attack."

    FACT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." Rice herself actually admitted this herself, saying the Aug. 6 briefing the President received said "terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft." [Sources: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]



    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimcook on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:44:33 PM EST
    Thanks for the clarification on this.  I appreciate it.

    Parent
    Music to soothe the savage wingnut (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:43:31 PM EST
    Strangers on my flight,
    turbans they're packin'.
    Wonderin' if they might,
    plan a hijacking.
    They could pull a stunt,
    before this flight is through.

    Something's on their minds.
    I saw them mutter.
    What that in their hands?
    Looks like box cutters,
    I'm gonna kick some ass,
    if they make a move.

    Strangers on my flight.
    Two smelly people,
    and they're not talking right;
    and in a moment,
    I will grab base ball bat;
    and that will be that.
    Swing like Joe DiMaggio,
    and rip them both a new a-hole.

    And if they pick a fight,
    and try to screw us,
    I'll punch out their lights,
    just like Joe Louis.
    It would feel so right,
    for strangers on my flight.

    Ratta Tat Tat Tat,
    Budda Bing Bang Boom,
    Zooma Zooma Zoom.

    Send those bastards to the moon...

    Listen to Frankie sing it here!

    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 08:54:08 PM EST
    None of you should quit your day job.

    Parent
    Where do you get this stuff? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    That is terrible!  I find that I must email it immediately to my spouse because humor is important in any relationship.

    Parent
    Four Squeaky, An American Suicide (none / 0) (#34)
    by Aaron on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 07:13:12 PM EST
    I believe the folks at TNR decided to cover this story after I posted a link to this story that I got from you, from a previous open thread.

    What War Did to Jeffrey Lucey


    Tragic (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 08:36:59 PM EST
    And Lucey's dilema is soon to be commonplace, which is even more tragic.

    Parent
    VIDEO: A Fantasy Manufactured (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:01:43 AM EST
    The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear
    This 3-hour, BBC documentary shows that the "threat of terrorism" is to a very large extent, "a fantasy manufactured by politicians, national security profiteers and Islamic terrorists in order to project and consolidate their own political power". The documentary reveals the origins of the "war on terrorism" in the Reagan Administration under the influence of Neocons like Michael Ledeen and their ally, former CIA Chief, William Casey.


    The Crusades... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:01:01 PM EST
    By Max Blumenthal, The Nation, Tuesday 07 August 2007
    Kill or Convert, Brought To You By The Pentagon
    [Actor Stephen Baldwin] became a right-wing, born-again Christian after the 9/11 attacks, and now is the star of Operation Straight Up (OSU), an evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military. As an official arm of the Defense Department's America Supports You program, OSU plans to mail copies of the controversial apocalyptic video game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces to soldiers serving in Iraq. OSU is also scheduled to embark on a "Military Crusade in Iraq" in the near future.

    "We feel the forces of heaven have encouraged us to perform multiple crusades that will sweep through this war torn region," OSU declares on its website about its planned trip to Iraq. "We'll hold the only religious crusade of its size in the dangerous land of Iraq."

    The Defense Department's Chaplain's Office, which oversees OSU's activities, has not responded to calls seeking comment.

    "The constitution has been assaulted and brutalized," Mikey Weinstein, former Reagan Administration White House counsel, ex-Air Force judge advocate (JAG), and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, told me. "Thanks to the influence of extreme Christian fundamentalism, the wall separating church and state is nothing but smoke and debris.
    ...
    With the endorsement of the Defense Department, OSU is mailing "Freedom Packages" to soldiers serving in Iraq. These are not your grandfather's care packages, however. Besides pairs of white socks and boxes of baby wipes (included at the apparent suggestion of Iran-Contra felon Oliver North, according to OSU) OSU's care packages contain the controversial Left Behind: Eternal Forces video game. The game is inspired by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins' bestselling pulp fiction series about a blood-soaked Battle of Armageddon pitting born-again Christians against anybody who does not adhere to their particular theology.



    OSU Tour website (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:47:22 PM EST
    We send care packages to soldiers on the front lines of the war in Iraq. We call them "Freedom Packets" because the truth will set you free. Included in each "Freedom Packet" is:

    • Greeting card
    • 75 Minute Phone Card
    • White Socks
    • Baby Wipes (suggested by Col Oliver North)
    • Gideon's pocket size New Testament
    • Extreme Sports "Livin It" Witnessing DVD
    • "More than a Carpenter" book by Josh McDowell" Double printed in the Arabic language
    • PC Game - Left Behind Game by Tim LaHaye & Jerry Jenkins
    • and an assortment of snacks.


    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 09:28:10 AM EST
    Don't like it?

    You could, of course, organize a group to send them some nice packages and include some information on how God doesn't exist.

    But you won't.

    Parent

    It's the God (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:20:48 PM EST
    of right wing bullet heads and End Times settlers or no God at all.

    Thus spake Jim the Prophet.

    Parent