home

Open Thread and Diary Rescue

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:06:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Big Tent Democrat will be live-blogging Gen. Petraeus' testimony before Congress in other threads today.

For those of you who want to discuss other issues, here's an open thread.

Diary Rescue: Check out:

Also check out the pix of some of your favorite bloggers partying in LA this weekend. Jane identifies them in comment #26.

I'll be waiting for Larry Craigs' plea withdrawal filing to hit the internet so I can parse it and give my opinion.

< Another Question for Petraeus | On Iraq and Petraeus: O'Hanlon Takes Off the Mask >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Open Thread and Diary Rescue | 25 comments (25 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Rudy "Cue Ball" Giuliani's mob ties run (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:53:27 PM EST
    deeper than even I thought.

    Turns out that, among other things, his dad not only did a year and a half in Sing Sing back in the 30s for mob-related activity (armed robbery - something I already knew), but also did not reform his ways.  He continued working as baseball-bat wielding muscle for Rudy's uncle's loan-sharking operation into the 60s, and got involved in a shootout with some mob rivals in that decade, also over the loan-sharking.

    Apple doesn't seem to have fallen that far from the tree....  But Rudy loves The Godfather series of movies, so I guess that makes him all right....

    So, to recapitulate, the choices on the Rethug side next year are:

    • a son of a mobster who acts like one, but in a more refined manner, but can't seem to stop getting married and divorced,
    • a lazy actor who can't get off his butt long enough to declare and can't raise funds to save his life,
    • a now-daft, going-on-elderly formerly-tortured Senator who's now all for torturing people browner-than-he and who's made a career out of being punked by the Bush dynasty,
    • a guy who tortured his family dog by tying it to the roof of the car for a 12 hour trip and can't find a single issue he hasn't been on both sides of, taking positions for today's benefit,
    • a couple of theocratic whack-jobs who won't stop until someone channelling Jerry Falwell is dictating policy and behavior for the whole country,
    • and a couple of immigration whack-jobs whose attitiudes on browner-than-they immigrants would have been popular with the ruling crowd in Berlin, circa 1938.

    I'll take "none of the above", thank you.

    Ah, yes, Pajamas Media (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Dark Avenger on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:59:58 AM EST
    the same folks who 'announced' the death of the Iranian Supreme Leader a while back:

    Hollywood, Barcelona
    January 4, 2007 11:35 AM

    A source close to Pajamas Media has learned that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has apparently succumbed to the cancer that hospitalized him last month, as exclusively reported by Pajamas Media, at age 67. He has been Iran's most powerful figure since replacing Ayatollah Khomeini in the role of Supreme Leader in 1989.

    Also, consider this:

    What the Army has done is produce statements from a number of people who could have been charged with war crimes for the actions described in the article, and who then swore that they did not engage in those actions. Hardly surprising.

    The interview above notes only that fact. It does not demonstrate that no troops in the unit engaged in the described behavior, or even, as you claim, that the investigator "was unable to find anyone" who did. It claims only that he did not find anyone who admitted it, among those he questioned. That's far from the same thing. The fact that he "has seen no evidence of any sort of fact checking" means nothing. As he notes, he has no information about TNR's internal procedures, and at any rate their fact checking would hardly have included the brigade administrative officer. By their own description, it included a number of line troops who either participated in the events or heard the admissions of those who did - a claim the investigator never addresses.

    In short, this interview consists only of the Army investigator's assertion that he is satisfied by the denials of the few troops he spoke to. It does not demonstrate that the investigation was exhaustive or that those denials were true, and it has nothing to do with TNR's fact-checking or lack thereof.

    There seems to be little support for Beauchamp's article, and that is suspicious. But accepting the Army's own statement that it did nothing wrong, and, ludicrously, touting that as "proof" resulting from an "investigation", is more gullible than believing Beauchamp's assertions - which, as A.N. Feldzamen points out, report events similar to those that have been unquestionably documented in the past and are at least plausible for that reason.

    Thanks for bringing the above to our attention, PPJ.  

    TTFN

    Attacking the messenger is all you (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 03:02:38 PM EST
    bring to the table. Who is the messenger? PJM? No.

    Cross: As the Executive Officer of the Vanguards, I'm the second in command of the Battalion, an organization of 700 Soldiers in five different companies. I'm responsible for the resourcing, maintaining, and control of the formation. I supervise the Battalion Staff to ensure that each section supports the commanders and Soldiers in the field, so they can execute their missions. I'm responsible for the planning, resourcing, and maintenance management of 30 M2A2 (ODS) Bradley Fighting Vehicles and 14 M1A2 Main Battle Tanks that are in the Battalion. I'm also responsible for the planning, synchronizing, targeting, and integration of both kinetic and non-kinetic means to deliver positive effects across the Battalion area of operations. What all of this means to the Soldier in the rifle squad is that the buck stops with me for food, fuel, ammunition, maintenance, and other administrative actions.

    Owens: Do you think it is likely that some soldiers may have told The New Republic one story, and then provided a different story to investigating officers?

    Cross: I can't speculate about anything involving The New Republic, but I can speak to our procedures. When conducting the investigation, I focused on the information and evidence collected from the Soldiers in PVT Beauchamp's unit in the form of written and signed affidavits, which did not support the events portrayed in the story. As all of the Soldiers interviewed during the course of the investigation made sworn statements, they understand the consequences of making false official statements.

    I suggest that the next time you dislike the stories in the newspaper you scream at the paperboy. Such actions seems to be one of your favorite ways to deny reality.

    [ Parent ]

    Attacking the messenger (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dark Avenger on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 03:41:50 PM EST
    by showing that they aren't exactly as reliable as you'd like us to believe, is a bit tactless of me, PPJ, but I'll compromise and admit that this analysis applied here by substituting PJM for NYT could be a better take on the situation:

    BTW - Please quit making nasty comments about the New York Times. It is a fine organization even if they do get caught with their facts screwed up from time to time.

    As for the messenger, if the military were sure of it's case it would be getting it out to the MSM instead of promoting it on a blog where folks such as yourself swallow such bilge lock, stock and barrel.

    I suggest that the next time you dislike the stories in the newspaper you scream at the paperboy.

    If the paperboy had the guts to come to my house after delivering a paper that ran something like the "Supreme Leader Dead" story, I'd be forced to tell him that he had a future in Republican politics, after I picked myself off the ground after when I finished laughing.

    Such actions seems to be one of your favorite ways to deny reality.

    PPJ, I'll grant that you have the advantage of me in the field of denying reality, as can be seen here:

    PPJ - granted there is a lot of dissemination from the leftists here, but aren't you twisting the facts somewhat in terms of Byrd using the "n" word? I watched the interview (both parts) and he doesn't use it except in a rerun clip from the incident in 2001. Ergo, he only made that mistake once (publicly).

    Here's a prayer for you, PPJ:

    Dear Lord, let my words today be sweet, in case I have to eat them later on.

    T!

    [ Parent ]

    The facts remain that the interview (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:49:48 PM EST
    is with the XO of Private Beaucamp... if that is the name he is using today...

    If you want to call the Major a liar, then that is your right. Unfortunately I don't have his email address.

    Perhaps you could get it through TNR or PM.

    But you won't try, you'll just keep running your mouth about something that has nothing to do with the facts.

    Why don't you tie a white towell to a fishing pole and wave it?

    "Look at me! Look at me! Pay no attention to the interview!!

    (snicker snicker)

    [ Parent ]

    The fact that you don't want to touch (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dark Avenger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:59:30 AM EST
    with a 10-foot pole is that the XO chose to be interviewed by a blog whose main claim to fame before this, AFAIK, was to give extensive coverage to a story that never panned out.

    If you want to call the Major a liar, then that is your right. Unfortunately I don't have his email address.

    No, I think it should be you, as you enjoy calling people liars and doubting what they write about themselves, so that would be up your alley, you clearly have more experience than I do in this area.

    Want me to find his e-mail address for you, PPJ?

    But you won't try, you'll just keep running your mouth about something that has nothing to do with the facts.

    I posted a link earlier that shows how you deal with the facts, I think you called me daft at one point in the thread, and then you made some remark about dog butts, which I'm guessing is you running your mouth about something that has nothing to do with the facts.

    Why don't you tie a white towell to a fishing pole and wave it?

    People will think either I'm crazy or used to be in Naval Aviation, and I don't know which one is worse.

    Can you tell me where I can find a white towell? I tried Macy's but they didn't know what I was talking about.  Kinda like you, I guess......

    "Look at me! Look at me! Pay no attention to the interview!!

    (snicker snicker)

    Project much, PPJ?

    "PJM is a legitimate outlet, just pay no attention to the Iranian Supreme Leader Death story, etc."

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    T!

     

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 05:21:44 PM EST
    The interview stands on its. If you want another blog to interview him, why don't you ask TNR to?

    In the meantime you show your true colors when you write:

    People will think either I'm crazy or used to be in Naval Aviation, and I don't know which one is worse.

    Nice attack on a group of people that have sacrificed to protect the country.

    Now tell us how you support the troops.

    [ Parent ]

    PPJ the WATB wahhhhhhhhhhhhh! (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dark Avenger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 07:04:01 PM EST
    The interview stands on its. If you want another blog to interview him, why don't you ask TNR to?

    Boy, PPJ, just like a liberal, you want someone else to do the heavy lifting while you do all the brainwork.

    Not gonna happen here.

    Nice attack on a group of people that have sacrificed to protect the country.
     

    Hey, you figure a military officers wife is fair game for attack, but like the typical coward/bully, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

    Since one of that group of people decided to tell me to act like a coward, turnabout is fair play.

    Now tell us how you support the troops.

    Not by wanting them to stay in the meatgrinder that Iraq has become for our military, which position is shared by you, OBL, and your Fearless Leader.

    T!

    [ Parent ]

    Final word on Beaucamp and TNR (1.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:38:28 AM EST
    And you aren't going to be happy.

    Then why am I laughing? (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 03:29:47 PM EST
    Oh yeah, it's because you expect people to except as "the final word" another dispatch from another excremnt filled quarter of wingnuttia.

    Check your blood sugar.

    [ Parent ]

    diary rescue??? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Michael Gass on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 02:24:16 AM EST
    People post their own diaries here????

    Yes, Here's the scoop on that (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 11:40:21 AM EST
    Posting Diaries

    If you  would like to blog here or if you blog elsewhere, you're welcome to cross-post here in a diary. Just note that it's been cross-posted at your site and hot-link your site. Hopefully, you'll get some extra traffic.

    On diary topics, please make them relevant to the issues on TalkLeft -- elections, politics of crime, crime in politics, war, civil liberties, etc. The economy and environment, while important, are not TalkLeft topics. Yes, they should represent a progressive point of view. Conservatives have their own sites to post on.

    Also, no profanity, potentially libelous accusations or nasty personal attacks please. Your diary should add, not detract, from the level of political discourse on the site.

    Last note: If you want to write a diary, you have to send me an email so that I can change your permissions to diarist. It's not necessary that you be a lawyer to be a diarist.

    [ Parent ]

    Silence (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:11:27 AM EST
    Boy, TL sure has been quiet about Norman Hsu ever since it started becoming clear that the money trail was looking ugly.

    I wonder how much of a pass a Republican with a similar donor problem would be getting?

    Don't know, Jethro (none / 0) (#3)
    by hhex65 on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:52:11 AM EST
    but Alan Fabian is glad to see that the system still works.

    [ Parent ]
    Well Jethro yourself....because (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:19:07 PM EST
    we do know where the government thinks Fabian got his money....

    We don't know where Hsu got his.

    [ Parent ]

    not silent at all (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 11:37:54 AM EST
    See my article Saturday, Raking Norman Hsu Over the Coals.

    [ Parent ]
    Shocking...... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 01:25:10 PM EST
    Shady political fundraising....say it ain't so Joe!

    Silly me, I thought shadyness was the norm.

    [ Parent ]

    Just don't fund the war its that simple (none / 0) (#4)
    by Saul on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:52:54 AM EST
    If you don't fund the war then the democrats can  say that the people have spoken and we are doing what the majority want. Which is what the majority want, to stop the war and bring the troops home as expressed in the 06 midterm elections.   The majority of the people don't care what really transpires in Iraq after we leave.   If the democrats are afraid of the philosophy that that they will be looked at as the party that did not give the money to the troops then the way out of that thinking is to say that not funding the war is  saving American lives. Since there will be no more future funds for Iraq then it is up to Bush to use the money he has to safely get our soldier's out of Iraq and if any more troops are killed then it's on Bush's back and it will be his negligence for not getting them out and he and only he will be soley responsible for any more loss of American lives.   Do you think the troops are going to compalint becasue they are on their way out and comming home. Do you think the troops are going to complaing becasue they are not getting another tour in Iraq.   Do you think the parents and friends of these troops are going to complaint because they are coming home.  Do you think any of these people are going to say " Oh no let me stay here just give us more money so we can stay here"    I simply cannot understand why the Democrats are so afraid of losing the election in 08 if they cut the funds for Iraq.   The majority of the people would love the Democrats for doing that.   Also the idea of having to worry that the radicals in Iraq are going to control an oil rich country if we leave well that has already happened when  Sadamm controled Iraq and all the oil in Iraq before we went in.  So what would be so different.  I would just use the military that is leaving Iraq  in a differnt way by keeping Iraq in check but no boots on the ground.  N. Korea has nuclear weapons and we have just seen recently how using diplomacy got them to think on our terms. They are more dangerous than Iraq.  We did not invade N. Korea.   If you can get a country with nuclear weapons to change their mind then why can't you do it with a country that does not have nuclear weapons like Iraq.   You don't need the 60 votes to overturn Bush's veto on the funding bill with a timeline just don't vote at all and that will stop the funds.  End of story.  Never undersood why they call our government a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  Even when the majority of the people want the government to do something they never do.  

    Be carefull what you wish for (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:01:20 PM EST
    you might get it.

    Which is what the majority want, to stop the war and bring the troops home as expressed in the 06 midterm elections.   The majority of the people don't care what really transpires in Iraq after we leave.

    The problem is two fold. First, the midterm's were about a lot more than the war. The Repub base was angry with Congress over spending, immigration (still  are)Dubqai ports deal, etc., and stayed home on election day. And while many people, not just Repubs, are angry over the war and voted that anger, they don't want to cut and run. They want to win and leave. The anger is over what they see as very poor strategies and execution.

    Now I am sure you won't grasp that. But the Demos do. All they have to do is look at the approval rating of Congress and see it much lower than of Bush.

    And we are a good hearted people. If a bloodbath occurs when we leave, and if people come to see that as a result of us leaving, then the Demos will pay a huge price. They understand that, having the aftermath of Vietnam staring them in the face 24/7. The difference is that it took approximately 5 years, '75 to '80, for that to be understood. In today's world it will be months.

    And you close with:

    Never undersood why they call our government a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  Even when the majority of the people want the government to do something they never do.

    We don't have an absolute democracy, and we don't have a parlimentary government. We have a constitutional republic. That gives the party who wins a majority in either/both houses of Congress the right to chair Committee's, introduce bills more easily and other functions. But that's about it. If they don't win the Presidential election, and/or a veto proof majority they aren't going to do much, and what they do requires a huge amount of debate and "selling" the public. Ackward it is, but better than the alternative...

    No charge for the information.

    [ Parent ]

    Slate reports... (none / 0) (#6)
    by desertswine on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:45:49 AM EST
    "The WSJ fronts word that Dallas-based Hunt Oil Co. has come to an agreement with Iraq's Kurdish region to explore for oil. This is seen as a sign of how foreign companies are willing to skip over Baghdad and deal directly with regional leaders."

    This may be the harbinger of virtual Iraqi partition (the "P" word).

    Yes (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:22:46 AM EST
    emptywheel has a good analysis.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, I see... (none / 0) (#12)
    by desertswine on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 12:40:55 PM EST
    Thanks.  

    Kurdistan is preparing to become a client state of the US govt, oops I mean, Big Oil.

    [ Parent ]

    heh (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    Yes, that worked so well in SA and Venezula...

    [ Parent ]
    LimaBn wrote about Larry Craig (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:33:03 AM EST
    See #11 for pro se waiver of counsel, which would (should?) have been filed along with the petition to enter plea of guilty to misdemeanor.
    Appears to thoroughly cover the waiver issue, but
    we'll just have to see how it works out.

    [I had to delete because of overly long link. Urls must be in html format or they skew the site.  As to form 11, we discussed that several times in earlier Craig threads.  The press hasn't reported the form was sent to Craig or signed and mailed back with his guilty plea. ]

    Remember when the news wasn't so self-snarking? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ellie on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 11:34:12 AM EST
    Minnesota law is that a guilty plea may be withdrawn if it was not intelligently made "and what Sen. Craig did was by no means intelligent," said Specter.

    From Salon wires, 09/10/2007, (incl. breaking development) reg req'd

    also non-reg via News14 Carolina, 09/10/2007

    Open Thread and Diary Rescue | 25 comments (25 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment