home

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 12:15:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Been out of pocket. But back now. I'll find something to write about.

Open Thread.

< Monday Night Open Thread | Religion And The Post Partisan Unity Schtick >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Morning Open Thread | 51 comments (51 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Doonesbury (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 01:32:36 PM EST
    continues, with a nod to Rush speak along with Texas Reps Sid Miller and Dan Patrick

    Tuesday

    "Do your parents know (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:03:32 PM EST
    you're a slut?"

    Something tells me that line's going to get a lot of play...kind of makes me think Trudeau's been reading a little Military Tracy, because that totally sounds like her interpretation of the Texas/Virgina legislation...

    Parent

    I forgot to tell tutoree about (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:11:26 PM EST
    Doonesbury.  Kid is writing a mock op-ed on abortion.  

    Parent
    FL brother is a Marlins sp. tr. game. (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:11:48 PM EST


    Parent
    The Marlins (none / 0) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:45:31 PM EST
    have definitely generated some excitement going into the season. Opening Day is Wednesday April 4 on ESPN at 4:00 Padre Time (You can see if Heath Bell is on the South Beach Diet)

    Parent
    Just found (none / 0) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 06:06:53 PM EST
    something to tell me he isn't on the South Beach Diet unless it also includes:

    Heath Bell Ice Cream

    Parent

    If I miss him toooooo much, I can (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 06:15:45 PM EST
    sign up to follow him on Twitter?  NOT.  

    Parent
    Going to the PP rally in Austin this evening. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:29:05 PM EST
    I will let you TLers know how it goes.  Should be a good one, Cecile Richards herself will be there.

    If Sid Miller... (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:35:12 PM EST
    has the stones to show up, ask him if his mother knows that he is an arsehole.

    Parent
    I sweaaaar (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:43:05 PM EST
    as I was walking to the rally that I saw him (walking away from the Capitol).  I find it hard to tell "good ol' boys" apart sometimes, they're all so smarmy looking.  So who knows.

    The rally was great though - State Rep. Dawnna Dukes was perhaps the best speaker, although the clients of PP were really moving and fantastic speakers, all in their early 20s, eloquent and representing the importance of PP to themselves and their communities.  Anyway Dawnna Dukes was talking about how she was asked to speak at her (Roman Catholic) church, a church her grandmother helped found, only to receive a call a few weeks later that the church didn't want to seem partial to any candidate.  Dawnna Dukes ever so politely informed them re: their flimsy excuse that she was running unopposed so that wouldn't be a problem.  Of course the real reason the Catholic Church wouldn't let her speak - at the church her family helped found, that all of her family members belong to, etc. - was because of her support for the Women's Health Program and contraception.  It was a great story, well-told.  Lots of great personal stories in fact.  Sometimes I feel like I get sucked into outrage at the sheer hypocrisy and gall of the attacks, but hypocrisy and gall can't be fixed.  Women's health access can be fixed though, and the current level, especially in Texas, is pathetic.

    Parent

    Peter Bergman, of Firesign Theater (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:35:35 PM EST
    Has died, age 72.  Very sad.  The Marx Brothers of the '60s generation; that is, the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert of our generation.

    Very much so (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 06:05:33 AM EST
    Lots of my friends who are a few years older than I could quote Firesign bits like my cohort quoted Monty Python. I never heard Firesign in 'real time' but the legend lived on.

    I thought of several old friends when I heard this news. Peace to all.

    Parent

    A Salem journalist who has actually been (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:44:49 AM EST
    to at least one of the wars makes a horrible speculation.  If it turns out that the soldier snapped hearing that Fort Lewis had been caught railroading soldiers who had PTSD, how horrible.

    There was a plan, there was obviously some sort of mission the rampage soldier was conducting.  He went out, methodically killed, went back to his base, turned himself in, and told them all he has nothing to say until his lawyer gets there.

    Last night my husband felt a great sadness too because soldiers will die yes, but some soldiers will die in Afghanistan BECAUSE of this.

    Patty Murray has now said that she believes the push to deny PTSD again and interchange the diagnosis with one of preexisting personality disorder and it is Army wide.  She must have some kind of evidence.  They tried this under Bush too and got caught, now they will try again?  How can they betray soldiers and their families and their communities.

    Today has been brought to you by the letter (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:49:23 AM EST
    "M".

    Anybody who you have a relationship with and who expects you to treat them with common decency and respect is either a Muppet or a Malingerer.

    Wow, Leon Panetta needs to be removed (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:07:35 AM EST
    as Secretary of Defense.  He says that shooting sprees like the one that happened aren't uncommon in war, and therefore we will keep on keeping on.

    From what I have read this soldier like many who assist special operations now appears to have been selected to assist when he was still stateside.  They are supposed to be selecting from the best of the best.  These are our elite, they do all of the things that we must not fail at doing, they work very closely with Afghans....face to face with them.  They do the things that are crazy dangerous.  For one of them to snap like this and go on a murder spree couldn't be more unusual.  The soldier that did this is not a nobody in the military world.

    What are they hiding?  New information has dried up and now the Secretary of Defense says something so crazy he should have his mouth washed out with soap.  "Dear Afghans, our soldiers blowing you away in your sleep is not unusual behavior, be our friends".  Nobody could have said anything dumber and more irresponsible and destructive except Donald Rumsfeld.

    I am having Iraq flashbacks now.

    Well, the latest wrinkle is that there (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:07:42 PM EST
    may have been alcohol involved.

    Barbara Starr:

    The military is investigating whether alcohol was a factor in the rampage , two senior military officials tell CNN.  One of the senior military officials said alcohol was found on the base in the area where the suspect lived.  It is not clear yet if the alcohol belonged to the soldier and a toxic screening was conducted but the results have not been returned, the official said.

    And, you should know that that tight hold they have on the release of information is

    ...because of growing concerns that leaks and public statement could be used by a defense attorney to claim the suspect could not get a fair trial, military sources said.

    Carney also said the president did not imply there was more than one shooter when he said, "We'll follow the facts wherever they lead us and we will make sure that anybody who was involved is held fully accountable with the full force of the law."

    "My understanding," Carney explained, "is there's no reason to believe that there was more than one shooter, but that they are talking to a number of individuals as part of that investigation."

    I wish I could believe even half of what I'm being told these days.

    And more about your new fave SecDef:

    The secretary of defense suggested to reporters traveling overseas with him that the death penalty is a possibility in the case.

    "My understanding is that in these instances that could be a consideration," Panetta said.

    No service member has been put to death since 1961, though a number have been sentenced to death and are on death row.

    Makes me wonder about that whole "fair trial" thing - like maybe they wouldn't want anything to get in the way of the death penalty.  And given the already-tense relationship between the Afghans and the US military, I suspect Panetta et al are deathly afraid that this will be irretrievably bungled somehow, and instead of the military being able to present the Afghans with the equivalent of the alleged shooter's head on a plate, we will have to deal with the consequences of seeming not to have served justice in this case.

    I have a feeling it's the doings at Lewis McChord that are going to be the biggest problem, and it's going to take a lid off that's going to be very hard to put back on.

    Yeesh.

    Parent

    I thought maybe alcohol had something (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:44:02 PM EST
    to do with it, because someone let that slip on day one.  They were talking about him maybe having problems with alcohol and I thought that was strange because soldiers suffering from PTSD will pick all sorts of drugs of choice, I think prescription drugs and street drugs are used as just as much for a medicator by suffering soldiers.

    But not for this guy.  He has worked his whole time playing by the rules in the military.  That is how you get chosen to assist special operations if you are standard military issue.  He has excelled a couple of times and stood out.  So someone that serious about his military career would probably never risk using street drugs even he was suffering.  Alcohol is legal though for him when he isn't deployed and takes a long time for physical complications to show itself to your coworkers sometimes, makes it often the drug of choice for military professionals.

    I know some soldiers get to have alcohol at scheduled times now, but probably not special operations.  I know in the past special ops got to have fake beer for special events.

    My husband said that if he was having PTSD symptoms and he was ignored or diagnosed some place and treated where they were cooking the diagnosis, if they kill him it will destroy military morale in a big way.  After ten plus years, they are all a little phucked up, there are only degrees of how phucked up now or if you can integrate it all and compensate or not.

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:14:43 PM EST
    About mentioning that the death penalty could be considered as a potential punishment (if he is found guilty) makes you question if a fair trial can be had?  In every death penalty case, the potential jury pool is told right up front in voir dire if the death penalty is a possibility, so they can answer honestly to find out if there are those who (with a closed mind) would not consider that, even though it's the law?

    I'm not advocating for the death penalty, mind you, and I'm going to stop anyone right now before they jump all over my case.  But mentioning the death penalty as an option doesn't seem to impinge on anyone's right to a fair trial. Otherwise, it seems to me, it would be more unfair if a jury didn't know it was a possibility going in (even though jurors are also instructed that they may not consider any potential punishment when deciding guilt).

    Parent

    I think you misunderstood what I was (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:34:49 PM EST
    saying; let me try again.

    I wasn't saying that mentioning the death penalty would jeopardize the fair trial, at all, rather, that not getting a fair trial would jeopardize the death penalty option.

    The reason given for the tight lid on the release of information was that they didn't want to deal with claims by the defense that the accused couldn't get a fair trial.  When I later read that, per Panetta, the death penalty could be on the table, I surmised that it is because it may be on the table that they want to be extra careful about making sure there is no question the trial was fair - any bungling would jeopardize their ability to have that as an option.

    Hope that clarifies my comments.

    Parent

    Yes it does (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 02:44:28 PM EST
    Thanks.

    And I don't think the defense is going to have a hard time with an insanity defense here.  I think a first year law student would make that argument - or anyone who watches any police shows on TV.  I mean,  with the facts as we currently know them - what else COULD you argue?

    I think the not releasing of information (publicly, at least) is more about getting their ducks in a row for the political and foreign policy fallout rather than the criminal one at this point.

    Parent

    yeah, I had the same reaction (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:08:21 PM EST
    'It has happened before and will happen again'

    may be true, but not exactly the thing to say.

    Parent

    What is it (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 12:23:00 PM EST
    with anyone with any authority these days? Are they all insecure bullies now? Good thing he had no night googles and an automatic weapon?

    Better check to see if he's National Guard (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 12:31:32 PM EST
    And Fort Lewis sent him home unbroken, in perfect mental health.....AGAIN

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 01:09:22 PM EST
    At every level.

    Parent
    I'm surprised... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:37:39 PM EST
    the Sanford PD is tolerating a murderer cutting in on their action.

    Parent
    Probably offerred that guy a job (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:20:33 PM EST


    Parent
    I guess innocent until proven guilty does (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:00:03 PM EST
    not count here?

    Zimmerman was taken into custody but was released. His nose was bloody, and officers spotted blood on the back of his head as well as grass on the back of his shirt, according to the incident report.

    Did the teenager attack Zimmerman? Or did Zimmerman self-inflict these wounds?

    Parent

    I think shooting someone dead (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:29:23 PM EST
    in defense against a bloody nose is a little much. And this was after he had already called 911 on the kid, who was just walking minding his own business until confronted. Maybe the kid felt a little threatened and hit him in the nose? I guess we will never know because he is dead.

    All Zimmerman had to do was stay in his house after he called 911. But no, he was on a power trip.

    Parent

    Not the question (none / 0) (#26)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:38:33 PM EST
    I don't think anyone's suggesting Zimmerman's wounds were self-inflicted.  The issue is - as is always the case in cases where self-defense is raised - is whether the force used is legally justified.  IOW - was Zimmerman justified in using deadly force?

    Parent
    Now now Edger... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    we just can't have women rolling through stop signs without coming to a full and complete stop...next stop is anarchy.  C'mon man...Advanced Civilizations 101 bro.  

    Personally I would have liked to have seen her tackled and tased, with a dash of pepper spray to stay on the safe side.  Sh*t she's lucky we let her drive...for now anyway, just wait till Santorum is elected...then she'll be in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant where she belongs...not operating heavy machinery giving John Law lip.  

    Parent

    There you go! (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 01:45:07 PM EST
    If he had just pre-emptively emptied a can of mace-in-er'-face when she rolled down the window - as long as he didn't have to shoot the glass out first of course - then he wouldn't have had to risk bodily harm to himself.

    Poor guy might have popped a button or scuffed a shoe or even elevated his blood pressure fighting off her thoughts like that, and the job is dangerous enough as it is already.

    These local police forces need hellfire missiles on the drones they're getting from the pentagon. The wussy 'surveillance' models they're getting just don't cut it at keepin' Murka safe anymo.

    Parent

    Last time with some dark Dadler fiction (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 12:29:30 PM EST
    Just posted it on the last thread, but now this new one pops up, forgive the redundancy.  ALL MY HEADS COME BACK TO ME -- the executioner offers his twisted two cents on his vocation.  Thanks to all who read and comment, all opinion/criticism/praise (ahem) is valuable.  Peace, my friends. (LINK)

    PLEASE write about this NFL salary cap nonsense... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Addison on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:03:23 PM EST
    Was it collusion? Do the "warnings" make it collusion?

    Does anyone besides the NFLPA have standing to bring this to court?

    Certainly (none / 0) (#13)
    by Makarov on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:49:14 PM EST
    Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones can try to sue, but I can't see how it would be successful. Was the 2010 collusion "illegal"? Yes, but the lawsuit (Brady et al vs. NFL) that included that item was settled.

    Ultimately, Snyder and Jones would have to get an injunction against the league, and make that stick through an obvious appeal. Keep in mind the "punishment" in this case is being applied by what is essentially a nebulous super-majority of other NFL owners. It's not coming from Roger Goodell.

    The NFLPA signed off on it, because the alternative was the league adjusting total salary cap downward this year. It's a win for the NFLPA and a win for the owners who want to see the Cowboys and Redskins punished for structuring their 2010 deals in such a way as to create "a competitive advantage" over other teams in subsequent years.

    Realistically, and I think every knows this, they aren't being punished for contract structures as much as they are for their total cap $ in 2010 - way, way more than other teams. The Redskins were around $175M, the Cowboys around $155M, and everyone else far less.

    Parent

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Addison on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:04:39 PM EST
    Yes, but the lawsuit (Brady et al vs. NFL) that included that item was settled.

    Well, (from what I understand) the salary cap was reinstituted in the settlement as something that was "exempt" from antitrust issues. But can a settlement between 10 NFL players and the NFL really get the NFL off the hook for trying to force collusion on team owners in the absence of a salary cap in the CBA? Just because the NFLPA (was it even certified at the time) "endorsed" it? I don't see how that's possible. Or is it that the Redskins and Cowboys could have just left the NFL, and so they have no standing to pursue the collusion issue legally?

    And yes, of course it's not just Goodell or even primarily Goodell. But, being human, I like yelling about a single person instead of an association.

    I hope it goes to court if only so that I can read the ruling and understand this issue from a legal standpoint.

    Parent

    It would (none / 0) (#17)
    by Makarov on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:19:44 PM EST
    be a very interesting case.

    That said, many things the NFL and other professional sports leagues do are, in absence of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, illegal.

    The draft, salary cap, free agency restrictions, trade restrictions, are all illegal collusion. They are also completely legal in light of a CBA with the players.

    Of course, not every action the league takes vis a vis it's team owners is legal. Al Davis successfully sued the league at least once when he wanted to relocate the Raiders. The league claimed he needed a majority or super-majority vote of other owners to do so, and Davis won.

    In this particular case, regardless of the legality of 2010 collusion to keep salaries down in that uncapped year, I think it's an uphill battle for Jones and Snyder. Courts have upheld other restrictions (like the draft) in the past in the name of promoting competitiveness between small and large market teams. The NFL's revenue sharing model (which I think is the best among all sports and all leagues everywhere) is at least anti-capitalist and at worst communistic.

    As an extension of other rules, I can't see where a lawsuit would be successful. All it might do is open up the closed door of some 2006-2010 owners' meetings. That's something neither the league nor Jones and Snyder probably want.

    Parent

    That's just it. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Addison on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:30:59 PM EST
    The draft, salary cap, free agency restrictions, trade restrictions, are all illegal collusion. They are also completely legal in light of a CBA with the players.

    Well, that's just it. They're legal only in light of the CBA (and the NFLPA's agreement with to the CBA). But in 2010 the CBA contained no salary cap, because the owners had opted out early and a poison pill provision kicked in -- the provision being that there was no salary cap, as this would ideally act as a "trigger" to get the owners to the table. We all know how "triggers" work though, from the debt ceiling silliness.

    So any action taken to enforce any sort of salary cap in 2010, like these "warnings", was not actually covered by the CBA, or exempt from antitrust act issues at the time. I think that's the root of the issue as regards collusion.

    Parent

    Absolutely correct. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Makarov on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:49:28 PM EST
    However, that issue was settled with Brady.

    The NFLPA and the NFL (with a near unanimous vote of the owners, I believe, as Al Davis hasn't voted in favor of anything in 20 years) settled the case.

    Is a judge going to retroactively void that settlement? Does he have to in order for Jones and Snyder to successfully sue? I don't know.

    I'm not even sure if they have any standing to sue to begin with. Supposedly, they were warned not to use 2010 as a means to dump massive cap $ and thereby set up an unfair, competitive advantage. According to reports, those warnings were verbal and came in closed door owners meetings. In that light, I'm pretty sure Jones/Snyder can't claim they didn't know there were potential consequences to their questions.

    It really would be a fascinating case. I just doubt we will see it.

    Parent

    So, (none / 0) (#14)
    by Makarov on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 03:54:38 PM EST
    no big NFL free agent signings, yet, but a big trade went down just before 4pm.

    Miami traded Brandon Marshall to Chicago for 2012 and 2013 3rd round picks. That's significantly less than a 2012 2nd rounder. The reason he was so cheap? Miami seems to be clearing cap space (whether for Manning or Flynn isn't known), and Marshall's contract is for about $9M/year the next 3 years.

    As I was typing this, former Colt WR Pierre Garcon has reported on his own facebook page that he is signing with the Washington Redskins. The Skins previously traded 2012-2014 1st round and 2012 2nd round picks for the Rams #2 pick this year. They are expected to draft Robert Griffin III aka RG3.

    The Redskins (none / 0) (#19)
    by Makarov on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    are reported to be close to a 2 year deal with WR Josh Morgan.

    It looks like Washington is trying to solve their WR problems with a couple not elite talent guys on the first day of free agency.

    It will be interesting to see how much they pay.

    Parent

    Great trade for the Bears. (none / 0) (#32)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:37:53 PM EST
    In the two years they were together in Denver, Cutler and Marshall put up great numbers.  If they can find that old magic again, the Bears offense will be much improved.

    Parent
    And then (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 04:18:37 PM EST
    Afghan delegation attacked by militants at sigte of killing sprede by US soldier

    Militants riding motorcycles attacked a high-level Afghan government delegation during a memorial service on Tuesday in the village where an American soldier killed 16 people, mostly children and women, in a door-to-door rampage two days earlier.

    Lieutenant Colonel Colin Tuley greeted a local government official during a meeting with Kunar military and police officials on Tuesday.
    The Tuesday assault, on a mosque in the Panjawi district of Kandahar Province, left at least one Afghan soldier dead and punctured the calm that had largely prevailed in Afghanistan since the massacre. There was no immediate claim of credit from the Taliban, whose roots are in the area. But the attack belied the Afghan government's efforts to present itself as in control of the situation in Kandahar, where anger over Sunday's killing is perhaps deepest.



    Uh oh (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:08:17 PM EST
    The CBO reports that 2 million fewer people will be covered undet "Obamacare" than what was previously estimated.  But, on the bright side - the deficit will be better!

    From The Hill (sorry - can't link to this one)

    CBO: Obama's health law to cost less, cover fewer people than first thought Julian Pecquet - 03-13-12 02:29 PM ET

    President Obama's healthcare reform law coverage provisons will cost less but cover fewer people than first thought,the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

    The revised estimate of the law's coverage provisions shows about 2 million fewer people gaining coverage by 2016,reducing the number of uninsured Americans by 30 million instead of the 32 million projected a year ago. That would leave about 27 million people uninsured in 2016,two years after the law's insurance exchanges go online.

    Four million Americans can expect to lose their employer-provided healthcare by 2016, according to the revised figures,far more than the 1 million people estimated last year. And 1 million to 2 million fewer people will gain access to the law's subsidized exchanges than first thought,while an extra 1 million are expected to qualify for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Provision (CHIP).




    This (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Makarov on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:26:30 PM EST
    is my shocked face.

    Parent
    Charles (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 06:46:34 PM EST
    Pierce's the bubble, again...

    ..if I see one more headline calling this thing a "spree," I may be forced to regret my own career choice. A spree is when some drunken frat-boy shoots out the streetlights on campus. This was mass murder, no different from the mass murders committed by Richard Speck or Jeffrey Dahmer or William Calley. If the American press tries to soften the edges of what happened with euphemism, which is what I suspect is already underway, the American press is guilty of one more crime against truth.
    [snip]
    If you're not going to listen to Alexander The Great, who got took an arrow in the leg there and nearly died, who are you going to listen to?
    Let's do away with "rogue," too (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:49:27 PM EST
    and see it as the Afghanis must see it, after so many mindless killings:  This is what the U.S. does.

    Thomas Ruttig of the Afghanistan Analysts Network said that despite NATO and White House references to the killings as the work of a "rogue" soldier, similar events had happened before, including a "kill team" apprehended in Kandahar in 2010.

    "In the stress of an environment of escalated violence - by both sides, but particularly after Obama's troop surge in early 2009, it looks as if most soldiers simply see Afghanistan as a whole as 'enemy territory' and every Afghan as a potential terrorist. This can no longer be called 'rogue'," Ruttig said.




    Parent
    It should be called (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:03:40 PM EST
    the new normal by now, I think...

    Parent
    Hannity sounds scared (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 08:34:12 AM EST
    Is now complaining that the "hard left has the ability to take out talk radio".

    From his lips ...

    The hard left? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 08:51:20 AM EST
    How can there be such a thing when Hannity screams all day everyday about what a pack of cowards and incompetents we all are?  How did I magically become someone who matters and is competent enough to rally a response to horrible verbal rapings of women?  And to stand up to such a thing, what happened to my cowardliness?  

    Parent
    Exactly - but it's his default argument (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:17:54 AM EST
    When you've got no argument, play the victim card.  Try to make it sound like the people who are outraged by Limbaugh's attack on Fluke are the fringe, as opposed to the hate-talkers on radio and those who defend Rush's indefensible attacks, who are (of course) the victims.

    A completely transparent ploy, but he does it so often I think it's just automatic with him.

    Parent

    I can recommend Joseph Carr's Cabernet (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    "Josh" too.  We bought because it because it was called Josh.  The guy at the wine market warned us that it was good, but yadda yadda until you try it.  It is good.  Wish I had bought more.  We got it in Pensacola.

    Tuesday Morning Open Thread | 51 comments (51 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment