The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

This is a more realistic explanation, it seems to me. The evidence was ambivalent, and some of the evidence was over-emphasized while other parts of the evidence was de-emphasized.

Except it wasn't. The evidence was overwhelmingly against the WH case, but everybody was told to ignore the 90% and forward the 10%.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

This is a more realistic explanation, it seems to me. The evidence was ambivalent, and some of the evidence was over-emphasized while other parts of the evidence was de-emphasized.

No.

Congressman/women refers to members of the House.
Senator is the proper honorific for members of the Senate.

I used Congressman to group everyone from both Houses together. If that's wrong, sue me.

 

[joecct]

I used Congressman to group everyone from both Houses together. If that's wrong, sue me.

Geez! Stop drinking the coffee!

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Would people be mad at Bush had he pushed for the war based upon Saddam firing SAMs at US fighter jets patrolling the do-not-fly zones in Iraq that were setup as the result of Desert Storm? During the late 90's and into early 2000, I recall news stories of just that happening, but the idea of re-invading Iraq on those grounds were never mentioned event though firing those SAMs were acts of war upon the US.

 

[LynahFan]

I used Congressman to group everyone from both Houses together. If that's wrong, sue me.

That's how I do it, too. If I want to specify someone from the populist house, I say Representative. Senators are most definitely Congressmen, err...Congresspeople, Congresscritters, whatever.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

That's how I do it, too. If I want to specify someone from the populist house, I say Representative. Senators are most definitely Congressmen, err...Congresspeople, Congresscritters, whatever.

The typical usage is this: you can call a Senator a "Member of Congress" but never a Congressman. I kid thee not, they care about the difference.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Would people be mad at Bush had he pushed for the war based upon Saddam firing SAMs at US fighter jets patrolling the do-not-fly zones in Iraq that were setup as the result of Desert Storm? During the late 90's and into early 2000, I recall news stories of just that happening, but the idea of re-invading Iraq on those grounds were never mentioned event though firing those SAMs were acts of war upon the US.

Pottery Barn Rule. Why don't we get that?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Pottery Barn Rule. Why don't we get that?

That's a different thing. PBR dictates that having killed 100k Iraqi civilians so William Kristol could compensate for his small package (he's no Tall Boy), we are now responsible for it. It says nothing about going in in the first place.

BTW, PBR dictates that we now take care of ISIS, though I think PBR was nullified the moment the proprietor said, "just get out of my store before you break something else, Baby Huey!"

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Senators aren't in Congress? I thought Congress included both Houses.

At least I don't think ISIS is coming over the Mexican border to kill me. That puts me one up on McCain.

At that rate, in about 150 years, you'll be fit to clean his privy.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

That's a different thing. PBR dictates that having killed 100k Iraqi civilians so William Kristol could compensate for his small package (he's no Tall Boy), we are now responsible for it. It says nothing about going in in the first place.

BTW, PBR dictates that we now take care of ISIS, though I think PBR was nullified the moment the proprietor said, "just get out of my store before you break something else, Baby Huey!"

Double bonus for obsessing on neocons? Many of them are Juwes, right?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

This is actually a great piece, even though it's -- gasp -- Kos.

Could we at least have a bipartisan demand that Obama must ask Congress for the explicit right to fight ISIS and Congress must explicitly debate and vote on a resolution? Can we use this moment, where everybody gets their hands dirty and so nobody gets exclusive use of political advantage, to both put limits back on the executive and force the legislature to take up its responsibilities?

That is what the Framers had in mind, after all.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Pottery Barn Rule. Why don't we get that?

What are you talking about? I know the Pottery Barn Rule, but how does that apply to the question I asked?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

It's amazing that even after the worst presidency in the last hundred years, which was the epitome of the Dirty Harry School Of Overcompensating Men, there is still anybody who believes that school yard bully crap is relevant to real life problems. Probably it's because those same people are trapped forever in their love for an actor and his John Wayne School Of Sepia Toned Nostalgic Delusions.

Politics now is a battle between people who can handle reality and people who are desperately hanging on to the movies of their youth 50 years ago. Movies which were even at the time produced deliberately to feed a completely fictional account of the world back to people who wanted to escape from reality. Who knew that entertainment would mold the entire life philosophy of millions of suckers?

You talkin' 'bout Jimmy Carter again? You ladies love to talk about "faux." As in faux Grecian columns? Faux presidential seal? Faux foreign policy? Faux leadership? Faux promises ("if you like your plan/doctor you can keep your plan/doctor")? Faux European speeches? Your boy is pretty close to a total failure. So you turn up the volume on your anti-Bush cutsey poo rhetoric, hoping nobody will notice. Problem is the only ones not noticing reside in the bunker or one of the various Fergusons.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

What are you talking about? I know the Pottery Barn Rule, but how does that apply to the question I asked?

It applies. It applies to your question. Neither the justification you proposed in your question nor the justification that was used pass the PBR test.


GWB can't hold Jimmy's jockstrap.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

It applies because as soon as you apply it you don't try to justify war against Iraq.

Who's justifying the war? I'm genuinely curious if the grounds laid out for the war had been entirely different, would people still have been so vehemently against it. It was a bad war, a needless war.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

It applies. It applies to your question. Neither the justification you proposed in your question nor the justification that was used pass the PBR test.


GWB can't hold Jimmy's jockstrap.

What is this, T-ball? Where's General Wenck?

 

[joecct]

This is actually a great piece, even though it's -- gasp -- Kos.

Could we at least have a bipartisan demand that Obama must ask Congress for the explicit right to fight ISIS and Congress must explicitly debate and vote on a resolution? Can we use this moment, where everybody gets their hands dirty and so nobody gets exclusive use of political advantage, to both put limits back on the executive and force the legislature to take up its responsibilities?

That is what the Framers had in mind, after all.

WHAT!! Congress to actually do something responsible? I think they confused that word with reprehensible.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Who's justifying the war? I'm genuinely curious if the grounds laid out for the war had been entirely different, would people still have been so vehemently against it. It was a bad war, a needless war.

I can only speak for myself. The WMD argument was persuasive. I bought it. Then I found out they lied. That moved my bar up beyond WMD. Thus, I'm not in favor of the new ISIS war.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The typical usage is this: you can call a Senator a "Member of Congress" but never a Congressman. I kid thee not, they care about the difference.

I don't doubt it. They can't do squat legislating, but they are picky about what they're called. Is Congressperson more acceptable?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

This is actually a great piece, even though it's -- gasp -- Kos.

Could we at least have a bipartisan demand that Obama must ask Congress for the explicit right to fight ISIS and Congress must explicitly debate and vote on a resolution? Can we use this moment, where everybody gets their hands dirty and so nobody gets exclusive use of political advantage, to both put limits back on the executive and force the legislature to take up its responsibilities?

That is what the Framers had in mind, after all.

You're under arrest. . .for impersonating a strict constructionist.