Comments Posted By Eddie
Displaying 41 To 46 Of 46 Comments
A LATE AFTERNOON STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS POST ABOUT NOTHING MUCH IN PARTICULAR
There remains the chance the media will consciously hit harder on Obama in order to retain limited credibility. Given how he stiffed the NYT on their "traditional" pre-inaugural interview, I am not surprised they responded by dampening the enthusiasm for following through with Bush, Gates & Obama's Gitmo policy end.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html?hp
Comment Posted By Eddie On 23.01.2009 @ 10:35
INVESTIGATING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION A PARTISAN MINEFIELD
Excellent points all-around, especially with the problem of how it will be received by the public at large.
I have no faith in a Democratic Congress now or Republican Congress later to handle this appropriately. I will give respect for the Senate Armed Services committee report on torture released last month, which at least served as a good clearinghouse of what happened that is know about thus far without engaging in hyperbole or fantasy.
Perhaps for torture, a commission of semi-public individuals (i.e. retired officers, lawyers, agents with considerable experience with the subject and institutions involved) working with the IG's of all involved departments can investigate.
Their mission would not be to assign criminal responsibility but merely to identify and flesh out a time line of events, identify key areas where the law was broken or subverted, note laws, regulations and procedures that are outdated or outmoded, and issue a report of findings for current and future study of how to avoid some of the mistakes and problems the Bush & late second-term Clinton governments ran into and/or created of its own accord.I find how the Justice Department is handling the problems it had up until 2007 to be quite admirable. While partisans scream, the inspector general keeps on issuing reports packed with detail and testimony while offering solutions to prevent most of them from happening again.
If nothing else, that could at least be attempted by Gates @ DOD and have a reasonable chance of succeeding in offering some lessons for the future. I have little faith in the CIA or intel community at large to get something similar done, in no small part because they seem to still be obsessed with the prospect of being the fall guys in a mass prosecution.We also are not sure yet what kind of information and misinformation will come out of the woodworks after 20 January from disgruntled and/or outraged individuals within the government.
Comment Posted By Eddie On 14.01.2009 @ 16:06
IT'S JUST A LITTLE STAB IN THE BACK
You mention the most important part of all of this for Israel and then explain it away :
"Israel’s policy on the settlements is extraordinarily complex and a political minefield that could blow up and not only oust the current government but make any kind of stable government in Israel impossible. Witness what happened in Hebron last month when Israel tried to enforce provisions in an agreement that divided the city into a Palestinian and Jewish sections."
So settlers (who represent less than 10-15% of the Israeli population) can undermine the Israeli rule of law by committing acts of violence against Israeli police, military forces and Israeli and Palestinian civilians?
Do you consider this an intractable problem for Israel? It cannot be, for Israelis across the political and religious spectrum have begun to lose patience with the antics of the settlers. While the current punishment of the Hamas & Islamic Jihad terrorists obscures the matter for now, in the future, even Bibi (should he be elected as expected) will likely be forced into a confrontation with them, lest they simply flout the rule of law and the interests of the Israeli people at large (and the majority of the myriad of interest and pressure groups within Israel) permanently.
Israel will always have serious foreign enemies of some sort, and will (hopefully) always have our full support to smite them from the face of the Earth when they raise their weapons and threaten her people. Yet to have such virulent threats from within to their very democracy is perhaps something new, lest I am missing something from Israeli history. It is certainly not something to be dismissed so casually or considered intractable.
You make some very valid points. My understanding is that the small religious parties to which a lot of the settlers belong and who are the most fanatical about reclaiming all lands supposedly given Israel in the bible are vital in order to form a govt since no one party can get a majority. My understanding is - and I may be wrong - that all Israeli PM's must bow to this blackmail or no govt is possible. Transgress and they pull out thus bringing down the govt.
That is what I was talking about - the fact that removing the settlements is extremely dicey and if there is politicak chaos, their enemies may take advantage. I don't pretend to know the answer. But Greenwald makes it sound as if the Israelis are doing it because they are land hungry - that is not the case.
ed.
Comment Posted By Eddie On 5.01.2009 @ 16:34
Interesting group of circular arguments. I guess we are all racist. I like the fact we live in a country that lets us make the comments. Good article and good posts - I enjoyed the read.
Comment Posted By Eddie On 4.08.2008 @ 16:51
I'm just wondering whether your real problem is with the system of justice in America. Because it seems that you have a special direct line to the truth about guilt or innocence. But even more importantly, you seem to think that there should be no due process in this country, because whatever Ms. Stewart might be characterized, she was a defender of the rights of individuals whose rights are protected by the very Constitution that you seem not to be very comfortable with and are only too ready to discard.
Perhaps it is you that does not love America. You certainly would not have loved any of the Founders who believed that everyone should have their day in court.
But I guess for you, that's just a technicality that gets in the way of true justice.
Comment Posted By Eddie On 17.10.2006 @ 14:02
AHMADINEJAD AND HIS LIBERAL TALKING POINTS
So that I might understand the logic here:
First, you notice how much like Hitler the letter writer is.
Then, you notice that he make many criticisms of Bush, based on his actions.
Then, you notice that "liberal" seem to be criticizing Bush, based on his actions.
Therefore: Crazed fundamentalist Iranian=Hitler=Liberal.
My mind reals at this type of "well there in the same room so they must be the same" kind of logic.
And yes I did read the letter. It rambles and makes mistatements and goes on and on about how religion should be the touchstone for political action.
If I were to use the logic employed here, I would rather say that this letter is at least a literary attempt to capture the same talking points that President Bush has been using to justify every move and policy decision that has been made so far.
But to have civilized discourse in a free democracy does not mean that I have to characterize my opponent as the actual enemy. If you want to rip this country apart that is more effective than anything that someone from a far away country could do, with or without weapons of mass destruction.
However, between two anachronistic leaders, who want to wear the mantel of spiritual leaders I say, beware the false prophet. Good men do not need to tell you (a) that they believe in god or (b) that they are good men, because good men are known by their deeds.
Comment Posted By Eddie On 10.05.2006 @ 14:37
