rideside.net

Posted by rladew on 2005-09-16 13:36:54 +0000

Have to side w/ Dawn on the "she is blaming everyone else" statement. That should definitely be corrected. _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-09-16 13:39:28 +0000

Just to be a prick, I thought maybe someone should post the ways the federal government can take over from the state government. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Kennedy was the last President to use the 'insurrection act' to use National guard troops to enforce the President's demand that African Americans be allowed to enter public schools. The name of the show I was watching on PBS eludes me for the moment, but it was mentioned that Bush or someone in his camp had even gone so far as to ask Blanco if she thought they (Federal gov't) should have enacted something like the Insurrection act, and was met with a backpedaling "No" type of response. Blaming only local officials is tragic, incorrect, deceptive and cruel. I dont understand why the 2 groups (Federal/Local)couldn't have worked together more closely. Obviously the locals would know the area better, while the Feds might have stronger resources for helicopters/buses/food/medicine, but if the 2 sides play partisan finger pointing games, forget it. The way I see it ALL of the politicians are shifting blame on one another to the detriment of the people who are suffering in New Orleans. _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-09-16 13:51:39 +0000

can someone fill me in on journalistic procedures as far as inaccuricies / corrections are concerned? The term "lying" when presented in a source of information whether it be in the NYT, WSJ or whatever strikes me as some individuals who are covertly conspiring to mislead people. I dont see evidence of this intentional misleading with either paper. Should a correction be made in this specific WSJ example? absoulutely. I guess Im not sold that it is intentional programming for right wingers, though. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-09-16 14:25:50 +0000

That Newsweek article, "How Bush Blew It", indicated that Bush offered to get more National Guard units sent in, but they would be under federal control. Blanco said she needed to think about it, that's when Nagin hit the roof. Blanco must go. Sorry, kids.

Posted by on 2005-09-16 14:42:39 +0000

At the time politicians were quibbling over who would control what, thousands of people had been stranded in New Orleans for days. This after a hurricane of sufficient strength to predictably flood New Orleans had been churning in the Gulf for a week. The response was tragic, but the lack of preparedness is scary. Have we accomplished _nothing_ since Sept. 11, 2001?

Posted by tgl on 2005-09-16 14:44:43 +0000

Blanco and Bush accepted responsibility, neither accepted blame. It's not contradictory to accept responsibility but blame others.

Posted by rladew on 2005-09-16 14:45:28 +0000

good clarification point tgl. _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-09-16 17:53:45 +0000

Are we supposed to believe the WSJ journal didn't read the AP report from New Orleans? Only defense here for WSJ is that it happened at 8:54 pm EST. Blanco will go, when she gets voted out. Done deal. Democracy works. The tragedy federally has always been the appointment process, especially when the Man-child doesn't believe in putting able people into positions. Lastly, if you think Katrina caused pain, wait till Rove heads up the Reconstruction effort. What exactly is his experience with disasters? Joshua Marshall spot on with this one. Money quote: "You don't repair disorganized or incompetent government by granting it more power. You fix it by making it more organized and more competent. If conservatism can't grasp that point, what is it good for?"

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-14 14:20:38 +0000

Actually WSJ is not lying here, just abetting torture. Disgusting. I cannot believe a major news org comes out pro-torture. Would they have done this if Cheney hadn't come out as pro-torture? Keep in tune with Andy Sullivan. As a conservative, he has a lot to say.

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-14 14:53:11 +0000

The WSJ might be a little more credible if they had some evidence to back up their claims. What have we learned from KSM? I have yet to be convinced that "aggressive interrogation" techniques yield actionable evidence. Information extracted from these techniques are inadmissable in a US court (not that we respect the rule of law w/r/t foreign nationals anymore...). It's inadmissable for a reason, namely, that the information is generally worthless. One question for the President: "Is waterboarding torture?" Torture and these euphemistically named aggressive interrogation techniques should remain illegal, if an interrogator finds themself in an extraordinary situation where it might be useful (ticking time bomb sort of scenario... even then, I'm not sure that would be the best route to get information) then let them know they are liable. If a court decides after the fact that the situation was indeed extraordinary and the means were justified, then the interrogator should not be punished.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-14 15:03:52 +0000

McCain seems to think that even in the "ticking timebomb" scenario, torture doesn't really work, and he we was tortured! Cheney and the pro-torture set would have some cred, if they had someone like McCain to back them, but they don't to my knowledge.

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-14 15:13:42 +0000

Basically, Cheney is the only person in government that wants this, plus his minions within the Defense Dept. The CIA, FBI and the rank and file of the military are opposed to this. Saw McCain on NewsHour last Friday, he's not going to go for any exception clause, that's pretty clear. We might see Bush's first veto on this one. Hopefully followed by an override. More evidence of the slow turn to the loony left of The Economist.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-14 15:46:08 +0000

"To add a note of farce to the tragedy, the administration has had to explain that the CIA is not torturing prisoners at its secret prisons in Asia and Eastern Europe—though of course it cannot confirm that such prisons exist." That pretty much sums up "the war on terror" doesn't it? Keep it secret, so when we do things Americans would not allow, we can say that they have no proof. I'm tempted to read Janis Lapinski's book. Right after I finish the Bill Simmons.

Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-11-15 17:29:12 +0000

This NYT op/ed piece (via talkingpointsmemo) reports that we're using Vietnam War era anti-torture methods to actually develop methods of torture.

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-02 04:40:48 +0000

Waiting for a correction.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-02 06:51:51 +0000

Doubt it.

Posted by tgl on 2006-05-17 03:33:08 +0000

Where do disgraced New York Times journalists go? The WSJ Opinion Pages, where else? At least Miller is now clearly labeled as opinion. Hat tip, gawker.com. Best comment on that post in response to the lamentation of the loosening definition of "neoconservative"; it means "manipulative Jew", right? While using the search! function (Is it functioning?) I found some real gems.

Posted by MF DU on 2006-05-17 03:39:51 +0000

searching yr a href = "Access denied You are not authorized to access this page"

Posted by tgl on 2006-05-17 03:43:00 +0000

Wow, search has access control. You are all now permissed.