Clay Davis Memorial POLITICS THREAD

by **dajafi** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 18:10:21

My understanding is that all the Yemenis who were going to be sent back there were cleared by the Bush administration--buncha pussies!--who concluded that they hadn't done anything wrong and shouldn't have been detained in the first place.

Of course, this might not be true after enduring however many years of imprisonment and in some cases worse. Most people would be moderately upset after that sort of experience.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 18:11:31

I'm guessing from here on out, if a detainee expresses a desire to go to Yemen, he won't be going anywhere.

by **pacino** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 19:05:41

Rococo4 wrote:
The Nightman Cometh wrote:So Guantanamo isn't going to be closed any time soon now?

i dont know why we just dont keep sending these guys back to yemen...

perhaps because they didn't actually do anything before this and thus you send them home? perhaps horrible places like guantanamo are exacerbating the problem and veering people towards terrorism. just perhaps

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 23:10:15

So Scott Brown raised a million dollars today

by **drsmooth** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 23:12:46

Gomes wrote:http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/keeping-americas-edge

Interesting and well-written article with the following premise:

Our strategic situation is shaped by three inescapable realities. First is the inherent conflict between the creative destruction involved in free-market capitalism and the innate human propensity to avoid risk and change. Second is ever-increasing international competition. And third is the growing disparity in behavioral norms and social conditions between the upper and lower income strata of American society.

Somehow Krugman's gotten around to getting his dander up over Manzi's piece. As others have, he takes issue with Manzi's inclusion of Soviet bloc countries among European nations. Krugman maintains that doing so is something of a stretch, and it drags down 'real' European economic results over the period Manzi applies - though not, apparently, as much as Manzi's piece contends.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 01:45:20

He ended up raising over $1.3 million

That's pretty absurd

by **traderdave** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:28:05

So it appears that control of the City of Camden, NJ is going to go back to Boss Geor, I mean, back to Camden's elected officials. One last "Fuck You" from Corzine before he rides off into the sunset.

by **Rococo4** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 23:12:02

starting to get a lot of false hope that brown might actually pull this out.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 23:15:53

Rococo4 wrote:starting to get a lot of false hope that brown might actually pull this out.

It's all happening too soon. Winning this election required peaking on next Sunday or Monday. They have a whole week to scare the crap out of their people that they might lose.

(Telling myself that so I don't get too much hope. At this point having some hope I think is somewhat justified. 22.98% chance of victory)

HOPE

by **drsmooth** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 23:17:00

Rococo4 wrote:starting to get a lot of false hope that brown might actually pull this out.

in Brown's case, this hope you have may mean you're gay

NTTATWWT

EDIT: ya gotta like the suggested campaign slogan: "Vote for Brown. He Has One Hell of a Stimulus Package"

by **pacino** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 00:36:54

pretty funny article

Finally, we get to the heart of the matter. "The perception of you is that you're not that smart … that's why I want to clear this up," O'Reilly says. But Sarah, O'Reilly coaxes her, you understood the difference between North and South Korea, didn't you? You knew who your son was going to fight when he shipped off to Iraq, right?

Yes, Palin knew, ha ha. Of course she did. But "the rest of America doesn't care about that kind of crap," she adds. And it's true, much of America doesn't care what she did and didn't know, or what O'Reilly does or doesn't know. They're on TV, aren't they? Isn't that enough? Aren't their cheeks pink and rosy?

"The American people are immediately neutralizing outlets like '60 Minutes'," offers Palin, which presumably means that most people have no interest in thoughtful, in-depth reporting these days. Can't argue with that. "More and more Americans are looking at some of these networks, that biased journalism, and they're saying, 'Nah, that gig is up. We're not believin' that stuff anymore.' And that's why they're tuning in to Fox News!"

by **azrider** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 01:59:57

traderdave wrote:So it appears that control of the City of Camden, NJ is going to go back to Boss Geor, I mean, back to Camden's elected officials. One last "$#@! You" from Corzine before he rides off into the sunset.

someone actually wants to be boss of camden?

by **traderdave** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 03:17:56

pacino wrote:pretty funny article
Finally, we get to the heart of the matter. "The perception of you is that you're not that smart … that's why I want to clear this up," O'Reilly says. But Sarah, O'Reilly coaxes her, you understood the difference between North and South Korea, didn't you? You knew who your son was going to fight when he shipped off to Iraq, right?

Yes, Palin knew, ha ha. Of course she did. But "the rest of America doesn't care about that kind of crap," she adds. And it's true, much of America doesn't care what she did and didn't know, or what O'Reilly does or doesn't know. They're on TV, aren't they? Isn't that enough? Aren't their cheeks pink and rosy?

"The American people are immediately neutralizing outlets like '60 Minutes'," offers Palin, which presumably means that most people have no interest in thoughtful, in-depth reporting these days. Can't argue with that. "More and more Americans are looking at some of these networks, that biased journalism, and they're saying, 'Nah, that gig is up. We're not believin' that stuff anymore.' And that's why they're tuning in to Fox News!"

Did anybody check out the two video clips attached to the article? Listening to Palin for 15 mis reminds me of this:

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

by **Mountainphan** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 12:23:41

pacino wrote:
Rococo4 wrote:
The Nightman Cometh wrote:So Guantanamo isn't going to be closed any time soon now?

i dont know why we just dont keep sending these guys back to yemen...

perhaps because they didn't actually do anything before this and thus you send them home? perhaps horrible places like guantanamo are exacerbating the problem and veering people towards terrorism. just perhaps

And perhaps you're just plain wrong.

by **dajafi** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 12:58:54

Again, these are people, the Yemenis, whom the Bush administration concluded shouldn't have been detained in the first place. But they were held without trial, for years, in conditions that ranged from "bad American jail" to "torture chamber."

The only reasons to keep them now--and I reiterate I'm talking only about the ones whom the Bushies concluded hadn't done anything wrong and should never have been detained--are from concern that their experiences in American custody will have turned them into the radicals/terrorists we concluded they weren't before, or to stop them from talking about what they suffered. Neither is to our credit.

Like it or not, the perception in the Muslim world is that we're capricious if not outright sadistic in how we deploy our power, and that we don't value the basic human rights of Muslims that we otherwise declare support for--in other words, that we're vicious hypocrites. Changing that perception, and helping to improve the quality of life in that part of the world, is the only way I perceive to drain the swamp in which terrorism germinates.

As there are no easy (or cheap) answers to these problems, my instinct is always that we should follow our best values. That means admitting our mistakes and making restitution where possible.

by **Mountainphan** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 14:07:41

dajafi wrote:Again, these are people, the Yemenis, whom the Bush administration concluded shouldn't have been detained in the first place. But they were held without trial, for years, in conditions that ranged from "bad American jail" to "torture chamber."

The only reasons to keep them now--and I reiterate I'm talking only about the ones whom the Bushies concluded hadn't done anything wrong and should never have been detained--are from concern that their experiences in American custody will have turned them into the radicals/terrorists we concluded they weren't before, or to stop them from talking about what they suffered. Neither is to our credit.

Like it or not, the perception in the Muslim world is that we're capricious if not outright sadistic in how we deploy our power, and that we don't value the basic human rights of Muslims that we otherwise declare support for--in other words, that we're vicious hypocrites. Changing that perception, and helping to improve the quality of life in that part of the world, is the only way I perceive to drain the swamp in which terrorism germinates.

As there are no easy (or cheap) answers to these problems, my instinct is always that we should follow our best values. That means admitting our mistakes and making restitution where possible.

With all due respect, d, I believe your premise(s) to be flawed.

First, just because the "Bushies" did this or that, doesn't make it the correct decision. I think they were wrong to send so many of these scumbags back to Yemen, just as I fault the Obama administration for the same thing. Two wrongs don't make a right, as the saying goes.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/11/detainees.terror.return/index.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100101/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_al_qaida;_ylt=An6hw9PT8MhgcDVB05jckgR0fNdF

Many in the Muslim world have long held great animosity toward the US and the West and this narrative that Gitmo is a major reason for this is deeply flawed as well, imo. Gitmo isn't Disneyland, but the notion that it is some sort of horrible gulag strikes me as exaggeration at best.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/23/pentagon.gitmo/index.html?eref=rss_world&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_world+%28RSS%3A+World%29

I'm not arguing that the US is innocent of all claims against it in the Middle East, but I'd like to know what country has done more to boost the people of this region out of oppressive regime after oppressive regime.

I agree that there are no easy answers whatsoever, but simply "admitting our mistakes" and going around asking for some sort of forgiveness is stupid policy as evidenced by the failure of Obama's Cairo speech.

by **dajafi** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 14:37:53

The Red Cross, which documented torture at Guantanamo, probably would go with "horrible gulag." I'm not sure about the extent of the torture--I haven't read this whole report--but remember the point is the perception at least as much as the reality. Accounts of kidnapped western journalists and others make it pretty clear that our use of torture was and is on the minds of the militants. It gives them a very powerful propaganda tool. (I know we aren't rearguing the torture question--this is just about how it's perceived and "why they hate us," which was pacino's original point.)

And to call the Cairo speech a failure is I think premature at best (probably also true for those who call it a success)--though at the least it seems to have moved the needle in a positive direction as far as perceptions of the U.S. in that part of the world. As something of an aside, the thing I give the administration the most credit for is its hands-off approach in Iran with respect to the pro-democracy movement: blustery rhetoric, let alone indiscriminate sanctions of the type Lieberman et al are calling for, would be a great gift to the mullahcracy because then they could blame the Great Satan as usual.

I'm not arguing that the US is innocent of all claims against it in the Middle East, but I'd like to know what country has done more to boost the people of this region out of oppressive regime after oppressive regime.

We've done vastly more to prop up "oppressive regimes" in the region than to "boost the people" out of them. Our original sin as far as Iran is concerned was the CIA coup to topple Mossadegh, who was basically a democratically elected socialist, in the '50s, then supporting the vicious dictatorship of the Shah for 25 years thereafter. Our backing of the Saudi royal family and the dictatorship in Egypt is well known. We took out Saddam, of course--after tacitly or actively supporting him for 20 years before the first Gulf War. As the joke went, we knew he had chemical weapons because we kept the receipts.

One counter to this ugly list is that we did these things in rational self-interest because of Cold War or oil considerations--an argument for which I have some sympathy. (A nation's first obligation is to itself, after all.) Another is that popular will in the Arab world would more likely lead to Islamist regimes than governments we would find amenable. This seems plausible to me: much as I detest that regime, I think Iran had popular support at least until some time in the last few years, when Ahmadinejad's imbecility plus a declining economy plus the repression of the protesters turned things around. But here again Bush often said that it was ethnocentric (my word, not his) to assume that Arabs couldn't appreciate democracy and freedom.

Whatever the case, the fact remains that one price of these decisions was the deep and justified hostility of "the Arab Street." Grabbing poor schmucks who turned up in the wrong place at the wrong time, taking them halfway around the world, detaining them without anything resembling due process and torturing at least a few of them seems like a pretty good way to ensure they keep hating us, a sentiment that entails other risks and costs.

by **traderdave** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 16:14:50

Bret Schundler is Christie's appointee for NJ Education Commissioner.

http://www.politickernj.com/editor/3606 ... mmissioner

by **dajafi** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 17:12:59

Gawker rips the hell out of the richly deserving Harold Ford, hereand here. NSFW.

It's depressing and irritating that in New York--New York!!--our Democratic senatorial choices seem to be limited to Gillibrand, an unprincipled hack whose one political talent seems to be the ability to raise money from a-holes; and Ford, compared to whom Gillibrand looks like a cross between Paul Wellstone and the goddess Athena. It's kind of like if William Weld and Susan Collins ran against each other for Senate in Alabama.

by **allentown** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 18:17:52

Mountainphan wrote:
dajafi wrote:Again, these are people, the Yemenis, whom the Bush administration concluded shouldn't have been detained in the first place. But they were held without trial, for years, in conditions that ranged from "bad American jail" to "torture chamber."

The only reasons to keep them now--and I reiterate I'm talking only about the ones whom the Bushies concluded hadn't done anything wrong and should never have been detained--are from concern that their experiences in American custody will have turned them into the radicals/terrorists we concluded they weren't before, or to stop them from talking about what they suffered. Neither is to our credit.

Like it or not, the perception in the Muslim world is that we're capricious if not outright sadistic in how we deploy our power, and that we don't value the basic human rights of Muslims that we otherwise declare support for--in other words, that we're vicious hypocrites. Changing that perception, and helping to improve the quality of life in that part of the world, is the only way I perceive to drain the swamp in which terrorism germinates.

As there are no easy (or cheap) answers to these problems, my instinct is always that we should follow our best values. That means admitting our mistakes and making restitution where possible.

With all due respect, d, I believe your premise(s) to be flawed.

First, just because the "Bushies" did this or that, doesn't make it the correct decision. I think they were wrong to send so many of these scumbags back to Yemen, just as I fault the Obama administration for the same thing. Two wrongs don't make a right, as the saying goes.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/11/detainees.terror.return/index.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100101/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_al_qaida;_ylt=An6hw9PT8MhgcDVB05jckgR0fNdF

Many in the Muslim world have long held great animosity toward the US and the West and this narrative that Gitmo is a major reason for this is deeply flawed as well, imo. Gitmo isn't Disneyland, but the notion that it is some sort of horrible gulag strikes me as exaggeration at best.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/23/pentagon.gitmo/index.html?eref=rss_world&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_world+%28RSS%3A+World%29

I'm not arguing that the US is innocent of all claims against it in the Middle East, but I'd like to know what country has done more to boost the people of this region out of oppressive regime after oppressive regime.

I agree that there are no easy answers whatsoever, but simply "admitting our mistakes" and going around asking for some sort of forgiveness is stupid policy as evidenced by the failure of Obama's Cairo speech.

You call these guys scumbags, although the Bush administration admitted they shouldn't have been at Guantanamo and were guilty of nothing?

Archived

Clay Davis Memorial POLITICS THREAD