My God, you are an idiot.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

No, he doesn't see it.

If Obama could order bin Laden killedi, then BUsh was right to torture prisoners. Don't you understand?

I'm trying. Let me give it a shot:

"Obama's drone attacks in Afghanistan mean there really were WMDs in Iraq."

Am I doing it right?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ironweed

I'm trying. Let me give it a shot:

"Obama's drone attacks in Afghanistan mean there really were WMDs in Iraq."

Am I doing it right?

I thought Hank said there may have been top secret WMDs in Iraq that Bush knew about because he was President, and that he still couldn't tell us about all this time later because they were secret, and Obama's drone attacks show us this, because Bush must have known about the secret reasons not to do them, but no one is telling Obama.

This is more fun than when Shifty and I did that "Hank at judged" thing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ironweed

So if I think both of them are wrong on, say, domestic surveillance and military tribunals, that means that Bush was right? Do you see how this argument is less than compelling?

first you don't have the evidence Bush/Obama have. But as I said, you might well disagree with both. I didn't ask you to agree with Bush, support everything he did, and move him into the upper ranks of President. I merely asked if Obama's similar decisions don't provide some evidence that the President might know some things that impact on whether the "rights" issues should have indicated he not take a particular course.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

No, he doesn't see it.

If Obama could order bin Laden killedi, then BUsh was right to torture prisoners. Don't you understand?

And Gitmo is still open, and did you see the documentary/news story on the Osama murder? There are operations like that going on most evenings not to mention drone attacks.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I merely asked if Obama's similar decisions don't provide some evidence that the President might know some things that impact on whether the "rights" issues should have indicated he not take a particular course.

I will freely admit that I got halfway through that before I got tired of unpacking all of the backpedlaing double-negative qualifiers. But if your position is that there's some secret stuff that only Bush/Obama knows, and it makes human rights violations by the Bush/Obama administrations OK, and who are we to question without knowing all the facts, then that's pretty fucking sad.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ironweed

I will freely admit that I got halfway through that before I got tired of unpacking all of the backpedlaing double-negative qualifiers. But if your position is that there's some secret stuff that only Bush/Obama knows, and it makes human rights violations by the Bush/Obama administrations OK, and who are we to question without knowing all the facts, then that's pretty fucking sad.

wait a minute: so now you're saying Obama is bad too (assuming Bush was bad). Before (and the trolls are too) you seemed to be saying what Obama has done is not bad, you're at least making progress.

And the deeper question is why did your fellows attack me for saying that? I can fight too, but I thought we'd decided to try and stop fighting. Club and I have been ignoring the trolls so that we can keep to that goal. Now non-trolls seem to want to drag the whole thing down.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ironweed

So if I think both of them are wrong on, say, domestic surveillance and military tribunals, that means that Bush was right? Do you see how this argument is less than compelling?

You're ducking his point. He's merely saying Obama's continuation of Bush's programs suggests the existence of evidence unknown to the public strongly favoring their use.

That seems an inescapable conclusion, given Obama alienated a massive portion of his base following these Bush era policies. One doesn't shit where he eats without compelling reason to do so.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

wait a minute: so now you're saying Obama is bad too (assuming Bush was bad). Before (and the trolls are too) you seemed to be saying what Obama has done is not bad, you're at least making progress.

Jesus Christ are you three?

1. There are some things that Obama is doing that I disagree with.
2. Some, but not all (tricky, I know) are things that Bush did too.
3. Some, but not all . . . oh fuck it I give up

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're ducking his point. He's merely saying Obama's continuation of Bush's programs suggests the existence of evidence unknown to the public strongly favoring their use.

That seems an inescapable conclusion, given Obama alienated a massive portion of his base following these Bush era policies. One doesn't shit where he eats without compelling reason to do so.

I'm not ducking anything. To the extent Obama has backed off initial efforts to change Bush administration policies he's doing it because he wants to be a centrist, which is another thing I dislike about him. He didn't change his mind about closing Gitmo because someone brought him a secret dossier about the dangerous supervillians there. He did it because idiot public opinion stoked by idiot politicians (not all Rs, btw) was that TERRORISTS WILL KILL US ALL if they ever set foot in the continental US.

Since everyone seems comfortable speculating about unknown evidence strongly favoring etc., let's hear what you think it could be. I'm really curious.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

first you don't have the evidence Bush/Obama have. But as I said, you might well disagree with both. I didn't ask you to agree with Bush, support everything he did, and move him into the upper ranks of President. I merely asked if Obama's similar decisions don't provide some evidence that the President might know some things that impact on whether the "rights" issues should have indicated he not take a particular course.

I am with you on the existence of non-public information auguring in favor of certain domestic spying and things like Gitmo. Full knowledge of all threats made to our domestic security, and the breadth of clandestine programs abroad aimed at neutralizing terrorist threats, can never be known to us because they are necessarily classified. Your argument there makes sense.

Regarding Iraq, however, all the evidence is an open book. And unlike spying on domestic terror threats, or clandestine operations, in that case, Bush's Administration did its damnedest to exhume and present to the public any shred of evidence supporting a WMD argument. There is none. There was none. Even Bush admits the expected WMD were not present. The only question there is whether our government lied to us to take us to war against a nation of innocent civilians run by an easily contained tin pot dictator. The inescapable conclusion there, based on evidence, is Yes.

You may use the argument, "We don't know stuff Obama does, and so we should have faith he's following Bush's programs for good reason" in regard to Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps, etc. You may not credibly argue "Bush knew stuff about Iraq we didn't," or "Bush was deceived by Tenet's bad intel" in regard to Iraq. The evidence on the latter is in, and you can only reach either of those imbecilic conclusions via willful ignorance or delusion.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ironweed

I'm not ducking anything. To the extent Obama has backed off initial efforts to change Bush administration policies he's doing it because he wants to be a centrist, which is another thing I dislike about him. He didn't change his mind about closing Gitmo because someone brought him a secret dossier about the dangerous supervillians there. He did it because idiot public opinion stoked by idiot politicians (not all Rs, btw) was that TERRORISTS WILL KILL US ALL if they ever set foot in the continental US.

Since everyone seems comfortable speculating about unknown evidence strongly favoring etc., let's hear what you think it could be. I'm really curious.

You seem like the type of guy who spends a lot of time with his kids. You know, a real involved father type.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle...129696598.html

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ironweed

I'm not ducking anything. To the extent Obama has backed off initial efforts to change Bush administration policies he's doing it because he wants to be a centrist, which is another thing I dislike about him. He didn't change his mind about closing Gitmo because someone brought him a secret dossier about the dangerous supervillians there. He did it because idiot public opinion stoked by idiot politicians (not all Rs, btw) was that TERRORISTS WILL KILL US ALL if they ever set foot in the continental US.

Since everyone seems comfortable speculating about unknown evidence strongly favoring etc., let's hear what you think it could be. I'm really curious.

When he campaigned, you know, when he was trying to vet votes, he said he was going to close Gitmo. How come he didn't care about public opinion then? Seems to me that would have been the time.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

You seem like the type of guy who spends a lot of time with his kids. You know, a real involved father type.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle...129696598.html

The only thing worse than a fucko is a fucko who's too lazy to travel farther than the PB.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ironweed

I'm not ducking anything. To the extent Obama has backed off initial efforts to change Bush administration policies he's doing it because he wants to be a centrist, which is another thing I dislike about him. He didn't change his mind about closing Gitmo because someone brought him a secret dossier about the dangerous supervillians there. He did it because idiot public opinion stoked by idiot politicians (not all Rs, btw) was that TERRORISTS WILL KILL US ALL if they ever set foot in the continental US.

Since everyone seems comfortable speculating about unknown evidence strongly favoring etc., let's hear what you think it could be. I'm really curious.

I was going to include a sentence dismissing this argument out of hand. I should have done so.

Obama could have easily discontinued the domestic spying, and slowly closed Gitmo in stages. He didn't do so because he looked at the intelligence, and thought, as most would, "There's a threat. Why risk it?" The political calculation in his decisions was that he'd never see another term if he killed the programs and then we suffered another terrorist attack.

I can't speculate on what evidence is available to Obama and not to us. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I can't speculate on what evidence is available to Obama and not to us. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Maybe you could figure it out if you spent a little less nurture time with the little ones.