I think it has something to do with dishonest politicians....which has something to do with Bush.

This is probably the only book of it's genre that I think I could actually read easily. Greenspan has been around for so long. He's a smart man but an honest one too. Nice piece of history I suppose.

Read Paul O'Neill's story - George Jr's Secretary of the Treasury. "The Price of Loyalty" was published in 2004. It demonstrates how incompetent the George Jr administration was so early on. Worse, it demonstrates how incompetent a president can be and so many citizens will just deny. Appreciate from that book - as also demonstrated by the Pentagon Papers - how so many will see facts and yet all but deny those facts.

Paul O’Neill was from the same circle of Republicans as Greenspan. The difference – it was not safe for Paul O’Neill to be so honest so early.

Welcome to the Cellar Spark. :D

How did these lists of participants get to Cochabamba?

When a president is corrupt, crime increases everywhere. Top management defined the 'attitude and knowledge'. Did we not learn from Nixon?

Military doctrine says the US needed 600,000 troops in "Mission Accomplished". Since the president is an MBA - a proverbial cost controller - America is so incompetent as to even use cost controls on military deployments. 40% of the US military equipment should be in Iraq. However nobody knows for sure due to cost controls. From the Washington Post of 20 September 2007 is but one example: 'Highest priority' is the high Cheney and George Jr get from spending money and wasting American soldier lives. As Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter". Even drug dealers don't spend money so corruptly. Too few people meant we did not even know weapons are missing until the Turks complain? What happen to those 747 plane loads of $100 bills? Any good deals yet on a nuclear bomb?

No. Not very funny because some even in the Cellar still love scumbags in the George Jr administration who have so much contempt for the American soldier. Add to the list Democrats with no balls.

The patriot is even a bank robber because our leaders are that corrupt.

For contempt for the American soldier, it is among the worst kept of secrets that tw is unmatched.

His point was that it doesn't matter the intent of the 'american soldier,' they're no longer fighting for the security of their country, they're fighting for whatever special interests are popular at that time.

"You don't support the troops," "you hate american soldiers," "they need our support, not our dissent," blah fucking blah. I am sick and tired, exhausted even, at how many people talk so much much god damned bullshit about 'the american soldier.' They're people doing a job, and there's nothing more noble or ignoble than anyone else living their life.

They don't deserve excess scorn, or excess praise. Most of the people that I know that enlisted, did so for the GI bill, some steady cashflow, the benefits for their kids, and occasionally 'service to their country.' They're not all Toby Keith's painting of some soft spoken super hero. In fact, a bunch of them can be real shitbags. But then again, it's about the same percentage as every other group of people on this green earth.

If you live in this country, guess what? You pay their salaries, so you 'support' them. They get a pretty damn good wage and benefits (despite what they say), and while there are some that do it 'for god and country,' most are doing it as their job. I'm not saying there's something wrong with that at all, I'm saying you need to stop treating them like they're fucking Jesus come back to earth.

I'm tired of rhetoric, I'm tired of the same Foxnews-Pentagon-Channel-Dick-Cheney bullshit lines OVER AND OVER AND OVER. So just shut the flying hell up. I'm going to go puke now.

Well said Queeq!

When you commit two years of your life of public service to our nation, two years which are your country's and not your own, I will support and thank you too.

Please let us know your plans.

That is your opinion, and we all certainly hope you are right about that, but if you are or even if you're not, the military doesn't have a choice in the matter.

The troops go regardless of the rhetoric, and should be held in high regard regardless of the rhetoric.

How about the four years that I'm currently serving? Is that enough? I do hold them in high regard, but no more than any other civil servant, teacher, plumber or any other job. I don't 'have contempt for the troops,' I am a troop, it just drives me up the wall (and to swearing at people, I guess) when people use me, most of my friends, my fiance, and my entire nuclear family as bargaining chips, or worse as some reason to squash public dissent.

Military members are no better or worse at their core than anyone you see on a daily basis, and shouldn't be treated or used as such.

Thank you for your service.

Yea, you make some really good points... and on the same note don't forget that the door of perception swings both ways... Those damm good wages and benefits are for a good reason. Most people who are not in the military could never hack the lifestyle. Most marriages would never survive. I would venture to say that many wifes and husbands would divorce their partners after the first long azzed deployment of undetermined length. Most of us did as a job. But most don't do it just for the benies. None of us want to be treated like "Jesus come back to earth", far from it.

And I'm tired of rhetoric, I'm tired of the same MoveOn.org conspiracy theorist news-antiwar.com-Channel-GeorgefuckingSoros-NancythecuntPelosi-KenedyClintionclitlicker-bullshit lines OVER AND OVER AND OVER. So say what ever you want, but we are sick of it too. I'm going to go puke now as well.

Absolutely, I don't mean to imply that the anti-war side uses it any more than the pro-war, it makes me sick either way.

And I don't think military service is so hard most can't take it, I think everyone that joins expects and is therefore ready for on-call-at-all-times and deployments. But then again, I'm in the air force: inventors of the air-conditioned tent city. ;)

Got ya. I was 20 years Army and loved it. I tell my kids not to go into the Army unless they are going SF (son). My youngest dau may go in the AF after college. All good stuff. One thing is for sure, they will have health insurance while on AD and that is more than most can say about the current job market.

Don't you see that's my point? Why are you thanking me for my service? If someone chooses to be a biochemist, do we usually thank them for doing that? What about if someone chooses to work for a telecommunications company? Should they be thanked? A University prof?

For some reason we've decided that a few fields of work are somehow more noble than others, or deserve our respect more. Medicine, peacekeeping, and war fighting are some that I think of immediately, and frankly I'm still undecided as to how much the military really contributes to society, be it global or local communities.

I tell you this, while there are military members who've fallen into that talk, myself and most I know don't consider ourselves any different than any civilians, I'm not being modest, I'm being honest.

Also, mercenary, what'd you do in the army?

Then again, you're not putting your life on the line. An air conditioned office in Georgia is a far cry from a combat zone.

You said you were doing four years of public service for our country. I don't give a shit what your intentions are, whether it's to make a dime or college money or whatever. The soldier/marines are putting their life on the line without having the ability to decide where and when. I would also thank firefighters and cops and anyone else of that ilk. These are the folks who do the heavy lifting in society that I personally don't care to do. When the shit hits the fan they are the ones knee-deep in shit.
It's wonderful to be in that position where the benefit is not totally obvious!

Meanwhile in most of the real world it's the Serengeti Plain, eat or be eaten. The disorder is all around you. And in certain places, it's nuclear. You don't like the current conflict... because you don't like its politics. Yeah well I didn't vote for the guy either but this was one way to go about cleaning up the middle east and Bill Clinton might well have taken the same approach, although he would have made sure France was paid off properly before going to the UN.

WW2 was only 4 generations ago and today there's much, much greater capacity and much more at stake. Deadly force will continue to be needed and it will continue to be deadly. I can't wait for a D to be President so people like you (omg that's a terrible phrase to use) will sober up and recognize that. (what a terrible thing to say)

So my word doesn't matter because I didn't draw the bad lottery ticket? It wasn't my choice to be here anymore than others IN country choose to be there. In fact the military has a funny way of doing the exact OPPOSITE of what you ask from it. Ask any other members past or present ;)

So... what does the local carjacking have with the military? And what armed conflict are we involved in with Syria or ROK? And it should be pointed out that this was NOT a way to clean up the middle east, it might have been if it were done properly, but all its done is messed things up WAY worse.

You said it yourself, Bill Clinton might have done the same thing. I have no doubt that any Democratic president elected will still use force. And I love how everyone says that democrats are 'anti-military,' but guess what? Over the past 20 or so years, the highest increase in pay per soldier was under a democratic president. He did a much better job with the military than the president before him, or the president after him. Also, if you remember, the guy that was president during WWII... democrat.

My point was that I'm not SURE about the usefulness of the military. Mostly because I'm what you call a global thinker. In the end, what's best for the entirety of humanity is far more important than what's best for the US... this is because I'm not arrogant or prickish enough to think that those things are one in the same. There are a LOT more people on the planet than are in the US. And in my opinion, what we are doing is NOT in the global interest, it was done ONLY with personal interest. And THAT is something that most democratic presidents wouldn't have done.

P.S. Don't assume that I'm a democrat or that I agree with them all. I'm a liberal for sure, but I'm not part of some amorphous lump of 'those kind of people' anymore than you are. In fact, I'm NOT in favor of a withdrawal from Iraq. I just don't want to be directly involved in the killing anymore.

No no, not at all, but birds of a feather. My point is, being stateside in the Air Force, is different from the Marines or Army in Iraq, is different from the National Guard, or Navy, in either place.

The people that sign up for the Marines or Army, knowing they are going to be grunts, especially during a war, are probably not motivated by the tuition money as much as the people that join the Air force or Navy with a needed skill. The grunts are taking a bigger risk, putting more on the line, also.
Scoffing at their sacrifice doesn't diminish it.

The Guards that signed up in peace time, one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer, for extra income and the benefits, took a crap shoot and lost. Because they knew the risk, doesn't diminish the sacrifices they are making over there. The fact they shouldn't be there in the first place, doesn't either.

I agree with Q (how's that for a tag) that mixing up carjacking and military is a bad, bad idea.

The reason that the Posse Comitatus Act was passed was that our country's two experiences with military peacekeeping, the pre- and post- Revolutionary War period and the Reconstruction following the Civil War, were so significant that it was felt that a law had to be passed to further define limits implied in the Constitution.

The military are not 'cops with different color uniforms'. Their rules of engagement are significantly different from those of police. A cop who shoots an unarmed 12-year-old in broad daylight, for example, is in more trouble than a soldier who does the same in a war zone. This isn't to say that similar situations don't occur. The police in London responsible for the Stockwell shooting will not individually face charge for effectively shooting the wrong guy because he was wearing a bulky coat, wasn't white, and lived near suspected terrorists.

One of the most effective tool terrorists have is getting cops and soldiers to start killing civilians. It's even more effective when they are perceived as getting away with it.

In effect, if enough people are responsible for the death of a civilian, than none of them are guilty.

The point is, there are savages everywhere, from which we need protection and direction.

I have a huge problem with this idea. We need to protect ourselves from savages here, not be protected from savages everywhere. You do get that all savages everywhere creates a state of permanent warfare, do you not?

Don't kid yourself. The world is in a permanent state of warfare. You never notice it because, like crime, 99% of it never leads anywhere because somebody sane says, if we do this we will be punished or killed.

Musharraf says, the first thing he thought when considering his options post 9/11 was, shall I go to war with the US? And his second thought was, no, we will be pulverized.

Turn off Fox News. Most of it never leads anywhere, because most people care only about what is personally happening to them and their families. There are very few real bad actors who take it beyond the personal. That tiny group can be policed.

Pay more attention to Fox News and other sources you don't agree with as well. If it weren't for US influence, most of the world's oil chokepoints would be controlled by those bad actors and/or the nations interested in throwing their weight around. There wouldn't be US influence, actually because we'd be in Carter-era economic sluggishness/crisis.

Look at history man. The time of world wars was before US throwing its weight around arrived on the scene. I know you don't like the World Police approach but you are reaping tremendous benefit... as does the entire world.

I hear you man, but the particular media source isn't the big problem. There isn't much of a market for the sky isn't falling news. Prowar/antiwar both want to terrorize. Both will say the sky isn't falling only in reaction to the others over-reaction. When the news is skewed you need to look inside yourself and think, I'm a human what drives me? Very few of us look inside and see a real bastard. Folks that give great power to others out of fear risk handing their power to one of the few bastards, because those few bastards are by definition grasping.
I'm reaping the benefits of the accumulated knowlege of mankind. To attribute that to American hegemony seems a distortion of reality.

I didn't really understand your post, but I thank you for writing it.

Maybe I'll sober up and clean that one up...

I don't see that. I see wars continuing everywhere. Wars were becoming more international - sucking in more countries in every war - as weaponry increased ranges for each battlefield. It was not America that caused a mindset change. The world is not safer only because of America (as Fox News propaganda tell extremists). Where 'world policemen' justify their actions, then problems may actually become worse. It took wars so vast with weapons so massive to finally cause little people to rise up - to demand that the reason for war (the leaders) answer instead to the people. But again, an obvious fact identifies where such problems are created.

Neither WWII nor America stopped threats of war by 'big dic' mentalities. Probably the event that most brought worldwide sanity was the Cuban Missile Crisis. The power and need of institutions such as the UN, people who talk to their enemies (a direct comment on the stupidity of George Jr), the need for eliminating military conflict by solving problems at the negotiating table rather than with 'big dic' solutions, and the power of 'containment' - all became obvious and necessary. Many Americans were no different than other 'evil ones' with a 'big dic' mentality. 'Big dics' on all sides saw solutions only in terms of military conflict. The lessons from Kennedy and Khrushchev conclusively proved the fallacy of 'big dic' reaction.

What is an impediment to worldwide conflict? Learn the lessons of history AND appreciate concepts in this previous citation:
from "New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?"

Yes warfare is still ongoing. But no longer unrestricted. No longer sucking in every major power. It took something so fearful as a Cuban Missile Crisis to finally make obvious the stupidity of that 'big dic' reasoning. It was not America that brought sanity. My god. Some Americans are still so 'evil' (if evil exists) as to even want a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane. America, like other nations, can easily be enthralled in the emotion of power. As a result, America is responsible for unnecessary death of millions of innocent people just in Nam and Iraq alone. Is that a 'good' people, or a misguided people? To answer that, who was the leader then?

Don't for one minute fall for myths promoted by wacko and religious extremists - that Americans are the good guys. One benchmark for identifying the myopic and potentially 'evil' ones? They view in terms of "good verses evil" rather than a world full of perspectives. They cannot take the mindset of an honest broker. They see solutions only in military terms - the 'big dic' solution. They feel; therefore they assume they must know. Too many will not "look inside and see a real bastard." Too many still never learned lessons even taught by Kennedy and Khrushchev that one October when American and Soviet 'big dics' tried to destroy the world.

Flushed with oil money, the Russians are getting an erection.

Well, aren't we planning on more missles in various spots in Eastern Europe? Its the same old, same old, and, as I understand it, the US is the country that started the latest face-off, not Russia. The more things change, the more they stay the same. :eyebrow:

Was that before or after the Head of the KBG became thier leader?

That was when America kept doing things that made Russian security threatened. America was building bases that surrounded Russia. NATO forces were being deployed closer to Russia. America would unilaterally 'Pearl Harbor' nations (ie Iraq) and threatened to attack others. The United States would unilaterally cancel international treaties intended to create mutual trust between Russia and America. All this started with George Jr whose staff had even written a memo saying that the United States should be ready to unilaterally attack Russia, Germany, or India. Why? The objective was to keep the United Stated number one at all costs.

Is this a nation that Russia could trust? Of course not. Putin had been repeatedly warning that actions of the United States threaten to restart the Cold War. How many Americans - especially the 'big dic' types who blindly support George Jr - ever heard these warnings even from many in the United States?

Under George Jr, the United States has repeatedly acted in ways that only worry Russia. My god. This American government is so wacko extremist as to even justify torture, extraordinary rendition, imprisonment without judicial review, nuclear weapons even for conventional warfare, unlimited wiretapping, nuclear proliferation, a fear of enemies who were even once friends, a population that even believes wacko extremist lies (propaganda) from their government, and even ‘Pearl Harbors’ nations using outright lies. Leaders who would even go to war over a silly spy plane. A nation that had no problem even destroying the Oslo Accords. Russians looking at history would recognize what preceded 1938.

What does Russia do when threatened externally? It consolidates domestic power. What is Putin doing? Consolidating power after having repeatedly and publically warned about American actions restarting the Cold War.

The damage done by George Jr to America's international reputation will be our legacy for at least the next 10 years. Even worse are the so many Americans who so hate America as to deny the damage.

Not negotiating with al-Qaeda does not define stupidity and cannot define stupidity -- as long as al-Qaeda doesn't want to negotiate. You're being unfair to Republicans because they're Republicans, tw. Please take your delusional bigotry elsewhere before I put it someplace that will make you walk very oddly on departing.

You have yet again disgraced yourself, btw.

I see, along with your inability to spell versus -- you're really not very good at foreign terminology, you know -- that you're still trying, in the old Soviet manner, to tell us there is no basis for seeing that we have, and are a living example of, a solution to the world's ills. This tired old Sixties-leftism claptrap will not suffice, tw, except for those as thickheaded as yourself. That is almost no one on this board, come to think of it.

That is exactly the thing they did not do -- and I think a more careful reading of the Cuban Missile Crisis will show that. Both sides knew what might have happened; neither side wanted to make that happen. But then, are we to be surprised when tw deals in half truths?

Tw also needs perpetual reminding that for the "unnecessary deaths" he decries so vehemently, you cannot beat the Communists. But oh, no -- criticizing the Communists doesn't accord with tw's extremist agenda, and you'll never hear him do it. I've been listening for this for a couple of years now, and the lack of fire against the Communists tells me what tw is.

It is clear that tw believes this implicitly and literally. So also, in my experience, did the Soviet propaganda mongers, who promulgated this very idea, inside the USSR and out -- in case anyone might be listening.

I'm sure of two things: either this will remain unsourced, or a complete reading of the matter will show quite a different slant. Expect tw to deal in half truths only. He probably got all excited about a war plan, devised well ahead of events as a plan for what to do about prosecuting a war. They keep them on file, you know.

The people who insist that we are damaged strike me as myopic and as fatuous. Fatuity is not good for foreign policy.

What did Reagan say? Not negotiating with your enemies is stupidity. Was Reagan was a Democrat? Who is being delusional here? The one who sees enemies hiding everywhere. The one who sees solutions only in 'big dic' terms. Only military solutions work. We should not talk to anyone. Just shoot 'em all. God will know his own.

Sorry, Urbane, but when the US is banging the war drums concerning Iran, which in my opinion the Gov't have a better basis for attacking than the US Gov't ever did for attacking Iraq; and the other countries are holding their collective heads to their ears this time; the US reputation is really damaged.

Yep. Unsourced...

(cue the 60 Minutes stopwatch: tick tick tick...)

I see the problem as people paying too much attention to all news outlets, not just to the media wing of the GOP. They all have their bias, but their main objective is the public's attention. They don't get attention by dispassionately presenting what happened. The last I watched cable news, CNN was working as hard scaring liberals as Fox was scaring conservatives.

Both outlets scare their people into believing that more power needs to flow to their politicians. The vast majority of people are basically good. Those few who are evil will try to gain power over others, politics looks like the path to power when centralizers are successful. If we give too much power to politicians we are asking for oppression.

We are a nation throwing its weight around. Our attempts to stabilize the region over the years have contributed to our problems on the Arab/Persian street. We were never great supporters of ME democracy before, supporting "undemocracy":rolleyes: if we thought tyranny suited our needs. We have this vision of ourselves left-over from WWII as international defenders of freedom, unfortunately that reality didn't survive the Cold War. In the work of halting global communism we lost the man on the street, when his democratic aspirations conflicted with our needs.

I'd say we risk another era of sluggishness if we don't free ourselves of oil dependence. The money we've thrown at stabilizing tyrants was a subsidy for the established oil industry. Some would say subsidizing nuke, wind, and solar at the same levels would make them competitive. It is an argument worth having, especially if global warming is man's doing.

I stand by my previous thought that we are benefiting more from man's accumulation of knowlege than from US hegemony. Free societies are better at preserving and distributing knowlege. We are a country at a crossroads, will we choose to be free or will we choose fear? I do not believe we can continue to sow fear to justify foreign and domestic interventions and remain as free as we are. The voters will demand that people have less control over their daily lives.

Oh it's people now and not me. Yeeeah, I thought you were just doing the usual Cellar attack style, in which we take whatever we know about somebody and attack them on that basis. If we know they have an orange cap and wear it backwards, we attack on that basis. If we know they are fat, we attack on that basis. Now since it's been noted that, in the past, I watched a lot of TV news, I assumed you were assailing me for doing that. I was going to retaliate by saying you don't get smarter about the world by turning off all your sources and living in isolation in the middle of nowhere. So thankfully it's people now, and you weren't attacking me, you were just making an unrelated point about news, right?

If you have other outlets, you can learn to determine what is fright and what is actual news. But do tell us what your wonderfully golden sources are, and we promise not to mock you.

Do tell us your wonderfully golden sources.

When I went to college in the early 80s, I had a friend named Roberto. Roberto was lucky and got to go to school in the US for nearly free due to international programs. Roberto was from Uruguay.

Roberto hated America. He would bring anti-American propaganda from Uruguay. The Uruguayans were mad, or at least some of them were, because they didn't like American pressure on their country.

But there wasn't really American pressure on their country. Come on, it was Uruguay! The socialists just enjoyed saying that there was, so they could blame America for all their ills. The people liked to think that their little country was so important that it required the intimate meddling of the great powers.

Being the biggest guy in the room makes us a target for doing nothing.
We need your sources on this so that we can properly mock them (and not you)

So now the worm turns: you're in favor of massive government research programs in the name of freedom... broadly preventing free people (well, Exxon/Mobil, we can easily color them the bad guys) from trading with nations we don't agree with... and you're saying that if we prevent trade and come up with a sensible alternative to oil that is cheaper *snort*...

...it would surely make the US more powerful...

...which according to you, would make everyone that we don't trade with, not hate us, and therefore make us less of a target...

...although at that point, having developed and exported these energy alternatives, we will have undercut their only means of making serious money at all.

I'm sorry, weren't you the one who was carefully cautioning about sources that use fright to make their message important?

My reply is fair because you claim special insight due to intense scrutiny of media. Your criticism is fair because I intentionally ignore same.


My "other outlets" are regular people like your Roberto. Did you find him misguided or instead evil? Unless Rob was advocating or committing violent acts, I'd say he was merely misguided.


Yes, we will take heat for being successful, but I'd rather take my chances with that than to take heat for being truly wrong.


Note the weasle word "Some." I don't advocate subsidy. I advocate bringing home the troops and letting energy cost what it costs. If you argue for the military subsidy, I'll counter by noteing a lower level of force would be used by the state subsidizing alternatives.


It is fair to say I'm fear mongering. I believe that people with "evil" or misguided intentions try to concentrate power. I believe that power distributed is safer. I am not familiar with any cable news outlet with that bias.

There it is. Urbane Guerrilla is a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode.

Still unsourced, and two current posts from tw. Is tw then a lying bastard? Or should it be then and now...?

Perhaps I am a crocodile that once swallowed an alarm clock, and at another time, a captain's arm, and now wants the rest...:whip: :handball:

Ah, but our president has examined his soul and found it acceptable.

I don't know what is a bigger surprise, that President Bush thinks he is a good judge of mens souls or that he appreciates 'frank dialogue'.

President Carter used to be considered a wimp for talking too much about feelings. Yet I doubt that he would have used this kind of language for Putin. Maybe President Bush is getting a free pass on the wimpiness since he is responsible for two wars (and wore a flight suit).

Anyway, it is an interesting philosophical argument whether a tyrant can also be a patriot.

We always talk about democracy and patriotism, but we always seem to ignore the fact that in many cases the democratic and patriotic goals of other countries are in conflict with our goals. It's like saying to a five-year-old "I know I told you that you can have what you want for dinner, but you don't want pizza, what you really want is broccoli".

rich, you answered your own question here. If you serve broccoli, you're a tyrant. If you serve pizza, you're a patriot.

What about broccoli pizza?

If you serve broccolli pizza I think that makes youa communist...

At the very least, a flip-flopper.

"I actually chose the broccoli before I chose the pizza!"

Now you sound like Hillary!

WTF? :eyebrow:

Yea, I know. We will always be in a position of making decisions which favor US interests on the stage of international politics which will always conflict with other nations interests. I guess it's what makes the world go round. Of course we could just abdicate all our interests to the UN and let there be One World Government. Or we can treat 5 year olds like 5 year olds. I am really not interested in allowing other countries to tell us what is in our best interest.

But you're quite happy for your country to tell others what is in their best interest ?

Not at all. If I had my way we would withdraw all, and I do mean all, funding from all countries and fix our problems at home. I think we should stay out of everyone's business and let them self destruct. Some will make it, some will not. See who is left over and deal with the winners. Take WW2...

Merc, what if a neighboring country is doing something that is hurting your country?

Lets say the Mexico starts releasing this chemical that causes very powerful acid rain and tears up the ozone layer but when Mexico releases these chemicals, they drift up to Georgia. Shouldn't we have a right to tell Mexico to stop using those chemicals or at least release them somewhere else.............like Canada :p ?

Well on the diplomatic front I would just advocated nuking the fuck out of them and seeing who is left over. I mean really, we just can't go on having it both ways.

Hmmm... four calendar days now and no sourcing from tw. Guess he just makes shit up.

Going... going... gone. [dying Pac-Man sound]

@Merc: I agree with the spirit -- those sentiments may pretty safely be attributed to tw. But I don't use a quote box that way as I reckon it unethical to do. I'd suggest plain ol' quote marks. (I can't figure a "Quote Marx" pun to fit in here... sighhh.)

Hahaha, I like that idea.

Oh yeah, that's a wonderful idea. Then we'd have a nuclear dust cloud over Georgia instead.

Intelligent people know that torture results in less or unreliable information. Those with 'big dic' disease - a mental disorder - would disagree. From the Washington Post of 6 Oct 2007: George Jr is so quick to deny when facts say America was torturing (Cheney even publically advocated torture). From the NY Times of 5 Oct 2007: We must make a decision. America tortures prisoners (resulting in numerous phony Orange Alerts, Guantanamo, and secret prisons), or George Jr tells the truth. These are mutually exclusive conditions. Most extraordinary - some still say George Jr is honest. Of course he is. He talks to god - which is also what George Jr claims. Some with 'big dic' disease even believe him.

From the NY Times of 5 Oct 2007: Alberto Gonzales, who consistently agrees with George Jr, is a close friend and came from TX with George Jr. Do George Jr and Gonzales disagree on torture? Obviously doubtful. Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition.