U.S. Politics - Netanyahu and Boehner OTP

[aceluby]

You are so full of radical liberal bullcrap im surprised you havent spontaneously combusted into man bear pig.

What would you call Al Qaeda members? Girl scouts? Cause they are as close to girl scouts as they are enemy combatants. The laws governing combat were not made for half crazy egomaniacs so twisted up in their own cockeyed version of their religion that they feel flying planes into buildings plowing up pizza places stoning gays and burning women who have the gall to read with acid. They were meant to prevent what is happening in Ukraine, or West Africa.

Radical. I don't think that word means what you think it does.

[awesome possum]

Firstly no one said Traitor.

Ooh, pedantry. That's fun. "I called that guy a criminal and a deserter, not a traitor! Geez!"

Secondly more Americans die by releasing 5 terrorist commanders than might die in said rescue op.

Do you have proof that more Americans die (not will die or could die but apparently they're already dead) in a trade than in a rescue operation?

Also I didnt say I was pro a rescue op all I said was that would be a legitimate option as it does not put civilians at risk. The men sent who you seem to have so little faith in are the best trained soldiers on the planet.

Here's exactly what you said, since you apparently have trouble remembering: "But no he could be rescued with Seals or fought for. He should not be traded for."

If you're not pro a rescue operation and against negotiated trade, then I suppose leaving an American citizen in the hands of terrorists because he's a criminal is your preferred method?

I dont want them to die recueing him I would want them to kill rescuing him

Careful chico, your machismo is oozing.

[BloodRider]

I miss the circa-2008, pre-tea party version of Mike Huckabee, the closest we've ever come on the national stage to a fiscal liberal and social conservative; its not a combination you often see.

I'm just tired of every other person who's trying to seem politically active but non-conformist go with claiming they're fiscally conservative and socially liberal "so both parties are bad."

Especially in light of the fact that Dems are significantly more fiscally conservative responsible than Repubs, or the Tea Party for that matter.

[TrackerNeil]

Especially in light of the fact that Dems are significantly more fiscally conservative than Repubs, or the Tea Party for that matter.

If you mean "more fiscally responsible" then I agree; if you mean something else, then I don't know.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

You are so full of radical liberal bullcrap im surprised you havent spontaneously combusted into man bear pig.

What would you call Al Qaeda members? Girl scouts? Cause they are as close to girl scouts as they are enemy combatants. The laws governing combat were not made for half crazy egomaniacs so twisted up in their own cockeyed version of their religion that they feel flying planes into buildings plowing up pizza places stoning gays and burning women who have the gall to read with acid. They were meant to prevent what is happening in Ukraine, or West Africa.

hahaha. I have no idea what a man bear pig has to do with being a "radical liberal," but that's really not much of a departure from your usual confused nonsense. For instance, Taliban =/= Al Qaeda. The men exchanged for Bergdahl were officials in the pre-invasion Taliban government of Afghanistan. We invaded their country and they opposed us.

[Fez]

Before earlier this week I never would've thought it, but the House just overwhelming passed some pretty major bipartisan legislation (right now its still on floor at 391-35 with 7 yet to vote. The nays are 31 GOP and 4 Dems).

Its to finally fix the Medicare SGR formula that's had to be annually delayed every year since 1997 and extend CHIP funding for two more years (it was going to expire in September). There's some concessions by both sides, but mostly of the "well, at least some moderates in both parties actually support this" variety, such as means-testing for Medicare enrollees with annual incomes greater than $133,000.

Its to the Senate now, where originally Senate Dems were talking about blocking the bill to try to get four years of CHIP funding, but in the face of such overwhelming House support they've already started backing down. Obama's said he'll sign the bill too.

Congress is still bitterly divided over the budget and just about everything else, but its pretty amazing to see them able to come together to pass some pretty substantial legislation; even if its a one-time only sort of thing.

[BloodRider]

Re: Once and Future King

Given that you've lived in Cuba in the 80s, presumably at an age where you actually understand politics and oppression, when you call Obama a dictator, were you basing it on your experience of that period, i.e., saying that Obama is comparable to Fidel Castro? Or were you just threwing an epithet around with no real basis in reality?

Wait. OaFK is Ted Cruz!

[jarl the climber]

Firstly no one said Traitor.

Secondly more Americans die by releasing 5 terrorist commanders than might die in said rescue op. Also I didnt say I was pro a rescue op all I said was that would be a legitimate option as it does not put civilians at risk. The men sent who you seem to have so little faith in are the best trained soldiers on the planet. I dont want them to die recueing him I would want them to kill rescuing him.

I think we should have released the five Taliban in return for them keeping Bergdahl permanently.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

More and more encouraging signs on meaningful criminal justice reform:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/26/bipartisan_summit_on_criminal_justice_reform_cory_booker_wants_to_redefine.html

Booker then told a story about a man who had served five years in prison for driving the getaway vehicle after his friend held somebody up with a plastic gun. Booker's point was that, even though this person had not done anything violent, his offense was classified as such. There are untold numbers of offenders in that same position, and none of the reform proposals that are currently being discussed on Capitol Hill address them.

Booker’s remark cuts right to the central anxiety hanging over the apparent momentum surrounding the criminal justice reform movement: Unless policymakers who have championed leniency toward non-violent offenders start thinking about violent offenders as well, the country will not be able to achieve any significant reduction in the prison population.

Gingrich, who did not weigh in on Booker's point while they were on stage, told me in an interview afterwards that he agrees with him. “There are people who do things that are clearly not violent but who are technically labeled as violent—so you have to ask yourself, what’s the purpose of that? When I worry about violent crime I worry about someone who has the potential to harm you or me. And those people, I think, should be kept off the street until they’re too old to threaten anybody. And I’m prepared to be very tough with genuinely violent criminals. But I don’t want to have a broad sweeping series of laws that become felonies that in fact shouldn’t be felonies.”

The idea that the criminal justice system is too tough on violent felons is not something we’ve heard a lot from politicians who have come to the table for prison reform over the past few years. It will be interesting to see if Booker’s attempt to inject the point into today’s high-profile discussion, and a high profile Republican’s embrace of it, will embolden others to act.

[awesome possum]

Oh Indiana, so desperate to be part of the Deep South and prove you're one of the good ole boys with good ole fashion bigotry.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence on Thursday signed into law a religious objections bill that some convention organizers and business leaders have opposed amid concern it could allow discrimination against gay people.

Indiana is the first state to enact such a change this year among about a dozen where such proposals have been introduced. The measure would prohibit state and local laws that "substantially burden" the ability of people — including businesses and associations — to follow their religious beliefs.

Yes, that's right. It's discrimination to not allow religious bigots to kick out those icky gays from their good, wholesome Christian businesses.

And it's working grandly, because Salesforce - which just bought a company for over 2 billion dollars last year - just gave Indiana a big Fuck You and GenCon, the country's largest gaming convention, has threatened to do the same.

If anything, though, I should thank Governor Pence and the teabagging fucktards who pushed this bill into law. Because of them, my wife is finally on board with getting the hell out of this state. She finally saw through to the logic of my telling her over and over again, "if we're going to live in a state run by far right morons, can't we at least do it in one with good weather?"

[TerraPrime]

Re: Ramsay Gimp

Where did I say "most"? I said our past interventions were "often" given humanitarian justifications, especially recently - Libya is an example, as is Syria (where we helped arm Sunni jihadists in order to supposedly "protect" Syrians from Assad), and even Iraq (though WMDs were obviously a much bigger reason given for intervening). We were helping Afghans resist the imperial aggression of the USSR, remember? Hell, even the European imperialism of old was supposed to bring "progress and civilization" to the natives.

Of course in almost all these cases the real reasons for intervening were probably very different, but my point is that Americans need to stop taking the bait whenever some politician starts hand-wringing about our "responsibility to protect" some persecuted people halfway across the globe.

Do you even know why you're arguing? Because, if you say that "in almost all these cases the real reasons for intervening were probably very different" from the humanitarian reasons cited to justify the military actions, then, you are essentially agreeing with the point you're trying to hard to disagree with. Maybe take a step back and actually assess the content of the discussion before charging in, next time?

So we should intervene when it isn't in our benefit? Sounds like mindless warmongering so that we can feel good about ourselves

No, we should intervene, with military forces if needed, to stabilize the region for the benefits of sustained, peaceful resolutions for the region, whether it benefits us directly right now, or not. Ultimately, it will benefit us, because we will end up with a Middle East region that is no longer a hotbed for anti-U.S. terrorism. But in the short term, it may very well look like it is not benefitting us.

By engaging in more foolishness.

That's begging the question. But it sure sounds snappy!

Re: Horza

Here's the problem though: when has the US (or any other nation, really) managed such a long-term, intensive commitment a) well and B) in a disinterested, culturally-appropriate manner? Don't say Germany and Japan, because those were two highly developed countries with stable political cultures (among many other differences), and there was a driving Cold War imperative to get them running. You're willing to acknowledge that this grand investment program is going to look a lot like imperialism, but what grounds are there for thinking that it'd be able to disprove those critics, much less bear sufficient fruit to keep Congress quiet?

To be clear, it sounds to me that are agreeing with the premise that the past actions of the U.S. has indeed incurred some obligations to help fix the problems we have today in the region? Where we differ is that you see no way, no how, that we could do the repair as it needs to be done. Therefore, you're saying we should... that's the part I am not clear on.

You're right that what I described will never come to pass because we simply will not have the political will to do it. That doesn't change my view, though. I accept that in reality, we will end up with a haphazard put-out-the-largest-fire approach to the ME geopolitics for decades to come. Unless you think that a full withdrawal and walking away completely is either feasible (politically) and/or desirable?

[The Once and Future King]

Ooh, pedantry. That's fun. "I called that guy a criminal and a deserter, not a traitor! Geez!"

Do you have proof that more Americans die (not will die or could die but apparently they're already dead) in a trade than in a rescue operation?

Here's exactly what you said, since you apparently have trouble remembering: "But no he could be rescued with Seals or fought for. He should not be traded for."

If you're not pro a rescue operation and against negotiated trade, then I suppose leaving an American citizen in the hands of terrorists because he's a criminal is your preferred method?

Careful chico, your machismo is oozing.

The fact that you say the difference between a criminal and a traitor is is pedantry shows how off base you are

The 5 men who were released were all murderers, terrorist who planed attacks and killed people. one of them help blow up a marine barracks. Thats more people alone then a Seal team. Also the Seals signed up for this. American citizens did not.

I said a Seal team was an option as was a surge (like the one that changed Iraq). What is not an option is changing the longstanding American postion not to negotiate with terrorists. ("Coincidentally" 3 months later were the first Daesh demand in exchange for hostages.

As for what is my preference? My preference is that soldiers dont wander away with their post flaunting orders putting themselves and others in harms way.

And as for your last cute comment, I dont think Seals would die rescuing him. Seals dont die easy. The kill easy. Thay not machismo, that knowledge, training, skill, and equipment.

[DanteGabriel]

Oh, god, the warwankery.

Yes, how dare you people suggest the baddest-ass motherfuckers in human history may be mortal and suffer casualties in combat with them small swarthy terrrrrists. I mean, we all know it'd be a fight like Legolas and Aragorn vs. the Orks, but with more manliness and machine guns.

ETA: I'd like to see your sources for your characterization of the guys they released, by the way. Because I found this, and it doesn't seem as dire as you contended:

http://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/releasing-the-guantanamo-five-1-biographies-of-the-prisoners-amended/

[Liffguard]

And as for your last cute comment, I dont think Seals would die rescuing him. Seals dont die easy. The kill easy. Thay not machismo, that knowledge, training, skill, and equipment.

Jesus christ everybody fucking dies. Every operation has risks. Special forces aren't invulnerable. They're just people who are good at a tough job, not fucking space marines.

[Chris G]

The fact that you say the difference between a criminal and a traitor is is pedantry shows how off base you are

The 5 men who were released were all murderers, terrorist who planed attacks and killed people. one of them help blow up a marine barracks. Thats more people alone then a Seal team. Also the Seals signed up for this. American citizens did not.

I said a Seal team was an option as was a surge (like the one that changed Iraq). What is not an option is changing the longstanding American postion not to negotiate with terrorists. ("Coincidentally" 3 months later were the first Daesh demand in exchange for hostages.

As for what is my preference? My preference is that soldiers dont wander away with their post flaunting orders putting themselves and others in harms way.

And as for your last cute comment, I dont think Seals would die rescuing him. Seals dont die easy. The kill easy. Thay not machismo, that knowledge, training, skill, and equipment.

Just stop. Those of us who served don't need guys like you representing us. I get that you don't like this dude. Obviously he had some issues that the Army missed in their desire for willing bodies. Perhaps you should act like a grown ass man and realize that sometimes you change your mind after you see people die. We still don't know the whole story and the reality is we never will. We don't know if he was a traitor, he never showed up fighting against American troops did he? I haven't seen anyone charge him with that. That is what a traitor is, not leaving your post and getting captured. That is poor soldering and seems to be a symptom of poor leadership in his unit. You can usually tell the guys that aren't up to it and act accordingly. Don't send a guy with obvious issues out on guard duty alone, that endangers the whole unit. I am not saying he is blameless because he is not. He knew his duty and failed for whatever reason, that also doesn't mean that you leave him as a POW when you have an opportunity to get his release.

This "America doesn't negotiate with Terrorists" shit is dumb. We do, just under heavy secrecy. You really think Reagan got the hostages in Iran released by his charisma and charm. To pretend that the Army is going to send in an extraction team for this guy is pure "Missing in Action" fantasy. He was not a high value person, so of course they would pursue other means. Chuck Norris is not rescuing forgotten POWs in Afghanistan or Iraq. What about never leaving anyone behind? This guy had issues, so he doesn't count. Let him die as a POW. I wouldn't want you in any team of mine.

[TerraPrime]

It is also a form of loyalty that I cannot wrap my head around. I always feel that Americans should deal with other Americans who did wrong, not let terrorists do our job for us. We pride ourselves on many things, one of which is the constitutionality of our political and justice system. Even for armed services, we have a codified procedure to assess and adjudicate offenses. That is our way. I agree that Bergdahl was in dereliction of his duty and should face court marshall, and that's why it's worthwhile to get him back so he could. Whether sending in a rescue team is a better option than exchanging prisoners is another matter. I think it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. The objective of getting an American, even if it's one who will stand trial for desertion, back to America is, without a doubt, the right call. The conservative right-wingers who claim otherwise really confuse me as to where they sense of loyalty lies, the sea of waving American flags on their wallpaper and lapels notwithstanding.

[Dr. Pepper]

I can just imagine the future headlines in the world of TOaFK: American POWs, Cost to Retrieve a Tad High, POWs May Have Deserted, Decision Made to Leave Them Behind.

[awesome possum]

What is not an option is changing the longstanding American postion not to negotiate with terrorists.

Oh really now? Well would you look at that

It may be a political maxim that we don’t talk to terrorists. But that’s not always how it works in practice. The Carter administration had long and intricate negotiations with the Iranians who took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran in 1979 (and whom Carter himself described as terrorists), winning the hostages’ release after Carter agreed to unfreeze about $11 billion in Iranian assets.

Ronald Reagan’s White House also horse traded with the Iranians for hostages—secretly trading arms for the release of Americans held in Lebanon, in what came to be known as the Iran-Contra affair. (Bolton, to his credit, acknowledges and condemns this infamous episode.)

In the mid-1990s Bill Clinton met with Gerry Adams, leader of the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, then still on the State Department’s terror list. (It was removed after peace accords in 1998.) The British government considered Adams himself a terrorist and urged Clinton not to see him.

During the Iraq War, the Bush administration cut deals with Sunni insurgents in Iraq’s Anbar province—working with and even paying people who had been killing American soldiers.

That's not even going into the argument about how we are permanently at war with terrorists. Is a POW still a POW if the forces he's taken by are called this vague, general catchall of terrorist?

[TrackerNeil]

We pride ourselves on many things, one of which is the constitutionality of our political and justice system. Even for armed services, we have a codified procedure to assess and adjudicate offenses. That is our way.

I used to think that, but then the World Trade Center fell and I saw just how quick we Americans were to dump our supposedly dearly held belief in fairness and due process in favor of torture, indefinite detention, and untrammeled government surveillance. Maybe things were different at one time--I couldn't say--but these days, when frightened, Americans are willing and even eager to dump every principle we ever espoused in exchange for security or the illusion of same.

[Castel]

I used to think that, but then the World Trade Center fell and I saw just how quick we Americans were to dump our supposedly dearly held belief in fairness and due process in favor of torture, indefinite detention, and untrammeled government surveillance. Maybe things were different at one time--I couldn't say--but these days, when frightened, Americans are willing and even eager to dump every principle we ever espoused in exchange for security or the illusion of same.

These days are they even frightened? It seems that, whenever some new law comes out, people simply don't give a shit.