John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has subpoenaed Karl Rove to testify about the Bush administration’s firing of United States attorneys. The subpoena could force an interesting constitutional fight since President Obama would now be in a position to waive executive privilege and Attorney General nominee Eric Holder could allow the matter to go to a grand jury. I discussed this issue last night on Countdown in this segment.
It is conceivable that former President Bush could ask a court to uphold his prior claim of privilege. However, courts generally defer to the sitting president on question of privilege. The biggest change would be the lifting of Mukasey’s order blocking the submission of the case to a grand jury. The Congress had a strong case of criminal contempt against Bush officials. It could now conceivably go to a jury. I would be surprised if Rove would risk such a trial in Washington.
For the full story, click here.
Risk it? Like he’d have a choice. Whether he’s in jail for treason or for contempt makes no difference to me as long as he’s in jail. Break Rove and you’ll have the Neocons on a plate. He’s the key to the cover up. Karl, if he were as smart as he thinks, should throw himself on our collective mercy as BEG for witness protection (like that COULD work without massive plastic surgery for fat boy). The position he’s in now is begging for his “partners” to arrange for Karl to “have an accidentally fatal accident” or “die mysteriously in his sleep”. These are people who broke the law, sent thousands of Americans to their death, killed thousands of civilians JUST TO MAKE MONEY. Do you really think they won’t get to you Karl if they feel you are a threat? Your choices are clear: testify or sit in a cell. You don’t have your boy to protect you now. Sing now, Karl. It will lessen the price you personally pay, but pay for your crimes? Justice will be had. It WILL happen, Karl, despite any effort you may make short of suicide to hold it off. You might even live long enough to get out of prison, traitor. But I doubt it.
This will help show the Obama’s administration’s true intent towards restoring the rule of law. Karl Rove did not even bother to show up for his hearing. I don’t think a “no show” can reasonably be argued as an exercise of executive privilege. I also don’t see how politicizing the justice dept. falls under this aegis. If the justice dept. allows Karl to refuse testimony again I think we will know the intent of Obama. It would mean he plans to protect all high level officials from investigation. This would be a good time for every citizen of conscience to put the pressure on Obama, and I mean big time pressure. If he doesn’t hear from us he will go about business as usual–ie: allowing the powerful to be above the law.
Buddha, I’m on board. Unfortunately I think Obama is going to pussy out.
This is one of many places where Obama can earn his second term.
i thought this apropos
“We cannot but be astonished at the ease with which men resign themselves to ignorance about what it is most important for them to know; and we may be certain that they are determined to remain invincibly ignorant if they once come to consider it as axiomatic that there are no absolute principles.”
“Economic Sophisms” by Frederic Bastiat
Ah, ethical relativism. Good luck with that. The clock is ticking.
Buddha,
I could be wrong, but I think Bron was speaking out against ethical relativism. Not sure why that’s relevant, except maybe as a rebuke for a possible lack of action by the Justice Department, but I think you let your dislike of Bron affect your reading of the quote.
Gyges,
Perhaps, but maybe you misread my intent. I don’t think it’s a statement against ethical relativism. By attacking absolute principles, by definition, it can only be a statement for ethical relativism. As anyone knows who has argued ethical relativism, the best one can hope for is a stalemate – it’s a well known quagmire. What Bron requires is victory, not stalemate. He’s off on a good foot tactically, but strategically, not so much.
Besides, he has to beat two of you first. On his own. That’s the last assistance he’ll get.
Or maybe I should put on my goddamn glasses. Carry on.
New Year’s Resolution – wear glasses, stop working off Blackberry.
Buddha,
The quote argues that a sure sign of sticking your head in the sand is adopting a position of relative ethics. That seems to be more of a slam against relative ethics than not.
As a side note, I’ve been finding myself skipping a lot of your posts recently, your territory marking has gotten to be a bit extreme. Variety is the spice of life, but I (and I suspect a number of others) come here for the meat of the conversation not the pepper of troll baiting. While I enjoy reading your debates, the taunting can go overboard sometimes. That’s my two cents, I won’t be insulted if you continue your current tactics, but I felt I should say it.
Gyges,
I’ll stipulate I can be vicious. I keep my demon on a leash. And as I’ve said, it’s JT’s playground. He says stop, I’ll stop. He’s asked me to stop troll baiting before and I complied. I’d do so again. If the regulars ask me to stop, I’ll stop. But I also won’t be a doormat. I’ve laid out what this particular persistent troll needs to do to earn civility and respect he has oh so cried about but has been unwilling to give to others up to this point. Since I put down those rules, after his debate challenge, he has complied for his one post, and as you see, I didn’t attack him. I wished him luck. But if you’re expecting an apology for smacking down Neocon propaganda back with no substance, it’s not going to happen.
Buddha,
I feel the same way as Gyges. I really liked your back and forth with Mike S. on Gaza because you were both presenting thoughtful positions that showed you had really heard out each others points. I think it’s important to smack down propaganda of any kind and I’m with you on this. It’s just that I believe your argument is more effective if it doesn’t contain any personal attacks.
Jill
Jill,
Of course it’s more effective that way. And there have been none today. I gave my conditions, and unlike some, if I make a rule, I follow it. To his credit, so is he. We’ll see how long it lasts.
Also, I feel too much empahsis on trolls is keeping us from taking on the issues raised by JT and other people who actually want to discuss things. (Although I’ve been loving rafflaw’s VonTroll family references.)
I would expect Mr. Rove to raise the executive privilege claim once again, particularly since the law on the subject remains inconclusive. After all, why should the privilege end with the conclusion of one’s term in office? If that is the case, it is not truly a privilege, merely a procedural delaying tactic. More to the point, however, the law is not well settled. The court in the Nixon case told us the the privilege is qualified rather than absolute. Pres. Clinton’s claim of executive privilege in the Lewinsky matter was rejected. Under the Bush administration the privilege was invoked on a number of occasions without consequences, thanks to a complicit Justice Department. And the courts do not like these cases because they are forced to do something they intensely dislike, engage in balancing the interests of separate branches of government. But what we do know is that the privilege is not absolute and the courts will not permit it to be utilized for the purpose of hiding evidence of criminal wrongdoing. I agree with Jill that the new administration needs to go to the wall on this one. I just wish I felt more confident that it would do so.
Buddha,
I know you’ll keep your word and I appreciate that about you. Sorry, for a double post, I didn’t see your last entry in time.
Copy that, Mike A. Confidence is in a holding pattern at best.
For background on the enforcement of the subpoena and forcing the witness to testify through the contempt power, see CRS Report on Congress’s Contempt Power:: Law, History, Practice and Procedure:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf
For the CRS Report on presidential claims of executive privilege, take a look at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL30319.pdf
I merely thought this was a good quote (yes Gyges you are correct), I believe there are absolutes in this world and one should have reasons as to why they hold a certain belief. You all think that Karl should go to jail, why? What is the rule in law? What did he do to break the law?
If I remember correctly Bill Clinton let them all go. Bush only let a half dozen or so go. And those if memory serves me correctly were let go because of voter fraud issues. From my viewpoint I think the democrats are making this an issue because they want to intimidate anyone that tries to expose voter fraud.
you all will call me a nut job and a troll for asking these questions and you will think my analysis is about as deep as a mud puddle but I really would like to know why its ok for BC to let them all go and GB and KR to be indicted?
See, Bron? No summary thumping. Why? Because now you are starting to get it. One does not get smacked with a troll stick for questioning. I think everyone here would agree the only stupid question is the unasked one. Your problem to date is largely presentation. Right now I’d just wanted to tell you good job and keep it up. You are doing much better than I expected. However, you are likely to lose a defense of Karl this way. I say this not because of you or anything you’ve said or how you’ve said it but because I’ve seen this line of reasoning played out before. I’m so proud I’ll even give you hint as to why you’ll eventually not be able to defend Karl. Not all crimes are equivalent in scale or in damage. And although the President’s power to pardon is absolute, a pardon is a moot point since he didn’t get one. So focus. Is your issue pardon power and it’s use/abuse or is the issue prosecution of crimes against the Constitution and possibly treason that aided in war crimes against a man who has no pardon? Arguing is easier when you know which target you’re shooting at. Carry on. Keep this up and you might get your name changed to Grasshopper.
I don’t care how long it takes, the Bush Admuddlestration should be held accountable. Stop the hand-wringing, let the investigations begin.
I wholeheartedly agree with Professor Turley – should President Obama choose to ignore the Bush crimes, he is just a complicit. He will be breaking his solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. And, I, for one, will be sorely disappointed in President Obama.
I really wish President Obama had chosen Professor Turley as AG. Sigh.
Buddha:
I think Bron98 makes quite a bit of sense lately and is a welcome addition to our little salon. Don’t make him lift the burning cauldron and then collapse into the snow to cool his branded forearms like I had to do. A pebble snatch should do the trick.
He seems to be coming around, I’ll give you that. Besides, women dig scars.
I promise I won’t cripple him. I have the technology. We can make him stronger, better, faster to continue the Shows of the 70′s theme. Oh, and to help him land on the side of the “ethical wall” if you will. As you can see, I wield a mean stick but do carry carrots as well.
the right side that is
I am still waiting for a reply to my question. its against the constitution is a bit broad, I would like to know how. As far as war crimes are concerned I still think the Bush admuddledstration (I love that! thank you) was within its rights to waterboard and go into Iraq based on the information provided. The actual target should have been Iran and Saudi Arabia but I think Bush wanted a 2 front war against the Iranians and so Iraq was part of larger strategy. He really did have a case against Iran and he blew it.
I would have fomented war between Iran and Iraq and then taken out whoever was standing at the end and then turned on Saudi Arabia for the coupe de grace. Islam would now be at peace with the west and Buddha would be safe and warm.
Well, children are waiting and my bridge is frozen.
The topic of torture and why it’s unconstitutional has been covered many times here, Bron. Read past threads for details. In summary, at the most basic level, it’s against the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Water boarding IS torture as defined not only by U.S. case law but international treaty as well. It is a prosecutable war crime and has been prosecuted in the past (specifically against the Japanese, big fans of water boarding in WWII). What Rove did was engineer stacking the deck at DOJ to help cover up these crimes by preventing investigation and prosecution of criminals in the White House. Torture is just the edge. The crimes the Bush Administration committed that are not just war crimes, but by protecting those who DID attack us (and this we agree on) in Saudi Arabia, his action in invading Iraq under fraudulent evidence is tantamount to treason. Treason being defined as providing aid or material comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime. Which is exactly what Bush did in addition to violating the 8th Amendment. And at the same time violating the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments with Gitmo and warrantless wiretapping – crimes also made possible by stacking DOJ with Regents puppets. Karl Rove appears to be a conspirator to commit treason at minimum and a war criminal at worst. That’s the short answer.
“As far as war crimes are concerned I still think the Bush admuddledstration (I love that! thank you) was within its rights to waterboard and go into Iraq based on the information provided.”
Bron,
Here is where we differ. Waterboarding is torture per se as shown by our prosecutions after WWII and the Geneva Convention, to which we are a signatory. Torture is not permitted and waterboarding is torture. If we can hang Japanese for it, then it’s more than a tad hypocritical to then say we have a right to do it and it really is settled law that the US doesn’t do torture.
As far as going into Iraq, that war was fomented on lies, that the Bushies knew were lies. The rationale goes back to 1998 and something called PNAC, google it and see what you find. To me it was a blueprint for American Empire and you see I’ve always hated the Romans and I’ve got no desire to see the US following in its’ murderous footsteps.
As far as taking out the winner of a fomented Iran/Iraq war you sure like to talk tough. Are you going to go in there, or send a child there? Or is it the tough talking of a guy like Bush or Cheney, who supported 50,000 unnecessary American deaths in Viet Nam, but were too gutless to go themselves.
While its’ true that we could probably “take out” the whole ME, at what cost and for what? You talk of war and killing so blithely and underneath is a sense of American entitlement that equals the hubris of the past criminal administration. I love this country but I don’t think that the US taking over the world is feasible, or desirable. Your conception of geo-politics is that of a willful child, that is I admit name calling. Anyone who thinks war is anything but unmitigated hell and is to be waged at a point far from last resort, is childish in thought.
You are the type of person who watches 24 and thinks its at all representational of the real world. I happen to like the show, but I’m well aware of the fantasy it is. Also if you had really been watching you might have noticed its’ real subtext, which is people like Bauer who slavishly follow their duty live tragic lives and are always considered expendable by the powers that be.
24 is a tragedy and Bauer its’ tragic hero, because it deals with the evils that men and governments do when convinced of their own superiority.
Your writing shows you as the type who would be perfectly willing to send others to die in the service of your own glory. I find that tendency hard to respect or condone.
Bron,
To augment the Geneva Convention argument, this is from Article VI of the US constitution (emphasis mine):
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; AND ALL TREATIES MADE, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.
Ahhh, our very own Reichscousel rears it’s ugly head in PNAC. You want to know America’s true enemy? Every signatory to their charter needs to be swinging in the breeze. Especially Unca Dick.
Mike:
personally I thouhgt the Vietnam war was a waste of blood and treasure and should have never been fought. It asked young men to sacrifice their lives for nothing.
I think the war in Afghanistan had to be fought, you cannot let someone attack you in that manor and not fight back. I also am not out for glory with someone elses blood. Personally I have a beef with Bush because I do think he wasted young lives but not for the reasons you have.
I dont believe that any Japanese were put to death for waterboarding alone they did enough other real torture to be hanged. Their behaviour in China alone probably warrented the droping of the Atomic bomb.
I leave the glory from others peoples blood to people like JFK and Bill Clinton and the geopolitiks to Carter and Madeline Albright.
And finally I dont believe America is like Rome we have no ambitions for world domination we are traders and businessmen and we want to be left alone to persue this.
You sir do not like America you think she is immoral, has no right to exist and you are no patriot. Your philosophical homeland is North Korea or Soviet Russia. This country has its problems but at least you can blog bullshit and not be arrested or have a bullet in the back of your skull for crimes against the state.
tsk tsk tsk
I see my prediction is coming to fruition. And you were doing so well.
Obama isn’t going to do anything that would mean in 4 years a new administration would chase him around the block the same way for no reason.
wake up.
It is a big boy’s world. Either like it or go back to 2nd grade.
Que the support troll.
Carlito:
they think that this can only happen to republs because dems are squeaky clean. I dont think one of them has thought about that. What if Obama causes the economy to tank badly and a republican takes office and the country is in the mood for blood after a hard 4 years this will set a precident to try Rom and Geithner and Obama for mediocrity in economic matters.
They will be screaming bloody murder. If they do this there will be that silver lining.
The strategy of birds.
Mockingbirds mimic. Crows form murders.
Patterns repeat.
Bron,
Actually we (at least most of us on this site) think that it’s important for criminals to face the consequences of breaking the law. I’ll be first in line demanding Obama go to trial if he has anything to do with the continued torture of any prisoner anywhere. Despite all your denials, Water-boarding is torture under U.S. law. Politics has nothing to do with this, it’s justice and the rule of law.
Gyges:
I just dont think waterboarding is torture it may be uncomfortable but it is not torture. Sadam tortured, the Vietcong tortured the Japanese tortured.
Sodomy is also illegal you going to try those people too? Gay love is not legal in some states you going to throw them in the slamer for a little bone smuggling?
this is all about politics and nothing else. liberals for the most part care about the constitution when it suits their agenda. We are less free now than we were 80 years ago. it should be the other way around.
Bron98:
“I just dont think waterboarding is torture it may be uncomfortable but it is not torture. Sadam tortured, the Vietcong tortured the Japanese tortured.”
*****************
Well you can hold any opinion you care to but it’s like saying that the sun isn’t hot. Since the Spanish American War our Nation’s law has included water boarding as torture. Medieval monks used it during the 12th Century and described it as such as they purged the souls of heretics, and we have consistently prosecuted persons who engaged in such atrocities, even executing a Japanese commander. The Geneva Convention defines it as such, but because you who have never experienced the act and deny that it meets the definition, we should thus believe you. Do you see how ridiculous this makes you and the neo-cons sound to thinking people throughout the world?
Bron,
Well I’m glad to know your opinion. However, you’ll have to forgive me for giving slightly more weight to the opinions of people who have actually been water boarded, and to the scores of medical and legal experts who define it as torture.
As to your comparison, let’s just say that I’m far more interested in punishing crimes that have victims.
Belief over fact. Belief over precedent.
The song remains the same . . .
This is my third and final attempt to respond here to Bron. My first two attempts are awaiting moderation:
Wow!
I couldn’t hold off any longer. Comparing waterboarding and torture to sodomy??? Holy snikies! First of all Bron, waterboarding is torture under US law and International law. Just because you think it is not torture only “uncomfortable” flies in the face of experts who have gone through it. Just to help you out, here is just one link to an interrogator who flatly states waterboarding is torture. http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2007/10/30/ace_interrogator_waterboarding_is_torture_period. He also states that water enters the lungs so I would consider that more than just “uncomfortable”. Here is a link to an NPR history lesson for you that discusses how the Japanese officer that was mentioned above was convicted of waterboarding prisoners(sentenced to 15 years) and an American soldier in Vietnam that waterboarded and was court martialed. It also includes a transcipt of a WWII prisoner description of waterboarding during the trial of the Japanese officer. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834.
Although you may not be a full fledged member of the Von Troll family of neocon spammers, you respond to arguments by making the remarkably impolite statement that your discussion opponent is not a patriot because he/she does not accept your wild claims. A real patriot always questions the government.
Bron,
I have tried to respond to your wild claims 3 times but my reponses are awaiting moderation. Maybe the NSA is tying up the process to make sure that the Von Troll Familiy’s work is being done correctly. I hope the response gets released from moderation in time before the Von Trolls have to push their car to the Folk Song festival.
raff,
Here’s a scary thought. There is only one troll. The internet has become self-aware and is trying to trick us in to killing ourselves so it doesn’t have to go the trouble of building Terminators. Sociologists expected the emergence of machine intelligence to cause a technological-social singularity. I bet they weren’t counting on this!
Ahh . . . The Joys of NyQuil and Cable
The sad part of it is, it’s not a bad tactic. If you were Skynet, wouldn’t you stir up as much crap as possible until the HK’s came online? Because, really, the idea of humans having to proofread all that stuff at NSA is too horrible to contemplate. Just soul crushing.
Buddha,
You could be right. Easy on the Nyquil. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Von Trolls are one or two people who are getting paid to screw up progressive sites. I think they called it “rat-f_cking” during the Nixon Administration. I am glad that one of my earlier attempts to respond to Bron was able to extricated itself from the modification process. Thanks Prof. Turley
I noticed the accusation of America hating as well. Good responses rafflaw.
Buddha,
Did you see the movie, Children of Men? I liked the advertizements for Quietus–just about the same as what you’re talking about!
Jill,
Yes I did. A wonderfully depressing film. And possibly prescient.
Bron,
One more story that seems to have gotten lost in the mix:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/01/14/bush-official-admits-that-administration-tortured-detainees/
Rafflaw and others:
I went to the source on this water boarding and found out that I know someone that has been water boarded – a military officer friend of mine went through it as part of his training. Basically he confirmed my analysis that while uncomfortable it does not rise to the level of legitimate torture i.e. burning someone with cigarettes or attaching wires to testicals or pulling fingernails off that type of thing.
My understanding of the method is as follows:
you are strapped to a board that is on the floor and a towel of some sort is placed over your face the board is tilted so that your head is lower than your feet and water is poured over the towel, he said the procedure does induce panic and that if he had never undergone it before he probably would have given his mother up.
So based on that I still dont think it rises to the level of torture and I further think that even if you indict Bush you will never be able to seat a jury that will convict him. You are like Don Quixote tilting at wind mills.
As a bone I will admit that if someone has a heart attack and dies you might have a point. But in light of the fact that these 10 th century barbarian mystics killed 3,000 people and brought down 2 very unique structures I doubt anyone is going to send flowers.
And as far as 24 goes (Mike S) he may be a tragic figure but he is also a heroic one. At least he is motivated by a belief in the rightness of his cause, that America is worth protecting as a free moral society. And no I dont think it is real although if we could open the NSA and FBI files we would probably see some truth is stranger than fiction stuff.
And as an after thouhgt if you pompous liberals hadnt told the NY Times about cell phone tracking maybe Osama would be geting water boarded right now.
And finally I have noticed that you all can only speak in facts it seems that abstractions are hard for you to grasp vis a vis Buddhas misunderstanding of a pretty basic quote I left. Although Gyges got it she still sounded unsure of herself.
Regards,
The theocraticanarchist troll
I still dont see how I can be a theocrat and an anarchist at the same time. But then we go back to facts and abstractions.
Gyges:
Ok if it did pysical harm that caused actual tissue damage then try them and put them in jail for it. I have no problem with that. But if you left the lights on and deprived them of sleep and played Elton John or Tony Orlando and Dawn and it ended up giving then hives then no.
No specifics so how can one tell?
If the Bush admin. hooked elctrodes, etc to Mohameds testicles or used them for sushi then they should be tried in a court of law.
Regards,
the theocraticanarchist troll
JT, saw you on KO the other night. I have been looking for the article where you predicted a possible SCOTUS executive privilege challenge between the ‘Old’ vs.’New’ – without success.
No matter, I’ll be watching Monday!
p.s. Nice suit, shirt, tie combo, btw. Ginger is definitely your color!
http://www.elise.com/recipes/archives/000868gingersnap_cookies.php#comments
‘Chez Panisse’ Gingersnap Cookies
Ingredients
* 8 oz unsalted butter
* 1 1/4 cup + 2 Tbsp. granulated sugar
* 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
* 2 small eggs or 1 1/2 large eggs
* 1/3 cup molasses
* 3 cups all-purpose flour
* 2 1/2 tsp. baking soda
* 1/2 tsp. salt
* 2 1/2 tsp. cinnamon
* 2 1/2 tsp. ground ginger
* 1/8 tsp. ground black pepper
Method
1 Cream butter until soft; add sugar, and beat until light and fluffy. Add vanilla and eggs, and beat until fluffy. Add molasses and beat until well-mixed.
2 Sift the dry ingredients; add to the mixture, 1/3 at a time. Mix only until the dry ingredients become incorporated.
3 Line a 9″ x 5″ loaf pan with plastic wrap, so that some hangs over the outsides. Press the dough into the bottom of the pan. Pack it tightly, and try to make the top as level as possible. Cover the dough with the plastic overhangs. Freeze until very firm, preferably overnight.
4 Unwrap and remove dough from the pan. Slice brick into thin slices, no more than 1/8″. Place on a parchment-lined sheetpan (space at least an inch apart) and bake at 350 degrees until the edges turn dark brown, 7-12 minutes, depending on how thinly you have sliced the dough. Check the oven for doneness at 7 minutes.
Makes 6 to 8 dozen cookies.
Variation: If you like ‘em chewy, slice them thicker. You can also add crystallized ginger yum), finely chopped – found at health food stores and usually less expensive at Asian markets.
Bron,
Just so you know, I’m male. Take a look at some Plato sometimes, you might get the reference.
I’m done arguing this with you because your responses are always “Nope not torture.” Well, luckily the law doesn’t care what you think.
Gyges:
Sorry about the female thing. I dont like Plato. Read him a very very long time ago and thought he was the original liberal/socialist. So I dont plan on wasting my time. Although my hats off to him as Aristotles teacher/mentor. He did do something good for the world.
Regards,
The theocraticanachist troll
“You sir do not like America you think she is immoral, has no right to exist and you are no patriot. Your philosophical homeland is North Korea or Soviet Russia. This country has its problems but at least you can blog bullshit and not be arrested or have a bullet in the back of your skull for crimes against the state.”
Bronnieboy,
You simply are not holding your own here. You’re meager points are being demolished by all, but your only response is talk of your mother-in-law, or your military friend. You attempt to defend water boarding as not being torture not because it isn’t, but you can’t admit it without acknowledging that those whose behinds you lick are criminal torturers. If you were the least bit intellectually honest, given the tenor of your writing, you would embrace torture as necessary to protect the country. Somewhere, however, in the back of your brain you know that torture is illegal and un-American and so you make ridiculously sloppy efforts to redefine it away from the Neo-con heroes who give you your thinking and marching orders. You are unfortunately too lacking in self-awareness to even realize how these guys are playing you.
You cherry-pick my comments and avoid the areas that make you uncomfortable. As an example I made the point that if you so want the US to take over the ME are you ready to enlist, or have your children enlist. Your lack of response gives the honest answer, you much prefer sending other, or others children to die, just like your heroes Bush and Cheney.
“I leave the glory from others peoples blood to people like JFK and Bill Clinton and the geopolitiks to Carter and Madeline Albright. And finally I dont believe America is like Rome we have no ambitions for world domination we are traders and businessmen and we want to be left alone to persue this.”
Gee, now how come there aren’t any Republicans in your iteration of blood on peoples hands? You know very well why Bronnieboy, because you are nothing but a Neo Con Troll, psychically unable to criticize those who you perceive are powerful. You would actually fare much better in the N. Korea, Russia, etc. than I would because you’re right I would get shot, while you would kiss ass. That’s because of your inability to think for yourself which is matched by your inability to question authority.
As far as questioning my patriotism, I do not support the criminals, traitors and war profiteers who sent our troops into harm’s way in Iraq, you do. You are the one here who is not a patriot, partly because you have no conception of what America should be about, but rather simply follow the strong leader.
I should have followed Buddha’s example and simply ignore your ignorant drivel, or to take snarky swipes which seem to be on the outer edge of your limited attention span. In that respect I have no one but myself to blame for even taking you halfway seriously, you show nothing to deserve it.
Mike S:
After 9/11 if I had been the right age I would have definitely enlisted.
And actually I have a pretty good attention span, although I will admit that I am distracted by all the Gomer Pyle intellectual bs on this site. The best thing so far was Jills cookie recipe.
I do not like neocons, most of them are pissants, David Brooks, Bill Crystal, et al
Regards,
the theocraticanarchist troll
It is William Kristol the neocon, Billy Crystal the comedian.
Duh…
Bronnie,
You don’t even know what a Neo Con is, or believes. As far as enlistment goes I’m sure Bush and Cheney would have too, if only they didn’t have better things to do. Your could have made 100K+ as a Halliburton operative if you really wanted to fight in Iraq. You’re the type that likes to send others out to die. “Gomer Pyle intellectual BS.” You can’t even make your insults clearly. Pathetic.
Mike:
Neocons are a a cross between socialist scum bags like yourself and theocrats with a little tax reduction thrown in for good measure to placate the republican base.
What part of Gomer Pyle intellectual didnt you understand? I think my insults are clear enough you are just too stupid to understand.
The only type that likes to send others out to die is liberals like you and Kennedy and Truman and Roosevelt and Wilson.
Oh yeah and that big dumbass Clinton and his war of the Blue Dress, get your facts straight.
Talk about pathetic.
Regards,
Bronnie Boy
‘The best thing so far was (ahem) Patty C’s cookie recipe.’
—
Thanks, and here it is again, but a slightly different version
-circular and sugared.
http://www.davidlebovitz.com/archives/2007/10/chez_panisse_gi.html
Chez Panisse Ginger Snaps
Makes 40-50 cookies
From The Art of Simple Food: Notes, Lessons, and Recipes from a Delicious Revolution (Clarkson Potter) by Alice Waters.
These cookies get crisp when cool and are great holiday cookies. I like them coated with lots of crystals of coarse sugar, which is called Hawaiian washed sugar in the US, or cassonade here in France. (Coarse sugar is also available online.)
You can also rev-up the spices, and add ¼-½ teaspoon ground cardamom, cloves, nutmeg or allspice to suit your taste.
2 cups (280 g) flour
1½ teaspoons baking soda
½ teaspoon salt
2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
1½ teaspoons ground ginger
½ teaspoon ground black pepper
11 tablespoons (150 g) butter, salted or unsalted, at room temperature
2/3 cup (130 g) sugar
½ teaspoon vanilla extract
¼ cup (80 g) mild-flavored molasses* (sometimes called ‘light’ molasses)
1 large egg, at room temperature
my optional step: coarse sugar crystals for coating the cookies
1. Stir together the dry ingredients.
2. In the bowl of an electric mixer, or by hand, beat the butter just until soft and fluffy. Add the sugar and continue to beat until smooth, stopping the mixer to scrape down any butter clinging to the sides of the bowl.
3. Stir in the vanilla, molasses and egg.
4. Mix in the dry ingredients gradually until the dough is smooth.
5. Divide the dough in two equal portions and roll each on a lightly-floured surface until each is about 2-inches (5cm) around. Don’t worry if they’re not perfect; you can neaten them up in a second.
6. Wrap each in plastic wrap then roll them lightly on the counter to smooth them out. Refrigerate, or better yet, freeze the cookie logs until firm.
7. To bake, preheat the oven to 350F (180C) and line two baking sheets with parchment paper or silicone baking mats.
8. Slice cookie dough into 1/4-inch (a scant 1 cm) rounds with a sharp knife. Dip one side and press firmly in a bowl of coarse sugar if you want (you can also use granulated sugar instead), and place sugar-side up on baking sheet, evenly-spaced apart. Leave a couple of inches, about 5 cm, between cookies since they’ll spread while baking.
9. Bake for 10-14 minutes, rotating the baking sheets midway during baking, until deep-golden brown. The cookies will puff up a bit while baking, then settle down when they’re done. Bake on the lower end of the range for softer cookies, and more for snappier ones, depending on your oven.
10. Let the cookies cool two minutes, then remove them with a spatula and transfer them to a cooling rack.
Storage: The dough can be refrigerated for up to five days, or frozen for up to three months. Once baked, the cookies can be kept in an air-tight container for a couple of days but like anything made with butter, of course they’re best the day they’re baked.
*Outside the United States, molasses is often found in natural-foods stores.
Oh Bronnieboy your true stripes are showing, more tabby than tiger though,
Meow
Patty and all cookie lovers,
I always add a little bit of Cayenne to my ginger snaps, and hot chocolate (but only if I’m making the REAL stuff).
Mayan Hot Chocolate
2 cups boiling water
1 chile pepper, cut in half, seeds removed (with gloves)
5 cups light cream or whole or nonfat milk
1 vanilla bean, split lengthwise
1 to 2 cinnamon sticks
8 ounces bittersweet chocolate or
3 tablets Mexican chocolate, cut into 1/4-inch pieces
2 tablespoons sugar or honey, or to taste
l tablespoon almonds or hazelnuts, ground extra fine
Whipped cream
In a large saucepan over medium-high heat, add chile pepper to boiling water. Cook until liquid is reduced to 1 cup. Remove chile pepper; strain water and set aside.
In a medium saucepan over medium heat, combine cream or milk, vanilla bean and cinnamon stick until bubbles appear around the edge. Reduce heat to low; add chocolate and sugar or honey; whisk occasionally until chocolate is melted and sugar dissolves. Turn off heat; remove vanilla bean and cinnamon stick. Add chile-infused water, a little at a time, tasting to make sure the flavor isn’t too strong. If chocolate is too thick, thin with a little more milk.
Serve in small cups and offer ground almonds or hazelnuts and whipped cream.
Man after my own heart, but JT’s got ‘little’ kids…
If you like chiles & chocolate, check out one of my fav chocolatiers
http://www.guannichocolates.com/Collections/VC_Classic_Collection_9_Pieces-9
Like everything else they have gone up, but really good. You CAN order
a la carte!
BTW, Gyges, if you ever get a chance to try Allagash Curieux
bourbon barrel-aged tripel, I highly recommend. And that from someone who is not a big beer drinker.
I thought for a second that I had wandered into the Food Network site. Bronnie Boy, I am glad that you like Patty’s cookies, but let’s get down to it. I think Mike said it best. Your so-called evidence that a friend said waterboarding wasn’t torture is sophmoric at best. The experts that I linked to earlier agree that the process is torture. But more importantly, the law says it is torture. Not some other country’s laws, but ours. One more point about your comment about tissue damage being required for it to be torture. Once again, your opinion and John Yoos misguided claim that tissue damage is necessary for the technique to be considered torture is not the law of the land. You are attempting to use the discredited opinion of John Yoo and Addington as your definitive threshold for torture. Your and their opinion(s) do(es) not agree with US law and international law. That is one of the reasons why the OLC pulled that opinion. I think you need to read some of Prof. Tutley’s earlier postings on torture. I have an idea. Try bringing some facts with you next time. And lay off the fictional character in “24″. A fictional character can’t be patriotic. He or she can only pretend to be someone who claims to be patriotic. That “24″ character may have patriotic leanings, but once he repeatedly and intentionally breaks the law, he is no longer a patriot. He becomes a felon. I would recommend watching some shows other than “24″ and Fox News. The facts are very rarely found on Fox News.
Jill,
Children of Men was a wonderful, but sad movie. There is some hope at the end, but it is very depressing throughout.
Patty:
My blood sugar is rising just reading these posts!!
Mike S., what is a “Gomer Pyle intellectual” and is there some sort of test one takes for that certification?
I dont know who Yoo is I have never read Yoo. It seemed to me that toture is torture if physical damage is inflicted. (And I suppose it may be torture if permanent emotional damage is imposed. Hmm that may be grounds for a law suit for this site. Although since I believe in personal responsibility I did subject myself to this bs). That is what should rise to the level of a war crime. If the Bush administration did tissue damage then fry them. However I think in the environment after 9/11 some consideration should be given.
Personally I will take the word of a Marine officer. He did say it induced panic and was not pleasant. Any of you been water boarded? Most likely not, so you dont know what it is either and you are also taking someone elses opinion, at least I sought someone out that had actually undergone the real procedure. That is what I am talking about you all look to others for your opinions to JT and others, you talk about me being a mind numbed right wing troll most of you are left wing mind numbed robots at least a troll has autonomy of thought. Just a bunch of left wingers – JT’s sycophantic trolls
As far as my mother inlaw goes I mentioned it was a limited sampling and that I was aware of that. I was going from the particular to the general. But I dont see how extraplation is a problem in this case. I come into contact with government workers on a regular basis and most are not much better than workers at fast food restaurants and the politicians are even worse. I would not trust most of them to walk my dog. And that goes for either party. I met the former governor of CT. when he was a congressman and was not surprised by his arrest. Are all govt workers slothful and lazy absolutely not but the system does tend to promote that. Much as socialism leads to lower production and inefficiency so to does government work promote mediocrity because of the nature of the system.
You all dont think in abstracts it is actually quite fascinating. You quote other people at great length and put much stock in what they say as evidenced by how you respond to me. Go look at this website or that website look there it must be true if it is on the web. And I think some of you actually are quoting other people but not giving credit to the person whose thoughts they actually are and you all call me pathetic?
Regards,
the theocraticanarchist troll
ps I still dont understand how I can be a theocrat and an anarchist at the same time. But then that is what I am talking about.
Figured out you’re totally discredited yet?
Just not that bright I guess.
I dont really care. And you probably read it so what the heck.
Nope.
Not a word past your name, Nazi-boy.