« Surviving a Dirty Bomb | Main | A New Course »

May 10, 2004

Comments

Thus you see one reason for Kennedy's continued popularity dispite all the stains on all the dreeses he left behind. He performed the difficult duties of leadership.

Yes, Kennedy showed a great deal of class when he resigned after that whole affair. Unlike Rumsfeld, though, Kennedy actually was directly to blame.

"simply too incompetent and arrogant to carry it out effectively. I dismissed this as facile Bush-bashing at the time. I was wrong.…." A Sullivan

Stuck at me too, Edward. There are Presidents who would be upset at the SOD saying the buck don't reach up to that other guy.

Sullivan will come back. What do we expect the Sullys and Slarts to do? An even chance we will see 4 1/2 more years of the shrub, and could conservatives and Repubs handle despising the top of their own party for so long? Could they handle the shame? Nah. History will understand that it was not a single man that destroyed the honor and self-respect of a great nation. Greatest Human Rights President Ever, that's me, I am , Iyam. And Sully and Slarti will just gulp, and say yup, he's the man, eccy home, the one and only perfect Republican.

Big party coming January in DC. Formal dress will be hoods and cattle prods. Party favors will little naked dark dudes....on leashes. Enjoy.

I knew there was a reason I haven't hung with Repubs the last thirty years. Bye yall. Good luck, Edward and Katherine. God love ya.

What do we expect the Sullys and Slarts to do?

There's more than one of me?

I'll echo a previous comment: Bob McManus should really have his own blog. He's a god!

"On March 17, 1960, Eisenhower authorized a Central Intelligence Agency plan, titled "A Program of Covert Action Against the Castro Regime." The document states that the program's objective is to "bring about the replacement of the Castro regime with one more devoted to the interests of the Cuban people and more acceptable to the U.S. in such a manner as to avoid the appearance of U.S. intervention."

Kennedy didn't try to blame all his problems on the previous administration. And he didn't pretend that he didn't know what was gong on and he didn't let some underlings twist in the wind over the matter. He also faced combat in a shooting war and didn't just skip out on National Guard duty.

Irrelevant, Fabius. Until such time as it comes to light that Rumsfeld knew of and condoned such activities, the similarity of Kennedy's active support of CIA activities in Cuba for nearly two years prior to the termination of said activities to today's events is minimal.

I didn't mean to suggest that the blame was Eisenhauer's. I was saying that Kennedy didn't try to hide behind him. I agree that the Bay of Pigs was Kennedy's fiasco - and he quickly owned up to it, unlike the profile in smirk who currently resides in the White House.

I see the point is still not getting across. And I'm fresh out of patience today.

Slarti, answer me this: whose call was it not to have a senior Judge Advocate monitoring our compliance with international law, providing advice, etc at Abu Ghraib, even if that meant turning down an offer to serve as such from a qualifed(Republican) Congressman? Did Rumsfeld approve LTG Sanchez' order putting Pappas in tactical command at Abu Ghraib? Were MG Miller's recommendations about MPs "setting the conditions" for interrogation approved, and if so by whom? Why did the military or DoD take no action after the ICRC informed it of continuing Geneva Convention violations at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere? Why did Rumsfeld and Myers not tell Congress about the situation at Abu Ghraib, even after they knew the story was out? Whose fault is it that the 800th MP brigade was untrained in detention and wildly undermanned, with horrible morale?

Sorry I so dense. Maybe if I pick up on your point about Rumsfeld not being directly to blame that might help. But Rumsfeld is directly to blame. He couldn't wait to have people tortured.

It goes to the whole military vrs law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism, doesn't it? I always was a bit flummoxed as to why that dichotomy needed to be stressed. But in a law enforment regime the apprehended have rights. There's a due process. But the military can just round up anybody with no charges, stript them naked, blast them with cold water and pile them in pyramids. No wonder we prefer a military approach.

Mark:

Dunno, to all of them. If you're trying to make a point, it's best to make it. The whole of my point (as I attempted to make it) is that there's almost zero similarity, as far as I can tell, between Kennedy and Rumsfeld. Likewise, zero similarity between the current fiasco and Bay of Pigs. If you want to argue otherwise, feel free.

Fabius:

He couldn't wait to have people tortured.

If you know something I don't know in this regard, please share. A cite would be helpful.

"Big party coming January in DC. Formal dress will be hoods and cattle prods. Party favors will little naked dark dudes....on leashes. Enjoy."

Unfair, uncalled-for, inaccurate.

Moe, I didn't suspect for a moment that Bob was being anything other than purposely absurd to make a point. Having said that, I wonder if he's actually decided not to comment here again. That would be a shame, despite his sporadic enigmatic methods.

My point, Slarti, is that even if we don't know the answers to those questions, the likely answers to an awful lot of them either point us in the direction of the Iraq commanders or the SecDef/OSD or both.

Ah. Well, then, Mark: you're in a different discussion than the one I'm in. My one and only point here is that any comparison of Rumsfeld/Iraq and Kennedy/Cuba (aside from highly general ones, like they're both Caucasian males) isn't a very useful one.

Moe, I didn't suspect for a moment that Bob was being anything other than purposely absurd to make a point.

My first thought was that it's way too early in the day to be that drunk, but then I realized bob may live elsewhere in the world.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad