[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Ah Iraq the practice field for Libertarians. Contractors above the law ,no oversight, no rules, no regulation at all. Sure works for the people doesn’t it.
[/QUOTE]
This is idiotic. Libertarians are against taxation on principle except where absolutely necessary. Those billions were all tax dollars which no libertarian I have ever talked to or read would have sanctioned. Kindly stop being a dick. If possible.
Roddy
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Gag orders are unconstitutional. (Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart 427 U.S. 539)
[/QUOTE]
Gag orders are not unconstitutional. NPA v Stuart deals with prior restraint, a restriction on the publication of information. It did not address the question of gag orders, which are restrictions on parties to a case not to discuss the case.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
$23 Billion? Is that all?
[/QUOTE]
That was my exact reaction to the thread title. It’s gotta be a lot more than that. I’d figure somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% of the total, which I’m sure is a lot more than $230B. I’d expect that out of almost any government program, and when you’re throwing money into a war zone, who the hell knows what is going to happen.
[QUOTE=Long Time First Time]
Why doesn’t the American media cover this stuff? Or all the law breaking by the administration in general. I really don’t think it’s lack of interest on the part of the public. Is there a reason - real or sinister?
[/QUOTE]
Because that would cut into their repeated showing of the good Rev. Jeremiah Wright. You know, the really important stuff.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Ah Iraq the practice field for Libertarians. Contractors above the law ,no oversight, no rules, no regulation at all. Sure works for the people doesn’t it.
Air conditioning requires electricity.Terrifel.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s see – a nation that is ruled by the army of another country, where some people must go through military check-points to live their daily lives, where government money is stolen and horribly misspent, where the military conspires with private militias – yep, sounds like something right out of Milton Friedman.
Tell me, gonzo, do you actually try to post comments that are completely devoid of factual basis or are you totally ignorant of the basic tenets of libertarianism?
[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
You know what is really fucking annoying? I would have started another pit thread, but seeing as there is an Iraq thread in the Pit (When isn’t there?), I thought I’d mention this.
Bush said that the diplomacy is the first option with Iran.
Wow, just fucking wow. It sure would have been fucking nice if diplomacy were the first fucking option with Iraq. But then again, Bush’s ego was too fragile to leave Saddam alive and taunting him.
Can you imagine how much better off we’d be if we were mired in this bullshit war that was completely unnecessary? Jesus. Anyway, add this to the long fucking list of reasons why you don’t go to war unless you absolutely have to. During a way, especially a longer war, shit happens. People do things they aren’t supposed to do. Bad shit generally happens. Innocents get killed, etc. There had better be a damn good reason to go to war.
You know, I simply can’t wait for us to get out of Iraq. I know it’s going to collapse, but it won’t matter if we do it now, or in 5 years. We might as well leave now and then just see what happens.
[/QUOTE]
Apparently, he knows a good gig when he finds one:
[QUOTE=Baldwin]
I wonder if there’s any chance of treason charges. That would be nice.
[/QUOTE]
Why would there be treason charges? Is there any evidence of acts necessary for treason?
Levying War against the United States? Nope
Adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort? Nope
There is no treason here. Others crimes may have been committed, but in all likelihood there is no treason―unless the money is being used to fund a secret war against the US or something.
[QUOTE=Frostillicus]
Because that would cut into their repeated showing of the good Rev. Jeremiah Wright. You know, the really important stuff.
[/QUOTE]
Plus, if they actually spent any airtime on Rebublican-driven war corruption, they’d have less time to spend saying ‘tax-and-spend Democrat, tax-and-spend Democrat.’
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Apparently, he knows a good gig when he finds one:
Bush doesn’t rule out military strike in Iran
[/QUOTE]
That headline is surprisingly misleading. It’s standard US policy, having nothing to do with Bush, to take that position about all options being on the table. What was unusual, as is fleshed out in the article, is to bring that up without being asked about it.
I would expect Obama to answer “no” if asked whether he would rule out the use of force against Iran, but I would not expect him to offer that comment without being asked about it.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
That headline is surprisingly misleading. It’s standard US policy, having nothing to do with Bush, to take that position about all options being on the table. What was unusual, as is fleshed out in the article, is to bring that up without being asked about it.
I would expect Obama to answer “no” if asked whether he would rule out the use of force against Iran, but I would not expect him to offer that comment without being asked about it.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it’s misleading at all, John. It simply highlights the very point you made.
As in “why in the blue blazes” are you bringing this up if no one’s asked?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
That headline is surprisingly misleading. It’s standard US policy, having nothing to do with Bush, to take that position about all options being on the table.
[/QUOTE]
I heard the sound clip of Bush making the statement this morning. Now I might just be sentimental, having gotten to know the man so well, lo these many years—but coming from Bush’s mouth, the words “all options are on the table” take on an unmistakably threatening color, clearly intended more as stick than carrot. (Excepting maybe a prizewinning carrot with the size and heft of a cudgel.)
On the diplomatic scale, about as promising as the school bully’s offer to discuss kicking my ass.
[QUOTE=Otto]
Gag orders are not unconstitutional. NPA v Stuart deals with prior restraint, a restriction on the publication of information. It did not address the question of gag orders, which are restrictions on parties to a case not to discuss the case.
[/QUOTE]
A gag order is prior restraint.
See here