For Dems only.

[bmags]

On the old Fans GB81 actually posted a pretty long one last summer.

 

from Rolling stone.

[lostfan]

from Rolling stone.

Yeah, that one. Nobody would read it though b/c they were just like "oh it's just another anti-Bush piece." No. It's not. It's a pretty serious problem actually, got billions of dollars just bleeding out profusely and nobody is paying attention.

[bmags]

I read it. I dislike the very colloquial "take it from the f***ing man" tone of Rolling stone authors. I was hoping of more of a long term, thorough book. Because, I'd like to know even more. The story where that one contracting firm took the army's own trucks, painted them a different color, then sold them back to them was disgusting.

[DrunkBomber]

I heard a story from a guy at my church who has served in Iraq twice that money is thrown at a problem.. it is done poorly and fails... so they throw more money at it to fix the problem that they caused by poor work.

Link?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Link?

hard to link to a personal conversation I had.

Sorry, i didnt "blog it" immediately afterwards.

What I was trying to say was that he personally saw a lot of mismanagement.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[DrunkBomber]

hard to link to a personal conversation I had.

Sorry, i didnt "blog it" immediately afterwards.

What I was trying to say was that he personally saw a lot of mismanagement.

Im gonna need a link

[NorthSideSox72]

Im gonna need a link

You're gonna need to stop being obnoxious.

 

If this is about some petty B.S. you are bringing from another thread, then check it at the door. And this is a warning to everyone. If the crap from the Wright thread gets dragged into another one, then posts will be deleted, and people will be suspended.

 

[Cknolls]

I heard a story from a guy at my church who has served in Iraq twice that money is thrown at a problem.. it is done poorly and fails... so they throw more money at it to fix the problem that they caused by poor work.

For a mninute there I thought you were talking about the education system in America.

[Balta1701]

Not totally sure which thread to stick this in, but oh yes, it must go somewhere, It may belong in several threads.

 

[DrunkBomber]

You're gonna need to stop being obnoxious.

 

If this is about some petty B.S. you are bringing from another thread, then check it at the door. And this is a warning to everyone. If the crap from the Wright thread gets dragged into another one, then posts will be deleted, and people will be suspended.

What did anything I say have to do with any other threads?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Ya know... how can we trust this man with foreign policy when he CONTINUALLY misspeaks time after time.

McCain Gets Iraq Facts Wrong Again: Says Sadr — Not Maliki — ‘Asked’ For Ceasefire»

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

John McCain... Strong on Terrorists.. if he can get the facts correct.

 

Hoc can he CONTINUALLY get the facts wrong?

Edited April 1, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archiv...spike_after.php

Donations to DCCC Spike after Clinton Threat To Pelosi

 

The effort by Hillary Clinton’s bundlers to pressure Speaker Nancy Pelosi into retracting her comments about superdelegates has caused a spurt of Obama-linked donations to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democrats with direct knowledge of the situation said.

 

The letter, sent last week, was interpreted as an extortion threat; the 20 signatories seemed to suggest that they would withhold donations from the DCCC if Pelosi did not change her position. --- that superdelegates ought strongly consider the expressed will of voters in their states.

 

But the letter may have backfired:, the DCCC saw a surge in online contributions, which officials there attribute to a mass action to protest the Clinton donor threat

 

[Balta1701]

Glenn Beck and James Inhofe go off on a rant, I kid you not...about how evil POLAR BEARS are!

BECK: They eat people! For the love of Pete, they’re big, angry bears. They eat people. Not that I say we go out and kill all of them, but I mean, it doesn’t seem to be a problem here. Senator, I can’t take the — I can’t take the lies anymore

[lostfan]

lol he sounds like Stephen Colbert.

 

I kind of like Glenn Beck though.

Edited April 4, 2008 by lostfan

[HuskyCaucasian]

Looks like McCain may have gotten it wrong again...

 

http://www.ourrepublicblog.com/2008/04/mcc...nnis-again.html

While questioning General David Petraeus about developments in Iraq, Sen. John McCain once again confused Shia and Sunni Muslims, calling al Qaeda an "obscure sect of the Shi'ites."

[Balta1701]

The guy who asked McCain the question that the Saint responded to with "Why not 100" has an article up at Huffington post reacting to all the people who have tried to allege that somehow McCain's words have been taken out of context, and stating how he interpreted it. The money quote:

While splitting hairs over the meaning of campaign rhetoric, all ignore the fact that McCain advocates an open-ended presence in Iraq, and the consequences that would follow from such a commitment.

 

McCain's words left little room for interpretation. By saying that he was fine with staying in Iraq for 100 years, he made clear his commitment to staying the course and, further, to remaining in Iraq for years after the country is pacified, assuming that's ever possible.

 

Everyone who was there that night got it: we weren't getting out anytime soon.

 

Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker summed it up when he wrote, "what the context shows, I think, is that yanking that sound bite out of context isn't really all that unfair. McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal -- that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay."

 

When offered the opportunity to backtrack later, McCain only dug himself in deeper, upping the ante to 10,000 years, or a million. He may as well have said "forever" when he confirmed his 100 years remark and added that he would support permanent bases in Iraq three days later on NBC's Meet the Press.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The guy who asked McCain the question that the Saint responded to with "Why not 100" has an article up at Huffington post reacting to all the people who have tried to allege that somehow McCain's words have been taken out of context, and stating how he interpreted it. The money quote:

Last week I saw a couple of Democrats pointing this out and I think it will be a MAJOR talking point in the fall. Basically it boils down to this, McCain will stay in Iraq for 100 years after there is peace and no Americans are dying. To achieve this, he will take as long as it needs and thousands of more lives to reach "peace".

 

Obama had a great line yesterday afternoon when questioning the general and ambassador. He asked them flat out "will Al-Quida ever be gone from Iraq or is it safe to say they are at a level in which the Iraq military force can keep them in check." The general's response: "the latter". Well, there goes a McCain talking point and shows Obama has a better understanding of the dynamics of Iraq than McCain.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

WOW! Nice job of re-editing an old apple ad.

 

Edited April 9, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

Josh Ashcroft is a wise man.

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

 

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

 

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

 

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

 

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

 

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

 

Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

 

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

[lostfan]

I really have no issues with aggressive interrogations. Obvious torture, no, but the other stuff works and when you're dealing with scum of the earth types you'd best to have good tools at your disposal.

 

But stuff like that really isn't meant to be discussed openly in public.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Create your own McCain Logo...

 

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

The Daily Show on Faux News.

 

 

Sad that the DAILY SHOW has the best reporting on Faux News.

[HuskyCaucasian]

[HuskyCaucasian]

What happened to the primary thread? Too Long?

Edited April 15, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000