Quite a newsy day:
- Obama Set To Restart Guantanamo Transfers (WSJ) — So far, I’m only seeing this from the WSJ…
- Man tied to Boston suspect is killed in FBI interview (WashPost) — Another young Chechen. I’m not saying he’s right, but somewhere Vladimir Putin is saying, “I told you so…”
- U.S. admits to killing four of its citizens abroad (WashPost) — Note to Rand Paul: These were NOT in the U.S….
- Man killed in meat-cleaver terror attack in London (The Guardian) — The U.S. reports said “machete.” Still. Is it just me, or are terrorists getting more and more primitive? A knife? A machete?
- SC Senate bill to allow guns in restaurants, bars advances in House with fewer restrictions (thestate.com) — Because the House doesn’t want to be out-crazied by the Senate.
- Emails Suggest IRS Criteria Developed by Lower-Level Workers (WSJ) — Which is kinda, you know, what we were told in the first place…
Related Posts
4. I know sensational sells, but it seems to me showing images of this murderer is a very poor editorial choice for news outlets. I am almost always for thorough reporting, but in this case (and in terrorism cases generally) discretion would have gone a long way. I can’t believe people just stood around filming the guy after his pointless attack and don’t understand why no one took action. Instead of reading he, too, is deceased, I have to start my day with images of this bloody killer? Not right.
What’s the Warthen objection to #5? Also, I would have probably replaced #6 with “Top IRS Official Takes the FIfth”.
The even fewer restrictions part. Guns in bars was bad enough.
The IRS official taking the fifth was news the day before…
The IRS official should not have taken the 5th.
However, at some point we’re going to have to say enough is enough on these endless hearings on relatively minor improprieties. Afterall is there really that much unknown about the IRS incident? Someone singled out tea party groups for special attention. There is no evidence that that singling out was directed from on high. The tea party groups were mostly approved for tax free status. The events have been aired and wrong doing admitted. The wrongdoers admonished. What else is there to conduct hearings about?
The restriction of 12:00AM was kind of arbitrary, though. It doesn’t make sense to say: You can carry CWP into a restaurant or bar, but not after 12:00AM. Either you can or you can’t. Keep the law simple and straightforward. Assigning an arbitrary cutoff time makes no logical sense.
People who carry CWP are some of the most contentious, law-abiding people you’ll ever meet. You could allow CWP everywhere all the time, and you’re not going to have any problems. When the CWP law was first proposed, all the hoplophobes said “It’s going to turn SC into the Wild West!”. Nothing of the sort has happened.
Expanding CWP is only going to apply to CWP holders. People who want to break the law (not CWP holders) are going to do it anyway.
Yes, they are among the most “contentious.”…
Conscientious
3. These drone strikes against American citizens wherever they are needs to stop NOW. This goes against everything that makes our country what it is. We are a nation that is supposed to respect the rule of law in a transparent and understandable way. How do we really know what these American citizens are up to? We are just supposed to take the administration at it’s word? As a practical matter all these drone strikes do is emboldened the terrorists to commit more terrorist acts in the future.
“As a practical matter all these drone strikes do is emboldened the terrorists to commit more terrorist acts in the future.”
Not the dead ones.
If they’re committing terrorist acts against other Americans, I say let the drones unleash their weapons regardless of nationality, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc.
re: #4, seems like a good arguement for concealed (or open) firearm carry to me. An important take away from the article, ” armed police arrived up to 20 minutes later” pretty much sums it up.
4. Thankfully the meat clever guy didn’t have an AR-15 or similar assault weapon. Had this occurred in the US there would have been many more folks killed. The UK has a much more sensible view of firearms than we do and a correspondingly much, much lower rate of homicide.
Obviously, it’s time to ban meat cleavers and knives, right? If we can just enact simple edged-weapon control, this kind of senseless violence could be limited. I mean, who really NEEDS a meat cleaver anyway?
Again we go round and round the mulberry bush on gun control. No one and I mean absolutely no one in the government is suggesting we ban guns. So bringing up the nonsensical “ban meat clevers” meme says nothing of any significance but only serves to make the conservative all guns all the time mantra seem foolish. Of course that kind of predictable and juvenile retort is nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the salient fact that only one person was killed in a British terrorist attack while in the US comparable attacks claim dozens of lives in theaters, schools, offices, political speeches and other venues because we approach guns differently than do the Brits. Isn’t it obvious that what we are doing with guns here makes us much more likely to die in a terrorist attack than what the Brits do? It is so very crystal clear yet folks continue with the nonsensical “let’s ban meat clevers” idiocy.
“Again we go round and round the mulberry bush on gun control.” – bud
Hey, man. You started it.
It’s not “all guns all of the time”. I would say my position is: “most guns, almost all of the time”. My position on pie is different. That’s “All pies, all of the time”. You want a serious internet debate?
Pie is superior to cake. Your move.
5. Meanwhile in South Carolina we increase the risks to our citizens by allowing folks to carry guns into bars. Alcohol and guns. What could possibly go wrong.
Wrong, Wrong. Wrong. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry CWP into bars and restaurants isn’t going to lead to any criminal acts. None. Zero. Have you even read the bill?
What gives you that sense of certainty? Look what results from guns in the home (and I don’t mean stored in a locked gun safe).
Not sure where suicide stacks up as a crime, but the linkage between alcohol and guns is sadly significant.
There’s nothing in the bill that’s going to stop “law-abiding” citizens from getting all liquored-up before entering a bar or restaurant…get ready for the wild, wild West.
It’s already against the law to use a firearm in any manner at any time, when under the influence of alcohol. So no…it’s not going to be the wild west.
Again, the people who carry CWP regard doing so as creating a heavy obligation. They’re more polite, less confrontational, and more respectful of others. When you choose to carry CWP, you’re taking on additional responsibilities. Everyone I know who carries takes it extremely seriously.
S.C. Code 23-31-400(B) “It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance to use a firearm in this State.”
Specifically .08 being the limit (See, S.C. Code 23-31-420). You can go to jail for two years if you violate that law.
“Again, the people who carry CWP regard doing so as creating a heavy obligation. They’re more polite, less confrontational, and more respectful of others. When you choose to carry CWP, you’re taking on additional responsibilities. Everyone I know who carries takes it extremely seriously.”
And you know this how? I know plenty of fools who walk around w/ guns. Not to mention plenty of hunters who break that little “no alcohol” law ALL THE TIME…point being it probably won’t detract some from drinking and carrying. Bigger point being alcohol and guns in the same building not a good idea.
FWIW I grew up around guns, know how to shoot, and believe in the right to own them. But this is a dumb and dangerous idea.
Libb – Because CWP holders know from training and just general knowledge that just because you have a card in your wallet it doesn’t mean that you won’t go to jail if you pull a gun out. Most CWP holders I know are actually a little more paranoid about it when they’re carrying, because of the responsibility that comes with carrying. I don’t know any that go into cowboy mode like what you’re suggesting.
Actually, Libb, the Wild West was tamer than today. Wyatt Earp didn’t even allow guns in his town, much less in saloons:
I’m surprised that some of you here aren’t lobbying to reduce maximum speeds on vehicles to 40 mph. Because if you know if a car can do 200 mph, people all over are going to be driving 200 mph.
Was Tombstone the rule or the exception?
Off point, but the Wyatt Earp reference jogged a childhood memory…had a cousin who thought Earp was”it”. Loved to put on his “Wyatt Earp” cowboy outfit & badge and proudly sing this tribute (he was 4 or 5 yrs old) to his hero :
“Wyatt Earp makes me burp”
The Old West just ain’t what it used to be.
There’s a good scene of all the cowboys coming to town and checking their handguns in the Jimmy Stewart movie, “Winchester 73”. They all hang their gunbelts up on a fence at the corrall when they arrive, and a deputy watches the guns.
I wonder what the total annual number of felonies or violent crimes committed by CWP holders in SC is? I’ll bet it’s damned close to zero. I’m with Caskey, it’s the folks who don’t have CWP’s that are causing the problem.
Can anybody even cite me an incident where at CWP holder committed a crime of gun violence? We’ve had the CWP law for a fair while now. (1996, I think). I’ll wait.
For all you conservatives out there is you want liberal allies in a cause against the President this whole drone business is one where we believe Mr. Obama is on the wrong side of the Constitution. Most of these other scandals not so much.
bud, in addition to drones, I’d add the following: IRS anal probes, running guns to old Mexico, wiretapping the media, trying to silence critics through intimidation, covering up crimes and/or possibly lying to congress. Other than those scandals, not so much.
re: #1 – Closing “Gitmo” and bringing the captives back to the US of A.
I for one would like to volunteer South Kakalacky to host the indefinitely detained prisoners. Right now the feds are spending $150 million annually to keep them, and we could certainly use the moolah. Build them a brand new detention down in the middle of Sparkleberry Swamp. Let da gators get ’em if they escape.
Here’s how I would rate the so-called “scandals”
Benghazi – 0
IRS – 2
Fast and Furious – 1
AP – 3-7 (depending on a number of factors)
Drones – 6-8
Here’s how I would rate the Bush scandals:
Lying about Iraq – 10 (possibly the most disgusting abuse of the presidency in American history)
pre- 9-11 incompetence – 9
Illegal wire tapping – 8
Abu Ghraib – 7
Valerie Plame – 7
Combatant Torture – 7
Katrina debacle – 7
Drones – 6+
Intimidation of ACORN and other Liberal Groups – 6
“Lying about Iraq – 10 (possibly the most disgusting abuse of the presidency in American history)”…bud
bud, you have been challenged to provide positive proof from an unimpeachable source that Bush knowingly “lied” about Iraq. So far, nothing but the sound of crickets from your keyboard. Enough said.
Yeah… Bud keeps sayin’ it, but it keeps on being not true…
I don’t know why the most ardent critics of the war aren’t satisfied with saying that Bush committed a huge error in judgment (in their opinion). Why is it so important to them to say that he LIED, when he didn’t?
Knew or should have known….
Because that would not fit the evidence.
It’s important because going forward we absolutely must not allow the words of any president to go unchallenged and accepted as face value the way Bush’s were. Other presidents have committed flagrant acts of deceipt also, Lyndon Johnson with his Gulf of Tonkin resoultion for instance, but the Bush lies were unique in the way they orchestrated this full court press by the highest level officials to simply disregard anything and everything that suggested they were wrong. Even to the point of launching their war while the inspectors were doing their work. It was brazen and it cost our nation dearly. So this must be treated as the diabolical scheme that it was and not sugarcoat it with a bunch of weasel words.
Bart, I doubt any evidence I bring forward would satisfy anybody who continues to believe the Iraq was as justified. But Rachel Maddow has pretty well demolished any pretense that the Bush administration merely used poor judgement. Just watch Hubris.
bud, present the evidence with proof other than anything Rachael Maddow has to say and cite specific references that have been verified as being factual truth and I will be satisfied. Otherwise, it is nothing more than your opinion based on other opinions that were based on someone else’s opinion.
If you are satisfied going on appearances of guilt or lies then maybe you should read the recap of the visits by the head of the union representing IRS agents to the White House the day before the directive was issued to start looking into certain groups applying for tax-free status. Then justify the number of visits she made afterwards and by the way, the same federal employees union raised money for Obama and almost 100% was contributed to his re-election campaign. So, there is a serious conflict of interest here and no denying it.
There, you have a thread connecting Obama to the investigation of conservative and Tea Party groups by the IRS. Now, whether the thread is actuall “evidence” or not is another matter. So, is Obama lying when he states that he was not aware of the investigations by the “rogue” IRS agents or is he to be given the benefit of the doubt? In your world, you bet your sweet a$$ he gets a pass.
Bart, I realize you are innoculated against any evidence suggesting Bush and his minions were deceiptful so it is pointless to go down this path again. Just read the book Hubris written by David Corn and discussed at length on Rachel’s show. It lays out the case in a convincing manner that the Bush administration wanted to go to war with Iraq to remove Hussein from power even before 9-11. Within hours of that event Bush directed his intelligence apparatus to come up with evidence that linked the Iraqi regime to the 9-11 attacks. There are memos to support that. Cheney went on Meet the Press with Tim Russert a few weeks later to claim with a high level of confidence that one of the terrorists (Atta) was seen in Prague discussing the planned attack with an Iraqi official. The claim was bogus at the time and one official close to the investigation watching the show was astounded that Cheney would make such a brazenly false claim.
And it goes on. Simply put, the Bush Administration orchestrated a scheme to fit the evidence of Al-Qaeda links to Iraq AND the existence of WMD to their intentions of invading Iraq. There is really no real doubt about this any more.
I’ll bite…maybe W did believe the “mistaken” intelligence on Iraq’s WMD that started the invasion but he sure told some lies afterwards to keep his ill-advised war going and for reasons connected to a personal and dysfunctional agenda.
First, the lies. Independent journalist Robert Parry writes, “Nevertheless, Bush followed up his false pre-war claims about Iraq’s WMD with a post-invasion insistence that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had barred U.N. inspectors from his country, a decision that Bush said left him no choice but to invade. Bush began reciting this faux history just months after the invasion and continued the tall tale until the end of his presidency more than five years later.” He goes on in the article to cite the “factual evidence” to support his assertion. Here’s the link:
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/04/26/bush-did-lie-about-iraq/
What I find even more damning and reprehensible is the agenda behind the lies. Russ Baker offers “factual evidence” that Iraq was on Bush’s agenda as far back as 1999 and for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with freedom or national security.
From Russ Baker’s interview w/ Mickey Herskowitz (Texas journalist w/ close ties to the Bush Family), “He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” Herskowitz told me in our 2004 interview, leaning in a little to make sure I could hear him properly. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander in chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade . . . if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed, and I’m going to have a successful presidency.’ ”
Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow.”
Mr Baker also shares this telling excerpt from the NY Times article on Donald Rumsfeld’s new book,
“Just 15 days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush invited his defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, to meet with him alone in the Oval Office. According to Mr. Rumsfeld’s new memoir, the president leaned back in his leather chair and ordered a review and revision of war plans — but not for Afghanistan, where the Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington had been planned and where American retaliation was imminent.
“He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes.
“Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’ ””
Wow…quite a bone to throw at a pack of warmongering dogs.
Link to Baker article:
http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/02/06/bush-rumsfeld-and-iraq-is-the-real-reason-for-the-invasion-finally-emerging/
So, pretty much, he lied to send young men and women to fight an unwinnable war to assuage unresolved childhood issues w/ dad…that’s a legacy and a man beyond redemption.
The credentials for Mr Parry and Mr Baker can be checked out on Wiki.
Concerning
Just to take one of your points very quickly… You find it “damning… that Iraq was on Bush’s agenda as far back as 1999.”
I don’t even find it remarkable, in any way.
Regime change in Iraq had been officially and legally “on the agenda” of the United States — not just Bush — since 1998, when the Iraq Liberation Act was passed.
It wasn’t even controversial. It passed the House 360-38, and the Senate by unanimous consent. President Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 31, 1998.
Because I know such things as this, because I see the Iraq invasion of 2003 within the context of everything that had been happening over the previous 12 years, I wonder at the efforts Bush critics go to to “prove” Iraq had been on his radar screen. Yes, it was. It was on the agenda of the entire country, by law.
Re #4: You must be forgetting Daniel Pearl and a few other examples, and that goes back to 2002.
6. You gotta love the GOP. There guys are the ones with a whole warehouse full of skeletons in their past yet that doesn’t stop them from these ongoing witch hunts. Apparently Darrell Issa has been indicted for car theft more than once and was convicted of illegally carrying a handgun into a building. Yet here he is going after the Obama Administration for anything and everything. What a piece of work.
http://www.newser.com/story/109882/darrell-issas-criminal-past-back-in-the-spotlight.html
“Bart, I realize you are innoculated against any evidence suggesting Bush and his minions were deceiptful so it is pointless to go down this path again.”…bud
No bud, I am not innoculated against any “evidence suggesting”, I am simply not going to buy into evidence “suggesting” that Bush and gasp, surprise, Obama ever lied and purposefully sent Americans into harm’s way or simply didn’t care about the lives of Americans serving the country when they were attacked and killed. I posted a thread that connects Obama to the IRS scandal but until there is a real evidence, not suggested, that can be supported with actual facts, there is no way I will buy into the partisan crap spouted by both sides when it serves their immediate purpose.
I learned my lesson the hard way when I believed Nixon for a few days and defended him. After that, no politician on either side has gained my trust but at the same time, to buy into the left’s version of Bush being a liar and right’s version of the same for Obama, I say a pox on both houses.
So, you continue to practice or believe whatever it is you do and do so with the willful ignorance of a misguided partisanship that does nothing but serve to further divide this country. There is enough ignorance among the most intelligent members of both sides to adequately keep the citizens of this country from all spectrums at odds for generations to come.
Have at one and all!!
Brad, you really miss the point about why it is important that Bush had Iraq on his radar even before 9-11. If he was preoccupied with Iraq to that extent then it is plausible that he would also look toward finding an excuse to invade the country even if they did not present a threat to American security. It is suggested by Bush defenders that he merely acted when he did because the threat level had somehow been increased. Evidence of “having this on his radar” undermines the credibility of that claim.
Instead, the extent of his preoccupation is strong evidence that he was going to invade Iraq whether or not they were a threat. You often claim that Bill Clinton also was preoccupied with Saddam. But he merely implemented a no fly zone. Likewise Bush Sr. didn’t even invade Iraq proper while we were actually at war with them. Only Bush Jr. sought the military invasion route.
The only problem was how to sell the idea to the American people. He saw his chance with the events of 9-11. Without 9-11 he would have still pushed the issue but that made it easier. Hence we have all this nonsense about mushroom clouds, and yellow cake and stuff that the British had learned (why not the US CIA) and phony meetings in Prague and certainty of WMDs east, north, south and west, mobile chemical labs, phoney UN talking points by way of Colin Powell and the list goes on and on. Indeed when you have a long history of a preoccupation with something that’s important. The fact that he acted on that preoccupation seals the deal. Bush wanted war and he was willing to lie us into.
Except that he didn’t lie.
The reason there is such a gulf of perception on this between myself and so many people I respect is that it always made sense to me to invade Iraq.
The WMD that everyone, including Saddam’s own generals, thought were there added another reason, but there was always sufficient reason, to me, with or without the WMD.
It was the policy of the United States, and had been for five years, to get rid of the Saddam regime. The difference that 9/11 made was that we lacked the will to act before that.
But we’ve been over this ground so many times, and I don’t expect to bridge the gap…
“You find it “damning… that Iraq was on Bush’s agenda as far back as 1999.” – Brad
No, what I find damning is Bush’s feckless agenda.
Brad, I must say if you still think it was a good idea to invade Iraq then the gulf between us really is far too wide to ever bridge. To me that’s like trying to defend slavery. Even so it’s important to discuss since this type of issue will certainly come up again. And for those of us who thought the war was wrong from the very beginning you can bet we’ll make lots of noise to make sure the truth comes out before another rash decision is made.
One other quick point. Doesn’t this just show how unimportant bipartisan support is for a given issue? The fact that invading Iraq pretty much had bipartisan support doesn’t change whether it was the right call or not.
If it makes you feel any better, if I’d known how the administration would botch the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, I wouldn’t have been for it.
While we are exchanging comments and barbs about our differences and points of view on war, taxes, social issues, and other things that at the end of the are nothing more than our opinions, we need to remember that we can freely disagree with each other because of the upcoming holiday, Memorial Day.
Without the sacrifice of thousands of soldiers, male and female, bud might not be able to state his anti-war position in such a public way. If not for those who served in our nation’s military and were willing to lay their lives down for their country, how many freedoms would we be able to enjoy today?
We may not agree on the issues but we can agree that the freedom to express them in public is a real treasure we enjoy and if not for those who were and are willing to defend this nation, there is a very real possibility that Brad’s blog wouldn’t be available to express our opinions.
While bud is totally anti-war, on the other hand he is to be commended on the fact that his son is serving the nation as a member of the Navy. bud, we can only hope that he is never called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice. I know that is how I felt when my son was in the military and at one time his reserve unit was about to be shipped to the ME.
When we are grilling burgers, hot dogs, steaks, or whatever, take a moment to reflect and remember the men and women who have and still serve our country. They deserve our respect.