Crap Throwing Monkey

You would assume that's what it means. But that would be your assumption. My response only stated that Hirsh is a blowhard who doesn't know quite as much as he thinks he does, and who could only find the truth of the matter if he accidentally tripped over it while chasing his own pet theories. Hirsh simply isn't a credible source. Even if he's right.

What's that I hear? Sounds like axes grinding. Hersh is about as reliable a reporter as Ann Coulter. Less, even...Ann doesn't pretend to be a reporter, as far as I know.

Only...not.

I would. I'd have to earn it, somehow. If the value of the compensation were directly tied to my performance as an executive (stock options, for example), I'd take it. If it were "Here's $100M for showing up, thanks", I couldn't do it and sleep at night.

Yep. Looks like Teddy Roosevelt.

You're probably right. It would be pretty difficult to drive a car being driven by someone else.

How would he know? He's no libraritarian....

Nice post, actually. Very intelligent and informative, and not TOO slanted by your usual bias. Having just read that, and the Convention, and that again...I think the key points are... and The key bit of fuzziness here - and why I still don't necessarily agree with the SC decision (I don't necessarily disagree either) - is whether or not a "military tribunal" is a "regularly constituted court...recognized by civilized peoples..." One could argue that it is - every civilized nation I can think of has recognized and used them. One could also argue that, whether it is or not, its establishment solely by the executive without oversight by the judicial or legislative branches invalidates a process otherwise permitted under the Convention because the process by which it comes about doesn't provide the "judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable..." Although I am leery of suggesting that Congress be allowed to create legislation that allows the executive to set up properly constituted military tribunals...for the same reason that people are leery of letting the executive set up extra-judicial military tribunals to begin with: separation of powers. The executive commands the military, not Congress. It's not Congress' place to establish military courts. (I hasten to add, too, that "regularly constituted court affording the judicial guarantees recognized as indespensable by civilized peoples." is really fuzzy wording. Who decides what a regularly constituted court is, or what judicial guarantees are indespensable, or who's civilized and who's not? Not only is that extremely vague, there's also a very basic - and in the context, alarming - cultural bias at work there.) Interesting read, though. Thanks. I still withhold my final opinion on the ruling until I have time to read it myself, but you increased my understanding of it notably.

In Ghengis Khan's defense, there was no government before he came along. Spending had nowhere to go but up.

Is there any administration where spending has actually decreased?

Of course not. Do you think I'm that grotesquely stupid?

Because all you ever post is "Democrats bad". You can't manage any sort of discourse without pointing out how bad the Democrats are. Everything is "Democrats bad". I don't particularly want to discuss "Democrats bad" in every post. It's boring as sh--.

Just that one. For me? Please? I'll give you Lana in exchange...

ADDENDUM: The real issue I have with that picture is that the bright sky is so bright it draws the eye away from the boat to the upper edge...at the same time, it's so bright it washes out most of the detail where the eye's drawn to...so you end up looking at nothing. I'm all for contrast...but that's a little too much in the wrong place. I guess what I really like about it is: it's in sepia. So here's another question for you: what does the original blue one look like in sepia?

Free with every 15k tune up on a Honda Fit...

Personally, I like that shot better in sepia...EXCEPT that the gradient from the bright sky to the boat is a little too excessive and jarring. Keep it in sepia, but darken the brightest part of the sky somehow, and it's got my vote. CAVEAT: I don't know sh-- about art or photography.

When I read your posts, I can't help picturing you wearing a beanie cap with a propeller on top...

I hasten to add - again - that I don't know that that was the basis of the court's decision. Coli was quoting a blog there. But IF it was, it's a really poor decision. If.

That is straight-up absolute nonsense. The Geneva Convention does NOT apply to non-signers, for starters. What's more, the Geneva Convention is an international treaty that, by definition does not apply to a non-nation. Arguing that an international treaty must apply to an extra-national organization that did not and could not sign the treaty is the biggest load of geopolitical bull sh-- I've heard in a long time. I haven't yet formed an opinion on the SC ruling...because I haven't yet had time to delve into it. But if the above statement is their basis for their ruling, it's a really sh------- decision...

That's not enough? Really, if someone did that to you, you'd roll over and play dead? Plus, it's not just power per se. More accurately, it's economic opportunity. People who had a chance to advance in their professions - even non-Ba'athists - are now unemployed simply because they're Sunni. High unemployment itself is usually cause for disturbances. High unemployment caused by biased policies of an occupying foreign power...? What do you expect they'd do?

And THAT is why you're such a !@#$ing dumbass on this topic. Who's opinion do you think counts more towards the US achieving its strategic goals in Iraq?

Lucci might. "Dammit, I've been nominated twenty times! Give me a !@#$ing Emmy, or Ray MacDonnell's getting two in the head, I swear!"

A safe bet none of them drove a Honda Fit...

Wreaking wanton destruction on the Sunni minority is better than letting them wreak wanton destruction on the Shi'ia majority? Is there a published scale of "wanton destruction" somewhere that explains what's good and what's bad? And never mind the paradox of reducing violence by increasing it (which isn't really a paradox anyway)...let's just question the strategic sense of feeding the grievances of people who are committing violence for those grievances already. Explain to me precisely how disenfranchising the Sunnis even more advances our strategic goals - again, I stress, strategic goals - in Iraq and the Middle East.

Yeah, disenfranchise the Sunnis even more. That'll calm things down.