Article

2006-09-22 Home Front: WoT

Bush, Republicans agree on detainee interrogation

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-09-22 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 You know Dubya is right when even CNN grudgingly admits, wid smiles, that the present methods are effective + saved America from new airliner-based terror attack(s) [not in NYC].

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-09-22 02:14|| 2006-09-22 02:14|| Front Page Top

#2 McCain's position, arguing that Bush's desire to provide clarifying language of Article 3 to protect the CIA interrogators from inadvertantly (heh) violating the vague language, never made any sense. None. He never deigned to explain himself either, instead posturing without substance that, in some bizarre mysterious way that only the Fuckwit Four could fathom, defining WTF Article 3 actually meant in real-world terms would somehow endanger US service personnel in some future conflict. Total BullShit. It's common sense to require specifics, require clarity, where there is doubt. This was one of his patented "Hey, lookit me! I'm important!" games. To treat this as anything but pure political crap is to flush logic down the drain.

The Fuckwit Four should be permanently assigned to the Shit List.

Posted by .com 2006-09-22 02:32|| 2006-09-22 02:32|| Front Page Top

#3 See those scars? Senator McCain Sustained them during torture whilst a POW in Veitnam. If anyone earned an oppinion about interrogation he did!!

Posted by Snoth Slomosing9191 2006-09-22 03:03|| 2006-09-22 03:03|| Front Page Top

#4 Yesterday, Brit Hume said he couldn't fathom McCain & Co's position either. IIRC, only Mara Liasson seemed to think she sort of understood, but failed to make much sense when she tried to explain it, to the amusement of everyone on the show, LOL.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-22 03:13|| 2006-09-22 03:13|| Front Page Top

#5 McCain is like a hemorrhoid that flares up and is a pain in the ass

Posted by Captain America 2006-09-22 03:14|| 2006-09-22 03:14|| Front Page Top

#6 SS, there are plenty of other men of valor who were POWs who don't side with McCain (Sam Johnson, etc.)

McCain has never been a general, but he shots off his mouth about troop levels as if he is a five-star. Disgusting.

Posted by Captain America 2006-09-22 03:18|| 2006-09-22 03:18|| Front Page Top

#7 I wish I knew what these asshats were smoking. This is all about trying to mitigate the effect of the Hamdan ruling -- which, toghether with Rasul and Hamdi, is an invitation to get Colombian on federal judges if there ever was one.

First, the Supreme Cow had to ignore the fact that terrorists do not even remotely meet the conditions for the GCs to apply. Second, they overlook the fact that long-standing DoD policy is to adhere to GC standards anyway.

Most bizarrely, they skipped over the language of CA2, which applies to international armed conflict; if any provision is arguably relevant to GWOT, it would be this one. Yet the court somehow concluded that CA3 is the one that's applicable -- "armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties."

I.e., the Court ruled that the most global, international conflict history has ever seen is not of an international character, but an internal conflict within the territory of one nation (which one, I wonder?) Such demented, bizarro-land, post-modern "reasoning" is what passes for astute legal analysis these days. And now it is the law of the land.

Even acknowledging such bilge is to succumb to insanity. Any legislative "clarification" of CA3 amounts to one more baby step down the road of incremental surrender to our enemies, foreign and domestic.

Worst of all, totally lost in the dickering over whether peanut butter sandwiches are a war crime is the urgent question of whether the GCs should be scrapped entirely. The very foundations they were built on do not exist in this conflict, and nothing can induce the enemy to adhere to them anyway. It is a question of our survival. I would rather be a tad vicious and alive than compassionate and dead.

Posted by exJAG 2006-09-22 05:20|| 2006-09-22 05:20|| Front Page Top

#8 Dr. Steve! Shhhhusssshhhhhh!

The Kos Kiddies haven't figgered it out yet!

That Karl Rove; is he good, or what?

O.K., I'll 'splain it to the rest of ya:

If everybody just immediately jumped on W's plan, the whole world would've smelled a stinker. All the libs, commies, socialists, and tranzis would've cried foul.

Karl knew this, and persuaded McCain and the other three to make a fuss about the fact that W's plan was too harsh. Everyone fell for that ruse! It fit their meme perfectly!

And what's 'in' and what's 'out', torture-wise? Can't tell ya. That's "secret".

Perfect!

Now W has Karl's original interrogation plan approved, and the Tranzi's and fellow travellers are mollified! Whadda deal!

Posted by Bobby 2006-09-22 06:14|| 2006-09-22 06:14|| Front Page Top

#9 Thanks, eJAG. I thought the language was straightforward, so when Hamdan cam down I presumed I had missed some overriding tenet or provision.

So the reading comprehension of 5 members of SCOTUS are sub-3rd Grade... or they just didn't give a fuck and decided to ignore the bits they didn't like.

Is it obtuse enough to suggest that they need to be assisted in achieving a higher plane of "existence"?

Posted by flyover 2006-09-22 06:22|| 2006-09-22 06:22|| Front Page Top

#10 "It is a question of our survival. I would rather be a tad vicious and alive than compassionate and dead."

Hear, hear!!

I don't know where the Hell we ever acquired the perverse notion that if we, America, are not morally and legally beyond all possible reproach then we are no damn good at all; but if we don't get rid of it soon it's going to get a bunch of us killed-- possibly several million if we miss an intelligence tidbit that would have allowed us to foil a terrorist WMD attack.

And frankly, our squeamishness is likely to get more of THEM killed, too, because it fails to deter them from following a course that is leading them straight toward the greatest Train Wreck in all of human history.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-22 06:23|| 2006-09-22 06:23|| Front Page Top

#11 Boy, you're cruising for a bruising, Dave D.

You haven't applied the Magic Filter to separate out the vast majority of Muslims who are Moderate from the tiny percentage that are Extremists. Of course, when the train wreck occurs, perhaps they'll suddenly and magically sort themselves for us, instantly forming an array of resistance movements and the Moderate Muslim Jihadi-Whacker Brigades. Sure, that's how it will go, I betcha. I must admit that I'm curious why the outlines of this aren't yet apparent, 5 yrs on if I use 9/11 as a starting point, 27 if I use the Embassy takeover, or 33 if I use the Oil Embargo, but it's probably a culture thingy and I just don't understand.

Anyway, I have it on verbose and strident authority that the sorting thing is required before you can say anything about train wrecks and stuff.

What's the sound of one finger wagging?

In any case, you've been warned, so you better watch it there, buddy.

Posted by Sholuter Grineth1342 2006-09-22 06:53|| 2006-09-22 06:53|| Front Page Top

#12 The reason the court held that CA2 doesn't apply is that "international" means a conflict between states, but the enemy is a decentralized terrorist network rather than a state actor. Strictly speaking, this is correct. But how CA3 is any more applicable is beyond me.

The logical conclusion is that NEITHER applies. Further, the list of actors that make a good-faith attempt to comply with the GCs can be counted on one hand. What's the use? Does our humane treatment deter the enemy from committing atrocities against us? No. Are our detainees hapless conscripts ordered into battle by a tyrant who gave them no choice? No.

The primary function the GCs now serve is a modern-day Treaty of Hudaybiyya -- a sham treaty Muhammad concluded with the Quraysh of Mecca, for two purposes: (1) to buy time to consolidate and re-arm, and (2) to set up impossible conditions that the Quraysh would surely violate, providing a pretext to declare war when they did. Only two years passed between the signing of the treaty, and the defeat, slaughter, rape, and enslavement of the Quraysh.

I'd like to see what the humanitarians say when the thing that supposedly "preserves our humanity" gets us all killed.

Posted by exJAG 2006-09-22 07:00|| 2006-09-22 07:00|| Front Page Top

#13 Ms. exJAG, I'm awfully glad you're here illuminating the technical issues for us. Despite all the noises some here like to make, you join the select group of lawyers who make Rantburg their home, contributing snark and their personal knowledge and perspective to the mix. You'll have noticed cingold, of course, and there's Matt from N'Awlins and a surprising number of others, some of whom are current or retired military like you and Mr. future-exJAG (I do look forward to meeting him when he has the time to poke his head in).

Posted by trailing wife 2006-09-22 07:30|| 2006-09-22 07:30|| Front Page Top

#14 McCain finally got his polling results. I think he found out gasoline prices are more important than the volume of gas he produces.

As for being a POW hero, I salute him. But that buys him no special cred on the issue. It can as easily be argued it buys scepticism. And given the way this played out, I doubt it had much to do with his motivation either way. Just his Gang of 14 media whoring.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-22 07:58|| 2006-09-22 07:58|| Front Page Top

#15 exJAG

I am all for maintaining the GC provided that we rememeber in what spirit it was made: make war less inhuman NOT tie the hands of the bad guys. And in that spirit, AFAIK (but you know better) you are NOT bound by it once the other guy violates them. In that spirit if the other guy fires at you from a hospital the GC gives you the right to level the hopital, capture the offender and execute him for warcrimes. GC's spirit is: Crime shouldn't pay. Let's have American forces really respect GC because the "you gain nothing by violating the rules" effect is essential for Geneva's conventions being respected. Even if we know that Jihadis will never respect them other gueriilas and armed forces could get the lesson.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-09-22 08:20|| 2006-09-22 08:20|| Front Page Top

#16 Without addressing the status of prisoners, which is out of my league, why on earth would it be a bad thing to clarify "cruel and inhuman" treatment? Does undies on the head fall under that fuzzy definition? How about a female interrogator? How about Western music or art or pork nearby? How about a Christian or Jewish soldier praying nearby?

I think we owe a level of protection to our citizens earnestly trying to carry out their charge, and clear rules would help do that. And I think the international community needs to face up to the difference between insult, discomfort, and real torture.

Posted by Jules 2006-09-22 09:05|| 2006-09-22 09:05|| Front Page Top

#17 According to Suskind, alot of the info we've gotten from the big 14 was not obtained by coercive interrogation methods, and the big hit we got - a codename for KSM - was something wed already suspected, and it was only one piece of catching KSM. And we got a lot of bogus stuff from coercive methods - some of the false alarms we got in 2002 were cause Zubayday was spilling stuff that wasnt true to get the pain to stop. All in all, a mixed record. Is it worth the hits we're taking in our rep to for what we're getting? McCain doesnt think so. Warner doesnt. The militarys top lawyers dont. Powell doesnt. George Schultz doesnt.

And now the admin has given in. Yup, it leaves the Dems without an issue. It also means the admin has shown weakness. The real winners here are McCain, who stuck to his core beliefs at risk to his political career, but who ended up winning and forcing admin concessions, and the American people.

This materially increases the chances I will vote GOP in 2008, btw. Both because it increases the odds McCain will be the nominee, and it increases my respect for him.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-09-22 10:02|| 2006-09-22 10:02|| Front Page Top

#18 Good luck with that "respect McCain" bit.

As for me, I've been around long enough to have seen him cover his ass on the credit union financial scandal, only to appoint himself Mr. Clean via imagemaking. and I've seen him knife various colleagues in the back, while positioning himself as Mr. Above Nasty Politics.

If you buy it, I hope you like it once you take it home. He could be offering mucho dollars-off coupons, though, and I wouldn't pay a cent for what he's selling.

Posted by lotp 2006-09-22 10:13|| 2006-09-22 10:13|| Front Page Top

#19 "Boy, you're cruising for a bruising, Dave D. [...] In any case, you've been warned, so you better watch it there, buddy."

I think I can take care of myself OK, thank you...

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-22 10:49|| 2006-09-22 10:49|| Front Page Top

#20 tw, thank you and the guys for a warm reception. There don't seem to be too many Rantburg Chicks, but that's to be expected, I guess.

Mr. exJAG lurks from time to time, but I don't think he'll be making an appearance. I'm paraphrasing here, but he says, "that's nice, but I think it's a &^%! waste of time to &%%#! argue about this *&%# anymore, and isn't it high *&^%^%#@ time to just &*%&$# every last &^$#! one of those &*%$# &%$!." So, I guess the nattering is up to me, as he's busy cleaning the guns. Such a sweetie-pie!

McCain is a choad. Junk Geneva. That is all!

Posted by exJAG 2006-09-22 10:50|| 2006-09-22 10:50|| Front Page Top

#21 See those scars? Senator McCain Sustained them during torture whilst a POW in Veitnam. If anyone earned an oppinion about interrogation he did!!

Um, with all due respect, that's a really stupid thing to say. Are we to consider John McCin's opinion unimpeachable because he was tortured in the Hanoi Hilton?

This is the same line of bullshit thinking that says Cindy Sheehan is an unimpeachable authority on Iraq because she lost a son, or the Dems scrounging for Vets to run for office on an anti-war platform.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong. McCain is DEAD WRONG on this issue. There, see? Everyone has an opinion, and his is no more unimpeachable than mine.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-22 10:56|| 2006-09-22 10:56|| Front Page Top

#22 "If you buy it, I hope you like it once you take it home. He could be offering mucho dollars-off coupons, though, and I wouldn't pay a cent for what he's selling."

Right, cause the current admin has never stabbed anyone in the back, or tried to cover their asses after a mistake.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-09-22 11:03|| 2006-09-22 11:03|| Front Page Top

#23 I doubt primary voting Republicans are impressed by McCain's continual underminimg of a sitting President of his own party, undercutting his own chances of getting the nominaion. He's got a better shot at the White House on a fusion ticket with Lieberman.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-22 11:22|| 2006-09-22 11:22|| Front Page Top

#24 SG1342 wins this week's 'Understated Snark' award (other than Fred's comment the other day, of course, but Fred isn't eligible for the award ;-). AoS.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-09-22 11:27|| 2006-09-22 11:27|| Front Page Top

#25 BTW, it was the S&L scandal, not the "credit union" scandal, and McCain was exonerated.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-09-22 11:33|| 2006-09-22 11:33|| Front Page Top

#26 McCain was exonerated.

By a Senate Ethics Committee.

Talk about an oxymoron.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-22 12:11|| 2006-09-22 12:11|| Front Page Top

#27 I'll stand by my judgment of McCain. Daddy taught me long ago to beware of people who set themselves up as paragons of virtue, to pity those who had lost their integrity and were struggling with their self hatred, and NEVER to give power to someone who combined both attributes in one political career.

Posted by lotp 2006-09-22 12:22|| 2006-09-22 12:22|| Front Page Top

#28 I know people who flew with McCain, and they don't like him.
That says a lot. He's a back stabber, not quite a Kerry, but untrustworthy, nontheless. Not his fault, really, he just follows what the MSM dictates. Simpleton comes to mind. Useful fool.
One thing is sure, he's no leader. He keeps taking the position against the American people, like on the borders issue. Leaders aren't that dumb.
When the debates start, you'll see how populist his positions are and how vacant his reasons are.

Posted by wxjames 2006-09-22 12:28|| 2006-09-22 12:28|| Front Page Top

#29 John McCain: Torture Worked on Me

Posted by ed 2006-09-22 12:28|| 2006-09-22 12:28|| Front Page Top

#30 "McCain was exonerated.

By a Senate Ethics Committee.

Talk about an oxymoron."

So I take it you wouldnt vote for Santorum, Frist, or Allen for Prez?

and since both Rummy and Cheney served in the House, you find a major distinction between the House and Senate?

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-09-22 13:05|| 2006-09-22 13:05|| Front Page Top

#31 "Daddy taught me long ago to beware of people who set themselves up as paragons of virtue, to pity those who had lost their integrity"

So you havent voted GOP for Prez since at least 1996, I take it?

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-09-22 13:06|| 2006-09-22 13:06|| Front Page Top

#32 "I know people who flew with McCain, and they don't like him"

In contrast to those who flew with Cheney?

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-09-22 13:07|| 2006-09-22 13:07|| Front Page Top

#33 I know people who flew with McCain, and they don't like him.

I knew him at NAS Cecil Field, FL when he became CO of VA-174, the A-7E II Training Squadron. I was but a lowly Airman Apprentice and Plane Captain in training.

He was a very arrogant and nasty dispositioned fellow, even for an officer. There were plenty of other ex-POW's returning to active duty and flight status, they all seemed to give him a WIDE berth.

Having tucked him into his A-7 a number of times, I can definitely confirm that he is indeed, a choad! That is all!

Posted by Texas Redneck 2006-09-22 13:16|| 2006-09-22 13:16|| Front Page Top

#34 Keating 5
Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion. His convictions were overturned on technicalities; for example, the federal conviction was overturned because jurors had heard about his state conviction, and his state charges because Judge Lance Ito (yes, that judge) screwed up jury instructions. Neither court cleared him, and he faces new trials in both courts.)

Though he was not convicted of anything, McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,00 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating's airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain's wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a "sweetheart deal."

Sounds like your type of "honest", LH

Posted by Frank G 2006-09-22 13:26|| 2006-09-22 13:26|| Front Page Top

#35 I don't like McCain, never have. I don't trust him. My gut sense tells me there's something dark and twisted lurking in the depths of his soul, something I wouldn't like one darned bit if it ever showed itself in the light of day.

I'll vote for him if I have to, but only to keep a Democrat out of the White House. And I'll have to take a deep breath and hold my nose while I do it.

I find McCain positively shuddersome.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-22 13:35|| 2006-09-22 13:35|| Front Page Top

#36 We know that the President initially tried to accomodate McCain by referring to his Detainee Treatment Standards in the proposed legislation.

This 'famous' document is actually a short amendment to an appropriations bill (typical!) and requires two things:

1. No person under control of the DOD shall be subjected shall be subjected to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

2. No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

where

Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

The US took exception to the UN Convention, referring instead to the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments.

So this is more than a little circular!

I take this to mean that a 'detainee' in the hands of the CIA in North Wazoo enjoys all the (pre-trial) protections of a US citizen under the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments and the settled law which implements them.

But that wasn't good enough for McCain.

Then there is the 'affront to human dignity', which can be interpreted any way you like. For example, I'd say that the open commode in a prison cell is an affront to human dignity. Or not providing clean sheets every day. Or not saying "Good morning" in a civil tone.

Posted by KBK 2006-09-22 14:38|| 2006-09-22 14:38|| Front Page Top

#37 Thanks, ex-JAG, for stealing/echoing one of my rants. People need to step back and consider the stupefying performance of the SCOTUS - your use of "insanity" is not hyperbolic - in simply making it up as they go along WRT CA3.

The scary - this means scary to intelligent, savvy, experienced people, and cannot be parodied as politically expedient - thing here is that the completely unfit SCOTUS just appointed itself executive and rewrote a treaty off the top of their head. If this is not a huge blow to both the Constitution and our security, I am desperately waiting for someone to explain it.

As for McCain, having observed him up close for several years on the Hill, long before he was a (pathetically eager) "maverick" preening for the media wing of the opposition party, he's nuts. Scary nuts, in a non-clinical sense. He's got all the personality attributes of the brilliant egotistical leader, save the brilliance and the leadership qualities. Just because he's not a complete idiot on national security like most Dems and many GOPers still leaves him mediocre at best in that department.

On a visit here last year, in a group including Clinton, Graham, and Feingold, he managed to make such an egregiously stupid and irresponsible comment in the press availability that CLINTON and even Feingold hastened to clean up the mess after him - this is no mean accomplishment. In an answer about trends in the war he said what the US should aim for is an acceptable level of casualties, or something to that effect. I'm not kidding. His colleagues fairly jumped in to insist that what was needed was commitment to make sure Iraqis had a chance to launch their democracy, then having just had its first successful vote. Jaws still hung open and heads shook as Graham took the discussion in another direction. McCain sat there looking shifty and weird as usual, not even seeming to notice what had happened.

Then we could talk about his illiterate, bizarre, and utterly alien indifference to our core democratic values such as free expression.

McCain is the perfect Republican for those whose understanding of people and important issues is at the level of NPR or your typical "educated" Beltway denizen. But he's a preposterous candidate for anything and I'm not too concerned he'll go beyond his current level of incompetence.

Posted by Verlaine in Iraq 2006-09-22 14:52|| 2006-09-22 14:52|| Front Page Top

#38 StrategyPage: Al Qaeda's Allies in Congress
If U.S. politicians John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham prevail in their political battle with the American government over military tribunals, the United States could effectively find itself returned to the policies of the Clinton Administration, when convicting terrorists often compromised the gathering of intelligence. How? Because one of the provisions in the McCain-Warner-Graham legislation would require that terrorists be shown all the evidence against them. Despite their noble intentions, their legislation, if passed, will increase the chance that a terrorist attack will succeed in the future.

More at link

Posted by ed 2006-09-22 14:55|| 2006-09-22 14:55|| Front Page Top

#39 tw, thank you and the guys for a warm reception. There don't seem to be too many Rantburg Chicks, but that's to be expected, I guess.

Mr. exJAG lurks from time to time, but I don't think he'll be making an appearance. I'm paraphrasing here, but he says, "that's nice, but I think it's a &^%! waste of time to &%%#! argue about this *&%# anymore, and isn't it high *&^%^%#@ time to just &*%&$# every last &^$#! one of those &*%$# &%$!." So, I guess the nattering is up to me, as he's busy cleaning the guns. Such a sweetie-pie!

McCain is a choad. Junk Geneva. That is all!

Mrs. exJag,

Ima not worthy [*bows and scrapes*] ... but completely won over and a now big fan! >:-)

Posted by RD 2006-09-22 15:09|| 2006-09-22 15:09|| Front Page Top

#40 NYT
About the only thing that Senators John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham had to show for their defiance was Mr. Bushs agreement to drop his insistence on allowing prosecutors of suspected terrorists to introduce classified evidence kept secret from the defendant. The White House agreed to abide by the rules of courts-martial, which bar secret evidence. (Although the administrations supporters continually claim this means giving classified information to terrorists, the rules actually provide for reviewing, editing and summarizing classified material. Evidence that cannot be safely declassified cannot be introduced.)

The NYT bitches that McCain gave away everything while StrategyPage notes that:
In 1995, such information was turned over to lawyers representing Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind cleric and leader of the terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing. At least one of the documents ultimately found its way to al Qaeda headquarters in the Sudan. That document contained a list of people who were on the government's radar screen and thus alerted al Qaeda to the possibility of surveillance.
...
Compromising methods of gathering intelligence, and the sources of intelligence creates a chilling effect. If a source wants to be extracted, intelligence he might have gathered in the future is lost. The same loss of intelligence happens when a source stops cooperating for fear of exposure, which happened in 1995 after then-Congressman Robert Torricelli burned a CIA source. Cooperation with other intelligence agencies will also suffer as they act to protect their methods and sources from being exposed.

Posted by ed 2006-09-22 15:44|| 2006-09-22 15:44|| Front Page Top

#41 As a follow to Verlaine's excellent skewering of McCain, he is really weak on basic economics. I mean stupid doofus. He did an interview in the Saturday Wall Street Journal that made it clear he knew next to nothing about how the economy works. Give this guys a wide berth.

Posted by remoteman 2006-09-22 15:55|| 2006-09-22 15:55|| Front Page Top

#42 RD, you've got some fine kung-fu yourself.

Verlaine: SCOTUS just appointed itself executive and rewrote a treaty off the top of their head. If this is not a huge blow to both the Constitution and our security, I am desperately waiting for someone to explain it.

Exactly.They should be tried and hung for torturing logic.

Redneck, have you also wondered if the proper spelling is "chode"?

Posted by exJAG 2006-09-22 16:33|| 2006-09-22 16:33|| Front Page Top

#43 Random House's The Maven's Word Of The Day has a fine dissertation on the word 'choad' which says, in part,

Choad made a big splash with this 'penis' meaning during the 1960s in some underground comics: "What a finda giant choad!" (Zap Comics, unp. no. 3, 1968). This use faded off the radar in the late 1970s. Apparently, we can all thank the editorial gurus from the Usenet group alt.tasteless for its latest ubiquitous appearance.

The word has at least two other meanings that date from the 1980s. Choad is a name for the fecal matter on an animal's behind (also called a dingleberry). This is probably the meaning used by Bevis and Butthead who made reference to "Choad encounters of the turd kind" (1993). The last common variant of choad refers to the perineum (the part of the body between the genitalia and the anus).

Choad is also commonly found in the compound choadsmoker. Someone who is a choadsmoker is a 'loser'. Something that is a choadsmoker is 'boring' or 'lame'. These meanings also apply to the word choad, which is usually non-referential. That means the guy you heard calling you a choad on the subway was no more calling you a 'penis' than if he had called you a prick. Some people even call themselves choads with some pride. There is a Website called choad central where you can ask to be officially named a choad.

How convenient...

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-09-22 17:04|| 2006-09-22 17:04|| Front Page Top

#44 ...feeling priviliged to have read this thread ...

Posted by Rantfan 2006-09-22 17:23|| 2006-09-22 17:23|| Front Page Top

#45 ...privileged

Posted by Rantfan 2006-09-22 17:26|| 2006-09-22 17:26|| Front Page Top

#46 I'm thinking SCOTUS is an affront to human dignity.

Posted by Cluper Thraise2435 2006-09-22 18:26|| 2006-09-22 18:26|| Front Page Top

#47 The Senate Judiciary Committee met within a day or two after the incredible Supreme Court decision.

While some assumed that the Senate, particularly the Repubs, would fix the SC mistakes, it was clear from the onset that Graham (on the Judiciary Committee) had other interests.

Graham was riveted to his position from the very first. Witnesses (many of who were JAGs friendly to Graham's position) represented an echo chamber for Graham.

Rather than fix the SC decision, these clowns were bent on acerbating the situation.

Posted by Captain America 2006-09-22 19:57|| 2006-09-22 19:57|| Front Page Top

#48 Redneck, have you also wondered if the proper spelling is "chode"?

I see that Dave D. has already weighed in with some fine information on the word choad. I was first introduced to the word on Usenet alt.tasteless many moons ago. I am including another definition below.

choad /chohd/ n.

Synonym for `penis' used in alt.tasteless and popularized by the denizens thereof. They say: "We think maybe it's from Middle English but we're all too damned lazy to check the OED." [I'm not. It isn't. --ESR] This term is alleged to have been inherited through 1960s underground comics, and to have been recently sighted in the Beavis and Butthead cartoons. Speakers of the Hindi, Bengali and Gujarati languages have confirmed that `choad' is in fact an Indian vernacular word equivalent to `fuck'; it is therefore likely to have entered English slang via the British Raj.

Also, I have heard it explained that a choad was a short penis, with a girth exceeding its length! So, that would make Johnny Boy a short fat dick!

Fitting, no?

Posted by Texas Redneck 2006-09-22 21:11|| 2006-09-22 21:11|| Front Page Top

19:43 ex-lib
23:48 Zenster
23:39 Joe of the Jungle
23:39 Texas Redneck
23:26 Swamp Blondie
23:25 Texas Redneck
23:25 Lone Ranger
23:17 Flomoter Ulolush5791
23:14 CrazyFool
23:14 bombay
23:02 Zenster
23:00 Joe of the Jungle
23:00 Zenster
22:57 Zenster
22:52 FOTSGreg
22:50 MagnonMan
22:49 MagnonMan
22:49 Zenster
22:45 Zenster
22:43 FOTSGreg
22:39 Zenster
22:38 FOTSGreg
22:34 Zenster
22:31 49 Pan