This is how we stop Blackwater for good

fxashun · 03-11-2010, 04:26 PM

The drinking game is well under way.

leighredf · 03-11-2010, 04:30 PM

This continuing debate grinds me down, but this illustrates exactly why so many of our elected officials are liars, cheats, and crooks. Why should they have integrity when neither party will hold their own accountable?

Investigative journalists often have agendas, especially when the investigation relates to some politically controversial event (like the Iraq War). The neolib partisans (because I know libs who fully understand the difference) love investigative journalism until it is directed towards someone they like ... then it becomes "hate."

A lot of what purports to be investigative journalism is really campaign journalism.

Biden jumps into the fray and declares we're going to appeal. I wonder what would have happened if Dick Cheney did that when some leftie cause celebre was on trial?

I'll be glad to play the game now. Let's see, President Obama has been investigated and accused of birth certificate chicanery. I read the law (still haven't figured out how the fuck that matters) that says you have to be born in U.S. to be President. Investigative journalists say it is an issue. He was outside the U.S. (Indonesia) as a child, so like Blackwater being in Iraq, that must have some significance. IMPEACH HIM.

highway80west · 03-11-2010, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

The drinking game is well under way.

How to Play the Russian Roulette Drinking Game | eHow.com

waitingtables · 03-11-2010, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leighredf

I understand the differences. The entirety of my post was responding to your view that "allegations" and "investigations" equal guilt (and those were your words) which is b.s. no matter whose law applies or what the conduct was.

You did exactly what I predicted: you found some b.s. way to say that "allegations" and "investigations" against Clinton don't count but "allegations" and "investigations" against Blackwater do. In this case, it was the location but where doesn't matter. Either you believe that an accusation means the person did it or you don't.

Which is the only complaint I have with that type of post: if you don't like the target, allegations and investigations = guilt. When you like the target, they don't = guilt.

Your view: This is what the media says Blackwater (or Bush, "evil insurance companies", etc.) did and that's the truth.

My view: If those allegations are proven true, they should be severely punished.

I thought about posting a fake birther thread, repeating the birther's allegations (and knowing that you would jump in about the lack of evidence of a fake birth certificate). I then would point out that you reject "allegations" if it is about Obama but not when it's Bush.

I have not equated allegation with guilt.
I have read the findings of some of the investigations and though they weren't able to be prosecutedfor all of them, it doesn't mean that they weren't guilty. Iraq has found them to be guilty, though we haven't. And as I said their own emails show their guilt on some of the other allegations. My "type" of post is stating that because there are so many instances of problems with Blackwater and their own confessed rule breaking, we shouldn't be using their comapny anymore. You are the one turning it into what you want it to be, even though it isn't that. Sorry, this isn't a target of dislike, it is the target of wanting the people we are paying to not engage in blatant criminal activities and putting our soldiers at more risk because of it.

And your constant accusations of me finding bs ways out of an argument are really just bullshit on your part. Because what the fuck does investigating a president18 years ao have to do with investigating a government contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan at present. Two entirely different scenarios that have no bearing upon each other. Your bullshit is showing through on this, I'm sorry to say.

leighredf · 03-11-2010, 05:46 PM

Here's the phrase that I have to dissect:

Bill Clinton is an entirely different scenario. He wasn't working in Iraq or Afghanistan no he's just the President of the U.S. so his integrity/honesty shouldn't matter where the laws are not the same in regards to criminal activity and American contractors.. What the law says isn't even relevant to the double standard you impose. It is not a criminal issue, its a double standard issue. There wasn't a criminal issue re: Tiger Woods. But, what you had were women accusing him of infidelity and a lot of investigative reports on what reporters thought he did. There were even some voicemail messages played, which is at least some evidence. But, until he admitted it, it was an open question on whether he did it. The fact that Blackwater has contracts with the State Department, has a direct effect on the company's not being held criminaly liable to Iraqi authority and there is not any real way to enforce U.S. law on them either. It is a completely different scenario and has absolutely no relavence to the investigation into President Clinton's Whitewater deals. And I'm pretty sure that you are smart enough to see the difference. They are two different deals that have no relevance until you make them tie in together by believing "investigations and accusations" mean guilt in one and mean nothing in the other.

waitingtables · 03-11-2010, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leighredf

Here's the phrase that I have to dissect:

Bill Clinton is an entirely different scenario. He wasn't working in Iraq or Afghanistan no he's just the President of the U.S. so his integrity/honesty shouldn't matter where the laws are not the same in regards to criminal activity and American contractors.. What the law says isn't even relevant to the double standard you impose. It is not a criminal issue, its a double standard issue. There wasn't a criminal issue re: Tiger Woods. But, what you had were women accusing him of infidelity and a lot of investigative reports on what reporters thought he did. There were even some voicemail messages played, which is at least some evidence. But, until he admitted it, it was an open question on whether he did it. The fact that Blackwater has contracts with the State Department, has a direct effect on the company's not being held criminaly liable to Iraqi authority and there is not any real way to enforce U.S. law on them either. It is a completely different scenario and has absolutely no relavence to the investigation into President Clinton's Whitewater deals. And I'm pretty sure that you are smart enough to see the difference. They are two different deals that have no relevance until you make them tie in together by believing "investigations and accusations" mean guilt in one and mean nothing in the other.

There is no double standard that I imposed. You are the one who brought the Whitewater investigation of the Clintons into this subject. And it is not relavent. What is relavent, since you brouhgt it up, is that the investigations into the Clintons were exhaustive at the least, and it seems we have a hard time getting any real cohesive will to investigate Blackwater. Perhaps that could be your double standard. With Whitewater you have far more than one investigative journalist reporting on the case, and with Blackwater, not so much.

And if you have read the actual findings in any of the allegations, you could see that there is good reason to find the cohesive will to do a thorough investigation into Blackwater/Xe and it's other variously named firms. They are operating outside of the law, without proper oversight, and receiving billions and billions of our taxpayer dollars.

leighredf · 03-11-2010, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

I have not equated allegation with guilt.
I have read the findings of some of the investigations and though they weren't able to be prosecutedfor all of them, it doesn't mean that they weren't guilty. I agree it doesn't mean they weren't guilty, but it doesn't mean they are guilty. Other than Iraq's findings (no trial just the type of findings that prosecutors issue -- e.g. the one in the Duke Lacrosse case), I didn't find any other findings. Cite them please (and not findings from some investigational journalist). Iraq has found them to be guilty, though we haven't. No trial but at least you are stating something of fact. And as I said their own emails show their guilt on some of the other allegations. My "type" of post is stating that because there are so many instances of problems with Blackwater and their own confessed rule breaking, we shouldn't be using their comapny anymore. You are the one turning it into what you want it to be, even though it isn't that. Sorry, this isn't a target of dislike, it is the target of wanting the people we are paying to not engage in blatant criminal activities and putting our soldiers at more risk because of it. You and Beverly Prather have a lot in common, you keep adding facts to your contentions. Where is Blackwater's "confessed rule breaking?"

And your constant accusations of me finding bs ways out of an argument are really just bullshit on your part. Because what the fuck does investigating a president18 years ao have to do with investigating a government contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan at present. Two entirely different scenarios that have no bearing upon each other. Your bullshit is showing through on this, I'm sorry to say. You have not provided, and won't, any explanation as to why (and again these are your words, not mine) "investigations" and "accusations" mean guilt in one case, but not in tohe other.

You can get all mad, but once you are challenged, you start writing posts without all the sensationalism and hype. But, like most lefties, you will never ever do anything to concede that someone with whom you have the big grudge (Bush, Blackwater and any other trendy "enemy" of the left) did anything that was not wrong, or that someone against them is full of shit.

A federal judge finds that investigators and the prosecutors engaged in serious constitutional due process violations. You slough it off to the prosecutors "needing to do a better job." You aren't alone - there are plenty of blogs from the lefties bitching about the judge's decision -- some by the same people who demand due process for all the foreign terrorism suspects.

You are exactly like the birthers - they don't like Obama so they will never believe that he was born in Honolulu. I just got some chain email today with a birther's email that says some Indonesian school record confirms Obama is from Indonesia -- even though it lists Honolulu as his birthplace. It doesn't support their theory. But, they don't care, their blind hate has made it impossible for them to provide a fair analysis. Like you say to me, anyone who contests their strident views is "full of b.s.", "blind to the facts."

You say Clinton was 18 years ago. Cool. Let's compare Blackwater accusers to the birthers. Birthers have produced some "evidence" that Obama has not disputed. There are allegations and investigations. Lots of investigative journalism by right wingers on the issue. So, are the birthers right?

I have a friend that hates President Obama (so we don't talk politics that much). He would never concede that anything President Obama did was good. Never. If he did, he would condition it in a way to make it no better than a backhanded compliment.

The Bush haters are the same way with Bush. I'm against the Iraq War, but I know that there were some positive things that came out of it. Your posts suggest that no one with whom you have that leftie obsessional hate can ever do anything right or be mistreated.

leighredf · 03-11-2010, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

There is no double standard that I imposed. You are the one who brought the Whitewater investigation of the Clintons into this subject. And it is not relavent. What is relavent, since you brouhgt it up, is that the investigations into the Clintons were exhaustive at the least, and it seems we have a hard time getting any real cohesive will to investigate Blackwater. Perhaps that could be your double standard. With Whitewater you have far more than one investigative journalist reporting on the case, and with Blackwater, not so much. Go run Blackwater corruption or Blackwater investigations and tell me that there is not "far more than one investigative journalist reporting on the case." Give me a break with that bullshit.

And if you have read the actual findings in any of the allegations, you could see that there is good reason to find the cohesive will to do a thorough investigation into Blackwater/Xe and it's other variously named firms. I never suggested not investigating them. I did suggest that if we are going to continue the investigation, especially if it is criminal, the politicians should stay the fuck out of it. Biden isn't the prosecutor and he needs to shut the fuck up. They are operating outside of the law, without proper oversight, and receiving billions and billions of our taxpayer dollars. You almost made it to the end without the hysterical leftie statement.

The best part about this debate we are having is that I paste in, as part of my responses, things that you have said defending leftie icons from similar attacks from the right. If I said "ACORN is operating outside of the law, without proper oversight, and receiving millions and millions of our taxpayer dollars" you'd go nuts.

waitingtables · 03-11-2010, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Where is Blackwater's "confessed rule breaking?"

In the employee email that states that they had weapons that they weren't supposed to have, knowingly disregarding the rules they operate under. But you would know that if you had familiarised yourself with all of the investigations that Blackwater is under right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leighredf

You can get all mad, but once you are challenged, you start writing posts without all the sensationalism and hype. But, like most lefties, you will never ever do anything to concede that someone with whom you have the big grudge (Bush, Blackwater and any other trendy "enemy" of the left) did anything that was not wrong, or that someone against them is full of shit.

And that right there is another bunch of bullshit. I am an individual, not an aspect of a party ideology, and I can think for myself, and do think for myself. I am also the first one to say that any corrupt official on the left step down or be investigated, when the evidence supports that.

A federal judge finds that investigators and the prosecutors engaged in serious constitutional due process violations. You slough it off to the prosecutors "needing to do a better job." You aren't alone - there are plenty of blogs from the lefties bitching about the judge's decision -- some by the same people who demand due process for all the foreign terrorism suspects.

More bullshit. These guys received their due process, the judge dismissed the case. Mind you, the case can still be brought with other outside evidence, aside from the information they got from the employees. But it's rather hard to investigate a case and find evidence weeks, months, or years after the fact. Making this a tough case to try or even attempt to try.

You are exactly like the birthers - they don't like Obama so they will never believe that he was born in Honolulu. I just got some chain email today with a birther's email that says some Indonesian school record confirms Obama is from Indonesia -- even though it lists Honolulu as his birthplace. It doesn't support their theory. But, they don't care, their blind hate has made it impossible for them to provide a fair analysis. Like you say to me, anyone who contests their strident views is "full of b.s.", "blind to the facts."

I am nothing like the birthers, that's just a ridiculous comparison. And it isn't even honest on your part. Because you have not acknowledged that I don't always follow the party ideology when it comes to various subjects. As I said, I have a brain, I'm not hysterical or trying to cover up for being a racist by saying that the president is a foreigner. It is my president right now that is employing Blackwater. So to equate this as party hatred is just wrong.

You say Clinton was 18 years ago. Cool. Let's compare Blackwater accusers to the birthers. Birthers have produced some "evidence" that Obama has not disputed. There are allegations and investigations. Lots of investigative journalism by right wingers on the issue. So, are the birthers right?

I have a friend that hates President Obama (so we don't talk politics that much). He would never concede that anything President Obama did was good. Never. If he did, he would condition it in a way to make it no better than a backhanded compliment.

The Bush haters are the same way with Bush. I'm against the Iraq War, but I know that there were some positive things that came out of it. Your posts suggest that no one with whom you have that leftie obsessional hate can ever do anything right or be mistreated.

My posts don't suggest that at all. That is simply what you want them to suggest. You seem to have that bizarre obsession with taking every subject and shitting on it because it seems like it might be a liberal position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leighredf

The best part about this debate we are having is that I paste in, as part of my responses, things that you have said defending leftie icons from similar attacks from the right. If I said "ACORN is operating outside of the law, without proper oversight, and receiving millions and millions of our taxpayer dollars" you'd go nuts.

By all means, please do. I stand by every post. And I have admitted it when I was wrong. Are you pretending that the right didn't go after ACORN and do exactly that, in an exhaustive attempt to stop ACORN from helping those that likely vote democrat? Boy, they were on that shit like white on rice. But when Afghans or Iraqis are being killed by reckless and criminal conduct, it means nothing to them. Not one report from the right can even be found (aside from the Wall St. Journal) about Blackwater at all. But how about when a Marine is killed by contractors working for our government? Shouldn't that be a subject worth looking into? When conduct by government contractors is placing our troops in more danger, isn;t that an issue worth investigating? Or is that only party ideological arguments without a basis in fact. If this were all just a conspiracy theory, without any evidence to be found, or only circumstantial evidence, I could see your consternation, but this seems quite out of the realm of the kooky, yet for you, better oversight and accountability is a "leftie" obsession. Strange.

Here's an informative site you might want to check out. It didn't seem partisan to me.

Afghanistan Overseas Civilian Contractors

leighredf · 03-11-2010, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

In the employee email that states that they had weapons that they weren't supposed to have, knowingly disregarding the rules they operate under. But you would know that if you had familiarised yourself with all of the investigations that Blackwater is under right now.

My posts don't suggest that at all. That is simply what you want them to suggest. You seem to have that bizarre obsession with taking every subject and shitting on it because it seems like it might be a liberal position.

By all means, please do. I stand by every post. And I have admitted it when I was wrong. Are you pretending that the right didn't go after ACORN and do exactly that, in an exhaustive attempt to stop ACORN from helping those that likely vote democrat? Boy, they were on that shit like white on rice. But when Afghans or Iraqis are being killed by reckless and criminal conduct, it means nothing to them. Not one report from the right can even be found (aside from the Wall St. Journal) about Blackwater at all. That's exactly why I picked ACORN, it was the right's version of "my team, your team." You can't get any rightie to say anything good about ACORN. You are equally right about the Blackwater reporting. There just wasn't anyone here declaring Blackwater was some great company or that ACORN was a scum organization. But how about when a Marine is killed by contractors working for our government? Shouldn't that be a subject worth looking into? When conduct by government contractors is placing our troops in more danger, isn;t that an issue worth investigating? Or is that only party ideological arguments without a basis in fact. If this were all just a conspiracy theory, without any evidence to be found, or only circumstantial evidence, I could see your consternation, but this seems quite out of the realm of the kooky, yet for you, better oversight and accountability is a "leftie" obsession. Strange. For the umpteenth time, have I ever suggested no accountability or oversight? No. Did I say don't investigate Blackwater? No. Did I say you were stating conspiracy theories? No. What I said was you, like some lefties, get on the accountability high horse when the target is someone you don't like and are silent when someone is holding a leftie favorite accountable. The right does the exact same thing in reverse.

Righties: Obama is Hitler, don't you dare call Bush Hitler.
Lefties: Bush is Hitler, don't you dare call Obama Hitler.

Righties: Blackwater never did anything wrong, it is a great company with a religious CEO.
Lefties: Nothing Blackwater did was good (and I'm about to post an amusing, well-written Mother Jones article on that issue).

Lefties: ACORN is a fine service organization serving the downtrodden, how dare you criticize it.
Righties: ACORN is scum.

Lefties: We need to give due process to all the GITMO detainees.
Lefties: Blackwater employees don't get due process. APPEAL!

Here's an informative site you might want to check out. It didn't seem partisan to me.

Afghanistan Overseas Civilian Contractors

Good article. I don't like, and never have, the policy of using civilian contractors for what effectively are military operations. I don't have the leftie blind hatred for any corporate entity doing work in Iraq.