It would be great to see streaming video of Mr. Loudell speaking to these high school and college classes. Always wondered what he tells these young people. Posting the video on the webpage would be another way to promote his appearances. Just an idea!
EarlGrey
Tue, May 1, 2012 8:42am
I agree with Admiral Mike Mullen. It was a successful mission that ANY president of the United States should have approved...and yes I fully believe Romney would have also approved this mission.
Listening to Obama, Biden and the Newspeak one would think that our president was actually there at the Osama raid and now we no longer need to fear any more acts of terror. Neither of these storylines are true.
And, why is it that Obama (who demonized Bush and the CIA for "torture" through waterboarding) receives little to no attention for blowing people up via drones? Personally I prefer the idea of waterboarding...the person is still alive and physically fine after the interrogation and useful info is gained, a drone kills (with possible "collateral damage" of innocents). We really are living in the land of Animal Farm where it's fine for this administration to do horrible things but it's ok because it's not Bush or a Republican.
Shawn
Tue, May 1, 2012 11:28am
@Earl: I'm sorry, what? Because of waterboarding, "useful info is gained"?
And yes, Obama and the Dems are living the hypocritical life, where they can do things they vilified Bush and the GOP for. But don't pretend the GOP doesn't do the exact same thing all the time. Politicians are pathological hypocrites. It's not a symptom of just the party you disagree with.
EarlGrey
Tue, May 1, 2012 12:09pm
@Shawn: Yes waterboarding worked and much better than drones to find other terrorist cell members.
At least that's what Jose Rodriguez, the former head of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center and National Clandestine Service says.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/declassify-intelligence-led-bin-laden_643035.html
Mike from Delaware
Tue, May 1, 2012 3:24pm
I have to disagree. Someone being tortured including water boarding is going to say whatever you want them to say just to get you to stop torturing them. Ask John McCain.
America has always held to a higher standard. We've always, prior to Bush Jr., abided by the Geneva Convention. Our enemies generally didn't. Now we're no better than they ( is it any coinincedence that our soldiers have been wearing a "Nazi Germany style helmet" since Desert Storm II under Bush Jr.?). I'm surprised the sirens on the military vehicles don't use that German back and forth sounding siren you always hear in the WWII movies.
THAT is NOT who we are as a people, its time to regain the high ground. Neither party should be doing any of that.
mrpizza
Tue, May 1, 2012 7:45pm
Who cares?
EarlGrey
Tue, May 1, 2012 10:19pm
@Mike: I agree that the type of torture McCain underwent is nothing but sadistic and not for getting information.
However water-boarding, sleep deprivation and mental games helped the CIA break Khalid Sheikh Mohammed...and he gave up the info that led our troops to Osama Bin Laden and the "treasure trove" of intel at his place of residence in Pakistan.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, May 1, 2012 10:46pm
EarlGrey: I don't believe sleep deprivation or mental games are torture and would be fine to use. I seem to remember John McCain being against water-boarding and considered it to be a form of torture. I think we are better than that. We don't want to lower our selves to become what they are.
kavips
Wed, May 2, 2012 1:12am
I believe the politicization story is a red herring designed to throw our attention away from what is really important.
The only important thing to remember is that each and every Republican raised their hand to say that no tax increases would be in their administration's budget. Not even if cuts were 10 to one to the increase... That is madness. To balance a budget with a 10/1 cut/revenue raiser ratio is great in itself. That is the story. Because if we make another mistake, and vote someone (Republican)in who won't raise taxes, we are doomed.
Instead of this topic, we are arguing, discussing, and reporting that the Republicans are complaining that Obama is using Bin Laden's eradication to prop themselves politically.
Of course they are... IT IS THEIR JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!
Duh...
The real story is not that the Obama administration is saying we did this; of course they are going to say it. Just like if Allan were ever put in the position of having to justify his past tenure, would bring up something good and extraordinary he once did that made a difference. For example his awesome election coverage. (We are so lucky to have you here in our fair state, btw.)
If you do something in office that people think is good, you are certainly entitled to say... Yep, I did this.
And killing Bin Laden was good.
The real story is that Romney is not smart enough to see the trap he stepped on by criticizing Obama. This kinda says he's dumb. At least his actions are. It's like he lives in a bubble and says.... blah, blah, blah, and no one analyzes what he says, and reports it blindly... and people actually argue his points? Surely the world IS crazy.
If Romney said "mushrooms were the root of all evil", it would be an old story off the news cycle before someone actually challenged the assertion....
The prime point I'm making is: that this is a distraction. The only thing that needs to get reported during the election cycle, is what will the future be under Obama's reign (the numbers are there and they look good, versus whet the future will be like under a Romney reign ( the numbers are out there and they really suck bad.)
On that is what the press should be holding the feet of both candidates to the fire. Here is an example.
"Mr. Romney, how will your plan make middle America better than the plan being offered by Mr. Obama.
Romney: "We will cut taxes, and cut the deficit.
"Wait.. Wait... Wait... did you just say... you'd cut taxes... and cut the deficit? How on earth can that be? Do you really expect Americans out there who lost their incomes, to believe that when you have no money, you can buy back all the debt? How do you propose to accomplish this thing that is physically impossible... "Hey, Annie Lois! I just went on the Internets and highlighted the 1 left on our $100,000 mortgage, and made it a zero. That's awesome, especially since we have no money coming in cause both of us got laid off and unemployments run out, and now, we have no debt. This Republican dream world is pretty good after all...."
Allan Loudell
Wed, May 2, 2012 6:23am
teatime...
I don't know whether you're retired or have a flexible job which would permit you to cut away for part of the morning.
But, I'll be addressing the Academy of Lifelong Learning at the U of D's Arsht Hall in Wilmington (Rooms 108-109), Thursday morning, beginning at 10:30. Why not drop by?
Of course, these are "old" students, not young ones. But part of my spiel is the same.
Incidentally, Padua did record some of what I said. Whether they're posting this on their website, I don't know.
Thanks,
Allan Loudell
mrpizza
Wed, May 2, 2012 7:09am
MFD: If Bush said waterboarding worked, then that's good enough for me. We certainly didn't have as much as a terror threat to really speak of from 9/12/01 to 1/20/09.
Kavips: How the Republicans are going to lower taxes AND the deficit is very simple. Lowering taxes results in a favorable business and investment environment which in turn creates jobs. Reagan did it, and it can be done again, which means America can be great again.
Mike from Delaware
Wed, May 2, 2012 8:13am
Mrpizza: If Obama and not Bush Jr. had said water-boarding worked, would that be good enough for you? My guess is no. For me, the issue isn't whether or not water-boarding gets you answers, but that it is a form of torture and not allowed by the Geneva Convention, which we used to be one of the few nations that actually followed it. Yet in spite of our following the Geneva Convention we did win WWII and became one of two (at the time) Super Powers. Doing the right thing is better in the long run than doing what's quick and expedient.
I remember Reagan's "trickle down ecomony". It didn't trickle down, it just stayed up there with the rich and famous. This is one time I'm with the DEMS, the rich should be paying higher taxes. I don't want to hear any nonsense about that's not fair. It hasn't been fair for the past 30+ years where their incomes skyrocketed and everyone elses sat there doing nothing, yet those who benefited pay less in tax. Talk about not being fair or reasonable.
The ONLY rich folks who should get a tax break for job creation IS those who actually created some jobs IN America FOR LEGAL Americans in 2012. Next year, in order to get more tax credits for job creation they'd have to create more jobs in 2013, just like with getting the Charitable tax deduction. You have to make those donations each year to get the deduction.
Right now the system is so rigged in favor of the wealthy they've got better odds than the house has at Atlantic City. Time to level the playing field.
EarlGrey
Wed, May 2, 2012 8:39am
kavips: quite a little rant on R.Money...is he getting under your skin too?
All Obama had to do was sit back, praise the Navy SEALS, and let the praises back come his way; it would have made R.Money look weak. Instead he has to toot his horn about OBL in every way, shape and media.
Sorry he "jumped the shark" with his Afghanistan trip and blew an easy PR win.
mrpizza
Wed, May 2, 2012 7:41pm
MFD: If the rich paying higher taxes makes you feel better, then more power to you. Personally, what they pay isn't going to improve the quality of my life one bit. After the government sqanders the new wealth they take from the rich, then they'll come after what's left of our money.
Long live Ronald Reagan!
EarlGrey
Wed, May 2, 2012 9:20pm
Amen mrpizza!
Mike from Delaware
Wed, May 2, 2012 10:44pm
It's not a matter of making me feel better. It's a reasonable thing to do. For the past 30+ years, the rich have been the ones to benefit as their salaries have gone through the roof; meanwhile their tax-rate has dropped and dropped. Meanwhile, back at the ranch of the middle-class citizens, their salaries have been pretty much stagnant for that same 30+ years.
NOW the government is in hock, and the Republican solution is to take from the middle-class and poor, while giving even more tax-breaks to these same rich folks. You don't see anything wrong with that?? Please don't insult my intelligence by replying that these rich folks are job-creators. Because if that were the case, then why are so many folks out of work? Even during the boom years prior to the 2008 crash, there were few new job opportunities in America, plenty overseas and for illegals, but few for legal Americans. These so called "job-creators" get those tax breaks because they supposedly are job-creators. The problem is the jobs they are creating are overseas, or for illegals who will work for slave wages, below legal US minimum wages. So they are essentially getting tax-breaks they don't deserve.
It's not a matter of sticking it to the rich; it's a matter of them paying THEIR fair share as you and do. Why should they be treated better than you and I? You guys have been drinking the Kool Aid via Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, both millionaires. They've sold you guys a bill of goods and have actually got you middle-class conservative guys fighting to protect their gravy train. They've convinced you to vote against your own personal best interests while supporting THEIR best interests. You know what they say, there's a sucker born every minute. By the way it wasn't PT Barnum who said that, it was George Hull. An interesting story (see link) http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html
There's balance to all of this; right now it is way out of balance towards that upper 2% of the wealthiest Americans. Time to adjust the balance so the system works for all of us.
I guess this is one of those issues we'll just have to agree to disagree.
mrpizza
Thu, May 3, 2012 12:55pm
Not totally, MFD. Let's say for argument's sake, your right about the fair share thing. Problem is, none of the additional revenues the government takes in from the rich will be used for any other purpose than to borrow against it and create more pork barrel spending (that's without regard to right or left) for the ultimate purpose of buying votes with public money.
I don't believe the government should get one more penny than they're already getting from any of us until they are somehow forced to use it in a responsible way. I don't have any idea how we could accomplish that.
EarlGrey
Thu, May 3, 2012 2:58pm
mrpizza: Attached below is a fun game to see how many billions you could save if put in charge of the US economy :)
Sorry, EarlGrey, but that graph is totally confusing to me. Congress sure did a fine job of complicating things!
mrpizza
Thu, May 3, 2012 10:52pm
One final comment before I wrap up from this posting. I think the way to settle the argument about whether we should be intervening militarily in this country or that country is to leave the decision to the military leaders. Yes, we still need presidential and congressional oversight, but I think the generals know best what we need to be doing or not doing. In other words, let's get politics out of foreign policy. Period.
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
click here.
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.
