Riehl World View reports and interesting development...
Is this a sincere effort by the Iowa GOP to recruit Sarah Palin because they think she'll be a great draw? Or, was it arranged, as in one of those inside politics moves by operators that don't come with fingerprints? Let the speculation begin, assuming she accepts. I imagine Romney, Newt and Huckabee want to know, if they don't already.
Iowa Republican Party officials Wednesday said they are aggressively courting Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to headline the state GOP's premier annual fundraising event. (More...)
20 comments:
Finally, a good anonymous comment!
I think fund raising will be key. There was NOTHING going on with GOP fundraising in 2008. 2004 was better. If Sarah can help with this, that might be just the ticket.
I agree, Ope. I want the discussions about 2010 to begin NOW. I want Republicans and Democrats to feel a Conservative groundswell.
By going to Iowa, Palin fires the first show across the bow.
Rollerguy,
You gotta hone your material a little before you take the big stage.
Feel free to take another whack at it.
Roller Dud. Answer my question at the other post. Why were you, a non-Intel National Guardsman, interrogating Iraq detainees, in what language, and what did you do with the info?
My question is...
Who is uglier Sonia Sotomayor or Janet Reno?
Dood,
The ugliest Democrat woman has to be Henry Waxman.
You know the state-run media will cover Palin so they can attack her as if they were.... an instrument of the Demokratik Party (what a revelation). At least her comments might make the evening news and the loyal opposition will have a voice.
I suspect that the general population may soon become the opposition.
In response to: Rhod said...
Roller Dud. Answer my question at the other post. Why were you, a non-Intel National Guardsman, interrogating Iraq detainees, in what language, and what did you do with the info?
July 14, 2009
Rhod, What are you talking about?
Roller,
Rhod is talking about the time you claimed that the detainees in Iraq stated they were fighting because of Abu Graib. You spoke as if you had first hand knowledge of statements by detainees. Rhod asked you about your experience as an interrogator.
Opus #6,
thank you for clearing that up. At my age it's hard to keep track of things like this.
but, I can assure you that everything I've ever done for the US Army was following the FM, Orders, International laws, and in my MOS and assigned duties.
I did "mess kit repair" in Iraq (and Bosnia). And, in case you didn't know, the Army National Guard has a lot of soldiers in jobs that many years ago only the Regular Army folks did....and we often do it pretty well.
As you seem to be aware of, only specially trained soldiers (and contractors) are allowed to do such things.
Many times, when I was in Iraq, it was over 97 and Boy what a hot time it was.
CI, my question concerned your claim that "every single foreign fighter" you "talked" to (quotes were yours in your original comment)told you they came to Iraq because of Abu Ghraib.
My point: If every single foreign fighter conveyed that message, the message is suspect; it doesn't verify, it invalidates, the detainee's claim.
Common sense also invalidates the intelligence, because of the basic complexity and Islamist content in both wars. Abu Ghraib was nothing compared to their other grievances.
Rhod,
I'm not going to debate it. I really don't give a shit. Some folks want to argue about anything that doesn't go along with what they think things should be.
The entire matter is very complex...I only had a little part of the puzzle...and I'm sure you are an "Expert" on everything. It's not worth the effort.
CI:
You certainly give a shit about your military expertise until you're asked to elaborate on it.
With the issue at hand, you attacked Opus for being a "misinformed citizen" about Abu Ghraib; then claimed that every single foreign fighter you "talked" to cited Abu Ghraib as the reason they came to Iraq.
Apparently that isn't true, or otherwise not worth your time. By the way, drop the self-pity and phony outrage.
Rhod, yet again your expert status is confirmed.
Thanks, Nickie, once again.
For CI, thanks for you service - mine at Cu Chi is long past; I had one son at FOB Sharana in the bad old days, and two at Yousafiyah, where every day was bad.
One of them did prisoner transfers (and translation) from AF to Gitmo before Sadr City, and one went on to other things with Fifth Group at FC.
If you know what you're talking about, you'll know what I'm talking about. I'm not an expert, but I know enough to ask questions.
I take all this stuff very seriously. When someone claims authority on political issues because of military service, that person is fair game for argument.
Civilians will tend to stand down. I don't have to.
Rhod,
This is not the place to discuss such things in great detail.
My original points seems to have been lost due to my trying to be brief and OPSEC.
One point was:
We, the US Military, must follow our training, orders, the FM (Field Manuals) and international laws. If we resort to methods that are not proper, or are actually illegal (regardless of what Cheney etc calls them) then we are no better than the assholes we fight.
If a terrorist or soldier wants to fight us, and we kill them--- that's fine. But once we have "captured" them, we must treat them properly. Period.
My other point was: A lot of people who were not "there" seem to be all gung ho about doing whatever we need to do to get someone to "talk" to us. That may sound cool and a way to get "revenge".... But, that is not the correct thing to do. I follow the rules...and so did my teams. Always.
I don't claim to be an authority on Political Issues, because I try to avoid that crap...but when rules and laws that soldiers are supposed to follow---that's not political...that's duty.
Yep, there are a lot of bullshitters out there. I run into them all the time. I didn't do anything "great" when I was in Iraq, but I did my duty and took care of my people.
I'd be happy to discuss this in detail over a cold beer some day.
And thanks for your service.
Good comment, CI; now we both stop the towel fight.
I can't find any fault w/your opinion of prisoner treatment. NO offense to MP's, but the ones on detention rather than combat duty get a little crazy, and the SPC England Syndrome takes over. Such behavior is sanctioned and turned loose by idiots higher up. It DOES flow downhill, as you know.
2nd point: it's always difficult to forebear the enthusism for war of people who never fought in one. I don't see much of that around me, so I'm not on the alert for it...but I have no patience with unprincipled pacifists either. Peace is always achieved, never simply attained.
As for the dividing line between "enhanced" interrogation and torture, I don't know where it is, so maybe we disagree. We aren't running APC's over them anymore, so my frame of reference has changed.
Rhod,
Google "Army Interrogation Manual" ...it's online. It explains what can be done legally.
Every Soldier & Marine I worked with followed the rules... They were professionals...even though in the middle of my deployment 60% of the troops in Iraq were Reserves and Guard!
However, if somebody needed killing, they could do that also...
Do you have a blog by the way? I can't seem to locate it.
No blog, CI. I used to contribute to one here in the Northeast, but no more.
I know we're fighting gentleman's wars now, at least when the shooting stops, and it's detailed in the manuals. That means things haven't degenerated to the street-fight level of times past.
I doubt it will last.
See ya...
Post a Comment