Obama After Bush: Leading by Second Thought
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s decisions this week to retain important elements of the Bush-era system for trying terrorism suspects and to block the release of pictures showing abuse of American-held prisoners abroad are the most graphic examples yet of how he has backtracked, in substantial if often nuanced ways, from the approach to national security that he preached as a candidate, and even from his first days in the Oval Office.

Mr. Obama’s opening gambits as president were bold declarations of new directions, from announcing the closing of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to sweeping restrictions on interrogation techniques. He advertised both as a return to traditional American values, after the diversions taken by George W. Bush to the detriment of America’s image abroad and of itself.

But as he showed this week in the way he dealt with those two hard cases, Mr. Obama has begun to scale back. Faced with the choice of signaling an unambiguous break with the policies of the Bush era, or maintaining some continuity with its practices, the president has begun to come down on the side of taking fewer risks with security, even though he is clearly angering the liberal elements of his political base.

Mr. Obama balked on releasing the photographs of prisoners after the military — and his influential defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, the cabinet’s one holdover from the Bush administration — argued that making them public would hand Islamic militants a propaganda coup that could lead to renewed attacks on American forces.

In announcing on Friday that he would retain the military commission system set up by Mr. Bush, even while expanding the rights of detainees to mount a vigorous defense, Mr. Obama suggested that there was no inherent conflict between keeping the nation safe and reasserting values that he and many of his supporters believed had been swept aside during the Bush years.

“This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values,” Mr. Obama said in a statement.

The issues of prisoner abuse and military commissions are hardly the only areas where clean breaks with the past have proven more problematic than expected. In ordering a buildup of troops in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama has taken steps Mr. Bush hesitated to take, partly out of denial that a war America had been winning in 2002 had turned so bad.

In authorizing continued covert action in Pakistan and agreeing to a slower pace of withdrawal from Iraq than he talked about during the campaign, he has raised the question of whether new facts, more hawkish advisers or the drumbeat of daily threat assessments have subtly changed his willingness to throw the gearboxes in reverse. On both the left and the right, there is speculation about whether the influence of Mr. Gates, or of his national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, or of Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, had forced him to revise his view.

Perhaps it is the knowledge that lives rest on his choices, or the general sense that settles over most presidents that the world is a more complex place from the vantage point of the Oval Office than it appears from the campaign trail.

And there is an undertone of political realities at work. Mr. Obama would have had to shut off every television set in the West Wing in recent days to avoid seeing former Vice President Dick Cheney’s assaults on his national security policies. While the Cheney fusillade has left many Republicans wincing, it has reminded Democrats that they could be politically vulnerable should the United States be attacked again.

Pete Wehner, a member of Karl Rove’s staff in the Bush White House, who applauded several of Mr. Obama’s decisions this week, argued in an interview that “this is about more than simply discovering, once you are president, that the world is a complicated place.”

“It’s a reminder of how quickly we lose the real nuances of governing when you are campaigning,” Mr. Wehner said. “For many on the left who supported him, this is just this side of a betrayal, but for those who argue that he is a pragmatist, national security is the arena where they can most effectively make that case.”

Mr. Obama’s aides argue that his critics are obsessing over specifics, rather than focusing on the broad changes he has wrought.

In a testy exchange with reporters, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, argued that on Monday, before the decisions were announced, he was being asked why the president insisted on being “so opposite of George Bush in all these questions, and on Friday I’m answering questions about why are we so much like George Bush on all these questions.”

“I’ll let you guys discern what inflection point, what period of day, that all changed,” Mr. Gibbs continued.

But the bottom line is that Mr. Obama’s course corrections have real-life consequences. Mr. Bush kept saying that he wanted to close Guantánamo Bay but could not find an effective replacement for it. So he never acted. Mr. Obama began with that action, and now discovers it is more difficult to accomplish than it seemed a few months ago.

“These issues are always more difficult in practice than they are in the environment of a campaign,” Samuel R. Berger, who served as President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, said Friday. “In the end, what you have to remember is that President Obama is going to close Guantánamo and he is going to end torture. But I think everyone admits that doing so has proven to be more difficult than anyone anticipated.”

The reality is that the second 100 days of this presidency are bound to be filled with course corrections. Announcing departures from the Bush-era practices was, as one of Mr. Obama’s national security aides put it recently, “grabbing the low-hanging fruit.” Writing the rules for the next four years, or eight, requires lawyers, compromises and, inevitably, disappointments for those who discover that cleanly breaking with the past always sounds more appealing than living with the consequences.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16obama.html?_r=1&ref=us&pagewanted=print

Analysis: Democrats' security feud may cost them
By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:22 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats just can't seem to get on the same page on national security — and it could cost them dearly on an issue Republicans have dominated for decades.

Increasingly, President Barack Obama and Democrats who run Congress are being pulled between the competing interests of party liberals and the rest of the country on Bush-era wartime matters of torture, detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists.

The Democratic Party's struggle over how to position itself on these issues is threatening to overshadow Obama's ambitious plans for energy, education and health care. It's also keeping the country looking backward on the eight years of George W. Bush's presidency, much to the chagrin of the new White House. And, it's creating an opening for an out-of-power GOP in an area where Democrats have made inroads.

Governing from the center and backtracking on a previous position, Obama decided this past week to fight the release of photos that show U.S. troops abusing prisoners. The president said he feared the pictures would "further inflame anti-American opinion" and endanger U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then he decided to resume military tribunals for some Guantanamo detainees after a temporary suspension. "This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values," he said.

The developments riled liberals who are important campaign-year foot soldiers and fundraisers.

"These recent decisions are disheartening," said Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union. "He has shown backbone on some issues and not on others."

On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi protected the party's left flank by accusing the CIA of lying to her about the agency's use of a form of simulated drowning on suspected terrorists. "We were told that waterboarding was not being used," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "And we now know that earlier they were." The CIA disputes Pelosi's account.

As Democrats splintered, Republicans watched with glee.

The irony is these are the same wartime issues created by Bush and the GOP-led Congress that Democrats successfully campaigned against in 2006 and 2008. The conflicting Democratic positions threaten to undercut the party's gains on national security; polls last fall showed Democrats had drawn even on national security issues long dominated by the GOP.

The White House desperately wants to get Democrats in Congress focused on the president's priorities. Obama's team has made it clear it's not eager to retread the past. But House and Senate liberals, prodded by a vocal and active network of grass-roots and "netroots" supporters, relish doing just that, seemingly fixated on how Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney handled Iraq and terrorism.

And it's the popular new president who may have the most to lose.

Obama is facing the same predicament that confronted and confounded other recent Democratic presidents. While governing as centrists, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter bent over backward on issues of war and peace, working to appease the party's left wing without being held hostage by it.

Defeated Democratic nominees — John Kerry in 2004, Al Gore in 2000, Michael Dukakis in 1988 — lost in part because Republicans successfully tagged them as soft on security.

Obama appears to be trying for a balance between keeping campaign promises to reverse Bush policies and protecting national security.

Overall, Obama seems less willing to systematically overturn Bush's national security positions than his domestic policies.

There are signs that making good on his promise to close Guantanamo in his first year is proving exceedingly difficult. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder reassured lawmakers that the administration would not release Guantanamo prisoners into U.S. neighborhoods.

In blogs and on cable TV, Democratic critics griped that Obama was appearing more like Bush than the Democrat who won the nomination by rallying liberals around his pledge to end the Iraq war quickly.

Answering liberal complaints, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: "First and foremost, the president does what is in the best security interest of the United States."

Obama is betting that liberals will forgive him for changing course on these issues. He does have several years to make it up to them before his likely re-election campaign.

Conversely, Obama may have further endeared himself to moderates and independents who are more hawkish on national security and are important to his winning coalition. It's also possible that conservative Republicans may now be more open to dealing with him because of his moves on security issues.

With those actions, Obama may have undercut Cheney's complaint that the Democrat's policies were endangering the country. The president also may have insulated himself from further weak-on-security attacks following a campaign during which skeptics questioned his readiness to lead the military in wartime.

———

EDITOR'S NOTE — Liz Sidoti covers the White House for The Associated Press and has covered national politics since 2003.

http://www.myembarq.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD987KLBG3%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCL1_UNEWS

Poll

When it comes to torture, who should we follow:

Chickenshit draft-dodgers like Dick Cheney?
3% 32 votes

American heros like Marine Corps Major Sherwood Moran?
97% 945 votes



SUGGESTIONS FOR JAPANESE INTERPRETERS BASED ON WORK IN THE FIELD by Sherwood F. Moran, Major, USMC

REPRINT
Division Intelligence Section,
Headquarters, First Marine Division,
Fleet Marine Force,
C/O Fleet Post Office, San Francisco, Calif.
168/292 17 July, 1943.

SUGGESTIONS FOR JAPANESE INTERPRETERS BASED ON WORK IN THE FIELD

(Being selections from a letter to an interpreter just entering upon his work.)

First of all I wish to say that every interpreter (I like the word "interviewer" better, for any really efficient interpreter is first and last an interviewer) must be himself. He should not and cannot try to copy or imitate somebody else, or, in the words of the Japanese proverb, he will be like the crow trying to imitate the cormorant catching fish and drowning in the attempt ("U no mane suru karasu mizu ni oboreru"). But of course it goes without saying that the interpreter should be open to suggestions and should be a student of best methods. But his work will be based primarily upon his own character, his own experience, and his own temperament. These three things are of prime importance; strange as it may seem to say so, I think the first and the last are the most important of the three. Based on these three things, he will gradually work out a technique of his own, his very own, just as a man does in making love to a woman! The comparison is not merely a flip bon mot; the interviewer should be a real wooer!

What I have to say concretely is divided into two sections: (1) The attitude of the interpreter towards his prisoner; (2) His knowledge and use of the language.

Let us take the first one, his ATTITUDE. This is of prime importance, in many ways more important than his knowledge of the language. (Many people, I suppose, would on first thought think "attitude" had nothing to do with it; that all one needs is a knowledge of the language, then shoot out questions, and expect and demand a reply. Of course that is a very unthinking and naive point of view.)

I can simply tell you what my attitude is; I often tell a prisoner right at the start what my attitude is! I consider a prisoner (i.e. a man who has been captured and disarmed and in a perfectly safe place) as out of the war, out of the picture, and thus, in a way, not an enemy. (This is doubly so, psychologically and physically speaking, if he is wounded or starving.) Some self-appointed critics, self-styled "hard-boiled" people, will sneer that this is a sentimental attitude, and say, "Don't you know he will try to escape at first opportunity?" I reply, "Of course I do; wouldn't you?" But that is not the point. Notice that in the first part of this paragraph I used the word "safe". That is the point; get the prisoner to a safe place, where even he knows there is no hope of escape, that it is all over. Then forget, as it were, the "enemy" stuff, and the "prisoner" stuff. I tell them to forget it, telling them I am talking as a human being to a human being, (ningen to shite). And they respond to this.

When it comes to the wounded, the sick, the tired, the sleepy, the starving, I consider that since they are out of the combat for good, they are simply needy human beings, needing our help, physical and spiritual. This is the standpoint of one human being thinking of another human being. But in addition, it is hard business common sense, and yields rich dividends from the Intelligence standpoint.

I consider that the Japanese soldier is a person to be pitied rather than hated. I consider (and I often tell them so) that they have been led around by the nose by their leaders; that they do not know, and have not been allowed to know for over 10 years what has really been going on in the world, etc. etc. The proverb "Ido no naka no kawazu taikai o shirazu" (The frog in the bottom of the well is not acquainted with the ocean) is sometimes a telling phrase to emphasize your point. But one must be careful not to antagonize them by such statements, by giving them the idea that you have a "superiority" standpoint, etc. etc.

But in relation to all the above, this is where "character" comes in, that I mentioned on the preceding page. One must be absolutely sincere. I mean that one must not just assume the above attitudes in order to gain the prisoner's confidence and get him to talk. He will know the difference. You must get him to know by the expression on your face, the glance of your eye, the tone of your voice, that you do think that "the men of the four seas are brothers," to quote a Japanese (and Chinese) proverb. (Shikai keitei.) One Japanese prisoner remarked to me that he thought I was a fine gentleman ("rippana shinshi"). I think that what he was meaning to convey was that he instinctively sensed that I was sincere, was trying to be fair, did not have it in for the Japanese as such. (My general attitude has already been brought out in the article "The Psychology of the Japanese.")

In regard to all the above, a person who has lived in Japan for a number of years has a big advantage. One can tell the prisoner how pleasant his life in Japan was; how many fine Japanese he knew, even mentioning names and places, students and their schools, how he had Japanese in his home, and vice versa, etc. etc. That alone will make a Japanese homesick. This line has infinite possibilities. If you know anything about Japanese history, art, politics, athletics, famous places, department stores, eating places, etc. etc. a conversation may be relatively interminable. I could write two or three pages on this alone. (I personally have had to break off conversations with Japanese prisoners, so willing were they to talk on and on.) I remember how I had quite a talk with one of our prisoners whom I had asked what his hobbies (shumi) etc. were. He mentioned swimming. (He had swum four miles to shore before we captured him.) We talked about the crawl stroke and about the Olympics. Right here all this goes to prove that being an "interpreter" is not simply being a Cook's tourist type of interpreter. He should be a man of culture, insight, resourcefulness, and with real conversational ability. He must have "gags"; he must have a "line". He must be alive; he must be warm; he must be vivid. But above all he must have integrity, sympathy; yet he must be firm, wise ("Wise as serpents but harmless as doves".) He must have dignity and a proper sense of values, but withal friendly, open and frank. Two characteristics I have not specifically mentioned: patience and tact.

From the above, you will realize that most of these ideas are based on common sense. I might sum it all up by saying that a man should have sympathetic common sense. There may be some who read the above paragraphs (or rather just glance through them) who say it is just sentiment. But careful reading will show it is enlightened hard-boiled-ness.

Now in regard to the second point I have mentioned (on p 1), the knowledge and the use of the language. Notice that I say "knowledge" and "use". They are different. A man may have a perfect knowledge, as a linguist, of a language, and yet not be skillful and resourceful in its use. Questioning people, even in one's own language, is an art in itself, just as is selling goods. In fact, the good interpreter must, in essence, be a salesman, and a good one.

But first in regard to the knowledge of the language itself. Technical terms are important, but I do not feel they are nearly as important as a large general vocabulary, and freedom in the real idiomatic language of the Japanese. Even a person who knows little Japanese can memorize lists of technical phrases. After all, the first and most important victory for the interviewer to try to achieve is to get into the mind and into the heart of the person being interviewed. This is particularly so in the kind of work so typical of our Marine Corps, such as we experienced at Guadalcanal, slam-bang methods, where, right in the midst of things we had what might be called "battle-field interpretation", where we snatched prisoners right off the battlefield while still bleeding, and the snipers were still sniping, and interviewed them as soon as they were able to talk. But even in the interviewing of prisoners later on, after they were removed from Guadalcanal, first at the advanced bases, and then at some central base far back. The fundamental thing would be to get an intellectual and spiritual en rapport with the prisoner. At the back bases you will doubtless have a specific assignment to question a prisoner (who has been questioned a number of times before) on some particular and highly technical problem; something about his submarine equipment, something about radar, range finders, bombsights, etc. etc. Of course at such a time, a man who does not know technical terms will be almost out of it. But he must have both: a large general vocabulary, with idiomatic phrases, compact and pithy phrases; and also technical words and phrases.

Now in regard to the use of the language. Often it is not advisable to get right down to business with the prisoner at the start. I seldom do. To begin right away in a business-like and statistical way to ask him his name, age, etc., and then pump him for military information, is neither good psychology nor very interesting for him or for you. Begin by asking him things about himself. Make him and his troubles the center of the stage, not you and your questions of war problems. If he is not wounded or tired out, you can ask him if he has been getting enough to eat; if he likes Western-style food. You can go on to say, musingly, as it were, "This war is a mess, isn't it! It's too bad we had to go to war, isn't it! Aren't people funny, scrapping the way they do! The world seems like a pack of dogs scrapping at each other." And so on. (Notice there is yet no word of condemnation or praise towards his or his country's attitude, simply a broad human approach.) You can ask if he has had cigarettes, if he is being treated all right, etc. If he is wounded you have a rare chance. Begin to talk about his wounds. Ask if the doctor or corpsman has attended to him. Have him show you his wounds or burns. (They will like to do this!) The bombardier of one of the Japanese bombing planes shot down over Guadalcanal had his whole backside burned and had difficulty in sitting down. He appreciated my genuine sympathy and desire to have him fundamentally made comfortable. He was most affable and friendly, though very sad at having been taken prisoner. We had a number of interviews with him. There was nothing he was not willing to talk about. And this was a man who had been dropping bombs on us just the day before! On another occasion a soldier was brought in. A considerable chunk of his shinbone had been shot away. In such bad shape was he that we broke off in the middle of the interview to have his leg redressed. We were all interested in the redressing, in his leg, it was almost a social affair! And the point to note is that we really were interested, and not pretending to be interested in order to get information out of him. This was the prisoner who called out to me when I was leaving after that first interview, "Won't you please come and talk to me every day". (And yet people are continually asking us, "Are the Japanese prisoners really willing to talk?")

A score of illustrations such as the preceding could be cited. However, all this is of course preliminary. But even later on when you have started on questioning him for strictly war information, it is well not to be too systematic. Wander off into delightful channels of things of interest to him and to you. But when I say it is well not to be too systematic, I mean in the outward approach and presentation from a conversational standpoint. But in the workings of your mind you must be a model of system. You must know exactly what information you want, and come back to it repeatedly. Don't let your warm human interest, your genuine interest in the prisoner, cause you to be sidetracked by him! You should be hard-boiled but not half-baked. Deep human sympathy can go with a business-like, systematic and ruthlessly persistent approach.

I now wish to take up an important matter concerning which there is some difference of opinion. At certain bases where prisoners are kept, when some visitor comes to look over the equipment and general layout, as he comes to each individual cell where a prisoner is kept, the prisoner is required to jump up and stand at attention; even if he is asleep, they prod him and make his stand stiffly at attention. Again, when a prisoner is being interviewed, as the interpreter or interpreters come into the room used for that purpose, the prisoner must stand at attention, and for the first part of the questioning he is not asked to sit down. Later on he is allowed to sit down as a gracious concession. He is treated well, and no attempt is made to threaten him or mistreat him, but the whole attitude, the whole emphasis, is that he is a prisoner and we are his to-be-respected and august enemies and conquerors.

Now for my own standpoint. I think all this is not only unnecessary, but that it acts exactly against what we are trying to do. To emphasize that we are enemies, to emphasize that he is in the presence of his conqueror, etc., puts him psychologically in the position of being on the defensive, and that because he is talking to a most-patient enemy and conqueror he has no right and desire to tell anything. That is most certainly the attitude I should take under similar circumstances, even if I had no especially patriotic scruples against giving information. Let me give a concrete illustration. One of our interpreters at a certain base was told that, when a prisoner is to be interviewed, he should be marched in, with military personnel on either side of him; the national flag of the conqueror should be on display, to give the prisoner a sense of the dignity and majesty of the conqueror's country, and that he should stand at attention, etc. In this atmosphere the interpreter, according to instructions, attempted to interrogate the prisoner. The prisoner replied courteously but firmly, "I am a citizen of Japan. As such I will tell you anything you wish to know about my own personal life and the like, but I cannot tell you anything about military matters." In other words, he was made so conscious of his present position and that he was a captured soldier vs. enemy Intelligence, that they played right into his hands! Well, that was zero in results. But later this same interpreter took this prisoner and talked with him in a friendly and informal manner, giving him cigarettes and some tea or coffee, with the result that he opened up perfectly naturally and told everything that was wanted, so far as his intelligence and knowledge made information available.

Of course all this dignity emphasis is based on the fear that the prisoner will take advantage of you and your friendship; the same idea as that a foreman must swear at his construction gang in order to get work out of them. Of course there always is the danger that some types will take advantage of your friendliness. This is true in any phase of life, whether you are a teacher, a judge, an athletic trainer, a parent. But there is some risk in any method. But this is where the interpreter's character comes in, that I have so emphasized earlier in this article. You can't fool with a man of real character without eventually getting your fingers burned.

The concrete question comes up, What is one to do with a prisoner who recognizes your friendliness and really appreciates it, yet won't give military information, through conscientious scruples? On Guadalcanal we had a very few like that. One prisoner said to me, "You have been in Japan a long time. You know the Japanese point of view. Therefore you know that I cannot give you any information of military value". (Inwardly I admired him for it, for he said what he should have said, and in the last analysis you cannot do anything about it; that is, if we are pretending to abide by the international regulations regarding prisoners of war, or even the dictates of human decency. I reported this conversation to the head of our MP, a man about as sentimental as a bulldozer machine. He said, much to my surprise, with admiration, "He gave just the right answer. He knows his stuff!")

But even granting all the above, there is something that can be done about this. In the case of a salesman selling goods from door to door, the emphatic "No" of the lady to whom he is trying to sell stockings, aluminum ware, or what-not, should not be the end of the conversation but the beginning ("I have not yet begun to fight!" as it were). As for myself, in such a situation with prisoners, I try to shame them, and have succeeded quite well. I tell them something like this, "You know, you are an interesting kind of person. I've lived in Japan many years. I like the Japanese very much. I have many good friends among the Japanese, men, women, boys, girls. Somehow or other the Japanese always open up to me. I have had most intimate conversations with them about all kinds of problems. I never quite met a person like you, so offish and on your guard." etc. etc. One prisoner seemed hurt. He said, with surprise and a little pain, "Do you really think I am offish?" Again, I sometimes say, "That is funny, you are not willing to talk to me about these things. Practically all the other prisoners, and we have hundreds of them, do talk. You seem different. I extend to you my friendship; we have treated you well, far better probably than we would be treated, and you don't respond." etc. etc. I tell him that we purposely try to be human. I say to him, "You know perfectly well that if I were a prisoner of the Japanese they wouldn't treat me the way I am treating you" (meaning my general attitude and approach). I then say, "I will show you the way they would act to me," and I stand up and imitate the stern, severe attitude of a Japanese military officer toward an inferior, and the prisoner smiles and even bursts out laughing at the "show" I am putting on, and agrees that that is actually the situation, and what I describe is the truth. Now in all this the interpreter back at one of the bases has a big advantage in one respect: He will have plenty of time for interrogations, and can interview them time and time again, while in many cases, we out at the front must interview them more or less rapidly, and oftentimes only once. But on the other hand, those of us right out at the front have what is sometimes a great advantage: we get absolutely first whack at them, and talk to them when they have not had time to develop a technique of "sales resistance" talk, as it were.

It may be advisable to give one illustration of how, concretely, to question, according to my point of view. Take a question such as this, "Why did you lose this battle?" (a question we asked on more than one occasion regarding some definite battle on Guadalcanal). A question presented in this bare way is a most wooden and uninteresting affair. The interpreter should be given leeway to phrase his own questions, and to elaborate them as he sees fit, as he sizes up the situation and the particular prisoner he may be interviewing. His superior officer should merely give him a statement of the information he wants. A man who is simply a word for word interpreter (in the literal sense) of a superior officer's questions, is, after all, nothing but a verbal cuspidor; the whole proceeding is a rather dreary affair for all concerned, including the prisoner. The conversation, the phrasing of the questions, should be interesting and should capture the prisoner's imagination. To come back to the question above, "Why did you lose this battle?" That was the question put to me to interpret (in the broad sense) to a prisoner who had been captured the day after one of the terrific defeats of the Japanese in the earlier days of the fighting on Guadalcanal. Here is the way I put the question: "We all know how brave the Japanese soldier is. All the world knows and has been startled at the remarkable progress of the Japanese armies in the Far East. Their fortitude, their skill, their bravery are famous all over the world. You captured the Philippines; you captured Hong Kong, you ran right through Malaya and captured the so-called impregnable Singapore; you took Java, and many other places. The success of the Imperial armies has been stupendous and remarkable. But you come to Guadalcanal and run into a stone wall, and are not only defeated but practically annihilated. Why is it?" You see that this is a really built-up question. I wish you could see the interest on the prisoner's face as I am dramatically asking such a question as that. It's like telling a story, and at the end he is interested in telling his part of it.

There is a problem of what questions to ask a prisoner. What kinds of questions? Of course there are many questions one would like to ask if he had the time, simply for curiosity, such as, What do you think of the war? Do you want to go back to Japan? Can you ever go back to Japan? I have asked these questions more than once when we had time, and discoursed at great length on the philosophy of the Japanese soldier; also on the sneak-punch at Pearl Harbor, getting their point of view of this and that. But of course questions such as these are not often asked by us, for they are more or less what I might term curiosity questions, i.e. questions the answers to which we should like to know just to satisfy our own curiosity, as it were. But usually we do not have time for such questions. A prisoner may be too tired or wounded to question him long, and only vital information is dealt with. Then, too, you can only question a prisoner for so long before he, and you, get stale and more or less tired, and you lose your brilliance and ingenuity. In the case of our own Marine Corps front line Intelligence, with which this particular discussion primarily deals, where we often had our interviews with prisoners out in the open under palm trees interrupted by a bombing raid and such side-shows, we must usually stick to questions dealing with imperative information. In our particular situation on Guadalcanal, here are some questions we nearly always asked, after getting the name, age, rank, and unit, where from in Japan, and previous occupation before entering the armed forces. (The six items mentioned above are more or less statistical. But by rank we can judge the value of the man's replies in many instances. The last question is of value in order to judge how much of a background the man has, which helps one to evaluate his answers. But of course though these questions are routine questions, each one is of value in its own particular way.)

After these six questions are disposed of (and often I do not ask them right away but amble along discussing other things, so that things won't be too stiff) we asked questions such as these: When did you arrive at Guadalcanal? Where did you land? (Very important) How many landed with you? What kind of a ship did you come in? (Don't ask leading questions; don't say, "Did you come on a warship?" Let him say.) Ask the name of the ship. How many troops were on the ship? If, for instance, he says he came on a destroyer, ask how many troops usually travel on a destroyer. (Of course you have many opportunities to check on such a question with other prisoners.) At this point you might ask him if he was sea-sick while on the destroyer. "Did you throw up?" "I've been terribly sea-sick myself a number of times; it's a rotten feeling isn't it?" you can add with deep feeling! (Be sure that you distinguish between crew and troops when you ask him how many troops the destroyer carried. Don't be "fuzzy" in your questions; be clear-cut.) How many other ships were with yours? What kind of ships? Where did you sail from and when? Were there many ships in that harbor? When did you leave Japan? Where were you between the time you left Japan and the time you landed on Guadalcanal? When you landed were any munitions landed? Artillery? Food supplies, medical supplies? After you landed where did you go? Where were you between the time you landed and the time you were captured? What experience in actual combat warfare have you had; your company, battalion or regiment? How is the present food supply in your unit? Sickness? What was the objective of your attack last night? How do you keep in contact with one another in the jungle at night? Of all our methods and weapons used against you, what has been the most efficient, the most terrific and deadly? (i.e. We want to know the effectiveness, for example, of our artillery, mortars, trench mortars, machine guns, airplane bombing, airplane strafing, shell fire from the sea, etc. etc. We found out that what we had thought was probably the most devastating and most feared was not what they thought, in some instances.) Of course we always asked about numbers of troops, and in our particular situation we always asked most eagerly about number of artillery pieces and their caliber. We had personal reasons!

Well, many more such questions could be cited, but these are enough to illustrate the immediate nature of the questions and the information desired in the case of our Marine Corps amphibious forces. If the prisoner is an aviator, and we had many such, of course the questions would be quite different. If the prisoner is one of the destroyer crew, for example, the questions would be still different. Our experience was that soldiers seemed far more ready to talk than sailors; aviators talked very readily.

s Sherwood F. Moran,
SHERWOOD F. MORAN,
Major, U.S.M.C.R.,
Japanese Interpreter
OFFICIAL:
s E. J. Buckley
E. J. BUCKLEY
Lt. Col., USMCR,
D-2.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/12/730722/-Why-isnt-THIS-memo-front-and-center-in-the-torture-debate

Suzie,

Nice cop out. I don't blame you....



lololol

I am sticking to what I said.

If you think I will be getting into a pissing match with you over it, (as others do) you are sadly mistaken.

Keep on talking. With each word you make yourself look just a tad more foolish.

Go ahead and have the last word. I'm done.

jbog- I guess I'm not making myself clear to you. Since there are so many factors that can be taken into consideration when determining the best of almost anything, the criteria are narrowed down.

You said yourself, "Schools can be rated on an national basis and states are rated, but not districts without some other parameter involved."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=37874305

Don't you realize that those rankings are also judged with a selected set of criteria. You now say "just tell me who was rated the #1 school district in the United States last year? I want the #1, no other parameters are allowed."

I'll tell you what, you tell me what state is rated #1- "no other parameters are allowed." Funny, even by the wording of your question, I'm wondering what the parameters are besides the "other."

I've got a handy-dandy chart for you that ranks the states....
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35970532

>"I get a chuckle out of jerks like you. How do you know what would have happened if Chrysler would have gone through a normal bankruptcy. Would Toyota or Honda maybe bought it? Who knows."<

Of course he doesn't, what we do likely know is that the UAW would be gone from the remnants of Chrysler. Funny people spent 8 years harping about Bush circumventing the Constitution yet seem pleased at Obama's complete disregard for the rule of law.
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html)
We need to keep in mind that Obama and the Dems. owes a debt to the UAW and we have a midterm election coming up. With the UAW as the majority owner at Chrysler all he has done is kick the can down the road as they will likely finish the company off IMO.

You need to keep in mind the cognitive ability of some posters. Some can only think in simple one dimension with dots and lines or good/bad as they believe that "Liberal" is anything they believe is right or true and "Conservative" is a bunch of religious fanatics who are pro-life and drink snake blood at church.

Woofer,

OK


Ms Simpleton, just tell me who was rated the #1 school district in the United States last year? I want the #1, no other parameters are allowed.

Maybe you can just tell me who provides that rating?



lololol

Suzie said she lived in one of the top "school districts" in the nation.

There is no such thing. Spin it any way you want.

If you think this is true, then do not ever post stuff like this again......

The winner of the Best Biotech CEO of the Year award goes to Myriad Genetics (MYGN) Chief Executive Peter Meldrum.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=34236413

There is no such thing. There is no "Best Biotech CEO."

Woofer,

Before you butted in with you google horseshit, Suzie and I were talking about school districts period. Not big school districts or small districts. Not rich or poor.

Suzie said she lived in one of the top "school districts" in the nation.

There is no such thing. Spin it any way you want.

Suzie can live in a great school district and I'm sure hers is rated the best in her area, but thats not the nation.

Now if you feel you have to rephrase the question so you're right, go for it......


lololol

I just proved you wrong, so please, don't use this as the one example where you were right and I was wrong.

Schools can be rated on an national basis and states are rated, but not districts without some other parameter involved.

I just told you the criteria (parameters) used in the three examples.

On a side note, you really should check out how "an" and "a" are used in a sentence. Scroll down a bit....
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/

Schools can be rated on an national basis....

You make this mistake in at least 20% of your posts.

Woofer,

I don't have to go any further than this thread.....

You, just like suzie are wrong. Schools can be rated on an national basis and states are rated, but not districts without some other parameter involved.




lololol

This is still funny.

jbog- Susie didn't specify what criteria were used to make the school district she lives in one of the best, did she? I went back and looked, and no, she didn't.

The school districts are ranked according to different criteria. Take this one for example:

Top-Ranked School Districts in the Nation with Under 50,000K enrollment
http://www.bvsdcape.org/Docs/TopDistricts.pdf

Forbes did it by money spent and scores:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/05/schools-taxes-education-biz-beltway_cz_cs_0705schools.html

AS&U ranks by money spent:
http://asumag.com/mag/university_asu_5/

Now Woofer, I suggest you ban yourself from Google for 24 hours as an punishment for making youself look foolish!!!

Have you done what I suggested yet? Find ONE argument we've ever had where you were right and I was wrong? I'd like to see one because I can't remember one where you did. It would be a refreshing change of pace.

Woofer,,,,

---------------------------------------------------------------
Best And Worst School Districts For The Buck
http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/05/schools-taxes-education-biz-beltway_cz_cs_0705schools_2.html

Forbes lists school districts by pricing

---------------------------------------------------------------

Top U.S. School Districts Mediocre on World Stage
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/10/23/top-us-school-districts-mediocre-on-world-stage/

Cato lists eleven LARGE school districts against other countries

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you want a top school district
http://www.newsday.com/business/realestate/ny-retowns-schools,0,588054.story

This post shows me the top school districts on Long Island

---------------------------------------------------------------

The AS&U 100 The top 100 public school districts in the United States
http://asumag.com/mag/university_asu_5/

The ASU list the top 100 LARGEST school districts in SIZE,
---------------------------------------------------------------

Now Woofer, I suggest you ban yourself from Google for 24 hours as an punishment for making youself look foolish!!!


lolol That's Funny

You can't read the directions. I'm talking school districts, you're talking schools.

Perhaps you should go back and read the questions I posed to you. But I'll include my questions in this post...

What's the funny part? That schools aren't ranked? That school districts aren't ranked? Is that what you think?

I was trying to figure out what you laughed about. The fact is, you're wrong in either case. You are the one who apparently can't read because if you go back to the post I did, you'll see that I included school district ranks further down. Once again though, I've included them below in this post, just school district rankings this time...

Best And Worst School Districts For The Buck
http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/05/schools-taxes-education-biz-beltway_cz_cs_0705schools_2.html

Top U.S. School Districts Mediocre on World Stage
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/10/23/top-us-school-districts-mediocre-on-world-stage/

If you want a top school district
http://www.newsday.com/business/realestate/ny-retowns-schools,0,588054.story

The AS&U 100 The top 100 public school districts in the United States
http://asumag.com/mag/university_asu_5/

And once again I'll ask you, what's the funny part?

Woofer:


What's the Funny Part


You can't read the directions. I'm talking school districts, you're talking schools.

Any merit based school like Stuyvesant should do good because they are able to cherry pick their students.

* The military commission system is back: "The White House said on Friday that some Guantánamo detainees would be prosecuted in a military commission system that was a much-criticized centerpiece of the Bush administration's strategy for fighting terror." Obama has expanded the legal rights of defendants, banned evidence via torture, restricted evidence from hearsay, and extended more flexibility to defendants to choose their own lawyers.

* CIA Director Leon Panetta encouraged his agency today to "ignore the noise," in reference to the media and the dust-up with House Speaker Pelosi. Sounds like good advice.

* Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who has a well-earned reputation for honesty, said Pelosi is right and the CIA did not brief lawmakers on waterboarding in September 2002.

* 1,100 GM dealers are poised to lose their franchises.

* Lakhdar Boumediene is leaving Gitmo and headed to France.

* Hospitals and insurance companies are already backpedaling a bit on this week's health care breakthrough with the White House. Obama Budget Director Peter Orszag and Jonathan Oberlander say we shouldn't worry too much about this.

* Works for me: "New York City Health Commissioner Thomas R. Frieden, known for his aggressive and sometimes controversial efforts to limit smoking and consumption of trans fats in the nation's largest metropolis, has been chosen by President Obama to direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the White House said this morning."

* Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), a key House centrist, has endorsed a compromise climate-change bill after negotiations with Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). Al Gore seems encouraged by the bill, calling it "a good start."

* As of this afternoon, 57 senators support Dawn Johnsen's OLC nomination, with four undecided on whether to let the Senate vote on her confirmation: Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, and Ben Nelson.

* Tucker Carlson and Dana Perino have joined the Fox News payroll? It's almost as if the network likes hiring people of a certain ideological bent.

* It appears that former astronaut and retired Marine Corps Gen. Charles Bolden has emerged as the president's likely choice to head NASA.

* I'm glad to see Schumer take an interest in those "extend your car warranty" spam calls.

* And finally, Michael Steele and Michele Bachmann are teaming up to attack ACORN. With intellectual firepower like that, what could possibly go wrong?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_05/018199.php

What's the funny part? That schools aren't ranked? That school districts aren't ranked? Is that what you think?

Since Susie mentioned that hers is near the top, she might live in the district that contains Stuyvesant High School.

A sampling of school rankings from 2005-2008:
Ranked #23 out of 21,000- Stuyvesant High School
New York, NY
In this link.....
Best High Schools: Gold Medal List
http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2008/12/04/best-high-schools-gold-medal-list.html

Or maybe the district that contains the Bronx High School of Science (where my brother-in-law taught by the way- retired recently)
http://www.usnews.com/listings/high-schools/new_york/bronx_high_school_of_science_school

The complete list of the 1,300 top U.S. high schools
http://www.newsweek.com/id/39380

Best High Schools
http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2007/11/29/the-ranking-formula.html

'The Best School System in America'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110800484.html

Best And Worst School Districts For The Buck
http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/05/schools-taxes-education-biz-beltway_cz_cs_0705schools_2.html

Top U.S. School Districts Mediocre on World Stage
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/10/23/top-us-school-districts-mediocre-on-world-stage/

Public School Ratings: Discover the Best Schools in Any Area
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/school-district/ratings/

If you want a top school district
http://www.newsday.com/business/realestate/ny-retowns-schools,0,588054.story

Public School Ranking
http://www.psk12.com/rating/index.php

The AS&U 100 The top 100 public school districts in the United States
http://asumag.com/mag/university_asu_5/

must be nice

to have one's fancy tickled

i feel left out

Something tickle your fancy?

my post was pertaining to Fed taxes

and more of a general statement

i still stand by it


While the U.S. population increased 7.2% over the last 8 years, New Yorks increased 1.7%. It's non-minority population declined while it's poor increased.

is that NYC or the state?

Susie,,,


""""And yes they do rank the school districts.""""

LOLOLOL

Alex G


My post from the nys tax increase:

Alex G,

Sadly what many morons forget is that america is still a free country. While the U.S. population increased 7.2% over the last 8 years, New Yorks increased 1.7%. It's non-minority population declined while it's poor increased.

This is 2009. You don't have to be in the office anymore and as far as that goes you don't have to be in this country anymore.

NYS is on a spiral downward and this "fairness" will only speed up the process. """"

Your Reply:

NYS is on a spiral downward and this "fairness" will only speed up the process.

really?... amazing, how did this country ever survive when we had 90% tax brackets in the 1950s and 50% tax brackets under Reagan?

now the CONservatives screech and wail that 39% is socialism/communism/marxism/blah blah blah

you'll have to refresh me where i said that

you seem angry again today

did someone take away your George Bush mission accomplished doll?

No actually the better medical care is in NYC.

And yes they do rank the school districts.

Alex G

You were the fugnut who said it wouldn't matter if ny raised its tax structure.

I guess you were wrong, but thats not surprising.

Susie 924,


""""I don't know where you live but I live in one of the best school districts in the country."""""


Really? I wasn't aware they were ever ranked. I assume you have the best medical care also.......


lololol

oh the poor billionaire... that's just too sad jbog

i sure hope the guy can struggle through his hardships

I don't know where you live but I live in one of the best school districts in the country.

susie 924


"""You get what you pay for.""""

I see. We pay twice the national average in education and our students rank in the lowest quarter.

We pay the highest health care bill in the country, yet we don't have any better health care.

I'm not saying NY isn't a nice place yet that doesn't mean it's worth it.

Business's in general are fleeing NYS and California so that doesn't hold much promise for their future.

You get what you pay for.

I will pay whatever I have to in order to live in NY.

No offense to anyone in Florida, but that would be the LAST place I would move to if I had to move.

Alex and Susie,

I thought you two told no oe would have a problem paying the new NYS tax structure??


Thomas Golisano has had it with New York state’s tax burden and is making Florida his permanent residence.

Golisano, the billionaire owner of the Buffalo Sabres, made the disclosure Thursday in his native Rochester at the city’s 2009 Financial Executive of the Year Awards.

The founder of Paychex Inc. has made a dedicated effort in the past few years to change the political landscape within the state, spending millions in support of numerous candidates for office.

At the end of his speech detailing systemic problems with the state’s property tax system and dovetailing into education, income taxes, health care and the role of unions in politics, Golisano announced his intention change his domicile to Florida.

“I’m not happy about it by any means. But we have a state that continues to be run like this and you compare the state of Florida and seven or eight other states — Florida has no income tax at all, 6 percent sales tax versus 8 percent sales tax and 1 percent of property tax to market value compared to an average of 3.5 percent in upstate New York,” he said.

“I don’t expect anyone to feel sorry for me, but a number of friends close to me said I should say this. My tax savings just on income tax will be $13,800 per day. Per day. Now if it has this kind of effect on me imagine the effect on a lot of New Yorkers and what’s going to happen to our state as long as we keep allowing this to happen year after year after year. We let it happen by doing generally one thing — electing the same legislators and getting the same power to Shelly Silver and now Malcolm Smith to absolutely control the New York State Legislature.”

The 67-year old Golisano already spends several months at a home in Naples, Fla. By claiming that as his full-time residence, his estimated yearly savings would be over $5 million per year.

In addition to owning the Sabres and his involvement in politics, Golisano is also recognized for charitable giving, including $10 million to Niagara University last year to assist in construction of a new science complex.

And You Guys Say The SEC Doesn't Do Anything......


WASHINGTON -- Two enforcement lawyers at the Securities and Exchange Commission are being investigated by federal prosecutors and the FBI for possible insider-trading violations, according to a report from the SEC's inspector general.

The criminal investigation, which was disclosed to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro in a March 3 memo, came about after SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz conducted his own investigation into the matter and referred it to criminal authorities after discovering suspicious trading activity.

The names of the two attorneys were redacted from the report, but Mr. Kotz said he has also recommended that disciplinary action be taken against them.

"Our investigation revealed suspicious activity, appearances of improprieties, and we identified stocks for which there is evidence that [attorney 1] and [attorney 2] may have traded on nonpublic information or engaged in insider trading," the report said.

A third attorney, meanwhile, was found to have violated reporting rules regarding personal securities transactions.

The investigation comes as yet another embarrassment for the agency's enforcement division, which came under harsh criticism for its failure to detect Bernard Madoff's $65 billion Ponzi scheme. Mr .Kotz is also heading an internal investigation into the Madoff failures.

Since her confirmation, Ms. Schapiro has been working to restore the division's image, hiring a former U.S. prosecutor as its new director to send a message that the agency is not afraid to go after big Wall Street players who violate U.S. securities laws.

On Thursday, Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), who has been a critic in the past of the SEC's enforcement division, sent a letter to Ms. Schapiro in response to Mr. Kotz's report.

In particular, he raised concerns about findings in the report that suggest the agency has "no compliance system in place to ensure that Commission employees" do not make trades for personal gain based on information they receive as SEC employees. Sen. Grassley has asked Ms. Schapiro to reply to a number of questions, including what kinds of disciplinary action the SEC may take against the lawyers.

I guess you've finally arrived at the correct conclusion of why YOU are concerned about AIG's bonus's and I don't give a hoot. I guess it's the old theory, small things for small minds.......


lololol

That must be it.

n4807a,


Obama's got to give them what they want... Those are votes in his pocket for crying out loud.

Do you know how long any decent community organizer would have to pound the pavement to gather that many votes.....


lolol

Woofer

""""Why would I even give a second thought to AIG's Trival Bonus's?

Why? Because you're an _____________. """"


I guess you've finally arrived at the correct conclusion of why YOU are concerned about AIG's bonus's and I don't give a hoot. I guess it's the old theory, small things for small minds.......


lololol

By the way, I thought that between Dodd, Barney, Obama and Timmy they were going to pass some tax or something? What ever happened to that.....lolololol

Sucker

Why would I even give a second thought to AIG's Trival Bonus's?

Why? Because you're an _____________.

The latest AIG bonus round:

Cuomo Details Million-Dollar Bonuses at A.I.G.

Published: March 17, 2009
Seventy-three employees were paid more than $1 million in the latest bonuses at the insurance giant American International Group, according to the New York attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo.

The attorney general provided new details on Tuesday about some of the $165 million in bonuses that A.I.G. paid out last week in a letter sent to Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services.

“A.I.G. made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing a taxpayer bailout,” Mr. Cuomo wrote in the letter. “Something is deeply wrong with this outcome.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/business/18cuomo.html

Gotta go- will be back later on.

Woofer,


Why would I even give a second thought to AIG's Trival Bonus's?

If we think that people are making to much money, tax the crap out of them. Period.

For you to talk about AIG's paltry bonus's and not bring up Brittney's concerts or A Rods pay package is silly.

They have you so fooled it's silly. How about Rahm making $14 million dollars for 18 months work in the financial hedge sector,,,,, without a frigging finance degree. Not back work if you can get it.

oh no.....where's Obama? http://sacbee.com/topstories/story/1863558.html

The puppet masters are screaming for relief.

It seems you'd go out of your way to save McDonalds before Pfizer because you like their uniforms.

You're way off base. I like their Happy Meal toys, and never noticed the employee uniforms.
================
But joking aside, you're trying to tell me that if AIG execs didn't get those big fat bonuses, they'd leave? I couldn't think of a better outcome than that.

Woofer,


To compare AIG with Chysler is plain stupid, so it doesn't surprise me you're bringing it up.

It seems you'd go out of your way to save McDonalds before Pfizer because you like their uniforms.

Soxfan,

Again, you present no facts and soley rely on BS.


I'm assuming you've borrowed woof's crystal ball recently.

Here's the deal, SoxFan. jbog thinks that stupidity and greed should be rewarded (AIG executives), but that people who actually work for a living (people at Chrysler) should fend for themselves.

jbog to SoxFan: "How do you know what would have happened if Chrysler would have gone through a normal bankruptcy. Would Toyota or Honda maybe bought it? Who knows."

It wasn't that long ago that you thought there was a great case for letting AIG pay their executives huge bonuses.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=36340546

In that article there's a statement that goes like this....
"If A.I.G. had spiraled into bankruptcy, its employees would have had to get in line with other unsecured creditors."

My, my. Why not let AIG do what you suggested of Chrysler? If AIG couldn't pay out those big bonuses because they didn't get the bailout money, they could start all over....and get rid of the thieves at the same time.

Hypocrisy, anyone?

Like I said you caterwauling about those poor dealers when you wanted them to go through a regular bankruptcy and rest assured even more would have been shed because fiat needs the distribution channel in the US - your abject stupidity is that you think it would be better when it would be far worse. I believe we have given Chrysler something already and that we are not taking over their retirement yet. Oh and as for your wet dream of Toyota or Honda - maybe you can point to where everyone was fighting to get a piece of Chrysler I must have missed it. Remember if the bankruptcy is accepted there is I believe another round waiting for them.

The problem as with most of your posts is you like to scream with no solutions.

You make the inane statement that we don't know what would happen - Ya we do - Chrysler would be gone and picked clean while we (read taxpayers) would then hold their retirement and those workers would be gone. The inventory would be sold off and the plants would remain idle. Maybe just maybe someone would come in and grab some of their trucks but it would be small chump change.

So by your posts we also know you have as you would say - no freaking clue what the hell is going on. But please keep on trying to convince us you know something it's humorous.

Soxfan,

your hypocritical post yammering at Obama and Chrysler while your inaction would have done much more damage to those people."""""

I get a chuckle out of jerks like you. How do you know what would have happened if Chrysler would have gone through a normal bankruptcy. Would Toyota or Honda maybe bought it? Who knows.

You friggin clowns get on some stupid talking point, with absolutely no facts, and that becomes truth if you say it long enough.

When other industries went BK, they rearranged their balance sheets or in some cases were bought out by other companies.

Face it, you're figgin clueless.

What I pointed out was your hypocritical post yammering at Obama and Chrysler while your inaction would have done much more damage to those people. That's why I asked you if you knew what the word Hypocrite means - obviously you don't.

Soxy,

Here's another 1100 big wigs going down!! Yes!

Too bad they each employed about 50 to 60 other people.


May 15 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. is sending termination notices today to 1,100 U.S. dealers with about $2.5 billion in unsold vehicles as the automaker starts shrinking its retail network, a person familiar with the matter said.

The dealers hold about 120,000 autos of various brands, said the person, who asked not to be identified because GM hasn’t announced details yet. Mark LaNeve, GM’s North American sales chief, is set to brief reporters at noon New York time.

The closings are GM’s first step toward paring U.S. dealers to 3,600 from 6,200 by the end of next year as it faces a probable bankruptcy by a June 1 deadline. With fewer outlets, the survivors each may be able to sell more cars at higher prices, boosting profit, the person said.

“A concern of all dealers would be if the market value of vehicles were to decline because terminated dealers would be desperate to sell,” said Jim Eagan, a partner at consulting firm Plante & Moran in Southfield, Michigan.

Eagan said he hoped that GM would force the remaining franchisees to purchase inventory from stores being closed. Bankrupt Chrysler LLC took similar steps when it announced the shutdown of 789 dealerships yesterday.

Peter Ternes, a GM spokesman, declined to comment about the company’s plans.

GM was unchanged at $1.15 at 9:49 a.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares have tumbled 95 percent in the past year.

Winding Down

GM is hoping for an orderly wind-down of the affected dealers over the next year or so, the person said, meaning they would close when their inventory is gone.

Today’s shutdowns are in addition to the approximately 500 dealers being shed as GM disposes of its Hummer, Saturn and Saab brands and drops Pontiac. GM has said it expects some dealers to leave voluntarily.

In contrast to Chrysler, which waited until it filed bankruptcy to cancel dealerships, GM is taking steps to reduce its retail network now, saying it still hopes to avoid having to restructure in court. Still, Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson said yesterday that bankruptcy is “probable.”

GM is trying to shave operating costs and shrink debt and union-retiree obligations by $44 billion. The company is surviving on $15.4 billion in U.S. government loans.

GM’s 8.375 percent bonds due in July 2033 fell 0.3 cent yesterday to 4.5 cents on the dollar, a record low, according to Trace, the bond-pricing service of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The yield was 175 percent. The bonds traded at 74.4 cents on the dollar a year ago.

soxfan,


Prior to the last six months our government made only one loan to an private corporation. At that was Chrysler.

Why do you think this exercise will work. I don't, at least in the effect of helping our workers.

History says the weak companies should die and the strong will prevail.

You on the other hand are winning the race to the bottom. good luck

Your course of action was nothing - let's not give them any money was your screed and wallow.