January 24, 2006
Pushing Elephants: Part 1
I'm not real happy with the Republican Party right now, and would like to see not just a reform, but a restructuring, with a revised GOP platform for upcoming elections. I'll present a single broad topic at a time, and present some ideas. Please discuss in the comments.
Immigration- A complete, multi-layer physical wall stretching the length of the United States border with Mexico, manned by an expanded, adequately staffed, armed and trained Border Patrol. It should go without saying, but a stronger physical border makes illegal immigration more problematic to those that would enter illegally.
- A decrease in foreign aid and revocation of Most Favored Nation trading status to countries that encourage illegal immigration. Make it financially unpleasant for nations that allow their citizens to illegally enter our country.
- A National ID minimum threshold. This would force states to apply more stringent requirements to obtain official identification. Hiring anyone without a valid, complying ID would be against he law, and any employer violating these standards will face increased civil and criminal penalties, up to and including the forfeiture of assets for repeat offenders.
- A punitive 20% tax on overseas wire transfers by those without a valid, complying ID.
- A robust, interrelated immigration computer system that can track legal immigrants and revoke ID status and residency without compliance, making it impossible for illegal immigrants or visa violators to find or keep jobs or lodging.
- Targeted immigration to help American business, particularly in technology and engineering fields.
- Targeted education visas for students from emerging allied democracies.
- Repeal the practice of automatically awarding citizenship to babies (so-called "anchor babies") born in this country, unless both parents are already U.S. citizens.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:12 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Fine ideas all, but remember that we also have to pay for everything. Make sure your ideas include plans to pay for this or that. And sure we'll save billions in the long run, but these things have to be paid for up front.
There's plenty of pork, but getting the politicians to cut it is another thing entire.
Marshall Neal
There's plenty of pork, but getting the politicians to cut it is another thing entire.
Marshall Neal
Posted by: Marshall Neal at January 24, 2006 04:29 PM (Qa0tQ)
2
Hireing illegals is aready supposed to be against the law. Too bad Bush and co. (and corp. and LLC, etc)don't want those laws enforced.
I like the rest, though.
Too bad the RNC wants basically amnesty- they just endorsed Bush's "Temp. worker program."
I like the rest, though.
Too bad the RNC wants basically amnesty- they just endorsed Bush's "Temp. worker program."
Posted by: KurtP at January 24, 2006 10:57 PM (H+rgl)
3
Hey....anybody ever lived in Southern California? The hiring of illegals has been going on for many, many decades. I lived in San Diego for 10 years and every morning there would be groups of men standing at certain corners. Trucks would come by and pick up one, two, ten....and off they went to work. This is not a problem that was "caused" by Bush.
Unfortunately, to make $25 in wages for a day, is a lot more than they can get in their own country. And once they are "in" they end up getting free medical care (That was an issue in California when I moved there in 1984 - and it still is.) It's a little hard to completely stop traffic of illegals along hundreds of miles of open territory. How do we accomplish that? Fence - they cut through/dig under/go around.
Just trying to blame a particular administration doesn't do justice to the problem - and it is a problem. Especially now that we have terrorists that could use the same entry methods. We have incursions of the Mexican Army with heavy automatic weapons apparently protecting drug shipments into the US.
So how do we handle it? Put thousands of INS agents out checking every truck with workers in it? We'd get some hits and maybe some fines, but sooner or later we'd stop a truck that had legitimate workers and then we'd have a huge outcry of violating their civil liberties. It's almost a no-win situation. And they've been struggling with it since before the 60's....
Unfortunately, to make $25 in wages for a day, is a lot more than they can get in their own country. And once they are "in" they end up getting free medical care (That was an issue in California when I moved there in 1984 - and it still is.) It's a little hard to completely stop traffic of illegals along hundreds of miles of open territory. How do we accomplish that? Fence - they cut through/dig under/go around.
Just trying to blame a particular administration doesn't do justice to the problem - and it is a problem. Especially now that we have terrorists that could use the same entry methods. We have incursions of the Mexican Army with heavy automatic weapons apparently protecting drug shipments into the US.
So how do we handle it? Put thousands of INS agents out checking every truck with workers in it? We'd get some hits and maybe some fines, but sooner or later we'd stop a truck that had legitimate workers and then we'd have a huge outcry of violating their civil liberties. It's almost a no-win situation. And they've been struggling with it since before the 60's....
Posted by: Specter at January 25, 2006 08:42 AM (ybfXM)
4
I agree the border must be controlled, but not sure a wall is the most cost effective way to go. We have the technology (have had for years) to see people that cross our border. What we need is an immediate and authoritative response to illegal crossings.
I would say NO foreign aid or favored trade status to Mexico until they control their side of the border.
I'm not sure how the National ID issue would go over. I can see the Libertarians balking and they lean toward the GOP on most issues. Personally, I have no problem with a National ID, because I've carried a National ID card (of sorts) for over 39 years. I would also tie voting privileges into the card system.
I wouldn't allow any money to be wired out of the US without a passport and visa or green card.
Those are my tweaks to this topic. I'm a bit more of an authoritarian than most, so tempering or moderating my input is probably in order.
I would say NO foreign aid or favored trade status to Mexico until they control their side of the border.
I'm not sure how the National ID issue would go over. I can see the Libertarians balking and they lean toward the GOP on most issues. Personally, I have no problem with a National ID, because I've carried a National ID card (of sorts) for over 39 years. I would also tie voting privileges into the card system.
I wouldn't allow any money to be wired out of the US without a passport and visa or green card.
Those are my tweaks to this topic. I'm a bit more of an authoritarian than most, so tempering or moderating my input is probably in order.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 25, 2006 10:38 AM (X2tAw)
5
Perhaps I should clarify: I'm not advocating a national ID, but a national minimal standard for identification. Is that the same thing?
For example, to get a NC ID, you can use your apartment lease to prove residency and an original birth certificate to establish your proof of age and ID, and neither requirement proves you are in America legally.
I'm pushing for whatever minimum standard proves you are in the United States legally to obtain a certified ID, and then saying you can only legally work if you have this kind of ID.
I do like your additional idea of only allowing money to be wired with valid ID better than my original punative tax idea, but I was trying to offer something to the Democrats. ;-).
For example, to get a NC ID, you can use your apartment lease to prove residency and an original birth certificate to establish your proof of age and ID, and neither requirement proves you are in America legally.
I'm pushing for whatever minimum standard proves you are in the United States legally to obtain a certified ID, and then saying you can only legally work if you have this kind of ID.
I do like your additional idea of only allowing money to be wired with valid ID better than my original punative tax idea, but I was trying to offer something to the Democrats. ;-).
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 25, 2006 12:26 PM (g5Nba)
6
CY, I understand the concept for a national standard by which to establish citizenship for ID purposes (e.g. drivers license, voter's card, etc.) It is clear we must make some sort of move to differentiate legitimate citizens from illegitimate aliens.
As for the Democrats; I think showing them the door would be an adequate gesture...
As for the Democrats; I think showing them the door would be an adequate gesture...
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 25, 2006 02:14 PM (X2tAw)
January 23, 2006
Next Event: the 200-Meter Splatter
Now that Steven Speilberg's moral-equivilence disaster Munich has once more ripped open the wound of Islamofascist terrorists slaughtering Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972, this is not a brilliant idea:
While Israel would not necessarily target Iranian athletes, a couple of Iranian welterweight wrestlers aren't exactly what one would consider an effective deterrent to Israeli airpower. Luckily for the athletes, the precision GBU-28s carried by Israeli F-15I strike fighters are ground-penetrating bunker busters, and aren't likely to cause many above ground casualties... though I wouldn't want to be the man on the ground to test that theory.
IRAN put a human shield of 1000 athletes around a key nuclear plant yesterday after Israel indicated it could launch strikes to stop the Islamic state building nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:20 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Big deal. They'll be in good shape to sprint away when the bombs start falling. Handicapped kids in wheelchairs? Now, we're talking.
Posted by: Tom P at January 23, 2006 11:54 PM (0Mdox)
2
Does radical Islam have a handicapped program? Oh, that's right... radical Islam is a handicapped program.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 24, 2006 07:31 AM (X2tAw)
3
With all due respect, as the GBU-28s pass through the area that the "athletes" are standing, there will be collateral damage that will more than likely be fatal.
Not that I consider that to be a problem.
Not that I consider that to be a problem.
Posted by: old_dawg at January 25, 2006 12:12 PM (mvlLy)
Operation Iraqi Children
Go. Now.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:43 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'd like to recomment the gates of fire article on that site, absolutely riviting.
Posted by: Ray Robison at January 24, 2006 12:04 PM (CdK5b)
The "Plantation" Goes Up In Flames
Shelby Steele, author of A Dream Deferred: The Second Betrayal of Black Freedom in America, eviscerates Hillary Clinton's pandering MLK Day "plantation" speech in today's WSJ OpinionJournal.
An excerpt:Ouch. Steele continues:
Mrs. Clinton came to Al Sharpton's MLK celebration looking for an easy harvest of black votes. And she knew the drill--white liberals and Dems whistle for the black vote by pandering to the black sense of grievance. Once positioned as the white champions of this grievance, they actually turn black resentment into white liberal power. Today, Democrats cannot be competitive without this alchemy. So Mrs. Clinton's real insult to blacks--one far uglier than her plantation metaphor--is to value them only for their sense of grievance.
Mrs. Clinton's husband was a master of this alchemy, and his presidency also illustrated its greatest advantage. Once black grievance is morphed into liberal power, it need never be honored. President Clinton notoriously felt black pain, won the black vote, and then rewarded blacks with the cold shower of welfare reform. And here, now, is Mrs. Clinton sidling up to the trough of black grievance, eyes wide in expectation, but also a tad contemptuous. It is hard to fully respect one's suckers.
I've been working toward this idea in past posts and comments, pushing the idea that one party cannot address the needs of all people in an ethnic group, because people within any ethnic group have different economic and social realities. Race does not equal party affiliation, or at least it shouldn't. I don't know if it is properly a disagreement with Steele, but I'd say that while Secretary Rice might be the most visible example of black conservativism, others are as well or better equipped to handle electoral office. Ohio gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell has more experience as an elected politician, and simply lacks the national stage that Rice currently occupies. If he wins in Ohio (where he is currently ahead according to Zogby), the small government champion Blackwell may be in a position to think about a 2008 run at the GOP nomination for the Presidency, precisely because unlike other GOP hopefuls, Blackwell has a solid reputation as a true fiscal conservative. If you can find any other Republican candidates with his fiscal track record, please feel free to correct me. Blackwell's small government leanings and his history of broad, cross-party appeal in Ohio should translate well across the country, and Rice's obvious foreign policy experience would balance the ticket. I for one would like to contemplate a Blackwell/Rice run for the GOP in '08. Quite frankly, I don't see a Democratic ticket that could hope to compete. Others blogging this topic:
Precisely because Republicans cannot easily pander to black grievance, they have no need to value blacks only for their sense of grievance. Unlike Democrats, they can celebrate what is positive and constructive in minority life without losing power. The dilemma for Democrats, liberals and the civil rights establishment is that they become redundant and lose power the instant blacks move beyond grievance and begin to succeed by dint of their own hard work. So they persecute such blacks, attack their credibility as blacks, just as they pander to blacks who define their political relationship to America through grievance. Republicans are generally freer of the political bigotry by which the left either panders to or persecutes black Americans. No one on the current political scene better embodies this Republican advantage than the current secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.
Dr. Sanity
Austin Bay
Kobayashi Maru
(via Memeorandum.com) Update: Jeff Goldstein over at Protein Wisdom riffs along nicely. Check it out.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:13 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hey CY...what does this mean:
questionable content: t o p - s e c r
I got it when attempting to post. What do I have to fix?
questionable content: t o p - s e c r
I got it when attempting to post. What do I have to fix?
Posted by: Specter at January 23, 2006 11:44 AM (ybfXM)
2
CY - never mind. Duh....quick search of what I was posting pointed it out real clear.
Posted by: Specter at January 23, 2006 11:48 AM (ybfXM)
3
Never underestimate the power of the MSM, combined with an entrenched system for voter fraud in Democratic precincts to swing an election their way. And never underestimate the potential for bloody primary battles and/or years of relative complacency in power on our side to make this closer than it ought to be if only the logic of the arguments were in play. One thing Kerry's win over Lieberman in the '04 primaries should teach us (or Gerald Ford's over Ronald Reagan in 1976) is that getting the candidate most likely to win the general election *to* the general election can be a lot trickier than it seems and sometimes downright impossible.
Posted by: Kobayashi Maru at January 23, 2006 04:54 PM (en/7R)
UPI Reporters Still Undergunned
You would hope that the UPI's Pentagon correspondent would have enough gun savvy not to make this boneheaded statement:
I hate to tell Pamela Hess, but by 1876 Gatling guns could fire 400-1,200 rounds/minute, and modern electrically-driven Gatlings can fire 4,000-6,000 rounds per minute. Every single gun I own (none of them machine guns) is capable of more than 60 rounds per minute. Poor knowledge, or poor editing? You make the call. In addition, Metal Storm, the company fielding this "new" technology, had been around with weapons that can fire a million rounds a minute since 2003, and they put the 40mm launcher on Dragonfly UAVs in 2004. Has UPI discovered UAVs yet, or are they still working with those Sopwith Camel prototypes? Way to be on top of things, UPI.
Next month a new high-explosive munition will be fired in Singapore and then tested again by the U.S. Army, heralding what may be a sea change in weaponry: a gun that can fire 240,000 rounds per minute. That's compared to 60 rounds per minute in a standard military machine gun.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:22 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It is a pretty cool gun though. I saw it on the history channel a year or so ago. It's a big box of bullets in tubes, and when it is fired, it sounds like an A-10's gun.
Posted by: Kevin at January 23, 2006 09:06 AM (o/IMK)
2
I think I can feed sixty rounds per minute through my old bolt action .22 rifle, subtracting the reload time on the 20-25 round tubular magazine.
Posted by: Fish at January 23, 2006 05:18 PM (KpjA/)
3
At certain ale houses in Manhattan that reporters frequent, I would often get into gun conversations, and I was suprised that they would ask questions that I knew the answers to at the age of 11, like what is a "round?". When you have a class of people with no early shooting experience, no military experience, and an aversion to firearms in general, they might write anything!
Posted by: Tom TB at January 24, 2006 07:48 AM (wZLWV)
January 22, 2006
On Troll Droppings
I am not a huge fan of trolls.
Trolls, of course, are a web denizen that pops up from time to time to post provocative, but not usually insightful or enlightening, comments to a message board or blog post. Some trolls can actually be useful in that they can be manipulated to prove a point, often without them knowing how they are being used. But in general, trolls are pests, and they exist to annoy. For the past months I've allowed several trolls to remain posting in the comments of Confederate Yankee, but as time goes on, I've noticed that while one or two in particular are useful for illustrative purposes, others exist to merely disagree and annoy. These trolls do not engage in substantive debate, and refuses to justify arguments with either sourcing or logic. As of tonight, I'm going to start banning trolls on a case-by-case basis. Those that serve a purpose will remain, those that don't... well, you won't see them anymore. I won't embarrass them by naming them, they simple won't be around in the future. They can, or course, start their own blogs. It is a free country, despite what they sometimes claim.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:34 PM | Comments (60) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Did someone mention Robert Byrd?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 10:09 PM (pEWm6)
2
Just one question before I'm thrown bodily out the door- would any of you withdraw your support for Mr. Bush if he killed a kitten with a carpenter's hammer?
Just askin', 's all...
Just askin', 's all...
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 10:16 PM (pEWm6)
3
A Framing Hammer would make the job easier. They typically weigh a bit more and have a longer handle, thus giving you a bit more bang for your buck, or in this case, crack for the swing.
And would I vote for 'em. Damned skippy, what's killin' a kitten or ten got to do with running a country? Other than being decent stress relief, second to kickin’ puppies I can’t think of a better past time.
And would I vote for 'em. Damned skippy, what's killin' a kitten or ten got to do with running a country? Other than being decent stress relief, second to kickin’ puppies I can’t think of a better past time.
Posted by: phin at January 22, 2006 10:36 PM (DGPlf)
4
Dang! Sorry to keep running back. I'll get the axe soon enough. But before I go, I'd like to ask one serious, honest question:
What do you folks think about this essay?
What do you folks think about this essay?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 10:40 PM (pEWm6)
5
And Phin, I quite agree. In fact, I think my 4-pound engineer's hammer (looks just like a big sledge only smaller) would be most appropriate, considering the requirement that the President be sitting at his desk to do the deed.
But, alas, the rules specifically forbid anything bigger than a carpenter's hammer.
But, alas, the rules specifically forbid anything bigger than a carpenter's hammer.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 10:52 PM (pEWm6)
6
Thanks, FB, for stepping up and proving why I keep you around for "illustrative purposes" as I alluded to in the main post.
I didn't want to name names, but when you step up to the plate like you have with the disjointed Robert Byrd shout-out and your odd liberal kitten-killing fantasties, it becomes rather obvious.
I didn't want to name names, but when you step up to the plate like you have with the disjointed Robert Byrd shout-out and your odd liberal kitten-killing fantasties, it becomes rather obvious.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 22, 2006 11:03 PM (0fZB6)
7
Indeed, CY. Fat Bastard is an excellent example of what is so wrong with the Left. Very illustrative, indeed.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 11:29 PM (BRgB4)
8
"What do you folks think about this essay?"
Not much, FB. Personally, I couldn't get past the title. Is vulgarity the mark of a good liberal blogger/commenter? I have noticed when the left cannot support an argument, the next step is either Hilter, Nazis or vulgarity.
Not much, FB. Personally, I couldn't get past the title. Is vulgarity the mark of a good liberal blogger/commenter? I have noticed when the left cannot support an argument, the next step is either Hilter, Nazis or vulgarity.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 23, 2006 07:17 AM (X2tAw)
9
I thought the kitten thing was funny. You guys would support the President pretty much right to the wall, so...
Also, I thought that essay was exceptionally well written and thought provoking-- all insult, joking, and even disagreement aside. It was an essay not directly associated with any of the various political/philosophical wrangling that normally goes on. That is to say-- I posted the link to that essay not as a troll, but as a fellow human and fellow American.
"Can't we all just get along?"
Also, I thought that essay was exceptionally well written and thought provoking-- all insult, joking, and even disagreement aside. It was an essay not directly associated with any of the various political/philosophical wrangling that normally goes on. That is to say-- I posted the link to that essay not as a troll, but as a fellow human and fellow American.
"Can't we all just get along?"
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 23, 2006 07:48 AM (pEWm6)
10
"Can't we all just get along?"
Those words are most frequently uttered from a position of weakness, and intended to stall while strength can be regained; much like OBL's offer of a truce - very disingenuous.
Those words are most frequently uttered from a position of weakness, and intended to stall while strength can be regained; much like OBL's offer of a truce - very disingenuous.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 23, 2006 09:14 AM (X2tAw)
11
Hmm, you say you want to get along FB, and at the same time link to a post suggesting that Bush supporters are mindless followers to the extreme, simply because he's spying on terrorists at home and abroad, and interrogating them with methods other than hugs?
That is an interesting avenue you've chosen to 'get along'.
That is an interesting avenue you've chosen to 'get along'.
Posted by: Kevin at January 23, 2006 09:20 AM (o/IMK)
12
Weirdly FB's essay is true; vulgar, gross and crass but true. The world has never seen a race as adept at slaughter as the mix of Viking stock with the darker Pictish peoples. While, capable of vast kindness and true friendship, pound for pound the Northern Europian crossbred is the most lethal creature to every walk the Earth. The ancient Greeks, Persians, Romans, and Assyrians were almost unbelievably cruel but I'd send a pack of Scots and Irish against them on even money. Its only the inevitable infighting that stops the 'Super Celts'.
I think its a feature, not a bug.
Tob
I think its a feature, not a bug.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at January 23, 2006 10:12 AM (ATbKm)
13
Toby-
The essay wasn't mine; I just happened to stumble across it. I offer no judgements on it's accuracy or whether it's a feature or a bug; I just found it fascinating.
As for the kitten/hammer thing-- well, its pretty acidly tongue-in-cheek, but the question remains: what would it take for you to drop your support for Mr. Bush?
Old Soldier:
Hey, I expect to get banned; and the Joe Bageant essay link was meant to be a last moment of not-trolling.
Honestly, I was very much moved by the post; it reminded me that while white privilege is a wonderful thing to have; for too many it's not enough.
The essay wasn't mine; I just happened to stumble across it. I offer no judgements on it's accuracy or whether it's a feature or a bug; I just found it fascinating.
As for the kitten/hammer thing-- well, its pretty acidly tongue-in-cheek, but the question remains: what would it take for you to drop your support for Mr. Bush?
Old Soldier:
Hey, I expect to get banned; and the Joe Bageant essay link was meant to be a last moment of not-trolling.
Honestly, I was very much moved by the post; it reminded me that while white privilege is a wonderful thing to have; for too many it's not enough.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 23, 2006 10:30 AM (n2Agn)
Posted by: Toby928 at January 23, 2006 10:32 AM (ATbKm)
Posted by: Toby928 at January 23, 2006 10:33 AM (ATbKm)
16
Would you drop your support of Mr. Clinton if he had sex with a government employee in a government office during normal government work hours?
He did - and I'll bet you didn't.
He did - and I'll bet you didn't.
Posted by: olddawg at January 23, 2006 10:56 AM (mvlLy)
17
Actually, at the time of the Lewinsky thingie I was still a member in good standing of the Libertarian Party; and in fact had supported Harry Browne for the White House (that worked out real good).
But as a small-"l" libertarian, I still didn't care if Clinton (or Johnson or Kennedy or Nixon or Ford or Bush or Bush or...) got his weenie wet, or where he got his weenie wet, or how he got his weenie wet. It did seem a rather silly reason to hold an impeachment trial, but there it was.
I never actually supported Clinton; but I was always amazed at the depth of hatred social conservatives have for him. Most if not all of the policies he espoused would be considered right or center-right; but the Right's hatred seemed to be personal.
I just never got that.
But as a small-"l" libertarian, I still didn't care if Clinton (or Johnson or Kennedy or Nixon or Ford or Bush or Bush or...) got his weenie wet, or where he got his weenie wet, or how he got his weenie wet. It did seem a rather silly reason to hold an impeachment trial, but there it was.
I never actually supported Clinton; but I was always amazed at the depth of hatred social conservatives have for him. Most if not all of the policies he espoused would be considered right or center-right; but the Right's hatred seemed to be personal.
I just never got that.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 23, 2006 11:40 AM (n2Agn)
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 23, 2006 11:43 AM (n2Agn)
19
By the way, CY--
The Robert Byrd thing was about right wing racists; and their tendency to point at Robert Byrd and say "he's a racist too, why don't you go after him?"
No one touched the fact that Senator Byrd was given a 100% rating by the NAACP. An outfit I should think has some credibility in identifying official bigotry, wouldn't you? Granted, I did through it up there kinda "apropos of nothing," but that's whatcha get from a troll...
Oh, and the kitten-killing thing-- it was meant in the same context as Swift's "Modest Proposal."
Satire, y'know?
Thanks to Tob for answering the accompanying real question: what would it take to end your support for this President.
The Robert Byrd thing was about right wing racists; and their tendency to point at Robert Byrd and say "he's a racist too, why don't you go after him?"
No one touched the fact that Senator Byrd was given a 100% rating by the NAACP. An outfit I should think has some credibility in identifying official bigotry, wouldn't you? Granted, I did through it up there kinda "apropos of nothing," but that's whatcha get from a troll...
Oh, and the kitten-killing thing-- it was meant in the same context as Swift's "Modest Proposal."
Satire, y'know?
Thanks to Tob for answering the accompanying real question: what would it take to end your support for this President.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 23, 2006 11:48 AM (n2Agn)
20
Well...let's see....would I support and reelect a Senator that drove off a bridge into a river, got and, ran away and hid for several hours, and left a young lady to die in a car? I guess it's the same question.
Posted by: Specter at January 23, 2006 11:55 AM (ybfXM)
21
The Robert Byrd thing was about right wing racists; and their tendency to point at Robert Byrd and say "he's a racist too, why don't you go after him?"
No one touched the fact that Senator Byrd was given a 100% rating by the NAACP. An outfit I should think has some credibility in identifying official bigotry, wouldn't you?
When a Klansman (current or former) is a top pick for a so-called civil rights organization, it simply proves that the leadership is so in bed with the DNC that they have ceased to function as a legitimate social advocate. That is why you've seen their political clout wane over time.
Read my latest post about Shelby Steel's OpinionJournal article. You're in for a rude awakening, as I've been predicting.
The Robert Byrd thing was about right wing racists; and their tendency to point at Robert Byrd and say "he's a racist too, why don't you go after him?"
No one touched the fact that Senator Byrd was given a 100% rating by the NAACP. An outfit I should think has some credibility in identifying official bigotry, wouldn't you?
When a Klansman (current or former) is a top pick for a so-called civil rights organization, it simply proves that the leadership is so in bed with the DNC that they have ceased to function as a legitimate social advocate. That is why you've seen their political clout wane over time.
Read my latest post about Shelby Steel's OpinionJournal article. You're in for a rude awakening, as I've been predicting.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 23, 2006 12:10 PM (g5Nba)
22
CY-- perhaps you're right, perhaps I am in for a rude awakening.
On this issue, however, I don't think so. Tell me, why is it that men like Shelby Steele have so little influence on American black folks?
On this issue, however, I don't think so. Tell me, why is it that men like Shelby Steele have so little influence on American black folks?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 23, 2006 12:27 PM (n2Agn)
23
Mr. Blofeld--
Since I'm not from Massachussetts, I really "ain't got no dawg in that fight."
You'll have to take it up with them.
I'd suspect its because the majority of Massachussetts voters consider him to accurately represent their views in the Senate.
Or, it could be that they're all too stupid and too deluded to recognize what they're Senior Senator is really like.
Since I'm not from Massachussetts, I really "ain't got no dawg in that fight."
You'll have to take it up with them.
I'd suspect its because the majority of Massachussetts voters consider him to accurately represent their views in the Senate.
Or, it could be that they're all too stupid and too deluded to recognize what they're Senior Senator is really like.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 23, 2006 12:29 PM (n2Agn)
24
FB, I'll answer your question about Bageant's lameass article. It's amateurish, insulting, and downright ridiculous. He sucks. Webb's "Born Fighting" is an actual book with actual research that touches on the same subject matter without resorting to gross generalization or Indian hog anecdotes.
Posted by: Rob at January 23, 2006 02:02 PM (BFtAQ)
25
You say its "racial loyalty," I say it's that black people look at Republican policies and disagree with them.
Tell me-- why do you think the vast majority of black Americans consider conservative positions and polices anathema?
Tell me-- why do you think the vast majority of black Americans consider conservative positions and polices anathema?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 23, 2006 02:10 PM (n2Agn)
26
Rob-
Thank you for that cogent, well reasoned response. [/sarcasm]
It wasn't an "article," in the commonly understood sense of that word; but an essay.
As such it was completely anecdotal and deeply personal, which is why I found it moving.
Thank you for that cogent, well reasoned response. [/sarcasm]
It wasn't an "article," in the commonly understood sense of that word; but an essay.
As such it was completely anecdotal and deeply personal, which is why I found it moving.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 23, 2006 02:17 PM (n2Agn)
27
"Senator Byrd was given a 100% rating by the NAACP. An outfit I should think has some credibility in identifying official bigotry, wouldn't you?"
FB, I would not agree that the NAACP has any credibility in this area after seeing the Byrd dragging death ads that they ran against Gov Bush.
As to viable alternatives, I was pretty much a anti-abortion Jackson/Truman anti-communist American hegemonist Democrat. I want a party that cares more about the working man and less about the non-working man. More about the worker and less about the union (although I am a union backer). One that believes in American exceptionalism and is willing to fight to protect it. In sort, I'm a conservative by conviction and a Republican by default. I have voted for a Bush three times even though I don't trust them a bit. Like many conservatives, I always expect them to sell out the conservatives at some point. I may be wrong about W since he's made it halfway through his second term without the major screw that I fear (yes, the government is too big and spends too much, the BCRA is bad policy and IMHO unconstitutional etc). But what am I to do, the current Democratic party has offered me nothing and no one that I can support.
No particular person has set me on fire to support them in '08 in any party but I'm looking.
Tob
FB, I would not agree that the NAACP has any credibility in this area after seeing the Byrd dragging death ads that they ran against Gov Bush.
As to viable alternatives, I was pretty much a anti-abortion Jackson/Truman anti-communist American hegemonist Democrat. I want a party that cares more about the working man and less about the non-working man. More about the worker and less about the union (although I am a union backer). One that believes in American exceptionalism and is willing to fight to protect it. In sort, I'm a conservative by conviction and a Republican by default. I have voted for a Bush three times even though I don't trust them a bit. Like many conservatives, I always expect them to sell out the conservatives at some point. I may be wrong about W since he's made it halfway through his second term without the major screw that I fear (yes, the government is too big and spends too much, the BCRA is bad policy and IMHO unconstitutional etc). But what am I to do, the current Democratic party has offered me nothing and no one that I can support.
No particular person has set me on fire to support them in '08 in any party but I'm looking.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at January 23, 2006 02:35 PM (ATbKm)
28
But you won't debate policy differences, will you?
To black voters Democrats pitch racial loyalty, and those blacks that do think differently about matter of policy are branded as race traitors, Aunt Jemimas, Uncle Toms, and "simple Sambo" by your racist liberal friends.
Democrats refuse to engage on issues, because they have consistantly failed to produce positive social change. Instead, you cling tightly to the bigotry of the race card instead.
"Illustrative purposes" indeed.
To black voters Democrats pitch racial loyalty, and those blacks that do think differently about matter of policy are branded as race traitors, Aunt Jemimas, Uncle Toms, and "simple Sambo" by your racist liberal friends.
Democrats refuse to engage on issues, because they have consistantly failed to produce positive social change. Instead, you cling tightly to the bigotry of the race card instead.
"Illustrative purposes" indeed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 23, 2006 02:39 PM (g5Nba)
29
A late thought, the Democrats would be wise to get to the right of the Republicans on immigration reform. That's a hot button issue for many voters. If the Republicans were smart they would own this issue, illegal workers take the entry level jobs that American blacks and poor whites need while simultaniously driving down the wages accross the entire economy and making it difficult for a family to live on a single paycheck. This forces mothers from the home and leads to many social ills.
Tob
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at January 23, 2006 02:43 PM (ATbKm)
30
But you won't engage on policy differences, will you?
To black voters, Democrats pitch racial loyalty, and those blacks that do think differently about policies are branded as race traitors, Aunt Jemimas, Uncle Toms, and "simple Sambo" by your racist liberal friends.
Democrats refuse to engage on issues, because they have consistantly failed to produce positive social change. Instead, you cling tightly to the bigotry of the race card instead.
"Illustrative purposes" indeed.
To black voters, Democrats pitch racial loyalty, and those blacks that do think differently about policies are branded as race traitors, Aunt Jemimas, Uncle Toms, and "simple Sambo" by your racist liberal friends.
Democrats refuse to engage on issues, because they have consistantly failed to produce positive social change. Instead, you cling tightly to the bigotry of the race card instead.
"Illustrative purposes" indeed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 23, 2006 02:47 PM (g5Nba)
31
-FB
You stated "Tell me-- why do you think the vast majority of black Americans consider conservative positions and polices anathema?"
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. On most issues that we have polling data for, Black Americans side with conservatives - school vouchers, immigration, gay marriage, abortion, to name a few. Indeed, the better question is to ask why Black Americans do not overwhelmingly vote for republicans since they side with republicans on most issues.
I would posit that it is because of race-bating by democrats that makes black americans distrust the GOP. I note that most liberals cannot argue with logic and facts, so instead immediately begin to name call - facsist, bigot, racist, sexist, etc. Just look at how hard liberals and black victomology groups work to keep any black from hearing a black conservative voice (doing repugnant things like throwing oreos at Michael Steel, questioning his blackness, etc.). they don't try to argue policy or ideas, they argue "blackness".
The poorly written, poorly thought out, idiotic "essay" that you linked, demonstrates how liberals think perfectly. The fact that it "moved" you states more about your ability to think past liberal cliches and stereotypes than anything else you could say. The guy basically wrote a long screed about how in his experience the rural white man is basically ignorant, evil, prone to violence and easily led by manipulative people.
If I wrote a similar "essay" about inner-city blacks would you find it "thoughtful" or "moving"? Why not? What specifically about the "essay" was "moving" to you? For what possible purpose did you link it on this blog? What did you want conservative readers to take away from it?
You also asked what would stop us from supporting the President. Fair enough, if he were to adopt (another) liberal policy, I would not support him. He tested me with the Prescription Drug benefit, and with No Child Left Behind, and with signing the CFR legislation. And, he tests me with his position on immigration. The only reason I continue to back him is the war on terror and judges. Otherwise, he is far to liberal.
but, let me reverse the question. Is there anything he has done, or could do, that you would support him? I pointed out some extremely liberal legislation above - did you support him on any of that? Do you support the fact that unemployment is low? That interest rates are low? That government revenues are up? that there has not been another 9/11?
I think that I am much more intellectually honest in my grudging support for President Bush than you and liberals generally are in your total opposition to everything he does and/or says. Hell, I even supported some things Clinton did. I never oppose everything any democrat does just b/c they are democrats, I oppose the things I disagree with. I would argue that liberals, in contrast, oppose people they don't like regardless of the actual policy.
You stated "Tell me-- why do you think the vast majority of black Americans consider conservative positions and polices anathema?"
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. On most issues that we have polling data for, Black Americans side with conservatives - school vouchers, immigration, gay marriage, abortion, to name a few. Indeed, the better question is to ask why Black Americans do not overwhelmingly vote for republicans since they side with republicans on most issues.
I would posit that it is because of race-bating by democrats that makes black americans distrust the GOP. I note that most liberals cannot argue with logic and facts, so instead immediately begin to name call - facsist, bigot, racist, sexist, etc. Just look at how hard liberals and black victomology groups work to keep any black from hearing a black conservative voice (doing repugnant things like throwing oreos at Michael Steel, questioning his blackness, etc.). they don't try to argue policy or ideas, they argue "blackness".
The poorly written, poorly thought out, idiotic "essay" that you linked, demonstrates how liberals think perfectly. The fact that it "moved" you states more about your ability to think past liberal cliches and stereotypes than anything else you could say. The guy basically wrote a long screed about how in his experience the rural white man is basically ignorant, evil, prone to violence and easily led by manipulative people.
If I wrote a similar "essay" about inner-city blacks would you find it "thoughtful" or "moving"? Why not? What specifically about the "essay" was "moving" to you? For what possible purpose did you link it on this blog? What did you want conservative readers to take away from it?
You also asked what would stop us from supporting the President. Fair enough, if he were to adopt (another) liberal policy, I would not support him. He tested me with the Prescription Drug benefit, and with No Child Left Behind, and with signing the CFR legislation. And, he tests me with his position on immigration. The only reason I continue to back him is the war on terror and judges. Otherwise, he is far to liberal.
but, let me reverse the question. Is there anything he has done, or could do, that you would support him? I pointed out some extremely liberal legislation above - did you support him on any of that? Do you support the fact that unemployment is low? That interest rates are low? That government revenues are up? that there has not been another 9/11?
I think that I am much more intellectually honest in my grudging support for President Bush than you and liberals generally are in your total opposition to everything he does and/or says. Hell, I even supported some things Clinton did. I never oppose everything any democrat does just b/c they are democrats, I oppose the things I disagree with. I would argue that liberals, in contrast, oppose people they don't like regardless of the actual policy.
Posted by: Vanilla Thunder at January 23, 2006 02:51 PM (JFj6P)
32
Thanks, Tob-- now that was a thoughtful, cogent response.
We have philosophical differences: I don't believe in American exceptionalism; I think we're just one more bunch of people on this planet. But I understand where you're coming from.
Also, w/r/t being behind the working person, I do believe that the Republicans and conservatives have dragged the pendulum too far towards capital (that is, dem what's got) and away from work (the rest of us who go to work every day-- and the vast majority of us do exactly that).
I hear you about the Democrats... in fact it's a big reason why I was a Libertarian for so many years. Nowadays, though, it just doesn't seem that there's much room in the 'conservative movement' for libertarianism. I find myself agreeing with the 'civil libertarians' that hang out on the 'left'- you know, enemies of America like the ACLU-- more than anyone on the right side anymore.
CY-- We can debate individual policies if you wish; just bring them up and we'll go at it.
But first... tell me, why do you think black Americans so generally oppose Republican positions and policies?
We have philosophical differences: I don't believe in American exceptionalism; I think we're just one more bunch of people on this planet. But I understand where you're coming from.
Also, w/r/t being behind the working person, I do believe that the Republicans and conservatives have dragged the pendulum too far towards capital (that is, dem what's got) and away from work (the rest of us who go to work every day-- and the vast majority of us do exactly that).
I hear you about the Democrats... in fact it's a big reason why I was a Libertarian for so many years. Nowadays, though, it just doesn't seem that there's much room in the 'conservative movement' for libertarianism. I find myself agreeing with the 'civil libertarians' that hang out on the 'left'- you know, enemies of America like the ACLU-- more than anyone on the right side anymore.
CY-- We can debate individual policies if you wish; just bring them up and we'll go at it.
But first... tell me, why do you think black Americans so generally oppose Republican positions and policies?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 23, 2006 03:11 PM (n2Agn)
33
Vanilla--
Interesting thoughts.
First-- Joe Bageant is a white man; and it seemed to me to be written not as a screed against poor white people but recognizing their strength, and their courage in the face of their poverty (note, he believes there should be some sort of educational affirmative action for poor white kids, and I don't disagree).
That is, I read the essay as being about seeing the nobility in people who are in the shit but keep on keepin' on; doin' the best they can. I'm sorry you didn't see it that way.
As regards black people and the GOP-- your position appears to be that they're led astray by the 'race baiting' of the Democrats.
I'm sorry, but that seems to say, "they can be lied to and led by the nose."
Do black Americans not read, analyze, or think? Or-- how is it that this 'race-baiting' is SO effective that only 2% of black Americans support Mr. Bush?
As for what could Mr. Bush do to make me support him? Too late for that. I supported him after the Supremes anointed him in December of 2000 (I voted for Harry Browne that time). I supported him after the 9/11 attacks (his line, "the folks who knocked these buildings are gonna be hearin' from all of us soon enough" just sent chills down my spine).
He lost my support, never to be regained, by invading Iraq, and not using those valuable resources to finish the job in Afghanistan.
Osama Bin Laden is still alive. And that just pisses me off.
Interesting thoughts.
First-- Joe Bageant is a white man; and it seemed to me to be written not as a screed against poor white people but recognizing their strength, and their courage in the face of their poverty (note, he believes there should be some sort of educational affirmative action for poor white kids, and I don't disagree).
That is, I read the essay as being about seeing the nobility in people who are in the shit but keep on keepin' on; doin' the best they can. I'm sorry you didn't see it that way.
As regards black people and the GOP-- your position appears to be that they're led astray by the 'race baiting' of the Democrats.
I'm sorry, but that seems to say, "they can be lied to and led by the nose."
Do black Americans not read, analyze, or think? Or-- how is it that this 'race-baiting' is SO effective that only 2% of black Americans support Mr. Bush?
As for what could Mr. Bush do to make me support him? Too late for that. I supported him after the Supremes anointed him in December of 2000 (I voted for Harry Browne that time). I supported him after the 9/11 attacks (his line, "the folks who knocked these buildings are gonna be hearin' from all of us soon enough" just sent chills down my spine).
He lost my support, never to be regained, by invading Iraq, and not using those valuable resources to finish the job in Afghanistan.
Osama Bin Laden is still alive. And that just pisses me off.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 23, 2006 03:29 PM (n2Agn)
34
Thanks to Vanilla Thunder for taking the time to respond to FB. My suspicions were that Bageant is ashamed of his origins and his country, and after hearing FB say the essay/article/whatever was "exceptionally well written and thought provoking", I knew what I was dealing with.
Now I hear you say you "don't believe in American exceptionalism". How do you square that sentiment with recommending Bageant's article? Isn't he saying that certain groups of people are predisposed to certain kinds of behavior or achievement? Why aren't the Scots-Irish "mutts" just "one more bunch of people on this planet", FB?
Now I hear you say you "don't believe in American exceptionalism". How do you square that sentiment with recommending Bageant's article? Isn't he saying that certain groups of people are predisposed to certain kinds of behavior or achievement? Why aren't the Scots-Irish "mutts" just "one more bunch of people on this planet", FB?
Posted by: Rob at January 23, 2006 03:35 PM (BFtAQ)
35
That's just it. Blacks don't "generally oppose" Republican position and polices when the label "Republican" is removed. In many instances, they are conservative, with the examples VT provided (school vouchers, immigration, gay marriage, abortion) being excellent examples. Even on other specific issues, they rarely support the Democratic position to the 90th percentile. Yet despite their much more centered view of individual policeis, they still vote close to the 90th percentile for Democrats.
Therefore, something else is in play, and I agree with the judgement Shelby Steele when he states it is Democratic race-baiting. He is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution who specializes in the study of race relations, multiculturalism, and affirmative action, so his professional judgment alone carries quite a bit more weight than your denials ever will.
Therefore, something else is in play, and I agree with the judgement Shelby Steele when he states it is Democratic race-baiting. He is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution who specializes in the study of race relations, multiculturalism, and affirmative action, so his professional judgment alone carries quite a bit more weight than your denials ever will.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 23, 2006 03:36 PM (g5Nba)
36
He lost my support, never to be regained, by invading Iraq, and not using those valuable resources to finish the job in Afghanistan.
You really don't have a handle on the diffrence between types of military conflicts at all, do you?
Afghanistan was at the beginning, and continues to be, primarily a war of special forces operators and limited precision airpower.
Iraq did not take away from the execution of the limited war in Afghanistan. They are different kinds of conflicts altogether.
He lost my support, never to be regained, by invading Iraq, and not using those valuable resources to finish the job in Afghanistan.
You really don't have a handle on the diffrence between types of military conflicts at all, do you?
Afghanistan was at the beginning, and continues to be, primarily a war of special forces operators and limited precision airpower.
Iraq did not take away from the execution of the limited war in Afghanistan. They are different kinds of conflicts altogether.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 23, 2006 03:44 PM (g5Nba)
37
- FB
Not sure how you can claim to be a liberterian and support any liberal (which, unfortunately, is where the democratic party is these days). I have an extremely large liberterian streak and would never in good consciounse be able to support a liberal.
So, methinks you either don't understand liberterianism, or are simply claiming liberterianism to garner yourself some kind of credibility among conservatives. My guess is a mix of both.
You and I both know that all of the polls over the last 20 - 30 years demonstrate that black americans support conservative ideas much more than they support liberal ideas and positions. So, you tell me, why do they support a party so at odds with all of the individual positions they take? If not b/c of the democrat race-baiting, then why? And, if it is for policy reasons as you claim to believe, whey then do democrats and professional race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton forgeo debate about ideas and simply race-bait? if they could win on their ideas, they would argue thier ideas, rather than always claiming that conservatives want to "go back to segregation" or saying/implying that conservatives are all racists.
And, you did not state what purpose you posted a link to that "essay". by the way, very creative read of the essay that you give. I suppose if you view all liberal cliches as facts, you could, possibly, with a lot of work, come to such a view of the essay. Even so, it would still take a lot of effort.
Not sure how you can claim to be a liberterian and support any liberal (which, unfortunately, is where the democratic party is these days). I have an extremely large liberterian streak and would never in good consciounse be able to support a liberal.
So, methinks you either don't understand liberterianism, or are simply claiming liberterianism to garner yourself some kind of credibility among conservatives. My guess is a mix of both.
You and I both know that all of the polls over the last 20 - 30 years demonstrate that black americans support conservative ideas much more than they support liberal ideas and positions. So, you tell me, why do they support a party so at odds with all of the individual positions they take? If not b/c of the democrat race-baiting, then why? And, if it is for policy reasons as you claim to believe, whey then do democrats and professional race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton forgeo debate about ideas and simply race-bait? if they could win on their ideas, they would argue thier ideas, rather than always claiming that conservatives want to "go back to segregation" or saying/implying that conservatives are all racists.
And, you did not state what purpose you posted a link to that "essay". by the way, very creative read of the essay that you give. I suppose if you view all liberal cliches as facts, you could, possibly, with a lot of work, come to such a view of the essay. Even so, it would still take a lot of effort.
Posted by: Vanilla Thunder at January 23, 2006 03:53 PM (JFj6P)
38
Rob-
I think perhaps we're running on different definitions of "American exceptionalism."
I take that to mean that Americans are somehow 'better' than other peoples on the planet, and that we would be justified in imposing our will on the rest of the people on the planet.
If that's not what VT meant, then I've answered the wrong question.
I believe those "scotch-irish mutts" ARE just one more bunch of people on the planet-- and more than that, they're Americans, my countrymen.
Look, y'all, I saw it as overall a positive view of those 'mutts.' They go through shit, they put up with shit, they get shit on every bit as much as inner-city black people. And yet they are clearly capable of great courage, intense friendship, true nobility. To me, that essay was not a put-down of the "mutts", but a put-down of the system that exploits them and leaves them in the shit.
CY- So, it's only race-baiting that keeps black people voting for the Democrats. It has nothing to do the behavior of the Republican party.
I think perhaps we're running on different definitions of "American exceptionalism."
I take that to mean that Americans are somehow 'better' than other peoples on the planet, and that we would be justified in imposing our will on the rest of the people on the planet.
If that's not what VT meant, then I've answered the wrong question.
I believe those "scotch-irish mutts" ARE just one more bunch of people on the planet-- and more than that, they're Americans, my countrymen.
Look, y'all, I saw it as overall a positive view of those 'mutts.' They go through shit, they put up with shit, they get shit on every bit as much as inner-city black people. And yet they are clearly capable of great courage, intense friendship, true nobility. To me, that essay was not a put-down of the "mutts", but a put-down of the system that exploits them and leaves them in the shit.
CY- So, it's only race-baiting that keeps black people voting for the Democrats. It has nothing to do the behavior of the Republican party.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 23, 2006 04:13 PM (n2Agn)
39
"To me, that essay was not a put-down of the "mutts", but a put-down of the system that exploits them and leaves them in the shit."
Spoken like a true liberterian - let me ask you, what income/capital redistribution system would you propose instead? Are they exploited in the Marxist sense or in what sense? Exploited because they vote conservative? The "essay" seems to state that the exploitation is that they serve in the military and/or vote republican. So, that is what you consider exploitation? Or, is it that they aren't given more entitlements through wealth re-distribution?
Some of my favorite quotes from this "thought invoking" "essay" that is "Moving" and is about "nobility":
Anyway, as all non-whites the world round
understand, white people can be mean. [yes,
all other-colored-skinned people are warm,
loving, patient, and un-mean in all ways]
Said meanness is polished to a high gloss
murderous piety most useful to the military
establishment. Thus, by the time were are of
military age (which is about twelve) we are
capable of doing a Lynndie England on any
type of human being unfamiliar to us from
our culturally ignorant viewpoint -- doing
it to the “other.” Sent to Iraq or
Afghanistan, most of us, given the nod, can
torture the other as mindlessly as a cat
plays with a mouse. That we can do it so
readily and without remorse is one of the
darkest secrets of underlying the “heroes”
mythology the culture machine is so
fervently ginning up about the ongoing
series of wars now just unfolding. [really,
do I need to make a comment about this kind
of asinine statement?]
So we will either see that Americans,
religious or not, get educated equally so
they won’t be suckered by political and
religious hucksters. [i.e., republicans].
If not, then we must accept that uneducated
people interpret politics in an uninformed
and emotional manner, and accept the
consequences. [i.e., that they vote for
republicans].
Thus, at sixteen and choosing options, I
decided that launching fighter jets from the
deck of an aircraft carrier to kill gooks and
the notion of pussy and booze on some exotic
foreign shore looked damned good. When I
think about what happened to my boyhood
friends who stayed home and put in 30 years
at Rubbermaid, my choice doesn’t sound that
bad even today. They all became redneck
ultra-conservatives, mostly out of some sort
of fear and bitterness that I can never seem
to put my finger on. [because, of course, it
is impossible for anyone to be a conservative
unless it is out of a) ignorance; b) fear; c)
bitterness; d) greed, or e)
racism/sexism/homophobia.]
As to black american voting patterns, I would point out that the reason black republicans (any any other minority republican for that matter) are so attacked and vilified by the left is the fear that Black americans will finally begin to notice the difference between the party they vote for, and the positions they hold. It has been building up steam, and, my guess is that within 10 years, black american voting patterns will be as varied as any other group's. the problem is, when that happens, there is no way for democrats to ever win another national election. And, in most states they will be finished as well. Indeed, the entire liberal establishment will be finished. that explains the hate from the left against these black republicans.
Spoken like a true liberterian - let me ask you, what income/capital redistribution system would you propose instead? Are they exploited in the Marxist sense or in what sense? Exploited because they vote conservative? The "essay" seems to state that the exploitation is that they serve in the military and/or vote republican. So, that is what you consider exploitation? Or, is it that they aren't given more entitlements through wealth re-distribution?
Some of my favorite quotes from this "thought invoking" "essay" that is "Moving" and is about "nobility":
Anyway, as all non-whites the world round
understand, white people can be mean. [yes,
all other-colored-skinned people are warm,
loving, patient, and un-mean in all ways]
Said meanness is polished to a high gloss
murderous piety most useful to the military
establishment. Thus, by the time were are of
military age (which is about twelve) we are
capable of doing a Lynndie England on any
type of human being unfamiliar to us from
our culturally ignorant viewpoint -- doing
it to the “other.” Sent to Iraq or
Afghanistan, most of us, given the nod, can
torture the other as mindlessly as a cat
plays with a mouse. That we can do it so
readily and without remorse is one of the
darkest secrets of underlying the “heroes”
mythology the culture machine is so
fervently ginning up about the ongoing
series of wars now just unfolding. [really,
do I need to make a comment about this kind
of asinine statement?]
So we will either see that Americans,
religious or not, get educated equally so
they won’t be suckered by political and
religious hucksters. [i.e., republicans].
If not, then we must accept that uneducated
people interpret politics in an uninformed
and emotional manner, and accept the
consequences. [i.e., that they vote for
republicans].
Thus, at sixteen and choosing options, I
decided that launching fighter jets from the
deck of an aircraft carrier to kill gooks and
the notion of pussy and booze on some exotic
foreign shore looked damned good. When I
think about what happened to my boyhood
friends who stayed home and put in 30 years
at Rubbermaid, my choice doesn’t sound that
bad even today. They all became redneck
ultra-conservatives, mostly out of some sort
of fear and bitterness that I can never seem
to put my finger on. [because, of course, it
is impossible for anyone to be a conservative
unless it is out of a) ignorance; b) fear; c)
bitterness; d) greed, or e)
racism/sexism/homophobia.]
As to black american voting patterns, I would point out that the reason black republicans (any any other minority republican for that matter) are so attacked and vilified by the left is the fear that Black americans will finally begin to notice the difference between the party they vote for, and the positions they hold. It has been building up steam, and, my guess is that within 10 years, black american voting patterns will be as varied as any other group's. the problem is, when that happens, there is no way for democrats to ever win another national election. And, in most states they will be finished as well. Indeed, the entire liberal establishment will be finished. that explains the hate from the left against these black republicans.
Posted by: Vanilla Thunder at January 23, 2006 04:32 PM (JFj6P)
40
Political campaigns, like any other enterprise, have finite resources. People tend to put their time and money where they think it will do the most good.
Sadly, however sincere they may be, white Republicans simply won't break through the race-baiting the left has perfected over the years, at least until they get a foot in the door.
That is why the emerging black conservatives are so important, in that they can level the playing field. Democrats of course know this, and that is exactly why Democratic race-baiting has become especially vicious this election cycle.
That the furious attacks by Democrats on emerging black conservatives are based upon appeal to race instead of their positions on the issues proves this, though you'll never get him to admit this rather obvious truth.
Sadly, however sincere they may be, white Republicans simply won't break through the race-baiting the left has perfected over the years, at least until they get a foot in the door.
That is why the emerging black conservatives are so important, in that they can level the playing field. Democrats of course know this, and that is exactly why Democratic race-baiting has become especially vicious this election cycle.
That the furious attacks by Democrats on emerging black conservatives are based upon appeal to race instead of their positions on the issues proves this, though you'll never get him to admit this rather obvious truth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 23, 2006 04:46 PM (g5Nba)
41
FB,
I read the article you referenced. The article says over and over again that the reason the black community does not support the Republicans is that they have not given the black community enough money. That's race-baiting? Please explain.
I read the article you referenced. The article says over and over again that the reason the black community does not support the Republicans is that they have not given the black community enough money. That's race-baiting? Please explain.
Posted by: Specter at January 23, 2006 05:06 PM (ybfXM)
42
Fat Bastard, you repeated the canard that the loony-left says over and over; the former attorney general of Arkansas and president of the U.S.A. was not impeached because he "got his weenie wet" with an intern; he lied under oath to a Grand Jury! Now what system of justice in your perfect world would you have?
Posted by: Tom TB at January 24, 2006 08:17 AM (wZLWV)
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 24, 2006 05:23 PM (n2Agn)
44
Yeah, but Clinton did both.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 24, 2006 05:33 PM (0fZB6)
45
about sex- not about life and death.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 24, 2006 09:19 PM (pEWm6)
46
>> FB
The article "Revenge of the Mutt People" is a first person account, work of fiction! Written by someone who may have driven past a hog farm, but NEVER actually worked on one. TOO Many factual errors. I really laughed about the part where he held the pig and slit its throat! NOT POSSIBLE for any pig weighing more than 20lbs. I can assure you it takes 3 people to castrate one, and THATS a whole lot easier procedure than attempting to slit a live hogs throat.
Reads like the "Ward Churchill" school of creative writing! Decide on the point you want to make, then create facts to back it up!
The article "Revenge of the Mutt People" is a first person account, work of fiction! Written by someone who may have driven past a hog farm, but NEVER actually worked on one. TOO Many factual errors. I really laughed about the part where he held the pig and slit its throat! NOT POSSIBLE for any pig weighing more than 20lbs. I can assure you it takes 3 people to castrate one, and THATS a whole lot easier procedure than attempting to slit a live hogs throat.
Reads like the "Ward Churchill" school of creative writing! Decide on the point you want to make, then create facts to back it up!
Posted by: metalman at January 25, 2006 12:59 AM (OusMH)
47
So Fat Bastard, I guess you mean that we should have a justice system where a president who has taken an oath before a Grand Jury, (the American People), can decide which questions to answer truthfully, and which ones he can lie about, depending on the subject! Some system of justice!
Posted by: Tom TB at January 25, 2006 04:48 AM (wZLWV)
48
no, i just expect you guys to demand the same level of accountability from your guy as you did for the last guy.
well, i don't *expect* it. but i would hope for it.
well, i don't *expect* it. but i would hope for it.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 25, 2006 12:40 PM (n2Agn)
49
the essay may well have been a complete lie from beginning to end; i don't know. it wasn't presented as fiction.
i thought it was a lyrical piece of writing that grabbed at the heart.
mind, you'd have to have a heart to notice that.
i thought it was a lyrical piece of writing that grabbed at the heart.
mind, you'd have to have a heart to notice that.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 25, 2006 12:42 PM (n2Agn)
50
You play down Clinton's perjury because it was "about sex- not about life and death." Scooter Libby's perjury was not about life or death either. The folks from Enron and WorldCom were not testifying about life or death either.
Sorry, FB. Your defense of Clinton is pretty empty.
Sorry, FB. Your defense of Clinton is pretty empty.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 25, 2006 01:03 PM (BRgB4)
51
FB said "i thought it was a lyrical piece of writing that grabbed at the heart."
All you need to do is actually read the piece of crap he linked to in order to see his lack of intelligence. If he considered that a "lyrical piece of writing" he certainly has no ability to discern anything of value. How it grabbed at his heart is beyond me. Of course, I've questioned him repeatedly about the same, but he avoids answering because he knows he has no answer.
Hey idiot bastard - which of the quotes from the article that I cite above do you consider "lyrical?"
All you need to do is actually read the piece of crap he linked to in order to see his lack of intelligence. If he considered that a "lyrical piece of writing" he certainly has no ability to discern anything of value. How it grabbed at his heart is beyond me. Of course, I've questioned him repeatedly about the same, but he avoids answering because he knows he has no answer.
Hey idiot bastard - which of the quotes from the article that I cite above do you consider "lyrical?"
Posted by: Vanilla Thunder at January 25, 2006 01:40 PM (JFj6P)
52
Retired spy -
Don't you understand, lying only matters when it is a republican who allegedly lies.
Don't you understand, lying only matters when it is a republican who allegedly lies.
Posted by: Vanilla Thunder at January 25, 2006 01:42 PM (JFj6P)
53
Right on!!
Posted by: Great Banana at February 08, 2006 02:56 PM (JFj6P)
January 20, 2006
What is Short, has Glowing Eyes, and Captures Terrorists?
A Jawa.
Head over to The Jawa Report for the rest of the story about how a blogger played a part in convicting Jordanian-born, would-be terrorist Mohammed Radwan Obeid. While you're there, make sure to wish Rusty a happy two-year anniversary.
On March 12th of 2005 (later updated on March 14th) I wrote a post about a series of messages on the jihadi forum alm2sda.net about how to make various weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical weapons, by a poster calling himself ahmed_assalafil. I had first heard about Ahmed's messages from a website that I frequent which monitors jihad forums, Internet Haganah. Included in Ahmed's messages was the claim that the poster had information on how to make a nuclear bomb, along with some rudimentary (and erroneous) instructions on Hydrogen bomb construction. He was seeking help translating the allegedly secret materials into Arabic.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:55 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Color Me Badly
Considering their past track record of funding "the other side" in Fallujah, protesting against wounded American soldiers (with signs that read "Maimed for a Lie" and "Enlist Here to Die for Halliburton"), and cuddling up with neo-copperhead John Murtha, I suppose it should be hardly surprising that the left wing radicals of Code Pink would appropriate and badly PhotoShop a photo of Iranian women fighting for freedom for their anti-freedom message.
Pathetic.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:43 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
After this post and the last one, you are certified. Back away from the Kool-Aid Bong. Sad.
Posted by: Fred at January 20, 2006 04:31 PM (xX+1y)
2
Aw, wassa matter, Freddie? A little too much accuracy for your tender sensibilities? Please, feel free to argue what facts you can command to defend Code Pink.
I'm all ears.
I'm all ears.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 20, 2006 04:43 PM (g5Nba)
3
Fred-
File this under swiftboating.
Cyerbercast News Service. Brent Bozells bargain basement operation.
What a joke.
Smearing Murtha based on two interviews with defeated opponents of the congressman from years ago who claim to have heard Murtha say he didn't deserve his medals etc.
Right.
File this under swiftboating.
Cyerbercast News Service. Brent Bozells bargain basement operation.
What a joke.
Smearing Murtha based on two interviews with defeated opponents of the congressman from years ago who claim to have heard Murtha say he didn't deserve his medals etc.
Right.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 05:05 PM (DEot0)
4
Arthur, I tire of your empty rhetoric, inability to support your contentions, and your desire to slur others when your arguments don't hold up.
There has not been any slurring of Murtha's service record on the blog, period. Ony his congressional record.
Get is straight, or get gone.
There has not been any slurring of Murtha's service record on the blog, period. Ony his congressional record.
Get is straight, or get gone.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 20, 2006 05:45 PM (0fZB6)
5
Upon further review, I had only scanned the Townhall link for the Code Pink information and did not catch the short paragraph about the Cybercast News Service story, and would have used another link if I had.
I DO NOT support any efforts to tar Murtha's service record.
I found it reprehensible, and you will note I have not posted on the subject as found it distasteful. The "he said, he said," allegations of a couple of old Democrats don't amount to much in my book, and his Congressional record, especially recently, is more than enough reason to condemn him.
I DO NOT support any efforts to tar Murtha's service record.
I found it reprehensible, and you will note I have not posted on the subject as found it distasteful. The "he said, he said," allegations of a couple of old Democrats don't amount to much in my book, and his Congressional record, especially recently, is more than enough reason to condemn him.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 20, 2006 06:04 PM (0fZB6)
6
What do you expect from a bunch of Stalino-Fascist whores? Code Pink and lies are one and the same thing.
Posted by: Mescalero at January 21, 2006 12:11 AM (tQK7u)
7
Artie,
Murtha's record aside - just the fact that he associates himself with a group like Code Pink - says a lot about his character and his leanings. I mean Code Pink published a fake picture (sounds kinda like the NYT, huh?) as real, has donated funds to the Fallujah "Freedom Fighters", and gave Murtha the pink badge of courage. Get a grip...
Murtha's record aside - just the fact that he associates himself with a group like Code Pink - says a lot about his character and his leanings. I mean Code Pink published a fake picture (sounds kinda like the NYT, huh?) as real, has donated funds to the Fallujah "Freedom Fighters", and gave Murtha the pink badge of courage. Get a grip...
Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 01:53 PM (ybfXM)
8
Specter-
Once Mr. Bush stops dealing with Pat Robertson I'll get concerned with a Democrat dealing with the opposite fringe.
Once Mr. Bush stops dealing with Pat Robertson I'll get concerned with a Democrat dealing with the opposite fringe.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 21, 2006 03:09 PM (DEot0)
9
Bush dealing with Robertson? When was that, Artie? I do believe that the White House openly condemned Robertson at least twice recently: 1. Hugo Chavez and 2. Ariel Sharon.
Are you living in a vacuum somewhere, Artie?
And you had also not heard of Code Pink?
Are you living in a vacuum somewhere, Artie?
And you had also not heard of Code Pink?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 03:25 PM (BRgB4)
10
RS-
You seem to forget Mr. Robertson's dicey 'charity' 'Operation Blessing' received millions of FEMA dollars post-Katrina. One of two 'faith-based' orgs to receive federal dollars.
Easy to overlook.
You seem to forget Mr. Robertson's dicey 'charity' 'Operation Blessing' received millions of FEMA dollars post-Katrina. One of two 'faith-based' orgs to receive federal dollars.
Easy to overlook.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 21, 2006 04:54 PM (DEot0)
11
Arthur, why in the world did you bring up Pat Robertson? He has said some pretty lunkheaded things, but to the best of my recollection, he pretty usually comes back with an apology when called on his comments. Perhaps it is the apology thing that throws you for a loop; since libs don't do that sort of thing. Do you think faith-based organizations are incapable of rendering assistance to areas ravaged by nature? My church has partnered with a church in the costal MS area that was totally destroyed. The partnership includes sending food, clothes, money and building teams to the area to help not just the partner church, but the local community as well. It certainly would have been nice to have federal funds to multiply the assistance we provide, but we're doing fine anyway.
Perhaps you personally are not anti-faith, but that sure seems to be the dominant position of most liberals. I have no idea why Christianity is so threatening to liberals other than our morals are anchored in God not human feelings.
People that associate with Code Pink flirt with an organization that is anti-democracy and pro-communisn. Is that an associateion that a US Representative should make? There is a significant difference between believing in God and Jesus Christ (Christianity) and communism. Perhaps you should do some reading and soul searching.
Perhaps you personally are not anti-faith, but that sure seems to be the dominant position of most liberals. I have no idea why Christianity is so threatening to liberals other than our morals are anchored in God not human feelings.
People that associate with Code Pink flirt with an organization that is anti-democracy and pro-communisn. Is that an associateion that a US Representative should make? There is a significant difference between believing in God and Jesus Christ (Christianity) and communism. Perhaps you should do some reading and soul searching.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 21, 2006 06:10 PM (owAN1)
12
It appears that you have been focused on negativity printed in The Nation magazine- and not on the good that was done by Operation Blessing.
Operation Blessing was an approved religious charity for Katrina relief. It was a FEMA-approved charity - NOT a Bush approved charity.
Seems as though some sour grapes developed when Operation Blessing was approved and Richard Walden's Operation USA was not.
Is it a coincidence that The Nation is a Far Left publication? Don;t think so, Pookie.
Operation Blessing was an approved religious charity for Katrina relief. It was a FEMA-approved charity - NOT a Bush approved charity.
Seems as though some sour grapes developed when Operation Blessing was approved and Richard Walden's Operation USA was not.
Is it a coincidence that The Nation is a Far Left publication? Don;t think so, Pookie.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 06:17 PM (BRgB4)
13
How can you even attempt make that comparison Stone? (And I used that purposely because it's starting to be obvious you are smoking some strong stuff).
How does Pat Robertson, who everyone, including the right, denounced for his recent statements, even begin to look like a noted politician actually accepting awards and hugging leaders of a treasonous organization like Code Pink?You are really reaching here....
Oh...and I think you had better start denouncing Nagin then...seeing as he believes that it was God that attacked New Orleans for being mad at America. Another dumb statement properly called.
How does Pat Robertson, who everyone, including the right, denounced for his recent statements, even begin to look like a noted politician actually accepting awards and hugging leaders of a treasonous organization like Code Pink?You are really reaching here....
Oh...and I think you had better start denouncing Nagin then...seeing as he believes that it was God that attacked New Orleans for being mad at America. Another dumb statement properly called.
Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 07:43 PM (ybfXM)
14
RS-
FEMA = Brownie = Bush crony.
Oh and let's talk about Pat's involvment in the diamond trade in Zaire.
What a christian man is he.
Enjoy your weekend folks.
FEMA = Brownie = Bush crony.
Oh and let's talk about Pat's involvment in the diamond trade in Zaire.
What a christian man is he.
Enjoy your weekend folks.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 22, 2006 10:32 AM (hGNke)
15
And your comrade in lunacy, Fat Bastard, thinks "I" need logic lessons?
You can't connect the dots in a simple syllogism.
What does investment in diamond mines in Africa have to do with anything?
The so-called FEMA dollars 'given' to Pat Robertson's organization were paid AFTER Robertson's group had shelled out millions for Katrina aid.
That is how faith-based initiatives can keep afloat.
You can't connect the dots in a simple syllogism.
What does investment in diamond mines in Africa have to do with anything?
The so-called FEMA dollars 'given' to Pat Robertson's organization were paid AFTER Robertson's group had shelled out millions for Katrina aid.
That is how faith-based initiatives can keep afloat.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 11:42 AM (BRgB4)
16
Arthur, sadly, I have come to the same conclusion you already had before making any comments at CY's blog - that you see things only one way. Any more comments to you will only equal a waste of my time. So I in the future, I shall spend my time more productively. Here's hoping you will one day see the light.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 22, 2006 05:14 PM (owAN1)
Like Mike
It appears that the United States of the Perpetually Offended has a new victim this morning, as the lefties have their knickers in a twist over comments made by one of their own, former Jimmy Carter speechwriter and MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews.
When interviewing the Dumbest Man in the U.S. Senate™ Joe Biden, Matthews stated:Predictably, various Crooks and Liars (click the link, they have the video) are upset with Matthews, including Peter Daou, who hyperventilates:
I mean, he [Bin Laden] sounds like an over-the-top Michael Moore here, if not a Michael Moore.
Perhaps before getting all huffy, Daou should keep in mind a few facts: Eastwood never uttered, "Make my day, pull out of Iraq now," and it was your dear Mother Sheehan with her "absolute moral authority" that considered Iraq and Afghanistan "almost the same thing," advocating the same pull-out as bin Laden. Nor has bin Laden quoted Silver or Limbaugh, because they support the war against terrorists, and they don't protest against U.S. soldiers while they recover from combat wounds like the fanatics of Code Pink. Bruce Willis has million-dollar bounties on the heads of bin Laden, Zarqawi, and Zawahiri. How much does Babs have up? How about Tim and Susan? Malkin also makes her position on terrorists clear, so I doubt you'll find that Osama is a big fan of hers, either. But Mikey… well, Mr. Moore is another story entirely. Bin Laden pulled material from Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 for one of his videotaped rants in 2004, a fact that Moore himself bragged about:
DEMAND AN APOLOGY: "Bin Laden sounds like Clint Eastwood" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Ron Silver" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Rush Limbaugh" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Bill O'Reilly"-- "Bin Laden sounds like Mel Gibson" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Bruce Willis" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Michelle Malkin"... Imagine the outrage on the right and in the press (but I repeat myself) if a major media figure spat out those words. Well, on Hardball, Chris Matthews just blurted out that Bin Laden sounds like Michael Moore. Simple: Matthews should apologize. On the air. This has NOTHING to do with Michael Moore and everything to do with how far media figures can go slandering the left.
And Moore himself has suggested repeatedly that there were improper relationships between the Bush and the bin Laden families, a position the fringe left echoed repeatedly, directly and indirectly as recently as yesterday. Lefists have no shame in associating Bush with bin Laden, but when a more logical association is made between the left and radical Islam's shared hatreds (Bush), shared goals (U.S. out of SW Asia), and shared rhetoric (Michael Moore's words), it seems to hit too close to home. Perhaps what liberals are really dealing with are their own issues of guilt-by-association. Perhaps they should associate with a better class of people. Update: Day by Day seems to concur. Update 2: The defense rests. (h/t K-Lo)
There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:48 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
April 1 already?
My the rhetoric is heating up. Television talking heads comparing a vocal critic of the administration with a mass murderer.
Nice touch that.
Folks like Malkin and Limbaugh and O'Reilly WOULD indeed be incensed being compared to Bin Laden.
Yet their authoritarian bent, utopian vision and acute self righteousness are characteristics they share with the zealots in the Middle East.
My the rhetoric is heating up. Television talking heads comparing a vocal critic of the administration with a mass murderer.
Nice touch that.
Folks like Malkin and Limbaugh and O'Reilly WOULD indeed be incensed being compared to Bin Laden.
Yet their authoritarian bent, utopian vision and acute self righteousness are characteristics they share with the zealots in the Middle East.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 10:15 AM (hGNke)
2
And yet, I see you have no problem with that same vocal critic alledging ties between that same mass murder and the adminstration.
Thanks for proving my point.
Thanks for proving my point.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 20, 2006 10:30 AM (g5Nba)
3
They think CHRIS MATTHEWS is anti-left??? BWAHAHAHA!!!
Yep, this is so typical...when the truth hurts, say ''nyah nyah, Malkin/O'Reilly/Limbaugh are authoritarian/fascist/whatever... JUST LIKE BIN LADEN!!!"
Well, the truth still hurts. And unless Matthews included Mother SheeHAG, Pelosi, Ted Chappaq--er, Kennedy, Howie the Leader, and WAY too many others, he's still way too generous to the overtly seditious (if not treacherous) Left.
NEWS FLASH: Even when the truth hurts your feelings and you fight back like a kindergartener, it's still the truth. And still legally protected speech, much to the illiberal left's dismay. WAAAAAHHHH.
Yep, this is so typical...when the truth hurts, say ''nyah nyah, Malkin/O'Reilly/Limbaugh are authoritarian/fascist/whatever... JUST LIKE BIN LADEN!!!"
Well, the truth still hurts. And unless Matthews included Mother SheeHAG, Pelosi, Ted Chappaq--er, Kennedy, Howie the Leader, and WAY too many others, he's still way too generous to the overtly seditious (if not treacherous) Left.
NEWS FLASH: Even when the truth hurts your feelings and you fight back like a kindergartener, it's still the truth. And still legally protected speech, much to the illiberal left's dismay. WAAAAAHHHH.
Posted by: Beth at January 20, 2006 10:40 AM (yqiXY)
4
The really interesting similarities in what OBL said in his recent audio tape are so very apparent when comparing OBL's quotes and quotes from the Donkeys:
Insurgents are winning the conflict in Iraq and [be] warned that security measures in the West and the United States cannot prevent attacks there.
The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.
The U.S. Army is broken, worn out, and living hand-to-mouth from fighting in Iraq. They may not be able to meet future military threats to this country's security. They're barely getting by.
The first quote was from OBL. The other two are from so-called prominent Democrats. Looks like OBL is getting his talking points from the same source as Artie - the Democrats.
Insurgents are winning the conflict in Iraq and [be] warned that security measures in the West and the United States cannot prevent attacks there.
The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.
The U.S. Army is broken, worn out, and living hand-to-mouth from fighting in Iraq. They may not be able to meet future military threats to this country's security. They're barely getting by.
The first quote was from OBL. The other two are from so-called prominent Democrats. Looks like OBL is getting his talking points from the same source as Artie - the Democrats.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 10:47 AM (OP00Y)
5
Arthur, this really is an issue that you would be well advised to exercise the better part of valor - discretion. Malkin, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and any other conservative pundits you might want to name would merely laugh at anyone attempting to compare them to OBL; because OBL is not echoing their words and convictions. However, as RS pointed out, there are striking similarities bewteen many leftist comments and OBL's and AJ's comments.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 20, 2006 11:23 AM (X2tAw)
6
I by no means proved your point CY. Feeble as it was.
Rather I confirmed your bias.
Not the same thing.
Likewise it isn't my fault the Bushes are friendly with so many Saudis including but certainly not limited to the Bin Laden clan.
Rather I confirmed your bias.
Not the same thing.
Likewise it isn't my fault the Bushes are friendly with so many Saudis including but certainly not limited to the Bin Laden clan.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 02:41 PM (DEot0)
7
Elderly Soldier-
With your heroes questioning the patriotism of ANYONE opposing this administrations policies it is precisely the time to call them what they are.
Authoritarian zealots has a nice ring to it. Flip side of the radical Islamists.
With your heroes questioning the patriotism of ANYONE opposing this administrations policies it is precisely the time to call them what they are.
Authoritarian zealots has a nice ring to it. Flip side of the radical Islamists.
Posted by: arthurStone at January 20, 2006 02:46 PM (DEot0)
8
Mr. Stone:
I have no need to question your patriotism, since you have none.
Folks like Code Pink are actually giving aid (money) to the enemy. I would call that a treasonous act.
Have you given money to Code Pink, Mr. Stone?
I have no need to question your patriotism, since you have none.
Folks like Code Pink are actually giving aid (money) to the enemy. I would call that a treasonous act.
Have you given money to Code Pink, Mr. Stone?
Posted by: Former Marxist at January 20, 2006 04:50 PM (XLfe+)
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 06:00 PM (DEot0)
10
You just first heard of the Code Pink people today? Have you been in a 'spider hole' for the past six to nine months?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 06:14 PM (OP00Y)
11
arthur, I'm not real sure there is any hope for you, fella; you trust no one in an administration that is bent on keeping your head attached to your body. They are also determined to make as difficult as possible for the radical Islamic terrorists to initiate another attack on our homeland.
You're certainly entitled to your paranoia; you seem to wear it like a red badge of courage. At the rate the Democrats are going, though, you will probably be paranoid for many more years.
You're certainly entitled to your paranoia; you seem to wear it like a red badge of courage. At the rate the Democrats are going, though, you will probably be paranoid for many more years.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 20, 2006 06:23 PM (owAN1)
12
RS-
I only have so many hours in the day to cruise right-wing blogs and websites.
For me it's only a hobby. For you guys it seems to be a way of life.
Sorry.
And OS-
I'm not paranoid at all. Merely disagree with a number of administration policies. The paranoia is all yours. Shouting treason anytime one poses a question or two.
I only have so many hours in the day to cruise right-wing blogs and websites.
For me it's only a hobby. For you guys it seems to be a way of life.
Sorry.
And OS-
I'm not paranoid at all. Merely disagree with a number of administration policies. The paranoia is all yours. Shouting treason anytime one poses a question or two.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 06:59 PM (DEot0)
13
There is a big difference between "posing a question or two" and making baseless accusations.
Even you should realize that, Artie.
Even you should realize that, Artie.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 08:46 PM (OP00Y)
14
"The paranoia is all yours. Shouting treason anytime one poses a question or two."
Okay, arthur, this was addressed to me specifically, so back it up!
Okay, arthur, this was addressed to me specifically, so back it up!
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 20, 2006 09:10 PM (owAN1)
15
What bothers me about the Chris Matthews remark is that it's cheap, lazy, and intellectually sloppy. Sadly, that's pretty much the state of cable news "analysis" programs. There isn't a single element in these shows that is designed to actually advance a meaningful debate about any topic, and for good reason: that's not the objective of these programs.
What is the objective of the programs? Well, your theory is as good as mine. For the viewers, though, these shows are not informative and not entertaining. They're incredibly repetitive because they feature the same roster of guests week in and week out who parrot their respective group's assigned talking points.
Regardless of one's political leanings, you have to look at the format and at the hosts of these programs and wonder: this is the best that can be done?
What is the objective of the programs? Well, your theory is as good as mine. For the viewers, though, these shows are not informative and not entertaining. They're incredibly repetitive because they feature the same roster of guests week in and week out who parrot their respective group's assigned talking points.
Regardless of one's political leanings, you have to look at the format and at the hosts of these programs and wonder: this is the best that can be done?
Posted by: Grace Nearing at January 21, 2006 12:33 AM (Ffvoi)
16
Arthur,
How could you miss the news the other week when Code Pink gave John "I'm a Veteran" Murtha the "Pink Badge of Courage" for his stand to pull the troops out now.
BTW - I went and look up AL "I Took The Iniative" Gore. Sure enough, the guy deserves credit for proposing several key pieces of legislation to help fund research into the use of high speed networks. But, Clinton echoed the words, and what AL actually said was far from an explanation of what he thought he was saying. He said, "I took the initiative in creating the internet." That, for anyone hearing or reading the words does not sound like, "I proposed some key bills that enabled the internet research to move further in the interest of our country." Very different - shows sloppy thinking.
How could you miss the news the other week when Code Pink gave John "I'm a Veteran" Murtha the "Pink Badge of Courage" for his stand to pull the troops out now.
BTW - I went and look up AL "I Took The Iniative" Gore. Sure enough, the guy deserves credit for proposing several key pieces of legislation to help fund research into the use of high speed networks. But, Clinton echoed the words, and what AL actually said was far from an explanation of what he thought he was saying. He said, "I took the initiative in creating the internet." That, for anyone hearing or reading the words does not sound like, "I proposed some key bills that enabled the internet research to move further in the interest of our country." Very different - shows sloppy thinking.
Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 12:47 PM (ybfXM)
17
Old Soldier-
The Murtha/Benedict Arnold connection you forged somewhere here at CY is as good a place as any to begin a discussion of your view that dissent = treason.
The Murtha/Benedict Arnold connection you forged somewhere here at CY is as good a place as any to begin a discussion of your view that dissent = treason.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 21, 2006 05:11 PM (DEot0)
18
Specter-
As I've posted before. There is only so much time in the day to deal with the breathless 'scoops' on right-wing blogs where the Murtha/Code Pink thing had a great many knickers in knots. The item isn't particular newsworthy elsewhere.
As I've posted before. There is only so much time in the day to deal with the breathless 'scoops' on right-wing blogs where the Murtha/Code Pink thing had a great many knickers in knots. The item isn't particular newsworthy elsewhere.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 21, 2006 05:13 PM (DEot0)
19
Arthur, I seen to recall indicating that Arnold had fought honorably for the colonies during the revolutionary war prior to turning traitor. I do draw a parallel between Arnold's honorable service and Murhta's honorable service (although there have been some disparaging comments lately about Murtha's service) but I do not recall indicating I believe Murtha should be indicted for treason. I will state unequivocally that when his words are posted on al Jazeera that our enemy is probably taking aid from his remarks.
My beef with Murtha and his compatriots is that although discussion is healthy, dissent is not; especially when we are at war with an enemy determined to destroy us. Determined unity of purpose is what we should be displaying to our enemy, not disunity.
Right wrong or indifferent, George W. Bush is the Commander in Chief and he solely is responsible to lead this country in this war. If you and others don't like that, come up with some viable ideas that will put your party in the White House again, or sponsor an amendment to change the constitution.
My beef with Murtha and his compatriots is that although discussion is healthy, dissent is not; especially when we are at war with an enemy determined to destroy us. Determined unity of purpose is what we should be displaying to our enemy, not disunity.
Right wrong or indifferent, George W. Bush is the Commander in Chief and he solely is responsible to lead this country in this war. If you and others don't like that, come up with some viable ideas that will put your party in the White House again, or sponsor an amendment to change the constitution.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 21, 2006 05:40 PM (owAN1)
20
Stoned,
You know, your arguments cause me to laugh constantly. Because you haven't seen it, it isn't true. Because places like the NYT don't cover it, it isn't true.But, just because your favorite, quickly sinking and soon to be extinct, new outlet didn't cover it, other places did. Not only blogs, but also at least one paper. Check this:
Murtha's new allies
You know, your arguments cause me to laugh constantly. Because you haven't seen it, it isn't true. Because places like the NYT don't cover it, it isn't true.But, just because your favorite, quickly sinking and soon to be extinct, new outlet didn't cover it, other places did. Not only blogs, but also at least one paper. Check this:
Murtha's new allies
Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 08:43 PM (ybfXM)
21
Oh my God this blog is a riot!
For my first salvo, let's look at old soldier's comment.
"My beef with Murtha and his compatriots is that although discussion is healthy, dissent is not; especially when we are at war with an enemy determined to destroy us. Determined unity of purpose is what we should be displaying to our enemy, not disunity."
So if discussion is healthy and dissent is not healthy, then what is there to discuss? How great the food is in Iraq, how Condi is such a dish in that very flattering haircut, how George Bush is the greatest leader of all time? No dissent, which means disagreement, so this is obviously what you are looking for? Not much of a democracy, huh?
Retired Spy, you quoted this statement-
"The U.S. Army is broken, worn out, and living hand-to-mouth from fighting in Iraq. They may not be able to meet future military threats to this country's security. They're barely getting by."
I know that I have not had first hand experience in Iraq, and as I certainly respect those young men and women who are serving their country, no matter what hairbrained scheme it sends them on in whatever bass ackward country it sends them to, I can say for some certainty that their conditions are less than what are written about in the MSM. And while this quote may seem like a lot of crap to some people, and just a pile of rhetoric to many of you, ask a few soldiers who are there what the hell is going on. I work in the great state of Washington, and where I work we have quite a few soldiers from Ft Lewis come down to just relax and hang out. Since the start of the war, I don't know how many young men and women have gave me the look, that thousand mile stare. And I have been fortunate that I have had the chance to speak to many of these young men, and they usually stop before they get out what they really thought of Iraq and what went on, but a few have not, and you get an eye opener. I got to hear from a soldier's mouth what it sounds like when an IED went off less than 20 yards from where he was standing.The fact of the matter is that Rumsfeld and Co. couldn't have cared less when he made the statement with "You go to war with the army you have". Sounds like the same words that came from a little Austrian tramp to his generals in the last century, don't they?
So, you all can go on and on and blow your butt trumpets till the cows come home about how great we are, and how discenters are unpatriotic. My family has given an officer to EVERY war that this country has fought, and I personally am considering going ROTC to serve my country(I am a junior in college), with the possibliity of service in the middle east. I believe in national service, but not national servatitude, especailly to a liar. And if you cannot understand the difference, there is a serious problem.
For my first salvo, let's look at old soldier's comment.
"My beef with Murtha and his compatriots is that although discussion is healthy, dissent is not; especially when we are at war with an enemy determined to destroy us. Determined unity of purpose is what we should be displaying to our enemy, not disunity."
So if discussion is healthy and dissent is not healthy, then what is there to discuss? How great the food is in Iraq, how Condi is such a dish in that very flattering haircut, how George Bush is the greatest leader of all time? No dissent, which means disagreement, so this is obviously what you are looking for? Not much of a democracy, huh?
Retired Spy, you quoted this statement-
"The U.S. Army is broken, worn out, and living hand-to-mouth from fighting in Iraq. They may not be able to meet future military threats to this country's security. They're barely getting by."
I know that I have not had first hand experience in Iraq, and as I certainly respect those young men and women who are serving their country, no matter what hairbrained scheme it sends them on in whatever bass ackward country it sends them to, I can say for some certainty that their conditions are less than what are written about in the MSM. And while this quote may seem like a lot of crap to some people, and just a pile of rhetoric to many of you, ask a few soldiers who are there what the hell is going on. I work in the great state of Washington, and where I work we have quite a few soldiers from Ft Lewis come down to just relax and hang out. Since the start of the war, I don't know how many young men and women have gave me the look, that thousand mile stare. And I have been fortunate that I have had the chance to speak to many of these young men, and they usually stop before they get out what they really thought of Iraq and what went on, but a few have not, and you get an eye opener. I got to hear from a soldier's mouth what it sounds like when an IED went off less than 20 yards from where he was standing.The fact of the matter is that Rumsfeld and Co. couldn't have cared less when he made the statement with "You go to war with the army you have". Sounds like the same words that came from a little Austrian tramp to his generals in the last century, don't they?
So, you all can go on and on and blow your butt trumpets till the cows come home about how great we are, and how discenters are unpatriotic. My family has given an officer to EVERY war that this country has fought, and I personally am considering going ROTC to serve my country(I am a junior in college), with the possibliity of service in the middle east. I believe in national service, but not national servatitude, especailly to a liar. And if you cannot understand the difference, there is a serious problem.
Posted by: sputnik at January 21, 2006 08:49 PM (DaIFo)
22
sputnick,
First off....I've spoken with many soldiers who served in Iraq, and my son is off to boot camp soon. Maybe before you toot your own horn you should visit several of the blogs from active service people and/or their families. And maybe you should read some of the articles published by honest journalists embedded with the troops to get the real story. Finally - remember this - Cindy Sheehan's son volunteered to go back to Iraq. Now why would he do that if conditions were so bad, if the cause was so unworthy? I know dozens of men and women who have been there once and volunteered to go back. If what you say is true, why would they?
BTW - your nickname says it all...
First off....I've spoken with many soldiers who served in Iraq, and my son is off to boot camp soon. Maybe before you toot your own horn you should visit several of the blogs from active service people and/or their families. And maybe you should read some of the articles published by honest journalists embedded with the troops to get the real story. Finally - remember this - Cindy Sheehan's son volunteered to go back to Iraq. Now why would he do that if conditions were so bad, if the cause was so unworthy? I know dozens of men and women who have been there once and volunteered to go back. If what you say is true, why would they?
BTW - your nickname says it all...
Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 08:56 PM (ybfXM)
23
You write, Spaceman:
"I got to hear from a soldier's mouth what it sounds like when an IED went off less than 20 yards from where he was standing.The fact of the matter is that Rumsfeld and Co. couldn't have cared less when he made the statement with "You go to war with the army you have". Sounds like the same words that came from a little Austrian tramp to his generals in the last century, don't they?"
Gee, Spaceman, you talked with ONE soldier who had been in Iraq? How impressive is that? What sort of body armor would have protected anyone from an IED? These things are made from artillery shells. Evened armored vehicles cannot withstand that sort of blast. You don't know much about warfare and military ordinance, do you?
The oblique reference to Hitler was a nice touch. Shows your level of intellect. And, lest we forget, you had to imply that Bush is a liar too.
And you wonder why no one chooses to engage in debate with you? You are just a damn fool and a waste of time!
"I got to hear from a soldier's mouth what it sounds like when an IED went off less than 20 yards from where he was standing.The fact of the matter is that Rumsfeld and Co. couldn't have cared less when he made the statement with "You go to war with the army you have". Sounds like the same words that came from a little Austrian tramp to his generals in the last century, don't they?"
Gee, Spaceman, you talked with ONE soldier who had been in Iraq? How impressive is that? What sort of body armor would have protected anyone from an IED? These things are made from artillery shells. Evened armored vehicles cannot withstand that sort of blast. You don't know much about warfare and military ordinance, do you?
The oblique reference to Hitler was a nice touch. Shows your level of intellect. And, lest we forget, you had to imply that Bush is a liar too.
And you wonder why no one chooses to engage in debate with you? You are just a damn fool and a waste of time!
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 09:29 PM (BRgB4)
24
Sputnik, I'll forgive your youth, but not your arrogance and insolence. If you feel that the war is only because of a lying megalomaniacal out of control president, then my advice is to let your family contribution to the military end with your father. Remember, you are about to swear an oath that will place you under his command. If you cannot separate politics from mission, you would best be advised to not enter service.
Should you actually take that oath and join the military, you will soon learn what dissent can do to an organization, a mission, an enemy’s resolve to continue the fight, and the nation as a whole. Once you’ve learned that lesson, you come back and lecture me about dissent and the food in Iraq or Condi’s haircut.
Now if you would like to round out the message that comes back from Iraq, go visit Walter Reid and talk to the wounded. Talk to the kids with prosthetic legs that want to go back to Iraq; the kids missing an eye or arm that want to go back to complete the mission. Then you balance what you’ve heard some REFMs whine about and what the real heroes have to say.
I’ve been in two shooting wars and another shooting conflict during my 31 years active duty in the U.S. Army, so don’t be so quick to marginalize my thoughts and statements.
Should you actually take that oath and join the military, you will soon learn what dissent can do to an organization, a mission, an enemy’s resolve to continue the fight, and the nation as a whole. Once you’ve learned that lesson, you come back and lecture me about dissent and the food in Iraq or Condi’s haircut.
Now if you would like to round out the message that comes back from Iraq, go visit Walter Reid and talk to the wounded. Talk to the kids with prosthetic legs that want to go back to Iraq; the kids missing an eye or arm that want to go back to complete the mission. Then you balance what you’ve heard some REFMs whine about and what the real heroes have to say.
I’ve been in two shooting wars and another shooting conflict during my 31 years active duty in the U.S. Army, so don’t be so quick to marginalize my thoughts and statements.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 21, 2006 10:19 PM (owAN1)
25
I'd like to pose a question to all the lefty trolls spamming this site:
Who would you rather see win the current war on terror, in Iraq?
The United States, or the assorted teror organizations arrayed against it?
Please don't waste everyone's time asking for more definitions, asking if dissent "improves" the process, etc.
Whose side are you on?
Ours?
Or theirs?
A related question:
When Iran completes development of a nuclear bomb, will they make it available to the "freedom fighters" currently waging war against the West?
Who would you rather see win the current war on terror, in Iraq?
The United States, or the assorted teror organizations arrayed against it?
Please don't waste everyone's time asking for more definitions, asking if dissent "improves" the process, etc.
Whose side are you on?
Ours?
Or theirs?
A related question:
When Iran completes development of a nuclear bomb, will they make it available to the "freedom fighters" currently waging war against the West?
Posted by: trentk269 at January 22, 2006 01:51 AM (AduKl)
26
Who would you rather see win the current war on terror, in Iraq?
Define your terms. As the old drinker Flann O'Brien said, your argument is fallacious, being based on licensed premises.
Please don't waste everyone's time asking for more definitions, asking if dissent "improves" the process, etc.
Lalala. When did you stop beating your wife? Try asking less dumb questions.
What would I like to see? A stable, multi-denominational and multi-ethnic democracy in Iraq; the domestic insurgents gradually brought into the political process, and encouraged through national pride to drive out the small number of non-Iraqis.
I would also like to be on a yacht with several nubile models right now.
What's your plan to get there? No, be specific.
When Iran completes development of a nuclear bomb, will they make it available to the "freedom fighters" currently waging war against the West?
You beg the question.
Right now, sans bomb, Iran could ensure that the US is driven out of Iraq. It has many more effective weapons already at its disposal.
Define your terms. As the old drinker Flann O'Brien said, your argument is fallacious, being based on licensed premises.
Please don't waste everyone's time asking for more definitions, asking if dissent "improves" the process, etc.
Lalala. When did you stop beating your wife? Try asking less dumb questions.
What would I like to see? A stable, multi-denominational and multi-ethnic democracy in Iraq; the domestic insurgents gradually brought into the political process, and encouraged through national pride to drive out the small number of non-Iraqis.
I would also like to be on a yacht with several nubile models right now.
What's your plan to get there? No, be specific.
When Iran completes development of a nuclear bomb, will they make it available to the "freedom fighters" currently waging war against the West?
You beg the question.
Right now, sans bomb, Iran could ensure that the US is driven out of Iraq. It has many more effective weapons already at its disposal.
Posted by: ahem at January 22, 2006 02:43 AM (0BZdf)
27
Another Gadfly Troll in our midst ...
Do you have some specific policy or alternative course of action in the war on terrorism that you wish to share. Can you even articulate such a course(s)? Or do you just think you're too cute to require an original thought process?
Any moron can ask questions. The gifted offer solutions.
Do you have some specific policy or alternative course of action in the war on terrorism that you wish to share. Can you even articulate such a course(s)? Or do you just think you're too cute to require an original thought process?
Any moron can ask questions. The gifted offer solutions.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 08:17 AM (BRgB4)
28
Ahem, I thought about using your O'Brien quote until I reread you comment. I found your arguments to be based upon feeling and emotion, rather than "premises."
It was nice of you to stop by, though, to remind us why it is so important for grownups to control the government. We shall work just a little harder this election cycle, just for you.
It was nice of you to stop by, though, to remind us why it is so important for grownups to control the government. We shall work just a little harder this election cycle, just for you.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 22, 2006 09:39 AM (owAN1)
29
ahem,
What would I like to see? A stable, multi-denominational and multi-ethnic democracy in Iraq; the domestic insurgents gradually brought into the political process, and encouraged through national pride to drive out the small number of non-Iraqis.
Great - what is your plan for getting there? Oh...don't bother I know. I'll enumerate it for you: 1) Support Murtha for reelection 2) Give groups like Code Pink lots of money to send to the "freedom fighters" 3) Get our troops out now. 4) Have Kerry join the Kos Kooky Kidz to show how mainstream the left really is 5) Come up with yet another "scandal" (I mean it's already January 22 and no new scandal from the left yet this year - and that after a record year last year....get movin guys you're losing your momentum) 6) Help Splash get off the bottle, find him a club that doesn't discriminate, and give him the keys to lost of fast cars and innocent women 7) Get the troops out now (added for emphasis)
Don't use every means available to fight the war on terrorism (instead alienate the centrists in your own party and drive them to the right - good, sound strategy) 9) Doctor as many pictures as possible and make up as many fabrications and spins to make it look like there has been no progress in Iraq 10) Chip in a few bucks to help the NYT make money again 11) Start establishing legal defense funds for Reid, Dorgan, and those poor, defenseless terrorists 12) Cut and run and leave the Iraqi's defensless and finally 13) Pull the blanket over our eyes and hope nobody comes looking to hurt our own country - killing innocent men, women and children. Oh yeah I forgot to mention turn our backs to Iran's president who point blank said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map.
What is that you say, ahem? You say that isn't the left's? (oh....I'm being prejudicial by saying that four-letter-word "left" - Maybe I should use "progressives". Naw....snort....that makes it sound like they have a plan) Would you care to tell us all about the "real plan"? Because all we see is the crap above. And you say the right has no plan....Get a grip.
Geez...this is fun. I could hav made the left's plan at least a few hundred items longer...but it is such a "winner" with just this much.
What would I like to see? A stable, multi-denominational and multi-ethnic democracy in Iraq; the domestic insurgents gradually brought into the political process, and encouraged through national pride to drive out the small number of non-Iraqis.
Great - what is your plan for getting there? Oh...don't bother I know. I'll enumerate it for you: 1) Support Murtha for reelection 2) Give groups like Code Pink lots of money to send to the "freedom fighters" 3) Get our troops out now. 4) Have Kerry join the Kos Kooky Kidz to show how mainstream the left really is 5) Come up with yet another "scandal" (I mean it's already January 22 and no new scandal from the left yet this year - and that after a record year last year....get movin guys you're losing your momentum) 6) Help Splash get off the bottle, find him a club that doesn't discriminate, and give him the keys to lost of fast cars and innocent women 7) Get the troops out now (added for emphasis)
Don't use every means available to fight the war on terrorism (instead alienate the centrists in your own party and drive them to the right - good, sound strategy) 9) Doctor as many pictures as possible and make up as many fabrications and spins to make it look like there has been no progress in Iraq 10) Chip in a few bucks to help the NYT make money again 11) Start establishing legal defense funds for Reid, Dorgan, and those poor, defenseless terrorists 12) Cut and run and leave the Iraqi's defensless and finally 13) Pull the blanket over our eyes and hope nobody comes looking to hurt our own country - killing innocent men, women and children. Oh yeah I forgot to mention turn our backs to Iran's president who point blank said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map.
What is that you say, ahem? You say that isn't the left's? (oh....I'm being prejudicial by saying that four-letter-word "left" - Maybe I should use "progressives". Naw....snort....that makes it sound like they have a plan) Would you care to tell us all about the "real plan"? Because all we see is the crap above. And you say the right has no plan....Get a grip.
Geez...this is fun. I could hav made the left's plan at least a few hundred items longer...but it is such a "winner" with just this much.
Posted by: Specter at January 22, 2006 09:51 AM (ybfXM)
January 19, 2006
Justice Dept. Declares NSA Surveillance Legal
Raw Story has a detailed 42-page defense of the President's "inherent constitutional authority" to conduct warrantless investigations of enemy forces to dissuade attacks upon the United States.
While I'll let the legal eagles sort out the complex nuances of the language, it appears to my untrained eyes that the document is a fleshed-out version of this five-page DoJ briefing (PDF) released December 22nd, and it seems like they're making the same points I discussed here after reading about the briefing. The document cites copious case law, the President's inherent Constitutional authority under Article II, and a FISA exemption granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It also makes the argument that if FISA is shown to conflict with the President's Article II Powers, then FISA is unconstitutional. This is going to be very interesting, but I'd say unless the President's detractors can come up with a new argument I haven't heard of yet, then his powers to conduct this kind of warrantless surveillance will be upheld to the great consternation of those libertarians and leftists that do not understand the responsibilities on the Executive during a time of war.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:08 PM | Comments (71) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What a surprise. A memo supporting the White House and it's 'we can't talk about it. Doing so would alert our foes they are being watched' surveillance policies.
The breathless first paragraph at Rawstory.com mentions the 'Bush Justice Department'.
Interesting. Other administrations have relied on the United States Department of Justice.
Privatization?
The breathless first paragraph at Rawstory.com mentions the 'Bush Justice Department'.
Interesting. Other administrations have relied on the United States Department of Justice.
Privatization?
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 19, 2006 09:11 PM (hGNke)
2
Spoken like a man who has no experience in military intelligence and what it has been doing for the last twenty-eight years (since FISA), Arthur.
Posted by: Juliette at January 19, 2006 09:22 PM (ENy+u)
3
You continue to amaze me with your total ignorance, Artie. You really need to read the document itself, I believe. Of course, you surely would not wish to be swayed by the facts, would you.
As for the reference to the 'Bush Justice Department,' people have been making references like that with the president's name attached as long as there has been a U.S. Department of Justice.
You continue to look for any excuse to downplay what is really happening, and I am sure that you will do the same thing when the SCOTUS also rules in favor of Bush's actions.
You and Fat Bastard are both from the same pathetic mold.
As for the reference to the 'Bush Justice Department,' people have been making references like that with the president's name attached as long as there has been a U.S. Department of Justice.
You continue to look for any excuse to downplay what is really happening, and I am sure that you will do the same thing when the SCOTUS also rules in favor of Bush's actions.
You and Fat Bastard are both from the same pathetic mold.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 19, 2006 09:25 PM (FsLF4)
4
Retired Spy wrote:
You and Fat Bastard are both from the same pathetic mold.
Coming from you superannuated provocateur I'll consider that a compliment.
You and Fat Bastard are both from the same pathetic mold.
Coming from you superannuated provocateur I'll consider that a compliment.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 19, 2006 09:58 PM (hGNke)
5
You have not read the total document yet, have you, Artie? Just like you have not read the FISA document or USC 18, 798. You just google your way through Democratic Party and leftie BLOG talking points without analysis.
You are no more than a gadfly and a total nuisance, because you refuse to examine and evaluate fact and legal precedent.
There's no hope for you at all.
You are no more than a gadfly and a total nuisance, because you refuse to examine and evaluate fact and legal precedent.
There's no hope for you at all.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 19, 2006 10:34 PM (FsLF4)
6
I haven't spent time learning how a microprocessor works either. Nor an automobile nor colonoscope.
I'm not a lawyer RS. And lawyers will wrangle and settle the matter. It's possible that, contrary to your wisful thinking, the congressional authorization of Sept. 14 2001 may not be quite enough for the administration to base its case on.
Bear in mind that this expansion of the executive branch, and expansion it is, would not be nearly so palatable to you if the executive were a Democrat. And bear in mind, Diebold notwithstanding, a Democrat will assume the White House again one day and when that happens it will be very interesting to read the posts here.
I'm not a lawyer RS. And lawyers will wrangle and settle the matter. It's possible that, contrary to your wisful thinking, the congressional authorization of Sept. 14 2001 may not be quite enough for the administration to base its case on.
Bear in mind that this expansion of the executive branch, and expansion it is, would not be nearly so palatable to you if the executive were a Democrat. And bear in mind, Diebold notwithstanding, a Democrat will assume the White House again one day and when that happens it will be very interesting to read the posts here.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 12:12 AM (hGNke)
7
Arthur, if contrary to your thinking and desires, the courts find for the president, will you accept that he has been acting within his executive powers and in the best interest of our nation? Will you view him and his administration in a less hateful light?
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 20, 2006 07:13 AM (X2tAw)
8
I doubt that Artie will answer that one in the affirmative, Old Soldier, but I will surely answer his question. Considering exactly the same circumstances with a Democrat as president I will support his/her decision exactly the same.
As I see it, there should not be the double standard on this issue that the Democrats are promoting. I also believe that Clinton was justified when he authorized warrantless wiretaps and physical searches of Aldrich Ames' home. There was just cause then, and there is just cause now.
The Democrats like to plaster over the real issue with the Clinton investigation and impeachment by referring to it as solely a sexual affair with a fat lady. His impeachment and the ABA's pulling of his license to practice law was because he lied under oath - not because Monica gave him a BJ.
No, I doubt that Artie will accept anything from anyone. To paraphrase Colonel Jessep in A Few Good Men, Artie can't handle the truth.
I am not a lawyer either, Artie. I do have a brain, however, and I can read and evaluate and analyze facts and legal precedent and the tenets of the law.
You have run out of lame excuses, Artie. It's time to act like a Man.
As I see it, there should not be the double standard on this issue that the Democrats are promoting. I also believe that Clinton was justified when he authorized warrantless wiretaps and physical searches of Aldrich Ames' home. There was just cause then, and there is just cause now.
The Democrats like to plaster over the real issue with the Clinton investigation and impeachment by referring to it as solely a sexual affair with a fat lady. His impeachment and the ABA's pulling of his license to practice law was because he lied under oath - not because Monica gave him a BJ.
No, I doubt that Artie will accept anything from anyone. To paraphrase Colonel Jessep in A Few Good Men, Artie can't handle the truth.
I am not a lawyer either, Artie. I do have a brain, however, and I can read and evaluate and analyze facts and legal precedent and the tenets of the law.
You have run out of lame excuses, Artie. It's time to act like a Man.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 08:19 AM (FsLF4)
9
Extra testosterone in your grape nuts this morning RS?
After all these years you still want to drag up President Clinton? Give it a break.
While anything outside the WSJ editorial page may be too far to the left for this crowd this is interesting.
The last paragraph in particular is quite revealing. Isn't just radlibs concerned about Mr. Bush and his policies.
December 22, 2005 WSJ Online Edition:
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's claim that he has a legal right to eavesdrop on some U.S. citizens without court approval has widened an ideological gap within his party.
On one side is the national-security camp, made even more numerous by loyalty to a wartime president. On the other are the small-government civil libertarians who have long held a privileged place within the Republican Party but whose ranks have ebbed since the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The surveillance furor, at least among some conservatives, also has heightened worries that the party is straying from many of its core principles the longer it remains in control of both the White House and Congress.
QUESTION OF THE DAY
[question of the day]
Vote: Would you feel more vulnerable to terrorism if the Patriot Act expires?
Conservatives have knocked heads in recent months over the administration's detainment and treatment of terrorist suspects, and as recently as yesterday over provisions of the Patriot Act. Strains also have grown among conservatives over government spending and whether to loosen U.S. immigration rules.
But the current debate over using the National Security Agency for domestic surveillance -- which the administration has defended as legal and necessary -- hit a rawer nerve because it pits national-security concerns against a core constitutional right, in this case, the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"It seems to me that if you're the president, you have to proceed with great caution when you do anything that flies in the face of the Constitution," said Warren Rudman, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire who has served on a number of government intelligence advisory boards. He calls the administration's surveillance program "a matter of grave concern."
Since 1978, Congress has required the executive branch to seek warrants through a secret federal court for domestic eavesdropping on foreigners or U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage. Such permission is all but automatic and usually is granted within hours. The court granted warrants at the rate of almost five a day last year -- and rejected none.
President Bush and his top aides argued this week that they were on solid legal ground in ordering -- without going through the secret court -- large-scale eavesdropping of communications between the U.S. and other countries to thwart potential terrorist attacks. They claim they had the authority to conduct the spying under the president's powers as commander in chief, as well as under a congressional resolution that approved the use of force in Afghanistan in 2001.
Yet some prominent conservatives reject that argument. Some even have accused the administration of treading on the Constitution and stretching the prerogatives of the presidency to the detriment of balanced government.
David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, described the spy program as a case of "presidential overreaching" that he said most Americans would reject. Columnist George Will wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece that "conservatives' wholesome wariness of presidential power has been a casualty of conservative presidents winning seven of the past 10 elections."
Bob Barr, a Georgia conservative who was one of the Republican Party's loudest opponents of government snooping until he left Congress in 2003, says the furor should stand as a test of Republicans' willingness to call their president to task. "This is just such an egregious violation of the electronic surveillance laws," Mr. Barr says.
Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has called the program "inappropriate" and promised to hold hearings early next year. Republicans joining him include centrist Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Sununu of New Hampshire, along with limited-government types like Larry Craig of Idaho.
The three, along with Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, have sided with Democrats in the Patriot Act fight, citing concerns the government is running rough-shod over civil liberties in the name of the war on terrorism. Without Senate approval by Dec. 31, a bulk of the law's key provisions would expire. Negotiations over a compromise continued yesterday.
Some other top Republicans have defended the president's right to conduct surveillance outside congressionally mandated rules. Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi summarized the argument: "I want my security first," he told reporters when news of the program broke last week. "I will deal with all the details after that."
Prominent neoconservatives William Kristol and Gary Schmitt opined earlier this week that the president has the authority to collect foreign intelligence "as he sees fit," even within the U.S. And no matter how much people might wish it, they wrote, "Congress cannot legislate for every contingency."
Vice President Dick Cheney portrayed the dispute as one entirely about presidential power. "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it," he told reporters while traveling abroad on Tuesday.
Some conservative critics contend that the fault lines within the party are easy to trace. As with so much else, they say, the trail leads to Iraq.
"From the beginning, the folks who thought it was a good idea to go into Iraq have found good reason to think that all other Bush policies, from torture to domestic surveillance, are justified," said Robert Levy, a conservative legal scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute. "This is just one in a litany of ongoing events that have separated the noninterventionist wing of the Republican Party from the neocon wing."
After all these years you still want to drag up President Clinton? Give it a break.
While anything outside the WSJ editorial page may be too far to the left for this crowd this is interesting.
The last paragraph in particular is quite revealing. Isn't just radlibs concerned about Mr. Bush and his policies.
December 22, 2005 WSJ Online Edition:
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's claim that he has a legal right to eavesdrop on some U.S. citizens without court approval has widened an ideological gap within his party.
On one side is the national-security camp, made even more numerous by loyalty to a wartime president. On the other are the small-government civil libertarians who have long held a privileged place within the Republican Party but whose ranks have ebbed since the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The surveillance furor, at least among some conservatives, also has heightened worries that the party is straying from many of its core principles the longer it remains in control of both the White House and Congress.
QUESTION OF THE DAY
[question of the day]
Vote: Would you feel more vulnerable to terrorism if the Patriot Act expires?
Conservatives have knocked heads in recent months over the administration's detainment and treatment of terrorist suspects, and as recently as yesterday over provisions of the Patriot Act. Strains also have grown among conservatives over government spending and whether to loosen U.S. immigration rules.
But the current debate over using the National Security Agency for domestic surveillance -- which the administration has defended as legal and necessary -- hit a rawer nerve because it pits national-security concerns against a core constitutional right, in this case, the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"It seems to me that if you're the president, you have to proceed with great caution when you do anything that flies in the face of the Constitution," said Warren Rudman, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire who has served on a number of government intelligence advisory boards. He calls the administration's surveillance program "a matter of grave concern."
Since 1978, Congress has required the executive branch to seek warrants through a secret federal court for domestic eavesdropping on foreigners or U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage. Such permission is all but automatic and usually is granted within hours. The court granted warrants at the rate of almost five a day last year -- and rejected none.
President Bush and his top aides argued this week that they were on solid legal ground in ordering -- without going through the secret court -- large-scale eavesdropping of communications between the U.S. and other countries to thwart potential terrorist attacks. They claim they had the authority to conduct the spying under the president's powers as commander in chief, as well as under a congressional resolution that approved the use of force in Afghanistan in 2001.
Yet some prominent conservatives reject that argument. Some even have accused the administration of treading on the Constitution and stretching the prerogatives of the presidency to the detriment of balanced government.
David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, described the spy program as a case of "presidential overreaching" that he said most Americans would reject. Columnist George Will wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece that "conservatives' wholesome wariness of presidential power has been a casualty of conservative presidents winning seven of the past 10 elections."
Bob Barr, a Georgia conservative who was one of the Republican Party's loudest opponents of government snooping until he left Congress in 2003, says the furor should stand as a test of Republicans' willingness to call their president to task. "This is just such an egregious violation of the electronic surveillance laws," Mr. Barr says.
Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has called the program "inappropriate" and promised to hold hearings early next year. Republicans joining him include centrist Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Sununu of New Hampshire, along with limited-government types like Larry Craig of Idaho.
The three, along with Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, have sided with Democrats in the Patriot Act fight, citing concerns the government is running rough-shod over civil liberties in the name of the war on terrorism. Without Senate approval by Dec. 31, a bulk of the law's key provisions would expire. Negotiations over a compromise continued yesterday.
Some other top Republicans have defended the president's right to conduct surveillance outside congressionally mandated rules. Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi summarized the argument: "I want my security first," he told reporters when news of the program broke last week. "I will deal with all the details after that."
Prominent neoconservatives William Kristol and Gary Schmitt opined earlier this week that the president has the authority to collect foreign intelligence "as he sees fit," even within the U.S. And no matter how much people might wish it, they wrote, "Congress cannot legislate for every contingency."
Vice President Dick Cheney portrayed the dispute as one entirely about presidential power. "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it," he told reporters while traveling abroad on Tuesday.
Some conservative critics contend that the fault lines within the party are easy to trace. As with so much else, they say, the trail leads to Iraq.
"From the beginning, the folks who thought it was a good idea to go into Iraq have found good reason to think that all other Bush policies, from torture to domestic surveillance, are justified," said Robert Levy, a conservative legal scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute. "This is just one in a litany of ongoing events that have separated the noninterventionist wing of the Republican Party from the neocon wing."
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 09:43 AM (hGNke)
10
Why am I not surprised at Artie's contribution? As always, it totally lacks any original thought from Artie himself. The whole submission is a quote from the WSJ, except for the testosterone in the Grape Nuts bit.
By the way, boneheaded one, I was supporting Clinton's actions against Aldrich Ames. I see you continue to have problems with reading comprehension.
Better visit that Sylvan Learning Center soon, Artie ...
By the way, boneheaded one, I was supporting Clinton's actions against Aldrich Ames. I see you continue to have problems with reading comprehension.
Better visit that Sylvan Learning Center soon, Artie ...
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 10:33 AM (OP00Y)
11
Arthur, do you suppose the author of the WSJ editorial would write the same thing today after reading the DOJ paper?
As for a few Republicans that voiced concerns, perhaps they didn't have all the facts and commented too soon? Like many a politician is given to doing. Do you agree with Senator Lieberman's assessment of staying the course to a victorious conclusion in Iraq? Do you agree with Zell Miller's assessment of the Democratic party? Those are rhetorical questions; just examples of same party different page.
As for a few Republicans that voiced concerns, perhaps they didn't have all the facts and commented too soon? Like many a politician is given to doing. Do you agree with Senator Lieberman's assessment of staying the course to a victorious conclusion in Iraq? Do you agree with Zell Miller's assessment of the Democratic party? Those are rhetorical questions; just examples of same party different page.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 20, 2006 11:04 AM (X2tAw)
12
Old Soldier-- I can't speak for Arthur, but...
"...Arthur, if contrary to your thinking and desires, the courts find for the president, will you accept that he has been acting within his executive powers and in the best interest of our nation?"
No, I'm afraid I can't go that far. I believe this administration has done and continues to do a lot of things that are contrary to the interests of the Republic.
However, in keeping with the Founders' design for this government, if the other branches sign off on it then by the Constitution it's legal; and I for one will shut up about it. (Well, awright, I might grumble; but there's plenty of things that are legal and constitutional that I grumble about. That's life in the Big City.)
I think so much of this is about oversight; and that Congress has given this administration such free rein. If the other branches are doing their job and all three branches agree that the Executive had the right to do whatever it did... that's that.
Now, isn't that reasonable?
"...Arthur, if contrary to your thinking and desires, the courts find for the president, will you accept that he has been acting within his executive powers and in the best interest of our nation?"
No, I'm afraid I can't go that far. I believe this administration has done and continues to do a lot of things that are contrary to the interests of the Republic.
However, in keeping with the Founders' design for this government, if the other branches sign off on it then by the Constitution it's legal; and I for one will shut up about it. (Well, awright, I might grumble; but there's plenty of things that are legal and constitutional that I grumble about. That's life in the Big City.)
I think so much of this is about oversight; and that Congress has given this administration such free rein. If the other branches are doing their job and all three branches agree that the Executive had the right to do whatever it did... that's that.
Now, isn't that reasonable?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 20, 2006 01:25 PM (n2Agn)
13
Here's a little 'wake-up' message for you, FB.
All three branches of government do not sign off on whether or not Bush's warrantless NSA surveillance operations were in keeping with the Constitution. That, in the final analysis, is the sole responsibility of the Supreme Court. In fact, the SCOTUS can find the FISA statutes unconstitutional, and Congress has no power to overrule the SCOTUS decision.
All three branches of government do not sign off on whether or not Bush's warrantless NSA surveillance operations were in keeping with the Constitution. That, in the final analysis, is the sole responsibility of the Supreme Court. In fact, the SCOTUS can find the FISA statutes unconstitutional, and Congress has no power to overrule the SCOTUS decision.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 01:35 PM (OP00Y)
14
FB, I guess you've been as reasonable as I've ever witnessed. However, I do have a question. You stated, "I think so much of this is about oversight; and that Congress has given this administration such free rein." I just reread Articles I, II and III and do not find where the Legistative Branch has "oversight" over either of the other two branches. So, just which branch is supposed to have "oversight" over which branch?
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 20, 2006 02:10 PM (X2tAw)
15
Retired Spy-
I am only pointing out that persons of good will, enthusiastic supporters of the president among them, have problems with this eavesdropping issue.
You criticize me when I offer my own opinion and now you criticize for sharing others opinions.
I credited the WSJ at the beginning of the post. What's the problem with that?
I am only pointing out that persons of good will, enthusiastic supporters of the president among them, have problems with this eavesdropping issue.
You criticize me when I offer my own opinion and now you criticize for sharing others opinions.
I credited the WSJ at the beginning of the post. What's the problem with that?
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 03:28 PM (DEot0)
16
I think CY already addressed this issue. To begin with, the article showed up in the WSJ almost a month ago - right in the immediate aftermath of the Risen/Lichtblau article in the Times and a host of copycat columns in newspapers across the country.
Things have change since then, and attitudes have changed along with everything else. Many legal precedents have been brought to the fore, and these have influenced many people.
It ain't the same, Artie.
Things have change since then, and attitudes have changed along with everything else. Many legal precedents have been brought to the fore, and these have influenced many people.
It ain't the same, Artie.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 06:51 PM (OP00Y)
17
RS-
We'll just have to wait and see how much has changed and how far the president is allowed to go won't we?
We'll just have to wait and see how much has changed and how far the president is allowed to go won't we?
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 07:02 PM (DEot0)
18
Absolutely.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 09:09 PM (OP00Y)
19
Arthur, do you suppose the author of the WSJ editorial would write the same thing today after reading the DOJ paper?
S/he should. There's nothing in the DoJ brief that wasn't expected. They could have cribbed it from any number of lawblog posts detailing the administration's arguments.
And no matter how many pages get added, it's a weak argument to claim that the President can do whatever he wants because this is war (which it isn't, a fact conveniently but shortsightedly elided in the DoJ brief. The congress didn't declare war, they gave limited statutory authorization for use of military force per the War Powers Act.)
S/he should. There's nothing in the DoJ brief that wasn't expected. They could have cribbed it from any number of lawblog posts detailing the administration's arguments.
And no matter how many pages get added, it's a weak argument to claim that the President can do whatever he wants because this is war (which it isn't, a fact conveniently but shortsightedly elided in the DoJ brief. The congress didn't declare war, they gave limited statutory authorization for use of military force per the War Powers Act.)
Posted by: jpe at January 20, 2006 11:35 PM (+hqDO)
20
I also believe that Clinton was justified when he authorized warrantless wiretaps and physical searches of Aldrich Ames' home.
Everything done in during the Ames investigation was in compliance with the law. The wiretaps were performed pursuant to FISA warrants; and the search was performed prior to the amendment of FISA requiring a warrant for physical searches.
(was that nice enough? Gauging from the deletion of my previous comment, it seems the moderator thinks Retired Spy is a bit on the sensitive side. If there's one thing that conservative agree on, it's that no one's feelings should ever be hurt, regardless of how ignorant or stupid they are).
Everything done in during the Ames investigation was in compliance with the law. The wiretaps were performed pursuant to FISA warrants; and the search was performed prior to the amendment of FISA requiring a warrant for physical searches.
(was that nice enough? Gauging from the deletion of my previous comment, it seems the moderator thinks Retired Spy is a bit on the sensitive side. If there's one thing that conservative agree on, it's that no one's feelings should ever be hurt, regardless of how ignorant or stupid they are).
Posted by: jpe at January 21, 2006 11:15 AM (+hqDO)
21
I doubt that anyone deleted anything you wrote, unless it was filled with the sort of filth and ad hominem attacks we have come to expect from the extreme Left.
By the way, it was one of Clinton's Deputies to the Attorney General who wrote the legal brief that stated that Clinton's warrantless wiretaps and searches were withing his rights as Commander-in-Chief.
Bottom line? You don't know crap about anything, and it is very apparent that you are paying far too much attention to the KOS Kiddies, the Democratic Underground, Michael Moore and Democrats dot com.
Maybe CY will allow you to return when you can deal with facts.
By the way, it was one of Clinton's Deputies to the Attorney General who wrote the legal brief that stated that Clinton's warrantless wiretaps and searches were withing his rights as Commander-in-Chief.
Bottom line? You don't know crap about anything, and it is very apparent that you are paying far too much attention to the KOS Kiddies, the Democratic Underground, Michael Moore and Democrats dot com.
Maybe CY will allow you to return when you can deal with facts.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 01:28 PM (BRgB4)
22
Four and one half years and still no sign of the greates mass murderer in American history.
Instead of vast eavesdropping on US citizens through wiretaps and harvesting of computer data from Yahoo and such maybe we should try just a little harder to catch Bin Laden.
I can imagine the hue and cry on this blog and others like it if a Democrat were in office and acting as ineptly as this one.
Have a great weekend folks.
Instead of vast eavesdropping on US citizens through wiretaps and harvesting of computer data from Yahoo and such maybe we should try just a little harder to catch Bin Laden.
I can imagine the hue and cry on this blog and others like it if a Democrat were in office and acting as ineptly as this one.
Have a great weekend folks.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 21, 2006 01:36 PM (DEot0)
23
KOS Kooky Kids now includes none other that John Kerry...I'm sure that will go far in his next election campaign. How stupid is that?
Will these guys ever figure out that the more they complain about this, especially an issue that, regardless of the rhetoric, the majority of americans support? How do they think they are winning votes when all they can do is come up with alleged scandal after alleged scandal? Do they ever think about how people wondering how they even get their current "job" done? Bush's ratings continue to grow, albeit slowly, and the left thinks they are going to win votes by having John Kerry (and his wife - you know the multi-billionair whose family owns Heinz) participate at KOS; by having Splash Kennedy quit the club he says he gave $100 a year to but didn't belong to; Code Pink awards to Murtha; Al Gore caught in lies in his latest speech; harboring a KKK Kleagle; ....geez I could go on forever.
Will these guys ever figure out that the more they complain about this, especially an issue that, regardless of the rhetoric, the majority of americans support? How do they think they are winning votes when all they can do is come up with alleged scandal after alleged scandal? Do they ever think about how people wondering how they even get their current "job" done? Bush's ratings continue to grow, albeit slowly, and the left thinks they are going to win votes by having John Kerry (and his wife - you know the multi-billionair whose family owns Heinz) participate at KOS; by having Splash Kennedy quit the club he says he gave $100 a year to but didn't belong to; Code Pink awards to Murtha; Al Gore caught in lies in his latest speech; harboring a KKK Kleagle; ....geez I could go on forever.
Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 01:47 PM (ybfXM)
Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 01:48 PM (ybfXM)
25
He did act Specter. One of the failures was the bombing of the 'aspirin factory' the conservatives take such delight in pointing out.
Of course Republican administrations were elected twice as being better at this sort of thing.
OSB at this point is worth more to Mr. Bush on the loose than captured. Hence the nonchalance in working to achieve that goal.
Of course Republican administrations were elected twice as being better at this sort of thing.
OSB at this point is worth more to Mr. Bush on the loose than captured. Hence the nonchalance in working to achieve that goal.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 21, 2006 03:05 PM (DEot0)
26
"Four and one half years and still no sign of the greates mass murderer in American history."
Osama bin Laden is but one person in the entire world of al Qaeda terrorists. Just getting him is not going to lessen the threat from al Qaeda. Sure. It would be nice to vaporize him and his top-level buddies, but we cannot take our eye off the bigger picture - terrorist cells throughout the world who are independent and not waiting for marching orders from OBL.
Dumb statement, Artie.
"Instead of vast eavesdropping on US citizens through wiretaps and harvesting of computer data from Yahoo and such maybe we should try just a little harder to catch Bin Laden."
What is the "vast eavesdropping on US citizens" sh*t, Artie? There is no vast eavesdropping, except in your our paranoid delusions and KOS world of idiocy.
As for "Yahoo" searches, it was Google, Artie, and the objective was totally separate from the war on terrorism. You can't even keep your search engines straight. And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
The Google searches are for uncovering child pornography and its users. Why? Because child pornographers and their customers are equal threats to our children. Are you trying to tell us that child pornography and child rape and molestation is not important?
Once again, Bin Laden is just one man.
You really ARE daft, aren't you?
Osama bin Laden is but one person in the entire world of al Qaeda terrorists. Just getting him is not going to lessen the threat from al Qaeda. Sure. It would be nice to vaporize him and his top-level buddies, but we cannot take our eye off the bigger picture - terrorist cells throughout the world who are independent and not waiting for marching orders from OBL.
Dumb statement, Artie.
"Instead of vast eavesdropping on US citizens through wiretaps and harvesting of computer data from Yahoo and such maybe we should try just a little harder to catch Bin Laden."
What is the "vast eavesdropping on US citizens" sh*t, Artie? There is no vast eavesdropping, except in your our paranoid delusions and KOS world of idiocy.
As for "Yahoo" searches, it was Google, Artie, and the objective was totally separate from the war on terrorism. You can't even keep your search engines straight. And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
The Google searches are for uncovering child pornography and its users. Why? Because child pornographers and their customers are equal threats to our children. Are you trying to tell us that child pornography and child rape and molestation is not important?
Once again, Bin Laden is just one man.
You really ARE daft, aren't you?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 03:17 PM (BRgB4)
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 21, 2006 04:44 PM (DEot0)
28
Retired Spy, why can't you just admit you were wrong about Ames? You know you are, or you would've tried to correct me rather than spewing juvenilia such as: "You don't know crap about anything...."
Posted by: jpe at January 21, 2006 05:31 PM (+hqDO)
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 06:20 PM (BRgB4)
30
Here's a little quote for you, jpe, straight from the mouth of Clinton's Deputy Attorney General in 1994:
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
I guess the Library of Congress Records Department and the Congressional Record made that up too?
What a Dick ...
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
I guess the Library of Congress Records Department and the Congressional Record made that up too?
What a Dick ...
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 06:29 PM (BRgB4)
31
When you consider that the Congress has NOT declared war, all the arguments for the right and authority of the Executive, as Commander In Chief (defined by Article II of the Constitution), to conduct domestic surveillance are spurious at best and ignorant to a ridiculous degree.
We've been through this before; the war in Vietnam is the case in point. Vietnam was a war instigated by an Executive that was "justified" and based on lies, deception and "faulty" intelligence . Then, as now, we had a Congress that shirked it's Contitutional responsiblities and an Executive that sought unauthorized and illegal wiretapping authority; in fact it DID practice illegal surveillance on the domestic population. As a consequence Congress passed the FISA act. That we have an Executive that ignores this law comes as no surprise. It remains only for the people to rise up and say NO and no again to this president and NO to this breaching of written law. Will we never learn?
We've been through this before; the war in Vietnam is the case in point. Vietnam was a war instigated by an Executive that was "justified" and based on lies, deception and "faulty" intelligence . Then, as now, we had a Congress that shirked it's Contitutional responsiblities and an Executive that sought unauthorized and illegal wiretapping authority; in fact it DID practice illegal surveillance on the domestic population. As a consequence Congress passed the FISA act. That we have an Executive that ignores this law comes as no surprise. It remains only for the people to rise up and say NO and no again to this president and NO to this breaching of written law. Will we never learn?
Posted by: Jack at January 21, 2006 07:17 PM (H+MvB)
32
But Jack,
Check the polls. The people have risen up and said, "YES. We want the President to protect us."
Check the polls. The people have risen up and said, "YES. We want the President to protect us."
Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 07:48 PM (ybfXM)
33
Jack,
You said:
When you consider that the Congress has NOT declared war, all the arguments for the right and authority of the Executive, as Commander In Chief (defined by Article II of the Constitution)...
Since you are a constitutional expert, and since you have invoked Article II, please give us the exact words in Article II where it says that the powers of the President with respect to waging war are to be approved by the Congress as you assert. I want specific words here.
You said:
When you consider that the Congress has NOT declared war, all the arguments for the right and authority of the Executive, as Commander In Chief (defined by Article II of the Constitution)...
Since you are a constitutional expert, and since you have invoked Article II, please give us the exact words in Article II where it says that the powers of the President with respect to waging war are to be approved by the Congress as you assert. I want specific words here.
Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 07:55 PM (ybfXM)
34
In fact Jack,
The Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to declare war, but it does not say anything about that having to be done before the president sends troops anywhere.
The Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to declare war, but it does not say anything about that having to be done before the president sends troops anywhere.
Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 08:01 PM (ybfXM)
35
" Since you are a constitutional expert, and since you have invoked Article II, please give us the exact words in Article II where it says that the powers of the President with respect to waging war are to be approved by the Congress as you assert. I want specific words here. "
Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 07:55 PM
Specter... as per your request -
The Constitution Of The United States
Article. II.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
- The Constitution, indeed, does not provide for congressional approval of the way in which the Executive carries out the duties of Commander-In-Chief. However, the Bill Of Rights does, among other things, define what activities by the government, including the Executive, are prohibited.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Article VI
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Furthermore, the Foriegn Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 clearly states -
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that-
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at-
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or...
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party
So, we see that the powers of the Executive, in it's role as Commander In Chief, are clearly limited both by the Constitution and by law.
Further, I have seen NO poll where the people have risen to demand the president violate law and the Contitution in order to "protect us". I invite you to consider this: an open country such as ours can never be truly and completely safe from a jihadist barbarian intent on destruction.
I, for one, am unwilling to elevate one man above the law or to throw over our Constitution in pursuit of this vain and foolish illusion of "safety".
JACK
Posted by: Specter at January 21, 2006 07:55 PM
Specter... as per your request -
The Constitution Of The United States
Article. II.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
- The Constitution, indeed, does not provide for congressional approval of the way in which the Executive carries out the duties of Commander-In-Chief. However, the Bill Of Rights does, among other things, define what activities by the government, including the Executive, are prohibited.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Article VI
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Furthermore, the Foriegn Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 clearly states -
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that-
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at-
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or...
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party
So, we see that the powers of the Executive, in it's role as Commander In Chief, are clearly limited both by the Constitution and by law.
Further, I have seen NO poll where the people have risen to demand the president violate law and the Contitution in order to "protect us". I invite you to consider this: an open country such as ours can never be truly and completely safe from a jihadist barbarian intent on destruction.
I, for one, am unwilling to elevate one man above the law or to throw over our Constitution in pursuit of this vain and foolish illusion of "safety".
JACK
Posted by: Jack at January 22, 2006 10:34 AM (H+MvB)
36
You can't even get your references correct, can you, Jack?
It's the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution - not the Sixth Article. Article VI, bonehead, has nothing whatsoever to do with the provisions you cited.
Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment does have a qualifying word - "unreasonable" - and surveillance of foreign nationals representing terrorist organizations via international communications, obtainable by anyone with a radio receiver capable of collecting signal transmissions anywhere in space, is not "unreasonable."
The FISA statute also has a word "substantial" in place there which is interpreted as meaning not "exclusively" indicative that no United States person is a party. Further, by definition, a foreign power includes any agents of a foreign power.
Chew on this too (The following is where a warrant is required):
"the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States;"
per FISA 1801 (f)(3)
In the cases authorized by President Bush, both sender and all recipients are NOT located within the United States - only the recipient.
FISA, therefore does not require warrants for this sort of surveillance.
It's the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution - not the Sixth Article. Article VI, bonehead, has nothing whatsoever to do with the provisions you cited.
Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment does have a qualifying word - "unreasonable" - and surveillance of foreign nationals representing terrorist organizations via international communications, obtainable by anyone with a radio receiver capable of collecting signal transmissions anywhere in space, is not "unreasonable."
The FISA statute also has a word "substantial" in place there which is interpreted as meaning not "exclusively" indicative that no United States person is a party. Further, by definition, a foreign power includes any agents of a foreign power.
Chew on this too (The following is where a warrant is required):
"the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States;"
per FISA 1801 (f)(3)
In the cases authorized by President Bush, both sender and all recipients are NOT located within the United States - only the recipient.
FISA, therefore does not require warrants for this sort of surveillance.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 11:28 AM (BRgB4)
37
sure ... let's give it all over to this facist president in the hope that he will save us from the consequences of our own policies. pathetic... help ! save us daddy !!!
Posted by: Jack at January 22, 2006 11:57 AM (H+MvB)
38
Is that your best intellectual offering, Jack?
Pretty pathetic.
You've already demonstrated that you cannot read very well or conduct meaningful and extensive research.
Any moron can engage in name calling.
Only one of the deranged KOS Kids and their ilk would revert to calling the President a facist.
Maybe you should look up the meaning of the word before you rant your empty ad hominems, Jack.
Pretty pathetic.
You've already demonstrated that you cannot read very well or conduct meaningful and extensive research.
Any moron can engage in name calling.
Only one of the deranged KOS Kids and their ilk would revert to calling the President a facist.
Maybe you should look up the meaning of the word before you rant your empty ad hominems, Jack.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 12:36 PM (BRgB4)
39
It may be noteworthy, too, RS, that Jack cannot even spell 'fascist' correctly.
Let's examine the definition of Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
None of these is in place in the United States, nor does the President of the United States have or exercise absolute control.
Go away, little 'boy.'
Let's examine the definition of Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
None of these is in place in the United States, nor does the President of the United States have or exercise absolute control.
Go away, little 'boy.'
Posted by: Moshe at January 22, 2006 12:44 PM (BRgB4)
40
Re: Gorelick and inherent authority:
She did, in fact, claim inherent authority for the president to conduct physical searches. But, as I pointed out earlier, warrantless physical searches weren't prohibited by FISA.
Do you understand now? Clinton: didn't break law. Bush: did break law. See how one of those isn't like sthe other?
(and if there were too many big words in there, just ask a grownup to help you read it)
In the cases authorized by President Bush, both sender and all recipients are NOT located within the United States - only the recipient. FISA, therefore does not require warrants for this sort of surveillance.
What do you think is more likely: that everyone just missed this until now, and you're a supergenius; or that you've got a touch of the slow? Quick, retired spy, you better tell the president what you discovered!
In this case (as in most, I suspect), you're just a little slow. Nothing wrong with that as long as you recognize it and take action to mitigate its effects. At any rate, 1801(f)(2) forbids wiretapping communications between one person outside and one person inside the U.S.
She did, in fact, claim inherent authority for the president to conduct physical searches. But, as I pointed out earlier, warrantless physical searches weren't prohibited by FISA.
Do you understand now? Clinton: didn't break law. Bush: did break law. See how one of those isn't like sthe other?
(and if there were too many big words in there, just ask a grownup to help you read it)
In the cases authorized by President Bush, both sender and all recipients are NOT located within the United States - only the recipient. FISA, therefore does not require warrants for this sort of surveillance.
What do you think is more likely: that everyone just missed this until now, and you're a supergenius; or that you've got a touch of the slow? Quick, retired spy, you better tell the president what you discovered!
In this case (as in most, I suspect), you're just a little slow. Nothing wrong with that as long as you recognize it and take action to mitigate its effects. At any rate, 1801(f)(2) forbids wiretapping communications between one person outside and one person inside the U.S.
Posted by: jpe at January 22, 2006 01:00 PM (+hqDO)
41
Interesting how quickly discussion degenerates into the personal. " moron... bonehead.. little boy ". The powers that be like nothing more than when they can set us against one another and cast issues in black and white terms. Well, as you must know from your own experience, things are very seldom simply black and white.
I invite all of you to consider a larger issue - what will you do, what will you say when YOUR government decides that YOU are the enemy and begins spying on you? I can hear your response now.. " gee ! what happened ?!?! "
re: facism
centralized authority - I give you the republican party holding both the congress and the white house; two institutions that have been rubber-stamping one another's activities for the last five years.
terror and censorship - I give you domestic spying.
belligerent nationalism and racism - I give you the war in Iraq; nationalistic by definition and racist by implication ( of course we must deliver these inferior people to our righteous way of life) not to mention the obsession with homosexuality by the religious right. Never doubt this group would deliver the homosexual population to concentration camps in a heartbeat were they given the opportunity ( hmmm.. haven't we seen that before?)
JACK
I invite all of you to consider a larger issue - what will you do, what will you say when YOUR government decides that YOU are the enemy and begins spying on you? I can hear your response now.. " gee ! what happened ?!?! "
re: facism
centralized authority - I give you the republican party holding both the congress and the white house; two institutions that have been rubber-stamping one another's activities for the last five years.
terror and censorship - I give you domestic spying.
belligerent nationalism and racism - I give you the war in Iraq; nationalistic by definition and racist by implication ( of course we must deliver these inferior people to our righteous way of life) not to mention the obsession with homosexuality by the religious right. Never doubt this group would deliver the homosexual population to concentration camps in a heartbeat were they given the opportunity ( hmmm.. haven't we seen that before?)
JACK
Posted by: Jack at January 22, 2006 01:33 PM (H+MvB)
42
"Justice Dept. Declares NSA Surveillance Legal"
DUH !! This justice department would declare bush pope if he so wished.
JACK
DUH !! This justice department would declare bush pope if he so wished.
JACK
Posted by: Jack at January 22, 2006 01:36 PM (H+MvB)
43
Read 1801 (f)(2) again, please:
the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
if such acquisition occurs in the United States is just a bit important here. The acquisitions are NOT occurring in the United States - they 'occur' in outer space.
In Jamie Gorelick's defense of President Clinton she was citing the President's authority under the Constitution. Just in case you don't know, the Constitution 'trumps' FISA or any other statute.
Furthermore, More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
if such acquisition occurs in the United States is just a bit important here. The acquisitions are NOT occurring in the United States - they 'occur' in outer space.
In Jamie Gorelick's defense of President Clinton she was citing the President's authority under the Constitution. Just in case you don't know, the Constitution 'trumps' FISA or any other statute.
Furthermore, More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 01:56 PM (BRgB4)
44
Your so-called arguments are pretty empty and pathetically simplistic, Jacko!
1. Members in both houses of the Congress were voted into office in free elections. That is not centralized fascism.
2. I don't know where you studied logic, but terror and censorship do not equate to domestic spying, and the surveillance being done is not domestic - it is targeted against 'international communications.' Big difference, 'learned' one!
3. Your claim to "belligerent nationalism and racism" is just plain ignorant trumpeting of the paranoia from the far Left. The bit about the anti-homosexual campaigns and the concentration camp crap is really over the top.
I don't care who you choose to have relations with, Jack, nor do I give a rat's @$$ whom you may choose to hook up with as a lifetime partner. It makes no difference to me, nor does it make much difference to most Republicans.
1. Members in both houses of the Congress were voted into office in free elections. That is not centralized fascism.
2. I don't know where you studied logic, but terror and censorship do not equate to domestic spying, and the surveillance being done is not domestic - it is targeted against 'international communications.' Big difference, 'learned' one!
3. Your claim to "belligerent nationalism and racism" is just plain ignorant trumpeting of the paranoia from the far Left. The bit about the anti-homosexual campaigns and the concentration camp crap is really over the top.
I don't care who you choose to have relations with, Jack, nor do I give a rat's @$$ whom you may choose to hook up with as a lifetime partner. It makes no difference to me, nor does it make much difference to most Republicans.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 02:13 PM (BRgB4)
45
If you'd read the rest of Gorelick's testimony, and not only those passages selected for you by the current talking points, you'd find that Gorelick noted that FISA was constitutional and a legit restriction of the authority of the president:
"As I stated earlier, we believe that existing directives that regulate the basis for seeking foreign intelligence search authority and the procedures to be followed satisfy all Constitutional requirements."
"As I stated earlier, we believe that existing directives that regulate the basis for seeking foreign intelligence search authority and the procedures to be followed satisfy all Constitutional requirements."
Posted by: jpe at January 22, 2006 02:16 PM (+hqDO)
46
Why, then, jpe, did the FISA Court recently support the President's authority? As I just posted?
"Furthermore, More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.""
That ruling did not specifically say physical searches or surveillance. Are those Court judges wrong and you are right? What are YOUR credentials in Constitutional Law? What is your 'authority?'
You may wish to wait to see what the ruling of the SCOTUS might be - should the investigation go so far as to petition the SCOTUS for a ruling.
"Furthermore, More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.""
That ruling did not specifically say physical searches or surveillance. Are those Court judges wrong and you are right? What are YOUR credentials in Constitutional Law? What is your 'authority?'
You may wish to wait to see what the ruling of the SCOTUS might be - should the investigation go so far as to petition the SCOTUS for a ruling.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 04:06 PM (BRgB4)
47
Why, then, jpe, did the FISA Court recently support the President's authority?
A few things: there's no question the prez has inherent authority to perform wiretaps of agents of a foreign power for purposes of foreign affairs.
That's what the FISC decision you cite tells us. FISA, however, regulates situations when the president wishes to wiretap U.S. citizens. So we're talking apples and oranges.
Further, FISC decision clearly notes that the Truong is pre-FISA law, so it's not really relevant (and certainly not binding) to the current controversy.
All of this to say that the Court has never ruled on the constitutional limits of FISA - who knows, maybe they'll find it unconstitutional and uphold Bush's warrantless searches of Americans, maybe not.
You're right about one thing: we won't know until (or if) these issues start to wind their ways through the court system.
A few things: there's no question the prez has inherent authority to perform wiretaps of agents of a foreign power for purposes of foreign affairs.
That's what the FISC decision you cite tells us. FISA, however, regulates situations when the president wishes to wiretap U.S. citizens. So we're talking apples and oranges.
Further, FISC decision clearly notes that the Truong is pre-FISA law, so it's not really relevant (and certainly not binding) to the current controversy.
All of this to say that the Court has never ruled on the constitutional limits of FISA - who knows, maybe they'll find it unconstitutional and uphold Bush's warrantless searches of Americans, maybe not.
You're right about one thing: we won't know until (or if) these issues start to wind their ways through the court system.
Posted by: jpe at January 22, 2006 06:04 PM (+hqDO)
48
So Jack,
You originally said:
When you consider that the Congress has NOT declared war, all the arguments for the right and authority of the Executive, as Commander In Chief (defined by Article II of the Constitution), to conduct domestic surveillance are spurious at best and ignorant to a ridiculous degree.
In response, I asked you to show me where in Article II is says the President needs congressional approval to use military force. I asked you to do that because you are the one who indicated that "arguments....to conduct domestic surveillance are spurious at best" because Congress had not declared war. I guess after you read the Constitution, probably for the first time, you figured it out and said:
The Constitution, indeed, does not provide for congressional approval of the way in which the Executive carries out the duties of Commander-In-Chief. However, the Bill Of Rights does, among other things, define what activities by the government, including the Executive, are prohibited.
So...first things first, you admit that your argument about Congress declaring war was incorrect. Good. You are learning.
Next you talked about Amendment IV in conjunction with FISA and the restrictions containted within those bodies of law. I will give you some credit for at least attempting to look stuff up, but you didn't go far enough. You said:
So, we see that the powers of the Executive, in it's role as Commander In Chief, are clearly limited both by the Constitution and by law.
What you did not do was to understand the definitions that FISA uses. You quoted (emphasis mine):
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or...
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party
To go further, you should also check out Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1801 of FISA.
This is the key section on definitions. Pay special attention to (a)(4) where the law defines a "foreign power" as a "group engaged in international terrorism". After seeing those key phrases, read section (b) which defines what an "agent of a foreign power" is.
As used in this subchapter:
..(a) “Foreign power” means—
......(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
......(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
......(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
......(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
......(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
......(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.
..(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—
......(1) any person other than a United States person, who—
..........(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
..........(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or
......(2) any person who—
..........(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
..........(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
..........(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
..........(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
..........(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
..(c) “International terrorism” means activities that—
......(1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State;
......(2) appear to be intended—
..........(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
..........(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
..........(C) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and
......(3) occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.
There are two sub-sections to part (b). The first deals with "any person other than a United States person", and clealy deals with non-US Persons. But the second subsection is "any person who". Now read (b)(2)(c)which clearly defines an "agent of a foreign power" as being "any person who - knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation thereof, for or on behalf of a foreign power." So by the FISA law itself, a person who talks with a known terrorist can be classified as an "agent of a foreign power". And also clearly, since this section is clearly distinct and separate from the section dealing with "non-US Persons", this definition includes US citizens.
Now the only question that has to be answered under FISA is if a US Person is protected once they have been identified as an "agent of a foreign power"? That is not as easy to answer seeing as the law seems to contradict itself. But clearly the definitions section shows that US Persons could be considered "agents". If not, why the distinction between (b)(1) and (b)(2)?
All that aside, the President is not even asserting that he made the decision to go with the NSA program based on FISA, but instead on AUMF with his presidential war powers to gather intellingence. In addition, since you admit that the Congress has not constitutional authority to direct the President what he can do with the military, if FISA conflicts with his constitutional authority (which in the case of war it appears to), then the law itself is unconstitutional.
You originally said:
When you consider that the Congress has NOT declared war, all the arguments for the right and authority of the Executive, as Commander In Chief (defined by Article II of the Constitution), to conduct domestic surveillance are spurious at best and ignorant to a ridiculous degree.
In response, I asked you to show me where in Article II is says the President needs congressional approval to use military force. I asked you to do that because you are the one who indicated that "arguments....to conduct domestic surveillance are spurious at best" because Congress had not declared war. I guess after you read the Constitution, probably for the first time, you figured it out and said:
The Constitution, indeed, does not provide for congressional approval of the way in which the Executive carries out the duties of Commander-In-Chief. However, the Bill Of Rights does, among other things, define what activities by the government, including the Executive, are prohibited.
So...first things first, you admit that your argument about Congress declaring war was incorrect. Good. You are learning.
Next you talked about Amendment IV in conjunction with FISA and the restrictions containted within those bodies of law. I will give you some credit for at least attempting to look stuff up, but you didn't go far enough. You said:
So, we see that the powers of the Executive, in it's role as Commander In Chief, are clearly limited both by the Constitution and by law.
What you did not do was to understand the definitions that FISA uses. You quoted (emphasis mine):
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or...
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party
To go further, you should also check out Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1801 of FISA.
This is the key section on definitions. Pay special attention to (a)(4) where the law defines a "foreign power" as a "group engaged in international terrorism". After seeing those key phrases, read section (b) which defines what an "agent of a foreign power" is.
As used in this subchapter:
..(a) “Foreign power” means—
......(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
......(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
......(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
......(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
......(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
......(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.
..(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—
......(1) any person other than a United States person, who—
..........(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
..........(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or
......(2) any person who—
..........(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
..........(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
..........(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
..........(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
..........(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
..(c) “International terrorism” means activities that—
......(1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State;
......(2) appear to be intended—
..........(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
..........(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
..........(C) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and
......(3) occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.
There are two sub-sections to part (b). The first deals with "any person other than a United States person", and clealy deals with non-US Persons. But the second subsection is "any person who". Now read (b)(2)(c)which clearly defines an "agent of a foreign power" as being "any person who - knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation thereof, for or on behalf of a foreign power." So by the FISA law itself, a person who talks with a known terrorist can be classified as an "agent of a foreign power". And also clearly, since this section is clearly distinct and separate from the section dealing with "non-US Persons", this definition includes US citizens.
Now the only question that has to be answered under FISA is if a US Person is protected once they have been identified as an "agent of a foreign power"? That is not as easy to answer seeing as the law seems to contradict itself. But clearly the definitions section shows that US Persons could be considered "agents". If not, why the distinction between (b)(1) and (b)(2)?
All that aside, the President is not even asserting that he made the decision to go with the NSA program based on FISA, but instead on AUMF with his presidential war powers to gather intellingence. In addition, since you admit that the Congress has not constitutional authority to direct the President what he can do with the military, if FISA conflicts with his constitutional authority (which in the case of war it appears to), then the law itself is unconstitutional.
Posted by: Specter at January 22, 2006 06:41 PM (ybfXM)
49
Does the president have full war powers per the AUMF? It would seem that Congress expressly refused to grant him the full range of war powers: the War Powers Act allows the president to conduct military operations in three circumstances: a declaration of war; specific statutory authorization; and emergencies. The language of the AUMF verbatim recites the language of statutory authorization.
So it isn't a declaration of war.
Is the AUMF a functional equivalent? Probably not. The language of Hamdi is very, very careful to limit its application to the battlefield, which is consistent with the narrower grant of military power we see in the AUMF.
The upshot of all this is that Bush is acting in contravention of FISA, and his power is at its lowest ebb (per Youngstown). All of those factors bode poorly for an outcome favorable to the prez.
So it isn't a declaration of war.
Is the AUMF a functional equivalent? Probably not. The language of Hamdi is very, very careful to limit its application to the battlefield, which is consistent with the narrower grant of military power we see in the AUMF.
The upshot of all this is that Bush is acting in contravention of FISA, and his power is at its lowest ebb (per Youngstown). All of those factors bode poorly for an outcome favorable to the prez.
Posted by: jpe at January 22, 2006 09:06 PM (+hqDO)
50
but jpe,
You got youngstown wrong. It was a completely different situation and what you are trying to argue is that a concurring opinion, written by one justice (Jackson) set constitutional precedent. One Justice never sets that. But let's look more closely at this decision:
First off, you might want to read the entire case before you spout off with talking points handed to you by your buddies at Kos Kooky Kidz.
You can read the case here.
Let's talk about what the case was about. In this case President Truman tried to take over the steel mills to avert a nation-wide strike of steel workers in 1952. The government argued that the President had the power based on three of the components of Article II:
The contention is that presidential power should be implied from the aggregate of his powers under the Constitution. Particular reliance is placed on provisions in Article II which say that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President . . ."; that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"; and that he "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.
What the court ended up ruling was that Truman did not have the right to order the takeover of the mills under the "executive Power". In fact most of the discussion and opinion was written on the basis of that, and not on the basis of limiting the President's powers as the Commander in Chief.
Now let's talk about the spin you tried to put on Jackson's opinion. Justice Jackson raised three points about Presidential Power (and this is the part of his opinion that you referred to; emphasis mine):
1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.
2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.
3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.
Now, you will notice that nowhere in this does Jackson talk about the President's powers as Commander in Chief. Instead it talks about an area where the President and Congress both have overlapping areas of responsibility.
Now let's turn to the majority opinion. In essence what the court said was that the attempted siezure of the mills was not an international matter.
The order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Government attempts to do so by citing a number of cases upholding broad powers in military commanders engaged in day-to-day fighting in a theater of war. Such cases need not concern us here. Even though "theater of war" be an expanding concept, we cannot with faithfulness to our constitutional system hold that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate power as such to take possession of private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. This is a job for the Nation's lawmakers, not for its military authorities.
Note what they said. The Commander in Chief cannot take private property. It has nothing to do whatsoever with intelligence gathering, or warrantless serach/siezure. In some ways it almost amounted to a case of Eminent Domain, that was not approved by the Legislature first. (BTW - I will be posting an Eminent Domain discussion on my site tomorrow). In this case the court got the decision right.
Now let's return to Justice Jackson's opinion. What you have failed to realize is that there was more to it than the three points listed above. I would like to point out one other segment:
We should not use this occasion to circumscribe, much less to contract, the lawful role of the President as Commander in Chief. I should indulge the widest latitude of interpretation to sustain his exclusive function to command the instruments of national force, at least when turned against the outside world for the security of our society. But, when it is turned inward, not because of rebellion but because of a lawful economic struggle between industry and labor, it should have no such indulgence.
Now note here that Justice Jackson says that they are not trying to abridge the President's constitutional powers as Commander in Chief. And again, the same opinion that your leaders have convinced you to quote by rote, says specifically that the ruling is about the President not being allowed to use his Executive Power "because of a lawful economic struggle between industry and labor..." Nothing there to be applied to intelligence gathering or warrantless surveillance. The case is pointless as an argument in this issue.
You got youngstown wrong. It was a completely different situation and what you are trying to argue is that a concurring opinion, written by one justice (Jackson) set constitutional precedent. One Justice never sets that. But let's look more closely at this decision:
First off, you might want to read the entire case before you spout off with talking points handed to you by your buddies at Kos Kooky Kidz.
You can read the case here.
Let's talk about what the case was about. In this case President Truman tried to take over the steel mills to avert a nation-wide strike of steel workers in 1952. The government argued that the President had the power based on three of the components of Article II:
The contention is that presidential power should be implied from the aggregate of his powers under the Constitution. Particular reliance is placed on provisions in Article II which say that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President . . ."; that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"; and that he "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.
What the court ended up ruling was that Truman did not have the right to order the takeover of the mills under the "executive Power". In fact most of the discussion and opinion was written on the basis of that, and not on the basis of limiting the President's powers as the Commander in Chief.
Now let's talk about the spin you tried to put on Jackson's opinion. Justice Jackson raised three points about Presidential Power (and this is the part of his opinion that you referred to; emphasis mine):
1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.
2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.
3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.
Now, you will notice that nowhere in this does Jackson talk about the President's powers as Commander in Chief. Instead it talks about an area where the President and Congress both have overlapping areas of responsibility.
Now let's turn to the majority opinion. In essence what the court said was that the attempted siezure of the mills was not an international matter.
The order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Government attempts to do so by citing a number of cases upholding broad powers in military commanders engaged in day-to-day fighting in a theater of war. Such cases need not concern us here. Even though "theater of war" be an expanding concept, we cannot with faithfulness to our constitutional system hold that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate power as such to take possession of private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. This is a job for the Nation's lawmakers, not for its military authorities.
Note what they said. The Commander in Chief cannot take private property. It has nothing to do whatsoever with intelligence gathering, or warrantless serach/siezure. In some ways it almost amounted to a case of Eminent Domain, that was not approved by the Legislature first. (BTW - I will be posting an Eminent Domain discussion on my site tomorrow). In this case the court got the decision right.
Now let's return to Justice Jackson's opinion. What you have failed to realize is that there was more to it than the three points listed above. I would like to point out one other segment:
We should not use this occasion to circumscribe, much less to contract, the lawful role of the President as Commander in Chief. I should indulge the widest latitude of interpretation to sustain his exclusive function to command the instruments of national force, at least when turned against the outside world for the security of our society. But, when it is turned inward, not because of rebellion but because of a lawful economic struggle between industry and labor, it should have no such indulgence.
Now note here that Justice Jackson says that they are not trying to abridge the President's constitutional powers as Commander in Chief. And again, the same opinion that your leaders have convinced you to quote by rote, says specifically that the ruling is about the President not being allowed to use his Executive Power "because of a lawful economic struggle between industry and labor..." Nothing there to be applied to intelligence gathering or warrantless surveillance. The case is pointless as an argument in this issue.
Posted by: Specter at January 22, 2006 10:14 PM (ybfXM)
51
Specter:
Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown is widely acknowledged as the opinion that sets up the relevant framework. That's why all the legal documents (the DoJ's memo; the memo prepared by the Congressional Research Service) as well as all of the legal experts proceed under Jackson's concurrence.
At any rate, the question is going to be in which level in the tripartite scheme* Bush was operating. The DoJ says it's at maximum power, since the AUMF was a declaration of war. Everyone else on the planet says he was at his lowest ebb, since: the AUMF wasn't a declaration of war and Congress specifically considered dropping the warrant requirement after 9/11 and decided not to.
* We're in overlapping territory: American citizens that aren't agents of foreign powers were spied on. So your point about commander-in-chief powers is moot.
Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown is widely acknowledged as the opinion that sets up the relevant framework. That's why all the legal documents (the DoJ's memo; the memo prepared by the Congressional Research Service) as well as all of the legal experts proceed under Jackson's concurrence.
At any rate, the question is going to be in which level in the tripartite scheme* Bush was operating. The DoJ says it's at maximum power, since the AUMF was a declaration of war. Everyone else on the planet says he was at his lowest ebb, since: the AUMF wasn't a declaration of war and Congress specifically considered dropping the warrant requirement after 9/11 and decided not to.
* We're in overlapping territory: American citizens that aren't agents of foreign powers were spied on. So your point about commander-in-chief powers is moot.
Posted by: jpe at January 23, 2006 08:17 AM (+hqDO)
52
And jpe, which citizens are those? What proof is there that any citizen that was not "aofp" was spied upon?
Posted by: Specter at January 23, 2006 09:26 AM (ybfXM)
53
Since it's all been hush-hush (perhaps Bush has something to hide? Why else would he refuse to get an easily obtainable warrant?), we don't know who he's spied on.
Given that he's mounted a vigorous defense of spying on non-aofg citizens, though, I think it's safe to assume he did just that. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Given that he's mounted a vigorous defense of spying on non-aofg citizens, though, I think it's safe to assume he did just that. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Posted by: jpe at January 23, 2006 10:33 AM (9zOI4)
54
Name one...you made the claim...not me. Name just one. C'mon. You can't make claims and then not support them. Or you just a left-leaning weanie that can't support what you say?
Posted by: Specter at January 23, 2006 11:26 AM (ybfXM)
55
Where is your proof that warrants are easily obtainable? How much paperwork has to be filled out to obtain that warrant? Does it take longer than 723 hours? Just like all weanies, you make claims with not backup. None.
Posted by: Specter at January 23, 2006 11:28 AM (ybfXM)
56
Ooops...72 hours.
Posted by: Specter at January 23, 2006 11:28 AM (ybfXM)
57
And jpe,
Did you ever wonder why the WPA of 1973 hasn't been brought to the Supreme Court yet. I mean it was passed in 1973 and clearly abrogates the President's authority to conduct war. I'd quote the controversial sections to you - and the articles from over the years about why the Congress does not want it to go to the Court, but you would absolutely ignore it and say...but it's what everyone is talking about.
Youngstown is a case that has no revelance. The only reason Youngstown was even brought up (first by the Demoncrats) is because they could not find anything else that remotely supported their position in case law. Like all the cases that have been decided for the President's powers. Even in Youngstown the Justices talked about not trying to circumscribe the powers of the Commander in Chief. If that is the best they got, too bad - it won't fly.
If the Congress has the balls to try to get it to the Court, you won't find Youngstown being a strong argument. It is weak. It is not even close to the same situation. You know as well as I do that nobody is going to bring that to the Court. Just like WPA of 1973.
And why? This is really simple. It is a political decision rather than one of law.
I refer you to the latest poll done on 1/10 and 1/11. You can link to see the specifics of the breakdowns by question. I did not quote the entire poll.
Just for starters, let's review the makeup of the participants because I know that you will try to refer to the AP/IPSOS poll which was wildly unblanced between political parties (and StonedOne, you said you knew of no polls about this stuff - well here it is):
When you think about politics, do you think of yourself as a Democrat or a Republican?
1. Democrat 38%
2. Republican 33
3. (Independent) 22
4. (Other) 4
5. (Refused/Don’t know) 2
Here we see a somewhat unbalanced poll - but it is slightly in favor of the Democrats. Let's get to the pertinent questions (as always emphasis mine):
Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?
Approve....42%
Disapprove....49
Don’t know....9
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Democrats in Congress are doing?
Approve....39%
Disapprove....41
Not sure....20
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Republicans in Congress are doing?
Approve....37%
Disapprove....49
Not sure....14
What is your gut instinct about how things will go for the country in 2006? Do you feel like it is going to be a great year, a good year, an okay year or a bad year?
Great....7%
Good....31
Okay....39
Bad....18
Not sure....5
Which party do you trust to do a better job protecting the country from terrorism, Democrats or Republicans?
Trust Democrats....30%
Trust Republicans....43
Both Democrats Republicans the same....11
Neither....9
Not sure....7
In general, do you think most elected officials in Washington make policy decisions or take actions as a direct result of money they receive from major campaign contributors?
Yes....65%
No....21
Not sure....14
(If heard about Abramoff: n=509, ±4%) Do you think elected officials who received contributions from Jack Abramoff or the organizations he represented should return the money, donate it to charity, or do you think it is okay to keep the money?
Return it....29%
Donate it....56
Keep it....7
Depends....3
Not sure....5
Do you think the absence of a terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11 is more likely because U.S. security measures are working or no attacks were planned?
Measures Working....46%
No attacks Planned....22%
Both....20
Not Sure....12
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act which, in part, gives federal officials wider authority to use wiretaps and other surveillance techniques. Some people say the Patriot Act is a necessary and effective tool in preventing terrorist attacks, while others say the act goes too far and could violate the civil liberties of average Americans. Which comes closer to your view -- overall, would you say the Patriot Act is a good thing for America or a bad thing for America?
Good....53%
Bad....30
Mixed....13
Not sure....4
Do you think the Patriot Act has helped prevent terrorist attacks in the United States or not?
Yes....59%
No....29
Not sure....12
When you hear of government officials anonymously leaking top secret national security information to the press, are you more inclined to think of the officials as patriots who are blowing the whistle because they think something illegal might be going on, or traitors who are leaking government secrets and possibly causing harm to the country?
Whistle-blowers....27%
Traitors....50
Not sure....23
Do you think the president should or should not have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?
Should....58%
Should not....36
Not sure....6
In an effort to identify terrorist activity, do you think the president should or should not have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to do computer searches of large numbers of international phone calls coming in and out of the United States without getting warrants?
Should....60%
Should not....34
Not sure....7
Would you personally mind having the National Security Agency monitor an international telephone call of yours?
Yes....33%
No....60
Not sure....3
Don’t call overseas....3
So what do we see from all this. As I said above, this is going to turn on political considerations rather than legal ones. Aftter all we are talking about politicians and there is a midterm election coming up.
The President's approval rating is going up, and is higher than either party in Congress. In fact people have a very dim view of all Congresspeople. They do not trust them. 65% of Americans feel that elected officials hand out favors for political donations (both parties of course - the scoundrels). And 85% of Americans feel that all elected officials that took money from Abramoff or any of his organizations, should either give the money back or donate it. That does not bode well for politicians that say, "I'm keeping it". At this point it does not even matter if it was tainted - the fact is that people believe it was.
70% of Americans feel that 2006 will be a good/ok year for them - which is based on the underlying assumption about jobs, the economy, protection from terrorists, etc.
43% of Americans trust Republicans to protect them from terrorism. That bodes well for them since only 30% trust Democrats.
46% believe that there have been no further terrorist attacks because the measures implemented after 911 are working. 53% believe that the Patriot Act was good for America and 59% believe that it has helped to prevent terrorism. Powerful numbers here. I don't think I'd want to be running for reelection with the campaign platform (courtesy of Harry Reid), "We defeated the Patriot Act."
50% of Americans believe, contrary to what the MSM has told them, that officials that leak secrets are traitors as opposed to whistle-blowers. I sure wouldn't want my name attached there - especially with reelections coming up.
Now the really juicy stuff. 58% of Americans believe the President should have the power to authorize NSA to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists, even if one end of the communication is within the US, without a warrant. And top that with 60% saying that the President should have the power to let NSA do computer searches of large numbers of international phone calls without getting a warrant. In fact, most of those surveyed, 60%, said they would not mind having their international calls monitored.
The more the democrats attack these issues, the more the country turns against them. In the long run, this stuff will never be seen by the Court. Instead, once the poll numbers are understood, we'll see huge efforts by those who are now speaking the "inappropriate views" (i.e. against what the majority of Americans want), to extract the rather large feet they have inserted in their mouths.
Did you ever wonder why the WPA of 1973 hasn't been brought to the Supreme Court yet. I mean it was passed in 1973 and clearly abrogates the President's authority to conduct war. I'd quote the controversial sections to you - and the articles from over the years about why the Congress does not want it to go to the Court, but you would absolutely ignore it and say...but it's what everyone is talking about.
Youngstown is a case that has no revelance. The only reason Youngstown was even brought up (first by the Demoncrats) is because they could not find anything else that remotely supported their position in case law. Like all the cases that have been decided for the President's powers. Even in Youngstown the Justices talked about not trying to circumscribe the powers of the Commander in Chief. If that is the best they got, too bad - it won't fly.
If the Congress has the balls to try to get it to the Court, you won't find Youngstown being a strong argument. It is weak. It is not even close to the same situation. You know as well as I do that nobody is going to bring that to the Court. Just like WPA of 1973.
And why? This is really simple. It is a political decision rather than one of law.
I refer you to the latest poll done on 1/10 and 1/11. You can link to see the specifics of the breakdowns by question. I did not quote the entire poll.
Just for starters, let's review the makeup of the participants because I know that you will try to refer to the AP/IPSOS poll which was wildly unblanced between political parties (and StonedOne, you said you knew of no polls about this stuff - well here it is):
When you think about politics, do you think of yourself as a Democrat or a Republican?
1. Democrat 38%
2. Republican 33
3. (Independent) 22
4. (Other) 4
5. (Refused/Don’t know) 2
Here we see a somewhat unbalanced poll - but it is slightly in favor of the Democrats. Let's get to the pertinent questions (as always emphasis mine):
Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?
Approve....42%
Disapprove....49
Don’t know....9
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Democrats in Congress are doing?
Approve....39%
Disapprove....41
Not sure....20
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Republicans in Congress are doing?
Approve....37%
Disapprove....49
Not sure....14
What is your gut instinct about how things will go for the country in 2006? Do you feel like it is going to be a great year, a good year, an okay year or a bad year?
Great....7%
Good....31
Okay....39
Bad....18
Not sure....5
Which party do you trust to do a better job protecting the country from terrorism, Democrats or Republicans?
Trust Democrats....30%
Trust Republicans....43
Both Democrats Republicans the same....11
Neither....9
Not sure....7
In general, do you think most elected officials in Washington make policy decisions or take actions as a direct result of money they receive from major campaign contributors?
Yes....65%
No....21
Not sure....14
(If heard about Abramoff: n=509, ±4%) Do you think elected officials who received contributions from Jack Abramoff or the organizations he represented should return the money, donate it to charity, or do you think it is okay to keep the money?
Return it....29%
Donate it....56
Keep it....7
Depends....3
Not sure....5
Do you think the absence of a terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11 is more likely because U.S. security measures are working or no attacks were planned?
Measures Working....46%
No attacks Planned....22%
Both....20
Not Sure....12
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act which, in part, gives federal officials wider authority to use wiretaps and other surveillance techniques. Some people say the Patriot Act is a necessary and effective tool in preventing terrorist attacks, while others say the act goes too far and could violate the civil liberties of average Americans. Which comes closer to your view -- overall, would you say the Patriot Act is a good thing for America or a bad thing for America?
Good....53%
Bad....30
Mixed....13
Not sure....4
Do you think the Patriot Act has helped prevent terrorist attacks in the United States or not?
Yes....59%
No....29
Not sure....12
When you hear of government officials anonymously leaking top secret national security information to the press, are you more inclined to think of the officials as patriots who are blowing the whistle because they think something illegal might be going on, or traitors who are leaking government secrets and possibly causing harm to the country?
Whistle-blowers....27%
Traitors....50
Not sure....23
Do you think the president should or should not have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?
Should....58%
Should not....36
Not sure....6
In an effort to identify terrorist activity, do you think the president should or should not have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to do computer searches of large numbers of international phone calls coming in and out of the United States without getting warrants?
Should....60%
Should not....34
Not sure....7
Would you personally mind having the National Security Agency monitor an international telephone call of yours?
Yes....33%
No....60
Not sure....3
Don’t call overseas....3
So what do we see from all this. As I said above, this is going to turn on political considerations rather than legal ones. Aftter all we are talking about politicians and there is a midterm election coming up.
The President's approval rating is going up, and is higher than either party in Congress. In fact people have a very dim view of all Congresspeople. They do not trust them. 65% of Americans feel that elected officials hand out favors for political donations (both parties of course - the scoundrels). And 85% of Americans feel that all elected officials that took money from Abramoff or any of his organizations, should either give the money back or donate it. That does not bode well for politicians that say, "I'm keeping it". At this point it does not even matter if it was tainted - the fact is that people believe it was.
70% of Americans feel that 2006 will be a good/ok year for them - which is based on the underlying assumption about jobs, the economy, protection from terrorists, etc.
43% of Americans trust Republicans to protect them from terrorism. That bodes well for them since only 30% trust Democrats.
46% believe that there have been no further terrorist attacks because the measures implemented after 911 are working. 53% believe that the Patriot Act was good for America and 59% believe that it has helped to prevent terrorism. Powerful numbers here. I don't think I'd want to be running for reelection with the campaign platform (courtesy of Harry Reid), "We defeated the Patriot Act."
50% of Americans believe, contrary to what the MSM has told them, that officials that leak secrets are traitors as opposed to whistle-blowers. I sure wouldn't want my name attached there - especially with reelections coming up.
Now the really juicy stuff. 58% of Americans believe the President should have the power to authorize NSA to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists, even if one end of the communication is within the US, without a warrant. And top that with 60% saying that the President should have the power to let NSA do computer searches of large numbers of international phone calls without getting a warrant. In fact, most of those surveyed, 60%, said they would not mind having their international calls monitored.
The more the democrats attack these issues, the more the country turns against them. In the long run, this stuff will never be seen by the Court. Instead, once the poll numbers are understood, we'll see huge efforts by those who are now speaking the "inappropriate views" (i.e. against what the majority of Americans want), to extract the rather large feet they have inserted in their mouths.
Posted by: Specter at January 23, 2006 11:46 AM (ybfXM)
58
Specter, both sides (read the memos) as well as every lawyer (see here, here, and here, for starter) knows that Youngstown sets the framework. Go look up Youngstown in Findlaw: you'll find Jackson's concurrence is the opinion to use when the executive and the congress clash.
This is conlaw 101.
I guess it's possible that every lawyer in the nation is wrong about Youngstown, but it's far more likely that you're just a little slow.
At any rate, since the most substantive thing you say in all of those thousands of babble you posted is "you're a weanie," it's fair to assume I've done my job and brought some light to you dipshits.
Remember: learning is your friend.
Oh, and try learning some conlaw before spouting off and sounding like an angry 14 year-old. Which, come to think of it, everyone on this blog may be. That would explain quite a bit, actually.
This is conlaw 101.
I guess it's possible that every lawyer in the nation is wrong about Youngstown, but it's far more likely that you're just a little slow.
At any rate, since the most substantive thing you say in all of those thousands of babble you posted is "you're a weanie," it's fair to assume I've done my job and brought some light to you dipshits.
Remember: learning is your friend.
Oh, and try learning some conlaw before spouting off and sounding like an angry 14 year-old. Which, come to think of it, everyone on this blog may be. That would explain quite a bit, actually.
Posted by: jpe at January 23, 2006 07:12 PM (+hqDO)
59
Are you having some problems posting URL's with basic HTML codes, jpe? I really would like to read those references on Constitutional Law - since you seem to think you are some sort of expert.
Posted by: Moshe at January 23, 2006 08:33 PM (BRgB4)
60
jpe,
I am sitting here laughing at you. You just said:
jpe opening his mouth and speaking nonsense said:
Go look up Youngstown in Findlaw
Obviously you did not follow the links to the case that I posted jpe. Interestingly enough it was to FINDLAW.
You spout about learning. Have you read the entire case? I have. Are you a lawyer? Are you a constitutional expert? Please state your qualifications for saying the "every" lawyer...You can't. You know it. Tough.
It is obvious you have seen, and maybe even read, the three paragraphs from the beginning of Justice Jackson's opinion. Did you know that there were almost 40 paragraphs in his opinion? I will not quote all of them. While many of them talk about the use of "unlimited" presidential power, and how that should not be allowed, Justice Jackson keeps coming back to "We do not know today what powers over labor or property would be claimed to flow from Government possession if we should legalize it, what rights to compensation would be claimed or recognized, or on what contingency it would end." In other words, the question was about the use of the power in relation to siezure.
I posted specifics from Jackson's opinion. Why don't you tell why my interpretation of the specifics were wrong? How I misinterpreted the section where Jackson, in the opinion where you believe the foundation for all the law about the entire issue, says:
We should not use this occasion to circumscribe, much less to contract, the lawful role of the President as Commander in Chief. I should indulge the widest latitude of interpretation to sustain his exclusive function to command the instruments of national force, at least when turned against the outside world for the security of our society. But, when it is turned inward, not because of rebellion but because of a lawful economic struggle between industry and labor, it should have no such indulgence. His command power is not such an absolute as might be implied from that office in a militaristic system but is subject to limitations consistent with a constitutional Republic whose law and policy-making branch [343 U.S. 579, 646] is a representative Congress. The purpose of lodging dual titles in one man was to insure that the civilian would control the military, not to enable the military to subordinate the presidential office. No penance would ever expiate the sin against free government of holding that a President can escape control of executive powers by law through assuming his military role. What the power of command may include I do not try to envision, but I think it is not a military prerogative, without support of law, to seize persons or property because they are important or even essential for the military and naval establishment.
I even included more from that section for your "expert" opinion. But again, the specifics of the case are about siezure of private property to support a war effort. Not about protection of the homeland through surveillance.
I think there are two things here that are important. One, this, like the War Powers Act, is never going to go to court. Two, I will state again that a Concurring Opinion, written by a single Justice, does not necessarily set Supreme Court precedence. It was not the Majority Opinion.
BTW - your links did not work for me. Don't know why.
As far as legal challenges go, I think the approach that the surveillance could be against First Amendment rights to free speech have more likelihood of at least getting to court. Provided someone can prove, not just state, that the government somehow interfered with "free speech". While it has a better chance, it is a reach at best.
I am sitting here laughing at you. You just said:
jpe opening his mouth and speaking nonsense said:
Go look up Youngstown in Findlaw
Obviously you did not follow the links to the case that I posted jpe. Interestingly enough it was to FINDLAW.
You spout about learning. Have you read the entire case? I have. Are you a lawyer? Are you a constitutional expert? Please state your qualifications for saying the "every" lawyer...You can't. You know it. Tough.
It is obvious you have seen, and maybe even read, the three paragraphs from the beginning of Justice Jackson's opinion. Did you know that there were almost 40 paragraphs in his opinion? I will not quote all of them. While many of them talk about the use of "unlimited" presidential power, and how that should not be allowed, Justice Jackson keeps coming back to "We do not know today what powers over labor or property would be claimed to flow from Government possession if we should legalize it, what rights to compensation would be claimed or recognized, or on what contingency it would end." In other words, the question was about the use of the power in relation to siezure.
I posted specifics from Jackson's opinion. Why don't you tell why my interpretation of the specifics were wrong? How I misinterpreted the section where Jackson, in the opinion where you believe the foundation for all the law about the entire issue, says:
We should not use this occasion to circumscribe, much less to contract, the lawful role of the President as Commander in Chief. I should indulge the widest latitude of interpretation to sustain his exclusive function to command the instruments of national force, at least when turned against the outside world for the security of our society. But, when it is turned inward, not because of rebellion but because of a lawful economic struggle between industry and labor, it should have no such indulgence. His command power is not such an absolute as might be implied from that office in a militaristic system but is subject to limitations consistent with a constitutional Republic whose law and policy-making branch [343 U.S. 579, 646] is a representative Congress. The purpose of lodging dual titles in one man was to insure that the civilian would control the military, not to enable the military to subordinate the presidential office. No penance would ever expiate the sin against free government of holding that a President can escape control of executive powers by law through assuming his military role. What the power of command may include I do not try to envision, but I think it is not a military prerogative, without support of law, to seize persons or property because they are important or even essential for the military and naval establishment.
I even included more from that section for your "expert" opinion. But again, the specifics of the case are about siezure of private property to support a war effort. Not about protection of the homeland through surveillance.
I think there are two things here that are important. One, this, like the War Powers Act, is never going to go to court. Two, I will state again that a Concurring Opinion, written by a single Justice, does not necessarily set Supreme Court precedence. It was not the Majority Opinion.
BTW - your links did not work for me. Don't know why.
As far as legal challenges go, I think the approach that the surveillance could be against First Amendment rights to free speech have more likelihood of at least getting to court. Provided someone can prove, not just state, that the government somehow interfered with "free speech". While it has a better chance, it is a reach at best.
Posted by: Specter at January 23, 2006 09:16 PM (ybfXM)
61
well...forgot a at the end of the quote. Sorry.
Posted by: Specter at January 23, 2006 09:19 PM (ybfXM)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 23, 2006 09:22 PM (0fZB6)
63
Thanks CY. You know you keep trying and it's like beating your head against the wall. I love open debate, but really dislike, "I'm right because I'm superior to you and I know what I say is correct because I know I am...." - trolls....
Thanks for the great work on the site.
If you're interested I just did a piece on the Eminent Domain issues at my site.
Thanks for the great work on the site.
If you're interested I just did a piece on the Eminent Domain issues at my site.
Posted by: Specter at January 23, 2006 09:52 PM (ybfXM)
64
Shucks, CY ... I was hoping that jpe would remain here long enough for folks - Specter in particular - to trounce this troll into oblivion.
You're no fun, Cy! :-) :-)
You're no fun, Cy! :-) :-)
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 24, 2006 12:03 PM (BRgB4)
65
PS: It IS interesting to note, here, that Artie and Fat Bastard kept out of the discussions when it pertained to in depth legal discussions of the WPA of 1973 and loonie Judge Jackson's opinions that never really did establish legal precedent. After all, the Youngstown case was not, in any way, related to Executive powers and prerogatives as the pertain to surveillance and collection of Intelligence information on foreign terrorist communications.
What say you, Artie and Fat Bastard?
What say you, Artie and Fat Bastard?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 24, 2006 12:13 PM (BRgB4)
66
ohhh....but RS...Artie isn't a lawyer and can't read or think for himself....
But I will admit that he made me look twice at Al Gore and his help in furthering internet research by either sponsoring or co-sponsoring key legislation. Still doesn't explain why the statement, "I took the initiative in creating the internet" makes any sense....
But I will admit that he made me look twice at Al Gore and his help in furthering internet research by either sponsoring or co-sponsoring key legislation. Still doesn't explain why the statement, "I took the initiative in creating the internet" makes any sense....
Posted by: Specter at January 24, 2006 01:53 PM (ybfXM)
"New" Osama Tape is Nothing New
A "new," poor-quality audiotape attributed to Osama bin Laden claims in part, according to CNN:
Unless I have missed something, we have not seen explosions in "many European countries," with the last successful large scale terrorist attacks occurring on July 7, 2005 in London. The last well-publicized attempted attacks occurred exactly two weeks later on July 21, 2005, when three botched subway station bombs and one bus bomb led to no casualties and the capture of all four suspected bombers. There have been no successful attacks since then, making the alleged bin Laden threat sound like a pre-recorded sound bite—perhaps the kind of vague, generic sound bite a dying leader might leave to rally the troops after his death. While this is perhaps a tape meant to inspire al Qaeda's foot soldiers (or perhaps serves to function as an attack order), the boasting of attacks that either never took place or are far out of date would seem to lend soft credence to the theory that al Qaeda's one-time leader is, as Mercutio said in Romeo & Juliet, "a grave man."
"We have seen explosions in many European countries. As for similar operations taking place in America, it's only a question of time. They are under way, and you will hear about them soon."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:13 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
For the past 2 years, I've thought he was dead. And if he's not actually dead, he's as good as dead. Who exactly is supposed to be following his orders?
Posted by: meep at January 19, 2006 09:09 PM (GqHvA)
2
U meep
Posted by: der at January 23, 2006 03:37 AM (mcFOK)
Uno - Dos -Tres
Their bodies were among those believed to have been taken away Taliban/al Qaeda sympathizers after the strike. I'd rather have them on a slab with a meat thermometer in them to be certain, but I suspect that the reason thy can confirm their deaths is that they left behind a significant amount of DNA, even if their bodies were not recovered. Congressman John Murtha, when reached for comment*, declared us defeated and said he was concerned that, "the withdrawal of the Predator drones, the smoking hole on the ground, and the number of dead al Qaeda fighters made it look like victory"... Yeah, it kinda does. The NY Times has more details. *No, not really.
A Pakistani security official on Thursday said at least three top Al Qaeda operatives were believed killed in a U.S. missile strike last week, including an explosives expert on the U.S. most-wanted list and a close relative of the terror network's No. 2 leader Ayman al-Zawahri... he U.S. Justice Department names Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, as an explosives expert and poisons trainer who operated a terrorist training camp at Derunta, near the eastern city of Jalalabad in Afghanistan... The official named two other foreigners as suspected killed in the missile strike: Abu Ubaida, whom he said was the main operations chief for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan's eastern Kunar province, which lies opposite Pakistan's Bajur tribal region where Damadola is located; and Abdul Rehman al-Misri, an Egyptian and close relative of al-Zawahri, possibly his son-in-law.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:17 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
But he would've if'n he could've!
Posted by: benning at January 19, 2006 10:41 AM (PGmbh)
2
Good apparently some bad guys were killed. That's a good thing.
Thanks for the gratuitous slap at Congressman Murtha. Really classes up the 'discussion'.
Biting satire.
Not.
Thanks for the gratuitous slap at Congressman Murtha. Really classes up the 'discussion'.
Biting satire.
Not.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 19, 2006 11:44 AM (hGNke)
3
Arthur, can I let you in on a little secret? I don't much care what you think.
Murtha is a proven defeatist, and I'm sorry if I appropriated both some of his words and his tone to highlight that point.
I hear this Internet has other sites on it. If you don't like what I have to say, or how I say it, you can always troll elsewhere.
Murtha is a proven defeatist, and I'm sorry if I appropriated both some of his words and his tone to highlight that point.
I hear this Internet has other sites on it. If you don't like what I have to say, or how I say it, you can always troll elsewhere.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 19, 2006 11:58 AM (g5Nba)
4
Does anyone care what Artie thinks? No one here that I can see - except for a couple trolls here and there ....
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 19, 2006 01:42 PM (FsLF4)
5
CY-
Talk about thin skin. Only those who agree with everything your write are allowed to post here? Murtha is a realist. A decorated veteran and (despite this recent Swift Boating) an expert on the military respected by both sides of the aisle.
You really are a Republican. Sort of like our president 'mixing with the people'. Always a hand picked cross section of the true believers.
Actually many folks here care what I think.
Explains why they are so eager to cricitize me when I don't buy into your views.
And some even agree there may be a reasonable alternative to the cant you too often slip into.
Cheers.
Talk about thin skin. Only those who agree with everything your write are allowed to post here? Murtha is a realist. A decorated veteran and (despite this recent Swift Boating) an expert on the military respected by both sides of the aisle.
You really are a Republican. Sort of like our president 'mixing with the people'. Always a hand picked cross section of the true believers.
Actually many folks here care what I think.
Explains why they are so eager to cricitize me when I don't buy into your views.
And some even agree there may be a reasonable alternative to the cant you too often slip into.
Cheers.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 19, 2006 01:58 PM (3StSI)
6
A.S. take Fat Bastard with you. It is beyond imagination why those two spew their pathetic, whinning, leftist "lets all hold hands"... "Oh just give them a big hug". DROOL. AND YES MURTHAS is a whinning defeatist thats why the left loves him. I have been out of town and I was told by a good friend of mine that F.B. keeps referring to me as a biggot and racist. Well fellas, I just say what I feel. I hold absolutly no animosity towards any person of color. So color is not an issue when I post my remarks. Even though F.B. trys to make it that way. I have a video clip from CSPAN of a former Army Seargent who had served in Afghanistan making a comment to his home state elected officials (one of them I think is Murtha)about "How none of his home state elected officials came to welcome them home". I was wondering how to attach the clip.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at January 19, 2006 02:13 PM (JSetw)
7
AS, you might find the below article interesting. (It's about Murtha.)
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brentbozell/2006/01/18/182751.html
Today, in this day and age, would you consider General Benedict Arnold a military expert worthy of a valued opinion on military matters? He once fought courageously for the colonies during the little spat with England about taxes and such. To most of us, he went on to totally dishonor his courageous service by betraying those he once served. Because of that betrayal, people no lnoger honored his service; go figure...
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brentbozell/2006/01/18/182751.html
Today, in this day and age, would you consider General Benedict Arnold a military expert worthy of a valued opinion on military matters? He once fought courageously for the colonies during the little spat with England about taxes and such. To most of us, he went on to totally dishonor his courageous service by betraying those he once served. Because of that betrayal, people no lnoger honored his service; go figure...
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 19, 2006 02:25 PM (nswDg)
8
Already read it Old One.
That's why I describe the attacks on Murtha as 'Swift Boating'.
Inaccurate. Invented.
Most Americans don't find Murtha's comments at all a betrayal.
Rather they point out some difficult and painful truths this administration is jumping through endless hoops to ignore. Lousy reasons for invading Iraq. Lack of coherent strategy for the occupation. Lack of resources to rebuild. And on and on.
Sorry. Murtha is not a traitor or a coward. He is a political liability to the president. Not quite the same thing.
That's why I describe the attacks on Murtha as 'Swift Boating'.
Inaccurate. Invented.
Most Americans don't find Murtha's comments at all a betrayal.
Rather they point out some difficult and painful truths this administration is jumping through endless hoops to ignore. Lousy reasons for invading Iraq. Lack of coherent strategy for the occupation. Lack of resources to rebuild. And on and on.
Sorry. Murtha is not a traitor or a coward. He is a political liability to the president. Not quite the same thing.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 19, 2006 02:36 PM (DEot0)
9
"He is a political liability..."
You've got that part correct. However, his liability lies with his own party, not the president. Haven't you noticed, the population is not biting on the "withdraw over the horizon" strategy from the left? Yes, we want our troops home, but we want victory, not merely "withdrawal".
You've got that part correct. However, his liability lies with his own party, not the president. Haven't you noticed, the population is not biting on the "withdraw over the horizon" strategy from the left? Yes, we want our troops home, but we want victory, not merely "withdrawal".
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 19, 2006 02:50 PM (X2tAw)
10
Entirely possible the administration will declare victory sometime late this summer or early fall, bring the boys home and leave it to the Iraqis to deal with the mess.
Perfect timing for the 2006 elections.
That's the most likely 'victory' scenario.
Perfect timing for the 2006 elections.
That's the most likely 'victory' scenario.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 19, 2006 02:57 PM (3StSI)
11
And what is your definition of victory in Iraq, Artie? Cut and run ... er, uh ...redeploy with Murtha and Pelosi and the rest of the defeatists in the Party?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 19, 2006 07:42 PM (FsLF4)
12
Well... the gratuitous slap at Jack Murtha was a little silly.
Now you may call the man a "defeatist" (where did I hear that term before... oh yes, something the chekists called any Soviet soldier not sufficiently aggressive. But I digress.
Thing is, this attempt to swift-boat Jack Murtha is really, really a bad idea.
Jack Murtha is a Marine. Not only is he a Marine, but he's a former DI. He is a mustang, which is an officer who came up through the enlisted ranks.
Thing is, he's held in pretty high esteem by his fellow Marines. And Marines... well, they're crazy.
I wouldn't want any Marines pissed off at me.
The swiftboating of Jack Murtha will be considered an attack on Their Beloved Corps.
And Marines don't take that very well.
(If a Marine unit gets ambushed, Marine doctrine is to either left face or right face and assault directly into the teeth of the ambush. They're all either crazy or posessed of the Biggest Effin' Balls in the Known Universe. Either way, they're some BAD mofos.)
Nope, I wouldn't want a bunch of Marines mad at me.
Now you may call the man a "defeatist" (where did I hear that term before... oh yes, something the chekists called any Soviet soldier not sufficiently aggressive. But I digress.
Thing is, this attempt to swift-boat Jack Murtha is really, really a bad idea.
Jack Murtha is a Marine. Not only is he a Marine, but he's a former DI. He is a mustang, which is an officer who came up through the enlisted ranks.
Thing is, he's held in pretty high esteem by his fellow Marines. And Marines... well, they're crazy.
I wouldn't want any Marines pissed off at me.
The swiftboating of Jack Murtha will be considered an attack on Their Beloved Corps.
And Marines don't take that very well.
(If a Marine unit gets ambushed, Marine doctrine is to either left face or right face and assault directly into the teeth of the ambush. They're all either crazy or posessed of the Biggest Effin' Balls in the Known Universe. Either way, they're some BAD mofos.)
Nope, I wouldn't want a bunch of Marines mad at me.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 20, 2006 03:30 PM (n2Agn)
13
Oh, and Spy-- regarding "victory in Iraq," most of us who opposed this war are asking the same thing of the Administration.
Democracy? Hugo Chavez was democratically elected twice, but he's hated by the American right (one of whom wants him killed-- but you guys already know how batshit crazy Reverend Robertson is).
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was democratically elected President of Iran; but the American right hates him too. (Hmmm... since he was democratically elected, his is the legitimate voice of the people, so I guess y'all hate Iran kind of in general. Cool.)
So, if "democratic elections" in Iraq present us with President Muqtada Al-Sadr, will that be considered "victory?"
Democracy? Hugo Chavez was democratically elected twice, but he's hated by the American right (one of whom wants him killed-- but you guys already know how batshit crazy Reverend Robertson is).
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was democratically elected President of Iran; but the American right hates him too. (Hmmm... since he was democratically elected, his is the legitimate voice of the people, so I guess y'all hate Iran kind of in general. Cool.)
So, if "democratic elections" in Iraq present us with President Muqtada Al-Sadr, will that be considered "victory?"
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 20, 2006 03:40 PM (n2Agn)
14
Thing is, he's held in pretty high esteem by his fellow Marines.
And how recently have you spoken with any Marines?
I've since heard him referred to as an "ex-Marine" by one Marine I personally know. Another won't talk about him, and gritted his teeth the last time he spit out his name.
I get the general feeling that Marines now (from General Pace on down) regard him with the a slightly higher degree of respect than they would afford another brave, battle-tested officer from an earlier war by the name of Benedict Arnold.
Murtha was a good Marine in his day, but he has since put politics above proud history of a Corps that does not run. He will not be foregiven easily.
Thing is, he's held in pretty high esteem by his fellow Marines.
And how recently have you spoken with any Marines?
I've since heard him referred to as an "ex-Marine" by one Marine I personally know. Another won't talk about him, and gritted his teeth the last time he spit out his name.
I get the general feeling that Marines now (from General Pace on down) regard him with the a slightly higher degree of respect than they would afford another brave, battle-tested officer from an earlier war by the name of Benedict Arnold.
Murtha was a good Marine in his day, but he has since put politics above proud history of a Corps that does not run. He will not be foregiven easily.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 20, 2006 04:23 PM (g5Nba)
15
A person is NOT democratically elected if there are no opposing candidates for office, FB. By your formula even Saddam was 'democratically' elected.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? He is just a stooge of the Mullahs. It was the Mullahs who put him in his current position, and they can take that away just as quickly.
Hugo Chavez was not and is not a popular candidate. He was the only person running, and he received only 45% from the general public. That is a total of just 45% of the entire population qualified to vote.
You call that democracy?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? He is just a stooge of the Mullahs. It was the Mullahs who put him in his current position, and they can take that away just as quickly.
Hugo Chavez was not and is not a popular candidate. He was the only person running, and he received only 45% from the general public. That is a total of just 45% of the entire population qualified to vote.
You call that democracy?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 06:24 PM (OP00Y)
16
George W. Bush received 30.4% of the vote as a percentage of the entire population eligible to vote.
He received 42% of the vote as a percentage of registered voters.
He received 48% of the of the voters who actually cast ballots.
Numbers are funny things.
He received 42% of the vote as a percentage of registered voters.
He received 48% of the of the voters who actually cast ballots.
Numbers are funny things.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 07:18 PM (DEot0)
17
Curiously enough, CY, I have a couple of friends that are Marines; and I can tell you-- they don't like it.
In fact, I was talking to one today about this very situation. The man shook his head sadly and said, "I tell you, I regret voting for George Bush."
Mind, my friend is only a retired Master Sergeant. I'm sure that doesn't make him Marine enough to make your cut.
U Spy-- Actually, according to other sources, Mr. Chavez won by 56%, and is considerably more popular than you would want to admit. (I originally incorporated a link, but it was rejected by CY's software.) So, you'll forgive me, I'm sure, for being somewhat less respectful of your assertion.
As regards the way the Iranian's version of democracy is designed-- the United States don't get a vote on it.
The Brits got a Queen and a parliament; we got the (frankly brilliant) tri-partite design; they got mullahs with major power.
Regardless, so long as free and fair elections are held, democracy exists.
The Iranian people went to the polls and Ahmadinejad won.
Which brings us to our potentially presidential "radical Shiite." Does your vision of victory in Iraq allow for President Muqtada Al-Sadr?
In fact, I was talking to one today about this very situation. The man shook his head sadly and said, "I tell you, I regret voting for George Bush."
Mind, my friend is only a retired Master Sergeant. I'm sure that doesn't make him Marine enough to make your cut.
U Spy-- Actually, according to other sources, Mr. Chavez won by 56%, and is considerably more popular than you would want to admit. (I originally incorporated a link, but it was rejected by CY's software.) So, you'll forgive me, I'm sure, for being somewhat less respectful of your assertion.
As regards the way the Iranian's version of democracy is designed-- the United States don't get a vote on it.
The Brits got a Queen and a parliament; we got the (frankly brilliant) tri-partite design; they got mullahs with major power.
Regardless, so long as free and fair elections are held, democracy exists.
The Iranian people went to the polls and Ahmadinejad won.
Which brings us to our potentially presidential "radical Shiite." Does your vision of victory in Iraq allow for President Muqtada Al-Sadr?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 20, 2006 08:47 PM (pEWm6)
18
And you are so blind as to not see the difference? George W. Bush had opponents for his election to the office. That is democracy. Saddam, Chavez and Ahmadinejad did not have opponents. That is NOT democracy.
Do you really believe that people are so ignorant as to buy the numbers tripe and other nonsense from you and FB?
Do you really believe that people are so ignorant as to buy the numbers tripe and other nonsense from you and FB?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 08:51 PM (OP00Y)
19
Are you so deluded that you deny the facts on the ground?
You insist that there was no democratic process because you don't like the result.
Such astonishing hubris.
You insist that there was no democratic process because you don't like the result.
Such astonishing hubris.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 20, 2006 10:38 PM (pEWm6)
20
Curiously enough, CY, I have a couple of friends that are Marines; and I can tell you-- they don't like it.
In fact, I was talking to one today about this very situation. The man shook his head sadly and said, "I tell you, I regret voting for George Bush."
FB, I have no doubt that your friends might not like President Bush, and might perhaps think Murtha the greatest thing since sliced bread. But you remind me of the case where the crestfallen liberal Pauline Kael's famous comment, "How could Nixon have won, I don't know anyone who voted for him."
Considering the circles you run in, I'm not surprised you've found the counterpoint to the majority.
Curiously enough, CY, I have a couple of friends that are Marines; and I can tell you-- they don't like it.
In fact, I was talking to one today about this very situation. The man shook his head sadly and said, "I tell you, I regret voting for George Bush."
FB, I have no doubt that your friends might not like President Bush, and might perhaps think Murtha the greatest thing since sliced bread. But you remind me of the case where the crestfallen liberal Pauline Kael's famous comment, "How could Nixon have won, I don't know anyone who voted for him."
Considering the circles you run in, I'm not surprised you've found the counterpoint to the majority.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 20, 2006 11:16 PM (2lbsG)
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 21, 2006 12:16 AM (pEWm6)
22
51% to 48%, 286 to 252, 62 million to 59 million... whatever. It was not in doubt.
Now, what was the vote disparity in the military?
Now, what was the vote disparity in the military?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 21, 2006 08:29 AM (2lbsG)
23
Didn't I say the retired Sergeant Major regretted his vote for the Dear Leader?
Yep, Mr. Bush had a bare majority among most Americans; he had a bigger majority among active-duty military folk.
That was two years ago.
And even then, it weren't no "mandate," regardless of how you fine folks try to spin it.
Yep, Mr. Bush had a bare majority among most Americans; he had a bigger majority among active-duty military folk.
That was two years ago.
And even then, it weren't no "mandate," regardless of how you fine folks try to spin it.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 21, 2006 11:51 AM (pEWm6)
24
Just in case you have some problems, Fat Bastard, in understanding how elections work in this country ... a so-called mandate is not required for becoming President.
Reagan over Carter? No THAT was a mandate.
You seem to have some trouble measuring time too ... The election of 2004 was NOT two years ago - it was less than 15 months ago. Big F^&%$*g difference. Furthermore, the unbelievably high reenlistment numbers would tend to suggest that not much has changed in military support for their CIC.
Back to your rabbit hole, FB.
Reagan over Carter? No THAT was a mandate.
You seem to have some trouble measuring time too ... The election of 2004 was NOT two years ago - it was less than 15 months ago. Big F^&%$*g difference. Furthermore, the unbelievably high reenlistment numbers would tend to suggest that not much has changed in military support for their CIC.
Back to your rabbit hole, FB.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 01:39 PM (BRgB4)
25
Spy? Finish that logic class yet?
I agree Mr. Bush won 2004 (oh, and fine, it was less than 15 months ago. Really, you pick the silliest things about which to become pedantic.) Since that puts him at the Right Hand of God... well, anyway, my point was never that the man didn't win. My point was that it was not the huge ringing victory that some would want to paint it.
It was a near run thing; a few thousand votes in Ohio would have pushed it the other way. Only a fool think that such a slim majority would give him a "mandate." Yet that's the way your folks have been governing; with the amen chorus of Faux News and the right-wing blogosphere denouncing that slim minority as "traitors" and "enemies of America."
Oh, and it's a rathole, despite Mrs. B's best efforts.
Ah, you poor, humorless fellow. Is the international terrorist threat so frightening that you just have to lash out so?
I agree Mr. Bush won 2004 (oh, and fine, it was less than 15 months ago. Really, you pick the silliest things about which to become pedantic.) Since that puts him at the Right Hand of God... well, anyway, my point was never that the man didn't win. My point was that it was not the huge ringing victory that some would want to paint it.
It was a near run thing; a few thousand votes in Ohio would have pushed it the other way. Only a fool think that such a slim majority would give him a "mandate." Yet that's the way your folks have been governing; with the amen chorus of Faux News and the right-wing blogosphere denouncing that slim minority as "traitors" and "enemies of America."
Oh, and it's a rathole, despite Mrs. B's best efforts.
Ah, you poor, humorless fellow. Is the international terrorist threat so frightening that you just have to lash out so?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 21, 2006 07:20 PM (pEWm6)
26
No one wrote here or anywhere else that the results of the 2004 election presented a 'mandate.' You just use the fact that it was not a mandate to belittle the wishes of the majority of American citizens and the choices made by this President.
You may pontificate all you wish about your half-vast knowledge when it comes to logic and the appeal to authority or popularity, but a democracy still depends upon popularity as reflected in polls and at the ballot box. The established Law of the land is the legal authority.
"Yet that's the way your folks have been governing; with the amen chorus of Faux News and the right-wing blogosphere denouncing that slim minority as "traitors" and "enemies of America.""
Our folks have governed in accordance with their responsibilities. You do not appear to support the presidency of George W. Bush just because you chose not to vote for him. Get over it, lazy one. He will be in office for another three years.
Maybe you should move to Canada or somewhere if you are so disgusted with the way the American public voted this man into office. No one is forcing you to stay here.
Being critical is fine; having no solutions or new courses of action make you a gadfly like Artie.
You may pontificate all you wish about your half-vast knowledge when it comes to logic and the appeal to authority or popularity, but a democracy still depends upon popularity as reflected in polls and at the ballot box. The established Law of the land is the legal authority.
"Yet that's the way your folks have been governing; with the amen chorus of Faux News and the right-wing blogosphere denouncing that slim minority as "traitors" and "enemies of America.""
Our folks have governed in accordance with their responsibilities. You do not appear to support the presidency of George W. Bush just because you chose not to vote for him. Get over it, lazy one. He will be in office for another three years.
Maybe you should move to Canada or somewhere if you are so disgusted with the way the American public voted this man into office. No one is forcing you to stay here.
Being critical is fine; having no solutions or new courses of action make you a gadfly like Artie.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 08:28 PM (BRgB4)
27
CY wrote:
Now, what was the vote disparity in the military?
What has that got to do with anything?
Now, what was the vote disparity in the military?
What has that got to do with anything?
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 22, 2006 10:35 AM (hGNke)
28
I can't argue with you there, Spy. He (most likely) will be in the Oval Office for three more years.
Is there room in your mindset for a loyal opposition? Or is everyone who disagrees with this Administration's policies an "enemy of America?"
(And yes, I know, you didn't use that phrase; but it's a handy one that encapsulates the contempt that you and others like you feel for anyone who disagrees with the Dear Leader.)
Is there room in your mindset for a loyal opposition? Or is everyone who disagrees with this Administration's policies an "enemy of America?"
(And yes, I know, you didn't use that phrase; but it's a handy one that encapsulates the contempt that you and others like you feel for anyone who disagrees with the Dear Leader.)
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 12:03 PM (pEWm6)
29
By the way-- if you didn't write it, it doesn't describe the way your beloved Leader governs?
Ah, such hubris!
Ah, such hubris!
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 12:07 PM (pEWm6)
30
By the way-- since Evo Morales has been sworn in as the new President of Bolivia, will you also claim that he was not democratically elected? And
that were no other candidates in the election?
that were no other candidates in the election?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 04:33 PM (pEWm6)
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 05:37 PM (BRgB4)
January 18, 2006
Against the ACLU: What You Can Do
Her contact page is here. And yes, I did.
You've no doubt heard that, today, the ACLU--and assorted other enemies of America--filed a lawsuit against the government for NSA "spying" (interesting that there was no such lawsuit when Bill Clinton was doing the same thing--Remember "Echelon" and "Carnivore"?). Since the lawsuit was filed in U.S. Federal Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, where I practice, I've already been contacted by concerned U.S. citizens who wish to intervene in the case as interested parties (whose interests and welfare are affected by this case) in support of the government's activities. And we may do so. You may feel free to contact me regarding this if you are interested in adding your name.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:11 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
After 9/11, the rant from the left was "Why didn't they connect the dots?" You can't connect dots unless you can find them! Simple as that.
Posted by: Tom TB at January 19, 2006 07:23 AM (wZLWV)
2
But, you can't find the dots if you aren't allowed to look. We seem to have a sizable population of folks determined to see this nation humbled by the most venal barbarians in history.
Posted by: benning at January 19, 2006 10:43 AM (PGmbh)
3
As a venal barbarian I can only say to our intelligence community 'get a warrant & obey the law'.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 19, 2006 11:11 AM (hGNke)
4
Oh Artie?
Having a little problem with reading, are you? I can recommend a Sylvan Learning Center in your area if you need help.
If you had bothered to examine Benning's sentence structure more carefully you would know that the reference to venal barbarians was to the al Qaeda terrorists - not to those on your side who are making all the noise.
Like grandpa always said, "empty wagons make the most noise."
Of course, if you want to include yourself with those barbarians who are al Qaeda, we can deal with that separately.
As for your favorite 'get a warrant & obey the law' phrase, it is obvious that you have yet to read FISA in its entirety.
Your credibility remains at ZERO!!!!
Having a little problem with reading, are you? I can recommend a Sylvan Learning Center in your area if you need help.
If you had bothered to examine Benning's sentence structure more carefully you would know that the reference to venal barbarians was to the al Qaeda terrorists - not to those on your side who are making all the noise.
Like grandpa always said, "empty wagons make the most noise."
Of course, if you want to include yourself with those barbarians who are al Qaeda, we can deal with that separately.
As for your favorite 'get a warrant & obey the law' phrase, it is obvious that you have yet to read FISA in its entirety.
Your credibility remains at ZERO!!!!
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 19, 2006 01:39 PM (FsLF4)
5
The FISA/eavesdropping thing isn't the slam dunk you want it to be for the administration. Like many promenient conservatives (Paul Weyrich, Grover Norquist) who I disagree with on almost everything I'm all for a hearing or two to clear this up once and for all.
And thanks for the tip about Sylvan.
Planning to sign up are you?
And thanks for the tip about Sylvan.
Planning to sign up are you?
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 19, 2006 01:52 PM (3StSI)
6
I don't have the reading comprehension problem, Artie. You do! Didn't address that, did you, Artie?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 08:52 AM (FsLF4)
7
I was merely adopting the label this crowd at CY feels comfortable with describing those of us a little to the left.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 09:49 AM (hGNke)
8
"... ACLU--and assorted other enemies of America...?
Enemies of America.
Rhetorical engines overheating?
Enemies of America.
Rhetorical engines overheating?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 21, 2006 12:32 AM (pEWm6)
9
Better than running on empty, like you, Fat Bastard.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 01:41 PM (BRgB4)
10
Spy, you have a brilliant, razor-sharp wit.
Why don't you bring it along sometime?
Oh, and by the way-- finish that logic class yet?
Why don't you bring it along sometime?
Oh, and by the way-- finish that logic class yet?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 21, 2006 07:23 PM (pEWm6)
11
Hmmmm. I guess you are not running totally on empty. You still have all sorts of hot air to keep the balloon aloft - and changing political winds from the Left to propel you into oblivion with the rest of your pathetic ilk.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 08:07 AM (BRgB4)
12
It appears that Fat Bastard is just another one-trick pony. He dwells on unimportant things like educational achievement and logic lessons for others in an effort to cover up his own inadequacies.
Sorry, Fat Bastard. Your inadequacies are, like you, too large to cover up.
Sorry, Fat Bastard. Your inadequacies are, like you, too large to cover up.
Posted by: Moshe at January 22, 2006 10:33 AM (BRgB4)
13
Hey, Moshe-- I'm not the one who brought up Spy's PhD!
Be brought that to the party, and I reserve the right to cudgel him with it.
Be brought that to the party, and I reserve the right to cudgel him with it.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 11:59 AM (pEWm6)
14
Oh, and thank you, Spy, for avoiding the "enemies of America" bit.
I just want to be sure of how you folks view people with whom you disagree.
Thanks, folks, and keep those cards and letters coming in!
I just want to be sure of how you folks view people with whom you disagree.
Thanks, folks, and keep those cards and letters coming in!
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 12:10 PM (pEWm6)
15
I did not avoid anything, FB.
Just in case you were not paying attention, I am not the one who commented on "... ACLU--and assorted other enemies of America..." thing you quoted.
Check your facts and attributions a bit more carefully, please.
Just in case you were not paying attention, I am not the one who commented on "... ACLU--and assorted other enemies of America..." thing you quoted.
Check your facts and attributions a bit more carefully, please.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 12:54 PM (BRgB4)
16
???
Wow. There it is. My comment regarding Enemies of America and the overheat of rhetorical engines.
Your immediate reply that it was "better than running on empty."
But now you say you never commented on it?
Welllll.... okay, have it your way. You never commented on it.
Wow. There it is. My comment regarding Enemies of America and the overheat of rhetorical engines.
Your immediate reply that it was "better than running on empty."
But now you say you never commented on it?
Welllll.... okay, have it your way. You never commented on it.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 04:22 PM (pEWm6)
17
I was just referring to YOUR engines running on empty. That pertains to almost everything you have written here, FB.
You were the one who posted something about the rhetorical engines overheating. Your engines are running non-stop, but ya can't go too far when the transmission is in neutral, FB.
As I noted, too, it appears that you're running in large part on hot air.
Hot air and a transmission in neutral gear?
No wonder you can only convince Artie and the KOS Kiddies of your wisdom. The rest of us know better.
You were the one who posted something about the rhetorical engines overheating. Your engines are running non-stop, but ya can't go too far when the transmission is in neutral, FB.
As I noted, too, it appears that you're running in large part on hot air.
Hot air and a transmission in neutral gear?
No wonder you can only convince Artie and the KOS Kiddies of your wisdom. The rest of us know better.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 05:46 PM (BRgB4)
Colin Powell: Iran Hawk
Powell does not, however, call for military action... yet. Increasingly though, the question seems to be more a question of "when" western allies might push for more severe measures, not "if." A nuclear weapon developed by an apocolptic Islamic cult in Tehran (one so crazy Ayatollah Khomeini wouldn't touch them) is not something that the free world can easily allow, but it will come at a price. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Coalition nations relatively little compared to what we could face with a military response to Tehran's insistance on developing nuclear weapons. In Iraq, we completed the military invasion and more than two years of occupation so far for less military casualties than we expected in the battle for Baghdad alone. In Iran, we would face what most agree is a more competent military than what we faced in Iraq, and we would most likely be forced to engage them in full-spectrum warfare, not just an air war. While air assets and special forces might launch attacks to shut down known Iranian nuclear sites, our conventional forces based in Iraq would have to prepare to repel possible Iranian overland counterattacks. In addition, western naval and Marine forces would be forced to seize control of the Persian Gulf, and the Guld of Oman, particulary the Iranian-controlled islands in the Strait of Hormuz. It perhaps then, no accident that the nation's newest and largest aircraft carrier, CVN 76 Ronald Reagan has deployed to the western Pacific, where it could reposition to the Persian Gulf region relatively quickly. We also know that the 122nd Fighter Wing of the Indiana ANG is deploying up to 72 F-16s to "southwest Asia" in their largest deployment since the Berlin Crisis in 1961. I hope Iran will back down, becuase I do not desire another middle eastern conflict if it can be avoided. But allowing a genocidal end times cult to possess nuclear weapons is not something the world can allow, even if that cult runs a country.
COLIN Powell yesterday warned that Iran was heading down the same path as Iraq had done before the 2003 invasion and could not be trusted to tell the truth about its nuclear programme. The former United States secretary of state said he believed Iran posed a serious threat to the rest of the world in the same way that Iraq had done, and he refused to apologise for the action the US took against Saddam Hussein's regime. However Mr Powell, who was in Glasgow to address a Jewish group, admitted that the military campaign against Iraq was based on "bad intelligence" and that it was now clear that Saddam had not managed to amass any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. In an interview with The Scotsman, Mr Powell said it was clear that negotiations with Iran had come to a dead end and efforts now had to concentrate on preventing it taking the same path as Iraq had done.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:14 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If Iran can't have a nuclear program, why should israel be allowed to? Hmmmm....it becomes ever more clear who runs this country!!!
Posted by: john axelrod at January 18, 2006 05:37 PM (CeNVT)
2
Hmmmm....it becomes ever more clear who runs this country!!!
Yes. Those of us who don't want apocolyptic, terrorism-supprting madmen armed with long-range nuclear weapons.
Presumably, that would be most sane people, john.
Hmmmm....it becomes ever more clear who runs this country!!!
Yes. Those of us who don't want apocolyptic, terrorism-supprting madmen armed with long-range nuclear weapons.
Presumably, that would be most sane people, john.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 05:47 PM (0fZB6)
3
As others have pointed out before me: its not the capacity, its the intent that is the problem.
I wouldn't be worried if it was Switzerland that was developing the bomb.
Tob
I wouldn't be worried if it was Switzerland that was developing the bomb.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at January 18, 2006 06:14 PM (ATbKm)
4
As they say, "Smoke'm if you got'em"
Time to get tough, before this goes any further.
And to answer the stupid comment by Axelrod--
Because, extremist Jews have never flown jets into buildings for their cause or called for the extermination of an entire race of people. Nukes in Israel are a safe bet--but not in IRAN. Think before you comment.
Time to get tough, before this goes any further.
And to answer the stupid comment by Axelrod--
Because, extremist Jews have never flown jets into buildings for their cause or called for the extermination of an entire race of people. Nukes in Israel are a safe bet--but not in IRAN. Think before you comment.
Posted by: WB at January 18, 2006 06:42 PM (2YmIH)
5
Nuclear proliferation is not a new issue. We've been dealing with it since the nuclear bomb was invented. It's not like Soviet Russia was all hearts and flowers, either. They committed horrors far worse than 9/11. The possibility of nuclear terrorism is also hardly new, and has been the subject of innumerable discussion (not to mention James Bond films).
What seems to be different now is that more people seem to feel that arms development is justification for pre-emptive assault upon the country. In the past, it was pretty much a given that this was stupid, because it was destabilizing and generated more violence than it solved. Pakistan is another Islamic state which is hardly more enlightened than Iran, yet we failed to bomb them, and I'm pretty sure we would have objected if India decided to bomb and invade Pakistan for its program in prior decades.
The principle that has worked, in my opinion, is to speak softly and carry a big stick. We do not start fights, but we end them. This policy inherently means that we are vulnerable, since others will attack us first before we attack them. That's life. We will have incidents like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. But in the end, a clear deterrent is safer because it reduces violence. WWII was incredibly horrible, but the result was that fascism was destroyed. Essentially no one in either Germany or Japan questioned our moral rightness, and they learned their lesson.
In contrast, look at Iran which can look on either side at Iraq and North Korea. Which one would they rather be like? North Korea has nuclear weapons, and we treat it with respect. Iraq doesn't, and we invaded it based on our suspicions. The lesson they learn is that even if they don't have nuclear weapons, we can suspect that they do and invade them. The only way to be safe is to actually have nuclear weapons.
The deterrent strategy is to tell the government of Iran -- "We will never invade you or attack you, regardless of your programs, so long as you don't attack us. But if you attack us or aid in attacks against us, we will eradicate you."
What seems to be different now is that more people seem to feel that arms development is justification for pre-emptive assault upon the country. In the past, it was pretty much a given that this was stupid, because it was destabilizing and generated more violence than it solved. Pakistan is another Islamic state which is hardly more enlightened than Iran, yet we failed to bomb them, and I'm pretty sure we would have objected if India decided to bomb and invade Pakistan for its program in prior decades.
The principle that has worked, in my opinion, is to speak softly and carry a big stick. We do not start fights, but we end them. This policy inherently means that we are vulnerable, since others will attack us first before we attack them. That's life. We will have incidents like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. But in the end, a clear deterrent is safer because it reduces violence. WWII was incredibly horrible, but the result was that fascism was destroyed. Essentially no one in either Germany or Japan questioned our moral rightness, and they learned their lesson.
In contrast, look at Iran which can look on either side at Iraq and North Korea. Which one would they rather be like? North Korea has nuclear weapons, and we treat it with respect. Iraq doesn't, and we invaded it based on our suspicions. The lesson they learn is that even if they don't have nuclear weapons, we can suspect that they do and invade them. The only way to be safe is to actually have nuclear weapons.
The deterrent strategy is to tell the government of Iran -- "We will never invade you or attack you, regardless of your programs, so long as you don't attack us. But if you attack us or aid in attacks against us, we will eradicate you."
Posted by: jhkim at January 18, 2006 09:09 PM (l3ixn)
6
The fear is not that Iran would attack us, but that they would produce countless small nuclear devices and turn them over to the terrorists whom they support. These would then be smuggled into many major cities in all the western nations for detonation. Once we learned these had been produced by Iran and were ready to retaliate, the price would have been far too great and we could well lose dozens or even hundreds of our cities with countless tens of thousands of casualties. In that sort of scenerio the free world cannot afford to wait to make the second strike.
Posted by: Fish at January 18, 2006 11:53 PM (KpjA/)
7
The terrorist suitcase bomb scenario is an interesting one in many ways. Using this method requires giving up so much command and control over the weapon that, to all intents and purposes, there is none. A weapon could be used, stolen, sold. You could have a falling out with the agent entrusted with the bomb. It might even wind up returning to Teheran under other colors. A person with a suitcase nuke could take it to Switzerland and ask the Swiss for money. Why not?
The second problem with suitcase nukes is there is nothing in principle which would stop Israel from doing the same. In fact, there is nothing to stop a private group from developing its own weapon and emplacing it in Teheran -- or Mecca. If a nuke went off in Islamabad without attribution, who done it: Israel or India?
The second problem with suitcase nukes is there is nothing in principle which would stop Israel from doing the same. In fact, there is nothing to stop a private group from developing its own weapon and emplacing it in Teheran -- or Mecca. If a nuke went off in Islamabad without attribution, who done it: Israel or India?
Posted by: wretchard at January 19, 2006 03:37 AM (OMhf5)
8
jhkim, I, too, like the moral high ground of preferring to attack only after having been attacked; but only if you are counted among the innocent citizens who has to die before we are allowed to “retaliate”. Were we not “attacked” on 9-11? USS Cole? Beirut? TWA Flight 840? WTC in 93? Riyadh? Khobar Towers? Kenya & Tanzania? just to name a very few.
If Iran makes a nuclear device that is smuggled into NYC and detonated (very high probability), killing, say 500,000, would you be willing to launch a nuclear “retaliation” strike to decimate Tehran? Their loss has to far exceed ours to make it “retaliation.” So in all, say 6 to 12 million people have to die in the terrorist attack on NYC and our “retaliation” on Tehran. Doesn’t it seem more effective to just “preemptively” take out Iran’s nuclear program now?
Why does Iran have to be denied nuclear munitions? A different analogy… In your neighborhood, say your neighbor is a gun and explosive fanatic and has shot and killed some of your other neighbors in the past. He has openly professed to hate you just because of who you are. Are you going to wait until the neighbor shoots and kills one of your children who walk out your front door to catch the school bus? or are you going to ask the police to intervene? In this analogy the “police” are not going to help. Now the neighbor has shot and killed two of your children and his threats are getting louder and more radical. What are you going to do? Are you going to allow this radical to take out more of your family and friends or are you going to act? Well, what should America do? Should we wait for the inevitable slaughter of our innocent citizens or should we disarm our antagonists and prevent the needless deaths?
If Iran makes a nuclear device that is smuggled into NYC and detonated (very high probability), killing, say 500,000, would you be willing to launch a nuclear “retaliation” strike to decimate Tehran? Their loss has to far exceed ours to make it “retaliation.” So in all, say 6 to 12 million people have to die in the terrorist attack on NYC and our “retaliation” on Tehran. Doesn’t it seem more effective to just “preemptively” take out Iran’s nuclear program now?
Why does Iran have to be denied nuclear munitions? A different analogy… In your neighborhood, say your neighbor is a gun and explosive fanatic and has shot and killed some of your other neighbors in the past. He has openly professed to hate you just because of who you are. Are you going to wait until the neighbor shoots and kills one of your children who walk out your front door to catch the school bus? or are you going to ask the police to intervene? In this analogy the “police” are not going to help. Now the neighbor has shot and killed two of your children and his threats are getting louder and more radical. What are you going to do? Are you going to allow this radical to take out more of your family and friends or are you going to act? Well, what should America do? Should we wait for the inevitable slaughter of our innocent citizens or should we disarm our antagonists and prevent the needless deaths?
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 19, 2006 08:31 AM (X2tAw)
9
Why do we let Isreal have the Bomb but not Iran? Because Isreal is an ally and Iran is an enemy. There is good thing in not wanting an enemy to have the weapon to kill you. We have a score to settle with Iran, let finish them off before they have the Bomb.
Posted by: ANH at January 19, 2006 10:03 AM (ohEm6)
10
Interesting.
Seems as if we took on the wrong member of the axis of evil. The one without nuclear weapons. The one without the ability to deliver wmds pronto. The one not the gravest threat to its neighbors. The one who would greet us liberators.
Now I hope we have enough left in the tank to deal with the folks who really are a threat.
Clearly the Iranians wouldn't be making so much noise if they didn't think they could get away with their behavior. A stretched thin US military doesn't seem to be striking fear into their hearts.
Hope we are a little smarter this time around.
Seems as if we took on the wrong member of the axis of evil. The one without nuclear weapons. The one without the ability to deliver wmds pronto. The one not the gravest threat to its neighbors. The one who would greet us liberators.
Now I hope we have enough left in the tank to deal with the folks who really are a threat.
Clearly the Iranians wouldn't be making so much noise if they didn't think they could get away with their behavior. A stretched thin US military doesn't seem to be striking fear into their hearts.
Hope we are a little smarter this time around.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 19, 2006 04:36 PM (3StSI)
11
Well, Artie Gadfly, maybe you should provide everyone here with your sage advice on how the United States should deal with Iran.
You won't, of course. All you can do is launch critiques you have read elsewhere.
I doubt that you have had an original, creative thought in your life.
Ya can't light a fire in the furnace without fuel. Hell, you don't even have the matches ....
You won't, of course. All you can do is launch critiques you have read elsewhere.
I doubt that you have had an original, creative thought in your life.
Ya can't light a fire in the furnace without fuel. Hell, you don't even have the matches ....
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 08:58 AM (FsLF4)
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 09:55 AM (hGNke)
13
Once again, Artie, you dodge the comments by launching some empty platitudes of your own - probably dug up at some leftie BLOG somewhere.
I asked you what your solution is to the threats posed by Iran. You did not answer. Are you outsourcing the functionality of your brain, awaiting some more leftie talking points?
Not much fire in that furnace ....
I asked you what your solution is to the threats posed by Iran. You did not answer. Are you outsourcing the functionality of your brain, awaiting some more leftie talking points?
Not much fire in that furnace ....
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 12:51 PM (OP00Y)
14
Well we should continue to apply what pressure we can diplomatically with our allies in Europe. Persuade the Russians and the Chinese as well it's in their better interest that Iran not arm.
And be ready to remove the nuclear option by force if necessary. Air and missile strikes presumably if the Iranians don't want to play nice.
And be ready to remove the nuclear option by force if necessary. Air and missile strikes presumably if the Iranians don't want to play nice.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 02:51 PM (DEot0)
15
ArthurStone said,
Seems as if we took on the wrong member of the axis of evil. The one without nuclear weapons.
That is a naive and simplistic view. Saddam was extremely dangerous, with half a million men under arms. Had we attacked Iran (which, although it should have been, was not constrained by UN resolutions) we would almost certainly have had to deal with Saddam as well.
The above goes nowhere near exhausting the differences but should be enough to start a rethink in ArthurStone-world.
As for jhkim, who wonders why Pakistan was 'allowed' to develop nuclear weapons, he should remember that India and Pakistan got their nukes during the Cold War, in the 70s and 80s, with Soviet and Chinese assistance. Things were dangerous and complicated in very different ways then. Again, I have only hinted at the context in which to view this question and will leave it to those with more interest in the discussion (and more time) to take it any further.
(interesting blog here; I came via a link from Wretchard)
Seems as if we took on the wrong member of the axis of evil. The one without nuclear weapons.
That is a naive and simplistic view. Saddam was extremely dangerous, with half a million men under arms. Had we attacked Iran (which, although it should have been, was not constrained by UN resolutions) we would almost certainly have had to deal with Saddam as well.
The above goes nowhere near exhausting the differences but should be enough to start a rethink in ArthurStone-world.
As for jhkim, who wonders why Pakistan was 'allowed' to develop nuclear weapons, he should remember that India and Pakistan got their nukes during the Cold War, in the 70s and 80s, with Soviet and Chinese assistance. Things were dangerous and complicated in very different ways then. Again, I have only hinted at the context in which to view this question and will leave it to those with more interest in the discussion (and more time) to take it any further.
(interesting blog here; I came via a link from Wretchard)
Posted by: Juan Golblado at January 22, 2006 09:09 AM (koT34)
16
Saddam's regime was an empty husk. No WMDs. Poorly armed troops with low morale. After 1991 not really a threat at all.
And to clear up my 'statement we took on the wrong member...'. That shouldn't suggest we invade ANY nation at the point we acted.
You'll have to do a lot better than that to start a 'rethink' of the Iraq 'liberation' Carlos.
And to clear up my 'statement we took on the wrong member...'. That shouldn't suggest we invade ANY nation at the point we acted.
You'll have to do a lot better than that to start a 'rethink' of the Iraq 'liberation' Carlos.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 22, 2006 10:43 AM (hGNke)
Terrorists and Smugglers
Some weak-hearted souls left of the political center have taken issue with this post, in which I stated that the civilians killed in the CIA Predator Hellfire missile strike on a compound in Damadola Pakistan were hardly innocents.
New information about the strike confirms that the compound destroyed in the attack had been used as a meeting place on more than one occasion by "significant terrorist figures" in the past and that "there were strong indications that was happening again." Leftists, simply appalled that several children died, are unlikely to point out the fact that this stronghold belonged to a smuggler of gems and precious stones, not a "jeweler" as some news outlets have reported. Nor are they like to mention that the area was under the control of the militant Mamond tribe and a Taliban stronghold from which al-Zawahiri had married one of his wives. Pakistani officials confirm that Egyptian aides of terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri were killed, with conflicting reports of 4-12 terrorist bodies (Ed Morrisey presumes them to be the high value al-Qaeda members) being removed by unnamed people after the strike. In addition, four bodies that could not be readily recovered in the wake of the strike (presumably trapped under the structure) have been identified as terrorists. Smugglers, terrorist supporters, and high-ranking terrorists died. I'm sorry about the kids, but I'd call the strike again all the same. Their deaths are regretable, but war often is. Update: Make that terrorists, smugglers, and an al Qaeda chemical weapons expert/master bomb builder. (h/t Jim Lynch at Bright & Early)Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:52 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I have to wonder if the Surrender Monkeys would care if this had happened while Kerry was pres. I would be the answer would be no.
I would also bet that the only reason the SMs care is because Bush is President.
I would also bet that the only reason the SMs care is because Bush is President.
Posted by: William Teach at January 18, 2006 02:57 PM (cuTsc)
2
One of the problems with the enemy we face here is that the ability to exploit any weakness, real or perceived, combined with a lack of squeamishness regarding "collateral damage" creates a situation where children and innocents will be deliberately put in harm's way in order to frustrate our efforts to take out terrorist targets. While I do not condone the deaths of the innocent, at some point the liberals might want to recognize that the terrorists are intentionally placing innocents within the zone of danger in order to further their illegal purposes.
Posted by: The Random Yak at January 18, 2006 03:16 PM (fMoqI)
3
The SMs will argue that that is exactly the reason that we shouldn't be in Iraq, creating more terrorists, or, BCT's. Why we should understand the militant mind, and pull out of Israel.
Posted by: William Teach at January 18, 2006 03:44 PM (cuTsc)
4
Looks like we a nailed a biggie there, the "master bomb maker" was killed according to ABC. It's on Drudge now, so I think this undercuts all the lefty pissing and moaning about dinner time with Al Qaeda. Maybe they shouldn't have invited the world's worst terrorists into the house where the women and children were hanging about.
Posted by: Stormy70 at January 18, 2006 04:13 PM (rnJqo)
Be Careful what you Wish For...
Al Gore, former Vice President and Patient Zero of Bush Derangement Syndrome, responded to charges of hypocrisy by White House Press secretary Scott McClellan via left wing Raw Story:
When does refuting a hysterical, error-prone and contradictory speech by a law school dropout (even a famous one) justify the appointment of a special counsel? If anything, the fact that the case laid out by Gore is full of lies and distortions undermines his credibility to a staggering degree.
"The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.
Perhaps the former Vice President should read this December 22, 2005 letter from the Office of Legal Affairs in the U.S. Justice Department which specifically addresses these legal questions.
The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.
Mr. Gore, which charges are factually wrong? The Clinton/Gore administration conducted warrantless physical searches without implicit authorization under FISA, and asserted the Article II powers to do so, just as President Bush justified his executive order for NSA surveillance under Article II powers, with the colorable argument that the AUMF gave him statutory authorization as well. Mr. Gore, President Bush has far more legal cover than any of your administration's actions on this front. Talk to someone who graduated law school—say liberal constitutional scholar Cass Sunstein, or your own associate attorney general John Schmidt—and perhaps you'll find a more informed opinion.
There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.
Mr. Gore, who are your "many legal experts?" Further, how many of them are directly or indirectly related to the Democratic Party? The NSA surveillance operation that you have not even seen was reviewed by two Attorney's General, Justice Department legal teams, NSA legal counsel, and White House counsel. Again, who are your experts?
Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs - even though factually wrong - ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law.
As I noted here:
If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.
As the movie says, Mr. Gore, "reality bites."
What this NSA executive order matter will boil down to in the end is a separation of powers issue. Did Congress have the legal authority to bind the Office of the Presidency in conducting warrantless searches performed for national security reasons, stripping the executive branch of an inherent constitutional power? Every President from the dawn of international wire communications well over 100 years ago until 1978 assumed this right, and the courts have always deferred to this particular power inherent to the Presidency. This is supported by case law and precedent, and is summed up in the five-page Department of Justice briefing (PDF) delivered last week. In short, the Department of Justice seems willing to make the case that Bush was well within his constitutional powers... Even after passing FISA, Carter himself did not feel strictly bound by it, nor has any President since, from Reagan, to George H. W. Bush, Clinton, to George W. Bush. They have all asserted (and over the past two weeks, their DoJ attorneys have as well) that the Office of the Presidency has the Constitutional authority to authorize warrantless intercepts of foreign intelligence. This power has been assumed by every president of the modern age before them, dating back, presumably to the Great Eastern's success in 1866 of laying the first successful transatlantic telegraph cable. From Johnson, then, through Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, Cleveland (again), McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and Taft, through Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, to FDR and on to Truman, Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and into the Carter administration, the Presidency has had the inherent and unchallenged power to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign powers for national security reasons. This is a simple, unassailable fact, not matter how loudly demagogues shriek.
Again, it is Mr. Gore that has been creative with both history and facts already presented. Far from condemning the President's program, most credible legal experts find that the NSA surveillance authorized by the President is justified by both Article II of the Constitution and statutory authorization of the AUMF provided by Congress to wage war, in which foreign intelligence operations are recognized as a component of military power. It is a shame that a man just a heartbeat away from the presidency has so little knowledge about the powers and responsibilities of the office.
The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.
Which we will have, Mr. Gore, in spades. Not only have your liberal friends in the ACLU and the terrorist-coddling Center for Constitutional Rights and their friends from the HAMAS-associated Council on American-Islamic Relations (though not those members already convicted of terrorism, I'd wager) filed suit, but the Administration is looking forward to testifying about the program in early February in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Please, continue to "bring it" Mr. Gore. You're proving to be the best thing to happen to the Republican Party since Howard Dean.
The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration's program."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:32 PM | Comments (46) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Interesting:
Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.
"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."
The following can be attributed to PRCB members:
"I believe that our executive branch cannot continue to operate without the checks of the other branches. However, I stand behind the President in encouraging Congress to operate cautiously during the hearings so that sensitive government intelligence is not given to our enemies." -- Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation
"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform
"The need to reform surveillance laws and practices adopted since 9/11 is more apparent now than ever. No one would deny the government the power it needs to protect us all, but when that power poses a threat to the basic rights that make our nation unique, its exercise must be carefully monitored by Congress and the courts. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of all Americans so that future administrations do not interpret our laws in ways that pose constitutional concerns." -- David Keene, chairman, American Conservative Union
Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.
"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."
The following can be attributed to PRCB members:
"I believe that our executive branch cannot continue to operate without the checks of the other branches. However, I stand behind the President in encouraging Congress to operate cautiously during the hearings so that sensitive government intelligence is not given to our enemies." -- Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation
"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform
"The need to reform surveillance laws and practices adopted since 9/11 is more apparent now than ever. No one would deny the government the power it needs to protect us all, but when that power poses a threat to the basic rights that make our nation unique, its exercise must be carefully monitored by Congress and the courts. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of all Americans so that future administrations do not interpret our laws in ways that pose constitutional concerns." -- David Keene, chairman, American Conservative Union
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 18, 2006 10:29 AM (hGNke)
2
Wow. You really are a bigot, aren't you, CY? You just have to tie CAIR to Hamas.
American Muslims are not to be trusted! The biggest Muslim advocacy organization in the US is aligned with Hamas!
Like I said before, I have more respect for the Stormfront krewe.
Anyway, why are you all so hung up on the number of warrantless searches? Whether its thousands, hundreds, dozens, or ONE-- the fundamental question remains, was the law broken? At least, that used to be the criterion back in, oh, say, 1998?
Of course, there is the other question of-- why do it? Why not comply with FISA? The FISA courts have turned down only four requests since they were established. And those were resubmitted and approved!
Timliness was not an issue; FISA provides for surveillance to begin as much as 72 hours BEFORE submitting the request to the FISA court. Obviously if almost all requests are approved, then it's not a question of whether the FISA court would or wouldn't approve.
Besides that-- since the pachyderms are firmly in control of the Congress, why not just change the law?
American Muslims are not to be trusted! The biggest Muslim advocacy organization in the US is aligned with Hamas!
Like I said before, I have more respect for the Stormfront krewe.
Anyway, why are you all so hung up on the number of warrantless searches? Whether its thousands, hundreds, dozens, or ONE-- the fundamental question remains, was the law broken? At least, that used to be the criterion back in, oh, say, 1998?
Of course, there is the other question of-- why do it? Why not comply with FISA? The FISA courts have turned down only four requests since they were established. And those were resubmitted and approved!
Timliness was not an issue; FISA provides for surveillance to begin as much as 72 hours BEFORE submitting the request to the FISA court. Obviously if almost all requests are approved, then it's not a question of whether the FISA court would or wouldn't approve.
Besides that-- since the pachyderms are firmly in control of the Congress, why not just change the law?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 10:41 AM (pEWm6)
3
You showed your ignorance agin, Artie. The law is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - NOT the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. You still have not read it, have you?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 18, 2006 10:54 AM (wjIba)
4
Don't tell me.
Tell these conservatives who seem to be reaching their tipping point with all this eavesdropping.
Spin it anyway you want but we still have an administration spying on its own citizens without warrants.
Tell these conservatives who seem to be reaching their tipping point with all this eavesdropping.
Spin it anyway you want but we still have an administration spying on its own citizens without warrants.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 18, 2006 11:07 AM (hGNke)
5
FB, CAIR was founded by HAMAS, you idiot, and several of CAIR's founders are in jail for funding terrorism. I'm sorry you aren't bright enough to click the link and see for yourself.
If it looks like a duck, talks like duck...
You'd still call the hunter a racist. Par for the course...
If it looks like a duck, talks like duck...
You'd still call the hunter a racist. Par for the course...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 12:24 PM (0fZB6)
6
Artie, there are literally more than a dozen legal reasons to conduct warrantless searches far outside of FISA's scope.
It never ceases to amzae me how those that scream the loudest know the least amount of facts....
It never ceases to amzae me how those that scream the loudest know the least amount of facts....
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 12:30 PM (0fZB6)
7
I call you a bigot, CY, because you ARE one.
That's okay, though, it's to be expected from any neo-confederate.
That's okay, though, it's to be expected from any neo-confederate.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 12:43 PM (pEWm6)
8
Such a one-trick pony, FB.
the irnony is that you are teh only person on this site that has flat-out refused to denounce specific racists in his own party. Pathetic.
You know, substance, even facts, would be a welcome change of course coming from you. No wonder you Kos-loving leftists are 0-17 in elections.
When all you have is slander and hyperbole and you can't rationally support your position with either logic or facts, you'll keep on losing.
Enjoy.
the irnony is that you are teh only person on this site that has flat-out refused to denounce specific racists in his own party. Pathetic.
You know, substance, even facts, would be a welcome change of course coming from you. No wonder you Kos-loving leftists are 0-17 in elections.
When all you have is slander and hyperbole and you can't rationally support your position with either logic or facts, you'll keep on losing.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 12:57 PM (0fZB6)
9
"President Bush's post-Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents...I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack."
John Schmidt (Associate Attorney General under Bill Clinton)
Perhaps Arthur and FB would like an opinion from the left side of the aisle...
John Schmidt (Associate Attorney General under Bill Clinton)
Perhaps Arthur and FB would like an opinion from the left side of the aisle...
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 18, 2006 01:05 PM (X2tAw)
10
Better break the news to all these conservatives CY.
Don't think they're buying into the program.
Don't think they're buying into the program.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 18, 2006 01:28 PM (3StSI)
11
Who's a racist in my party? Those who denounce black "conservatives" as uncle toms, lackeys, "house negroes" and suchlike?
Well, see, it ain't all like that.
There was a time when there were black republicans who weren't. People who could stand up in front of a black audience and not be regarded as kapos (I choose a term here that you may find more palatable.)
You consider it racist for black people to identify and recognize other black people who actively work against the interests of black Americans, but then, those kapos are singing to your own neo-confederate tune, aren't they?
When black people talk about race, "you people" are quick to howl about motes of "race baiting," forever ignoring the CSA-stamped beams in your own eyes.
Well, see, it ain't all like that.
There was a time when there were black republicans who weren't. People who could stand up in front of a black audience and not be regarded as kapos (I choose a term here that you may find more palatable.)
You consider it racist for black people to identify and recognize other black people who actively work against the interests of black Americans, but then, those kapos are singing to your own neo-confederate tune, aren't they?
When black people talk about race, "you people" are quick to howl about motes of "race baiting," forever ignoring the CSA-stamped beams in your own eyes.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 02:05 PM (pEWm6)
12
I cited specific black and white Democrats who were racists and cited their offenses specifically. You still refuse to condemn them, and instead, make excuses for them.
I find it absolutely hysterical that you can't grasp just how bigoted that is. You still continue to call me a racist, which makes me giggle when I consider the source of the comment.
You firmly beleive that being conservative is "against the interests of black Americans" as if all blacks (or all people of any individual race) are served by any specific party's needs.
You would scream at the top of your lungs if someone announced that Hispanics should only vote Republican and that Hispanics who voted Democratic were race traitors, yet see no problem at all applying that same racist standard to blacks.
You have proven yourself impotent ideologically, and continue to prove your own bigotry every time you open your mouth.
Is there any chance we can get you to run for office?
I find it absolutely hysterical that you can't grasp just how bigoted that is. You still continue to call me a racist, which makes me giggle when I consider the source of the comment.
You firmly beleive that being conservative is "against the interests of black Americans" as if all blacks (or all people of any individual race) are served by any specific party's needs.
You would scream at the top of your lungs if someone announced that Hispanics should only vote Republican and that Hispanics who voted Democratic were race traitors, yet see no problem at all applying that same racist standard to blacks.
You have proven yourself impotent ideologically, and continue to prove your own bigotry every time you open your mouth.
Is there any chance we can get you to run for office?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 02:23 PM (0fZB6)
13
Can we get this back on track now?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 02:49 PM (0fZB6)
14
Just one point, CY- a small one-- your "cites of racism by Democrats" included Ted Rall referring to Condi as "house nig-" and Steve Gilliard calling Michael Steele "simple sambo."
If you want to call it racism, help yourself. I disagree with the definition. I considered Gilliard's entire diatribe against todays "black conservatives" a fair description of what rank-and-file black people feel about those particular politicians.
I posted links before to black Republicans who did not actively act against the interest of black Americans.
It is about their character, CY.
Oh, and as a certified neo-confederate, you're still a white supremacist.
If you want to call it racism, help yourself. I disagree with the definition. I considered Gilliard's entire diatribe against todays "black conservatives" a fair description of what rank-and-file black people feel about those particular politicians.
I posted links before to black Republicans who did not actively act against the interest of black Americans.
It is about their character, CY.
Oh, and as a certified neo-confederate, you're still a white supremacist.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 03:39 PM (pEWm6)
15
Let me think about that for a second... um, no. Some of my relatives fought for the South when the North invaded. I am proud of their service in deense of their family. But I am not a neo-confederate, wanting the South to be born again. I do not beleive in apathied or slavery, and have never been a white supremicist.
You, however, are another story.
You feel it is fine for a white man to call a black woman a "house nigga" becuase he is a Democrat and she is a conservative. You support white-on-black racism as long as the ideology skews your way.
You feel it is fine for Gilliard to call a black conservative "simple sambo," because you support black-on-black racism, again, simply becuase one is Democrat attacking a conservative.
To top it all off, you honestly don't seem to get it. It's a scream. You cannot see just how racist your beliefs are.
It is hilarious as a case study of just how much you have to twist reality to justify your ideology.
Please, do continue.
You, however, are another story.
You feel it is fine for a white man to call a black woman a "house nigga" becuase he is a Democrat and she is a conservative. You support white-on-black racism as long as the ideology skews your way.
You feel it is fine for Gilliard to call a black conservative "simple sambo," because you support black-on-black racism, again, simply becuase one is Democrat attacking a conservative.
To top it all off, you honestly don't seem to get it. It's a scream. You cannot see just how racist your beliefs are.
It is hilarious as a case study of just how much you have to twist reality to justify your ideology.
Please, do continue.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 03:59 PM (0fZB6)
16
Oops, I found another "race traitor" for you, FB:
...fashioned his first winning coalition in politics when he started to reject the Left’s nostrums because they conflicted with his own family-inspired beliefs. By the mid-1970s, he already opposed forced busing as a solution to black educational problems, because he doubted that black kids needed to sit next to white ones to do well. Noticing how white parents took advantage of Cincinnati public schools’ open enrollment policy, which allowed talented kids to select schools outside their districts, Blackwell became an early advocate for school choice. Mindful that many families in public housing seemed stuck there, Blackwell began to worry that government programs to help the poor were instead breeding dependence, and he became one of the few black political leaders of the 1970s to preach that the responsibility for rising out of poverty rested with the individual, not the government.
I like this part as well. Some of it sounds very familiar, for some reason:
Blackwell is fond of pointing out (as others have) that there is considerable overlap among these groups, especially since many blacks have entered the middle class and are socially conservative; indeed, polls show that African-American voters backed the Ohio marriage amendment in about the same proportions as other voters. When he speaks to black groups, Blackwell emphasizes his cultural positions as well as the common stake that all citizens have in the country’s economic success, something that today’s crop of civil rights activists rarely acknowledge. Speaking before an Ohio NAACP chapter several years ago, Blackwell quoted Booker T. Washington on the shared destiny of blacks and whites: “We are one in this country. We rise as you rise. We fall when you fall. . . . There is no power that can separate our destiny.”
Blackwell is betting that many black Americans may be ready for a candidate, like him, who doesn’t preach victimology and doesn’t see the world almost entirely in racial terms. Blackwell is a post-racial, post-civil rights campaigner; race rarely enters into his speeches and is barely a part of his political platform. And even when Blackwell does address racial issues—the achievement gap between black and white students, for instance—it’s to tout free-market solutions like vouchers and charter schools. So far, this approach has resonated with black voters, attracting 40 to 50 percent of them in his statewide elections, even though he runs on the GOP line.
Blackwell is one of three black conservatives running for governor in 2006. Michael Steele is running for the Senate. The next round of elections are going to be fascinating, and I'll be interested to see how if the "race traitor" cries liberals favor will be a viable strategy much longer.
...fashioned his first winning coalition in politics when he started to reject the Left’s nostrums because they conflicted with his own family-inspired beliefs. By the mid-1970s, he already opposed forced busing as a solution to black educational problems, because he doubted that black kids needed to sit next to white ones to do well. Noticing how white parents took advantage of Cincinnati public schools’ open enrollment policy, which allowed talented kids to select schools outside their districts, Blackwell became an early advocate for school choice. Mindful that many families in public housing seemed stuck there, Blackwell began to worry that government programs to help the poor were instead breeding dependence, and he became one of the few black political leaders of the 1970s to preach that the responsibility for rising out of poverty rested with the individual, not the government.
I like this part as well. Some of it sounds very familiar, for some reason:
Blackwell is fond of pointing out (as others have) that there is considerable overlap among these groups, especially since many blacks have entered the middle class and are socially conservative; indeed, polls show that African-American voters backed the Ohio marriage amendment in about the same proportions as other voters. When he speaks to black groups, Blackwell emphasizes his cultural positions as well as the common stake that all citizens have in the country’s economic success, something that today’s crop of civil rights activists rarely acknowledge. Speaking before an Ohio NAACP chapter several years ago, Blackwell quoted Booker T. Washington on the shared destiny of blacks and whites: “We are one in this country. We rise as you rise. We fall when you fall. . . . There is no power that can separate our destiny.”
Blackwell is betting that many black Americans may be ready for a candidate, like him, who doesn’t preach victimology and doesn’t see the world almost entirely in racial terms. Blackwell is a post-racial, post-civil rights campaigner; race rarely enters into his speeches and is barely a part of his political platform. And even when Blackwell does address racial issues—the achievement gap between black and white students, for instance—it’s to tout free-market solutions like vouchers and charter schools. So far, this approach has resonated with black voters, attracting 40 to 50 percent of them in his statewide elections, even though he runs on the GOP line.
Blackwell is one of three black conservatives running for governor in 2006. Michael Steele is running for the Senate. The next round of elections are going to be fascinating, and I'll be interested to see how if the "race traitor" cries liberals favor will be a viable strategy much longer.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 05:00 PM (0fZB6)
17
Geeez FB,
All one has to say is BYRD. That is enough about racists in the Demoncrat party. I mean he was only the Kleagle (sp?) in his state and asked for the KKK to come back and restore order later.
Arthur - didya ever stop to think that maybe it's a Rove strategy to hold the hearings? I mean the more the Democrats say, "We don't think the president has the right to protect the country from terrorists" the more people are deserting the party. And I know you'll say, "Well there is a legal way to do this..." But the fact is that over 65% of Americans think it's a good idea - and more joining each day.
Rats leaving a sinking ship....I want all the top democrats to keep harping on all of this....keep it up...mid term elections are coming....
All one has to say is BYRD. That is enough about racists in the Demoncrat party. I mean he was only the Kleagle (sp?) in his state and asked for the KKK to come back and restore order later.
Arthur - didya ever stop to think that maybe it's a Rove strategy to hold the hearings? I mean the more the Democrats say, "We don't think the president has the right to protect the country from terrorists" the more people are deserting the party. And I know you'll say, "Well there is a legal way to do this..." But the fact is that over 65% of Americans think it's a good idea - and more joining each day.
Rats leaving a sinking ship....I want all the top democrats to keep harping on all of this....keep it up...mid term elections are coming....
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 07:12 PM (ybfXM)
18
Mr. Blofeld- Thank you for mentioning Robert Byrd. Anytime a Republican discusses the issue of race, Robert Byrd's youth is a prime subject.
Filed and closed.
CY- Yes, I do get it. You're proud of your ancestors sacrifices in the service of a country founded for the sole purpose of maintaining the institution of slavery. Congratulations.
I suppose I'd understand if some SS officer's grandson wanted to honor his ancestor's service, too.
I'd also understand an Israeli Jew's taking offense, which is something I don't think you get.
Is it racist (or anti-Semitic?) for a Jew to distrust kapos?
To quote the oft-maligned Steve Gilliard:
"...All they can do is claim we are idiots, we are on a plantation, we are too stupid to consider our own political fates. They cannot make a case to us, so they have to pretend to their patrons that they can't get a fair hearing."
Filed and closed.
CY- Yes, I do get it. You're proud of your ancestors sacrifices in the service of a country founded for the sole purpose of maintaining the institution of slavery. Congratulations.
I suppose I'd understand if some SS officer's grandson wanted to honor his ancestor's service, too.
I'd also understand an Israeli Jew's taking offense, which is something I don't think you get.
Is it racist (or anti-Semitic?) for a Jew to distrust kapos?
To quote the oft-maligned Steve Gilliard:
"...All they can do is claim we are idiots, we are on a plantation, we are too stupid to consider our own political fates. They cannot make a case to us, so they have to pretend to their patrons that they can't get a fair hearing."
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 07:34 PM (pEWm6)
19
My family fought for their communities and their homes, not an ideology, just as soldiers in the Wehrmacht fought for their communities and countries, and not for Jewish genocide. Others here understand this; you've proven that you refuse to understand that distinction, or simply can't.
At the same time, you excuse both white and black racists as long as they share your political ideology. You ar an arrogant bigot, but a throughly amusing one.
At the same time, you excuse both white and black racists as long as they share your political ideology. You ar an arrogant bigot, but a throughly amusing one.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 07:55 PM (0fZB6)
20
So you are saying that Byrd was in his youth in 2001? Hmmm...let's (A HREF="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2001/03/07/166683.html" REL="nofollow">review the facts shall we (oh I already know you'll say the facts don't matter, but what the hey...). According to the linked article:
This ex-Klansman wasn't just a passive member of the nation's most notorious hate group. According to news accounts and biographical information, Sen. Byrd was a "Kleagle" -- an official recruiter who signed up members for $10 a head. He said he joined because it "offered excitement" and because the Klan was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values."
The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act -- supported by a majority of those "mean-spirited" Republicans -- for more than 14 hours. He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's two black justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas. In fact, the ex-Klansman had the gall to accuse Justice Thomas of "injecting racism" into the Senate hearings.
The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
Well....file closed, obviously the man must have changed his stripes (oops - don't want that to seem racist). The record is clear from the 40's through just 4 years ago....racist.
I once saw the following argument put forth:
Suppose a person was involved years and years ago with skin heads and the nazi party. And in that time was very, very invloved in leadership positions within that party (kind of like a kleagle). Now assume that the person had a "change of heart" and recants and becomes a Republican politician. Which democrat (besides maybe Byrd) would give him the "benefit of the doubt". Which news organizations would ignore his past?
This ex-Klansman wasn't just a passive member of the nation's most notorious hate group. According to news accounts and biographical information, Sen. Byrd was a "Kleagle" -- an official recruiter who signed up members for $10 a head. He said he joined because it "offered excitement" and because the Klan was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values."
The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act -- supported by a majority of those "mean-spirited" Republicans -- for more than 14 hours. He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's two black justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas. In fact, the ex-Klansman had the gall to accuse Justice Thomas of "injecting racism" into the Senate hearings.
The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
Well....file closed, obviously the man must have changed his stripes (oops - don't want that to seem racist). The record is clear from the 40's through just 4 years ago....racist.
I once saw the following argument put forth:
Suppose a person was involved years and years ago with skin heads and the nazi party. And in that time was very, very invloved in leadership positions within that party (kind of like a kleagle). Now assume that the person had a "change of heart" and recants and becomes a Republican politician. Which democrat (besides maybe Byrd) would give him the "benefit of the doubt". Which news organizations would ignore his past?
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 07:56 PM (ybfXM)
21
You just don't get it at all, do you, FB?
And then you use some lame quotation from Steve Gilliard that you think will bring the rest of us to our knees? Might just as well try. After all, you have not expressed a single original thought in anything you have written here. That dirtbag racist, Gilliard, could not carry Martin Luther King's luggage. He is as pathetic as you are, and you are too dumb to realize that you are the biggest racist here.
You are simply exhibiting more psychotic psychological projection of what you really find so abhorent in yourself. And you are too damn blind to realize it.
And then you use some lame quotation from Steve Gilliard that you think will bring the rest of us to our knees? Might just as well try. After all, you have not expressed a single original thought in anything you have written here. That dirtbag racist, Gilliard, could not carry Martin Luther King's luggage. He is as pathetic as you are, and you are too dumb to realize that you are the biggest racist here.
You are simply exhibiting more psychotic psychological projection of what you really find so abhorent in yourself. And you are too damn blind to realize it.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 18, 2006 07:56 PM (FsLF4)
22
As for Gilliard, if he isn't afraid of "fair hearings" why does he spend so much of his time attacking conservatives on race, instead of playing up the wonderful merits of Democratic policies?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 18, 2006 07:57 PM (0fZB6)
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 07:58 PM (ybfXM)
24
We could also talk about Hillary and the plantation.....you know what I'm talkin' about.
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 08:00 PM (ybfXM)
25
So be it, CY.
I'll give you this: it's nice to see a conservative blogger with the stones to actually tolerate dissidence (and even the occasional admitted troll), rather than the immediate banning any dissident voices get at other conservative blogs. (tip o' the hat)
You think I'm a racist, therefore you think most black people are racist (I do express the views that the vast majority of black Americans share regarding these issues), and that's ok.
Spy- I, really don't give a rat's hairless arse what you think; anyone who believes in Saddam Hussein's complicity in the 9/11 attacks obviously hasn't three neurons to rub together.
Blofeld- puh-lease; how many times have we heard conservatives and republicans going on about the "liberal plantation?"
Or, as Al Sharpton said, "There were 2000 black people in the audience. If we were going to be offended by what she said, we would have been offended!"
I'll give you this: it's nice to see a conservative blogger with the stones to actually tolerate dissidence (and even the occasional admitted troll), rather than the immediate banning any dissident voices get at other conservative blogs. (tip o' the hat)
You think I'm a racist, therefore you think most black people are racist (I do express the views that the vast majority of black Americans share regarding these issues), and that's ok.
Spy- I, really don't give a rat's hairless arse what you think; anyone who believes in Saddam Hussein's complicity in the 9/11 attacks obviously hasn't three neurons to rub together.
Blofeld- puh-lease; how many times have we heard conservatives and republicans going on about the "liberal plantation?"
Or, as Al Sharpton said, "There were 2000 black people in the audience. If we were going to be offended by what she said, we would have been offended!"
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 09:19 PM (pEWm6)
26
Neurons or not, Mr. Fat Bastard, where was it that you got your PhD? I got mine at the University of Maryland in 1974.
I never said that I 'believed', ignorant one, that Saddam was complicit in 9/11. You just made the accusation.
I DID note that there is an abundance of evidence that Saddam's elite military trained terrorists at three locations in Iraq - some 8,000 terrorists - and that some of their training included in-class simulations of aircraft hijacking techniques.
I never said that I 'believed', ignorant one, that Saddam was complicit in 9/11. You just made the accusation.
I DID note that there is an abundance of evidence that Saddam's elite military trained terrorists at three locations in Iraq - some 8,000 terrorists - and that some of their training included in-class simulations of aircraft hijacking techniques.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 18, 2006 09:30 PM (FsLF4)
27
Get-In-My-Belly,
I was referring to Hillary's racist statement about plantations made during her speech on MLK day at the Caanan Bapitst Church of Christ in Harlem.
Al Sharpton? Do you mean the same addled-spinner who claimed on Hardball that Hillary "did not make the comments at a Harlem church". Even Chris Matthews said, "You're kidding me, Reverend."
I was referring to Hillary's racist statement about plantations made during her speech on MLK day at the Caanan Bapitst Church of Christ in Harlem.
Al Sharpton? Do you mean the same addled-spinner who claimed on Hardball that Hillary "did not make the comments at a Harlem church". Even Chris Matthews said, "You're kidding me, Reverend."
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 09:34 PM (ybfXM)
28
Oh...BTW Get-In-My-Belly,
I noticed you gave up on trying to defend the "conscience of the demoncratic senate" Byrd.
Shall we talk about Splash Kennedy and his association with the "good-ole-boys" OWL club - you know the one he gives $100 per year, but doesn't belong to, but is going to quit as soon as possible.
I noticed you gave up on trying to defend the "conscience of the demoncratic senate" Byrd.
Shall we talk about Splash Kennedy and his association with the "good-ole-boys" OWL club - you know the one he gives $100 per year, but doesn't belong to, but is going to quit as soon as possible.
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 09:38 PM (ybfXM)
29
Jeepers, CY, you now have Mr. Gore sobbing. I do believe he's peed himself!
Great post, logically taking the ex-Veep to task.
Y'know, I recall seeing Leon Panetta on TV some time ago. He was talking about a Republican, and parsing a speech this Republican gave. I had seen the speech, had even inadvertantly taped it, and knew what had been said. Panetta, in that smiling, squinty-eyed way of his, lied. Not mis-spoke, but lied. Again and again. After that, every time I saw Panetta on the TV, the first thing that popped into my head was, 'Liar!'
Now, with 'Uncle Al, the Loony's Pal' I get a similar effect. What pops into my head is, 'Crazy Bastard!'
What a loser Al is. Sad.
Great post, logically taking the ex-Veep to task.
Y'know, I recall seeing Leon Panetta on TV some time ago. He was talking about a Republican, and parsing a speech this Republican gave. I had seen the speech, had even inadvertantly taped it, and knew what had been said. Panetta, in that smiling, squinty-eyed way of his, lied. Not mis-spoke, but lied. Again and again. After that, every time I saw Panetta on the TV, the first thing that popped into my head was, 'Liar!'
Now, with 'Uncle Al, the Loony's Pal' I get a similar effect. What pops into my head is, 'Crazy Bastard!'
What a loser Al is. Sad.
Posted by: benning at January 19, 2006 10:01 AM (PGmbh)
30
I will say this for Loony Al, though. Had it not been for him we would not be having BLOG discussions. What? He was NOT the one who invented the Internet?
OK. Guess we can't give him credit for anything, can we ....
OK. Guess we can't give him credit for anything, can we ....
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 19, 2006 11:50 AM (FsLF4)
31
ROFLMAO.
Posted by: Specter at January 19, 2006 01:06 PM (ybfXM)
32
Retired Spy and Specter.
What a couple of cards. And both such stickler for facts.
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/
Gore was involved while a congressman in funding Defense Department initiatives which did become the internet. Much less dramatic but much more accurate than the tired urban myth of Al 'inventing the internet'.
What a couple of cards. And both such stickler for facts.
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/
Gore was involved while a congressman in funding Defense Department initiatives which did become the internet. Much less dramatic but much more accurate than the tired urban myth of Al 'inventing the internet'.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 19, 2006 05:36 PM (3StSI)
33
Mr. Blofeld: That's a good one... though it's hard to write a good Scots accent, I do appreciate the reference.
Anyway-- you may refer to the good Reverend as addled, but on this matter he has one thing over both you and Tweety Matthews: he was there.
Hillary's "racist" statement? Dear boy, you've got me there. It certainly appears that the black people in the audience understood it all too well. They weren't offended in the least.
As for defending Robert Byrd... why would I have to defend a man to whom the NAACP gives a 100% rating? Defend him against what-- working toward policies that benefit black people?
Of course, you do have to consider the source-- the NAACP is, after all, made up of black people.
Anyway-- you may refer to the good Reverend as addled, but on this matter he has one thing over both you and Tweety Matthews: he was there.
Hillary's "racist" statement? Dear boy, you've got me there. It certainly appears that the black people in the audience understood it all too well. They weren't offended in the least.
As for defending Robert Byrd... why would I have to defend a man to whom the NAACP gives a 100% rating? Defend him against what-- working toward policies that benefit black people?
Of course, you do have to consider the source-- the NAACP is, after all, made up of black people.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 19, 2006 07:15 PM (pEWm6)
34
I don't know how to break this to you, Artie, but the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was using the predecessor to the Internet long before Al Gore ever became a Congressman - in the 1960's.
Big Al was just a minor player prior to its official deployment in 1983. It was actually Clinton who referred to Gore as the one who invented the Internet.
Big Al was just a minor player prior to its official deployment in 1983. It was actually Clinton who referred to Gore as the one who invented the Internet.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 19, 2006 07:53 PM (FsLF4)
35
Sadly you couldn't actually show where President Clinton said waht you attributed to him.
Oh well.
Oh well.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 09:50 AM (hGNke)
36
These are Gore's exact words, as presented by two scholars in the field, Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, on September 28, 2000:
"During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
Looks to me like ol' Al was trying to toot his own horn a bit, wasn't he?
Touché!
"During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
Looks to me like ol' Al was trying to toot his own horn a bit, wasn't he?
Touché!
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 06:40 PM (BRgB4)
37
And you talk about others' reading comprehension.
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
"I invented the Internet."
Now tell us, superbly educated one, how those two statements are equivalent?
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
"I invented the Internet."
Now tell us, superbly educated one, how those two statements are equivalent?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 11:56 AM (pEWm6)
38
Where was it, exactly, that "I" said that Al Gore had said that he invented the Internet?
I believe I made a tongue-in-cheek comment to the effect that, "What? Al Gore did not invent the Internet?"
He took the initiative in creating the Internet? The initiative was taken by others in the 1960's. Al Gore did not enter the Congress until 1977.
Indeed, he 'supported' it. It was not just his initiative.
He was trying to capitalize on the spade and shovel work done by others in his statement.
He was not totally a blowhard.
You ARE!
I believe I made a tongue-in-cheek comment to the effect that, "What? Al Gore did not invent the Internet?"
He took the initiative in creating the Internet? The initiative was taken by others in the 1960's. Al Gore did not enter the Congress until 1977.
Indeed, he 'supported' it. It was not just his initiative.
He was trying to capitalize on the spade and shovel work done by others in his statement.
He was not totally a blowhard.
You ARE!
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 01:06 PM (BRgB4)
39
I already replied to this, but my reply was lost somewhere.
I really do not feel like repeating myself, but please do show me a quote where I wrote that Gore had made that specific claim. You know, "I invented the Internet."
I really do not feel like repeating myself, but please do show me a quote where I wrote that Gore had made that specific claim. You know, "I invented the Internet."
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 02:20 PM (BRgB4)
January 17, 2006
Gore Admits: Meds Aren't Working
Former inventor and Vice President Al Gore's speech today, thought by many inside of his therapy group to be enlightening, is seen as conflicting with both past and present reality according to experts not currently afflicted with BDS, or Bush Derangment Syndrome.
Gore admitted shortly after his speech today that his current required dosage of ziprasidone just isn't working the way it used to. Gore had been medicated since claiming during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on March 9, 1999 that "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Gore is said to still be dealing with the mental fallout of the realization that the concept of the hypertext system that powers the Internet, like the 2000 election, belongs to a Bush.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:36 AM | Comments (72) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
To me, Al Gore comes across as a very sore loser who is full of spiteful vengence. He seems consumed/possessed with trying to "get" the man that won the 2000 presidential election. Al Gore will say anything that politically attacks President Bush without regard for the impact it has on the nation. At every opportunity he continues to aggitate the very desease that consumes himself - Bush Derangement Syndrom. He has become a very sad little man.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 17, 2006 07:17 AM (X2tAw)
2
Just the fact that he said the NSA program effected "huge" numbers of Americans shows how ridiculous this is.
Posted by: Specter at January 17, 2006 08:29 AM (ybfXM)
3
Just remember, Al Gore lost in his home state of Tennessee, and never demanded a recount there. I guess they knew things about him that we are finding out now.
Posted by: Tom TB at January 17, 2006 09:42 AM (6krEN)
4
I thought it was an excellent speech. That many of you are lining up to hand your rights over to this administration doesn't mean the rest of us are.
Criticizing the president's programs is not harmful to the nation. The president and the nation are not one and the same.
Repeat as necessary.
Criticizing the president's programs is not harmful to the nation. The president and the nation are not one and the same.
Repeat as necessary.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 17, 2006 10:28 AM (hGNke)
5
"That many of you are lining up to hand your rights over to this administration doesn't mean the rest of us are."
Arthur, have you been personally effected, or otherwise "spied" upon by the NSA program? Do you personally know anyone who has? I haven't been, and am not paranoid enough to join deranged callings for impeachment.
When Gore speaks as acidicly as he did, he only serves to remind the populace that he is an extremely sore loser bent on denegrating this administration any way he can.
Arthur, have you been personally effected, or otherwise "spied" upon by the NSA program? Do you personally know anyone who has? I haven't been, and am not paranoid enough to join deranged callings for impeachment.
When Gore speaks as acidicly as he did, he only serves to remind the populace that he is an extremely sore loser bent on denegrating this administration any way he can.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 17, 2006 11:51 AM (X2tAw)
6
Old Soldier-
The eavesdropping is secret old boy. So I can't say if me or thee have been listened to.
But based on the performance of our gov't agencies over the years spying on US citizens during the Vietnam era and such I'd have to say, given the increased abilities of the NSA, it's certainly possible we both have been.
Mr. Gore has reason to be pissed. But the misdeeds of this administration (which are legion) were his subject not an election stolen from him.
That's another speech I wish he'd make.
The eavesdropping is secret old boy. So I can't say if me or thee have been listened to.
But based on the performance of our gov't agencies over the years spying on US citizens during the Vietnam era and such I'd have to say, given the increased abilities of the NSA, it's certainly possible we both have been.
Mr. Gore has reason to be pissed. But the misdeeds of this administration (which are legion) were his subject not an election stolen from him.
That's another speech I wish he'd make.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 17, 2006 01:03 PM (UnGrU)
7
Arthur, according to the administration, the "eavesdropping" has occurred on international calls, that are lawfully monitored by the NSA, and that monitoring of calls wholly within the US borders are done using FISA warrants.
The unrelenting and unsubstantiated rhetoric from the left is that unchecked monitoring is being done of wholly internal calls (citizen to citizen within our borders). The supposed substantiator of rampart NSA eavesdropping was exposed as an unstable and disgruntled hack with an ax to grind.
I have yet to see the evidence that substantiates the allegations. In the meantime, al-Qaeda wants to kill you, me and our fellow citizens. How do you propose we stop that action from occurring?
As for Al Gore, when it comes to illegal use of government agencies, he and his former boss the ones skilled at such antics. I have no use for his insightful agitating. Disregarding our war status and continuously fomenting divisiveness does not show me a man who is the least bit concerned with our citizens’ security. Al Gore could dry up and blow away, and the nation would be better off for it.
The unrelenting and unsubstantiated rhetoric from the left is that unchecked monitoring is being done of wholly internal calls (citizen to citizen within our borders). The supposed substantiator of rampart NSA eavesdropping was exposed as an unstable and disgruntled hack with an ax to grind.
I have yet to see the evidence that substantiates the allegations. In the meantime, al-Qaeda wants to kill you, me and our fellow citizens. How do you propose we stop that action from occurring?
As for Al Gore, when it comes to illegal use of government agencies, he and his former boss the ones skilled at such antics. I have no use for his insightful agitating. Disregarding our war status and continuously fomenting divisiveness does not show me a man who is the least bit concerned with our citizens’ security. Al Gore could dry up and blow away, and the nation would be better off for it.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 17, 2006 01:47 PM (X2tAw)
8
Poor Al Gore. He's channeling the spirit of Clement Vallandigham.
Posted by: Zhombre at January 17, 2006 02:13 PM (Xm4xl)
9
Dang.
Forgive me I keep forgetting we're at 'war'.
What with the absolute lack of sacrifice by any of us here at the homefront it's hard to remember.
As for what to do with al-Queda we should (and presumably we are) continue to cooperate with our friends like the Spanish (rolling up terrorist networks left and right) to identify and neutralize our opponents in a legal and lawful manner. Arrest them, trace the links and throw the guilty bad guys in the slammer. Defend our assets here at home.
But resist the idea of another invasion of a large Middle Eastern nation please. Detracts from what we need to do and provides additional recruits for our opponents.
Forgive me I keep forgetting we're at 'war'.
What with the absolute lack of sacrifice by any of us here at the homefront it's hard to remember.
As for what to do with al-Queda we should (and presumably we are) continue to cooperate with our friends like the Spanish (rolling up terrorist networks left and right) to identify and neutralize our opponents in a legal and lawful manner. Arrest them, trace the links and throw the guilty bad guys in the slammer. Defend our assets here at home.
But resist the idea of another invasion of a large Middle Eastern nation please. Detracts from what we need to do and provides additional recruits for our opponents.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 17, 2006 04:16 PM (UnGrU)
10
Remember, Arthur-- anyone who disagrees or (horrors!) opposes Mister Bush is a)crazy; b)delusional; c)filled with partisan malice.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 17, 2006 05:42 PM (pEWm6)
11
Well, look who showed back up.
Of course, no one suggested that everyone (or even a substantial minority) who disagrees with Bush has a mental defect (crasy or delusional), but it was Democrats who came up with the diagnosis of "Post Election Selection Trauma" to self-diagnose the flawed coping skills of some of their own, so take that for what it is worth.
As for partisan malice, Fat Bastard, you've shown quite a bit of it on this blog, denoucing very nearly everyone who disagrees with you as a racist, then turning tail and running when I challenged you to apply the same standards to a very specific set of Democratic racists.
Back on topic Gore both lied in this speech as a factual matter (see the third link in the original article for a point-by-point refutation), and he engaged in unsupported hyperbole.
I'm sorry if Mr. Gore has gone further than he should have in front of a rabid (and unfilled) crowd, but as an adult, he has to take some reponsibility for his own actions.
I'll be very amused, Athurstone and Fat Bastard, to see just how scarce you make yourselves when the NSA program is proven constitutional and the Executive Branches Article II powers are confirmed, and I'll probably be even more amused by your cries of a conspiracy and coverup.
That's why I so enjoy being a conservative. You liberals are always amusing, even if you can't be taken seriously.
Of course, no one suggested that everyone (or even a substantial minority) who disagrees with Bush has a mental defect (crasy or delusional), but it was Democrats who came up with the diagnosis of "Post Election Selection Trauma" to self-diagnose the flawed coping skills of some of their own, so take that for what it is worth.
As for partisan malice, Fat Bastard, you've shown quite a bit of it on this blog, denoucing very nearly everyone who disagrees with you as a racist, then turning tail and running when I challenged you to apply the same standards to a very specific set of Democratic racists.
Back on topic Gore both lied in this speech as a factual matter (see the third link in the original article for a point-by-point refutation), and he engaged in unsupported hyperbole.
I'm sorry if Mr. Gore has gone further than he should have in front of a rabid (and unfilled) crowd, but as an adult, he has to take some reponsibility for his own actions.
I'll be very amused, Athurstone and Fat Bastard, to see just how scarce you make yourselves when the NSA program is proven constitutional and the Executive Branches Article II powers are confirmed, and I'll probably be even more amused by your cries of a conspiracy and coverup.
That's why I so enjoy being a conservative. You liberals are always amusing, even if you can't be taken seriously.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 17, 2006 06:15 PM (0fZB6)
12
Actually, Mr CY, if you get into Mr Peabody's Wayback Machine, a previous administration was also wiretapping without a court order.
Happened all through the 8 years of that particular administration.
Taped the phone conversations of Strom Thurmond.
Taped the phone conversations of John Boehner.
Used something called Project Echelon.
And while The First Black President sold 50 years of nuclear secrets to Communist China, Al Gore was providing the same deal to the Russians.
Amazingly the old Gray Witch was silent on those matters.
Happened all through the 8 years of that particular administration.
Taped the phone conversations of Strom Thurmond.
Taped the phone conversations of John Boehner.
Used something called Project Echelon.
And while The First Black President sold 50 years of nuclear secrets to Communist China, Al Gore was providing the same deal to the Russians.
Amazingly the old Gray Witch was silent on those matters.
Posted by: Former Marxist at January 17, 2006 07:06 PM (XLfe+)
13
Not everyone who opposes Bush is crazy, delusional and filled with partisan malice; but if you see someone who is indeed crazy, delusional and filled with partisan rancor, they probably oppose Bush.
Posted by: Zhombre at January 17, 2006 07:34 PM (mBZ68)
14
Hey Arthur and Fat,
Any news on the Fitz front? I mean such a big scandal and we've spent almost $1M...
And talk about delusional - Teddy "Splash" Kennedy said today that he would quit the "OWL" club as soon as possible - he said that even though he paid them $100 per year he did not really belong to the club...
Let's see how you guys try to spin that one.
And note my post above where I noted that Gore said that "huge" numbers of Americans have been spied on. Hmmmm.....secret program....I wonder how he knows? Must be divining with Splash....
Any news on the Fitz front? I mean such a big scandal and we've spent almost $1M...
And talk about delusional - Teddy "Splash" Kennedy said today that he would quit the "OWL" club as soon as possible - he said that even though he paid them $100 per year he did not really belong to the club...
Let's see how you guys try to spin that one.
And note my post above where I noted that Gore said that "huge" numbers of Americans have been spied on. Hmmmm.....secret program....I wonder how he knows? Must be divining with Splash....
Posted by: Specter at January 17, 2006 08:14 PM (ybfXM)
15
"As for what to do with al-Queda we should (and presumably we are) continue to cooperate with our friends like the Spanish (rolling up terrorist networks left and right) to identify and neutralize our opponents in a legal and lawful manner. Arrest them, trace the links and throw the guilty bad guys in the slammer. Defend our assets here at home."
Didn't Clinton try the "law enforcement" angle before 9-11? Arthur, you really need to evaulate what is going on in this world today. When was the last time the police or the FBI fought a war? Do you honestly believe our police/FBI would be effective in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else our hunt for al-Qaeda takes us? This is NOT a war we can afford to prosecute in a "law enforcement" manner.
Didn't Clinton try the "law enforcement" angle before 9-11? Arthur, you really need to evaulate what is going on in this world today. When was the last time the police or the FBI fought a war? Do you honestly believe our police/FBI would be effective in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else our hunt for al-Qaeda takes us? This is NOT a war we can afford to prosecute in a "law enforcement" manner.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 17, 2006 08:23 PM (owAN1)
16
Uh... no, I left for two reasons-- one is, I have a real job that takes up a significant amount of time.
The other is that I really couldn't even see the point of trying to argue with people who beleve Saddam Hussein was complicit in the September 11 attacks.
As for blanket accusations of racism-- my dear boy, I never, for instance, accused nor even considered Old Soldier to be a racist. I disagreed with the Old One in a respectful, collegial manner.
I find it difficult- no, impossible to respect neoconfederates. At least, those that run away from the history of their cotton-pickin' Reich (after all-- if the secessionists themselves say that they were leaving the United States in order to protect the institution of slavery, who are we to argue?).
I have more respect for the Stormfront types with whom at least you know where you stand.
Ahem... returning to the subject at hand--
I know how much you folks hate Al Gore (oooo, it reeks of KKKlintoon!), but just what lies did he tell?
The other is that I really couldn't even see the point of trying to argue with people who beleve Saddam Hussein was complicit in the September 11 attacks.
As for blanket accusations of racism-- my dear boy, I never, for instance, accused nor even considered Old Soldier to be a racist. I disagreed with the Old One in a respectful, collegial manner.
I find it difficult- no, impossible to respect neoconfederates. At least, those that run away from the history of their cotton-pickin' Reich (after all-- if the secessionists themselves say that they were leaving the United States in order to protect the institution of slavery, who are we to argue?).
I have more respect for the Stormfront types with whom at least you know where you stand.
Ahem... returning to the subject at hand--
I know how much you folks hate Al Gore (oooo, it reeks of KKKlintoon!), but just what lies did he tell?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 17, 2006 10:24 PM (pEWm6)
17
Old Soldier-- again, with respect, I think that's the only way to do it.
Terrorists are small numbers of people; and as horrifying as their acts are, essentially they are nothing more than crimes.
The way to catch mass-murderers is always the same-- intelligence, investigation, and plain old gumshoe work.
(You might send something a little heavier than a squad car to ultimately take them down, of course; but the problem with these guys is always going to be finding them.)
Terrorists are small numbers of people; and as horrifying as their acts are, essentially they are nothing more than crimes.
The way to catch mass-murderers is always the same-- intelligence, investigation, and plain old gumshoe work.
(You might send something a little heavier than a squad car to ultimately take them down, of course; but the problem with these guys is always going to be finding them.)
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 17, 2006 10:28 PM (pEWm6)
18
FB, you cannot honestly believe that the police/FBI are capable of operating in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere (internationally) as a police force and be effective in taking out training sites, logistics sites and financial support structures, not to mention actual al-Qaeda operatives. If you truly believe that, then you do not have a holistic understanding of the situation. Al-Qaeda is a paramilitary organization whose ultimate goal is to impose radical Islamic Sharia on the rest of the world. Their leaders have declared war on the US and other “western” nations. They do not possess a national identity, but they do possess a cultural and religious identity. Their lack of a national identity actually makes them more dangerous in that they travel to/from and within host nations with a degree of anonymity. In your heart you may wish this problem to be just a matter for the police to handle, but God forbid that it be handled as such.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 18, 2006 08:18 AM (X2tAw)
19
FB - simple enough.
Gore stated that "huge" numbers of innocent americans had been spied on. What do you consider huge? And what is considered "innocent"?
As I said before, it's pretty obvious that someone in the US speaking with a known terrorist cell phone in the middle east is not just ordering a pizza.
So hence, Gore lied. Spin it different, but before you try go and look at the text of his speech.
Gore stated that "huge" numbers of innocent americans had been spied on. What do you consider huge? And what is considered "innocent"?
As I said before, it's pretty obvious that someone in the US speaking with a known terrorist cell phone in the middle east is not just ordering a pizza.
So hence, Gore lied. Spin it different, but before you try go and look at the text of his speech.
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 09:01 AM (ybfXM)
20
No, Old One, of course not. But then, since the terrorists primary weapons are simple car-bombs and rifles (and boxcutters on airplanes, but that horse is out of the barn; no planeload of passengers will ever let a few people with boxcutters take that airplane without a fight), they just can't do a helluva lot to us from the mountains of Tora Bora.
The ones who hijacked the aeroplanes on that wretched day had spent a long time right here in the US.
HERE is where the targets are; here is where the killers have to be to access the targets, and here is where plain old gumshoe police work will do the job.
As for military work-- you're already well aware that I agreed with and fully support the policy of destroying the Taliban as a cohesive government and military force.
It is my considered opinion that Iraq has taken our eyes off the ball. If we wanted to support democracy and help promote "freedom," we would have been much better served by focusing on Afghanistan and getting the damn job done there.
The ones who hijacked the aeroplanes on that wretched day had spent a long time right here in the US.
HERE is where the targets are; here is where the killers have to be to access the targets, and here is where plain old gumshoe police work will do the job.
As for military work-- you're already well aware that I agreed with and fully support the policy of destroying the Taliban as a cohesive government and military force.
It is my considered opinion that Iraq has taken our eyes off the ball. If we wanted to support democracy and help promote "freedom," we would have been much better served by focusing on Afghanistan and getting the damn job done there.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 10:08 AM (pEWm6)
21
Spector:
Huge? In my opinion, ONE is HUGE. How many times must the law be broken before its considered actual lawbreaking?
After all, the last president was impeached over telling a lie about a consensual affair while under oath; even though that lie was immaterial to the case at hand.
THEN it was called perjury.
Now, I'm not going to try to get into the legal minutiae; but according to some senators I've seen quoted, it appears that the FISA law was broken.
What does it matter the number, WHEN THE LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN?
Huge? In my opinion, ONE is HUGE. How many times must the law be broken before its considered actual lawbreaking?
After all, the last president was impeached over telling a lie about a consensual affair while under oath; even though that lie was immaterial to the case at hand.
THEN it was called perjury.
Now, I'm not going to try to get into the legal minutiae; but according to some senators I've seen quoted, it appears that the FISA law was broken.
What does it matter the number, WHEN THE LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 10:14 AM (pEWm6)
22
CY wrote:
Of course, no one suggested that everyone (or even a substantial minority) who disagrees with Bush has a mental defect (crasy or delusional)...
And from CY's home page:
Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.
Hmmmm.
Of course, no one suggested that everyone (or even a substantial minority) who disagrees with Bush has a mental defect (crasy or delusional)...
And from CY's home page:
Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.
Hmmmm.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 18, 2006 10:21 AM (hGNke)
23
FB-
Nice post(s).
I totally agree that Iraq is a huge waste of money, people and political will keeping us from dealing with the actual threats we face.
Nice post(s).
I totally agree that Iraq is a huge waste of money, people and political will keeping us from dealing with the actual threats we face.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 18, 2006 10:24 AM (hGNke)
24
"...they just can't do a helluva lot to us from the mountains of Tora Bora."
Oh, but they can, FB. It was from the recesses of Afghanistan that the plans were orchestrated and initiated that claimed our countrymen on 9-11. The leadership is not operating from within the US; sleeper cells of minions waiting for their orders from Tora Bora, yes, but not the leadership. If we can sever the lines of communications by taking out the leadership, the sleeper cells will eventually be discovered by our gumshoes (who have been alerted by the NSA monitoring teams). Stiking the leadership and disrupting communications is not the work of police; that is the work of the military.
This is not a mid intensity conflict with uniformly defined opposing military forces operating on a defined battlefield. It will take the collective resources of police/FBI, intel and the military. The difference, I guess, is that I see a much larger roll for the military than do you. We cannot give these radical Islamic terrorists even one night's rest without being relentlessly pursued. The leadership has to be priority one.
Oh, but they can, FB. It was from the recesses of Afghanistan that the plans were orchestrated and initiated that claimed our countrymen on 9-11. The leadership is not operating from within the US; sleeper cells of minions waiting for their orders from Tora Bora, yes, but not the leadership. If we can sever the lines of communications by taking out the leadership, the sleeper cells will eventually be discovered by our gumshoes (who have been alerted by the NSA monitoring teams). Stiking the leadership and disrupting communications is not the work of police; that is the work of the military.
This is not a mid intensity conflict with uniformly defined opposing military forces operating on a defined battlefield. It will take the collective resources of police/FBI, intel and the military. The difference, I guess, is that I see a much larger roll for the military than do you. We cannot give these radical Islamic terrorists even one night's rest without being relentlessly pursued. The leadership has to be priority one.
Posted by: Old SOldier at January 18, 2006 10:41 AM (X2tAw)
25
What a combo! Artie and Fat Bastard. It does provide us with some entertainment, though, because they are both so easy to prove both foolish and dead wrong.
These two make all sorts of statements - as does the unhinged Al Gore - and they are following the same premise: Bush broke the law. As with Ailing Al, who admitted that he did not know any of the details of the NSA surveillance program, and who, himself, did not finish law school, these two are claiming to know the law.
I challenged these two on several occasions to explain where in the U.S. Constitution or the actual provisions of the FISA statutes they can show evidence of wrongdoing. It is obvious that these two just bully and bloviate without citing specifics. Neither have even read any of the laws or Court decisions. I am pretty certain of that. If they had they could maybe be more convincing.
I could write volumes on these issues, but I'll let CY, Old Soldier and others cover that for a while. I just had surgery yesterday morning, and the pain is still a big detraction.
Bring it on, boys! I know others can deal with your lunacy without even breaking a sweat.
These two make all sorts of statements - as does the unhinged Al Gore - and they are following the same premise: Bush broke the law. As with Ailing Al, who admitted that he did not know any of the details of the NSA surveillance program, and who, himself, did not finish law school, these two are claiming to know the law.
I challenged these two on several occasions to explain where in the U.S. Constitution or the actual provisions of the FISA statutes they can show evidence of wrongdoing. It is obvious that these two just bully and bloviate without citing specifics. Neither have even read any of the laws or Court decisions. I am pretty certain of that. If they had they could maybe be more convincing.
I could write volumes on these issues, but I'll let CY, Old Soldier and others cover that for a while. I just had surgery yesterday morning, and the pain is still a big detraction.
Bring it on, boys! I know others can deal with your lunacy without even breaking a sweat.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 18, 2006 10:45 AM (wjIba)
26
I think there's where we part company, Old Soldier; but I think it an amicable parting.
My wish to crush the Taliban and Al Qaeda is for plain ol', good ol' retribution. My country was never one for starting wars ('til recently, of course, but I digress) but it was hell on wheels for ending them. (Mr. Taliban, your folks murdered a bunch of ours. GIVE THEM UP, OR WE WILL STOMP THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF YOU.)
Again, having SF and the Delta boys hike all over the mountains and find that bearded son-of-a-bitch is in my opinion A VERY GOOD THING.
(just as an aside, there's a very primitive part of me that wants Bin Laden's head literally on a pike outside the White House, replete with crows-- too many episodes of HBO's Rome, I think...)
But I still believe domestic police work (and I mean honest police work, not illegal wiretaps, not torture, not abrogating the civil and human rights of our people) is our best bulwark against further attacks.
My wish to crush the Taliban and Al Qaeda is for plain ol', good ol' retribution. My country was never one for starting wars ('til recently, of course, but I digress) but it was hell on wheels for ending them. (Mr. Taliban, your folks murdered a bunch of ours. GIVE THEM UP, OR WE WILL STOMP THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF YOU.)
Again, having SF and the Delta boys hike all over the mountains and find that bearded son-of-a-bitch is in my opinion A VERY GOOD THING.
(just as an aside, there's a very primitive part of me that wants Bin Laden's head literally on a pike outside the White House, replete with crows-- too many episodes of HBO's Rome, I think...)
But I still believe domestic police work (and I mean honest police work, not illegal wiretaps, not torture, not abrogating the civil and human rights of our people) is our best bulwark against further attacks.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 10:51 AM (pEWm6)
27
Retired Spy-
May not be quite as cut and dried as you would have us believe.
"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform
May not be quite as cut and dried as you would have us believe.
"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 18, 2006 10:54 AM (hGNke)
28
sigh it's the retired spy who believes Saddam Hussein collaborated in the September 11 attacks.
You don't believe the administration broke the law; others believe they did. Meanwhile you carry on, bloviating (such an interesting word; so applicable to mindless right-wing blowhards) about how unhinged Gore (and I and Art) must be.
Per usual, attack those who raise questions; don't address the issue.
Carry on, Spy.
You don't believe the administration broke the law; others believe they did. Meanwhile you carry on, bloviating (such an interesting word; so applicable to mindless right-wing blowhards) about how unhinged Gore (and I and Art) must be.
Per usual, attack those who raise questions; don't address the issue.
Carry on, Spy.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 10:55 AM (pEWm6)
29
You two are really pathetic - Arthur an Fat Bastard. You never have anything to back up your statements, and then you quote someone like Grover Norquist as a source?
RS has challenged you two to provide some facts from FISA and other statutes and court decisions to support your statements, and you quote Grover Norquist?
RS is right. You two are far too easy.
RS has challenged you two to provide some facts from FISA and other statutes and court decisions to support your statements, and you quote Grover Norquist?
RS is right. You two are far too easy.
Posted by: Moshe at January 18, 2006 11:58 AM (wjIba)
30
FB,
You say that a law was broken. Which one? Want to point to a specific one instead of speaking it because someone who supports your side has programmed you to say that? Even FISA allows the president to do warrantless electronic intelligence gathering for up to a year if it is determined that someone is an "agent of a foreign power". Now before you speak, check out Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1801 of FISA. This is the key section on definitions. Pay special attention to (a)(4) where the law defines a "foreign power" as a "group engaged in international terrorism".
Go from there to part (b) of that section. There are two sub-sections to part (b). The first deals with "any person other than a United States person", and clealy deals with non-US Persons. But the second subsection is "any person who". Now read (b)(2)(c)which clearly defines an "agent of a foreign power" as being "any person who - knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activitise that in preparation thereof, for or on behalf of a foreign power." So by the FISA law itself, a person who talks with a known terrorist can be classified as an "agent of a foreign power". And also clearly, since this section is clearly distinct and separate from the section dealing with "non-US Persons", this definition could include US citizens.
Next you should read Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802. Here is what you will find:
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
Now the only question that has to be answered under FISA is if a US Person is protected once they have been identified as an "agent of a foreign power"? That is not as easy to answer seeing as the law seems to contradict itself. But clearly the definitions section shows that US Persons could be considered "agents". If not, why the distinction between (b)(1) and (b)(2)?
All that aside, the president is not even asserting that he made the decision to go with the NSA program based on FISA, but instead on AUMF with his presidential war powers to gather intellingence.
You say that a law was broken. Which one? Want to point to a specific one instead of speaking it because someone who supports your side has programmed you to say that? Even FISA allows the president to do warrantless electronic intelligence gathering for up to a year if it is determined that someone is an "agent of a foreign power". Now before you speak, check out Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1801 of FISA. This is the key section on definitions. Pay special attention to (a)(4) where the law defines a "foreign power" as a "group engaged in international terrorism".
Go from there to part (b) of that section. There are two sub-sections to part (b). The first deals with "any person other than a United States person", and clealy deals with non-US Persons. But the second subsection is "any person who". Now read (b)(2)(c)which clearly defines an "agent of a foreign power" as being "any person who - knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activitise that in preparation thereof, for or on behalf of a foreign power." So by the FISA law itself, a person who talks with a known terrorist can be classified as an "agent of a foreign power". And also clearly, since this section is clearly distinct and separate from the section dealing with "non-US Persons", this definition could include US citizens.
Next you should read Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802. Here is what you will find:
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
Now the only question that has to be answered under FISA is if a US Person is protected once they have been identified as an "agent of a foreign power"? That is not as easy to answer seeing as the law seems to contradict itself. But clearly the definitions section shows that US Persons could be considered "agents". If not, why the distinction between (b)(1) and (b)(2)?
All that aside, the president is not even asserting that he made the decision to go with the NSA program based on FISA, but instead on AUMF with his presidential war powers to gather intellingence.
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 12:19 PM (ybfXM)
31
Gauntlet thrown down...time to put up or shut up....
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 12:20 PM (ybfXM)
32
Uh, Moshe-- cool name, by the way-- I can link you to the US Code for FISA; you may read to your hearts content.
Mostly dull lawyer-speak; but here you go.
But I'm not here pretending to be a lawyer; and I'm not going to get embroiled in the lawyerly details.
You support the Regime, therefore you believe no crime has been committed.
Others, as CY mentions on another thread, believe that a crime has been committed and have filed suit accordingly (of course, since CY considers the plaintiffs to be "terrorist coddlers," "liberal," and "Hamas associated," their arguments are wrong and pointless).
The Stone's comment regarding Grover Norquist simply indicates that even staunch right-wing Republicans are questioning the Administration's behavior in this matter.
Not some "liberal," that you guys could dismiss with an airy wave of the imperial hand, but one of the Republican Party's most influential money men.
Not a hand any elephant would want to bite, I would assume?
Specter (it would be so much more interesting if you spelled Britstyle: SPECTRE is so much more appropriate to your mindset), with regard to how Fitz is doing: one megabuck spent so far, with the Vice-President's Chief of Staff currently under multiple indictments. Judge Starr: 45 megabucks spent to demonstrate that Bill Clinton is partial to fat girls.
With such cognitive dissonance...
Mostly dull lawyer-speak; but here you go.
But I'm not here pretending to be a lawyer; and I'm not going to get embroiled in the lawyerly details.
You support the Regime, therefore you believe no crime has been committed.
Others, as CY mentions on another thread, believe that a crime has been committed and have filed suit accordingly (of course, since CY considers the plaintiffs to be "terrorist coddlers," "liberal," and "Hamas associated," their arguments are wrong and pointless).
The Stone's comment regarding Grover Norquist simply indicates that even staunch right-wing Republicans are questioning the Administration's behavior in this matter.
Not some "liberal," that you guys could dismiss with an airy wave of the imperial hand, but one of the Republican Party's most influential money men.
Not a hand any elephant would want to bite, I would assume?
Specter (it would be so much more interesting if you spelled Britstyle: SPECTRE is so much more appropriate to your mindset), with regard to how Fitz is doing: one megabuck spent so far, with the Vice-President's Chief of Staff currently under multiple indictments. Judge Starr: 45 megabucks spent to demonstrate that Bill Clinton is partial to fat girls.
With such cognitive dissonance...
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 12:35 PM (pEWm6)
33
Gauntlet thrown down... (zziiiiip!) and promptly pissed on.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to pretend to be one.
But I go back to the fact that serious lawyers, journalists and elected officials disagree with you.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to pretend to be one.
But I go back to the fact that serious lawyers, journalists and elected officials disagree with you.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 12:39 PM (pEWm6)
34
And quite a few agree with me. But note that I at least provide evidence.....
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 12:56 PM (ybfXM)
35
Ummm....the law suits were not filed saying anyone broke the law. They state that first amendment rights to free speech may have been abrogated. Big distinction. I can't picture the ACLU being able to arrest people......
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 12:58 PM (ybfXM)
36
BTW - name these serious lawyers. and journalists aren't lawyers either so what makes them qualified/ Because they have to generate controversy to sell papers? Gotta feel bad for them cuz they are on the path of the dinosaur....look at the declining readership and stock value at LAT, NYT, WaPo.
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 01:00 PM (ybfXM)
37
Specter-
Thanks for all the verbiage.
Very interesting.
Still it's even more interesting that Republican stalwarts aren't buying. I mean as a knee-jerk liberal I can be expected to do no less (ha ha). But Paul Weyrich?
Why do you suppose that is? They certainly aren't brainwashed liberals.
Could it be the administration isn't acting in quite the manner they claim to be? I mean perhaps the degree of eavesdropping is very different in type and quantity from that which they claim.
Could it be the legal advice they are receiving is incorrect?
Could it be they are common criminals after all?
We'll see won't we?
Thanks for all the verbiage.
Very interesting.
Still it's even more interesting that Republican stalwarts aren't buying. I mean as a knee-jerk liberal I can be expected to do no less (ha ha). But Paul Weyrich?
Why do you suppose that is? They certainly aren't brainwashed liberals.
Could it be the administration isn't acting in quite the manner they claim to be? I mean perhaps the degree of eavesdropping is very different in type and quantity from that which they claim.
Could it be the legal advice they are receiving is incorrect?
Could it be they are common criminals after all?
We'll see won't we?
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 18, 2006 01:35 PM (3StSI)
38
Arthur,
Yes...we will. But I don't suspect any time soon that any court will take up this.
I'll also point out that Cass Sunstein, a liberal, constitutional scholar, lawyer, and judge, has weighed in on this and said that from his perspective no laws were broken.
The other thing to remember is that if Congress passes a law that infringes on the president's constitutional powers, then by definition the law is unconstitutional.
So far, only circuit level courts have made any rulings. Also FISC, the FISA court, in the UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE COURT OF REVIEW, in Sealed Case no. 02-001 said (emphasis mine):
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.
So here we see the actual FISA court saying that they think the president has the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches. Every case I have seen referred to so far says the same thing.
Yes...we will. But I don't suspect any time soon that any court will take up this.
I'll also point out that Cass Sunstein, a liberal, constitutional scholar, lawyer, and judge, has weighed in on this and said that from his perspective no laws were broken.
The other thing to remember is that if Congress passes a law that infringes on the president's constitutional powers, then by definition the law is unconstitutional.
So far, only circuit level courts have made any rulings. Also FISC, the FISA court, in the UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE COURT OF REVIEW, in Sealed Case no. 02-001 said (emphasis mine):
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.
So here we see the actual FISA court saying that they think the president has the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches. Every case I have seen referred to so far says the same thing.
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 02:06 PM (ybfXM)
39
Y'know, if you could just send Ol' Al back down here to Florida, we could 'Baker Act' him into a nice hospital. He'd get the care he so obviously needs.
'Cause, after all, we care.
'Cause, after all, we care.
Posted by: benning at January 18, 2006 02:46 PM (PGmbh)
40
Thank you for your exquisite analysis, Mr. Blofeld. You're ever so correct that a lawsuit doesn't constitute a criminal investigation. Nonetheless, someone feels the Administration is committing criminal (or at least, extra-constitutional) acts and seeks to get a court to tell the Administration to stop it.
So, to recap-- though your (admittedly excellent) legal analysis demonstrates clearly that the law was not broken, others disagree.
Thank you again for the scholarly discourse.
So, to recap-- though your (admittedly excellent) legal analysis demonstrates clearly that the law was not broken, others disagree.
Thank you again for the scholarly discourse.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 03:21 PM (pEWm6)
41
FB,
The problem I was trying to address was your flat out statement that (in your words - caps included)"THE LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN". Obviously at some point the courts may take this up (but they may not). It's the fact that your side keeps saying that without doubt a law has been broken. In reality, there is huge doubt that a law has been broken - other than Al Gore, Pelosi, Rocky, Splash Kennedy, NYT (et.al.) saying so.
Every time I ask, I get no answer as to which law and why, beyond some vague reference to FISA, which everyone has read about, but few people know about.
The problem I was trying to address was your flat out statement that (in your words - caps included)"THE LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN". Obviously at some point the courts may take this up (but they may not). It's the fact that your side keeps saying that without doubt a law has been broken. In reality, there is huge doubt that a law has been broken - other than Al Gore, Pelosi, Rocky, Splash Kennedy, NYT (et.al.) saying so.
Every time I ask, I get no answer as to which law and why, beyond some vague reference to FISA, which everyone has read about, but few people know about.
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 04:11 PM (ybfXM)
42
FB,
One other thing. You said:
Not some "liberal," that you guys could dismiss with an airy wave of the imperial hand, but one of the Republican Party's most influential money men.
Can you explain why you would point people to an article published on April 26, 2001, with regards to a matter happening in 2005? I'm not sure I understand....
One other thing. You said:
Not some "liberal," that you guys could dismiss with an airy wave of the imperial hand, but one of the Republican Party's most influential money men.
Can you explain why you would point people to an article published on April 26, 2001, with regards to a matter happening in 2005? I'm not sure I understand....
Posted by: Specter at January 18, 2006 04:15 PM (ybfXM)
43
The link was to an article that identifies the illustrious Mr. Norquist and his bona fides with the Republican Party.
Jeez.
Jeez.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 09:04 PM (pEWm6)
44
Oh, by the way, Mr. Blofeld- let us split the difference: IF the LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN, what does it matter how often?
Once was enough to impeach KKKlintoon...
Once was enough to impeach KKKlintoon...
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 18, 2006 09:07 PM (pEWm6)
45
And am I assuming correctly, FB, that, simply because Mr. Norquist is a Republican who happens to agree with the crap you are spewing is a basis for declaring him an ally and an expert on Constitutional Law and decisions arrived at in the courts?
No one ever claimed that all Republicans are great intellectuals on everything. I have not read any of his learned evaluations and interpretations of the Law on the matter of warrantless searches or surveillance of foreign communications or anything else. Can you cite something pertinent to this discussion?
Being knowledgeable on money and finance and taxes does not equate to expertise on the Law any more that an architect has expertise in cosmetics.
As always, your flabby logic shows just how transparent and inconsequential most of your arguments really are.
And what, exactly, is this Mr. Blofeld reference to the person using the screen name of Specter? Are you just being disrespectful because he has shown you up for the fraud you are?
No one ever claimed that all Republicans are great intellectuals on everything. I have not read any of his learned evaluations and interpretations of the Law on the matter of warrantless searches or surveillance of foreign communications or anything else. Can you cite something pertinent to this discussion?
Being knowledgeable on money and finance and taxes does not equate to expertise on the Law any more that an architect has expertise in cosmetics.
As always, your flabby logic shows just how transparent and inconsequential most of your arguments really are.
And what, exactly, is this Mr. Blofeld reference to the person using the screen name of Specter? Are you just being disrespectful because he has shown you up for the fraud you are?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 18, 2006 11:47 PM (FsLF4)
46
Not the point FB,
The fact is that you insist that a law has been broken. So far nobody has proven that. Not once in this matter. But you keep saying it is so, "because you say it is so." That's not splitting hairs. You accuse someone with no proof, no expertise, based on what you have been programmed to say. You provide virtually nothing to back up your claims of illegality, and then when someone actually points to the law you contend was broken you pull a David Letterman (as in I'm not smart enough to debate with you..) by saying, "I'm not a lawyer." Can you read? Read the law for yourself and see what you come up with.
The fact is that you insist that a law has been broken. So far nobody has proven that. Not once in this matter. But you keep saying it is so, "because you say it is so." That's not splitting hairs. You accuse someone with no proof, no expertise, based on what you have been programmed to say. You provide virtually nothing to back up your claims of illegality, and then when someone actually points to the law you contend was broken you pull a David Letterman (as in I'm not smart enough to debate with you..) by saying, "I'm not a lawyer." Can you read? Read the law for yourself and see what you come up with.
Posted by: Specter at January 19, 2006 10:51 AM (ybfXM)
47
Tsk, tsk, tsk. A Retired Spy should recognize a James Bond reference.
The point I made was that not only democrats and not only "liberals" question the legality of the administrations behaviour.
Get a grip, willya?
Look, Mr. Blofeld-- I will not move to saying "the law HAS NOT been broken." I DID move to "IF the law HAS BEEN broken." I don't know. Based on the relative credibility of the people and organisations making the allegations, I believe the law was broken. I am not qualified to offer a legal opinion. I will not attempt to do so.
So bugger off.
The point I made was that not only democrats and not only "liberals" question the legality of the administrations behaviour.
Get a grip, willya?
Look, Mr. Blofeld-- I will not move to saying "the law HAS NOT been broken." I DID move to "IF the law HAS BEEN broken." I don't know. Based on the relative credibility of the people and organisations making the allegations, I believe the law was broken. I am not qualified to offer a legal opinion. I will not attempt to do so.
So bugger off.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 19, 2006 06:43 PM (pEWm6)
48
Didn't much care for the Bond flicks. Read one of Fleming's books, saw the first movie and was bored. Too sexist and unrealistic. You may have had all sorts of fantasies with you and Johnson, FB, but my assignments were in the real world.
You needed to find a more credible reference for your thesis than Norquist. Chuck Hagel would have been more convincing than Norquist.
As for legal opinion, you can, as Specter noted, read, can't you? Too much work for you?
You needed to find a more credible reference for your thesis than Norquist. Chuck Hagel would have been more convincing than Norquist.
As for legal opinion, you can, as Specter noted, read, can't you? Too much work for you?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 19, 2006 07:38 PM (FsLF4)
49
I don't get that, Spy. I mention a prominent Republican to indicate that not all those who question the Administration's behavior are left-wing moonbats (such as my own humble self.)
You respond that he's not good enough; I'd be better off choosing someone else.
Why?
Are you saying that Grover Norquist isn't an example of a prominent Republican?
Or that maybe he's not Republican enough?
Certainly you're not saying that he's not lawyer enough for his opinion to matter, are you?
Bond is fun. Not a treatise on MOUT or CQB or even simple tradecraft; but damn good fun anyway (only James Bond could drive a tank through a wall with the driver's hatch open and not get a speck of dust on his immaculately tailored Savile Row suit!)
Dude, you need to get out more.
You respond that he's not good enough; I'd be better off choosing someone else.
Why?
Are you saying that Grover Norquist isn't an example of a prominent Republican?
Or that maybe he's not Republican enough?
Certainly you're not saying that he's not lawyer enough for his opinion to matter, are you?
Bond is fun. Not a treatise on MOUT or CQB or even simple tradecraft; but damn good fun anyway (only James Bond could drive a tank through a wall with the driver's hatch open and not get a speck of dust on his immaculately tailored Savile Row suit!)
Dude, you need to get out more.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 19, 2006 09:10 PM (pEWm6)
50
FB-
Gets confusing to the true believers when it turns out lefties aren't the only ones having difficulties with the Bushites.
Gets confusing to the true believers when it turns out lefties aren't the only ones having difficulties with the Bushites.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 20, 2006 09:52 AM (hGNke)
51
Write what you will, Oh, reading impaired one ...
The national polls still favor the decision Bush made. That would be folks from both parties and the independents.
The national polls still favor the decision Bush made. That would be folks from both parties and the independents.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 11:13 AM (OP00Y)
52
O Spy, who should remain in retirement:
The national polls are also in favor or a woman's right to choose.
You do realize that you're committing the logical fallacy of "appeal to popularity," don't you?
Where was it you got your PhD again?
The national polls are also in favor or a woman's right to choose.
You do realize that you're committing the logical fallacy of "appeal to popularity," don't you?
Where was it you got your PhD again?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 20, 2006 01:10 PM (n2Agn)
53
I simply stated a fact about poll numbers, and, contrary to what you may 'believe' all Republicans support, I am not at odds with the women who favor their right to choose.
But the rulings of the SCOTUS are not based on popularity. They are based on the Constitution.
Therein lies the ruling in the final analysis.
The illogical argument you have chosen to cite is really as follows:
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.
This was not posed as an axiom by me or by anyone else. No one claimed that popularity equates to truth; it merely shows the leanings of the majority of people. Democracy is not, in and of itself perfect, nor does the outcome equate to absolute truth.
It serves only to illustrate that you and Artie are sucking hind tit.
But the rulings of the SCOTUS are not based on popularity. They are based on the Constitution.
Therein lies the ruling in the final analysis.
The illogical argument you have chosen to cite is really as follows:
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.
This was not posed as an axiom by me or by anyone else. No one claimed that popularity equates to truth; it merely shows the leanings of the majority of people. Democracy is not, in and of itself perfect, nor does the outcome equate to absolute truth.
It serves only to illustrate that you and Artie are sucking hind tit.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 03:26 PM (OP00Y)
54
Oh, Spy, that's just so droll!
YOU said, "the national polls still favor the decision Bush made." in an ever so erudite rebuttal of my last post.
Weak, dude, profoundly weak.
YOU said, "the national polls still favor the decision Bush made." in an ever so erudite rebuttal of my last post.
Weak, dude, profoundly weak.
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 20, 2006 04:09 PM (n2Agn)
55
It still points out very clearly, FB, that views and positions embraced by you and Artie remain in the minority in popularity AND in the learned views of experts in Constitutional Law, including federal courts and federal judges. Even the FISA Court supported Bush's actions with regard to the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance on foreign international communications related to al Qaeda operations.
Looks pretty clear to me - and surely not as weak and flabby as your brief lesson in the principles of basic logic.
Looks pretty clear to me - and surely not as weak and flabby as your brief lesson in the principles of basic logic.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 20, 2006 09:07 PM (OP00Y)
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 21, 2006 01:08 AM (pEWm6)
57
And to what do you appeal, FF?
I believe you and Artie have outlived your usefulness and your welcome. I don't minf debating with people whp hpld some opposing views, but you and Artie have made an artform out of being total @$$hats.
There is no hope for you at all. Nor is there hope for your feeble cause du jour.
Surely YOU would not appeal to authority. You have no respect for expertise and learned scholars or persons in positions of authority.
It's time for you and Artie to stroke each other elsewhere - somewhere devoid of rational thoughts processes and reason.
I believe you and Artie have outlived your usefulness and your welcome. I don't minf debating with people whp hpld some opposing views, but you and Artie have made an artform out of being total @$$hats.
There is no hope for you at all. Nor is there hope for your feeble cause du jour.
Surely YOU would not appeal to authority. You have no respect for expertise and learned scholars or persons in positions of authority.
It's time for you and Artie to stroke each other elsewhere - somewhere devoid of rational thoughts processes and reason.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 10:15 AM (OP00Y)
58
We're talking about logic here, Spy; a class you seem to have missed on your way to your glorious PhD.
To recap:
Leftists, traitors, and damn liberals question the Administration's behavior with regard to the FISA domestic spying issues.
SOME PROMINENT REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING GROVER NORQUIST, also question the Administration's behavior in this matter.
Ergo, NOT ONLY 'LEFTISTS, TRAITORS AND DAMN LIBERALS QUESTION THE ADMINISTRATIONS BEHAVIOR IN HIS MATTER.
Now you could assert that Grover's not Republican enough; not prominent enough; or not lawyer enough for his example to be counted in this analysis.
You have not.
Instead you say that the polls support Mr. Bush's actions; a clear appeal to popularity.
Then you say that various expert entities and unnamed Constitutional scholars agree with you, a clear appeal to authority.
Neither of which addresses my central proposition, which is that EVEN PROMINENT REPUBLICANS QUESTION THE ADMINISTRATION'S BEHAVIOR.
Errhmmm... now where did you get that PhD again?
To recap:
Leftists, traitors, and damn liberals question the Administration's behavior with regard to the FISA domestic spying issues.
SOME PROMINENT REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING GROVER NORQUIST, also question the Administration's behavior in this matter.
Ergo, NOT ONLY 'LEFTISTS, TRAITORS AND DAMN LIBERALS QUESTION THE ADMINISTRATIONS BEHAVIOR IN HIS MATTER.
Now you could assert that Grover's not Republican enough; not prominent enough; or not lawyer enough for his example to be counted in this analysis.
You have not.
Instead you say that the polls support Mr. Bush's actions; a clear appeal to popularity.
Then you say that various expert entities and unnamed Constitutional scholars agree with you, a clear appeal to authority.
Neither of which addresses my central proposition, which is that EVEN PROMINENT REPUBLICANS QUESTION THE ADMINISTRATION'S BEHAVIOR.
Errhmmm... now where did you get that PhD again?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 21, 2006 12:04 PM (pEWm6)
59
Was there some meaningful point that you were trying to make in the midst of all that empty rhetoric?
Did I write something about leftists and traitors and damn liberals as being the ONLY ones disagreeing with the President? Nope That was from you, FB.
As I noted in another thread, it's time for you to retreat to your rabbit hole, FB?
It really gets your goat that someone actually took the time to research documented evidence to arrive at conclusions - in much the same way as I conducted extensive research to get my PhD.
It is obvious that you are too lazy to do either, isn't it?
Did I write something about leftists and traitors and damn liberals as being the ONLY ones disagreeing with the President? Nope That was from you, FB.
As I noted in another thread, it's time for you to retreat to your rabbit hole, FB?
It really gets your goat that someone actually took the time to research documented evidence to arrive at conclusions - in much the same way as I conducted extensive research to get my PhD.
It is obvious that you are too lazy to do either, isn't it?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 01:53 PM (BRgB4)
60
Oh, Spy.
I made a simple, frankly factual comment regarding the nature of people who question the Administration's behaviour.
You haven't refuted that assertion; you cannot refute that assertion. You offer nothing but hebetudinous, shambling evasions.
You got your PhD through Affirmative Action, didn't you?
I made a simple, frankly factual comment regarding the nature of people who question the Administration's behaviour.
You haven't refuted that assertion; you cannot refute that assertion. You offer nothing but hebetudinous, shambling evasions.
You got your PhD through Affirmative Action, didn't you?
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 21, 2006 07:34 PM (pEWm6)
61
At least I HAVE one! Are you bad-mouthing Affirmative Action? No. I earned all my education through scholarship and hard work and scolastic achievement. In fact, the NSA paid for a large part of it.
You do not appear to have either the talent, intellect or energy to put forth serious work to do anything.
Anyone can cut and paste stuff. And you have even learned how to use a thesaurus! Too bad you have not learned to put words together as well as those who use the words more fluidly.
You do not appear to have either the talent, intellect or energy to put forth serious work to do anything.
Anyone can cut and paste stuff. And you have even learned how to use a thesaurus! Too bad you have not learned to put words together as well as those who use the words more fluidly.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 21, 2006 08:40 PM (BRgB4)
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 11:55 AM (pEWm6)
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 03:37 PM (BRgB4)
64
"I know what I am, but what are you?"
Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 22, 2006 04:16 PM (pEWm6)
65
I'll tell you what I am ... I am totally bored with your convoluted logic, stubbornness, intellectual impotence and insistence on dodging the facts as they pertain to any discussions at hand.
You and Artie and the KOS Kiddies can continue your circle jerk masturbation marathon until CY gets really tired of you.
I choose to ignore your ignorance and accusations and generalizations based on nothing but left wing psychotic paranoia.
You and Artie and the KOS Kiddies can continue your circle jerk masturbation marathon until CY gets really tired of you.
I choose to ignore your ignorance and accusations and generalizations based on nothing but left wing psychotic paranoia.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 22, 2006 08:25 PM (BRgB4)
January 16, 2006
God Hates Black People
Strange as it may seem (or not), New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, not Robert Byrd or Pat Robertson, made the following claim:
Nagin went on to have an imaginary conversation with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I'm going to be very charitable with Mayor Nagin, and simply suggest that he take some time off from his job and seek counseling for what may be post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The man is starting to sound less rational than Marion Barry.
Mayor Ray Nagin suggested Monday that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other storms were a sign that "God is mad at America" and at black communities, too, for tearing themselves apart with violence and political infighting. "Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country," Nagin, who is black, said as he and other city leaders marked Martin Luther King Day. "Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves." Nagin also promised that New Orleans will be a "chocolate" city again. Many of the city's black neighborhoods were heavily damaged by Katrina. "It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans _ the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans," the mayor said. "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:45 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He's been breathing TOXIC FUMES! Clear case of brain damage...sue Bush.
Imagine a white mayor saying that about a white city.
Does the good Mayor also want a majority of the tourists to the Big Easy also be black? Are they going to start asking your race when you try to book a hotel room?
The man needs to be put in a straght jacket.
Imagine a white mayor saying that about a white city.
Does the good Mayor also want a majority of the tourists to the Big Easy also be black? Are they going to start asking your race when you try to book a hotel room?
The man needs to be put in a straght jacket.
Posted by: Maggie at January 17, 2006 08:53 AM (QKXCW)
2
The Mayor, as a public servant, must be required to attend hours of sensitivity training, and learn about the diversity of the human race! Content of character, not color of skin!
Posted by: Tom TB at January 17, 2006 09:37 AM (6krEN)
Allergic to Heroes
"He was not a saint, he was just another human being."
More About Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The King Center
The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute
Time Magazine 100 article
Wikipedia entry
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:30 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
as Bennett pointed out on this morning's radio program, King's speeches were filled with Biblical references and metaphors, with a certainty that God Himself had a plan to solve the problems of America and the world, with optimistic talk of the greatness of America... in short, all the things that King's bloody-shirt successors have totally forgotten in their race for self-promotion and enrichment.
And let's not forget "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".
Let's build a memorial to him, but don't you dare expect me to conform to what he SAID.
And let's not forget "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".
Let's build a memorial to him, but don't you dare expect me to conform to what he SAID.
Posted by: dave at January 16, 2006 11:57 AM (VnUb/)
2
Dave:
You say, "Let's build a memorial to him, but don't you dare expect me to conform to what he SAID."
What on earth is THAT supposed to mean? Was it a rather feeble attempt to cast aspersions on those who are now 'talking the talk' but never did 'walk the walk?'
You say, "Let's build a memorial to him, but don't you dare expect me to conform to what he SAID."
What on earth is THAT supposed to mean? Was it a rather feeble attempt to cast aspersions on those who are now 'talking the talk' but never did 'walk the walk?'
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 16, 2006 01:57 PM (AaKND)
3
CY-
I'll bite.
Why would we assume Steven Spielberg is writing a film script 'lionizing' James Earl Ray?
Illuminate us.
I'll bite.
Why would we assume Steven Spielberg is writing a film script 'lionizing' James Earl Ray?
Illuminate us.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 16, 2006 02:33 PM (hGNke)
4
I believe CY's item could just 'possibly' be a bit of sarcasm in light of the way Spielberg rewrote and sugar-coated the history a wee bit on the Israeli retribution for the Palestinian butchery of innocent athletes in Munich. Ya think, Artie?
I like CT's definition of 'sarchasm' ....
I like CT's definition of 'sarchasm' ....
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 16, 2006 02:48 PM (AaKND)
5
RS, you would be correct. That was a Munich reference.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 16, 2006 03:52 PM (2lbsG)
6
It is a shame how many racial hucksters have taken the mantle of MLK Jr.
Posted by: Shoprat at January 16, 2006 04:55 PM (FKD+M)
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 16, 2006 04:56 PM (hGNke)
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 17, 2006 04:17 PM (UnGrU)
9
or you're being ignored, and rightfully so. ;-)
Posted by: Toby928 at January 17, 2006 06:28 PM (ATbKm)
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 19, 2006 02:47 PM (3StSI)
January 15, 2006
On A Roll
Jeff Goldstein, 2mg regimen of Klonopin (clonazepam) aside, is on an absolute tear today.
I was personally most drawn to They call him al-Flipper, al-Flipper..., which takes a look at a possible attempt by terrorists to mine Huntington Harbor (CA), but as the say, start at the top, and just keep scrolling.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:46 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.1863 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1267 seconds, 392 records returned.
Page size 355 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.