this troll did as you suggest and took "...a long hard look at the list Kohlmayer has above..."
kohlmayers list of devious deeds is nothing but lies...they are in fact "alice in the looking glass" reversals of reality...and therefore your entire argument can only be considered bunk.
i hope that you do not practice psychological analysis, because it is clear you have a problem with reality and critical thought. the damage someone like you could do to a patient would be catastrophic. do they have licensing boards in michigan?
America has ceded her reason to a namby-pamby group of do-gooders who believe that the example THEY set is the one the world needs!
"If we are good", they argue, "our enemies will be good!"
These people don't want to be American citizens! They want to be citizens of the world!
As Americans they are hated everywhere; and they only want to be loved!
So goodbye America!; hello World!
jay k. the typical insightless troll who can only insult Dr. S personally, but can't challenge her arguments (except to call them "lies"). Everything she quotes Kohlmeyer as saying is documented behavior by those of your ilk. You must of spent --what? a whole 2 seconds looking in the mirror? Stop listening to how sublime your rhetoric is and LOOK AT ITS CONSEQUENCES. Until you do, you will languish in stupidity.
"If we are good", they argue, "our enemies will be good!"
who said that? who are you qouting? names, dates, etc. please. maybe you could link to a source for us? because otherwise this is just another in a long line of bogus straw-man arguments. and i have to ask...how strong is your case when you have to rely on half-truths, straw-men, hyperbole, and outright lies to make it?
a reasonable policy and expression of our national values AND national interests.
Why would it be in our national interests to further solidify the influence of Hezballah and Iran through the creation of a Shiite crescent?
I'll assume that the GOP's objective support of Iran and Hez is just the fever talking.
jan...
let's make it easy, and start with the very first item on the list. please show me where it is documented, as you claim, that a democrat has tried to prevent the government from listening to terrorists phone calls. many people have tried to insure that the rights of US citizens are not violated in the process...but that is a wholly different thing than kohlmayers claim. the consequences of people like you who are more than willing to surrender the rule of law and our constitution in the face of what you see as boogey-men from the middle-east are the consequences i fear.
jay k.: Calling a supported generalization a lie does not make it a lie. Demonstrate the falseness of Kohlmayer's observations please.
One only has to carefully read remarks by or pen-pal letters from Iran's Prez or Chavez to recognize Dem talking points.
Why are you not outraged by Iran's imperialistic hegemony in the ME? Save your high dudgeon for America's real threats. Or don't you regard Ahmadaboutjihad's "unplugged" remarks as seriously as he intends them.
When the Left stops its constipated rhetoric that our engagement in Iraq is "Bush's war" and begins to recognize that Iran(and Syria)are engaged in a power-struggle for control of ME energy through Iraq with proxy wars and material support to the enemy to cripple the world's economy (and thus realize true imperialistic aims), then maybe the Left will come to see that the values of the West are really at stake.
An axis of Iran-Russia-Venezuela-China, along with NoKo, is not in the interests of American security. When/if Iraq falls to Iran and its allies, 80% of the world's energy supplies will be in the hands of enemies to America. Believe me, none of those enemies will be interested in your opinion. You probably will not have the right to express it anyway.
Jay -
The outing of a secret program to listen to terrorist phone calls is not in the best interests of the citizenry. Neither is the outing of the terrorist financial tracking. The NYTimes (bless their hearts) has been consistent in their attempts to keep things such as that in the public eye - and I'll admit that I don't see any reason for them to do so other than the fact that they CAN, and they've got an antipathy towards the Republican party that knows pretty much no bounds.
BTW, I'm quite sure that our enemies in the ME would love to be seen as boogey-men - maybe if we just repeat "There's no such thing as boogey-men" enough times the bombings and other terrorist actions will magically erase themselves from our consciousness.
Whenever someone says they want to destroy you, eradicate you, take over your country, impose shari'a law on the US and the like - it's probably not a bad idea to take their threats and attempts as a serious matter.
J.
jayk- what are the lies- exactly- that you are referring to?
To simply fling about charges (as you did in your initial comment) with any kind of substantiation only highlights a lack of credibility and substance- not to mention your own clear lack of understanding the rules of argumentation and your own obvious lack of critical thinking skills.
In addition, besides your own obvious need to deal with your anger and other clearly presented pathologies via therapy, what are your exact qualification to question Dr Sanity's credentials?
Needing therapy does not qualify you as a legitimate arbiter of psychiatric competence. Clearly, that is yet another reality from which you remain detached.
By the way- role playing won't help you get better.
Unfortunately, too many of the contemporary citizens of the U.S. are too confused about freedom to be exporting our ideas of it. The principles upon which the nation was founded are individual liberty to do as one pleases as long as one is not threatening the life or property or liberty of action of our fellow citizens.
The principles most of us buy now are diametrically opposed to those of the founding: Government is about bullying the unpopular (see our Wars on Vice), forcing the productive to provide gifts to the unproductive, and the creation of a vast and arrogant governing class to harass our people and eat out their substance. The twentieth century was a time of great intellectual rot; the result is the most numerous but ignorant intelligentsia in history violating the rights of their fellow citizens.
We shouldn't be exporting this.
onlineanalyst...
a generalization that misrepresents facts and motivations is in fact a lie.
and a lot of people responding to me seem to be confused about facts.
i repeat my challenge to jan...show me one person who has wanted to stop the government from listening to terrorists. one.
jlawson...
the outing of an illegal program that is listening to innocent citiazens is in the interest of the citizenry...and if a republican congress abdicates oversight responsibilities then it becomes doubly incumbent upon the fourth estate to do so.
jay k.
Show me one documented example of anyone's civil liberteries being violated by any of this administration's policies. Just one.
"...show me one person who has wanted to stop the government from listening to terrorists. one."
jay k.
Bill Keller, Editor in Chief of the NYT.
Obviously Congressional Oversight Committees knew about the NSA surveilance program and did not object. The program was all about data mining in order to discover likely terrorists and then listen to them +/- apprehend them.
Keller leaked the program's existence to the terrorists and to anyone else who would want to stop it for their own paranoid/narcissistic reasons.
DUH and QED, but not according to postmodernists, no doubt.
Let the Fliberalating faux mentia continue!
mark j...
The U.S. government agreed Wednesday to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit filed by an Oregon lawyer who was arrested and jailed for two weeks in 2004 after the FBI bungled a fingerprint match and mistakenly linked him to a terrorist attack in Spain.
Under the terms of the settlement filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Portland, the government also issued an unusual apology to Brandon Mayfield for the suffering caused by his wrongful arrest and imprisonment.
Mayfield will be able to continue pursuing his legal challenge to the constitutionality of the Patriot Act anti-terrorism law, which was used to obtain his personal records while he was under investigation.
so there is your one. much more important than any specific case is the fact that by circumventing oversight procedures no one has any way of knowing when and if their rights are violated. that is why we have a rule of law in this country, not the rule of one man. now you may argue that if you don't know if your rights are violated why does it matter? and maybe you don't care, but that is irrelevant and not a valid argument.
j peden.
1st...that is a blatant misrepresentation of the ny times motivations.
2nd...congressional oversight commitees did not know, a limited number of members of congress were briefed, far less than the ones required by law, and objections were raised and went unanswered until the times and others shed light on this illegal program.
You're one deluded SOB jay. In one post you say: "...show me one person who has wanted to stop the government from listening to terrorists. one."
And in the very next post you state:
"the outing of an illegal program that is listening to innocent citiazens..."
So which is it jay?
Furthermore, show me one American, innocent or otherwise, who has fallen victim to your so-called "illegal program" you're so damned paranoid of. Just one jay.
John Lewis delivers a bracing assessment of the present troubles, and his conclusion that Islamic Totalitarianism can be defeated if Americans exercise the proper moral will stands beyond all doubt. The question is, do enough of us, after seventy plus years of the welfare state, have the moral will any longer? Judging by some of the bickering on this thread, which seems to be focused on defending this or that partisan group (neither of which can claim to be an uncompromising champion of individual liberty and limited government) rather than on stating in uncertain terms who the enemy is and what to do about him, I have my doubts.
I need to qualify my remark. jay, you are one FUCKI?NG deluded SOB.
The "oversight commitee's did not know of the program"? Gadzooks man, get a fuckin' clue!
Are you just plain stupid? I mean really, did you sit in on those commitee meetings or something?
jay k., you are entirely wrong about the House and Senate Intelligence Oversight Committees. All gov't intelligence is their purview - including secret CIA prisons with their extraordinary renditions, to boot.
Rockefeller, member of the Senate Committee on Intelligence, even wrote himself a letter to try to disclaim an ability to comprehend what he had been told about. It failed, since these Committees, or any individual Senator or Rep., are allowed to obtain clearance for any assistence they need from specialists, if it's necessary.
At any rate, Keller did leak the program as described.
QED now two times, uh uh.
Show me one documented example of anyone's civil liberteries being violated by any of this administration's policies. Just one.
Jose Padilla, an American citizen, has been imprisoned as an accused terrorist for years. Only recently because of the orders of a judge has he had access to a lawyer or been able to exercise his most basic right as an American citizen of habeus corpus. The judge ordered him charged or released after he had already been incarcerated without charges for over three years.
Lo and behold, he has not been charged with what he has been publicly accused of by officials at the highest levels of the U.S. government. Many observers feel the government's case against him is falling apart.
If Padilla is a terrorist, lock him up in Florence, Colorado for the rest of his life. That's fine. But as an American citizen, the government is required to prove he has done something wrong. No man, including George W. Bush, should be able to lock away another American citizen without proof of a crime. This is so basic it shouldn't even have to be explained.
There is nothing inconsistent in what Jay writes. The meme that there is a groundswell on the left to prevent the government from (legally) intercepting phone calls and emails is a complete fabrication. The issue is with the administration’s refusal to follow existing law. The surveillance was “outed” only to the extent that its illegality was revealed. The fact that we were listening to phone calls was no secret – the only secret was the administration’s circumvention of the law.
Jay -
Even if such 'outing' - and by the way, the NYTimes has gone on record as saying there wasn't anything illegal about the programs, and the Dems in Congress didn't say a single thing about them when they already knew about them well before the NYTimes leaked the details - helps the enemy?
Do you think that the programs would have been leaked if a Democrat had been President? (Personally, I don't think they would have.)
Think back to WW2 - should newspapers have published details about trans-Atlantic troop convoys? Or plans for, say, the invasion of Italy and France?
For some reason, and I honestly don't understand why, it's like those on the left really and sincerely believe that a Republican government is MUCH more of a threat to our freedoms than anything fanatics could do in the ME. They seem to ignore that there isn't any way to confine the problem to that region, when you can hop on a jet and in 18 hours be pretty much anywhere.
Frankly, if we could put a wall around the entire area and didn't need anything from it, I'd be inclined to just seal it up and leave it alone. They'll destroy themselves sooner or later, if they don't change.
But it's impossible to do that, and the radical Islamic ideology that's being spread is such that they must either conquer the unbeliever or destroy him. Maybe you're more or less okay with that, but I don't see that ignoring the threat until it becomes an imperative issue that MUST be dealt with by any means necessary is a viable strategy either long or short term.
As an example - you may be aware that there's serious scientific thought going on about asteroid deflection. The theory behind it is that it takes much less energy to deflect the course of an asteroid when it's very far away than when it's much closer. And there comes a point at which we would be unable to deflect the asteroid no matter what we could do - at which point we're forced to hunker down and take the hit, hoping to merely survive as a species.
We have consistently ignored possible remedies to Islamic terrorism, (and I'm not talking about the "Let's try to understand why they're so mad, and give them what they want so they won't be so mad" - look up Danegeld as a reference...) and avoided action. It was deemed too difficult to deal with in the '70s under Carter, when deflection would have been fairly easy, though very bloody. (And frankly, our military wouldn't have been up to it then - our only recourse would have been to use nuclear weapons, and since we were in the middle of the cold war it was considered 'expedient' to let it go by.) In the 80s, we had other concerns. In the 90s, we had other problems. In 2001, we got a precursor hit - a wakeup call that we HAVE to deal with Islamic terrorism RIGHT NOW, or face much worse later - and with Iran and NK both working hard to get working nuclear weapons, we're going to see much worse indeed.
We are, in my opinion, nearing the end of the time when we can solve the cultural problem of Islamic fascism with a minimal amount of destruction and bloodshed. And I'm getting really tired of folks doing what they can to block efforts to solve the problem in ways that will minimize destruction. In a perfect world there wouldn't need to be any compromises made - but it's far from a perfect world and I'm willing to accept limitations now to avoid all-out war later.
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
J.
It's nice that we all have time now to argue about the niceties of a war against Islamic fascism. Wiretaps! NSA! Halliburton!
Soon, we won't have time to bother with it. We'll be dodging suicide bombers in subways and in shopping malls.
Jay K, whoever you are, there is one thing you should remember about Americans: we are probably the most likely people in the world to pick up a gun and shoot someone who threatens us. Europeans have been pacified to the point that they find defending themselves simply too unpleasant to deal with. Not us.
And because of this, it's going to be a very messy war with Islam when it comes. And it's coming at us like a freight train.
When the American people (or at least the half of us who understand what we're up against) feel threatened IN OUR OWN HOMELAND OR TOWN, things will change here. And all the caterwauling from the ACLU and the liberals won't make a shitload of difference to the outcome.
I notice that many in these comments, not to my surprise, are repeating the old mantra that the surveillance program was illegal. Well in the opinion of the NYT's public editor it wasn't (see "Banking Data: A Mea Culpa" on this page):
http://snipurl.com/nytcalame
Of course, he finally came to this conclusion long after the fact and after the damage had been done, and in a totally unrelated story about 15 paragraphs down, as an afterthought.
"The surveillance was 'outed' only to the extent that its illegality was revealed."
Rocky R.
Hey, why even have Oversight Committees or even elected Representatives? The NYT is good enough for me!
uh uh uh
Abizaid warns of looming world warScott - I do believe you've got it right. For a couple of years after 9/11 I was hoping we could get through this with a minimal amount of destruction. I fear, however, we're not going to manage that and we're going to see a LOT more before it's over.
America cannot walk away from Iraq without risking another world war. That warning was sounded at the Kennedy School forum Nov. 17 by Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), the man responsible for U.S. military strategy in the Middle East.
"We can walk away from this enemy, but they will not walk away from us," Abizaid told the forum audience during a discussion titled "The Long War."
"We have not failed yet and we will not fail if we all understand what we have to do. If we can stay together nothing can stop us and we can make the world a better place."
Abizaid cited what he called the three greatest challenges facing the world - the Arab-Israeli conflict; the rise of extremist groups "with a dark vision of the future"; and, specifically, the dangers posed by "Shia revolutionary thought."
"Where these things come together is in Iraq," he said. "It's absolutely not an easy thing to do," Abizaid went on to say. "But the sacrifice that is necessary to stabilize Iraq must be sustained in order for the region itself to become more resilient against these three challenges."
We ARE in a 'long war' now - and it won't be over in the next decade.
Uness we lose.
J.
"Hey, why even have Oversight Committees or even elected Representatives? The NYT is good enough for me!"
Because when oversight committees fail to do their job -- as is quite clearly the case over the past six years -- the fourth estate is the only one left to do it.
Oh, we won't lose. The ultimate bottom line is that we can destroy anyone who threatens us. Nuking them back to the stone age is not a mere threat in a war for our survival.
I don't want to see this happen. But I'm sure millions of Germans and Japanese didn't want to die, either.
As VDH says, no war is more lethal and brutal than a war fought by the West when it feels an existential threat. That's what we're going to face soon, thanks to the appeasing Left and their Stuck-in-the-Sixties liberal friends.
The NYTimes did not commit TREASON in their revealing of our national security secrets. They violated the Sedition Act. Why our government never brought charges escapes me.
BTW, the bastard(s) that LEAKED the programs committed TREASON.
scott...
islamic fascism makes no sense. you might want to sort through that definition and try to come to an understanding about what you are saying.
i'm all for picking up a gun and shooting anyone who threatens us. iraq did not in any way pose a threat that justified our actions.
and it is your irrational fear that will bring this country, and the values that make it what it is, down.
and jlawson...
no one is saying we should walk away from anything. but there is a right way to go about something, and a wrong way. to date we are going about it in the wrong way. needlessly squandering blood and treasure and undermining the very values that make this country has not and is not going to accomplish anything...which should be readily evident to anyone who looks around today.
"Because when oversight committees fail to do their job -- as is quite clearly the case over the past six years -- the fourth estate is the only one left to do it." Rocky.
To paraphrase a certain annoying Pet Detective: Re-e-e-e-eally? I think you got that a tad bass-ackwards their Rock.
How exactley were the oversight committees failing to do their job? Hey, if it passed the muster and got the green light with the Dems on the committee's and the Dems clearly did not see anything illegal about the program, how does the fourth estate (and you) square their justifications of revealing it? Are you going to retract any part of your claim, as the NYTimes has gone on record as saying there wasn't anything illegal about the programs?
nikkolai,
spot on.
So Jay, what is the proper way to combat Islamic Jihad without expending blood or treasure?
The world would love to hear you plan!
Pls pray tell.
Really Iraqs threat to the U.S. was no less than Nazi Germany's threat to the U.S. in 1941.
"Because when oversight committees fail to do their job -- as is quite clearly the case over the past six years -- the fourth estate is the only one left to do it."
Rocky Rococo
Did the "fourth estate" confer with or interview the members of the Committees first, as would be, you know, their job as Journalists?
wr_guy...
i never said not to expend blood and treasure...i said without needlessly squandering blood and treasure. these are very different things.
in a nutshell there are two things that have to be done before we will make any progress in the middle east...our attitudes toward the isreali/palestinian conflict must be re-examined. until this issue is settled one way or another nothing will be possible or sustainable. second is our dependence on fossil fuels. the 450 billion we will have squandered in iraq by the end of the coming year would have gone a long way towards that. (and please don't go on about anwar because that is a red herring.)
The Senate Intelligence Committee has refused to examine how the administration used pre-war intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq because it has been blocked by its chairman, Pat Roberts. When you have the worst foreign policy failure of at least a generation and the Senate refuses to take a look at it, this is a failure of oversight by any definition. The committee also did not properly oversee the violation of FISA law because the administration obscured its activities from the committee, and gave (limited) information to a small number of people on the committee, who were sworn to secrecy (hence Rockefeller’s note to Cheney was hand-written so his secretary wouldn’t read it). Both houses of Congress were a rubber stamp for the past six years, giving the administration carte blanche in nearly every action, unless there was a political firestorm which forced them to react (e.g., the ports deal, Harriet Miers). To suggest that the last three Congresses have adequately performed their responsibility of oversight is fatuous.
j peden/white ringer...
get your facts straight...no commitees were briefed. limited members were briefed...fewer than required by law...and because of the classified nature of the program their hands were tied when it came to raising objections. those raised went unanswered.
Round and round and round she goes....
I'm not going to argue with you anymore. It's going absolutely no where. Not to mention I get weary hearing from my fellow Americans an utter negativity that goes against every moral grain in my being. I. Cannot. Understand. You. At. All.
Suffice it to say, it's going to be a long two years. You dolts thought we were less safe with the Bush Doctorine? Oh, boy, with the Dems in majority of Senate, you may as well go buy your prayer rug now.
Laught all you want. Remember this and mark my words.
In the words of an old high-end motor oil commercial - "You can pay me now, or pay me later." The implication being - you can pay a little now for an oil change, or you can pay a lot later for a rebuilt engine. Right now, though you refuse to believe it, we haven't spent much at all for what we've done. By historical standards the war to this point has been absurdly cheap in lives and money and we won't be near so lucky if we pull out, give up, redeploy, or whatever pretty euphemism is used to justify our departure and it all has to be done again in five or ten years.
Frankly, Jay, you're doing a pretty bad job convincing me you know what you're talking about when it comes to fighting a war. And the Palestinian idiocy (assholes who've never failed to turn down any and every opportunity to make peace with Israel, who've managed to pervert their own culture to the point where nobody in that region even wants to have them as temporary workers, much less as permanent residents) doesn't have any bearing on the Sunni-Shi'a conflict or the conflict with radical Islam in general - aside from being an exceedingly convenient excuse.
But if it's resolved, suddenly everything will magically become better, and there will be peace possible in the ME.
Right.
Okay, I know when I'm outclassed. I see that there's no way to get anything through the shell you've tossed up. You'd rather play with bullshit semantic arugements and old talking points than look at reality, and I can accept that. It sure as hell beats looking at reality and adjusting your outlook accordingly. I really advise doing so - because when you don't you end up getting blindsided by events.
Good luck with that shell. You're gonna need it.
j.
Something more for jay to disagree with. From Doc Bob at One Cosmos.
Driving Truck Bombs Through The Leftist Logic
Enjoy.
Kohlmayer's description of the Left's activities is entirely accurate. Now, they may have some objective reasons for opposing our policy in Iraq. But that doesn't justify their behavior. You can object and criticize without doing all you can to destroy the effort.
Their heroes are a totalitarian theologian in Iran, and a ranting minor dictator down in Venezuela.
"kohlmayers list of devious deeds is nothing but lies.."
How so? You can find numerous examples of everything he says. You mean the Democrats didn't try to run Rumsfeld out? That would be news to the Democrats.
I'm glad I'm not a psychiatrist, so you can't launch a scurrilous attack on my professionalism.
"The meme that there is a groundswell on the left to prevent the government from (legally) intercepting phone calls and emails is a complete fabrication."
Oh, please. I don't want to hear your definition of "legally". That's for the courts and Congress to decide. Meanwhile, the Left keeps ranting about the violation of their civil liberties.
jlawson...
you are avoiding the reality that the shia sunni iran syria hezbollah hamas radical islam situation is all interconnected and isreal lies pretty much at the center of it. and our actions of late have raised the level of complexity to the n-th power.
you are so guilty of that shell which you project on others it's ridiculous. you are guilty of spouting talking points, and playing semantics. the whole original post was about lies based upon semantics.
i'm out...have a nice weekend.
Im not sure which version of reality is more absurd. A devoted ME jihadist and his suicide belt, or a devoted leftist in America with his suicide pact.
The Democratic Party is no longer on the side of America. They are no longer on the side of freedom. It is time that the American public begin to appreciate what is so very obvious to the enemies we are fighting
Oblivious to losing the hearts and minds of moderates, much? The soviet bloc fell from within, and not because patriotic Americans invaded and occupied it. What Americans had to do with this involved intelligence and craftiness, and not brute force. The Nazis fell because virtually the entire world pitched in their own lives and money in order to defeat the German war machine. What Americans had to do with this involved timing, and the ability to convince the world that pitching in was in their own self-interest. Now please, what is the neocon strategy again? (we already know the ideology)
The problem with Krauthammers credibility, is that like the ACLU, he says and does good things for a time and then blows it all to hell with some bonehead move. “BDS?” I don’t think anyone should let him live that one down.
Because, in the end--one way or the other--I have no doubt that freedom will indeed prevail.
You think?
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot....s-sell-
out.html
In the meantime we little people have got all this powerful power game brinkmanship to deal with.
"...no commitees were briefed. limited members were briefed..."
jay k.
"... you are guilty of spouting talking points, and playing semantics."
jay, I projecteth too much, k.
Roberts was briefed, Rockefella was briefed - that's just off the top of my head, because I can't remember the specifics of who all was there at the 16 briefings by the Adm. on the NSA program. Both Roberts and Rockefella are on the Sen. Intelligence Committee.
The NYT was not briefed, but released, so as to impede Americans from defending ourselves against terrorists by data mining and listening to likely terrorists.
Duh and QED four times, uh uh uh uh
I know it does no good in influencing the Dem. Dhimmis. After all, it's their "culture". They were "never ready" for freedom, either, = projection obsession.
The Soviet bloc fell for a number of reasons. Rebuilding our weakened military might forced the Soviets to escalate their own arsenal at the expense of bread and butter for their own people. Their regime collapsed because of their bankruptcy. (We are nowhere near this situation if you examine the figures expended on our defense in relation to the GNP.
Jay K (el-em-en-oh-pee):
"a generalization that misrepresents facts and motivations is in fact a lie."
A generalization is a reasoned conclusion drawn from myriad examples, not a lie. Now, a generalization may be an error, a wrong conclusion BUT it is not a lie.
You insist that facts have been misrepresented and that motivations have been falsely attributed to the Left. Yet nowhere do you offer concrete evidence. Those who disagree with you have challenged your assertions.
Furthermore, ANWR is not a red herring, which is defined as a misdirection. The fact of the matter is that energy independence is critical for every nation's security. The ME situation surely is exacerbated by the oil-providing nations' attempting to cripple economies worldwide in order to establish hegemony and imperialist power. (Ask the nutjob in Iran and all of those nations making deals with him and Chavez, too. Some nations like China are willing to cynically disregard the blackmail; others play back-street deals like the Oil-for-Food shell game.)
Trust me, my friend, the world's powers are jockeying for power in a shifting of circumstances. For my part, I would rather that our nation and others willing to join us to squelch nations that are totalitarian. When I read the same cynicism and criticism from the Left about the imperialism and saber-rattling of those totalitarian nations, then perhaps I will give your arguement some credibility.
Doc asked the million-dollar question, which is (in my phraseology), "Can the civilized world help Muslims emerge from their seventh-century hellhole in time to avoid disaster?" It's a fair question to ask.
Bush obviously believes that freedom will transform the Islamic world, as his faith in the human spirit set free is unshakable. While there are many encouraging signs, there is also the Islamofascist wing who will destroy anyone who doesn't share their desire to erase fourteen hundred years of human achievement, or anyone who would prevent the Caliphate. Should the Bush Doctrine prevail, future generations of Muslims will likely revere him as a quasi-religious prophet and savior. (But don't worry -- the left-wing will still hate Bush even if he does save the world from Islamofacism).
Back to the main question, to me it depends on how damaging Islam is to the human spirit -- in other words, is the damage reversible or not. I tend to believe liberty is ultimately -- well, liberating -- and transformational, if it can be established. But with so much of the left wing fighting against Western values and abetting terrorism, the outcome is anyone's guess.
"a generalization that misrepresents facts and motivations is in fact a lie."
jay, "I 'lie', therefore I am", k.
Oh, a lie like the "generalization", "Bush lied"? [QED]
What a tangle Narcissists weave
Unable to exist without our nutritious peave [mea culpa]
Heh, and what do we do about those born to freedom, yet resist and destroy freedom as their very reason to exist?
onlineanalyst,
The Soviet bloc fell for a number of reasons. Rebuilding our weakened military might forced the Soviets to escalate their own arsenal at the expense of bread and butter for their own people. Their regime collapsed because of their bankruptcy. (We are nowhere near this situation if you examine the figures expended on our defense in relation to the GNP.
What the hell are you talking about? How does this apply to the particular circumstances involved with the WOT?
P.S. “Bankruptcy” was but one well-timed nail in the USSR's coffin. Ensuring the bleeding in Afghanistan was another. When Walesa, the Pope, Thatcher.. put their necks out there without any getting lopped off, the American voter knew it was time to turn Reagan loose. He knew how to (knew how to supervise the brainpower to) leverage his position for maximum effect.
I say the current neocons do not.
Im not sure i agree with Bush on freedom being desirous by all. Half the people in this country will spout they love freedom but actually dont want it.
To an entrenched leftist, freedom apparently looks like the "bondage of self responsibility".
americafirst, I was around when Reagan was President. Lets not mythologise those events as some rosy era when we all got along because SATAN Bush wasnt yet in charge. Liberals hated Reagan with a passion and were certain he was heading for our destruction at the hands of USSR.
I submit it is your side that has made the radical ideological shift. Can you imagine Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt or lincoln giving a damn about the civil rights of foreigners caught trying to kill Americans on the battlefield? I cant either.
I'm reading my constitution here....I can't seem to find the passage that guarantees the right to place international phone calls to enemies of the United States...that's funny.
Oh, there does appear to be a place where it defines treasonous acts....the only crime defined or enumerated in the constitution....
Say what happened to that Benedict Arnold character again?
The truth is that the left has sold out to every anti-American theme they can get in an effort to demoralize and defeat their political enemies. When they get their hands on the rotten corpse of this country that they have filled with bullet holes, what then?
There hasn't been a _single_ anti-American story or myth, true or false, that the left hasn't tried to use against the Republicans and Bush.
If you can please name ONE thing that they haven't tried...I'll be impressed.
Call them what they are: an amplifier for everything negative ever said about America.
Bad position to be in.
I posted this in the thread above, but it belongs here too:
Not only are the Democrats seemingly desperate to surrender in Iraq, but they seem bound and determined to put a stop to missile defense as well:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/12/
...crats_to_gu.php
"To an entrenched leftist, freedom apparently looks like the "bondage of self responsibility"."
Freedom is also the right to disagree with the leftist, something the left finds unimaginable.
"In the meantime we little people have got all this powerful power game brinkmanship to deal with."
americafirst = "me victim, first"
Oh the po widdle people, faced with this overpowering new word , "brinkmanship". O, what is we po widdle people gynn to do?
Hint, americafirst, Islamists don't even have to sell their women.
So what are *you* going to do about it, americafirst? Bend over?
Woe is you. You dont' even have the capability of having BDS. Get some Zoloft.
diablo, the leftist generally take it easy on the God fearing, slave owning, patriotic, brave men we call our Forefathers. Oh and Lincoln too. For now anyway.
They still have a tiny sense of knowing, even with MSM's help, they cant pull off denegrating 100% of something and then get by with saying "but we love the sum total of all this we hate". Give em a couple years.
Liberals hated Reagan with a passion and were certain he was heading for our destruction at the hands of USSR.. SATAN Bush
You mean liberals like Nancy “stem cell” Reagan or Ronald “my father crapped bigger ones than George Bush” Reagan Jr.? I come from the ‘Not SATAN, not Hitler, but he's Genghis Gump' school of thought.
You need to discuss liberals attacking Reagan with somebody else -in my world the opinions of Schwartzkopf, Powell, Kuo, P.C.Roberts, Buchanan combined carry much more weight than those of Dubya, no matter how many times Krauthammer cries “BDS!”
..lincoln giving a damn about the civil rights of foreigners caught trying to kill Americans on the battlefield? I cant either.
Camp Douglas. In my world proven terrorists have no rights, but innocent street Moslems do since it’s probably a good idea to persuade em to “throw out the bums.” And that we’re not the bums.
J. Peden,
Did you even click the link? I’m an ‘idea farmer’ type debater/commenter and not this blogs ‘designated driver’. Go find someone else.
For the lazy - American oil companies and their lobbies appear to be betting that America will ride out this last gasp by nutcase jihadis because America is the Saudi Arabia of oil shale. I’m saying that indirectly funding Islamofasism for the benefit of the status quo is risky.
Again: Bush is objectively pro-Iran. His war in Iraq has solidified its position in the geopolitical realm. Not being a huge fan of the mullahs, I support the dems, who aren't in favor of Bush's policy of building up Iranian power.
Iran was trending western (incl. the masses becoming more liberal in their skepticism of authority) until 2003. Bookending terror central wasn't a bad idea, but the imperative of getting Iraq and Afghanistan up and running has taken so long it’s given the Iranian mullahs too much to play with - like Persian patriotism. Ideally you’d want the hope and expectation of their masses to be on the side of freedom while they looked over the border at greener grass.
jay k. troll, point out the lies in that list! Show just one, and you will be bombarded with facts and statements coming out of your fearless leaders own pen and mouths. I would enjoy the Dems asinine stroll down dip-stick lane, if this wasn't so fraught with danger. My retort to the reality based, look at any major city in America, Dem strongholds all, every one is a complete mess. Remember, there will be another attack! If you stay this course, they will be hunting your ilk with dogs. Get on board and defend this country! I'm begging you.
To dems/leftist trolls:
Man, if you guys were _half_ as pissed off at the terrorist shitbags who actually build, place, and detonate the IEDs killing our soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere, think what we could accomplish!
You are all pretending like Iraq is some kind of strange house of IEDs where our very presence causes the streets to sprout bombs and innocent people to die. Hello, it's the BLOODTHIRSTY TERRORIST SCUMBAGS that are killing our soldiers you fuckwits! Fight them! Hate them! Kill them!
Or, if you prefer, ARREST THEM and coddle them!
But for god sakes, please, PLEASE--face reality. There are a bunch of nasty, evil sons of bitches who are killing our troops and it is THEIR fault.
I am going to go out on a LIMB and BLAME THEM and get mad at THEM, THOSE MURDERING SONS OF BITCHES, those fuckers who spend their lives building bombs and murdering children and killing women and kidnapping journalists and GENERALLY MAKING A HUGE FUCKING MESS IN IRAQ.
You need to wake up! Those sons of bitches HAVE CHOSEN of their own FREE WILL to fight us. TO KILL THEMSELVES and OTHERS. We did not force them to do this. They chose. They are responsible. They must bear the consequences.
Quite blaming our leaders for our enemy's bloodlust. Quit fighting OUR LEADERS when we have real enemies. Quit projecting everything onto "the Republicans", "the Neocons", "the Oil Companies", "the West's imperialism", "our jackbooted Nazi troops".
Why don't you lay the blame on the criminals and thugs and bloodthirsty insane fanatics who are generally shitting on everything?
Can't you see that we want find these people, hold them responsible--kill them if necessary.
Can't you see that it would work out in EVERYONE's best interest if these murderous sons of bitches were dealt with severely. For Iraq and Iraqis, for America and our troops, and for the greater middle east? And oh yes, for Bush too?
But no--you cannot want that. You are willing to give it over to the enemy. To those murderous and brutal scumbags! To embarass Bush, pay penance, and apologize. To be right! To be a hero!
If you would turn around, shut up, march right the hell out of here, and FIGHT against the real guilty ones, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING.
If you are willing to abandon everything in the face of barbarity, I don't think I want you on my team anymore.
riverdan1900,
Until jay k. troll gets back do you think:
A. Minorities, gays, lawyers and academics up the Democrat count in cities.
B. Cities are more secular because of all the diversions and therefore are more Democratic.
C. Most voters are strongly influenced by identity politics (they vote for their tribe, so to speak).
D. You’ve gotta be crazy to live in a city, hence the high number of Democrats.
E. All of the above.
And why? Thank you for taking my little poll.
Look, it's really quite simple:
Warrants.
Warrants, warrants, warrants, warrants.
Period.
The surveillance is legal with warrants, and it's not legal without warrants.
Almost all warrants other administrations have requested have been approved. I think the figure is something like 5 warrants ever not approved, out of 12,000+ total.
Warrants can be received up to 72 hours AFTER the initial surveillance.
The Bush administration has not put forth one single reason why they could NOT get warrants.
So, to sum up:
1. The law says it's illegal without warrants.
2. They did it without warrants.
3. Therefore they did something illegal.
Let's engage in a little thought experiment here.
Let's say that your worst nightmare comes true, and Hillary Clinton is elected president.
Now let's imagine in this future dystopia, that Hillary Clinton has the ability to:
a) spy on anyone in the US she wants, for any reason she wants, for any length of time she wants, and never has to justify it to any judge or member of congress ever.
b) JAIL FOR LIFE anyone she wants, for any reason she wants. And never has to show any evidence to anyone. And never has to justify her choice to anyone. And that person can't ever have any legal representation, or contact with the outside world, or even see any of the evidence against them. Or even know the specific CHARGES against them.
Does that scare the crap out of you?
It should. Because that's the power that George Bush says he has, as President.
Seriously.
It's NOT ABOUT George Bush. I think we can all agree, that no president should have this amount of unchecked power.
Right?
We may have to come to an even harsher reality than Islam being incompatible with freedom. Namely that this new breed of government loving westerners, easily led into the latest hip and trendy anti establishment politics by slick and trendy media propoganda arent compatible with freedom either.
We're talking people with virtually no chance of starving to death or wearing rags for clothes that have been duped into thinking they are actually the oppressed victim of the RICH MAN. We're talking the Garden Of Eden of opportunity on the planet, and it all apparently needs to be dismantled and rethought because plain old golden opportunity just aint good enough?
I ran into a really old geezer at breakfast one morning. He told me he knew the Great Depression was over when he saw a man chase a rabbit across the road. And the man had on shoes.
If there was ever a moment in history that deserved the phrase "dont know what you got till its gone", then this early 21st century American disatisfaction with inequality of outcomes outweighing any fear of global tyranny consequences, has to be the most deserving bunch for it.
Jim, I can think of one good reason why Bush may be possibly avoiding traditional court warrants.
Terror suspects will be (and probably have been) mysteriously tipped off and nobody will ever quite figure out how or why.
Its almost sureal in the way the leftist are obssessed with the notion of Bush having the opportunity to abuse his power, yet nothing coming out of Americas sworn enemies ever reaches anywhere near that level of concern. In fact its like there are no sworn enemies EXCEPT Bush!
Would you demand your day in court if Bush fucked up and saved your life with a warrantless wiretap? I guess so, because for 5 years he has saved untold American lives and all we hear about is how HES ABUSING THE SYSTEM. Its actually incredible to just turn on my tv and witness this insanity.
""In my world proven terrorists have no rights, but innocent street Moslems do""
americafirst, I guess when George Washington caught enemy spies then lined em up and had them shot without a trial, he didnt get the same memo you got on how to be a true freedom loving American?
"It's NOT ABOUT George Bush. I think we can all agree, that no president should have this amount of unchecked power.
Right?"
jim
Wrong, the President as Commander in Chief *does* have this amount of power in the context of War. And the power is not "unchecked" - see impeachment.
Hillary would have the same power. So what?
"Jihad today is not the result of a vibrant Muslim culture. It is a sign of desperation. Just as the kamikaze attacks by the Japanese in WW2 were a sign of desperation."
from americafirst's link - which I did look at prior to my first post about it.
So we should *not* make the Mid-East the wot front, but rather take a Fortress America stance, then wait for 120 million Islamofascist kamikazi's to act desperately?
Because Islamists are desperate, we are invincible?
Right, and bend over, americafirst. Islamism wants po widdle you and you seem to oblige them.
And, newsflash: we have a lot of oil shale and Canada is loaded with oil sands and shale. Holy Moly, Mr. Science!
But have you noticed that we get about 57& of our electricity from coal as we speak, and have heap plenty of it, too?
So, right, we could snap our widdle elite intellectual fingers, get off M.E. oil and onto shale and more coal while, sigh, magically "transitioning to solar, wind, biomass, etc." - but not nuclear - and the Islamofascists would simply self-destruct without impacting us because the Islamics have a sick society?
The Islamist population cannot harm us because of the enslaved status of their women? Huh? You call that an "idea"?
"I think it, therefore it is so."
americafirst
And Iran's current jihadists are going to be "pensioners" by mid century? Say what?
And with a birth rate of an est. 17/1000 pop, new jihadists are *not* being created to fill the Iranian "pensioners'" shoes fully?
Is that even "thinking"?
Man, if you guys were _half_ as pissed off at the terrorist shitbags who actually build, place, and detonate the IEDs killing our soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere, think what we could accomplish!
Wow, then I could go around posting angry, incoherent, and frequently ungrammatical rants about muslims. Clearly, if I did that, the Iraqi civil war would end and foreign jihadists would lay down their arms.
And with a birth rate of an est. 17/1000 pop, new jihadists are *not* being created to fill the Iranian "pensioners'" shoes fully?
Jihadis don't have to be born with a "jihad gene"; they can be recruited from the general population. Since their culture doesn't have the grace and capacity for forgiveness that comes from the wonderworking power of the blood of the lamb, it's a culture of saving face and vengeance. When we kill Iraqis by accident or otherwise do something that humiliates them, they go all nuts and are more likely to join the ranks of the jihadis.
Wrong, the President as Commander in Chief *does* have this amount of power in the context of War. And the power is not "unchecked" - see impeachment.
There's no war exception to the Constitution. You're worse than the Warren Court.
Y'know, the lefty trolls who infest this message board are doing a great job at proving Dr. Sanity's points about the irrationality of the left. Keep it up, boys & girls.
You lefties lie about *everything*! You all also need to stop trying so hard to undermine the war against the Jihadis. When the fecal matter hits the fan over here in the US, remember that collaborators such as yourselves will not be treated kindly when the backlash begins.
jim - Are you a lawyer? Did you ever hear of warrantless searches? They exist.
jpe, According to the Constitution the President is in fact the Commander in Chief, and does take a Constitutionally mandated oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution". That obviously covers a new kind of war which we did not even start, the President's role in war, and the President's duty as CiC.
In theory and practice, do you want any President to not be the President in war, but rather only a tool of the Congress? Do you not want a Commander in Chief and our President's duties to exist?
Would you rather have us telegraph each and every act of war in defense of our Country to the Enemy by having the Congress publically authorize it before it is done? Then the Judiciary to give its stamp of approval, too?
Do you want the NYT to subvert the President and the Congress' acts in defense of this Country by informing the Enemy of our tactics?
Why are you so blind to war and to threats to our existence, and thus our freedom - threats which Bush and the Congress have been successful in repelling?
Do you want to win against an Enemy, or only do things "correctly" according to your particular sensibilities and paranoias?
The problem is to win against worldwide Islamofascism/Islamism. What is your more effective plan for that?
Surrender in Iraq? Fortress America? Not "humiliating" Islamics who have already declared war on all Infidels?
Im becoming more and more convinced if next week the violence in Iraq stopped, and Iran and Syria demonstrably backed off of their aggressive stance.....The lefties in this country would be absolutely furious at their ME commrades in this "destroy Bush at all cost" campaign. THEN you would see some anger coming out of these leftist toward the Arab and Muslim world.
The sad thing is, after adding up all my observations over the past 5 years, im dead serious.
After reading the comments, I'm convinced more than ever that not only cannot the lefties see the trees, the forest itself is waaay beyond their comprehension.
If one of the tree's were to fall smack on their head they would:
* Form a comittee
* Inquire as to how the tree fell
* Assign causation
* Pass a law illegalizing said causation
* Assign blame
* Make all trees equal
It's just that simple. There is no good and evil. Just forms to fill out.
Late to the party.
Jpe,
it's a culture of saving face and vengeance
..with carefully chosen verses from the Koran as rationalization. You sound like a bit like Ghost Dansing over at All Things Beautiful. He’s routinely attacked for his ‘Islam isn’t necessarily evil, it’s the common arab’s weaknesses being exploited by the malignantly powerful that’s the evil’ stance.
-------------------
SteveH,
In the WOT, the problem with “Speak loudly and carry a little stick”
(or schtick, as some liberals imply) is that it provides fewer options for victory.
-------------------
J. Peden,
So you weren’t drunk. This is your natural state? Oy. Then LOL. Then Oy again. With final shaking of head, while chuckling. Then.. slowly.. understanding!
Woe to thee disbeliever, for someday it shall come to pass. The American corporate executive and the mighty American President will be gloriously vindicated for charting this heroic course through the very heart of evil, a course so fitfully misunderstood by the subjectivist teeth gnashers standing outside the golden gates of objectivist wisdom. And all will be good.
Make all trees equal
Speaking of trees, in my 'hood the maples always grow taller than the oaks. Therefore, Geddy was a fool.
"Wow, then I could go around posting angry, incoherent, and frequently ungrammatical rants about muslims. Clearly, if I did that, the Iraqi civil war would end and foreign jihadists would lay down their arms."
No, you dolt. Our soldiers, our leaders, our enemies, and the world may know that we still have the political will and backbone to stand up for what is right, fight through the hell that is war, and win. Our enemies would realize they are helpless before the will of 300 million united and pissed off Americans with superior technology and will--men and women who are strong and not moved by barbarity. Men and women who actually BELIEVE in democracy and put their lives on the line for it. Maybe the world might have some respect for us--if not, then maybe they'd at least fear us.
Compared to the wars that previous generations of Americans have fought, Iraq as it is now is a spot of tartar sauce on the sleeve. Nowadays, the namby-pambies of the left have taken over and won't fight any but the most perfect of wars. You're like the limp-wristed sissies who freak out at the first drop of shit flung your way.
And yes, my posts of late are full of personal insults towards you...ad hominems you might say. This is because I'm pretty much through trying to talk sense into you, and you guys long ago broke the seal of civility. Calling you out as you are won't convince you, won't wake you up, and to you I am just another character in your psychodrama.
You can write off my comments as the ravings of an asshole, but don't fool yourself. To millions of good, proud, and upstanding Americans, you are fools--weak, pandering, slimy, back-stabbing, hateful, and self-righteous fools. And that's just for starters.
If you had a modicum of introspection you might wonder how it is that you at least _appear_ that way to so many people, and if you had a healthy dose of it, you might actually start to wonder whether you actually _are_ that way.
But of course, you'll either slink away silently or project, project, project all those unacceptable feelings and psychic disturbance onto something, anything, desperately searching for someone or something else to blame. And you'll grow louder and insist that it's the evil RRRepublicans or NNNeocons, or BBBBush! Please.
Today, I'll play this part in your psychodrama for you. It won't save you in the end.
diablovision,
Rowrrr! Could you post a pic of yourself someplace? In tight fitting leathers, preferrably (though army fatigues or a cowboy outfit might be okay).
DOC, YOU'RE A TOUGH ACT TO FOLLOW, BUT...
....somehow, you manage!
SOME PEOPLE JUST LIKE TO HEAR THEMSELVES TALK
"The problem with Krauthammers credibility, is that like the ACLU, he says and does good things for a time and then blows it all to hell with some bonehead move. 'BDS?' I don't think anyone should let him live that one down."
americafirst | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 5:34 pm | #
Actually, that's one of he best calls, and by deriding it you create a first impression that will be especially hard to live down, here.
"Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)
is a political epithet invented by American political columnist and former[?] psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer in a satirical article..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Bus...gement_Syndrome
Incidentally, I didn't know it was Krauthammer who made the initial diagnosis, so thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't read his article on it before, either. I'm enjoying it now. It's a real hoot.
"That's what has researchers so alarmed about Dean. He had none of the usual risk factors: Dean has never opined for a living and has no detectable sense of humor. Even worse is the fact that he is now exhibiting symptoms of a related illness, Murdoch Derangement Syndrome (MDS), in which otherwise normal people believe that their minds are being controlled by a single, very clever Australian."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac...4&
notFound=true
"The sad news is that there is no cure. But there is hope. There are many fine researchers seeking that cure. Your donation to the BDS Foundation, no matter how small, can help. Mailing address: Republican National Committee, Washington, D.C., Attention: psychiatric department. Just make sure your amount does not exceed $2,000 ($4,000 for a married couple)."
LOL, GREAT STUFF!
Maybe you’re right ytba.
In the spirit of things, how about:
CDS for those who hated high presidential approval ratings.
HDS for the conservative misogynist.
TKDS for those afraid of non-designated drivers from the 60's.
LDS for those who hate those immoral liberals.
This IS fun!
Jim, I can think of one good reason why Bush may be possibly avoiding traditional court warrants.
Terror suspects will be (and probably have been) mysteriously tipped off and nobody will ever quite figure out how or why.
Soooo...you're saying Al Qaeda has so completely infested *our government* that they will be tipped off if the President follows the law and gets warrants, from judges and courts that are cleared for top secret information?
If that's the case, then what use would it be to try to do anything? That would mean Al Qaeda has already taken over.
You lefties lie about *everything*!
Garry K, please point out ONE single lie that I have made on this board.
Either I have told a lie, or you just did. Point out my lie, or admit your mistake.
Wow.
OK, one at a time from this post:
1:
According to the Constitution the President is in fact the Commander in Chief, and does take a Constitutionally mandated oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution". That obviously covers a new kind of war which we did not even start, the President's role in war, and the President's duty as CiC. [emphasis mine]
As you so helpfully point out, Bush swore an oath to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION.
If he violated the Constitution, then he violated that oath.
The law signed into power requires warrants and oversight. That's the law of the land.
No warrants means he broke that law.
Squirm out of it as much as you would like to try. That really is all there is to it.
If he felt the law was dangerous as it was, then he should have tried to change it.
2:
In theory and practice, do you want any President to not be the President in war, but rather only a tool of the Congress? Do you not want a Commander in Chief and our President's duties to exist?
I want the President's role to be restricted by Congress and the Judicial branch in exactly the way set forth by the Constitution.
The Constitution, that brilliant document that has seen America through 200 turbulent years of national and international conflicts, a brutal civil war, 2 world wars, and "Cold War" toe-to-toe nuclear confrontation that lasted for over 40 years.
Even when faced with a massively armed totalitarian regime bent on world domination, and about 1/2 hour from wiping out ALL LIFE, we stayed strong by sticking to the Constitution.
Our fathers and forefathers died defending this constitution.
And you want to throw it away because of terrorists? They are nothing compared to what we faced during the Cold War. Nothing.
3:
Would you rather have us telegraph each and every act of war in defense of our Country to the Enemy by having the Congress publically authorize it before it is done? Then the Judiciary to give its stamp of approval, too?
No - because the courts are secret.
Got that? SECRET. WIth classified personnel.
It worked against Cold War Russia. Russia had an incredibly extensive and expert intelligence system, far above anything these jihadists can possibly put together.
But you would rather throw the Constitution away?
No, americafirst, in your idiotic analogy, that would be Neil as the fool.
"Maybe you're right ytba.
In the spirit of things, how about:
CDS ... HDS ... TKDS ... LDS ... " -- americafirst
Your no Krauthammer, a.f. Oh, and that patriotic "handle;" it doesn't fit. Better stop smoking that LSD, dude.
jim -- go and find out what the law REALLY says, and how rational judges have interpreted it, before you start spouting your silly nonsense.
ytba - I am telling you what the law really says.
If you think I am wrong, then please sow why.
""Soooo...you're saying Al Qaeda has so completely infested *our government* that they will be tipped off if the President follows the law and gets warrants, from judges and courts that are cleared for top secret information?""
Jim, it turns out that Al Queda doesnt need to infiltrate our govt. Hell when youve got American sympathizers with the same goals and ambitions as the terrorist, who needs actual enemy plants and spies? I'd say any judge that wants to see America downsized economically, militarily and morally so as to allow tyrants to be top dog in this world, are far worse than any possible Al Queda agents could hope to be.
All these top secret leaks fed to the enemy by the NYT are coming from somewhere and somebody. I guess you'd only have a problem with top secret leaks if they didnt advance the American Leftist/Jihadist agenda?
""And you want to throw it away because of terrorists? They are nothing compared to what we faced during the Cold War. Nothing.""
What the hell? I dont recall worrying about a handful of lunatic Soviet citizens setting off dirty bombs in Times Square. I dont recall any Soviets flying jets into our buildings at a cost of one trillion dollars to our economy and lots of dead civilians. The difference between the cold war and this one is in one case we were dealing with rational thinkers, and the other case we are not. Youre a perfect example of the denial this blog speaks to.
"ytba - I am telling you what the law really says."
jim | 12.03.06 - 12:20 pm |
SURE you are, jim.
"This morning, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales participated in a debate at Georgetown University's law school on the NSA's international surveillance program. Gonzales did an excellent job of spelling out the reasons why the program is not only necessary, but legal."
http://powerlineblog.com/archive...ives/
012926.php
And, of course, you are so much more an authority on the matter than some of the finest judges and lawyers in the land. And you will tell us so, yourself.
Oh, and don't forget to read this....
"John Schmidt, associate attorney general of the United States in the Clinton administration, superbly explains why the NSA intercept program is legal under all authorities and precedents:" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://powerlineblog.com/archive...ives/
012623.php
Dream on, jim! After all, "Liberalism [Leftism, more correctly] is the philosophy of invincible ignorance."
(ibid)
Here are a few more links on the topic for those who haven't lost the ability to think.
http://powerlineblog.com/archive...ives/
012630.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/arc...ives/
012631.php
http://powerlineblog.com/archive...ives/
012927.php
jim - go peddle your delusional bilgewater elswhere, like on that lunatic and violence-based junk website you refer to as "homepage."
I thought I’d been comment banned. I certainly apologize for speaking badly about any of you fine free-speaking conservative thinkers. And now on to proving why you’re all fools:
ytba,,
Krathammer’s supposed to be in the same class Ben Stein, or even higher. BDS sounds like a Coulterism that can be far too easily modified for use by the opposition. That was the entire point.
And “dipshit” over at Greenwald’s place really was one too?
White Ringer,
Since I hooked ya, (and if you come back) I probably would have agreed with Neil’s metaphorical description of the socialist movement in Canada. But since this song is used by some Randians as an anthem of sorts, I say the metaphor only works with pre-Neolithic humans, where the top hunter (justifiably IMO) got first dibs on the bear claws, the eyeballs, best sleeping spot, etc – and not the modern human.
americafirst,
Fair enough, don't know how that would make me fool though. I've always viewed The Trees as how mass culture works to cripple the highest achievers. How the little frightened minds would prevent even the inspired thinkers and scientists from exploring independantly. I believe all of Neils lyrics refer to some form of mystic dissociative phenomena. Perhaps his great experiments with LSD paid off eh? Death of the ego and self-control cybernetics etc. You'll note that almost all early Rush albums feature Neil's lyrics that have dense allusions to mystic altered-state phenomena.
EVERYWHERE AT ONCE = NOWHERE AT ALL
"ytba,,
Krathammer's supposed to be in the same class Ben Stein, or even higher. BDS sounds like a Coulterism that can be far too easily modified for use by the opposition. That was the entire point." -- a.f.
1. you in no way made that clear.
2. it's still nonsense, now that you do.
A.F., take a few deep breaths, or whatever clears your head, and stop free-associating, at least not without a little rational editing of the results. Just because you make a connection between things in appearance doesn't mean it exists in reality.
White Ringer,
Many high achievers are pretty much what they appear to be (Stein, Krauthammer without the BDS). Then you have achievers who augment their positions with politics (Rumsfeld, ‘David Drumlin’ for the movie buffs). Then you have the achievers who excel at achieving power and position using mostly political techniques but wind up giving back (Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, Chavez). Then the achiever who hacks his way up a given structure for the purpose of leaping off with a golden parachute or lust for power, not caring if the structure collapses behind them or if millions die. (Lay, pick your favorite bad corporate executive..)
Maybe not the best examples, but do you see what I mean? The latter are more like “oaks and maples“, the former more like ‘locusts and cornfield.’ Or would ‘bunny and Australian ecosystem’ be more accurate – the unforeseen catastrophic result?
ytba, leaving powerline's partiality to the side here for a second, here's the issue: Gonzales is employed by George Bush, and works in the executive branch.
If I had a secretary, and I was suspected of running over someone, and I produced my secretary who said I was allowed to run someone over, would that be a credible defense?
Answer: No.
Then GOnzales' opinions as to whether or not his boss broke the law don't matter. What matters is the opinion of the Legislative and Judicial branches. That's the way the Constitution works. Period.
Similar argument for John Schmidt - who was in the executive branch in Clinton's presidency. Gonzales and Schmidt are both fans of executive branch power. They simply are not Constitutional law authorities.
It doesn't matter what an employee of the Executive branch thinks about the Executive branch.
Thanks for the comments about my website, though. It pleases me that you think it's insane. Really. 
White Ringer,
Strike the second sentence in that last paragraph. Replace with: The former are more like “oaks and maples“, the latter more like ‘locusts and cornfield.’ (No preview, plus I’m trying to do this on the sly, if you know what I mean..)
In a more perfect world:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=12yD8JyaVvY
"Then GOnzales' opinions as to whether or not his boss broke the law don't matter." - "jim"
yes they do, "jim," because they are based on the facts, among which are that the only opposition to the NSA phone taps are from Leftist political partisans, NOT judges (except for one who ruled against it, and even the Left was embarrassed by her ridiculous reasoning on the topic. -- kind of like your silly reasons why I should accept your opinion rather than that of people who actually know what they are talking about).
OK, NOW LETS TAKE A CLOSER LOOK...
"ytba, leaving powerline's partiality to the side here for a second,..."
No, let's not. Powerline is one of THE most balanced, when it comes to facts. They are some of the LEAST biased, unless you mean against people who falsify their claims for partisan (or any) reasons. In fact, anyone who doesn't have THAT kind of "bias" is someone who can't be trusted, like you with your inuendo based references
"here's the issue: Gonzales is employed by George Bush, and works in the executive branch."
No, that's NOT the issue. True, Gonzales is a political appointee. But, as attorney general he is the "chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government." http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/ He isn't there to cover for the president. He's there to uphold the law.
"If I had a secretary, and I was suspected of running over someone, and I produced my secretary who said I was allowed to run someone over, would that be a credible defense?
Answer: No."
Simplistic, childish, and totally inappropriate analogy. He's NOT a secretery: "The Attorney General serves as a member of the President's Cabinet, the only member who is not given the title Secretary." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Uni...ttorney_General And, he's NOT a defense attorney, but a prosecuting attorney (see above) charged with ENFORCING THE LAW. Sure he's expected to be loyal to the President, but NOT against the law he's sworn to protect. You can't impugn someone's character without proof that he's acted improperly, and you have none. Still, you try to slander him solely on the basis of his association with the president, who is only a "criminal" in the eyes of the left despite the fact that you have no proof, only empty hate-filled false accusations.
"Then GOnzales' opinions as to whether or not his boss broke the law don't matter.
You decided that first, then built your flimsy argument to get you there, didn't you. Well, you failed.
" What matters is the opinion of the Legislative and Judicial branches."
The only thing you've said so far that makes any sense. Unfortunately for your argument, The United States Attorney General is the HEAD OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT TO JUSTICE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Uni...ttorney_General
As to the rest of your post, it is even more inane and doesn't merit comment any more than the first part did. Now we are done.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
