As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering our ability to fight the real global war on terror."
Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.
They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror!
Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls. (Wait until Feingold finds out the White House has been visiting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "MySpace" page!)
Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.
Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo, Cuba. Democrats such as Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for Guantanamo to be shut down.
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags, based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others were forced to listen to loud rap music
Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.
The vast majority of Senate Democrats (43-2) voted against renewing the Patriot Act last December, whereupon their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, boasted: "We killed the Patriot Act" — a rather unusual sentiment for a party so testy about killing terrorists.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry — the man they wanted to be president — called the Patriot Act "an assault on our basic rights." At least all "basic rights" other than the one about not dying a horrible death at the hand of Islamic fascists. Yes, it was as if Congress had deliberately flown two commercial airliners into the twin towers of our Constitution.
I have mentioned this many times. Dem's are against pretty much everything that has helped us prevent another 9-11. They simply say they are for the "real" war on terror, which from what I can put together means going after OBL (or UBL). That is what they always say we are distracted against in Iraq.
The fact is that the Dems will NEVER want to use the military effectively for ANYTHING. You should be damn thankful we do not have a Dem in the White House right now, unless you want pretend you live in Israel.
What do the Dem's support, specifics now...
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Which part of the war on terror do the Dem's support?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
35 comments:
Democrats simply want us to play only defense.
But as Marshall put it, "We can't just sit back and wait for them to spike the ball over our side of the net."
The Dem policy is 1) nukes for Iran 2) make Iraq a terrorist state 3) terrorists calls into the United States go unmolested 4) we put the Gitmo terrorists back into circulation 5) throw Israel to the wolves 6) cut the military budget 7) create a Department of Peace.
Oh, but they love America.
I don't know what the Dem plan is, but I'm sure of one thing. I'm certain it will be ambiguous, vague, obscure, cryptic....
I love my Thesaurus.
Oh! And it will be nice. It'll make one feel good to support it. At least until we get blowed up.
There's more horse manure in this post than I can shovel, but I'll try.
First, as any military person will tell you, terror is a tactic. V1s and V2s launched by Germany against Britain could well be characterized as a terror tactic. WWII was about fighting Nazis, not V1 and V2 rockets. So the "war on terror" is a talking point buzz word.
Second, I, most Democrats, and most informed people will reject the notion that Iraq is part of the "war on terrorism". Despite the phoney Prague connection, yadda yadda, we know Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. We know from the US military in Iraq that al-Qaeda accounts for maybe 5% of the combatants and violence in Iraq. War in Iraq = collossal strategic blunder. War in Iraq not equal "war on terrorism".
Third, no Democrat, liberal, or otherwise intelligent person has ever opposed the NSA phone tapping or the banking program. None, nada, Zip. To assert otherwise is a Big Lie. All of the above want the activities done according to the Constituion, the laws of the US, AND the US Patriot Act. AS WE ALL KNOW, there is nothing the NSA or administration has done that they could not have done according to the law.
Fourth, Feingold did not oppose spying. He favored censure because the president did not follow the rule of law as he should have and could have.
Fifth, the judge DID NOT find NSA surveillance unconstitutional. She found that doing it without the use of existing, effective laws including the Patriot Act WITHOUT warrants was unconstitutional.
Sixth, Democrats do not oppose detainment of Taliban and al-Qaeda in Gitmo. It is the legal treatment of Taliban and al-Qaed at Gitmo that is in question. Most legal scholars including military lawyers AND THE US SUPREME COURT have said that it is the denial of certain rights prescribed by international law, the uniform military code, and the Geneva conventions is illegal.
Seventh, Durbin did not compare Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags. He was reciting the words of a United States federal officer (FBI as I recall) who said that looking at the way prisoners were treated one would have thought that they were witnessing conditions in concentration camps and gulags.
Eighth, Democrats do not oppose the Patriot Act. They oppose certain portions which they believe overstep the Constitution. Debate on these issues is legitimate AND PATRIOTIC.
Ninth, everything Game tacks on at the end of the post lacks legitimacy because it simply repeats crap that has no basis in fact, merely based on a psychotic hatred of political positions held by US Courts, legal and political scholars, and a majority of citizens of this country.
(As I previewed, I saw Jim got here first. But I'm still posting anyway. And thanks, Jim.)
Hey, Game, at least it's not all your bullshit today, huh? Here's what your girlfriend Ann got wrong:
They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers.
Bullshit. We've been over this before. Not one Dem opposes wiretapping within the law--a law which allows for a warrant under the exact circumstances you describe. I've offered you cash money if you can name one. You can't.
Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls.
Bullshit. Feingold called for censure because Bush broke a law passed overwhelmingly by Congress and then lied to Congress about it (his cabinet--namely Gonzales--did so under oath!). I remember when your side wanted impeachment for that sort of thing.
Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.
Bullshit. Surveillance can go on unimpeded under the law she upheld--a law passed overwhelmingly by Congress. She rejected the notion that Bush could claim powers not enumerated to him under the Constitution. It wasn't that long ago when your side longed for judges who put the democratic process of making laws and the original intent of the Constitution ahead of any agenda.
Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo, Cuba.
I'll give you that one, but explain why: Five years ago, Bush told us that he needed Gitmo and the flexibility of military tribunals because of the speed with which justice needed to be done. Since then, these tribunals haven't happened and Gitmo isn't a temporary facility for quick processing anymore. That was part of SCOTUS's reasoning in Hamdan--though we were told justice would be swift, three or four years without a trial or anything belies that notion.
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags, based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others were forced to listen to loud rap music.
Bullshit. Here's what the FBI agent Durbin quoted actually said:
On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.
Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a bit of a chill and the annoying blare of the neighbor's music. You want to live in those conditions? For five years? Especially if, like a significant number, you are innocent? Fewer than half still remain, meaning hundreds were sent home after we realized there was nothing to charge them with!
Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.
Bullshit. Dems oppose parts of the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, but are in broad agreement about the majority of the legislation, especially the parts that help federal agencies cooperate to fight terror.
Oh, one for you:
The fact is that the Dems will NEVER want to use the military effectively for ANYTHING.
Bullshit. Tell that to Clinton (who is the one who really elimintaed the WMD); tell that to Johnson and Kennedy, who got us into Vietnam; tell that to Roosevelt and Truman, who got us into WWII and Korea; tell that to Wilson, who got us into WWI.
In fact, conservatives' biggest heroes--Reagan and Nixon--didn't start a single damn war. Reagan didn't do much of anything more than Clinton did at all. You reject Bush I as not one of your own, but he used the military well in his one action. GW has had two shots with the military, both of which he has blown: The Taliban is back in Afghanistan while bin Laden runs free, and Iraq has fallen into chaos.
Hate to burst your macho-missle bubble there, Game, but to say Democrats are afraid to use the military is a bald-faced lie, and to say that Republicans do it well is just as big a whopper.
Seriously, Game, besides the all hat-no cattle mess that GW Bush has made of Iraq, what have Republicans given this country in terms of fighting wars? And a few posts back I laid out exactly how little his adminstration and the Republicans in Congress are doing to secure our ports, inspect air cargo, deploy technology to airports, and so on. Instead, they insist on idiocy like claiming there are no landmark targets in NYC so that Republican reps to red places like Indiana and Montana can bring home the pork. It's all bullshit and it isn't working. It's time to give someone else a chance.
And one for "marshall art": The Dems do have a plan. The media just don't bother to report it. But here it is in convenient chart form.
Jim--
There is still a fundamental disconnect with you guys-- you're still not getting that there is a global Islamist movement that has been growing for decades. If you understand this, then you'll understand why Iraq is part of the war against this movement.
Despite liberal media bias, Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein did have a weapons program, and Hussein did support international terrorism. This article from the Weekly Standard will get you up to speed.
Lastly, pulling out of Iraq will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and will embolden terrorists everywhere as they move the bulk of their operations to our soil. If Iraqis were endangered species being threatened with extinction by some greedy corporation liberals would oppose a policy that slaughters them, but since they're human beings-- well, who gives a damn about human life, Dems say.
Jay--
Islamists will only get stronger and stronger under the Democratic plan you linked.
One, if you understand the theological reasons why the Ayatollahs want nukes, you will recognize any amount of diplomacy will not prevent them from going nuclear. We're dealing with end-of-times nutballs here. Not nutballs like Blair praying before making a difficult decision, but nutballs that think the Apocalypse will happen shortly and it is their duty to make it happen. Don't take my word for it-- do your research on the 12th Imam.
Secondly-- fighting the root causes of terror requires taking out people who support terror, like Saddam Hussein. It also requires not letting Iraq turning into a base of international terror operations.
Third-- ensuring the transition to democracy in Iraq will take force and bullets, not lip service.
Fourth -- The garbage about energy independence indicates a misunderstanding of global politics. Dems think Muslims are mad because the greedy Republicans are fighting imperialist wars to take their oil, and if we take oil out of the picture, the fascists will stop fighting for fascism. That's not what we're up against. How much oil does Israel have? Reductio ad absurdum.
I wish it wasn't so late because it is so easy to prove you guys wrong on this issue..I just got a new computer, so I spent a lot of time on it today...but I'll be back in full force soon..probably tomorrow morning...
and by the way...even though I think you guys are one hundred percent wrong...I enjoy and appreciate the comments
Iraq has, and has never had anything to do with terrorism. How many times do people have to be told this? By invading, it destabilized the region and allowed the terrorists to get in and do their work. Plus, it roused the native element an outlet as well. We created terrorism, where there otherwise would have been none, by invading Iraq.
We have no legal right to hold those people in Cuba. Dumbass Bush should have held them in Afghanistan for as long as needed, not publicized how 'awesome' he thought he was.
As always, the Con filter prevents the full processing and comprehension of things, but lets try it again: nobody says Queen Bush cant wiretap. He just needs one of those little warrants. You know, those things that are a part of law in this country. One of those things that was only denied 4 times since the law was enacted.
The Patriot Act is ill-named since it shows no respect for the millions of men who have died to make this country free. It is a simplistic and poorly thought out knee jerk to our current situation, and only desired by Bushies because it gives them free reign of power.
Jim, Jay, Ryno...you are wasting your time. They have proven over the past couple of days they have circular logic. Moral superiority but still ok to imitate the terrorist. Refusal to even consider let alone think about any other possible solutions..you know there can be only one if you are in the cult of bush. Insisting things don't exist that have been pointed to and making up things that do exist that have been proven don't. Knee jerk reactions to everything. Cartoon liberals existing only in their mind. Asking you to make the same points and show the same links over and over again because apparently it doesnt sink in the first 100 times. They would never go to a liberal blog and comment because 1. they can't handle the wrath like we can. and 2. they would have to start the discussion from the point of being wrong instead of being right and that doesn't compute for them. Give up..they are hopeless and will be left behind while the rest of us learn to fight the battle in a post and not pre 9/11 way.
Game, outside of politics I think we could be friends..I'm not to sure about the other righties here.
Jason: There is still a fundamental disconnect with you guys-- you're still not getting that there is a global Islamist movement that has been growing for decades. If you understand this, then you'll understand why Iraq is part of the war against this movement.
The "Islamist movement" you mention and Saddam did not so much get along--he didn't like them and they didn't like him. al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded (Zarqawi may or may not have been affiliated then, but 1) he was in non-Saddam territory and 2) we could have taken him out pre-invasion but didn't because it would have weakened the case for war). Saddam supported religious terror perhaps less so than any other ME leader by the time we invaded--certainly less than our allies the Saudis, for example.
Jason: [P]ulling out of Iraq will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and will embolden terrorists everywhere as they move the bulk of their operations to our soil.
As opposed to now when there are more terror attacks across the world (not even counting Iraq) than pre-invasion? As opposed to now when 3000 Iraqi civilians are dying every month? If the real-world consequences of our invasion weren't so tragic, you'd be laughable, Jason. A clown. And, as I posed above and have asked here previously (surely you've seen it), why aren't Republicans interested in real security measures against real and likely targets here at home, then?
Jason: We're dealing with end-of-times nutballs here.
Hah! I've often read the same thing about Bush and the post-millenialists who make up the bulk of his support these days . . .
well, to sum it up, in the last few comments Ron compares what are govt is doing to terrorism....
Ron:
Moral superiority but still ok to imitate the terrorist.
Now lets just talk about some stupid comments made:
Ron:
Cartoon liberals existing only in their mind. Asking you to make the same points and show the same links over and over again because apparently it doesnt sink in the first 100 times.
I have asked you to show me what Dems have said publically in regards to their plan on the war on terror...run away is their strategy...hey, maybe it is right...if that is what you believe go with it...
Rhyno:
Iraq has, and has never had anything to do with terrorism.
Jim:
we know Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11
Did Iraq plan 9-11, no.
Did terrorist meet in Iraq, did Sadaam give them money, did we go there to try and plant democracy in the part of the world that would end up starting WWIII....yes..
Should Bush have made that more clear before we went to war...yes.
To say that Iraq has NOTHING to do with terrorism is insane. These people we are killing are all terrorist...and most of them from Iran. Wake up.
All your comments about wiretapping and bank records shows that if liberals get back in power, we will get blown up. The 8 years of Clinton shows your mentality..."We must have lawyers decide what we do and when we do it." That is why we didn't stop 9-11, and I am positive that we wouldn't have stopped all the plots Bush has stopped since then.
I have posted Durbins exact words, and defending him shows a complete lack of thinking, or ability to be intellectially honest...
that is all for now..
I grow tired of this . . .
Game: These people we are killing are all terrorist...and most of them from Iran.
Bullshit. Most of the people who are fighting and dying in Iraq are dying as a result of the Shi'ia-Sunni civil war, a conflict that was predicted to erupt before we invaded but which was not taken seriously by Rumsfeld and his cadre.
Now, there is no question that Iran is funding and even equipping the Shi'ia side of that war (as news reports this morning indicate), but "most of them" are indeed Iraqi citizens. In fact, it seems that less than 10% of the fighters are foreign, and of those, more than half are Saudi. Once again proving that Bush's good buddies the House of Saud were more of a terrorist threat than Saddam ever was . . .
Jay--
There is a difference between a Texan Methodist, and someone who claims he will go on the final jihad against the infidel at the end of times to bring about the return of the Mahdi. That someone is Ahmadinejad.
You guys lecture me about seeing the perspective of others, but you can't tell the difference between Methodists and the ideology of death and martyrdom in a savage, insane, dark age theocracy like Iran.
And again, no one ever means what they say in the liberal universe. A bad guy claims he wants to rid the world of Jews, and liberals say -- nooooo, he just wants to negotiate. Bush says he supports freedom --- noooo, he is just a tool for oil companies. Talking with you guys is like talking to religious fundies impervious to evidence.
Jay--
If you don't like the violence in Iraq now, you should support doing something about it. If American forces leave, the ensuing violence will dwarf what exists now.
I demand that liberals care about people as much as they care about the Caribou in Alaska. Put your socialist ideology down for a minute and be compassionate for a change.
Jason, Game--
I really appreciate how you've decided to use others' comments against me and address the one sarcastic point instead of the substantive objections I raised to the Coulter claptrap that makes up the bulk of this post. Way to go, guys, for supporting your side of the argument! Makes you sound so smart!
Jason, I recall something about a political debate, oh, maybe a couple of years ago now, wherein one of the candidates said he wanted to increase the number of US troops in Iraq to really fight for the peace, and criticizing the other fella for doubting those who said pre-invasion that it would take 300,000 or 400,000 troops to make the difference. If I'm remembering right, the guy who wanted more troops and a smarter occupation was mercilessly mocked on blogs like this one (though not this one, since it's not that old) and eventually defeated by the other fella, who said he knew what he was doing and we should trust him.
How's that working out for Iraq right now?
Kids, please, keep it down, you'll wake the baby!
On one of the points, which is expressed through examples of all the different spying strategies the Bush admin seeks to employ, you who list port claim that you don't disagree as long as it is within the law. Fine. I'll take you at your word. But the debate is whether or not it IS legal. And the debate rages. The point being, that a judge here, 5 out of 9 justices there, and we're still left with quite a few very intelligent people who think it's all still legal. Libs can't decide if Bush is a dope or an evil genius, but in either case, it would be stupid to assume that his people haven't gone over all the legalities to cover their asses just because of lib/Dem obstructionists who'll use anything they can to, well, obstruct. So the question now is, if the libs are all so supportive of all those intelligence strategies as long as they're legal, why aren't they working to make them all work legally? They simply stop at having stopped or interfered with Bush.
Define terror all you want. Intelligent people (and they aren't on the left side of the aisel) understand who we're fighting. Terror may be a tactic, but we know who the terrorISTS are. Too many on your side seem confused, such as those who can't bring themselves to answer the straight question, "Do you believe Hezbollah is a terrorist organization?" No. They'd rather mumble some crap about how our guys do nasty things, too. Well, that may indeed happen on occasion, but we're obviously talking about standard operating procedure. "Democratic, liberal or otherwise intelligent person..." one of those never fits with the other two.
Jay,
Thanks for the link. I rest my case. Ambiguous. Here's a simple analogy to explain the depth of that plan. "I have a plan. We should win the war." And what the hell is an "existential threat"? How about a hard-core no-doubt-about-it-we'll-kick-your-ass kinda threat? "Existential". Is it any wonder we think Dems are idiots? And to say that we can do more can only be responded to in this manner: DUH! Will overnight be quick enough for you? Security here gets better at a rate most would prefer is faster, but we still haven't been blowed up since 9/11. Do honestly thing they haven't been trying? Do you honestly believe the public should know absolutely every detail about every phase of every operation to prevent attacks? We're gettin' there. You want it faster? Join up.
I find it humorous that you point out all the Dems who've gotten us into wars, and we have to hear that we're the war mongers. And hey, that Viet Nam worked out just fine. As we left, I'd say FAILURE!
Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon the RINO. Reagan didn't do much beyond small excursions, but there was that whole Cold War thing. But you guys think it was Gorby. And Clinton? Are you talking about that aspirin factory? That's what the bad guys called it. Are they lying now, because it's Bubba? Well, truth be told, Carter got us in this mess and it festered until Bush decided one 9/11 was enough.
You guys like to whine about Bush not listening. How some "experts" claimed more troops were necessary, as if no experts disagreed. You think our current situation proves Bush was wrong not to send 300K, yet forget how many Russia lost in Afghanistan. Sending 300K, how can you believe we'd only have lost 2500 troops?
It's not a matter of what idea was better since you can't go back in time and prove your idea would not have sucked, too. The point is where do we go from here, and the Dems are STILL just getting in the way. You want to hold Bush to notions about warfare that never took into account the type of enemy we're facing. YOUR filters prevent your understanding of THAT. And you add shit that never took place in past wars, like trials for those we take prisoner on the battlefield. When the hell has that ever happened?
Back to that *chuckle* plan. Here's how one dissents: Your idea isn't working, here's my idea, here's how you'd implement my idea, here's a similar situation where this idea proved successful. Dissent works in such a way. Then Bush and Rummy would have something to consider and even if they still dismissed it, they would be able to explain why in detail, because you supplied details. The plan linked to supplied nothing close to specifics, just meaningless ambiguity. But then, how could they be more specific? Again, there's never been an enemy like this, and so far, the Dems have treated them with police tactics only. We need to use all resources and we need to use them ASAP.
We also need to support a president for whom no one has offered any reason to suspect that his motives are less than honorable. And that makes the crap about wiretaps and surveilence all the more stupid.
Marshall said:
"it would be stupid to assume that his people haven't gone over all the legalities to cover their asses just because of lib/Dem obstructionists who'll use anything they can to, well, obstruct."
No it would be stupid to assume that these brilliant people haven't figured out any remotely possible legal justification for what their boss wants to do, especially knowing that the Republic-controlled congress will not perform their duties of checks and balances, congressional oversight. See John Yoo and our current Attorney General.
The Democrats HAVE offered to work with the administration to modify the laws as needed. The Administration has refused because it doesn't care about the rule of law. It cares about the power of the Executive.
So far, Jim, I've only seen them offer trash talking but no alternatives. I certainly haven't seen ANYTHING that suggests they're looking to support his intel gathering strategies, only that he's taking away our rights. Perhaps you have something that would prove your contention. I'm open.
Officially, Bush is the dope...Cheney is evil....and Rove is the genius. Now my challenge to the Right, since the folks to my left have no problem. Reference an opinion of your that is backed up by a second source. This will enable you to have SOME sort of legitimacy with your hogwash arguments. Jason had one point that made it through. If you broaden the term terrorist to ANY insurgent group, Hussein did train some. It was more like 800 than 8000, though.
rhyno says that the people on the LEFT give facts to back up their claims and we dont
So Jims stupid comment here:
The Democrats HAVE offered to work with the administration to modify the laws as needed. The Administration has refused because it doesn't care about the rule of law. It cares about the power of the Executive.
was backed up by which FACTS exactly...I can see the liberals commenting less as jason and marshall kick their asses.
marshall art said...
And hey, that Viet Nam worked out just fine. As we left, I'd say FAILURE!
Remember, Nixon was pReZ when we lost the Vietnam war.
Republican. You really stated the Republican case with that one. NOT. He brought the failure of it --
Well guys do you get it...they live in a completely different world of reality, understanding, constitutional ideas and morality.It was easier to talk to my dog than the rightists. At least the dog pays attention and comprehends a little of what I am saying.
More like the righties are anal retentive about their world. It's why they see nothing else.
Ron,
You talk politics with your dog? Hmm. Anyway...
We've seen where progressive liberal philosophies have failed, which is pretty much anywhere it's been allowed to fester. You can look at the welfare programs that resulted in more welfare recipients. You can look at tax policies that result in lower tax revenues both from the profit inhibiting effect on business and the tax avoidance strategies employed by people from each level of income. You can look at the educational failures in focussing on student self-image as opposed to student excellence. You can look at the absence of morality that taints every social issue and the spread of disease, the rate of abortion, the incidence of child pregnancies. Yeah, we're anal about improving our nation and regaining it's former notions of values and character, while libs have their heads up their asses.
Marshall said:
"So far, Jim, I've only seen them offer trash talking but no alternatives. I certainly haven't seen ANYTHING that suggests they're looking to support his intel gathering strategies, only that he's taking away our rights. Perhaps you have something that would prove your contention. I'm open."
Big Lie again. I'm not even going to bother pointing ONCE AGAIN what the Democrats have proposed that's likely to be more effective than Bush's policies.
Big Lie again. No Dem wants to restrict intelligence gathering. They want it done legally as we all know because we keep saying it over and over and over again we simply want it done legally as we know it can be!
Jim,
" I'm not even going to bother pointing ONCE AGAIN what the Democrats have proposed that's likely to be more effective than Bush's policies. "
Yeah, please don't. The laughing hurt the first time I read it. Nothing there but touchy-feely talk. No substance whatsoever.
" No Dem wants to restrict intelligence gathering."
You keep saying that, but they sure want to restrict Bush from doing it. But as I stated, and read it slowly this time, if they were sincere, they'd do more to insure that the laws are adjusted to accomodate what Bush is trying to do. Thus far, they just want to obstruct, censure and impeach. Hardly any example of support.
Here you go:
The Biden plan and here - presented April 2006.
The Murtha Plan - November 2005
The Korb plan endorsed by Dean and other leading Democrats - presented fall 2005.
The Feingold plan - January 2006
To say the Democrats have no plan is to continue with the Big Lie. It's Bullshit. To claim it is "touchy-feely" is Bullshit. We know it, you know it, and more and more Americans are beginning to know it.
The Dems have offered to adjust the laws to accomodate the needs of the administration. The administration is not interested. The administration is only interested in demonstrating that it has the ultimate power in this country. It wants to justify this usurpation of constitutional power with a "war on terror" that has no definition, no end, thus making their claim of ultimate power PERMANENT.
What if it was president Hillary Clinton claiming this power? OK with you?
Well, Jim, let me rephrase: Dems don't have a DECENT plan. And that's assuming crappy plans are plans at all.
First off, all plans listed speak of withdrawal under the guise of "redeployment" (a rose by any other name...). You can redeploy troops to anywhere, including their favorite vacation spots, but if you remove them from Iraq, it's withdrawal.
It assumes we aren't wanted there. This has been refuted by Iraqi citizens to the troops on a regular basis, as well as the elected leader of Iraq at an address to Congress.
It plays the game of "our presence makes Iraq a breeding ground for terrorism". Well, exactly where do these towers of intellect think these terrorists would be "redeployed" if they weren't where we can find them.
It relies on the testimony of "troops I've spoken to", without ever identifying them, who say just the opposite of those who proudly speak in interviews with people like Laura Ingraham and Hugh Hewitt. (Hewitt recently interviewed Abizaid and got decidedly different testimony than what any of these pretenders have reported)
Some just make no sense. One is Biden's assertion that by separating the country into regions, that the militias will just go back to their homies and all will be well. What's keeping them from "redeploying" there now? Even Joey said they are somewhat divided in that regard already.
And of course, they support their arguments with the reliable, "everyone knows", "all the experts say", yada yada freakin yada.
No way. These are not plans. They are hopes for what they'd like to see rather than what they should be seeing. Pardon me, but I'll continue to listen to those who are there, who are from there, and in at least one case, Walid Shobat, those who used to be among those we are fighting, in order to best assess just what plan might work and what won't. Running, withdrawal, "redeployment" or whatever else you'd like to call it, ISN'T a plan. At least not a good one.
One other thing:
If you go to americanthinker.com and then to the archives (it says "all articles"), you can scroll down a bit to an Aug 25 article entitled, "America's Strategic Fix and Our New Decision Points". The whole piece is good and I like what I read, but in the fourth paragraph, there's a link that supports the fact of FISA's acknowledgment of Bush's authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps. Check it out. No need to adjust the law, apparently, just to know it. According to the linked 42 page testimony, Bush isn't assuming "ultimate power", but understanding his role as president and acting accordingly. There again, you are assaulting Bush's character without evidence to support your contentions of evil intent. If Hillary were prez, she'd have the same authority. If either is shown to be unworthy of such a level of power, neither would be sitting in the big chair for long. But sure, I'd be less comfortable with the likes of Hillary having this authority, abso-freakin-lutely. Her dubious history of public life & service cast a pall on any such scenarios.
Her dubious history of public life?
Regarding America's Strategic Fix and Our New Decision Points:
The fourth paragraph says it all as far as I'm concerned:
"Domestically the Supreme Court usurps presidential war time authority and interprets treaties and imposes foreign law... Unelected federal judges insert themselves into intelligence programs..."
So the third branch of our constitutional government usurps power, but the second branch doesn't? It is to laugh. "Unelected federal judges?" Yes, federal judges are appointed. They've been appointed by Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43. It's the way the judicial system works by law.
When the writer denigrates the Supreme Court and implies that federal judges have no legitimacy because the are not elected, then HE has lost all legitimacy with me. The rest of what he says has little importance especially since he seems to have no credentials as a lawyer or legal scholar.
As far as the link to the supposed confirmed presidential authority, am I supposed to presume that the "justification" written by the president's own DOJ, presumably by Mr. Torture is OK John Yoo, finding power for its boss is the final word on the subject?
No, I don't think so.
Many are "denigrating" particular members of the judiciary for stepping outside the bounds of their prescribed roles. But it's nice that you add that to your list of lame reasons for supporting their improper actions.
However, it doesn't negate the point that the link the writer offers shows how Bush is within his authority in this matter. So at least for the warrantless wiretaps, no legal problem. Doesn't matter who wrote it in the DOJ, only that it is fully explained why it is so.
Post a Comment