August 4, 2007

"We're at war. The enemy wants to attack us. This is not the time to strive for legislative perfection."

That's a quote from Joe Lieberman, from the debate in the Senate over amending the foreign surveillance laws.
The administration and congressional Democrats agree on the need to update the FISA statute to reflect the realities of 21st-century telecommunications, including the ever-expanding digital world of e-mail, podcasts and text messages.

White House and intelligence officials have sought a broad overhaul of the act to allow spy agencies to listen in on terrorism suspects quickly, without having to apply for a court order, as is required for surveillance that targets U.S. residents. But Democratic leaders say the administration's proposals could lead to broad searches of phone calls and e-mails by ordinary Americans without judicial review....

White House officials complained that Democratic proposals do not give them a crucial tool: the ability to begin wiretapping without having to go to a court. "Every day we don't have [this wiretap authority], we don't know what's going on outside the country," a senior White House official said. "All you need is one communication from, say, Pakistan to Afghanistan that's routed through Seattle that tells you 'I'm about to do a truck bomb in New York City' or 'about to do a truck bomb in Iraq,' and it's too late."
The vote was 60-28, so it's clear that Democrats, much as they'd like to put their mark on the legislation, cannot bear to look as though they accept a greater risk of terrorist attacks.

Marty Lederman gives some detail on the failed Democratic proposal, which "the communications privacy community" considered "too conciliatory... going well beyond authorization to exclude purely foreign-to-foreign communications from FISA, i.e., far beyond what is necessary to address the problem that the Administration has described."

Joe Gandelman writes:
... Bush held out for the strongest deal he could get, went on TV and seemingly scared some Democrats to go along with him (some other Democrats clearly agreed the law update was needed) since his TV talk centered on how critical it was to give government these new updated tools to protect the U.S. And it worked — indicating a) he still has a lot of clout since he can peel off wavering or sympathetic Democrats so they join in coalition with GOPers and b) if it worked this time chances are this tactic will be used on other high-stakes measures....
The Talking Dog barks:
Harry Reid voted against it in every way except the one way that mattered: he had the power to keep this piece of shit off of the Senate floor altogether, and to tell the President that when the President started respecting the Constitution and the rights of the American people, then he could start suggesting legislation of this kind... and not dictating to another branch of government what it should pass or when it should recess. And instead, on this, we get "an up or down vote". Jebus.

... [W]e can presume that the D.C. cocktail party circuit is all abuzz about fear of terrrrrrrrrorists attacking Washington any God damned moment... and, unbelievably, Democrats believe that they would be blamed for it. And again, methinks, why was it I worked so hard to get this party in the majority again, so we could get exactly the same results as if they weren't?
The Dog is reading Digby, who writes:
I have the niggling feeling that there has been some pretty heavy cocktail and bar-b-que chatter in the capital this summer with the elders warning everyone that something is afoot, but they can't talk about the details. Suddenly the villagers are all acting like nervous cats on a hot tin roof and dancing around like it's the hot summer of 2002 again for no discernable rason [sic].

If that's so and little birdies are whispering in ears, the congress should stay in town and hash this thing out for real instead of signing off on something they haven't read. And if that's so, the president also needs to stay in town instead of rushing off to clear that poor brush again on his "ranchette" set in Waco and negotiate in good faith to protect the American people. The fact that nobody is doing this suggests to me that if there is some fear mongering going on, everyone involved knows it's typical Bushian nonsense but they are afraid to take a chance just in case he gets lucky and hits another trifecta.

No. More. Executive. Power. Period. It's their job to figure out how to track terrorists without trampling on the constitution. If that means staying in town for the month August in that sweltering heat, well, that's what they're paid for.
Americablog:
So much for that "one of the people being listened to needs to be a terrorist" line that Bush kept selling us. Apparently, he never intended that to be the case, and now it isn't. And the more congress permits itself to be rolled, the more Bush knows he can roll them. The man is at 28% in the polls and the Democrats are scared to death of him. Pathetic.

Yes, and how has Congress been doing in the polls?

226 comments:

1 – 200 of 226   Newer›   Newest»
Sloanasaurus said...

Hmm, an interesting observation. At 15%, Congress is weaker than the President at the moment? Maybe this is the future. The President maybe learning that his job approval is a relative measure. If he is more popular than Congress, then he has a lot of power.

But, lets get real. "Trampling the Constitution" What a crock. The President wants to be able to listen to conversations made by overseas terrorists. It's ridiculous to require a warrant for that. Besides, its a war we are talking about. We are listening to these conversations so we can prevent attacks and kill the terrorists, not to prosecute them.

rhhardin said...

Bush seems to be abusing legislative, not executive, authority, if he's going to Congress. They've got to get the outrage re-tuned on this.

Next he'll be abusing judicial authority, if he wins a court case.

Fen said...

Ignoring the hyperbolic tantrums of the chickenlittle left for a moment...

Ignorant Separation of Powers question: Congress seems to have oversight powers of the executive branch - ie. they could hold investigative hearings on Dept of Defense or Labor. Why can't the Executive Branch do the same re the Legislative? For example, why not an executive order banning earmarks?

It just seems like the Executive is accountable to the Legislative, but the Legislative is accountable to no one but themselves.

P. Rich said...

You appear to read a lot of cliche-ridden trash, Althouse.

Fen said...

. "All you need is one communication from, say, Pakistan to Afghanistan that's routed through Seattle - "

Thats something else thats been lost amoung all the hyperbole. I don't think people understand that the US telecommunications infrastructure serves as a hub for international calls.

PatCA said...

Note to Talking Dog: Terrrrrrorists have already attacked Washington. The legislators don't want them to do it again because then they would be dead. Get it?

When you take the Dem's entire legislative strategy, anklebiting the president, and place that against the real threat of terrorism, you come up with a 3% approval rating on the Iraq war.

Luckyoldson said...

"The man is at 28% in the polls and the Democrats are scared to death of him. Pathetic."

Well, it would be, except for this:

The Democrats have such a slim majority it's almost impossible to push anything of relevance through...especially with Lieberman, who's supposed to be some kind of Democrat...playing his games.

Until the 2008 elections, when the Democrats kick ass...not much can be done.

Ever hear the term: "lame duck President?"

Well...we also have a "lame duck Congress."

*And...regardless of the inane comments from Sloan, Fen, etc...we all already know that...

Mindsteps said...

"We're at war. The enemy wants to attack us. This is not the time to strive for legislative perfection."

Again...the hyperbole....I am looking for an upgrade....not perfection. Lieberman's comment would make more sense if we were attacked six months ago....not six years ago.

Luckyoldson said...

George W. Bush:

Has spent ONE FULL YEAR of his term in office...ON VACATION.

*Worst EVER.

Luckyoldson said...

Who actually listens to Lieberman?

Luckyoldson said...

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (.pdf) includes most of the predictable numbers — Bush is unpopular, Americans are uneasy about the economy, etc. — but respondents were also asked which party they trusted more to handle various policy issues.

The Dems enjoy huge, double-digit advantages on every domestic issue, but when asked which party is more trustworthy on dealing with the “war on terrorism,” it was the only question on which Americans were divided right down the middle — 29% said Dems, 29% said Republicans, 20% said both, and 18% said neither.

In and of itself, that’s not particularly surprising, but the trend is noteworthy.

In October 2002, the GOP enjoyed a 36-point advantage on this question. But end of 2003, it had slipped to a 26-point lead. In early 2004, it slipped a few more points, and in late 2004, a few more still.

By last fall, the Republicans led Dems on the question by 10 points, and now the GOP advantage has disappeared altogether.

Just wait until the 2008 elections...

B said...

what prich said.

And thank you, Ann, for pointing out these anti-American losers.

Luckyoldson said...

b says: "...these anti-American losers."

There you go again.

Using slurs to describe those with whom you disagree.

Now, THAT'S un-American.

Fen said...

Lucky illustrates B's point: some of us are concerned with gathering warfighting intelligence to prevent another 9-11, others are only focused on how it affects their prospects in the next election. Anti-american losers is apt.

Fen said...

Midnsteps: Lieberman's comment would make more sense if we were attacked six months ago....not six years ago.

Succesful attacks or thwarted attacks? Perhaps Lieberman knows more about national security than his detractors?

Revenant said...

Yes, and how has Congress been doing in the polls?

Well, ninety-four percent of Americans think they're doing a lousy job on the war...

The percentage that approves? 3.

I eagerly await the inevitable explanation that that 94% is just furious with the Republican minority, and can't wait to replace them ALL with Democrats in 2008.

Luckyoldson said...

rev,
And once again:

It's CONGRESS...which is made up of Democrats AND Republicans...remember??

The Democrats have such a slim majority it's almost impossible to push anything of relevance through...especially with Lieberman, who's supposed to be some kind of Democrat...playing his games.

Until the 2008 elections, when the Democrats kick ass...not much can be done.

Ever hear the term: "lame duck President?"

Well...we also have a "lame duck Congress."

*P.S. Fen-Fen provides the standard right wing talking point...again:

"some of us are concerned with gathering warfighting intelligence to prevent another 9-11." (Is warfighting even a word??)

And yet another slur, directed at anyone who disagrees with your point of view...pitiful.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen,
Why not list all of the "thwarted attacks" and "successful prosecutions" of terrorists by the current administration?

We've held hundreds of prisoners and at last count had a total of about 3 convictions.

*Of course, we DO have those guys in Florida who needed the boots.

Duh.

knoxwhirled said...

fear of terrrrrrrrrorists attacking Washington any God damned moment.

I generally avoid Leftist blogs, so it's scary to get a reminder every now and then just how much people who dwell there really are in denial about the threat of terrorism. That anyone would make fun of a legitimate and healthy survival instinct is weird.

Luckyoldson said...

Speaking of "un-American" behavior:

Here's an interesting story on how the Bush administration has handled the Tillman death story.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003621727

Rather disgusting, considering the sacrifice of Tillman and his family.

Luckyoldson said...

knoxwhirled,
What the hell are you talking about??

B said...

lucky-

the anti-American slur line was just bait for you.

Thanks for biting

Luckyoldson said...

b,
Right.

Sorry, but I've read too many of your inane comments to think you have the moxie or smarts.

Mindsteps said...

Fen said...
Midnsteps: Lieberman's comment would make more sense if we were attacked six months ago....not six years ago.

Succesful attacks or thwarted attacks? Perhaps Lieberman knows more about national security than his detractors?

I think it is likely that Liberman knows more about national security than many of his detractors. He probably knows that the nature of the threat is that the terrorists will stop at nothing to realize their grandiose, unrealistically pure religious society. However, he appears, like many of our leaders to have badly misjudged the Iraqi intervention.

I suspect that large segments of the public have differentiated between the self-defeating Iraq war and the need to target the dangerously distorted terrorists. Unfortunately, the Iraq decision has actually intensified the pre-conditions that produce terrorism. Thinking we were containing terrorism, the Iraqi war, inadvertently has caused it to worsen and spread.

The Iraq war has also made it more difficult for moderate democrats to separate themselves from the more pacifist democratic base to agressively and intelligently neutralize the terrorist threats around the world. Since attacking Iraq we have made their country much more vulnerable to terrorism now (including state supported terrorism, if they ever become a state) than before the invasion.

Gedaliya said...

Luckyoldson...

Why is the president seeking congressional sanction for his warrant-less wiretap programs if his motive is not, as you imply, to help protect the nation against its mortal enemies?

Synova said...

The explanation is a reasonable one.

If someone wants to fuss over it, they can explain what should be done instead.

Granted, I've no doubt this is simplified as far or even more than possible, but to say that the law, when made, sorted communications into two sorts, wireless and over wire, and that the reason was because of which sorts went on wires and which sorts didn't and that *now* the exact opposite is true, makes sense.

It's *reasonable*.

And it's reasonable to ask Congress to fix the problem.

Now, if someone like those quoted wants to explain in more technical terms why this simplified version is misleading, I'm up to a bit of technical or engineering patios, at least I understand more than I speak, so give me some technical reasons. Talk about what I know about the world my children live in every day which is defined, really, by global communication.

Hey said...

Luckyoldson: you and the rest of the "progressives" were traitors for the entire cold war, were traitors before WWII, and were only not actively treasonous to the country's war aims while they were allied with the interests of the USSR. Now that the "beautiful dream" has died, Shariah is the last, best hope of the nihillists that want to destroy the West and the market, which is why you are doing your best to aid and abet the Salafists, irrespective of their ideology that should anathematisve them to you.

We failed in WWII and in the Cold War by not treating the Fifth Column as the clear and present danger that they were, and we will be delayed in victory, if not suffer outright failure, if we don't deal with them during the struggle against medieval jihadism. Until those who aid and abet Salafism and all other crimes against humanity do the spandau ballet just as their fellow german socialists did at the end of WWII the West will always be in peril.

This FISA exercise is a very bad strategy. Any and all surveillance of jihadis is covered under the post 9/11 AUMF and that for Iraq. FDR's court did horrible damage to the constitution and the country, but at least they respected the president's war powers with their judgements on German spies and saboteurs. We should also abide by the Geneva conventions, rather than run Guantanmo as a sop to the left. The best practice is to question jihadis "vigourously" and then shoot them out of hand as demanded by Geneva. Their should be no quarter for jihadis until they stop sheltering behind civilians and start wearing uniforms. Geneva is supposed to be an incentive for civilised behaviour, rather than another sword for barbarians. But, as always, the Left is determined to destroy civilisation by any means necessary.

Luckyoldson said...

Gedaliya asks: "Why is the president seeking congressional sanction for his warrant-less wiretap programs if his motive is not, as you imply, to help protect the nation against its mortal enemies?"

I don't trust this President. He's lied through his teeth from day one, has been caught in flip-flops regarding everything from WMD, nation-building, his Attorney General, the Tillman death and other important matters.

Right now it makes little difference what this idiot does...he'll be remembered as the most inept President in our nation's history.

vet66 said...

Hey has it about right. Keep in mind that the jihadists are looking for symbolism. That is why the film their snipers, vbied, ied's, etc. They need the images for recruiting purposes. 9/11 was a symbol for them. They need another in the U.S. to maintain the momentum.

They have patience. Our society has very little staying power and no patience. That is our weakness waiting to be exploited by a patient and deadly enemy.

Luckyoldson said...

Hey: You can shove your ridiculous and infantile diatribe about how the liberals, left or whatever were "traitors" and "treasonous" up your right wing ass.

The reason we're trapped in Iraq right now, haven't found Osama, still do big business with the Saudis and Pakistan is because of the jerkoff neocons who are in charge right now.

Just last week we agreed to sell billions of dollars of military equipment to the country where 15 of the 9/11 terrorists originated...and Osama is probably residing in Pakistan.

Again: Bush will be remembered as the worst...EVER...and you idiots continue to support him.

Luckyoldson said...

vet66 said..."Hey has it about right. Keep in mind that the jihadists are looking for symbolism."

Do you people ever actually pick up a book relating to the situation we have in the Mideast...and read it?

99% of what is posted here is exactly what can be heard spewing from the mouths of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage.

Do any of you ever think for yourselves???

Gedaliya said...

I don't trust this President. He's lied through his teeth from day one, has been caught in flip-flops regarding everything from WMD, nation-building, his Attorney General, the Tillman death and other important matters.

Granted all that, you still haven't answered the question.

Why is he seeking this authority?

Luckyoldson said...

Gedaliya asks: "Why is he (Bush) seeking this authority?"

Well, you might ask Cheney...he's actually running the show.

*I mean, you REALLY don't think Bush is in charge...do you??

Duh.

vet66 said...

L.O.S. You and people like you are a dream come true for jihadists who play you like a cheap, out-of-tune piano.

If you are under any delusion that your words do not give support to a demoralized enemy, you are wrong. Consider that the jihadists are reading and reprinting your words, Kos, most democrats, and those that blame bridge failure on the war in Iraq.

They are constantly taking our pulse, so to speak, and making tactical and strategic decisions based on their excellent analysis of your continued use of the word 'idiot'.

Fortunately, they know you don't speak for a majority of Americans. They do depend on you for comic relief from the constant threat of an UAV guiding smart bomb through one of their windows during prayer time. They credit Allah with knocking over the Minnesota bridge not the war in Iraq and Bush. I wonder how they explain the odd smart bomb that sends them to their God?

Gedaliya said...

Well, you might ask Cheney...he's actually running the show.

Ok. Let's say it is Cheney who is running the show. Why is he seeking the authority?

Luckyoldson said...

This is what the invasion of Iraq has come to:

US Financing Insurgents In Iraq

U.S. commanders are offering large sums to enlist, at breakneck pace, their former enemies, handing them broad security powers in a risky effort to tame this fractious area south of Baghdad in Babil province and, literally, buy time for national reconciliation.

*Hiring insurgents...to help fight...insurgents.

Luckyoldson said...

Gedaliya,
Can you read??

I have absolutely no idea why Bush or Cheney do anything thy do...why?

Because they're not trustworthy and whatever they say has to be considered suspect.

You do remember the "I'm not a nation- builder" bullshit...right?

Or the "we're invading because of WMD" bullshit...right?

Or "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" bullshit...right?

Or "the White House didn't know Tillman was killed by friendly fire" bullshit...right?

Or "we're always getting warrants before wiretapping" bullshit...right?

Or "none of the U.S. Attorneys were fired because of politics" bullshit...right?

Or...oh, forget it...I forgot...you don't care.

Gedaliya said...

So, you're opposing the bill, which 60 senators recently endorsed, simply because you hate George Bush?

Why should anyone take you seriously?

vet66 said...

L.O.S.

He is seeking the authority as he fights the propaganda war in the U.S. He is attempting to get the center left democrats to walk away from people like you and give them cover under the law as they distance themselves from your distraction.

For too long he has wasted valuable time and energy playing "whack-a-mole" with every complaint the left trots out in homage to your one-trick-pony of BDS.

Even as we speak, some jihadist somewhere is looking up the phrase "jerk-off" in his arabic translation book.

I wonder what books Theo Van Gogh was reading when they went all jihad on his person?!

Luckyoldson said...

Gedaliya,
Here's an example of the G.W. Bush Dick Cheney team in action, and why I do not trust them:

On July 20, the Bush administration took preemptive action designed to mute in advance charges of a cover-up in the likely event that the dispute over present and former White House aides' testimony turns into a head-on collision with Congress.

Top White House officials told the Washington Post that President Bush has the power and would use it to bar the Justice Department from prosecuting contempt of Congress charges against those claiming executive privilege.

This is a highly controversial claim. Mark J. Rozell, of George Mason University, said that Bush's assertion of presidential power "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

Harvard professor of constitutional law Laurence Tribe was highly critical of the Bush administration's invocation of executive privilege.

He described it as "promiscuous to the point of being frivolous and dangerous to the survival of the republic," noting that the use of executive privilege to cover up crimes could be an impeachable offense.

Luckyoldson said...

Vet, I find it interesting your use the term; "whack-a-mole" when referring to Bush's interaction with anybody with whom he disagrees.

That's the exact term Gates and many of the Generals use to describe our battles with the insurgents.

Sounds like Bush is on the wrong track here, too.

Luckyoldson said...

Vet,
You actually think the terrorists are reading Ann's blog and comments?

Good Lord...you are out to lunch.

vet66 said...

L.O.S.

By the way, Bush is leveraging Iran by offering military equipment to the secularist regimes in the M.E. Iran has recently threatened to rain missiles down on Kuwait, Jordan, and Israel if the U.S. bombs Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Remember Iran is shiite in a region of secularists. You are overlooking the fact that you observe arbitrary boundaries on countries in the region. The tribes in the area see themselves living within different historic boundaries.

Luckyoldson said...

Gedaliya,
The bill is what it is...there's nothing we can do about it at this point...it's politics...as usual.

I don't support George W. Bush or his policies.

And that will ALL change when the Democrats wipe out the Republicans in 2008.

Thank God.

vet66 said...

L.O.S.

The "whack-a-mole" reference was aimed at the democrats who have vowed to do everything they can to distract and weaken the war effort in Iraq. Their strategy is to keep a constant flow of distractions at the current administration to ensure the war is not won. That is why Reid, et al, keep pronouncing the war is lost.

Notice they are not saying that anymore as they distance themselves from YOU etc., and plan how they can make the good news out of Iraq a result of their anti-war sentiments.

The worst case scenario is that we actually win before the 2008 elections.

Luckyoldson said...

Vet,
Yeah, we're going to "WIN" before the 2008 election.

Got any of those meds for sale?

vet66 said...

L.O.S.

You are way out on a limb, as our the democratic strategists. A lot can happen between now and when the first snows close the passes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Starting the primaries over a year in advance of history in the making is a tactical mistake. Obama already blew it by saying he would invade Pakistan and he would not use nukes on al qaeda. He will backtrack on his statements very soon as his ignorance of real politic and established policy are pointed out to him and his advisors.

Gedaliya said...

Here's an example of the G.W. Bush Dick Cheney team in action, and why I do not trust them...

You've made yourself clear regarding the president and Cheney. Yes, I know you think the president is a moron, and that Cheney is a sinister and power-mad Rasputin. Even so, I'm not persuaded that this bill should be opposed on those grounds.

I think that we should be monitoring the conversations of foreign nationals deemed a threat to our national security, and especially if those conversations occur within our telecommunications network.

Moreover, I don't think our intelligence agencies should be required to obtain individual warrants each time they discover an opportunity to monitor a conversation or email.

Do you feel differently? If so, why ?

vet66 said...

L.O.S.

For no particular reason, I point out that a major pot bust just went down taking $8 million worth of primo weed off the market. Maybe we could talk about capitalism and the effect of less product on the price of mary jane.

By the way, I am subject to the Bush/Rove conspiracy that requires I submit to random drug testing to qualify for my job.

Justin said...

Luckyoldson said (with a straight face)...

Using slurs to describe those with whom you disagree.

Now, THAT'S un-American.


...

And yet another slur, directed at anyone who disagrees with your point of view...pitiful.


Luckyoldson said (again, with a straight face)...

Again: Bush will be remembered as the worst...EVER...and you idiots continue to support him.

...

Sorry, but I've read too many of your inane comments to think you have the moxie or smarts.

...

Do any of you ever think for yourselves???

The more I read you, the more I realize that you aren't a left troll but a parody troll. I should have noticed it before. Maybe I just give people too much credit. You couldn't possibly believe all the things you say. If you did, your head would explode from the cognitive dissonance.

I will admit, you are dedicated.

EnigmatiCore said...

I was wondering if we would see votes like this, and I am encouraged that we did.

It means that the more over-the-top pandering to the far left done by the vast majority of Democrats is done for dough and for show, but as Sting sang "they love their children, too."

This makes it significantly more likely that I will vote for Hillary (should she be the eventual nominee) in the general election.

Justin said...

Luckyoldson said...

I have absolutely no idea why Bush or Cheney do anything...

Be careful Lucky. You almost answered the question! Remember, trolls don't answer questions.

EnigmatiCore said...

I am still not quite sure what value Ann thinks luckyoldson and downtownlad bring to these discussions.

I guess she thinks everyone just likes beating on brain-dead trolls, and I admit to occasionally enjoying it. Most of the time, however, it is just plain annoying to have to try to read past their vacuous, nasty, and poisoned comments.

vnjagvet said...

Justin:

Brilliant! I think you hit the mark with LOS.

Kudos.

vet66 said...

gedaliya;

I hope the final version isn't limited to only inbound (foreign originated)communications. The bad guys can simply come into the U.S. from Canada or Mexico and communicate outbound.

Can you imagine the fallout if our intel agencies were monitoring Lucky Old Son instead of Zahwahiri and we were attacked? Now that would be a good case for a special prosecutor!

Luckyoldson said...

EnigmatiCore said..."I am still not quite sure what value Ann thinks luckyoldson and downtownlad bring to these discussions."

Really?

Being the intellectual giant that you think you are...exactly what do YOU add?

All you ever do is repeat the same damn things 90% of the rest of the right wingers say...over and over again.

There's is very little real "discussion" here. It's almost exclusively conservatives telling each other they're right to support Bush, each and every one of his policies, whether it be wiretapping, torture or executive privilege for anybody he's ever spoken to (even in the Tillman case-anybody care to explain that one??)...and of course, that we'll "win" in Iraq and that all will be good.

Every day, we see where Sloan agrees with Fen, Fen agrees with Hoosier, Hoosier agrees with Vet, Vet agrees with Drill Sgt., Sgt agrees with you, you agree with b, b agrees with rev, and it goes round and round...except when anybody disagrees, then you ALL pile on, slamming the guilty party as being un-American or traitorous.
(And all the while whining about how I'm sooooo terrible for calling you people names or say that you're hypocritical or just plain dumb...as if being called a traitor or un-American is okay.)

Fortunately for America...70% of our citizens isn't buying into Bush's bullshit anymore.

Luckyoldson said...

C'mon, people...somebody explain why the Tillman family's questions regarding the death of their son can't be addressed by the White House and are being shielded by executive privilege.

National security?

The terrorists might find out?

Or do you think it just might be because the White House was up to their eyeballs in the cover-up...all the while using the man as the poster boy for recruiting??

So, let's hear what people here "bring to these discussions" by providing an answer.

The Tillman's would like to know.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Luckyoldson said...

vet66 said..."By the way, Bush is leveraging Iran by offering military equipment to the secularist regimes in the M.E."

The Saudis are "secular?"

I-don't-think-so: The Saudi Arabian culture revolves around the religion of Islam.

And are you implying the 15 onboard the aircraft on 9/11 were also "secular??"

What the hell are you talking about??

Fen said...

except when anybody disagrees, then you ALL pile on, slamming the guilty party as being un-American or traitorous

No. We have respect for those who oppose the war in good faith and are willing to discuss in a civil manner. The reason you keep being called out as a Copperhead is because your anti-war position is not based on principle, but on partisanship. You and your ilk place the security of the Democrat party over the security of the Nation.

70% of our citizens isn't buying into Bush's bullshit anymore

Really? 30% of your Democrat Senators just sided with Bush. What do they know that you don't?

Fen said...

Lucky: Do any of you ever think for yourselves???

Irony.

Tell us again Lucky how 500 WMDs = 0 WMDs... Copperhead Math?

Luckyoldson said...

Fen says: "No. We have respect for those who oppose the war in good faith and are willing to discuss in a civil manner. The reason you keep being called out as a Copperhead is because you anti-war position is not based on principle, but on partisanship."

Are you actually trying to say that the American publics overwhelming "anti-war position is not based on principle, but on partisanship???"

You think Americans are that simple-minded, that weak? That YOU and others here are all-knowing?

Again, this is why it's impossible to really discuss anything with people like you or Sloan. You're so far to the right you can't see think straight, and you just can't bring yourself to accept the fact that you're flat our wrong.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen,
You're still touting the fucking dead-in-the-water and useless shells as proof that Saddam had WMD??

Then why didn't he use them, dipstick?? We announced we were coming for weeks on end. Why did he not fire them off, killing as many Americans as possible before being overrun??

Did he forget he had them?

You can't be this dense.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen says...and this is really hard to believe: "Really? 30% of your Democrat Senators just sided with Bush. What do they know that you don't?"

They didn't vote to support the war. They voted on a specific bill regarding intelligence gathering.

Do YOU EVER READ ANYTHING before you post???

Luckyoldson said...

Fen:
"WASHINGTON — The Senate, in a high-stakes showdown over national security, voted late Friday to temporarily give President Bush expanded authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without court warrants."

See anything about not "opposing the war??"

"Supporting the war??"

Luckyoldson said...

I'm still waiting for the Tillman answer.

No guts?

Luckyoldson said...

No Tillman response, huh?

Guess it's...bail-out time for the wingnuts.

I figured as much.

Chip Ahoy said...

Dingby sounds like he drinks waaaay too much coffee. Niggling feeling, cocktail and bar-b-que chatter, something afoot, villagers, nervous cats, dancing, little birdies, whispering, ranchette, Waco, [typical Bushian fear monering nonsense], lucky trifecta,

No.More.Executive.Power.Period. Really? None? Trampling on constitution. Still looking but not finding the slightest thing cogent. Smarm+tropes+memes=standard post.

To the comments here; who are these bandwidth gobblers who take 15 posts to bang at their miserable world view? P-tew. I spit at you.

Seven Machos said...

Two-thirds of the posts here are by the same troll.

I'm glad to see that the left isn't worriedly running at the mouth and making up a bunch of lame excuses for its do-nothing legislative failure. I'm comforted to see that the far-left loons have moved beyond their visionary, unifying strategy: "Bush = Bad." Because that's going to come in handy for the daffy left and for the entire country in 2009.

Seven Machos said...

Topic of this thread: "We're at war. The enemy wants to attack us. This is not the time to strive for legislative perfection."

Jeff said...

"Then why didn't he use them, dipstick?? We announced we were coming for weeks on end. Why did he not fire them off, killing as many Americans as possible before being overrun?? Did he forget he had them?"

Interesting question. I wonder why Iraqi generals were being told to be ready to use those weapons when the Americans invaded. Why Iraqi troops were practicing suiting up for chemical weapon deployment. Perhaps Saddam thought he had those weapons but was lied to. Perhaps he was just bluffing. Who knows?

What rights under the constitution does someone who is not an American citizen and is not in the United States have?

Seven Machos said...

Jeff -- What constitutional rights do non-citizens in other countries have? I don't know. You got me.

But you can be goddamn sure that Bush is trampling on them and that it's bad.

No. More. Executive. Power. Period.

Jeff said...

"Speaking of "un-American" behavior:
Here's an interesting story on how the Bush administration has handled the Tillman death story.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003621727
Rather disgusting, considering the sacrifice of Tillman and his family."

Your link discribes the disconnect of the Army in awarding Tillman the Silver Star and refering to his death from enemy fire on one hand and investigating friendly fire without telling his family on the other. There is nothing in there about the White House having anything to do with it. Which would be your argument should that have been a democrat in the White House.

Fen said...

Lucky: Are you actually trying to say that the American publics overwhelming "anti-war position is not based on principle, but on partisanship???"

No, I'm saying that your anti-war position is not based on principle, but on partisanship.

You think Americans are that simple-minded, that weak?

No, I think that you are simple-midned and weak.

You're still touting the fucking dead-in-the-water and useless shells as proof that Saddam had WMD??

Not useless: some degraded, some not. Again, please mathematically prove your assertion that 500 = 0.

They didn't vote to support the war. They voted on a specific bill regarding intelligence gathering.

Which you refer to as Bush's bullshit. So explain why 60% of the Senate [including 30% of Dems] just supported it?

Are you drunk? Or just bad at math?

Seven Machos said...

Cheney killed Tillman with a magic bullet fired from a plane that did not hit the Pentagon. Joe Wilson investigated this, causing Scooter Libby to out his wife, a super-duper top secret CIA officer.

Bush is an idiot.

They want to silence us.

Fen said...

Jeff: I wonder why Iraqi generals were being told to be ready to use those weapons when the Americans invaded

/cover your eyes Lucky

It seems that Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping their ammo dumps insect-free

Jeff said...

What rights do all combatants have under the Geneva Convention?
Would a Iraqi private captured in battle in uniform fighting American soldiers be considered equal, under the convention as a Iranian wearing civilian clothes in Iraq captured just before he could blow up a school bus full of Iraqi children while hiding among a group of Iraqi women?
In a similar direction, how many US military personal have been captured since 2001 and how has their treatment been?
I continue to hear how Bush is also tramping over the Geneva Convention, but no one has bothered to explain how. Much like people complain about the patriot act, but never really get into specifics. Every weekend in America local law enforcement will violate the 14th admendment all over the country, affecting far more Americans than anything discussed in this thread, but I never hear about that. Is it because it predates George W Bush?

downtownlad said...

This is pretty scary. We already know that Bush is spying on gay organizations. I'm 85% convinced that my e-mail and telephone calls will now be monitored.

That's why I'll continue to vote Libertarian. We all know that Republicans hate freedom. Now it looks like Democrats hate freedom too.

Fen said...

I suspect that large segments of the public have differentiated between the self-defeating Iraq war and the need to target the dangerously distorted terrorists. Unfortunately, the Iraq decision has actually intensified the pre-conditions that produce terrorism. Thinking we were containing terrorism, the Iraqi war, inadvertently has caused it to worsen and spread.

Not sure I agree with that. There's a recent poll [pew?] showing a significant decrease of Muslim support for terrorism in the name of Islam. AQI has been targeting and killing muslims in Iraq - perhaps that battlefield has demonstrated the shape of things to come for Muslims if they enable groups like AQ:

"These are eye-catching results, but not surprising," said Augustus Richard Norton, a Middle East specialist at Boston University. "Muslims, like non-Muslims, are plugged into the world. . . . It is one thing to be caught up in the supposed glamour of attacking the superpower or global bully, but it is quite another to have to pay the consequences economically, politically -- not to mention personally. This is what has happened in places like Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, where many people now see extremist Islam as a threat to their lives, not a fantasy game of kick Uncle Sam."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030.html

Fen said...

dtl: This is pretty scary. We already know that Bush is spying on gay organizations. I'm 85% convinced that my e-mail and telephone calls will now be monitored. That's why I'll continue to vote Libertarian. We all know that Republicans hate freedom. Now it looks like Democrats hate freedom too.

Have you reconsidered fleeing to France? Remember this? -Constitution suspended. Stop. Stormtroopers asking after you. Stop. Hellhounds on your tail. Stop. Rally point Logan International to flee to Paris. Ends

Seven Machos said...

Downtown -- You know what else? There is a little-known codicil in the FISA that gives the Vice President -- Dick Cheney, in this case -- unlimited power to record the sexual activities of gays (and also handicapped people).

Has this been a grand joke all this time? Because that post was a little over the top. Or are you really just a tool?

Jeff said...

"This is pretty scary. We already know that Bush is spying on gay organizations. I'm 85% convinced that my e-mail and telephone calls will now be monitored."

Who is this "we" and how do you know this? And what would be the point on spying on gay organizations? What would be gained? And why you specifically?

Seven Machos said...

Downtown is an important gay leader. Republicans want to quash gayness. (There is a vast consensus among Republicans that, for starters, gays should wear a giant, pink "G" on all their shirts.)

Ergo, Bush is monitoring Downtown's phone calls. Osama bin Laden, Downtown, Ru Paul, and innocent terrorists everywhere are all victims of the same Constitution trampling.

Gedaliya said...

Ru Paul is gay?

Paul Zrimsek said...

And what would be the point on spying on gay organizations? What would be gained?

Fashion tips.

downtownlad said...

Who is this "we" and how do you know this? And what would be the point on spying on gay organizations? What would be gained? And why you specifically?

We know this because it's true.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-314.html

And it's not me specifically. It's anyone who is gay. Because according to the Bush Administration, if you oppose "don't ask, don't tell" and you're gay - then you're a terrorist.

Luckyoldson said...

Jeff says: "Interesting question. I wonder why Iraqi generals were being told to be ready to use those weapons when the Americans invaded. Why Iraqi troops were practicing suiting up for chemical weapon deployment. Perhaps Saddam thought he had those weapons but was lied to. Perhaps he was just bluffing. Who knows?"

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, everybody was prepared, but that damn Saddam forgot all about his WMD.

Like I said...right wing morons.

downtownlad said...

Has this been a grand joke all this time? Because that post was a little over the top. Or are you really just a tool?

And since I've already proven that I'm correct about the government spying on gay organizations, it looks like Seven is the tool.

Except we all know he has a teeny, weeny tool.

Luckyoldson said...

Where's that response to why George W. Bush is protecting those who may have information on exactly how Tillman was killed??

I've never seen so many hypocritical chickenshits in my life.

No one here can provide a defense of why Tillman's family can't find out how their son died?

And you continue to support these assholes?????

Right wing morons.

downtownlad said...

That's right luckyoldson.

97 people in the Bush administration sent e-mails on Tillman. And after it was determined that he had been killed by friendly fire,they can't find one e-mail from one person on the matter.

Sounds like someone destroyed the data and that there was a cover-up.

Why?

I would hope the Bush Administration would not resort to murder. But why is Tillman's diary nowhere to be found either.

My hunch is it's just incompetence and people covering their ass. But how people defend this is astounding.

Seven Machos said...

It's amazing what people can get themselves to believe.

I'm going to say this just once, Downtown, because I know Althouse frowns on cussing on her blog. However, it is necessary and appropriate here:

Republicans don't give a single flying fuck about gay people and certainly would never waste valuable resources "spying" on them.

But you keep believing it, Downtown. I am going to believe it for myself. I'm sure it makes ordinary phone calls much more interesting.

I bet Dick Cheney is reading this website right now. Hi Dick! I'm on your side. You are way too petty and vindictive at times, but this is a quibble. Please don't take away my freedoms for saying this. Only trample on the Constitutional rights of gays and terrorists in Pakistan.

downtownlad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
downtownlad said...

Here's more info on the Bush Administration spying illegally on Americans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

Very much looking forward to seeing President Hillary spy on right to life and the NRA. Will be fun to watch. And it will all be legal - because the Republicans trampled freedom all for short-term political gains. Hillary is a huge supporter of a strong executive branch with zero accountability to Congress.

Gedaliya said...

Where's that response to why George W. Bush is protecting those who may have information on exactly how Tillman was killed??

If George Bush is so stupid, how can he at the same time be so diabolical?

downtownlad said...

Republicans don't give a single flying fuck about gay people and certainly would never waste valuable resources "spying" on them.

Except for the minor fact that it's true.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-314.html

But you'll just continue to change the subject and avoid the facts. Because you don't live in a reality based world.

Seven Machos said...

What I should have said was: Republicans don't give a flying fuck whether people are gay.

I hereby invite all gays and lesbians and straights and celibates to join the fusion of conservatives and libertarians in the Republican Party.

Seven Machos said...

Ged -- George W. Bush is a moron. He chose Cheney as his running mate so that Cheney could be diabolical because he knew that he wanted to rule evilly but that he would be too stupid to be effective.

This is the basic mantra. I guess.

downtownlad said...

You're a complete fool Seven.

I was a Republican you moron and I voted for George Bush (when he lied about being a compassionate conservative). And I left the Republican party and joined the Libertarian party when I was essentially kicked out, due to the venom coming from your party. As has almost every other gay Republican (or former gay Republicans) that I know.

There's a reason the President is at 28% you know.

And if Republicans don't care about WHETHER or not people are gay - then answer me one simple question.

Why are they kicking gay Arabic linguists out of the army?

Jeff said...

DTL said:
We know this because it's true."

Your link says it has been alleged. Nothing in there remotely verifing it.

Luckyoldson said:
"Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, everybody was prepared, but that damn Saddam forgot all about his WMD.

Like I said...right wing morons."

I'm a moron because the Iraqis prepared for use, but didnt follow thru? Is this what passes for debate to you? I have delibratively been respectful in my posts and in return you call me a moron? So your purpose here isnt to sway opinion but to insult and belittle?


DTL said
"And since I've already proven that I'm correct about the government spying on gay organizations, it looks like Seven is the tool."

When did you prove this? I followed your link to a UK paper that quotes someone alledging this is the case. It reported them filing a freedom of information act to verify this, but thats it. Your standard of "proof" is very thin.

luckyoldson said
"Where's that response to why George W. Bush is protecting those who may have information on exactly how Tillman was killed??"

I responded at 6:56. Your link that you claim supports your comment about the Bush White House handling of the Tillman investigation does no such thing. There is yet nothing to refute.

DTL said
"I would hope the Bush Administration would not resort to murder. But why is Tillman's diary nowhere to be found either."

Yes, the Bush administration turned Tillman's team to kill him, steal his diary, report his death as KIA from enemy forces, then almost immediately afterward launch an investigation into it being a friendly fire incident. Just to cover themselves. Or something.
Makes sense when you put it that way. Perhaps you can link to a newspaper article from somewhere on the planet to "prove" that also.

downtownlad said...

My mantra is that Bush is incompetent and that he's just trying to cover his ass by refusing to release evidence.

And most Democrats would agree with that.

Seven Machos said...

It was a shame when the Bush administration instituted "don't-ask-don't-tell" in 1993.

downtownlad said...

Jeff - Read my msnbc link. That's how gay organizations figured out they were being spied on.

You expect the government to actually obey the Freedom of Information request and release this info to the public?

Get real.

But MSNBC had a copy of this information and they released it to the public, thank goodness.

Jeff said...

DTL
"Why are they kicking gay Arabic linguists out of the army?"

Because its a stupid policy that predates the Bush administration and Republican's are "kicking" them out only in the sense they haven't tried changing the Military rules and culture. I agree its stupid. I also think whoever decides to rectify this is looking at a uphill battle.

downtownlad said...

So Seven, as usual, avoids my question and moves the goalpost.

Of course he would, since I just proved him wrong.

Seven Machos said...

And another thing, Downtown: I am sorry you were excommunicated from the GOP. I will appeal to the evil overlords to see if you can be blessed by evil and have your Republican voting rights restored. With any luck, they won't make you drink the magic straight water.

downtownlad said...

Well Jeff - the Republican party supports this and every Republican presidential candidate has endorsed retaining this policy.

Every Democratic Presidential candidate has endorsed removing it.

Obviously, it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to realize that Republicans do care whether or not someone is gay. That's also why they endorse the repeal of Lawrence V. Texas and the re-implementation of sodomy laws that applies to gays only (a policy Bush still endorses).

It's also why the staunch Republicans I know stopped talking to me after I came out of the closet. Boy - that was an eye-opening moment for me.

downtownlad said...

Seven is still avoiding the question.

Seven Machos said...

Downtown -- Please point us to the parts in your vaunted MSNBC article about gay people being spied on because they are gay.

This is like saying that Alger Hiss was imprisoned because he walked funny.

Jeff said...

DTL said
"Jeff - Read my msnbc link. That's how gay organizations figured out they were being spied on."

It was posted while I was typing my previous response, but I did go out and read it. While I would like to know a great deal more about this, I dont see the connection to spying on people due to them being gay. It looks like the article is focused on peace groups and anti war groups. Based entirely on what I read in that article with no understanding in what if anything might have led to this, I would agree that that is wrong and people should be prosecuted. However, I would like to know a lot more about this before I start calling for people heads. Perhaps the enemy has found that attending peace movement meetings is way to subvert monitoring. Seems dubious at best, but I don't know. I would like a lot more information on this. But unless they are spying on the quakers because they are gay, I don't see how this supports your argument.

Seven Machos said...

Please define "the question."

downtownlad said...

Seven - Why do the Republicans favor kicking gay people out of the military, or this really don't care whether or not people are gay? Republicans are almost unanimously in favor of maintaining "don't ask, don't tell".

Justin said...

Jeff said (to Luckyoldson)...

So your purpose here isnt to sway opinion but to insult and belittle?

No to both. He's here to parody the angry left. He's not really insulting or belittling you. He's mocking the lefties who do that sort of thing.

downtownlad said...

Jeff,

I like freedom and I am appalled that the government is spying on domestic citizens (including gay groups) without a warrant.

Last time I checked that was unconstitutional.

If you really value freedom and liberty, you should be a little more concerned about the government trampling on our rights all in the name of "protecting us".

The Republican party has become the big government party.

Only the Libertarian Party cares about our rights and freedoms.

Jeff said...

DTL- I have been a Republican since 1980. Most of us dont care one way or the other. As I said, it's a stupid policy. The democrats that now say they will remove it, had eight years to do so and don't ask, don't tell is the result. This is something that in time will change. Not being a one issue voter, I will be voting for someone who represents my viewpoints the most, I don't think there will be anyone running that represents all my viewpoints.

But the idea that there is the block of REPUBLICANS that speak in one voice on every issue, a borg collective of the United States, just isn't true.

Seven Machos said...

Because the military wants it that way. Because gayness offers no special rights under the Constitution. Because well over 50 percent of the populace wants it that way and, when you live in a democracy, them;s the breaks.

We have trodden this ground many times before.

We're at war. The enemy wants to attack us. This is not the time to strive for legislative perfection.

downtownlad said...

Well fine Seven. I believe in Democracy, although I think the Constitution protects the rights of minorities and makes it unconstitutional to have frivilous laws that unfairly target a group of people based on who they are.

But let's just say we live in a country where the Constitution is meaningless and it is all down to majority vote (your wet dream).

I've still proven you wrong. Obviously Republicans DO care whether or not people are gay.

And I've more respect for you if you could at least admit that.

Jeff said...

"If you really value freedom and liberty, you should be a little more concerned about the government trampling on our rights all in the name of "protecting us"."

Re-read my post on this. I am no way willing to sacrifice freedom for safety. What I said was I dont know enough about this to condemn.

Furthermore I become much more Libertarian the older I get, but I am not willing to nullify my vote for pureness sake. Even Ron Paul moved to the Republican party for that reason. Where were all of you supporters of the constitution during the 90's? Try telling the cop who holds you up in the DUI checkpoint you object to the violation of the 14th admendment. Or the marshall who confiscates the $5K your taking to Vegas unless you go to court and prove your not buying drugs with it. Or the Sheriff who confiscates your family car because a friend of your son gets caught with a joint in it.
There has been a steady erosion of constitutional rights for quite some time, but no one got bent out of shape about any of it until GWB came along. Which scares me because I cant help but wonder if all this outrage will go away should a Democrat take the White House.

downtownlad said...

Where were all of you supporters of the constitution during the 90's?

I was adamantly opposing the Clinton Administration and his imposition of Executive Control over every facet of government. Which is why I voted for Bush Sr. and Dole.

That's where I was.

If you're trying to call me a hypocrite - you're going to fail.

Seven Machos said...

Read the Constitution. There's nothing there about sexuality. It's not a constitutional issue. Therefore, it is not protected from the ravages of legislation.

Democrats have a majority in the House and Senate. They could change the law if they wanted. Some Republicans would vote with them.

How come that hasn't happened?

I am steadfastly for majority rule. That makes me a populist in a lot of ways. I am certainly not for rule by a bunch of elitists who know better than the majority.

Finally, I add here that all it takes, really, is a two-thirds majority or so across most of the states to effect a change in the Constitution.

downtownlad said...

Democrats have a majority in the House and Senate. They could change the law if they wanted.

No they can't. First - it would be fillibustered. And second - Bush would veto it.

I've stated many times that the majority of this country hates gay people. Democrats can read polls too, and they are not going to push a law that is seen as gay-friendly, unless they actually think they can get it passed.

downtownlad said...

And Seven - my Consitution talks about liberty. My Constitution has a 9th amendment.

Your Constitution has an "inkblot" on the 9th amendment. It's an abridged version . . .

downtownlad said...

I should also add that my Constitution has a 4th amendment, which yours is missing as well.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Gedaliya said...

Well, it looks like the House has followed suit and approved president Bush's request for warrant-less wiretap authority.

More details to follow.

Jeff said...

DTL
"If you're trying to call me a hypocrite - you're going to fail."

(Big Sigh) If I was going to call you a hypocrite, I would have said "DTL, you are a hypocrite. My point stands. The vast majority of people complaining today, were not heard from under Clinton. They will go away under a new Democrat president. Obviously this goes both ways. People defending some things under a Republican will become outraged under a Democrat. And the constitution continues to degrade.
Why do you insist on making this personal?

Jeff said...

DTL said
"No they can't. First - it would be fillibustered. And second - Bush would veto it."
I disagree on both points. I think the democrats should call my bluff.

downtownlad said...

I'm not making it personal Jeff.

I'm asking why Republicans are approving of this insane law, that infringes on our freedoms and liberty?

Republicans used to be better than that. Which is one of the many reasons I can't support them anymore.

downtownlad said...

Bush has already said he favors the law and hinted he would veto it.

It is pending in Congress to have this repealed. I expect Democrats will make an attempt during this Congress.

Jeff said...

You assumed I was calling you, personally a hypocrite. I congratulate you on your answer. If more people would object to the erosion of our civil liberties no matter who was in charge this country would be a better place. All I know about this current law is it allows eavesdropping on out of country communications? I will research it tomorrow morning and see exactly what it is. As for now, a friend's band is playing tonight and I am firing up the Harley to see if drunk girls still dig bikes. Even if ridden by a Republican

Revenant said...

Of the 115 posts in this thread, 35 are by Luckyoldson. Another 30 or so are replies to Lucky.

Fortunately, DTL was able to rescue the thread from its "Lucky v. Everyone" state by patiently explaining that this topic, like every other topic, is actually all about homosexuality.

downtownlad said...

Revenant - the Bush Administration chose to spy on gay organizations - not me. I'm just pointing that out.

And it's entirely relevant to this thread, because the new law allows that. The Bush Administration considers gay people to be terrorists (they can definte "terrorist" however they want), thus they are now free to monitor the e-mail and phone calls of gay people.

And you're the one who supports this assinine law.

Gedaliya said...

The Bush Administration considers gay people to be terrorists (they can definte "terrorist" however they want), thus they are now free to monitor the e-mail and phone calls of gay people.

This is silly nonsense.

In any case, for all interested adults, here is an AP dispatch regarding the issue at hand:

FISA Bill Passes House

Mindsteps said...

Fen said...

Not sure I agree with that. There's a recent poll [pew?] showing a significant decrease of Muslim support for terrorism in the name of Islam. AQI has been targeting and killing muslims in Iraq - perhaps that battlefield has demonstrated the shape of things to come for Muslims if they enable groups like AQ:

I am not sure what to make of the relationship between these polls numbers and the status of global terrorism. For example, world public opinion polls actually have found that more Iranians are against the use of terror than than U.S. citizens "Larger majorities of Iranians than Americans reject terrorist attacks against civilians, though both publics are quite opposed. Asked whether “bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” can be justified often, sometimes, rarely or never, 80 percent of Iranians select never. Forty-six percent of Americans say such attacks can never be justified and 27 percent say they rarely can (see http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/307.php?nid=&id=&pnt=307&lb=hmpg1).

On the other hand, recent State Department Reports have found that incidents of global terrorism increased by 25% in 2006 (see http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=April&x=20070425112825idybeekcm0.2628443) and as reported by Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269276,00.html). They wrote: "In its annual global survey of terrorism to be released Monday, the State Department says about 14,000 attacks took place in 2006, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan. These strikes claimed more than 20,000 lives — two-thirds in Iraq. That is 3,000 more attacks than in 2005 and 5,800 more deaths."

The State Department also reports that Al-Qaida has, in some ways, reconstituted, and metastasized, since our invasion in Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban.

Fen....is it your appraisal that the global threat of terrorism has diminished year to year since 911?

Seven Machos said...

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Again, Downtown. I blame Bush. It was in 1993 that he instituted "Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell" by executive fiat, thereby wiping out with the stroke of a pen the rights that gays have had to openly serve in the military since the time of the Magna Carta.

Seven Machos said...

Mindsteps -- Al Queda has every right to exist as a political movement, even in the United States, so long as it abides by the laws of the United States, in the United States. Legitimizing groups that oppose your government and forcing them to work within the contours of established institutions is the only way to defeat groups that oppose your government other than killing all the human beings in the opposition.

Think about that.

As for Al Queda, there have been no serious domestic attacks since 2001. Our soldiers are dying, which sucks, but that is part of the role of a soldier. I credit President Bush's policies.

Revenant said...

Revenant - the Bush Administration chose to spy on gay organizations - not me. I'm just pointing that out.

DTL, we already knew you were paranoid. You don't have to point it out, and you certainly don't have to take two dozen posts to do it.

The only evidence you've offered for your claim is an MSNBC article claiming that the Bush Administration spied on, and I quote, "nearly four dozen anti-war meetings or protests" a year and a half ago. No mention of gays or of gays being targeted, then or now. The only mention of gay issues is in "Pinknews" article, and that consists of nothing more than a reprinted rumor.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to explain that to you, since you're immune to reason and other people have already tried... but hey.

The Bush Administration considers gay people to be terrorists

That's just silly.

tjl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

The only good gay terrorist is a dead gay terrorist.

Revenant said...

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Six facts:

(A) Rights can exist naturally.
(B) Rights can be granted by law
(C) Rights can be granted by the Constitution
(D) The government can be forbidden from restricting a right, by the Constitution.
(E) Rights can be removed or restricted by the Constitution.
(F) Rights can be removed or restricted by law, unless the Constitution forbids removing or restricting them.

Amendments 1,2, 4, and 7 do (D).
Amendments 3, 5, 8, and 10 do (E) to the government.
Amendment 6 does (C).
Amendment 9 just says "we've not doing (E) to any rights we forgot to mention here".

A ban on, say, gay sex, does (F). Since the Constitution says nothing about the government being forbidden from restricting the right to gay sex, it may be restricted.

Something important to keep in mind is that a right is not the same thing as an inalienable right. We all have thousands of rights under the law, only a handful of which are protected from government meddling. For example, I have the right to drive my car, but the government can take that away from me.

tjl said...

"DTL was able to rescue the thread from its "Lucky v. Everyone" state by patiently explaining that this topic, like every other topic, is actually all about homosexuality"

Please bear in mind that DTL is in reality a homophobic troll. By framing absolutely every issue, no matter what, as a prelude to gay extinction, he attempts to keep alive the old stereotype of gays as hysterical narcissists. If DTL succeeds in his evil plan, he'll convince everybody that there's nothing that society does that affects gays unfairly.

Seven Machos said...

I do like to argue with Downtown. He is obviously either paranoid or a brilliant satarist. Either way, there is reason involved in his posts. The same cannot be said for some others.

LanceThruster said...

Considering Continuity Directive 51, as far as the Bush nightmare is concerned, I fear "No End in Sight."

Palladian said...

Give me an outrageous drag queen in fuchsia eyeshadow and 12 inch stilettos or a bare-assed 68 year old man in a leather thong any day. They're better, more positive representatives of the "gay community" than the increasingly incoherent paranoia queen that posts anonymously here under the name "downtownlad".

Now let's see how long it is before she calls me fat! Because, you know, in raging batshit crazy queen land, that's apparently some sort of supreme insult!

Seven Machos said...

I've always imagined you to have an especially fine physique, Palladian.

Palladian said...

Ha! No, I'm a big guy. I mean, I have a fine physique for a 6'1" 300 pound guy, which isn't saying too much.

DTL saw a picture of me somewhere and now thinks that it's SO HURTFUL AND MEAN AND HORRIBLE to call attention to my weight. Which is fine, since it doesn't bother me and it gives me license to call him nasty, juvenile names back.

Seven Machos said...

Of course he does. Just don't use denigrate his sexuality. That's out of bounds. And never question his patriotism.

As an aside, I wonder if any serious academic has ever seriously studied the evolution of sexuality as a class. It's something that has only appeared in the last few decades. It would be interesting. It might give some insight into the next class that will form.

Seven Machos said...

On edit, I add that arguments count; ad hominem accounts are for intellectual pussies. How you look and who you have sex with don't matter. It's interesting, though, that people who screech to high heaven about one kind of insult will actively pursue another.

Palladian said...

SevenMachos, I don't understand why people waste mental energy trying to make reasoned comments in response to the DTLs and the Luckyoldsons of the world. The best thing, both for your sanity, your efficiency, and the quality of the comments here, is to either ignore them or pepper them with insults. I find the endless back-and-forth here between the same 3 or four people to be tedious. Nothing is ever accomplished, nothing new is ever said, no one's mid is ever changed.

Fen said...

Mindsteps: Fen....is it your appraisal that the global threat of terrorism has diminished year to year since 911?

No. I would say the global threat has increased, even as the domestic threat has decreased.

But that doesn't necessarily mean Iraq was the wrong battlefield. The surge has AQI on the run, and AQ's tactics have damaged its mystique amoung Muslims - look at how the Sunni have switched sides, right now they hate AQ more than they hate us. I think its similar to the Nazi movement: in its early stages it was attractive to the average German, but once it was allowed to run its course, the "moderates" began to see it as the monster it truly was.

Fen said...

Lucky: They voted on a specific bill regarding intelligence gathering.

Which you refer to as Bush's bullshit. So explain why 60% of the Senate [including 30% of Dems] just supported it?

Added: The Democrat controlled House, which more directly reflects the "will of the people" than the Senate, just approved the bill 227-183. How do you reconcile that with your polls?

Seven Machos said...

Fen -- You have to think that Cheney is involved. And also evil.

Jeff said...

"The House handed President Bush a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States."

"This bill would grant the attorney general the ability to wiretap anybody, any place, any time without court review, without any checks and balances,'' said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., during the debate preceding the vote. ''I think this unwarranted, unprecedented measure would simply eviscerate the 4th Amendment,'' which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures."

Well, either the AP or Rep Zoe Lofgren is lying here. I have my suspicions.

Luckyoldson said...

Gedaliya,
It's not just Bush, you idiot.

It's the entire administration that's stonewalling the Tillman family.

Instead of whining and defending...explain why executive privilege is being extended.

If it was your brother or son...would you want to know exactly how and why he died??

Luckyoldson said...

rev,
Regarding my Tillman question...

If it was your brother or son...would you want to know exactly how and why he died??

Luckyoldson said...

Well, it looks like most here would rather blather on about anything but the Tillman situation...right?

Can we all assume that's because you're all so embarrassed by the Bush administration's behavior and your lack of any rational argument as to why the family is being kept in the dark about their son and brother's death?

For a group of people who are so gungho and supportive our military, you show a complete lack of guts when it comes to standing up for rights of the family of someone who gave their life for their country.

And again, I ask: If it was your brother or son...wouldn't you want to know exactly how and why he died??

Revenant said...

Considering Continuity Directive 51, as far as the Bush nightmare is concerned, I fear "No End in Sight."

Er...

So you think Bush is going to kill the entire Washington leadership, including himself... so that his cronies can take over the government? That's a special kind of paranoid craziness. You could give Lucky and DTL lessons, and that's really saying something.

Jeff said...

Make sure you get outside before torching that straw man. Tough to get the smell of smoke out of the drapes and carpet.

Seven Machos said...

Maybe people don't want to talk to you, Lucky.

hdhouse said...

vet66 said...
"By the way, I am subject to the Bush/Rove conspiracy that requires I submit to random drug testing to qualify for my job"

And up to this point it is obvious you have escaped detection.....someone have to pry a bong pipe from your cold dead hands or something?

Take a deep breath. Take off your uniform. Get some fresh air. Viet Nam is over. The red menace isn't there. .... just calm down some...you sound like an absolute lunatic and you don't want that ... do you?

ohhh and Seven Machos said...
"Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell" by executive fiat, thereby wiping out with the stroke of a pen the rights that gays have had to openly serve in the military since the time of the Magna Carta."

I just read my copy of the Magna Carta. I carry it around just in case I run into some fool who thinks it is our guiding document on military law......

Oh and Sloanasaurus (so much hair-so little brains). .... I don't care who the president listens to. I DO however CARE who Karl Rove listens to.. and therein lies the rub....that is always the rub. But you don't get it do you? In your world it is better to be sloppy and "done" with your work than be thorough and thoughtful and done with your work. Your way may give you more time to fantasize about the latest red menace but your work product has "made in china" posted all over it."

Seven Machos said...

...Magna Carta joke sails 45 feet over head of brilliant leftist...

Mindsteps said...

Fen said...

No. I would say the global threat has increased, even as the domestic threat has decreased.

I think the international terrorism will continue well into the 21st century because many of the root causes of terrorism are not being addressed. Among the conditions that encourage terrorism I would include:

1. Global poverty (although, some of the more high profile terrorists are far from impoverished)
2. Racism
3. Opression
4. Israeli - Palestinian conflicts
5. Unstable nations (e.g. Afghanistan, Sierra Leone)
6. Rogue nations (e.g. Iran, North Korea, etc)

And....our mishandling of Iraq has further inflamed international terrorism, diminished our reputation in the world, and has divided and confused the public.

tjl said...

"Magna Carta joke sails 45 feet over head of brilliant leftist"

Seven, you forget that irony doesn't come naturally to the left. Irony assumes an awareness that a statement may have some meaning beyond its literal one. But fine shades of meaning are lost on ears tuned to the left's high-decibel mode of inflated moral earnestness and shrill outrage. Hdhouse offers a lovely example above.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Being the intellectual giant that you think you are..."

Are you still trying to somehow convince me that I am not bright?

The fact that you haven't picked up on the fact that it simply hasn't worked is yet more evidence that you are one of the biggest fools on this site.

As for what I bring to the site, I bring elegance, charm, and stunning good looks, all while knocking about the self-important imbeciles on the left and the right who, for reasons that are beyond comprehension, think that they are somehow clever, persuasive, or otherwise engaging. If you had intelligence higher than that of a wet soap dish, you would already have realized that.

vet66 said...

Regarding the Tillman Death;

It was undoubtedly caused by friendly fire and the perfect storm of war; mechanical breakdowns, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, friendlies who caught up with your position, and a three-burst round that Tillman intercepted as he fell under the first round picking up rounds 2 and three as he fell into the trajectory. The other possibility was unlikely but could have been the three snipers in the following formation that fired simultaneously striking Tillman (unlikely.)

The Tillman family know the best guess in this fog of war scenario. Whether they like what they heard or believe in conspiracies is up to them. The truth can only be surmised with a best guess.

Such is war!

hdhouse said...

Vet66...

up to the Tillman family? Hello?

Let's start with the fact ... the absolute fact... that it was friendly fire and known that it was friendly fire right from the start.

Then let's turn it into a propaganda event and surpress the FACT that it was friendly fire which, for some reason, doesn't play well for this administration, and turned into a bunch of nothing for political points and shaping the idea.

Then go to now years of silence and spinning and all that, again for political advantage. then appears Rummy and two lackeys from the military claiming to not know shit about anything...never go up to that level. another case of underlings dropping the ball.

yet one analyst after another says that is all bullshit...that the chain doesn't work that way....

and now come Vet66..ho hum. shot in the head 3 times...shit happens in war. .... pass the scones and can i have a fresh cup of coffee....la di da ... la di da.

Gedaliya said...

t was undoubtedly caused by friendly fire and the perfect storm of war...

Yes, and I wouldn't be surprised if the army botched it after-the-fact. Army officers are human, after all., and they frequently err.

It should also be no surprise that Bush-haters would use this sad incident to gain some (relatively) cheap political profit at the expense of the Tillman family. I'm quite sure most Bush-haters care not a whit for Tillman or his loved ones. In fact, I think it is fair to say that they held Pat Tillman in contempt for his overt and unabashed patriotism and call to duty.

As such, it doesn't serve any purpose to argue about Pat Tillman with those infected with BDS. The disease is, after all, fatal to the reason, sensibility (and most importantly) the sense of humor of what are most probably otherwise sane individuals.

hdhouse said...

So Gedaliya, let me see if I understand you....Tillman was killed by friendly fire yet that was entered by mistake, yet when it surfaced up the chain of command it was ignored or surpressed...remember the pentagon email to the white house warning the president not to refer to it ....to further embarrass himself...

and then of course they kept the lie alive until after the funeral, memoral services and all the mileage they could wring out of it, then comes the news...now given freely but when they were "found out" and their lie explosed....that was nice...

now it is democrats taking cheap shots at President WooWoo? How about the 3 cheap shots to Tillman's head?

Don't be an ass. Not on sunday morning.

Gedaliya said...

Like I said, it doesn't pay to argue with individuals who hate George Bush, even on Sunday morning.

Bruce Hayden said...

DTL (and sorry to revisit this), Don't Ask, Don't Tell will go away in the future. Probably near future. Maybe it can be maintained for some combat slots, as is the case for the ban on women, though I suspect relatively openly (male) gays will be able to fill combat slots before women will be allowed to.

But I think that those opposing the policy are right to the extent that the justification does not fly for most military jobs. For example, why should it matter at all whether a pilot in a plane was openly gay or not?

I would suspect that the problem right now is that everyone has backed themselves into corners. And because of that can't be seen as compromising on this matter.

And, bringing Cheney into this is quite humorous. By temperament and history he is likely one of the least "homophobic" in the Administration. It just doesn't fit into his Western independent, live and let live, philosophy. Oh, and I should note that he in particular hates lesbians. Oh, I forgot. He has an openly lesbian daughter, whom he is very close to - despite her sexual orientation.

In other words, if you are looking for anti-gay elements in and around the Administration, don't look at the neocons like Cheney, but rather more likely the more fundamentalist Christians. He may be evil incarnate, but he isn't "homophobic".

Bruce Hayden said...

Now to get to what was I think supposed to be the designated topic, I have found Lederman to be somewhat one sided in this area, and as a result to some extent discount some of his points. Nevertheless, he does very aptly represent one side of this debate.

The suspicion of some is that this bill was in response to a FISC judge refusing to give the NSA somewhat open warrants. If you will remember, this whole matter blew up awhile back, but then fell off the radar scopes of many when the Administration was able to get somewhat open warrants for communications that met certain conditions. In other words, they didn't need to go to the FISC to get a warrant if Osama ben Laden called anyone here in the U.S. because such a warrant would have been automatically triggered by certain conditions. Nice while it lasted, but there is some evidence that a different FISC judge refused to play by these rules.

In any case, the problem all along has been that the FISA warrant process was developed in a different era to face a different threat, and in relation to different technologies. The result is that the FISA warrant process is much too cumbersome to react adequately to the (sometimes) fast paced environment in which it was facing with the NST TSP (and the AG has repeatedly explained why the Emergency Orders provision doesn't solve this problem).

Technically, the main problem is for international calls between an al Qaeda suspect (or possibly person of interest) out of this country and someone here. If the interception were outside this country, there really wouldn't be an issue here, since the targeted person wouldn't be a U.S. person in the U.S. And that was where we were sitting when FISA was passed - that the NSA could eavesdrop on international communications outside this country. They can't any more, or at least not with any sort of thoroughness, with today's technology, notably communications using fiber optics. They must be intercepted in the U.S. at the U.S. hubs tied to the overseas cables. And that changes the legal requirement from a targeted U.S. person in the U.S. to anyone, whether targeted or not, and whether he is here legally, as long as one party is in the U.S., or, even worse apparently, if they might be in the U.S. This later is a new wrinkle, that this FISC judge, or someone else, has pointed out, that FISA warrants are required if there is even a possibility of the domestic non-al Qaeda end of a call being in the U.S. as opposed to actually being here. The problem is that the NSA doesn't always know where a phone is (for example, with satellite phones).

Add to this latest wrinkle that a lot of foreign communications (i.e. neither end is w/i this country) are routed through this country, and possibly surveilled, through a combination of logistics and AT&T working with the NSA. In the past, that was considered outside of FISA. But whenever there is a chance that one end is in the U.S., regardless of how remote that chance, FISA is now arguably triggered. So, now a FISA warrant is needed when al Qaeda hiding in caves in Pakistan calls their people in Iraq by satellite phone, since one end might possibly be in this country. If the NSA doesn't know for a certainty that both ends are outside this country, a FISA warrant is supposedly now needed.

So, it is the combination of a number of factors that has brought this back to the front burner, and hence the legislation.

Realistically though, outside the sort of civil libertarian communities in which Marty Lieberman and Orin Kerr run, I think that most Americans are just fine with revising FISA to correspond with the reality of modern technology and the international threats we are facing. So far, under the Administration's interpretation of the current FISA, there have been no verifiable instances of anyone in this country being surveilled by this program, nor any information gleaned through the TSP ever having been used against anyone in court. In short, no harm, no foul.

Bruce Hayden said...

So Gedaliya, let me see if I understand you....Tillman was killed by friendly fire yet that was entered by mistake, yet when it surfaced up the chain of command it was ignored or suppressed...remember the pentagon email to the white house warning the president not to refer to it ....to further embarrass himself...

So, apparently there is some reason that because Tillman's chain of command was reluctant to admit that he had died from friendly fire, that the TSA shouldn't be revised to conform to modern technology and threats. I am not quite sure of the logic there.

Bruce Hayden said...

Of course, Congress is on board for this. It is a no brainer for most of them, and those opposing it are likely no brainers themselves.

The problem for the Democrats here is first that no one in the U.S. has really been harmed by the TSP. But if the Democrats had managed to kill the FISA changes, and as a result, shut down the TSP, then the next time that there is a terrorist attack on the U.S. (and I am sure there will be one some day), many would question whether it could have been prevented if the TSP had not been gutted. And, in the end, any Democrat voting not to amend from a swing district would be out of office, and the Democrats in Congress relegated to a minority for the next generation.

Not a chance that very many were willing to take, esp. if there were even a small chance that their district might go Republican. Ever. That the Democrats opposing FISA modernization got as many votes as they did, is evidence more of the powers of gerrymandering safe districts than anything else.

hdhouse said...

Gedaliya said...
Like I said, it doesn't pay to argue with individuals who hate George Bush, even on Sunday morning."

No Gedaliya...I don't like liars. i particularly don't like liars whose lies are surrounded by death and interwined in killing. That Bush lies is a given. I dislike him intensely for it. You should too if you were honest and not connected to him by the hip.

I just wonder where your threshold is....what would it take Bush to do for you to say enough of this?

Luckyoldson said...

vet says this of the Tillman case: "The truth can only be surmised with a best guess."

Really??

If that's the case, then why would Bush use executive privilege to block an inquiry into what exactly happened?

You know this is a bullshit answer...especially if you're actually a military vet.

And...I ask YOU again: If it was YOUR son...wouldn't YOU want to know the truth?

Luckyoldson said...

Gedaliya says: "It should also be no surprise that Bush-haters would use this sad incident to gain some (relatively) cheap political profit at the expense of the Tillman family."

It's the TILLMAN FAMILY who's driving the investigation, dipstick. They've been asking what happened for years now.

Or are you implying that the family is trying to find out what happened to their son...for "cheap politcal profit???"

Get real.

Gedaliya said...

That the Democrats opposing FISA modernization got as many votes as they did, is evidence more of the powers of gerrymandering safe districts than anything else.

I agree with this statement. I believe the Senate vote more properly resonates with the current national will regarding the issue.

Even so, I'm bitterly disappointed, once again, that my representative, Steve Israel, Democrat (2nd District, Long Island, NY), voted against the bill. The 2nd District is only recently in Democratic hands, Israel having replaced the hapless Rick Fazio, the loser to Hillary in the 2000 Senate race.

Israel votes Pelosi 100% of the time on the question of Iraq. He is a full-fledged member of the surrender caucus. Unfortunately, these votes are unlikely to hurt him here in the 2nd district, which has gone from red to blue with alacrity over the last few years.

Luckyoldson said...

Gedaliya,
You haven't answered my Tillan question.

Are you saying the family does not deserve to know how their son and brother died?

That they're using the push for political reasons?

Gedaliya said...

No Gedaliya...I don't like liars. i particularly don't like liars whose lies are surrounded by death and interwined in killing. That Bush lies is a given. I dislike him intensely for it. You should too if you were honest and not connected to him by the hip.

Most everyone lies, to one degree or another. Everyone rationalizes. You must hate a lot of people.

It is interesting, however, to watch how you express yourself. You can't bring yourself to say "I hate George Bush." You instead say that you "dislike him intensely."

However, you do say that you "hate liars," and that "Bush lies is a given."

Do you really "hate liars" or do you just hate George Bush?

Luckyoldson said...

gedalyia,
Why are you harping on the Bush haters bullshit?

Answer the question regarding the Tillman family.

Are you standing by your statement that it's all about politics?

Jeff said...

"don't look at the neocons like Cheney, but rather more likely the more fundamentalist Christians. He may be evil incarnate, but he isn't "homophobic"."

Not to get petty, but Cheney is not and has never been a neocon. He is old school conservative.

Luckyoldson said...

Gedaliya,
Still waiting, chicken-boy.

Gedaliya said...

ot to get petty, but Cheney is not and has never been a neocon. He is old school conservative.

My guess is that Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Paul Craig Roberts (and a host of others) will strenuously disagree.

Jeff said...

"My guess is that Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Paul Craig Roberts (and a host of others) will strenuously disagree."

based on what?

Luckyoldson said...

Jeff asks: "based on what?"

Based on absolutely nothing.

What did you expect?

Gedaliya said...

...based on what?

Well, here is a Buchanan piece that makes his case that Cheney is a neocon. It is easy enough finding examples of any number of major paleocon figures dissing Cheney as one of the chief architects of Bush's neocon foreign policy.

Buchanan on Cheney as Neocon

Gedaliya said...

You might also take a look at this statement, who signed it, and what organization it represents:

Project for a New American Century

Luckyoldson said...

Who cares if Cheney is a neocon?

We all know he's the puppetmaster controlling little Georgie's every move.

Jeff said...

I read the piece. He actually makes the case that he disagrees with Cheney on war with Iraq. Looking at Cheney's history from when he first went into public service, there is no way he could be described as a neocon. He has always been a conservative. Buchanan has drifted way right into caricature conservatism. Paul Craig Roberts appears to have become a truther which casts doubts on pretty much any other opinion he has.

Jeff said...

OK, I read that one too. What part of the statement itself do you think is strictly neoconservative? You can be old school conservative without being isolationist conservative. There are topics that neo and old school conservatives overlap.

Gedaliya said...

What part of the statement itself do you think is strictly neoconservative?

Well, the PNAC is the most prestigious neocon thinktank extant.

Putting that aside, perhaps the problem is that we don't define the terms "paleo" and "neocon" in the same way.

Would you agree, however, that "paleo" or "traditional" conservatives might not agree with the following statement (from the document):

[W]e need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

The word "extending" is quite significant here, as I imagine you agree. Most traditional conservatives shake in abject horror at the very notion of a Wilsonian foreign policy.

Luckyoldson said...

With all that's happening in Iraq...people here are debating whether Cheney is or is not a "neocon??"

What difference does it make if the decisions he's been involved in have resulted in the mess we have right now?

If he was merely a conservative or really a neocon or even a moderate...we still have what we have:

Iraq’s power grid is on the brink of collapse because of insurgent sabotage of infrastructure, rising demand, fuel shortages and provinces that are unplugging local power stations from the national grid, officials said Saturday.

Electricity Ministry spokesman Aziz al-Shimari said power generation nationally is only meeting half the demand, and there had been four nationwide blackouts over the past two days. The shortages across the country are the worst since the summer of 2003, shortly after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, he said.

Power supplies in Baghdad have been sporadic all summer and now are down to just a few hours a day, if that. The water supply in the capital has also been severely curtailed by power blackouts and cuts that have affected pumping and filtration stations.

Karbala province south of Baghdad has been without power for three days, causing water mains to go dry in the provincial capital, the Shiite holy city of Karbala.

“We no longer need television documentaries about the Stone Age. We are actually living in it. We are in constant danger because of the filthy water and rotten food we are having,” said Hazim Obeid, who sells clothing at a stall in the Karbala market.

Revenant said...

Then let's turn it into a propaganda event and surpress the FACT that it was friendly fire which

See, the part I don't get is where the Left thinks that was a bad thing to do.

Were I killed by friendly fire, I'd much rather my family be told I died heroically in combat with the enemy. Dying from friendly fire, like any other accidental death, is just too meaningless and tragic. I'd rather my family think I died for an important reason.

Then there's the propaganda issue. Better to emphasize that some of our troops are heroes than that some of our troops make mistakes. But then the Left generally considers making America look worse than it is to be praiseworthy and making it look better than it is to be criminal, so maybe that's why they don't like the propaganda angle.

Revenant said...

You might also take a look at this statement, who signed it,

The statement recommends four things:

(1): increase defense spending
(2): strengthen ties to democratic allies and challenge regimes hostile American interests and values
(3): promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad
(4): preserve and extend an international order friendly to American security, prosperity, and principles.

Conservatives have been advocating all four of those things for the last sixty years. There's nothing "neo" about them.

and what organization it represents:

Guilt by association? Does this mean I can hold Hillary Clinton accountable for every loathsome statement that appears on DailyKos?

Seven Machos said...

Perhaps the question that our resident lefty kooks should be asking is: why won't this great scandal we have ginned up gain any traction?

Or: since this scandal we have ginned up won't gain any traction, shouldn't we move on?

Gedaliya said...

Guilt by association?

First, let me say that I am a neo-conservative and a strong supporter of both the PNAC and the president's foreign policy.

The statement I referenced elucidates the mission of the Project for a New American Century. It is the founding document of the organization. It is signed by the luminaries of the neo-conservative movement, including Elliot Abrams, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Paul Wolfowitz, etc., all of whom I (hope) you accept as part of the neo-conservative brain trust.

Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld were among the signers of this document. On that basis alone I think it is safe to call them both neo-conservatives, a label I suspect both wear with honor and pride.

Luckyoldson said...

Gedaliya said..."First, let me say that I am a neo-conservative and a strong supporter of both the PNAC and the president's foreign policy."

No wonder you won't answer any questions regarding the Tillman case.

And boy, based on what we've seen from your fellow neocons over the past 7 years...it really takes some balls to admit you're still one of them.

Makes me wonder (and cringe at) what they'd have to do to dissuade you from being supportive.

Seven Machos said...

Ged -- You seem new here. Lucky is either a brilliant performance artist or a really loony leftist.

You'll be happier if you ignore him and his ilk. There are plenty of reasonable left-liberals here.

Luckyoldson said...

seven,
Name all of the "reasonable" leftists you refer to.

Seven Machos said...

Ged -- This is perfect. Let me show you exactly how to ignore goofy leftist trolls.

Here is what you do.

Gedaliya said...

Ged -- You seem new here...

I am.

Ann Althouse came to my attention via some remarks by Jay Nordlinger. She's certainly as appealing and entertaining as he said she'd be. There's nothing like a smart woman with a good sense of humor.

I've been around enough to know about characters like Lucky, whom I suspect is a pretty normal fellow until his id lets loose within the confines of Internet anonymity. No matter. He likes to clown around, and most of us like to watch clowns work.

Thanks for the advice, though.

Luckyoldson said...

seven,
The fact that you can't articulate logical or reasonable arguments to back up your inane comments means nothing to me...and hugging up to others here is rather infantile.

I've read enough of your comments to know you're not very well read or experienced in most aspects of life.

Here's one of your latest lame comments: "...rogue elements in Pakistan are mostly neutralized."

Maybe you can parse that with this, from today's newspapers:

"Musharraf has been the target of intense criticism since a U.S. intelligence assessment reported last month that al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents were operating freely along Pakistan's porous, mountainous border with Afghanistan."

But I doubt it...

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 226   Newer› Newest»