Ramblings of a Senile Old Man/Leftwing Thinking = Same/Same
January 6th, 2008 at 04:05pm Mark Noonan
George McGovern is calling for the impeachment of President Bush in this Washington Post opinion piece.
The usual litany - he illegally lied us into war in Iraq; he’s cruelly exploited 9/11 to make us all so fearful that we went along with him; he’s having people tortured at Gitmo; he deliberately bungled the Katrina recovery; he stole the 2000 election; he’s spying on Americans…all of the really rather stupid things the left has gathered together about President Bush since the Supreme Court insisted in 2000 that the laws be followed and denied Al Gore’s request to keep changing Florida’s election laws until they came out with a result he liked. Historians in the future will marvel at this - a man, President Bush, intensely hated and that hatred based upon an accusation of election-stealing which should actually be levelled against his 2000 opponent, Al Gore.
We’d love to be a united country again - but we’re not going to be as long as the left demonises us on the right.
UPDATE: Well, he’s either senile, or he’s a liar - from Volokh:
Setting aside the arguments for and against impeaching President Bush, McGovern is seriously misrepresenting his position on the Nixon impeachment proceedings. According to these news stories, for example, McGovern called for impeaching President Nixon in a speech in Richmond, VA in October 1973 in order “to make America safe for Democracy.” A Westlaw search also identifies abstracts to New York Times stories suggesting McGovern urged Nixon’s impeachment on other occasions as well. For instance, the abstract to a NYT story from January 21, 1974 reports that McGovern believed there were “ample grounds” for impeaching President Nixon and that he was urging the Democratic Party to take this position.
I suppose McGovern could defend his column by arguing that he did not support Nixon’s impeachment in the immediate aftermath of the 1972 Presidential election, and only supported impeachment later on. Yet if this were the case, he should have qualified his claim, perhaps by writing “Immediately after the 1972 presidential election.” As written, his article is misleading, if not worse.
You know, it wasn’t just Nixon they wanted to impeach…they were calls for the impeachment of Ronald Reagan, too. I’ll bet there were such calls also made for Ford and the elder Bush, as well. Essentially, liberal Democrats have a core belief that conservative Republicanism is - or at least should be - illegal. They’re always saying we doing this illegal, that illegal, the other illegal…calling for President Bush’s impeachment really has nothing to do with President Bush, but with a general desire on the left for the right to be silenced.
Entry Filed under: Democrats, Kook Left, President Bush
132 Comments
1. Diana Powe | January 6th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Thank goodness you’ve never demonized the left, Mark.
2. Mark Noonan | January 6th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Diana,
I don’t; go searching on back there and find where I have made completely unsubstantiated accusations against senior Democrats.
George Bush is not evil - he’s not a criminal; he didn’t lie to get us into Iraq…to say that he did is to demonise…and not just demonise him, but demonise me, and all of those who support him. You’re either saying I’m monumentally stupid, or I’m evil when you say that President Bush lied to get us into Iraq…
3. JHL | January 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Mark is like the fox in the chicken house complaining that the farmer is obstructing his efforts to get lunch. Or a bank robber complaining the the police are interfering with his work.
To dismiss Mr. McGoverns editiorial out of hand as the musings of some one suffering from senility is an effort to stir up the B4V’ers.
McGovern is right. And so is Rep. Wexler who has a petiton, signed by almost 200K to impeach Cheney. The problem is, it is to late to do anything about Bush because it would serve no purpose. The damage has alredy been done and we as a people might as well wait another year when a Democrat takes the office and can (finally) begin to undo the damage that the worst president this country has ever had to endure has wrought.
Unfortunately the time has passed since 2000 and 2004 and it is pointless to re-hash those elections or Iraq or the negation of our civil liberties. We realisits know we are correct and this election is not about conservatives VS liberals. It is about realists VS extremists.
The truth is self-evident and if you Mark would like me to list the civil liberties that have been outlawed bv the “Patriot” act, I will be more tna happy to provide them to you, here on magical forum you have!
4. TiredofLibBullShit | January 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
George who?
Oh, that George McGovern, mentioned in the Easy Rider song.
The one the “long-haired, hippie-type, pinko-fags” voted for president?
Sorry Charlie……
5. liberalT | January 6th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
yeah Diana - Mark never demonized anyone on the left. I mean gays are going to hell - its there own choice and they are destroying our civilization. Anyone who criticizes Bush is obviously just hate filled and stupid because Bush would never lie or do anything for any other than his stated reason . Anyone who would say anything against Bush is obviously stupid and filled with hatred. Those pesky scientists with their evolution ARE crazy.
Mark - every word out of your f*cking mouth is demonizing those on the left. At least you are a consistent fool
6. JHL | January 6th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I hate to open the preverabial can of worms, but the rational for invading Iraq was WMD’s. Turns out there weren’t any. So in the sense that the intelligence that was used to justify this invasion was manipulted it is by it’s very nature dishonest, untruthful and it can be extrapolated from those adjectives to the word “lie”.
I also find it interesting that Mark seems to think that because he supports Bush that any attribute that Bush has; positive or negative, is somehow…by osmisis…transferable to him! (Mark)
President Bush is the poster child for the Peter Principal but as I stated before, it’s all over but the crying for this aboration of Republican conservativism. It is a waste of time to punish them. The water has already been thrown on the witch and she is melting like a snowcone in Pheonix.
7. LiberalNitemare | January 6th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
For the record, I do agree with McGovern that there is a lack of courage and statemanship among the Democratic Politicians today.
8. Diana Powe | January 6th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
One of the standard complaints of the right is that the federal judiciary is chock-a-block with “activist judges” who tortuously interpret the law to suit their own allegedly liberal biases. Yet, here we have the right vigorously defending another coequal branch of the federal government, the executive, interpreting the Constitution through the activities of lawyers appointed by that very same coequal branch. At least in the case of the judiciary, the judges were selected as part of a bipartisan process, not so the lawyers employed by the White House and the upper levels of the Justice Department.
In terms of black-letter law, the current President of the United States has publicly admitted to directing the commission of multiple felonies under Federal law. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides for prison terms up to five years and fines up to $10,000 for violations. So, based on his own admissions, President George W. Bush is guilty of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” required for impeachment and removal from office under the Constitution. However, the right says, “Not so!”
Why do they do that? Because the President they personally admire, the head of a single branch of the government, has claimed that interpretations of the Constitution by his own lawyers allow him to violate the law. The President has the opportunity at any time to submit the program he authorized to judicial review by the secret FISA court, but has refused because, again, his own lawyers tell him that to do so would undermine their own creation - the theory of the unitary executive.
So, judges appointed by presidents and confirmed by the Senate are the subjects of outrage when they write public opinions based on court precedent to effectuate the existing law. However, if this president’s own hand-picked lawyers, confirmed by no one (except for the Attorney General), tell him that he may commit felonies, then the right applauds.
The hypocrisy is simply breathtaking.
9. Diana Powe | January 6th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Why does Mark Noonan feel free to insult someone who volunteered for combat duty with the United State Army Air Force, who flew 35 missions in an aircraft that sustained tremendous losses, who was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and who was a United States Senator and nominee of his party for the office of President of the United States? Why is it okay for Mark Noonan to call such a man senile? Because that man criticized the President and Vice-President of the United States. Wow.
10. JHL | January 6th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Right on Diana! Right on! Maybe you can discuss signing statements in re to your post # 8.
There will be volumes of books written about this administration and the aboration that they are, but as has beenpointed out so many times by you and others the Republican party is held together by extremists, right wing Christianists, no-tax absolutists, royalists, xenophobes and others fearful of minorities…gays included…just to name a few. This is a coalition spawned in the Reagan Administration but expolited in the Bush years and now exposed for the vile shills that they are. Independents cannot tolerate them and the extremisits are at one anothers throats. Their party is in chaos because it is in an impossible situation. If it were possible to hold those accounatble for what you said in post #8 I think that John Yoo, David Addington and the mastermind behind all of this Dick Cheney to be held more responsible than the village idiot, boy Dauphin and all around mental midget GWB. He is like the character played by Robert Duvall in “To Kill a Mockingbird”.
Hire the handicapped, but not to be in charge I always say….
11. Casper | January 6th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Impeachment is not an option, It’s not going to happen. The last thing this country needs is to go through another impeachment trial.
BTW, JHL, I am a long ways from being a Bush supporter, but he isn’t near as dumb as you and a lot of others suggest. He will go down in history as a great politician and a lousy president. Quit underestimating him.
12. js | January 6th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
How old is McGovern, 88 now?
Him and Carter on the same keel I see. I doubt his capacity to distinguish relevant facts, let alone find them out.
What a waste of press time.
13. Mark Noonan | January 6th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Diana,
By calling him senile, I’m actually being nice - if he is in full command of his faculties, then he’s not just insulting, but stupid.
As for your complaints against President Bush, I believe that Ronald Reagan said something along the lines of, “its not what they don’t know that worries me, but what they do know that isn’t so”. I know, Diana, that you are convinced that President Bush, among other things, was illegally wiretapping American citizens…though on the matter of “what for?”, you are strangely silent. But this thing that you know just isn’t so.
14. Mark Noonan | January 6th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
JHL,
Geesh - its 2008, and you lefties still believe that nonsense. I refer you to the actual war resolution - please read it and note that the justification for war was not just - or even mainly - WMDs. That, in and of itself, destroys your world view…but, you won’t listen and you won’t change your views to match the facts…its just a liberal thing these days…
15. Jonathan | January 6th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Mark,
We may have our differences, but today we can both rejoice: Our Chargers advance to the Divisional Round against the Indianapolis Colts next Sunday!!!
Apologies for hijacking the thread.
16. Ricorun | January 6th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Diana Powe: The hypocrisy is simply breathtaking.
There is a healthy amount of irony too. On “constitutional” (separation of powers) issues (e.g., habeas corpus, FISA, etc.), the Bush admin. argued for a very long time that they didn’t have to involve the legislative branch — or maybe they just didn’t trust congress. Yet when they eventually did (even after the legislative branch switched power), they got essentially all that they wanted in the first place. Nonetheless, I suspect we’re going to have to deal with the repurcussions for quite some time. In addition to that though, the Bush admin. went hog-wild politicizing various departments that were heretofore considered largely independent (DOJ, DOE, FDA, NASA, etc.). And unless that problem is addressed, it could be even more damaging.
Then there’s the issue of general incompetence and irresponsibility. What happened early after the Iraq invasion is to me the poster child in that regard. But it’s only the tip of the iceberg. We are still bleeding billions upon billions of unaccounted dollars in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, even on the Gulf Coast.
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know what is legal and what is not. Then again, I don’t think it really matters. Legal or illegal, this crap has to change.
I feel no animosity towards the GOP in general — just the Bush administration. Likewise, I don’t think a Dem administration will necessarily be better. In fact, I recoil in horror at the prospect of the Dems sweeping both houses of the legislative branch AND the executive branch. So much damage has been done that just handing over all the wheels of power to the Dems could prove to be devastating. But if the GOP doesn’t wake up and realize that the road to the White House is not to entrench more deeply into divisive policies, it will happen.
I’m a reasonably affluent middle aged white guy, and even I feel alienated. More to the point, I get a very strong sense that the American people are ready for “change”. It seems to me that in order to win the GOP is going to have to very carefully craft a definition of “change”. In that regard, Romney seems to think that all you have to do is change the players, not the policy — i.e., change Washington, not the White House. I’m sorry, but I don’t think that meme will gain traction. I like Huckabee’s meme better: that we should think “vertically”, rather than “horizontally” — i.e., think up/down, or better/worse rather than left/right. But I have to say, I think Obama currently has the inside track on the “change” meme. I strongly believe he will emerge as the person to beat.
17. JHL | January 6th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
What nonsense Mark? The “smoking gun being a mushroom cloud” comment made during the State of the Union speech?
You can spin and parse and disect and blame and accuse “the left”all you want. The fact remains that not only was the invsion of Iraq (in hindsight unfortunately) a mistake but 9/11 was used as an excuse to excersize subtrifuge upon the constitution of the United States.The problem that I have with you is twofold. One, you defend this undermining of all that America supposedly stands for and two the rank hypocracy that is incorporated in how you justify un-American behavior as somehow being the correct thing to do! And then you have the gall; the audacity to point fingers at those like me who draw attention to the obvious and try to say that in doing so, that I am somehow out for the undermining of America, her people and her princpals! Your way of thinking is the anthithis of what I grew up thinking about our country.
And allow me to be even more blunt and share something I rarely do. I served in Vietnam. I bought hook line and sinker the same type of garbage that you are so ferverently trying to convince people of here on this blog. I was a life long Republican but this administration is as far removed from the core principals of traditional Republicans in general and conservativism in particular as Pluto is from the sun. If they were a fetus I would abort them. Thankfully, they are now like a vampire on a day pass.
And yes, I agree with Casper. But being a great politican does not correlate to being a great leader. He should have stuck to baseball and Cheney stuck to; well forget what I think he should be stuck to….
18. Michael | January 6th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Gee, Mr. McGovern, I haven’t heard such a clear assessment of the facts on a subject like yours since the last time I heard Rosie O’Donnell speak. Birds of a feather.
19. Casper | January 6th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Rico,
I agree with much of what you said, However, I feel this would be a very bad time to try for impeachment. It would not be good for the country.
I feel at this point that both Obama and Huckabee have the most positive messages and are doing well because of it. On the other end, Rudy with his 9/11, 9/11, is sinking like a stone.
20. Jonathan | January 6th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Yeah, because you guys have never demonised anyone from the left.
That’s total bull, Mark, and frankly, you’re willfully being ignorant about it.
21. liberalT | January 6th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
–
president Bush, among other things, was illegally wiretapping American citizens…though on the matter of “what for?”, you are strangely silent. But this thing that you know just isn’t so.
–
Mark - of course there is a “what for” - he wants to detect terrorists. Its not that he doesn’t have a good intention - its that the method is illegal. Its like a police officer making an illegal search . Of course the cop is (in 99% of the cases at least) trying to fight crime - but there are reasons why we have warrants.
We are not accusing bush of trying to spy on citizens for no good reason - rather being over zealous in his prosecution. There is ZERO reason why they cannot get warrants in the same way that they do with organized crime and other cases which they have very successfully utilized them.
It is not “bush hatred” from the left - but rather you unjustified and unequivocal belief that he can do no wrong. No - Mark - sadly sadly no. Again , as always , wrong wrong wrong
22. NeoClown | January 6th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Mark,
Why do you feel entitled to call an elderly person you disagree with “senile?”
My parents taught me to respect my elders, to bad your parents didn’t do the same with you.
One of the things wrong with our society today is that the young have no respect for anything.
23. Ricorun | January 6th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Casper: However, I feel this would be a very bad time to try for impeachment. It would not be good for the country.
It’s not going to happen. I don’t know what McGovern’s motivations were (or who he supports, which might explain a lot), but I’m quite sure he didn’t say what he said out of senility. I’m quite sure he had a purpose. But whatever it was, I don’t think that purpose was to actually stimulate impeachment proceedings.
24. Timothy Horrigan | January 6th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I suppose the main reason we are supposed to hate McGovern is because he ran on an anti-war platform and lost the 1972 Presidential election to Nixon.
I am not sure if it is EVER a disgrace to be a major party nominee. Even the ones we laugh at afterwards (e.g., Dole, Kerry, Mondale, etc.) had to win their party’s nomination first… which ain’t that damn easy. In any case, there were a couple of extenuating circumstances in McGovern’s case. Firstly, he was running against Richard M. Nixon, the biggest loser in American political history, whose second term ended in resignation and disgrace after just a year and a half. (Watergate, BTW, was triggered by clumsy attempts to sabotage McGovern’s campaign.) Secondly, the Vietnam War did end, even though Nixon and Then Ford were President instead of McGovern: and, Vietnam has not been a serious problem since.
25. Casper | January 6th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Actually, Rico, the only way Bush and Cheney well be impeached is if they were caught having sex with each other on the front lawn of the White House. Even then some of the posters on this blog would blame it on Clinton.
26. JHL | January 6th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
McGovern said what he did (and he has said it before in other articles) out of a sense of outrage and disgust. He is a man who fought for our country in WWII and went on to serve in the tradition of public service for most of the productive years of his adult life. And yet some one like Mark, an unfeeling robotoc cheerleading authoritarian syncopant to all things Bush has to try to disparage McGoverns perceptions as those of a senile old “lefty”.
What Mark and people like him want is a complete and absolute American domination of the world combined with a form of Christainity that declares it and it alone is the sole bearer of universal truth. In a very sad way, the constitution is a threat this way of thinking because it reprents the opposite of what they want to perpitrate upon the masses. Why has the administration spent so much time and energy trying to undermine the very document that they claim to honor and have a sworn duty to uphold and defend? Why has David Addington written legal opinions declaring that; amougst other fantasies, that the office of the VP is neither a member of the executive or legislative branch of government? Why has Bush had more signing statements than all of the presidents of the US combined? Why has habeous corpus been recinded? Why hasn’t Cheney coplied with the disclosure rule of who visits his office as mandated by an executive order signed by Bush himself? Why is the administration trying desperately to make the telecom companies immune from prosecution for illegally wiretaping American citizens? Why did they defend, until they could no longer AG the AG?
I could go on and on. The short answer is that they embody the personificationof the absolute worst traits that humans have. They are power mad megalomanics who use fear and religion to exploit the population in order to remain in charge. They have peed down our backs and tell us that it’s raining. Too bad for them that most of us have turned around….
27. Christian Wright | January 6th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Check out these links. It appears neocons were selling WMD technology to Pakistan through Turkey for cash. I wonder if that is the real reason Valerie Plame was outted and Sibel Edmonds gagged. Plame was closing in on the them and Edmonds heard transcribed the recordings from the bugs.
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/05/sibel-giraldi-american-conservative.html
This short article above explains some of the players.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece?Submitted=true
The sick part is that the Democrats now control Congress and they still won’t let Sibel Edmonds and other agents speak. The investigation started during Clinton’s administration, but when Bush came to power he shut down the investigation.
See last link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Cm-uRQmfUU
There is evidence out there that proves some neocons are traitors and that the Bush Administration is protecting them; but the Democrats are not doing anything. What are they waiting for?
28. ShanghaiRay | January 6th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Hijacked! I can see this board has been hijacked by a bunch of malcontent, irrational, lying liberals and until Mark get’s it cleaned up, he will probably be left to defending Conservative values all my himself while former posters move to more productive blogs like LGF etc. Good luck with it Mark.
29. js | January 6th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
If anyone has actually sit down and tried to hold a conversation with an 88 year old, they know this guys interview is crapola. You can see the holes, they are big enough to plant a new Statue of Liberty in. All McGovern does is repeat the same rhetorical BS that liberals have been spouting off for years, leaving the rest to the imagination. Anyone can coach an old man into endorsing a lie. Just like they did McGovern.
But the real truth is, not one time has anyone documented an impeachable crime. Not one liberal has documented a lie, like we did Clinton.
Reality is this, when they run out of material, they just replay the same old tape. No Constitutional violations have been made. If there had been, Pelosi would have grabbed ahold and ran with it. Reid would have refiananced his Mafia property and pressed impeachment against the sitting President. Clinton would be soliciting the Chinese and capitalizing on Republican “corruption”
No, fancy that. Another liberal, 88 years old, and they still use gossip as a core theme of thier accusations. Wonder what they will try next.
30. JHL | January 6th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Jeez JS, so glad to know that you are a geriatric expert. My maternal grandmother lived to be 104 and she was clear and cogent up until the end.
What exactly are these “holes” you refer to?
No violations of the constitution? Of course not, not when you don’t have to honor it’s tenets. As GWB said,”It’s just a damned piece of paper”.
As far as the impeachment of Clinton, he was pursued by a group who find extra-marital sex more horrifying than misleading the country into war and hijacking the constitution. And even at the hight of the impeachment proceedngs his approval numbers were in the high 50’s. Not under 30 as GWB’s have been for almost 3 years. And Cheney’s are close to single digits. Go figure.
There is no point in impeaching Bush. His term is almost over and his punishment is the overall derersion and low opinion that the American people have of him and what is left of his administration.
Personally I would rather be vilified for a BJ than a war based on false prentense and the undermining of everything that has made our nation great.
Have a nice day.
31. AAR | January 6th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
ShanghaiRay,
Hijacked is right!
The nutty Liberals have really jumped on this topic. It’s too late to worry with the swarm now!
I thought McGovern was dead! Was this his way of trying to tell people that it ain’t so!!!
AAR
32. Diana Powe | January 6th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Mark,
Nice invocation of the “liar, liar, pants on fire” defense. However, tell me factually where I’m wrong. Look up 50 U.S.C. §§1801-1811 and tell me where the activities publicly acknowledged by President George W. Bush aren’t in violation of that black-letter law. Even the White House doesn’t dispute that. They just claim that mysterious interpretations of the Constitution that only they are wise enough to understand (but, which they don’t want to be examined, even in a court that deliberates in secret) allow President Bush to violate the law without penalty. You can’t wish that away, however tightly you close your eyes and clench your fists.
You want to change the subject to “the matter of ‘what for’”. Why would that be? Are you saying that the ends justify the means? As long as our leaders assure in the most earnest tones that they’re violating the law for our own good that it’s all we should need to know? If that’s your stand, then I’ve a newsflash for you. That’s not what Americans died on the beaches at Normandy for. That’s not what Americans died at Gettysburg for. That’s not why genuine, and not pseudo patriots put their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor at genuine personal risk more than 200 years ago.
33. liberalT | January 6th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
its nice to watch Diana do such a complete job at destroying the psuedo-logic behind those here. A thing of beauty…
34. Diana Powe | January 6th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Can anyone envision how loud the screaming would have been and how quickly the articles of impeachment would have been brought before the House of Representatives if just the publicly admitted violations of FISA, let alone all that we don’t know about the NSA’s other activities, had taken place under a President William Jefferson Clinton? If you want to tell me a story, Mark, tell me how Republicans would have said that was okay. I’m sure we could all use a good laugh.
35. AAR | January 6th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/12/is_the_nyts_nsa_story_a_new_me.html
AAR
36. Mark Noonan | January 6th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Diana,
No, really - what for? If, as you claim, President Bush is illegally wiretapping innocent Americans, you should tell us why he would want to do so… in service of what goal? And, also, could you please provide an example of an innocent American who had his phone tapped.
37. Mark Noonan | January 6th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Diana,
Oh, and if President Clinton had ordered illegal wiretaps of innocent Americans, I would have been outraged…and just as soon as President Bush gives such an order, I’ll be outraged at that, too…
As I said, the problem you have is with what you know which isn’t so…
38. Mark Noonan | January 6th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Jonathan,
Praising a Chargers victory is always on topic…but, man, the Chargers didn’t have it togehter at all in the first half! Hope we do better next week.
39. Thrower | January 7th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Give them credit Mark. The Titans (a solid defense by the way) bottled up Tomlinson and dared Rivers to beat them. He did. That is progress and while this may not be the year, Rivers will get them a Super Bowl before he is through.
40. Huck Fillary | January 7th, 2008 at 4:37 am
Essentially, liberal Democrats have a core belief that conservative Republicanism is - or at least should be - illegal.
Mark, this is gonna be pooh-poohed, by our resident idiots/idiottes, as conspiracy theory. Permission to come aboard?
its nice to watch Diana do such a complete job at destroying the psuedo-logic behind those here.
How so, libretardTHC? She’s never commented on any of your posts.
A thing of beauty…
Really? Is she a Holstein? Hereford? Jersey? Guernsey?
41. Huck Fillary | January 7th, 2008 at 4:39 am
McGovern? Who’s he? Does anyone care about this old b*stard’s senile rantings, other than those who read the Washington Post, aka Pravda on the Potomac?
Gee, they’re the same people who voted for this asshat in ‘72…
42. searp | January 7th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Mark is just plain WRONG about the authorization to use military force.
Mark, go back and read it. Paragraphs (starting with “Whereas” 2,3,4,5,6,8,12,13,14 and 20, of a total of 23, mention WMD. I get a total of 10 of 23, including 6 of the first 8, are on WMD.
Bush lied about this, and were I to add in paragraphs talking about Al Qaeda in Iraq (nonexistent), I’d be adding more paragraphs.
If starting a war on the basis of lies isn’t impeachable, what is?
As to whether you are dumb, well, you invite people to read the authorizing legislation, presumably because you think your readers are too lazy to actually do it. Either that, or you never read it in the first place and just made stuff up. You choose.
43. Huck Fillary | January 7th, 2008 at 4:57 am
searp, the authorising legislation was based on intel, not Bush lies. You can throw around the “Bush knew” crap all you want, but it only flies here with libretardTHC, plaincowjane, JHL, and the rest of the trolls.
Bush lied, and he’s not impeached? Wow, we got Slicky for lying to the grand jury, but Bush just chugs along, untouched.
Idiot…
44. js | January 7th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Anyone listening to this stuff? So much ignorance, so many people fooled.
Impeachment? Nothing stated so far is valid. At the end of Clinton Term, everyone in the USA believed that WMD in Iraq was a solid, fact filled issue. The UN confirmed it. What happened between then and 2003? They just disappear? No. There is still no evidence of what happened to a massive stockpile of WMD and material to manufacture it. It just went ‘poof”. Im sure the Russians know more than we.
Next, exactly what lies were told? I am of the understanding that to tell a lie, one must do so both with purpose and intent. Ive yet so see one of these liberal busy bodies to document, factually, that purpose AND intent. Certainly, we can, and have asserted the fact that our intelligence agencies (and that of our allies) may have been wrong, but who does the President rely on, besides our intelligence services (and that of our allies).
Impeachable offenses require this kind of evidence and proof. There is none. The duty of the Office of the President is to protect America and Americans. Did someone say that AQ was “nowhere” around Iraq? Thats a lie. We have plenty of intelligence indicating otherwise that is completely ignored. AQ was IN IRAQ. We know it, our allies told us it was true, our own intelligence agencies told us it was true. And now, after the invasion, we find more and more evidence supporting it as fact.
No, liberal blowholes like Carter and McGovern are good for only one thing, to steep the ignorance of the masses, totally political, and totally against the welfare of our Nation.
45. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 8:12 am
I am really tired of the juvenile rantings of impeachment. I have never been impressed with people who constantly say they are going to do something and never do it. Just like children, they talk the talk but can’t walk the walk.
I encourage every liberal here to impeach the President. Just do it and shut up about it. We’re not impressed with your supposed evidence for impeachment and have grown really tired of your incessant childish whining.
So introduce articles of impeachment or STFU!
46. liberalT | January 7th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Mark - but I told you above about the reason for wire tapping in post #21. I believe that Bush is indeed doing it to stop terrorists. Just like a cop who does an illegal search is (99% of the time) trying to stop law breakers. That doesn’t make it legal. Again there is no reason why he cannot go get warrants - they do it very efficiently with all sorts of organized crime syndicates and in the past other terrorist organizations.
No Mark - sadly no - it is your inability to understand that there are reasons for the bill of rights…
47. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 8:44 am
>>Are you saying that the ends justify the means? As long as our leaders assure in the most earnest tones that they’re violating the law for our own good that it’s all we should need to know? If that’s your stand, then I’ve a newsflash for you. That’s not what Americans died on the beaches at Normandy for. - Diana<<
Is that why FDR put Japanese Americans in internment camps? Do you suppose that was a violation of the constitution? Or the Bill of Rights?
Afterall, they were actually Americans.
48. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 8:52 am
js,
You’re substituting what President Bush has repeatedly claimed is his duty with the actual oath that he swore:
and, in the context of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as with all other Federal statutes:
and, in this case, President Bush has ordered the law to be violated and his lawyers have claimed that he may violate this law.
49. Magnum Serpentine | January 7th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Mark…
President Richard Nixon did the right thing by resigning. He avoided impeachment.
President Gerald R. Ford never had an Impeachment threat made against him, neither did President George H.W. Bush and I do not recall an Impeachment threat made against the greatest President of the late 20th Century, President Ronald Reagan.
I believe everyone knew that President Jimmy Carter would fail at re-election so they just endured his bumblings.
President William Clinton was impeached simply for lying. Now how many presidents and congressmen have lied eh???
george bush should be impeached. He has lied about Iraq, Wire tapped good citizens homes and ignored intelligence from Israeli, French and British agents on various Terrorist activities. george has also used illegal signing statements to alter legislation to his liking. Mark, I thought the congress was the only body that could make changes to laws once the laws and bills were approved by them.
“… The World Wonders” Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, 1945
50. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 9:07 am
neocon,
Yes, the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II by the Roosevelt Administration was completely wrong and was based on the same kind of hysteria now routinely exhibited in the so-called “war on terror”. That’s why President Reagan signed into law a Senate bill in 1988 which states, among other things:
and
and that is why the United States has paid reparations for the harm that we caused to those innocent people.
51. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 9:15 am
[President William Clinton was impeached simply for lying. Now how many presidents and congressmen have lied eh??? - Magnum]
Under oath?
[Wire tapped good citizens homes - Magnum]
Again, please provide names and dates.
[george has also used illegal signing statements to alter legislation to his liking.]
Again, please provide specifics.
Diana,
You may find the following of some interest. Evidently your Democratic Congress are aiding and abetting.
A Democratic bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House would maintain for several years the type of broad, blanket authority for NSA eavesdropping that the administration secured in August for six months…… The August bill, known as the Protect America Act, was approved in the final hours before Congress went on its summer recess after heated warnings from the administration that legal loopholes in wiretapping coverage had left the country vulnerable to another terrorist attack. The measure significantly reduced the role of the foreign intelligence court and broadened the security agency’s ability to listen to foreign-based communications without court warrants.
52. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 9:19 am
So it took a Republican to correct the egregious violation of law of a Democrat. Interesting.
Yet, most of what I hear from the left was how effective FDR was in fighting WWII. But if we follow the standards now required by the Democrats in terms of fighting a foreign threat, FDR should have been impeached, right?
What about the two Atom bombs that FDR dropped on innocent Japanese civilians? Was he within his right to do that? Keeping in mind he did not have UN approval.
53. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Mark,
It’s not “as I claim”. It’s as admitted by President George W. Bush on-camera:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/
Watch the video. It’s not that hard. What he claims is that his lawyers said he could do it. However, unless something has really changed about the Constitution that I missed, lawyers acting as advisers don’t determine what the law is. That’s why there’s a separate and coequal judicial branch. It’s called “checks and balances”. You may remember the concept from civics class.
How authoritarian-worshiping and dishonest do you have to be to ask about an example of “an innocent American who had his phone tapped”? That’s really sad.
Let’s see. The government initiates a secret program. People affected by the program don’t know that they are. Why? Because it’s secret! Wow! What a shocker! Then, when anyone tries to bring the secret program into court, what does the government do? It invokes the “state secrets doctrine” to shut down the proceedings.
Why has President Bush violated the FISA statute? He’s claimed he had to violate the law to conduct the “war on terror” because the law was inadequate, even though he waited for years to try to initiate a change in FISA. I suspect that he waited all that time because people within his Administration, led by Vice-President Cheney, have an agenda to push their “theory of the unitary executive”.
54. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Diana,
A little more WELL KNOWN information on the program which every federal appellate court has upheld.
The NSA program is narrowly focused, aimed only at international calls and targeted at al Qaeda and related groups. Safeguards are in place to protect the civil liberties of ordinary Americans.
- The program only applies to communications where one party is located outside of the United States.
- The NSA terrorist surveillance program described by the President is only focused on members of Al Qaeda and affiliated groups.
- Communications are only intercepted if there is a reasonable basis to believe that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda.
- The program is designed to target a key tactic of al Qaeda: infiltrating foreign agents into the United States and controlling their movements through electronic communications, just as it did leading up to the September 11 attacks.
- The NSA activities are reviewed and reauthorized approximately every 45 days. In addition, the General Counsel and Inspector General of the NSA monitor the program to ensure that it is operating properly and that civil liberties are protected, and the intelligence agents involved receive extensive training.
55. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 10:13 am
neocon,
President Carter signed the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians Act in 1980 and set in motion the process which culminated in a Democratic-controlled Congress accepting the conclusions of the Commission and enacted its conclusions in the legislation signed by President Reagan. So, no, it didn’t “[take] a Republican to correct the egregious violation of law of a Democrat”.
Had President Roosevelt survived the end of World War II then there would certainly have been grounds to consider impeachment and removal from office for his acts injurious to American citizens. However, given the genuine nature of the conflict, as opposed to the faux “war on terror”, it would have been injurious to the nation to pursue such a course during the war itself. As to your questions about the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, those attacks were ordered by President Truman, not President Roosevelt, and President Truman couldn’t ask the United Nations about it because the organization didn’t come into existence until after the attacks.
56. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 10:21 am
[However, given the genuine nature of the conflict, as opposed to the faux “war on terror”, it would have been injurious to the nation to pursue such a course during the war itself. - Diana]
Yet because your OPINION is that this is a FAUX war, you find it perfectly acceptable to call for impeachment of the COC during a time of conflict on much less egregious actions than FDR’s?
Could that be considered completely partisan? I mean since it is just your OPINION that this war is unnecessary.
57. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 10:24 am
And what about the Congressional extension? Are they just as guilty? And should we consider impeaching Reid and Pelosi for their outright disdain for the Constitution?
58. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 10:33 am
neocon,
Also, not only has “every federal appellate court” NOT upheld the NSA’s secret program, they haven’t even considered it. Why? Because the Administration invokes the “state secrets doctrine”! In fact, why don’t we ask the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit what they had to say about that on November 16, 2007 (my emphasis added)
It shows conservatives complete abandonment of traditional conservative stances that you want to simply quote back to me, without attribution, the claims made by the Administration as though that settled the matter. Fortunately, the independent judiciary takes a greater interest in our basic freedoms than you. All you need is for the government to assure you that the program (that you know virtually nothing about) is “narrowly focused” and that there are “safeguards” to “protect the civil liberties of ordinary Americans”.
Yes, neocon, trust the government blindly. Do not doubt them. They are here to protect you from bad people. They would never lie to you. They are Good and those who doubt them are Evil.
59. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 10:42 am
neocon,
I’m sorry that I have to explain the basic nature of government to you. The President of the United States has publicly acknowledged that he ordered members of the Executive Branch to commit felonies in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA. FISA is a law passed in 1978 by the Legislative Branch. The President claims he has the authority to violate the law because his lawyers tell him that he may, but that claim has not been settled by the Judicial Branch.
After acknowledging that he ordered the violations of FISA, the President, as head of the Executive Branch, has asked the Legislative Branch to amend the law they had originally passed so that he may continue his actions and no longer be in violation of the law. This action is under consideration by the Legislative Branch which is not violating the law in doing so.
That’s why the Executive branch is called the Executive Branch.
60. JHL | January 7th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Hey everybody!! Neocon has changed history! Post #53 it was FDR who dropped the bombs. That is quite a trick. He was dead and Truman was president.
So much for Necons grasp of facts and history.
61. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 11:01 am
neocon,
Right off the bat, what I’ve stated is that the so-called “war on terror” is not a war. War is what takes place between nation-states. It is in the interests of those who wish to consolidate and heighten the power of the Presidency that they want to call the national challenge posed by those who commit mass murder, but who are not themselves nation-states, war rather than something else because then people like you can talk about the Commander in Chief in hushed tones of respect.
Further, it is faux because we gave up pursuing the people responsible for the attacks on the United States in 2001 and have since spent thousands of lives and billions of dollars to invade, occupy and engage in “nation-building” in a country that did not have anything to do with acts of mass murder in this country. That was a so-called “preemptive war” with a mission of “disarmament” which failed to find the arms used to justify the invasion and which mission has since been changed to justify the drain of resources from dealing with the problem of politically and religiously motivated acts of mass murder. Those tasks relegated to the so-called “war on terror” have since learned to rely on the leftovers of our national resources.
62. TiredofLibBullShit | January 7th, 2008 at 11:22 am
wow jhl….
that’s all you can do to counter the argument of WW2 actions of a Democrat President and the accusations of today’s democrats?
Regardless, a DEMOCRAT president authorized the development of the atom bomb. A DEMOCRAT president authorized the mission to use the bomb. Two DEMOCRAT presidents are responsible for 100,000s of innocent civilians’ deaths - truly agonizing deaths. The lucky ones were burned to ashes in the first millisecond.
Still, jackass, the standards of warcrimes today stated by the libs would have strung up both FDR and Truman. You are the one who cannot grasp facts and history.
Another useful idiot.
63. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 11:36 am
TiredofLibBullShit,
Leaving aside whether they were morally justified, are you stating that you think President Truman was acting illegally, in his Constitutional capacity as commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States during a declared war, to order military attacks on cities in a country that we were at war with? If so, please relate that truly novel concept to the issue of the current president ordering his subordinates to commit felonies in violation of a federal law he has twice sworn an oath to see is “faithfully executed”.
64. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Mark,
President Nixon, a Republican, became the only U.S. President to resign from office because of illegal activities for which he was about to be impeached. President Reagan, a Republican, suffered a 21-point drop in his approval rating in November 1986 courtesy of his subordinates selling arms to Iran (which Reagan acknowledged in his address to the nation on March 4, 1987) in order to send money to the Contras in Nicaragua, an activity which was illegal under Federal law. Of course, we don’t know as much as we might about that given that Oliver North (a Republican) has a great facility with paper shredders. Now, the current president (a Republican) has publicly admitted to directing subordinates to commit felonies “to protect America”.
Here’s an idea. If Republican presidents start following their oaths instead of the schemes of their subordinates maybe they wouldn’t be accused of “doing this illegal, that illegal, the other illegal.” Just a thought.
65. JHL | January 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Diana:
I am sure you have deduced by now that many of the posters here are uneducated reactionary extremists. I’ll bet there isn’t a college grad amoungst them. The shallowness of their arguments and the viseral reaction that they have to any criticisim underscores this observation. Case in point TiredofLib. He She It’s response to my pointing out an historical fact reminds me of the person to whom you give a million dollars to and they complain about how they recieved it.
They cannot defend their (and I am being kind here) philosophical positions so they default to reptilain name calling, stereotyping and generally ignorant retorts.
The simplicity of these people is truly shocking. They are easily manipulated by fear and it is refreshing to me to read your posts. I wish I was as erudite. I especially liked what you said in post # 33. That one hit the bulls eye, The more rational the argument, the more facts that are presented, the more hysterical and reactionary they become. Just wait unitl the next post! It will prove my point.
66. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
JHL,
Thank you for your kind words. What I find shocking is that most of the commenters here would call themselves conservatives and yet they routinely repudiate long-standing principles of conservatism (see Senator Goldwater’s acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican convention) in favor of obsequious and fawning reverence for power simply because it is wielded by Republicans. They like to speak reverentially of President Reagan even though he had this to say about government in the context of gun rights (emphasis added):
They don’t even really believe the words of their own idols. All they see around them are enemies that they want someone to defeat for them.
67. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Well, it was considered here:
[[Court upholds 'state secrets' part of warrantless wiretaps
A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Friday handed a major victory to the Bush administration, ruling that a lawsuit challenging the government's warrantless wiretapping program could not go forward because of the "state secrets" privilege.]]
Now if you protest the “states secret doctrine” then I suggest you contact your representatives.
Furthermore, we have NOT abandoned the pursuit of UBL and many consider this “war” a war and therefore measures such as the NSA are necessary. The fact that you object, confirms my belief that it is necessary.
Since you are so convinced of Bushs illegalities, why are you wasting time here? Shouldn’t you be in direct consultation with Reid, Pelosi and Congressional lawyers bringing charges and introducing articles of impeachment against the President? I anxiously await new reports of your discovery and efforts to protect our democracy. Go Diana!
What I do find amusing is that you are now resorting to 4 year old complaints having lost on every single issue as it pertains to Iraq. And that is pathetic.
68. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
[What I find shocking is that most of the commenters here would call themselves conservatives and yet they routinely repudiate long-standing principles of conservatism (see Senator Goldwater’s acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican convention) - Diana]
What I find shocking is that most of the commenters here would call themselves Democrats and yet they routinely repudiate long-standing principles of the Democrats (see Jack Kennedy’s inaugural speech at the 1961 Democratic convention)
69. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
neocon,
The process has already started in the case of the Vice-President:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=9&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fquery%2Fz%3Fc110%3AH.RES.333%3A&ei=l3qCR72gAZGchQOT34GCBw&usg=AFQjCNFhjkxn3Awb7qquWoAAbcogm09QJg&sig2=9w7LX8i9XLWjFbuUaM8vZQ
Frankly, with slightly more than a year before President Bush leaves office and with the campaign for his replacement in full swing, I can’t see either the Vice-President or the President being on trial in the United States Senate in 2008.
So, then I take it that you don’t agree with Ronald Reagan when he said in his first inaugural address, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”
70. JHL | January 7th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
No Necon, what is pathetic is the direction the topic of this thread has taken. Mark implied that the observations made by George McGovern in the Washington Post were directly correlated to his mental health. In his snide, derriding comment he scoffed at Mr. McGoverns life experience and instead tried to make fun of him by concluding that only someone who is senile could make such pronouncements.
Well, it just isn’t so. This is not the first time that Mark has set forth contentions not based on observable fact, but based upon loyalty to a man and an ideology. The “conservativism” that is on full display here on B4V does not even closely resemble traditional conservativism. It has morphed into an authoriatrianism that embodies everything that it claims to be against.
I personally do not want the country to waste time impeaching Bush. (Cheney is another matter) but be that as it may, a very VERY sound case can be made to do so by using the same laws that extemists claim that they value. No man is above the law: regardless of what his lawyers say. Bush’s punishment will be how history views him, how he feels personally about the failure of his presidency and how quickly the country returns to the center and heads off once again in the correct direction. Someone once said that “Americans always do the right thing. After they have tried everything else.”
Fear is no way to go through life.
71. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
He meant that Government “regulation” and taxation was the problem. I thought you would know that.
Considering Reagans Iran-Contra scandal, I would think that he too would pursue the NSA program in light of todays threats.
But I guess then that you certainly don’t subscribe to JFK’s belief:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
72. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
JHL,
Are you afraid? And if you claim that being afraid is no way to go through life, then how do you explain the tactics of the Climate Change movement, of the anti-war movement and the abortion movement?
Those movements are all based on the fear that the world is going to end unless we dramatically change our way of life, that Bush is creating more terrorists to kill us with the current policies, and that woman will die in back alley abortions unless that right is protected.
What are those if they are not fear based?
73. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
neocon,
From your unattributed quote it looks to me that you are citing a news account about the actual opinion (there’s quite a large difference) that I cited in post # 59. If you read the source document, rather than news accounts about it (from a source you don’t even name) you’ll see that the litigation is still live and has been remanded back to the originating District Court for further action. So, I needn’t “contact my representatives” about it.
No, I do subscribe to President Kennedy’s principle that you quote. I’m sure you read them and think you see cover for President Bush’s ordering of violations of FISA and engaging in “preemptive war” in Iraq. However, you’re kidding yourself. Even if President Kennedy’s general words could be interpreted as supporting President Bush’s actions then the question is obvious, “Why, if we’re in the midst of the epic clash of civilizations, is the government not asking Americans to ‘pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship’ by raising taxes to fund the fighting in Iraq instead of pushing the costs (with interest) onto future generations? I guess the people who can’t vote today are in charge of paying the price, bearing the burden and meeting the hardship.
74. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
The taxation issue (to pay for the war) is simply a subjective matter. You would prefer to stymie the market by increasing taxes in order to increase federal receipts and pay for the war. Others believe that by cutting tax rates and growing the economy, federal receipts will increase (which they have) and that is how the war will ulitmately be paid for.
The fact that this issue is still in the courts, kind of refutes your assertion that it is worthy of impeachment. I know that is your opinion but why don’t we let the courts decide before we make partisan stances. OK?
Secondly, JFK advocated promoting liberty and bearing any burden to do so. How does that not apply? Do you suppose he would stop promoting liberty at the perceived notion that someone in Ohio may have their phone conversation monitored? Do you suppose he thought that would be an unbearable burden?
75. Mark Noonan | January 7th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Diana,
No, really - can you tell us WHY President Bush would want to listen to your phone calls? If you can’t give us a reason WHY he would do it, then you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Also, can you please comment on whether McGovern is senile, or a liar, given that his op-ed has a clear falsehood about whether or not he called for Nixon’s impeachment…
76. TiredofLibBullShit | January 7th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
to the two useful idiots Diane and JHL……..
you two live in your own delusional world. You take a post and read what is SIMPLY not there and ignore what SIMPLY is there.
Diane reads that I implied Truman acted illegally. WTF? - No such argument. She then points out that Truman was the commander in chief of the military and acted during a declared war - duh! Oh, of course, this is Bush’s illegal war even though the Senate voted for action against Iraq……….again useful idiot at work.
JHL……..tries to sound “intelligent” and doesn’t counter the argument presented by another poster just cherry picks some small error and uses that to think he has a victory when he ignores the overall point……….I’ll just leave it at that and let the other useful idiot gloat on false reasoning.
To the useful idiots, their party can do no wrong - you know - hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil, unless you’re a non-Democrat.
77. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
neocon,
Paying for the war is “a subjective matter”. I see. So, is the last six years of deficit spending just a “subjective matter” as well? That would be quite the revelation to those future voters who have to pay back the Chinese who have purchased so many promissory notes from us.
No, the civil lawsuit that we’ve been discussing has nothing to do with the Constitutional question of whether the President is guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. It is a civil action separate and apart from the violations of the FISA statute that President Bush has admitted to.
As to this:
Your false assumption is that President Bush ordering his subordinates to violate FISA amounts to “promoting liberty” which I can only describe as truly bizarre. Tell me, are you familiar with the fictional Principles of Ingsoc listed by George Orwell in 1984?
- War is Peace
- Freedom is Slavery
- Ignorance is Strength
78. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Diana,
I just have one question the link that you provided in regards to Cheneys impeachment. Was that before, or after Kucinichs alien abduction?
79. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Diana,
Do you not think that the US is promoting liberty in the ME by fighting those who want to oppress?
Do you not believe that there are operative jihadist cells currently in the country that should be monitored?
As far as federal receipts:
[Government receipts in full-year 2007 were up 161 bln usd, a 6.7 pct increase over the prior year's receipts. Treasury said full-year 2007 was the third consecutive year in which growth in receipts outpaced growth in GDP.]
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/10/11/afx4210999.html
And in regards to China:
[China's U.S. Treasury debt holdings rose to $400.5 billion in January from the previously reported level of $353.6 billion, according to the report. This kept China as the second largest foreign holder of Treasuries after Japan, whose holdings in January dropped to $627.4 billion from a previously reported $648.8 billion.]
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN3023321620070330
Now in terms of the $13 trillion dollar economy of the US, China holds approx 3% of that value and is in the #2 position behind Japan.
So what again was JHL saying when he referred to fear based politics? Because it appears that you love to use fear in your advocated political positions.
80. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Mark,
I suppose I could just quote my previous answer to your question which you either didn’t read or chose to ignore. However, I’ll restate. The President has publicly stated multiple times that he ordered the warrantless wiretap program (the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program) because he wanted to prevent another terrorist attack in the United States and the existing FISA statute was inadequate to carry out that purpose.
However, rather than go to the Congress and attempt to change FISA, he simply went ahead and ordered his subordinates at the NSA to violate it because his lawyers told him he could do it without penalty. It was only after some outlines of the program came to be known by the public that he has now sought changes in the statute.
Do I believe that he holds the opinion that the wiretapping that has been done (plus other activities which we don’t know about) were to carry out his self-described purpose to “protect America”? Yes. Do I have an opinion as to why he went ahead and violated the law rather than getting the law changed in ways to make his activities lawful before he ordered them. Yes. I believe it was because the Vice-President, aided and abetted by people like David Addington and John Yoo, wants to expand the power of the Presidency for reasons known primarily to them but which have roots in the Vice-President’s experiences post-Watergate.
Do I believe that the fact that he lied in April 2004:
about the warrantless wiretapping that was going on and had been going on for at least two years when he spoke indicates bad faith on his part? Absolutely yes. Whether Senator McGovern wrote misleadingly or forgetfully is irrelevant to whether President George W. Bush ordered violations of Federal law. Sorry.
81. Ricorun | January 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
neocon: Was that before, or after Kucinichs alien abduction?
Kucinich abducted an alien? I guess that explains his wife.
82. plainjane | January 7th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Calls for impeachment of a President for getting us into an illegal war as Ron Paul calls it and actually wasting America’s time and prestige by impeaching a President for having sex and then lying about it as the Republicans did to President Clinton are two different things.
83. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Maybe it was the aliens that ordered the atomic bombing of Japan right after the UN gave them the go-ahead.
84. plainjane | January 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
27. ShanghaiRay | January 6th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
while former posters move to more productive blogs like LGF etc. Good luck with it Mark.
Nice plug for the blog, you come here to try and take Mark” poster; typical Repug. PS I will let you in on a secret; there is no 1950’s style Conservative movement, it died with Barry Goldwater.
85. Ricorun | January 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Diana Powe: Maybe it was the aliens that ordered the atomic bombing of Japan right after the UN gave them the go-ahead.
Listen. I suspect you may be going a little too Billy Pilgrim for most folks here, lol! So it goes. Poo-tee-weet.
86. David.B.Schmidt | January 7th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Now of course everyone realizes this (wire tapping) is just an extension from President Clinton’s Carnivore project and their massive increase of “illegal” wiretaps done by his administration on emails, and telephone calls that both originated & terminated within the US.
At least President Bush requires that one end of the conversation terminates outside the United States and is affiliated with a known or suspected AQ member. That requirement also puts it outside of FISA unless you take it to the “activist” 9th Circuit.
Then again, I am sure the FBI under the direction of President Clinton or now, Senator Hillary Clinton, ever used these wiretaps to…say…listen in on opponents. Nah.
http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Politics/Speech/Computers/Electronic%20Privacy/Wiretapping%20Rises%20Under%20Clinton
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6841403/
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b01268b6e6f.htm
87. Ricorun | January 7th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Sorry, I may have just gotten a little too Kurt Vonnegut for most folks here.
88. AAR | January 7th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
As always, Democrats are more concerned about protecting some fabricated rights of terrorists than those of American citizens and their families!
And as for checking those foreign money transfers, Democrats surely wouldn’t want Americans to find out where, what, and who that terrorist money is really funding and buying in America!
It would also be interesting to find out just how many of the Liberals’ anti-American and pro-terrorist posts are originating from some mountain top in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan?
Right now the Democrat’s whining sounds so “right and proper” but let another attack like 9/11 occur and the American people will wake up and see the terrorist-huggin’ Democrats for what they are. That will be the time to hammer in the fact that Democrats have blocked or attempted to block efforts to acquire information to protect American families — be that electronically or from captive terrorists.
And we must not forget those Liberals (most likely Democrats) who illegally released classified information about our nation’s secret defense programs — and gone unpunished — when they should have been tried for treason and hung or at least given life in prison!
But, the time will come…
AAR
89. AAR | January 7th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
President Truman couldn’t ask the United Nations about it because the organization didn’t come into existence until after the attacks.
Fortunately for the United States!!!
If the useless anti-American U.N. had been involved, we might have suffered millions more casualties or even lost the war!!!
AAR
90. JHL | January 7th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Neocon:
I do not live in fear. Climate change is real. I am pro choice. I am not a peace-nick (in the ’60’s sense) but I don’t cotten to being misled as we were in Vietnam and more proufoundly today. (Remember “Remember the Maine”? Same deciet, different era.) I do not conflate being liberal with being a member of the Democratic party nor do I agree with AAR’s repeated contention that anyone who is liberal is atheistic. I do not paint in such a wide brush nor do I percieve the world in such absolutist terms. These accusations are indicitive of someone who lacks the abilty to think critically and finds the issues of the day more understandable to their remidial cognitive skills if they are presented in an “either or format”. Unfortunately human events are not binary but mob mentality is.
As far as the Kucinich remarks, his wife is totally hot and has a tounge piercing to boot. (And us virle hetero men know what that’s all about.) And here is a link to Rep. Wexlers impeachment process. Note the date.
http://wexlerwantshearings.com/
91. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
JHL,
Do you think the climate change agenda is based on provoking fear of a perceived event?
Do you think the abortion agenda is based on provoking fear for an assumed outcome?
92. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Of course, AAR doesn’t actually know any single thing about how the New York Times obtained the bare outlines of what the Administration likes to call the Terrorist Surveillance Program. However, the fact that the program is illegal and President Bush lied about it to the nation in April 2004 be damned. To hell with the Constitution. On with the hanging of treasonous liberals. That’s what AAR wants to see. It’s the punishment of one’s enemies that matters.
93. SteaM | January 7th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Diana,
What I always try to remind people like Mark is that these things that Bush has managed to do in the name of securtiy (while sacrificing liberties) is actually something that the next President can also do unless the changes Bush has made are reversed.
I don’t see how people like Mark could be ok with this. Considering we are looking at a Democrat for President with a Democrat Congressional majority.
Mark, it doesn’t matter to you that these unprecendented and dangerous changes to our system have occured and can be used by another President or administration for God-knows what?
This is what I care about. I know that power corrupts. Always. It might take some time but it will happen. Not this next administration, maybe not the one after that, but one day a crazy SOB will get in the White House and we will be living in Nazi Germany. Maybe trying to round up and kill all Muslims or something insane like that.
Think about it, Mark. Think about what your buddy Bush is doing opening that can of worms. Sure, he might be doing it in the name of genuine concern for our security. But that doesn’t matter when ten years from now a President uses these things for true evil.
94. JHL | January 7th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Neo:
There is no “agenda” as you so euphemistically phrased it and “percieve” means to see. Do I need to link to photographs of melting ice caps or provide statistics of increase in temps and redistribution of precipitation? Like in Georgia? Actually, I think not. It is an utter waste of effort on someone as closed minded and recalcitrint as you and I won’t lower myself to engage in a pointless and redundant arguement with someone who I percieve as a complete horses arse. You just have to be right, don’t you?
OK you are. I am wrong about everything and I accept Jesus as my lord and savior.
95. JHL | January 7th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Oh, and by the way. I could care less about abortion. I am pro choice period and to me it is a non issue so don’t bring it up again.
I live in the modern world, not some christianist calyphite.
96. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
SteaM,
I’m not sure Mark really much cares about whatever variety of surveillance is being conducted on Americans. First, he assumes that he’s not the object of surveillance because he’s not a terrorist. Second, the most important thing is that the object of his veneration, President Bush, didn’t really boldly lie to us when he said, “When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.” Mark thinks that was just something other than a lie because, after all, words have been written down that say that the surveillance is “narrowly focused” and that “civil liberties are protected” so the lie spoken out loud doesn’t really mean anything…or some double-think like that.
97. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
JHL,
Thank you for confirming my opinion of liberals and their agendas.
98. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
[I don’t see how people like Mark could be ok with this. Considering we are looking at a Democrat for President with a Democrat Congressional majority. - SteaM]
Whether Democrat or Republican, I trust the POTUS to act in the best interest of American citizens, unless proven otherwise. If and then I will use my second ammendment rights.
99. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
That’s right, neocon, it’s as I wrote earlier. Trust the government blindly. Do not doubt them. Do not ask questions. They are here to protect you from bad people. They would never lie to you. They are Good and those who doubt them are Evil.
If that doesn’t work you’ll “use your second ammendment (sic) rights”? What does that mean? Are you going to shoot somebody?
100. Mark Noonan | January 7th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Diana,
No, its just that I’m not motivated by fear and hatred - the NSA’s program, which you on the left call “illegal wiretapping” or “spying on the American people” was - and is - a straightforward signals intelligence program. I don’t have a shudder of fear down my back when the national security agencies of my nation are attempting to listen in on enemy communications during wartime…the only difference between this and “Magic” back in WWII is that, given the nature of the war, some enemy communications originate and/or terminate inside the territory of the United States…but what was being done was functionally no different from listening in on orders to Nazi subs back in 1943.
You’ve got to remember why we have protections against unreasonable searches and seizures - to prevent the government from working up trumped up charges against us. But we’re not charging the terrorists with anything - we’re trying to kill them. Its a war, ya know? You find the enemy plans, and then use that inside info to better kill them and wreck their plans.
You have some sick, hate-filled concept in your mind that President Bush is the enemy. He’s not. He’s on your side. He’s one of your fellow Americans. He’s trying to fight terrorism. For you. To save your life. Your liberty. Your pursuit of happiness. He doesn’t give a tupenny damn what you say our think, so he’s not going to listen in on your conversations - unless, of course, you are calling a satphone in Waziristan which has been ID’d as belonging to a terrorist associate…then, yes, he’s going to have a look-see at what it might be you’d want to say to such a person…
101. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Thanks for taking my comment out of context Diana. I expect nothing less from you and your fear based agenda.
There are, and forever will be checks, balances and oversight to everything the government does as that was the incredible foresight of the founders. When Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton etc. told the American public that the course of action they were taking was in the best of the interest of the US, I believed them. As Reagan once astutely said, “trust, but verify”. If they are not acting in the best interest of the American public, they are usually called to account, most notably Nixon.
I think our current political environment would be more conducive to constructive accomplishments if the rancor of partisanship was quelled in favor of the trust, but verify philosophy.
And the second ammendment comment was tongue-in-cheek. Liberals really could use a sense of humor.
And you never did answer my questions or comments in post #80.
102. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Mark,
I don’t know what to say.
Congress passes a law that makes certain activities a felony. A President orders his subordinates to violate that law because his lawyers tell him he can rather than ask Congress to change the law so that he can do what he feels necessary without committing a crime. The President lies about in public. The President admits to breaking the law when confronted with the facts. However, none of that troubles you because “he’s trying to fight terrorism”. What can anyone say?
That’s your view, but it’s not a conservative one and it’s definitely not an American view. It’s the view of an authoritarian, nothing more, nothing less. Just trust the government to do good because they tell you they’re doing something for your good. Wow. Just wow.
Also, since I know for a fact that you can’t read minds, because no one can, don’t try to tell me that I have “some sick, hate-filled concept in [my] mind that President Bush is the enemy”. I do not. However, I do know that grounds exist that President Bush has violated the oath of office he has taken twice in that he did not “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and, as such, it is entirely reasonable for someone to call for his impeachment.
This matter is about the actions of George W. Bush in his capacity as President of the United States, not your theories about what I think. Sorry.
103. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
neocon,
If you want to automatically trust the government in everything they do, that’s your prerogative. However, that’s never been any part of American conservatism.
As to your witticism about Congressman Kucinich, if that had been a serious question about a serious subject then it might have merited an answer. However, it was not and is not, so I answered not.
104. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
neocon,
I agree that there are supposed to be checks, balances and oversight. In fact, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a law passed in 1978 as a check on the Executive Branch. However, in this case the Executive Branch has violated that law and so the system is out of balance. However, Mark sees no harm, so I guess he doesn’t believe in checks, balances and oversights as you and I do.
105. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
These were the questions Diana?
Do you not think that the US is promoting liberty in the ME by fighting those who want to oppress?
Do you not believe that there are operative jihadist cells currently in the country that should be monitored?
And trusting the government in “everything ” they do is not the vague generalization I am refering to. I trust the POTUS when it comes to decisions of national security and interests. Trust, but verify.
However, nearly every other facet of government I am completely skeptical about; IRS for example.
106. Retired Spook | January 7th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Kucinich abducted an alien? I guess that explains his wife.
And also his ears.
107. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Diana,
Again, in the interest of the US, I implore you to press charges against President Bush. If you fail to do so, it will only cause more damage to our nation and will reveal your cowardice.
This egregious act by the President must be stopped and it is your duty, with such compelling evidence, to bring about those charges. Keep me posted.
108. liberalT | January 7th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Mark - you still have no argument as to why they can’t get warrants for the wiretaps just like they do in cases against the mafia, crime syndicates, etc. They work quite well and effectively. Why not?
109. liberalT | January 7th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Yeah - its pretty mind blowing isn’t it Diana? I was troubled and confused by the stupidity of the posts here before I finally I understood how to make sense of them. It is like you are dealing with a 2nd grader. Remember when you were in the second grade? There were certain things which you were taught were good by definition and you didn’t question that - your parents, your teachers, the president, superman, etc..
Can the president do something bad? No - of course not that is like saying superman would do something bad. If it seems like he is doing something bad there must be some complicated reason for why it is actually good for everyone.
It is really that simple. You can’t really analyze it much deeper than that because it isn’t. So getting mad or angry at it - though hard to avoid - is ultimately not very useful. Just smile and nod ..
110. Diana Powe | January 7th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
neocon,
Your questions must have gotten stuck in moderation, because I didn’t see them before. So,
1) No, I don’t. That is the rationalization put in place by the Administration after the original mission which President Bush stated on 03/06/03 was “disarmament” and which “won’t change” didn’t pan out because there were no WMDs.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
2) I don’t know. However, it’s prudent to think so and the government should use all reasonable and legal means to track them. The so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program might have been one of those means, if the President had asked for FISA to be amended back in 2002, but he chose to order the law to be violated instead.
111. Web Smith | January 7th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Bush asked for intelligence showing that Iraq had WMD. He did not ask for the truth.
But, it’s a mute point. Just because a country has WMD is not a justification for invading them. The world would be at war. This train of thought would give Russia permission to invade Israel in support of its allies, mainly Iran, and India to invade Pakistan. The U.S. had no justification for invading Iraq.
Obama says change over and over but, thats what the Democratic candidates for Congress and the Senate told us. They said they would end the war. Instead they send funding bills to Bush with pork barrel attachments. “You can have your war if we can have these.” Democrats have profiteered from the war as much as Republicans. This has disenfranchised Democratic voters and will surface after the primaries.
We are looking at another Republican President, House and Senate after the next elections.
112. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
So the three elections held in Iraq, in which millions of Iraqis risked their lives to vote in, and of which was possible because of the US, is not promoting liberty?
And you conveniently ignored the 17 UN cease fire agreement violations. But again I expect that now from you.
113. AAR | January 7th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Diana Powe,
YOU really do obfuscate and pile up your useless propaganda!!!!!
We DO KNOW it’s Liberals (Democrats) like YOU who are whining about our classified programs to protect Americans and their families and children.
We DO KNOW it’s Liberals (Democrats) like YOU who want all those programs stopped.
We DO KNOW it’s not Conservatives or Republicans trying to undermine our classified programs and efforts to obtain information about terrorists and their plans.
Any reasonable thinking person other than a Liberal like YOU knows full well who would illegally release classified information to the Liberal press!
The issue isn’t President Bush… it’s about those who ILLEGALLY released classified information about our nation’s defense programs to the media!
And it doesn’t matter what YOU or those like you believe about the actions of President Bush, RELEASING CLASSIFIED information is AGAINST THE LAW and the TRAITORS who ILLEGALLY released the information should be found, tried, and hung!
Now a FORMER police officer like yourself surely believes those who BROKE THE LAW by ILLEGALLY releasing classified information should be found and punished, right?
And if it is determined that releasing that information aided our enemies, you do agree that is treason, right?
And treason does carry the death penalty, right?
It’s not “punishment of one’s enemies” to expect law breakers to be found and held accountable for their illegal actions… or is that the way YOU worked cases as a police officer? Did YOU make the decision about who YOU thought should be punished for their crimes, and allow those to go free whose illegal, law breaking actions YOU decided were proper? Were you the judge and jury deciding which criminals you would arrest and which you would allow to roam free to commit more crimes?!!!
Now… let’s find those Liberals who broke the law and bring them to trial!
AAR
114. AAR | January 7th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
neocon,
Like any hypocritical Liberal (Democrat) who “claims” to believe in the Constitution and justice, Diana and those like her have already tried and convicted President Bush — in the media, on the blogs, and anywhere they can drum up an uninformed audience willing to listen to their misleading propaganda!
I guess we just missed the trial!!!
AAR
115. AAR | January 7th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
The Iraq war was authorized by Congress — including Democrats.
The U.S. led forces in Iraq are their under the authorization of the U.N.
AAR
116. AAR | January 7th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Former President Clinton, in an appearance on “Larry King Live” on July 22, 2003, said, “… [I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in ‘98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn’t know it because we never got to go back there.”
October 2003, months after the Iraq war began, former President Bill Clinton visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. Durao Barroso said, “When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.”
AAR
117. Huck Fillary | January 7th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
PS I will let you in on a secret; there is no 1950’s style Conservative movement, it died with Barry Goldwater.
Getting bitchy again, plaincow. Go get yer udders yanked.
JHL, funny how you bloviated to Diana about how uneducated we conservatives were, then in your post, #89, you write:
I am not a peace-nick (in the ’60’s sense) but I don’t cotten to being misled as we were in Vietnam and more proufoundly today. (Remember “Remember the Maine”? Same deciet,…
Three errors in here, jerk, and many more in the rest of your post.
Based on your earlier assertion, I guess you’re included in those you claimed didn’t attend college, or, if you did, you need to ask for a refund. You are a first-class moron, a jerk, and if female, a cow. Join the herd–plainjane, Diana, and Sunny will share the meadow with you…
118. liberalT | January 7th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
oh huck. Just once in your life try to make a substantive point. Just once. Anything. Just anything..
119. Huck Fillary | January 8th, 2008 at 4:54 am
I have, libretardTHC. Why don’t you practice what you preach, girlfriend?
120. Diana Powe | January 8th, 2008 at 9:01 am
AAR,
Despite your refusal to accept inconvenient facts:
1 - The controlling law in this matter is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which was enacted in 1978 as a result of abuses uncovered by the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, better known as the Church Committee.
2 - FISA requires warrants be obtained (including retroactive warrants) from the FISA Court (FISC) which meets in secret and has almost never refused to authorize such warrants.
3 - The Congress has been in regular session for years since the attacks of 2001 so any necessary legislative changes to adapt to new technological issues could have been asked for years ago.
4 - The President did not ask for any changes to FISA despite subsequent claims that the law was deficient.
5 - Beginning at least in 2002 (possibly earlier), the President ordered his subordinates in the Executive branch to conduct wiretapping without the legally required warrants. Doing so is a felony under FISA which stipulates a fine of up to $10,000 and a sentence of up to five years in federal prison.
121. Diana Powe | January 8th, 2008 at 9:02 am
6 - In April 2004 the President lied to you, me, Mark and every other American by going out of his way to publicly emphasize the following:
This was a complete and utter falsehood as he had signed an executive order in 2002 authorizing wiretapping without warrants in violation of federal law.
7 - In 2005, the New York Times learned of this criminal activity, as defined by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, being carried out by the Executive Branch and published a story which revealed the outlines of this illegal activity.
8 - The President admitted to this criminal activity, but has claimed that it was not a criminal act because the lawyers that work for him had told him that the Constitution allowed him to break the law in this manner. That claim has not been tested in any court and, at this point, exists only as a claim.
9 - Having been exposed at ordering criminal activity, the President has since asked Congress to modify the FISA law to include providing immunity from civil lawsuits against the telephone service providers who assisted the government in performing criminal acts. There is no precedent in United States law for such retroactive immunity. However, political figures in Congress pushing it (including Senator Reid, the Majority Leader) have received large campaign contributions from the industry that is asking for retroactive immunity.
10 - Most Americans would consider such retroactive immunity from law-breaking, lubricated with campaign cash, to be the most rank form of corruption.
122. Diana Powe | January 8th, 2008 at 9:03 am
11 - The Oath of Office sworn on a Bible on January 20, 2001 and January 20, 2005 required that George W. Bush, as President, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” and “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. As such, a prima facie case exists that the President has knowingly violated his oath and, as such, no one is out of bounds in saying that he should be impeached.
The fact that some person or persons revealed ongoing criminal activity to the New York Times means that they are people who believe in the principles of the United States which include the apparently quaint notion that all men are equal under the law. That is not treason. That is patriotism.
123. Diana Powe | January 8th, 2008 at 9:14 am
It is a measure of Mark’s veneration of the man, George W. Bush, that as one of the co-authors of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About the New Democratic Majority, he is willing to ignore the fact that one of the Senators from his own home state of Nevada, a Democrat, is taking campaign cash from the telecommunication companies and pushing for an unprecedented retroactive immunity from lawsuits for assisting in criminal activity. In fact, Senator Reid’s assistance in this matter included an unprecedented refusal to honor his colleague’s (Senator Chris Dodd) hold on the legislation which forced a pre-Christmas filibuster by Senator Dodd who has promised to filibuster the bill again when it comes up this year. Yep, Mark and Matt are all about lambasting Democratic corruption except when it such corruption aligns with his favorite Republican.
124. SteaM | January 8th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Neocon,
Is this promoting freedom and liberty?
Debathification was ordered by Paul Bremer, former head of the (CPA) Coalition Provisional Authortiy in Iraq.
Debathification: The process of removing former members of the ruling Bath party of Iraq from the milita