Norm Coleman: Minister of Agitprop

Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman is once again playing the coveted role of Republican Minister of Agitprop. Leading the smear campaign against Kofi Annan wasn't enough for the once-moderate Mayor of St. Paul. Now he's been hand-picked by the Republican leadership to be one of Karl Rove's "principle defenders in Congress."

When Coleman's constituents called his office last Wednesday to complain about Rove's role in identifying CIA agent Valerie Plame to reporters, they were "met with a prepared text chalking up any of Rove's problems to simply a partisan attack by Democrats," wrote a Minneapolis Star Tribune reader. The next day, camera-hog Coleman swung into action, holding a press conference where he admonished Democrats for "sucking the oxygen out of the atmosphere of collegiality and constructive cooperation" in the Senate. "Stop the partisan attacks, let's get away from the gotcha politics of Washington," he said. Later that day, after Democrats introduced legislation to revoke Rove's security clearance, Coleman and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist tried in vain to censor Democratic leaders Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. Irony escapes the attack dog.

At the whiff of any Republican scandal, Coleman quickly takes the lead in echoing GOP talking points. After Condeeleza Rice revealed that Bush had received a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" a month before 9/11, Coleman defended Rice by saying: "We've got to get away from finger pointing and the blame game." A month later, Coleman blamed abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison on a "small group of soldiers" and called Donald Rumsfeld's Senate testimony "contrite, candid and thorough," blindly trusting that Bush would hold high-ranking officers accountable. "This is not a time for critics," Coleman said.

L'Affair Rove, however, is especially personal for Coleman. The GOP architect enabled Coleman's ascent to the Senate (replacing the late Paul Wellstone) by persuading Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty not to run against him in the primary. Now Coleman's repaying the favor, repeating the lie that Rove was only benevolently trying to steer Time's Matt Cooper away from a bogus story. "Everyone needs to cool their rhetoric, focus on the business of the people, and allow the investigation to run its course," Zen Coleman remarked in an excerpted RNC press release.

Coleman's constituents back home have seen this charade before. "I seem to recall that the senator was less patient with the investigative process when he was calling for Kofi Annan's resignation," wrote Star Tribune reader Paul Chillman of Minneapolis. "What breathtaking hypocrisy. Coleman's loyalty to Rove and the administration obviously outweighs his loyalty to principle."

Comments (49)

1. Coleman was never mayor of MPLS. He led St. Paul in shame though. Coleman's always been a climber at whatever cost. Hard to imagine if his family has any friends at all.

   I heard a story from a canvasser who stopped by his house. The report of the man's display of behavior was chilling.

   Coleman deserves to be discredited and brought to public shame. He's a sham and a crooked politician.

   Posted by rob.olywa at 07/22/2005 @ 12:26pm

2. Norm's a piece of "work." Rob.Olywa is correct, Coleman was the mayor of St. Paul. He was elected as a Democrat, then when he saw that his chances of advancement in the party were limited, he switched parties.

   One thing I can say about Norm is he is no ideologue. He's never had an idea in his life other than personal advancement. He'll do or say whatever he thinks will get him the most points with whomever is in power at the time.

   His campaign against Wellstone was particularly egregious in the lies and distortions he used against our fallen senator. Paul ran a very funny ad against him showing Norm at a Wellstone rally six years prior when Norm is on the podium saying what a great senator Paul is, and how as Democrats, they share priorities and policies.

   What a sham! Take heart, though, Minnesotans know what a flim-flam man he is.

   Ross, from St. Paul

   Posted by DocRoss at 07/22/2005 @ 12:44pm

3. Gosh, I am so apologetic and filled with remorse. Based upon this posting by Ari, I now know that only Republicans have talking points and attack dogs. How could I have been so foolish when I saw misinterpreted Hillary (It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth."), Begala (republicans are trying to kill my family), Charlie Rangel "Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York, equated GOP tax relief proposals with racism. "They used to say ‘nigger' and ‘spic,'" Rangel, who is black, said at the time. "Now they just say, ‘Let's cut taxes.'" , Donna Brazile (republicans are a party of white boys)

   Posted by love liberty at 07/22/2005 @ 3:00pm

4. Since when does one person writing a letter to the editor make up a constituency? I doubt the "camera hog" Coleman held a press conference to respond to a single constituent. Mr. Charles Smith Dewey wrote a single letter to the editor of the Star Tribune on July 15th. and he never made the statement "Rove's role in identifying CIA agent Valerie Plame to reporters". Now you have Ari making a puff piece over the statement of one man.

   Mr. Charles Smith-Dewey wrote: " Is Norm Coleman a U.S. Senator or a political attack dog? I called his Washington office Wednesday to voice my concerns about the Karl Rove scandel and was met with a prepared text chalking up any Rove's problems to simply a partisan attack by Democrats. Now, in Thursday's Star Tribune, I see the Republicans have tapped Coleman to be a leader in defending Rove. If Coleman wishes to simply advance the cause du jour of the White House, he should resign from government service and take a job in politics. I remember when there was a distinction between the two".

   Ari writes: " When Coleman's constituents called his office last Wednesday to complain about Rove's role in identifying CIA agent Valerie Plame to reporters, they were "met with a prepared text chalking up any of Rove's problems to simply a partisan attack by Democrats," wrote a Minneapolis Star Tribune reader. The next day, camera-hog Coleman swung into action, holding a press conference where he admonished Democrats for "sucking the oxygen out of the atmosphere of collegiality and constructive cooperation" in the Senate.

   Ari, The spin stops here! " Rove's role in identifyng CIA Valerie Plame to reporters" and "Coleman swung into action" from a lone reader. Give me a break! There's so much spin in this story I'm dizzy. For a minute there I thought I must have click on to the National Enquirer! Pathetic!

   Also, If Mr. Smith Dewey feels that Coleman should resign from government for being a attack dog. So should Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Reid, Pelosi.....hell, the entire Democratic party for that matter; except for Miller and Liberman.

   Posted by redstateman at 07/22/2005 @ 3:26pm

5. Red, they are allowed to do that. That is their god, I mean, "intellectual and philosophical" given right to do as they please without bringing some sort of fact based case that has any meat to it.

   Posted by dancall at 07/22/2005 @ 3:34pm

6. LOVE LBERTY, you attack dog, you. Don't you dare criticize Democrats for ruthlessly doing to Republicans what they fantasize Republicans are doing to them. Don't you realize what we have here is a classic case of Freudian projection? The Democrats need psychiatric help and maybe a heavy dose of lithium, not more verbal abuse. If only we had national health care!

   Posted by jeck at 07/22/2005 @ 3:41pm

7. sorry Jeck, what was I thinking?

   Posted by love liberty at 07/22/2005 @ 3:45pm

8. Because CRAPOLLA you spew must be answered with honesty. Zero only wants to hear from his own ilk. Can you say "Circle Jerk"?

   Posted by aludra at 07/22/2005 @ 6:18pm

9. Zero, It's obvious to me that you're not really fond of the contributions of the right wingers on this blog. I have to agree with you that some, but not all of them are just here to make trouble, retard discussion, and generally get on the nerves of all concerned. But, with the possible exception of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 19th Amendment (I am an African-American woman after all), I value the First Amendment the most of all of the pieces of the Constitution. I may not go for totally conservative interpretations of most of our nation's founding document, but when it comes to bill number 1 of the Bill of Rights, I become an attack dog. What I'm trying to say in so many words is, while I respect your opinion about the right wingers that come onto these blogs and generally become pains in the ass, it is their right to do so...and it's a right that I'm pretty much committed to fighting to the death for on everyone's behalf. One of the things that we still have the right to do in a country that seems to want to take so many of our rights and liberties away in the name of fighting terrorism is the right to be loud and wrong. If these folks want to come here and be loud and wrong, they're allowed to under the First Amendment. Continue to fight their speech with more of your speech. From what I've read from you on the various Nation blogs, I think that you can more than hold your own. Besides, I think that in terms of sheer numbers, you're far from alone.

   Posted by edwriter at 07/22/2005 @ 6:21pm

10. "it is their right to do so...and it's a right that I'm pretty much committed to fighting to the death for on everyone's behalf."

    Edwriter, I totally agree with you and would also fight to the death your right as well. That is what makes our country so special and I was glad that you made that important point!

    Posted by aludra at 07/22/2005 @ 7:00pm

11. Edwriter, If your worried about your rights, then why are you barking up the "wrong" tree. I'll try to be brief,"loud" and clear before I get censored here. I to value our constitutional rights but, let me remind you that its the liberals who wants more government over our lives. The conservative ideology wants less. Remember,it was a liberal court that decided the government can take your property for private development. There goes the fifth Amendment!(Kelo v. New London) It was the same liberal court that said its okay for a city officials to do a warrentless search of your home whenever they want and without probable cause. They said its okay for a city official to look inside your home for "possible" housing violations eventhough none are known to exist. (Camara v. Municipal Court) Liberals defend the ACLU. The ACLU says they "defend civil liberties". In reality they only seek to destroy them. "Communism is the goal", a quote by Rodger Baldwin,(Founder of the ACLU). Ask a communist how many rights they have! Also, try and find opposing views in the mainstream liberal bias press. (At least you think we should have that right but, most libs don't). And somehow liberals feel the government can do a better job running our lives than we can. BTW, our government needs to fight terrorism because, they want to keep you alive long enough to enjoy your rights. What good are they, if you are dead? So if you think we are being to "loud" and "wrong" for standing up to those who (really) want to take your rights away. Then so be it. Just don't blame us when they are gone.

    Posted by redstateman at 07/23/2005 @ 11:07am

12. From my understanding of the situation, Redstatesman, liberals want the government to actually be responsible to its citizens, meaning that they want their elected officials to pay more attention to the needs of the people than they do the needs of those who line their pockets with campaign contributions. Plus, if conservatives were really for preserving more of my rights, what's up with the Patriot Act? This has to be one of the most civil liberty-killing pieces of legislation in history. If conservatives are so jucied up about letting me live in privacy and peace, why are they so concerned about what decisions that I as a woman make regarding whether or not I have a kid? Or for that matter, why are conservatives so fixated on being in the bedrooms of my gay and lesbian friends? Why is it that they seem committed to having the Constitution go so far back that all of the amendments that pertain to me (except the First Amendment, which they seem to want to render all but useless instead) are erased as if they never happened? But then again, I live in a Blue State...so it would stand to reason that the things I just mentioned are important to me.

    Posted by edwriter at 07/23/2005 @ 11:26am

13. Liberal court? Maybe someone can help me here, but I believe that there are currently more Republican appointees on the Supreme Court than Democratic ones.

    Posted by edwriter at 07/23/2005 @ 11:28am

14. I,too, think everyone has a right to voice their opinion on any subject. I also think that out of respect for each other it could be a civil discourse without the name calling and vitriol.

    That's one of the major problems in Congress today; the radical ideologues are the voices of both parties and there needs to be more civility and compromise. That used to be the way our governing bodies created legislation. They actually got together in committees and worked out legislation! What a unique concept!

    The Republican majority seems to think the way to create legislation is to write a bill with other Republicans and shove it down the throats of the Democrats. That kind of arrogance is exactly what lost the Democrats their majority and it'll backfire on them exactly the same way. Most Americans don't like arrogant representatives in Congress and they have a habit of replacing them.

    As far as the article above is concerned, it's obvious to most people who're paying attention that Norm Coleman is a mouthpiece for the "Rabid Republicans" and he does it for personal gain and glory. Unfortunately for him, Minnesotans who sent Paul Wellstone to the Senate probably aren't going to view that as particularly favorable. We'll see in the next election.

    I personally think the two party system isn't working all that well and concerned citizens should be creating alternatives. The Republicans have become the party of the rich and "big business" and the Democrats have become the "ghost party" that doesn't stand for much of anything so there should be room for a new party to triumph the rights and needs of the lower and middle classes. That used to be the Democratic Party but they've obviously lost sight of that so a new group should take that position and win seats in Congress. Perhaps the Green Party can rise to the occasion and broaden its' platform. I don't know but either something has to shock the Democrats back to life or some other party needs to fill the gap.

    Posted by raschana at 07/23/2005 @ 11:30am

15. I am sure none of us are suprised by Senator Coleman's consistent inconsistencies. After all, politics is about being politic so retarding one investigation (Rove) while trying to expedite another one (Annan) is what we should expect! And, dare I say it? The Democrats would do much the same thing.

    However, I think that Rove has paved the way for new and increasingly depraved acts and the Democrats just haven't started playing ball at that level yet, but they will. After all, the dirty tricks of Nixon's Committee to Reelect the President were an extension of the renowned antics of the Dems dirty dealer Dick Tuck. So, let us quit lamenting GOP depravity! The Dems will respond in kind one of these days. . . It's a wonder Americans hate politics. . . .

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/23/2005 @ 12:09pm

16. Sometimes I think that our discussions about politics are really veiled discussions about team sports. The right-wing says the left is out of touch and will keep being drubbed and are nothing but pointy-headed, effete, girly men who would rather hold hands and tell each other "I'm okay, you're okay." And the left says the right are barbarians who are depraved and for all their values talk really are just mudskippers crawling out of a primordial pond they claim not to believe in in the first place because of their fealty to a nursery rhyme metaphysic/old time religion.

    Somewhere, amidst all of this, there are real issues that have nothing to do with the sporting event/kabuki theatre. But to the victor go the spoils.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/23/2005 @ 12:12pm

17. Do we even know what "spin" is anymore? It seems that people like Bill O'Reilly have redefined the word to mean "here lies my interpretation of events." I am really sick of that word, it has become meaningless.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/23/2005 @ 12:31pm

18. Frankgrits, I would have to agree with you. It seems to me that every political victory is more than just a temporary alignment on a set of issues but some sort of broaded statement about the virility of the men and women involved in a titanic struggle.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/23/2005 @ 4:17pm

19. Hey Ed, Maybe you should spend less time listening to MoveOn.org and the rest of the liberal spin market and start reading things for yourself. The Patriot Act specifically states: "Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, including Arab Americans, MUST BE PROTECTED, and that every effort must be taken to preserve their safety; (2) any acts of violence or discrimination against any Americans be condemned; and (3) the Nation is called upon to recognize the patriotism of fellow citizens from all ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds." So unless your a terrorist I really don't think you have much to worry about. And if you think conservative politicians are the only ones lining their pockets with special interest money you are sadly mistaken. The difference between the two is that the liberals are not happy with just special interest money, they want more of my hard earn money too. Correct me if I'm wrong but where in the Constitution does it say that the government has to take care of my needs. If we were not taxed to death and so regulated then maybe you could take better care of your needs by yourself. Personally, I think I could do a better job of it than the government. Why should conservatives care about whether you have a kid are not, or what your gay and lesbian friends do in the bedroom? Well we care because liberals like yourself don't want to leave it at home. Where do we draw the line? Now the liberal 9th District Court says that minor children can go to a school official to seek help in obtaining an abortion or drug treatment. That the school cannot notify their parents if their kid leaves school grounds to go have an abortion or drug treatment. That some school officials actively participate in helping these kids just because they believe its a womens right to choose. I believe that as a parent of a MINOR child that I should have the right to know where my kid is at all times and I don't need the government telling me how I need to raise my kids. So I guess my point is that it goes too far. Everyones private agenda is getting forced down my throat, in our schools, in the media and in our homes. That why! Why is it that conservatives seem so commited to erasing your rights, 1st Amend. useless? etc. etc. etc.? Ed, What the hell are you talking about? Thats just a bunch of garbage. And just because you are appointed by a Republican, doesn't mean you are one.

    Posted by redstateman at 07/23/2005 @ 7:34pm

20. I go on vacation...come back and the conservative posts have multiplied...and ironically the intellect and wit of their posts has had a converse reaction.

    They are like Gremlins...you poor some water on one of them...next thing you know you've got a website full of gooey eggs with brownshirt zygots (that's "real live human-being" in Conservative jingo) inside.

    With all seriousness, I am begining to wonder if its just the same ignoramuses with multiple handles, or maybe they are having little meet-up parties where they have nothing better to do than sing hymns to God Bush, hate on gays, lawyers, and abortion doctors...oh...yeah...and squeeze in a little time to post nonsensical utterances on TheNation.com...

    Reading this hackneyed obtuse crap makes me want to go back on vacation, where at least I wont have to wonder what type of tinfoil hat wearing wombats are putting political hacks who can't even get their teeth caped right, like Norm Coleman, in office. This is at least 20% of our nation people!!! JEBUS SAVE ME!!!!

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/24/2005 @ 12:21am

21. Hey Lib, You better lay off the Kool Aid for awhile!

    Posted by redstateman at 07/24/2005 @ 12:33pm

22. I have to agree with hhewm about the "spectator democracy" or pro-sport element to these discussions. i participate in many sports posting boards as well and there is much to be learned. notably, rationalizations employed by those who think in terms of "us & them" and their manipulation of facts and statistics... what results is a distraction that by default supports the power establishment. just engaging in their conversation creates a bi-polar vacume and then the win loose dicotomy, and there we go again, distracted supporting the status-quo.

    Posted by FreeDumb at 07/24/2005 @ 2:15pm

23. Freedumb, I just wish it could be more of a discussion rather than a "fist-fight."

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/24/2005 @ 3:04pm

24. ...meanwhile the same thing continues to happen, "the poor subsidise the lifstyles of the rich", the real redistribution of wealth.... .... The realm of political debate is as de-politisized as the NFL. They,(the agents of power)"own" the language therefore they "own" the debate, to them the system works magnificintly. we chase arround some memo, awaiting the outcome of some benign investigation, while owr tax dollers "trickle up", but oops thats a political term.

    Posted by FreeDumb at 07/24/2005 @ 3:22pm

25. Hey Ed, Maybe you should spend less time listening to MoveOn.org and the rest of the liberal spin market and start reading things for yourself. The Patriot Act specifically states: "Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, including Arab Americans, MUST BE PROTECTED, and that every effort must be taken to preserve their safety;

    Oh well then, Redstateman, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Never mind the actual content of the act that takes away our civil liberties, authorizes blind searches, warrantless wiretaps, and privacy invasions...

    ...there's a sentence in the act that says it can't do all that, so I feel much better now. Phew!

    Posted by puppeteer at 07/25/2005 @ 10:30am

26. Red,

    I've read the Patriot Act...which is why I'm so vehemently opposed to it. Also, I don't get my opinions from MoveOn.org or any other place. I'm what you might call a free thinker...one that thinks for myself. You might meet more of us if you'd stay off of FreeRepublic.com for awhile.

    Posted by edwriter at 07/25/2005 @ 11:49am

27. Hey ED, How else can our government effectively fight terrorism? Should we start giving Miranda rights to terrorist as well? Like I said before. The Patriot Act was passed in order to gather intelligence on suspected terrorist. So unless you are a suspected terrorist I really don't think the government is going to plant a bug in your closet and tap your phone anytime soon. And as long as the government is doing all they can to prevent mass murder again, I can live with that. I certainly don't feel that my civil liberties are going to be violated because I'm not a terrorist. I'm more concerned about how the courts have been eroding at my civil liberties more than anthing else. If you have any better idea's, I'd love to hear them.

    Pupp, You should feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing your government is doing all they can to try and keep you alive. Besides that, Section 102 of the Patriot wasn't just put in there to take up space. So like I told Ed, Unless you are a terrorist I really don't think you have much to worry about. I know that I sleep well at night.

    Posted by redstateman at 07/25/2005 @ 1:15pm

28. Redstateman, you make an interesting point about Miranda Rights. While we know that miranda rights are for American citizens, what happens when it is American citizens engage in these acts? Should Timothy McVeigh have been denied his miranda rights?

    Legality is a tricky issue. I recommend JFK's discussion of former Senator Robert Taft's objections to the Nuremberg trials. In Profiles in Courage Kennedy talks about how Taft found constitutional problems with U.S. involvement at Nuremberg. Of course, when he expressed his misgivings he was widely criticized and demonized but the man did raise an important question: what is the relationship between justice and the laws of any land? This is an ongoing debate that cannot be limited by those who feel that, under no circummstances, should terorists and traitors be handled with with proper legality. The question is and will remain, what is proper legality?

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/25/2005 @ 3:28pm

29. I don't think the Left or the Right have answered this question properly.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/25/2005 @ 3:29pm

30. How ELSE can our government effectively fight terrorism???! I'm still wondering when they're going to start doing something that is effective in preventing terrorism rather than creating a huge crop of new terrorists! One of the seemingly ever-changing justifications for the conflict in Iraq is that we can keep the terrorists busy fighting us there so we won't have to fight them on our own turf. So how is that working out for the people of Madrid, London and Sharm el-Sheik? Apparently those terrorists didn't get the memo. The fact is, whether you like it or not, and whether you accept it as fact or not, that the so-called "war on terror" has made the world less safe - not more safe. Just look at the numbers!! Terror attacks worldwide are up since the "war on terror" began. A recent survey found that most of the "terrorists" in Iraq are new to the game, and have become radicalized in response to the war in that country, which is perceived by them as an attack on Islam by the western powers, and as an occupation of Arab lands by the west. Whether this perception is accurate or not is beside the point. The effects are the same either way.

    Terrorism will never be eliminated or reduced using the current methods. Until the root causes of terrorism are addressed - poverty, lack of education, a sense of hopelessness, the West's support for dictatorial governments, the U.S's knee-jerk support for the actions of the Israeli government no matter how odious or counterproductive those actions might be - there will be many more recruits willing to lay down their lives to strike a blow for their cause. I work in the medical field, and like to make the analogy that fighting terrorism is like fighting disease. As the old saw goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Prevention is the key - by eliminating the root causes.

    As to the "Patriot Act", if you think that this ill-conceived and misbegotten piece of legislative dreck will make us safe, you're just whistling past the graveyard. It's one of those things that provides the illusion of doing something to protect yourself that doesn't actually work, like grabbing a button when you see a hearse so you don't die next. (Hey! I'm still here! It worked!) As a regular rider on public transportation, I can tell you that if someone is determined to bomb a subway here, they won't have any more trouble than they did in London or Madrid - Patriot Act or no Patriot Act.

    Posted by frankob5 at 07/25/2005 @ 3:50pm

31. HHEMWM, You made a good point but, in my opinion, proper legality would be only if innocent people lives would be jeopardy or that innocent lives are at risk from a eminent threat. Even with that said. There still may be some things that could fall into a grey area. Nothing is perfect but, if the governmental authorities can present evidence after the fact, that could satisfy the court as to why a persons rights were infringed upon, (namely innocent lives may be in jeopardy or eminent threat), I think that would fall within proper legality. Should Timothy McVeigh's Miranda rights been denied? In my opinion, if there was knowledge that someone was on their way to blow up a building in a moving truck. I would have to say yes. After he blew the building up, I would have to say no.-And I only say this because he was an American citizen. I feel this way because I believe that innocent people who's lives may be at risk have rights to. Our government is bound by the Constitution to protect and defend its citizens from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Why should terrorist be protected by rights when they are trying to eliminate your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What if someone planted a bomb in your house to blow you up. There have been three bombings in six months and hundreds of people killed. The government knows someone is trying to blow a house up somewhere in your city but, all they know is that the bomb is set to go off in thirty minutes and the suspect is driving a red pickup with a remote detonator. There are 100 red pickups registered in your city. The government agents spot a red pickup a block from your house. The agents know legally they do not have enough probable cause to just pull the red truck over but, they know a bomb is set to go off in thirty minutes. They know that there is a one in one hundred chance that this could be the bomber. What do they do? Do they stop the red truck without proper legality or let him go? What would you prefer the agents do? In my opinion, this is why the Patriot Act is neccessary but like you said I'm sure this can be debated for a long time. I just hope no one else dies if it could have been prevented.

    Posted by redstateman at 07/25/2005 @ 7:07pm

32. The USA Patriot Act allows the government to spy on library records. I'm not a terrorist, but I still don't want the government snooping on what I check out of the library. After all, what does it even mean? If I check out Mein Kampf, does that make me a Nazi? Or simply someone interested in the lead-up to World War II? If I check out The Catcher in the Rye, does that make me an assassin? (John Lennon's assassin, Mark David Chapman, read the book.) Perhaps why some kid carrying the book wasn't allowed to fly soon after the USA Patriot Act was first passed.

    Indeed, the FBI has spent valuable time spying on the ACLU, environmental groups and other enemies of the Bush Administration. If they'd spent less time on them, they would've had more time to spend on checking out leads on the enemies of America.

    I really don't understand the need for the invasiveness of the USA Patriot Act. Is Al-Qaeda more dangerous than the German War Machine? Are the tools the government used to stamp out the Red Brigade insufficient to curb the Muslim Brotherhood? When Ronald Reagan, the Right's great hero, took on communism, he never set up gulags where prisoners are sent without trial, legal representation or access to the Red Cross. We've never before run secret prison camps where we don't even acknowledge that someone's locked up. That was the province on Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Why are we appropriating the methods of despots?

    Posted by Miss Ivonne at 07/25/2005 @ 7:54pm

33. Hey Frankob5, Why don't you ask Nick Berg's family about preventing terrorism? Here's a kid who tried to do what you think should have been done to prevent terrorism. All the thanks he got was his head cut off by a bunch of lunatics chanting G-d is great! The terrorist are guided by Wahabiism. So unless your willing to denouce your Judeo-Christian way of life, give up your lifestyle, chant death to the Zionist,learn how to shoot a AK-47 and pray to Allah five times a day, the only good you will be to them is dead. So as long as you want to prevent terrorism by sending them more money to buy weapons and more food to make sure Allah's warriors are well nurished, and more books to burn, be my guest. I'm sure you will recieve a heros welcome when they dance around with your head on a platter with the word "another sucker", written on your forehead. Also, as a medical professional you should have known that preventative medicine is usally done before the disease has begun. Once we eliminate this disease THEN maybe we can start applying preventative measures. Until then, get a clue!

    Posted by redstateman at 07/25/2005 @ 8:27pm

34. Redstateman, you offer a thoughtful reply. I think what I am getting at is we have to have protections that are in place BECAUSE of terror, because of risks to our safety. It might seem trite -splitting hairs even- to some, but it is just these moments of crisis that demonstrate how important miranda is. Just as we are not going to abandon the notion of "innocent until proven guilty", we also cannot abandon the rights of suspects because everyone can become a suspect if the authorities decide to make them such. I know that our government is a lesser enemy than the terrorists but it is very easy to justify all sorts of undemocratic behavior in the name of safety. After all, who does not want to be safe? This is a democracy, safety will always be a point of consensus, especially if the danger appears to be both clear and present.

    I share many of your concerns and there certainly is a need to be preemptive in stopping terrorist attacks. The question is, how do we distinguish between being preemptive and/or being grossly undemocratic? It is a free society we are defending after all.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/25/2005 @ 8:54pm

35. HHEMWM, Faith? It may not be the answer everyone can live with but, we are a Democratic Republic. We elect just about everyone, from the President to your local politicians. We elect them in the hope that they will do what is right and make good decisions for the citizens of this country. We have to have some faith in those we put in power. We have to have some faith that our government will only use its given power, (Patriot Act), only against those who seek to destroy us. Right or wrong, it may better our chances for survival. We also need checks and balances. Freedom of speech, your vote and the power of the press can be useful tools for weighing in on the checks and balances of power. Even civil disobedience can be a useful tool if such action is warranted. Remember, we are not privy to top secret intelligence, closed door meetings, and world political strategies. We elected someone else to do that job for us. They see things and know things we will never know. During WWII or any other conflict we have been in, there where numerous violations of civil liberties. We put faith in our government then. They did things to win. I'm sure allot was done that was on the fringes of the constitution. It didn't collapsed our democracy and our country survived. I really believe our country can survive this. If at anytime our government should fail and break its trust with the American people. We have the power through our vote, to change laws and replace those who broke that trust with someone else. I don't think there can ever be a perfect democracy. Were only human. I think we can only distinguish between being democratic or ungrossly so when we no longer have the ability to vote.

    Posted by redstateman at 07/25/2005 @ 11:33pm

36. Hey Frank, I suppose it was Bush's fault that Daniel Pearlman had his head handed to him as well. Ask his family how their Thanksgiving dinner went? And what about the Cole, Kenya, Lebanon, Philippines, and Saudi Arabia Bombings. The World Trade Center, (twice), over 3000 dead. I suppose that if it wasn't Bush's they be nibbling on a drumstick to. Maybe it was Bush who put Rush Limbaugh up to it? Maybe Bush did? Its Bush's fault Damn it! Its Bush's fault for everything! Its Bush's fault its hot today! You know Frank? Your crap says everything anyone needs to know about you. Do your research man! Schizophrenia can be treated. Raise your hands now and say "I need help". Because, you know Frank? Only someone as delusional as you would try to justify the actions of murderers by blaming someone else. Pathetic!

    Posted by redstateman at 07/26/2005 @ 12:59am

37. Redstateman, I think we can survive this too and a "can-do" approach is exactly what we need. But faith is not what I am concerned about, I think what is important is that we find ways of extending our laws as opposed to finding means to countermand them.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/26/2005 @ 08:06am

38. There seems to be a wide gulf in this discussion.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/26/2005 @ 09:54am

39. Redstateman - I read your reply, then had to go back to my post to see if, somehow, between the time I typed it and the time it was posted, someone had managed to hijack it and type in a completely different post over my name - since your incoherent babblings about sending money to feed and arm terrorists, shooting AK-47s and shouting "Death to Zionists" have absolutely no relation to what I actually wrote. But no, there was my original post, intact and unsullied. So I must conclude that you are functionally illiterate - except that you finally do get around to addressing one point I actually made, regarding disease prevention. Let's imagine a couple of scenarios. Let's say that my profligate Judeo-Christian way of life and dietary excesses have limited the blood-carrying capacity of my coronary arteries to the point that I suffer a mild myocardial infarction - a heart attack, in common terminology. After the procedure to re-open my arteries, which pathway will more likely lead to a happy outcome for me, in terms of a long life - continuing to live as I had, merrily consuming large quantities of fried clams, mashed potatoes made with heavy cream and lots of butter, allowing my weight to creep up until I could no longer see the tips of my shoes without craning my neck, vegetating in front of the television; or trying to PREVENT (there's that word again) further damage by modifying my lifestyle, moderating my diet somewhat, taking exercise occasionally, and watching my weight more closely? Or let's say I'm a smoker who has had the misfortune to develop lung cancer. After they cut out a hunk of my lung and poison me with chemotherapy and radiation, should I perhaps continue to smoke, or even increase the amount I smoke?? Or maybe my chances of PREVENTING a recurrence would be better if I quit smoking altogether. Point being, since you seem to have trouble with understanding the written word, both treatment AND prevention are necessary in medicine. But just as one does not treat coronary artery disease by taking measures that increase the level of cholesterol in the body, one should not treat the "disease" of terrorism by increasing the number of terrorists in the world, which by any measure is what is happening with the current "treatment" being applied by the Bush administration.

    By the way - exactly what is a "Judeo-Christian way of life?" And you are making the assumption that I am one or the other (Jew or Christian) when in fact I am neither. I do not subscribe to any religion or other superstition, preferring to be labeled a secular humanist if anything.

    Posted by frankob5 at 07/26/2005 @ 10:01am

40. Hi readers, sorry this post has remained up so long. I've been travelling the past week. Regular posts will resume tomorrow.

    Posted by Ari Berman at 07/26/2005 @ 12:03pm

41. HHEMWM, Yea, The flood gates are wide open. For the rest of you guys. Take it easy. I'll get to each of you eventually. Its just that I would rather spend my time having a decent dialogue withh HH first. HH, I understand your concerns but, are you suggesting that we should extend our laws regardless of the consequences? Should preservation of human life take precedence over the law or should the law take precedence over human life? Do we extend the law even if it means innocent people could die or do we modify the law in the hope that it will prevent the lost of life. Whatever we do someone is going to lose some, if not all of their rights. I really don't believe we can extend the law without someone elses rights being destroyed. Its like robbing Peter to pay Paul while trying to keep the lid on Pandora's Box. Its a tough one. I have to get going so I'll talk to you later. Take it easy-Red

    Posted by redstateman at 07/26/2005 @ 12:08pm

42. Frankgrits, Wasn't OBL in a cave when the planes flew into the WTC? You can play this little shell game all you want. Once again you have tried to justify the acts of terrorist by blaming someone else. ie. Bush. Have a nice life.

    Posted by redstateman at 07/26/2005 @ 12:19pm

43. FrankOB5, I have to run. I'll try to respond to you when I have more time. Later!

    Posted by redstateman at 07/26/2005 @ 12:20pm

44. Red, I am thinking about the problem of legality. It is difficult to pursue justice if we are acting in a legal vacuum. I think of the problem of international law and how the United States is reluctant to see its leaders and institutions held accountable to a tribunal filled with nations whose principles of government and justice differ dramatically from our own. And I am sympathetic to this problem; legality and justice are very difficult issues and we have to determine how our pursuit of criminals/terrorists can be squared with our justice system.

    I agree that we have to take preventive measures to prevent large losses of life. Where I think things become fuzzy is over the question of how we go about detaining people and under what charge. Are we to hold people for indefinite periods of time without charge? When is this appropriate versus inappropriate? Do we only do this with "enemy combatants"? Can American citizens be enemy combatants? What about citizens who appear to have personal links to members of terrorist organizations? How do we go about collecting our information? Is torture appropriate if it appears to be capable of producing information expeditiously?

    So, in essence, I am not saying that we extend our laws to include non-citizens, I am more interested in how we define our laws and how we distinguish between citizens versus non-citizens. In my mind, this distinction is not only of central concern but it also suggests that once certain procedures are put into place to handle non-citizens the potential for a "spill over" is certainly there. The U.K. had no problem holding suspected IRA terrorists without charge during the heyday of IRA bombings and, as a result, some English citizens found themselves deprived of even there basic rights. This could happen here too, that is why definitions are of paramount importance.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/26/2005 @ 1:14pm

45. On the subject of Norm Coleman, it should be noted that when he was elected, he lost the Twin Cities which are the two places in Minneapolis that knew him best. Now that the rest of MN knows him better, maybe we'll be rid of him the next time around.

    Posted by danmiller at 07/26/2005 @ 1:59pm

46. FrankOB5, You think that all we have to do to eliminate terrorism is to be nice, help them with their poverty issues, educate them, and give them a sense of hope. Somehow in your twisted mind; that if we do all these things, the terrorist are going to give up and go home. And you've got the nerve to call me an illiterate! Give me a break! You haven't a clue about who the terrorist are and what their doctrine is all about. To you, its just Bush's fault! Just like Frankgrits, you progressive liberals try to justify cold blooded murder by shifting the blame to someone else (Bush)! Have you ever once considered that its people like you who justify their cause by blaming Bush for everything, are some of the best recruitment tools these terrorist have. And you wonder why terrorism is up! I said it once and I'll say it again. Maybe this time you can take your blind hatred of Bush and set it aside long enough to learn the truth about the terrorism we face. I'm not going to write a thesis here. All your going get is the condensed version . If you want more, go read a book. To start, these terrorist stem from a part of Islam known as Wahabi. The Wahabiist want to take Islam back to the "golden age of Islam". Think of the Taliban rule throughout the world and you will understand what they want. To a Wahabiist, if you do not submit to their laws and do not have their belief's. Then the only option for you is death. Its that simple. It is not negotiable. To them, there is no other way. Its either their way, or the highway of death for you my friend. Now all your friendly little mullahs know that the majority of the world is not just going to drop all their western values, beliefs and lifstyles to become a good Wahabiist. So as a good Muslim, it is their duty to kill all the Zionist, Judeo-Christians, (Secular Humanist), and any other person they deem unfit. If a few of them manage to get themselves killed trying to kill you. Then praise Allah! They are going to get first class tickets to heaven and seventeen virgins. So FrankOB5, You can send them all the money in the world. Give them food, shelter and a education. You can talk diplomacy. You can sit around the campfire with them and sing Kumbuya. You can talk about clogged arteries and majic buttons. You can even talk about hating Bush with them. You can talk till your blue in the face But, unless your willing to join them. They are still going to be determined as ever to kill you. Is that clear enough for you?

    Posted by redstateman at 07/26/2005 @ 8:16pm

47. HHEMWM, What I gather from the Patriot Act, under Section 236A, (Mandatory Detention of Suspected Terrorist; Habeas Corpus; Judical Review) there are definitions pertaining to detention of suspected alien terrorist. Every six months the attorney general submits reports to the Judiciary Committees in the House and Senate to determine if the suspected alien terrorist should be certified again or let go. Habeas Corpus proceedings can be initiated by application to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, or any other District Court having jurisdiction. There was nothing I could find in this provision that applies to American citizens. HH, I'm not a attorney but from what I have read, the Patriot Act does define detention proceedings for aliens. Enemy combatants are what they are. They do not fall within the Geneva convention and are treated as if they are prisoners of war. During WWII we held thousands of POW's until the war was over. I'm okay with holding enemy combatants until this war is over. I have seen nothing to lead me to believe this applies to American citizens. Correct me if I'm wrong but, believe the courts have already decided that American citizens shall have their day in court? Listen I have to run again. I wish I had more time to elaborate. Let me know if I'm missing something here. Take Care-Red

    Posted by redstateman at 07/27/2005 @ 09:34am

48. Redstateman - You are obviously so blindly loyal to Bush the man that you cannot see the harm his policies are doing to the efforts to eliminate terrorism. I am familiar with the Wahabi branch of Islam and its doctrines. Religious doctrines have come and gone throughout history, rising and falling in popularity based on the circumstances of the times. Currently this odious branch of Islam is thriving because it finds a receptive audience among the masses of people looking for something better than the life they currently lead. It will wither when the people currently susceptible to its blandishments have actual lives that they feel are not so horrible and hopeless that they have to trust in some doctrine that gives a vague promise of a better existence after they are dead. You don't, or won't, see it that way. So be it. History will determine which of us is correct.

    As to some of the other things you wrote. I called you an illiterate, actually a functional illiterate, with tongue firmly planted in cheek because you so badly misread what I wrote. I most certainly do NOT "justify cold-blooded murder", and I defy you to point out anything I wrote to that effect. Understanding why a certain action occurs is not the same as justifying that action. For example, if I caught you in bed with my wife, and shot you dead, it would certainly be pointed out by the prosecutor that the reason I shot you was that you were in bed with my wife. But neither he nor the judge and jury would view that as a justification of my action - nor should they. I deplore terrorism, as I deplore senseless death and violence of any kind. But in any conflict, a wise general should know his enemy - what motivates him, what makes him tick. That is why it is so maddening to hear Bush's asinine assertion that "they hate us because they hate our freedom". What a reeking pile of rubbish! The fight against the terrorists will go much better once we acknowledge and address their true motives rather than hiding behind some simplistic load of crap that anyone with an ounce of sense can see for what it is.

    You also state that I hate Bush and blame him for terrorism. Let me make this perfectly clear. I don't know Bush personally. Therefore, I don't hate him. I think he is a shallow, self-centered, pompous, posturing fratboy with all the intellectual curiosity of a turnip; and that his policies, while good for his corporate cronies, are ruinous for the rest of the nation and the world. I hate everything he stands for. If I knew him better, on a personal basis, I might hate his cowardly, chicken-hawk guts. Or I might think he's a great guy who just happens to be an idiot. As to blaming him for terrorism - no. Terrorism has been around for centuries, and the current brand of Arab terrorism goes back quite some time before anyone had even heard of G.W. Bush. Do I blame him for making things worse? Oh yes, most certainly. The Iraq war is the best recruitment tool for the cause that has come along in years. And by the way - do you SERIOUSLY believe that criticism of Bush and his policies by me and those who believe as I do serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists??? If so, you are so completely, hopelessly clueless as to make further discussion of this issue fruitless - so this will be my last word on the subject.

    Posted by frankob5 at 07/27/2005 @ 09:57am

49. "do you SERIOUSLY believe that criticism of Bush and his policies by me and those who believe as I do serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists???" Hey Frank, Why don't you ask the Vietnamese how well it works? Or would that be too hopeless and clueless for you? Have a nice life.

    Posted by redstateman at 07/27/2005 @ 6:58pm