The Most Valuable Progressives of 2005

It is hard to complain about a year that began with George Bush bragging about spending the "political capital" he felt he had earned with his dubious reelection and ended with the president drowning in the Nixonian depths of public disapproval.

But the circumstance didn't just get better.

A handful of elected officials, activist groups and courageous citizens bent the arc of history toward justice.

Here are this one columnist's picks for the Most Valuable Progressives of 2005:

* MVP -- U.S. Senate:

This is an easy category. While California Democrat Barbara Boxer deserves credit for refusing to go along with the certification of the dubious presidential election results from Ohio, and Arizona Republican John McCain merits praise for forcing the administration to back down from its pro-torture stance, there's no question that Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold was the essential senator of 2005. He was the first member of the chamber to call for a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq -- a stance that initially was ridiculed but ultimately drew support from many of Feingold's fellow Democrats and even a few Republicans. And he ended the year by forging a bipartisan coalition that beat back the Bush administration's demand for the long-term extension of the Patriot Act, scoring one of the most significant wins for civil liberties that Congress has seen in years.

* MVP -- U.S. House:

There are plenty of members of the House who deserve credit for standing up to the administration on critical issues -- from Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown, who led the fight against Central American Free Trade Agreement, to Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders, who was the point man in the battle to fix the Patriot Act, to North Carolina Republican Walter Jones, who courageously broke with the administration to oppose the war. And, of course, there was Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha, the decorated Vietnam veteran who forced the House to get serious about the war he called for a speedy withdrawal. But the essential member of the House in 2005 was Michigan Democrat John Conyers, the ranking member of his party on the Judiciary Committee. No one used their bully pulpit better in 2005 than Conyers, who gathered damning information about electoral irregularities in the 2004 Ohio presidential voting and then led the challenge to the certification of the results, held hearings on the Downing Street Memo's revelations regarding the Bush administration's doctoring of pre-war intelligence, and ended the year by moving resolutions to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney for lying to Congress and the American people -- and to set up a committee to examine the issue of impeachment.

* MVP -- Executive Branch:

Yes, there was one. It's Lawrence B. Wilkerson, the retired U.S. Army colonel who served as chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell until Powell exited the State Department in January, 2005. After leaving his position, Wilkerson began revealing the dark secrets of the Bush-Cheney interregnum, telling a New America Foundation gathering in October that during his years in the administration: "What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made." Wilkerson warned that, with "a president who is not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either," the country is headed in an exceptionally dangerous direction. "I would say that we have courted disaster, in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran, generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita and I could go on back, we haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time," Wilkerson explained. "And if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence." That is truth telling of a quality and a scope all too rarely witnessed in the Washington of Bush and Cheney.

* MVP -- Law Enforcement Branch:

While Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald deserved all the headlines and the credit he got for indicting I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the now former chief-of-staff for Vice President Dick Cheney and a key player in faking up the "case" for war with Iraq, Fitzgerald's work is just beginning. His most important indictments are yet to come. The prosecutor who took the greatest risks and who secured the most consequential indictment of 2005 was Travis County, Texas, District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who brought down House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The man who ran Congress for most of the Bush years has not been convicted -- yet -- but DeLay was forced to step down as majority leader and no one who watches Washington thinks he will ever regain that position. Earle got his man, and began the long process of cleansing a Congress that, after all these years of being run by a pest-control specialist, is in serious need of fumigation.

* MVP -- Citizen Branch:

In August, when Democrats leaders in Washington were still talking about working with the Bush administration on Iraq -- effectively leaving Americans who were growing increasingly ill-at-ease about the war without a voice in the chambers of power -- the mother of a slain soldier followed Bush to his Crawford, Texas, ranchette and asked him to take a few minutes away from his month-long vacation to talk about the quagmire. Cindy Sheehan put the issue of the war back at the forefront of the national agenda, forcing even the dysfunctional White House press corps to start covering dissenters and getting D.C. Democrats to wake up to the reality that the American people had lost faith in the president and his military misadventure.

* MVP -- Watchdog Branch:

The media did a slightly better job of monitoring political wrongdoing in 2005 than it did during the first four years of the Bush-Cheney presidency -- when it actually would have mattered. But the real work of exposing the misdeeds of the administration is still being done by activist groups. And the most inspired of these in 2005 was After Downing Street, the coalition of groups that describes itself as "working to expose the lies that launched the war and to hold accountable its architects, including through censure and impeachment." In conjunction with Progressive Democrats of America, the able activist group that seeks to create an actual opposition party in America, After Downing Street is pushing the political envelope in exactly the direction it needs to go. Check out their website at www.afterdowningstreet.org website and keep ahead of the action in 2006.

Comments (329)

1. US SENATE?....Barbara Boxer's campaign for an Ohio recount garnered her....ZERO...zip...nada...support from her fellow Senators, not even any other Democrats (including beloved Russ Feingold). And speaking of the Man from Wisconsin, any challenge to the Patriot Act in the US Supreme Court, will meet with his best buddy, John Roberts.

   US House?...We forget the 45 Dems who went along with the Patriot Act extension as is? And how many OTHER examples where there's ONE "John Murtha" for every 20-30 "Democrats voting with the Republicnas"?

   EXEC BRANCH?....Larry Wilkerson joins the ranks of Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke...and hopefully for him, unlike those guys, Air America and "The Nation" will still return HIS phone calls after his "three weeks of fame" are over.

   LAW ENFORCEMENT?....Wasn't Fitzgerald supposed to "take out Rove" the FIRST time around?

   CITIZEN BRANCH?....Cindy? Anybody but "The Nation" and half of Air America still take her seriously, especially after her anti-Israel and "terrorists=freedom fighters" comments?

   WATCHDOGS?....an impeachment website?

   Posted by Mask at 12/28/2005 @ 09:09am

2. I will admit, MASK, that "MVP" is the wrong award to be given for many of these. As in sports, we have to look at the numbers and how well each of the recipients' teams did in order to determine "value".

   Perhaps "Unsung Heroes"? Or "People who gave it that old college try"? Or "The Don Quixote Award"?

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 09:23am

3. TJ, right....

   pointing to Murtha, and ignoring the other Dems is like saying how great it was that Babe Ruth hit 40 homeruns in a season, that the Yankees lost twenty-seven games and blew the pennent.

   Posted by Mask at 12/28/2005 @ 09:48am

4. I'm imagining the awards banquet. Let's see...who would be the MC? George McGovern, perhaps? As he reads each category and the nominees, the tension builds, the crowd (small crowd, but still a crowd) grows silent, and the winner is announced. Bruce Springsteen and Michael Stipe sing a little ditty as the winner makes his/her way to the podium. And then the thank you speech, in which the award winner tells the crowd of his/her best efforts to stem the tide, though his/her best efforts turned out to be for naught. I envision a lot of crying and consoling.

   It really was a pretty bad year for everyone all around. Why don't we just postpone the banquet until next year when we can celebrate the "Who Survived the 2006 Election" award winners?

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 10:02am

5. I suspect that the real heroes of progressive politics in the year 2005 are names we have yet to hear, (fortunately). All this fuss and bother in front of the cameras is death to any real creative thought on the so-called left. Public attention is important, but not decisive. What's more important is the stuff going on below the media radar, the networks of communities that are slowly asserting themselves, small elections, community forums and board votes, etc.

   Posted by Legba at 12/28/2005 @ 10:46am

6. Mask - your contrarians views are getting very predictable. This post highlights individuals who tried to make a difference, from a progressive point of view. You pointing to "other Democrats" who did not take their lead does little to diminish their personal efforts.

   As for Wilkerson, Clarke, O'Neill, they are at least speaking out. You attempt to marginalize them simply by saying it is so. Just because they are not booked on "Meet the Press" every week does not diminish their efforts. Press attention is nice, but does not tell the whole story. C'mon you must admit that NOBODY on the outside stays in the spotlight for an extended amount of time. When was the last time you saw Kenneth Pollack discussing his (flawed) justifications for invading Iraq?

   As for Cindy Sheehan, you have to do better than slap a fringe label on her. ANY anti-war rally that she appears at consistently outdraws pro-war gatherings. The fact that Sheehan is still all over the MSM belies your notion that she is fringe and not taken seriously. Do a Google-News search - 1630 hits.

   Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 11:27am

7. Mask,

   If you don't work for the Repub's PR and marketing campaign, you should.

   But your points don't make much sense here.

   Posted by jkrogman at 12/28/2005 @ 11:30am

8. Where do you even begin when you read such an audacious article like this????

   "It is hard to complain about a year that began with George Bush bragging about spending the "political capital" he felt he had earned with his dubious reelection and ended with the president drowning in the Nixonian depths of public disapproval."

   This paragraph is ridiculous!!! To compare Bush's okay on secret spying to Nixon's Water Gate scandal is hilarious. First of all ladies and gentleman we live in a different country than 20 years ago (you liberals should know this your constantly pointing it out). We have citizens to protect and lives to preserve and unless we do something like the patriot act authorized we could end up having another 9-11 and I HOPE that is not what you all want. So the next time you lay your head down on your pillow and sleep soundly.....thank God that we have a President that cares about preserving american lives especially those of you that bash him.

   Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 11:32am

9. TruetoAmerica,

   "thank God that we have a President"

   I'm just curious would that be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or the Sun God, or Buhdda or what God would that be that we Americans should be thanking?

   Thanks for the clarification...

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/28/2005 @ 11:40am

10. nottrue,:"thank God that we have a President that cares about preserving american lives especially those of you that bash him.

    this is rich, Bush preserving the lives of those that bash him, hahaha

    and which god would that be? Mars?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2005 @ 11:42am

11. Thanks for playing TrueToAmerica. I suggest you reread the paragraph - it discusses Bush's disapproval. Take your bullshit scare tactics elsewhere, few people here fall for it. Not even the Patriot Act authorizes what Bush is doing - that's the issue slick. He has admitted that he is violating the law (he excuses the conduct citing the "war on terror"). Why do you think it was not until 2004 that Bush started covering his tracks, if what he was doing was so righteous? Bush can protect American citizens without trampling on the 4th Amendment - GET A WARRANT - it ain't too hard, although Bush has been turned down for more secret warrants than any other recent president (hmmm . . . you think he is abusing it?)

    You need to get a clue. We are a nation of laws.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 11:43am

12. TRUETOAMERICA,

    Finally someone has assumed the ultimate in blogging names. The rest of us can now sit back and learn.

    "We have citizens to protect and lives to preserve and unless we do something like the patriot act authorized we could end up having another 9-11 and I HOPE that is not you all want."

    Speaking as a probable member of "you all" [please remember that "you" is the most flexible of pronouns, used interchangeably as a singular and plural word], I can assure you that we all do not want another 9/11. If you'd like to teach us all how "something like the patriot act" is protecting us from another 9/11, I can also assure you that we all are thirsty for your truth.

    Nowhere that I can find does Nichols compare Bush's actions to Nixon's Watergate scandal. He only discusses Bush's lack of public support in terms of Nixon's low approval ratings. Someone interested in spelling out the truth might have noticed this.

    Also, since Watergate took place over 30 years ago, I am not sure what you mean when you compare now to twenty years ago. Of course, it is a different world. Heck, twenty years ago no one had heard of Hillary Duff, no one owned an X-Box 360, and George W. Bush was one of a number of underachieving sons of our Veep.

    Preserving American lives. Well. Hmm. What shall we say if the number of dead in Iraq/Afghanistan exceeds the number dead from 9/11. We've long passed the halfway mark and it is hard to detect in what way we are better off for the loss of these soldiers (not to mention non-soldiers). Perhaps, again, there is a truth in this that I am unaware of.

    Until we all are aware of this truth, we will continue to bash this President.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 11:46am

13. we also live in a different country from 200 years ago, yet despite what Bush seems to think, we still swear to defend the constitution, written over 200 years ago. right and wrong do not change in 20 years, not in 200 and not in 2000 years. the rule of law has not changed. that is the most absurd point the right mindlessly keeps hammering: that 19 guys with boxcutters and a plan, and 3000 dead americans have changed everything. the big lie, and no most posters here do not buy it, so peddle your shoddy wares elsewhere Mr. not true. america is better than that.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2005 @ 11:47am

14. Hman,

    "You need to get a clue. We are a nation of laws."

    Hmmm, interesting comment since you liberals seem to always be changing the laws, I mean reinterpreting the laws, I mean misquoting the laws, I mean......yeah, you get the picture!

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 11:51am

15. TruetoAmerica:

    The way you treat the 4th Amendment is pure NIMBY. Yes, people like you are real tight with circumventing the 4th Amendment when you are home cozy in your bed, and it is only other people that have to suffer unreasonable searches. It's not until YOU are the target of an unlawful search by dozens of federal agents that you would cry about YOUR individual rights. I guess if the feds (without a warrant) had you figured out all wrong, busted in your door, rifled through your belongings, took you to an undisclosed location and held you for a few weeks, it would be no big deal. You are willing to make that sacrifice? You know what you would do first? - you'd call a lawyer - to what? - protect your individual rights. After your release, the first thing you would do would find yourself a plaintiff's attorney and start judge shopping.

    You are hardly true to America.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 11:57am

16. Hman,

    "You need to get a clue. We are a nation of laws."

    Adding to my last blog....

    Please define this one for me.....and oh has it changed in the last 20 OR 30 YEARS?

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    Merry Christmas....I mean Happy Holidays....I don't want to offend anyone.

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 11:59am

17. "...you liberals seem to always be changing the laws, I mean reinterpreting the laws, I mean misquoting the laws..."

    So, since we have had Republicans in control of the fed. govt. for the last four-plus years, I guess we would be unable to find any changes in the law, right? So, then, please explain your beloved Patriot Act--the work of liberals, or is this simply an accurate restating of what had been existing law?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 11:59am

18. Was "Happy Holidays" recently put into law? By whom?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 12:01pm

19. Truetoamerica,

    I wouldn't worry too much about Johanne, TJB, Hman and the other left leaning whacko liberals that hang out on the nation.

    They are harmless, very much like the whining nerd demanding that they get the "rights" and respect that are due them.

    You know, the ones that most kids either ignore, punch, or steal lunch from in school.

    These are the guys that chastise me because I have my kids play "competitive" sports like football because in their mind we are "all equal" and should get a long, in their perfect world there are no "winners" and "losers" and by playing team sports like football kids are learning competition and that winning is important and these are "bad things".

    These are the people that would sacrifice the norms, wants and needs of thousands of people because in their twisted interpretation those wants and needs of the thousands somehow denigrate one or two people whose "rights" are some how being trampled.

    These are the same people who are far more worried about the fair and just treatment and the "rights" due Saddam than they are concerned with the rights of the thousands of people Saddam killed or tortured.

    These are the same people who are more concerned with the "rights" of the serial murderer in prison than they are the rights, and feelings of those he murdered or the families of those that were murdered.

    These are the same people who like to marginalize conservative Christians because we marginalize Muslim terrorists.

    The hypocrisy coming from their mouths is unbelievable.

    Anyway, I agree with you, as does the majority of Americans.

    The only people who need to fear government wiretapping are those with something to hide. The government can come wire tap my house anytime they would like, as I have nothing to hide.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/28/2005 @ 12:01pm

20. LOL - you got it backwards slick. Bush and his supporters are the ones doing the legal jujitsu in this case. Tell me, which law is Bush following to the letter? You can only support what Bush is doing by a creative interpretation of the laws - exactly what Bush is trying to do.

    More conservative bullshit. What do you think conservatives do every time they push for more restrictions on abortion? Bring a lawsuit in the Schiavo case? Use the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment as the basis for Bush v. Gore? You want to talk about liberals recasting laws? Both sides seek to interpret laws.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 12:04pm

21. Name me one law in the last 20 or 30 years that prohibits an individual's free excercise of religion. Just one.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 12:06pm

22. Bullshit Todd.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 12:07pm

23. TJ,

    "...you liberals seem to always be changing the laws, I mean reinterpreting the laws, I mean misquoting the laws..."

    So, since we have had Republicans in control of the fed. govt. for the last four-plus years, I guess we would be unable to find any changes in the law, right? So, then, please explain your beloved Patriot Act--the work of liberals, or is this simply an accurate restating of what had been existing law?"

    I dont' understand what all the fuss is about???

    Help me out here...did the Dems vote in support of the Patriot Act and the Iraq War?

    Or now is that a misquote, reinterpretation, or misrepresentation?

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 12:07pm

24. Hman,

    "Name me one law in the last 20 or 30 years that prohibits an individual's free excercise of religion. Just one."

    Great point. Why change a law when you can reinterpret it or misquote it?

    If you want to find that happening look at the 9th Circuit Court in California, or the removal of the 10 commandments from parks and courthouses or calling a Christmas Tree a Holiday Tree, etc...

    Should I list some more?

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 12:19pm

25. TRUE,

    You're going to have to state things a little more clearly and consistently if you're going to be involved in a discussion. You indicated that liberals are changing/reinterpreting/misquoting the laws. Voting for a law is not the same as writing the law. It seems clear to me that more than one law has been changed/reinterpreted/misquoted during Bush II. I am at a loss to find out how the Dems were able to do this with the GOP in firm control of Congress and the White House.

    I was merely pointing out that your claim that liberals alter the law is ignorant of the fact that conservatives have been running the show and have dramatically shifted the course of this country. You may like the shift, but you cannot deny it.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 12:20pm

26. You know, sometimes this business of how the war is protecting us from terrorism reminds me of that old joke about the boy who snaps his fingers to keep away the tigers. There are no tigers for thousands of miles, right? So it must be working.

    Posted by Legba at 12/28/2005 @ 12:20pm

27. "...you liberals seem to always be changing the laws, I mean reinterpreting the laws, I mean misquoting the laws..."

    ...as opposed to just ignoring them?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 12/28/2005 @ 12:26pm

28. Legba

    Oh...snap...wow no tigers here either. Damn, I feel safer already!

    ha-ha-ha-ha....good one my friend

    Posted by leftofcenter at 12/28/2005 @ 12:28pm

29. Which one of the Americas are you true to, by the way? My wife's family is from Puerto Rico. Are you Puerto Rican?

    Posted by Legba at 12/28/2005 @ 12:28pm

30. I wonder if TRUETOAMERICA could come up with his 2005 MVP list.

    We know the major contenders for the big awards, but I wonder if there are any dark horses in the race. And I'll try to refrain from indicating that the "V" in "MVP" might actually stand for "Vile". Damn! I couldn't stop myself. Outside of the White House, Congress, and Fox News, are there any candidates? With all that has been accomplished this year, there are surely more valuable conservatives than you can shake a stick at.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 12:28pm

31. My MVP's.......

    1. Jesus 2. Don Rumsfield 3. Gen. Myers 4. All of our service men and women who are killing terrorists 5. Alberto Gonzales 6. G.W. Bush 7. James Dobson 8. Ted Haggard 9. Joel Osteen 10. All of the stores that abandoned "Happy Holidays" and went back to "Merry Christmas" no matter how many people where offended after they started realizing how many Christians who are also consumers they were loosing and thus were loosing profits.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/28/2005 @ 12:40pm

32. This could just be me, Todd, but your list might be good for "Best Hair". I mean, just about all of these guys have really awesome heads of hair. If they could just do something with the gray stuff below the scalp and skull...

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 1:00pm

33. TruetoAmerica, you have not even listed one, so your list is empty. Nothing you cite has anything to do with prohibiting an INDIVIDUAL'S free exercise of religion. Your examples relate to the establishment clause; the 9th Circuit and any other courts that rule similarly are following the 1st Amendment to the letter and are being consistent with the Framer's intent. Advocates who argue that those religious structures should be intertwined with the government or public resources, only get there through creative interpretation of laws (citing to non-legal justifications like the U.S. was founded on principles of Christianity, etc.), which (hypocritically) you purport to loathe.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 1:26pm

34. Todd,

    I do not believe for a second that you would have no problem being bugged by the government.

    But, out of curiosity, where DO you draw the line when it comes to the sacrifices you will make for the "War of Terror?" Would you not mind being unlawfully detained without a warrant, without access to counsel, held in an undisclosed location? What about a little torture? I mean, you haven't done anything wrong, so if the government makes a mistake it is no big deal, right?

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 1:29pm

35. BTW Todd,

    Just because YOU do not have a problem if the government invades YOUR privacy, does not mean I have to submit to the same.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 1:38pm

36. Absolutely, Todd. All spiritual teachings should be propagated through the economy, supply and demand, invisible hands, etc. As long as people are getting paid, they'll worship correctly. That ought to really build the faith, not to mention another legion of phonies who tell you what you want to hear. Good thinking. Merry Christmas.

    Posted by Legba at 12/28/2005 @ 1:43pm

37. Hman,

    "Would you not mind being unlawfully detained without a warrant, without access to counsel, held in an undisclosed location? What about a little torture? I mean, you haven't done anything wrong, so if the government makes a mistake it is no big deal, right?"

    I travel for my job requirements regularly so I have been detained and searched (albeit I was not strip searched) at the airport multiple times due to the new restrictions on air travel.

    I have had my bags and my laptop confiscated and searched.

    So I guess to answer your question, I'm fine with being detained and searched, I would probably draw the line at torture for me personally. However I bet you and I differ in respect that I'm totally fine and O.K. with having different sets of restrictions and treatment assigned to different sets of people.

    Just how many of the guys on board the air planes that flew into buildings in New York on Nov. 11th were old white American Christian dudes like me anyway?

    I'll answer that question for you, ZERO.

    Therefore I have no problem with racial, ethnic and/or religious profiling. My guess is that you find that stance offensive.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/28/2005 @ 2:07pm

38. Legba,

    "Merry Christmas."

    That's all I wanted to hear = )

    Merry Christmas to you too!

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/28/2005 @ 2:08pm

39. My appologies, I said November 11th...

    The answer was ZERO.... on November 11th...

    It was the WRONG DAY.

    I meant of course Sept. 11th.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/28/2005 @ 2:14pm

40. Sigh.

    Posted by Legba at 12/28/2005 @ 2:31pm

41. You know, sometimes this business of how the war is protecting us from terrorism reminds me of that old joke about the boy who snaps his fingers to keep away the tigers. There are no tigers for thousands of miles, right? So it must be working.

    Posted by LEGBA 12/28/2005 @ 12:20am

    Legba, so the fact that we had Germans infiltrate the US during WWII, that the Communists brought in many spies during the Cold War, and that 19 dead hijackers and 1 currently in prison who were here to kill Americans, somehow doesn't contradict your little tiger story?

    I respect your intelligence, but that one falls below your standards.

    Of course your little note of sarcasm would be appropriate if one believes that there are not people thousands of miles away that would like to come here and kill Americans.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 2:45pm

42. Hman,

    "TruetoAmerica, you have not even listed one, so your list is empty. Nothing you cite has anything to do with prohibiting an INDIVIDUAL'S free exercise of religion. Your examples relate to the establishment clause; the 9th Circuit and any other courts that rule similarly are following the 1st Amendment to the letter and are being consistent with the Framer's intent. Advocates who argue that those religious structures should be intertwined with the government or public resources, only get there through creative interpretation of laws (citing to non-legal justifications like the U.S. was founded on principles of Christianity, etc.), which (hypocritically) you purport to loathe."

    Could you explain to me the "establishment clause" that you are referring to?

    Ohhhh, "Separation of Church and State"........yes another misinterpretation....and the list goes on.

    I wonder....since you "understand" the framers intent....do you know what their spiritual beliefs and moral convictions were?

    Have you read any of their other writings? If not how could you draw and understand any such conclusions about intent? Roughly 95% of them were Christians and many of them were pastors, bible school graduates, very involved in their local churches, etc....

    They cared deeply about their religious beliefs and made sure that the constitution protected them. That is why we have the first amendment. Not to set up a denominational rule but to encourage people to worship God freely. But it was clear by their "intent" for them to worship the God of the Bible. Not that I am going to persecute anyone for their religious beliefs, but if that is what our Government was founded on then that is what it was founded on period. That does not change the fact that someone living in this country could worship who ever they would like....all that I am saying is we were set up as a Christian country with freedom to worship who ever you would like. In other countries my fellow christians are not so lucky...they are killed and martyred for their religious beliefs.

    James Madison who is often quoted as the foremost authority on the bill of rights voted against it. Yet his often back and forth views are quoted.

    Here is a great link for you http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=70

    God Bless You!!

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 2:52pm

43. Nice diversion TruetoAmerica,

    I will wait for you to cite me an example of any laws prohibiting an individual's free excercise of religion, since that was your initial point.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 3:02pm

44. Then I will be happy to address your misinterpretaion of the Establishment Clause.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 3:03pm

45. ".....thank God that we have a President that cares about preserving american lives especially those of you that bash him."

    I guess this statement is true if one excludes the nearly 2200 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq thus far and the unknown number of lives that will be lost in a future terrorist attack on the nation that Bush's war has made more likely. Instead of using American resources to fight true terrorists, Bush has wasted them in Iraq where there were none before we arrived. How exactly will that preserve American lives? Better tune in Rush Limbaugh to find the answer, because it cannot be found in an examination of the facts.

    Posted by robgo2 at 12/28/2005 @ 3:05pm

46. Todd, my latter point stands. Just because you say certain things are fine for you personally does not mean the rest have to accept violations of the 4th Amendment.

    As for racial profiling - Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were some average-looking white Christian dudes too.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 3:07pm

47. Legba,

    You know, sometimes this business of how the war is protecting us from terrorism reminds me of that old joke about the boy who snaps his fingers to keep away the tigers. There are no tigers for thousands of miles, right? So it must be working.

    Posted by LEGBA 12/28/2005 @ 12:20am

    You obviously did not watch the interview the other night on Fox with 2 ex-muslims extremists that had been running under ground terrorist camps and training camps in the U.S. the last 20 some years. I know you think I am way off based here but I don't want to see another 9-11 and pardon me if I am wrong but were those guys living several thousand miles away??? Maybe we were not snapping our fingers hard enough????

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 3:08pm

48. "Nice diversion TruetoAmerica,

    I will wait for you to cite me an example of any laws prohibiting an individual's free excercise of religion, since that was your initial point.

    Posted by HMAN23 12/28/2005 @ 3:02pm"

    I believe that was not my point.....I believe I asked you the question first that you never responded to. You answer mine and then I will answer yours :) BTW my point was not just regarding changing the law...I believe I also included reinterpretation and misquoted....thanks!

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    Please define this one for me.....and oh has it changed in the last 20 OR 30 YEARS?"

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 3:17pm

49. Todd, my latter point stands. Just because you say certain things are fine for you personally does not mean the rest have to accept violations of the 4th Amendment.

    Posted by HMAN23 12/28/2005 @ 3:07pm

    Of course that also does not mean HM that just because you and other liberals view the presidents actions as violations makes them illegal. See my post on KVH:

    http://tinyurl.co.uk/50od [url]

    Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 3:21pm

50. ".....thank God that we have a President that cares about preserving american lives especially those of you that bash him."

    I guess this statement is true if one excludes the nearly 2200 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq thus far and the unknown number of lives that will be lost in a future terrorist attack on the nation that Bush's war has made more likely. Instead of using American resources to fight true terrorists, Bush has wasted them in Iraq where there were none before we arrived. How exactly will that preserve American lives? Better tune in Rush Limbaugh to find the answer, because it cannot be found in an examination of the facts.

    Posted by ROBGO2 12/28/2005 @ 3:05pm

    I love how you call it Bush's war when nearly every Dem supported the war until they realized it was causing Bush's ratings to go through the roof and then the bashing began!!!! Except for Liebermann who has the courage to stand up to his party in this regard.

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 3:22pm

51. FYI, LL,

    I have been unable to access your recent url links.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 3:23pm

52. Hman,

    "As for racial profiling - Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were some average-looking white Christian dudes too."

    Right..

    And those 2 plus the whacko in Waco would make 3, add to them Jim Jones from the seventies and you would be up to 4.....

    Vs. how many Muslim terrorists have done damage to civilians going back to perhaps the first trade center bombing?

    My guess would be the number would be in the hundreds of thousands if not millions.

    So if we have 5 white Christian dudes who were terrorist nut cakes OR hundreds of thousands of Muslim terrorists and we were going to profile, which ones would you profile?

    Profiling is not a naughty word.

    Pull all of the Muslim towel wearing dudes out of the airplane lines and search them not the walker toting grandmothers, or the anagrammed company logo golf-shirt wearing business road warrior like me.

    Ya..

    There's my point.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/28/2005 @ 3:24pm

53. "Of course that also does not mean HM that just because you and other liberals view the presidents actions as violations makes them illegal. See my post on KVH:"

    Good point. One thing that I want to point out here is that the 4th amendment allows for "probable cause". This is not a case of Bush sending out spys to rummage through the people of America to find evil ones. This is a case where the Federal Agencies came to him with "probable cause". Sorry no 4th ammendment violation here.

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 3:26pm

54. Hey TrueBlue: Care to comment on the following:

    "In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people." ~ Madison

    "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." ~ Lincoln

    "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." ~ Madison

    "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" ~ Jefferson

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ~ Franklin

    "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel." ~ Thomas Paine

    Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 3:41pm

55. TruetoAmerica: I do not have the time to write a book chapter, but in simple terms:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

    means: the government is prohibited from establishing a national religion or acting in preference of one religion over, or at the exclusion of, another.

    "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

    means: individuals have the freedom to believe in religion of their choosing, and reasonably act upon those beliefs.

    As for liberals changing it - my answer is no, they have not changed this. You fail to cite one law that violates the Free Excercise Clause. The court decisions you complain about dealing with the Establishment Clause are consistent with the meaning of the Clause. You failed to say why that is not so.

    NOW, would you care to tackle any of my posts at 11:43; 11:57; 12:04; 12:06; 1:26? You seemed to have dropped many of the points without even a fight.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 3:45pm

56. To the wingnuts: from the Washinton Post:

    ...the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that national security wiretaps be authorized by the secretive FISA court. "A person is guilty of an offense," the law reads, "if he intentionally . . . engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute"

    Per the letter of the law, Dubya broke the Law.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 12/28/2005 @ 3:46pm

57. Posted by DOUMER 12/28/2005 @ 3:41pm

    A few more to add to your list:

    "I have sworn eternal warfare against all forms of superstition over the minds of men." ~ Thomas Jefferson

    "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?" ~ John Adams

    Posted by dlg at 12/28/2005 @ 3:50pm

58. LL:

    That is an empty analogy. Your point discusses differing opinions on whether or not Bush is violating the law. Todd's point was that it is ok for Bush to violate the law because the ends justify the means, and Todd (personally) is willing to curtail his rights if it means we get to kill some terrorists.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 3:50pm

59. The faith in its divine motives engendered by this administration is nothing short of adorable. Any king would be delighted to have such servants. Any king of his domain would be tickled pink with such a happy puppy. "Trust us!" they command. "Arf! Arf!" the faithful respond, with a wagging tail and sparkle in their eyes.

    Everyone is right. We should just settle down. After all, who among us has experienced a genuine infringement on our civil liberties? At least, that we know of? But why be skeptical? It's been all good so far. Each step in the war on terror has proceeded as planned (at least to the extent that a plan was in place--Damn! That skepticism again!). Each accident or miscalculation has been insignificant. All other holes in our domestic security have been filled so why not take a look-see into what those evildoers (where HAS that word gone these days?) are plotting here in America.

    And the results are evident. We have been kept safe by this administration, not counting 9/11. Clinton approved similar steps to monitor terrorists and countless other administrations have taken whatever technological capabilities that have been available to monitor for threats on the homeland.

    But...

    The doubts are there. Perhaps it has something to do with the disconnect between word and deed that has permeated this administration. Are we heading to Mars or not? Is Social Security still ready to collapse? Have we thrown all that money toward hydrogen-powered engines? Have we funded the AIDS and No Child Left Behind programs as we were told? Is Osama a threat or not? Is everyone enjoying the economic buoyancy provided by the tax cut, as advertised, or just those who were tossed the biggest life preservers?

    LL and the Gang can be happy because they've gotten "3/4" of what they voted for. Did they also vote for nation building or do they believe that we are not actually building Iraq? Did they vote for the invasion of countries that presented no threat to us or do they choose to believe that Saddam was capable of harming the US? Did they vote for torture and lies from the front line (see Pat Tillman) and no-bid contracts and overusing the National Guard and private security firms replacing Army personnel? Did they vote for a President who willingly oversees the movement of middle class jobs out of this country to be replaced by low-wage jobs, in combination with encouraging illegal immigration through a guest worker program?

    Must have faith. Must have faith. Certainly these people are capable of determining who is and who is not Al Qaida. Certainly these people are only listening to those whom they have identified as Al Qaida. Why doubt them?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 3:51pm

60. Doumer,

    Your responses....

    "In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people." ~ Madison

    Again go to the article link and read about Madison's back and forth views. Also, interesting to note that you quote all of the least religious ones out of the 55 :)

    "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." ~ Lincoln

    Lincoln later became a Christian:)

    "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." ~ Madison

    Yes there is a lot of truth in these statements. What happened in England was dead wrong and thus why the pilgrim voyage.

    "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" ~ Jefferson

    Again there were definite abuses in the catholic church history. It does not represent the whole of the history of Christianity.

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ~ Franklin

    Oh Ben, again one of the least religious. 3 of the 55....he was one. Although he later had some ties to George Whitefield who was preacher in the colonies that was used by God in the salvation of many in those days along with Jonathan Edwards.

    "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel." ~ Thomas Paine

    Hmmmm.....there was the fall of man and thus there after and redemption through His son Jesus. Man not perfect, but is to love God and obey His commands.

    Posted by DOUMER 12/28/2005 @ 3:41pm

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 3:54pm

61. True to America-

    What changed? The GWOT? What a phony war. Religious extremists have plagued civilization throughout history, committing acts of terror all along. Protestants burned the Ursuline Convent in Boston. John Brown killed in the name of Emanicipation. The KKK killed Jews and Catholics as well as Blacks. Timothy McVeigh killed to revenge Waco. Battling extremism will never end. So what's with the "wartime" presidency? The most successful act of terrorism in American history resulted in casualties that amounted to about 10% of the annual carnage inflicted by drunk drivers. Are we ready to waive the Constitution, spend $500 Billion and accept 2,200 State Police casualities in order to fight the WODD (War On Drunk Driving)which is much more of an actual threat to our lives and physical well being then GWOT? Of course not. And we have to start fighting politicians from demagoging the radical islamic threat beyond it's real impact.

    Posted by notthesenator at 12/28/2005 @ 3:56pm

62. Todd:

    Hundreds of thousands if not milllions? You want to back that up?

    I guess the next time an OK City style incident happens, its, oops, sorry we were only looking at the Arabs. So we have 1993 WTC bombing and 9/11 (that makes 2) and OK City (1). Yup, you win, a resounding majority.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 3:56pm

63. Notthesenator & Hman,

    You're right there is no threat. Let's get back to life like normal.....Let's get a president that spends his time in the oval office working hard with White House Interns! LOL

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 4:05pm

64. Another thing TruetoAmerica,

    When did I, or anyone else, bring up James Madison? I read the article you posted. One thing I notice is that Madison's views on religion/government and his proposed First Amendment (which I assume you wish were adopted) were rejected by a majority of delegates. So, what is your point? If anything this shows that the Framer's intent is more in line with my side than yours.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 4:05pm

65. TruetoAmerica:

    Add my 3:45 post to the others of mine you are ignoring.

    Am I moving to fast for you?

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 4:07pm

66. When did I ever say there was no threat?

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 4:08pm

67. "You're right there is no threat. Let's get back to life like normal."

    No, they are all plotting against us. Let's not trust anyone and just hope we die of natural causes before they get us. That's some kind of good livin'.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 4:08pm

68. "You're right there is no threat. Let's get back to life like normal."

    No, they are all plotting against us. Let's not trust anyone and just hope we die of natural causes before they get us. That's some kind of good livin'.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/28/2005 @ 4:08pm

    TJ,

    That is great....

    TTA

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 4:20pm

69. Add my 3:45 post to the others of mine you are ignoring.

    Am I moving to fast for you?

    Posted by HMAN23 12/28/2005 @ 4:07pm

    Hman,

    Yes

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 4:21pm

70. Conservatives continue to defend the Bush Administration, which allowed Osama Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora where US Special Forces had him surrounded. Osama Bin Laden continues to run free, Bush says he doesnt care, and Conservatives crack jokes and make silly excuses to his defense.

    Conservatives want bigger government on their backs, they want Bush spying on them, infiltrating their churches, and would be likely to countenance moves to take away their guns if Bush decides thats what he wants to do.

    Conservatives attack Michael Moore for his movie Fahrenheit 911, because it exposes footage of George Bush giving hugs to sheiks.

    Conservatives attack whistle blowers like Kathleen Riley, Lawrence Wilkerson, even the Washington Post, even Generals, he spys on UN ambassadors, he exposes the cover of CIA agents working on WMD.

    The Bush family has been involved with giving money to Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians, and with giving weapons to Saddam Hussein to fight the Iranians. The Bush family was involved with giving bank loans to Adolf Hitler. The Bush family is in business with the Bin Laden family, through the Carlyle Group, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars - and there is no evidence that family has dis-owned their son Osama - other than the kinds of rumors spread by the Bush administration.

    Bush floats rumors of a troop reduction while planning increases.

    Conservatives dont care. They dont care, Conservatives are PRO-TORTURE AND HATE AMERICA.

    Make your dumb excuses, Conservatives, crack your silly jokes, defend your Emperor. You guys are going down, you are a disgrace to America, you have disgraced America for too long.

    Posted by reidsucks at 12/28/2005 @ 4:22pm

71. True:

    Sorry...I don't buy it. You said "Have you read any of their other writings? If not how could you draw and understand any such conclusions about intent? Roughly 95% of them were Christians and many of them were pastors, bible school graduates, very involved in their local churches, etc...."

    Backtracking and apologizing for your christian faith are ya?

    It's all so simple True. Do what you will with your faith. Just keep it outta my face.

    Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 4:23pm

72. Reidsucks,

    We would love to engage you but since you apparently cannot even put forth one argument of fact, it seems rather pointless.

    However, I do like your name and agree with it. Many in Nevada are growing quite dissatisfied with his phony image and even worse political actions.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 4:25pm

73. Conservatives promote and defend torture, Conservatives hate privacy and are utterly contemptuous of law, Conservatives worship a God who punsishes His children by burning them alive for eternity.

    Posted by reidsucks at 12/28/2005 @ 4:25pm

74. Hman,

    Again I never said the law changed I was referring to how it has been misinterpreted. Hence the ninth circuit and the others I mentioned. They are not being upheld it is being skewed. The article with Madison was to show how I am not interested in a Theocracy but at the sametime there is nothing wrong with the Pledge of Alegiance saying under God and the 10 commandments in public settings. That is NOT an establishment of Religion. Go look at the history of England and what they were doing to force religion....pretty similar to the current muslim extremist movements. But you don't seem to be too concerned with that, you are more interested in protecting your self from George W.

    That should answer all your posts.....thanks for keeping me on track:)

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 4:28pm

75. True:

    There does exist some etiqette here. The last part of your post read:

    "Hmmmm.....there was the fall of man and thus there after and redemption through His son Jesus. Man not perfect, but is to love God and obey His commands."

    Posted by DOUMER 12/28/2005 @ 3:41pm

    I didn't post that, True. Don't attach my name to it. That makes me look like a nut.

    Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 4:29pm

76. Posted by REIDSUCKS 12/28/2005 @ 4:22pm

    Hey man,

    I am all for freedom of speech, but if you want to converse let's come down a couple of notches:)

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 4:31pm

77. Conservatives consistently promote and defend torture, spying on Americans, infiltration of Churches by government agents, the covering up of pre-911 Daily Intelligence Briefings titled "Osama Bin Laden determined to strike in the United States".

    They defend make-it-up-as-you-go-along war strategies by an incompetent so-called president, they dont mind that Bush refuses to go after Osama Bin Laden post-911 with the argument that Clinton didnt go after him pre-911, and they merely make things up as they go along.

    Conservatives have no memory - no memory of terrorist money-laundering rules shot down pre-911 by Republicans,

    no memory of cold warriors in their party doing horrible things that were "necessary" - such as giving WMD to Saddam Hussein, then verifying that Saddam Hussein killed people, and only then, giving him more WMD.

    Conservatives do not care - the fact that Conservatives promote and defend TORTURE says it all.

    Conservatives worship a hateful God that wants to burn people alive forever just for not worshipping Him.

    Conservatives hate the environment, the middle class, poor people, retirees, students, the law, and people who actually served in the military pointing out serious errors in the seriously flawed thinking of the idiot George Bush who is probably 100 times smarter than his average supporter despite being one of the biggest embarrassments to any country in the history of the world.

    Posted by reidsucks at 12/28/2005 @ 4:33pm

78. FYI, LL,

    I have been unable to access your recent url links.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/28/2005 @ 3:23pm

    thanks TJ,

    I am going to start using a different shortening link site.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 4:33pm

79. True to America - right back at you

    Posted by reidsucks at 12/28/2005 @ 4:34pm

80. Doumer,

    If you look at the flow of how I responded it was my comments underneath your quotes and then your name happened to be at the end of what I wrote because of the copy and paste. I am sure you could see that....since you are not a nut:)

    Thanks for inferring that I am one though.

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 4:35pm

81. True:

    Sorry...I don't buy it. You said "Have you read any of their other writings? If not how could you draw and understand any such conclusions about intent? Roughly 95% of them were Christians and many of them were pastors, bible school graduates, very involved in their local churches, etc...."

    Backtracking and apologizing for your christian faith are ya?

    It's all so simple True. Do what you will with your faith. Just keep it outta my face.

    Posted by DOUMER 12/28/2005 @ 4:23pm

    Who is putting anything in your face? That would be like me saying you keep your political views out of my face.

    Ahhh, the beauty of the first ammendment.

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 4:38pm

82. True-

    And I don't believe I said there was no threat either. But it's not WWII, Korea or even the Spanish-American War, we're talking about a few thousand extremists with limited resources. And very limited sympathizers and support network in the US.

    They are not a serious threat to the Republic. The sky is not falling. They can be more effectively contained with traditional, dare I say it, law enforcement techniques.

    I'm not ready to change our way of life over such a limited risk. Why are you so scared over such a statistically tiny risk? I live and work in a major city, a primary target, I'm not scared, why are you?

    Posted by notthesenator at 12/28/2005 @ 4:40pm

83. Not so fast TruetoAmerica.

    Way back in the begining when the topic was the legality of Bush's wiretaps (before you diverted to the 1st Amendment), I said:

    Thanks for playing TrueToAmerica. I suggest you reread the paragraph - it discusses Bush's disapproval. Take your bullshit scare tactics elsewhere, few people here fall for it. Not even the Patriot Act authorizes what Bush is doing - that's the issue slick. He has admitted that he is violating the law (he excuses the conduct citing the "war on terror"). Why do you think it was not until 2004 that Bush started covering his tracks, if what he was doing was so righteous? Bush can protect American citizens without trampling on the 4th Amendment - GET A WARRANT - it ain't too hard, although Bush has been turned down for more secret warrants than any other recent president (hmmm . . . you think he is abusing it?)

    AND

    LOL - you got it backwards slick. Bush and his supporters are the ones doing the legal jujitsu in this case. Tell me, which law is Bush following to the letter? You can only support what Bush is doing by a creative interpretation of the laws - exactly what Bush is trying to do.

    More conservative bullshit. What do you think conservatives do every time they push for more restrictions on abortion? Bring a lawsuit in the Schiavo case? Use the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment as the basis for Bush v. Gore? You want to talk about liberals recasting laws? Both sides seek to interpret laws.

    Care to get back on point?

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 4:43pm

84. True:

    "Who is putting anything in your face? That would be like me saying you keep your political views out of my face."

    What you are putting in my face (as well as the constant barrage from LL, Rio, Todd and others)are quotes from your book. My political views are just that...views and opinions. For the most part corroborated by fact. Your posts incorporate biblical quotes which render opinion not backed by fact. Your beliefs are yours alone and have no relevance to political discussion.

    This is a liberal blog. All are welcome to post but I think we all agree that intellectual maturity comes as a big plus.

    Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 4:49pm

85. Conservatives do not care - the fact that Conservatives promote and defend TORTURE says it all.

    Conservatives worship a hateful God that wants to burn people alive forever just for not worshipping Him.

    Conservatives hate the environment, the middle class, poor people, retirees, students, the law, and people who actually served in the military pointing out serious errors in the seriously flawed thinking of the idiot George Bush who is probably 100 times smarter than his average supporter despite being one of the biggest embarrassments to any country in the history of the world.

    Posted by REIDSUCKS 12/28/2005 @ 4:33pm

    Ok RS, let's entertain your little diatribe for a moment.

    1. Show proof where conservatives promote torture (3rd party inuendo is not acceptable)

    2. You display a woefull ignorance of Christian belief or the God we worship. The Lord declares in Ezekiel 18:32 "For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies" says the Lord God, "Therefore turn and live".

    Ezekiel 33:11 "Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"

    2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

    God doesn't condemn anyone. Mankind condemns themselves when they reject the gift of life.

    4. The tired notion put forth by liberals that conservatives hate the environment is beyond stupid. Do you think we dislike breathing, drinking water, going camping, hiking, boating? Do you think we hate flowers, mountain forests, rain forests, waterfalls, clean beaches, etc.? This is one reason liberals gain no foothold with conservatives. Your premise is beyond stupid.

    5. Lastly, you claim that we conservatives hate ourselves. Wow, that will win us over to your arguments.

    You sir/maam are desparately in need of a reality check.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 4:58pm

86. Doumer,

    OHH Contrare my friend.

    Are you seriously claiming that I am just giving you a blind answer from the Bible and that I do not know anything apart from the scriptures.

    And your opinions are based on FACT??? From who the media? Where is your source of this so called FACT??? I believe you are stepping into the realm of religious intolerance watch out your liberal buddies might start booing.

    Since you are basically calling me stupid .....

    Let's start here.....What is your education level and be honest.

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 4:58pm

87. Christians have always been our enemies.

    In the Revolutionary War, King George was Christian, England was Christian, we were fighting Christians.

    In the Civil War, the South was Christian, they defended Slavery with Bible passages, Christians were KILLING Americans.

    We fought Germany - a Protestant country. Protestants KILLED Americans, Protestants were fighting us and wanting to literally destroy America and burn it down.

    The elected president of Haiti, was a Christian priest. With help from France, George Bush and his Conservatives overthrew the elected president of Haiti - who was Christian.

    In Iraq, Christians have been fleeing to Syria, Christians who were relatively safe when Saddam Hussein was in, now they have to flee to Syria.

    Christians have been the enemies of America since prior to its founding and apparently still are today.

    Posted by reidsucks at 12/28/2005 @ 5:03pm

88. Have to run TruetoAmerica. I will check back to see if you have anything to add to the intial point of the discussion.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 5:06pm

89. Reidsucks,

    "Christians have been the enemies of America since prior to its founding and apparently still are today."

    Well...

    If that's your view Reidsucks then I guess I'm your enemy = )

    I love you man..

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/28/2005 @ 5:06pm

90. Hman,

    See ya later...it has been fun...I have to run to.

    Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/28/2005 @ 5:08pm

91. Christians have always been on the side of Americas enemies:

    Revolutionary War - England was Christian Civil War - the Confederacy was Christian World War 2 - Germany was Christian Haiti - overthrew elected leader who was a Christian priest Iraq - Christians fleeing to Syria in the wake of Bushs assault

    Posted by reidsucks at 12/28/2005 @ 5:09pm

92. I would forgive the Conservatives, but that would require me to crucify my only son, and it would require them to worship him, so I am not forgiving Conservatives, instead I am just going to burn them alive forever, because I love them

    Posted by reidsucks at 12/28/2005 @ 5:10pm

93. So help me kids, I'll stop this car right now, RIGHT NOW, if you don't stop bickering. And you'll be sorry if I stop this car!

    I confess--it is tough to argue when religion is involved, impossible even. There's a biblical quote available for all occasions and, it would seem, any position. And if some are going to make the nonsensical argument of that which does not kill me makes me stronger in terms of allowing the government to encroach ever farther into our civil liberties, then we can make the even nonsensicaler argument that there were no casualties in the War on Christmas.

    Not even I, a raving, raging agnostic, want to limit in anyway a religious person from following his/her beliefs to their fullest. Go ahead. Pray. Sing. Do mission work.

    Just try to tone it down a little on this site. There really is very little reason to bring it up unless we are specifically discussing the Bill of Rights. Oops! Guess I just tried to suppress speech. That reminds me about that phony baloney story I heard about the wall of separation between church...

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 5:12pm

94. True: Many of the founding fathers were Deists.

    Posted by vano at 12/28/2005 @ 5:16pm

95. LL:

    On the point asking for proof of cons promoting torture, please translate the following:

    "A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful. That's the world these folks operate in. And so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective." Dick Cheney

    Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 5:19pm

96. "A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful. That's the world these folks operate in. And so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective." Dick Cheney

    Posted by DOUMER 12/28/2005 @ 5:19pm

    Doumer,

    You need to cite the source, especially since the full context of the supposed remark lacks context. I have never seen or heard Cheney advocate Torture.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 5:21pm

97. And by the way what happened to blessing those who persecute you and the turning the other cheek thing? And how bout some personal testimony, instead of political discourse "gotcha games" ?

    Posted by vano at 12/28/2005 @ 5:22pm

98. I have more in common with Muslims than American members of the god squad like LL. But arguing with them is like throwing water into the sea. But just as many devout Muslims believe it's OK to gun down an American or Brit, people like LL justify the mass killings of brown and yellow people the world over while reciting ridiculous verses which they twist and bend to fit any and every occasion. But when you contradict yourself so, you stand for nothing in the end. These assholes talk of Jesus Christ as their saviour and terrorists as today's modern day evil, without realizing JC was the ancient world's version of a terrorist. Was anyone more defiant and revolutionary at the time? But regardless, religion is no joke.

    Posted by chimichenga at 12/28/2005 @ 5:23pm

99. True:

    You said "And your opinions are based on FACT??? From who the media? Where is your source of this so called FACT??? I believe you are stepping into the realm of religious intolerance watch out your liberal buddies might start booing."

    Fact equates to snippets glommed from the mouth of thieves. See my above post about Cheney and torture. See my earlier post re: actual quotes from founding fathers on their "religious fervor", as you so eloquently stated.

    As I said, your spritual belief is your business and does not belong on this political blog. It makes for "un-intelligently designed" discussion. Way too much emotion and not enough synapse snaps.

    As far as my educational level: NOYFB. Is that relevant to this thread?

    Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 5:30pm

100. Doumer,

     I found the source for myself and as I thought, your posting is completely out of context. It was from a Meet the Press interview in 2001. Here is the preceding question from Russert, Cheney's answer, and Russert's followup which clearly shows that he did not take Cheney's comment to mean what you has misconstrued it to imply.

     MR. RUSSERT: When Osama bin Laden took responsibility for blowing up the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, U.S. embassies, several hundred died, the United States launched 60 tomahawk missiles into his training sites in Afghanistan. It only emboldened him. It only inspired him and seemed even to increase his recruitment. Is it safe to say that that kind of response is not something we're considering, in that kind of minute magnitude?

     VICE PRES. CHENEY: I'm going to be careful here, Tim, because I--clearly it would be inappropriate for me to talk about operational matters, specific options or the kinds of activities we might undertake going forward. We do, indeed, though, have, obviously, the world's finest military. They've got a broad range of capabilities. And they may well be given missions in connection with this overall task and strategy.

     We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will. We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful. That's the world these folks operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.

     MR. RUSSERT: There have been restrictions placed on the United States intelligence gathering, reluctance to use unsavory characters, those who violated human rights, to assist in intelligence gathering. Will we lift some of those restrictions?

     http://CheneyMeetthePress2001.notlong.com [url]

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 5:34pm

101. LL

     re: Cheney on torture...an excerpt from Democracy Now...kinda speaks volumes without him actually saying a word.

     ...Cheney appointed his legal counsel, David Addington, to be his new chief of staff following the resignation of Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Addington once wrote the war on terorrism has rendered the Geneva Conventions "obsolete."

     or try this piece: HERE [tinyurl.co.uk]

     or here: HERE [cnn.com]

     or here: HERE [tinyurl.co.uk]

     its pretty clear by now I'd think....he doesn't say "let's torture", but he does say "We'd still like to able to"

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/28/2005 @ 5:37pm

102. "its pretty clear by now I'd think....he doesn't say "let's torture", but he does say "We'd still like to able to"

     Many of us would still like for us too as well...

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/28/2005 @ 5:40pm

103. Chimi,

     Perhaps as only you can, would you please enlighten us on how Jesus was a terrorist for laying down his own life for all mankind? Perhaps you will cite those passages where he and his supporters went around killing the Romans and especially their families?

     This should make for an interesting response.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 5:41pm

104. LL: "1. Show proof where conservatives promote torture (3rd party inuendo is not acceptable)"

     Meet the Press Sept 16, 2001 http://tinyurl.com/39eo2

     Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 5:49pm

105. LOC,

     No dice. All your links cite is an opinion editorial of what the Washington Post thinks is the attitude of the VP, an article citing the opinion of Wilkerson who was a liberal State Dept hack and still cites no evidence, and finally another article which hints that Cheney wants to torture.

     The closest I will concede in this and I agree with the stand, is that it has been stated that Cheney wanted an exemption in the circumstance of interrogating a terrorist with information regarding an imminent attack in the US.

     So, go look again.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 5:50pm

106. Imagine those Christians, cutting the throats of lambs, and then spraying the blood all over each other, saying "here son, rub this all over you, else Gods gonna burn you alive forever".

     Washing in the blood of the lamb, and in front of their altar with the idol of Jesus being crucified,

     these Christians, who have been represented in other times by the English Redcoats, the Southern Confederacy, the German Reich,

     these same Conservatives who want Big Government on their backs, who want Big Government torturing people without a trial,

     when you consider the specatacle of these barbarians washing up in the blood of dead lambs, rubbing their sons and daughters real quick before it co-agulates. . . its pathetic - WHAT A DISGRACE.

     Posted by reidsucks at 12/28/2005 @ 5:50pm

107. Doumer,

     You need to read also. I just cited and provided the link to that interview and the context has nothing to do with torture.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 5:51pm

108. How about tune into the Rush Limbaugh program, where Cheney is a regular caller, Rush promotes torture all the time, says its necessary to defend American values.

     Posted by reidsucks at 12/28/2005 @ 5:52pm

109. The only one who is sick here is your Reidsucks. You have some pathological hatred of Christians and that is your privilege. But I am at least content to know that even most atheists and agnostics here know that your diatribes are simply that, the sound of the wind with no force behind it.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 5:53pm

110. citation Reidsucks on Limbaugh. And in context; this especially holds true since Limbaugh's program is mainly about parodies and other forms of entertainment.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 5:55pm

111. LL: Cheney spoke volumes during his interview on MTP. The context of the interview is clear and the statement "use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective." Res ipsa loquitor.

     Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 5:55pm

112. Doumer,

     You need to read also. I just cited and provided the link to that interview and the context has nothing to do with torture.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/28/2005 @ 5:51pm

     Please enlighten me LL. What exactly was the honourable veep talking about?

     Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 6:00pm

113. Again Doumer, as I cited in my response, the context just doesn't support your conclusions. Cheney said he wasn't going to do reveal our tactics and rightfully so. There was nothing in the response that implied what you are suggesting or Russert would have gone down that path in his followup question(s).

     You are reaching and grasping for an answer that you can fit to your opinion, not one that actually says what you want it to say.

     Here is the context again:

     VICE PRES. CHENEY: I'm going to be careful here, Tim, because I--clearly it would be inappropriate for me to talk about operational matters, specific options or the kinds of activities we might undertake going forward. We do, indeed, though, have, obviously, the world's finest military. They've got a broad range of capabilities. And they may well be given missions in connection with this overall task and strategy.

     We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will. We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful. That's the world these folks operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.

     MR. RUSSERT: There have been restrictions placed on the United States intelligence gathering, reluctance to use unsavory characters, those who violated human rights, to assist in intelligence gathering. Will we lift some of those restrictions?

     VICE PRES. CHENEY: Oh, I think so. I think the--one of the by-products, if you will, of this tragic set of circumstances is that we'll see a very thorough sort of reassessment of how we operate and the kinds of people we deal with. There's--if you're going to deal only with sort of officially approved, certified good guys, you're not going to find out what the bad guys are doing. You need to be able to penetrate these organizations. You need to have on the payroll some very unsavory characters if, in fact, you're going to be able to learn all that needs to be learned in order to forestall these kinds of activities. It is a mean, nasty, dangerous dirty business out there, and we have to operate in that arena. I'm convinced we can do it; we can do it successfully. But we need to make certain that we have not tied the hands, if you will, of our intelligence communities in terms of accomplishing their mission.

     MR. RUSSERT: These terrorists play by a whole set of different rules. It's going to force us, in your words, to get mean, dirty and nasty in order to take them on, right? And they should realize there will be more than simply a pinprick bombing.

     VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah, the--I think it's--the thing that I sense--and, of course, that's only been a few days, but I have never seen such determination on the part of--well, my colleagues in government, on the part of the American people, on the part of our friends and allies overseas, and even on the part of some who are not ordinarily deemed friends of the United States, determined in this particular instance to shift and not be tolerant any longer of these kinds of actions or activities.

     I realize that nothing will satisfy you libs who hate Bush and Cheney, so please go on a major campaign of replaying this interview. Believe me, most conservatives would love it if we could see this interview get another airing. Most Americans would gladly support the outline made by the VP.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 6:10pm

114. Doumer, there was a broad range of activities outlined that don't involve torture. Secondly, the one instance in which the VP had recently asked for an exemption dealt specifically where a terrorist was in custody who had specific information regarding an imminent attack on the US. You will find that most Americans will agree with the VP in that regard.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 6:12pm

115. amen Rio!

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 6:31pm

116. Any Democrat who voted FOR the PATRIOT Act should have a much shorter political career. It was unneccessary to begin with. 9/11 could have been stymied had we had better leadership.

     Bush said the hijackers "hate our freedoms." Is that why he's curtailing them? (The freedoms.)

     Posted by motamanx at 12/28/2005 @ 6:39pm

117. If you love me, tell your God not to try to burn me alive forever. Stand up to Him, tell Him dont you dare torture my fellow human being alive for all eternity with infinite fire.

     See, thats what a Heathen would do. It doesnt matter to the Heathen that he hates someone, even patholigically, he still doesnt want that person to be burned alive for eternity.

     On the other hand, Christ burns people alive forever even if He loves them - unconditionally so.

     Revolutionary War - English Christians killed Americans; Civil War - Confederate Christians killed Americans; World War 2 - German Protestant Christians killed Americans;

     Christians have always been killing Americans, even before 1776

     Posted by reidsucks at 12/28/2005 @ 6:53pm

118. HMAN

     What did they accomplish?.....exactly?

     Posted by Mask at 12/28/2005 @ 7:01pm

119. Try reading the entire interview again LL. Try from a different concept. Conceptually, contextually and through the obvious innuendo. It is clear.

     Cheney was waiting for the opportunity afforded by the tragic fact of 9/11. He and his cabal were given the grand slam they had dreamed of for years.

     What exactly do his statements mean? If you can't read through it, then your are seriously nothing more than the typical ignorant American. The context of the interview is simple: we will do whatever the hell we want and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.

     Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 7:42pm

120. Rio: "I know I should not take enjoyment in the suffering of others given the obvious long maintained delusions because it is sad one could be so mislead so long and so full of hate. It does reveal that little has changed except for the hidden agenda's and deceptiveness practiced by todays liberalism!

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/28/2005 @ 6:22pm

     That's cute Rio. You and LL are ass grabbing again. Very alpha.

     Hate, Not a chance. It's more like......RAGE! I will not sit still and watch you and your kind turn this country into a playground for the rich and religious. Ain't gonna happen and you know it. But, please continue to post your upbeat pseudo shit.

     Rage, Rio. It's more than just hate, its priceless.

     Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 7:51pm

121. I realize that nothing will satisfy you libs who hate Bush and Cheney, so please go on a major campaign of replaying this interview. Believe me, most conservatives would love it if we could see this interview get another airing. Most Americans would gladly support the outline made by the VP.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/28/2005 @ 6:10pm

     Liberty!

     I see the Chritmas holidays didn't do much to improve your IQ

     Russert and Chenny go on to say this

     MR. RUSSERT: There have been restrictions placed on the United States intelligence gathering, reluctance to use unsavory characters, those who violated human rights, to assist in intelligence gathering. Will we lift some of those restrictions?

     VICE PRES. CHENEY: Oh, I think so. I think the--one of the by-products, if you will, of this tragic set of circumstances is that we'll see a very thorough sort of reassessment of how we operate and the kinds of people we deal with. There's--if you're going to deal only with sort of officially approved, certified good guys, you're not going to find out what the bad guys are doing. You need to be able to penetrate these organizations. You need to have on the payroll some very unsavory characters if, in fact, you're going to be able to learn all that needs to be learned in order to forestall these kinds of activities. It is a mean, nasty, dangerous dirty business out there, and we have to operate in that arena. I'm convinced we can do it; we can do it successfully. But we need to make certain that we have not tied the hands, if you will, of our intelligence communities in terms of accomplishing their mission.

     None of us really expect a bunch of lying evangelic conservatives to just come right out and say you guys not only advocate torture but also have a deep emotional need to torture, and Chenney is saying we need to untie our hands and that includes those pesky little restrictions on torture.

     and they did it

     and you love it.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/28/2005 @ 7:52pm

122. Rio Bravo: It is very clear that what you think of as terrorism is anything that opposes your idea of Americanism, which, as with the usual chauvanist blather, precludes the existence of any of the Americas of an America that exists outside the borders of the United States, particularly when they build their own definitions of who they are. If your attitude is what is meant by "American", sure, i'm anti American. I'm anti YOUR America. No problem.

     And, as I have said here several times before, don't bother dirtying Che's name with your pathetic slanders of the man. As many problems as he may have had, he answered for his mistakes. Which is better than I can say for any of the politicians who you uphold, a more craven, reprehensible and phony bunch rarely to be seen. The jury is still out on Che in the rest of the Americas. But when it comes back in, you will see that few people outside of the lily white world view him as a terrorist.

     I notice Chimichenga posts rarely these days, but given the chickenshit quality of your replies, Rio Bravo, he isn't missing much. Wish that I had enough good sense to ignore you, too.

     Posted by Legba at 12/28/2005 @ 8:05pm

123. LL and Rio: A little heat and you cut and run. Why should I expect otherwise? When confronted with actual verbiage from your people, you freeze. Not very impressive LL. But please feel free to quote some Nostradamos prophesies. And, Rio, I have nver insulted anyone here personally, but you are really stretching me out here. Get a grip and see what is before your eyes.

     Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 8:09pm

124. Legba:

     "The jury is still out on Che in the rest of the Americas."

     What else is there to say? Genuine respect for ones culture and future? Certainly, Morales, Lula and Chavez are the heirs to his legacy. These are relatively new "democracies", yet we(official policy)can criticize and plan for future actions in the interest of whom?

     Legba, I am enraged.

     Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 8:17pm

125. What about Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (Dem, GA)? She is the only hero in the entire Congress trying to expose the 9/11 treason. I wish her and the 911truth.com more luck in 2006! MRZATA

     Posted by mrzata at 12/28/2005 @ 8:26pm

126. Todd

     Many of us would still like for us too as well...

     Tsk....not very Christian of you......

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/28/2005 @ 8:42pm

127. Doumer, I didn't hide. When I leave this site it is usually to take care of business or whatever else I may do with my life...

     Keep raging though Doumer, you are already a marginalized character and you do nothing to bring yourself into the realm of the Americana. It is much safer for the rest of us if you stay exactly as you are. I'll look for you on the 11 o'clock news each evening!

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 8:43pm

128. and I see Doumer that your alter ego of Christian hate has rejoined the fray...Will C, who never met a genuine Christian he didn't hate. Another one who loves living outside of society's accepted norms.

     Your revolution will resemble somethig like Pauly Shore meets Abbott and Costello in that old classic, "In the Army".

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 8:46pm

129. Liberty, aka "his holiness" still blows his pious tinhorn. Your injection of your bastardized "beliefs" into political discourse is just a bunch of shit. Liberty you are a solid American, just like Tammy Fay, and Jimmy jones, and Jimmy Swaggart, and that really smart and special guy, Falwell. A bunch of tax cheats and crooks, who prefer preying upon the pensions of old ladies, rather than working for a living.

     You stanky exploiters of religion to line your pockets and further a political end are more than just disgusting. You are an abomination.

     Repent, (and be assured that your next Vegas room will not be located next to the ice machine or the elevators). I'll throw in a roll of nickels.

     Kisses,

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 12/28/2005 @ 9:53pm

130. Keep raging though Doumer, you are already a marginalized character and you do nothing to bring yourself into the realm of the Americana. It is much safer for the rest of us if you stay exactly as you are. I'll look for you on the 11 o'clock news each evening!

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/28/2005 @ 8:43pm

     Liberty!

     I was wrong about the Christmas holidays not improving your IQ. How could it when your dementia is rapidly turning into deep psychosis. To say that it's safer for us if Doumer stays like he is and then say you'll be looking for him on the eleven o'clock news is a huge contradiction. It's a comment we would expect from a man walking the ragged line on the edge of sanity.

     And I guess that makes the first sentence of your quote nothing more than babble

     Liberty, you haven't tried to build any towers lately have you?

     Posted by Will C. at 12/28/2005 @ 10:16pm

131. and I see Doumer that your alter ego of Christian hate has rejoined the fray...Will C, who never met a genuine Christian he didn't hate. Another one who loves living outside of society's accepted norms.

     Your revolution will resemble somethig like Pauly Shore meets Abbott and Costello in that old classic, "In the Army".

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/28/2005 @ 8:46pm

     Liberty!

     I didn't know you we're a big Pauly Shore fan. But then I suppose you need something to pass the time after a few bodacious bong hits with the dark angel.

     But to be honest, I think the alter ego of Christian hate, if that's Doumer, would be a being of pure christain love... Moi

     Sorry Doumer, Liberty gave you the short end of the stick on that one.

     Liberty, your losing it man. While you can still discern the different letters of the alphabet, grab a yellow pages and dive into the "P" section and try to find yourself a good psychiatrist.

     And trust me on this one, psychiatrist starts with "P"

     Posted by Will C. at 12/28/2005 @ 10:25pm

132. You need help baby!

     Your world is falling apart.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/28/2005 @ 10:25pm

133. Attention wingers, I had a stinkin epiphany, you really are a bunch of pussies!

     Sorry to perform the reality check after beddy-bye time.

     kisses and hugs,

     bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 12/28/2005 @ 10:39pm

134. Thanks Will C,

     All it takes is a few of your choice comments to reassure me that my sanity remains intact. After all, you are one of those on this site who continually reaffirm one of God's prophetic warnings:

     "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

     Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight"

     Isaiah 5:20,21

     Yes, thank you for your consistent commentary.

     BTW Will, a holiday can do nothing to improve one's IQ; you are either born with it, or not! The general consensus is that an adult can only change their IQ about 10% up or down. Just thought I would help your education a little.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 10:46pm

135. Ah Bloppy,

     You were so eloguent last week. I really began to like the alter ego you let show up.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 10:48pm

136. A basic question I posed as first commentator on Mr Nichols' article....

     If Barbara Boxer was deserving of "credit" for wanting to recount/investigate/whatever Ohio-2004....why didn't Russ Feingold (another hero of Mr Nichols and "The Nation") JOIN her in calling for an investigation?

     Why was she ALONE in that "important inquiry"?....No Russ, no Teddy, no NOBODY in the Senate?

     Posted by Mask at 12/28/2005 @ 10:57pm

137. Hi liberty,

     I quote, 9:36-52.006 , "Suffer the rigid, murderous wankers, but not too much longer"

     Kisses,

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 12/28/2005 @ 11:33pm

138. BTW Will, a holiday can do nothing to improve one's IQ; you are either born with it, or not! The general consensus is that an adult can only change their IQ about 10% up or down. Just thought I would help your education a little.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/28/2005 @ 10:46pm

     Liberty!

     "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

     If I were you Liberty. That's a little pice of advice I'd be holding real close to my heart.

     And a dipshit, If you want to help with my education first you must start with your own. IQ is a simple ratio determined by taking 100 times a person mental age and dividing it by their chronological age. A person with a mental age of twenty at the age of twenty would have an IQ of 100... Not bad

     That same person with a mental age of twenty at the age of 60 would have an IQ of 33... that's the age group you're in Liberty

     of course that's a 66% percent drop. Way more than 10%

     but don't be sad, this chart says we stil have job for you:

     IQ Range________Typical Educability_______Employment Options

     30 to 50______1st-Grade to 3rd-Grade_____Simple,non-critical household chores.

     Liberty, you could be a maid.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/28/2005 @ 11:34pm

139. or an evangelic pastard

     now that's some brain dead work

     Posted by Will C. at 12/28/2005 @ 11:35pm

140. From the Book of Chip, 54-4.008,

     "I will screw whatever, and I will pay with a mighty sorrow"

     Thus spake....Chip

     Love, (and promises),

     bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 12/28/2005 @ 11:45pm

141. The ruminations of Will C and Bloppy; like listening to a one armed man clap.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/29/2005 @ 12:47am

142. Doumer: I don't understand your post to me. Why are you enraged?

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 01:07am

143. why are you strange right wing people hanging out on the nation website? are you that bored? it's good, maybe you'll learn something. aren't there lots of those militia sites you'd be more comfortable at?

     Posted by loveloki at 12/29/2005 @ 01:16am

144. Yo, Loveloki, let it ride. It's part of the fun.

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 01:32am

145. The ruminations of Will C and Bloppy; like listening to a one armed man clap.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/29/2005 @ 12:47am

     I win

     Posted by Will C. at 12/29/2005 @ 01:48am

146. What'd you win?

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 02:29am

147. What'd you win?

     Posted by LEGBA 12/29/2005 @ 02:29am

     the sound of money... the smell of food...

     the joy of laughter

     Posted by Will C. at 12/29/2005 @ 02:44am

148. Yeah, Rio Bravo, ya know, Cynthia Mac may not be all that. But she can kick your ass.

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 02:51am

149. Yeah, Rio Bravo, ya know, Cynthia Mac may not be all that. But she can kick your ass.

     Posted by LEGBA 12/29/2005 @ 02:51am

     I'm still trying to figure out what a "potentuality" is

     Posted by Will C. at 12/29/2005 @ 02:53am

150. Yo, Will C, congrats on that big win. Meant to say something before but saw an opportunity to mess with Rio and what can I say, I'm a sinner.

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 02:54am

151. I think it has something to do with potent tools or something. Maybe he's saying Cynthia McKinney's got a big thang?

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 02:57am

152. thanks bro

     In trying to slam me Liberty used a zen reference. The idiot didn't realize he was actually complimenting me. And, in a discussion over IQ even.

     too funny

     Posted by Will C. at 12/29/2005 @ 02:59am

153. I think it has something to do with potent tools or something. Maybe he's saying Cynthia McKinney's got a big thang?

     Posted by LEGBA 12/29/2005 @ 02:57am

     sounds good to me.

     Hey Rio! So you think Cynthia Mckinney's got a big thang do ya?

     Posted by Will C. at 12/29/2005 @ 03:01am

154. Ah, well. Now, if only we could get them all to form a circle and shoot at each other.

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 03:01am

155. a few more years of paranoia and they just might do that

     Posted by Will C. at 12/29/2005 @ 03:06am

156. I'm turning in

     night Legba

     Posted by Will C. at 12/29/2005 @ 03:18am

157. Will: Yes LL did reference a Zen koan. What is the sound of one hand clapping. ? LL, Perhaps your Buddha nature is poised for enlightenment. All sentient beings are essentially Buddhas. As with water and ice, there is no ice without water; apart from sentient beings, there are no Buddhas. Not knowing how close the truth is, we seek it far away --what a pity! Hakuin Ekaku Zenji

     Posted by vano at 12/29/2005 @ 07:27am

158. WILL

     a few more years of paranoia and they just might do that

     Posted by WILL C. 12/29/2005 @ 03:06am

     ???.....have you read RESE and PLUNGER?

     Posted by Mask at 12/29/2005 @ 09:36am

159. LL

     Hmmm. I see you looked at one of three refs and decided they all were without merit. (Even though the Op-ed piece did contain some facts....I suppose that it was in the "incredulous" Washington Post...) Of course the other two were actual news items. Did you read either, or since you've already made up your mind this wasn't needed?

     How about the ABC interview a few days back...HERE [tinyurl.com] where the following occurs:

     Moran: Are you troubled at all that more than 100 people in U.S. custody have died -- 26 of them now being investigated as criminal homicides -- people beaten to death, suffocated to death, died of hypothermia in U.S. custody?

     Cheney: No. I won't accept your numbers, Terry. (Interview coninues, but question never is addresed, unless the "No" means he isn't troubled by it...)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/29/2005 @ 09:41am

160. MASK:

     I'd say Feingold has achieved regarding at least the Patriot Act. It is too early to say for sure, but it looks like many of the most objectionable parts of the Act are in trouble. This is largely dues to Feingold's persistent opposition, while many gave it the rubber stamp in 2001.

     Cindy Sheehan has been a tireless advocate against the war, even with all of the shameless personal attacks brought by the Right. Sure the war continues, but look at the withering support. Is it all due to Sheehan? No, but her efforts certainly helped.

     Fitzgerald indicted the first White House officer in I think 150 years. His investigation is obviously not over, and at a minimum (convictions or no) has shined light on the lengths this administration will go to protect the misrepresentations it made in the lead-up to war.

     DeLay's case is obviously pending, so no results yet. But getting the Speaker indicted is no small accomplishment (has that ever happened?).

     As for Wilkerson, Clarke, O'Neill, what is it exactly that they were supposed to accomplish anyway? Was anyone expecting that they alone would "bring down" the president or something like that? They should receive praise for having the courage to speak out, as insiders who had access.

     You seem to centered on immediate results only. Many of these fights cannot be won in a week. But, these people are at least standing up to be counted, trying to shed light on issues, and change policy.

     It seems that nobody can escape your criticism. You ridicule the Democrats who are do-nothings, and you marginalize Democrats (or others) who do take a stand. What about acknowledging a stand on principle without regard to whether someone is following the herd? Results are important, but many of these issues are still playing out. Efforts count too.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 10:18am

161. Over the six months I've visited this board, I've created mental images of some of the more frequent posters. Mostly I've done this for those on the right side of the aisle. NACL, for example, is most gruesome, with all the potato chip crumbs sitting on his untucked shirt, unbathed, unshaved, surrounded by encyclopedias and Hustlers. But LL, Rio, and, perhaps as of today, TruetoAmerica have now become the triumvirate I've looked for: the three monkeys representing Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak Nothing Worth A Damn, questioning the commitment to America of others even as they lower the bar for acceptable behavior by our Executive Branch to the depths of Hell.

     As I said before, America does not need coddlers. Even those who view their own comfort as evidence that all is well need to get over themselves and try to make this country an even better place.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2005 @ 10:21am

162. LL:

     You would make a lousy prosecutor. You would only convict defendents who explicitly came out and said, "Yes, I robbed the convenient store." or "I shot her, and it was something I planned in advance of a week."

     Given the quotes from Cheney and other adminstration officials, AND Justice Dept. and WH lawyers' stated positions on the rights of detainees and the Geneva Conventions, AND actual evidence of prisoners BEING tortured (and sometimes killed) in undisclosed secret locations or outsourced to other countries, AND Bush's initial position on McCain's bill, you will not budge unless someone can pull a quote from Cheney where he said, "Yes, we are torturing. We planned it. We are doing it, and it is necessary in the War on Terror."

     Sorry, but it is pretty clear to most any reasonable person what is what.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 10:32am

163. You would make a lousy prosecutor. You would only convict defendents who explicitly came out and said, "Yes, I robbed the convenient store." or "I shot her, and it was something I planned in advance of a week."

     Given the quotes from Cheney and other adminstration officials, AND Justice Dept. and WH lawyers' stated positions on the rights of detainees and the Geneva Conventions, AND actual evidence of prisoners BEING tortured (and sometimes killed) in undisclosed secret locations or outsourced to other countries, AND Bush's initial position on McCain's bill, you will not budge unless someone can pull a quote from Cheney where he said, "Yes, we are torturing. We planned it. We are doing it, and it is necessary in the War on Terror."

     Sorry, but it is pretty clear to most any reasonable person what is what.

     Posted by HMAN23 12/29/2005 @ 10:32am

     HM,

     Well, as a counter to your presumption, it seems apparent to conservatives that you and the other liberal bloggers are guilty of prejudication. I thought liberals held firmly to the concept that we are all innocent until found guilty? My past six months of viewing the postings on this site shows the evidence weighing heavily as dismissing that concept from your belief system, at least as pertains to conservatives.

     To use your own summation standard, no reasonable person could find any other conclusion other than that liberals/progressives automatically judge conservatives as guilty of whatever charge they may levy.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/29/2005 @ 11:28am

164. The amusing thing, Love Liberty, as has been pointed out here by the liberals, is that many of you conservatives were gung ho for removing Clinton from office over crimes far less significant than these. And yet, when Clinton would take a military action you all wanted, even when it was blatantly illegal, you all stood behind the president. I think this penis/missile thing is a real problem for most of you.

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 11:38am

165. LL:

     What is not apparent to you is that we are not in a courtroom where innocent until proven guilty applies. In any event, people are convicted under that standard on circumstantial evidence every day.

     The list I provided (even though I did not take the time to expand on each point) is hardly the stuff of an "automatic" prejudication.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 11:40am

166. LL:

     OJ was not convicted. Would you hire him to work around the house or clean your knife collection? Be happy with him dating a relative?

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 11:42am

167. LL has a lot of nerve talking about:

     Law and order Morality Objectivity Truth Reality Democracy Freedom All of the above.

     Ah, but this is a rhetorical question.

     LL, shouldn't you be out trying to convert infidels or enslave the uneducated with your bottomless brew of bullshit about now?

     Posted by chimichenga at 12/29/2005 @ 11:48am

168. I thought liberals held firmly to the concept that we are all innocent until found guilty? My past six months of viewing the postings on this site shows the evidence weighing heavily as dismissing that concept from your belief system, at least as pertains to conservatives.

     To use your own summation standard, no reasonable person could find any other conclusion other than that liberals/progressives automatically judge conservatives as guilty of whatever charge they may levy.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/29/2005 @ 11:28am

     Absolutely correct. We are not so unreasonable as to convict without proof. How about an investigation? Even a little one? Just one...please? Is it not the duty of Congress to look into matters in which there is, at minimum, the appearance of a potential violation of law by our administration? If the administration's actions still smell sweet when brought to the light of day, fine. But there are doubts, and not just from the edge of the left-wing. Moderates and (true) conservatives alike have expressed concern over the extend of presidential reaching.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2005 @ 11:49am

169. Doum,

     "As far as my educational level: NOYFB. Is that relevant to this thread?"

     Posted by DOUMER 12/28/2005 @ 5:30pm

     It certainly is when you insult other people's "intelectual maturity" on a blog!

     You assume that because I read the bible and believe it that I am some kind of weak and frail minded being. You knock my faith, but it takes more faith to believe there is not a God than to believe there is. Have you ever looked at the statistical impossibilities of evolution?? Talk about blind faith!!!

     Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/29/2005 @ 11:50am

170. .

     A VERY STRANGE LEAGUE

     The year is ending on a much better note than it began -- [John Nichols]

     It is ending with Saddam being tried in court for mass murder, with over 10 million Iraqis voting for a govt, the US holding to its course, and making slow but steady progress in reorienting the Middle East. Progressives should BUT DON'T consider that a "good note."

     All the people who John Nichols designates as MVPs distinguished themselves in calling the Iraq war a disaster and crime and in seeking to quickly end US support of the constitutional Iraqi govt. That is the league those MVPs belong to, a very strange division.

     What is it that makes that crowd happy? When a storm devastates New Orleans and the govt response is inept. When our casualties in Iraq go up. When the White House can be charged with violating the privacy rights of Americans. That is when they perk up and see hope. That is what they consider "a much better note." A curious species of patriots and humanitarians, are they not?

     It is not as though there are no venues where PROGRESSIVES could be performing in a noble and positive way.

     Darfur remains an ongoing catastrophe. Hundreds of thousands of Africans have been displaced and persecuted. Where is the voice of the Left there? It is completely silent. Because the perpetrator of the crime is a Muslim Arab police state supported by a Communist Chinese regime more interested in gas and oil than people.

     Africa remains largely an economic and medical disaster zone. Mugabe has taken a rich and modern country and made it a police state sliding into hunger and chaos. South Africa and several of its neighbors are enveloped in an AIDs epidemic in part still denied, even as it is cutting down millions. Progressives are well positioned to be influential there; where is their voice?

     They are silent and even obstructionist in their innermost bailiwick. Rather than lead the charge in the medical insurance crisis, Progressives, it turns out, are beneath the sheets supporting the status quo. Because most of the large unions have private medical insurance programs whose financial interests they do not want to disturb. The NY Times had an editorial on that issue only last week.

     There are plenty of pressing issues which civic spirited people can make their own. The failure of our educational system for example. The return for all practical purposes of segregation to many schools. The widening disparity between winners and losers in America. Progressives are shunning all that. Because it is their solutions that have been tried over the last thirty years, and that have contributed to if not creating those failures.

     When it becomes clear that problems require non-liberal solutions Progressives lose interest and channel their moral indignation in new directions. As for example, going into the streets to protest the ejection of the mass murdering Saddam Hussein. And in support of an Iraqi insurgency that openly declares its hostility to democracy, religious toleration and free speech.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/29/2005 @ 11:55am

171. TRUETOAMERICA,

     Do you read all of the posts on this website? Any number of regular leftie posters are Christians. It's not religion or Christianity that is bothersome, it's the way in which Christianity is used as an excuse for indifference or even violence directed at others that concerns some of us.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2005 @ 11:56am

172. Well, TruetoAmerica, that's the point. It would take YOU more faith to believe there's not a God then it takes you to believe there is. At the end of the day, faith in God is subjective, which is why God doesn't belong in politics.

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 11:56am

173. Use what U Want 2 Fight the Good Fight _

     From Below Web Site

     http://www.RogerART.com

     Posted by RogerARTcom at 12/29/2005 @ 11:59am

174. TruetoAmerica:

     You are back.

     Care to respond to my pervious questions to you (reposted yesterday at 4:43 p.m.?

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 12:00pm

175. Legba and TJ,

     Have you read the bible?

     If the leftie's that are Christians have read the bible they would have seen that through out the scriptures He is very involved with politics.

     Are you saying that the God who created you and I and is Lord of all of creation has no voice in our current modern politics?

     Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/29/2005 @ 12:01pm

176. True:

     Problem with many conservatives today is that their Bible study seems to have ended at the Old Testament.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 12:04pm

177. Absolutely correct. We are not so unreasonable as to convict without proof. How about an investigation? Even a little one? Just one...please? Is it not the duty of Congress to look into matters in which there is, at minimum, the appearance of a potential violation of law by our administration? If the administration's actions still smell sweet when brought to the light of day, fine. But there are doubts, and not just from the edge of the left-wing. Moderates and (true) conservatives alike have expressed concern over the extend of presidential reaching.

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/29/2005 @ 11:49am

     TJ,

     Your argument would indeed have more merit if this was some new development and was something that Congress had not been aware of.

     As I posted yesterday, this issue is actually long settled law and Congress knows that. What is going on is a combination of the desperate attempt by the Dems to stir the pot for political advantage and the media going through another slow period with no major issues to generate revenue.

     What the NSA was and is doing has been the practice of Administrations for decades and has been validated by the courts.

     "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

     That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.

     More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." ...

     In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

     In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.

     From Chicago Tribune

     By John Schmidt Op-Ed December 21, 2005

     President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

     Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. ...

     But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. ...

     John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.

     Now I noticed when I posted this yesterday, I received no serious response from liberals who either were unaware of this information or are choosing to ignore it and concentrate on a position of bias without merit.

     I must run to some appointments, so please do not take my 4-5 hours of non response as anything other than what I am stating.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/29/2005 @ 12:08pm

178. In respect to Mr Nichols article there are still those in our leadership who are willing to take actions against the "realitys" of the day.

     Well I see that the antichrist LL is still ass-kissing his beloved masters gw & Co.

     The gall to use this quote in support of those who deliberately and with malaise in their hearts take form the poor and give to the rich proves beyond a doubt that he is indeed a friend and follower of the devil.

     "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight"

     Isaiah 5:20,21

     Hypocrisy at its finest. Once again we see that the bible can be interpreted by anyone for any reason, this is to teach us that we are A) Good, B) Bad or C) as in LL case totally clueless. LL you really do need a new pair of glasses.

     Is it assumptive of LL to quote the bible in this manner or is this a true reflection of his support for the poor and needing?

     LL you must have a real heavy sin to atone for to keep supporting greed and suffering over helping those in need.

     Posted by dycel8r at 12/29/2005 @ 12:09pm

179. LL,

     I have seen legit people on both sides of the aisle argue both sides of the wiretapping issue. You can ignore one side if you choose. But there are many on your side of the aisle who would disagree with you. The issue is NOT settled, in spite of your best efforts to convince yourself otherwise.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2005 @ 12:14pm

180. Hman,

     Are you saying that Jesus would not be involved with politics or atleast share his views?

     Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/29/2005 @ 12:19pm

181. TRUE,

     The issue is not whether Jesus and politics can co-mingle. It is in the use of Jesus and/or The Bible as the final word in an argument. He's a flexible feller, that Jesus. You've got Falwell on one side, liberal Methodists on another, and Jehovah's Witnesses saying that there are more important things on this earth than politics.

     For an interesting take, visit www.jesuspolitics.typepad.com

     It all comes down to one's personal interpretation of a political issue, whether or not Jesus is a factor in determining one's point of view.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2005 @ 12:19pm

182. I'll never understand how these neocons, who claim to be so upright and devout, insist on attributing the greatest atrocities and injustices to God by manipulating His words and beliefs in order to justify actions which completely contradict everything He stood for. Unless I'm mistaken, JC was against the war-makers, hatred, he was anti-aggression and spoke out against the culture of violence. Yet today more than a few churchgoers agree that God has favorites (Us, not them), that he blesses the minority and their "sacred" way of life, he supports the unjust bombardments of foreign nations, agrees with a system that asks one to despise and suspect rather than love and trust thier neighbors and fellow men, ect. I don't care how many times anyone has read the bible or how many verses they've memorized, because most of these people are nothing more than wax figures claiming some superior knowledge and divine intuition, boasting the possession of some ultimate truth. These people have sight, yet can't see. The hear but don't listen. They talk of the past yet can never learn from it, which is why they tell us we must accept their future instead of imagining our own. But what is most evident in the mindless propaganda plastered here by Christian fundamentalists, is that they are just as guilty of ignorance and just as smitten with narrow-mindedness and pride as their jihadist counterparts.

     Posted by chimichenga at 12/29/2005 @ 12:25pm

183. TJ,

     Jesus said himself that He is the way, the truth, and the life.

     I believe that....if I did not then I would ignore the rest of the bible and not believe any of it.

     With that said....He (Jesus) being the truth then why would I not listen to Him?

     I would say that since He is the truth then He is the final word.

     Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/29/2005 @ 12:27pm

184. Dycl8r,

     Try reading the context. I was responding directly to someone who labels Christians as the evil in the world. It was not directed towards liberals in general or even the many bloggers on this site.

     And I won't trouble the other posters by going into my activities that are completely opposite of your prejudicated views. Many so-called liberals like yourself are an oxymoron to actual liberal beliefs like respect for others, and the importance of all viewpoints being heard.

     No, your way is to stereotype like Will C does and place all conservative Christians into some narrow view as exemplified by the likes of many of the "television ministries". If this accurately reflects your views, it shows either a serious ignorance or willful bigotry.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/29/2005 @ 12:29pm

185. TRUE,

     With that said....He (Jesus) being the truth then why would I not listen to Him?

     I would say that since He is the truth then He is the final word.

     Posted by TRUETOAMERICA 12/29/2005 @ 12:27am

     Who asked you to stop listening? Just be aware, in case you weren't, that others who listen are hearing different things. And from an outsider's point of view, this is a little hard to follow when His opinion on an issue is presented.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2005 @ 1:06pm

186. To oksportsguy: the god you want to pray to is the ONLY god worth paying any attention to or praying to: Bugs Bunny.

     Posted by Willymack at 12/29/2005 @ 1:35pm

187. True:

     I am not going to get into a theological debate so many here always want to get into (yeah-yeah, I know maybe I shouldn't have made my snide little comment). Chimi made my point anyway - not that Jesus wouldn't have offered his political views (b/c from what I have read, he was very political), it is that many Christians arguing politics cite the Old Test. but seem less concerned with many of JC's teachings.

     NOW, would you care to ever get back to MY on-topic questions?

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 1:46pm

188. LL:

     Many did not respond to your op-ed postings b/c many believe warrantless wiretaps are just as wrong if authorized under Clinton as they are under Bush. I know a knee-jerk conservative defense is "the other guy did it," or to look at Clinton but where do you go when the response is "the other guy was wrong too?" Bush is the president, not Clinton. Let's start trying to take some ownership and responsibility.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 1:50pm

189. Many did not respond to your op-ed postings b/c many believe warrantless wiretaps are just as wrong if authorized under Clinton as they are under Bush. I know a knee-jerk conservative defense is "the other guy did it," or to look at Clinton but where do you go when the response is "the other guy was wrong too?" Bush is the president, not Clinton. Let's start trying to take some ownership and responsibility.

     Posted by HMAN23 12/29/2005 @ 1:50pm

     HM,

     I don't know why you singled out my inclusion of the Clinton Admin. I also included the Carter Administration and the FISA Court itself. The practice goes back to FDR and his warrantless wiretaps of Germans suspected of spying against the US. Therefore as I stated, there is legal and historical precedent going back decades in support of the Bush Admin's position.

     So, if you or others have an opposing view, why not cite your authority for that view rather than ignoring my input or even worse, castigating it without any substantive alternate view except "we don't like it and we don't believe it's legal".

     Posted by love liberty at 12/29/2005 @ 2:35pm

190. NaCl

     I agree with "The year is ending on a much better note than it began" For reasons on your, and on the left's list.

     Sure, Sadaam out of the way is a good thing. However, that does not make the "getting" more palatable. Even the most onerous act can have positive effects. To say both the product and process are necessarily "good" has no basis in logic.

     As to the general state of the Middle East - it is perhaps marginally better. If it turns out good in the long term....great. However, that area does have a long and rich history of volatility, so you'll excuse me if I don't start clapping quite yet.

     re: Darfur (and Africa in general) You cry "Where is the Left?" Try looking here: SaveDarfur where you will note a list of faith-based, and notable "left-wing" oriented groups. I didn't notice any predominantly "right-wing" groups there...although I could be wrong (not knowing exactly "who" is in that crowd.)

     You ignore the 800 pound gorilla though by not instead asking "Where is the Right?" After all, isn't the GOP in charge of both houses of the Legislative Branch, The Executive Branch, and pretty much the Judicial too?

     If we look at recent news items like HERE [tinyurl.co.uk] we see that Congress isn't as charmed by Darfur as it is with oil-soaked Iraq. We'll test his idea soon perhaps. The UN has issued a cease-fire resolution HERE [news.scotsman.com] in the area. If if gets breached, we'll see if we are as committed to "spreading freedom and democracy" in an area less steeeped in petroleum futures....

     For the record, Progressives / Dems have a history of trying to feed the poor and aid the downtrodden in general see: HERE [tinyurl.co.uk] and HERE [tinyurl.co.uk].... and if you scroll to the bottom of this page you'll see what the monies in Iraq could be buying: HERE [tinyurl.co.uk]

     The proclamation that Progressives support the Iraqi insurgents is frankly your normal unfounded bullshit (unless you'd care to cite a proper reference?)

     Happy New Year!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/29/2005 @ 2:59pm

191. Willymack,

     "To oksportsguy: the god you want to pray to is the ONLY god worth paying any attention to or praying to: Bugs Bunny."

     No actually his name is Jesus Christ. He is the Lord of Lords and the Host of Hosts. He is the savior of the world and sits at the right hand of God.

     But thanks for playing...

     Oh my gosh I just proselytized on The Nation… How "unethical" of me, I might have "offended" someone.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/29/2005 @ 3:22pm

192. TODD:

     Don't worry about proselytizing--you're version of Christianity is about as appealing as egg farts. Seriously, I know that you spout your "kill them all and let God sort them out" bs just to get a response. But your Christian witness really suffers for it.

     Posted by rain man at 12/29/2005 @ 3:46pm

193. The practice goes back to FDR and his warrantless wiretaps of Germans suspected of spying against the US. Therefore as I stated, there is legal and historical precedent going back decades in support of the Bush Admin's position.

     So, if you or others have an opposing view, why not cite your authority for that view rather than ignoring my input or even worse, castigating it without any substantive alternate view except "we don't like it and we don't believe it's legal".

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/29/2005 @ 2:35pm

     It is illegal and it has historical precedent. So we can do one of two things: continue to allow administrations to conduct illegal wiretaps or stop them. Wiretaps are legal. Wiretaps conducted by the administration with no judicial approval are not. Never have been.

     The law does not allow the President's activities. It is simple. It might be effective (though there is no evidence of this). It might be a tradition (like congressmen accepting all forms of gifts from lobbyists). But an effective tradition that is also legal? Not a chance. As a strict literalist on the Constitution and the law, you are bending in the administration's bluster to accommodate their misdeeds.

     Go ahead, cite away those who say it is merely business as usual.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2005 @ 3:55pm

194. LL (my apologies for the long post, but you asked):

     Authority: You cite opinions of former administration and Justice officials, and one decision of the surveillance court. I could easily dig up a few op-ed pieces for my side, but if you want some real legal authority, read these two Supreme Court decisions:

     KATZ v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Supreme Court held that compliance with the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment was necessary before the Federal Government could employ wiretaps against US citizens.

     "'Over and again this Court has emphasized that the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes,' United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51 , and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment - subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. It is difficult to imagine how any of those exceptions could ever apply to the sort of search and seizure involved in this case. Even electronic surveillance substantially contemporaneous with an individual's arrest could hardly be deemed an "incident" of that arrest. . . . Nor could the use of electronic surveillance without prior authorization be justified on grounds of "hot pursuit." And, of course, the very nature of electronic surveillance precludes its use pursuant to the suspect's consent."

     UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972). "[This case] involves the delicate question of the President's power, acting through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillance in internal security matters without prior judicial approval."

     The government originally argued that the president authority was based upon "inherent" presidential power, but that argument was withdrawn. Instead, the Solicitor General argued to the Supreme Court that electronic surveillance in cases of domestic subversion was a "reasonable" search and seizure which did not require a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed.

     "[The Court's decision in Katz] implicitly recognized that the broad and unsuspected governmental incursions into conversational privacy which electronic surveillance entails necessitate the application of Fourth Amendment safeguards. … These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch. The Fourth Amendment does not contemplate the executive officers of Government as neutral and disinterested magistrates. Their duty and responsibility are to enforce the laws, to investigate, and to prosecute. Katz v. United States. But those charged with this investigative and prosecutorial duty should not be the sole judges of when to utilize constitutionally sensitive means in pursuing their tasks. The historical judgment, which the Fourth Amendment accepts, is that unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech. . . .

     The Government argues that the special circumstances applicable to domestic security surveillances necessitate a further exception to the warrant requirement. It is urged that the requirement of prior judicial review would obstruct the President in the discharge of his constitutional duty to protect domestic security. We are told further that these surveillances are directed primarily to the collecting and maintaining of intelligence with respect to subversive forces, and are not an attempt to gather evidence for specific criminal prosecutions. It is said that this type of surveillance should not be subject to traditional warrant requirements which were established to govern investigation of criminal activity, not ongoing intelligence gathering.

     But we do not think a case has been made for the requested departure from Fourth Amendment standards. The circumstances described do not justify complete exemption of domestic security surveillance from prior judicial scrutiny. Official surveillance, whether its purpose be criminal investigation or ongoing intelligence gathering, risks infringement of constitutionally protected privacy of speech. Security surveillances are especially sensitive because of the inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept, the necessarily broad and continuing nature of intelligence gathering, and the temptation to utilize such surveillances to oversee political dissent. We recognize, as we have before, the constitutional basis of the President's domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a manner compatible with the Fourth Amendment. In this case we hold that this requires an appropriate prior warrant procedure."

     You cite to inherent authority of the president, and the FISA court case is one example. However, citing back to FDR is largely irrelevant because many of your examples involve wartime powers. I am sure we could debate whether wartime powers are applicable at present. I know that is part of what the Attorney General is saying.

     However, Bush's actions go against the explicit will of Congress set forth in the FISA statute. The only way you can get around it is by claiming Bush's war powers trump the requirements of the statute, which is strained.

     See http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/domesticsurveillance.pdf for an example; a discussion by constitutional scholar Robert Levy (a board member at the right-wing Federalist Society)

     "The text of FISA §1809 is unambiguous: "A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance … except as authorized by statute. …

     I know of no court case that has denied there is a reasonable expectation of privacy by U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens in the types of wire communications that are reportedly monitored by the NSA's electronic surveillance program. …

     [I]n FISA §1811, Congress expressly contemplated warrantless wiretaps during wartime, and limited them to the first 15 days after war is declared.

     Morevoer, since 1978, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(f) has directed that Title III and FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...and the interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted."

     The president does have inherent authority, but this power is not absolute, espcially when you have Comgress speaking to the issue at hand (like in FISA). So the debate is not a question of whether the president has the inherent authority to conduct seraches without a warrant, because he does under certain limitations – if Congress authorizes it, and less so if it is silent. The issue here is that Congress has been explicit in this case. Notably, portions of FISA were amended through the Patriot Act, but not those sections dealing with surveillance and electronic eavesdropping.

     Bush's program offends the 4th Amendment under settled Supreme Court authority and violates the explciit prohibitions of FISA.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 4:02pm

195. Can you imagine what kind of shit would be revealed about LL if his phone calls, emails, letters and movements were tracked and recorded? I mean, given that he believes the rest of the world ought to expiate his sins and the rest of America's, I can only imagine what kind of plots and schemes that jeriatric jerk is unraveling at any moment of the day, all in the name of the Lord, mind you. No wonder most of his "charity" is done overseas, to escape the scrutiny of his "civilized" brethren here. Kind of reminds me of all those divine criminals like Jim Baker from back in the day who either went to jail or fled to other countries, taking their mindbending venom to places like Honduras and Peru, where I've personally seen them prey on peasants who believe in talking owls, gobblins and demonic horses, and will believe anything if you dress it up right. I'd bet LL's Salvadoran wife is 17 years old and conditioned to believe that not only is he some kind of demigod, but able to send her to hell should she transgress and call him on his bullshit like anyone with a brain here does.

     Posted by chimichenga at 12/29/2005 @ 4:10pm

196. HMAN32

     Excellent counter to the LL post above. Obviously there is at least the perception of some "wiggle room" for the right in his stand though, hence the squirming we have been seeing as of late....

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/29/2005 @ 4:45pm

197. LL:

     Regarding your contention that what Bush is doing is consistent with what Clinton and Carter authorized, you are wrong.

     Executive Order 12949 that Clinton signed authorized the following:

     "Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section."

     That section of FISA requires the Attorney General to certify that the search will not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

     Executive Order 12139 that Jimmy Carter signed authorized the following:

     "1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section."

     What the Attorney General has to certify under that section of FISA is that the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party."

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 4:55pm

198. Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/29/2005 @ 12:29am

     [ Dycl8r,

     Try reading the context. I was responding directly to someone who labels Christians as the evil in the world. It was not directed towards liberals in general or even the many bloggers on this site.]

     LL bull everything you quote is directed at liberials. Context like beauty are in the eye of the beholder. To misuse a quote from the bible without looking at in in relation to todays reality is an afront to everything christ intended in fact it is proof of your hypocracy.

     [ And I won't trouble the other posters by going into my activities that are completely opposite of your prejudicated views. Many so-called liberals like yourself are an oxymoron to actual liberal beliefs like respect for others, and the importance of all viewpoints being heard. ]

     Sorry I can't hide from what I see going on around me like you can, you say you take clothing and food to the homeless but you don't bother to climb down from you holy platform to notice that the number of those in poverty has increased dramaticly since your beloved pres took office. Hell you don't even bother to try, just throw up a quote that sides with your viewpoint and claim superiority over ? you keep missing the point.

     [ No, your way is to stereotype like Will C does and place all conservative Christians into some narrow view as exemplified by the likes of many of the "television ministries". If this accurately reflects your views, it shows either a serious ignorance or willful bigotry. ]

     LL you are the classic stereotype of the conservative right you don't answer the questions put to you, you hide behind rationalizations that don't hold water and you think yourself superior because you can avoid reality. Isn't this the ultimate proof of your ignorance and willful bigotry.

     For the record I am an independent I believe that all religions which misuse and misquote the bible to claim superiority over other religions are full of s--t. Christ gave us simple guidelines for all, religions revise these in their own image to point to others and say they are more superior. Now your type conservative christian religions support pain and suffering more than help thy brother while looking to line the empty hole in your sole with self empathy.

     Posted by dycel8r at 12/29/2005 @ 4:56pm

199. I posted this on Katrina's blog, but hers has been Plunged and Doomed into a discussion about 9/11 conspiracies. With that, I give you this in response to something posted by Munich last night:

     Munich posted:

     From Reuters: In Crawford, Texas, where Bush is spending the holidays, his spokesman, Trent Duffy, defended what he called a "limited program."

     "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner," he told reporters. "These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings, and churches."

     I had been discussing this with a friend who responded thusly:

     Oh, come on. You can't tell me that those terrorists don't have to drive their kids to little league practice. What, they have chauffeurs?! And you better believe they are always planning potlucks. The Middle East is all about the potluck. So what does the NSA do? When it's apparent that the discussion is about a potluck, they quickly take the headset off? Maybe step outside the black van and stretch for a minute or two, maybe have a smoke, then go back in and put the set back on to see if they're talking about terrorism again?

     You realize, of course, that Bush has just compromised our homeland security, by tipping off the ubiquitous terrorists to the appropriate code they should use. "Hasan, is your ‘wife' making that ‘delicious' ‘green bean casserole' for the ‘potluck' on Tuesday at 10am at ‘Marge's house'?" "Yes, Akbar, although she is having trouble obtaining a high enough grade of ‘green beans' to make the dispersal of the ‘casserole' effective." "I understand. Perhaps Hakim can infiltrate the ‘supermarket' this evening after midnight and procure the necessary ‘ingredients,' Allah willing." Meanwhile, back in the van. "Ah, I don't know, Bob. These damn A-rabs. All they ever talk about is cooking. I tell ya, it's makin' me hungry. What say we stop listening for a while and go check in on that ‘peace rally' at that Pizza place on Market St."

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2005 @ 5:00pm

200. LOC:

     Thanks. There are some creative legal arguments to be made from those who support Bush in this case. For example, you can read some of David Rivkin's in the link to his discussion with Robert Levy I posted (maybe LL will even crib a few). I do not find them persuasive in relation to spying on U.S. citizens, but they will be made by some nonetheless. Looking at what Bush is doing, it is hard to get around Sup. Ct. precedent and the explict prohibitions of the FISA statute (which remained even after Bush pushed for, and was given, certain amendments through the Patriot Act). It takes the kind of creative legal intepretation that the Right usually chides the leftist activist judges of employing.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 5:12pm

201. Gotta Run LL, but I am eagerly awaiting your response, given that you posed the challenege.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 5:14pm

202. gotta spell check better - sorry.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 5:14pm

203. HMAN23

     Well, we will certainly find out who is right, however, for every legal expert crying foul, there are just as many saying no foul.

     The Supreme Court will, undoubtedly get invovled, and will settled the matter once and for all. Then I hope we can get back to the buisness of disrupting terrorists bent on doing harm.

     But for those who are getting giddy with the thought that the President might be impeached for "illegally tapping" Americans calling international phone numbers connected to AQ, not so fast.

     The very powerful "National Security" clauses of the Consitution and the War powers resolution that Congress authorized, post 911, to give the President board authority to wage war, will assuredly win out.

     The precedents are numerous, and the mandate clear, Presidents have the duty to protect the nation from attack. Show me where Bush authorized a tap of the DNC HQ? Kerry?, Dean? And just WHO was he tapping? Americans calling international phone numbers connected to AQ.

     Are you telling me, post 911, you do NOT want the President to have the authority to tap people talking to AQ? Is it not many here, who decry Bush incompetency, pre-911 and then in the same breath you criticize and say foul! when He takes CLEAR action against those INTENT on doing Americans harm.

     Nothing will come of this! The Supreme Court will NOT rule that the President acted illegally, based on the facts and written law.

     The interpertations of the law are certainly in dispute. And there are written laws, equally if not more powerful, that would support the Presidents' position.

     Posted by CPT at 12/29/2005 @ 5:39pm

204. All you Bush supporters are basically saying the same thing: President G.W. Bush is above the law.

     Posted by BBatten at 12/29/2005 @ 6:02pm

205. CPT: "Show me where Bush authorized a tap of the DNC HQ? Kerry?, Dean? And just WHO was he tapping?"

     Yeah, like you know.

     Posted by BBatten at 12/29/2005 @ 6:05pm

206. After so much misinformation, distortion and outright lying, it's a wonder to me that anyone really expects you to take anything Bush says at face value. He was obviously lying on camera earlier this year when he made a point to tell the public that court orders were always used. Because of their fear, conservatives seem to think the President should be above the law and any amount of lying to the American people is OK as long as the President says he lied to protect us.

     I say bullshit. Start protecting our ports, chemical plants and checking shipping containers. Re-fund those armed air marshals and reinforce those cockpit doors. Spend the money to get radiation detectors on every bridge in every major city, equip commercial airliners with anti-missle hardware, increase security at nuclear facilities and do something about the proliferation of illegal nukes besides ruining the career of a CIA operative paid to do that job for us. And then, if you have to wiretap, do it under the umbrella of the FISA law which allows you to wiretap immediately and get permission later.

     I want to know who was tapped without court approval and why? If I can't have that information, I would like one of my elected representatives to see it. Until some democrats agree that there was no dirty tricks, I have no reason to believe there were not illegal political wiretaps going on just like Nixon did. Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rove all worked for Nixon. AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TRUST THESE GUYS???!!! Give me a frikin brake.

     Posted by BBatten at 12/29/2005 @ 6:15pm

207. Excuse me. Friggin' break.

     Posted by BBatten at 12/29/2005 @ 6:19pm

208. Ah, yes, CPT, let's just base all law on what violent INTENT we perceive other people to have. I was beaten up by a white man once, therefore all white people intend me violence. I have the experience of violence done against me by white people, I have the proof a white man beat me up, I have the history of lynchings and organized violence led by whites against blacks in this country, numerous instances, instances that make the Normandy street incident in Los Angeles look like a slumber party. I therefore believe that all white people, having a historic racist pattern that involves beating and subjugating people of color, ought to be restricted in movement, have their phones tapped, be monitored closely and if neccessary, have air strikes flown against their neighborhoods. in addition, a former secretary of education of the United States in recent weeks spoke quite glibly about sterilizing all black people in the ghetto as a means of reducing crime. Should we not then defend ourselves, since his intent was so clearly pronounced? There have been numerous instances where black people on death row have had to be released due to mistrial. But that can't just be an accident, there must be a conscious effort to wage genocide in this country against the black population. There are tons of white people in this country who imply such a measure should be pursued every day. Should we then round all those people up and lock them up? Isn't their intent showing? Don't they have a history of violence? didn't some of them destroy a federal building in Oklahoma a few years ago? Wiretap all of them, I say. The innocent have nothing to fear.

     It's a pretty idiotic argument, isn't it? But the argument I've raised, which can be backed up with loosely gathered tidbits of fact, is exactly the one your government put together to create this war and the president's war powers. It's just that idiotic. And you sound idiotic defending it, CPT.

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 6:29pm

209. .

     LEFTOFCENTER 12/29/ @ 2:59pm

     The proclamation that Progressives support the Iraqi insurgents is frankly your normal unfounded bullshit (unless you'd care to cite a proper reference?)

     What better reference can you want than Nichols' MVP list? Almost all of those paragons opposed the invasion, considered the White House a greater villain than the Baath, and have been demanding a fixed and total and early withdrawal date. Everyone agrees: that is what the insurgents are fighting for. To get the US troops to leave. Those Americans are the insurgent's principal obstacle, shielding the present govt which they hate and wish to destroy and replace. The removal of that obstacle is what those MVPs are all about. Only a knave or a naif can't see that.

     Progressives / Dems have a history of trying to feed the poor and aid the downtrodden

     They have a history of requiring others, especially the govt, do so. They don't have a history of going out themselves and sharing what they have. Both Katrina vanden Heuvel and Victory Navasky are multimillionaires. Katrina inherited vast wealth through her mother whose father Jules Stein, with Lew Wasserman, built and owned MCA, a talent agency that ran Hollywood, owned Universal, and was worth billions. Victor Navasky is rich through his wife a very successful stockbroker.

     For people who devote themselves to others, look to the Christian missionaries who have for over a century been going out, often with their families, into China and Africa and Asia. They share their skills their wealth, their lives, with the poor. After them, the people who give most are the capitalists. It is the Carnegies, Rochefellers, Guggenheims, Ford's etc., who end up devoting their fortunes to raising the downtrodden. Yes, there are also the poor themselves. Their capacity for empathy often makes them very generous. One sees them unable to resist giving a hucksters on the subway their change. But the Progressives, when they speak of giving, they mainly mean, other people, the tax payers. They are generous with the wallets of others. They believe, what is yours is mine, and what is mine is none of your business.

     As to Darfur, you say:

     Try looking here: SaveDarfur where you will note a list of faith-based, and notable "left-wing" oriented groups. I didn't notice any predominantly "right-wing" groups there...

     The US govt of George Bush has by far been the biggest supporter and defender of the refugees of Darfur. It has outspent the rest of the world combined. But why hasn't it gone into Khartoum with force?

     You ask that after the world's response to US efforts to fight starvation in Somalia? After the way it cheered when out Black Hawks were shot down? The way it fought US efforts to wring the neck of a genocidal tyrant in Baghdad? Now you can't understand why the US isn't taking on the ethnic cleansers of Khartoum!

     Sure there are scores of NGOs in Darfur. (Many have right wing origins and endowments but now, like the Ford Foundation, are run by lefties.) They are handing out soup in Darfur. I don't denigrate that. The NGOs field terrific people. But social work is not what can turn Darfur around. Political action is required. Pressure has to be exerted on the govt of Sudan. Where are the marchers who filled the streets of America and Europe on behalf of the tyrant Saddam - to bring pressure on Washington? Why are you not marching on behalf of the Darfurian refugees - to bring pressure on Khartoum?

     You know where you can shove your phony links. Show me the real links, the ones that make China Sudan's protector, for reasons of oil.

     There is an answer for Darfur: the Arab League. It is best positioned to turn that situation around. It exists to protect and advance the interests and values of Arabs and Muslims. Sudan is a member state. It is dependent economically, politically and psychologically on its fellows. If the Arab League were to turn against the Sudan, the way the EU turned on Austria when it elected a neo fascist party, the Sudan would have to cave on Darfur. But the League pretends that it has no interests, no involvement, no responsibility in the matter of Darfur. A member state commits ethnic cleaning and genocide against millions of black Africans, but the Arab League claims, that is none of its business.

     Where are the Progressive picketers of the offices and embassies of the Arab League and their members insisting that it is their business? Where are the marchers holding the Arab League responsible for chastising Sudan and compelling it to desist, with economic and even military pressure if need be?

     They are nowhere in sight. The Arab League is their friend and ally. They have no intention of embarrassing it. It is to this that things have progressed.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/29/2005 @ 7:08pm

210. What a bunch of Eurocentric bullshit, NACl. When are you going to learn something about the histories of those regions, never? God you make me puke.

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 7:19pm

211. NACL: "The US govt of George Bush has by far been the biggest supporter and defender of the refugees of Darfur. It has outspent the rest of the world combined."

     Care to link that supposition? Clearly you have very little knowledge of the situation and demographics of The Sudan. The Arab League is the worst possible choice to intervene in Darfur. Who do you think has responded to the displacement of the southwest provinces? It is certainly not Bush.

     The UN refugee organization is working within Sudan as well as in CAR and Chad. The OAU has peacekeeping forces from Nigeria and several other countries positioned. These efforts are certainly not enough, but they are having some effect. In the meantime, Bush continues to do nothing.

     The conflict is religious as well as ethnic. The Arab League will only support the power base of northern Sudan and nothing more.

     "They have a history of requiring others, especially the govt, do so. They don't have a history of going out themselves and sharing what they have"

     Good one NACL. You bring up Vanden Heuvel and Navasky.What do they have to do with this topic. Do you know for a fact that they do nothing in terms of "sharing what they have". Care to provide a link? If not, then leave it alone.

     In so far as progressives are concerned, how many current or former Peace Corps volunteers have you come across? And, who started the Peace Corps? Ever heard of US based volunteer organizations placing teachers in poor rural areas to serve one to two year stints at barely more than poverty level rates? Probably not NACL.

     These people are our most able and cherished natural resource. Not you twisted missionaries carrying their baskets of fear and intolerance.

     Posted by doumer at 12/29/2005 @ 7:50pm

212. .

     LEGBA 12/29 @ 7:19pm

     What a bunch of Eurocentric bullshit, NACl. When are you going to learn something about the histories of those regions, never? God you make me puke.

     Your problem is you lack the power to make sense, but not the power to make sounds.

     Posted by nacl at 12/29/2005 @ 7:50pm

213. "Your problem is you lack the power to make sense, but not the power to make sounds."

     Posted by NACL 12/29/2005 @ 7:50pm

     Sorry to butt in Legba. Ignorance has always been one of the more despicable of American traits.

     NACL, if you freely elect to debate then make sure you have what it takes to look and sound credible.

     Posted by doumer at 12/29/2005 @ 8:05pm

214. NaCl

     The first item still stands. For some reason, you (and many other "Tighty-Righties") see the world in a very black & white perspective. An "if you aren't with us, you're against us" mindset. Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now. We agree there has been some good coming out of the invasion of Iraq, but we do not agree that it was the right thing to do.

     Along the Iraq front though I just saw on the news that Iraqi police are using racially biased (Shiite vs Sunni) torture in secret prisons. Kinda begs whether they learned it or taught it. At any rate, it isn't exactly an indicator of long term democratice stability.

     As to "Darfur, etc." I'll give you some points on the Missionary concept. Sure can't denigrate them - Christian or otherwise. I'm sure you noticed the .org list included Jewish, Buddhist and Islamic orgs too though. So kudos to all the groups, regardless of what deity they bow to for their kind works. And while Dubya has given some attention to the region, the GOP controlled Congress can't seem to find its way to help that area. As to Left vs Right individuals....I sure can't proffer as to who gives more, or actually "does" more, but if you have a factual link, it would be appreciated.

     Again, I would ask...."Why isn't the GOP controlled gov't up in arms about this?" You ask, why doesn't the left protest, I ask why doesn't the right do something...they're in charge. And for the record...both sides should be up in arms. But it is kinda hard to focus attention on sad little Darfur when our fiscal future is pissing down the drain of Dubya's Folly at $2000/second.

     To "You know where you can shove your phony links" I say...what the hell are you talking about? Those are news from various places. If you don't like them, well, fine. Doesn't make them "phony." So poussez-le vers le haut du vôtre.

     As to the "Arab League" solution....think that might have worked for Iraq? Your argument can be spun either way. Why didn't hordes of right-wingers beat down the doors of the Arab League affiliates with respect to Iraq...an actual member nation (unlike Darfur) like our "good friend" Saudi Arabia? Because they don't like us....in 2003 voting 21-1 resolution telling the US and UK they should leave Iraq. (Only Kuwait on "our side") It is the US gov't's prerogative to go to the Arab League to talk politics with respect to the Sudan, although I suspect the UN would be more welcome these days.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/29/2005 @ 8:28pm

215. NACL,

     Sudan and Zimbabwe have been front page headlines for quite some time outside United States. It is most likely not "sensational" enough for American media.

     Posted by Blackened at 12/29/2005 @ 8:48pm

216. .

     LEGBA 12/29 @ 7:19pm

     NACL: "The US govt of George Bush has by far been the biggest supporter and defender of the refugees of Darfur. It has outspent the rest of the world combined."

     Doumer: Care to link that supposition?

     The United States has so far provided more than $160 million toward peacekeeping efforts in Darfur, and has played a major role in airlifting AU troops. Rice has promised an additional $50 million. http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-12-15-voa2.cfm

     As to the separate issue of humanitarian assistance, China's People's Daily took notice on January 2005 of the fact that the US had already spent $400 million on such aid in Darfur. http://english.people.com.cn/200501/30/eng20050130_172348.html

     Now it is your turn. Link me to what the other nations have spent on Darfur.

     Clearly you have very little knowledge of the situation and demographics of The Sudan. The Arab League is the worst possible choice to intervene in Darfur.

     Explain why it is the "worst possible choice"!

     Explain why the Arab League, cannot call a meeting where it tells the Sudan that it is shaming the Arabs in the eyes of the world and that it must leave the Darfurians alone.

     If it remains obstreperous, why can't the League censure Sudan for behaving barbarically and against the precepts of the Koran?

     And why cannot the League threaten commercial and diplomatic isolation until Sudan behaves?

     You suggest you understand the region, give your reasons for discounting that idea.

     Why do you say, "Bush continues to do nothing" when he has done more than anyone. Is more than six hundred million dollars nothing? Even the recent African troop contributions were largely made possible by US logistical support.

     The conflict is religious as well as ethnic. The Arab League will only support the power base of northern Sudan and nothing more.

     That is right. That is the point. The Arab League is refusing to act responsibly. But why should a good progressive support that? Why not protest that? Why not demand that the Arab League behave in a principled fashion and use its clout with Sudan to help Darfur?

     And, who started the Peace Corps? . . .These people are our most able and cherished natural resource. Not you twisted missionaries carrying their baskets of fear and intolerance.

     I have known a number of people who served in the Peace Corps including a woman who, as a young pediatrician, was sent by to Nigeria. She was harnessed as the personal physician and governess of a high ranking and rich chief's family.

     The Peace Corps is anyhow a complete non sequitur here. But I will say that what it started to do, splendidly, with a few hundred volunteers giving two years of their lives as of the 1960s, Christian missionaries had been doing for more than a century by the tens of thousands. Not for 24 months but for terms as long as 24 years and often a lifetime. Moreover they did this not as an elevated way to spend two years after college, but as their life's work. Your reckless slandering of those heroic and good people is worthy of you, and your crowd.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/29/2005 @ 9:36pm

217. .

     LEFTOFCENTER 12/29 @ 8:28pm

     Again, I would ask...."Why isn't the GOP controlled gov't up in arms about this?" You ask, why doesn't the left protest, I ask why doesn't the right do something...they're in charge. And for the record...both sides should be up in arms. But it is kinda hard to focus attention on sad little Darfur when our fiscal future is pissing down the drain of Dubya's Folly at $2000/second.

     You have a habit of ignoring my answers and repeating your comments. I have explained some of the disincentives for doing more in Darfur. But we are doing plenty money wise and diplomatically. As an indication, the foreign ministers of no other country have been in Darfur as often as have Powell and Rice.

     As to the "Arab League" solution....think that might have worked for Iraq? Your argument can be spun either way. Why didn't hordes of right-wingers beat down the doors of the Arab League affiliates with respect to Iraq...

     Alright, suppose that tactic should have been tried in Iraq, but wasn't. Is that a valid reason for not trying it now?

     But of course, that suggestion of an application in the case of Iraq is just dumb rhetoric. And your own words admit it. As you note, Saudi Arabia like all of the Arab League members openly supported Iraq.

     The case of Sudan is different. (That Darfur is a region inside Sudan and is itself not a state comparable to Iraq is another pointless and stupid distinction.) The issue is the dastardly behavior of Sudan. Each of the Arab states affirms its opposition to ethnic cleansing and to genocide and claims good will for black Africans. All of them are against the displacement of the Darfurians. That makes it a question of demanding they perform, demanding that they back up their ethical professions with real action.

     For some reason, you (and many other "Tighty-Righties") see the world in a very black & white perspective. An "if you aren't with us, you're against us" mindset. Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now. We agree there has been some good coming out of the invasion of Iraq, but we do not agree that it was the right thing to do.

     Your agreement, that some good might flow from the invasion, is contradicted by your MVPs who want to undo whatever good is possible. They demand a pull out at a given date and soon. That would certainly ruin everything.

     Finally, you bet I see the Iraq issue and the radical left in black and white terms. I see you as a fraud. I see your insincerity in every post, this one not least. I see your crowd marching to protect Saddam and now seeking an early pull out which would give Islamofascists a smashing victory. I see you guys posturing virtuously at every chance, when in fact you are the scum of the earth.

     Posted by nacl at 12/29/2005 @ 10:12pm

218. .

     DOUMER 12/29 @ 7:50pm

     Sorry, I misaddressed my post. The one headed, LEGBA 12/29 @ 7:19pm just a little way up was meant for you.

     Posted by nacl at 12/29/2005 @ 10:21pm

219. this whole thread is a waste

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/29/2005 @ 10:38pm

220. CPT said: The very powerful "National Security" clauses of the Consitution and the War powers resolution that Congress authorized, post 911, to give the President board authority to wage war, will assuredly win out.

     Question to CPT from earth why did the bush admins try to add language to the war powers resolution to include the United States in their authority to use wire taps. They knew they did not have such authority.

     Also it is easy to get FICA to authorize their wire taps why did they ignore the law.

     Me thinks they had skulldugery in mind.

     Posted by dycel8r at 12/29/2005 @ 10:38pm

221. NaCl

     You have a habit of ignoring my answers and repeating your comments.

     Actually, if you'll roll back, you'll note that actually mine wasn't a comment but a question that I asked twice now. The fact that you countered it with a question the first time shows that YOU are the one who does not answer the question - initially. Can I answer why the left isn't out in drove against the rights lack of attention to Darfur....no. Maybe because (as mentioned) Iraq and the bottomless black hole of debt it represents is kinda on the front burner right now.

     So let me re-phrase the original. Your sort does lots of crowing about how the left is unable to do anything meaningful thru our many "nefarious ploys". SO again..., if Darfur is such an item of concern why doesn't the GOP controlled Congress do something? Why doesn't Dubya put forth one of his Execuvtive Orders? You guys are in charge....how the hell can you blame the other side for that which your side isn't doing BTW: If you go back to my "phony" (your call) URLs, you'll note the one was written by a D-IL & R-KS calling for more action. (Guess the URLs are only phoney when you don't agree with them?)

     "...the foreign ministers of no other country have been in Darfur as often as have Powell and Rice." OK....noted (and noted in one of my many "phony" URLs too I might add) So did they bring anything with them? Couple bags of Cheese Doodles? Maybe a suitcase full of cash? No? Hmmmmm...lemme guess - they brought a note from Dubya saying "Wish we could send more...gotta fight terrorists right now. Part of our long-ranger oil strategery. Love & kisses, GWB."

     As to the League of Arab Nations.....George and Condi gonna fly over and schedule some meetings? Or is it strictly up to "me and the Progressives" to fix this? Again, I must point out, the GOP is in charge....we (the left) can "start" legislation, but unless the GOP side of the aisle wants it, it ain't gonna happen' right now.

     As to black & white....yeah, there are those on the left who view a "binary" perspex too. Can't say I agree with them anymore than I do with you. The difference I see is that I try to act most times like I've been out of the cave for a while. You on the other hand....well, not so much.

     NaCl...here I thought we were gonna have an adult conversation, and then you gotta pull out the stops and get your ounce of bitter bullshit in right at the end. Scum of the Earth....spare me your lame metaphors and tired, same-old "the radical evil left hates America" crap OK? We both want what is best for the nation and the world. We just don't agree on what that is. Doesn't make me a "servant of darkness" or whatever evil label is bouncing around in that musty, echoing cavern you call a skull.

     Howzabout for the New Year you make a resolution to buy a personality, or at least double up on the Prozac...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/29/2005 @ 11:14pm

222. As with water and ice, there is no ice without water; apart from sentient beings, there are no Buddhas. Not knowing how close the truth is, we seek it far away --what a pity! Hakuin Ekaku Zenji

     Posted by VANO 12/29/2005 @ 07:27am

     yet so many seek out mystics and temples,

     when god is in the heart

     Posted by Will C. at 12/29/2005 @ 11:15pm

223. Are you saying that the God who created you and I and is Lord of all of creation has no voice in our current modern politics?

     Posted by TRUETOAMERICA 12/29/2005 @ 12:01am

     A wise God, like any wise parent would stand back and let his grown children find there own way.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/29/2005 @ 11:29pm

224. NaCl

     BTW: For the record...I have never defended Sadaam. As point in fact I have repeatedly called him a genocidal madman. So quit saying that I do defend him you slanderous simian. Not agreeing with the lies that brought us to war is not a support of the former Dictator of that nation. 1+1 does not equal cheese no matter how loud you yell "cheddar"

     you want URLs.....China and Sudan oil WA POST [tinyurl.com] of course, you have always decried the Post as a bunch of left wing lies in the past...now that it supports you will you sing a new tune? And then to US, Iraq & oil HERE [tinyurl.com] which you will deem "phony", or the FOIA docs from the Cheney Secret Energy Task Force (maps of Iraq & Afghani oil fields, etc) HERE [judicialwatch.org] or how about a collection of links housed at the U of MI [lib.umich.edu] > I especially liked the part about the admissions from officials re: false uranium documents and the State of the Union speech, or how about the Downing Street memos? [downingstreetmemo.com] which detail the pre-war "massage" of data, and construction of the false Iraq-Al Qaida link?

     Primate

     NaCl's slinging his feces again....thought maybe you could show him how much fun it is once you're down out of the trees and acting like a "civilized" primate!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/29/2005 @ 11:38pm

225. No, your way is to stereotype like Will C does and place all conservative Christians into some narrow view as exemplified by the likes of many of the "television ministries". If this accurately reflects your views, it shows either a serious ignorance or willful bigotry.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/29/2005 @ 12:29am

     Liberty!

     Now how many times have I said that evangelic conservatives are not Christians?

     They are anti-Christians.

     But then, you don't quote the bible accurately. Why should I expect you would quote me accurately?

     Posted by Will C. at 12/30/2005 @ 12:00am

226. No actually his name is Jesus Christ. He is the Lord of Lords and the Host of Hosts. He is the savior of the world and sits at the right hand of God.

     But thanks for playing...

     Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 12/29/2005 @ 3:22pm

     Once again, Heaven as "Twister".

     God sitting at the right hand of himself.

     Spin the Spinner and call the shots, Twister ties you up in a knot...

     Posted by Will C. at 12/30/2005 @ 12:05am

227. Once again we see how those who try to speak in the name of christ forget that christ was but a simple man whilst here on earth, who tried to treat everyone fairly without presumption, whos message was that we are all together here and that we should respect and help everyone.

     Yet we are again confronted by those who claim to know christs premonitions better than christ because they have the bible to guide them. Yes folks the bible first rewritten by Consantine and then by every power hungry idealog to come down the pike.

     Now in the year of our lord 2005 we have those in power who completely reverse the teachings of christ and instead of helping their fellow man create misery and death, they find that the saving of stemcells is more important than saving lives and reducing pain and suffering, that it is more important to stop those who love each other than it is to stop war.

     That it is more important to create a haven for those with wealth and power than those who suffer of old age and poverty. Yep what a fine time to be a conservative christian.

     Posted by dycel8r at 12/30/2005 @ 12:43am

228. The very powerful "National Security" clauses of the Consitution and the War powers resolution that Congress authorized, post 911, to give the President board authority to wage war, will assuredly win out.

     Posted by CPT 12/29/2005 @ 5:39pm

     You know I never heard of the very powerful national security clauses in the US Constitution until you mentioned them. So I googled the phrase and got this.

     SECTION 232 OF THE TRADE EXPANSION ACT OF 1962 (NATIONAL SECURITY CLAUSE) Section 232 authorizes the President of the United States to impose restrictions on imports that threaten national security interests. Upon request by any U.S. government department/agency, interested party, or upon its own motion, the U.S. Department of Commerce will initiate a Section 232 investigation into the effects on national security brought about by importation of a particular article. In conducting its investigation, the Department of Commerce will hold public hearings and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit information relevant to the investigation. The Department's final report will be submitted to the President of the United States who has the ultimate authority to determine whether import restrictions will be imposed to eliminate the identified national security threat.

     http://www.stewartlaw.com/section232.htm

     Is this what you were talking about? Because this isn't part of the US Constitution.

     I was hoping you might point out these very powerful clauses for me.

     Because I just read Article II and I'm just not seeing them.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/30/2005 @ 12:44am

229. Are you telling me, post 911, you do NOT want the President to have the authority to tap people talking to AQ? Is it not many here, who decry Bush incompetency, pre-911 and then in the same breath you criticize and say foul! when He takes CLEAR action against those INTENT on doing Americans harm.

     Posted by CPT 12/29/2005 @ 5:39pm

     No dummy. We want him to follow the law and use the FISA courts

     Posted by Will C. at 12/30/2005 @ 12:48am

230. CPT

     in that whole post you sounded like you were about to blow a head gasket

     Posted by Will C. at 12/30/2005 @ 12:50am

231. Circa November 2006: The Night After the Last "Election" Ever to be Held Again in America

     Orwellian Diebold Machines Suspect in Returning Control of Congress to GOP.

     Scene: The Mall, Washington, D. C.

     It is an epic event. A Grand Old Party celebration and rally the likes of which haven't been seen since 1930s Europe. Clump, clump, clump is the sound of polished jackboots smacking the pavement in unison under searchlights illuminating the night sky. Thousands of vacuous-cranium super patriots wearing party armbands and carrying torches march past the reflecting pool. Ghoulish images are mirrored back from the shallow water. Our hero, Truetoamerica, turns his head to the right on command and raises his arm displaying the red band with the elephant symbol. A smile brightens his face upon realizing that Beloved Leader made eye contact with him as he goose-stepped past His reviewing stand.

     Later, at the bonfire, he cheered as books critical of Beloved Leader are hurled into the giant fire. A roar from the crowd deafened on-lookers as 10,000 copies of The Nation magazine were shoveled into the flames.

     The giant podium adorned with 100 American flags and bathed in bright lights hosted speaker after speaker denouncing liberals and blaming all that is wrong with America on them. Truetoamerica felt his crotch get wet and warm as Attorney Generalissimo Alberto "Torquemada" Gonzales denounced liberals for wanting to preserve the Constitution. "They are aiding the enemy," he declared. "They are clinging to the past, to a simpler time. This is a different time. Our enemies use the Constitution to defend terrorists." Applause.

     His normally slicked-down hair tossed uncontrollably around his head with each emphatic gesture he made. Gonzales declared, "It is time to neutralize the left; it is time to increase our protection of American lives – ladies and gentlemen, fellow true Americans, it is time to improve our security by getting tough on terrorists here at home." Thunderous applause greeted the intended rhetorical blending of "the left" and "terrorist" in the same breath. "With this new threat we face, it is important that Beloved Leader is empowered to act fast," the AG continued. "I have researched this and I know we are on solid legal ground when I recommend the immediate elimination of US Citizenship for liberals –even those who are born here." The crowd roared its approval. "We need to take the courts out of the approval loop for spying on liberals." More applause. "We will track them even into their community libraries where they lurk about reading seditious anti-American books." Cheering, stomping, and thunderous applause proceeded unabated for 13 minutes. Beloved Leader, perched on a gilded throne and surrounded by uniformed armed soldiers radiated his imbecilic smile upon the assembled throng.

     "Thank God we have a Reagent that cares about preserving American lives," our hero thought as he joined the crowd in burning copies of the U S Constitution.

     [Note: Dramatic license aside, please read the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II lest you think this is fiction.]

     Posted by seattlescribe at 12/30/2005 @ 01:55am

232. As some evangelicals have a " Cafeteria" approach to the Bible( take what i want and leave the rest), so do some others in respect to the Constitution. Please read only the black print.

     Posted by vano at 12/30/2005 @ 07:43am

233. .

     LEFTOFCENTER 12/29 @ 11:14pm

     mine wasn't a comment but a question that I asked twice now. The fact that you countered it with a question the first time shows that YOU are the one who does not answer the question - initially. Can I answer why the left isn't out in drove against the rights lack of attention to Darfur....no. Maybe because (as mentioned) Iraq and the bottomless black hole of debt it represents is kinda on the front burner right now.

     You are as always a swamp. Confusion, evasion and pretense bubble and perculate everywhere. If you at least floated the words you wish to refute, but even those remain in the mudy water.

     I had originally asked, about Darfur.

     Hundreds of thousands of Africans have been displaced and persecuted. Where is the voice of the Left there? It is completely silent, because the perpetrator of the crime is a Muslim Arab police state supported by a Communist Chinese regime more interested in gas and oil than people." [12/29 @ 11:55am]

     It was you who evaded that question. You answered with links to NGOs, most of them apolitical, feeding and sheltering the refugees, and the counter question:

     "Where is the Right?" After all, isn't the GOP in charge of both houses of the Legislative Branch, The Executive Branch, and pretty much the Judicial too? . . . Congress isn't as charmed by Darfur as it is with oil-soaked Iraq. We'll test his idea soon perhaps."

     My next post 12/29 @ 7:08pm replied directly:

     The US govt of George Bush has by far been the biggest supporter and defender of the refugees of Darfur. It has outspent the rest of the world combined. But why hasn't it gone into Khartoum with force?

     You ask that after the world's response to US efforts to fight starvation in Somalia? After the way it cheered when out Black Hawks were shot down? The way it fought US efforts to wring the neck of a genocidal tyrant in Baghdad? Now you can't understand why the US isn't taking on the ethnic cleansers of Khartoum!

     You ignored that and reiterated:

     Again, I would ask...."Why isn't the GOP controlled gov't up in arms about this?" You ask, why doesn't the left protest, I ask why doesn't the right do something...they're in charge. And for the record...both sides should be up in arms. But it is kinda hard to focus attention on sad little Darfur when our fiscal future is pissing down the drain of Dubya's Folly at $2000/second.

     My next post 12/29 9:36pm pointed out that the US Congress had appropriated $400 million in humanitarian aid and 160 million for peacekeeping, plus another $50 million recently and that Rice and Powell had visited Darfur more often than any other country's foreign ministers.

     On 12/29 @ 10:12pm I said, "You have a habit of ignoring my answers and repeating your comments."

     You riposte:

     Actually, if you'll roll back, you'll note that actually mine wasn't a comment but a question that I asked twice now. The fact that you countered it with a question the first time shows that YOU are the one who does not answer the question

     Well, I have rolled back. Clearly you either have a memory problem which borders on dementia or you are a pathological liar.

     Posted by nacl at 12/30/2005 @ 10:52am

234. .

     LEFTOFCENTER 12/29 @ 11:14pm

     About Darfut, it breaks into two parts. The first is the problem of feeding and sheltering and protecting the displaced refugees in their camps. The other is the problem of forcing Khartoum to end its ethnic cleansing policy and to restore those black Africans to their villages.

     The answer to the first problem is money. The US has supplied that to the tune of more than $600 million. The second requires either hitting the Khartoum regime over the head militarily, or via political and economic sanctions.

     For reasons touched on in earlier posts, the military option is foreclosed. As to political and economic sanctions, the US has little if any economic and political influence on Khartoum. But the Arab League has. Sudan depends in most ways on its fellow Arab states. They can make Sudan behave simply by insisting.

     You and your virtuous friends refuse to consider that. The Arab League could not care less what Evangelicals and Jews and right wingers demand. But were the people who marched by the millions, on behalf of Saddam, to march and picket and agitate on behalf of Darfur, that would put the Arab League's feet to the fire.

     The Left however has no intention of opposing the Arabs on Darfur. It may grouse about the autocratic sheiks, but the Arabs are its friends, it wont mount a defense of Black Africans which the Arab masses will resent.

     That is how decent, courageous and progressive the Left and especially the Radical Left has become.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/30/2005 @ 11:08am

235. Many thanks for clearing up what my problem is, NACL. People are always asking me what in the hell my problem is. From now on, when they ask, I'm going to refer them to all your posts on this website. Then they'll understand what my problem is.

     Posted by Legba at 12/30/2005 @ 11:37am

236. .

     LEFTOFCENTER 12/29 @ 11:38pm

     BTW: For the record...I have never defended Sadaam. As point in fact I have repeatedly called him a genocidal madman.

     Your record is one of lying and twisting. [Also of persistenly spelling Saddam, Sadaam, why?] Let's see what your words mean and what the posts have recorded.

     Yes there was a post where you called Saddam "a homicidal bastard." I remember citing that and asking why you nevertheless opposed his removal? Your explanation was: because he would not have become a danger had the US not put him in power and armed him. I contradicted that and showed you the SIPRI link. Instead of rethinking your position your peeve is that I persist in calling you a defender of Saddam.

     I'm not sure I have, but I probably should have. Let's see what calling Saddam "a genocidal madman" really mean? Is it proof that you did not support him? You confirmed that you opposed his removal, because it was unprincipled to eject a man whom the US had made dangerous. What does that distill to?

     Is objecting to US efforts to wring Saddam's neck not taking his side, not supporting him? Was your belief that he was "a genocidal madman" an ameliorating factor? It was the opposite of an extenuation. You sought to keep in office not just a dictatorial ruler, but one you considered a "genocidal madman"!

     So quit saying that I do defend him you slanderous simian.

     As to "Now you hope for the victory of insurgents"...well you are just basically full of shit. Of course, this is NO surprise. Again...just because I don't drink the Kool-aid doesn't make me one of "them."

     I have said, the Radical Left supports the insurgents, and that the actions of the cited MVPs support them, and that "your crowd" supports them, but I haven't charged you directly. If you want to distance yourself from the Radical Left and from those MVPs I certainly don't object. That however does not change the fact that those people want the administration to fail, and if that means an insurgent victory so be it.

     As to your China URL, what is your point? I said earlier, China has become the Sudan's defender because of its oil. Furthermore, how do you come to this charge: "you have always decried the Post as a bunch of left wing lies in the past"? When and where have I decried the Washington Post?

     You go on to spit and screech about everything from the uranium argument to the Downing Street Memo. You seem more interested in showing with how many links you can populate a post, than in any coherent argument. You noted the other day, that you have a window. Open it up and lean out, feet first.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/30/2005 @ 11:41am

237. .

     LEGBA 12/30 @ 11:37am

     Many thanks for clearing up what my problem is, NACL. People are always asking me what in the hell my problem is. From now on, when they ask, I'm going to refer them to all your posts on this website. Then they'll understand what my problem is.

     Your problem is that you are a sheep in wolf's clothing.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/30/2005 @ 11:45am

238. Now you're learning, boyo. My actual guiding principle is scriptural, Matthew 10:16:

     "Behold, I send you forth like sheep among a pack of wolves. Therefore be ye cunning as serpents and harmless as doves."

     I'm sorry you have a problem with the gospel, though.

     Posted by Legba at 12/30/2005 @ 12:00pm

239. .

     LEGBA 12/30 @ 12:00am

     I'm sorry you have a problem with the gospel, though.

     I am sorry you have a problem reading.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/30/2005 @ 12:10pm

240. All you Bush supporters are basically saying the same thing: President G.W. Bush is above the law.

     Posted by BBATTEN 12/29/2005 @ 6:02pm

     The fisa court and the 9th circuit both ruled the President has the authority to do this. What you say now?

     Posted by TruetoAmerica at 12/30/2005 @ 12:27pm

241. Let's just say I have a problem with reading your self-righteous neo nazi blather and leave it at that, okay?

     and TruetoAmerica (which America?), in the words of Mr. Pickwick, "if the law says that, than the law is an ass".

     Posted by Legba at 12/30/2005 @ 12:55pm

242. TrueToAmerica: "The fisa court and the 9th circuit both ruled the President has the authority to do this. What you say now?"

     I'm not sure where you get your information. One FISA Court judge has already resigned over this. I don't know the FISA decision which gives the President authority to ignore FISA. Something tells me you heard that bull on FOX. And, the 9th Court has never given the president authority to break the FISA law. What 9th court decision are you thinking of. Give us a number and date, please.

     What I say is who was bugged without court authority? Why were those bugged without authority when it is so easy under FISA to get authority. Under FISA, the government can immediately wiretap someone and then go get the authority within 72 hours. If they bypassed FISA (and they did,) why did they? I want democratic legislators to review who was bugged without legal authority. If democratic legislators see the list and have no problem, I will be less concerned, but until someone is able to carry out their constitutional requirement of checking, I will remain suspiscious.

     You conservatives had a fit when a couple of file boxes got misplaced. There were no end to hysterical ranting about our privacy then. Why the double-standard, conservatives?

     Posted by BBatten at 12/30/2005 @ 12:58pm

243. NACL "I have said, the Radical Left supports the insurgents"

     This is just the most disgusting, dirty way to argue about this situation. What the left says, among other things, is that the Bush administration didn't understand that there would be an insurgency and breeding ground for terrorists when they destroyed Iraq.

     I could say easily that the Bush administration supports terrorism. After all, bin Laden's principle demand was that we remove our military bases from Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 19 9-11 terrorists were Saudis, so this was, more or less, a Saudi terrorist demand. This administration responded by pulling all of our military bases out of Saudi Arabia, so I could make a case that Bush capitulated to al Queda demands. Bush gave al Queda what they wanted in Saudi Arabia, Americans are dying every day in Iraq and bin Laden's organization is booming with new recruits worldwide. Why would they attack Bush again. They must love Bush. He's the best thing that ever happened to them.

     Posted by BBatten at 12/30/2005 @ 1:04pm

244. NACL: Re your 9:36 pm post....

     The following makes for an interesting read on the efforts made by AU in Darfur.

     http://tinyurl.com/axucf

     It is interesting to note the distance AU has come in actually becoming a stabilizing peace keeping force. Still lots to be done but a very good start indeed. As AU says, its an African problem. The Arab League, as I noted in my prior post has no business there. The only outcome, should they choose to become involved is further devolution. Arabs are Muslim first and Arabs second. Won't work well given the majority of Darfurs are black and "other" than Muslim.

     On your original point regarding US aid to The Sudan, I will admit I was wrong with my initial assessment. Bush has actually pledged $1.5 to 2 billion for 2005/2006. Bear in mind that this represents overall aid to the Sudan and not specifically Darfur. In any event, this does bode well and is commendable. (Did I really say that?)

     Posted by doumer at 12/30/2005 @ 1:08pm

245. NACL: "I have said, the Radical Left supports the insurgents..."

     Senator Joe McCarthy: "as I have said, the left supports the international communist conspiracy."

     Posted by BBatten at 12/30/2005 @ 1:08pm

246. NACL:

     Guess I should have read your post to leftie befire compliling my last one.

     Look at the list of donors, whether humanitarian or military, to Darfur. Nowhere do you see an Arab country. As I said, Arabs don't give two shits about the plight of black africa. The Darfur issue pits Arab muslims against black animists and christians. It's nothing but a land grab. Getting the arab league involved will do nothing but cause a resurgence of the north-south dispute.

     Posted by doumer at 12/30/2005 @ 1:23pm

247. Actually, the radical left- my home front- does not support the insurgency at all, other than in having a historic sense of why it's there to begin with, and in recognizing the right of the Iraqi people to self-determination. We do support the secular tradition in the Middle East that has for decades, had to struggle from one setback after another due to the constant harassment of, in no particular order: the imperialist west, stalinism, zionism, the various Arab emirates, and the fundamentalist sects which the imperial nations of the west have helped to create and fortify going on sixty years now. For the most accurate takes on the where the radical left is, look at Immanuel Wallerstein, Samir Amin, Edward Said, Tariq Ali, and Lal Khan. The radical left never lends anything but critical support to the right of nations to self-determination.

     Posted by Legba at 12/30/2005 @ 1:30pm

248. The late Israel Shahak is a remarkable source, also. And Lenni Brenner's always good for upsetting the tea party.

     Posted by Legba at 12/30/2005 @ 1:32pm

249. NaCl

     Your 11:08 rant is almost entertaining in a really sad way. You rant at times about how ineffectual the left is, and then allude above that if we were to amass by the millions, we would be the force to turn the tide in Darfur? (Although correctly noting that perhaps the Arab League would not listen to the Right or Christians?) Interesting....shot your guys' political wad already?

     As to my spelling of Saddam...look on the 'Net and you'll see its spelled in several variations (2-Ds, 1 A; 2-Ds, 2-As; 1D, 2-As). Which is correct...maybe yours. What am I , an Arab linguist? (Plus I have already in the past apologized for my typing skills....not alway the best, admittedly)

     You quote me correctly with Can I answer why the left isn't out in drove against the rights lack of attention to Darfur....no. and then say I don't answer? Did you actually read the URLs ?( wherein one details how Congress turned down an aid package to Darfur)

     As to your "When and where have I decried the Washington Post?" How soon you forget about my "phony URLS"...one being the Washington Post. There was another quite some time back (even before the "anthrax" exchange, but I don't intend to dig that deep back)

     BTW: the fact you don't like the Downing Street Memos doesn't make them untrue...unless your side has decided on reality to be defined by Executive Order?

     For the record, I didn't say the US doesn't help Darfur, I said why isn't it (the Right) as up in arms over this as it was Iraq? The China URL was to juxtapose against he US/Iraq oil URL. Same modus, different nations/places. My answer was therefore that Darfur doesn't have oil, your answer is bruised pride I think:

     The way it {the world} fought US efforts to wring the neck of a genocidal tyrant in Baghdad? Now you can't understand why the US isn't taking on the ethnic cleansers of Khartoum!

     as to "Is objecting to US efforts to wring Saddam's neck not taking his side, not supporting him?"...in a word NO (I see you are yelling "cheddar' again)

     Why do I reference all my posts to you...again, selective memory. If not you accuse me of plagiarism. Remember? (But at least, in your purview I have moved up to pathological liar!)

     Maybe you oughta have a swig of Kool-Aid. Apparently that cheese is stuck in your throat, or maybe its just needed to wash down the abundance of bile.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/30/2005 @ 1:54pm

250. .

     BBATTEN 12/30/2005 @ 1:04pm

     NACL "I have said, the Radical Left supports the insurgents"

     This is just the most disgusting, dirty way to argue about this situation.

     Well, yes, it certainly is a disgusting and dirty situation. The insurgents oppose democracy, religious toleration and free speech. They are the most cruel fanatics since the Gestapo hanged its enemies from meat hooks. But the fact remains, you fellows hope for the success of those people and supports their insurgency.

     What the left says, among other things, is that the Bush administration didn't understand that there would be an insurgency and breeding ground for terrorists when they destroyed Iraq.

     The administration says, among other things, that the insurgency is composed largely of Baathist stalwarts. Saddam was attacked in part because he represented the kind of ferocious cruelty and mad ambition that yet drives the insurgency. And if fanatics given to terror are now drawn to Iraq, where we can most easily kill them, that is better than that they focus on the USA, as did the 9/11 bombers, where they can most easily kill us.

     I could say easily that the Bush administration supports terrorism. After all, bin Laden's principle demand was that we remove our military bases from Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 19 9-11 terrorists were Saudis, so this was, more or less, a Saudi terrorist demand. This administration responded by pulling all of our military bases out of Saudi Arabia, so I could make a case that Bush capitulated to al Queda demands.

     I could easily say that you are probably no more than one or two inches in height but rather fat, since you have all the depth of a puddle.

     Bush gave al Queda what they wanted in Saudi Arabia, Americans are dying every day in Iraq and bin Laden's organization is booming with new recruits worldwide. Why would they attack Bush again. They must love Bush. He's the best thing that ever happened to them.

     I don't know what Al Qaeda wanted. But what they got was the destruction of the Taliban, a pro US regime replacing it. The closing of their free heaven and a hunted existence in exchange. Now most of Al Qaeda's leadership is dead, OBL lives in a cave and is afraid to use a telephone. The Middle East is experiencing political change. Qaddafi has abandoned WMDs, Syria has disgorged Lebanon, and its regime is very shaky. The United States has a huge army right next to the holy sands of Saudi Arabia. If that is what Al Qaeda wanted, I'm happy for them.

     BTW, US casualties, while of course regrettable, are 4% of what they were in Vietnam. That is slight. We are losing one to two men a day, on average. In the 1990s we had years when more than 6 people were every day being murdered on the streets of NY. That amounted to 2200 Americans per year in just one city. Did you tear your hair out over that?

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/30/2005 @ 1:58pm

251. Doumer

     Dubya has "pledged" lots of aid....let's see what US social program will be folded to fund it AND the war.

     True

     So the arguement is that the FISA has ruled that FISA is not needed....interesting slice of reality there?

     Legba & Doumer

     I think in its ravings, that NaCl asumes since we are "sleeping with the Arabs" that we (the Left) have some magic pull to make Sudan pat Darfur on the head and say "oops, my bad." NaCl doesn't realize (or doesn't think beyond his own conjectures) that the US' unilateral actions in Iraq serves to piss on the shoes of all Americans with respect to the world view of us. (While simultaneously crowing with pride about the act...) But as Dubya said in the 04 campaign....he (and thus America) doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks....of course, trying to ALSO crowd the words "Leaders of the Free World" in there must leave a really odd taste.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/30/2005 @ 2:06pm

252. TruetoAmerica:

     What 9th Circuit decision are you referring to?

     As for the 2002 FISA Appeals Court decision, I suggest you read it. I have, and it is clearer to me now than it was when I mentioned it yesterday that this decision is hardly controlling in a situtation where Bush is going around the FISA process entirely. The Court in this case dealt with government restrictions on the use of foreign intelligence information (obtained through FISA orders) in criminal prosecutions. Namely, whether the government can obtain approval of an application under FISA if its "primary purpose" is criminal prosecution. The Constitutional issue was whether FISA's lessening of the standard to "a significant purpose", as amended by the Patriot Act, comports with the 4th Amendment.

     The Court was NOT dealing with the question of the president's inherent authority to conduct secret surveilance. The laguage from the opinion you are probably relying on is called "dicta" - and has no controlling authority.

     From Think Progress [thinkprogress.org]

     A column in this morning's Chicago Tribune by John Schmidt [cited by Love Liberty by the way] argues that Bush's secret domestic surveillance program was legal. It features this selectively edited excerpt from a 2002 decision by the FISA appeals court:

     "All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence…We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

     Actually, the quote doesn't begin with the word "all"; it begins "The Truong court, as did all the other courts…" The Truong case was decided in 1978 -- the same year FISA was passed -- and did not deal with the FISA law. As the court noted right before the excerpt, "Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance… it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute…" The Truong case dealt with the President's power in the absence of a congressional statute.

     This is critically important because FISA specifically prohibits the warrantless domestic searches that the President authorized. As Chief Justice Roberts explained in his recent confirmation hearings, referrencing the landmark Supreme Court case Youngstown Sheet, "where the president is acting contrary to congressional authority…the president's authority is at its lowest ebb."

     The article also conveniently omits the two sentences after the excerpt:

     It was incumbent upon the [Truong] court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse…

     All the court is saying here is that whether FISA imposes limits on the President's authority is not an issue in this case. It was an issue in the Troung case but, as the court explains, "[T]he question before us is the reverse."

     So you see, this "dicta" is hardly persuasive authority, given that the FISA appeals court was discussing pre-FISA application of the law, and FISA has an explicit section that prohibits what Bush is doing.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/30/2005 @ 2:07pm

253. Again, NACL, bin Laden demanded that we remove our bases from Saudi Arabia and we did. I call that capitulation to bin Laden's demands. You responded to that challenge with an infantile charge that I have the "depth of a puddle." Nice response for a grammar school kid, I guess. You tell us, Bibleboy: why did we remove all our military bases from Saudi Arabia after bin Laden demanded this?

     You say you don't know what al Queda wanted. That's just ignorance. They told us exactly what they wanted. Bin Laden's demands were well known. As I said, he now has a situation where Americans are being killed every day, his secular enemy in the area has been vanquished, he has increased recruiting (according to our own intelligence agencies) and we have removed all military bases from his home country.

     Your ugly point about how we shouldn't be too concerned with American casulties shows just how callous and political you are. If you knew thing one about realities on the ground, you would know that by Viet Nam standards, we should have over 8,000 dead by now since our ability to treat wounded soldiers and prevent death is 4 times more efficient than it was in NAM. And, three years into Viet Nam, we had fewer than 8,000 dead so your comparison is absurd anyway.

     Posted by BBatten at 12/30/2005 @ 2:11pm

254. The fisa court and the 9th circuit both ruled the President has the authority to do this. What you say now?

     Posted by TRUETOAMERICA 12/30/2005 @ 12:27am

     Pure Bulls--t check for yourself there is no authorization for the prez and his illeagle taps. http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fisc051702.html

     C. Use of the aforementioned minimization procedures as modified, in a1l future electronic surveillance and physical searches shall be subject to the approval of the Court in each electronic surveillance and physical search where their use is proposed by the Government pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §1804(a)(5)) and §1823(a)(5).

     Contrary to the assumption made in the government's motion, all of the judges of this Court concurred in both the opinion and order of April 22, 2002.

     ROYCE C. LAMBERTH Presiding Judge United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

     Date: 5-17-02 6:40 p.m.

     You need to change you handle to UNtruetoamerica

     Posted by dycel8r at 12/30/2005 @ 2:15pm

255. Thank you, DYCEL8R, for your post. I was pretty sure his post was bull, but I haven't had time to look up the cases. It's amazing how some of these conservatives will just blow it out their asses.

     Posted by BBatten at 12/30/2005 @ 2:18pm

256. DYCEL8R:

     From my prior post you can see that I disagree with TruetoAmerica, but you should know that you have posted the wrong opinion. You cite the lower FISA opinion, which was reversed and remanded on appeal. See http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html for the correct opinion.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/30/2005 @ 2:27pm

257. Leftie and NACL:

     NACL wants the US to squeeze the Arab League to act in Darfur. Hmm, at the same time Bush "pledges" $1.5 - 2 billion to Sudan. As far as I could tell, Bush gave $6 million worth of "commodities and services" to AU in July 2005 to assist in mobilizing troops from Rwanda to Darfur.The US provided a C-17 Globemaster III and eventually transported 1200 troops from Rwanda and 2000 more from Nigeria.

     NATO, the EU and various other donor nations have supported AU's mission.I'm having a hard time finding accountability for the rest of the $1.5 billion allegedly appropriated by Bush. Even USAID, which supposedly monitors the allocated shekels, is vacant on the subject.

     Again, I'm having a cedibility problem with "official" numbers.

     NACL: it's beyond me where you got this idee fixe that left wingers are in bed with the Arab League. The only thing I can agree with the Arab League about is their position for the US to butt out of Israel, the middle east, and more specifically Iraq.

     Posted by doumer at 12/30/2005 @ 2:36pm

258. LeftofCenter, NACL can think whatever he wants of where our sympathies are. He's not going to budge from anything other than the state department program, so what difference does it make to me? He actually believes his government can create things ripped from their broader historic context and create peace and civilization. He's a missonary who thinks U.S. imperialism is going to save the world, and that Che Guevara was a terrist. In fact, he seems to think Christ was a terrorist, in one of his posts to me he implied that being a sheep in wolves' clothing might be a problem. I take him seriously, but I also think he's an ass.

     Posted by Legba at 12/30/2005 @ 2:43pm

259. HM,

     I just noticed you corrected Dycel8r, but knowing how the Court of Review ruled, how or why do you still feel the president is wrong.

     For readers, here are the key points and conclusions of the FISA Court of Review.

     The Fourth Circuit recognized that the Supreme Court had never considered the constitutionality of warrantless government searches for foreign intelligence reasons, but concluded the analytic framework the Supreme Court adopted in Keith–in the case of domestic intelligence surveillance–pointed the way to the line the Fourth Circuit drew. The Court in Keith had, indeed, balanced the government's interest against individual privacy interests, which is undoubtedly the key to this issue as well; but we think the Truong court misconceived the government's interest and, moreover, did not draw a more appropriate distinction that Keith at least suggested. That is the line drawn in the original FISA statute itself between ordinary crimes and foreign intelligence crimes.

     It will be recalled that Keith carefully avoided the issue of a warrantless foreign intelligence search: "We have not addressed, and express no opinion as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents." 407 U.S. at 321- 22.30 But in indicating that a somewhat more relaxed warrant could suffice in the domestic intelligence situation, the court drew a distinction between the crime involved in that case, which posed a threat to national security, and "ordinary crime." Id. at 322. It pointed out that "the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crimes." Id.

     Supreme Court's Special Needs Cases

     The distinction between ordinary criminal prosecutions and extraordinary situations underlies the Supreme Court's approval of entirely warrantless and even suspicionless searches that are designed to serve the government's "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement." Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995) (quoting Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted)) (random drug-testing of student athletes).32 Apprehending drunk drivers and securing the border constitute such unique interests beyond ordinary, general law enforcement. Id. at 654 (citing Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), and United States v. Martinez- Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)).

     Conclusion

     FISA's general programmatic purpose, to protect the nation against terrorists and espionage threats directed by foreign powers, has from its outset been distinguishable from "ordinary crime control." After the events of September 11, 2001, though, it is hard to imagine greater emergencies facing Americans than those experienced on that date.

     We acknowledge, however, that the constitutional question presented by this case–whether Congress's disapproval of the primary purpose test is consistent with the Fourth Amendment–has no definitive jurisprudential answer. The Supreme Court's special needs cases involve random stops (seizures) not electronic searches. In one sense, they can be thought of as a greater encroachment into personal privacy because they are not based on any particular suspicion. On the other hand, wiretapping is a good deal more intrusive than an automobile stop accompanied by questioning.

     Although the Court in City of Indianapolis cautioned that the threat to society is not dispositive in determining whether a search or seizure is reasonable, it certainly remains a crucial factor. Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces. Even without taking into account the President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable.

     Accordingly, we reverse the FISA court's orders in this case to the extent they imposed conditions on the grant of the government's applications, vacate the FISA court's Rule 11, and remand with instructions to grant the applications as submitted and proceed henceforth in accordance with this opinion.

     http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

     And for the FISA Reference Page

     http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/ [url]

     I would list short links but I seem to be having trouble with my browser when I import them into the Nation webpage.

     I look forward to more dialogue on this very interesting and crucial subject.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/30/2005 @ 2:56pm

260. Thanks HMAN I stand corrected

     Posted by dycel8r at 12/30/2005 @ 3:09pm

261. For those involved in the discussion about US aid to Sudan/Darfur, here is the official info from USAID.

     Darfur Humanitarian Emergency

     Total FY 2005 USG Humanitarian Assistance for the Darfur Emergency (to date): $509,532,362

     Total FY 2003 – 2005 USG Humanitarian Assistance for the Darfur Emergency: $767,978,042

     http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/sudan/darfur.html

     I apologize for the long links until I get my browser problem corrected.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/30/2005 @ 3:12pm

262. LL:

     A dialogue requires a little more back and forth. Before we jump to what you want to talk about now, would you care to comment on what I posted to you yesterday at 4:02 and 4:55 p.m.? My first post provides ample authority for my position. My second effectively rebutted your assertion re: Clinton and Carter. You failed to respond to either.

     But, if you want to keep ignoring my points yesterday, my latest post to TruetoAmerica deals with the FISA appeals court, and I thought I was clear - the language you and others cite to is taken out of context from what the issue was in that case. It is dicta, not controlling. Truong was decided before FISA was enacted. Bush is violating explicit provisions of FISA (provisions his administration tried to change). "A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance ... except as authorized by statute." Title III (the Wiretap Act) provides "procedures in this Chapter and [FISA] shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance ... may be conducted." As the Supreme Court said in case Youngstown Sheet (which Justice Roberts quoted in his confirmation hearings), "where the president is acting contrary to congressional authority…the president's authority is at its lowest ebb." So, what you seem to ignore (and contrary to the dicta you and other cite from the FISA case) is that Congress has spoken on this issue, limiting severely whatever inherent powers the president may have.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/30/2005 @ 3:24pm

263. Doumer

     re: "Midnight at the Oasis" ..was referring to NaCl allusion regarding the Left and our "frinedly stance" with Arab nations? (Dunno where he got it either, but seems to believe it nonetheless)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/30/2005 @ 3:32pm

264. LL:

     I look forward to more dialogue on this very interesting and crucial subject.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/30/2005 @ 2:56pm

     Very well, but that is not the government's case for defending use of unwarranted snooping.

     No doubt, LL you have read Asst. GA Moschella's position letter to Congressional and Senate Intel Committees from Dec 22. His position is summed up by the powers vested to the prez via AUMF passed Sept 18, 2001. That is the base for his argument, nothing else. He does not invoke any SC, CC or COA precedent.

     Using the AG's defense postion, let's take it apart.

     Congress established that Title III and FISA are the "exclusive means" governing use of electronic surveillance. The AUMF does not supercede Title III and rules about securing warrants as establised by FISA. As well, the argument that Bush enacted his commander in chief powers doesn't wash. He can't unilaterally invoke an executive order when it is unconstitutional. He tried that with the torture memo. It didn't work.

     Bush broke the law.

     Posted by doumer at 12/30/2005 @ 4:49pm

265. LL:

     To be more clear in my last sentence at 3:24 - "Congress has spoken on this issue, limiting severely THE SCOPE OR EXTENT of the inherent powers the president may have."

     I did not mean to imply that FISA took away any specific implied powers via Article II (or otherwise), only that any inherent powers cannot include presdiential authority that goes beyond articulated linits imposed by Congress.

     Are you planning to respond by the way?

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/30/2005 @ 4:51pm

266. HM,

     sorry about not responding to the priors; after re-reading them and my subsequent posting today of the FISA Court of Review decision, I still find no basis for your argument or that of Doumer.

     You are also incorrect on the executive order signed by Clinton. Jamie Gorelick wrote that EO for Clinton and she testified to Congress that Clinton retained the authority for warrantless wiretaps.

     Also, I do not see how your can dismiss the statements by the Court of Review that explicitly state that the President has such authority when it pertains to intelligence gathering. Nor have you addressed the fact the Court said that SCOTUS has not considered the constitutionality of warrantless government searches for foreign intelligence reasons.

     The crux of Congresses argument before the Court of Review was that they wanted warrants regardless of the Primary Test of 4th Amendment considerations. The Court disagreed and sided with the Administration.

     What is at the heart of this debate really goes to what the Gov't does with the intelligence. If it is going to be used to prosecute, warrants are essential to our constitutional freedoms and rights. If it is to gather information to prevent future attacks on the US and it's citizens, the Courts will continue to lean in favor of security over privacy.

     Privacy never helped a dead man.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/30/2005 @ 5:08pm

267. DOUMER:

     You are very right. Many Bush supporters are adopting a "kitchen sink" line of defense. The FISA opinion is a canard and inapposite to the question of whether Bush can circumvent the procedures of FISA, or regular old warrant process. Many Bush supporters simply have cherry-picked portions of the decision without regard to what the court said before and after the quoted language, or what the relevant issue in the case was about. It happens all of the time.

     Apart from what I have posted previously on the topic, the FISA appeals court itself recognizes the minimal effect of Truong – "We reiterate that Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance based on the President's constitutional responsibility to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States." The court also discussed the Keith case, but "recalled that Keith carefully avoided the issue of a warrantless foreign intelligence search: ‘We have not addressed, and express no opinion as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents.'"

     A couple of practical questions:

     If Bush always has had the inherent authority under Article II, why FISA or, more importantly, the Patriot Act?

     If this Article II or the AUMF gave authority for Bush's NSA program, why did the administration seek, unsuccessfully, to amend FISA to give Bush even greater latitude?

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/30/2005 @ 5:13pm

268. I wouldn't be the least bit concerned if any call I've placed, or ever received, was monitored.

     Shit man, think about how many calls you've been on that say the call could me monitored for whatever reason - you name it.

     In this day and age, any person, any where, at any time knows that what they say or do could be monitored in some shape or form.

     The only problem would be if you were, say, planning to blow up a building and kill many innocent people. Then, and only then, would wire tapping be a bad thing - for the parties involved, but I bet if it were you in that building, you would be damned happy the call was intercepted.

     Get over it people. We live in a very dangerous world and Bush is not the bad guy in this reality.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 12/30/2005 @ 5:14pm

269. LL:

     To expand a little off my 4:49 post, here are the stats for warrant orders placed to FISA:

     2001: Requests 932 Approved 934 (exceptions) Rejected 0

     2002: Requests 1228 Approved 1228 Rejected 0

     2003: Requests 1727 Approved 1724 (exceptions) Rejected 4

     2004: Requests 1758 Approved 1754 (exceptions) Rejected 0

     Can you suggest a reason why Bush should unilaterally suspend his warrant applications when clearly, FISA was granting them almost to a tee?

     Posted by doumer at 12/30/2005 @ 5:15pm

270. LL:

     I take it you concede you were wrong on Carter.

     Re: Clinton, you could not have read the text of the EO I posted. It makes clear that the AG had to certify that the surveillance was not conducted on US citizens.

     Regarding Goerlick's testimony, you are also wrong. See http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-gorelick-myth/

     In the National Review, Byron York has an article called "Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches." In it, he cites then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's July 14, 1994 testimony where she argues "the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." (This afternoon, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) quoted her testimony on the Senate floor.)

     Here is what York obscures: at the time of Gorelick's testimony, physical searches weren't covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It's not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches weren't covered by FISA. They weren't. With Clinton's backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches.

     York claims that, after the law was amended, "the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary." That's false. Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president's inherent "authority" allowed him to ignore FISA. (We've posted the full text of Gorelick's testimony here).

     The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed it as a recommendations they could ignore. That's the difference.

     You also ignore the Katz opinion.

     I would also like you to explain the Youngstown Sheets case, and its interplay with the explicit portions of FISA which do not allow for surveillance outside the authorization of the statute.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/30/2005 @ 5:21pm

271. I'll be sure to check back in a little bit LL, because I would be interested in your response to these specific points.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/30/2005 @ 5:21pm

272. Get over it people. We live in a very dangerous world and Bush is not the bad guy in this reality.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 12/30/2005 @ 5:14pm

     Not good enough Pride. What I do is my business and not that of the NSA, FBI and other assorted spook agencies. When I phone a business and I hear the recording "your call may be monitored...", I have the option of hanging up. Not so with Bush and the NSA. Precedent in this country guarantees me right of privacy and I intend to fight for that continued right and privilege.

     Besides, Bush violated the law....and all semblance of respect for what this country has achieved over 229 years.

     Posted by doumer at 12/30/2005 @ 5:25pm

273. .

     BBATTEN 12/30 @ 2:11pm

     You tell us, Bibleboy: why did we remove all our military bases from Saudi Arabia after bin Laden demanded this? . . . I call that capitulation to bin Laden's demands.

     And I called that idiotic. For you to repeat this a second time is even dumber.

     You must know, had Bin Laden demanded our departure twice every day of the week for a a decade, we would not have budged - had the Saudis wanted us to remain. We responded to Saudi Arabia. She wanted us out. When De Gaulle ordered all our troops out of France in 1966 we also obeyed and moved NATO HQ to Brussels. We had no choice. The US cannot remain against the wishes of a sovereign govt. We responded to a Saudi request. They were responding to their Wahabi constituents who shared OBL's sensitivity to Kafir soldiers so close to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

     You say you don't know what al Queda wanted. That's just ignorance. They told us exactly what they wanted.

     You claim OBL got what he wanted. Well, now I learned something. I never imagined he preferred the situation that followed 9/11 to the one that preceded it.

     Your ugly point about how we shouldn't be too concerned with American casualties shows just how callous and political you are.

     Right, I'm a callous, ready to sacrifice thousands for political ends, whereas you are motivated by compassion, by grief for the torn flesh of young men, by the tears streaming down the soft cheeks of Cindy Sheehan.

     If you knew thing one about realities on the ground, you would know that by Viet Nam standards, we should have over 8,000 dead by now since our ability to treat wounded soldiers and prevent death is 4 times more efficient than it was in NAM. And, three years into Viet Nam, we had fewer than 8,000 dead so your comparison is absurd anyway.

     I know that that is even more idiotic than the Saudi surrender argument. Our medical battlefield skills improved undoubtedly since VN, but surely not by 400%. Your 3 years and fewer than 8,000 dead is either conflating the last or the first years when we had from a few hundred to 18,000 men in VN, mainly acting as trainers and advisers. But once hundreds of thousands of troops were in the field, searching for the enemy every day, as now in Iraq, casualties became many times what they are nowadays. Moreover, Charley was a much smarter, braver and tougher enemy. His every shell and bullet had to be carried from the North for weeks through the jungle. He risked death for his cause, not for 72 virgins. He was napalmed and carpet bombed by B-52s. When captured he could only wish for the conditions of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. And the reason he was fighting was because the 1954 promise of elections had been rescinded. This insurgency is fighting in opposition to elections.

     With all your professions of compassion you are in fact just another hypocritical, twisting left fascist supporting the meanest fanatics since Heydrich hanged democrats from meathooks.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/30/2005 @ 5:34pm

274. .

     DOUMER 12/30 @ 2:36pm

     NACL: it's beyond me where you got this idee fixe that left wingers are in bed with the Arab League. The only thing I can agree with the Arab League about is their position for the US to butt out of Israel, the middle east, and more specifically Iraq.

     Grabted. The Left cares as little for the Arab League, as for most of the Arab regimes, in fact it detests quite a few. But it does not want to take on the Arabs as such. It feels itself in alliance with them. You reflect that. You are shoulder to shoulder with the Arab street in its hostility to the US and Israel and to western political and economic institutions. Which is why you don't want to break with them over Darfur. You don't want to see another Arab defeat which is what the Sudan's concessions on Darfur would signify.

     Incidentally, you have not yet explained why the Arab League members, if they really oppose the ethnic cleansing of Darfur, can not tell Sudan to shape up or face economic and political Coventry. Speak to that directly.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/30/2005 @ 5:53pm

275. "We responded to Saudi Arabia. She wanted us out. When De Gaulle ordered all our troops out of France in 1966 we also obeyed and moved NATO HQ to Brussels. We had no choice. The US cannot remain against the wishes of a sovereign govt. We responded to a Saudi request. They were responding to their Wahabi constituents who shared OBL's sensitivity to Kafir soldiers so close to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina"

     Foot-in-the-mouth disease. Get it treated NACL.I especially love that "The US cannot remain against the wishes of a sovereign govt".

     Touche mon ami. Do engage the grey matter and recall the poll commissioned by British Military Command whereby they concluded that 80% of Iraqis want all coalition forces to "begone". Not in 2006...2007....2008. NOW.

     How many ways do you want it NACL? try to be consistent. Otherwise, it's not pretty.

     And, besides, bushes armed forces did not really leave SA until well after March 2003. Look up Taif Air Force base, Prince Sultan AFB, missile defense postions in Dhahran.The only reason we left SA is we could establish permanent bases in a more suitable place...a "democratic" Iraq. Well, that didn't turn out so good huh?

     Posted by doumer at 12/30/2005 @ 6:06pm

276. "their Wahabi constituents" You have the gift NACL. Don't give it up!

     Are you talking about the "nomadic" mullahs and imams who dictate every bit of the 14th century dogma that now prevails in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The same Wahabis who produced the finest and most prolific fatwas......911 sound familiar?

     Where in your world do you find "constituency" in SA?

     Brute force backed by brute wealth is all that SA is about. Funny how the Wahabi's have been trying to annihilate the Shia for years isn't it.

     Try again NACL. "Constituents" is associated with people having a voice, and that is certainly NOT what SA is about.

     Posted by doumer at 12/30/2005 @ 6:20pm

277. Incidentally, you have not yet explained why the Arab League members, if they really oppose the ethnic cleansing of Darfur, can not tell Sudan to shape up or face economic and political Coventry. Speak to that directly.

     .

     Posted by NACL 12/30/2005 @ 5:53pm

     Perhaps we can begin with Libya...adjacent to North Darfur province. Quadafi supported the Arab tribesman...mainly nomadic herders...with money and arms. Let's go to Egypt. Do you know the racist epithet slang for "nigger" there? It's "Sudani". Lets try Morroco where the most downtrodden ethnic groups, the Berbers and Bedouins are not really "black" but discriminated against all the same. Saudi Arabia where the servant class is asian or black? Same in Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE etc.

     Look for a second at the Arab Development Bank. Granted, they have extended aid to several african countries, but only to fund muslim institutions. Madrsassas and mosques. Aid to christian and animist institutions....forget it.

     To get back to your question, I don't recall reading anywhere that Arab league criticized Sudan over darfur. perhaps you can provide references? In any event, if that was the case, chalk it as par for the course "diplomacy". Arab demogogues will do every thing they possible can to hold on to the status quo.

     Finally, as far as your point about the Arab League squeezing Al-Bashir, don't count on it. He plays well by their rules, and as a new shining oil-star, they won't makes ripples.Politics as usual.

     And it is slimy. NACL, I call it as I see it. The Arab league is playing as dirty as anyone else........in the meantime...who suffers?

     Posted by doumer at 12/30/2005 @ 6:57pm

278. HM,

     On a number of points, your "talking points" responses continue to fall short. Your sources have failed to understand the underlying logic behind the president's decision and it's support from previous SCOTUS and the Court of Review decision.

     The issue goes to a fundamental debate between some members of Congress and the position of every Administration (and as noted below, backed up by SCOTUS), that when in line with both the Primary Test and the Special Needs Test, no warrants are required by a president for intelligence gathering against foreign powers, even when it the wiretaps involve US Citizens. Below are the courts specific comments in this regard using your court references and others.

     US v US District Court on Wiretaps

     Powell in writing the majority opinion noted:

     Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country.

     We emphasize, before concluding this opinion, the scope of our decision. As stated at the outset, this case involves only the domestic aspects of national security. We have not addressed, and express no opinion [407 U.S. 297, 322] as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents. 20 Nor does our decision rest on the language of 2511 (3) or any other section of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. That Act does not attempt to define or delineate the powers of the President to meet domestic threats to the national security.

     Your citation of Youngstown Sheet v Sawyer while relevant on some levels of discussion on Presidential authority is too much of a stretch for this issue. SCOTUS also held that Title III is unrelated in terms of the issue of intelligence gathering against foreign powers.

     I further still disagree with the talking points you cite against the Court of Review decision. I have read it a number of times and it makes it quite clear that SCOTUS has firmly established that the Special Needs provision does allow for circumstances in which no warrant is required. As noted above, one of those circumstances is surveillance activities associated with foreign powers. This was noted in Veronica v Acton and Griffin v Wisconsin

     Where a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing, this Court has said that reasonableness generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant, Skinner, supra, at 619. Warrants cannot be issued, of course, without the showing of probable cause required by the Warrant Clause. But a warrant is not required to establish the reasonableness of all government searches; and when a warrant is not required (and the Warrant Clause therefore not applicable), probable cause is not invariably required either. A search unsupported by probable cause can be constitutional, we have said, "when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable." Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted).

     This debate will also end up in SCOTUS and I am confident of the outcome.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/30/2005 @ 7:36pm

279. Legba

     A humorous thought emerged from my reflection of you post above...does this mean the "Tighty-Righties" are all for assuming the "missionary position"?

     As to NaCl

     As relayed earlier in one of my "fake" URLs (why you consider them fake is beyond me, but I figure it best to humor your neurosis for the moment), it is our own drive for oil that fuels the Iraq war. China's interest in Darfur is very similar no doubt.

     The US has for some time now lent support to the SLA and SPLA, both militia groups accused of terrorist tactics against civilians of the region: Ref1 [sudan.net], Ref2 [fas.org]

     For a decent history of the conflict try Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org] Scroll down to May 2005 for a hint of our involvement with the Janjaweed.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/30/2005 @ 8:42pm

280. LL:

     "Talking points." Funny, but that is exactly I thought about your Clinton and Carter points (again false, b/c both administrations complied with FISA).

     As to the rest of your legal argument, your arguments no doubt could be made, but I would not be too confident of the outcome if that is all the Solicitor General brings to the table. You give slight weight to Youngstown Sheet, but again, and most importantly, fail to even attempt to reconcile it with the explicit prohibitions of FISA which Bush has admittedly circumvented. Also, it is true that Special Needs allows for situations where a warrant is not required, but if you read the Court of Review decision a number of times you would also have to acknowledge that SCOTUS itself has recognized that the Special Needs line of cases do NOT involve surveillance (US v. US District Court was not based on "Special Need") - a crucial distinction the court made.

     Anyway, if it is so clear-cut as you say, why did Bush need the Patriot Act; and why the need to amend FISA?

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/30/2005 @ 9:42pm

281. The scary thing, HMAN23, is that by the time this reaches the SCOTUS, Bush will have his firm ultra-conservative (read "activist") majority in place to complete his coronation. LL can be wrong on all counts as can Bush, but with a court that includes Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and the ever squiggly Kennedy, precedents, close readings, and standard logic become moot.

     Meanwhile, FOX spent a portion of its broadcast today on the Justice Dept. investigation to find the leaker of the spying story. The world awaits with bated breath the first successful internal investigation of the Bush administration. Good luck to them.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/30/2005 @ 11:37pm

282. On a number of points, your "talking points" responses continue to fall short. Your sources have failed to understand the underlying logic behind the president's decision and it's support from previous SCOTUS and the Court of Review decision.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/30/2005 @ 7:36pm

     Liberty!

     You are the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.

     Griffin vs. Wisconsin was about a convicted felon on parole and his parole officer thought he had guns in his apartment. And as far as your special circumstances go here's what it is.

     Wisconsin law puts probationers in the legal custody of the State Department of Health and Social Services and renders them "subject . . . to . . . conditions set by the court and rules and regulations established by the department." Wis. Stat. 973.10(1) (1985-1986). One of the Department's regulations permits any probation officer to search a probationer's [483 U.S. 868, 871] home without a warrant as long as his supervisor approves and as long as there are "reasonable grounds" to believe the presence of contraband - including any item that the probationer cannot possess under the probation conditions.

     http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol =483&page=873

     If in your dumb assed, evangelic abomination eyes you can't distinguish between an American citizen who is a convicted felon out on parole and every other law abiding American citizen, then we definitely need stronger FISA protections.

     Remember buddy, psychiatrist starts with a "P". It is imperative you trust me on this.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/31/2005 @ 01:17am

283. Liberty!

     To follow up on my "you are the dumbest motherfucker on the Planet" comment, let me take this opportunity to reaffirm that.

     You are the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.

     Veronica vs Acton was a case about the drug testing of public school kids who were playing sports

     Veronica v Acton

     .Both the Supreme Court majority and the dissenters analyzed the policy with reference to the Court's decision in Veronica School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995), which upheld random drug testing of school athletes in a context where athletes were the leaders of an aggressive local drug culture that had reached epidemic proportions.

     Justice Thomas' majority opinion (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Breyer and Kennedy) analyzed the issue through "a fact-specific balancing of the intrusion on the children's Fourth Amendment rights against the promotion of legitimate government interests." It noted that a "student's privacy interest is limited in a public school environment where the State is responsible for maintaining discipline, health, and safety," and characterized Veronica as depending "primarily upon the school's custodial responsibility and authority." .

     In both this case and Griffith , both of the citizen groups that were effected by the ruling were people who were under the temporary custody of the state. In veronica, they were high school students, in Griffith a convicted felon on parole.

     I hope you're not implying that as citizens we are all under the custody, temporary or otherwise, of the state.

     Do I hear Jackbooted booted feet clomping down my hallway?

     Posted by Will C. at 12/31/2005 @ 01:19am

284. Relevent passage from UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) on wire taps

     But we do not think a case has been made for the requested departure from Fourth Amendment standards. The circumstances described do not justify complete exemption of domestic security surveillance from prior judicial scrutiny. Official surveillance, whether its purpose be criminal investigation or ongoing intelligence gathering, risks infringement of constitutionally protected privacy of speech. Security surveillances are especially sensitive because of the inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept, the necessarily broad and continuing nature of intelligence gathering, and the temptation to utilize such surveillances to oversee political dissent. We recognize, as we have before, the constitutional basis of the President's domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a manner compatible with the Fourth Amendment. In this case we hold that this requires an appropriate prior warrant procedure.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/31/2005 @ 01:23am

285. And unless Government safeguards its own capacity to function and to preserve the security of its people, society itself could become so disordered that all rights and liberties would be endangered. As Chief Justice Hughes reminded us in Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 574 (1941):

     "Civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution, imply the existence of an organized society maintaining public order without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of unrestrained abuses."

     But a recognition of these elementary truths does not make the employment by Government of electronic surveillance a welcome development - even when employed with restraint and under judicial supervision. There is, understandably, a deep-seated uneasiness and apprehension that this capability will be used to intrude upon cherished privacy of law-abiding citizens. 13 We [407 U.S. 297, 313] look to the Bill of Rights to safeguard this privacy. Though physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed, its broader spirit now shields private speech from unreasonable surveillance. Katz v. United States, supra; Berger v. New York, supra; Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961). Our decision in Katz refused to lock the Fourth Amendment into instances of actual physical trespass. Rather, the Amendment governs "not only the seizure of tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral statements . . . without any `technical trespass under . . . local property law.'" Katz, supra, at 353. That decision implicitly recognized that the broad and unsuspected governmental incursions into conversational privacy which electronic surveillance entails 14 necessitate the application of Fourth Amendment safeguards.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/31/2005 @ 01:31am

286. historical perspective from same

     Over two centuries ago, Lord Mansfield held that common-law principles prohibited warrants that ordered the arrest of unnamed individuals who the officer might conclude were guilty of seditious libel. "It is not fit," said Mansfield, "that the receiving or judging of the information should be left to the discretion of the officer. The magistrate ought to judge; and should give certain directions to the officer." Leach v. Three of the King's Messengers, 19 How. St. Tr. 1001, 1027 (1765).

     Lord Mansfield's formulation touches the very heart of the Fourth Amendment directive: that, where practical, a governmental search and seizure should represent both the efforts of the officer to gather evidence of wrongful acts and the judgment of the magistrate that the collected evidence is sufficient to justify invasion of a citizen's private premises or conversation. Inherent in the concept of a warrant is its issuance by a "neutral and detached magistrate." Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, at 453; Katz v. United States, supra, at 356. The further requirement of "probable cause" instructs the magistrate that baseless searches shall not proceed.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/31/2005 @ 01:35am

287. Next Paragraph

     These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive [407 U.S. 297, 317] Branch. The Fourth Amendment does not contemplate the executive officers of Government as neutral and disinterested magistrates. Their duty and responsibility are to enforce the laws, to investigate, and to prosecute. Katz v. United States, supra, at 359-360 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). But those charged with this investigative and prosecutorial duty should not be the sole judges of when to utilize constitutionally sensitive means in pursuing their tasks. The historical judgment, which the Fourth Amendment accepts, is that unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech. 17

     Posted by Will C. at 12/31/2005 @ 01:37am

288. .

     LEFTOFCENTER 12/30 @ 1:54pm

     You quote me correctly with Can I answer why the left isn't out in drove against the rights lack of attention to Darfur....no. and then say I don't answer? Did you actually read the URLs ?( wherein one details how Congress turned down an aid package to Darfur)

     No, I don't read or even click most of your links. I don't need you to give me reading assignment. Links are for backing up an argument or contention. Don't throw me an URL to read someone's argument which you haven't the patience or mental strength to explain. For example, I learned about the janjaweed, long ago from Nick Christof's columns, keep you google wisdom.

     Incidentally, I realize Congress cut a $50 million peacekeeping appropriation for Darfur, which Rice is working to restore. But I also know that that is on top of at least $560 million that had been devoted to Darfur up to January 2005. Doumer claims that the total 2005 - 2006 appropriation for Sudan is $1.5 to $2 billion. You flourish a contested $50 million but ignore the $460 million +. That is your training in logic and objectivity eh?

     As to your "When and where have I decried the Washington Post?" How soon you forget about my "phony URLS"...one being the Washington Post. There was another quite some time back (even before the "anthrax" exchange, but I don't intend to dig that deep back)

     Why does my relegation of your URLs justify this: "you have always decried the Post as a bunch of left wing lies in the past"? You think you recall me disagreeing with one WashingtonPost column or item. Even if true, how does that permit the charge: I have always dismissed the paper as lefty lies? Sure, I think some of their analysts and sages, like Richard Cohen, sloppy and soft brained, but others like Jim Hogland are sharp, and much of the news reporting is honest. But you allow yopurself to cavalierly throw such reckless charges. You are an irresponsible and malicious creature.

     BTW: the fact you don't like the Downing Street Memos doesn't make them untrue...unless your side has decided on reality to be defined by Executive Order?

     Why, for the second time, bring the Downing Street Memos into a discussion of Darfur, or Nichols' MVPs. Do you need that diversion, do you feel yourself failing so badly? Do you believe those Memos are winners? They ain't. They amounted to one more disaster for the Left.

     You say more, but it is only more lazy rambling and tendentious spitting. Give your posts some kind of focus and cohesion and try for a little truthfulness, or don't expect replies.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/31/2005 @ 02:28am

289. NaCl

     I don't need you to give me reading assignment. Links are for backing up an argument or contention

     Boy, you really showed something about yourself today. That is not the main reason "I" include links here. This is NOT a peer-review journal. Many times links are for increasing your knowledge base, and/or showing you new ideas and perspectives. You call my links "phony" and admit to not reading (many) of them. The mere fact that you deem such "inconvenient facts" tells lots about the narrow blinders of your reality. You sir are the phony by your own declaration.

     Don't know whether to laugh, or do the kinda thing and pity you for such self-induced ignorance (ignorance as in willful choosing to "not know"...the worst kind perhaps).

     re: funding then, funding now....wasn't ignored....I was focussing on "current events"

     As to Downing Street....goes back to a mention you made re: my so-called support of Saddam. I countered with discussing the reasons for war versus the outcomes. One link was to the memos. You didn't read the link, or didn't care, or I dunno what.....but you brought the Iraq stuff into the conversation, not me.

     " But you allow yopurself to cavalierly throw such reckless charges. You are an irresponsible and malicious creature."

     And you with your random charges of plagiarism at me in the past.....fucking puh-lease....you are such a full-of-yourself, self-deluded loathsome shitbag...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/31/2005 @ 03:07am

290. .

     Posted by DOUMER 12/30 @ 6:06pm

     Do engage the grey matter and recall the poll commissioned by British Military Command whereby they concluded that 80% of Iraqis want all coalition forces to "begone". Not in 2006...2007....2008. NOW. . . .

     How many ways do you want it NACL? try to be consistent. Otherwise, it's not pretty. . .

     Let me count the ways you are unfair, twisted, illogical and inconsistent:

     Im primis: Provide a date and a link for that poll.

     Deuxièmement: Recall that in June 1944, as our troops were assaulting Omaha Beach, only one third of the French wanted us there. Two thirds were indifferent or hoped for our defeat, and wanted us gone. When the fighting began to devastate villages and towns in Normandy that displeasure with the Allies only grew. Some of the French are even yet graffiting the cenotaphs of the fallen Allied soldiers in the military cemeteries of France with, "Get out Beefsteak, your bodies are befouling our land."

     Drittens: Why not also point to the German people's objections to our presence as we crossed the Rhine and the Sigfried line. I'm pretty sure, most had no use for us, at first. Should our tank drivers have stepped on their breaks?

     Are-ba-ah: Explain how your post proves, the US, in withdrawing from Saudi Arabia buckled to OBL's demand rather than obeyed the Saudi govt. Do you deny that had the Saudi regime wanted us to remain we would have remained regardless of Bin Laden's demands? Can you give that a straight answer?

     And, besides, bushes armed forces did not really leave SA until well after March 2003. Look up Taif Air Force base, Prince Sultan AFB, missile defense postions in Dhahran.The only reason we left SA is we could establish permanent bases in a more suitable place...a "democratic" Iraq. Well, that didn't turn out so good huh?

     Do you mean, the US remained at Taif in defiance of the Saudis? Do you know a single instance where the US retained a base after a host govt had required it to close? Are you suggesting, had no other Gulf state agreed to host us, the US would have remained in the Kingdome in defiance of the Saudis?

     Where in your world do you find "constituency" in SA? . . . "Constituents" is associated with people having a voice, and that is certainly NOT what SA is about.

     Arabia has feudal, autocratic govts. They are not democratic but they have a consultative tradition of majlis, weekly open meeting where the sheik makes himself available to all, high and low. He listens to problems, receives petitions. That is how loyalties are maintained.

     The Saudi dynasty began with ibn Saud who with his Wahabi followers defeated Sherif Husein, chasing him to Transjordan. Those pious Wahabis yet remain the stanchions of Saudi power. Thus the regimes remain sensitive to their opinions and prejudices. You don't think that makes them a constituency?

     Careful now, don't let your brains go to your head.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/31/2005 @ 03:20am

291. .

     LEFTOFCENTER 12/31 @ 03:07am

     And you with your random charges of plagiarism at me in the past...

     Let's not forget, by the end of that exchange it was established, several times over, that you did not know what much of that paragraph, which referred to your "research," meant, and that it had largely come out of Brock's, Microbiology.

     .

     LEFTOFCENTER 12/30 @ 1:54pm

     You rant at times about how ineffectual the left is, [when, where?]and then allude above that if we were to amass by the millions, we would be the force to turn the tide in Darfur?

     But you are right, the Left has been a limp and pathetic thing. Because it has always invested in the foulest frauds, the crummiest merchandise the biggest lies, beginning with the Peoples Paradises of Stalin and Mao and Hoxha. The Left has consistently missed the boat, invested in swamps, backed losers. The fall of the Berlin wall allowed for a glimpse at chastening reality, at the gulags, the microphones permeating East Germany, the hunger in North Korea. But not enough. You were soon back supporting Milosevic, hailing Arafat and marching for Hussein. Now you are backing an Islamofascist insurgency.

     Darfur could make the Left a winner, for once. It is positioned for the job. It has precisely what it would take to start a tidal wave of public opinion. It would pull in the middle and even the right. It would fall on the Arab League and compel it to twists the Sudan's arm. Here is a way the Left could seize center stage and rescue hundreds of thousands of innocent people, simply by doing what it is best at, using its voice and marching. For once the Left would have something to be proud of.

     But it has no stomach for such an initiative. The Nation, for example, hasn't the courage or unconventional wisdom to shake its fist at the Arab League. Its pages have howled at all the powerful, but not once at the Arabs. It hasn't the cojones to demand the Arab League call its Sudanese brethren to order. The idea does not enter its mind. The Left hasn't had an idea since Marx monkeyed with Hegel.

     Trotsky warned that if communism failed to achieve the world revolution it would turn fascist. He was right. The communist, Mussolini turned fascist. The socialist, Hitler turned fascist, the Bolshevik Stalin turned fascist, the peasant leader Mao turned fascist, and now the entire Left has made common cause with Saddam Hussein and Islamofascists.

     The Left has linked up with the most fanatic, bigoted, reactionary establishment in the world. It has had the guts to stand up for them, but not for their black African victims, the poorest most helpless people in the world.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/31/2005 @ 04:12am

292. NaCl

     ..."it was established...that it had largely come out of Brock's, Microbiology."

     Maybe established in your mind...but to get there you must go to the edge of reality and hang a hard right. Again, "the paragraph" was 100% my words ....dumbass. Read the book, find the copying...never happened. (I guess someone DOES need to give you a reading assignment)

     re: you whole "Now you are backing an Islamofascist insurgency."

     What the fuck are you mumbling on about...with corruption on the GOP side flaking off daily like scales off a leper; Frist, Libby, Rove, Delay....soon it'll work its way top the top and you'll WISH it was merely a blowjob and a cigar.

     I certainly don't work for "The Nation", but I am guessing that based on the title, its main focus is intra-US politics and less so the world scene....and why this idea tht "the Left" has some magical power with respect to the mideast? No one over there is going to listen to any Americans as Dubya has pissed on our shoe as well as yours.

     As to fascist and bigot claims....after all, it is the right secretly listening to my phone calls, trying to legislate morality, working to oppress the poor even more. And lets not forget the good-old Bible Belt which is the heart and soul of American bigotry....home of the good old KKK, or go to the upper midwest, or Appalachians, to the radical right paramilitary nutjob compounds. Maybe you should look up the definitions of bigot and fascist before you try to use them in a sentence.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/31/2005 @ 10:01am

293. NACL:

     "The Left has linked up with the most fanatic, bigoted, reactionary establishment in the world. It has had the guts to stand up for them, but not for their black African victims, the poorest most helpless people in the world"

     Let's back up a step. Your sole admonition is that the left does not pressure the Arab League to strong arm Al-Bashir. Get a grip NACL. I explained before what the Arab League's agenda is and you refuse to read anything out of it. They are demogogues and nothing more....rich princes and their cronies....allied to OPEC. They will not usurp their status quo no matter what.

     Do you recall the shoving match between the Sudanese bodyguards and Rice's people a few weeks back? That's about as far as any diplomacy has progressed between Al-Bashir and the US administration. And guess what, the Arab League is taking the same stance. Did the Arab League not formally vote for full removal of all US troops in Iraq a few weeks ago? That is the general attitude on the Arab "street". This country has lost all semblance of respect it ever commanded in this part of the world. And you think that marches at Arab embassies in DC are going to do the trick. Excuse me, the only march I'm going to participate in is the one demanding impeachment.

     The only pressure that I would bear is proper funding and material support for the AMIS mission.

     On your point "black African victims, the poorest most helpless people in the world": I beg to differ. The poorest and most helpless victims are those still living in squalid conditions in the Gulf Coast. BTW...how is george handling that...being it is happening in his own backyard. Do you think he may be compelled to make another low fly over on his way back to DC?

     Like I said before, Darfur needs assistance. It is forthcoming from AU, UN and AMIS. This is a first for the AU after a royal fuck up in Burundi and Rwanda. As george is so fond of saying, they need to stand up.....and they are doing so. My support goes to them.

     Since we are discussing the poor and displaced in Africa, lets talk a bit about bush's african policy. His very first Executive Order was an order to withdraw all financing for NGO's that engage in birth control education. He hinted he would consider renewing financing if the NGO's adopted the "abstinence" stance. He prefers the NGO's to be "faith based". What is wrong with this guy? What a cracker. Advocating that a poor married woman with three kids should "abstain" rather than educate her about, and provide her with the means to prevent sliding deeper into poverty.

     Look at Bush's position regarding overall aid. It's the same lame "you're with us or against us" crap. Say something negative about US policy, then kiss away any aid. Stick with IMF capitalist guidelines and make sure you make room for our multi nationals to come in a steal blindly. Nothing new in this "compassionate conservative" policy is there? But if you have something we want, we will provide as much aid as your "big man" wants.

     Yeah...I am enraged.

     Posted by doumer at 12/31/2005 @ 1:33pm

294. The fascinating thing about it, Doumer, is that the people who endorse his policies believe they're doing something differently just because the administration is changed. It's all the same shit. Just a different asshole.

     Posted by Legba at 12/31/2005 @ 5:37pm

295. "as much aid as your 'big man' wants."

     A nice summary, DOUMER.

     "The Big Man" is a great investment. Also called "Rent-a-Thug"

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/31/2005 @ 9:17pm

296. Yep. The game is the same, but the name is changed.

     Posted by Legba at 12/31/2005 @ 9:52pm

297. (Something to look forward to in 2006 and beyond)

     "Inside Politics-Greg Pierce Bill's request

     Former President Bill Clinton sent out an e-mail appeal Wednesday for contributions to his wife's Senate re-election campaign.

     But Mr. Clinton's e-mail "differs sharply from the campaign pitch he made earlier this year: It makes no mention of GOP bogeymen putting Hillary at the top of their hit list," the New York Post reports.

     Mr. Clinton instead moved to shore up Hillary Rodham Clinton's Democratic bona fides, reporter Ian Bishop said.

     Mr. Clinton said: "Whether speaking out on the Senate floor about why this latest congressional budget is so wrong for our country ... or traveling to New Orleans to meet with families still waiting for homes -- and hope -- Hillary is a beacon of strength, intelligence, and generosity of spirit."

     Mr. Clinton added: "And I know something else: Hillary is a fighter."

     The e-mail, sent by the Friends of Hillary campaign committee, asks for a donation to "show the strength of our campaign" before the quarterly fundraising deadline tomorrow."

     Posted by Mask at 12/31/2005 @ 11:09pm

298. Ah, the Clinton machine. As perky and as full of feces as ever.

     Posted by Legba at 01/01/2006 @ 2:26pm

299. Yep, that's right, USA Pride. All of us should get used to being listened to. It's a dangerous world, and the only way to make it less dangerous is with a generous dose of paranoia, suspicion, and a willingness to rat on one's neighbors. It worked in Stalin's Russia, why not here?

     Posted by Legba at 01/01/2006 @ 2:54pm

300. .

     DOUMER 12/31 @ 1:33pm

     Your sole admonition is that the left does not pressure the Arab League to strong arm Al-Bashir. Get a grip NACL. I explained before what the Arab League's agenda is and you refuse to read anything out of it. They are demogogues and nothing more....rich princes and their cronies....allied to OPEC. They will not usurp their status quo no matter what.

     Rubbish. You are defending those scoundrels. You say, they are so wicked it is pointless to lean on them, nothing good can be expected of them.

     If they were upright there would be no need to lean on them. It is because they are recalcitrant bastards that they must be confronted and pummeled.

     It is a lie that they don't bend. The toughest Arab tyrants when it is in their interest, relent. When LBJ demanded the Saudis Arabia abolish slavery or else, King Faisal, no pussy cat, did so. In 1977, when Qaddafi expelled a quarter million Egyptians, Sadat replied with a short and vicious border war. Hassan Bashir, when squeezed arrested and handed over "Carlos the Jackal". In 1996, under pressure from the Saudis he expelled OBL. When it was in his interests he even imprisoned his former ally, the hardliner Hassan al Turabi.

     You want us to be intimidated. You stress the Sudanese physically muscled Secretary Rice's staff. You believe in bullying, bluffing; you are a part of it. You write:

     recall the shoving match between the Sudanese bodyguards and Rice's people ... Did the Arab League not formally vote for full removal of all US troops in Iraq a few weeks ago? That is the general attitude on the Arab "street".

     We have to buckle to the Arab street?! And so must the Left?! It has no choice. The Arab rulers are mean. The Arab street will be mad. The Arab League won't like it. You sly and hectoring idiot.

     This country has lost all semblance of respect it ever commanded in this part of the world. And you think that marches at Arab embassies in DC are going to do the trick. Excuse me, the only march I'm going to participate in is the one demanding impeachment. . . The poorest and most helpless victims are those still living in squalid conditions in the Gulf Coast.

     You want to shift the argument to the US. Forget the US. She is the Great Satan. We are talking about the Left. Explain why the Left cannot stick to its principles on Darfur? Why the Left can't call Arab bullies to the mat? Why has the Left infinite energy to march for Saddam and for Islamofascists against the US, but when it comes to Darfur, it is pointless to protest.

     Yeah...I am enraged.

     Baloney. You are an apologist of those Arabs scoundrels.

     Posted by nacl at 01/01/2006 @ 3:13pm

301. .

     LEFTOFCENTER 12/31 @ 10:01am

     Maybe established in your mind...but to get there you must go to the edge of reality and hang a hard right. Again, "the paragraph" was 100% my words ....dumbass. Read the book, find the copying...never happened.

     You used phrases and expression which you did not understand and which you even contradicted, several times. You mentioned Brock and also Ehrlich but you may have used other source. It was less plagiarism (your word), as cutting and pasting jargon and concepts not your own, and certainly not your "research." That was established.

     NACL: "Now you are backing an Islamofascist insurgency."

     LEFT/CENTER: What the fuck are you mumbling on about...with corruption on the GOP side flaking off daily like scales off a leper; Frist, Libby, Rove, Delay....soon it'll work its way top the top and you'll WISH it was merely a blowjob and a cigar.

     Frist and Rove have not been charged with any crime and Libby and Delay are innocent until proven guilty. Granted, there is a bad smell developing and it embarrasses me. You however, who in just a few dozen posts, displayed deep dishonesty, are in no position to accuse or deplore.

     Posted by nacl at 01/01/2006 @ 3:27pm

302. NaCl

     Take a science class sometime. Maybe if you understood those big words you wouldn't make unfounded accusations when other people use them. [as in definition of terms like "nanotech" and "facultative anaerobe"]

     here is a bad smell developing and it embarrasses me.

     Change your shorts. I think you messed yourself...again.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/01/2006 @ 3:52pm

303. .

     LEFTOFCENTER 12/31 @ 10:01am

     What the fuck are you mumbling on about...with corruption on the GOP side flaking off daily like scales off a leper; Frist, Libby, Rove, Delay....soon it'll work its way top the top and you'll WISH it was merely a blowjob and a cigar.

     Even if half the Republicans in Washington were guilty of corruption, moral turpitude and treason, that would only condemn individuals. The scandal of the ideological Left in bed with Islamofascists is in a different league. That stink is of a different order.

     Her is a political movement centuries old, millions strong, international. It was born of the noblest humanistic values. It was the work of bravest idealists, the most selfless realists from Rousseau to Peter Zenger, from Thoreau to Zola, from Gompers to Martin Luther King. It ever took the field against exploitation, bigotry and oppression. Now it has embraced Saddam Hussein and sides with mass murderers against democracy, free speech and religious toleration. This is a desecration from which the Left will not recover.

     In time you will know you are dead. Just now you are too stupid and yourselves too much like worms and vultures, to realize that you are carrion.

     why this idea that "the Left" has some magical power with respect to the mideast?

     It is the Mideast that has bewitched the Left. It has kissed it and turned it into a toad.

     When I speak of the Left bucking the Arabs, instead of buckling to them on Darfur, I know that is a pipe dream. But it's not delusional to believe that if the Left in Europe and America demanded, the Arabs discipline a Muslim regime engaged in ethnic cleansing, the way the West disciplined Christian ethnic cleansers in Bosnia and Kosovo, the Arabs would be spotlighted at a crossroad. They would either go in the direction of decency, or of barbarity. If they chose the first direction the Africans, the Arabs and the Left would all be winners. If the latter at least the Left would be a winner, by upholding its principles. Instead it is a loser by doing nothing.

     The Left does not risk the battle. It does not want to put the Arabs on the spot. It squelches its principles so as not to expose the Arabs to contempt. That is the magic the Middle East has worked on the Left. It has perverted it.

     it is the right secretly listening to my phone calls, trying to legislate morality, working to oppress the poor even more. And lets not forget the good-old Bible Belt which is the heart and soul of American bigotry....home of the good old KKK, or go to the upper midwest, or Appalachians, to the radical right paramilitary nutjob compounds. Maybe you should look up the definitions of bigot and fascist before you try to use them in a sentence.

     When has the American been better off in his rights and freedoms? When has he/she been so empowered with money and technical means to exercise his rights, to assemble and present his views, to inform and educate himself, to travel and participate in the political process?

     Institutionalized and legal injustices are gone. You make the point that the KKK, Blue Laws, literary censors, Catholics need not apply signs, gender discrimination, racial segregation, religious quotas, persecution of Mormons, lynchings, gay taunting, etc., are in the past. (Largely because the ethical temperament of Protestantism has triumphed.) Today's restrictions relate directly to real security concerns and are about as politically repressive as seat beats and anti-smoking laws.

     Sure pools of intolerance and malice remain but nowhere more so than on the Left. Right here, on these boards, people are mocked for their religious beliefs. Here people are routinely addressed as, bibleboy. Here Jews are said to systematically enter Churches to piss on altars. Here, after three posts, Zero and others, openly asked the host for my expulsion. Not because I was abusive but because I didn't sing harmony. And it is here that a fascist insurgency is supported by many if not most.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/01/2006 @ 3:59pm

304. NACL:

     You sadly are so completely mired in your quaint worldview that you forget there are nearly 6 billion people out there who don't rely on you or your musings to get by. You assume that what is "good" for the USA is even better for everybody else.

     Get it through your skull, Al Bashir is getting all the aid he needs from the Chinese…and the Americans. He does not care what the Arab League has in mind. Why…because he is a member..and he will soon enough become a player in the oil circuit….remember OPEC.

     The clear and obvious choices are to pressure the UN to impose sanctions, regardless of the fact that China and Russia will never go along. The AU can and will exert its own pressure, as it is doing now. Perhaps you are aware that Sudan's turn in the AU leadership rotation is coming up in a few months.

     "You want us to be intimidated. You stress the Sudanese physically muscled Secretary Rice's staff. You believe in bullying, bluffing; you are a part of it."

     You got your head in a vise or what? Migraines? Pointing out a fact is not expressly stating an opinion. Hell no man. I believe in honest dialogue… not bringing a satchel of goodies…and "sing it my way", or else. Intimidation is our only modus of diplomacy. Rice and Powell in Sudan on a look- see and never stepping out of Khartoum? Pretty brave and telling.

     "Explain why the Left cannot stick to its principles on Darfur? Why the Left can't call Arab bullies to the mat? Why has the Left infinite energy to march for Saddam and for Islamofascists against the US, but when it comes to Darfur, it is pointless to protest"

     Perhaps you could be so inclined to explain clearly what exactly the left's position is on Darfur. I don't recall seeing any position papers that all lefties agree to. I can speak for myself only and I have stated my position before. If you don't agree with it, well that is your prerogative.

     Now on to "marching for Saddam". I have been a loyal The Nation reader for 5 years and on this board for only the last 5-6 months. Never have I seen a post declaring "left" support for SH. Most if not all posts have stated something to the effect that he was intuitively a murdering despotic maniac etc. Many lefties have stated that SH had been effectively de-balled by the UNSCOM inspectors and the UN sanctions. And so he was. Was it right to invade and create chaos? To create animosity throughout the Muslim world? To create a chasm so wide with the rest of the civilized world that it will take several administrations to heal the wounds? NEVER.

     Now, I have a question for you. You said "You are an apologist of those Arabs scoundrels." Well, no I'm not, although I sincerely believe that we may some day be able to achieve mature dialogue with "those Arab scoundrels". Here's my question. One of the "scoundrels", Syria, has been labeled everything akin to the bastard step-child surrogate of the "Axis of Evil". Sounds pretty ominous! Yet, your people have no qualms "rendering" suspected terrorists to this "scoundrel Arab" state. Is there something here that perhaps we should know about? Sounds like a pretty intimate relationship…like "show me your torture techniques…and I'll show you mine". Why is it NACL that we can clandestinely render people to Syria when they are on the "evil maker" list?

     Posted by doumer at 01/01/2006 @ 5:05pm

305. NACL:

     "You sly and hectoring idiot."

     Granted, I'm a little sly. My wife says I'm an idiot somtimes.

     But, ...I NEVER hector!

     Posted by doumer at 01/01/2006 @ 5:08pm

306. "You sly and hectoring idiot."

     Man, you dug up some old memories. I went to school years ago with a guy named Hector O'Malley. Come to think of it, he was a sly dog that O'Malley. I thought at the time he was an absolute idiot.

     I think O'Malley is our "hectoring idiot". Thanks for your insight.

     Posted by doumer at 01/01/2006 @ 5:13pm

307. NACL:

     Please excuse (no don't) my verbosity. I just can't stop.

     Something that you and the conservatives (and I will admit, many Dems) is the idea of being an honest player. We have a sham of a foreign policy package, specially tailored for the chosen few who tow our line. We have the same thing on the home front.

     We have seen the immediate results of the aftermath of the blunder in the desert. Ahmadinejad is talking through his ass in total intimidation of Israel and the US...because we gave him license to do so. Uzbekistan is thumbing its nose at us. Azerbajian is following close behind. The warlords in Afganistan are saying "bring it on". Karzeid can't step foot outside of Kabul.

     The Russians are expanding their sphere into east asia. the Chinese are on a mission.

     Things are not looking so rosy for our "democratization" putches are they?

     The Ukraine is sliding away from the 'western" approach and will start to play the "smart card".

     All-in-all NACL, we are quickly becoming, despite our military prowess, a stone-in-the creek for up and coming countries. We are bogged down and going nowhere. We have lost so much leverage.

     An honest player is what the world needs. The rest will follow.

     Posted by doumer at 01/01/2006 @ 5:40pm

308. NACL:

     "Right here, on these boards, people are mocked for their religious beliefs. Here people are routinely addressed as, bibleboy. Here Jews are said to systematically enter Churches to piss on altars. Here, after three posts, Zero and others, openly asked the host for my expulsion. Not because I was abusive but because I didn't sing harmony. And it is here that a fascist insurgency is supported by many if not most."

     Well, I would not ask for your expulsion to the wasteland of RedState.org. that is a little severe and constitutes cruel and extremely unusual flagellation.......but, let's examine what benefit Rio, LL, Todd(although he is only here to dog everybody)and last but not least True. Tow the line and do not, under any circumstance show that you are actually thinking for yourself.

     Having said that, let's examine some of the major world religions. let's leave out christianity as that topic has been coaled enough.

     My father used to live in Thailand....majority Buddhist with some Islam thrown in for the mix in the southern provinces. Buddhism exists as far as kharma can lend it substance. Think about your miserable plight in life and then think again...it was destined to be and there is nothing that can or will be done about it. Accept it and carry it well. Very little motivation for moving up the proverbial ladder.

     Let's look at Islam. Rigid and unwaivering obedience to precept and custom. Anything outside of that can get you severely disfigured or may make you "lose your head".

     The Hindu religions: pretty close to Buddhism. Accept your spot in life and live with it. But I do kinda enjoy all the racy symbols and multi faceted figurines.

     Posted by doumer at 01/01/2006 @ 6:04pm

309. Doumer,:"Let's look at Islam. Rigid and unwaivering obedience to precept and custom.

     this is also true of catholicism, as well as fundamentalist christian groups.

     your thumbnail sketch of world religions is wan and hints of prejudice, sorry

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/01/2006 @ 6:26pm

310. NaCl

     You think things like the KK are in the past. You don't get out much. I used to live in SE Texas (granted it was over a decade ago though)...but the Lumberton / Vidor area is "good-old boy" Klan Kountry even today. Hell, I used to see recruitment drive busses parked on the side of the highway.

     As to the semi-coherent ramblings like " The scandal of the ideological Left in bed with Islamofascists... need I remind you of GWB's longtime financial connections to the Royal Saudi families...and the bin Ladens...and Dubya's $43 million gift to the Taliban in May 2001...and lets not forget the Enron-Cheney-Taliban connection with respect to the trans Aghan pipeline devp't (HELLO Halliburton) (HERE [alternet.org]

     As to your flaunting of the term "Islamofascist" I will defer to a conservative review of the term (see the word on Wikipedia)

     "Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our heads than in keeping their own." [11] --Joseph Sobran, paleoconservative Catholic commentator.

     Empty head...empty words. Kind of a theme thing with you Saltster.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/01/2006 @ 6:48pm

311. when the entire thread is devoted to refuting obvious nutcases such as NACL, etc, it will drive out reasoned discourse, the same way that bad currency drives out good money. you have been warned.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/01/2006 @ 7:18pm

312. Johann

     At one level I agree with your analysis...on the other hand, since a nut job of similar mind is in the White House, and as many other nutjobs actually DO think this way (as they support Dubya, in droves), it also behooves us to take the time to understand "them". Damned if we do, moreso damned if we don't.

     Thus talking to folks like NaCl is, at times, a necessary task. Point taken though...I will aim for brevity in the future. If he/she/it wants to blow and bluster for Rese-like pages, it is beyond me to stop it.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/01/2006 @ 9:25pm

313. lefty, I was not singling you out, but rather speaking in a general way. engage if you must, but the general effect may be what I described.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/01/2006 @ 9:54pm

314. Doumer,

     I cannot remember if I joined in Zero's complaints about you--if I did, I apologize. I have to say I'm on the verge of ignoring NACL. He's a bright fellow in a few ways, but his demonization of anyone that might disagree with him is tiresome and childish. So far only a few people remain on my ignore list and those are there since they have no interest in making anything other than "personal attacks". But NACL is rarely able to keep his sociopathic tendencies in check when going one on one.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/01/2006 @ 10:42pm

315. Damned if we do, moreso damned if we don't.

     Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 01/01/2006 @ 9:25pm

     Given that choice

     I prefer to be damned if I do

     Posted by Will C. at 01/01/2006 @ 10:49pm

316. Will C:

     Happy New Year to you. I was just reviewing the thread to see if LL had anything new to add and saw your posts - very nice. You saved me some work.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/02/2006 @ 12:43am

317. HMAN23

     Same to you bro.

     It's always a pleasure exposing Liberty as a fraud.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/02/2006 @ 01:02am

318. It is like flashbacks of someones ill spent youth when all the America hating liberals were joining the peace corps in mass (as he stated he did)[Reference is to Chimi] or madly & cowardly fleeing to Canada while others died in a Democratic party war of JFK and LBJ! Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/28/2005 @ 6:22pm | ignore this person

     "Democratic party war", Rio"? Do you mean there were physical casualties between the Johnson Democrats and the Kennedy Democrats in the late 1950s? Or, were you referring to the feuding between Kennedy and the even more conservative Southern Democrats in the 1960s?

     Surely you are not referring to that little skirmish in Indo China. You know the one where a whole generation of post WWII policy wonks and politicians – especially conservative Republicans and Democrats – subscribed uncritically to J. F. Dulles' domino theory and its strategy to contain the spread of communism.

     Let's see, how did that thinking go? Seems like it went along the lines of "we gotta stop them (commies) over there so we're not fighting them here." (There seems to be an echo here.) I bet ol' John Foster is smiling down on Dubya from the great beyond.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/02/2006 @ 01:58am

319. Sorry about the extra " after Rio.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/02/2006 @ 02:09am

320. .

     DOUMER 01/01 @ 5:05pm

     you forget there are nearly 6 billion people out there who don't rely on you or your musings to get by. You assume that what is "good" for the USA is even better for everybody else.

     You forget, we were not talking about the world, its billions, or even about the US and my world view. We were talking about you and your gutless crowd and your abandonment of your world view.

     Get it through your skull, Al Bashir is getting all the aid he needs from the Chinese…and the Americans. He does not care what the Arab League has in mind. Why…because he is a member..and he will soon enough become a player in the oil circuit….remember OPEC.

     It is ridiculous to say, the opponent's contumacy makes it pointless to oppose him. Furthermore, it is because Bashir and the other Arab regimes, are so well fortified that a new approach is required. You understand that alright, you just don't want to consider it. You also understand that the issue is not Bashir's turpitude but the Left's corruption.

     explain clearly what exactly the left's position is on Darfur. I don't recall seeing any position papers that all lefties agree to. I can speak for myself only and I have stated my position before. If you don't agree with it, well that is your prerogative.

     The absence of a position by the Left, that absence is the point. The Left's unwillingness to buck the Arabs on Darfur, that is the issue. And your sputtering, that those regimes are all bastards, that the problem is a Gordian knot of linguistic, religious, racial and economic ligaments etc., against which, apart from acquiescence and providing money, nothing can be done, that is not a position either. It is rather a dust storm in lieu of a position.

     BTW, since you are demanding answers of me, where is the requested data about that British poll you cited? There were other questions as well. They grew out of your requiring consistency and logic, if you remember.

     Never have I seen a post declaring "left" support for SH. . .

     Right. It never happened. The Left always disdained Saddam. It did not largely oppose forcing him to disgorge Kuwait. It did not solidly support him over the no-flight zones, the phony DU charges, the fake dead baby parades, the fraudulent manifests, nor in his demands against the inspections, the UNSC's censure, America's threat of force, and his ejection. The Left did not side with him consistently. It did not prefer the tyrannical Saddam over the White House. It did not tear out its hair, and march by the millions, especially in Europe, to prevent Saddam's fall. That NEVER happened, eh?

     Was it right to invade and create chaos?

     Was it right to invade France in 1944? Only one third of the French sought an Allied victory. Half a million from occupied Europe, had joined the Waffen SS (not as draftees but as volunteers). With the exception of the Slavs and Brits, the vast majority of Europeans had accommodated themselves to the Germans. They did not want the chaos, the destruction, the civilian deaths the invasion occasioned. That animosity is yet on display in fresh graffiti on Allied gravestones in Normandy.

     To create animosity throughout the Muslim world? To create a chasm so wide with the rest of the civilized world that it will take several administrations to heal the wounds?

     You mean 9/11 and the dancing and cheering it occasioned, and the naming of children across the Arab world, Osama, that was before animosity for the US existed?

     As to that chasm, I agree, it will take a long time for Europe to live down its support of Saddam.

     Now, I have a question for you . . . Why is it NACL that we can clandestinely render people to Syria when they are on the "evil maker" list?

     It is so "clandestine" that everyone knows about it. What we don't know are the circumstances. Who was rendered and why and in return for what? I'm against such a systematic practice. However, I don't mind inflated news of such a practice circulating widely. Nor do I mind it percolating in the minds of prisoners under US interrogation.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/02/2006 @ 1:49pm

321. .

     DOUMER 01/01 @ 5:05pm

     [excuse] my verbosity. I just can't stop . . .We have a sham of a foreign policy package, specially tailored for the chosen few who tow our line. We have the same thing on the home front.

     You want to tap dance away from the Left's failure, so you put out some other lines baited with Iran, Russia, China, the Ukraine and of course the Jews, the irresistable Jews. Then, with a sigh and a tear for America, and a word about honesty, you grab a beer and wait for a bite that will pull the conversation into a less uncomfortable direction. Yes, intellectual honesty, that is your forte.

     Against complaints about the bigotry hereabouts you offer a sneer about the "chosen few" and a swipe at Christian posters. They don't think for themselves. To prove they do you want them to stop defending their ideals, the way you have abandoned yours, eh?

     To wash your hands you ofer a cheap inaninity about every faith. That is to establish yourself as an equal opportunity traducer, quite impartial. That is your idea of being an independent thinker. You are my idea of a crayon showing off its penmanship.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/02/2006 @ 2:02pm

322. .

     offer not ofer

     Posted by nacl at 01/02/2006 @ 2:04pm

323. .

     TJBEHRENS1 01/01 @ 10:42pm

     NACL is rarely able to keep his sociopathic tendencies in check when going one on one. . . I'm on the verge of ignoring NACL.

     You are right, I'm not going to become any less offensive. Why endure the aggravation, unless you are a masochist. Do the smart thing and turn me off. Have a restful 2006.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/02/2006 @ 2:15pm

324. .

     LEFTOFCENTER 12/31 @ 10:01am

     I will defer to a conservative review of the term (see the word on Wikipedia): "Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. ... " Joseph Sobran

     But what is Wikipedia's word on Joseph Sobran?

     This "conservative" thinks the US govt and the Zionists provoked 9/11. Islam has been scapegoated. When he is not busy proving Shakespeare was the Earl of Oxford Sobran is busy in the Journal of Historical Review, and its Institute, a think tank devoted to Holocaust denial. Bill Buckley called him a bigot and fired him from the National Review. Such are the brown streaks in your BVDs.

     You think things like the KK are in the past. I used to see recruitment drive busses parked on the side of the highway [in SE Texas].

     Horse and buggies can yet be seen on country roads; are they then not of the past?

     ... need I remind you of GWB's longtime financial connections to the Royal Saudi families...and the bin Ladens...and Dubya's $43 million gift to the Taliban in May 2001...and lets not forget the Enron-Cheney-Taliban connection with respect to the trans Aghan pipeline devp't

     You don't need to remind me, you need to prove it.

     There was no Dubya gift to the Taliban, no Cheney Taliban friendship, no GWB link to the Saudi Royals or to the bin Laden family, not long term or short term. There is just you, a malicious traducer and shameless liar, recklessly throwing the tons of innuendos and anti-Bush poop sloshing in the Web's bilge. Sure, Bush Sr. served briefly in the Carlyle group, in which some bin Ladens invested relatively small amounts. That family is enormous. One of Osama's hundreds of nieces is a NY model. GWB, as an oil man, suffered the disastrous 80s when oil fell to $12 a barrel. The Wall Street Journal, after a massive, months long investigation, said explicitly, no wrong doings were attributable to him. A number of wheeler dealers finagled themselves onto the Harken board, possibly, the paper chicaned, in "an effort to cozy up to a presidential son. " That was it.

     Yet you instantly reach for some slander, slime, libel, or distortion, as earlier for the Downing Street Memo, that dud of a smoking gun. That is how you defend the Left, with a cloud of dirt.

     Furthermore, suppose all your White House aspersions were true. How would that answer my argument? Your recourse to tht poop, with which you only begrime yourself, is your admission of helplessness.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/02/2006 @ 2:41pm

325. NaCl

     Rant on .....

     But what is Wikipedia's word on Joseph Sobran? Read it thanks. Can't say I agree with his all scholarly views, but everywhere I look attibutes him as being a "Conservative Writer." Guess if you guys don't want to claim him, take away his nutjob card or something.

     On Downing Street Memos: Neither UK, nor WH admin has denied the memo contents, only their meaning. Sounds to me like you decry an acknowledged fact. What your spin on the contents are is of course a subject of debate. As to the memos themselves....accepted as real from where I look. By all means, disprove them if you want to.

     As to Dick & Dubyas mideast ties...guess its hard to observe the world with your head up your ass. Try taking a peek at: Ref1 [bushnews.com] or Ref2 [bushwatch.com]. You touch on but a single node of a larger piece of history. Call it slime or bilge or whatever you like I suppose.

     Dubya's $43m to the Taliban : MONEY [cato.org]

     As for Cheney try OIL [antiwar.com] and as Halliburton's pin-up boy, how you could be so blind is amazing, if not surprising.

     ...oh, and for a glimpse of the "not-so-past" try this link" K K K [k-k-k.com]

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/02/2006 @ 3:27pm

326. NACL:

     What part of "our" worldview do you disagree with? Honest brokering with equal partners? Our "gutless" crowd has posted a lot of points, yet you chose to ignore them all. Believe me, we have not abandoned anything. Right time and right pols, and we will move on.

     On your point about my having no position on Darfur, I have posted how many times now? In deference, you refuse, or are incapable of offering anything in rebuttal. Typical! Providing money and material, something that Norway and Canada are doing, among other nations, typifies what true recognition of the problem and its resolution.

     "The Left did not side with him consistently. It did not prefer the tyrannical Saddam over the White House. It did not tear out its hair, and march by the millions, especially in Europe, to prevent Saddam's fall. That NEVER happened, eh?"

     Black and white, as always with you Saltzie? The marches, demonstrations, oped's, official position of most of the Security Council etc were in support of Saddam Hussein? That what Fox said NACL? The mass demonstrations and official position of much of the world were in defiance to Bush's reckless putsch toward American neo-colonialism, nothing more. Had the UN not voted nearly unanimously for the sanctions against Iraq from 1991 to 2002? The demonstrations, crafted by a much more politically savvy EU population, were a direct challenge to US policy and had nothing to do with Hussein. They had a measured response to what was perceived as a complete flip-off to the world.

     Your ridiculous attempt to equate Iraq with WWII once again falls flat. Different universes here NACL! Tell me why it is that conservatives ALWAYS try to draw that comparison. It's fallen flat so many times before and will continue to do so. Try something else. This one is worn out and very, very lame.

     Your telling comments about dancing Arabs (after 911) has been completely debunked….and you know it. Stupid and reckless of you to try.

     "As to that chasm, I agree, it will take a long time for Europe to live down its support of Saddam."

     Again, nice try but no cigar for you. Not even a butt. That was a non-answer..period.

     Now onto the "rendering" to Syria part which you so conveniently refused to answer. Answer the question NACL. If you can!

     Another point that perhaps you can sink your fangs into: it seems that everywhere Bush travels to; he is met with resounding resentment. I do recall when Clinton traveled to a number of countries in West Africa in 1999; he was met with throngs of admirers. Whenever he traveled to Europe and especially Ireland, same thing. Consider the fact that when Bush even flies back to Crawford, there are protestors outside his ranch. All of the staged speeches with our military? The crafted and staged speech at the cathedral in New Orleans? When there was no power in the rest of the city and generators had to be trucked in? This does not bode well NACL. Why do you suppose that is?

     I recall the day Bush flew into Phoenix in fall of 2004 to deliver his goods to the crew assembled at Bank One Ballpark. Well, three women had snuck in wearing anti Bush t-shirts and were quickly and unceremoniously escorted out. I recall trying to drive home from an appointment and ALL THREE of the freeways that pass around the airport, were totally closed off. What the hell is this guy so scared of?

     It is time to return to a time when politicians served the people. Your man will come tumbling down hard, followed by his stooges. And people like you will be crying foul. And I will be looking on and say nothing more than ‘time to move on and restore a face to this great land of ours".

     Posted by doumer at 01/02/2006 @ 7:41pm

327. .

     DOUMER 01/02 @ 7:41pm

     Believe me, we have not abandoned anything.

     Agreed, you have not abandon Saddam, the Iraqi insurgents, Milosevic, al Bashir, Qaddafi, Arafat, Nasser, Hafez al Assad, Brezhnev, Khrushchev, perhaps not even Stalin. Victor Navasky is still sticking to the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss. It is true, the news of the"God that Failed" hasn't yet reached your particular, "God is Dead" crowd.

     But you have no trouble turning your back on those black Darfurians. Your excuses are: the Arab regimes are just too horrible, and: you are too busy decrying Bush's hesitation to rebuild a city six feet under water.

     about my having no position on Darfur, I have posted how many times now?

     You have posted plenty of double talk, and never anything other than what I summarized. Nor have you answered any of my questions.

     The mass demonstrations and official position of much of the world were in defiance to Bush's reckless putsch toward American neo-colonialism, nothing more.

     Right, there was a despot who by edict amputated the tongues of his critics, who had put 300,000 Shia into mass graves according to the UN and HRW, who had killed at least 160,000 Kurds, who had ethnically cleansed half a million marsh Arabs, who had attacked all of his neighbors, caused the deaths of 750,000 Iraqi and Iranian troops, had set the oil fields ablaze, had poison-gassed his own people, had promised to incinerate half of Israel, had hauled hundreds of Kuwaitis into Baghdad dungeons - from which they never emerged, had paid suicide bombers $25,000 bonuses, had given every indication of harboring illegal WMD. When that man's neck was threatened the Left marched by the millions. Because its goodness and high principles could not allow US "neocolonialism" to replace that tyrant with an elected Iraqi govt which might be an example to the rest of the Arab world.

     Your telling comments about dancing Arabs (after 911) has been completely debunked….and you know it. Stupid and reckless of you to try.

     The Int'l Herald Tribune reported opinion polls showing large majorities in Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Egypt the Palestinian Authority expressing support for the hijackers of 9/11. Gallup found that 61% of Muslims surveyed didn't believe that Arabs hijacked the planes that struck the WTC. In Palestine crowds including policeman were videotaped celebrating. Int'l journalism organization protested the PNA's attempts to confiscate and suppress recordings of those celebrations. I saw some of that footage. Novak wrote a column about it. Don't tell me it is a myth.

     Now onto the "rendering" to Syria part which you so conveniently refused to answer. Answer the question NACL. If you can!

     I answered you directly in the last paragraph of my post 01/02 @ 1:49pm.

     Another point ... everywhere Bush travels to; he is met with resounding resentment... Why do you suppose that is?

     Bush has aroused bitter resentment and hatred. He is fighting a controversial war. He sometimes reveals a snotty manner. He is a bad speaker. The media is largely against him. He is slandered and vilified in an outrageous way, as for example in these fora. And yet his poll standings are not as bad as those experienced at times by Clinton, Carter, Truman. Even Reagan, the most popular president in memory, had periods when his approval ratings slipped below 40%. Carter left office with a 34% approval rating.

     Your man will come tumbling down hard, followed by his stooges. And people like you will be crying foul. And I will be looking on and say nothing more than ‘time to move on and restore a face to this great land of ours".

     I support President Bush, certainly in his foreign policy. I am grateful for his steadiness. I like his entrusting the State Dept to Rice. I think beneath the snotty rich boy there is a tough and decent man. He is inarticulate, but he is far from stupid. And he is smart enough to listen to capable people, the vice president for one. I also think however, almost anyone else occupying the Oval Office on 9/11, Gore, Clinton, Hart, Dole, etc., would have responded much as did Bush. Almost anyone being a better communicator, the policy would have been put across better, more convincingly, without raising so much paranoia and anger. Still, the need to take a stand and act forcefully was inherent in the situation. We could not have let Saddam keep making a monkey of us and have retained our standing in the world; most any White House occupant would ultimately have gone into Iraq.

     I wish Bush well, but his fate is not something I worry about.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/02/2006 @ 11:10pm

328. .

     LEFTOFCENTER 01/02 @ 3:27pm

     NaCl Rant on .....

     I've told you before, if you think you have an argument, explain it, don't simple throw a link at me. There are thousands of sites with the wildest charges, it is unfair to demand I argue with them. That tactic is cheap and lazy and becomes you. When something obscure or dubious is affirmed, then a link to an objective source, backing it up, is appropriate.

     A good example is your, "Dubya's $43m to the Taliban" slur. If laid out as an argument instead of just a link, you would have to explain that the US subsidized Afghan farmers not to grow opium. How successful that program proved is beside the point. It was part of a responsible anti-drug policy. That the Taliban were the legitimate govt of Afghanistan at that time, does not invalidate or criminalize the effort.

     In short, articulated as an argument, "Dubya's $43m to the Taliban" would not work, it would be a non-issue. Which is why you offer just the insinuation.

     Your other links, represent similar frauds. You are unable to post without leaving the calling card of a louse.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/02/2006 @ 11:27pm

329. .

     LEFTOFCENTER 01/02 @ 3:27pm

     On Downing Street Memos: Neither UK, nor WH admin has denied the memo contents, only their meaning. Sounds to me like you decry an acknowledged fact. What your spin on the contents are is of course a subject of debate. As to the memos themselves....accepted as real from where I look. By all means, disprove them if you want to.

     I don't want to disprove the memo. It is real alright. Moreover, it is viewed as the missing proof, clear evidence that the administration lied and fabricated its justification for war: it is the "a smoking gun." I like that, because that is an admission that, up until the DSM, the evidence was inconclusive. That the administration had cheated was only a supposition, it remained unproven. But then the gun was found, smoking hot, with the fingerprints. It clearly showed the White House rigging the game. The British reported, the fix is in. But look at that pistol more closely.

     You can read the memo here.

     It breaks down into two sections. The short first part summarizes what a man called Dearlove, a high official in British intelligence, throughout the memo called "C", reports to the cabinet. He is just back from Washington. The administration briefed him. Dearlove came away convinced that there will be war. Bush has decided, Saddam must be removed by force and that such a policy can be justified by the terrorist and WMD threat which he represents. Then comes the key sentence: "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

     The important part in the rest of the memo is a discussion, by cabinet members. They are chewing over what they have just heard. The chief of their military (CDS), Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, wonders whether a workable military plan existed. He worries, should Saddam use his WMDs on the first day. Suppose he used them on Kuwait he asks. Or on Israel, chimes in Foreign Minister, Jack Straw.

     This memo is now brandished as a smoking gun. Because it frankly said: "the intelligence and facts were being fixed..." That is taken to mean, the administration acted like a syndicate fixing a horse race or rigging a roulette table. At the time Michael Smith first reported the Memos in the Sunday Times I asked a forum in the Guardian how they understood the word, fixed, in that context. The Guardian is an English, lefty newspaper and its fora are populated by radicals. I asked them, do the native Brits in this forum understand the memo's use of the word, "fixed" to mean, rigged, that the data was falsified. Or do you understand the writer to be saying, the data regarding terror and WMD is being marshaled that can support the policy?

     The Americans in that forum and two Brits insisted it meant rigged. But none of the other Brits, usually very loquacious, replied. There was one, a tough lefty, a supporter of Mayor Livingston, who dryly said, it meant the evidence was being gathered and nailed down to support the policy. Several weeks later Christopher Hitchins, who certainly knows the language, also wrote of that meaning. He reduced the fuss to the fuzziness of the memo writer.

     But the clincher is the cabinet discussion following Dearlove's report. Had the cabinet understood Dearlove to have said, a non existing terror and WMD threat is being fabricated the Admiral and the Foreign Secretary would certainly not have been worrying about what might happen if Saddam used his WMD on Kuwait or Israel.

     The Downing Street Memos prove, a Smoking Gun was needed, but was not found.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/03/2006 @ 12:11am