Wednesday Open Thread
American University students pelted Karl Rove in protest. (link )
Rove was on the campus to talk to the College Republicans, but when he got outside more than a dozen students began throwing things at him and at his car, an American University spokesperson said.
What do you want to talk about?
Submitted by Mike Pridmore on Wed, 2007-04-04 07:52
Tags:
Comments :
Iran releasing the 15 British Sailors
link
I think this shows that diplomacy can work. It ought to be tried more often, instead of resorting in knee-jerk fashion to heavy handed measures. Let's hope that this can be a start to the lessening of tensions with Iran and a march AWAY from war.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
That will sure bring gloom to the right wing blogs
which wanted this to be drummed up to an attack Iran position.
Good for the Brittish captives, Good for Iran, good for everybody (well, except Darth Cheney and his mini-me dubya).
Condolences to those who wanted another war front. But hey, look on the bright side(of the dark side of the Force), you've still got another 19 months of this administration to try and drum up another crisis to support more wars. There's always hope. Or you could pray for it. If you do that, which prayers do you think god will answer?
basically
Iran played this for all it was worth. Iran exposed Britain to be a weak meandering has-been. They illegitimately captured 15 sailors in Iraqi waters, lied about their coordinates, did a lot of bluster and posturing, then pretended to be magnanimous and released them as if they were in the right all along.
Britain comes out to be like a bunch of pathetic chickenheads. Which is I guess what they are.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Those pussy Brits!
They obviously don't have the guts to handle things like this. They should have taken a lesson from how we handled those North Korean bastards when they seized the Pueblo.
qui tacet consentire
what's Pueblo
and how did we handle it? :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Before your time, I guess
U.S.S. Pueblo
qui tacet consentire
The issue is resolved
Nobody was hurt, and no ransom was paid. Why can't you be happy about that outcome?
You should be admitting that your call for the risky military rescue was premature, that the Brits had a better, safer way to free their servicepeople thru diplomacy.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Chickenheads
At least there was no war, which is what we all wanted.
So what if Iran thinks the Brits are cowards? Why do we care what they think? If we cared about what our potential (and current) enemies thought, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
I bet if a public apology by Bush for invading Iraq were somehow garaunteeed to quell the violence, he would never do it. For sociopathic conservatives like him, war is preferable to losing face. Scary.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
It's front paged over at DKos, but I'll repeat it anyhow.
Bill in Portland Maine links to an MSNBC
discussion between Keith Olbermann & Jonathan Alter (Newsweek political guy):
" Olbermann: Does it seem as if most of these scandals surrounding this administration right now---one might say engulfing it---have this underlying theme of Karl Rove attempting to use the resources of the federal government to ensure his dream of a permanent Republican majority?
Alter: Well, there‘s no question that‘s what he was planning to do, and had at least one meeting a week for the last seven years to do that. And that‘s the thread that ties this Justice Department scandal together.
It was a concerted effort to put their people in and screw the Democrats. And so what they did is they broke all precedent, for instance, and started bringing voter fraud indictments just before an election, to make it seem like the Democrats were the corrupt party, almost always in swing states. The prosecutors who were fired, with only one exception, all came from swing states.
So they were trying to poison the well there before the election, in violation of tradition. And you see a lot of professional prosecutors who are just outraged about this, Keith, whether they‘re Democrats or Republicans. [...]
[Y]ou‘re going to see a lot more testimony in the weeks to come. And I think Rove, over the course of this year, is going to be in deep doo-doo on a variety of issues. We don‘t know which one will do him in, but I wouldn‘t be surprised if he‘s not working in the White House by the end of the year. [...]
Just to give you one quick example with probably the most famous prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald: when it came time to appoint him, Karl Rove told the Republican senator from Illinois, No, don‘t put him in, he might be too independent and go after the governor of Illinois---the Republican governor at the time, who was a crook, later convicted. So clearly, what Rove was trying to do is in jurisdiction by jurisdiction, protect Republicans, go after Democrats, and essentially turn our criminal justice system into what they have in a banana republic."
Banana Republican? I'll take mine with whipped cream & nuts.
I want to bash my own party
Congressional Democrats couldn't resist larding up the supplemental war funding bill with silly pork like spinach subsidies and penut storage. This despite knowing full well the bill would get plenty of attention because it puts the executive and legislative branches on a collision course.
We just gave Bush a way to muddy the waters by claiming we're wasting taxpayer dollars and are not focused on the troops' mission. Democrats must strip the Christmas tree bare and send it back to Bush. That way we'll appear to be willing to compromise, and Bush can either accept a withdrawal before the end of his presidency or deny the troops their funds now.
Have you ever heard the phrase "grease the skids"?
It refers to a way to make a sleigh move faster. It's the way our Congress works. It's the way our Congress has always worked.
Do I support it? No, I agree with you in principle. Do I accept it might have been needed to get a successful vote through Congress? Yes & btw, when the Republicans controlled Congress, the pork they added onto the Supplemental Appropriation Bills was significantly greater than what's in this years model....just in case you might have forgotten our recent past.
Honestly the best news about the whole thing is that when Bush43 vetos the bill, we'll get the Feingold-Reid version through. Guess who'll be s***ing gold bricks then?
I disagree
It's a kick ass bill. It's a mosiac of concensus on priorities, holding Bush and Iraq to benchmarks in Iraq, and supporting the infrastructure of the United States.
And until further notice, that is the way it works.
What is too bad, is that the people left behind IN New Orleans, have zero priority for this White HOuse. Even Reagan would have not abandoned the city and it's people the way these republicans have.
Too bad the press talks about helping Katrina victims rebuild, as pork. They have their priorities backwards.
I'm only half stupid
I gladly stand corrected.
Thanks.
Not add ons,
left overs.
The dems are taking care of the budget items that republicans ignored or left over. Most of the items might seem trivial out of context, but money for firestations that were left behind by republicans, money for farmers who will lose their farms, and spinach growers who could lose their farms...... this is all business that the republicans don't care about. Why support Iraq, if we aren't going to support Americans first.
Much if not most of the money goes to critical infrastructure that Republicans have left behind. Too bad the press doesn't mention that. What a sh*tty job Republicans did taking care of business when they had the chance.
I'm only half stupid
That's a good argument. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has
some very interesting observations today
. They're worth a peek.
whooo nice - Obama raises $25 mil
from 100,000 donors!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Bad poll news for Ender
Link.
Full poll is here.
qui tacet consentire
that's just
Democratic propaganda coming home to roost. It's temporary though. As soon as people see the real threat of nuclear Iran, support for a military solution will rise again. American people don't shy away from confrontation.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Nuclear Iran is realistically
years away.
American's do not want this President to be in charge of anything, let alone a war with Iran.
Bungling Iraq has strengtened Iran's hand by leaps and bounds.
Our military deserves a better commander in chief.
Who but a coward is afraid to talk to our enemies.
I'm only half stupid
Dem propaganda is that effective?
Wow! We must have some super spinmeisters on our side to hoodwink 92 percent of the American people into thinking a dire threat like Iran is not worth a few cruise missiles.
qui tacet consentire
that's because
the media is not portraying Iran as a dire threat so everyone is in the lala land thinking that they just might be reasonable people there instead of the reality of apocalypse bent theocratic lunatics.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Like Iraq?
Maybe the media, rightly so, is not portraying Iran as a dire threat because they *gasp* aren't.
Remember the last immanent threat? Oh yeah, Iraq. How did that go for the media? How did that go for the U.S.?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Ironically
the hardliners in Iran, think Iran's leader has gone soft and are very unhappy.
I imagine the hardliners in this country feel the same way.
I'm only half stupid
Yeah such nutballs...
While theocrats generally annoy and frighten me I also have to look at the facts. Since the theocratic government took over in the late 70s Iran has started exactly ZERO wars.
I re-emphasize this: the nation of Iran, a collection of apocalypse seeking lnatics in your estimation, has managed to not start a single war in 30 years. In fact the only war they were involved with was the Iraq-Iran war started by our boy Hussein.
In that same time period our own bastion of reason and civilization has been involved in military conflicts in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait/Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Iraq again. 9 major conflicts in 30 years for the US. 1 for the Iranians.
Based purely on a numbers game the Iranians don't seem like the loose cannons, now do they?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Depends.
Does using puppet organizations like Hezbollah count? It is widely acknowledged that Hezbollah is just an extension of Iran for these purposes. So what was that whole Hezbollah/Israeli thing in Lebanon that happened a while back?
Maybe you don't consider that a war?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Fun with assertions.
It's also widely acknowledged that Bush invaded Iraq just for the oil. I'll grant your unsupported assertion if you grant mine.
The one where Israel invaded Lebanon? Is Israel also an Iranian client state?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'll let you do your own research.
I choose NOT to grant you any unsupported assertions. So, I will provide evidence of mine and expect the same in return.
It is, in fact, widely acknowledged that there are strong ties between Iran and Hezbollah ... to the level that Hezbollah reportedly not only takes their arms from Iran but their orders as well.
Here is a report on the topic: Hezbollah as a strategic arm of Iran
Here is a reference to a recent event
which sheds some light on this topic:
The point here is not what Asghari is or isn't telling the US. The point is that he was clearly a high ranking Iranian official who not only maintained close ties with Hezbollah but may, in fact, have been instrumental in its very formation.
For some annecdotal evidence, just read through the comments in the DailyKos Hezbollah Tags
. You should be able to find more than adequate references to justify my "widely accepted" assertion.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Okay.
Let's assume we grant that client states actions reflect on the controlling party. This really only makes the situation much much more stark. Now Iran can be linked with two major military conflicts (both Israel-lebanon wars). Meanshile the list of US related wars mushrooms hugely. We'd have to add the Iran-Iraq war to our side seeing as how Iraq was our client. We'd similar be adding a dozen or so small brush wars in South and Central America. And so on...
So the "score" goes from 0-9 in favor of Iran to something like 2-30 in favor of Iran.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'll accept that.
2 is not zero which was my only point, and I even gave you an out by allowing that "puppet organizations" (not sure Hezbollah qualifies as a "client state") might not count. I feel no further need to debate the relative magnitude of the offenses beyond the "zero" comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oops, forgot.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No we don't
but there is little consensus that Iran poses a greater threat than Pakistan or North Korea or even Russia's loose nukes. Or shall we just level all of Asia and call it done?
If there is an actual threat at some point in the future, I hope we do not have an ignorant coward in the White House like we do today. President Bush is an incompetent Commander in Chief, and he has surrounded himself with people of his own ilk. None of them can be trusted to handle a real crisis.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Iran is governed by
crazy theocrats who believe in the confrontation with the West. They have the resources and the terrorist contacts to hurt us and threaten the region and the world.
Pakistan and Russia are not governed by crazy theocrats and know what the outcome of a nuclear blast would be. North Korea is obviously capable of negotiating as was shown, and is willing to abandon nuclear weapons. They are also kinda barely trudging along in dire economic straights.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Pakistan is a greater long-term threat than Iran
Iran actually has a stable government that came to power through elections. Pakistan is ruled by a general who, although he has allied himself with the United States, could be assassinated at any moment and replaced by Islamic fundamentalist hardliners allied with the Taliban and al Qaeda. And Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and intermediate-range missiles.
qui tacet consentire
Iran actually has a stable
Not really. Iran's real government is a theocracy led by unelected, self-appointed ayatollahs who aren't touched by elections. The people of Iran get to elect a somewhat more powerful version of Tony Snow.
While it is true that Musharraf has faced numerous attempts on his life, the threat of a hardline Islamic government coming to power in Pakistan is slim, even were Musharraf to be assassinated.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I was just about to answer Q
in a similar fashion. Thanks. Iranian elections are mostly a farce even if they are "fair". The "president" is not in charge.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Iran's clerics
are even more stable than the government. And in the current crisis they were actually the moderating force on the president.
qui tacet consentire
Pakistan
I don't know what you base that on. The ISI is the group that sponsored and propped up the Taliban and the military has no stomach for taking on the Taliban in Waziristan. If Musharraf were to be killed, all hell would break loose.
qui tacet consentire
Well, admittedly, I base this on my own interpretations...
But, to my eye, the condidtions put forth here
still, by and large, hold fast, even though Musharraf's position has without doubt eroded a bit since.
There is a lot of alarmist stuff out there, for instance this
. But ever since the the assassination attempts and then the AQ Khan story came out, this alarmism has basically been the prevailing narrative. I read the evidence for the "creeping coup" and I wouldn't want to say that it's insignificant, but it just doesn't add up to a threat that can topple a professional army such as Pakistan's. In the article, the author, in my mind, blows several small events out of proportion.
The article concludes with this:
The assertion that Musharraf is unaware of the movements and actions of extremists is pretty ridiculous. Here's a man who has had multiple attempts on his life-- I'm sure he is very aware of the extremists. I think what is really happening is that some in Pakistan are hyping security concerns much as they are hyped here in the U.S.-- granted, extremists do present much more of a threat than here, but then again nobody is claiming that Islamic extremists are going to topple th U.S. government because a group of burqa-clad women took over a library.
Taliban and other extremists represent a distinct minority in Pakistan outside the tribal areas, and their militias are no match for the Pakistan Army anywhere outside the tribal areas that they control. I don't see an easy path whereby they can seize power from the army.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
With Bush has president...
...yep, I'm shying away from confontation. The man has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that just about everything he touches turns to sh*t. Whatever ill Iran represents, Bush isn't to be trusted to administer the cure.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I would trust
Dems about 100 times less than Bush. The current bunch is utterly incapable of moral leadership and are a bunch of blowhards.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yes, such high moral leadership we've seen by bush43.
Let's see...
1) Weapons of Mass Destuction
a) Chemical/biological weapons
b) nuclear weapons
Answer - the bush43 administration knew the claims were lies the entire time they made the claims. moral score: -1
2) Saddam was part of 9/11
Answer - the bush43 administration knew the claims were lies the entire time they made the claims. moral score: -1
3) Iran is determined to attack us with nukes
Answer - the bush43 administration knows this claim is a lie, Iran is YEARS away from having enough uranium. moral score: -1
4) Bush43 is determined to make taxes fairer
Answer - the top 2% got 90% of the tax rebates. We've gone from a budgetary surplus with Clinton to a 1.5 trillion dollar defecit in 6 years. Yes, our grandchildren are going to thank us for allowing them to pay our bills. moral score - -1.5 trillion.
I don't have time to list all the lies, deceit and skullduggery this administration has already done. You wanted to impeach President Clinton for lying about consentual adultery. And you call this Administration more moral even though they have already trashed the Constitution & Bill of Rights. I'm sorry Ender, your evaluations of "morality" are on par with this administrations views of morality. I don't feel that either holds much water in the scheme of things.
Here's the thing....there are reasons to not support some Democrats in particular and democrats as a whole in general. Using the bush43 Administration as your sheild or guiding light won't win you many minds. Use your mind. Don't repeat the horrible talking points. Think for yourself and give us your own reasons.
Morality
Since the occupation of Iraq is immoral, and so is supporting it, I'd say the Democrats are doing a great job with moral leadership. If they did any better, Bush would be impeached.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
NY Sun: Cheney for President
http://www.nysun.com/article/51783
Yeah... hrrrmm... good luck with that.
(in case you are wondering this was not from an April 1st edition of the paper)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Why don't lefties trust the government?
Well 'cause when they say that certain people are out to get them they're frequently right:
Yep. The warnings raised by the left about the infringements of civil liberties has turned out to have actually happened. The FBI went rampant and abused the powers given them by the "PATRIOT" act. The warrantless wiretaps were used on ordinary americans. Innocent people were 'disappeared' to secret facilities and tortured. American citizens were held without access to any attorney and subjected to torture.
John cole goes on to say:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8033
Welcome to reality Mr. Cole! Your trip here has been a long hard one but you've arrived, and we've saved you a seat at the luau.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
proof?
Sorry but this sounds like a blatant lie.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
My god...
...have you just not been paying attention?
Jose Padilla- American Citizen was arrested on American soil in 2002. He was arbitarily designated an Illegal Enemy Combatant by the Bush Administration and sent to a military brig where he was held without any charges. His lwyer was not allowed to see him.
It was not until the end of 2005 that he was finally indicted, and that only because the Bush administration was trying to head off a court ruling on their use of military tribunals.
The charges he was indicted for were completley unrelated to the charges he was arrested for. In the ensuing criminal trial there has been testimony as to his torture while in military custody consistent with what has happened at Guantanamo and two out of three psychological evaluations found him to be incompetent. According to one of the psychiatrists he exhibits symptoms of extreme stress including stockholm syndrome.
All of this has been widely talked about in the news Ender. I find it hard to believe you were really unaware.
Nor was Padilla the only example. Yaser Esam Hamdi was an american citizen captured in Afghanistan and held by the military as an Enemy Combatant in various military jails including Guantanamo.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Don't for get the Canadian citizen
of Syrian origin who we abducted at JFK & renditioned to Syria to do our dirty work for us.
Years later, Syria releases to poor sob, he returns to Canada and still is on the no-fly list and can't enter the United States.
yea sh** happens
in wars. Big deal.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
all I gotta say is
screw Padilla and he is not an example of an innocent American citizen. He is a traitor who deserved what he got. Our agents tracked him through training with Al Qaeda. As for Yaser Esam Hamdi - he is yet another traitor who was fighting against us.
Those people deserve to be designated as enemy combatants. Eventually they should hang for their crimes. American citizenship does not excuse traitors and they should be treated accordingly.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ender's law:
guilty until proven innocent.
Your evidence?
Remember due process? Basically you are destroying our Constitution on grounds of your whims. Bad decision on your part. Bad for Americans in general.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
dude
they were caught in the act of being terrorists fighting against our country. Usually people like that are killed on the spot. There is nothing innocent about them.
If anything in my mind the best they'd qualify for is Military Tribunals for being traitors fighting against their own country.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Padilla
was arrested fighting against our country? Better check your sources.
So, they should have shot him at the airport?
I'm glad you are not in charge of our justice department.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
No.
He was arrested flying into Chicago (where he lived). He was not arrested in the act of fighting against US forces. Not at all.
The government claimed at the time that he was a major AQ operative and was part of a plan to detonate a dirty bomb in the US. They never charged him with anything resembling that. They now claim he's a low level AQ operative. And of the three charges they did finally make against him one has already been dismissed.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Actually, we are still in the process of determining
his guilt or innocence via his trial.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Exactly
but Ender has already proclaimed his guilt and justification for not going through the due process of American law that every American is entitled to (as has the Bush administration).
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
French Ender
Actually, the French legal system, as I understand it, is that a suspect is guilty until proven innocent, which makes one wonder why conservatives think so poorly of them. In France, terrorists and non-terrorists alike go to jail -- keeping the nation safe is more important than quaint concepts like freedom (which is the opposite of security).
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
I am very tired of the liberal whining
on these issues of catching "suspected" terrorists, warrantless wiretaps, patriot act, habeas corpus for foreigners, etc. What nonsense. Not only do I not care about objections, but I think we are not doing enough.
Dem idol FDR put a whole bunch of Japanese-Americans in internment camps with nary a peep from anyone and with US Supreme Court acquiescing. And there was NO evidence of any of them being saboteurs.
Here we have terrorists working on the inside, attacking us from within, threatening us with NBC weapons, with the desire to destroy us and we have a bunch of pansies whining about minor measures to try to protect us better in the modern age. God damn! FDR would've laughed at the Newly pussified Democratic Party.
I can't take any of this stuff seriously like torture of Padilla, and FBI wiretapping some innocents. Oooooh how rough. The goddamn country is under attack with sleeper cells and terrorists all over the world trying to kill us and then we have to deal with the Pacifist wing poking us from behind. You gotta be kidding me.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ditto. n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4In other words...
you want our state to be rather more Soviet. Kind of ironic, really.
And today that is considered a shameful part of our history. I.e. something not to be repeated.
What terrorists? Where are all these terrorist cells? Why aren't we seeing daily attacks as we do in Baghdad? At what point do you realize you've been snookered by a threat blown entirely out of proportion?
We're under attack? Really? Funny I don't see any attacks. No reports of thwarted plans and certainly no successful ones.
Damn you are getting paranoid, Ender. There is no huge terrorist boogeyman lurking out there. There are a few small groups that desperately wish us harm. And when we are clumsy and stupid they can bloody our nose. A little. That's it. They pose no real threat except to our ego.
I take that back, the threat they pose is two fold, and both have to do with over reaction. Domestically we over react and sabotage our country and what it stands for (those civil rights you so hate hearing about). Overseas we over react and drive people into the terrorist fold.
Neither would happen if you'd just breath into a paper bag for a minute when the panic attacks start. They've been trying to scare the behebus out of you and clearly they are succeeding because you've managed to inflate this insignificant mosquito into Galactus the world devourer in your mind.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I think you are
mistaken aeson . There is a presumption of innocence under the French Criminal law and the burden rests on the prosecutor to prove the guilt. You might be thinking about a different standard of proof required to establish the guilt - such as a "preponderance of evidence" v. "beyond reasonable doubt", or lack of certain rights under the French criminal procedure given to criminal suspects in the US, or the weight the court can put on the suspect's cooperation with the investigators in determining the verdict.
Sic semper tyrannis
Actually, isn't Padilla an example of the system working?
I just read the wikipedia entry for him
as background.
He was detained as an enemy combatant, he had several appeals that went all the way to the Supreme Court, he was eventually returned to the US court system after it was determined that he was no longer a threat as an enemy combatant, he is now facing charges within that system for his alleged crimes, that system is proceeding by first determining his competency to stand trial.
This all seems to be progressing as one would expect within the current framework, and as it should.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No, not unless you *want* to live in a Banana Republic.
What part of this isnt getting through to you?
An american citizen on american soil was grabbed by the police, held without charges, denied contact with ther attorney, and then tortured.
That's the system working?
Padilla didn't have several appeals because that implies that his crime was being appealed. Rather the government had several appeals against charges that what they were doing was blatantly unconstitutional.
Bush had no authority to remove him from the US court system in the first place. Good lord! Are you so willing to just throw the constitution aside?
Three years after his arrest he was finally charged with a crime. One of our civil rights is to only be incarcerated when accused or convicted of a crime. Another is the right to defend ourselves. A third is the right to a fair and speedy trial. All of those were violated by the Bush Administration.
Sure, assuming you want to live in a dictatorship where citizens are disappeared at the pleasure of the government.
Personally I've never wanted to live like that.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Due process.
Kind of goes both ways. Society, through its elected officials, has both a right and a duty to protect its citizens from terrorists, amongst others.
The US government is simply exercising the power justly granted to it by the people's duly elected representatives.
First, these court cases were part of the Habeas Corpus case brought about by Padilla, so as such they are part of his due process are they not?
Second, if these actions are, in fact, "blatantly unconstitutional" as you assert then why did the Supreme Court (June 28, 2004 - Rumsfeld v. Padilla) decline to denounce it as such, and the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals arrive at:
You do acknowledge that these are the controling court cases for Padilla thus far, and that these have the legal effect of upholding the President's position, correct?
Finally, you do acknowledge that Padilla is, in fact, getting a hearing and a trial within the US court system regarding the charges being brought against him which is, in fact, what you wanted, correct?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4All kinds of wrong.
Let's try to sort it out.
I don't recall reading that in the Constitution. Whereas I do recall reading a very specific Habeas Corpus right for all citizens.
Not in the sense of being about the crimes the defendant was accused of, no. These were about getting the government to play ball in the first place.
The Supreme Court dismissed the filing on technical grounds, not because of merits. The case was refiled and when it was about to go to the Supreme Court the Justice Department suddenly (and finally) charged Padilla and moved his to the US courts and claimed that since they had the SCOTUS case no longer needed to be heard. Unfortunately the SCOTUS agreed which means that the Bush Administration is free to do the exact same thing to another American citizen (may have in fact already).
Luttig's opinion does, the SCOTUS does not since they never found in favor of the government position. It is worth pointing out that after the Bush Administration moved Padilla to a US court that Luttig was pissed and publically berated the Justice department for what he said was "playing fast and loose" with the rule of law.
Yeah that's exactly what I wanted. Three years ago. When it would have been legal. Getting a trial now doesn't fix what they did then.
You can pretend like citizens don't have a right to a speedy trial by jury but actually they do.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Clarification, please?
Is Habeaus Corpus part of a defendent's due process (in the sense that it is a case brought by the defendent to defend themselves against illegal prosecution), or not?
So did the Supreme Court decline to denounce the President's actions as "blatantly unconstitutional", or not?
Regardless of their reasons for dismissing the case, does their dismissal have the legal effect of supporting the governments actions (in the sense that it does NOT strike those actions down), or not?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Article 1, Section 9:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
you remember being taught that? Here's the Wiki link
. President Bush signed a law that threw out habeus corpus, The Military Commissions Act of 2006. That in itself is unconstitutional. You need an Ammendment to go against something written into the Constitution, and TMCA2006 isn't an Ammendment.
It's OK for you to come out and say the Executive Branch should be able to hold people without charges for an indefinite time period if that's what you want & believe. Most of us would call that tyranny, no different than a dictator really. Kinda like a German fellow I've heard mention. You know, now that you mention it, the parallels between dubya and that German fellow are quite striking. Why, I think you're ON TO SOMETHING!
With all due respect...
the Supreme Court is the authority on what is constitutional and what is not. They chose to take a pass on calling this unconstitutional, did they not?
Do you deny that this is how our system works?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4They chose
not hear the case which is just a way to weasel out of writing the actual decision validating the constitutionality of the Military Commision Act. Maybe they had no idea how to accomplish the impossible...
Sic semper tyrannis
You are obviously not a lawyer, or you are a very bad one.
The beauty of the original Constitution was that it was written in the common man's language, not latin or high brow legaleese that is difficult to parse. But you are having time with :
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
What is it there that you don't understand? Your whole point is that you feel the Executive Branch can choose not to obey this very simple phrase, without changing the Constitution.
I can't say with all due respect, as you frequently don't address points made but spin out tangental provocative statements in lieu of making a coherent argument. What is there to respect? You aren't Mohammen Ali & this isn't a rope a dope setting.
You are either for an Administration upholding our Constitution, or by your own statement, you prefer a totalitarian unitary Executive as a form of government. You've stated that's your preference many times. Are you going to deny that or will you ignore it and spout some other bs? Our repeated emphasis to your extemist statements is to give you written parts of the Constitution and you choose to ignore them or belittle them. With that in mind, who among us is the conservative and who among us is the extremist. I say it is we the progressives who are holding down the conservative fort by suggesting the Constitution is paramount till an Amendment changes it. You are suggesting ignoring the Constitution in favor of your political operatives running roughshod over it for their own political benefit.
No sir, it is you who are the extremist. It is you who is in favor of totalitarianism. It is you who would userp all our hard fought and won freedoms and rights in order to further your political party. It is you sir, who has turned his back on the principles and the dignity of what makes this United States a great nation. I'm sorry you were born late. You'd have been able to fight your fight very well in Europe in the 30's & 40's. Guess which side you'd be supporting?
merits vs. technical
You originally claimed that the system was working as shown by Padilla being able to get appeals. The problem here is that Padilla isn't appealing, the government is. Because the government was being sued.
That shows that the system isn't working but that they were trying to get working again by appealing to the courts.
They did not. Rather than making any ruling on the merits they said the case had been brought improperly.
That's not how the law works, GR. Unless they make a ruling on the merits their ruling has absolutely no effect on the merits. It is a totally separate thing to rule against a case on technical grounds.
As an example if they had ruled on the merits the petitioners would not have had any recourse, the matter would have been settled. But they didn;t they rulled against on technical grounds, so the petitioners were able to refile the case correcting the aspects that the court found to be technically invalid. And the case would have gone before the SCOTUS again except that the administration pulled out a sleazy trick to try and stop it.
Gee I wonder why they would do such a thing if they thought they had any chance of winning at the Supreme Court? Oh yeah, they wouldn't.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
What warrantless wiretaps?
Did I miss something in your post, because except for this random assertion you post doesn't seem to suggest anything of the sort occurred.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The rest of the post...
...is about a specific violation of civil liberties. That paragraph was about how each time the left has raised a concern about civil liberties (and been laughed at) those concerns have ended up later being justified.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Do you have any specific evidence that such
violations have actually occurred, or was this merely an unfounded assertion?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Which assertions are you asking about?
Specifically the wiretapping?
I think we covered americans being denied due process pretty throughly above.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Do you have evidence of illegal wiretapping ...
being used against ordinary Americans? Can you back this assertion up or is it unfounded?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Uh huh.
Yep:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?ex=1295154000&en=f...
Not to mention the related program at the NSA that tracked phone records and just coincidentally happened to have data on tens of millions of Americans:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
More clarifications, please ...
In your first reference we find:
1) Is someone who has been communicating with a "suspect Al Qaeda operative" your definition of an "ordinary American"?
2) Have any of these "innocent Americans" been falsely charged or convicted based on the information gathered by actual eavesdropping? In other words, was this (eavesdropping obtained) information "used" against them?
3) Do you have any evidence that the people who were singled out via actual eavesdropping were, in fact, these "innocent Americans" or did the eavesdropping only lead us to the "guilty Americans"? Note also that "innocent" is not the same as "ordinary".
As for your second reference, data mining is not the same thing as wiretapping. So this reference doesn't have any bearing on the wiretapping issue.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You seem
very cavalier about our 4th amendment rights for American citizens (among other rights such as Habeas Corpus, 5th amendment/interrogation rules, and the 6th amendment/right to a speedy trial).
Are you similarly so cavalier about all of our rights? Say, the 2nd amendment? I'm quite sure that is an absolute no-no for you, correct?
Your inconsistency is humorously disturbing.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I am not cavalier at all.
There are two pertinent issues here. (1) What I can expect to be covered, and (2) What is reasonable in our current circumstances.
Arbitrary eavesdropping on my phone conversations would be a violation here, IMHO, but the eavesdropping that is being conducted is not arbitrary. It is focused and limited in scope.
Now is that focus and scope reasonable under the current circumstances? I agree that it is an arguable point, I merely agree that they current definitions fall within the scope of reasonable by my definition. Your definition may vary and probably does.
If enough people decide that the criteria are unreasonable the rules will get changed. That's how the system works.
Clearly the designation of people as enemy combatants is at odds with the first part here as no grand jury is involved in asigning that designation. However, this issue and it legal foundations have already been, and continue to be, tested within our legal system.
Thus far, the judgement of that system is that the President is within his bounds. Bottom line, I trust the system to do the right thing. I don't consider that to be Cavalier.
As for the second part, Padilla is clearly getting his due process met. He has had Habeus Corpus hearings and is now undergoing the process of defending himself against the charges leveled against him.
Again, what due process steps have not been implemented here?
The only part of this that has potentially been violated is the speedy trial. It is hard to say what "speedy" means in this context. I doubt that it means 3 years, but on the other hand there have already been legal proceedings on his behalf.
If his rights have been violated in this instance I trust that his lawyers will make the case for that and that the legal system will adequately deal with the situation.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Arbitrary eavesdropping on
My definition of ‘focused and limited in scope’ is not billions of records in a database containing 200 million Americans
. Also, we don't know who they are listening in on, because there is no oversight of the program. I guess we can just trust them right? Cavalier.
Actually, I was referring to the torture and shipping to Guantanamo aspect, but you are correct: changing our status as citizens by calling us ‘enemy combatants’ does allow the government to strip our 5th amendment rights. I am glad you are cavalier about this designation, currently legal or not. Again, it was legal to stop the sales of ‘assault weapons' for 5+(?) years and the Brady Bill was legal for 4 or so years. Did that make them ‘correct’ or ‘good’? Cavalier.
If being held illegally for four years in a military jail, tortured without charges/changing charges (being held for one thing while being investigated by a grand jury for a totally unrelated charge), and limited access to lawyers is due process
for you, you live in a different America than me. Cavalier.
Ah, common ground. You are still very cavalier about this point. Would you like to be held for three years without a trial? I don’t call that potentially violated; I call it you being cavalier.
Thank goodness he was able to have a lawyer after 1 year and 9 months or these violations might still be occurring. How about I take away your guns for 1 year and 9 months? Cavalier.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Dcoumented FBI Errors
Mueller's Testimony
The problem. FBI is supposed to keep records of the NSL letters, and they did not. NSL letters are required under the Patriot Act. The FBI director testified that they records were not properly kept.
I'm only half stupid
Does this in any way demonstrate that
warrantless wiretaps were used against ordinary Americans?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It demonstrates
that if there was, no one can talk about it. If they do, it's a criminal offense.
And if you can't see the broad violations admitted to by the FBI Directer himself, that their organization was not keeping proper records, as required by the Patriot Act itself...... and that the potential for abuse is basically protected.
I'm only half stupid
I am not responding to your post ...
but rather pointing out that I was asking about warrantless wiretaps as asserted by Tlaloc.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Then why did you respond the first time
You are not responding to my post, because you don't like the answer.
I'm only half stupid
See ...
http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/1101#comment-46528
which is the start of this thread.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The facts, ma'am, just the facts.
1) The FBI didn't arrest these protesters, the DC police did.
2) The FBI wasn't present during the actual arrest as testified to in court.
3) The DC police were the ones with the "secret" group that was infiltrating these protest groups, not the FBI.
4) If the FBI asked these people anything it was a) at the scene, b) in a public place, c) while they were not under arrest, and d) in direct response to a request from the secret service on that day.
5) FBI agents asking people questions in response to a request from the secret service in public and without an arrest is not a violation of anything.
6) After questioning these people the FBI apparently determined that they had done nothing wrong ... at least from a federal perspective which is all they are allowed/empowered to deal with ... and hence decided not to arrest them on any federal charges.
7) Since we know that the FBI was not present during the actual arrest (see #2), we can presume that the FBI left the scene without taking any official action against these individuals beyond asking them some questions which they were free to refuse to answer.
8) Since no official action was taken in this case ... from the FBI's perspective ... it is not surprising that the FBI has no official records of the incident. The records in question were DC Police records not FBI records.
Nothing here seems to even be related to the Patriot Act as far as I can tell, much less be an abuse thereof. This seems like fairly routine police work under the circumstances ... at least as far as the FBI was concerned. They received a request to investigate a group of people, they basically did just that, they apparently determined that nothing illegal had occurred (again within their jurisdiction), and left the individuals to proceed without further action.
The FBI is not responsible for the actions of the DC Police.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Your facts are curiously selective.
For instance pointing out that the DC cops were the ones who slapped the cuffs on is nice and all but since it came after the FBI did the detaining and had interrogated the people it is a trifle misleading.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
My points are simply statements of facts.
If you find the facts misleading I don't know what to do about that. Do you dispute the factual accuracy of any of these points?
Also, you claim I am being selective. Which facts did my list not address?
You seem to favor the terms "detained" and "interrogated". I suppose that is fine, if you want to be misleading.
The facts are that they were questioned on the spot, not "detained", other than in the sense that they had to wait to answer a few questions (the FBI is also not responsible for the laws of space and time that require this wait), and that the simple act of asking some pertinent questions does not constitute "interrogation" in the sense that you seem to want it to conjure up. I believe that the news article that you (indirectly) referenced actually used the term "interviewed" not "interrogated".
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4But not *all* the facts...
Well, gosh, like the entire point of the story: the FBI were involved in the arrest and later denied they were. Now the facts have come out. That's kind of a relevent fact that you tried to side step around by very carefully saying things that were true but not relevent.
Those were the terms used in the news report, what exactly is misleading about them?
So you don't know what detained means. Got it. If the Police compell you to stay in a place you are being "detained." Doesn't matter where it is, the only thing that matters is that you aren't allowed to leave.
Another swing and a miss. Anytime you are held and asked questions you are being interrogated. No it does not have to involve torture and no I never implied that it did.
First paragraph:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR200704...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Misrepresenting the facts.
First of all, it has already been established in federal court testimony that the FBI were not involved in any arrest.
Aside from that, when the FBI arrests people they go to the holding facilities under their jurisdiction. These people never went to any federal holding facilities. The people in question were arrested by the DC Police and went to their holding facility.
Do you dispute the point that it was the DC Police and NOT the FBI that arrested these people?
You do understand that there is only one arresting authority in any such case, correct? And that no federal charges were brought against these people (which is the only thing the FBI can charge people with)? Do you dispute these points?
So, by saying that the FBI were "involved in the arrest" you are misrepresenting the facts, since this is an incorrect statement on its face.
Were the FBI involved in an interview (or interrogation) of these people? Quite probably so, but that is seperate and apart from them arresting anyone.
Here are a couple of more facts that are now pertinent to the discussion:
9) The FBI has maintained, and still does maintain, that they have no records of this incident. The fact the the DC Police have now produced some records which THEY had doesn't contradict the FBI's assertion in any way.
10) The records now produced by the DC Police only indicate that the FBI asked these individuals some questions and nothing more.
As for the use of the word interrogated in the referenced article, you are correct. I should have been more precise.
The liberal reporter, like you, used the term "interrogated" because it raises negative connatations regarding intensity and intent of the questioining. This is what makes that term misleading in these circumstances.
What I was originally referring to is how the actual police records referred to the incident since they should show how the situation was being viewed by the authorities at the time and what their explicit intentions were:
This situation sounds like it matches the definition of interview pretty well:
There is no evidence of any intense questioning of these people. They asked them a few questions because they (the suspects) had been pointed out to them (the FBI) by the secret service as someone they should check out.
There were no recording devices or other forms of formally recording responses that people normally associate with interrogations. There were no reports written to document what happened and what was said by each individual. This too is consistent with the FBI having no records of the incident. Do you believe that when the FBI conducts a formal interrogation that they don't bother to keep records of it?
The only thing systematic about it was that they talked to the people one at a time. Have you every tried to talk to 15 people at once? It is not the most effective way to determine what, if anything, is going on.
You are making much ado about nothing. From a federal perspective this whole incident amounts to the FBI, based on a tip from credible sources, going and asking some people a few questions. After determining that there was no problem they didn't press any Federal charges of any kind. Wow that's some major abuse.
The net impact on these people from an FBI perspective on that day was that they were asked to stay for an hour to answer some questions.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Still awfully selective in your facts.
No actually we just established the opposite. They were involved in the arrest. Reread the article, in fact just reread the first paragraph. What part of detain and interrogate is really escaping you? Involved does not mean they have to be the ones that put on the cuffs.
The federal court testimony turned out to be wrong. Suspiciously wrong, in fact.
Do you understand that if the FBI apprehends a suspect and then turns them over to the DC police for arrest that the FBI was involved in the arrest?
Or maybe because it is a perfectly accurate term to describe a person held by authorities and compelled to answer questions. You know, maybe...
Questions like their political beliefs and religious associations. Hrrrm.....
I believe that since the FBI has already lied about the matter it is funny that you keep taking them at their word.
Once again you are very selective about the matter. You leave out thte part where the FBI lied in federal court about the matter claiming never to have been involved at all.
Oh yeah. See how when you actually look at the whole matter it is different than when you cherry pick the parts you like and pretend they are all that happened?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
All lies.
"Involved in the arrest" means being involved in the pressing of charges and placing the suspects into custody. The FBI had no part in these activities.
Show me the federal charges they pressed and/or the federal detention center they were sent to and you might have a case. Without those, you are simply wrong and continuing to assert otherwise is just plain lying.
Perhaps you can start looking up the actual meanings of some of these words yourself?
And exactly what is your basis for this claim? Where does it say that the FBI handed anyone over to the DC Police? Where do any of the facts even clearly imply that?
As far as I can tell the DC Police were there the entire time and may well have been the ones keeping these people from leaving, as you assert. Do we know differently?
Hmm, if I remember correctly the charges against these people were ultimately trespassing. Are you suggesting that somehow by asking questions regarding their political or religious beliefs the FBI came to the conclusion that these people were trespassing, and so handed them over to the DC Police?
I have asked you and others on this site about these types of things. Does that constitute interrogation by your way of thinking?
You are the one lying. Where is your evidence of any lies on the part of the FBI? They were not involved in the act of arresting anyone. They have no records of incident. These are the claims that they have made and they are clearly supported by the evidence that you have provided thus far.
You have no logical basis for a claim that the FBI lied about anything, and hence you are the one lying since this fact has been pointed out to you multiple times. Produce some records that the FBI had in their possession and you can claim they lied. Produce some evidence that they arrested someone and you can claim they lied. You have done neither.
Thus far you have only established (a) that they were there, and (b) that they asked them some questions. Neither of these is a lie relative to the testimony they have given.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Outrage fueled by ignorance
Redstate has an article all shocked that a school would have a drill about what to do if gunmen attacked the school. Why? because in the imaginary scenario the gunmen were fundamentalist christians.
And of course fundamentalist white christians never kill people, only heather brown people do.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/johnrichardson/2007/apr/03/school_stages_m...
Of course if Redstaters bothered to look at the facts they'd find that of the 11 terrorist groups recognized as active in the US five are so called "christian identity" or christian antiabortion groups (Arizona Patriots, Army of God, Aryan Nations, KKK, Sheriff's Posse Comitatus). That far out weighs any other single group (two environmental, one "third position," one strictly white supremacist without christian elements, one anti-arab, and one black/muslim). Of the three major terrorist attacks in recent memory the second largest was conducted by a christian fundamentalist (OKC bombing).
Somehow when one considers the facts the idea of a christian fundamentalist attack doesn't seem far fetched at all.
Bunched, thy name is panty.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well
Anyone with any common sense whatsoever that portraying any religious group as a villain in a school in any context is going to cause some element to be outraged in 2007 America. And for what purpose? a drill? Jeaz. Hey, I think people are too quick to be outraged by every little thing, but explain to me why the brilliant architects of this drill had to throw right-wing Christians under the bus? Could they not smell the protests and the lawsuits coming from a mile away? Sheer stupidity is the real outrage here.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I don't disagree...
...it would have been better to just keep the gunmen generic. But that isn't the argument that is being made by most at RS. They are specifically arguing for it to have been islamists. They're fine with having a scapegoat, they just don't want it to be the logical one because that goat lives on their farm.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
To keep it real
the gunmen should be generic right wing nuts. In the Terror From the Right
Published by Southern Poverty Law Center in 2005 an interesting picture of the ACTUAL terrorist threat in the US is painted:
Sic semper tyrannis
I'm disappointed in us.
We didn't even crack the top 30 in DKos's linked to database
.
Ender, Ender, Ender.....tsk, tsk tsk. All that challenging the locals over there and you aren't linking to your own blog? At least the one diary I put up over there I cross-posted it here.
We can do better than that.
well that's for what people link
in their personal blogrolls on dkos. I link to us in my personal blogroll there and so do some others here who are users there. But I doubt it would be anywhere to enough...
The 30th place was 2.66% of total blogrolls which was 1,393... that amounts to 37 people having that 30th most popular blog on their list. I doubt we have 10.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'm glad we have you.
I know I give you a hard time. Nothing personal. But I am grateful as well. Thanks.
heh thanks man
I know it's nothing personal.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I know Soros is behind it!
Or Tom Tommorrow could have subtitled it Get Me Pelosi!
good news from Iraq
a very nice ABC News report here.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
That same amusement park...
probably ran under Saddam Hussein. I'm glad it's running, but I'd rather have my $500 billion back and an intact army.
And the fact is, we've been down this road before. Read this article
about Haifa Street in March 2005:
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
There's just no pleasing some people ... :-) n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bush bypasses Senate on naming ambassador
I love this one. Using his constitutional power to a recess appointment Bush stuck it to the Dems.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yes that's cause for celebration
Bush pays off a political hack for dirty campaign favors with a plum assignment, bypassing congressional advice and consent. And Bush is going to act puzzled and outraged when Congress is going to send him back this same emergency war appropriation bill... You stick it to us, we stick it to you.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I am willing to bet
that the Dems will fold after Bush's veto and send him a bill without deadlines.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
$10?
my $10 says that there will be some deadlines in the next version too. The dems can't fold on Iraq. They hold the upper hand politically on it, Bush ias at 30% approval, the war is at 30% approval... what is the incentive to cave? The deadlines are necessary to make it clear that this is the last chance, that we aren't going to play yet another round of Baghdad whack-a-mole with the insurgents after this.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
if we define the deadlines
as a specific date by which Bush has to start withdrawing the troops then sure, you got a bet.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Deal.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Republicans back Pelosi trip to Syria
qui tacet consentire