I know I’m not the only one who saw this happen. On September 11th, 2001, a gang of thugs attacked America. That same gang of thugs, since that day, has bombed Australians in Bali, blown up Spaniards in Madrid, killed Americans and Iraqis in Iraq, and attacked Britons in London. You get the sense that they’re all about eradicating our civilization, way of life, and they should probably be destroyed before they get around to accomplishing those goals. In theory, the leader of such an effort would be the President of the United States, considering the inhabitant of said office has the biggest, most powerful army and is generally the consensus pick for the “leader of the free world”.
Yet, it is now abundantly clear that George W. Bush, the Republican Party, and their supporters simply do not care about fighting the terrorist threat in any real way. Bush, the GOP, and their apologists have explained away the dearth of attacks on America by claiming — depending on what day of the week you talk to them — that either the terrorists are too afraid to fight us here, they’re too busy fighting us in Iraq, or that they just turn into little scared ninnies because George Bush is such a he-man. But it’s clear that Al Qaeda does not fear us, frankly they probably think we’re idiots. To take the right’s favorite historic parallel, it’s as if we were in the middle of World War II and assumed we were winning because our soldiers didn’t see any Nazis when they walked backwards. Every year of the Bush presidency has seen an increase in terrorism. More Americans, Britons, and Australians have died due to Islamic terrorism under the global leadership of Bush than under any other president in American history. We took what could have been the first of many killing blows in Afghanistan and pissed the advantage away in order to pursue the Bush wet dream of invading Iraq. What could have been the first of many battleground wins in the war on terrorism has essentially succeded in transforming Afghanistan from an oppressive fundamentalist state to a lawless narco-state with a puppet government in the form of Musharaf.
Do any of the wingnuts on the right seriously believe that if a terrorist can kill and injure people in London, England, that it can’t happen in Los Angeles, New York, Washington D.C., or any of a hundred of our cities? Even I don’t think they’re that dumb. It’s clear that they aren’t so stupid. It is plainly obvious that they do not care. The right only cares about the war on terrorism in the form of a political issue for their candidates to run on. They are interested only in running against Osama Bin Laden, not in destroying him and his network. If it means we have to live with a terrorist threat, with no strategy implemented to defeat it, and that ensures the existing Republican majority — to their twisted minds: so be it.
The job of the President of the United States in his or her role as Commander-In-Chief of our armed forces is to “provide for the common defense” of our nation. Currently, that means defeating the forces of international terrorism, principally in the guise of Al Qaeda and its affiliated groups. It is clear to all who look at the evidence that the Bush administration has neither the intelligence, strength, nor morality or decency to do the steps necessary to accomplish this job. At every turn, at every chance, they have squandered the power granted to them by over 229 years of our citizen’s blood, sweat and tears. And their supporters, their apologists, do not escape blame either. It is those closest to us who can apply the brakes when we’re going in the wrong direction. But these people don’t care, because maintaining power is a far better thing than doing what’s right.
It is time for the Bush administration to cease its high crimes, to stop leaving America vulnerable to these attacks, to finally once again do the right thing and attack and eliminate the forces who wish to destroy us and our way of life. It is time, at long last, for the administration’s supporters to do the moral thing and use their positions and their influence to get the right thing done.
On a personal note, I’m sick of these guys. Sick of all of them. Sick of the apologists in government, the media, and among the chattering classes. Sick of these people not giving a damn about dead civilians. Sick of the Republicans crapping on the American people. Sick of George Bush appeasing terrorists and doing nothing — nothing — to prevent terror attacks. Sick of having to wonder if the subway train I’m on is going to blow up, or if some yahoo will smash a plane into the White House a block and a half away from where I work, yet the President, his party and his apologists don’t give a damn because they’ve got a “mandate”. A mandate for immorality.
Minor nitpick: Karzai is the puppet in charge of Afghanistan, not Musharaf.
Not – so – serious answer: But we can’t kill all the liberals…
Serious answer: Which forces? Where? When?
We obviously can’t kill them in Iraq — Teddy says that’s a quagmire, because they haven’t folded up their RPG’s and gone home.
Frank don’t bother. It’s pretty clear that Oliver has lost his peanut sized mind.
Hey Jay C and Frank…….where’s OBL? I thought George said that any nation that harbors terrorists is going to get it….what about Pakistan? The CIA knows where OBL is? Do you see what Oliver is saying or are you the kind of Republican that puts party before country? Are you the kind of Bush supporter that would rather eat shit and die before saying anything unkind about dear leader? And Frank….the forces Oliver is speaking of is Al Qaeda…….you know, the force that used to NOT be in Iraq but is now, the force that is also in other countries not just Iraq; the enemy we should be preparing to fight on all fronts, especiallly here at home but aren’t……ie port security, securing borders, Coast Guard woefully underfunded, etc. All of this is only half the battle, the other is the battle of ideas and you know something Frank and Jay C…the way I see it, the Republican party is losing this battle even among their own. The Republican party stands alone….alone against more than half of the US and the vast majority of the world. Oliver tells it like it is, George Bush is a pussy who loves to shoot his guns to hear the sound….the problem is he can’t hit a fucking thing!
From Captain’s Quarters [today]
Another problem facing the West and fueling Islamofascist aggression was that the West would not take action to defend itself due to an inability to suffer casualties. This, as Osama said, was the lesson of Somalia. This is one of the reasons that finally resolving the twelve-year quagmire of Iraq had to be one of the first steps in the war. Militarily, the enforcement of the “box” kept significant military assets in Saudi Arabia on essentially the defensive, which as we saw in Lebanon in 1983, only invites attacks by terrorist lunatics. Politically, the issuance of resolution after resolution demanding compliance with the terms of the original cease-fire in 1991 that met with nothing but scorn from Saddam made the UNSC and the West look impotent and vulnerable. And while the intelligence on WMD from every major Western nation may have been outdated or flat-out incorrect, the data linking Saddam to terrorists was correct, and furthermore, the corruption of Oil-For-Food shows that the sanctions regime and its “box” were already rotting and close to full collapse.
Finally, all anyone has to do to understand why Iraq made a good front on the GWOT is to take a look at a map. It sits right in the transit corridor between Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, and on to North Africa, the perfect terrorist conduit. Cutting off that line of communication will make it that much more difficult for personnel and funding to reach those who want to kill us.
You get the sense that they re all about eradicating our civilization, way of life, and they should probably be destroyed before they get around to accomplishing those goals.
I agree. And you seem to know where they all are. So, I’m puzzled that you haven’t yet disclosed your strategy for findng OBL, attacking Pakistan without triggering a nuclear war between that country and India, and attacking Saudi Arabia without inflaming Muslim who are currently on our side.
But it s clear that Al Qaeda does not fear us, frankly they probably think we re idiots.
Once again, we see the genius of the left. Not only do they know where Al Qaeda is, they also know what they think.
More Americans, Britons, and Australians have died due to Islamic terrorism under the global leadership of Bush than under any other president in American history.
Wow, “global leadership”? Well, it makes a certain amount of sense. You can only blame Bush for everything that goes wrong in the world if you elect him global leader from your keyboard. Someone better tell the French, ’cause it looks like they didn’t get the memo.
What could have been the first of many battleground wins in the war on terrorism has essentially succeded in transforming Afghanistan from an oppressive fundamentalist state to a lawless narco-state with a puppet government in the form of Musharaf.
Wow, Musharraf runs the government of Afghanistan? Who knew? Spare me yet another tired leftist trope that insists that Afghanistan was better off enslaved by religious fanatics.
It is time for the Bush administration to cease its high crimes, to stop leaving America vulnerable to these attacks, to finally once again do the right thing and attack and eliminate the forces who wish to destroy us and our way of life.
Got any ideas, other than attacking Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? How about attacking Germany and the U.K. After all, there are undoubtedly Al Qaeda members there. Didn’t think so.
It is time, at long last, for the administration s supporters to do the moral thing and use their positions and their influence to get the right thing done.
What is the right thing? Do you know where OBL is? Do you know where we can find Al Qaeda cells and attack them in soverign countries, some of whom are our allies. Any aspirin factories we can bomb?
P.S.: Please restore the preview feature.
Oliver, ignore the wingnuts. Their minds are a wash of bilious tepid ignorance utterly lacking creativity or love. But I have an idea sparked by your post. You seem to think it’s still worth asking the right to get the job done they pretended to cut out for themselves. Forget the Yellow Elephant campaign! Young Republicans would never fight and they’d botch things even worse if they did. Clearly the military right has too much of a vested interest in perpetuating the so-called War on Terror. If the people of this country want to feel safe again, we’ll have to roll up our sleeves and do it ourselves. We don’t need an either overweaning army or bombs on our buses and bridges. Those are two sides of the same problem. The solution is for those of us (the left) with a genuine motivation to solve world problems rather than live off the profits (clue, ever since Alexander Hamilton the financial class in America (the people who run the Republicans) has loved huge debts and deficits, because they get to service them) to go get Bin Laden ourselves.
I’ll write a proposal to Soros tonight. Couldn’t cost more than a few thousand bucks to get it done, then no more Iraq occupation, no more Bush, no more Rumsfeld (and there was much rejoicing), no more Cheney (whew, got sick of keeping so much garlic in the house), money for schools again, the resumption of the advancement of science, single payer health care…surely it’s worth the risk and minimal cost. I bet it’s easy as pie to cross the Pakistan/China border if you’re not flying a honking huge tax-payer funded helicopter that only half works.
Just sayin.
Konch
A hate filled rant from a small closed minded person. This should not come as a suprise, but yet I never cease to be amazed at the hatred the left has for their political opponents.
Thanks to you guys for once again reinforcing the stupidity and close-mindedness of the Bush apologista.
Blaming Bush doesn’t surprise me — he makes his living doing that.
He blames Bush for Rainy days, broken shoelaces, and dog shit on the sidewalk.
But what I am genuinely concerned about is that he (and not he alone, but as a representative of others) might think that the GWOT would be over if Gore had been elected in 2000, or more insanely, if Kerry had been elected in 2004.
I will always feel that if Gore were elected President in 2000, today we’d be attempting to push Resolution #10000000000A through the Security Council, condemning the terrorists for blowing up the WTC, only to have it swatted down by France and Germany.
What an embarrasing tantrum.
I will always feel that if Gore were elected President in 2000….
Unfortunately, 5 thugs on the SC decided we no longer needed to count votes–so your “feeling” is just so much gas.
The fact is AWOL George not caught OBL and by all accounts Al Qaeda has gotten stronger. The fact is AWOL George has wasted nearly 1800 American lives (and counting), 10,000 wounded and about half a trillion dollars in Iraq which had about as much to do with 9/11 as Des Moines, Iowa.
The fact is we failed to complete the job in Afghanistan. The Taliban controls that part of the country the warlords don’t. Karzai’s power extends about as far as the room he’s in and he’s been forced to allow many warlords into the phony little Govt. he “runs.”
Thus, when we weigh your “feeling” with facts, your “feeling” will always come up short.
Jadegold: Read what Christopher Hitchens has to say to Ronald Reagan, Jr. here =>, about the supposed “non – connection” between Iraq and 9/11. As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I can PROVE that Shrubby doesn’t WANT to find OBL.
If he was SERIOUS about finding him, he’d send the Student Loan people after him. Those fuckers can find ANYBODY.
OK, Curmudgeon, I’ll pick nits with you. I shouldn’t have said “end” the GWOT.
Now, tell me how either Mr. Gore, or Mr. Kerry would have gone about “degrading the terrorists support infrastructure [oooh! infrastructure! I'm impressed] amongst the native populations of the middle-east region and lowering not only the recruitment rates of the various terrorists organizations, but their potential success rate as well.”?
I can’t wait…
What’s funny is right-wing crybabies accusing other people of being crybabies. *sigh* Poor, stupid thugs.
Oh yeah, and where is Osama Bin Laden? Anyone on the right got an answer? Anyone?
But what I am genuinely concerned about is that he (and not he alone, but as a representative of others) might think that the GWOT would be over if Gore had been elected in 2000, or more insanely, if Kerry had been elected in 2004.
You should be concerned that, so far, you are the only one here that has said that. Btw, aren’t you the one always whining about putting words into people’s mouths? Seems to me, that’s exactly what your rant has done.
Here’s a challenge:
PLEASE QUOTE one person saying anything even close to what you’ve suggested above?
Your sides penchant for ignoring the real issues is pathetic, and your constant reliance on the old canard that those that disagree with Bush do so simply because they “hate him” or seek to “blame him” is the most intellectually lazy statement swirling around the toilet bowl that is today’s political dialog.
We “anit-Bush” people disagree with a good deal of Bush’s policies on moral and/or logical grounds (I’m not going to defend this statement, because you would predictably ignore it anyhow), and we are appalled at the manner in which he finally mangles their final delivery. We have arrived at our distrust and immense dislike of this man based on his performance alone. He has given us ample reason to do so, even barring whatever personal flaws he may possess.
We are confident that Gore and/or Kerry would have done a FAR BETTER job with the GWOT than Dubya, if given the chance; sufficiently degrading the terrorists support infrastructure amongst the native populations of the middle-east region and lowering not only the recruitment rates of the various terrorists organizations, but their potential success rate as well.
No one thinks it would have ended, we are certain however, that there would have been a greater percentage chance that it could end sooner and/or in a more successful fashion that is currently being demonstrated by the failed policies coming from this failure of an adminstration.
The GLOBAL War On Terror needs to be fought with the assistance of those from around THE GLOBE. If were any other way, why would be keep pimping his sorry “Coalition of the Willing?” Which, btw, is dwindling by the day. Italy is now pulling out, Britain soon to follow. All, of course as they say, based on Iraq’s “ability to defend itself against the insurgency”, but thse of us with any common sense can see the writing on the wall. The U.S. will be left holding the bag. There can be not doubt, Bush policies have alienated the U.S. from the rest of the civilized world and his supporters know this, but instead of holding him accountable for such aggregiously unproductive behavior, they pump up the machismo and act as if we don’t need anyone else in order to win.
Just…like…children would. Stomping their feet and holding their breath. Come Frank_D, come Bushites of all kinds, join the discussion at the table, please stop kicking everyone’s shins from underneath.
Don’t be scared, no one will hurt you. We are not those big, bad terrorists. We want them destroyed just as much as you do.
Mr.Curmudgeon says:
“We are confident that Gore and/or Kerry would have done a FAR BETTER job with the GWOT than Dubya, if given the chance; sufficiently degrading the terrorists support infrastructure amongst the native populations of the middle-east region and lowering not only the recruitment rates of the various terrorists organizations, but their potential success rate as well.
No one thinks it would have ended, we are certain however, that there would have been a greater percentage chance that it could end sooner and/or in a more successful fashion that is currently being demonstrated by the failed policies coming from this failure of an adminstration.”
Let us take those bold words a face value. Why on earth would anyone in this country not come the aid of the country in time of war? You are as much as saying that Gore and Kerry and well established Democratic superstructure in Washington and throughout the 50 states can not find enough voice to express their calculated wisdom and to help the current administration beat the terrorists.
Is this just football to you guys or in the final analysis do you lack the confidence in your unelected voices to rise up with them and correct the course of this country that you have decided is in great peril?
There are newspapers, magazines, websites and talking head shows everywhere that would love to hear your plan. Speak up! Be brilliant! Show us all how wrong and stupid and chimp-brained we really are!
And grubi:
I have no more idea where Osama bin Laden is than you do. And I know that even Kerry wearing his magic hat and sneaking across the border in the dead of night is likely no better than the best we have sent to get him and who have been killed in distant climes in the attempt.
You demean those who are dedicated to the task with your flippancy.
My only true worry for you is that you are so timid of mind that when OBL is finally splattered across the mountain side, you will be the first to call it quits. War is over, lets hit the mall.
Oh, one of these days the Democrats will return to the party it once was…but not today. Not with people blaming everything but the source of terrorism.
Terrorist want to cut us up with millions of little cuts.
The idea that Republicans hate freedom and democracy is childish sophistry, Republicans just have very different points of view as to what those concepts mean.
Spinning the bottle about and letting you be Commander in Chief- it is 9-12, 2001, where are you going to attack first? Afghanistan. Less than 100 days after 9-11, Afghanistan was subdued.
Now it is 1-21-2002, what are you gong to do?
If you attack Iran, you tie up you troops for five years and, the entire Islamic and Western world would oppose the attack (just as they did the attack on Iraq and for the same reasons), Syria? such a nice country, but what does winning there get you? Saudi Arabia? I thought they were our allies? Egypt? Where then? Iraq. Saddam is still in power and he is never going to go peacefully into exile or allow an election. Sooner or later he had to be removed. Do you think we didn’t try to kill him or have others do it? It always came back to Iraq because Iraq was always the indespensable step, when Saddam fell, regime change throughout the Arab world took a giant step towards reality.
Post Saddam, Syria is driven from Lebanon and the Ba’athist regime is teetering. The Iranian people are all but in open rebellion in the streets of Tehran; if there was ever a doomed regime, Iran is it. Sad to say, Bush’s strategy was right.
On one hand you rail against the restrictions on our liberties under Bush and on the other you decry his failure to find all the militants living among us. Aside from not being agumenatively cricket, it is underscores my argument better than yours: Bush and Co. are doing the best they can under the most difficult of circumstances. Maintaining liberty and waging war at the same time.
Terrorists have it easy, sneak around, find a weakness, find some weakminded idiot who is not a relative (ever notice how the terror leaders never send their kids?) and have them do some damage. No US subway or bus system can be protected, that is unless you are willing to intern every Muslim male under 40 years of age in the US for the duration of a very long war, so what were you saying about Bush and Freedom again? Right he targets the only terror exporting police state in the Middle East that cannot be ovethrown from within and squashes it. No more terrorists at Salman Pak airfield.
Bush has US forces in over 100 countries fighting this war. Should they be in 110? He gets 1-2 national security or intelligence briefings every day (Bill Clinton didn’t bother getting such briefings while al Qaeda grew and globalized).
Bush has adopted a daring and novel approach to winning the war; a strategy that, if you really care about this nation and our future, should really get behind and support: democracy backed by limited use of force. I can’t promise that US forces might not get engaged on any number of fronts over the years to come but one thing is clear, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt, democratic stirrings are taking place; if democracy wins, we win this war. The broken model that incubated the terrorist baccilla is being treated with a people-power antidote that addresses the privations and alienation that create modern terrorism. In short, Bush, your destroyer of liberty and criminal is waging as humane a war as possible with a few casualites as possible using tried and true means to address the root causes of terror.
I and most on the right are real linear on the war- we just want to win. I don’t care if there is a democrat or a Republican in power so long as the mission gets done. There is no one land or people to take the war to until victory and no visible marker or place that we can wave a flag and call it over; it is not that kind of war. Any thinking person has to understand the nature of this war and that democratic open societies are at a distinct disadvange to those we fight. We have a rulebook, they don’t.
In four years, Iran, Syria and probably, North Korea will not be in business as they are today: this will be legacy of George W. Bush. These and the actions he has taken so far in this war are not high crimes but heroic leadership. In your need to hate him, you are unable to see what he is doing and why what he is doing is right.
Unlike the Clinton Adminstration, he is not using the IRS to attack his poltical enemies or outing congressional leaders’ love lives. See Bush for what he is: a camera shy ex-drunk who used family and connections to become President and discovered just what it means to sit in that chair. So unless you are willing to fence the Rio Grande and ban ALL immigration from about sixty countries, you will have to accept that the Administration is doing all it can reasonably do, we can still get hit, we probably will get hit but, if we get a handle on WMD proliferation, our losses in this war will be slight.
I laugh when the militarily ignorant pontificate on strategy; Bush has set forces in motion to bring victory, I am sure you will be there to praise him for his efforts when the time comes.
I can remember when I used to enjoy reading this site. I used to use it as a guage to what an articulate, thoughtful left-leaning Democrat thought about the issues of the days. Now I find someone who spouts meaningless hate-filled rhetoric and is no longer capable of dialogue with anyone who doesn’t agree with him in all things. Yesterday Boston Globe reporter Tom Oliphant stated, “I think every sentence spent on President Bush is wasted breath. And it doesn’t unite the country, but much more importantly, it doesn’t solve the problem.” When the Democratic Party realizes their enemy is Terrorism, not the GOP, we will be able to discuss things again. I look forward to that day, but do not expect it anytime soon.
Do any of the wingnuts on the right seriously believe that if a terrorist can kill and injure people in London, England, that it can t happen in Los Angeles, New York, Washington D.C., or any of a hundred of our cities?
Of course they could hit us. I think the fact that they haven’t reflects Al Qa’eda’s acknoledgement that attacks on the US provokes us to do things like kick them out of Afganistan and sow democracy in the middle east – things which doom A Q’s long term goals.
I don’t think its a coincidence that all of the AQ arrests in the US involved people targetting the president. AQ figures that anything short of assasinating the president would cause a backlash without gaining them anything worthwhile.
It’s not that the Bush administration doesn’t want to make us safe from terrorism, its that they recognize that its impossible to make us safe in both the short run and in the long run at the same time, so they’ve wisely chosen a policy that may bring safety in the very long run.
The problem they’re facing is that modern technology means that the long term dangers are horrible. If those with terrorist idiologies secure a supply of WMDs then we’re in for a conflagration, and it’s inevitable that they’ll eventually get WMDs if their organizations last long enough.
So the only hope is to change the sick social conditions that allow the muslim world to favor terrorist groups – and that’s what’s being attempted.
This Is A Man Who Prides Himself On His Intelligence
No, really: Do any of the wingnuts on the right seriously believe that if a terrorist can kill and injure people in London, England, that it can t happen in Los Angeles, New York, Washington D.C., or any of a hundred of our cities? Even I donR…
Nice application of “the other thing” strawman.
First, the US was being too rough on terrorism – see Abu Grahaib and Gitmo – now we are being too soft. Would it really be too much bother for someone on the Left to draft a document telling where “just right” exists?
One tires of hearing nothing but “the other thing” from the Left. If President Bush does A, he should have done B. Fine, but what _constructive alternative_ do you have to offer? Thus far into the war, one has seen squat from the Left as far as viable alternative strategies go.
I believe this is why the government will stay in the hands of the Republicans next election, if not extending their majority. The Left cannot be trusted with national security as they haven’t the foggiest as how to go about the whole business. Before the Left can be given the reigns of power, they must first demonstrate they understand the scope of the problem, and to date they have shown no penchant for anything other than demonizing the President for not doing the other thing.
For example – let’s assume we capture Osama tomorrow. What then? Do you honestly think terror will go on holiday with the capture of one man? Is that seriously what you believe is the problem? So please, take the stage and tell us exactly what your next move would be with Osama in the clink.
Failing anything constructive, one believes the next move of the Left should be some heavy-duty introspection time with the handiest mirror. Really, you have no one to blame but yourselves for your present state.
Again, we find the left ignoring important contributions from many allies. Dozens of countries invovled in Afghanistan, including mine, the viciously anti-American Canada. 30 or so nations involved in Iraq.
But those nations are just Bush stooges right? Just a bunch of tossers not worth mentioning. Stupid ignorant foreigners being dragged along by Bush right?
To clarify, Italy said it might, MIGHT, pull 300 troops in a couple of months. Thats 300 of 3000, or, a company of an entire Regiment. What a fecking joke. Your arguements hold no water. Besides, isn’t a reduction in Coalition troops a sign that Iraqi soldiers are picking up the slack, initiating the so called ‘exit strategy’ that lefties are begging for? Or are those brave Iraqi’s fighting the terrorists just a bunch of stooge loosers as well?
Who the hell cares about Osama anyway. He is one man, and a leader on the run and probably not in control of his organization. I’d love to see his head on the platter, but ultimetly there are bigger issues in play, like bringing democracy to the middle east for a real, long term solution to that problem.
On a side note, I must say that it is very intriguing to mingle WITHIN a pod of Libratas(http://www.mediaright.ca/libratas/intro.htm). A truly fascinating case study of this, natures most bizzare and incomprehensible beast.
[...] t His Mind
Sphagnum @ 4:19 pm; Filed under: All, Bush, Dems, Terrorism
Holy Cow& Oliver Willis has lost his mind! The job of the Preside [...]
Christopher Hitchens?
That’s all you have, Frank D? Jeebus, I thought you’d at least bring up Laurie Mylroie or some other kook. But Hitchens?
Sorry, if I need guidance on making my liver look like something Keith Richards would blanch at–I’ll consult Hitchens.
Nice use of ad hominem ther, Jadegold. For a second there, I thought you were going to address the argument, but “Hitchens’s a drunk” works much better.
I laugh when the militarily ignorant pontificate on strategy;
I’m still laughing at you; especially the part about “democracy backed by limited use of force. ”
That’s going to get some chuckles at the Pentagon.
Sooperedd, I don’t hate you….but I will pray for you, in hopes that you can clear your mind of such delusions.
As for our attitude on the left, we are sick to death of people telling us everything is just peachy and going as planned, because it is a pack of lies and insults our intelligence. All you righties have clearly forgotten how Clinton was hounded his entire presidency, well we have not; and if you think for one second that you guys were/are more civil than the left you are deluding yourselves. Because, deep down in places you don’t like to talk about it is hard to control your hate for Democrats, Clinton, Hillary, government, homosexuals, minorities, foreigners, the homeless, the poor, professors and women’s rights just to name the big ones. All the things and people that you can’t control you wish to destroy. Now don’t waste your time writing responses denying all those things or stating how stupid or full of crap I am, spend that time thinking about how I just summed up your entire ideology and existence. Don’t kill the messenger, but you have permission to hate me.
No attempt to change the subject at all. My point is that there was no subject discussing this massive loss of freedom (ala property rights) because it was the liberal side of the Court, and not the “thugs” who were depriving us of our rights. Had it been the “thugs” the leftists here would have screamed for days.
If you can’t understand that, I believe Google may have an English to left-wing-liberal bullshit translator you could try.
Can you repeat your comment in English, Hedley? I believe you were attempting some kind of comment about the recent Kelo decision. Regardless, a bold, if not transparent, attempt to change the subject.
[...] the blogosphere s equivalent of a klan rally (evidence here) disagrees with me about what I wrote, I certainly know I m on the right side of history. [...]
Hitchens is a drunk. To quote him as an authority as to whether there was an Iraq-9/11 link when our own intelligence communities and Senate oversight committees have stated there wasn’t–is just goofy.
It amuses me how quickly the left is to decry the so-called loss of freedom (aka The Patriot Act) blaming Bush or the “thugs” on the Suprme Court for all the ills in the world. Yet when 4 of those “thugs” unsuccessfully tried to 4 leftist justices from giving away our property rights to commercial interests, not a word of this catastrophic loss of freedom was mentioned here. Double standard?
It’s simple. OBL is in Wazirstan in the north of Pakistan. We know this because we’ve pretty much always known this (and so does Porter Goss). We go in and get the bastard shoot him in the face, rub his corpse in bacon grease and burn it. Then we go, take Ayman al-Zawahri and stuff his ass with Osama’s ashes and baste him with the bacon grease like a turkey. Then with its’ head cut off we can basically take the decapitated Al-Qaeda and cut it piecemeal from the top down. Wow…a victory in the war on terror and it didn’t even take regime change.
An invasion of Wazirstan is NOT going to spark a nuclear war between Pakistan and India, Tuco. The suggestion of such shows a lack of knowledge of the reality of the Kashmir conflict that makes the entire rest of your opinion invalid. India wants us to go into Wazirstan because that is where the terrorists that attack India constantly over Kashmir come from. Pakistan has asked us not to go in because they do not want to alienate the extremists residing there even more and risk a coup. (Too bad, this smacks of the old Arafat trick of saying we are pro-peace to the West then going on arabic TV and advocating violence. If Islamabad is with us on the GWOT, they’d let us go after OBL. If they won’t let us go after OBL, it shows they’re playing both sides.) In any case, us entering Wazirstan is not going to cause anybody to nuke anybody. I would like to know what kind of drugs you were on when you concocted this fantasy however because I want some.
We don’t need to invade Saudi Arabia, we merely have to withdraw from Saudi Arabia and let the Islamic theocrats assassinate the Sauds. The fact is that the majority of the population there wants to not be oppressed. They will no more support a repressive Islamic government than they will a despotic monarchy. Sometimes it’s easier to just let your enemies fight among themselves and clean up the mess afterwards.
It’s only off-topic because you are making it so. I merely was observing the hypocrisy of the left in that if this decision had been a conservative one, it would not be more on-topic. Of course I am sure that such an observation is off-topic as well unless it can somehow be blamed on Bush.
As for the Court, 4 of the 5 non-”thugs” are widely referred to as composing the “liberal wing” of the Court despite the fact that the majority of the Court was GOP appointed.
Regarding the decision, I understand it fine. It was a catastrophic blow to individual freedom and property rights. No way to spin it otherwise.
But I don’t want to divert attention from this very important topic (”The Right Hates Freedom…”) any longer, so please return to blaming Bush for everything.
Sooperedd
“As for our attitude on the left, we are sick to death of people telling us everything is just peachy and going as planned,”
I’ll accept that.
“because it is a pack of lies and insults our intelligence.”
Everything is a “pack of lies”? Now that insults my intelligence.
“All you righties have clearly forgotten how Clinton was hounded his entire presidency, well we have not;”
You are right, he was hounded. Perhaps to the extent that Nixon was hounded. Both gave multiple reasons to be investigated. Nixon beat impeachment by quitting before it could happen. Are you of the belief that Clinton was innocent of everything? Are there any investigations that you would admit had merit?
“and if you think for one second that you guys were/are more civil than the left you are deluding yourselves.”
I’ll accept this. Although I try not to exaggerate and resort to hate speech.
“Because, deep down in places you don t like to talk about it is hard to control your hate”
Cut me a little slack here, I really save “hate” for big things, because it is a cancer in your soul and you only suffer from it.
“for Democrats,”
That would be a sister and a mother-in-law and I love them dearly.
“Clinton,”
He has only disappointed me and I will admit to being disgusted when blow jobs got to be evening news.
“Hillary,”
A very smart woman, who if elected will govern from the middle and be more like me than the liberal left who will be so disappointed.
“government,”
How can any country operate without a government? I am not crazy about socialism, but there is even room for a reasonable amount of that.
“homosexuals,”
I have some in my family and many of my business associates are homosexuals. I do have problems with multiple sex partners in any community, gay or straight. And my homosexual associates are pretty low key about their private lives. They sit at my dining table often along with my straight guests and we enjoy the communion of souls.
“minorities,”
That would be a son-in-law and three grandchildren and bunches and bunches of friends and associates.
“foreigners,”
I travel internationally half of the year and my address book has friends all over this world. We support children on three continents.
“the homeless,”
I volunteer in a free clinic and work with the food bank. But not all of these people are just homeless. Many are addicted and many are mentally confused. Unfortunately, they will not accept help and we can not force it upon them.
“the poor,”
That charge is beneath contempt and it underwhelms me. I do not steal food from the poor just to watch them suffer. OK?
“professors”
Been there, done that. Now Ward Churchill or some other charlatans, and you have me nailed.
“and women s rights”
Such as what? Abortion? Biologically, human life begins at conception. It is killed by spontaneous abortion or through human interference. No other facts apply. Is there a place for abortion? Probably. Is it entirely up the mother even to the day of delivery? Convince me. Is infanticide worthy of discussion? The Greeks did it. Convince me.
“All the things and people that you can t control you wish to destroy.”
Now that is really deep paranoia. Its like being afraid of Catholics or people with dandruff.
“Now don t waste your time writing responses denying all those things or stating how stupid or full of crap I am, spend that time thinking about how I just summed up your entire ideology and existence. Don t kill the messenger, but you have permission to hate me.’
I pity you. You are burning your candle at both ends and you are still trapped in the dark.
Let’s see; GOP Presidents appointed 3 of the 5 SC justices you say caused “this massive loss of freedom.”
Aside from the fact the Kelo decision is waaaaay off-topic–it’s pretty apparent you don’t understand the case.
>>But it s clear that Al Qaeda does not fear us, frankly they probably think we re idiots.
It’s funny that the left is screaming about losing their “rights” under W, but when I ask them what rights they have lost, not one of them can tell me. If you think you are losing your rights NOW, imagine what life under Islam rule will be like (which I believe will happen if the left gets its way.)
Do you think homosexuals will have “rights”? What about the right to abortion? Will you still have the freedom of religion and speech? Do you think your daughters will be able to marry whomever they choose? Will your daughters and wives even be allowed out in public wearing anything but a burqa? Oh, and that mistress you are seeing on the side…no more adultery.
I’m sure there are more freedoms that could be on this list, but it’s late, and I can’t think of more. If that’s the sort of life you want, then support the left and Islam. I’ll opt for Christianity and freedom, thanks.
Amen OW, couldn’t have said it better myself.
Chan said:
It s simple.
No, it’s not, and the fact that you think it is makes your suggested military strategy even more “reckless” than you perceive the current administration’s to be.
Pakistan has asked us not to go in because they do not want to alienate the extremists residing there even more and risk a coup.
Yes, and also because there are still elements in the Pakistani security services that are sympathetic to jihadists. That means the threat of a coup is very real. Musharraf is playing both sides. It’s unfortunate, but we’re doing the best we can.
What Oliver is suggesting is going all cowboy on the Pakistanis. As someone above revealed, he doesn’t really mean it, he’s just using the idea as a platform for partisan shouting.
We don t need to invade Saudi Arabia, we merely have to withdraw from Saudi Arabia and let the Islamic theocrats assassinate the Sauds. The fact is that the majority of the population there wants to not be oppressed.
This is simply laughable. Saudi Arabia would then become the world’s biggest terrorist training camp.
They will no more support a repressive Islamic government than they will a despotic monarchy.
Yeah, that’s working really well in Iran, isn’t it?
Sometimes it s easier to just let your enemies fight among themselves and clean up the mess afterwards.
Yes, but we can’t ignore the fact that they’ll continue to fight against us at the same time.
Oliver says:
Thanks to you guys for once again reinforcing the stupidity and close-mindedness of the Bush apologista.
Tuco says:
No, thank you, Oliver, for reinforcing what is already self-evident: That your typical response to comments espousing beliefs contrary to your own is not to address their substance, but is to resort to jejeune ad hominems and insults.
Even some of your most loyal defenders do more than that.
P.S.: Please bring back the “preview” feature.
skyechild: just for a start, if you should happen to get picked up as a possible ‘enemy combatant’ in the GWoT, you can be held indefinitely, without charge, without access to legal counsel; you can be transported against your will to a foreign country to be interrogated by agents of said foreign government and your own government can even refuse to acknowledge that you are in custody. not exactly a positive amendment to the bill of rights.
Frank, spare us the Dick Cheney stuff about Saddam and terrorists. The truth is the Bush Administration is in it’s “last throws’ of trying to justify a war based on lies and distortions that should have never started. Not because Saddam was a nice guy and didn’t deserve having his ass kicked. But the truth is, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, had no WMDs, and by no stretch of the imagination presented a threat to this country, eminent or otherwise.
I ll opt for Christianity and freedom, thanks.
Keep shilling for AWOL George and you’re sure to get neither.
“I understand it fine. It was a catastrophic blow to individual freedom and property rights. No way to spin it otherwise.”
Either somebody told you to think that, or you only read the one case an no others. If you knew the state of property law in this country, you’d know that all they did was uphold decades upon decades of precedent on the issue. To do otherwise would have been (wait for it) judicial activism.
If your opinion is that the current state of the law doesn’t comport with what you see as right or good or what have you, that’s fine… but to say that this individual opinion was anything other than in line with the law as it stands does nothing but reveal your ignorance of the law itself.
Reading the comments and EWWW-you really need to get a better class of troll here. I guess you hit a nerve-projection’s a bitch, guys.
I think (tin foil hat time) President Rove and his trained Chimp don’t really want to end the “War on TerraTM”. They want us all to be afraid. Scared people are easier to control.
They could INCREASE funds for local law enforcement. They could INCREASE funds for alternate->conservation->greenhouse gas reducing->oil dependency decreasing technology. They could stop running IMMENSE deficts and slashing taxes for the richest “in time of war”. They could improve communications between government agencies instead of increasing secrecy. They could improve security around chemical plants and nuclear power plants. They could invest in fusion energy. They could check every container entering every major port for radioactivity.
Instead, assets got pulled out of Afghanistan to get ready for the upcoming Iraq invasion, then came creating the “motivation” creation by the same reporter who got thrown in jail for not directly revealing covert agents. (I’m not letting her off the hook entirely, she may have been in the Novak shit-chain after all). Instead, it’s legal for government agents to check ANYONE’S library records without a warrent without EVER telling the subject and without libraries being allowed to report it even happened.
I mean, WHAT THE FUCK? Do you pinheads defending “King Mayerd” (sp, pardon my French) really want to live in the country you’ve helped create?
STOP BEING SO AFRAID. Watch the Londoners reaction to the bombings. They aren’t as afraid as us-maybe because they’ve seen this sort of shit before, especially for 3 long years when they had to manage pretty much by themselves.
That’s another point-STOP PISSING OFF YOUR FRIENDS. Thank goodness some members of Congress found a bit of a spine around the Bolton nomination (he is probably involved in the Plame outing, btw). If you want to keep a worldwide threat from being a threat, you have to work worldwide!
That is quite a list you pounded out there soopered. I had no idea I hated all of those people, thanks for clearing that up.
You are bang on Tuco Ramirez the Rat. It all comes down to name calling, not counter arguement or debate. Oliver should just take a quick look at this here comments section and see who’s bringing up points to argue, and who’s shooting off their mouth, the lefties or righties.
Of course, Genus Libratas Americana is known to be one of natures most vocal creatures, so this is very much understandable.
[...] chief of staff, outing the name of a CIA agent to our enemies and the world at large, but as I have indicated, these people do not care about the war – only their [...]
“all they did was uphold decades upon decades of precedent on the issue”
I guess O’Connor is as ignorant as I am when she said that in this “perverse” decision that the Court “abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power [i.e., taking private property from A and giving it to B] and that a government can now take private property and give it to private interests, contrary to the now-impotent “public use” limitation of the Constitution. Thank god O’Connor is leaving the Court. Good riddance, you say.
I agree with Oliver that America should not have invaded IRAQ, however having a democrat in the office as president doesn’t mean he will be effective against Terrorists either.
The problem with Oliver is that he thinks in simple terms. One president will not change a lot, we have to change the congress, the FBI and CIA and we have to change a lot of the underlying structure to really make a difference.
Oliver thinks that the president can do it all and only if he is a democrat can he be effective against terrorism, but this is very biggoted and single minded thinking. Typical of someone like Oliver.
hey xdroid, how about just having a real man in the office, instead of a bragging napolionic twit?
Bring forth a real man from the depths of the Republican party. Oh, wait, you seem to be short those.
And if you are so quick to forget, we only went to Iraq on the CIC’s orders, Congress voted to give him the authority.
A real man. Like whom? You! hahahahahhahahaha LOL! Sorry that is funny and something for a good laugh.
I don’t care for Bush either, but please enlighten everyone here on what would change with a “real man” (um excuse me, a democrat according to you).
Like I said, it takes more than one man to change things. Again you reply on such a simple minded basis instead of looking at the entire problem.
You are too focused on getting Bush out that you really can’t see what the real problem is.
That is the problem with you kids, you only see black and white (democrat and republican and there is a whole world out there besides that). There are real issues here that need to be addressed beyond the oval office.
Obviously you have not read the opinion or the dissents otherwise you would know what distinguishes Kelo from the cases you were provided with that you cut and pasted above and also how far-reaching this decision is, as compared to the others.
So you can fall back on political hyperbole and the MoveOn talking points or actually read for yourself. I wonder what you’ll choose.
“contrary to the now-impotent ‘public use’ limitation of the Constitution”
again, good bad or indifferent, this is NOTHING NEW OR SURPRISING.
“The mere fact that property taken outright by eminent domain is transferred in the first instance to private beneficiaries doesn not condemn that taking as having only a private purpose. The court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public.”
-Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, US Supreme Court 1984
“‘It is not essential that the entire community, nor even any considerable portion, …directly enjoyor participate in any improvement in order [for it] to consititute a public use.’”
-the above case citing Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, US Supreme Court 1923
“Here one of the means chosen is the use of private enterprise for redevelopment of the area. Appellants argue that this makes the project a taking from one businessman for the benefit of another businessman. But the means of executing the project are for Congress and Congress alone to determine, once the public purpose has been established.”
Berman v. Parker US Supreme Court 1954
The list goes on. And on… and on. I told you… go read some other cases and/or stop listening to people who tell you what to think.
You’ll notice that I haven’t given my opinion on the topic. I’m merely stating that those who see this as some huge significant change just flat out don’t know what they’re talking about, or they do know but are using this as political ammo by exploiting the public’s gut reactions to too little information and general lack of legal knowledge.
Nope, no cutting and pasting. I typed that all out (typos and all
from passages I’d highlighted years ago in Cribbett’s “Property”. (Chapter 19, Section 4 of the 8th edition if you think I’m lying) Good of you to try and make this about me, though.
I say once again, takings that result in property going from one private party to another private party are nothing new.
Since you didn’t seem to catch my veiled statement above, I AGREE WITH YOU. I’m inclined to think that this instance was one of local government getting out of hand with the taking.
What I’m pissed about is that people are trying to make this out to be some huge change in the law. It’s not.
hy·per·bo·le (P) (h-pûrb-l)
n. A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in “I could sleep for a year” or “This book weighs a ton”.
and where, pray tell, have I engaged in that?
…and what this has to do with moveon.org is beyond me.
“For your own good” is a persuasive argument that will eventually make a man agree to his own destruction. – Janet Frame (1924~) New Zealand Novelist, Poet
A pox on the democrats AND republicans!
Our freedom can only be taken by the government or given to the government. Remember it is for our “own good” – be it fighting the islamic mafia (thanks “right wingers) or not smoking a legal, very taxed product, that results in the abrogation of our liberty. Now we all will benefit by confiscating private property (thanks “liberals”) and giving it to business.
It isn’t that private property is going from one private party to another — yes, that has been allowed in limited instances — it is the reason for it. The Court has taken “public use” and expanded it to the point that nearly any situation can now be said to benefit the public. As Thomas said, it replaces “public use” with something akin to a public purpose. As long as there is some miniscule benefit to the public, any private property is now subject to taking. This is hardly an expansion of decades old case law. It is changing the Constitution which, if done by Conservative justices would be called (wait for it) judicial activism.
To return to the beginning — my point was simply that when the Conservatives are viewed as taking away freedoms (i.e., Patriot Act) everyone screams bloody murder, but when the Liberals do it, hardly a mention.
As an aside, the first test of the Kelo decision may well be at the expense of Jusitce Souter. Someone is now trying to take Souter’s home in order to build a hotel. Clearly a benefit to the public. Clearly legal now under Kelo. Nothing huge there.
Hey, evalio, you can’t just shoot and run……… I am curious about your snide remark about “judical activism.” Was overturning Dred Scott or Plessy “judicial activisim”? If Gitlow and Griswold were to be revisited along with “rights emanating from the penumbra” and a SCOTUS didn’t have the ESP skills of Mr. Justice Douglas, would you call that “judicial activism”?
You decided to speak with authority and go deep on this subject. I am well qualified to chit chat with you.
Sheesh… I want no part of the conservative vs liberal namecalling, circular arguments, and especially the strawmen that one sees in places like this. Compare apples and oranges all you like, I simply take issue when you assert that the effect of Kelo is a “catastrophic loss of freedom” or a “massive loss of freedom” because it “give[s] our property rights to commercial interests” (I might classify that as, well… hyperbole). Look beyond Kelo to the line of cases that led to it, and you’ll be less surprised by the result.
The usual jurisprudential charge of “judicial activism” is made when a decision is reached without firm footing in precedence or a firm footing in common law. When a logical construct is “discovered” it is imperitive to base it the construct on norms of understanding as found in common usage. Following these regular tests, the test of “compelling state interest” is the first to be applied.
I will not hide behind shadowboxing my position as cloaking one’s position is intellectual bankruptcy at its worst. I am merely pointing out that Kelo does procede from a multitude of lower court decisions that have not been accepted by SCOTUS in toto, but if SCOTUS were to go againt that record, it would in no way qualify as “judicial activism” if the SCOTUS decision was firmly rooted in common law and common usage.
To adhere to your implication of “judicial activism” would be to deny the legitimacy of overturning prior findings. That would be judicial atavism at its most plain. It also denies the very foundation of law upon which our system is based.
“Judicial activism” is a term generally used (these days) as a pejorative by those who disagree with a court opinion. You consider my remark snide, but if it’s snide, it’s only because a) it would have been a case of judicial activism (by definition, if you ask me) if the Court had ruled the other way in Kelo and decided to break with the line of cases that led to the majority opinion, and b) political talking heads love to trot out the phrase (as a pejorative) without really knowing what it means, seemingly because they like the way it rolls of their tongues.
I’m not running anywhere (this being my fifth post in this topic), I just choose not to get dragged into the usual unproductive name-calling.
As to your other point, it seems to me that there has been more than one justice who seemingly had/has psychic powers.
evilio
I failed to address your point that justices other than Mr. Justice Douglas have had psychic powers. I would submit that Mr. Justice Douglas was the most prescient in that he forsaw a public that was gullible enough to swallow the logic of Taney in Scott v. in regard to chattel rights vis a vis the fetus. Certainly, Holmes and others of his time ran rampant through the Bill of Rights when they created the “incorporation” concept out of the 14th Amendment and them applied it in a selective, convenient pattern.
The rise of Independents
If our Republican leaders can’t be loyal to America, why do some people insist on spinning their treacherous behavior? If they spend all their time trying to hurt their fellow Americans rather than solve the real problems we face, why?
Republicans…
[...] ts by tyrants, do ya think you d have been seeing this tender moment? Oliver Willis wrote an interesting opinion about why he feels our current administratio [...]