Comments on: Bush Admin Realizes Fairyland La-La-La Rules Don’t Apply

By: bgndo gasurkjh

bgndo gasurkjh — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:29:10 +0000

tdzv thrmbp odazu yiba gypz lvatowdq uxsfgn

By: QuakerinaBasement

QuakerinaBasement — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 06:07:45 +0000

Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift — the Navy lawyer who beat the president of the United States in a pivotal Supreme Court battle over trying alleged terrorists — figures he’ll probably have to find a new job.

By: QuakerinaBasement

QuakerinaBasement — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 05:07:17 +0000

Multiple sources? Is that what floats your boat? Washington Times: The opening hearing of the first military commission held by the United States in nearly 60 years revolved mainly around a vigorous series of questions raised by Hamdan's attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, regarding the legitimacy of the court and the qualifications of the five military officers appointed to preside over it. Yahoo News: [Photo caption]

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, attorney for Yemeni Salim Ahmed Hamdan who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden, speaks outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington June 29, 2006.

USA Today:

Hamdan's military-appointed lawyer, Navy Cmdr. Charles Swift, cited the tribunal members' backgrounds in seeking to disqualify four of the five panelists including the presiding officer, Army Col. Peter Brownback as well as an alternate.

More?

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 04:07:51 +0000

I’d like to ask you liberals a simple question. In marital therapy, it’s called a “miracle question.”
If by some miracle tomorrow, you were to wake up and find that you were the President, who had dozed off in the Oval Office, what would be the very first thing you would want done (after the execution of Rush Limbaugh — just kidding — I hope).

Then ask yourself: Who might benefit? Who would definitely benefit?

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 04:07:50 +0000

I cant believe you don t remember James D. Guckert, AKA Jeff Gannon.
He was barely even a glow, let alone a flash in the pan.
Yeah, he was that easy to forget. You think I get my “talking points” from a guy who made into the news for two weeks a year and a half ago?
I don’t even listen to Limbaugh, O’Reilly or Hannity.

By: frameone

frameone — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:07:41 +0000

“…so in order to be accomadating, the leftist would allow this country to be overrun by some of the most intolerant people inhabiting the earth.”

Where do you get this shit, pedro? Seriously.

By: frameone

frameone — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:07:15 +0000

“No numbnuts, just another liberal activist looking out for the rights of terrorist& .”

Unbelievable. I hate to break it to you dipshits but terrorists do indeed have rights, just like anyone else. Why is that such a difficult thing for you to understand? You talk about how the left wants to hand this coutnry over to barbarians out of tolerance. It doesn’t. The left wants to defend the laws and values of this country in the face of barbarism. You, on the other hand, seem content to get down in the mud with the animals. What should we do with the people at Guantamo pedro? Treat them humanely while assuring that they get a fair trial and just punishments or should we just summarily behead them all and broadcast the video to the world? One way requires honor, courage and constant vigilance. The other nothing but the will to savagery. Which way do you want to go?

By: drpedro

drpedro — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 17:07:57 +0000

No, it wasn’t. It was a liberal activist law professor who took it to the supreme court numbnuts….just like it says in my multiple sources…

By: QuakerinaBasement

QuakerinaBasement — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 17:07:47 +0000

Try again, Peedro.

Here’s what I wrote that seems to have you flummoxed:

In fact, it was Hamdan s military lawyer who took this case to the Supreme Court

Which branch of service is Mr. Katyal in?

By: drpedro

drpedro — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 15:07:02 +0000

I am not sure you do Bush, but I think Paul and “Fact” and quaker would love it if there was some sort of terrorist action so they could point and say “see, the republicans can’t protect us! Vote for leftists….”

I honestly believe their BDS is so overpowering that they would rather be able to to declare “victory” over republicans than over terrorists.

By: Bushwacked

Bushwacked — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:07:46 +0000

BTW, while we may disagree vehemently, you don’t really believe that I, for example, hate this country, and want it to be overrun by terrorists, do you? That’s my basic point.

By: Bushwacked

Bushwacked — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:07:09 +0000

And I suppose I couldn t find one liberal blogger / columnist saying what you agree with? You already know the answer to that. But a common theme in most of them is that democrats or liberals "hate the country and are itching to aid the enemy". And, rather than provide an opinion as to whether or not one feels that the USSC ruling is right, it is easier to question someone else's patriotism or accuse them of wanting to let the country be "overrun by some of the most intolerant people inhabiting the earth" i.e. terrorists. btw, I cant believe you don't remember James D. Guckert, AKA Jeff Gannon. Remember, he was the phony journalist plant in the whitehouse press corp who threw softball questions to members of the administration. Until he was exposed as a fake.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 13:07:37 +0000

I never even heard of Jeff Gannon — thanks for the tip!
As for the other stuff, what is that supposed to represent? People I agree with?
And I suppose I couldn’t find one liberal blogger / columnist saying what you agree with?

By: Bushwacked

Bushwacked — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:07:42 +0000

Just a few:

"House Minority Leader, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, who has designs on becoming the Speaker of the House if her party gains a majority in November is applauding the Supreme Court decision that gives rights to terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay. Pelosi's craven hatred of President Bush is evident in hailing the al Qaeda-friendly ruling:".

"Democratic cowardice aside, the arrogance and tyranny of an unelected and unaccountable judiciary is a threat to America's security."

Jeff Gannon

Unless, that is, the country has simply abolished the concept of treason. We've got a lot of liberals who hate the country and are itching to aid the enemy, so what are you going to do? Indict the entire editorial board of The New York Times? (Actually, that wouldn't be a bad place to start, now that I ask.)"

Liberals invoke "freedom of the press" like some talismanic formulation that requires us all to fall prostrate in religious ecstasy. On liberals' theory of the First Amendment, the safest place for Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan or Pakistan; it's in The New York Times building.

Ann Coulter

The New York Times and their traitorous, leaking sources have done it again. (Hat tip: LGF) This time they're broadcasting classified information on troop levels. Hey, Bill Keller--al Qaeda thanks you:

Michellle Malkin

By: Bushwacked

Bushwacked — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:07:40 +0000

One would think that after over 4 years, the Bush Administration would at least “attempt” to get legislation regarding these detainees from Congress, both houses being controlled by the president’s own party, and quit trying to make stuff up. But then, they wouldn’t be able to resort to the normal excuse for their incompetence, i.e. blaming democrats.

By: drpedro

drpedro — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 05:07:35 +0000

What do you think just repeating it again makes it right quaker? I didn't think you were really an idiot but.... Neal Katyal represents Hamdan this morning http://editor.slate.com/default.aspx/id/2138841/ In sifting through their inboxes last spring, 10 Yale Law School students came across an e-mail unlike any they had received before. The author, Neal Katyal LAW '95, had a favor to ask. Help me to defend Osama Bin Laden's former driver, he said. And spend hours every week doing so, on top of rigorous law school classes and summer internship http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=32812 This is a military commission [at Guantánamo] that is literally unburdened by the laws, Constitution, and treaties of the United States. Neal Katyal, attorney for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, oral arguments before the Supreme Court, March 28, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,hentoff,72797,6.html Attorney Neal Katyal, who represents Hamdan, told justices Tuesday http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5307418 In 7 November 2005, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to hear the case.[8][9] The petition was filed on behalf of Hamdan by Neal Katyal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld Georgetown University Law Center Kee-rist. The lengths you numbnuts will go to in order to avoid confronting the simple issue that you don't know what you are talking about. You are worse than Paul(frameone), who saw "A few good men" and believes that a LCDR in the JAG Corps is going to be lead attorney to a supreme court case. No numbnuts, just another liberal activist looking out for the rights of terrorist....move along, nothing to see here....

By: QuakerinaBasement

QuakerinaBasement — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:06:37 +0000

I think you misspelled that military lawyer’s name, Peed’. It’s Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift.

Katyal. Swift. Musta been a typo.

By: drpedro

drpedro — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:06:33 +0000

yea Bush, and when the Congress gives the president exactly the permisision he wants to have tribunals, then what are you going to say?

You guys are really fond of the idea of “talking points”…would you mind telling me where they are so I can get an idea of what it is you are referring to?

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:06:28 +0000

Yeah, I’m with Dr. P.
Show me where these talking points are, bushwacked.
Reading all these blogs, online newspapers and magazines is a drag.
I’d much rather cut and paste the talking points.

By: Bushwacked

Bushwacked — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 02:06:48 +0000

pedro says:

so in order to be accommodating, the leftist would allow this country to be overrun by some of the most intolerant people inhabiting the earth.

Contrary to propaganda by Bush apologists who call themselves “conservatives”, we progressives or “leftists” as you say, care about the future of this country just as much as you ascribe. Unfortunately, it’s just so much easier to regurgitate insidious talking points than attempt to explain why the USSC, far from being a “leftist think tank”, disagrees with you and this administration.
I can see another “constitutional amendment” coming down the pipe. After all, this republican congress only has 3 or 4 phony issues they can count on, so one more is bound to help.