Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 14, 2005
By: Kevin Drum

DOMESTIC SPYING....Oh goody. The Pentagon is spying on anti-war protesters in the United States:

The DOD database obtained by NBC News includes nearly four dozen anti-war meetings or protests, including some that have taken place far from any military installation, post or recruitment center. One incident included in the database is a large anti-war protest at Hollywood and Vine in Los Angeles last March that included effigies of President Bush and anti-war protest banners. Another incident mentions a planned protest against military recruiters last December in Boston and a planned protest last April at McDonalds National Salute to Americas Heroes a military air and sea show in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The Fort Lauderdale protest was deemed not to be a credible threat and a column in the database concludes: US group exercising constitutional rights. Two-hundred and forty-three other incidents in the database were discounted because they had no connection to the Department of Defense yet they all remained in the database.

Can you say "COINTELPRO"? I knew you could.....

Kevin Drum 1:06 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (295)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Paranoid conspiracy theories.

Posted by: Rad Racer on December 14, 2005 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, luckily this administration is all about the rights of citizens.

Plus we have the Constitution, that piece of paper, protecting us.

So nothing to worry about.

Posted by: craigie on December 14, 2005 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

We need to get both sides of this story, for balance, or else that's liberal bias and no one wants that. There's probably a good reason the Pentagon has been spying on American citizens and has been maintaining a information database. What does Donald Rumsfeld have to say about this? He's credible.

Posted by: Rad Racer on December 14, 2005 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK

He's not just credible. He's incredible.

Posted by: craigie on December 14, 2005 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

Nixon
Nixon
Nixon
...

Posted by: craigie on December 14, 2005 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Good news. One of the things Americans learned after 9/11 is we CANNOT allow terrorists to hide in our midsts. We should do everything we can do to stop the terrorists before they attack again and murder another five thousand Americans as the terrorists did on 9/11. If liberal anti-war groups are not working with the terrorist they have nothing to worry about. The only reason they have to worry is if they are aiding and abetting the enemy.

Posted by: Al on December 14, 2005 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

Whenever the government does something like spying on its own citizens, it is essential that the news media not say anything definitive like "this is similar to COINTELPRO in the 1960s" or "this is against the law." Those kinds of declarative, factual statements have no place in the news.

Great deference should be given to the Department of Defense all the time. When have those guys ever done bad stuff? After all, their job is to defend people! Duh! Wouldn't want to question them!

Anyway, whatever Lawrence di Rita says should be passed onto the people watching or reading the news without comment. Or else it's liberal bias and Washington Post editor John Harris says that's destroying the credibility of the news media.

Posted by: Rad Racer on December 14, 2005 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

Watch if you can find it the transcript of the PBS interview with Senators Sessions and Feingold.

Democracy and Civil Liberties do not pre-announce their death on Channel 8.

Posted by: deadender on December 14, 2005 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

Goodness, you all seem to have quick access to what must be classified information. I think I will wait until some actual facts are known before pronouncing judgment. I do wonder who you would blame if an American citizen killed a million fellow citizens and it could have been prevented by exactly this spying?

Posted by: Robert on December 14, 2005 at 1:27 AM | PERMALINK

Al writes, "We should do everything we can do to stop the terrorists...."

Does that include, y'know, anything? Al, we're going to send this rusty chainsaw up yer hoo-ha... but if you're not working with terrorists, you have nothing to worry about. In fact, we're going to put you under this metal plate and pile rocks on it. If you survive, that means you've got "super-hyper-mega-terrorism-power" and must be destroyed; but, if you get crushed, than yer innocent.

...get it?

Posted by: Darryl Pearce on December 14, 2005 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

Seems we've come full circle. Again. Not only the fun parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, but now we have 60s-esque spying on our own citizens enagaged in lawful activities -- shades of the FBI files on MLK Jr & his friends?

Of course, when Michael Moore talked about this in F911, everyone thought it was hyperbole. Guess not.

Posted by: fiat lux on December 14, 2005 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't this illegal?

Posted by: Name on December 14, 2005 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

The U.S. Secret Service maintains a similar database.

Posted by: Robert on December 14, 2005 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

...in the kid world, you're either a bully, a toady or one of the hapless rabble of victims.

Works that way when you're an adult, too.

Posted by: Darryl Pearce on December 14, 2005 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe DoD should send a few observers up this way- I drive past a little group of anti-war protestors on a regular basis. There aren't many of them, but they are the really virulent kind..... Quakers. And we all know how they are.

(Sarcasm, in case it wasn't painfully obvious)

Posted by: MJ Memphis on December 14, 2005 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

I think I will wait until some actual facts are known before pronouncing judgment.

Totally with you on that one, dude!

I say let's wait until some news organization comes along with information that the Pentagon has spied on American antiwar protesters at least 245 times, then the reporters can talk to Pentagon spokesmen and listen to their non-denial denials and report them verbatim without comment to the people! Anything beyond that is liberal bias, and that's bad.

Posted by: Rad Racer on December 14, 2005 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

The U.S. Secret Service maintains a similar database.

The U.S. Secret Service is a domestic law enforcement agency. The Defense Department, on the other hand, is not and is legally barred from spying on or conducting domestic operations against United States citizens. One reason we had the American Revolution in the first place is to preven this kind of military tyranny. This sort of spying is more reminiscent of a Latin American military dictatorship than of America -- or at least, it used to be.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

According to the article, out of apparently fifteen hundred incidents, about forty-eight involved protest groups, and according to the article, only some of those forty-eight involved activities not related to military sites.

MSNBC linked to some of the listings. I'm not sure what "edited for clarity" means. What was in the rest of the 400 page document, of which MSNBC linked to eight pages? What were the other 1,452 incidents about?

It's kind of funny. The 9/11 Commission just finished tearing our domestic security system a new one for not doing enough to protect us, or sharing enough information between agencies.

Posted by: tbrosz on December 14, 2005 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

So long as they're only watching folks in public areas, why does it matter? Anyone has the right to watch us at anytime when we're in public. In fact, anyone has the right to film us while we're in public, without our permission.

Posted by: Gideon on December 14, 2005 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

This is the way of the Army, and DoD in general: it is not planned or necessarily malicious -- they're just dumbshits who don't know their jobs.

Note the operative phrase in the referenced article, "yet they all remained in the database". That's dumbshit laziness. Not any slick, organized Secret Squirrel collection effort.

That they did it in the first place, barring confirmation that these orders came from SecDef or some other well-placed character, is only another sign that the morons don't know basic FP/S2 duties. Much less the country's laws and their service's regs.

Posted by: bubba on December 14, 2005 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't this illegal?

The government just passed a secret law five minutes ago so, no, it's not illegal. But the government can't show you the law, 'cuz it's way secret, like red SECRET stamp on it and everything.

By the way, if you ever ask that question again, the goverment will secretly arrest you and try you in a secret court with secret evidence and then secretly render you to Egypt to be tortured, so just zip your lips and watch some teevee, k?

Posted by: Rad Racer on December 14, 2005 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, Stefan, a provision of Senate bill S. 2386 (the Intelligence Authorization for 2005) was passed specifically to allow domestic spying by the Department of Defense. Senate Report 108-258 accompanying the bill describes in Section 502 why DoD needed to have domestic spying prohibition lifted. Glad to get you up-to-date.

Posted by: Robert on December 14, 2005 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

Rad Racer - it was not "secret" and passed more than 5 minutes ago - try again.

Posted by: Robert on December 14, 2005 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, I see Charlie/Cheney etc. has a new nom de plume as "Robert." I suppose he felt he needed a new alias after soiling the Cheney name for good with his thread spamming.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

"I'm not Charlie" in 3, 2, 1....

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINK

Who is Charlie?

Posted by: Robert on December 14, 2005 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK

The section of legislation referred to is here, assuming the always-erratic Thomas legislation site link holds up. It seems to refer more to recruiting intelligence sources than to observing American citizens.

Posted by: tbrosz on December 14, 2005 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

So long as they're only watching folks in public areas, why does it matter? Anyone has the right to watch us at anytime when we're in public. In fact, anyone has the right to film us while we're in public, without our permission.

They're not just watching in public areas. The linked article begins "A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House..." -- i.e they're spying inside private churches and houses of worship.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

It doesn't just seem to, it does. Here's the relevant section:

"Section 503 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-359) granted Defense intelligence personnel a very limited exemption from Section 552a(e)(3), i.e., the exemption is limited to a single `initial assessment contact outside the United States.' Current counterterrorism operations highlight the need for greater latitude for assessing potential intelligence sources, both overseas and within the United States. Amending the Privacy Act to give Defense intelligence officers the same protection enjoyed by CIA when assessing and recruiting sources should serve to protect these officers and shield their operations."

Posted by: ac on December 14, 2005 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINK

>They're not just watching in public areas. The linked article begins "A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House..." -- i.e they're spying inside private churches and houses of worship.

Whoa! Maybe they're already here.

Hmm.... I bet the DoD guy was the one in the muumuu. That one always did look out of place among the Quakers.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on December 14, 2005 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

Quakers. Mahdi Army. Close enough.

Posted by: Clyde Tolson on December 14, 2005 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

It was never a secret - I found it right here.

Posted by: Robert on December 14, 2005 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK


AL: We should do everything we can do to stop the terrorists before they attack again and murder another five thousand Americans as the terrorists did on 9/11.

It was actually just under three thousand (including Americans and others) poor souls who lost their lives on 9/11. Or about 1/10th the number of persons who starved to death today in the world. About 30,000 died yesterday too. And 30,000 more tomorrow. But I guess there's nothing we can do to stop that, huh?


Posted by: jayarbee on December 14, 2005 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

Quakers. Mahdi Army. Close enough.

I well remember the terrible slaughter when the Quakers took Khartoum and murdered Chinese Gordon.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK

We're uncovering a nest of amish suiciders.

Posted by: Clyde Tolson on December 14, 2005 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINK

We should do everything we can do to stop the terrorists before they attack again and murder another five thousand [sic] Americans as the terrorists did on 9/11.

Everything we can? Like, perhaps, catching Osama bin Laden? Too bad that that seems to be beyond the abilities of the Bush regime....

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINK

Hey Robert,
You want to post the relevant text from the law that you believe gives DOD the power to conduct domestic surveilance or whatever you think it does? Cause you're not looking too credible at the moment.

Posted by: ac on December 14, 2005 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK

>We're uncovering a nest of amish suiciders.

Hey, have you ever stopped to think of the quantity of fertilizer they have on hand, what with all those horses and livestock? I shudder to imagine the carnage caused by a few wagon-bombs of cow manure.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on December 14, 2005 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK

Really, ignore Robert. He's Cheney. He's a thread spammer and not worth engaging in discussion by adults. He'll try to respond to ac by posting every law there is in the US to "prove" his point.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

"I well remember the terrible slaughter when the Quakers took Khartoum and murdered Chinese Gordon."

They were in need of a serious opium fix...which they pried away from his cold, dead hands.

Posted by: Clyde Tolson on December 14, 2005 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

It's kind of funny. The 9/11 Commission just finished tearing our domestic security system a new one for not doing enough to protect us, or sharing enough information between agencies.
Posted by: tbrosz

is flanders suggesting that the 9/11 terrorists et al would show up to legal, constitutionally protected free speech demonstrations?

even for a dipshit like tbrosz, that's pretty fucking stupid.

Posted by: Nads on December 14, 2005 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

Any guess on who gets to play the role of Frank Church after the Plame Scandal finally brings down the presidency next August?

Seems like we as a nation have managed to go through the whole Vietnam 10-year cycle (from Tonkin bay to Nixon exit) in just under 3 and a half years. A new record!

This time instead of fabricating an incident, we fabricated the potential for an incident(WMD).

That's progress- making the same mistakes every 30 years but making them faster and more nasty.

Posted by: patience on December 14, 2005 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

he 9/11 terrorists et al would show up to legal, constitutionally protected free speech demonstrations?

Posted by: Nads on December 14, 2005 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

They would if that made them peace protesters and immunized them from police investigation.

--------

Quakers. Mahdi Army. Close enough.

Posted by: Clyde Tolson on December 14, 2005 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, if they checked out only Islamic religous groups - that would be racism. Adding the Quakers means they aren't racially profiling.

Posted by: Mcaristotle on December 14, 2005 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINK

Seems like we as a nation have managed to go through the whole Vietnam 10-year cycle (from Tonkin bay to Nixon exit) in just under 3 and a half years. A new record!

Sure seems like the Left has been repeating itself word for word, although the fact of a volunteer army instead of a draft leaves some of the anti-military rhetoric a little flat.

BTW the Truth Project web site can be found here.

Posted by: tbrosz on December 14, 2005 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

Nads:

I don't think anyone mentioned 9/11 terrorists. The military interest is in groups and people who are interacting with military recruiters and military facilities. Under some situations, observing them may be well within the rights of the military. Again, we seem to be concerned with four dozen incidents out of fifteen hundred.

Posted by: tbrosz on December 14, 2005 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK

I wonder if I'm on "candid camera" myself, having marched in antiwar protests in both Dallas and L.A.

As for Tbrosz and others, what you meant to say is that we are talking about four dozen currently known incidents...

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on December 14, 2005 at 2:29 AM | PERMALINK

"Seems like we as a nation have managed to go through the whole Vietnam 10-year cycle (from Tonkin bay to Nixon exit) in just under 3 and a half years. A new record!"

Okay, but when we're done with the Church Commission Redux, we can skip the resurgence of Disco and Scandinavian Pop Singing bands and move seamlessly into the Punk era.

Posted by: Clyde Tolson on December 14, 2005 at 2:40 AM | PERMALINK

Socratic: The news organization obtained a list of fifteen hundred incidents, of which a few dozen seemed to be a problem. Unless the list was severely edited before it was passed to the reporters, this is just the latest artificial crisis.

If you want to imagine that there are thousands of incidents nobody has ever heard of, fine. Won't make a very convincing news story, though.

Posted by: tbrosz on December 14, 2005 at 2:47 AM | PERMALINK

Under some situations, observing them may be well within the rights of the military. Again, we seem to be concerned with four dozen incidents out of fifteen hundred.
Posted by: tbrosz

when do you suggest I get concerned? when YOUR personal civil rights are violated?

Posted by: Nads on December 14, 2005 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINK

tbroz,

So if it only happened a few times, then it's okay? Just an aberation . . . Won't happen again. Your privacy is secure. Couldn't happen to me. No way.

Posted by: DevilDog on December 14, 2005 at 3:00 AM | PERMALINK

This articule really opened my eys. I look at things defferently now

Posted by: tltltl on December 14, 2005 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

Wonder if they're going after the Reverend Fred Phelps and his anti-gay protests at funerals for soldiers killed in Iraq.

Posted by: bad Jim on December 14, 2005 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINK

DevilDog:

Do any of you ever bother to ask yourself any questions about these things when they pop up?

Like, what were the nearly 1,500 incidents that MSNBC decided weren't worth making part of this story? If they weren't the violations of privacy that the four dozen incidents specifically called out were, then what were they?

Also, who tossed this document over MSNBC's transom, and why?

Posted by: tbrosz on December 14, 2005 at 3:25 AM | PERMALINK

tbroz,

I don't know who tossed in the MSNBC's transom, but I'm glad they did. So what if there were 1,500 false alarms. Does that mean the real spying was alright? You still haven't answered my question, however. If 48 bonfide incidents of the DOD spying on U.S. citizens isn't a problem, when does it become a problem? At 49? Never?

Posted by: DevilDog on December 14, 2005 at 3:34 AM | PERMALINK

I think they are using an exception that lets them investigate any threat to a DoD asset - and they have to maintain the database so they don't check out the same people multiple times - and engage in harassment.

Posted by: McAristotle on December 14, 2005 at 4:21 AM | PERMALINK

we can skip the resurgence of Disco and Scandinavian Pop Singing bands

Um, Clyde, where exactly have you been hiding for the last 3 years? Outside the spiderhole here, we've been listening to nothing but Annie, Jens Lekman, Kings of Convenience, Scissor Sisters and the Go! Team.

Posted by: brooksfoe on December 14, 2005 at 6:02 AM | PERMALINK

Lovely. Especially now that the even more insane Patriot Act will make it easier to arrest citizens for protesting Frat-Boy appearances or even attending them:

The Secret Service is authorized to charge suspects with breaching security or disruptive behavior at National Special Security Events, but only if the president or another person under the protection of the service is in attendance, according to a legislative summary.
The bill adds language prohibiting people from "willfully and knowingly" entering a restricted area "where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting." The measure also applies to security breaches "in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance," according to the bill.
Penalties for such violations would increase from six months to a year in prison.

Plus there are fun new provisions that pretty much allow the FBI to obtain a secret order to look at and into anything, without having to show any connection between the private records they want to examine and suspected terrorism.

Givin' freedom to the world... cause we ain't usin' it anymore.

Posted by: R. Porrofatto on December 14, 2005 at 8:08 AM | PERMALINK

The first rule of effective terrorism is not to show your hand ahead of time.

Public protesting is showing your hand.

Where's the logic?

Posted by: Guy Banister on December 14, 2005 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

>The Secret Service is authorized to charge suspects with breaching security or disruptive behavior at National Special Security Events, but only if the president or another person under the protection of the service is in attendance, according to a legislative summary.

Hmm, what exactly is a "National Special Security Event"? Any official event where someone under SecServ protection attends? If so, maybe we could see some wingnuts put away for protesting events that ex-Pres Clinton attends.

>Where's the logic?

It's reverse-psychology terrorism! See, the terrorists get on all the worthless terrorist watchlists that everyone knows are worthless. Then when they actually do something, it's a complete surprise!

Posted by: MJ Memphis on December 14, 2005 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

I guess Posse Comitatus is no longer valid? Oh wait the Coast Guard and Northern Command seem to think so.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/Factcards/PosseComitatus.html
http://www.northcom.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.factsheets&factsheet=5

Posted by: ET on December 14, 2005 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

US group exercising constitutional rights

no doubt something is being done to rectify those pesky 'constitutional rights'.

Posted by: linda on December 14, 2005 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

Clyde,

Be a sport and tear yourself away from that computer and climb back on top...

Posted by: Jedgar on December 14, 2005 at 8:45 AM | PERMALINK

Amusing thread to wake up to...Rad Racer and Clyde, thanks for the laughs.

Posted by: shortstop on December 14, 2005 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

I'm Cheney.

Oops, I let it slip.

Posted by: Robert on December 14, 2005 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

I think I will wait until some actual facts are known before pronouncing judgment
Hey! Who let the non-moonbat in?

So, after terrorists who had been residing in our country killed 3000 or so of our citizens, our government has seen fit to keep on eye on "suspicious groups". Imagine that.

No evidence that the government has broken any of it's rules, no friggin nothing but say critics. But hey, you're moonbats, right? So any wild assed conspiracy theory is enough send you into whine mode.

I love you guys, you're better than the comics.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

What's this "our government" business, nut? Are you a US citizen?

Posted by: shortstop on December 14, 2005 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

Oh man, the more I think about this the funnier it is. No need for facts around here.

The Democrats have no positions on where they want to take America. Their entire platform is based on knee-jerk opposition to whatever Republicans do, say critics.

See, I can be a newspaper reporter, too!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

Whenever the government does something like spying on its own citizens , it is essential that the news media not say anything definitive like "this is similar to COINTELPRO in the 1960s" or "this is against the law." Those kinds of declarative, factual statements have no place in the news.

Great deference should be given to the Department of Defense all the time. When have those guys ever done bad stuff? After all, their job is to defend people! Duh! Wouldn't want to question them!

Anyway, whatever Lawrence di Rita says should be passed onto the people watching or reading the news without comment. Or else it's liberal bias and Washington Post editor John Harris says that's destroying the credibility of the news media.

Posted by: Kelly Davis on December 14, 2005 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney:"Perhaps the "logic" would be that peace-protestors are among the highest-value recruitment targets (as opposed to their other kind of targets) by terrorists looking for otherwise innocuous citizens ala Jose Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir after such recruitment)."

Thank you, Cheney, for this perfect example of wingnut "thought." Americans who exercise their Constitutional rights are naturally the people most likely to become terrorists! Because from your point of view the only real American right is to get rich.

The terrorists have won! The terrorists have won!

Posted by: Ace Franze on December 14, 2005 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK


Good news. One of the things Americans learned after 9/11 is we CANNOT allow terrorists to hide in our midsts. We should do everything we can do to stop the terrorists before they attack again and murder another five thousand Americans as the terrorists did on 9/11. If liberal anti-war groups are not working with the terrorist they have nothing to worry about. The only reason they have to worry is if they are aiding and abetting the enemy.
- Al

Actually it was less than 3,000 deaths, Al. But when people make comments like this, it is obvious to me they know nothing about the origins of the American Republic or about constitutional law. The Nazis also told the Jews in Poland that they had nothing to worry about, as long as they weren't subversive. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled if they knew Americans had become so ignorant and so willing to cede their freedoms for some cold comfort against the nebulous threat of "terra" that Bush and his cronies use to cow ignorant Americans. I really fear for the future of this country when I read crap like this.

Concerning this news about domestic spying, this Bush Administration becomes more Nixonian every day. I only hope it ends in the same manner...

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on December 14, 2005 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

>Perhaps the "logic" would be that peace-protestors are among the highest-value recruitment targets (as opposed to their other kind of targets) by terrorists looking for otherwise innocuous citizens ala Jose Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir after such recruitment).

Of course, Jose Padilla was a convict who underwent a jailhouse conversion. Which is a much more fertile recruiting ground for extremists. Do you have any real examples of peace protestors being recruited into terrorist groups?

Not that they wouldn't be high value *if* they could be recruited. I know I'd never suspect one of the middle-aged to elderly Quaker anti-war protestors I saw this morning of being Al Qaeda. But that is a big, big, big "if".

Posted by: MJ Memphis on December 14, 2005 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

"The Democrats have no positions on where they want to take America. Their entire platform is based on knee-jerk opposition to whatever Republicans do, say critics.

See, I can be a newspaper reporter, too!"

I kinda liked MSNBC's recent "Bush lives in a bubble, say critics" line of stories better. We can't let Bush's rating rebound too much.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on December 14, 2005 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

People forget that all of the 9/11 hijackers were Quakers...Iraqi Quakers.

Posted by: art hackett on December 14, 2005 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

Had the Bush administration in the past given us any reason "not to jump to conclusions" that they're doing something bad, such a "cautious" stance might be warranted today. However, given that every time they've pulled a stunt like this, their actions have turned out to be worse than one could have guessed, even when you think the worst of them, I think it's fairly valid to condemn this off the bat. The problem with tbrosz isn't that he's shilling for the Bush administration. The problem with tbrosz is that he is shilling for what is essentially an immoral policy enterprise.

Posted by: Constantine on December 14, 2005 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

We can't let Bush's rating rebound too much.

Don't worry, Freedom Fighter. You can't turn toast back to white bread; Bush is done.

Posted by: Ace Franze on December 14, 2005 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

"The terrorists have won! The terrorists have won!"

If the liberals succeed in convincing Americans that we have lost or can't possibly win, then the terrorists have indeed won.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on December 14, 2005 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Poor weaseling, especially for you, Cheney.

Posted by: Ace Franze on December 14, 2005 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

Comedy is hard, isn't it FF?

Posted by: Ace Franze on December 14, 2005 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

"Don't worry, Freedom Fighter. You can't turn toast back to white bread; Bush is done."

Actually, I think Bush will beat Hillary by a landslide in 08.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on December 14, 2005 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

Is anyone really surprised by this?

Posted by: Mark on December 14, 2005 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

Is anyone really surprised by this?

Posted by: Mark on December 14, 2005 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, I think Bush will beat Hillary by a landslide in 08.
The burning question is: Will Hillary! run on a platform of reincarnating HillaryCare?

I can't wait for her to take that 95 liberal rating into an election. "No really, she's moderate!"

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

Comedy is hard, isn't it FF?

Yeah, especially when the poor kid has no talent.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 14, 2005 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

Note to self...remember to lock up my secret 400 page documents before going home at night.

As long as MSNBC has it, they ought to publish it on the web so we can all look at it and decide for ourselves the extent to which it crosses the line.

Anybody have a good reason why they wouldn't post it up?

Posted by: Red State Mike on December 14, 2005 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

"Yeah, especially when the poor kid has no talent."

You're right; you don't.

Posted by: Ace Franze on December 14, 2005 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

Hmmmm, conspiracy nut keeps forgetting to answer my question about whether he's a US citizen. Strange!

Posted by: shortstop on December 14, 2005 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Why should it be any more surprising that Islamic extremists are often found at mosques than that Christian extremists are often found in churches?

As for the resemblance, I've seen a lot of people who look like Padilla. And I personally received a visit from two Homeland Security officers following a tip to check me out because I vaguely resembled someone on the most-wanted list.

Of course, I was a few inches too short, so after asking my height the officers decided not to pursue the investigation any further.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on December 14, 2005 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

This is minor stuff. Itll be tough to prove but the real concern will be peace activists, anti-military types and various other anarchists seemingly falling victim to auto accidents, falling down stairs, suicide, drug overdoses and the like. You think them watching you is a problem? Ha, wait til they start killing you, then you have problems. Oh, and woe to those that do go about trying to expose and prove it. They may find themselves tumbling down a flight of stairs also.......

Posted by: steve duncan on December 14, 2005 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

they are spying on Quaker peace activists

is there no end to the waste of tax dollars?

Posted by: lilybart on December 14, 2005 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, the almightly Wikipedia - After learning of the methods of posting information on that site, much salt will be required and a great deal of cross checking from this point forward.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 14, 2005 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

This is minor stuff. Itll be tough to prove but the real concern will be peace activists, anti-military types and various other anarchists seemingly falling victim to auto accidents, falling down stairs, suicide, drug overdoses and the like.

Peace activist doesn't equate with anarchist, but anyway. If our Dear Leaders continue in the Nixonian theme, they'll just implement Liddy's plan to kidnap peace activists, drug them, drive them to Mexico and hold them there.

Posted by: shortstop on December 14, 2005 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

Good lord, the current leadership of the Republican Party is the Nixon wing! I mean, half the guys in the administration worked for frigging Nixon. One would like to think that having worked for Nixon would be a disqualifier (or at least a hurdle) for anyone seeking a position in the White House, but in this administration it appears to be a freaking resume builder!

Unbelievable.

Posted by: theorajones on December 14, 2005 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

YOU LIBS DON'T GET IT!!! If CLINTON WASN'T SO FOCUSED ON GETTING ORAL SEX IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND SELLING US OUT TO THE CHINESE, the FBI would not have to investigate groups like the quakers. AL QUEDA could easily infultrate the Amish and launch strikes in our homeland. DIDN:T YOU PEOPLE SEE "WITNESS" where Harrison Ford hid among these people COMPLETELTY UNDETECTED. George W. Bush will fight the terrorist wherever they are -- in IRAQ OR PENNSYLVANIA. Thank god he won't cut and run like you freedom hating liberals.

Posted by: Patton on December 14, 2005 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Funny, now that Charlie's posting as Cheney, Roberts seems to have disappeared.

Funny that.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on December 14, 2005 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

"freaking resume builder"

They figure that if they had not been caught the first time, then, what the hey.............

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 14, 2005 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Oh no! They worked for Nixon! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!

I agree: don't judge folks by their ideas and capabilities, but by their previous employer.

Posted by: Gideon on December 14, 2005 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

Oh no! They worked for Nixon! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!

I agree: don't judge folks by their ideas and capabilities, but by their previous employer. Posted by: Gideon on December 14, 2005 at 10:20 AM

Most employers do that. Are they out of line?

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on December 14, 2005 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Speaking of recycling Vietnam rhetoric, it didn't take long for somebody to invoke the name of Richard Nixon. Remember, Vietnam was "Nixon's War."

Posted by: tbrosz on December 14, 2005 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Well, I guess Nixon would qualify as a (formerly) dangerous Quaker.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on December 14, 2005 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

What self-respecting terrorist would be so idiotic as to attend a protest rally? If they really are that stupid, we have nothing to worry about.

Posted by: brooksfoe on December 14, 2005 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, tbrosz, it became Nixon's war the nanosecond that he lied that he had a secret plan to end it.

Posted by: Ace Franze on December 14, 2005 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney, I think it's unfair to write a Wikipedia entry and then quote it here as if that proves the point. I looked all over the indictment of Padilla and darned if I could find any mention of a dirty bomb. But,that's ok,he probably had time toload it on a truck to Syria right before he got arrested.

Tennis, anyone?

Posted by: The Blancmange on December 14, 2005 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

YOU LIBS DON'T GET IT!!! If CLINTON WASN'T SO FOCUSED ON GETTING ORAL SEX IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND SELLING US OUT TO THE CHINESE, the FBI would not have to investigate groups like the quakers. AL QUEDA could easily infultrate the Amish and launch strikes in our homeland. DIDN:T YOU PEOPLE SEE "WITNESS" where Harrison Ford hid among these people COMPLETELTY UNDETECTED. George W. Bush will fight the terrorist wherever they are -- in IRAQ OR PENNSYLVANIA. Thank god he won't cut and run like you freedom hating liberals.
- Patton

I really hope that posts like these are someone's idea of satire of the hard right-wing. If this sort of knuckle-dragging idiocy is for real, this country has real problems. Yeah, all liberals hate freedom. Right. Brilliant. You really nailed us there. Don't like freedom one little bit...

And Bill Clinton really "sold us out to the Chinese". Yup. Another brilliant, historically well-informed comment. Do a little research my friend - It was Saint Ronnie and Poppy Bush who presided over the biggest clandestine transfer of nuclear technology secrets to the Chinese (i.e. the W-88 warhead), see the website below:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/021601a.html

Also, George W. Bush has completely mortgaged this country and our children's future to the Chinese and Saudis, by running up egregious amounts of debt and writing piles of bad checks that they refuse to pay for.

Regarding this moron's false assertions - a good friend of mine has said, "How can we ever agree on matters of opinion, when we can't even agree what the facts are????"

How sad.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on December 14, 2005 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Remember, Vietnam was "Nixon's War."

I thought Bob Dole said it best when he said that World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam were all "Democrat Wars."

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 14, 2005 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

GO AHEAD AND LAUGH AT THE FBI!!! But terrorists could easily hide among quakers and the Amish and use it as a bse of operation. It happened not only in the movie Witness but multiple movies have shown how easy it is for someone LIKE OSAMA BIN LADEN OR OTHER TERRORIST to hide among the Amish. In For Richer or Poorer Kirstie Alley and Tim Allen do it. Jim Belushi did it in Barn Raisin, Jamie Kennedy did it in Plowed." Even Method Man and Red did it in You Be Buggin.

DO YOU STUPID LIBS THINK AL QUEDA DOESNT HAVE ACCESS TO OUR POPULAR CULTURE, AND COULD RENT THESE FILMS????

Posted by: Patton on December 14, 2005 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Hmm... wasn't Eisenhower the first pres to get the US militarily involved in Vietnam?

Posted by: MJ Memphis on December 14, 2005 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

There is no reason for the DoD to care about war protests, since the protests do absolutely nothing to stop US aggression. I have been to several protests and they are a complete waste of time. The best thing to do is go to your local Congressional representative's campaign rallies and encourage the people there to join, or have their children join, the military to support the Congressperson's position of support for the war. Only when white, upper middle class children become the major casualties in the Iraq War, will popular support erode to the point of changing our politics. Until then, it is BTK as usual for the militant hegemony machine we call our homeland.

Posted by: Hostile on December 14, 2005 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Stupid paranoid fools haven't learned a damn thing in 30+ years.

It reminds me of a Doonesbury strip, which has two old protestors reading about COINTELPRO and all the Nixon BS and goes something like this (warning: rough approximation ahead):

Guy 1: Can you believe all this crazy, paranoid infiltration garbage?
Guy2: I know, it's amazing.

Guy 1: I mean, we thought we were so powerless and ineffectual against the powers that be, but it turns out we had them shaking in their boots!

(Both with very satisfied grins):
Guy 1: Mighty gratifying, isn't it?
Guy 2: Yep.

Posted by: mroberts on December 14, 2005 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

It's kind of funny. The 9/11 Commission just finished tearing our domestic security system a new one for not doing enough to protect us, or sharing enough information between agencies.

This is the DOD we are talking about. I can't believe that it's legal for the DOD to engage in
domestic spying\law enforcement.

Isn't this the FBI's job ?

Posted by: Stephen on December 14, 2005 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut keeps forgetting to answer my question about whether he's a US citizen
I'm a Mexican illegal immigrant. Good thing they don't too close here at the DNC or I might lose my job and have to work at WalMart.

On the other hand, WalMart's healthcare package is better than we have here at the DNC...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Funny, now that Charlie's posting as Cheney, Roberts seems to have disappeared.

Yeah, I don't know why he bothers with the pseudonyms. I can detect that lunatic's writing style tics after only a few sentences.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Would like to comment on this thread, but the black helicopter hovering over chimney has blown down Santa and plastic reindeer again.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook on December 14, 2005 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Don't forget W's lackluster performance with the plane the Chinese kept, way back before "everything changed."

" . . . enemies foreign and domestic." This has been building for a long time, and on multiple fronts. From the military itself we have substantiated reports going back a few years in California. Remember too the NYC legal protesters outside the Carlisle Group being asked, as they were hauled off "What do you read? Where do you get your news?"

One can't ever forget the Quakers in Colorado being deemed a terrorist group way back when, and of course the cookie munching peace group from MMoore's movie.

After the maximum money is concentrated, consolidation of power accelerates. Pograms, suspension of habeus corpus, we're seeing it already writ small. Will it take Cheney to steal '08 and lock up your grandma incommunicado for you to care?

Posted by: Cassandro on December 14, 2005 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Don't forget W's lackluster performance with the plane the Chinese kept, way back before "everything changed."

Lackluster is a kind word for it. I prefer to say he kow-towed to them.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

It's kind of funny. The 9/11 Commission just finished tearing our domestic security system a new one for not doing enough to protect us, or sharing enough information between agencies.

Of course, the US military is not and is constitutionally forbidden to be our domestic security system tbrosz is well informed enough to know this, and intellectually dishonest enough to pretend he doesn't. Shame on you, tbrosz.

Posted by: Gregory on December 14, 2005 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

I agree: don't judge folks by their ideas and capabilities, but by their previous employer.

Who a person chooses to work for and associate themselves with is a sign of their ideas and capabilities.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Why is it so hard to admit that you're not an American, conspiracy nut? It's not like there's anything wrong with your actual nationality. Some of your countrymen and -women are among the best posters here. Where's the percentage in pretending you're a US citizen?

Would like to comment on this thread, but the black helicopter hovering over chimney has blown down Santa and plastic reindeer again.

The DoD is making war on Christmas!

Posted by: shortstop on December 14, 2005 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

So, after terrorists who had been residing in our country killed 3000 or so of our citizens, our government has seen fit to keep on eye on "suspicious groups".

Hold on, c.n. -- you're supposed to be a strict constitutional constructionist, remember?

This comment isn't as funny as you accusing the Republicans and G8 of Marxism, though.

Posted by: Gregory on December 14, 2005 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

The DoD is making war on Christmas!

Ah, the War on Christmas -- finally a war the wingnuts feel safe enlisting in.

Though if George Bush ran the war pretty soon we'd be invading Yom Kippur....

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Don't forget W's lackluster performance with the plane the Chinese kept
Right on! Bush should have been getting campaign contributions from the Chinese, not irritating them over some plane of ours they crashed into.

Wooden Al knows, the Chinese are great donors.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

>The DoD is making war on Christmas!

No, they just identified Santa as a "person of interest." Happens all the time- he really should shave off that beard, I think that is what causes all the reports.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on December 14, 2005 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

No, they just identified Santa as a "person of interest." Happens all the time- he really should shave off that beard, I think that is what causes all the reports.

Indeed. The redistribution of wealth in the form of toys also seems to piss off the right. They like to be the ones to decide which of the poor are "deserving."

Posted by: shortstop on December 14, 2005 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

CN,

Did you have the US Ambassador to Canada over for dinner? He was up there telling PM Martin to back off criticizing Bush during the Canadian elections. He talked about it being a "slippery slope" and to cease and desist. Geez, we would never interfere in another country's elections, now would we. Love the Ambassador's credentials. Speaker of the House in South Carolina for years. Now, he is up north blasting the Martin administration.

"You are our #l trading partner, so watch it buster" Great diplomatic skills. Oh, here comes the crapola about their Ambassador Wilkin's blasting us for not paying the lumber fines and for disregarding enviromental issues. Not the same as meddling in elections.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 14, 2005 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Hold on, c.n. -- you're supposed to be a strict constitutional constructionist, remember?
It seems to have slipped that tiny mind of yours already that there is no proof of any violation. You get that, and it'll change your mouthbreather whine-fest into a serious problem.

And I heard Dan Rather has some memos with proof...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

>Indeed. The redistribution of wealth in the form of toys also seems to piss off the right. They like to be the ones to decide which of the poor are "deserving."

Of course, if he doesn't let the elves unionize, he might find himself under fire from both sides of the spectrum. I hear ol' St. Nick follows the Walmart style of management.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on December 14, 2005 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

Did you have the US Ambassador to Canada over for dinner?
Naw, we used to go bowling but the current employee regulations here at the DNC forbid fraternizing with anyone from the Administration.

We can praise Islamofascists all we want, but we are required by contract to hate Republicans.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

So, after terrorists who had been residing in our country killed 3000 or so of our citizens, our government has seen fit to keep on eye on "suspicious groups".

That's a job for DOJ\FBI, not DOD.

Posted by: Stephen on December 14, 2005 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

A terminological precision matter: COINTELPRO was the FBI and, I think, people working out of the White House doing things to screw up varous left wing groups - placing people inside them to act as agents provocateurs, actions to reduce trust of people in the groups, etc. Separate from that, it came out that the military was spying on legal domestic political activities, the same as described in this post. These were two separate scandals, and the response to them was different at the time. My recollection is that there was greater outrage about the military's spying, and that laws were passed to ban it. I think only policies were put in place to control the sabotage activities, since, while considered objectionable, they targeted a smaller group of people who were (a) much further outside the mainstream, and (b) who were more likely to be black than your randomly selected individual from society at large.

Posted by: paul on December 14, 2005 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

No, they just identified Santa as a "person of interest." Happens all the time- he really should shave off that beard, I think that is what causes all the reports.

And here I thought Santa was the one keeping the list of who's naughty and nice. Turns out it's the Department of Defense.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

CN,

Did you fall overboard by any chance on your 7 day Caribbean cruise? Perhaps out of professional curtesy, the sharks gave you a pass.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 14, 2005 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

That's a job for DOJ\FBI, not DOD.
Right, terrorism is a law enforcement problem. I see you are part of the 48% that voted for Kerry.

So tell me, after the first Trade Tower bombing, how well did that law enforcement mode work to prevent another one?

Democrats: Why make new mistakes when there are so many old ones to repeat!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

It seems to have slipped that tiny mind of yours already that there is no proof of any violation. You get that, and it'll change your mouthbreather whine-fest into a serious problem.

That "no proof of any violation" standard seems to be applied rather conveniently, doesn't it? When it comes to accusations of malfeasance against the Bush regime we need absolute iron-clad proof. But when it comes to matters like taking this country into a war then mere unfounded suspicions will do.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

But when it comes to matters like taking this country into a war then mere unfounded suspicions will do.
The anti-war folk lost this argument 3 years ago. If this statement were supportable, you wouldn't have.

Democrats: Why look ahead when you can re-fight old battles!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

So tell me, after the first Trade Tower bombing, how well did that law enforcement mode work to prevent another one?

Why not ask Bush? He was the one in charge when the World Trade Centers were destroyed. It was his responsibility to keep them safe, a responsibility he failed at.

Actually, the law enforcement method worked quite well. We caught and convicted those responsible of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, and they sit in jail still. The 2001 attack was conducted by completely different people and a completely different organization, though, so even jailing the 1993 bombers would do nothing to "prevent" the next attack. The premise of the question is false.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Right, terrorism is a law enforcement problem. I see you are part of the 48% that voted for Kerry.

What's next ? Military strikes against suspected terrorists in Dallas ?

Doemstic intelligence gathering is not a job for the military- talk about "mission creep".

These are US citizens on US soil.

Posted by: Stephen on December 14, 2005 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Just like to point out that in the same thread we've had the infamous "chickenhawk" argument that Stefan always pulls out, and the equally infamous "shame on you" assault employed by Gregory.

Have you guys outsourced your work? You're mailing it in today.

As for me, I want to see the 400 page document, rather than take someone else's word for what it says. NBC doesn't have a security clearance, so there's no reasonable excuse for them not sharing it.

Posted by: Red State Mike on December 14, 2005 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

One has to wonder why the RW trolls are defending this so voraciously.

Bush has done very little to actually DEFEND this nation against terrorist attack. Wide open borders....cargo holds on airliners still un inspected...infrastructure protection nil and underfunded...the list goes on and on.

What he HAS managed to do is pass legislation aimed at AMERICAN CITIZENS and their right to dissent and protest. He has also managed to effectively circumvent Posse Comitatus. AND has also placed PRIVATE ARMED MILITIAS on the streets of America (Blackwater in New Orleans) while at the same time disarming the citizens with mandatory confinscations of private firearms. With nary a peep from the fucking cowards that claim to be representing our interests, like the Kerry puke and the equivicating bitch Hillary.

Want a wake up?? Read up on what these fascist assholes can do if they call a "red alert" due to another "terrrrist attack" waged by the "evil doers".

When is the American public going to wake up to what the Monkey Boy and the Dick are up to??? Well, it appears we are in a deeper slumber than the Germans were when Adolph was in the kitchen.

Posted by: Pissed Off American on December 14, 2005 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

The anti-war folk lost this argument 3 years ago. If this statement were supportable, you wouldn't have.

If this was three years ago, that might be relevant. But since time marches on we're now in the present day, where the majority of the country feels invading Iraq wasn't worth it. Republicans are far out of the mainstream since less than 40% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

CN,

As "Conservatives sink in a sea of conformity", glad to see you are still working at the DNC.

Wow, -14 C up there - wear your ear muffs as well as your blinkers you picked up at Woodbine.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 14, 2005 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Just like to point out that in the same thread we've had the infamous "chickenhawk" argument that Stefan always pulls out, and the equally infamous "shame on you" assault employed by Gregory.

Hey, as soon as they start enlisting to support the war they claim is so important I'll stop calling them chickenhawks. But as long as they keep acting like cowards I'll keep pointing it out.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

>Republicans are far out of the mainstream since less than 40% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq.

Yeah, if only we could convince certain Dems (*cough* Joementum) to act accordingly.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on December 14, 2005 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

We caught and convicted those responsible of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, and they sit in jail still

Uhhh, yea...after they detonated their bomb. Oh boy, the threat of arrest. That ought to deter future suicide bombers.

The only diff between 1993 and 2001 is they didn't use enough bomb in 93. The outcome if they had would have been orders of magnitude worse than 2001. The whole building, no one getting out, coming down immediately. We got lucky, but kept on doing the law enforcement approach.

Posted by: Red State Mike on December 14, 2005 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

""What's next ? Military strikes against suspected terrorists in Dallas ?""

Posted by: Stephen

Substitute the word "Crawford" for the word "Dallas" and I'm all for it.

Posted by: Pissed Off American on December 14, 2005 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK
Right, terrorism is a law enforcement problem.

Unless the Insurrection Act is invoked, policing the civilian population of the United States while they are within the United States is a law enforcement, not military, task.


Posted by: cmdicely on December 14, 2005 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

To amplify, in the argument between the law enforcement approach and the more military approach, I say "yes" to both.

Posted by: Red State Mike on December 14, 2005 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

As for me, I want to see the 400 page document, rather than take someone else's word for what it says. NBC doesn't have a security clearance, so there's no reasonable excuse for them not sharing it.

Did you apply this same reluctance to take someone else's word to the Administration's claims about Iraqi WMD or their supposed successes in fighting terrorism? When Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld say something is your first response always "I won't believe them until I see the supporting documentation"?

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, the law enforcement method worked quite well.
Oh, then that second attack was prevented? I guess I missed that. Those terrorists must have been quaking in their boots in fear of the US legal system.

Did Ramsey Clark defend those guys?

But really, your concern for reaction instead of proaction with terrorists is touching.

Democrats: We're the reactive progressives!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK
So tell me, after the first Trade Tower bombing, how well did that law enforcement mode work to prevent another one?

It was 100% successful in preventing another foreign terrorist attack within the United States until an administration whose leaders in multiple contexts announced to subordinates and others that they were tired of hearing about terrorism and wanted to focus on other priorities came into office.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 14, 2005 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Did you apply this same reluctance to take someone else's word to the Administration's claims about Iraqi WMD or their supposed successes in fighting terrorism?

I had inside info that led me to believe there were WMDs over there. We trained for NBC, and we didn't believe it was as a show.

Of course your argument cuts both ways. Do you apply the same reluctance to accept administration claims of WMDs to NBC's claims from the documents?

Posted by: Red State Mike on December 14, 2005 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut continues to post the most rock-bottom dumbass comments I have ever seen on this site.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 14, 2005 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, then that second attack was prevented? I guess I missed that.

No, it wasn't prevented because Bush and not Clinton was in charge in September 2001. Bush, the guy who ignored the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo and did nothing, nothing at all to prevent the attack. The same Bush who appointed Ashcroft to head the DOJ, who then cut the FBI's counter-terrorism budget, and the same Bush who ignored all of Clinton's and Gore's warnings that Al Qaeda was dangerous and that he'd better get to work right away on fighting them.

Those terrorists must have been quaking in their boots in fear of the US legal system.

Since those terrorists were planning to commit suicide I doubt they were that vulnerable to deterrence.

But really, your concern for reaction instead of proaction with terrorists is touching.

OK, so what proactive steps did Bush take between January and September 2001 to prevent the 9/11 hijackings? Hell, what proactive steps did he take after receiving the August memo? None, that's what. He didn't do a damn thing, and as a result 3,000 Americans died because he was too lazy to do any work on his vacation.


Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

It was 100% successful in preventing another foreign terrorist attack within the United States until an administration whose leaders in multiple contexts announced to subordinates and others that they were tired of hearing about terrorism and wanted to focus on other priorities came into office.

Two things. First, a whole slew of attacks were carried out on the US after 1993, killing hundreds, to include the African Embassies and the USS Cole, i.e., sovereign territory. Not sure why you don't care about that.

Second, planning was well underway for the WTC attacks back before 1999.

Hmmm, third thing. We got lucky catching the guy crossing into Wash state to execute the millenium bombings. Luck is not a good strategy.

Posted by: Red State Mike on December 14, 2005 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

until an administration whose leaders in multiple contexts announced to subordinates and others that they were tired of hearing about terrorism and wanted to focus on other priorities came into office.
Properly stated, that would have read:

until an administration whose leaders behaved exactly the same as the previous administration came into office

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

He didn't do a damn thing, and as a result 3,000 Americans died because he was too lazy to do any work on his vacation.

For the last time - what part of WORKING VACATION don't you understand?!?!

Posted by: Charlie on December 14, 2005 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut continues to post the most rock-bottom dumbass comments I have ever seen on this site.

You must be skipping Advocate For God's writings.

Posted by: Red State Mike on December 14, 2005 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

You know, I LIKE this argument that Bush has been successful preventing any further terrorist attacks since 9/11.

I hope many of you have noticed there have been no extraterrestrial attacks as well. I humbly submit to you that it hasn't been easy warding off these attacks singlehandedly, but SOMEONE has to do it. And surely the lack of such attacks is a glowing indicator of the success of my efforts.

Posted by: Pissed Off American on December 14, 2005 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Uhhh, yea...after they detonated their bomb. Oh boy, the threat of arrest. That ought to deter future suicide bombers.

The 1993 bombers weren't suicide bombers. They weren't even Al Qaeda, since Al Qaeda didn't exist in 1993.

Moreover, the first World Trade Center attacks were in February 1993, one month after Clinton took office. While it occured on Clinton's watch, had Bush (the competent one) taken any "proactive" military steps the previous four years against Islamist suicide groups? No, he hadn't, because in 1993 the threat from such groups was new. It was a surprise.

Since the attacks weren't deterrable, the only thing to do then is to find and arrest those responsible so they won't do it again. The attacks were carried out by Egyptians based in New Jersey. Unless you think Clinton should have invaded either Egypt or New Jersey, what other option besides tracking them down and arresting them do you think he should have pursued?

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

I doubt they were that vulnerable to deterrence.
What's this!? A glimmer of understanding? Quick, close the blinds, we don't want none of that understanding shit going on here.

OK, so what proactive steps did Bush take between January and September 2001 to prevent the 9/11 hijackings?
There's actually a reasonable answer to this, but there's no one here to be a receptor of a reasonable answer. So I'll just point out that he carried on the Clinton plan!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist: conspiracy nut continues to post the most rock-bottom dumbass comments I have ever seen on this site.

And the hilarious thing is that conspiracy nut obviously thinks his rock-bottom dumbass comments are just soooooooooooo very, very clever!

There are Bush-bootlickers, and then there are cretinous morons, and conspiracy nut is in the latter category.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 14, 2005 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

The only diff between 1993 and 2001 is they didn't use enough bomb in 93. The outcome if they had would have been orders of magnitude worse than 2001. The whole building, no one getting out, coming down immediately. We got lucky, but kept on doing the law enforcement approach.

Again, it was carried out by Egyptians based in New Jersey. Besides law enforcement, what other approach is there against such foes? Bomb Hoboken? Occupy Egypt?

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

What's this? Animist is so impressed by his own comments that he replies to them? Well, at least one person liked it...

I love lefties.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

The only diff between 1993 and 2001 is they didn't use enough bomb in 93. The outcome if they had would have been orders of magnitude worse than 2001. The whole building, no one getting out, coming down immediately. We got lucky, but kept on doing the law enforcement approach.

The law enforcement approach worked quite well from February 1993 until 2001, when Clinton left and Bush came into office. They had to wait until the incompetent Bush was in office to carry out their plan. Since Republicans always claim the lack of any domestic attack since 91/11 as proof of Bush's success (while of course ignoring the spectacular failure of 9/11 itself) I'll claim the eight years that Clinton prevented a domestic terror attacky by Islamists as an even greater success.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

>Bomb Hoboken?

"Bomb" is such a harsh word. We prefer to call it "intense urban renewal".

Posted by: MJ Memphis on December 14, 2005 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

OK, so what proactive steps did Bush take between January and September 2001 to prevent the 9/11 hijackings? Hell, what proactive steps did he take after receiving the August memo? None, that's what. He didn't do a damn thing, and as a result 3,000 Americans died because he was too lazy to do any work on his vacation.
- Stefan

Exactly. I also love how Bush sat motionless for seven minutes in a classroom after his Chief of Staff told him, "American is under attack". What brilliant leadership! What quick, decisive action by the presumptive head of the free world!

I also like how the coward disappeared to go hide in a cornfield in Nebraska after the attacks on 9-11, despite the fact there was no evidence that there was any threat at all to him personally. What chutzpah! What courageous personal fortitude!

Hell, this nimrod is a gutless chicken who isn't competent enough to run a Texaco station....

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on December 14, 2005 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

For the last time - what part of WORKING VACATION don't you understand?!?!

The part where he does any work. Bush's vacations would make an Italian playboy blush in shame if he was discovered being as lazy.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Two things. First, a whole slew of attacks were carried out on the US after 1993, killing hundreds, to include the African Embassies and the USS Cole, i.e., sovereign territory. Not sure why you don't care about that.

I don't recall saying I don't care about that. Its pretty obvious that the military approach has not stopped attacks on but outside of the United States, including on US military and government facilities overseas.

Second, planning was well underway for the WTC attacks back before 1999.

No doubt. All the terrorist planning in the world does no harm if they aren't able to successfully execute.

There is no evidence that the military approach has stopped terrorists from planning attacks within the United States.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 14, 2005 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Unless you think Clinton should have invaded either Egypt or New Jersey, what other option besides tracking them down and arresting them do you think he should have pursued?"


Posted by: Stefan


Lets see....other options...

Well, he could have been thoughtful enough to use a proper device instead of a cigar. Its always bothered me that he could be that insensitive.

Oooh, oops, sorry, we are talking about terrorism. Hmmmm, well, has history already forgotten about the Hart/Rudman Report?? You know, the one Bush IGNORED?

Hmmmm....lets see...eenie meenie miney moe...soiled blue dress...three thousand dead americans.....now what should we impeach for....eenie meenie miney moe....

Posted by: Pissed Off American on December 14, 2005 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

So I'll just point out that he carried on the Clinton plan!

Quite the opposite: he trashed the Clinton plan, cut counter-terrorism funding, refused to do anything about the terrorist threat and instituted the Bush plan, which was: cross your fingers and hope you get lucky.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Two things. First, a whole slew of attacks were carried out on the US after 1993, killing hundreds, to include the African Embassies and the USS Cole, i.e., sovereign territory. Not sure why you don't care about that.

When did I say I didn't care about that? The point of the thread, though, is domestic anti-terrorism efforts. Try to keep up.

Second, planning was well underway for the WTC attacks back before 1999.

Yeah, it was. So?

Hmmm, third thing. We got lucky catching the guy crossing into Wash state to execute the millenium bombings. Luck is not a good strategy.

Odd, that seems to be the Bush strategy in catching Osama bin Laden and in funding (or should I say, under-funding) domestic counter-terrorism efforts such as port security.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

CN & Red Mike, how's that hunt for Osama Bin Laden?

Seems the military response hasn't done a damn thing, has it?

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on December 14, 2005 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

the Bush plan, which was: cross your fingers and hope you get lucky.
What I said, the same as the Clinton plan. And as you pointed out, Bush did it cheaper!

CN & Red Mike, how's that hunt for Osama Bin Laden?
You know, you're right. If we would have captured bin Laden (so Ramsey Clark could defend him), by this time World Peace would have been achieved. Dogs would be lying down with cats, it would have been beautiful.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

What I said, the same as the Clinton plan. And as you pointed out, Bush did it cheaper!

If the murder of 3,000 Americans, the loss of four planes and the destruction of seven office towers in New York can be called cheaper. Nice to see the value Republicans place on American lives.

You know, you're right. If we would have captured bin Laden (so Ramsey Clark could defend him), by this time World Peace would have been achieved. Dogs would be lying down with cats, it would have been beautiful.

Wasn't that what the Right said would happen after we caught Saddam?

Again, nice to see that Republicans don't care about avenging the deaths of 3,000 Americans.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

For the last time - what part of WORKING VACATION don't you understand?!?! Posted by: Charlie on December 14, 2005 at 11:48 AM

What part of 3000 Americans died because HE WASN'T WORKING ON HIS VACATION do you not understand?

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on December 14, 2005 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

08:00CST - 02 Feb 2001

Hart/Rudman -- 21st Century Commission Recommends New Anti-Terror Cabinet Agency

A bipartisan panel led by former US senators Warren B. Rudman and Gary Hart on Wednesday called for the creation of a Cabinet-level agency to assume responsibility for defending the United States against the increasing likelihood of terrorist attacks in the country. The commission making the recommendation included high-ranking military and former Cabinet secretaries. Their report warned bluntly that terrorists probably will attack the US with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons at some point within the next 25 years.

The commission proposed a complete redesign of the National Guard to provide the proposed new "Homeland Security Agency" with U.S.-based troops to combat those who threaten a nation that for more than two centuries was isolated from attack by two oceans. The panel outlined a far-reaching reorganization of the Pentagon, State Department, National Security Council and other agencies, saying that they have become bloated and unfocused. The report even urged Congress to streamline its own committee structure to keep interference in national security matters at a minimum.

The commission acknowledged that implementing the recommendations would be difficult. Congress would have to pass legislation authorizing the changes. If all of the recommendations were to become law, it would mark the most sweeping renovation of US defense and foreign policy operations since approval of the landmark National Security Act of 1947. Like that measure, which refocused World War II-era agencies on the challenges of the Cold War, the commission's plan is intended to ready the nation for starkly different threats in a new century.

The panel, in what many are calling a radical departure from "conventional wisdom," recommended folding the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Customs Service, Border Patrol and Coast Guard into the new "Homeland Security Agency." It said that the National Guard should be "reorganized, properly trained and adequately equipped" to cope with natural disasters and attacks on U.S. targets by weapons of mass destruction. The commission said that the National Guard should be relieved of the responsibility of participating in overseas deployments and concentrate on security at home.

The report said: "The combination of unconventional weapons proliferation with the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the US homeland to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century. The risk is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine US global leadership. In the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or integrated governmental structures."

US armed forces now are organized and trained to have the capability to fight two major overseas wars at the same time, a contingency the commission called "very remote." The report recommended abandoning the two-war strategy to permit the Pentagon to prepare for situations like the recent wars in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, which it characterized as far more likely. The panel said that both the State Department and the Pentagon "need substantial bureaucratic remodeling."

http://www.emergency.com/2001/21stcentury_rpt.htm

Posted by: Pissed Off American on December 14, 2005 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

"You know, you're right. If we would have captured bin Laden (so Ramsey Clark could defend him), by this time World Peace would have been achieved. Dogs would be lying down with cats, it would have been beautiful."

Posted by: conspiracy nut


Damn, instead we just got gay whores doing sleepovers in the White House.

Posted by: Pissed Off American on December 14, 2005 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: Second, planning was well underway for the WTC attacks back before 1999.

The incoming Bush administration was repeatedly warned at the highest levels by their counterparts in the outgoing Clinton administation of the danger from Al Qaeda, and then received numerous warnings throughout 2001 about the likelihood of Al Qaeda attacks within the US, up to and including the August 2001 briefing, and the Bush administration did nothing. Indeed, they cut back on antiterrorism efforts.

Just because "planning was underway" for the 9/11 attacks before Bush came into power is absolutely no reason why the Bush administration could not have stopped the attacks. For example, if Bush had responded to the August 2001 briefing (which warned of Al Qaeda "activities consistent with preparations for hijackings") by ordering reasonably heightened security measures throughout the commercial air travel sector, the attacks might have been stopped even on September 11.

Red State Mike: We got lucky catching the guy crossing into Wash state to execute the millenium bombings. Luck is not a good strategy.

We also "got lucky" when FBI field agents in 2001 discovered some of the activities of the 9/11 attackers, including suspicious persons being trained to pilot aircraft, and attempted to get the attention of higher-ups in the FBI, including writing memos with language like "this guy seems like someone who would fly a plane into the World Trade Center".

The difference is, that in 1999, the Clinton administration took warnings of an impending attack seriously, and was on "red alert", so when a car full of explosives was "luckily" intercepted at the border, they knew exactly what they had found, and took appropriate action that shut down the entire plot, including not only the planned bombing of LAX but other attacks as well, including multiple bombings of bridges and other sites in and around NYC.

In contrast, the "lucky" discoveries of the 9/11 plotters' activities in 2001 went ignored and were not acted upon by the Bush administration, which had put anti-terrorism efforts on the back burner in spite of the numerous warnings they received.

It's true that "luck is not a good strategy." But what is a good strategy is to set yourself up to be able to take advantage of "luck" when you get it. In 1999, the Clinton administration did so, and the "Millennium" terrorist attacks were thwarted. In 2001, the Bush administration failed to do so, and the 9/11 attacks succeeded.

There is just no evading the fact that the Bush administration's negligence, from the top down, from January through August 2001 allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed when they might easily have been stopped -- and in my opinion, probably would have been stopped had Al Gore become president and continued the antiterrorism focus and policies that the Clinton administration had developed by the end of its second term.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 14, 2005 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

If the murder of 3,000 Americans, the loss of four planes and the destruction of seven office towers in New York can be called cheaper.
You moonbats probably hit your knees every night thanking a non-existent God that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. The rest of us? We hit our knees thanking God that Al Bore wasn't in charge at the time.

But please, carry on with your delusion that Bush is responsible for 9/11. It helps put Republican's in office, and this country needs more Republicans in office.

Wasn't that what the Right said would happen after we caught Saddam?
Hmmm, you'll have to link that quote for me; doesn't ring a bell.

Again, nice to see that Republicans don't care about avenging the deaths of 3,000 Americans.
Again, it's nice to see Democrats worried about reacting.

Democrats: We are the new reactionaries, and proud of it!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Very well laid out and argued, Secular Animist.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Morph
CN & Red Mike, how's that hunt for Osama Bin Laden?

Seems the military response hasn't done a damn thing, has it?

When's the last time Bin Laden made a big videotaped speech? Been a year. Exhorted his troops onwards? Made a showing? We haven't caught him, since he's probably hiding in Pakistan and its harder to invade Allies than it is enemies. But marginalized? Yep.

Posted by: Red State Mike on December 14, 2005 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Quite the opposite: he trashed the Clinton plan, cut counter-terrorism funding, refused to do anything about the terrorist threat and instituted the Bush plan, which was: cross your fingers and hope you get lucky."


Posted by: Stefan


And it WORKED by golly!!!! He hit the TRIFECTA!!!!

Posted by: Pissed Off American on December 14, 2005 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

The incoming Bush administration was repeatedly warned at the highest levels by their counterparts in the outgoing Clinton administation of the danger from Al Qaeda
I can hear it now: "And hey, you guys really need to do something about al Qaeda, because we haven't been".

Democrats: We like to leave our problems for Republicans!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut, you are really, really, really stupid.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 14, 2005 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, you'll have to link that quote for me; doesn't ring a bell.

Sure, if you'll find me the Democrat who said "If we would have captured bin Laden (so Ramsey Clark could defend him), by this time World Peace would have been achieved. Dogs would be lying down with cats, it would have been beautiful."

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

You know, you're right. If we would have captured bin Laden (so Ramsey Clark could defend him), by this time World Peace would have been achieved. Dogs would be lying down with cats, it would have been beautiful. Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 12:11 PM


CN, your breathtakenly stupid. According to your "logic" we shouldn't do anything because "dogs and cats" won't lie down with each other and we wouldn't achieve paradise.

Do you have a fucking point to any of your posts?

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on December 14, 2005 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: I can hear it now: "And hey, you guys really need to do something about al Qaeda, because we haven't been".

Suppose the outgoing Clinton officials told the incoming Bush administration officials exactly that: "We haven't handled the Al Qaeda threat very well, and as a result of our failure it has grown into the most serious and dangerous threat facing America, and you guys will have to deal with it."

What should the Bush administration have done then?

What the Bush administration actually did, was to deprioritize and defund the efforts against Al Qaeda that the Clinton administration did have going, and ignore warnings that a major attack inside the US was being planned and was imminent.

Even if one believes that the Clinton administration's efforts against Al Qaeda were a failure, that does not excuse the Bush administration's negligence. On the contrary.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 14, 2005 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

CN,

See that Stephan Harper, who is the Conservative running for Prime Minister of Canada in January, just announced that, even though he had supported Bush and the war, will not send Canadian troops to Iraq if he is elected. Instead he will put the defence money into air lift capabilities.

Rotten, lousy pinko turncoats, you have up there. And you call yourself an ally. Remember "Canadian Bacon"; we do have the capabilities to invade. Leslie Neilsen and Alec Trabek can be influenced to lead the "Take Back Canada Brigade".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 14, 2005 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

When's the last time Bin Laden made a big videotaped speech? Been a year. Exhorted his troops onwards? Made a showing? We haven't caught him, since he's probably hiding in Pakistan and its harder to invade Allies than it is enemies. But marginalized? Yep.

Well, hurray! We've stopped bin Laden from making speeches! Guess that War on Terror is a success after all!

Get real: do you honestly believe that just because he hasn't released a video that he's not fully capable of communicating with his followers and planning anything he wants to? You have no idea if he's exhorting his troops onward or not, since you have no idea where he is or what he's doing. And that even if he was marginalized, don't we still owe it to our murdered coutrymen to capture him and put him on trial?

We haven't caught him, since he's probably hiding in Pakistan and its harder to invade Allies than it is enemies.

What, are you arguing for a law-enforcement approach now? Shouldn't we use your beloved military approach and invade Pakistan?

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

I think we hit the limit on CN's thinking because now he's resorted to non sequitors.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on December 14, 2005 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, we seem to have put him in a bit of tailspin.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Secular,

I am not arguing that the 2001 attacks couldn't be stopped. I also think you (and everyone else on this blog) tend to give way more power to the President than he has. Clinton wasn't there by the side of the customs guy exhorting him on as he inspected the car. Bush wasn't there telling the FBI to look away when the threads were pointing to an attack. Even if Bush scaled back anti-terrorism $$$, he did not turn it off. A lot of what the WTC commission found at fault had little to do with $$$ and a lot to do with procedure and information sharing, stuff that was legacy from the prior administration.

For the Washington escapade, we did not have actionable intel to tell us to look for that guy at that time with that intent. We searched a car, based on the custom's inspector's skill in detecting suspicious characters, and rolled them up from there. Thank goodness.

Posted by: Red State Mike on December 14, 2005 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Get real: do you honestly believe that just because he hasn't released a video that he's not fully capable of communicating with his followers and planning anything he wants to?

Yes I do. How does he communicate? If electronically, we listen. On the net? We monitor. Via letters? duplicates get made, word gets out. He was a very public figure, often using speeches to get the word out. See the pre-election speech he made to influence our 2004 vote. We know roughly what he does or doesn't do.

Nice Article.

don't we still owe it to our murdered coutrymen to capture him and put him on trial?

That or make him dead. But punishment and preventing future attacks are related but different goals. we can be patient for punishment.

What, are you arguing for a law-enforcement approach now? Shouldn't we use your beloved military approach and invade Pakistan?

Read my earlier post. I'm for both. But when you do borth, you get in situations where outward looking (military) and inward looking (law enforcement) cross, ergo this thread's original topic.

Posted by: Red State Mike on December 14, 2005 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Serves the goddamn hippies right.

Posted by: mjk on December 14, 2005 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut, you are really, really, really stupid
What, do mean I wasn't supposed to point out that al Qaeda developed itself into the organization it was during the Clinton administration? I wasn't supposed to point out that the Democrats allowed a festering problem to mature? And then left it for the grown ups to deal with?

Hold on, I'll call you a waaah-bulance.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Do you have a fucking point to any of your posts?
All the time. Your inability to find that point is not my problem.

But just to help you out, in this case it is that bin Laden isn't the only terrorist in the world. If one says, for example, that there is a GWOT, one does not then concentrate on one individual.

I think we hit the limit on CN's thinking
Right, you guy's massive intelligence has really devastated me.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Hold on, I'll call you a waaah-bulance.

Jeez, guys. That was pretty good. You have to give C-nut credit for thinking up a pretty good comeback all on his own.

Not a lot of credit, but just a little credit.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 14, 2005 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

The upside: President Hillary can use M1 tanks to to bust up AEI and Heritage foundation meetings.

Posted by: HeavyJ on December 14, 2005 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Uh Pale, waah-bulance is not new.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Uh Pale, waah-bulance is not new.

It was the one thing you contributed in which someone discovered merit and you chose THIS moment to start being honest?

Posted by: shortstop on December 14, 2005 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

It was the one thing you contributed in which someone discovered merit and you chose THIS moment to start being honest?

When cornered, the WM blog thread troll lashes out, baring stunted yellow fangs, and attempts to bite friend and foe alike.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 14, 2005 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Back by popular demand after 350 years, it's the profiling & persecution of Quakers! Starring President Bush as Charles II! Never forget 1661!

Back then:

1656: Quakers imprisoned and deported in Boston
1660: Fox arrested as a dissenter after King returns; Peace Testimony written, Fox released after 6 weeks
1661: Fifth monarchy uprising to restore Parliament suppressed by King Charles II, 5000 Quakers imprisoned on suspicion as collaborators
1661: Quaker founder George Fox arrested as a dissenter after King returns; Peace Testimony written, Fox released after 6 weeks
1661: Corporation Act requires all mayors etc. to communicate with the Church of England
1662: Quaker Act, penalizing those who refuse to take oaths
1664: Fox refuses an oath; imprisoned for two years. Margaret Fell also imprisoned 1664-1668.
Conventicle Act, 1664: banning non-C-of-E religious meetings. Many Friends imprisoned.
1667: after Fox released from prison: 5 monthly meetings established in London

Now:

Atlanta, May 2003:

The Atlanta Police Department routinely places under surveillance anti-war protesters and others exercising their free speech rights to demonstrate, police officials acknowledged this week.

Colorado, December 2004:

. . . As one of the plaintiffs in the Denver Spy Files case, [the Quaker organization American Friends Service Committee] learned that the DPD Intelligence Bureau had long monitored the groups Colorado activities, had falsely labeled it as criminal extremist, and had compiled an extensive file, complete with photographs and names, addresses, and license plate numbers of participants in AFSC events. Documents detailing AFSC events appear in a DPD Intelligence Unit file titled JTTF Active Case List.

Florida, December 2005:

WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a threat and one of more than 1,500 suspicious incidents across the country over a recent 10-month period.

Posted by: pj_in_jesusland on December 14, 2005 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

When cornered, the WM blog thread troll lashes out, baring stunted yellow fangs
I brush regularly, you know. The reason I pointed that out is that I would hate to think of the self-loathing you would have undergone for giving props when you later learned the truth.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK
We haven't caught him, since he's probably hiding in Pakistan and its harder to invade Allies than it is enemies.

Since, at the time of the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan was a principal backer of the Taliban and a major state sponsor of and collaborator with al-Qaeda, the question is why was bin Laden's most powerful partner named an "ally" rather than an "enemy" in the War on Terror, enabling him to seek shelter in that partner's territory?

Certainly, once 9/11 occurred, and given the inclination of local regimes to protect the perpetrators, its hard to argue against the proposition that a military approach to deal with the perpetrators of 9/11 seeking shelter with regimes friendly to their cause was clearly required.

OTOH, spouting a lot of rhetoric about how we won't distinguish between sponsors and shelterers of terrorists and the terrorists themselves, then designating a major partner of al-Qaeda as an "ally" in return for some short-term assistance but then throwing up your hands and saying "can't do anything, their our ally" when that partner decides that they won't let us actually hunt al-Qaeda leaders where they have clearly gone to ground seems rather...inconsistent, to say the least.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 14, 2005 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

I would hate to think of the self-loathing you would have undergone for giving props when you later learned the truth.

Praise was freely given. You can go back to drinking vinegar and howling at the neighbors.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 14, 2005 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Did you all see the latest news from that liberal bastion Eugene OR?

A Eugene woman has told police that she killed her 17-month-old daughter to protect the baby from spirits.
Gotta be careful of those Bible-thumping Christians trying to convert ya, though.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK
Again, it was carried out by Egyptians based in New Jersey. Besides law enforcement, what other approach is there against such foes? Bomb Hoboken? Occupy Egypt?

If we take the Bush approach post-9/11 as a guide, we would invade New Jersey first, and then shortly divert forces for a massive attack on Israel.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 14, 2005 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

So let me get this straight:
The world greatest military this world has ever seen unleashed is labelling Quakers as a "threat"?

HUH? You've got to be kidding me!


If the freaking DOD is so freakishly afraid of the Quakers, maybe we should have the Quakers take over the GWOT. Hell, I bet they'd do a better of job of it than Bush and Rummy.

G'yad, our government's patho's knows no bounds.

Posted by: sheerahkahn on December 14, 2005 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

You can go back to drinking vinegar and howling at the neighbors.
Here I am, engaged in an honest and humane effort to enlighten my fellow man and spare him the heartbreak of later self-loathing; and look at what I get.

The neighbors all moved away, though, too much howling.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

OTOH, spouting a lot of rhetoric about how we won't distinguish between sponsors and shelterers of terrorists and the terrorists themselves, then designating a major partner of al-Qaeda as an "ally" in return for some short-term assistance but then throwing up your hands and saying "can't do anything, their our ally" when that partner decides that they won't let us actually hunt al-Qaeda leaders where they have clearly gone to ground seems rather...inconsistent, to say the least.

Now I know that you know it's all more complicated than that, what with Musharraf's position walking the razor's edge between the fundies (the real fundies with AK-47s and beards and turbans) and the west. And you're flossing over the status of the territories in the Pak northwest.You're just jerking chains here.

Posted by: Red State Mike on December 14, 2005 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

What, do mean I wasn't supposed to point out that al Qaeda developed itself into the organization it was during the Clinton administration? I wasn't supposed to point out that the Democrats allowed a festering problem to mature? And then left it for the grown ups to deal with?

Are you familiar with the history of Saddam Hussien ? Have you seen the picture of Saddam and
Rumsfeld shaking hands ?

Do you recall Bush Sr. funding the Afghan Mujahadeen ? Do you know that Osama started out
as an Afghan freedom fighter ?


Posted by: Stephen on December 14, 2005 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Al wrote:

"Good news. One of the things Americans learned after 9/11 is we CANNOT allow terrorists to hide in our midsts."


Aside from the fact that it's not their 'hiding' which hurts us...

We have to expose the Bush administration and their cronies. They've done more to harm us than any terrorists.


Al: "If liberal anti-war groups are not working with the terrorist they have nothing to worry about. The only reason they have to worry is if they are aiding and abetting the enemy."

Posted by: Al on December 14, 2005 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK


Of course, the violation of the Posse Comitatus law doesn't worry Al. Which is worse, terrorists who come from abroad to harm us or our own Preznit who violates the law to harm us?

Posted by: MarkH on December 14, 2005 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Are you familiar with the history of Saddam Hussien?
Given your comment, moreso than you are.

Do you recall Bush Sr. funding the Afghan Mujahadeen? Do you know that Osama started out
as an Afghan freedom fighter?

And I see here that a lot of things pass right over your head.

Democrats: Ignoring everything that doesn't harmonize with the voices in our heads!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Interestingly George Fox University (think Herbert Hoover) in Newberg, OR is considered conservative.

Glad to see CN hangs out at democraticunderground when he isn't hanging with Stephan Harper and the gang at Toryville.

Freedom cries, waah-burgers and a whine-ekin followed by a trip on an waahbulance.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 14, 2005 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Now I know that you know it's all more complicated than that, what with Musharraf's position walking the razor's edge between the fundies (the real fundies with AK-47s and beards and turbans) and the west.

Musharraf has never been on the side of "the west". Musharraf has always been on the side of Musharraf. Right now, Musharraf is preventing the US from taking action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan because he perceives a significant risk that al-Qaeda and their ideological allies will bring his regime down if he allows that, and no risk of US action -- not even anything as significant as witholding assistance his regime gets as a "major non-NATO ally" -- if he does not. So he rationally chooses to shelter al-Qaeda from US action because the Administration rhetoric about treating shelterers of terrorists no different than terrorists is hollow rhetoric with no substance.

And, see, the problem with bluster like this with no substance is once it is so clearly revealed as having no substance, it loses all credibility, and fails to function as a lever against other actors.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 14, 2005 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Glad to see CN hangs out at democraticunderground
I like to be informed as to the thinking, and reasoning behind that thinking, for all sides of an issue. But the moonbats at DU didn't invent waah-bulance either. It's an oldie, folks, get over it.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Did I miss something by being away?

Did that preacher guy get arrested as a result of a DoD Obbo which found he had committed a treasonous offence, capital, it being a time of war, by his incitement to murder?

Wow!

I am sure cn can enlighten us about what his masters are up to.

Posted by: maunga on December 14, 2005 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Have you seen the picture of Saddam and
Rumsfeld shaking hands ?

Stefan, maybe you could take it down off your wall and scan it in for us.

Posted by: Red State Mike on December 14, 2005 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, maybe you could take it down off your wall and scan it in for us.

Actually, it's my screen saver.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Rummy and Saddam:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Posted by: pj_in_jesusland on December 14, 2005 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

What, do mean I wasn't supposed to point out that al Qaeda developed itself into the organization it was during the Clinton administration? I wasn't supposed to point out that the Democrats allowed a festering problem to mature? And then left it for the grown ups to deal with?
- CN

Which grown-up are you referring to? Al Gore? Unfortunately, President Gore was the victim of judicial activism by the SCOTUS, in the first successful coup d'etat in American history. You certainly couldn't be referring to two-time drunk driver Dick Cheney or the drunken college cheerleader George W. Bush? Talk about immature sphincters.

Clinton tried to take out bin Laden in 1998 with cruise missiles and nearly got impeached for trying. Tom (the BugMan) Delay got up and gave a frothy speech on the floor of the House about how Clinton had abused his power, yada, yada yada. Do you blame Clinton for not trying again? Clinton received weekly briefings on al-Qaeda, which the Bushies discontinued when they seized power. (A sign of their maturity, perhaps?) John Ashcroft went before Congress two weeks before 9-11 and proposed huge funding cuts for counter-terrorism. Then, of course, we have the PDB of August 6th, that more or less screamed out that bin Laden was going to attack the U.S., and President Bunnypants was too busy clearing brush and jogging to do anything about it.

Go ahead and deceive yourself. The historical record is very clear on which administration dropped the ball on terrorism.

Facts are stubborn things...

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on December 14, 2005 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Can you say "COINTELPRO"?

No, but I can say Canada. I'll even get free health care, and moronic America will still pay my Social Security.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on December 14, 2005 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: Clinton wasn't there by the side of the customs guy exhorting him on as he inspected the car. Bush wasn't there telling the FBI to look away when the threads were pointing to an attack.

No, but in 1999 the Clinton administration was holding daily meetings at the White House of all relevant agency heads and administration officials who dealt with counter-terrorism, exhorting them to back to their agencies and "shake the trees" to turn up anything at all that might be a clue that would help them stop any potential "Millennium" attack -- which warnings and "chatter" had alerted them was in the works. And it was in this atmosphere that the interception of the explosives-laden car at the Canadian border was immediately recognized for what it was, and dealt with in such a way that the whole Millennium scheme -- a plan for multiple major attacks in LA and NYC -- was "rolled up" and completely thwarted.

In contrast, in the analagous situation in 2001, where numerous warnings and "chatter" were coming in to the Bush administration about an impending major attack, high officials of the Bush administration did not go on "red alert", and in fact did nothing, were dismissive of people like Richard Clarke, back-burnered and defunded domestic counter-terrorism efforts, and ignored the warnings. And it was in this atmosphere that the discovery by FBI field officers of the presence and activities of the 9/11 attackers was ignored by Washington, and the attacks succeeded.

Had the Bush administration in the summer of 2001 been in the same "red alert" mode, and acted as did the Clinton administration in 1999, then the discovery of the 9/11 hijackers' activities in the summer of 2001 would have been immediately recognized for what it was, red flags would have gone off all over the place, and that would have been the end of the plot.

You have stated before that you are not a Bush bootlicker, but only someone who is a mental slave of scripted right-wing programming that "Bush can do no wrong" and "Clinton could do nothing right" can fail to see that in the case of the Millennium plot, the Clinton administration did the right things, got it right, and prevented those attacks; and in the case of the 9/11 plot, the Bush administration was negligent and inattentive, and didn't do the right things, and failed to prevent those attacks, which they almost certainly would have prevented had they acted exactly as the Clinton administration did in 1999.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 14, 2005 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I see that asshole conspiracy nut has successfully trolled another thread and turned it into pure shit. And thanks loads to all of you for responding to him as if he were arguing in good faith. It never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on December 14, 2005 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

I am not arguing that the 2001 attacks couldn't be stopped. I also think you (and everyone else on this blog) tend to give way more power to the President than he has. Clinton wasn't there by the side of the customs guy exhorting him on as he inspected the car. Bush wasn't there telling the FBI to look away when the threads were pointing to an attack.

Largely incorrect. When the Clinton White House received warnings of a millenium terrorist plot Clinton responded by ordering a series of daily Principals Committee meetings in which the principal heads of the major law enforcment and intelligence agencies involved would get together and report on their progress in stopping the threat. Clinton and Gore were shaking the trees everyday, urgently demanding to know if any progress was made and, if none had been, demanding to know why. They lit a fire under their people, and as a result their people put pressure on the subordinates to find and stop the plot.

By contrast, Richard Clarke first requested a Principals Committee eeting to address the Al Qaeda threat on January 25, 2001. No such meeting, however, was held until September 4th, 2001, over eight months later. If Bush had been at all on top of the job he would at least have had some meetings, at least demanded to know what was going on. But we know what he did: absolutely nothing.

Even if Bush scaled back anti-terrorism $$$, he did not turn it off.

No, they didn't turn it off. That's one point in their favor: that they didn't completely eliminate all anti-terrorism funding. Well, bully for them. What a high standard to aim for.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

And thanks loads to all of you for responding to him as if he were arguing in good faith. It never ceases to amaze me.

Yes, but sometimes he's a useful idiot. His constant lies allow me to put up longer refutations of his lies and get more facts out, which I wouldn't bother to do if he wasn't around.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

in the first successful coup d'etat in American history
Right, that's why the US public rose up in arms against the subversion of the election process... oh wait...

But, you moonbats keep on believing it.

Clinton tried to take out bin Laden in 1998 with cruise missiles
Clinton knew those tents were empty. You are, however, getting dangerously close to something important here, I suggest you bear off.

The historical record is very clear on which administration dropped the ball on terrorism.
Yep, the voices in your head are perfectly clear on the matter. In the real world, however...

And thanks loads to all of you for responding to him as if he were arguing in good faith.
You know, Alek, I started off on topic and got led astray by the lefties. So, who's really trolling here?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

His constant lies allow me to put up longer refutations of his lies and get more facts out
And the voices in your head are working overtime, too, aren't they?

Here's your clue: There's no sense preaching to the moonbats here because you all share a brain. This is a real echo chamber, bud. Unless you think I'm learning loads from your drivel, you're wasting your time.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Not only did they ignore the Clinton administration's warnings, let's not forget the Bush Administration, even with a high incidence of terror alerts at the time, introduced the Visa Express program in May of 2001 to expedite visas for Saudi nationalsat least three of the 9/11 hijackers used this program to gain entry.

Posted by: R. Porrofatto on December 14, 2005 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I suppose my home is already on the list. Earlier this week we received a direct mail marketing piece in the mail from the US Army, complete with an offer for a free t shirt. Presumably the piece was directed to my two teen age children. I marked REFUSED in red on the label and put it back in my mailbox for the carrier to pick it up the next day.....

Posted by: karen on December 14, 2005 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

So tell me, after the first Trade Tower bombing, how well did that law enforcement mode work to prevent another one?

Europe had three 'terrorist' episodes during the last 50 years: IRA, Red Brigade, Bader-Meinhof. The Red Brigade and Bader-Meinhof Gang were dealt with through law enforcement and eliminated in a relatively short time with a minimal loss of life and liberty and property. The IRA insurgency was dealt with militarily by Great Britain, and lasted decades with quite a bit of death and loss of liberty. The conflict with the IRA is only now concluding.

If the US had used military powers to end the Symbionese Army insurgency in the US, it would probably still be going on today.

These 'modern' non-national militant 'terrorist' assaults on society should be instructive as to how the US should have dealt with Al Queda after 9/11. Instead, the US created an ideal totalitarian society in Iraq and Afghanistan by invading and occupying these countries, leaving the people to live in a deliberately created environment where terror rules.

The motivation of the Bush regime was probably to brandish the sword of war for public popularity, enrich the military industrial complex, and to secure rich oil lands in order to have enough fuel to fight future wars.

Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA to wage war against large industrial hegemonists. The US response to 9/11 was easily predictable to produce warlike terror in the Middle East, and the US has followed bin Laden's plan, probably better than he anticipated, destabilizing Iraq, uniting the Islamic world in its opposition to US militancy and economic support of Israel, and bleeding the US economy dry.

Americans, most of whom are like many commenters here, enjoy humiliating, torturing, mutilating, and murdering others in order to feel good about themselves and their nation's masculinity, have no notion of the horror of war and what it does to societies. For Americans, war is exciting and an opportunity to expand their economy, but if anything changed after 9/11, it was the idea the US is immune from retaliation and retribution from its many victims. This is what Osama bin Laden has taught the world, and is why the US has much to fear. However, our invincible military will be unable to protect us from individuals intent on inflicting us with harm, which should cause war pundits to pause and consider the law enforcement option, which neither destroys innocent lives or the rule of law or even whole societies.

It may not be too late for the US to renounce war and violence, begging our myriad victims for forgiveness, but time is certainly running out. When the time comes for the US comeuppance, most citizens are going to wish they had voted for peace. Perhaps than we can build the New Jerusalem.

Posted by: Hostile on December 14, 2005 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, it's my screen saver.

Heh

Posted by: Red State Mike on December 14, 2005 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile,

Americans, most of whom are like many commenters here, enjoy humiliating, torturing, mutilating, and murdering others in order to feel good about themselves and their nation's masculinity, have no notion of the horror of war and what it does to societies.

Go fuck yourself silly. Quit peddling your parody of an indignant liberal here.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 14, 2005 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know about that parody of an indignant liberal, Pale. There's really nothing in that comment (aside from the "like many commenters here" which may refer to us wingnuts, and the "New Jerusalem" thing) that I don't see on a regular basis here.

Unless you think most of the commenters on WM are parodies of indignant liberals.

I'd bet that Hostile is genuine moonbat.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

C-Nut,

Believe it or not, some of us liberals can actually think for ourselves. In fact, our internecine warfare on these pages is worse than the crap we throw at you guys.

My suspicion is that Hostile either actually believes that "All Americans" means, literally, each and every person regardless of whether they are conservative/liberal/don't give a damn either way or that Hostile just thinks we're all one entity.

Frankly, I'm not going to let someone denigrate me just because I'm an American. Hostile needs to distinguish which group he/she is identifying and then be specific because there are far too many liberals like myself working to fight against the use of torture.

Come on--it's a conservative troll using carefully parsed language designed to run liberalism down by using extreme language. I'll go out on a limb here and in a few minutes, you may or may not see a post from that idiot Norman doing exactly the same thing, only from a conservative viewpoint.

Hold on--I have to e-mail Norman and ask him to post something.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 14, 2005 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I see that asshole conspiracy nut has successfully trolled another thread and turned it into pure shit. And thanks loads to all of you for responding to him as if he were arguing in good faith. It never ceases to amaze me.

It always shames me when Alek does this. And yet...could it be a shame that will allow me to grow as a poster, as a human, as a political being?

And Hostile is so not for real.

Posted by: shortstop on December 14, 2005 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

PR,

Thanks a million man. Got ahold of my gal - took out the IED and replaced the IUD - And I was just about to go back to the Missionary position.

Got to get back to re-reading my pal Warren in the Spectator.

Posted by: Norman on December 14, 2005 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

It may not be too late for the US to renounce war and violence, begging our myriad victims for forgiveness, but time is certainly running out.

This is outrageous! Scandalous in its inception and misguided to the nth degree! Why, if I weren't drunk off my mother-loving ass and searching about for a jar in which to place my Father's kruggerands, I'd likely brain you with the severed head of a marmoset.

When the time comes for the US comeuppance, most citizens are going to wish they had voted for peace.

Listen to me and listen good--George W Bush has destroyed the old world order and put asunder the notion that the United States of this America is anything but a colossus bestriding the world. We need merely to squat and purge and entire regions of this globe will bow down to our will and cough up their natural resources and their cutest bikini models. Have you checked the stock market today? Booming! And all because we have a man in the White House who understands how to kick someone in the pants and walk away with the sweet smell of dollars affixed to his loafer.

Perhaps than we can build the New Jerusalem.

I'd settle for a new stadium in which to see the Jets, but nevertheless. Fear the new order of things, liberals. George W Bush is walking around with a fist full of courage and an eye on the prize.

And you wonder if I'm a parody of a parody's parody?

Posted by: Norman on December 14, 2005 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Come on--it's a conservative troll using carefully parsed language designed to run liberalism down by using extreme language.
I'm a conservative troll using carefully parsed language designed to run liberalism down. Granted, I try to do it from the outside poking in, and if Hostile is indeed a wingnut they're doing it from the inside poking out.

But Hostile is simply not more extreme than many commenters here. Which means that if it's parody, it's bad parody. But I don't see it, I'm still betting that Hostile is genuine moonbat.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Got ahold of my gal - took out the IED and replaced the IUD - And I was just about to go back to the Missionary position.

Too bad. It could have been explosive sex. I bet you would have seen fireworks and felt the earth move.

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

I'm surprised you allowed Norman a woman. Was that a slip up?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Which means that if it's parody, it's bad parody.

A parody of someone doing a bad parody of what was intended to be a parody but got parodied before it could dissolve into...parody.

Moonbattish enough for you?

And I suspect that you abandon your conservative beliefs whenever a nickel that can only be obtained through a frivolous lawsuit or government subsidies rolls your way.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 14, 2005 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you David

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 14, 2005 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

And I suspect that you abandon your conservative beliefs whenever a nickel that can only be obtained through a frivolous lawsuit or government subsidies rolls your way.
Hasn't happened yet. In my young adulthood when I qualified for food stamps, I didn't apply. Haven't feigned neck injuries after being rear ended a couple of times (but there's a hell of a story involving a rebuilt rear bumper in there). Don't know of any other such opportunities I've passed up, but since I don't look for them I just can't say.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

btw, has anyone heard about the Christmas Preservation Act? I've seen some spewings on some wingnut sites.

Posted by: dmon on December 14, 2005 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

The popular election of 2004 reelected Bush. Thus, most Americans support humiliation, torture, mutilation and murder of other peoples. I am sorry if I insulted you Mr. Rider, but the election results speak for themselves, as do the many torture advocates/apologists who comment here. The American personality type of BTK was born from Indian massacres, and it manifests itself within the majority still.

With apologies to Noam Chomsky, I consider myself to be Satan's assistant book keeper, accounting for all of America's sins against humanity. As an American, I think it is my duty to communicate America's crimes and America's true culture of militant hegemony.

My post was mainly about using law enforcement vs. the military to solve non-national terrorist threats. Like the majority of Americans who chose to obediently follow the belligerent hysterics of Bush, Mr. Nut and Mr. Rider have chosen to focus on my politics and rhetoric rather than on the history of how to solve such threats.

Posted by: Hostile on December 14, 2005 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Some of those people are a threat. Why shouldn't we keep tabs on them? It seems to me that "spying" is an awfully loaded word.

Posted by: Smithy on December 14, 2005 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Tbrosz, Tbrosz, Tbrosz.
When did you officially hand in your "I heart Libertarians" card?

Posted by: Tony on December 14, 2005 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Al says "If liberal anti-war groups are not working with the terrorist they have nothing to worry about. The only reason they have to worry is if they are aiding and abetting the enemy."

So, how about a national registry of gun owners? If gun-owners are not using guns to commit crimes, they have nothing to worry about.

Posted by: ervan on December 14, 2005 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

On one hand, the military should be aware of when and how they're going to be protested against, and if these are real threats.

On the other hand, there's a difference between knowing about a protest and investigating it. If the military wants to know if something is a threat inside the country, should they really be the ones investigating it?

Posted by: Crissa on December 14, 2005 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

On one hand, the military should be aware of when and how they're going to be protested against, and if these are real threats.

Why should they be aware of when and how they're going to be protested against? Why would anyone have such a right?

Posted by: Stefan on December 14, 2005 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Mr. Rider, there you go. Hostile is advocating treating international terrorists the same as home grown terrorists. Which means that, much to my surprise, he actually had an underlying point to the rhetoric.

What this means is that the comment was not done for rhetorics sake, which indicates that I was correct in judging Hostile to be genuine moonbat.

And for further proof, we look to the underlying argument; that international terrorists can be controlled the same as home grown terrorists. This is clearly not the case as we have no mechanism to prosecute terrorists from other countries and no control over whether state sponsors of terrorism prosecute their own terrorists. This drawing of parallels where no parallel exists is currently a popular mode of "argument" among lefties.

I should point out, for Hostile's benefit, that the US does treat its home grown terrorists as a criminal matter; and, as in the cases given, has been largely successful at that.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

That really should say "terrorists in other countries", not "from other countries".

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

"btw, has anyone heard about the Christmas Preservation Act? I've seen some spewings on some wingnut sites."

You call it spewing, I call it common sense. The House Republicans are planning on introducing a Christmas preservation act to keep the ACLU from suing towns that have public Christmas displays. I expect it will pass in a landslide.

Posted by: smithy on December 14, 2005 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Pakistan arrests suspected terrorists and does turn them over to the US for torture, I mean prosecution. The person who assassinated a CIA employee in Virginia was arrested in Pakistan, handed over to the US, tried, convicted, and put to death for his crime.

So, Mr. Nuts for Fascism, an international mechanism does exist to arrest and try non-state terrorist organizations and their operatives, and it could have been made much more effective had the US led the world in justice and decency. The reason the international mechanism for prosecuting suspected non-state terrorists has so much difficulty being adopted by all of the civilized world is because of US exceptionalism, which advocates torture and the death penalty despite our allies misgivings and refusal to participate. Many countries we would have to rely upon to investigate and arrest and turn over for trial suspected terrorists do not want to enable US barbarism. The violence hungry majority of Americans, like Mr. Nuts for Fascism, prevent international law enforcement from making the world safer so they can act out their desire to humiliate, torture, mutilate and murder other peoples.

Posted by: Hostile on December 14, 2005 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile
I'll give you this, you write nicely constructed sentences. Virtually content free, but nicely constructed.

Since you seem to be convinced that state sponsors of terrorism don't like to extradite to the US because of our barbarism, here's a few links for you to study. I'm certain that you can find some sites with more graphical representations by using Google.
Human Rights in Iran
Human Rights in Syria
Human Rights in Libya

And just for the fun of it, the 2001 report on Iraq. Human Rights in Iraq

But keep up the fine work, the regulars are convinced you're so far left that you can't be one of them; and getting that far left of this crowd is an accomplishment. Props.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile
You know, Saddam used to feed live people into wood chippers (feet first) and was hailed by neighboring countries as a man to look up to.

You're just pretty close to clueless.

But they are finely constructed sentences.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 14, 2005 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: You know, Saddam used to feed live people into wood chippers (feet first) and was hailed by neighboring countries as a man to look up to.

And while committing such heinous acts, not to mention "gassing his own people", Saddam received handshakes and sweet talk from Ronald Reagan's personal envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, and massive military and financial support from the Reagan and Bush I administrations, and all kinds of technical assistance towards developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons from US corporations with the explicit approval of the Reagan and Bush administrations.

You are beneath clueless. I referred to you previously as "rock stupid". That was incorrect. You are under the rock.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 14, 2005 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

I am concerned with human rights and justice in my country. When the US stops humiliating, torturing, mutilating, and murdering other peoples I will attempt to pursue justice in other parts of the world. Until then, I accuse you of being just like those you claim to want to bring to justice.

Regarding the other 'liberals' at this blog, they, like me, were fooled into voting for a war pig like Kerry in oppostion to Bush and his war. Unfortunately, Kerry and most Democratic politicians are just like their Republican counterparts. There really is no difference between them when it comes to US military hegemony and trillion dollar defense budgets. Perhaps you have not read any of my Murthafucker comments, where I accuse them all of being like you, blood thirsty Americans who love to ...

If Democrats want to vote for war pigs who advocate killing more Iraqis, then I rightfully disavow any common cause with them. Mr. Rider often defends the children serving in the military, which I find offensive. They volunteered to serve monsters like you and Bush, and, although I have sympathy for their ignorance, I would prefer they lay down their arms and vow to never kill another innocent in the name of my freedom or liberty.

Posted by: Hostile on December 14, 2005 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

I see nothing in Hostile's comments to suggest that he is a parody, or anything other than what he appears to be: someone who is outraged and disgusted by the conduct of the current national government of the United States, as well as the conduct of previous national governments throughout the history of the country, and the ignorant, complacent, jingoistic and sometimes callous attitudes of all too many people in the USA which allow such conduct to occur. As he mentions, the attitudes exhibited by any number of Bush-bootlicking rightwing commenters on these threads are exemplary of what he's talking about.

I disagree with Hostile that Bush's so-called reelection in 2004 shows widespread support for Bush administration policies of "humiliation, torture, mutilation and murder of other peoples". Bush obtained his second term by means of fear-mongering, deceit and ultimately the theft of an election that he did not in fact win (as in 2000). Many people who voted for Bush, according to polls, were ignorant and misinformed about his actual policies on a variety of issues; they were victims of deliberate deception, not only by the Bush campaign itself but by the sycophantic, Bush-supporting corporate mass media.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 14, 2005 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, SA -- you left out the undeclared naval war the US fought with Iran to keep Kuwaiti money flowing to Iraq.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 14, 2005 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

Your inability to find that point is not my problem.

C-nut, that's no way to talk to a woman. Esp. when she's in bed with you.

Posted by: Cheese McNally on December 14, 2005 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile wrote: Unfortunately, Kerry and most Democratic politicians are just like their Republican counterparts. There really is no difference between them when it comes to US military hegemony and trillion dollar defense budgets.

I supported Rep. Dennis Kucinich's primary campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2004 with money and my personal time and effort distributing campaign literature door to door, and I did not like Kerry's support for the imperial presidency, or his vote for the blank-check authorization for Bush to invade Iraq; and I don't like Democrats like Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman who support Bush's war. Further, earlier this year I changed my voter registration from Democrat (after 35 years) to Green, and any work or activities in electoral politics that I engage in here in Maryland where I live will henceforth be with the Green Party and not the Democratic Party.

Having said that, it is not true that there "really is no difference between" the mainstream, statist/corporatist Democrats and the Republicans on these issues. There is some difference; it is not a huge difference, it is not enough difference, but there is enough of a difference that it matters.

America's ruling class is not a monolith. There are differences even within it. Both John Kerry and George Bush represent America's corporate feudalist ruling class, but they represent different attitudes or factions within it. Bush represents naked fascism and reckless, irresponsible, callous, military imperialist adventurism; Kerry represents a more cautious, responsible, perhaps "kinder and gentler" corporate feudalism. That's not enough for me, but it is not the same thing that Bush stands for, namely the blatant and bloodthirsty looting and pillaging of the planet for the benefit of a small, corrupt gang of his cronies in the military-industrial-petroleum complex.

Noam Chomsky has opined that the Bush administration represents the most extreme, reactionary elements of America's ruling class, and even Chomsky in 2004 wrote that there was enough of a difference between Bush and Kerry that it would matter -- for the better -- if Kerry won.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 14, 2005 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: Hey, SA -- you left out the undeclared naval war the US fought with Iran to keep Kuwaiti money flowing to Iraq.

Yeah, that too. One more reason that conspiracy nut's hypocritical boo-hoo-hooing about the evils of Ronald Reagan's great ally, Saddam Hussein, the worst of which were committed with the full support of Reagan and George H. W. Bush, stinks.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 14, 2005 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats: We like to leave our problems for Republicans!

Isn't that a soothing thought, conspiracy nut?

But...

Clinton met with GWB during the transition, told GWB the biggest challenge he would face would be terrorism, and GWB said to Clinton,

"I disagree."
Posted by: obscure on December 14, 2005 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

obscure, conspiracy nut is a brain-dead regurgitator of Rush Limbaugh pap. He cannot think at all. There's no sense talking sense to him. He'll only respond with more stupid, puerile idiocy and chants of "moonbat moonbat lefty lefty moonbat". He's a genuine "troll" -- his only purpose is to "troll" for attention by deliberately being as annoying as possible, and the means that he uses to be annoying is to be so utterly stupid that his stupidity is offensive in and of itself, like a bad smell.

Don't attempt to discuss things with him; whenever he appears, just call him Rumplestiltskin and he'll vanish through the floor.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 14, 2005 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

[My best Maxwell Smart voice]

I know that, Secular Animist!!!

Posted by: obscure on December 14, 2005 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

obscure: [My best Maxwell Smart voice]

I think we need the Cone of Silence.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 14, 2005 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Rider often defends the children serving in the military, which I find offensive. They volunteered to serve monsters like you and Bush, and, although I have sympathy for their ignorance, I would prefer they lay down their arms and vow to never kill another innocent in the name of my freedom or liberty.

Look--you're a parody. You are trying to use terms like children, war pig, monsters to describe Americans.

I'm certainly not buying it; you can support a strong national defense and you can support the military without injecting partisan politics into the mix.

The US Army didn't invade Iraq all by itself. Because we have civilian control of the military--and that's a good thing--they were ordered to invade Iraq.

I don't buy the parody and neither should anybody else. These are code words Hostile is trying to use in order to legitimize something which is patently absurd.

Besides, we don't send children to war--we send adults who chose to join the military.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 14, 2005 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

Let's parse a little Hostile here:

The popular election of 2004 reelected Bush. Thus, most Americans support humiliation, torture, mutilation and murder of other peoples.

Those things weren't on the ballot. Besides, Bush stole the election. Therefore, your point--when you add in the evidence of voter fraud in Ohio--is wrong.

I am sorry if I insulted you Mr. Rider, but the election results speak for themselves, as do the many torture advocates/apologists who comment here.

You can't use Donna Pissypants and Jay against us. They're both terrified old men who would just as soon shit themselves as defend America. Every time they try to rant and rave, they catch hell from everyone here. Stop with the bullshit conciliatory tone.

The American personality type of BTK was born from Indian massacres, and it manifests itself within the majority still.

Wait--being mentally ill is the fault of Indian massacres? Well, someone better tell that to a history of violent and degrading acts against women that goes back thousands of years. Sadly, violence against women didn't just start a couple of hundred years ago. Women have been victims of BTK-type killers since the appearance of humans.

With apologies to Noam Chomsky, I consider myself to be Satan's assistant book keeper, accounting for all of America's sins against humanity. As an American, I think it is my duty to communicate America's crimes and America's true culture of militant hegemony.

Really? You're doing a lousy job of it. What, no mention of Darfur? No mention of the Chinese authorities who beat their own people to death the other day and sealed off that village? America has done nothing to prevent these acts. We should do something. I don't need Noam Chomsky or Satan to do that kind of bookkeeping. America is a great country caught up in a quagmire of a war started by people who lied to acquire the moral authority to start the war. We need to bring our troops home now and end the war. That doesn't mean we are all killers led by war criminals. It means we have a legitimate grievance against our elected officials.

My post was mainly about using law enforcement vs. the military to solve non-national terrorist threats. Like the majority of Americans who chose to obediently follow the belligerent hysterics of Bush, Mr. Nut and Mr. Rider have chosen to focus on my politics and rhetoric rather than on the history of how to solve such threats.

Your politics and rhetoric are hysterical. You are the flip side of C-Nut, except C-Nut actually has a bit of talent.

I submit again--you're a parody of what an extreme liberal is depicted to be by the likes of Coulter, Malkin and Michael Savage.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 14, 2005 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

That hurts. I think my humiliate, torture, mutilate, and murder description best describes the unique American experience of Occupied Iraq. Empathy for the victims of our armed forces far outweighs any veneration due people who are young enough to be my children, a word chosen to belie my age and paternal concern, despite my contempt for their chosen profession. Sure they follow orders, that is why they have chosen the military as a way of life. The authoritarian personality type dominates. Perhaps it dominates our society, which, as a democracy, is a very serious problem given the last fifty years of US militancy. Ignorance is not an excuse for what the American people have allowed to be done in their name. Too many people have died without someone pointing out that we, I am including myself, are murderous killers because we live in a democracy that has allowed all of these terrible things to be done by our government.

It is debasing to be called a murderer, etc, but the results of our government of and by the people has brought us to this conclusion. I think the only way out is to renounce our violent ways and truly ask the peoples we have tormented forgiveness.

I hope the pragraph above is not considered plagiarized from either Coulter, Malkin, or Savage.

Posted by: Hostile on December 15, 2005 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

I don't think it is unreasonable for the military to track protests, even those far from military assets. That may be necessary for perfectly legitimate reasons:

  • Reschedule a recruitment mission
  • Post an advisory to military personnel advising them to avoid that location if in uniforme
  • Prepare to respond if the protesters turn violent, are used for cover by terrorists, or are attacked themselves by terrorists
    • Tracking people involved in protests also seems legitimate. For example, if you make a habit of protesting against the military I see nothing wrong in the military banning you from bases as a potential threat. After all, even nuns have tried to damage weapons systems.

As for the complaint about keeping the info, would you really feel more comfortable if they deleted it so we couldn't know what they were doing? I think the military should be required to keep this information so investigations and oversight are possible.

I also don't see why

Posted by: Michael Friedman on December 15, 2005 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

Also, I don't see the problem of govt agencies acting in ways that violate US law. All liberals should be tagged with GPS trackers and whenever more than five of them gather we should send in the police to break this group up. They might be planning terrorist attacks or worst yet plotting their next move in the WAR on Christmas.

Posted by: Michael Friedman on December 15, 2005 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, that's what it's come down to -- liberals, headed by extremists in the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) -- are leading The Hedonistic War Against Christmas (THWAC). This is why the DoD is tracking them.

Liberals need to fight back. We can't let Republicans take the Nativity out of the Feast of the Nativity. We can't let them take the Noel out of "Joyeux Noel," even though they seem to have taken out most of the Joyeux.

I've got it -- we need to align with all the Cuban immigrants in Florida in a "Reclaim Feliz Navidad" movement. The movement will peak right around 2007 -- just in time for the primaries.

Let's get organizing!

Posted by: pj_in_jesusland on December 15, 2005 at 6:47 AM | PERMALINK

I think we need the Cone of Silence.

It's been in the shop for repairs ever since the Chief tried using it as a condom...

Posted by: obscure on December 15, 2005 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

Too many people have died without someone pointing out that we, I am including myself, are murderous killers because we live in a democracy that has allowed all of these terrible things to be done by our government.

Oh, give it a rest.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 15, 2005 at 8:15 AM | PERMALINK

Hostile,

General comment: I agree with Pale Rider that you're over the line.

You speak as though you lack a basic appreciation for the history of civilization. You appear unable to understand that our system of government, though far from perfect, still represents progress compared to what went before.

Human beings have the capacity for great brutality. But that's not news.

Way-Righties see that as a limitation on our potential. 'Progress is near-impossible so why even try?'

Way-Lefties are too attached to the morality stories our parents told us in our youth. That proves to be a limitation on their potential for connecting with the average person.

Let's search for a middle-way.

Posted by: obscure on December 15, 2005 at 8:22 AM | PERMALINK

Clinton met with GWB during the transition, told GWB the biggest challenge he would face would be terrorism
But, did Clinton explain that the reason that terrorism would be such a big challenge was Clinton's 8 years of inaction?

Anyway, back to the interesting stuff. I hope, Mr. Rider, that you can now see that Hostile is not a parody. Take this from SecularAnimist: I see nothing in Hostile's comments to suggest that he is a parody, or anything other than what he appears to be (of course, Animist is as loony as Hostile, so maybe this is too trite of an example).

When you look at Hostile, you are looking in a mirror. I know you object to Hostile's generalization of Americans as monsters, but I doubt you would object to calling Bush supporters monsters. Given that Bush won a majority in '04, how much difference are you looking at?

In any event, enough of this discussion. Back to being me. (I know y'all are looking forward to it)

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 15, 2005 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

Let's search for a middle-way.
As if that was any interest to the left.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 15, 2005 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

C-Nut,

If you can get myself and obscure to agree on something like this, that's all the proof you need that the Left does find a middle way.

No, the supporters of President Bush are Americans. They have a different political philosophy from myself, but we're all Americans. The rhetoric gets over the top on more than one occasion around here, and I'm certainly guilty of contributing to it.

If Hostile and SA truly feel the way they do, they're free to do so. They should probably be glad they're not living elsewhere because that level of vitriolic dissent would probably earn them a bullet to the head in quite a few places around the world. They are under no obligation whatsoever to contribute anything beyond their tax dollars and don't have to participate in anything resembling a community if they can figure out how to live off the grid.

You know, good luck voting for Ralph Nader. How'd that turn out, anyhow?

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 15, 2005 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

that's all the proof you need that the Left does find a middle way
I see, a "middle way" is defined as splitting the difference between merely left and maniacally far left.

No wonder I can't get no love here.

PS I might ought to point out that I don't come here to get love, making that line something of a non sequitor.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 15, 2005 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

CDavidN,

Going to attend the debates? How is your boy Stephen Harper doing? Says that he will not send Canadian troops to Iraq even though he has supported Shrub, er he did say Bush - I think I shall dispense with Molly Ivin's "Shrub" and simply call him what he truly has become and that is a "twig".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 15, 2005 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Let's search for a middle-way.

The middle-way leads to dead children, lying in the streets, their limbs eaten by dogs. I have seen the pictures of what centrism leads to.

Posted by: Hostile on December 15, 2005 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

I wish I could communicate with the same clarity and maturity as SecularAnimist, but my fingers type hyperbolely. I will not support nor vote for a Democratic candidate again. I may support the Green Party, but I would prefer to be part of a political party that addresses the political economy and civil liberties more forcefully. I am sorry I did not vote for Nader in 2004, which would have had the same outcome as a vote for Kerry, without the guilt of knowing I betrayed my political integrity.

Posted by: Hostile on December 15, 2005 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Hostile,

Someone is breaking into your house - better not call the police - they probably have violated someone's civil rights in the past - So, have fun protecting yourself by yourself.

By all means, let us disband the military - you can defend yourself by yourself once again.

When you went after Rep John Murtha, you crossed the line - You also demean all of us who have served honorably and are against this war - You demean all who have served honorably whatever their political viewpoints.

Please take your extremely broad brush and spend a great deal of quiet time by yourself.

Peace to you.

Posted by: ththirdPaul on December 15, 2005 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

The middle-way leads to dead children, lying in the streets, their limbs eaten by dogs. I have seen the pictures of what centrism leads to.

Well, the United States has actually prevented and stopped more of that in modern history than you could probably grasp, but feel free to continue with your joke.

As has been stated already, you're a parody and I'm not buying it.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 15, 2005 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Rep Murtha is a war pig. I am glad he is a proponent for ending the Iraq occupation now, but it does not absolve him for his desire to continue spending ever more money on useless defense spending. His desire to end the occupation has more to do with his defense contractor benefactors being left out of the money than on the immorality of the invasion and occupation. I heard his speech on the House floor the night the Republicans tried to show support for the troops by keeping them in Iraq, and he concluded it by saying his real concern is about weapons programs going unfunded because of the expense of the occupation.

Yes, I demean people who join the military. I am unable to understand their desire to learn how to be the best they can be by learning to kill and serving toady politicians. I think the world has changed so much that the US does not require a large standing army for defense against non-existent enemies, who will never invade. We need to return to the demobilization after hostilities end policy that was abandoned after WWII.

I apologize to all veterans for my feelings about their service. Most are probably trapped in a situation where they have limited choices and the military option is a logical response.

Where did I say anything about abolishing the police? I do want to disarm them, but they serve a needed function in society. Most police never need use deadly force while doing their jobs, so I think when deadly force is warranted it should be done by a specialized professional, rather than let all police be empowered with such a responsibility. I think it would save police lives, because they are usually shot without warning simply because they carry a gun on their belt. Where I live, police are killed when they walk up to a car that is pulled over. They never have a chance to defend themselves. Also where I live the police kill a lot of people who have not committed any capital crime or displayed deadly weapons, so I think if the police did not have weapons of deadly force they would have to use other skills to difuse a non-lethal situaton.

Sure, my views are 'radical' when compared to the American platitude of shoot first and ask questions later, but I am a person who sees the world from a different perspective. Sometimes I go over the top and insult people, which I regret. I would prefer to have sensible, polite discussions, but the war has radicalized me to the point where I cannot help but insult any militancy or compromise with war supporters.

Posted by: Hostile on December 15, 2005 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

The middle-way leads to dead children, lying in the streets, their limbs eaten by dogs. I have seen the pictures of what centrism leads to.
I'm beginning to like Hostile, you can't get this stuff just anywhere.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 15, 2005 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Conspiracy Nut,

Shouldn't we be paying a subscription for the works of Hostile?

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 15, 2005 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Definitely moonbat, not parody.
- Demeans armed forces for killing, but sees need for "specialized professionals" to do killing.
- Apparently isn't aware that most police do not use deadly force.
- Hasn't soaked in that criminals are usually a little more violent than the rest of us.
- Doesn't realize we had standing armed forces pre-WWII.
- Looks down on soldiers as substandard humans.
- Thinks the best defense is no defense.

This is great stuff. I'm going to search previous threads for more comments by Hostile.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 15, 2005 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Shouldn't we be paying a subscription for the works of Hostile?
I don't enjoy it that much. After all, I get Dilbert free on the web; and when you consider that, the benefit/cost for pay-fer-Hostile looks pretty low.

But I'll read for free as long as available.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 15, 2005 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

C-Nut,

Careful. After all, he's actually one of you.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 15, 2005 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Now, now, Mr. Rider. I've provided 3 concrete examples of Hostile being the real deal, and as a bonus, SecularAnimist agrees with Hostile.

Check the first bullet point above for a further small example. It would be a poor parody artist that inserted a blatant contradiction like that. But mainstream lefty thought uses a lot of contradictions, i.e. didn't want to leave Saddam in power but opposed the only method to remove him.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on December 15, 2005 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile,

It is one thing to besmirch and demean, but do not try to take money away from those who need it the most.

TBrosz has just signed a contract with DoD to restore Trebuchets. Rumsfeld wants to send them to NATO for the Euros who, foolishly, put most of their money into social programs. As their military has declined dramatically, Rumsfeld wants to restore their capabilities. First thing first; as the restoration of Trebuchets takes longer we will also need a supplemental emergency measure passed by Congress to help with the flails and pikes.
Tom B needs the bread - Do not deprive him and his loved ones of the largesse of the public trough.

Peace and Merry Christmas

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 15, 2005 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

C-Nut,

Sadly, you may have made only your second correct point in several months of fruitless blogging...

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 15, 2005 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, Quakers (as well as Puritans) came to understand 350 years ago that Christmas was no more holy than any other day. Totally shocking to the Church of England, RCs, etc. Friends still celebrate Christmas in a simple manner, if at all. This does NOT take Christ out of Christmas! Quite the contrary, it puts Christ INTO every other day of the year as well. Likewise, we attend Meeting on First Days, not because that day is any holier than any other, but because "Sunday" is most people's day off.
Richard Nixon's parents were Friends, but I don't believe RMN ever attended as an adult.
Quakers' strength lies in pacifism, honesty, and simplicity, most certainly not in terror. Subversive? Wasn't slavery wrong? So was John Brown's answer to evil. Levi Coffin and others along the Underground Railroad were certainly lawbreakers, but did they do wrong?
It seems to me that many who call themselves Christian left the Christ as described in Matthew 5 a long time ago. War with worldly weapons is totally at odds with the Jesus I know. In his day, Jesus was not only a liberal, but a subversive as well.

Posted by: Chris Bobbitt on December 16, 2005 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

I believe it is when a leader sojourns from President to self-appointed ruler and protector of America, that even some of his most ardent defenders start to question his divinity.

Posted by: Orewan on December 17, 2005 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly