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

September 28, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

VOTING FOR TORTURE....A reader emails about Sherrod Brown's and Ted Strickland's votes in favor of the detainee/torture bill:

My wife and I have been lifelong Democrats and have contributed and worked on national and Ohio campaigns for the Democratic Party since 1988. This year we were actually looking forward to winning Ohio for the Democratic Party.

No longer. We're livid. We will not work, support or even vote for either Brown or Strickland. Judging from the reaction of many fellow Democrats, we're not alone.

Mark Kleiman writes:

Note to Blue opinion leaders: I hate the torture bill as much as you do. Maybe more....But is it really a good idea to spread the "Democrats are cowards" meme six weeks before an election that might restore the system of checks and balances? Would it be intolerably rude of me to note that you're doing Karl Rove's work for him?

Rude, maybe, but hardly undeserved. Democrats have been voting for stuff I dislike for as long as I've been voting for Democrats, but I have to say that their poll-tested cowardice on the detainee bill over the past couple of weeks has been about as bad as anything I can remember. And what makes it worse is that not only is it craven, it's probably politically stupid as well.

The leadership of the Republican Party decided after 9/11 to govern the country by trying to keep it in a state of permanent panic and tarring anyone who opposed their calculated panic as a weak-kneed appeaser. The way to fight this is not to give in to Karl Rove's political machinations, it's to fight them. It worked for Thomas Jefferson, after all, and Democrats consider him the founder of their party. They should take a lesson from him.

Kevin Drum 3:28 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (546)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

If Sherrod Brown voted for the bill, I am dismayed, but I'm still supporting him. I cannot expect to agree with anyone 100% of the time, but I expect to agree with Sherrod Brown more often than I expect to agree with Mike DeWine.

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on September 28, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

First? Wow.

After 9/11 the Republican Party decided to embrace the theme of 1984 full force. They saw their chance ,for the first time in a Constitutional Governement, to run it like the old Soviet Union.

Posted by: James on September 28, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

"I've been voting for Democrats, but I have to say that their poll-tested cowardice on the detainee bill over the past couple of weeks has been about as bad as anything I can remember."

At least the vast majority of Democrats voted the right way. I had hoped for better from at least a few Republicans like Hagel, Snowe and Collins in the Senate but they appear to be going along with the administration on this one.

Posted by: Catch22 on September 28, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml

34 Dems voted Aye, 7 Republicans voted Nay.

Posted by: Robert on September 28, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Note to Blue opinion leaders: I hate the torture bill as much as you do. Maybe more....But is it really a good idea to spread the "Democrats are cowards" meme six weeks before an election that might restore the system of checks and balances? Would it be intolerably rude of me to note that you're doing Karl Rove's work for him?

Is he saying Democrats should vote for it, or that dems shouldn't bash them for voting for it, or both?

At any rate, supporting something you're against so you don't appear weak comes off as pretty, er, weak. The Democratic party has no one to blame but itself.

Posted by: Joe on September 28, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

I FULLY understand the frustration that the reader feels. Truly I do.

I'm sure we've all heard and read about "Get Out The Vote" efforts, and how they can swing a close election.

One of the purposes of the 'Torture and Repeal Habeas'Bill is to "Keep In The Vote"; ie. discourage democratic voters, and in doing so, suppress democratic turnout in November.

You are reacting EXACTLY the way Rove and Cheney and the other evil men of the Republican party want you to. You MUST resist the impulse!

Take down the names of those who are facilitating the Republicans in shredding the Constitution, and work like hell to defeat them in the 2008 primary. But DO NOT act now in a way that will further facilitate the actions of the Republicans over the next two years.

Posted by: Robert Earle on September 28, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Yup. Tomorrow I change my registration to Independent.

Posted by: Lucy on September 28, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

I am looking forward to torturing and abusing lovely young Christian fundamentalist girls.

Posted by: Matt on September 28, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

My representative was one of the 12 who didn't vote. If he isn't incapacitated, (and our beloved former mayor is not incapacitated or there would be a never-ending parade of bubble-headed newscasters feigning concern and consternation all over the dial) I want his ass.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Al will be here shortly to let you know that Dems are phoneys and cowards and only Flight Suit George gets him and Mr. Binkey through the night.

Posted by: Al's Mommy on September 28, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

"You MUST resist the impulse!"

I'll still vote for the Democrats in November. But I quit the party.

Posted by: Lucy on September 28, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

We're livid. We will not work, support or even vote for either Brown or Strickland. Judging from the reaction of many fellow Democrats, we're not alone.

Very noble. Many who voted for Ralph Nader felt the same way in 2000. The Democrats aren't perfect - I'm voting Green. That's worked out well, hasn't it?

Posted by: ExBrit on September 28, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, according to his office - I have it on speed dial - he was at a funeral, but would have voted "Nay." I forgive him this time.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Jeez. Can't these guys see the freakin' fnords??

Posted by: RT on September 28, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I sent letters to the Colorado Congress critters scolding them for their spinelessness. Including the Republicans.

I don't know. I feel despondent. Maybe I will finally leave this country.

Posted by: Carol on September 28, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

ExBrit: "vote for the lesser of two evils" is a good strategy most of the time. But in some case it isn't; if the lesser of two evils supports something which you not only disagree with, but which you think violates the fundamental rules of the governmental contract, voting for them is no option at all.

The Congress passed a bill which denies any court review whatsoever to any non-citizen declared by the administration to be any enemy combatant. That violates a core principle of our polity. Anyone voting for it is not worthy of my vote.

This isn't a minor issue. It's not even a major issue. It's a fundamental; i'd no more vote for Sherrod Brown, after this, than i'd vote for someone who supported abolishing the first amendment and argued that, well, at least he's better than the other guy who wants to abolish the entire bill of rights.

Posted by: aphrael on September 28, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats have been voting for stuff I dislike for as long as I've been voting for Democrats, but I have to say that their poll-tested cowardice on the detainee bill over the past couple of weeks has been about as bad as anything I can remember. And what makes it worse is that not only is it craven, it's probably politically stupid as well.

Judging the well-deserved disgust the Senate Democrats' cowardice has instilled in the Democratic partisans here -- not to mention the fact that the Republicans will paint them as spineless appeasers anyway, and the Senate Dems only gave them free ammunition -- I'd say you could strike the "probably".

The leadership of the Republican Party decided after 9/11 to govern the country by trying to keep it in a state of permanent panic and tarring anyone who opposed their calculated panic as a weak-kneed appeaser. The way to fight this is not to give in to Karl Rove's political machinations, it's to fight them.

Word.

It worked for Thomas Jefferson, after all, and Democrats consider him the founder of their party.

And, I might add, more recently it worked for Bill Clinton. Of course the dishonest Right will paint dissentors as "unhinged" or victims of their mythical "Bush Derangement Syndrome" -- not quite mythical, actually, except that only those who still approve of him are deranged -- but again, they will anyway.

Clinton strongly rebutted the charges, and in the process put discussion of Bush's own incompetence ("You've covered your ass, now") back on the agenda, despite the GOP's desperate efforts to sweep his fecklessness under the rug.

Posted by: Gregory on September 28, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

You know there is an old saying: "If you don't stand for something, you will stand for anything."

I seriously have to ask if the elected Democrats stand for the Constitution.

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 28, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, that old saying is You have to stand for something, or you will fall for anything.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

> Take down the names of those who are
> facilitating the Republicans in shredding
> the Constitution, and work like hell to
> defeat them in the 2008 primary.

Except that was done with Lieberman, all according to the rules, and when Lieberman turned around and stabbed the Democratic Party in the back a goodly percentage of the movers and shakers either explicitly lined up behind him or just gave their silence = assent. So primaries don't seem to be the answer; the Kool Kidz just ignore them.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on September 28, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Someday, a Democrat should run for high office using Henry Hyde's advice to Republicans in 1993: Choose the issue on which you are willing to lose -- that is, to have an open, honest disagreement with the voters who are your employers, and just walk away.

That's how they got the majority, after all.

Posted by: theAmericanist on September 28, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

I like my version better. :)

You telling us that good old Mayor Cleaver didn't vote on the issue?

How did Ike Skelton vote?

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 28, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Looks like to me those DC Ohio phones lines should have been ringing off the hook telling those guys NO Torture! cleve

Posted by: cleve on September 28, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Ike voted Nay - as he is a man of honor and a decent human being.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

According to his office in DC, Hizzonor the Mayor (congress is only national) was attending a funeral.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

I posted this to Greg at the Talent Show who has a similar "screw the Dems if they won't fight attitude":

"Nowadays it's easy to vote with your $$ as well as your vote. Through ActBlue-type pages you can support those candidates financially who do seem to get it, and are not slick, triangulating wussy insiders, and you can still hold your nose and pull a lever in your home district for the lesser of two evils.

IMHO this is exactly the structure Kos and others have helped build, which I optimistically beleive will eventually weed out the sheep-like Democrats who rightly piss you and me off for rolling over whenever Rove says "boo!"

Go donate now, and stop all this lame "not gonna play" stuff. If not us, who?"

Posted by: John I on September 28, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

I quit the Democratic Party in 2002 because they rolled over to allow Bush to invade Iraq.

I am sorry I quit 4 years ago because now I can't quit in disgust today.

Why would anyone think that if the Democrats take over the House or Senate that they would suddenly develop a backbone?

Posted by: mitch on September 28, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

ExBrit et al--

at some point you have to say 'no more,' and not vote at all, or vote Libertarian. If the Dems have no fear of stabbing their base in the back, they will continue to do so, in (elusive) hope of picking up a few independent votes.

Whether this is that point is a matter of personal conscience.

Posted by: mac on September 28, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

is it really a good idea to spread the "Democrats are cowards" meme six weeks before an election that might restore the system of checks and balances?

Then don't farking spread that meme! Get up and fight the bastards and explain why signing the bill is an act of cowardice, because it is on several different levels.

It's not like the rhetoric is difficult, even:
* Torture does not generate useful intelligence, and one who is willing to violate international law and human dignity out of fear is a COWARD.

* The USA is the most powerful nation on the planet, if we use the techniques of petty dictators it is only because of COWARDICE.

* Democrats who vote against their beliefs because the GOOpers make them afraid of looking like appeasers are COWARDS.

I am so sick of democrats trying and failing to playing the game by GOP/Karl Rove's rules that I am about ready to puke. I've watched it for most of a decade and I'm really starting to despair. This election should be ours on a silver platter, but yet again we don't see most democrats rising up and taking an actual stand on anything ... again they're all waffling trying to offend the smallest number - a strategy that's essentially never worked in history.

Posted by: IdahoEv on September 28, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Fight them how? By standing against what will inevitably happen anyway? By raising a fist in anger at the bomb that is about to strike?

Yes, it all stinks. And it would be great if Democratic politicians could serve both causes: taking back Congress and morality. But they can't, and you know they can't.

Still, let's all hate them. Hate them for the districts they're from. Hate them for the politics of the day. Hate them for not gladly going down for the progressive causes of self-righteousness and antipathy to national security.

Hate them. And in doing so, help them lose.

Posted by: Mark on September 28, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

I am dumbfounded.

It's hard to see any silver lining in this one!

How can we call this a republic anymore?

Posted by: ppk on September 28, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

The mistake we all keeping making is telling the Democrats what they need to do to win the election: stand up to the Usurper, oppose the war, fight against torture, grow some balls, etc., etc. Obviously, the dems have backward disease - they do exactly the oppposite of what they're supposed to do.

Quick, everybody! Write your dem candidates and demand that they praise bush, support the war, sing the praises of torture, bend over and grab their ankles and .... you get the idea.

Posted by: Yellow Dog on September 28, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

If 40 Dems in the Senate had been willing to filibuster this they would have won. "Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards." George S. Patton June 5, 1944.

Posted by: rk on September 28, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Cranky:

"Except that was done with Lieberman, all according to the rules, and when Lieberman turned around and stabbed the Democratic Party in the back a goodly percentage of the movers and shakers either explicitly lined up behind him or just gave their silence = assent."

Agreed, and nobody's more guilty of that than Bill Clinton:

"If you were Ned Lamont, how would you feel about what Bill Clinton said to Larry King? Because what Bill Clinton said is that its okay with him if Joe Lieberman wins. And that means Joe Lieberman can go out on the campaign trail and tell voters that Bill Clinton, a two-term Democratic President, thinks Joe Lieberman is the right man for the job. It also means the Clinton Mafia has been given the green light and will act accordingly:

"'Fifty former Senators, Congressmen and Clinton Administration veterans have launched Dems for Joe to support Senator Liebermans campaign to be reelected as an Independent after losing Connecticuts Democratic primary in August, according to Roll Call.'

"Who are these Lieberman supporters?

"'Other founding members include former Sens. David Boren (Okla.), Bob Kerrey (Neb.), John Breaux (La.) and Dennis DeConcini (Ariz.); former Reps. Mel Levine (Calif.) and Leon Panetta (Calif.), who served as chief of staff to President Bill Clinton; former Clinton Agriculture Secretary and former Rep. Mike Espy (Miss.); and former Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey.'

"Yes, thats Bill Clintons former chief of staff. And yes, thats the same James Woolsey who has been an unapologetic supporter not just of the invasion of Iraq, but of the neoconservative agenda:

"'[Woolsey] is also a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and was one of the signatories to the January 26, 1998, PNAC letter sent to President Clinton that called for the removal of Saddam Hussein.'"

More here:

http://thepremise.com/archives/09/28/2006/196

Posted by: Mark on September 28, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

I'm truly stunned this torture bill has been rushed thru with virtually no opposition by the Dems. They had the Repubs right in the cross hairs, a chance to stand on principle with the majority, albeit a slim majority, of Americans, and against the corrupt, immoral Republican congress. Just when I thought the Dems were finally growing back their pair. How did they let themselves by castrated by these butchers yet again??

And how has this bill received a relative pass in the media, when, for god's sake, the military and CIA are strongly against these dark, demented practices?

What the hell is going on here?!?

Posted by: Fel on September 28, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

rk: That was a different America, unfortunately. Now the sheeple are content to graze the dial and stuff their faces with hot-pockets. It disgusts me how far we have fallen from grace.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

"You are reacting EXACTLY the way Rove and Cheney and the other evil men of the Republican party want you to."

Good god, you can't pin everything on Rove. The Democrats should have fought with all their might, and it probably wouldn't even have cost them politically. They'll be called terrorist-lovers no matter what they do.

I'm still hoping for a filibuster, agreement or no. Sen. Reid's office was ambiguous on that score, to say the least.

Posted by: Lucy on September 28, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

I am really sick of being told not to stand up for what's right because my behavior could possibly maybe perhaps prevent a Democrat from being elected.

Democrats can't win. That's because of media ownership and electronic voting machines and churches and the ineptitude of the Democratic Party. Not because I hold my elected lawmakers responsible for supporting really bad legislation.

Posted by: JefferyK on September 28, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

I have to say that their poll-tested cowardice on the detainee bill over the past couple of weeks has been about as bad as anything I can remember.

I'd have to say the Dems' vote to effectively support Bush's imminent war in Iraq was MUCH, MUCH worse. But back then, Mr. Drum was a war supporter along with all the Dems, all the media, and almost all of the "liberal" blogs, so I can see why he'd think the torture bill was worse.

What's more, this opinion fits the accepted Dem narrative, like "we were lied to", or "gee, how did the Intelligence agencies get it so wrong?" or, "it's the war's prosecution that was flawed, not it's aims".

Posted by: luci on September 28, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

time to vote Green

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

This is the thing that amazes me. Its an off year election. Who votes in off year elections? Your base. So what do the democrats do - they do something to surely piss off their base. Its like the geniuses Democrats in Washington don't want to win. Damned they're stupid.

Posted by: Doug on September 28, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

I quit the Democratic Party in 2002 because they rolled over to allow Bush to invade Iraq.

As did I, and I'm not gonna let those motherfuckers forget it. At least until the grass grows over a hundred thousand Iraqi graves.

Posted by: luci on September 28, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I think you're missing the point of that quote.

Read it again. Mark isn't criticizing the Democratic senators for running away from the fight. He's criticizing the bloggers for criticizing the Democratic senators for running away from the fight.

Apparently, in Mark's world everything will be hunky-dory and the voters won't see the cowardice of our senators as long as we stay vewwy, vewwy quiet and don't point it out.

Reality-based, my ass.

Posted by: Oregonian on September 28, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen

I have known Ike since before he was my congressman. He was a man of honor when I met him. He still is. He still has my vote.

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 28, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

The problem with the Dems is that they can't figure out a way of this dilemma:

The reason their position on national security is unpopular with the voters (as their polls tell them) is because they haven't advocated it; HOWEVER, they are scared to advocate it because it is unpopular with the voters.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

He literally cried on my shoulder when Susie died. I have never felt so helpless as I did when we could not save her.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

What a mixed opportunity.

Even from the pragmatic point of view, it was a great time to paint Republicans as pro-torture and anti-constitutional rights, and rightly so.

They missed the ball on this one.

Dems leaders make it very hard not to be a Naderite and wish for pox on both the houses.

Posted by: gregor on September 28, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

sorry. 'missed' opportunity.

Posted by: gregor on September 28, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with Kevin on this one. Look I'm not so naive as to not understand that some (many?) dems are vulnerable in GOP-leaning districts or states. However, there are some things that you just cannot capitulate on, and weakening the Constitution is certainly one of them.

Voters will never respect a party that refuses to stand up for what it believes in.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 28, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Guys, this is why they call it a "wedge" issue -- to force a vote in which Democrats, no matter which way they vote, look bad to some portion of the available electorate (i.e., lefties and moderates). The Republicans are counting on your negative reaction to the Democratic votes -- that's the whole point of the exercise.

So why give it to them?

Posted by: Anonymous on September 28, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

No one - and I mean NO ONE - should be elected who supports the torture bill. My God, what have we become ...

Posted by: Renny on September 28, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

FDR said it best: "All we have to fear is fear itself." Fear got the bubble based Democrats today. I wouldn't be surprised if we lose the election. I sure won't hide behind Diabold if we do. After this profile in cowardice we don't deserve to win.

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 28, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, it's a wedge. This wedge was to divide those who would protect the fundamental rights of this country from those who would not.

And the Democratic Party, once again, failed.

We've lost. The bill of rights is meaningless when a King can declare you no longer subject to the provisions of the bill of rights.

As of today, I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils. Unless and until a real opposition party forms, I'm not voting for them. I'm not voting for evil, and I'm not voting for those who enable evil.

No more. To hell with them, and quite frankly, to hell with America. America deserves exactly what they voted for.

Posted by: Erik V. Olson on September 28, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Ron - lets update that FDR-ism..."all we have to fear are fearmongers themselves"

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK
Guys, this is why they call it a "wedge" issue -- to force a vote in which Democrats, no matter which way they vote, look bad to some portion of the available electorate (i.e., lefties and moderates).

If you are going to look bad either way, then there is no excuse not to do the right thing.

The Republicans are counting on your negative reaction to the Democratic votes -- that's the whole point of the exercise.

No, the Republicans are counting on the Democrats in office to continue seeing surrender to authoritarianism as the safer political course when compared to actually standing up for freedom, democracy, limited government, and due process. That's the point of the exercise.

It is essential, therefore, that the craven "leaders" that are more concerned about their own political ambitions than about preserving the freedom pay a political price that demonstrates that surrender is misguided.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

One of the poll-tested Democratic sellouts is running for Senator Frist's seat.

Posted by: bob on September 28, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

First defeat the Republicans, then reform the Democratic Party.

The country cannot wait for the Democrats to be "pure' or "principled" There are only two parties. Sitting on the sidelines during these elections is no more principled that Democrats refusing to fight the Torture & Evesdrop Omnibus Bill.

Posted by: jimmy` on September 28, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

> The Republicans are counting on your
> negative reaction to the Democratic
> votes -- that's the whole point of
> the exercise.

No, the Republicans were counting on the Democrats acting like wimps and not taking a strong stand against a President with a 36% approval rating. Which turned out to be a good calculation. Why did the Dems - in particular the leadership and the "faith faction" - have to fulfill the Radicals' expectation?

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on September 28, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Sent to my Senators (Feinstein and Boxer) today:

IT WAS AN INTERESTING EXPERIMENT, AMERICA...

Comrade Senator:

America was an interesting experiment. But it came to an end today, thanks in part to your failing to defend it by filibustering the detainee legislation. To quote Mr Froomkin:

"The legislation before the Senate today would ban torture, but let Bush define it; would allow the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant; would suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus; would immunize retroactively those who may have engaged in torture. And that's just for starters...

the Republicans who control Congress are in lock step behind the president, and the Democrats -- who could block him, if they chose to do so -- are too afraid to put up a real fight."

Hey, that's YOU!

So let me be among the first to welcome you to the fascist state you have enabled. History will record that it happened ON YOUR WATCH.

And please, please do not ever expect me to vote for you again-- ever. Not that it matters-- once fascists get the machinery set up they don't NEED votes, do they?

For once I am glad to be old (65). I advise younger people --especially those with children-- to seriously think about seeking their futures elsewhere, in a free country.

Who would have thought that the Worst. President. Ever. could have turned the US into the kind of country that we fought WWII and a Cold War over? Well, he couldn't have done it without your help.

Goodbye.

Posted by: Larry Miller on September 28, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

In his address to the joint session of Congress in September 2001 Bush said that the reason the Terrorists were waging war on the US was because "They hate our freedoms." With the impending passage of the legislation today that will remove or limit many of those freedoms, there will be less reason for the terrorists to hate the US. No freedoms- no reason for the terrorists to hate the US. Voila- victory in the War on Terror. It is a stroke of genius, and should be recognized as such.

Posted by: wstander on September 28, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

So, in your mind, there's no possibly that they simply agreed with the bill?

Posted by: plunge on September 28, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Your vote is your vote, people, and your party registration is also your vote.

All who are Democrats, and continue to be so after this day, are declaring to all concerned that the Democratic Party stands for what they stand for.

If the legalization of torture and the death of 800 year old habeas corpus rights with nary a fight from the Democratic Party is not enough to make you declare that that party no longer stands for what you stand for, then what in the hell would?

I urge all conscientious progressives to join me in the Green Party.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

Posted by: patrick Meighan on September 28, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

"I urge all conscientious progressives to join me in the Green Party."

So, right: because I disagree with the Democratic party on some issues, I should join a fruitcake party that I disagree with on nearly everything and which has DIRECTLY ACTED to benefit Republican's electoral hopes time after time, including taking lots and lots of money from them.

No thanks.

Posted by: plunge on September 28, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Quick everyone, the sky is falling.

1. This bill does nothing to change the facts on the ground. Prisoners were being held and tortured well before the bill. This is just a legal fig leaf that Bush didn't even think he needed until fairly recently. Anyone here think Bush would STOP his policies if Congress banned them? Why would he? He doesn't obey any other laws they pass, quite deliberately.

2. Can this bill survive the Supreme Court? Dunno, but I bet we will find out soon.

3. Unintended consequences. When U.S. soldiers in Iraq begin to be tortured on camera, alongside narration that "we are just doing to you what you are so proud of doing to us", this is going to be a P.R. disaster for Republicans. Abu Graib was not a net plus for war supporters. We don't know yet what horrible results will come of this, but there certainly will be some.

4. The Armed Forces have deep, serious misgivings about this bill, largely because of reason # 3 above. The CIA is not happy either, because now they don't have the fig leaf of "this is not official U.S. policy". Drip, drip, here come the leaks from the unhappy people.

5. Anyone quitting the Dems- later, asshole. Thanks for quitting. Remember all the times Paul Wellstone quite because he lost a big fight? Me neither. The story is not over yet. The Christian Coalition never, ever quits the GOP. They get their boys elected and then they are in the position to make demands. You morons want to NOT help people get elected and then make demands. Let me know how that works out.

6. Nothing lasts forever. Remain calm. Think. Work hard.

Posted by: Martin van Buren on September 28, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Why would I consider the torture bill any differently than the AUMF in 2002? Had my Congressman voted for that I would have volunteered my time and money to work against him.That's all I can do to defeat my state's Senator who did vote for the AUMF as well as this "Bill".
Come to think of it,I was going to spend time and money to help to defeat Rick "the Devil Incarnate" Santorum.This is just another log on the (bon)fire.

Posted by: TJM on September 28, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

I certainly respect the impulse (because I am deeply depressed by this bill), but dammit I think this is precisely the wrong way to view the situation. For example, Reid is conservative but if he were the Senate leader more progressive positions would be achieved because he will be taking the democratic line. DON'T GIVE ROVE AN EVEN BIGGER VICTORY.

Posted by: slambrannan on September 28, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Martin: point #5 really isn't responsive to what the people quitting are saying. They're walking away from the Democratic party because they beleive the Democratic party isn't willing to fight.

What good does it to do stay a Democrat when the Democrats don't believe in fighting for what they say they believe in? How does not walking away help win the fight, when the people you'd be walking away from aren't fighting in the first place?


Posted by: aphrael on September 28, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Of course it's possible that the Democrats who voted for the bill "simply agreed with the bill", although that's hardly reassuring.

Is it better to bid farewell to habeas because you don't believe in it than it is to bid farewell to haveas because you don't have the courage to protect it? I'm not sure.

Posted by: aphrael on September 28, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

"The country cannot wait for the Democrats to be "pure' or "principled""

Strawman. A bad one.

No one asks the Democrats to be "pure" or even "principled." All anyone today is asking is for the Democrats to not be complicit in the destruction of our most basic American right: the right to live free of imprisonment except by a trial by jury. Asking for that is a far sight from asking for purity or principle, but the Democratic Party couldn't handle even that much. Tell me again why it deserves my vote?

"There are only two parties."

There are, in fact, other political parties that did not, today, participate in the dismantling of our republic.

I suggest the Green Party.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

Posted by: Patrick Meighan on September 28, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

VOTING FOR TORTURE

Could somebody quote the section of the bill that condones torture? I have not found it.

The people who forced this vote are the people who took the administration to court and who got the Supreme Court to rule that the Congress has to pass legislation. that's a nice irony, since the vote will come right before the election, and will likely support the administration (Senate hasn't voted yet, has it?)

Are you sure that some of the Democrats voting forthe bill are not voting their consciences?

Posted by: papago on September 28, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

Patrick: or the Libertarian party. If Feinstein votes for this travesty i'll be voting for the Libertarian running against her.

Posted by: aphrael on September 28, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK
First defeat the Republicans, then reform the Democratic Party.

Well, that might be a good idea if the reason we keep failing to defeat the Republicans wasn't that the Democratic Party is broken.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not quitting, but I'm also not going to be doing my usual volunteering here in Ohio for Strickland and Brown. I just got my evenings back this fall. I'm incredibly disappointed by the cowardice of the national party on this issue. I have more sympathy for representatives in the House, where their votes really didn't matter, than I have for Senators. The Senate could have stopped this and they chose not to. This is a moral blot on the nation.

Yea, they voted against it. But unlike the Reps, they had the actual power to do something in the face of evil. They did nothing.

Posted by: Marc on September 28, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK
There are, in fact, other political parties that did not, today, participate in the dismantling of our republic.

Because they don't participate in national government at all. That's not a real reason to think they would have acted any differently were they in power.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK
So, in your mind, there's no possibly that they simply agreed with the bill?

Sure, they could be actual enemies of freedom, limited government, and due process rather than craven surrendrists.

I'm not sure that counts as a good thing, though.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. Great minds and all that Larry Miller. Here is the text of the email I sent both of my Senators today:

It was an intersting experiment, America was. But it was sold out for thirty pieces of silver by a craven congress and a feckless president. You have blood on your hands for backing George Bush as he abrogated civil liberties and undermined Geneva, so just wash them and seal your fate.

George Bush has faced his last election. You have not.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

I am appalled at the Democrats and Republicans who voted for this Owellian bill that on its face bans torture but in actuality permits Bush to indefinitely detain people with no charges and to continue torturing them.

To the Democrats who voted for this bill, do you realize that by not uniting with other Democrats against this bill that you have played right into Rove's hands. He wants you to continue to cower and fear and not stand-up for what is right.

To the Republicans who voted for this bill, why have you abandoned your conservatives values? Traditional conservatives have always distrusted bug government and giving more unchecked power to the executive branch.

This is beginning of the end. Just as Athens and Rome abandoned democracy so to has America. The slide to tyranny and dictatorship is at hand.

Posted by: turtle on September 28, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

I have frequent debates with one of my conservative friends over which party is a greater threat to the limited freedoms we still enjoy as Americans. He argues that democrats are the bigger threat for their political correctness, regulatory schemes, and general desire to have the government solve problems which means taxing him to pay for it. I always argue that the Republicans are the bigger threat with their emphasis on conformity, intolerance and general support of police state tactics. The fact is that all politicians are a huge threat to our liberties and what really makes the whole torture, denial of due process legislation , so sad is that it actually puts Americans more at risk of terrorism. I appreciate that this entire nightmare was precipitated by Nader, but I refuse to vote for or provide funds to, any politician who votes for such legislation.

Posted by: terry on September 28, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

There are some really terrific people in the House, but the Senate Democrats are, with a few exceptions, a waste of skin.

I think we should concentrate on winning the House, and in the Senate, focus more on getting a group of Democrats who will actually fight. Push hard for Lamont; Brown can lose as far as I'm concerned. We need 40 men and women with the guts to say no to everything George Bush tries, until he does the right thing.

Posted by: Joe Buck on September 28, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

F... the Democrats.

Look, recent cencus estimates puts the total number of Americans at around three hundred million.

But, and this is very important, there are only 435 men and women in the United States Senate and less than half of them are Democrats.

Think of what a tiny fraction that is of the entire American population for a moment.

That this tiny handful of people who have been given such enourmous power are too cowardly to use that power and stand up for the rest of us in defense of America is beyond shameless. It is total capitulation and cowardice.

I also would never vote for a Democrat who voted for torture.

Posted by: ken on September 28, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

This is not about values or freedom or the Constitution, as much as it may seem so. It is about pushing your buttons.

Any bill presented six weeks before an election is a bill intended to set the stage for that election. As far as I can see, it is working brilliantly. It is intended to spread the Dems are weak meme, and spread defeatism and dissent in the Democratic coalition. It will be used as a cudgel to beat Democrats from the right and the left. And it is only the beginning.

Hopefully there will be low voter turn out and disillusionment on the left and none of that mobilization we saw last time. The subject will not be Iraq or Katrina or wage stagnation in America or the deficit. It will be about Protecting America and, for liberals, how the Dems failed them.

Of course the way to change a political party is not to run out the door just before a major election but by showing up at primaries and getting in the candidate you like. But never mind, this is all emotionalism and standing on ones values against your own allies while the enemy advances.

Be sure that Mr Rove has thought this through. From his perspective habeas, the Constitution, and George Washingtons false teeth are fair game if it wins elections. Also be sure that his minions are running around the blogs posing as angry Dems and spreading disillusionment, revolt, and defeat.

Do not be deceived by the enemys stratagems.

Posted by: bellumregio on September 28, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

This is all the more reason to vote the Republicans out of office. Democrats would never have allowed a bill this bad to come to a vote. This is the problem with NOT being in control. Put the Dems in control and most of the non-sense will never make it to the floor for a vote.

Posted by: bakho on September 28, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

***One potentially important note for Ohioans:

Strickland didn't vote for torture - he didn't vote at all. I'll be putting a call in to find out where he stands.

Posted by: Marc on September 28, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK
To the Republicans who voted for this bill, why have you abandoned your conservatives values? Traditional conservatives have always distrusted bug government and giving more unchecked power to the executive branch.

No, traditional conservatives have always backed authoritarian elite governments, expansive and arbitrary police powers, limitations on participation, and government based on religious authority and enforcing narrow religious rules.

In order to win the vote of that branch of classical liberals known sometimes as "libertarians", they have in the last few decades made a show of being anti-big-government, but typically only implemented that in the area of reducing economic regulation that restricted the power wealthy holders of capital exercised over everyone else; in other areas even while mouthing small government platitudes conservatives have supported rapidly expanding government and expanding executive power, particularly where it comes to eroding privacy and due process protections.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Good post, Martin van Buren. Makes me feel a little better on this hideous day.

Posted by: shortstop on September 28, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK
Of course the way to change a political party

I'm not interested in changing a political party, I'm interested in changing a nation that has gone off course. If a political party wants my active support, it will show that it is interested in that goal as well.

Otherwise, it may get a vote as the best tactical choice among the alternatives on election day, but its not getting my time, money, or advocacy on behalf of the party.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: The leadership of the Republican Party decided after 9/11 to govern the country by trying to keep it in a state of permanent panic and tarring anyone who opposed their calculated panic as a weak-kneed appeaser.

There are 3 possible POVs:

Bush's first priority is to prevent terrorist attacks and win the GWOT. Preserving civil liberties is secondary.

The ACLU and other civil liberties groups have civil liberties as their first priority, even at the cost of further terrorist attacks or even losing the GWOT.

The Dems don't care what we do, as long as they get elected.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 28, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

> It is intended to spread the
> Dems are weak meme,

So again, why did the Dem leadership play right into the Radicals' strategy? Digby predicted from the beginning exactly what was going to happen, including the Kabuki theatre with McCain, the dramatic floor vote, and the lack of Dem votes to fillibuster. Exactly to the day. Not a single person on Reid's staff reads Digby? Why not? She has been right about every Radical backstab since 2003 - why not listen to her rather than the DC insiders?

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on September 28, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK
Be sure that Mr Rove has thought this through. From his perspective habeas, the Constitution, and George Washingtons false teeth are fair game if it wins elections. Also be sure that his minions are running around the blogs posing as angry Dems and spreading disillusionment, revolt, and defeat.

Do not be deceived by the enemys stratagems.

So, what, you recommend that we wholeheartedly support Democratic politicians no matter how they act or vote, because to defect for any reason would somehow serve Rove? I say, if a politician wants my vote, and even more my active support, over an alternative, they better show me why they are worth supporting.

If the other side puts up something bad, I want a party that will not be afraid to call it bad, and vote against it.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, thanks Martin van Buren.

An inspiration. Please repeat every day until the election.

Posted by: bellumregio on September 28, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK
There are 3 possible POVs:

Bush's first priority is to prevent terrorist attacks and win the GWOT. Preserving civil liberties is secondary.

The ACLU and other civil liberties groups have civil liberties as their first priority, even at the cost of further terrorist attacks or even losing the GWOT.

The Dems don't care what we do, as long as they get elected.

All that together is one POV, not three.

Another POV is:

The Bush Administration is interested in expanding executive power, and is using past terrorism and the specter of terrorism as a pretext for that, as Dick Cheney hinted in reference to FISA and the War Powers Act.

The ACLU and other civil liberties groups are interested in the preservation of liberty, seeing anything else as defeat in the war on terror: the only way America actually loses.

Many elected Democrats believe that their substantive actions don't matter as long as they are in the minority, and believe they need to vote along with the Republicans until they can take control of Congress and switch directions.

There are, of course, many other possible perspectives on the situation.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

"It worked for Thomas Jefferson, after all, and Democrats consider him the founder of their party. They should take a lesson from him." - Kevin


The Democrats should take a lesson from FDR and JFK. The party has veered so far left the last couple of years, we can barely see you anymore.

Posted by: Jay on September 28, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

So, I checked Malkin, Instapundit, and LGF. Only LGF had a post on this bill passing the house.

I expected glee, fireworks, something. Did the House just mangle the bill for zero gain from their base, or did I just miss the celebration? Color me confused.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

The party has veered so far left the last couple of years, we can barely see you anymore.

No Jay, I think your perspective is off. *Hint* notice that you're now standing over there next to Mussolini and Hitler. We Democrats haven't veered anywhere.

Posted by: ckelly on September 28, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Amen and hooray for Kevin! This is exactly the kind of straightforward, call-it-like it is, practical and constructive criticism the Democratic leadership needs to be hearing day in, day out.

We don't need apologists for the appaling cowardice and inaction we've been seeing from the Democrats anymore than we need apologists for the horrible abuses the Republicans have been committing while in power.

Inaction by the Democrats (even if it is a poll-tested calculation to win votes) is a huge part of the problem; if you don't have the backbone to stand up and be counted as being opposed to the destruction of our constitution, you're of exactly zero worth to anyone, yet alone your country, your constitution, and our nation's posterity.

Thank you again Kevin. This may not be a dramatic change in your tone, and I know you duplicate it from time to time, but in my humble opinion we could use even more of it!

Posted by: Augustus on September 28, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

oh, cmdicely dont be silly.

Do you think that I would make an argument for orthodoxy or blind faith? As we all know these are not normal times. The Republicans are radicals and they need to be defeated with any alliance that will slow them down and get them out of power. I recommend solidarity with all enemies of Republicans. I have heard Noam Chomsky himself say the same thing. Not that it matters, but it does illustrate the gravity of the situation; it even transcends his ideals.

Posted by: bellumregio on September 28, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

You know what? I refuse to vote for a political party without a spine. If they go along to get along as the opposition party, what will they do when they're in the majority?
Lots of luck in November, Dems. You lost me.

Posted by: Johnny Tremaine on September 28, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK
This bill does nothing to change the facts on the ground.

False. Before, people who would reveal wrongdoing would be whistleblowers, and it was expressly illegal for the information of the wrongdoing to be classified to conceal the wrongdoing. Now that its is no longer, legally, wrongdoing, any who would reveal it are just criminals leaking perfectly legally classified information.

Prisoners were being held and tortured well before the bill. This is just a legal fig leaf that Bush didn't even think he needed until fairly recently.

Yeah, and now that Bush felt fear that his administration might be held accountable, the threat is taken away, and wrongdoing protected and rewarded. How can you say this is no change?

Anyone here think Bush would STOP his policies if Congress banned them?

I think he would stop his policies if accelerating leaks, fueled by the ineffectiveness of torture, by the legal ban on using classification to cover criminality that no longer will, with this bill, provide any protection since the criminality has been effectively stripped, and by the perception that Congress and the American people actually care about torture, also undermined by this bill, revealed the nature and extend of torture while it was criminal, spawned pressure for criminal investigation, and perhaps, as the investigations grew, more serious consequences including impeachment.

OTOH, now? Far less likely.

Why would he? He doesn't obey any other laws they pass, quite deliberately.

He would, if there were perceived consequences. From the surrender on this bill to Nancy Pelosi's prejudgment against accountability, Democrats have been too eager to assure him that will never happen.

Can this bill survive the Supreme Court? Dunno, but I bet we will find out soon.

It may not, but it may be very hard for someone with actual standing to get access to the courts in the first place, which makes it far less likely that we'll even see a case in the courts anytime soon. And if it does make it to the Supreme Court, that will likely take a year or more before it gets there, and some time after that for it to be resolved, and there are all kinds of reasons such a resolution may not be a definitive answer on the status of the law itself.

Unintended consequences. When U.S. soldiers in Iraq begin to be tortured on camera, alongside narration that "we are just doing to you what you are so proud of doing to us", this is going to be a P.R. disaster for Republicans.

No, it would be a PR disaster for Republicans if the policy were clearly and exclusively a Republican one. When the imprimatur of support is bipartisan, the chance of blowback for the Republicans is reduced.

We don't know yet what horrible results will come of this, but there certainly will be some.

Yeah. That's why we're upset at our leaders going along with it.

The Armed Forces have deep, serious misgivings about this bill, largely because of reason # 3 above. The CIA is not happy either, because now they don't have the fig leaf of "this is not official U.S. policy". Drip, drip, here come the leaks from the unhappy people.

Really? People are likely to leak if they think someone is going to do something with the information leaked. The Congress clearly isn't interested in doing that. There is now less, not more, incentive for those insiders uncomfortable with the policy to leak.


Anyone quitting the Dems- later, asshole. Thanks for quitting. Remember all the times Paul Wellstone quite because he lost a big fight? Me neither. The story is not over yet. The Christian Coalition never, ever quits the GOP. They get their boys elected and then they are in the position to make demands. You morons want to NOT help people get elected and then make demands.

The Christian Right in general is catered to because of the credible risk that it would withhold its support from candidates if not adequately pleased, which it has demonstrated time and again by doing just that, and even backing candidates running against Republicans.

Nothing lasts forever.

That's true. Even democracy dies.

5. Anyone quitting the Dems- later, asshole. Thanks for quitting. Remember all the times Paul Wellstone quite because he lost a big fight? Me neither. The story is not over yet. The Christian Coalition never, ever quits the GOP. They get their boys elected and then they are in the position to make demands. You morons want to NOT help people get elected and then make demands. Let me know how that works out.

6. Nothing lasts forever. Remain calm. Think. Work hard.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats should take a lesson from FDR and JFK.

Let's see, John F. Kennedy worked to end racial segregation and discrimination against blacks by conservatives, created programs that became the basis of welfare and drug assistance for seniors, and helped shape regulatory agencies.

FDR created the ultra-liberal New Deal with all its "big government" components that conservatives loathe: job programs, relief for farmers and unskilled laborers, the regulation of Wall Street, et al.

I'd say the party today is right on target, if a little off center to the right.

Posted by: trex on September 28, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

This is the thing that amazes me. Its an off year election. Who votes in off year elections? Your base. So what do the democrats do - they do something to surely piss off their base. Its like the geniuses Democrats in Washington don't want to win. Damned they're stupid.

Spot on. Exactly the same tactical genius that led so many of them to sign on for bankruptcy "reform", which would've passed without a single Dem vote. I'd really like to see some evidence, even a glimmer, that national Democrats can mimic sentient creatures, and learn from experience.

Posted by: sglover on September 28, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

Such fine words over on Atrios's website but really words are merely theatrics. WE are not much different than Broder, since Broder clearly based everything on theatrics. ONLY IF such speeches turned into filibusters, only THEN would such flower speeches have any meaning or merit.

With all fine, fine words NONE of our Dem senators have the courage to do anything but practice theatrics with flowery speeches. Hillary, Obama, they simply do not practice what they preach.

Stange how Dems will run out to Pledge the Allegiance of Flag but can't see past Arlington cemetary and the sacrifices those men buried there made so that we could keep the freedoms that we have today?

I dont want to vote for anybody on meaningless, theatrical, flower speeches.

Posted by: Cheryl on September 28, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Drum: I have to say that their poll-tested cowardice on the detainee bill over the past couple of weeks has been about as bad as anything I can remember.

Too little, too late, Kevin.

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK
Do you think that I would make an argument for orthodoxy or blind faith?

I don't know what you "would" do in unspecified circumstances, but I think that's what you just did.

As we all know these are not normal times.

I'm tired of hearing that. Yes, the powerful are trying to entrench their power using fear, and bad people are trying to kill other people.

None of that is abnormal.

The Republicans are radicals and they need to be defeated with any alliance that will slow them down and get them out of power.

Sure, and if the Democrat in office ever begin acting like they want to slow them down and get them out of power, they'll have my enthusiastic support.

The strategy of continued surrender until a Democratic electoral majority magically material ex nihilo, however, is not showing me that the Democrats in office have the desire or capacity to do that.

I recommend solidarity with all enemies of Republicans.

I see no evidence that the Democrats in office acting as enablers of the Republicans destruction of our system of government are "enemies" of the Republicans in any meaningful sense.

I have heard Noam Chomsky himself say the same thing.

So? Noam Chomsky may get somethings right, but identifying and supporting effective agents of change certainly doesn't seem to be his strong suit.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

I recommend solidarity with all enemies of Republicans

As Churchill put it:

"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

Says it all for me.

Posted by: Mrs. Peel on September 28, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately, Sherrod Brown learnt the wrong lessons, I'd say. Look at his bamboozling e-mail response to me:

Yesterday, Congressman Brown voted for a bill that creates a military tribunal to try those enemy combatants that have been held by the government since September 11, 2001.

This compromise is supported by Senator John McCain, a former POW who fought to ensure that this tribunal lives up to our national standards on human rights.

Unlike President Bush's plan, this compromise measure prohibits the degrading treatment of detainees and specifically lists the types of behaviors that are banned in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

The Washington Post wrote about the legislation, "The compromise legislation does not seek to narrow U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of prisoners, as Bush had hoped."

Those detained have been held for more than 5 years with no opportunity to prove their guilt or innocence.

It will provide that opportunity, so that those who are innocent can be set free and those who are guilty can be punished.

The bill prohibits the use of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees. Because that evidence is often unreliable, it will not admit evidence obtained through torture

Detainees will be entitled to Combatant Status Review, where they may challenge their detention within the confines of the military tribunal system.

And the bill will allow combatants to receive an edited version of classified evidence being used to convict them so that they can respond without putting our national security at risk.

Congressman Brown feels it has taken far too long for a legal framework to be developed for the innocent who must be freed, the guilty that must be punished, and our homeland which must be secured.

Posted by: Amit Joshi on September 28, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Many elected Democrats believe that their substantive actions don't matter as long as they are in the minority, and believe they need to vote along with the Republicans until they can take control of Congress and switch directions.

You are quite right but at what point are they just republicans?

The obvious point is these legislators are doing what the people wants to order to get re-elected. Which means voting with the GOP. If that's where the people are doesn't your party then need to move right or learn to love being minority?

You are suggesting they act conservative while in office until/unless more peers can get elected and then act differently. But if voters elected you based on pervious performance and they you change aren't you playing with fire?

How can a national party 'pretend' to be one thing in order to get elected and then act as another thing in office seriously expect to remain in office?

I would submit as Exhibit A the 1st two years of the Clinton Presidency when after running as a 'New Democrat" he governed as a unabashed liberal and promply got his head handed to him in the worst election performance in 50 years.

Every politician has to learn not to get too far away from their constituancy to stay in office but when there are fundamental differences in positions a party cannot remain outside the mainstream for long. That why your party has nominated a dozen soldiers to run for office.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

enozinho (wetorture.com): So, I checked Malkin, Instapundit, and LGF. Only LGF had a post on this bill passing the house.

I expected glee, fireworks, something. Did the House just mangle the bill for zero gain from their base, or did I just miss the celebration? Color me confused.

I can't speak for those bloggers, but I am a bit disappointed in the bill. The civil liberties of Americans and others around the world depends on defeating al Qaeda and other Islamo fascists as quickly and decisivly as possible. The more effective the questioning, the more civil liberties are preserved. The bill that passed was a compromise with Bush's former procedure. It weakens the civil liberties that were better protected by Bush's more effective questioning methods.

However, I am relieved that at least degree of effective questioning of terrorists remains. The Dems and a handful of idiotic Reps tried to make effective quetioning impossible. Fortunately, they didn't fully succeed.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 28, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with bakho upthread. As cowardly as it seems to vote for this, the reality is that with a dem majority shit like this would never make it to the floor in the first place. So..by opposing those who voted for it, even though their vote made no difference in the outcome, only helps to continue with the repubs in charge and able to create these situations.

Posted by: fly on the wall on September 28, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

The Dem leadership is wimping out, claiming "we don't have enough votes to sustain a filibuster". Can anyone imagine an LBJ saying some wimpy crap like this? LBJ would have found those votes - whether it was through kicking ass with his big Texas boots or twisting a couple of arms. Wimps.

Posted by: Chrissy on September 28, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

Bakho: the minority party in the Senate has the power to prevent a bill from coming to a vote.

The Democrats in the Senate did not choose to exercise that power.

Therefore "Democrats would never allowed a bill this bad to come to a vote" is simply false.

Posted by: aphrael on September 28, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

"Posted by: ex-liberal on September 28, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK"

The only good thing about this is that people like you can be "disappeared" the next time you insult a Dem. President.

Posted by: Mrs. Peel on September 28, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Bellumregio: you may be right about the Republican electoral strategy at play here. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be pissed at Democrats for failing to prevent the Congress from suspending habeas corpus for aliens. The fact that the Republican playbook depended on the Democrats having no dedication to freedom doesn't mean it's OK for the Democrats to have no dedication to freedom.

Posted by: aphrael on September 28, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

In the senate true, but isn't most of the outrage here directed at Brown and other members of the house who voted for it, not only the senators who didn't filibuster?

Posted by: fly on the wall on September 28, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see, John F. Kennedy worked to end racial segregation and discrimination against blacks by conservatives, created programs that became the basis of welfare and drug assistance for seniors, and helped shape regulatory agencies.

JFK did almost none of this. Listen to Julian Bond describe JFKs efforts on segregion. They're a tad less than complimentary.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

A bleak day where political expediency trumped even centuries old law and religious faith. There is now no depths too low for republicans to plumb. What happened to the party that was against intrusive, authoritarian government? That was a myth, apparently. I shall not forgive those who stood with the enemies of freedom--supporters of the dictatorship all. Graham especially was at his simpering, weasley worst today. I can't even stand to look at the man any longer--he sold his manhood cheap. This administration is now officially rogue.

The trolls here need to just STFU. They are next.
Americans are solidly against this sham. And the worm will turn. We won't forget.


Posted by: Sparko on September 28, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK
You are quite right but at what point are they just republicans?

I don't think it matters, frankly.

The obvious point is these legislators are doing what the people wants to order to get re-elected.

No, the obvious point is that they are attempting to narrow the areas of controversy to those they think are easiest to effectively communicate and sell, which is not the same thing as "doing what the people wants [sic]".

Which means voting with the GOP.

Well, no. "Doing what the people wants [sic]" does not mean voting with the GOP.

If that's where the people are doesn't your party then need to move right or learn to love being minority?

If that were "where the people are", then the Democratic Party would need to learn to do what the Republican Party did when it was in the national minority are unable to get a hold on the Congress: develop a better grass roots effort to communicate its values and propagate values that supported voting for the party's candidates.

For that matter, the Democratic Party ought to do that in any case.

People's opinions are, quite often, not fixed.


How can a national party 'pretend' to be one thing in order to get elected and then act as another thing in office seriously expect to remain in office?

Very easily, judging from the results of the party that has pretended to be for small government with limited intrusion into people's lives but supervised an enormous expansion in the size and intrusiveness of government.

I would submit as Exhibit A the 1st two years of the Clinton Presidency when after running as a 'New Democrat" he governed as a unabashed liberal and promply got his head handed to him in the worst election performance in 50 years.

Clinton wasn't in an election immediately following his first two years, nor did he govern as an "unabashed liberal" (NAFTA, anyone?); its quite arguable that the midterm defeat Congressional Democrats suffered was largely a result of disillusionment with the Democratic Party resulting from the conflicts between the White House and the Democrats in Congress, who were much more to the left on almost every issue, except for the one issue where Clinton was a solid liberal, health care...


Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats NEED TO understand - they won't win IF they don't do what the voters want them to do. The penalties have to start somewhere and I don't see how voters can simply reward representatives who fail utterly to do what voters really want them to do.

Mark Kleiman is right, we have to impress upon Dems to do what voters want and stop trying to save thier own sorry asses. Our representatives are NOT in Washington to represent themselves, but to represent the American public.

This is WHY Dems are so damn spineless, because they think they can get away with doing nothing for voters for issue liberal voters clearly reject, and so far Dem been right so far. They get voter for anyway.

You CANNOT Reward this kind behavior.

Posted by: Cheryl on September 28, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK
As cowardly as it seems to vote for this, the reality is that with a dem majority shit like this would never make it to the floor in the first place.

If the Democrats in office would like me to believe that, they should have voted against it.

That would tell me I'd be safe from things like this if they were in charge.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

So we should reward the repubs for playing this issue in this way with continued control instead?

Posted by: fly on the wall on September 28, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

er, sorry: This is WHY Dems are so damn spineless, because they think they can get away with doing nothing for voters in issue liberal voters clearly reject, and so far, Dems have been right. They get voted for anyways. That has got to stop.

Posted by: CheryL on September 28, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

This was all about divide and conquer.

Posted by: pol on September 28, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

fly on the wall: So..by opposing those who voted for it, even though their vote made no difference in the outcome

Had the 34 Dems who voted Yes and the 7 Dems who abstained voted No, the final vote would have been 219-Y and 209-N -- a split ready-made from which to mount a filibuster.

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

My fondest fantasy for a long time has been for Bin Laden, Bush, Saddam and Cheney to be hung next to each other by the necks until dead dead dead. Not that it will ever happen. But now I visualize every Senator and Representative who voted for this travesty hanging next to them. My only regret would be that such deaths would be too painless. These inhuman scum are traitors ruining the country that I love. I hope they all burn in hell for all eternity.

Posted by: Patriot on September 28, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

However, I am relieved that at least degree of effective questioning of terrorists remains. The Dems and a handful of idiotic Reps tried to make effective quetioning impossible. Fortunately, they didn't fully succeed.

Posted by: ex-liberal


This bill is simply an after the fact CYA for the President and this administration. Given how the SCOTUS ruled on the GCs applying to al Qaeda, this sort of move was a inevitable. It had nothing to do with "effective" questioning, and everything to do with keeping the criminal conduct of the present administration safe from legal scrutiny.

Posted by: cyntax on September 28, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK
So we should reward the repubs for playing this issue in this way with continued control instead?

If the Democrats demonstrate that they lack either the will or the judgment to do what is necessary to fight the Republicans, then stopping supporting the Democrats isn't rewarding the Democrats with continued control.

I will give active support to those who actively oppose authoritarianism. Those that find themselves unwilling or unable to do that, well, supporting them ceases to be opposing authoritarianism, doesn't it?

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

I have no idea if the "lifelong Democrats" Mark Klieman reports about are Democrats at all. What I do know is that faux Democrats (Republicans in drag) will be protesting on blogs about how Democrats voted.

A Common Republican strategy to discourage folks from voting for Democrats or voting at all this November. The elections are close in many states.

I will not be swayed from voting a straight Democratic ticket. Enough is enough. The stakes are too high. I'm voting for a change in leadership in both the House and Senate and I'm willing to take a chance. The shameless Republican party needs to be defeated.

Posted by: Jersey-Missouri on September 28, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Mrs. Clinton's statement for the record:

"Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
September 28, 2006

Mr. President, the Senate is currently debating a bill on how we treat detainees in our custody and, more broadly, on how we treat the principles on which our nation was founded.

The implications are far reaching for our national security interests abroad; the rights of Americans at home; our reputation in the world; and the safety of our troops.

The threat posed by the evil and nihilistic movement that has spawned terrorist networks is real and gravely serious. We must do all we can to defeat the enemy with all the tools in our arsenal and every resource at our disposal. All of us every one of us is dedicated to deterring and defeating this enemy.

The challenge before us on this bill, in the final days of session before the November election, is to find a solution that serves our national security interests. I fear, however, that there are those who place a strategy for winning elections ahead of a smart strategy for winning the war on terrorism.

Democrats and Republicans alike believe that terrorists must be caught, captured, sentenced, punished. I believe there can be no mercy for those who perpetrated 9/11 and other crimes against humanity. But in the process of accomplishing what I believe is essential for our security we must hold on to our values and set an example we can point to with pride, not shame. Those captured are going nowhere they are imprisoned now so we should follow the duty given us by the Supreme Court and carefully craft the right piece of legislation to try and punish them. The president acted without authority and it is our duty now to be careful in handing this president just the right amount of authority to get the job done.

Mr. President, During the Revolutionary War, between the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which set our founding ideals to paper, and the writing of our Constitution, which fortified those ideals under the rule of law, our values our beliefs as Americans were already being tested.

We were at war and victory was hardly assured, in fact the situation was closer to the opposite. New York City and Long Island had been captured. General George Washington and the Continental Army retreated across New Jersey to Pennsylvania, suffering tremendous casualties and a body blow to the cause of American Independence.

It was at this time, among these soldiers at this moment of defeat and despair, that Thomas Paine would write, These are the times that try men's souls. Soon afterward, Washington lead his soldiers across the Delaware River and onto victory in the Battle of Trenton. There he captured nearly 1000 foreign mercenaries and he faced a crucial choice.

How would General Washington treat these prisoners? The British had already committed atrocities against Americans, including torture. As David Hackett Fischer describes in his Pulitzer Prize winning book, Washington's Crossing, thousands of American prisoners of war were treated with extreme cruelty by British captors. There are accounts of injured soldiers who surrendered being murdered instead of quartered, countless Americans dying in prison hulks in New York harbor, starvation and other acts of inhumanity perpetrated against Americans confined to churches in New York City.

You can imagine, the light of our ideals shone dimly in those early dark days, years from an end to the conflict, years before our improbable triumph and the birth of our democracy. General Washington was not that far from where the Continental Congress had met and signed the Declaration of Independence. But it is easy to imagine how far that must have seemed. General Washington announced a decision unique in human history, sending the following order for handling prisoners:

Treat them with humanity, and Let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British army in their Treatment of our unfortunate brethren.

Therefore, George Washington, our commander-in-chief before he was our President, laid down the indelible marker of our nations values even as we were struggling as a nation and his courageous act reminds us that America was born out of faith in certain basic principles. In fact, it is these principles that made and still make our country exceptional and allow us to serve as an example. We are not bound together as a nation by bloodlines. We are not bound by ancient history; our nation is a new nation. Above all, we are bound by our values.

Now these values George Washingtons values, the values of our founding are at stake. We are debating far-reaching legislation that would fundamentally alter our nations conduct in the world and the rights of Americans here at home. And we are debating it too hastily in a debate too steeped in electoral politics.

The Senate, under the authority of the Republican Majority and with the blessing and encouragement of the Bush-Cheney Administration, is doing a great disservice to our history, our principles, our citizens, and our soldiers. The deliberative process is being broken under the pressure of partisanship and the policy that results is a travesty.

Fellow Senators, the process for drafting this legislation to correct the administrations missteps has not befitted the worlds greatest deliberative body. Legitimate, serious concerns raised by our senior military and intelligence community have been marginalized, difficult issues glossed over, and debates we should have had have been shut off in order to pass a misconceived bill before Senators return home to campaign for re-election.

For the safety of our soldiers and the reputation of our nation, it is far more important to take the time to do the job right than to do it quickly and badly. There is no reason other than partisanship for not continuing deliberation to find a solution that works to achieve a true consensus based on American values.

In the last several days, this bill has undergone countless changes all for the worse and differs significantly from the compromise brokered between the Bush Administration and a few Senate Republicans last week.

Fellow Senators, we all know we are holding this hugely important debate against the backdrop of Novembers elections. There are some in this body more focused on holding on to their jobs than doing their jobs right. Some in this chamber plan to use our honest and serious concerns for protecting our country and our troops as a political wedge issue to divide us for electoral gain.

How can we in the Senate find a proper answer and reach a consensus when any matter that does not serve the Majoritys partisan advantage is mocked as weakness, and any real concern for our troops and values dismissed demagogically as coddling the enemy?

This broken process and its blatant politics will cost our nation dearly. It allows a discredited policy ruled by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional to largely continue and to be made worse.

We must stand for the rule of law before the world, especially when we are under stress and under threat. We must show that we uphold our most profound values. The rule of law cannot be compromised.

Our Supreme Court in its Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision ruled that the Bush Administrations previous military commission system had failed to follow the Constitution and the law in its treatment of detainees. The question before us is whether this Congress will follow the decision of the Supreme Court and create a better system that withstands judicial examination or attempt to confound that decision, a strategy destined to fail again.

The bill before us allows the admission into evidence of statements derived through cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation. That sets a dangerous precedent that will endanger our own men and women in uniform overseas.

Will our enemies be less likely to surrender? Will informants be less likely to come forward? Will our soldiers be more likely to face torture if captured? Will the information we obtain be less reliable? These are the questions we should be asking. And based on what we know about warfare from listening to those who have fought for our country, the answers do not support this bill.

As Lieutenant John F. Kimmons, the Armys Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence said, No good intelligence is going to come from abusive interrogation practices.

Allowing coercive treatment and torturous actions toward prisoners not only violates the fundamental rule of law and the institutions of justice, not only will it fail to bear fruit in intelligence gathering, but it promotes radicalization. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Ladens second-in-command, the architect of many of the attacks on our country and throughout Europe and the world, has said, over and over, that torture helps the cause of extremism watering the seeds of jihad.

M. President, I would like to submit for the Record letters and statements from former military leaders, 9/11 Families, the religious community, retired judges, legal scholars and law professors, all of whom have registered serious concerns with this bill and its provisions.

The bill also makes significant changes to the War Crimes Act. As it is now written, the War Crimes Act makes it a federal crime for any soldier or national of the United States to violate, among other things, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions in an armed conflict not of an international character. The administration has voiced concern that Common Article 3 which prohibits cruel treatment or torture, outrages against human dignity, and humiliating and degrading treatment sets out an intolerably vague standard on which to base criminal liability, and may expose CIA agents to jail sentences for rough interrogation tactics used in questioning detainees.

But the current bills changes to the War Crimes Act have done little to clarify the rules for our interrogators.

This bill undermines the Geneva Conventions by allowing the President to issue Executive Orders to redefine what are permissible interrogation techniques. Have we fallen so low as to debate how much torture we are willing to stomach? By allowing this Administration to further stretch the definition of what is and is not torture, we lower our moral standards to those whom we despise, undermine the values of our flag wherever it flies, put our troops in danger, and jeopardize our moral strength in a conflict that cannot be won simply with military might.

Once again, there are those who are willing to stay a course that is not working, giving the Bush-Cheney Administration a blank check a blank check to torture, to create secret courts using secret evidence, to detain people, including Americans, to be free of judicial oversight and accountability, to put our troops in greater danger.

The bill has several other flaws as well.

This bill would not only deny detainees habeas corpus rights a process that would allow them to challenge the very validity of their confinement it would also deny these rights to lawful immigrants living in the United States. If enacted, this law would give license to this Administration to pick people up off the streets of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charges and without legal recourse.

At the very least, this is worth a debate on the merits, not on the politics. This is worth putting aside our differences its too important.

Our values are central. Our national security interests in the world are vital. And nothing should be of greater concern to those of us in this chamber than the young men and women who are, right now, wearing our nations uniform, serving in dangerous territory.

After all, our standing, our morality, our beliefs are tested in this chamber and their impact and their consequences are tested under fire, they are tested when American lives are on the line, they are tested when our strength and ideals are questioned by our friends and by our enemies.

When our soldiers face an enemy, when our soldiers are in danger, that is when our decisions in this chamber will be felt. Will that enemy surrender? Or will he continue to fight, with fear for how he might be treated and with hate directed not at us, but at the patriot wearing our uniform whose life is on the line?

When our nation seeks to lead the world in service to our interests and our values, will we still be able to lead by example?

Our values, our history, our interests, and our military and intelligence experts all point to one answer.

Lets pass a bill thats been honestly and openly debated, not hastily cobbled together.

Lets pass a bill that unites us, not divides us.

Lets pass a bill that strengthens our moral standing in the world, that declares clearly that we will not retreat from our values before the terrorists. We will not give up who we are. We will not be shaken by fear and intimidation. We will not give one inch to the evil and nihilistic extremists who have set their sights on our way of life.

Vladimir Bukovsky, who spent nearly 12 years in Soviet prisons, labor camps, and psychiatric hospitals for nonviolent human rights activities had this to say: If Vice President Cheney is right, that some cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of captives is a necessary tool for winning the war on terrorism, then the war is lost already.

Before George Washington crossed the Delaware, before he could achieve that long-needed victory, before the tide would turn, before he ordered that prisoners be treated humanely, he ordered that his soldiers read Thomas Paines writing. He ordered that they read about the ideals for which they would fight, the principles at stake, the importance of this American project.

Now we find ourselves at a moment when we feel threatened, when the world seems to have grown more dangerous, when our nation needs to ready itself for a long and difficult struggle against a new and dangerous enemy that means us great harm.

Just as Washington faced a hard choice, so do we. Its up to us to decide how we wage this struggle and not up to the fear fostered by terrorists. We decide.

This is a moment where we need to remind ourselves of the confidence and bravery of George Washington. We cannot, we must not, subvert our ideals we can and must use them to win."

Remember folks: she's running for president in 2008.

And she's going to win.

Posted by: Linus on September 28, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Christian rightwings sorts would never allow any Republican to step out of line - You have to fight fire with fire, there really is no way around it.

ALL the blogs were unified against Bush and his privatizing of social security and it worked.

I was not premissable the Dems to vote for this bill. Clear they should have consider that. I believe that should be replace with OTHER Dem even if takes awhile - Liberals have to start somewhere.

Posted by: Cheryl on September 28, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

Everyone knows that this was designed to do exactly what it is doing. The whole point is to put people in a position where no matter what they do it will peel of a portion of their support. For Brown anyway, it would not have changed the outcome of the bill one bit. In light of that, someone obviously made the calculation that it would lose more voters to allow the Brown morphing into Osama ads that would be sure to follow a no vote. So instead of a moral victory, they are going for an electoral victory that might actually be able to make a difference. It sucks...I don't like it...but I don't think it's as black and white as some people think, and it certainly would not make me refuse to vote for the candidates, and in doing so tacitly support continued repub oppression, that allows this kind of shit to happen in the first place.

Posted by: fly on the wall on September 28, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

The challenge before us on this bill, in the final days of session before the November election, is to find a solution that serves our national security interests. I fear, however, that there are those who place a strategy for winning elections ahead of a smart strategy for winning the war on terrorism.

Which begs the effing question of why the Dems are constantly reacting to Republican strategies.

Get your own damn bill onto the floor first that preserves the things we think are important, like habeas corpus, and at the same time takes the teeth out of the Republicans' bill. They're never going to beat the Republicans by sitting on their hands.

Posted by: cyntax on September 28, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

I have to admit that, while less happy with the Democratic Party as a whole, I'm also less opposed to Hillary Clinton after this.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

For those who are so frustrated, want to quit the party, throw in the towel, etc., etc. I offer this thought:

Get in your car, drive down to the local Dem Committee office, walk in, calmly introduce yourself, and ask what you can do to help fix this bloody mess.

You cannot fix it from outside.

If nothing else, remember the '60's. We all learned something very valuable then: large, public outcry works. Organize. Get active. Call the local media (who are always drooling for a story anyway) and get on camera with some signs. Find a good spokesperson, who can clearly articulate the issue and "why we're here." Find candidates and run them!

If the system won't fix itself, it is up to all of us to get busy and fix it. Activism will work, if enough people get away from their keyboards and their Reality TV and get out on the streets. If we dont, were the losers in the end. If you dont like whats going on, get out and protest. Publicly, vociferously, and dont forget to call the local TV station and tip them off in time to be there. Grassroots is hard work, but it will work.

Pressure and spotlight can be applied in many ways. We are neither helpless, nor impotent, unless we choose to be so.

Just a thought.

Posted by: Otolaryx on September 28, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

Well, no. "Doing what the people want" does not mean voting with the GOP.

It did today now didn't it?

They didn't even have the balls to DISCUSS a filibuster. I love libs in denial. You still think you just need a better PR campaign. As if no one knows what you are about? This is absurd. People know exactly what you are about. That's why there wasn't even a discussion of a filibuster. Those wishing to remain in office cannot so much as consider standing near you.

Like it or not your party is changing and the choice isn't to the leadership but to the whacky left. What can you do? Send a nasty email? Think they don't know you are pissed? You can go to the polls and support candidates who are more conservative than you are OR you can stay home and let your party lose more seats.

Your leadership has clearly decided they wish to remain in office AND, in wanting to become a majority party, to move further right. This is where the mainstream sits. Those with their jobs on the line know what they must do. What are you going to do?

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

you can't get your own bill on the floor as long as the repubs control the majority and the agenda. That's why anyone who opposes this continued oppression by the rethug majority needs to get over this and kick the assholes out. The only way to do that is to vote for the dems, whether you have to hold your nose or not. Anything else only gets us more of the same.

Posted by: fly on the wall on September 28, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

I'm also less opposed to Hillary Clinton after this.


That's exactly the correct thing to do. Your choice in 11/2008 will be Hillary or a throw-away vote for a 3rd party quack. Better get comfy with her because you can't stop her.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

I wish Paul Hackett was in the House right now.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Linus, for posting Clinton's statement. I can think of no words of hers ever which were more moving, more important.

But did she merely submit this written text into the record, or did she actually speak these words on the Senate floor? And will she speak out loudly, calling for a filibuster and for Bush's impeachment?

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Karl Rove: Pay up, Dick. I've won the bet.
Dick Cheney: Here, one dollar.
Karl Rove: [chuckling] We took an immoral and unamerican position on torture and eliminating habeas corpus, and turned it into law. And during the same time, we portrayed those who support basic consitutional rights as violently... deranged and weak on terror.
[laughs]

Posted by: Michael on September 28, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

If the Democrats demonstrate that they lack either the will or the judgment to do what is necessary to fight the Republicans, then stopping supporting the Democrats isn't rewarding the Democrats with continued control.

Assuming you mean Republicans in the last reference, tell this to Max Cleland. He stood up for his principals and lost his senate seat. I'm unhappy about this bill and unhappy about every vote for it. Not voting Dem in November, however, will most certainly not be a move to help fix the situation.

Posted by: Edo on September 28, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

What are you going to do?

I am going to persuade RDW's children to join the military so they can serve Bush in Iraq.

If you want to get back at scum like RDW, persuade their children to join the military and die in Iraq.

Posted by: Hostile on September 28, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

This is where the mainstream sits. Those with their jobs on the line know what they must do. What are you going to do?

Change the mainstream.

Posted by: Windhorse on September 28, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin

Just a question for you looney libs.

What would it take for you to approve of George Bush? I mean, the man fights terrorism, gives us our taxes back, topples evil dictatorships.

There was once a time when such a man would have been lauded. I guess nothing's good enough anymore.

What would it take? Would Bush have to marry bin Laden on national television? Would that satisfy you creeps?

Posted by: egbert on September 28, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

saw their fellow Americans as racist and homophobic and greedy and as religious fanatics.

Sounds pretty much like all the qualities needed to be a Repig. Plus it's just easier to stay stupid than get an education. (Sitting home with mommy reading the bible really doesn't count, you know.)

Posted by: Hartland on September 28, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

I mean, the man fights terrorism, gives us our taxes back, topples evil dictatorships.

Only in your Repig dreams. Chimpy can barely get his shoes on the right feet.

Posted by: Hartland on September 28, 2006 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK
I'm unhappy about this bill and unhappy about every vote for it. Not voting Dem in November, however, will most certainly not be a move to help fix the situation.

Did I say I'm not voting D in November? No, and I'll repeat what I said upthread:

I'm not interested in changing a political party, I'm interested in changing a nation that has gone off course. If a political party wants my active support, it will show that it is interested in that goal as well.

Otherwise, it may get a vote as the best tactical choice among the alternatives on election day, but its not getting my time, money, or advocacy on behalf of the party.

If Democrats in office want my energy in support of their electoral efforts, they better show me they are putting their energy into supporting my liberty.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

Edo: tell this to Max Cleland. He stood up for his principals and lost his senate seat.

Stood up? He voted for Bush's war and was still painted as Osama's best buddy.

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

There was once a time when such a man would have been lauded.

Like when Andrew Jackson forced those Native Americans off of their land so the Europeans could steal it.

Like when a slave owner could fuck any African child on his property.

Like when capitalists could force children to work in horrible conditions twelve hours a day, seven days a week.

Posted by: Hostile on September 28, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Egbert: are you following the conversation at all?

This isn't about disliking Bush. It's about disliking a law which flies in the face of American tradition and which essentially abandons something which has been considered an underpinning of our liberty since well before there was a United States.

I'd object to this if the Dalai Lama were President.

Posted by: aphrael on September 28, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Fights Terrorism = Big bucks (mostly stolen) for corporate sponsors.

Tax cuts = Big bucks for the richest people, not drones like you.

Topples evil dictatorships = Only by default after this crop of Repig-fascist brownshirts are kicked to the curb. (Oh, and if you mean SH, that's really a knee slapper, since it was Ronny "where am I?" Raygun and Daddy Bush I who put him there in the first place.)

Posted by: Hartland on September 28, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK
Stood up? He voted for Bush's war and was still painted as Osama's best buddy.

And yet, Democrats in office keep rolling over for the Republicans in the hopes that they'll get better treatment.

WTF?

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

Change the mainstream.

You go guy! That'll work. You're right and everyone else is wrong.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK
You go guy! That'll work.

Why not? It worked for the Republicans, it made it a deliberate conscious effort with a number of grassroots and media-pressure campaigns from at least the 1980s on, culminating in their recent majority status.

The mainstream is moved by events, some of which come from outside of the control of political actors, some of which are deliberately designed as political strategies.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

rdw regarding: "Change the mainstream."

You go guy! That'll work. You're right and everyone else is wrong.

The "mainstream" isn't "everyone else." The mainstream is simply those with the most money and the most weapons dictating what the mainstream should be.

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

If you want to get back at scum like RDW, persuade their children to join the military and die in Iraq.

Aren't you the classy one? Actually none of my daughters are interested in military service so they're no more likely to end up in Iraq than you are. I suspect from your perspective this is when Democracy really sucks. Because my wife and I are conservative and 3 of my 4 kids are conservative and I'm fairly certain when #4 is of age she'll be conservative. None of us will ever go to Iraq yet that was 5 votes for Bush in 2004.

None of us believe in appeasement. Isn't that a coincidence. It makes the choice rather simple doesn't it?

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

You go guy! That'll work. You're right and everyone else is wrong.

Worked for Gandhi, worked for Martin Luther King, worked for Jesus Christ, can't be all that bad.

Posted by: Windhorse on September 28, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

I hate be baited by a troll, but mhr, WTF is a 'radical secularist'? A person who doesn't believe in something---radically? What the hell are you talking about?

Posted by: Johnny Tremaine on September 28, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

tarring anyone who opposed their calculated panic as a weak-kneed appeaser.

Problem is the tar sticks.

This is the party that voted overwhelmingly AGAINST the first gulf war (the one were we had U.N. sanction & a massive multi-lateral coalition)
This is the party that nominated Genghis John as its presidential pick.
This is the party of we can fight a war on terrorism while shackled to a Anti-American, Moral Equivalent, Anti-Military, Pro-U.N., reactionary Left.

This is the party that cut its teeth on getting out of Vietnam. That is proud of its anti-war policy. That de-funded the CIA and nips its wings every chance it gets, Same with the Military.
This is not the party of FDR or JFK

This is the Party that wanted a nuclear Freeze Moments before Regan won the Cold War.

If there is going to be a party of appeasers who would you pick?

1968 guys, the counter-culture McGovernicks were outside the convention, 1973 they were inside. The party has taken a nosedive ever sense.

Posted by: Fitz on September 28, 2006 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

None of us believe in appeasement

Since Chimpy has pretty much given OBL everything he's wanted, that's really a ironic observation.

Posted by: Hartland on September 28, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary did make that speech on the Senate floor today. She did well. But I'm surprised to read the astute Linus predict that she'll win in 2008.

"Be sure that Mr Rove has thought this through. From his perspective habeas, the Constitution, and George Washingtons false teeth are fair game if it wins elections. Also be sure that his minions are running around the blogs posing as angry Dems and spreading disillusionment, revolt, and defeat."

You can go to hell with that slander, bellumregio. Rove, Rove, Rove, watch out for the big bogeyman. We're supposed to doublethink our every move in case it plays into the hands of the evil genius? No, thank you.

I'll be voting a straight Democratic ticket in November, but I'm quitting the party. My allegiance is to my country, not the Democrats.

Posted by: Lucy on September 28, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

"None of us believe in appeasement. Isn't that a coincidence. It makes the choice rather simple doesn't it?"

Especially when someone else has to do the dying. right? Get your chicken hawk ass over there and put your pampered ass where your big mouth is. You and all your fascist spawn.

Posted by: Fitzwillie on September 28, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

Haven't had time to read all the comments, but I find myself wondering if Republican voters are having the same visceral disappointment with the votes of almost ALL of their Republican Representatives and Senators.

I would hope that a majority, or at least a substantial minority of Republicans find government-sanctioned torture and the denial of habeas corpus to be a betrayal of American values and the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by: zeke on September 28, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

AND Bush sez..
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - President Bush counterpunched at Democrats on Thursday, saying their criticism of the war in Iraq has turned their party into one of "cut-and-run" obstructionists.

And Bush sez..By JENNIFER LOVEN , 09.28.2006, 05:41 PM. President Bush suggested Thursday that Democrats don't have the stomach to fight the war on terror.

NO, Dems to have the stomach to torture people the way Bush likes to torture.

HOW can it be to hard to Dems to just say that?

Posted by: Cheryl on September 28, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Thanks, Linus, for posting Clinton's statement."

You're welcome.

Posted by: Linus on September 28, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

"government-sanctioned torture and the denial of habeas corpus to be a betrayal of American values and the U.S. Constitution."

government-sanctioned torture. - your question begging. Thats what this bill resolves, the line between coercive interrogation & torture.

denial of habeas corpus - They have a two part appeal for their status of enemy combatants. Once to a military tribunal & again on appeal to the 10th circuit court.

the U.S. Constitution. - their not American citizens, ergo they dont qualify under the constitution.

Posted by: Fitz on September 28, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

None of us will ever go to Iraq yet that was 5 votes for Bush in 2004.

Your Publican Party, crystalized. Yellow fucking elephants and coward to a man - and woman.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

None of us will ever go to Iraq yet that was 5 votes for Bush in 2004.

Wow. A whole family of chickenhawk scum. Congrats on your parenting skills and taking pride in your shame.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

Fitz: Thats what this bill resolves, the line between coercive interrogation & torture.

If you don't think the things Bush has done and which this bill allows are torture, would you agree that they are punishing? If you were water-boarded or made to endure cold temperatures for extended periods and then had cold water thrown over you or made to stay awake for days at a time or made to stand in an uncomfortable position for hour after hour or forced to listen to hour after hour of blaring heavy metal music or stripped bare except for a hood and told to bend over, would you feel punished?

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

WTF is a 'radical secularist'?

Someone who doesn't believe, and is willing to kill for it?

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

A whole family of chickenhawk scum.

Wow! You called rdw's children scum. That's pretty harsh. Fair, but harsh.

Posted by: chickenplucker on September 28, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

Everyone who voted for this bill should be required to undergo a couple weeks of the "not torture".

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

No brats of priveledge are dying, are they?

Well, my children are not priveledged, but they grew up comfortable. Military officers do not as a rule get rich, but we live comfortably.

My husbands family came to Virginia in 1648. Since the War for Independence, every generation has sent men to service, without skipping one. But that proud heritage will most likely be broken with our son. At 23, he does his part - by teaching Arabic to officers as he pursues graduate degrees in Linguistics and History - but he is not in uniform, and his father has thus far managed to talk him out of going to OCS. Not that he would likely face combat. Linguists are high-value officers. Likely, he would be teaching at the academy. But it is the principle of the matter. And I know how much it hurts my husband, to his very essence, that he feels it necessary to discourage his son from following the family tradition embodied by his father, his grandfather, his great-grandfather...you get the idea.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

V
I would agree that they are harsh & extreem measures of coercive interrogation, but not torture.

(This will pass muster under Geneva & Hamden)

Posted by: Fitz on September 28, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

"But I'm surprised to read the astute Linus predict that she'll win in 2008."

Thank you, although I'm probably more of a crank who is good at guessing the answers (maybe those IQ tests shouldn't be multiple choice).

All Mrs. Clinton needs is Gore + Florida or Ohio, and she is brighter, sharper, and tougher than him; she also wants it more badly.

That she is hated by a good 40-45% of the populace is irrelevant. That same 40-45% of the electorate wouldn't vote for any Democrat who might get the nomination these days, even if they might despise him or her less.

The waters have been primed with the blood of a bad presidency (which happens to be Republican), and if her most formidable foe (Mr. Giuliani) manages to get the nomination (McCain is too old, and has a tendency to step on all the wrong toes), one of the most consequential races in American history may - all other things being equal (and most of the ones that matter will be) - fall on one of the most inconsequential issues of our time: abortion.

Giuliani won't have to suck up to the friends of torture in order to win the GOP nomination, but he will have to make the proverbial pilgrimmage to the Vatican or Bob Jones University, and declare himself a born-again defender of fetuses everywhere. In previous elections this might not have mattered. It may have helped him. But by 2008 crunch time will be imminent.

The Supreme Court will ultimately have to take a case to decide the constitutionality of Roe V Wade, and while the middle third of the American people more or less shrugged off years of Republican demagogy on the question of abortion, they will be forced to face the prospect that the next presidential administration could have the power to enact further federal restrictions on a woman's right to choice. For a majority of the American people, this is a grim prospect, and Senator Clinton will have a clear edge over even the most moderate presidential hopeful on the Republican side. The question will be: after flip-flopping on abortion during the primaries, can you trust Rudolph Giuliani to protect abortion rights at the federal level?

In the end, I feel certain the answer will be no. I wouldn't expect anything more than a Nixon-esque victory (like 1968) for Hillary in 2008 (although 2012 could be a blowout), but elections - proverbially - ain't horseshoes.

Posted by: Linus on September 28, 2006 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately, sometimes once an opportunity is lost its much much harder to re-group.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, all the way to the run up to the Iraq war, there was opportunity. All the Democratic party had to do was have enough foresight to realize that the appropriate theme was already set forth in many, many Westerns, hell, probably some Westerns Ronald Reagan was in for all I know.

That theme is of the hero who refuses to be afraid, who, while all of the other townspeople are cutting and running, refuses to change his way of life or habits to suit the bad guys. Sure its safe to "leave town" or "hide out" but the true hero is not going to change his routine one iota just because there is some guy in a black hat somewhere out on the lone prairie.

Its not a question of "appeasement" its a question of having real courage, the courage to basically not react, to not change.

Sure, occasionally torture might occur, it probably has in all wars. But for centuries men at war have actively fought, fought the primal urge to not retaliate against defenseless prisoners.

Hell, this does not even require research. All you have to do is turn on the History channel and compare the Japanese and U.S. treatment of prisoners in the Pacific Theater.

But, sadly, the chance for some Democratic leader to show real guts came and went. Or maybe it just seems like it.

Over the last five years "courage" has been re-defined as cruelty.

The whole Iraq war, from conception, to implementation, and now to this, is really an astonishing piece of work. Future historians are going to have a field day with this one.

Posted by: hank on September 28, 2006 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

Fitz: I would agree that they are harsh & extreem measures of coercive interrogation, but not torture.

And you have no problem inflicting such treatment on fellow human beings who have been convicted of no crime -- who have not even been charged with any crime?

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK

September 28, 2006, 06:37 PM

That's the birthdate of America 2.0, where Mom and apple pie can be shoved in your rectum to make you talk. The fertile grounds of freedom are... oh fuck it. I need a drink.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

宝贝计划下载 性爱图片 台湾18电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康图片 性教育电影 激情电影 免费黄色电影 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线下载 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 电影夜宴网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 美女乳房 性爱小说 美眉写真 激情贴图 两性性生活 作爱电影 性交图片 做爱图片 人体艺术摄影 美女裸照 全裸女 黄色小说 成人小说 强暴图片 轮奸美女 泳装图片 韩国电影 性知识图片 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情

Posted by: mmf铃声 on September 28, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

As a side note, former Governor Warner's relative conservatism on abortion and gay rights (especially) will doom his candidacy in the primaries, and all you kossacks who open your wallets for the man would be better spending that hard-earned cash taking your family to Disney World or Alaska. I myself prefer the latter. It's more picturesque, and they let you take your guns inside.

But, you know, they never listen...

Posted by: Linus on September 28, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

"And you have no problem inflicting such treatment on fellow human beings who have been convicted of no crime -- who have not even been charged with any crime?"

I have a major problem with it. It is my understanding that this is a time of war (is it not?) and that such procedures will be used on high value targets in the war on terror.

Posted by: Fitz on September 28, 2006 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

I can't wait until I get to torture Fitz.
You will be crying for your mommy in 2008 douchebag.

Posted by: al gored on September 28, 2006 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

Fitz,

Its so obviously not a time of war that its kind of amazing anyone educated enough to post on a blog like this could even ask the question.

Posted by: hank on September 28, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

Liberman voted for torture.

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

I have the same problem with Menendez...he's been talking a good game, but now this.

I would think that there are some issues that transcend politics. If its not this: torture, indefinite detention for everyone, elimination of Habeas Corpus, I can't imagine what it might be.

I spit in the face of every politician that voted for the bush/McCain/Warner/Graham torture abomination and an special fuck you to all republicans.

Posted by: justfred on September 28, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

From whom do you get the understanding that what you call "extreme measures" will only be used on high value targets?

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

Linus- Were did you receive your gift of clairvoyance?

Posted by: Fitz on September 28, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

all you kossacks

I don't know about the rest of you, but I come here to get away from the so-called kossacks.

I can only deal with one cult of personality at a time.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

Liberman voted for torture.

12 Dems did; pathetic.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

Nelson (D-Fl) voted for torture. No different than if Harris was Senator.

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

V
It is my understanding that this will satisfy the requisites of the Supreme Court as outlined in the Hamden decision.

Posted by: Fitz on September 28, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

You know what's going to be really fun?

When Hillary wins in 2008, watching the (presumably) GOP-controlled congress roll back everything they passed during GWB's reign. That'll be hilarious.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

One (1), ONE, ONE Republican voted against torture: Chafee

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

And Snowe sat on her hands.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Why not? It worked for the Republicans, it made it a deliberate conscious effort with a number of grassroots and media-pressure campaigns from at least the 1980s on, culminating in their recent majority status.

Republicans stand for a few specific things which were 1st best annuciated by RR and then by Newt. At the same time Liberalism came to be represented by giants such as Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

RR had 3 fundamental principles; lower taxes, less government, strong defense. He presented them in a very optimistic form and delivered bigtime. The change in the American mood and our position in the world from the end of the Jimmy Carter hostage crises, energy-shortage nightmare to the end of RR's term was as dramatic in any 8-yr period in American history. RR fundamentally changed America.

GHWB comes along and does a competent job but is beaten by WJC who gets off to a disasterous start and runs into Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America. That set of bullet items still resonates today.

There is no comparison on the political landscape for either man from either party. Howard Dean just wrote an op-ed in the WSJ listing what libs are supposed to stand for in this election and I can't remember a single word. He had 6 to 10 talking points with a paragraph on each.

Reagan had 6 words.

We are living in Reagans world. Democrats still lose on taxes. Tell someone under 40 Tax rates were as high as 70% in 1980 and they won't believe we could have been that stupid. Tell someone under 40 many leading liberals believed socialism was a viable system and they won't believe anyone could be that stupid. Democrats nominated a dozen new candidates from the military specifically to be taken seriously on defense and that's after supporting EVERY defense spending bill. Unfortunately GWB is not/ never was a small government guy but that remains an issue which will support conservatives, if not the GOP. (meaning in the next election promises and reducing deficits will box in both parties on the spending side)

Clintons most popular actions were NAFTA, Welfare Reform, deficit reduction, prison and police funding and sentencing. He made the NRA obsolete giving them everything they wanted. That's hardly liberal turf. On virtually every position democrats are defensive. They are trying to stop tax cuts, stop ss reform, stop things like 3-strikes, stop the GWOT, stop, stop, stop.

As a liberal what they are for and get some nonsense like, fairness, justice, 'the little guy', etc. No sh*t. What does that mean?

It's not possible to lead playing defense all the time on all things.

Your only shot in 2008 is Hillary and that's only because of Bill and money. She won't run as a liberal and if she wins she won't govern a a liberal. The country has moved right and continues to move right. Kerry knew to be called a liberal was electoral death.

Sorry CM, you've got nothing to offer and no one to offer it. You're only shot is a GOP screw-up.

BTW: Teddy K will always be the guy who killed MaryJo and Bill C will always be the guy who squirted all over Monica. Classy team you have.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

Fitz: It is my understanding that this will satisfy the requisites of the Supreme Court

It doesn't satisfy the requisites -- the definition of humanity -- as you would agree if your mother or daughter was one of those being interrogated with "extreme measures."

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. A whole family of chickenhawk scum. Congrats on your parenting skills and taking pride in your shame.

I am very proud indeed. You can of course see why we win?

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

It is my understanding that this will satisfy the requisites of the Supreme Court

Heck, many of the Publicans (eg, Spector, Smith) who voted for the damn thing don't even think that. Pray tell where do you get your understanding from?

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

David Corn has a few photos of a real waterboard. The punchline is where the photos came from. As Al/Charlie/Chuckles would say, it's "too funny!".

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Teddy K will always be the guy . . . Bill C will always be the guy . . .

And rdw will always be the guy who supports torture. It defines the person he is. The person you are, rdw. Do your children support it also? Do the innocent little babies that you once held in your arms now support torture because their father does? But you'll be right there to protect some microscopic cells on a slide, won't you?

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

I am very proud indeed. You can of course see why we win?

What I see is that in a hundred years the country will be filled with noone but wingnut chickenhawks, and will be easily taken over by a couple of Chinese women pushing shopping carts.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

And I know how much it hurts my husband, to his very essence, that he feels it necessary to discourage his son from following the family tradition embodied by his father, his grandfather, his great-grandfather...you get the idea.

That's OK and very probably better for everyone especially the military. They want men. If at age 23 he's still listening to mommy and daddy he's not what they're looking for.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, david corn's site is down. Sully has it too.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

What I see is that in a hundred years the country will be filled with no one but wingnut chickenhawks

The demographic's will be kicking in long, long before 100 years. Try now. The impact of birth control and abortion are now entering their 2nd generation and starting to compound. We have great data from Europes secular cultures showing the collapse of birth rates. It's no different in the USA. Miserable people don't reproduce and you are as miserable as it gets.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

my little boy is indeed a racist homophope. I think he turned out that way because there was not a strong male presence in the house. My husband ran off with a sailor.....

Posted by: mrh's mom on September 28, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

V wrote: If you don't think the things Bush has done and which this bill allows are torture, would you agree that they are punishing? If you were water-boarded or made to endure cold temperatures for extended periods and then had cold water thrown over you or made to stay awake for days at a time or made to stand in an uncomfortable position for hour after hour or forced to listen to hour after hour of blaring heavy metal music or stripped bare except for a hood and told to bend over, would you feel punished?

1. I think water boarding is torture, but maybe not the others.

2. Water boarding saved thousands of American lives, when it induced the 9/11 mastermind to spill the beans on the planned attack on Library Tower in Los Angeles. He broke after 2 minutes. Given a choice, I'd rather see this creep water boarded for two minues than see thousands of Americans maimed and killed. YMMV.

3. If I were captured by al Qaeda and they merely subjected me to water boarding, sleep deprivation, etc., I'd be relieved. The reality is that they would likely both torture and kill me.

4. When we refrain from torturing al Qaeda, we get nothing in return. In fact, our humane treatment of their prisoners encourages them, since they see the struggle in terms of barbaric viciousness. From their POV, the more ruthless side is winning.

In my view, we should guarantee humane treatment to al Qaedca terrorists when they're prepared to reciprocate (although I don't think that day will ever come.)

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 28, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

Do the innocent little babies that you once held in your arms now support torture because their father does?

Now I've been very careful not to get my kids to think as their father does but to think for themselves. I have of course given them some guidelines time has proven to be reliable. (i.e. democrats just want your money, the French are pussies, etc.) In that latter vein they've come to appreciate our brave and smart soldiers and like the idea of giving them the leeway to fight this war in the most efficient manner. If they think tough questioning is appropriate they have my support. We all understand they'll only do what is necesary to protect lives and they'll be humane.

I trust our soldiers. How about you?

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

You know, i've heard for the past 5 years that the Democrats are weak-kneed appeasers. And now I believe it. Why would I vote for a Democrat when they won't fucking do anything to stop Bush?

Posted by: jimmy on September 28, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

He is a better man at 23 than you will ever be, I have no doubt. It is a fool who does not hear the voice of experience and give it weight.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

If they think tough questioning is appropriate they have my support. We all understand they'll only do what is necesary to protect lives and they'll be humane.

That settles it. rdw is just another troll.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

If I were captured by al Qaeda

This right-wing fantasy was brought to you by Islamo-tine. It's deliciously un-seditious!

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

I know that Dems don't want to be portrayed as "weak on security" this fall, but caving to Karl Rove isn't the way to make yourself seem tough.

Being able to effectively stand up to the Republicans will help people have confidence that they're going to be able to stand up to crazy jihadis. It won't be sufficient, but it's at least the right direction.

Posted by: TW Andrews on September 28, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

I trust our soldiers. How about you?

I don't trust anyone on the basis of their position or occupation, but on the basis of their actions and deeds. Any soldier or any person willing to torture or to sanction its doing by others cannot be trusted to protect the rights and freedoms of human beings, much less citizens of this once great nation.

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

ex-lib, don't you think that any treatment that will cause hardened terrorists to spill the beans is torture? If it is not unbearable suffering, then why would they talk?

I personally have always assumed that torture will be used in any situation where a significant threat exists. What bothers me is the years of pretense, the claims that others (like Saddam) torture, by we do not. Turns out, when we have enemies that can hurt us, we do it too.

And by the way, a bunch of prisoners at Abu Graib died while interrogated, and there is that famous picture of Ms. England's tete-a-tete with one of them.

Posted by: JS on September 28, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

He is a better man at 23 than you will ever be

Then may God bless him as well as he has blessed me.

Hopefully his grandfather isn't turning over in his grave understanding as all military men do that soldiers don't get to pick their battles. They serve as soldiers and vote as citizens and the two are different. It's your shame he's not going to continue the family honor for that's exactly what it is. We are a great nation because we stand on the shoulders of such amazing people.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

Goodness, the question isn't whether we are going to look the other way if the CIA feels it needs to torture some raghead in order to stop Al-Qaeda from nuking the Snowflake baby factory.

It's whether we are going to torture people as standard operating procedure on flimsy evidence. But the trolls already know this. Ticking time-bomb scenarios, like torture, are porn to these sickos.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

don't trust anyone on the basis of their position or occupation, but on the basis of their actions and deeds.

Volunteering to serve your country is an honourable deed you twit.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: We are a great nation because we stand on the shoulders of such amazing people.

You support torture. Therefore, your platitudes are meaningless.

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

Volunteering to serve your country is an honourable deed you twit.

Yeah, but wanking to Soldier of Fortune magazine is not.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

V,

So those who have served and died for freedom and liberty are not amazing. So what are they in your world? fools?

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

Hopefully his grandfather isn't turning over in his grave understanding as all military men do that soldiers don't get to pick their battles. They serve as soldiers and vote as citizens and the two are different. It's your shame he's not going to continue the family honor for that's exactly what it is. We are a great nation because we stand on the shoulders of such amazing people.

A man who has shamelessly raised a family of bigoted chickenhawks is lecturing a military family about what it means to be in the military?!

Geezus f-ing Kreist! This pretty much is the modern GOP in a nutshell, isn't it? All tongue and gall; no brains or balls.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

Like rdw, Trent Lott is another great family guy who "supports" the military even though he didn't serve. Here's what he said today? "Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me."

In 2006 people are actually still saying They all look the same to me!

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

a military family about what it means to be in the military?!

It's not longer a military family you twit. That was her point. They're ending it.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

Like rdw, Trent Lott is another great family guy who "supports" the military even though he didn't serve

Who said I didn't serve? I have dog tags that speak otherwise.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

In 2006 people are actually still saying They all look the same to me

They do look the same. They're fighting on religious differences.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

Great Grandfather: WWI
Grandfather I: WWII
Great Aunt: WWII
Great Uncle: WWII
Grandfather II: Korea
Father: Drafted and Clingered out of Vietnam
Me: Not a chance

It's called evolution.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

The Campaign Has Begun


President Bush suggested Thursday that Democrats dont have the stomach to fight the war on terror, battling back in the election-season clamor over administration intelligence showing terrorism spreading.

Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on the American homeland in our history, Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing, Bush said at a Republican fundraiser.

The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run, Bush told a convention-center audience of over 2,000 people

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

Linus,

Thank you for your expansive response. Whoa! I've always thought Hillary would be a disastrous candidate. I know Hillary-haters--they're crazy. But you're right, none of them would vote Democratic anyway.

Also, she's uncharismatic. I admire her--she's intelligent, accomplished, and tough. But would you want to have a beer with her? I would, actually, but between talk radio, sports radio, preachermen, and TV bobbleheads, I don't see her getting much sympathy from the media. They were awful to Gore and fawned over Bush; they'd fawn over Giuliani as well.

I wonder if Giuliani could make it past the primary, though. He's been pro-choice forever, he's divorced, he's maybe too much of a New Yorker for red-state America. But the electorate is a mystery to me. Perhaps his heroics after 911 would carry him through.

Your Roe v. Wade argument is very interesting! It's something to ponder. And after all, Hillary does have a zillion bucks.

Posted by: Lucy on September 28, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

"The Campaign Has Begun"

No surprise there.

Posted by: Lucy on September 28, 2006 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

It's called evolution.

No, it's called liberal evolution. Here's another example of Darwin at his finest. This is how the gene pool cleans itself:

Great Grandfather: Kids = 5
Grandfather I: Kids = 4
Great Aunt: Kids = 3
Great Uncle: kids =3
Grandfather II: Kids = 2
Father: kids = 1
Me: Kids = 0

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Who said I didn't serve? I have dog tags that speak otherwise.

Yeah, a Republican acquaintance of mine also ordered some of those from an ad in Soldier of Fortune mag. Good for you.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, rdw, we know how it plays out; we've all seen Idiocracy.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

Could support for this bill imply that any in congress that voted for it would be at risk of emboldening the enenmy, and hence fall subject to it?

Posted by: DA on September 28, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: That's why you guys hate the Islamonazifascists right? That's why you guys want to insult their masculinity and put panties on their heads...because they are beating you at your own stupid game.

America is not a third world country anymore. Why don't you find one, and leave us alone.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on September 28, 2006 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

These Democratic Senators SUPPORT TORTURE:

Carper (DE)
Johnson (SD)
Lieberman (CT)
Landrieu (LA)
Lautenberg (NJ)
Menendez (NJ)
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)
Rockefeller (WV)
Salazar (CO)
Stabenow (MI)

In addition to the dirty dozen above, and except for Chafee, EVERY Republican Senator SUPPORTS TORTURE.

Posted by: V on September 28, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

Please do not lecture me on my sons decisions. Not so long as your children are making that very same choice anyway. And by the way - we will always be a military family. My children and I were raised brats, and that will never change. Both their father and grandfather retired from service.

You and I have argued to concensus in the past, but on this one, I am one Democrat who will hold the hill until death. you have absolutely no authority with me on this issue, and I will not say it nicely again.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

GC, that makes an excellent coda for this entire thread.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Any of the Dirty Dozen runn ing for re-election this year?

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

"Thank you for your expansive response."

You're quite welcome.

"Also, she's uncharismatic. I admire her--she's intelligent, accomplished, and tough. But would you want to have a beer with her? I would, actually, but between talk radio, sports radio, preachermen, and TV bobbleheads, I don't see her getting much sympathy from the media. They were awful to Gore and fawned over Bush; they'd fawn over Giuliani as well."

This one is more complicated, isn't it? What I see in Mrs. Clinton is a kind of latent charisma, and the potential to be a world-historical figure rivaling Lincoln or FDR. The circumstances of her presidency - the threat of Islamist terrorism and the need for political and economic reform in the Arab-Muslim world, the end of cheap oil and the need for a post-oil energy infrastructure and more sustainable economy, as well as the need for wide-reaching political, economic, and other reforms at the national and international level - all demand a certain kind of talent. I believe she is up to that challenege, even though I might disagree with some of her policies. Remember: Lincoln was derided as an ugly duckling from some frontier backwater, and FDR a second-rate, intellectually feeble governor of New York.

One of Mrs. Clinton's great advantages will be that she is the first serious female candidate for president. The press will eat that up, and this time around the Hillary hatred will reflect badly on the right (at least among Independents).

"I wonder if Giuliani could make it past the primary, though. He's been pro-choice forever, he's divorced, he's maybe too much of a New Yorker for red-state America. But the electorate is a mystery to me. Perhaps his heroics after 911 would carry him through."

Yes, it isn't just his image (though that's a part of it, and mostly undeserverd; crime fell nationwide in the 1990s, and why didn't those fire fighters and cops in the towers have functional radios?). He is a natural like Reagan or Clinton. He has the glow.

A Diageo poll from March or April found not only that he would beat McCain in a head-to-head primary match-up but that that his base of support was the Republican Party base - the very ones who continue to approve of Mr. Bush's performance. (The people who like McCain are a certain kind of Beltway elite along with a certain kind of right-leaning Independent. He is the one who would have trouble in the primaries. In fact he already did.)

Conservatives like a strong leader, even one with certain peccadillos from a city they advise their children to avoid. Remember: Reagan was divorced.

(I'm not sure liberals are so much less immune to the charms of a charismatic. Bill Clinton wasn't exactly a feminist's wet dream.)

Posted by: Linus on September 28, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

President Bush, 2003 State of the Union Address:

International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

New York Times Editorial, September 28, 2006:

The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

Posted by: Moonlight on September 28, 2006 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK
What would it take for you to approve of George Bush? I mean, the man fights terrorism, gives us our taxes back, topples evil dictatorships. egbert at 7:23 PM
Tax cuts to those who don't need them, huge deficits to future generations to pay off, launches illegal, counterproductive wars, coddles dictators in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, and other countries too numerous to list, and has no qualms about illegal presidential actions and lying to America. Six years ago, Bush could have been honest. He could have been a president of all Americans. Instead, he's done nothing but pander to the most extreme elements of the country, lie about his agenda, demagogue to rouse his base of fanatics, and pander to the worst prejudices of people.
...None of us believe in appeasement. Isn't that a coincidence. It makes the choice rather simple doesn't it? rdw at 7:41 PM
Actually, you are the appeasers and enablers. You back a president who tried to appease bin Laden by not capturing him, by acquiescing to bin Laden's demand to remove American troops for Saudi Arabia, and who enables bin Laden's argument by conducting an illegal, incompetent war in bin Laden's neighborhood, a war which is a great training ground for more terrorist. Bin Laden could not have gotten a better American president for his agenda if he prayed for it.
Classy team you have. rdw at 8:56 PM
As opposed to Denny Hastert, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Cannon, Trent Lott, Strum Thurmond, Bill Frist, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Rick Santorum, George Allen, Ted Stevens, Sam Brownback James Inhofe, Arlen Specter? No comparison, pally, none.
In my view, we should guarantee humane treatment to al Qaedca terrorists when they're prepared to reciprocate ex-liberal at 9:13 PM
Which makes you no better than they. New heights of American pride.
I trust our soldiers. rdw at 9:14 PM
It's their leadership that has proven to be untrustworthy.
That settles it. rdw is just another troll. Disputo 9:17 PM
Was that in dispute?
The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run, rdw at 9:45 PM
That is a perfect example of right wing demagoguery as mentioned above. Posted by: Mike on September 28, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

from Sen Clinton's speech: This bill undermines the Geneva Conventions by allowing the President to issue Executive Orders to redefine what are permissible interrogation techniques.

the Geneva convention doesn't actually define what are permissible interrogation techniques, except to prohibit what causes "excessive" pain and humiliation. How much pain and humiliation are not "excessive", and how much are "excessive" is completely open. Even "excessive" pain and suffering are OK if they are intrinsic to a permitted method.

It's this lack of definition that necessitates the bill passed by the Congress.

The bill does not permit torture.

Posted by: papago on September 28, 2006 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

The bill does not permit torture.

And let me guess -- these aren't the droids I'm looking for.

Posted by: trex on September 28, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

because they are beating you at your own stupid game.

They aren't winning at anything. They're getting slaughtered. The fascists kill many times more muslims than infidels. They're killing each other in horrific numbers and when they go up aginst the USA they get killed in horrific numbers.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

Please do not lecture me on my sons decisions. Not so long as your children are making that very same choice anyway.

I am not lecturing you. This is blog. We give our opinions. That's the point!

And by the way - we will always be a military family.

Yours will be. Your sons will never be.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

Well, they did it. I think the thing I'd be proudest of if I were a Republican, or David Broder, is the way John McCain managed not only to shit on the Constitution but on his own history as a POW. A real twofer.

The nice thing is that I need never again even remotely consider giving this guy the respect I'd give to the average pimp or virus writer. Your average crack whore has at least the dignity of being a victim of her own faulty metabolism. McCain betrayed his own honor with his eyes wide open. He'd have done just as well to have capitulated to the Viet Cong all those years ago, since in a moral sense he has done so now.

Excuse me while I go get drunk and throw up. Not necessarily in that order. Not a very dignified reaction, I know. But cut me a little slack--I just lost my country.

Posted by: DrBB on September 28, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

He is 23 - he has 20 years, probably longer. So never say never. None the less, I am through talking about this to the likes of you. The kicker is, Tom served to protect your right to be just as ignorant and obnoxious as you have proven yourself to be. So carry on. But you will do it without me. I will not dignify your jingoism that is bought and paid for with the blood of others.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

As opposed to Denny Hastert, Newt Gingrich

Well since we're comparing to Teddy Kennedy and Bill clinton lets check:

Have Denny or Newt ever killed a 20-yr old woman and ditched her body in a lake? NO

Have Denny or Newt ever squirted all over a 20-yr old unemployed intern? NO

I'll go with Denny and newt

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

Now is the perfect time to brush up on the characteristics of fascism, don't you think?

The 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections


I count 14 of 14 - how about you? At this rate, how long before I am asked to sew a yellow Star of David on the outside of all my clothes?

I have a better ideea. Starting today, wear as a badge of honor the thing that makes you "the other," the thing that will make people hate you. For me, it will be a Star of David, the sign for "Woman" to indicate my feminism, and a double helix to indicate I am a scientist. Which will get me hauled in first? And friends, it is definitely looking like I will get hauled in. So we must cut them off at the mother-fucking pass. Turn it back around. That's the American way, after all. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have Yankee Doodle. And what would childhood be if we hadn't collapsed in laughter at the visuals of that song when we were six.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

t's this lack of definition that necessitates the bill passed by the Congress.

The bill does not permit torture.

Papago joins the ranks of those in his party who lack even the minimal integrity not to lie to themselves. The bill exists to prevent all the people doing the exact same things that were done at Abu Graib from having to face the penalties they deserve. You know, the ones meted out to those "few bad apples." Apparently "few" means so many it required an act of Congress to keep the rest of them all out of jail.

Look, you can lie as much as you want here. But face it: your party is the party of Abu Graib. That guy in the crucifix position with the bag over his head and the wires coming from his balls? That's the icon of everything you stand for. That's the true hope you offer the world. That's the vision of freedom you offer. That's the face under the mask you're wearing. And you can't deny it any more. Your party just went to great lengths to make it as official as it gets. You deserve no respect for your arguments, your views, or anything else. You have no honor. You deserve nothing but contempt.

Posted by: DrBB on September 28, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

Tom served to protect your right to be just as ignorant and obnoxious as you have proven yourself to be. So carry on.

Why thank you. I will. Just note that Tom knew exactly what he was doing for the obnoxious and the ignorant before he signed up as did his daddy, your daddy and your grand-daddies.

That's what a democracy is isn't it?

BTW: I did 3 years in the Navy and it doesn't matter a lick in terms of my right to state my opinion or to hold any opinion I damn well please. The concept one has to have served in order to vote for the war, any war, it the height of ignorance. It's an insult to what we stand for as a nation. This chickenhawk thing has always been braindead stupid and is the perfect example of why kerry refused to be identified as a liberal.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone know where I can find a list of representatives who voted for the bill? I want to see how my representative voted. I found the Senate roll call easily, but the HoR roll call seems to be evading me. Help?

Posted by: Caitlin on September 28, 2006 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

oops - I though Mark wrote the top part and not the bottom part in my early posting, my mistake.

Mark is what someone would call an "enabler". But, of course enabling solves nothing and simply perpetuates the problem, as has been the case.

It's like I wrote at Marks website.

When Bush called Tom Daschle an obstructionist, it was Daschles cringing and complaining that caused Daschle to lose his seat in the senate. Word had it that Daschle failed to fight back as why voters rejected him spinelessness CAN GET DEMS UNELECTED but yet it seems as if Dems still have not learned that you do indeed have to stand up.

Posted by: Cheryl on September 28, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

Caitlin - it is at the top of the thread, courtesy of Robert. Here you go:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml

34 Dems voted Aye, 7 Republicans voted Nay.


Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

Global:

Menendez *and* Lautenberg ... whooof ... what a kick in the solar plexus.

I was so proud of both my US senators (Corzine one of them at the time) for opposing the IWR, too.

Linus:

I'm going to have to beg to differ a little bit on both Hillary and Rudolph.

First, Hillary is decidedly up for the job; of that even her opponents would be hard-pressed to doubt. And yes -- she's hungrier than Gore ever was or would be. But Hil is seriously charisma-challenged. If you ever saw the Coretta Scott King funeral where the Big Dawg held that audience in the palm of his hands, and set up God's Own Softball of an introduction for his wife -- Hillary as the answer to Coretta's painful self-questioning after the assassination: how do I, how can I, how must I carry on with the ideals I share with my murdered husband? And Hil. Just. Blew. It. She gave a nasal, droning, thoroughly uninspired speech that sounded like a highschool valedictorian. Bill's glow puts her in some *serious* shadows ...

As for Guiliani, the accidental hero of 9/11? Well, all I have to say is how quickly we forget. Guiliani was roundly despised by many factions of the NYC establishment -- but never moreso than the press, with whom he had exceedingly testy relations. Sure, he got to take credit for a national crime reduction and the "Broken Windows Theory" of law enforcement was a hot topic for awhile. But Rudy infuriated unions, was bitter towards his opponents -- and absolutely horrific to his wife and family through a divorce splashed all over the tabloids. Reagan's Hollywood divorce is one thing -- decades in the past. Rudy's dirty laundry was aired for all to see while mayor. Michael Bloomberg -- a horrible stiff in his first term -- is positively beloved in comparison to pre-9/11 Rudy.

Rudy shares a set of flaws with McCain -- although they're otherwise very different individuals. Rudy's an egomaniac who doesn't take well to being challenged and tends to put his foot in his mouth when under pressure. But unlike McCain, he has no unimpeachable record of heroic accomplishment aside from happening to be Mayor through 9/11 and having some of his humanity come forth for the first time during his tenure. And also unlike McCain, he doesn't have a warm, engaging side with which he can cultivate relationships with opponents and the press. It's hagiography or nothing for this guy. Throw in the fact, also, that he doesn't any issues he has a rep on for standing firm save for urban crime.

I honestly think the GOP primary electorate will chew him up and spit him out with the same vigor (and a microdot more justification) than they doubtless will McCain.

My money here's on Mitt Romney, believe it or not.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 28, 2006 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

The nice thing is that I need never again even remotely consider giving this guy the respect I'd give to the average pimp or virus ....

Perhaps now you can at least begin to appreciate how shrewd a politician GWB is?

He's got all of you simple bastards cryng in your beer in disgust at your own party and he got John McCain to slice his own throat.

You are of course aware GWB and John McCain are not friends. So said John in 2000. He's a friggin idiot. Now he's going to get his head handed to him AGAIN as GWB puts on another clinic. You are probably aware that GWB and Rudy ARE friends. You are probably aware that John and Rudy draw from the same pool of moderates and independents.

This bill is really, really going to piss off a great many moderates and independents. Guess who
had to vote and who was able to take a pass? That's correct! John McCain just pissed off a boatload of people. Where do they go? RUDY!!!!!

You probably don't know but a few days ago a poll in Washington State showed Rudy up near 20% on McCain and that was before this actual vote.

GWB has a few more votes for Big John to take that will not make people happy. There's a reason why only three presidents got to the WH from the Senate. GWB is going to show McCain why that is and why he won't be #4.

One of GWBs great assets is he does not get mad. He gets even.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

Have Denny or Newt ever squirted all over a 20-yr old unemployed intern?

Denny's too fucking fat to get and Newt Gingrich DID have two affairs, you moronic fuck, one in the 70's and one in the 90's with a congressional staffer a quarter of a century younger than him who he divorced his wife to marry.

In fact, he delivered the divorce papers to his wife in the hospital where she was getting treatment for uterine cancer.

And then he refused to pay alimony or child support. Her local church had to take up a collection to help her out.

It's too bad that in order to become part of the Rove noise machine you had to give up being human...that is assuming you ever were.

Posted by: trex on September 28, 2006 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

Great minds and all that, thanks Jason.

Posted by: trex on September 28, 2006 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

In that latter vein they've come to appreciate our brave and smart soldiers and like the idea of giving them the leeway to fight this war in the most efficient manner. If they think tough questioning is appropriate they have my support.

I am going to use your words to persuade your children to join the military and serve in Iraq. Make your parents proud of your bravery and intelligence. Your parents will give you leeway to win appreciation and support. These words will bring your children into a harm's way your desires and actions create through our perverse politics. I think if enough of RDW types' children expressed a desire to join the fight, they would desire and act differently. Maybe I'm wrong. Obviously recruiting has not been going well, but the recruiting program does not appeal to joining the military to fight in Iraq to serve Bush's mission. They are still using the themes of the pre-war era. Advertise enlistment as a way to serve Bush, Republicanism, family honor and a chance to fight in the War On Terror to upper middle class Republican high school children and see what happens. I have to think it would create an outrage. I think leftist operatives have to use politics like this to reframe the opposition's base. The Republicans appeal to macho issues like gun control and offensive military foreign policy, manipulating masculinity and its accompanying insecurities. The opposition to the current Republicanism has to find a way to reframe the Republican's base emotional reality. I think it can be done with a naked exposure to the extreme of what Republicans say they believe, using direct political appeal to their children to act out their parents' beliefs to create a new point of view. I hope and pray to no god that would change their politics.

Posted by: Hostile on September 28, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

And don't even go there when it comes to Limbaugh and his sex tour of the Caribbean, chump.

Be good to Rush. The man makes over $25M per year and is divorced from his 3rd wife. He's a free man with a gazillion dollars. I'd have more Viagra than Walmart has M&Ms too! Wouldn't you?

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Sure. But I wouldn't fuck impoverished 14-year-old Dominican girls out of the mistaken belief that they find a fat old white turd like me the sexiest thing that moved, either.

Here, sweetie, here's a $20. That's real American money, too.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 28, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

Jason,

Bill is your pary leader and a pig. The dumb bastard squirted all over Monica and got caught. It doesn't matter what Newt or Rush or Laura did. You didn't vote for Newt or Rush or Laura. You voted for a pig. A rather stupid pig. Them's the facts and there's not much you can do about it. Monica was in fact a rather pathetic figure and Bill was in fact a pig. History has already recorded it as so.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

But I wouldn't fuck impoverished 14-year-old Dominican girls

I'd bet he did a lot better than Monica and he didn't use his cigar.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Monica was an *adult*, you fucking pederasty condoner.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 28, 2006 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

Screwing a 14-year-old is "doing a lot better"? What a fucking sick thing to say. What is wrong with you?

Posted by: shortstop on September 28, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

trex,

When will liberals get it? You can't deny Bill is sleezabag by proving Newt is a sleezebag. Bill clinton is by his own confession after his DNA was found on a now very valuable blue dress a major pig and a major pig with very low standards.

Hey, I get the sensetivity. He's your President and party leader but don't blame me. He's the pig and he's the simple ass who left the evidence.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

But I wouldn't fuck impoverished 14-year-old Dominican girls

Rush is a man with sophisticated tastes. There were no 14-yr olds you twit.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

You voted for a pig.

Funny, good Americans don't think so. Bush can only dream about the high approval ratings that Clinton had during his impeachment proceedings, and after 9/11 it was clear when both Clinton and Bush came to New York who people were happier to see.

And it wasn't the guy who hid out all day in a bunker while Tom Brokaw had to lead the country through it's most catastrophic security failure from his anchor desk.

Posted by: trex on September 28, 2006 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

Ugh, this day, despite having a few saving laughs, has been one big disgusting show of the complete moral rot that is the U.S. Between the "There is no right and wrong, only winning" Republicans and the "How can we help you sink to new depths of depravity?" Democrats, it's just vomit-inducing.

But defending sexual predators and pedophiles to score points off Bill Clinton is venal even for rdw. Time for bed.

Posted by: shortstop on September 28, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

Uh-oh:

Wooten just set up a moral equivalence between doing an adult intern and Dominican sex tourism ...

Here come the righteous knives ...

Hehe, let's see if he stays and tries to bruit this one out. If I were him I'd be smart and develop an uncontrollable urge right now to go play with a grandchild.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 28, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, you can't deny Bush is a sadistic scumbag by pointing to my posts supporting the use of terrorist tactics against suspects not yet even accused of a crime.

If it were up to me my daughters would be waterboarded to demonstrate how much more I love torture than anything else.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Global: THANK YOU so much. Sadly enough, my representative was one of the 34 who voted Yes. I can't believe I'm saying this, but there's no way I can vote for John Barrow this year, not between this and the rest of his voting record. I'd rather have a Republican representing me than a Democrat who won't vote like one.

Posted by: Caitlin on September 28, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Funny, good Americans don't think so

Wrong! Everybody on the planet knows he's a pig. That was the most famous sex act in all of history. Bill and Monica are more famous than cleo and julius or cleo and mark anthony.

You cha hold whatever opinion of him as president as you wish. As a man the jury is in. He's a friggin pig!

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

But defending sexual predators and pedophiles

What are you babbling about?

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

Dominican sex tourism ...


What are you babbling about?

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

Words cannot describe my happiness at seeing torture enshrined into law by my party. In fact in celebration I'm going to find the first child under 14 in my neighborhood and demonstrate to him or (God willing) her, where the limits are. After all, my tastes are just as sophisticated as Rush's.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

Listen to such *coy innocence* from rdw about the nature of Dominican sex tourism.

Rush on his radio show: "Had a great time. Wish I could talk about it."

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 28, 2006 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, the Senate wasn't the only group of people to surrender the moral high ground this day. I'll see you guys after you get through with der kristalnochen.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, DrexelHillDimwit, for saving all of my cans from falling from the racks while you sailed the oceans blue for three years. Great job. Not one dent.

Posted by: Jolly Green Giant on September 28, 2006 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

Please, the comments I've made are nothing compared to the sickness that's already come out of rdw's mouth. The man hates Clinton because he was an effective, useful President who likes women. rdw's sick monster started a war, tortures, and is the single most reprehensible person to ever hold the office, bar none. rdw is as sick as they come.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

Don't count out Brownback, he can motivate the evangelical religious vote.

I think Hillary could pull it off, I think she has the charisma to win people over, but her DLC roots, past voting record and complete cave in and incompetence with the first nationalized healthcare attempt, make me prefer another. Of course, there is no other. There is no Democrat that inspires me to think they could change the way our nation conducts itself.

Posted by: Hostile on September 28, 2006 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

"Could somebody quote the section of the bill that condones torture? I have not found it."

Hmmm... INL, but I did find this:
Here's the text of the Senate bill passed today, S3930.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/military_commissions_bill_1.pdf

On page 87, it amends Title 18, Section 2441 of the US Code, which deals with war crimes. Specifically, it changes the definition of a war crime from, "a violation of Common Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions (which prohibits torture) to "a grave violation of Common Article 3."

That's kind of spooky right there. But wait! There's more!

On page 85, it says, "the President has the authority for the United States to intrepret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions" but it also says he has to issue an Executive Order to do so.

Does that mean the President gets to decide what constitutes a "grave" violation?

Can the President issue an Executive Order in secret?

If yes to both questions, well, there's your de facto legalization of torture right there.

It's pretty twisted language, but this is law after all.

Maybe that's what whats-his-name meant by "scenic route."

There's also a bunch of stuff on page 81-82 on Habeas Corpus matters.

It says, "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed for or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who- A)is currently in United States custody; and B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

That last bit gives me the creeps. So... someone NOT YET determined (by the SecDef, btw) to be an enemy combatant may not file a writ of habeas corpus.

It does seem to specify that all this only applies to aliens, not citizens. Not that that matters, as a moral point. Geneva Conventions are about human rights specifically for non-citizens, right?

I don't know, I don't get this. I'm not a lawyer. Anyone here who is one? Take a look at this mess. What the hell is it really saying?

By the way, Adobe Reader does have a search function. If you want to find references to the word "torture" there are plenty. Mostly saying it is an offense worthy of a military commission (court martial, iow) and a LOT of stuff defining the word.

Ew. Reading US Code always makes me feel like a need a shower...

Posted by: RobW on September 28, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

The man hates Clinton because he was an effective, useful President who likes women

I don't hate Bill. He gave us Congress, GWB and Monica to bash him over the head with until the day he dies. He gave us NAFTA, welfare reform, 3-strikes, the death penalty, mandatory sentencing, increased prison construction, more can carry laws, etc.

He also gave us Hillary. We'll owe him for at least 16 years in the WH.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

Rush on his radio show: "Had a great time. Wish I could talk about it."

OK gossip how's that get us to 14-yr sex slave?

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

Well, at least now we know that rdw molested all his daughters around the age of 14, good Republican that he is.

Posted by: Disputo on September 28, 2006 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

"The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty...."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: - on September 28, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

 
 
"The Democrats" in Congress can't be lumped together on this one.

34 House Democrats voted for torture and against habeas corpus; another 7 didn't vote; but 160 voted to oppose this evil bill, despite Bush's accusations of appeasement -- and these holdouts deserve our continued support. (7 Republicans and 1 Independent joined them in holding out.)

Likewise, 12 Senate Democrats voted for the torture bill, but 32 voted against (along with Independent Jeffords and one lone Republican, RI's Chafee).

Remember which of your elected officials voted which way, especially at the next primary.

House Roll Call.   Senate Roll Call.

Meawhile, get the majority control out of Republicans' hands this election.

Posted by: Raven on September 28, 2006 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Why *else* does a guy like Rush Limbaugh -- with social power and money out the gazoo -- travel to the Dominican Republic with a pocketful of unprescribed Viagra?

You yourself said that he has "sophisticated tastes."

Heh.

If you knew one goddamned thing about Dominican sex tourism I wouldn't have to be belaboring this topic.

It would be *obvious* to you.

And besides which -- you're already damned to hell by taking my *hypothetical* 14-year-old impoverished Dominican girl and saying it was a damn slight better than Monica.

Your sexual morality is showing, Wooten. It isn't very pretty.

In fact, it's highly disgusting.

Don't you *dare* attempt to call anyone else a pig ever again.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."

-- Sir Winston Churchill

Posted by: - on September 29, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

It's hard to see any silver lining in this one!

The silver lining is that if democratic voters are finally seeing their elected representatives as they really are (principle-less, people who want to keep their jobs, stay in Washington and will pander to whomever will make that happen), then we are one step closer to tossing them out and getting representatives who are authentic and will actually represent our interests.

Nobody is talking about what this really means: Do you see any of these people standing up to Bush-Cheney when they make their move to attack Iran? If Bush-Cheney are still talking about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight then over here" and that Iraq is behind 9/11 (and Newt, inside the Pentagon now, is saying that this is WWIII), they are bound and determined to expand this war, not draw down Iraq.

That's what today told us.

Posted by: Maeven on September 29, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

If you knew one goddamned thing about Dominican sex tourism I wouldn't have to be belaboring this topic.

I know nothing of Dominican Sex tourism but then I don't have the same interests as you. Nor do I make reckless accusations on zero evidence. You've got no class to go with no brain.

Bill Clinton squirted all over Monica. It's a fact. I didn't make it up. I can't change it. He's a pig. I know he's a pig. He knows hes a pig. You know he's a pig. We all know he's a pig. Even in the cave next to Osama in Western pakistan they know he's a pig. You have no Choice but to accept it. It's a proven fact.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

The difference between the right and the left is that the right understands that death and torture are much more beautiful than the unbearable ugliness that is sex.

Unless it is sex with underage Dominicans. Half of my children would be half-Dominican if I hadn't had the foresight to have them murdered shortly after birth. Can't have those nasty abortions.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

"We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down."

-- William F. Buckley, Jr.,

Posted by: - on September 29, 2006 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

I know quite a bit about the sex trade. I just want to lie about where the real loathsome figures in politics are. If I didnt lie I wouldnt have anything to say.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the priciples of it's Constitution."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: - on September 29, 2006 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

Why do I feel like I've spent more time reading this law than the Senators who voted for it did?

Anyway, let's bash us some trolls!

"Many of us Democrats were very unhappy for years with the leftward tilt of the Party but stayed with it out of loyalty... it strayed from being the party of FDR, of Truman and of Kennedy and became the party of McGovern and Kerry and the hate-America first left. That also began the Democrat losing streak in national elections..."
-mhw

HA! So, FDR and Kennedy weren't leftward tilting? Tell that to the wingers who STILL whine about the New Deal and the Civil Rights Act.

Kerry hates America, eh? That's why he fought for her in Vietnam, got wounded, won medals, then served in the Senate for 30 years?

Hmmm... of course, after today, I'm pretty convinced the GOP senators despise American values. They hate us for our freedoms!

This guy is either a Dixiecrat or an idiot. Either way, IF he's truly a former Democrat, good riddance. We were well shut of his ilk in the '70s. Thanks, Southern Strategy! Best thing Nixon ever did for the Democratic Party was to siphon off the Bible-thumping rednecks.

Oh, and by the way-
Anybody who would trust a soldier's integrity, judgement, OR sense of honor, JUST BECAUSE HE'S A SOLDIER, has clearly not actually spent a lot of time around soldiers. They're human beings, imperfect and prone to failings, just like everybody else.

Why do they put padlocks on their lockers? To keep their fellow soldiers from stealing their shit.

Oh for Jeebus' sake. Here we are, flushing the oldest civil right in Western civilization down the toilet, legalizing torture on top of that... and somehow it still comes back to CLINTON'S PENIS!

And they say WE have no decency. I pity you, rdw.

What an idiotic discussion this is becoming.

Posted by: RobW on September 29, 2006 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe"

-- John Adams

Posted by: - on September 29, 2006 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

-- James Madison

Posted by: - on September 29, 2006 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

In response to my comment: In my view, we should guarantee humane treatment to al Qaeda terrorists when they're prepared to reciprocate

papago wrote,

Which makes you no better than they.

Papago, please give me a break. The US has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, women's rights, modern science, separation of Church and State. We give aid to many needy countries, including Islamic countries, while al Qaeda gives death and destruction to non-Muslims, and sometimes even to Muslims.

I understand you'd like to fight the GWOT on a high moral plane, but really. Even if we use questiioning techniques oof which you disapprove, we're stupendously better than al Qaeda.

We don't have to be morally perfect to be nicomparably more moral than al Qaeda.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 29, 2006 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK

"No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly;

I cannot believe it will ever come to pass."

-- George Washington

Posted by: - on September 29, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

Vote straight Democrat, turn off the MSM, and it Rovian Bullshit, and fight. It is that simple. Scroll past the simpletons and psychos of the right wing here-rdws, charlies, ex-thinking people et al.

I heard a right winger suggest in hushed tones that maybe it would be better if the young people didn't vote this year. Yeah, right.

Work hard, organize, and get these twisted MFs out of office and in jail where they belong.

Abramoff, Mehlman, and Rove have quite a history, incidentally--maybe a little coercive interrogation will do them some good. These guys are thugs. And America knows it--keep reminding them.

Posted by: Sparko on September 29, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

Someone else has probably already pointed this out, but Strickland didn't vote on the torture bill (Sherrod Brown did vote in favor).

Posted by: Carl Goldstein on September 29, 2006 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -
kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervour -
with the cry of grave national emergency.

Always, there has been some terrible evil at home,
or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up
if we did not blindly rally behind it."

-- Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Posted by: - on September 29, 2006 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

"The things that will destroy us are:

politics without principle;

pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice."

-- Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi

Posted by: - on September 29, 2006 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

No ex-liberal, you aren't better than AQ. You are exactly the same as they are. You torture, you imprison without trial, and you murder. You are a thug and a criminal. There is nothing for you to be proud of today. Today you shit on the Constitution in order to enshrine torture in our laws. To call you the scum of the earth would be to give you an underserved benefit of a relationship with humanity.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

We have been in a State Of War since Nov 04, 1979
when the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini grabbed our diplomatic personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran (An Act Of War, Int. Law).

Extreme Partisan Politics is sad to behold under
these conditions, where a primitive, suicidal culture seeks Nuclear Capability.

The American Eagle needs Two Healthy Wings to stay
aloft, maintain altitude, and be ever vigilant.

Our troopers need and deserve support from the Left & Right. They are sworn to defend our precious 1st Amendment; we should defend them! reb

www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com "Snake Hunters"

Posted by: lazyonebenn on September 29, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

Let's see, John F. Kennedy worked to end racial segregation and discrimination against blacks by conservatives, created programs that became the basis of welfare and drug assistance for seniors, and helped shape regulatory agencies.
Posted by: trex

JFK did almost none of this.
Posted by: rdw

No. LBJ did.

Posted by: Winda Warren Terra on September 29, 2006 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

To Thomas1, and any others faced with the choice of voting for a Democrat who supported the Torture bill today:

If it helps, think about it this way: a vote for that Democrat is a vote for Democratic control of the the House or Senate, for Democratic leadership of that chamber's committees, and for subpoena power in those committees. Don't just think about the individual candidate, thing about overall control of Congress. If Democrats had had control of the Senate in the last couple years, anything that got out of committee on a straight party-line vote would have failed: the Alito nomination, renewal of the "Patriot Act", (I think) the Alberto Gonzales nomination, and dozens of other things. Think of it as a vote as a vote against the next Alito, the next Gonzales, the next Patriot Act.

Posted by: Robert Earle on September 29, 2006 at 2:53 AM | PERMALINK

the nation has this lead sty in its 2/10/06 issue....

what sherrod brown can do for the democrats?

well, he can kill them in the state of ohio.

seems that the lackeys of the dnc have decided to become reptillian fascist bastids.

leaving the ohio electorate with these choices....

reptillians or demtillians. but fascist bastids all.

so, ohio continues to be the fascist state of james rhodes, and his lackey, william bart saxbe. murderers. men who should have been indicted and imprisoned. but were allowed to skate the noose because ohio is a fascist enterprise...the home of the bushits. the home of their benefactors, the rockefellers.

in ohio high schools, this history is avoided.

and i know. i grew up with the ignoramuses. who think that their parents bought them a great education.

what a joke.

Posted by: albertchampion on September 29, 2006 at 3:22 AM | PERMALINK

Now that the Republicans have passed the "Torture for Freedom" bill, I fully expect them to introduce the "Fucking for Virginity" bill.

Both appeal to their base of violent cowards and hypocritical perverts.

Posted by: Disputo on September 29, 2006 at 3:35 AM | PERMALINK

rdw is just upset that his wife won't let him squirt all over her, which is why he preys on his daughters instead. They tell rdw that they vote Republican; they also fake orgasm when he urinates on them; anything to prevent the beatings.

But rdw isn't a pig; he is just a Publican.

Posted by: Disputo on September 29, 2006 at 3:40 AM | PERMALINK

After reading the bill, I am left with these impressions:

1. It does not cover US citizens -- only "aliens", who are specifically defined as non-US citizens. However, the language is either legally sloppy or intentionally ambiguous in places: it makes frequent references to "any person ..." although, in its introduction, it makes it clear that only aliens may be tried by these tribunals.

2. Torture is explicitly prohibited. There are only references to the admissibility of testimony in cases where there are disputed allegations of torture.

The most serious issue I see is the lack of habeas corpus for "alien unlawful combatants". But I'm not sure aliens in the US have habeas corpus rights now even if they are not terrorists.

Overall, I wonder if many of the allegations against this bill are overdone. I am surprised by the amount of conflicting information about it in the press, and I wonder if the speed with which it was pushed through made it hard for people to read it thoroughly. I just don't see the bad things people (including Kevin) have been talking about. But I am not a lawyer -- hopefully we will hear from some of those soon.

Posted by: JS on September 29, 2006 at 4:12 AM | PERMALINK

I have a question for the "Christian" right wingers. How do you think Jesus would have voted on the torture bill?

Posted by: trublu on September 29, 2006 at 5:10 AM | PERMALINK

The headline should read"Senate Finally Alive"
What I cant figure out is if The Liberals want to take this High ground where were they when Hussain was in power? Where were they at on the slaughter that was taking place in Afganistan?Where was the outcry over Daniel Perl when he had his head choppped off?Over the dragging of dead Air Force personels bodies?
The premis is that if we play nice,the Vermon will play nice. We wont harm your guys and you just dont harm our Military personel. Does anybody think that will take place?Is the Idea to defeat the Enemy or to re-hab them or put them in TimeOut?War or Demise?Win or Lose? You see their are Two choices only two no gray area. SIMPLE.
The reality that the Dems and a few very few Republicans(the three nut sack)are worried about how THE ENEMY is treated is chilling. What is the point of worrying about how we get INTEL?How we treat people who will look you in the eye and then trigger a Backpack? I am wondering if they are serious or playing a joke? If you cant pick sides you(we) have a big problem. If the welfare of Terrorists is higher on the agenda than the well being of America where will this lead us?Lets make a choice,life is full of choices.How about an ambush and we have in custody a peice of human debris. This debris can tell us where to kill other debris to stop the Ambush.Here is the choice... Waterboard one of theirs or let 12 of ours DIE. If you have to choose and it takes longer than 3 seconds you are sick.John McCain wants you to get a Court order.
How do you explain giving the same rights to these so called Enemy Combatants or more rights in some cases than our military? How is it some Camel Jock can have prayer 20 times a day and my Daughter is told to pray silently in High School so as not to offend anyone? We have Eight GOOD MARINES right now in custody over a so called crime that was brought on by a TIME MAGAZINE hit man. This HIT was sent to none other but JOHN "the dis owned Marine"MURTHA for the reason of slapping BUSH and trying to play politics with the Effort in IRAQ.Murtha saw it as a way to get face time and be noticed,to be worshipped by the MEDIA IDIOTS. Our Marines have become HIS VICTIM their fate is on HIS FAT HOLLOW COWARDLY HEAD.They are bound by chains and kept in Solitary for 23 hours a day. Their rights are where? Where is Leaky Leahee on TV whining about "the tragedy over human rights and fair play" when it comes to our Marines? He is a another sick S.O.B.
The lIBERALS and THE MEDIA are hoping to paint a picture of an out of control Soviet style regime under Mr. BUSH.What I see is a bunch of Old FAT Rich Guys who think their political future is above all else. They do not have the will to do what is needed,not the courage of a Roosevelt or a Churchill,nor half the wit of Regan. What I see are COWARDS who care more about the ENEMY than this Country or my familys lives.What I see is people wanting to put AMERICA not first or second or even third.What I see is scary.

Posted by: Glyn Lockhart on September 29, 2006 at 5:42 AM | PERMALINK

JS: It does not cover US citizens -- only "aliens", who are specifically defined as non-US citizens. ... I just don't see the bad things people (including Kevin) have been talking about. But I am not a lawyer

Bruce Ackerman is a lawyer and a professor of law at Yale. Ackerman says the bill "authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Another lawyer, Marty Lederman, also a law professor, has analyzed the bill's definition of "enemy combatant." Paying particular attention to subsection (ii), he concludes: "This definition is not limited to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It's not limited to aliens -- it covers U.S. citizens as well. It's not limited to persons captured or detained overseas. And it is not even limited to the armed conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, authorized by Congress on September 18, 2001. Indeed, on the face of it, it's not even limited to a time of war or armed conflict; it could apply in peacetime."

As for not seeing "bad things," are American citizens the only humans to be protected from torture? Does the Constitution limit due process to American citizens?

The bill is an abomination. As it codifies torture, it solidifies the fascism which has been flowing from this administration since its inception. Because of its all-encompassing police state effect and its nearly inevitable potential for eventual anarchy, revolution, perpetual Depression, World War or total annihilation, this single event -- not 9/11, not Pearl Harbor, not the Civil War, not slavery, not the genocide of Native Americans -- is the blackest and most shameful mark on our nation's history.

Of course, Glyn Lockart, just above, fits in there somewhere also.

Posted by: V on September 29, 2006 at 6:39 AM | PERMALINK

The shorthand version of the above post is this: If a group of madmen had sat down to devise a way to debuild this country in the image of Iraq; to insure insurrections and roadside IEDs; to disrupt commerce and essential services; to increase violence and killings, they could not have come up with a surer means to accomplish those ends than did Congress in passing the administration's legislation. Mad men, all.

Posted by: V on September 29, 2006 at 7:04 AM | PERMALINK

Cogntive Dissonance:

The New York Times headline this morning--

"Democrats See Strength in Bucking Bush"

Posted by: Lucy on September 29, 2006 at 7:23 AM | PERMALINK

I'm changing my registration from Dem to Ind and witholding cash contributions to the party. I won't spread the "Dems are cowards" meme, but this is craven behavior, politically calculated, and it's destroyed America as I know it.

Posted by: Michael Witthaus on September 29, 2006 at 8:00 AM | PERMALINK

As the under-appreciated Alan Colmes pointed out last night, the biggest problem with this bill is not harsher interrogations allowed etc. It's the erosion of protection of due process, to see who is guilty or knowing secrets to begin with. Also, it's putting so much power to rescind judicial process in the hands of the President. As Alan mocked conservatives: Do you want these kinds of powers in the hands of Hillary Clinton? I'm not even sure I would.

Posted by: Neil' on September 29, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

My letter to Sen. Bill Nelson after he voted with the repugs on the torture bill.


Dear Sir,

I have never been more discouraged by the direction of my country than I am at this moment, seeing this bill pass. As a lifelong Floridian, a
military veteran and a voting democrat, I have never been more ashamed of having voted for someone than I am of my vote for you, Sir. I am
satisfied that you have already familiarized yourself with the constitutional issues at hand and imagine my articulation of them at this juncture to be pointless. I just wanted you to know that I count you among the worst enemies of what my country has so long stood for and will energetically share that opinion with my fellow voters at every opportunity.

Jim

Posted by: Jim on September 29, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

No. LBJ did.

The discrimination against blacks was universal across the country. It was a prevalent in northern cities as in southern cities.

The JFK spin machine did an amazing job in getting credit for the accomplishments of LBJ but fret not. History always sorts out the truth. Modern liberals sanctified JFK and still punish LBJ for Vietnam but everything is now getting reversed. The few remaining liberals writing history are in academia and no one listens to them. We now know much more about JFK. He was not a good man or a good President. As the 'Me' gneration dies off we'll get a very fair reading of LBJ as we have with Turman and Ike. Those two are now ranked in the top 10 of all Presidents well above JFK who has been falling consistently and will keep falling.

LBJ will get his credit.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

and somehow it still comes back to CLINTON'S PENIS!

And they say WE have no decency. I pity you, rdw.

Fret not lad. This has zero to do with clintons penis. His penis is a sympton of yout problem not the problem. His penis is an example of what a loser of a human being clinton is. Your parties propensity to nominate and vote for losers is your problem. If you nominated decent people you might have say in matters. For now you'll take dictation from the GOP.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with Michael and Jim. After sleeping on it, I have decided the only American thing to do is officially switch third party.

Posted by: shortstop on September 29, 2006 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not voting Dem this fall. I may not vote at all. Torture is a deal breaker. Cowardice before a bill for torture, gulags, arbitrary detention, and blanket immunity for war crimes are all deal breakers.

Democrats? No deal.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on September 29, 2006 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop: voting third party is what got the Repugs in there. However disturbing many Democrats are much of the time, a vote for any third party is in effect a vote for Repugs. Vote for the lesser of two evils, or vote for the greater evil. You have to consider the good of the country.

Posted by: Neil' on September 29, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

Neil: That's not my post; it's a spoofer's.

I don't vote third party. I am highly emotional, yet highly pragmatic.

Posted by: shortstop on September 29, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

There was a thread the other day about the lack of American History being taught in European schools. What a missed opportunity for the DrexelHillDimwit - He could learn them soooooo much in his condescending way. Of course he would have to leave his red, white and black flag in Drexel Hill.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 29, 2006 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

No, Neil: I am the real shortstop. I won't vote for either evil.

Posted by: shortstop on September 29, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

3rd paul,

I have little interest in Europe for two reasons: Our support has been part of their problem and they're just not very intersting. Why does Europe matter to me?

They are weak because our protection allowed them to grow weak without consequence. They are now in an adjustment period and will decide on their own without US influence if and how they wish to defend themselves understanding for the 1st time there are now very real consequences.

No President would dare put American troops in harms way in Europe and the potential for coalitions of the willing is diminished because they bring so little to the table. The current NATO effort in Afghanistan is a mercy mission by the US military to get them some training and experience. Europe was useless in Kosovo and remains useless now. But we need to start somewhere. Germany and Eastern Europe have hope.

There is little doubt Europe is facing daunting problems only they can solve. We can't help them with demographics, assimilation or economic policy. They know their choices. Our best policy is to diversify outside Europe to minimize our exposure to their problems.

Wake me up when Europe decides to matter.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

I have little interest in Europe, and yet I expend about 10,000 words a day here on it. You should see me when I am obsessed with something!

Posted by: ardeedubya on September 29, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Expending 10,000 words does help keep his mind off of 14 year olds.

Posted by: stupid git on September 29, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> I know nothing of Dominican Sex tourism but
> then I don't have the same interests as you.

I had never heard of Dominican sex tourism until I read about
Rush's little run-in with customs. A friend of mine found a
piece on the net by an anti sex trafficking NGO which had a
psychological profile of the sort of man who who engages in Dominican
sex tourism. Kind of gives a whole new meaning to the word 'pig.'

> Nor do I make reckless accusations on zero evidence.

This is so *precious*, isn't it boys 'n' girls, coming from a man
who has *no problem* morphing Max Clelland's face into Osama's.

Bite me, Wooten.

Okay. Maybe we don't know Rush's precise itinerary. What's
absolutely certain is that Rush didn't travel down to the Dominican
Republic with a pocketful of Viagra to meet his soul-mate. He was
consorting with prostitutes. So okay ... maybe all the girls weren't
14. Maybe some of them were 16. Maybe some were in their early 20s.
How old is Rush? We already know how fat, white and disgusting he is.

The real obscenity in the psychological profile I read (and it was
written well before Rush's peccadillo) had less to do with what sort
of sexual practices these men prefer than it does with their grotesque
political and cultural values. These men believe that Dominicans are
"hot" people who "need it all the time." This is how they justify
fucking 14 year olds to themselves. Heh, if it wasn't them, it'd be
their family memebers, so they allow themselves to think. And they
believe that, just like all people in impoverished countries, these
girls have an abiding worshipful admiration for all things American
-- including and especially their normally less-than-potent hardware.
A little American cash is all it takes to resolve any guilt they might
feel at performing things that would get them arrested in the USA.

These men are the sine qua non of the Ugly American. Reading that
profile precisely describes men of the same ideology as Rush Limbaugh.

> You've got no class to go with no brain.

Wooten, this exchange between you and I:

>> But I wouldn't fuck impoverished 14-year-old Dominican girls

> I'd bet he did a lot better than Monica and he didn't use his cigar.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

... will follow you into your grave.

Clinton might be a sex addict. But he's certainly no Rush Limbaugh.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

I don't care who the hell anyone screws in private, so long as they don't screw the public.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 29, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Guys,

One more time...not voting, or voting 3rd party is just what Rove et al. wanted you to do as a result of this bill. It is a "Keep In The Vote" wedge issue. Look past the vote for the individual you're mad at, etc, and think of it as a vote for Deomcratic control, Democratic majorities on the committees (where further damage can be very effectively blocked), and subpoena power (so that we can get to the bottom of what has REALLY been going on the last six years).

Your reaction is very understandable. Karl Rove not only understands it, he predicted it, and is counting on it. Fight that impulse, and go vote for Democratic control of Congress. I'm beggin' you!

Posted by: Robert Earle on September 29, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

Clinton might be a sex addict. But he's certainly no Rush Limbaugh.

Why would anyone care about rush?

Do you have even a shred of evidence for your rants?

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

Robert Earle:

Word.

My heart has been broken by my normally progressive and stalwart Democratic senators Lautenberg and Menendez, who both voted for this abortion of a bill.

But I will not yield to Rove.

And I urge all my political brethren (and sistren?) on this blog to do the same.

Vote Democratic '06. Fix the mess when we have some power again.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

rdw claims:
The JFK spin machine did an amazing job in getting credit for the accomplishments of LBJ but fret not.

You think so? A few facts for you. If you think JFK was weak on civil rights, read this:


From JFK Civil Rights Address of June 11, 1963:

"Today, we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. And when Americans are sent to Vietnam or West Berlin, we do not ask for whites only. It oughta be possible, therefore, for American students of any color to attend any public institution they select without having to be backed up by troops. It oughta to be possible for American consumers of any color to receive equal service in places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants and theaters and retail stores, without being forced to resort to demonstrations in the street, and it oughta be possible for American citizens of any color to register and to vote in a free election without interference or fear of reprisal. It oughta to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case."

It was JFK who intervened to free Martin Luther King from prison after he was arrested for a sit-in in Oct 1960.

In March 1961, Kennedy issues Executive Order 10925, which establishes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and requires equal opportunity in placement and promotion in the military.

Also in 1961, Kennedy's Interstate Commerce Commission bans all interstate carriers from using segregated facilities.

On September 29th, 1962, the Kennedy administration federalizes the Mississippi National Guard to prevent the Governor from blocking black students from attending college.

On November 20th 1962, President Kennedy signs Executive Order 11063 banning segregation in federally funded housing.

On June 19, 1963, President Kennedy sent to the Congress (H. Doc. 124, 88th Cong., 1st session.) his proposed Civil Rights Act. He is assasinated before it is passed under Johnson.

Posted by: Broken on September 29, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Rdw sez: "Why would anybody care about Rush?"

*chuckling uncontrollably*

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Because Rush gets up on his high horse and inveighs against the sexual morality of *other people* to his audience of millions, is why.

You disingenuous dimwit.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

I have precisely the same amount of evidence that Rush Limbaugh fits the profile of the pederastic and egomaniacal American white male Dominican sex tourist that *you* had that Max Clelland fit the profile of an Osama bin Laden supporter.

No, in fact, I have a little more.

ROTFL, you hypocritical hyena !

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

The way to fight this is not to give in to Karl Rove's political machinations, it's to fight them. It worked for Thomas Jefferson

What exactly does that mean? Pres. Jefferson arrested Aaron Burr and tried him for treason on trumped-up charges, for purely political purposes. The jury acquitted after deliberating just a few minutes.


The US is now the only country that formally recognizes that inserting a naso-gastric tube is not torture, even when done to save the life of a prisoner who is fasting.

Posted by: papago on September 29, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Praedor Atrebates: I'm not voting Dem this fall. I may not vote at all. Torture is a deal breaker. Cowardice before a bill for torture, gulags, arbitrary detention, and blanket immunity for war crimes are all deal breakers.

That would punish the Democrats who voted against. How does that make sense? In the Maryland Senate race, niether candidate is an incumbent; why vote against the Democratic candidate because a minority of Democrats voted with the Republicans? If a fourt of Democrats feel that way on election day, the Republican will win. How does that help anything you stand for?

I think your characterization of the bill is false, and I prefer Steele to the Democratic candidate, but I can't see how you win anything if Steele wins the election.

Are Democrats the party of discouragement and despair?

Posted by: papago on September 29, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

I guess so, papago. We will have to disagree about torture then. And, I don't live in Maryland. I live in New Jersey. I will not be voting for Menendez.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on September 29, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Praedor Atrebates:

Menendez is in an extremely tight race and will need every vote he can get. If you make this decision, you can't count it as the luxury of a mere protest gesture, like voting for Nader in '96.

Your non-vote will count.

As someone who has followed your posts and have always found them well-argued and persuasive, as a fellow New Jerseyan I beseech you to reconsider.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Bob. I will NOT vote for a torturer.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on September 29, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Praedor:

Even when not voting for a "torturer" (and you recognize, of course, that rhetorical hyperbole is not always persuasive) would help enable a Republican majority that would doubtless push the line even further than it has gone? Do you think it's not possible for things to get even worse?

Politics is the art of the possible, Praedor. While sure, I've often been tempted by the "let them choke on it" philosophy -- it's also a little like my former Marxist buddy who never tipped waitresses because to do otherwise would delay the Revolution.

The Republicans can do so much more damage to the ideals that we both cherish that I think it behooves us to do all we can as citizens to block their paths.

"Sending a message" in this election cycle won't get that job done -- especially since we're so close atm to regaining a House.

I share your sentiments and frustration, Praedor.

What I don't share is your analysis.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

as a fellow New Jerseyan I beseech you to reconsider.

Bob

Still thinking GWB is as dumb as a post are ya?

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Well, if you can't do it, Praedor, I hope you'll take the time to not only let Menendez' office know why not, but also to splatter your reason across every blog comments thread and newspaper opinion page you can (after the election, preferably, so as not to encourage others to follow suit in their votes!). Don't forget to mention that you're career military.

My own preference is for gritting my teeth and voting for the Dem, but if Menendez loses, he needs to know exactly why some Dems wouldn't come out for him. And more importantly, future candidates who feel like our most basic civil rights are political poker chips need to know that this crap is anathema to their base.

Posted by: shortstop on September 29, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

broken,

You make my case. JFK did next to nothing except talk. He submits a bill in June and 5 months later the fact it's still sitting there means he DID nothing. The bill was passed due to the now legendary legislative skills of LBJ whose actual accomplishments far exceed JFKs. In fact, the comparison makes JFKs accomplishments look even thinner.


LBJ is now starting to experience the rebirth enjoyed by both Truman and Eisenhower. History has treated each dramatically better than their contemporaries did. JFK have been consistently falling in the rankings and has much further to go. The myth-makers are almost gone.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Because Rush gets up on his high horse and inveighs against the sexual morality of *other people* to his audience of millions, is why.

I don't think that's true but so what? This is America and that's his right.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

I have precisely the same amount of evidence that Rush Limbaugh fits the profile of the pederastic and egomaniacal American white male Dominican sex tourist that *you* had that Max Clelland fit the profile of an Osama bin Laden supporter.

No, in fact, I have a little more.


You have no evidence regarding Rush and your comments on Max are wrong. The dumb bastard voted against a security bill in order to preserve union rights. Coming from a right to work state that fits into the category of 'Bonehead Studpid'

He lost the election becasue he was stupid.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK
Politics is the art of the possible, Praedor.

Really, its more accurate that politics is the art of changing what is possible. Until the Democrats stop accepting Republican frames and living within them, and starting working to change the landscape, they are going to lose on policy even when they have the majority, as they had been for quite some time before 1994.

"Sending a message" in this election cycle won't get that job done -- especially since we're so close atm to regaining a House.

We, the opponents of torture, opponents of unrestrained executive power, supporters of America as a nation of laws, supporters of Constitutional government, etc., are nowhere close to taking back the House or Senate, as the recent votes make crystal clear.

The Democratic Party may be, and some Democrats in office may be on our side, but that's not at all the same thing.

Now I'm lucky in that my Democrats weren't on the dirty list here, so I little problem supporting them individually. But the Party needs to get its act together if it wants to be an effective opposition to the advance of authoritarianism.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, try to keep up.

Whether or not Rush Limbaugh actually fucked a 14-year-old girl is not the issue now.

The issue is someone suggested this was the most likely reason for someone loading up with illegal Viagra to visit a country known for its underage sex trade and then do a wink-wink-nod-nod about his "vacation" on the air:

But I wouldn't fuck impoverished 14-year-old Dominican girls

...and you responded directly with this:

I'd bet he did a lot better than Monica and he didn't use his cigar.

You actually said that.

Rush Limbaugh may or may not be a pedophile. What's not in question is your own statement. You are one sick pig.

Posted by: shortstop on September 29, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

I don't care who the hell anyone screws in private, so long as they don't screw the public.

But did he? We now know from Clarke was paralyzed by the 'Wag the Dog" charges popularized and so widely discussed in the MSM.

The reason why we expect our public officials not to be pigs is exactly to avoid these sort of complications. Surely William Jefferson Clinton, quite possibly the smartest man in the universe, knew this when he squirted all over that young ladies dress. If his memory failed him the 1st time then surely by the 20th the thought had to occur to him.

Still, he took the risk knowing exactly what that risk meant.

I understand emotions run high on this and it's natural to want to defend 'your' guy but History doesn't have those emotions History will record Bill Clinton was a pig and that Bill Clinton created the conditions for 'Wag the Dog' and Bill Clintion allow it to affect his decisions and his performance.

You will love Bill Clinton until the day he dies or the day you die. History will be be so kind.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, I really have to disagree that voting for a non-monopoly candidate is a wasted vote. No vote is wasted unless it is a vote that is compromised for the benefit of some collective, which will not serve your political desire regardless of how many times you are backed into a corner to give your vote to the 'lesser evil,' as my vote for Kerry in 2004 was. I should have voted for Van Auken and I have never felft worse about any vote I have ever made, almost all of which were for third party candidates. For me, voting for the lesser of two evils is a vote against one's conscience.

In my opinion Menendez is not a liberal or a progressive or a leftist. He belongs to some kind of neo-con group that wants to bring Batista style dictatorship back to Cuba after Castro's death. No one should vote for this man just because he is not a registered Republican. If you can find a good reason to vote for him, I have no problem with that, but I doubt I would.

Posted by: Hostile on September 29, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush Admin. is willing to sit on their asses while planes are flown into buildings to help them maintain their control on power.

If they will do this, what won't they do?

Dems and media are scared shitless, not Americans.

But afterall, Americans have ceased to matter in this process after the 2000 election.

Time to move people.

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on September 29, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

The best way to look at this bad situation is as was summed up above. A vote for even the dems who supported this travesty of a bill is a vote for democratic control of Congress. Democratic control of Congress is the only thing that can prevent such future travesties. As disturbing as this whole chain of events is, the only logical path seems pretty clear to me.

Posted by: fly on the wall on September 29, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

I'd bet he did a lot better than Monica and he didn't use his cigar.

You actually said that.

Rush Limbaugh may or may not be a pedophile. What's not in question is your own statement.

Bob, it's not heard keeping up with Sleeze.

I have no idea what Rush did on his excellent adventure. Nor do I care. Nor did I have any idea about the dominican sex trade. I just don't travel in those circles. You may or may not be a pedophile but your baseless accusations prove you have no class. That we can state definitively.

As far a Rush doing better than Moncia I didn't realize I was setting the bar very high. In fact I meant it in exactly the opposite way. Nor does the cigar suggest any perversity with Mr. Limbuagh. We know all about the cigar and we know the owner of the cigar. If in 2025 someone does a search on cigars and sex there will be 25,000 hits on William Jefferson Clinton. There won't be any on Rush.

That's just how History works.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

1) Under-age sex would not be "a lot better" than Clinton's affair with Lewinsky.

2) Over-the-legal-age sex could be.

Do you see the difference?

Posted by: shortstop on September 29, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Really, its more accurate that politics is the art of changing what is possible

Cmdicely,

I think the original statement was correct. The art of changing what is possible is best described as leadership. Your party has been leaderless for quite some time. We can argue if Clinton was a good politician or not but there are few people describing him as a leader. Poll takers are by definition followers.

Reagan is by far the best recent example of the power of leadership. He changed the world with his campaign and follow through on tax cuts and defense spending. Today marginal rates are about 1/2 former levels and Keynes is dead. He won the cold war and destroyed socialism without firing a shot.

I can't imagine what voice you think Democrats can conjure up to provide the leadership you so crave.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop,

What are you babbling about?

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

I'm trying to get you to admit that ANYONE having sex with an underaged girl would not be "a lot better" than Clinton's affair with Lewinsky.

Posted by: shortstop on September 29, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Posts at 1:45 and 1:54 were not made by me. Lots of Charlie tics in them, though.

It does, however, amuse me that rdw always quavers, "What are you babbling about?" when he's called on something really heinous. Brazening it out just doesn't work for you, rdw.

Posted by: shortstop on September 29, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

I'm trying to get you to admit that ANYONE having sex with an underaged girl would not be "a lot better" than Clinton's affair with Lewinsky.

Why?

No one suggested anything of the sort.

It's a bonehead topic to begin with and you are creating a strawman. Why?

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

We have a profound disagreement on this, and I think getting into the weeds with you over it for the sake of a blog debate would be counterproductive.

I will say, though, that I find it especially disappointing that you're pushing this line with the luxury of a clean conscience regarding your own legislators.

For others of us wrestling with rewarding Democrats like Menendez and his 11 partners in un-Americanism for an atrocious vote, it's a genuine and painful struggle.

And with that, I'll say no more.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

rdw always quavers

I never quaver. This is a blog you twit. Why would anyone quaver? Going to reach your hand thru my connection and smack me are you?


Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Fox still kicks ass.


Total day: FNC: 900 | CNN: 525 | MSNBC: 265 | HLN: 255 | CNBC: 203

Prime: FNC: 1,675 | CNN: 834 | MSNBC: 423 | HLN: 432 | CNBC: 263
5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:

FNC Gibson: Hume: Shep: O'Reilly: H&C: Greta: O'Reilly:
964 1,346 1,186 2,083 1,787 1,155 1,106

CNN Blitzer: Dobbs: Blitzer: Zahn: King: Cooper: Cooper:
657 820 683 514 1,217 771 426

MSNBC Matthews: Tucker: Matthews: Countdo.: Scarbo.: Special: Investig.:
391 244 338 601 392 276 305

HLN HLN: Prime: Beck: Grace: Beck: Grace: Showbiz:
169/131 135 326 602 272 421 271

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Oh I see. You thought that my saying "it would be a lot better" right after quoting "fucking an impoverished 14-year-old girl" meant that I was responding to what I was quoting. Why would you think that?

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

rewarding = whether to reward

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

> Well, if you can't do it, Praedor, I hope you'll take the time
> to not only let Menendez' office know why not, but also to
> splatter your reason across every blog comments thread and
> newspaper opinion page you can (after the election, preferably,
> so as not to encourage others to follow suit in their votes!).
> Don't forget to mention that you're career military.

> My own preference is for gritting my teeth and voting for the Dem,
> but if Menendez loses, he needs to know exactly why some Dems
> wouldn't come out for him. And more importantly, future candidates
> who feel like our most basic civil rights are political poker
> chips need to know that this crap is anathema to their base.

Good comment. Nice synthesis of the moral dilemma here.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

For others of us wrestling with rewarding Democrats like Menendez and his 11 partners in un-Americanism for an atrocious vote, it's a genuine and painful struggle.

You are hyper-ventilating over a single vote and that's just silly. You know these guys cannot consistently vote against the majority and especially not in front of an election and especially not about national security.

And to make matters worse this bill has broad support. You are making fools of yourselves calling it a torture bill. You are outside the mainstream on this and those 12 decided they weren't going to lose their seats for a bill that was going to pass anyway.

No doubt you still think GWB is as dumb as a post. He does this to you all the time and everytime you're 'shocked'.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

I did not write the 2:07 post.

I did not refer to the 14-yr old bit except to point out Bob is a sleezeball for many accusations with zero evidence.

I would not accuse Rush or anyone else without proof. But then I have standards. Bob is a sleezebag.

I said I'm sure Rush does better than Slick Willie and doesn't need a cigar just because I think everyone not a pervert does better than Slick willie. As I said, that's not a very high bar. There was no reference to a 14-yr old.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Speaking of *cough* unfounded accusations, nobody on this blog thinks I'm a sleazebag.

*Most* of the people on the blog, however, think you're a loathesome hypocrite :)

If we're going to, you know, go by consensus opinion.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

There is no greater good argument that will convince me to vote for anyone who voted for this bill. I will refrain from voting for either Nelson or his opponent. I will otherwise vote with the Dems as usual. Nelson is a shoe in in this election anyway but I wouldn't dirty myself by voting for him regardless.

Jim

Posted by: Jim on September 29, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

I will say, though, that I find it especially disappointing that you're pushing this line with the luxury of a clean conscience regarding your own legislators.

I am being realistic. Elections matter because election results matter. John Roberts is Chief Justice because GWB had 55 Senators including Arlen Spector. He backed Arlen in the prior election over a very popular primary opponent who was far more conservative than Spector.

I didn't like it but I understood it. I did not vote for Spector in the primary but I did in November. Spector drives me up a friggin wall but he's still better than anything I could expect from a Democrat. I think the relevent here is, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".

Right or wrong Bush was unwilling to risk a solid but untested conservative and supported the prickly and unpredictable Arlen Spector. I'm thrilled to have Roberts and Alito so it'd hard to disagree with his strategy.

Control of the Congress has been very, very useful. Sometimes compromises are important.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

"Strickland didn't vote for torture - he didn't vote at all. I'll be putting a call in to find out where he stands."

Of course he didn't. He has one of the worst attendance records in the House.

Posted by: GONADER on September 29, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

I think you are a sleazebag, Bob.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

To every progressive who's disgusted enough by the torture bill to consider not voting Democrats in November:

I just got off the phone with my good Italian friend from the beautiful Piedmonte region in the foothills of the Alps.

I told her about this conversation. She's a leftist -- more leftist than I am -- and a member of the Democrats of the Left party in Italy, which is the equivalent of the Democrats here -- save that it was formed by ex-Commies, but that's Italian politics.

She wants me to tell you all that she is *begging* that you guys vote for the Democrat this year -- even though her disgust at the torture bill equals ours. But she considers a Democratic takeover of a House to be the literal hope of the majority of the world. Every non-rightist in Europe is praying for *some* kind of check on who she sees as a precursor to Fascism every bit as grotesque as Berlusconi.

The ruling center-left coalition in Italy is made up of strange bedfellows indeed, Catholic parties with radical secular parties, with ex-Commies with neoliberals. She knows *all about* the heartbreak of compromise for the sake of moving things in the right direction. But she wants me to assert in the strongest terms that this is an *emergency situation*. At all costs, we must oppose the Bush regime *this year*, because things can get even worse.

As someone who had family who were killed by Fascists, this is a woman who knows whereof she speaks.

For the sake of the entire world -- Please vote Democratic in '06.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

And I think you're a spoofer, "cmdicely" :)

Jim:

I don't blame you at all. Shoe-in torture freaks like Nelson are exempted from needing a vote from progressives.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

"Spoofer" or not, Bob, that's at least two of us who think you are a sleazebag.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of *cough* unfounded accusations, nobody on this blog thinks I'm a sleazebag.

Bob, you've been on roll for a few days getting especially nasty in ways I've not seen before. Unfounded and obviously made-up accusations is but one.

I know it's a sport to attack Limbuagh and that's fine but most fair-minded people are just that, fair-minded. There's a great deal there to work with yet you still need to crawl into the gutter and make stuff up.

What's the point of that?

Of course you are a sleezebag. You made a sleeze accusation up and everyone knows you made it up. He's just not a hard target to hit yet you still have to lie. That's what sleeze does.

BTW: How is it you are so well schooled on the Dominican sex trade?

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

There was no reference to a 14 year old. None at all. Those of you who are rudely pointing out that in this post of mine I pasted the quote about the 14 year old and then said that'd be better than Monica, just SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

I explained my reasoning in a post upthread. Have another look.

"cmdicely": Anybody who steals another well-respected regular's handle while *acknowledging* this is a far bigger sleazebag than I ever have a prayer of being.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

"My fondest fantasy for a long time has been for Bin Laden, Bush, Saddam and Cheney to be hung next to each other by the necks until dead dead dead. Not that it will ever happen. But now I visualize every Senator and Representative who voted for this travesty hanging next to them. My only regret would be that such deaths would be too painless. These inhuman scum are traitors ruining the country that I love. I hope they all burn in hell for all eternity."

Wow. I see the new Progressives aren't quite as tolerant as the old Liberals. I don't listen to much Air America, or read Kos; is this representative of the Progressive Movement's official platform? Remind me again who the Fascists in America are.

Posted by: Billy Bob Shranzburg on September 29, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

V, in case you are still reading this thread: Thanks for the links. Evidently the version of the bill I read (linked by RobW above) is not the final draft, which can be found here.

There are indeed differences between the drafts, and the word "alien" (defined in the bill as "non-citizen") has been dropped from at least one place. However, it still is present where it counts:

948c. Persons subject to military commissions
19 Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to
20 trial by military commission under this chapter...

No exclusions, and no other definitions of persons subject to the Commissions, follow. So the changes MAY be attributed to an attempt to tighten up the legal language (defining each thing in only one place).

I am more mystified than before. I still see a prohibition against torture in the final bill, and explicit exclusion of citizens from this process. I see at least one "expert" quoted in The Corner who also takes this position. But others keep insisting that citizens and torture are included.

As I mentioned above, many sections refer to "any person..." and, if you read these in isolation, you can indeed conclude that citizens are included. But there is an explicit section (quoted above) where citizens seem to be explicitly excluded.

Ackerman and Lederman do not seem to go over the total document in detail. In fact, Lederman says "I haven't read it through it carefully yet, but I am informed that it would authorize and encourage...". So he seems to be basing his coments on hearsay.

As I said, I am not a lawyer, though I deal with business contracts a lot. My sense is that this is a very badly written bill, perhaps intentionally so to allow multiple interpretations. But I see enough explicit items in there that a good lawyer should be able to clearly argue that citizens are exempt and torture is prohibited. JMO.

Posted by: JS on September 29, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

fake rdw of 2:47

learn to read


"I did not refer to the 14-yr old"

he made-up 14-yr old was bob's reference and his alone.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

Whether I am far bigger sleazebag than you ever have a prayer of being or not (see how that is not an "acknowledgment"?), at least two of us on this blog think YOU are -- shall I remind you of your post:

Speaking of *cough* unfounded accusations, nobody on this blog thinks I'm a sleazebag.
Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

hostile: For me, voting for the lesser of two evils is a vote against one's conscience.

If your vote permits the greater of two evils to win the election, then what actual good is your conscience.

I am happy that Bush beat Gore in 2000, but I think that all those Naderites in Florida who did not vote for Gore have caused themselves considerable shame. On the whole, I think I'd be happier if the Naderites had voted for Gore and spared us all what became a constitutional crisis, and a crisis in the confidence Americans have in the legitimacy of their own system.

Voting isn't about soothing your "conscience". Voting is about who rules over us. You should never let the greater of two evils win the election.

Posted by: papago on September 29, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

I explained my reasoning in a post upthread. Have another look.

there was no reasoning. Only sleeze. You made up the 14-yr old in an obvious divergence into the gutter and no one took it seriously.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

How utterly ... Rovian of you.

Attempting to call me a sleazebag (which even my detractors here don't believe) to hide your own patent sleazebaggery.

You were the one, after all, who stated that you think sex with a 14-year-old is "better" than sex with Monica.

Your own words, Wootiepoo. And -- as I said -- they will follow you to the grave.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

rdw never stated that he thinks sex with a 14-year-old is "better" than sex with Monica.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

spared us all what became a constitutional crisis, and a crisis in the confidence Americans have in the legitimacy of their own system

Massive crying from liberals is not a constitutional crises nor is their loss of confidence a factor in anything. The system is doing just fine.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

"cmdicely":

Cut the shit, Thomas. You've been spoofing shortstop and now it's apparently cmdicely's turn.

Do have any flippin' idea how *obviously Thomaslike* these idiotic jesuitical excursions of yours are?

And since nobody on this blog believes you're a "person" (only a deranged and sociopathic loser who absolutely lives to derail threads), your judgment of my character hardly accounts for much.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe not "much", but still enough to prove YOUR statement false -- unless you are going to start re-defining "person" like the Nazis did in order to ship off anyone you disagree with to some concentration camp (cue dee and Disputo calling for Thomas1's murder).

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

I wasn't responding to the comment about the 14 year old when I said that it'd be better than having sex with Lewinsky. I don't know how that got pasted into my post to make it look like I was responding to it.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

For the sake of the entire world -- Please vote Democratic in '06.


A tad over-wrought Bob? Perhaps a bit nervous about the election?

So what was it like talking to your Italian friend about conditions in America? Did you express your embarrassment?

There is one huge advantage Conservatives have over Liberals when it comes to our European allies. Italy has been terrific in the GWOT and God bless them for it but the bottom line is Conservatives do what hey think it correct and they don't give a rats ass what ANY European thinks. The last thing a conservative would do is express embarrasment about America to a European.

But go ahead. Feel your pain!

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

"cmdicely":

*laughing hysterically*

I can hardly wait for Chris to get here and tear you a new asshole :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

I'll cut out the fake "cmdicely" posts just as soon as you cut out the fake "rdw" posts.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

What's he going to do, Bob? Is he going to reach his hand thru my connection and smack me?

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> But I wouldn't fuck impoverished 14-year-old Dominican girls

I'd bet he did a lot better than Monica and he didn't use his cigar.
Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

There it is, Wootiepoo. Time stamp and everything.
Go back upthread, read it, and bawl your sleazebag
eyes out. The only editing I did was to replace
the HTML with my usual USENET-style quote headers.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

RobW on September 28, 2006 at 11:39 PM

thank you.

Posted by: papago on September 29, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

As the fake "shortstop" pointed out at 1:45 PM, that response by rdw could have two meanings, Bob.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas/"cmdicely":

The fake rdw posts are funny. I only wish I could take credit for them.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

This thread has become completely retarded. I'll check back late.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

As for the fake "rdw", I wasn't specifically saying "you", Bob (although I wouldn't put it past you -- quite a double-standard you have going there since the fake ones you agree with are "funny" but the fake ones you disagree with get your righteous ire and admonition to "cut the shit" -- given what a huge sleazebag you are). YOU know who you are.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

I know a lots of Ohioans on this threat are pretty upset with Sherrod Brown for voting for this bill in the House and are threatening not to vote for him, but if you look at the overall context, it makes perfect political sense.

Consider:

a) the bill was going to pass in the House no matter how he voted

b) he is in a tight Senate race against a Republican who would be happy to use a vote against the bill to paint him as weak on terror

c) therefore he had no incentive to vote against the bill

I have not doubt that had his vote mattered, i.e. had the vote been close or had he been in the Senate instead of the House, Sherrod Brown would have voted against the bill. However, in this particular case, the long-term benefit of voting for the bill (taking away a campaign issue for Dewine and increasing his chance of winning) outweighed the short-term benefit of futily voting his conscience.

Politics is politics, so don't get mad at Sherrod Brown for making a wise political decision.

Posted by: mfw13 on September 29, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas/"cmdicely":

Hey look, if it were up to me there'd be registration with the ability to use whatever handle you wanted -- provided that it wasn't the registered handle of another user. That was the system that blogforamerica adopted, and it worked out pretty well. You could still write silly posts under a different handle than your default one -- but you couldn't pull douchey shit like what you're doing with Chris'.

And if that means that there are a few less funny rdw spoof posts -- hey, I think we could all live with that.

If you want to consider those posts douchey too -- by all means be my guest.

There's no accounting for taste.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

I'm back. You *knew* I couldn't resist checking back to see what everyone was saying about me. I'm vain that way. I wonder who Thomas is going to spoof next?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

mfw13:

That's a reasonable -- if disheartening -- postion.

If I were an Ohioan, I'd conclude likewise and vote for Brown against DeWine.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

Yeah, but you got my email address wrong, douchenozzle.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

mfw13:

But if Brown loses because 1,000 Democrats don't for him, and he would won with 10,000 votes to spare had he stood up against torture, how is that a wise political decision?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

There it is,


Not quite! The 14-yr bit was your sleezy accusation. Not mine.

learn to read.

I said Rush would do better than Slick Willie. It's quite clear.

I did not say better than slick willie using a 14-yr old.

I was clear to stay out of your gutter.

BTW: You still haven't shared with us the source of your depth of knowledge of the dominican sex trade.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

I did that on purpose, Bob, so you wouldn't get confused.

Bob.

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

mfw13:

Everybody knows I don't play idiotic, Thomasoid hypothetical games while asking dumb-ass, unanswerable rhetorical questions.

I'm out of this thread for awhile.

Rest assured that every post under my name beyond this timestamp has not been posted by me.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Sherrod Brown:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15049251

"I supported a compromise because I think John McCain, a former prisoner of war, understands what we need to do to ensure our soldiers are safe." -- Sherrod Brown
It wasn't only Sherrod Brown. As MSNBC reports:
All but one of the House Democrats whom the Cook Political Report rates as being in close races (the Lean Democrat category) voted for the bill. The only Democrat in that category who voted no was Rep. Allan Mollohan of West Virginia.
Hooray for Mollohan! Send him some love! And as for the rest of them, I think they should have gotten together and announced that McCain is a sell-out. When they all say it together, the media will listen.

Posted by: sysprog on September 29, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Bob,

What did you think about GWB getting the funding for the fence?

Still thinking he's as dumb as a post? Am I missing something is has he been rolling the libs on legislation?

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Papago, I think if Kerry had won in 2004, we would still be in Iraq today and we would still be endorsing torture and that Congress would still be financing a trillion dollar military. There is no lesser evil, there is only the petro-industrial-military complex political hegemony that both parties represent. If Gore had won in 2000, I suspect we would still be in Iraq. I think Gore would have used the 9/11 attacks the same way Bush did, to win political power, and would have used that political power to reward his similar backers.

I voted for Kerry despite the fact he wanted to send more troops to Iraq. I voted against my concsience.

I think a Democrat will win in 2008 and I also think the US military will still be in Iraq in 2012. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.

Posted by: Hostile on September 29, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

I'm actually headed off to Sosua Beach for the weekend. See ya!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Bob,

Got your M& M's?

Or don't you need them?

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

I have a local connection for those, and plenty of other, um, accoutrements.

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

I said Rush would do better than Slick Willie. It's quite clear.

I did not say better than slick willie using a 14-yr old.

I was not responding to the comment I was responding to. I don't know how it got into my post.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

I can't *stand* it! I am back just for this one post, but I am writing Kevin about this, and I am putting pedal to the metal.

If Kevin can't figure out a way to raise revenue from the regular posters here to update his software and hire someone to do the update so this blog can be registered, I am fucking out of here.

I am *so* not playing around again.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK
I can hardly wait for Chris to get here and tear you a new asshole :)

Eh, why bother.

Its childish, obvious, and not even entertaining (I seem to recall I once had a doppelganger that pulled off a clever parody of my posting style, which was pretty amusing.)

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK
I will say, though, that I find it especially disappointing that you're pushing this line with the luxury of a clean conscience regarding your own legislators.

What line do you think I'm pushing? I'm not advocating not voting for even the dirty Dems given that the choice is going to generally be Reps that are likely to be dirtier in effect.

I'm just saying that if both individual Democrats in office and the Democratic Party as an organization want the active support of people who care about democracy, Constitutional government, freedom, due process, etc., then the Democratic Party in government needs to do a much better job of being a clear and unequivocal advocate for those causes.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

Heh, I was on that thread when your original Doppelganger showed up. Clever? -- maybe. It was a long disquisition on the various Eskimo words for snow. I guess the idea was to parody your sometimes highly detailed and elaborate discursive style.

But knowing Thomas, it was probably just a Wikipedia entry he pulled out and pasted without attribution or identifiable formatting.

As for your point -- we're not at all in disagreement. I wasn't a Howard Dean supporter for nothing. I do believe that the Dems should learn to stop taking progressives for granted. If I were in a state with Nelson or Landrieu -- somebody safe who cast that odious vote -- you can best believe that, like Jim, I'd be casting my vote in another direction.

And I also thoroughly endorse the advice given by shortstop to people of conscience like Praedor who's insisting he won't vote for Menendez:

Vote your conscience by all means -- but by all means make your voice heard from the mountaintops so that Menendez understand precisely why he's losing support from his base.

Protest votes without clear and forceful public articulation of their purpose are meaningless.

And you can obviously tell this is really me, btw -- because nobody, least of all Thomas, can quite cop this rhetorical style :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Chris:

> Eh, why bother.

I was hoping for some outrage, bro. And why couldn't you at least vouch for my non-sleaziness? We respected regulars have to stick together. I know I'm the only one in our group of upper echelon posters who consistently calls for cover when I'm ridiculed -- heck, I'm the only one ridiculed. It's just that I figured my contributions and consistently good writing would earn me some of the same acclaim I so willingly and ingratiatingly dispense to you and the others whose names I'm prone to dropping. It's bad enough to suffer so much scorn in real life, why must I be subjected to it here where no one can see me ... hear me ... or *smell* me :) j/k

I think I'll take this up with my imaginary friends when they stop by tonight, bringing me gifts of beer and commands to watch TV. At least they "understand" me.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

In case you're legitimately interested, here is the post in which I explain how I know about Dominican sex tourism.

Not that I think you genuinely are, or anything.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

fake rmck1:

Very lame.

Since you're obviously incapable of copping my style in a believable fashion (gee, I wonder why that is) for the purposes of pulling off a *genuine* spoof, you're reduced to aiming for broad parody that wouldn't fool a soul.

Nor make anybody but your own self laugh, for that matter.

Sucks when you just *don't have the chops*, doesn't it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Since you're obviously incapable of copping my style in a believable fashion (gee, I wonder why that is)

Uh, because he's not a schizophrenic on lithium?

Posted by: Impartial on September 29, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Since you're obviously incapable of copping my style in a believable fashion (gee, I wonder why that is)

Because he doesn't have to pause every few seconds to scratch his ass through holey underwear?

Posted by: Impartial on September 29, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

I laughed.

Posted by: Well, I did on September 29, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Impartial:

More like a case of malice driving out wit. Coupled with lack of the requisite intelligence, malice has a tendency to do that.

Oh, and they put bipolars on lithium, dolt.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Since you're obviously incapable of copping my style in a believable fashion (gee, I wonder why that is)

Because no one else can exress love for himself as pitifully as you do?

Posted by: Impartial on September 29, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and they put bipolars on lithium, dolt.

I apologize for misdiagnosing your disorder.

Posted by: Impartial on September 29, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

As if you would ever really admit to us your friends are all imaginary, Bob. I thought the Eskimo "snow" post was a classic *parody* BTW.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

But "none" of you (heh) seems to have the guts to post any of this under your regular handles, if you have them.

Hmmm ... I wonder why *that* is.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

I thought you were leaving?

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Okay. Maybe we don't know Rush's precise itinerary. What's
absolutely certain is that Rush didn't travel down to the Dominican
Republic with a pocketful of Viagra to meet his soul-mate. He was
consorting with prostitutes.

And we know this how?

Palm Beach doesn't have prostitutes?

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

Trolls:

Don't project your own malicious envy onto my self-confidence.

Because that's even more transparent than your lame attempts at parody.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

We're afraid your *friends* will beat the shit out of us -- or worse, that YOU will unscrape your bottom from your chair and lumber over to deliver a knockout blow!

Posted by: thevoices on September 29, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

In the original news article, Rush was busted in Palm Beach leaving a flight returning from the Dominican Republic.

Sheesh, Wooten -- if you're going to try to spin this, at least get the basic facts straight.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Fine -- you didn't laugh at the parody above. Whatever. Here's a "self-test" then:

Did you (or we) laugh about the Al/Thomas1/Thomas1.2 "behind the scenes" paid-troll parody fighting with each other over the Doritos on that other thread?

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

"cmdicely":

Like Chris really uses stars instead of HTML to emphasize words.

Lame, lame, lame.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

Palm Beach doesn't have prostitutes?

Not the kind ex-Rep. Foley prefers.

Posted by: Hostile on September 29, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas, obviously posting as me:

I'll have to check that out. It could be hysterical. But more likely it probably hovers between marginally amusing depending on how bored you are or else merely tedious.

You know -- kinda like this thread here.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Ouch, Hostile -- like no Democrats have ever had sex scandals before.

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

Here's the other *parody* Bob:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009587.php#970162

Make sure you read all the way thru to relief-pitcher (or is it *catcher*) Thomas1.2 :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

These men are the sine qua non of the Ugly American. Reading that
profile precisely describes men of the same ideology as Rush Limbaugh.


You know this precisely describes...... how?

You seem to have a major case of envy. You are probably like most libs who will claim to never to have listened to Rush yet have total knowledge about him. That's a rather neat trick.

Here's something I am certain of:

What libs hate most about Rush isn't that he trashes them so effectively day in and day out.

It isn't that he makes so much money and is so influencial.

It's that he enjoys himself so much. He knows how much hatred for him just oozes out of so many liberals and he takes great pleasure from it. He is not only immune to liberal criticism he relishes it.

I also like your reference to the Ugly American. Rush has explained this very well. Liberals are like dogs. They are all emotion and need constant reinforcement. When the French express disappointment with America liberals are devastated. Conservatives feel exactly the opposite. It's not possible for the French or everyone else in the world to shake consevative love for and pride in America.

The AP or Reuters will print a poll of global opinions regarding the USA and liberals read it as if it actually matters.


BTW: the most intersting thing about Clintons meltdown at Wallace was his clear hatred for all things Fox. That's my liberal lie detector. mention the word Fox and if they turn Red they're libs. Otherwise they're sane.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

>> >Like Chris really uses stars instead of HTML to emphasize words.

yer so smart!!! u r a big strong man but not to fat like rusho!! his ass pmples r bigerr!!! will u be nice too me when you cum back to domrep.....we can try again to make u get biger but i dont mind when u ca'nt. tell me wen u cuming an i will stay home frm skool.

Posted by: yer14yroldgf on September 29, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

In the original news article, Rush was busted in Palm Beach leaving a flight returning from the Dominican Republic.

So what's the conflict?

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

And here you are again, frantically attempting to change the subject from Rush's Viagra bust coming back from the Dominican Republic.

Gee, I wonder why you feel such a strong need to stay off the original topic :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

Palm Beach doesn't have prostitutes?

Not the kind ex-Rep. Foley prefers.


I thought you were trying to smear Rush?

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

You mean the "original topic" as in the Dirty Dozen VOTING FOR TORTURE?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

frantically attempting to change the subject from Rush's Viagra bust coming back from the Dominican Republic.

Frantically???


I think the subject is funny. Why change it? He obviously doesn't care what you think. Why would I? He loves it. For a talk radio host all publicity is good publicity.


Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Check the emails of posts under my name. Many of them are Thomas (very lamely) attempting to spoof me.

If you hear GOP talking points out of my mouth -- helpful hint, they aren't posted by me :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

If you hear GOP talking points out of my mouth -- helpful hint, they aren't posted by me

I would know something was up then for sure
1

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

Wouldn't it be glorious if *every* thread was nothing but posts from / about me?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile on September 29, 2006 at 3:42 PM

that's an interesting comment. I don't know that you are right about Gore, obviously, since he wasn't in office. Your comment expresses a belief about the bipartisan impetus toward war in Iraq. There were other non-negligible differences between Bush and Gore.

rdw, rmck1, cmdicely: do you boys/girls always blather on about each other?

Posted by: papago on September 29, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile:

Leaving President Clinton aside, for the moment, it's worth taking a look back at how Congress has dealt with the frequent charges of sexual misconduct by its own members.

In most of the following, Congress took little or no official action, leaving the fate of the accused to the voters. This history begins in 1974, but not because episodes of sexual impropriety only go back a quarter-century. In the old days, they simply weren't reported.

Rep. Wilbur Mills (D-Ark.)
On Oct. 9, 1974, Mills, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and perhaps the most powerful member of the House, was stopped for speeding near the Jefferson Memorial at 2 a.m. Shortly after, Annabella Battistella a stripper who went by the stage-name of Fanne Foxe, the "Argentine Firecracker" jumped out of his car and into the Potomac River tidal basin. The incident did not immediately threaten Mills, whose district was solidly Democratic. But Mills won reelection with only 59 percent of the vote, his lowest total ever. Within weeks, Mills appeared on a Boston stage carousing with Foxe, apparently intoxicated. Faced with an uprising among House Democrats, Mills was forced to resign as Ways and Means chairman, and in 1976 he announced he would not seek another term, ending his 38-year House career. He was succeeded by Jim Guy Tucker, whose own ethics got the attention of Kenneth Starr some two decades later.

Rep. Wayne Hays (D-Ohio)
In its May 23, 1976, editions, The Washington Post quoted Elizabeth Ray as saying that she was a secretary for the House Administration Committee, headed by Hays, despite the fact that "I can't type, I can't file, I can't even answer the phone." She said the main responsibility of her $14,000-a-year job was to have sex with Hays. The fall of Hays, an arrogant bully who was one of the most powerful and disliked members of Congress, was rapid. The House ethics committee opened its investigation on June 2. He resigned as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on June 3. In the Democratic primary five days later, a car-wash manager/bartender who had run against Hays four previous times and never received more than 20 percent of the vote got 39 percent. Hays later resigned his committee chairmanship, dropped his reelection bid, and finally resigned on September 1.

Rep. John Young (D-Tex.)
On June 11, 1976, Colleen Gardner, a former staff secretary to Young, told the New York Times that Young increased her salary after she gave in to his sexual advances. In November, Young, who had run unopposed in the safe Democratic district five consecutive times, was reelected with just 61 percent of the vote. The scandal wouldn't go away, and in 1978 Young was defeated in a Democratic primary runoff.

Rep. Allan Howe (D-Utah)
On June 13, 1976, Howe was arrested in Salt Lake City on charges of soliciting two policewomen posing as prostitutes. Howe insisted he was set up and refused to resign. But the Democratic Party distanced itself from his candidacy and he was trounced by his Republican opponent in the November election.

Rep. Fred Richmond (D-N.Y.)
In April 1978, Richmond was arrested in Washington for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy. Richmond apologized for his actions, conceding he "made bad judgments involving my private life." In spite of a Democratic primary opponent's attempts to cash in on the headlines, Richmond easily won renomination and reelection. But his career came to an end four years later when, after pleading guilty to possession of marijuana and tax evasion and amid allegations that he had his staff procure cocaine for him he resigned his seat.

Reps. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass.)
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay. The committee voted to reprimand the two, but a back-bench Georgia Republican named Newt Gingrich argued that they should be expelled. The full House voted on July 20 instead to censure the two, the first time that ever happened for sexual misconduct. Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane's conservative district voted him out in 1984, while the voters in Studds's more liberal district were more forgiving. Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996.

Sen. Brock Adams (D-Wash.)
On Sept. 27, 1988, Seattle newspapers reported that Kari Tupper, the daughter of Adams's longtime friends, filed a complaint against the Washington Democrat in July of 1987, charging sexual assault. She claimed she went to Adams's house in March 1987 to get him to end a pattern of harassment, but that he drugged her and assaulted her. Adams denied any sexual assault, saying they only talked about her employment opportunities. Adams continued raising campaign funds and declared for a second term in February of 1992. But two weeks later the Seattle Times reported that eight other women were accusing Adams of sexual molestation over the past 20 years, describing a history of drugging and subsequent rape. Later that day, while still proclaiming his innocence, Adams ended his campaign.

Rep. Jim Bates (D-Calif.)
Roll Call quoted former Bates aides in October 1988 saying that the San Diego Democrat made sexual advances toward female staffers. Bates called it a GOP-inspired smear campaign, but also apologized for anything he did that might have seemed inappropriate. The story came too close to Election Day to damage Bates, who won easily. However, the following October the ethics committee sent Bates a "letter of reproval" directing him to make a formal apology to the women who filed the complaint. Although the district was not thought to be hospitable to the GOP, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a former Navy pilot who was once shot down over North Vietnam, ousted Bates in 1990 by fewer than 2,000 votes.

Rep. Gus Savage (D-Ill.)
The Washington Post reported on July 19, 1989, that Savage had fondled a Peace Corps volunteer while on an official visit to Zaire. Savage called the story a lie and blamed it on his political enemies and a racist media. (Savage is black.) In January 1990, the House ethics committee decided that the events did occur, but decided against any disciplinary action because Savage wrote a letter to the woman saying he "never intended to offend" her. Savage was reelected in 1990, but finally ousted in the 1992 primary by Mel Reynolds.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
In response to a story in the Aug. 25, 1989, Washington Times, Frank confirmed that he hired Steve Gobie, a male prostitute, in 1985 to live with and work for him in his D.C. apartment. But Frank, who is gay, said he fired Gobie in 1987 when he learned he was using the apartment to run a prostitution service. The Boston Globe, among others, called on Frank to resign, but he refused. On July 19, 1990, the ethics committee recommended Frank be reprimanded because he "reflected discredit upon the House" by using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. Attempts to expel or censure Frank failed; instead the House voted 408-18 to reprimand him. The fury in Washington was not shared in Frank's district, where he won reelection in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since.

Sen. Charles Robb (D-Va.)
On April 25, 1991, with NBC News about to go on the air with allegations he had an extramarital affair with Tai Collins, a former Miss Virginia, Robb made a preemptive strike. The Virginia Democrat, married to Lyndon Johnson's daughter, said he was with Collins in a hotel room, but all that took place was a massage over a bottle of wine. Collins, in a subsequent interview with Playboy, said they had been having an affair since 1983. It was thought that these charges, along with long-circulated but unproven allegations that Robb had attended Virginia Beach parties where cocaine was present, would jeopardize Robb's 1994 bid for re-election. But the GOP nominated Oliver North, the Iran-Contra figure who had his own credibility problems. Robb squeaked by with 46 percent in a three-way race.

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
In October 1992, Republican Senate nominee Rick Reed began running a campaign commercial that included a surreptitiously taped interview with Lenore Kwock, Inouye's hairdresser. Kwock said Inouye had sexually forced himself on her in 1975 and continued a pattern of sexual harassment, even as Kwock continued to cut his hair over the years. Inouye, seeking a sixth term, denied the charges. And Kwock said that by running the commercial, Reed had caused her more pain than Inouye had. Reed was forced to pull the ad, and while many voters took out their anger on the Republican, Inouye was held to 57 percent of the vote the lowest total of his career. A week later, a female Democratic state legislator announced that she had heard from nine other women who claimed Inouye had sexually harassed them over the past decade. But the women didn't go public with their claims, the local press didn't pursue the story, and the Senate Ethics Committee decided to drop the investigation because the accusers wouldn't participate in an inquiry.

Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-Ill.)
Freshman Reynolds was indicted on Aug. 19, 1994, on charges of having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker and then pressuring her to lie about it. Reynolds, who is black, denied the charges and said the investigation was racially motivated. The GOP belatedly put up a write-in candidate for November, but Reynolds dispatched him in the overwhelmingly Democratic district with little effort. Reynolds was convicted on Aug. 22, 1995 of 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography, was sentenced to five years in prison, and resigned his seat on October 1.

Rep. Gary Conduit (D-Calif.)
In May 2001, Condit became the subject of national news coverage, after the disappearance of Chandra Levy, a Washington, D.C. intern originally from Condit's district. Levy is believed to have been Condit's mistress.

While Condit was never an official suspect in the disappearance, Levy's family (and subsequently the national media) suspected that Condit was withholding important information about the intern's disappearance. Suspicion was deepened when Condit tried to avoid answering direct questions during a televised interview with news anchor Connie Chung on August 23, 2001. This followed news reports that Condit had an affair with flight attendant, Anne Marie Smith.

He faded from the news following 9/11, only to reappear during his announcement to run for an 8th term on December 7. Condit lost the primary elections in March 2002 to his former aide, then-Assemblyman Dennis Cardoza, and left Congress at the end of his term in 2003. After an extensive search, Levy's remains were discovered a year after her disappearance by a man hunting for turtles with his dog in a secluded area of Rock Creek Park in Washington, D.C. In May 2002 a medical examiner officially declared that Levy's death was the result of homicide. The case remains unsolved.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

I really don't know if I should get into the weeds with you on this, because neither sociology nor cultural studies are your favorite subjects. But the profile I read from that NGO investigating sex trafficking was very detailed on the personalities of guys who frequently travel down to the Dominican Republic for sex.

It's a profile, Wooten, so it's obviously a composite cross-section of many of these guys who have been interviewed, and thus a generalization. But so are terrorist profiles, or drug trafficker profiles, or sex offender profiles. These things are useful to law enforcement, and they're useful to NGOs investigating sex trafficking as well.

The typical American guy who travels down to the Dominican Republic for sex tends to be white, middle aged and well-to-do. They also tend to make these trips more than once. And they share some attributes: They tend, first of all, to be solidly pro-American. They think America is the greatest country and everybody would immigrate here if they could. They tend not to be remotely interested in Dominican culture, or Dominican politics or social problems. They see the grinding poverty as a problem of individuals, and think nothing is better for them than spending a little hard currency in their economy.

These ideas are important, because they sustain the justifications these men have in order to have underage sex with extremely poor women -- something which contradicts things they'd like to believe about themselves. Because these guys otherwise consider themselves moral, law-abiding citizens. Hence the need for rationalizations and magic thinking. They're pederasts in extreme denial about their behavior.

These guys tend to believe that there's a radical difference between American culture and Dominican culture. That Dominican culture has different sexual morals than America (untrue; it's a Catholic country). They believe that Dominicans are also as a people more sexually preoccupied than Americans, and that sexual behavior for them at an early age is natural. Thus paying for sex with 14 year olds is both completely natural, in accordance with local standards, and helps to allieviate their poverty a little bit as well. And in fact, if they as rich American foreigners weren't doing it, then these girls would be freely having sex with local men, anyway. So not only isn't their behavior harmful -- but it's actually helpful, because at least Americans can offer them hard currency in exchange for their favors.

This is how they can get back on the airplane when it's over and look at themselves in the mirror without believing that they just took advantage of starving teenagers whose economic desperation drives them to sell themselves.

I dunno, Wooten. This sounds like these guys at least share a few major attributes with your average dittohead. Tourism benefits the economy. Poverty is an individual problem. Everyone loves Americans because America is rich.

Oh, and most of these guys interviewed also self-identified as conservative Republicans.

I think we've got Rush's number here.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

papago:

I do about myself at least.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

The above spam was obviously not posted by me.

papageo:

Many of the posts left under my name, and all but two under cmdicely's have been posted by a sociopathic troll here who's currently going under the handle of Thomas1.

Doubtless this has given you an inaccurate picture.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

O.K., not *currently* going under the handle of Thomas1 :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

papageo:

You can tell this troll's posts from mine by the difference in email address. Check mine, then compare it to other rmck1 posts.

Bob

And Thomas -- at least the long stuff I post here I write myself instead of stealing it from google and posting it without attribution.

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

papago:

I also apologize for my Doppelganger misspelling your name above.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

papago:

The typo of your name was mine. Check the apologist's email.

I wouldn't apologize for a goddamn thing that ever crawled off of Thomas' fingers.

I should really get off this thread at this point -- but I'm curious to see how rdw handles my post about the very dittoesque profile of Dominican sex tourists.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Don't trust him, papageo. He's just trying to trick you now.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

The last dozen posts have all had my name attached. Simply glorious, I tell you.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

He can't be tricked. The email difference is as clear as day.

You're one busted sociopath.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

As I said, Bob, the email difference was so that YOU don't get confused -- besides, I can't stand listening to that Prog shit.

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

I'm out of this thread for awhile.

Rest assured that every post under my name beyond this timestamp has not been posted by me.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

I'm out of here. I have spent entirely too much time on this thread.

As per last time, anything posted after this timestamp is not me.

When and if I choose to return, of course, will be unmistakable :)

I may pop back later just to see how rdw responded -- or if anything like a serious post surfaces that deals with a genuine issue.

The trolls, however, will have to talk amongst themselves. I've had quite my fill of Thomas1 today.

G'night, all.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

papageo:

That last post was not me.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

Whew! 20 posts all with my name attached. Excuse me for a minute while I ejaculate on myself!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1 is a toxic piece of shit.

Posted by: Trolls Suck on September 29, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

And rmck1 is a fucking idiot for letting himself get trolled like that.

Posted by: Trolls Suck on September 29, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK
I was hoping for some outrage, bro.

Sorry, between the various different angles on versions of the Enabling Act currently wending their way through Congress (the detainee bill and the FISA revision primarily), my ability to be outraged at childish trolls is currently running at about zero.

And why couldn't you at least vouch for my non-sleaziness?

Bob, you're non-sleazy. Anyone that pays attention here knows that, and the trolls don't care about reality. I didn't think you needed it, but there you go.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 29, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

YHBT

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

That was a good one, Bob. And if dicely comes back here, he'll never know you wrote it. Might give you a pity pass. Brilliant.


Posted by: Impartial on September 29, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

Comedy Gold!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_07/009232.php#928798

IIRC, the actual answer as to "how many Eskimo words for snow are there?" depends on how we define Eskimo (there are a number of languages), how we define snow, and how we count numbers of words in languages that have quite different grammatical structures than English.

The first citation dealing with multiple Eskimo words for snow is found in the introduction to The Handbook of North American Indians, the 1911 work of linguist and anthropologist Franz Boas. Boas mentions that Eskimos have four separate words for snow: aput ("snow on the ground"), gana ("falling snow"), piqsirpoq ("drifting snow"), and qimuqsuq ("snowdrift"), where English has only one. It is, of course, inaccurate to say that speakers of the English language have only one word for snow. Boas' intent was to connect differences in culture with differences in language.

Benjamin Whorf's theory of linguistic relativism holds that the language we speak both affects and reflects our view of the world. In a popular 1940 article on the subject, he referred to Eskimo languages having seven distinct words for snow. Later writers inflated the figure. By 1978, the number quoted had reached 50. On February 9, 1984 the New York Times gave the number as one hundred in an editorial.

The idea that Eskimos had hundreds of words for snow indeed, hundreds of unique and fairly unrelated words has given rise to the idea that Eskimos viewed snow very differently than people of other cultures. For example, when it snows, others see snow, but they could see any manifestation of their great and varied vocabulary. Vulgarized versions of Whorf's views hold not only that Eskimo speakers can choose among several snow words, but further, that they were unable to understand categorizing all seven (or however many) as "snow". To them, each word is supposedly a separate concept. Thus language is thought to impose a particular view of the world not just for Eskimo languages, but for all groups. Whorf himself, a well-informed and respectful student of Native American cultures, held more sophisticated views than this caricature would suggest.

There is no one Eskimo language. A number of cultures are referred to as Eskimo, and a number of different languages are termed Eskimo-Aleut languages.

Like English, Eskimo languages have more than one word to describe snow. Yup'ik, for example, has been estimated to have around 24. This may seem impressive until one realizes that English has at least 40, including "berg", "frost", "glacier", "hail", "ice", "slush", "flurry", and "sleet".

Of course, it is perfectly possible that some Eskimo languages would have several extra words to describe snow, which is specifically the point of Boas's theory. This is because they deal with snow more than other cultures, just as artists have more words to describe the various details of their hobby. Where someone without artistic experience would simply identify a particular item as "paint", the artist calls it "oil paint", "acrylic paint", or "watercolor". This does not mean that these two individuals see two different things, nor does it mean that the artist would be confused by the idea that oil paint and acrylic paint are related.

The actual number of Eskimo words for snow is not hundreds it is, in fact, limitless. This is because Eskimo languages (like many native North American languages) are polysynthetic; that is, a word can be composed of a large number of morphemes, such that a single word can express the equivalent of a sentence in a language like English. There is a system of derivational suffixes for word formation to which speakers can recursively add snow-referring roots. As in English, there is a handful of these snow-referring roots, words for "snowflake", "blizzard", "drift", and so on. This means that where an English speaker would describe what he or she is seeing as "soft, easily-packed snow", a speaker of an Eskimo language could describe the same thing in one word. And when the snow began to melt, she could change a few suffixes and describe, once again in one word, "soft, melting snow that is not easily-packed". If the snow became dirty, she could add a suffix and say, "soft, dirty, melting snow that is not easily-packed." All this in one word, where an English-speaker would need an entire phrase. And yet, the concept is the same in both languages.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 26, 2006 at 7:10 PM

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

I think we've got Rush's number here.

Think so do ya? Why is it liberals think everyone is a stereotype?

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Question:

Was Phil Hendrie "lying" on his radio show?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hendrie

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

> Bob, you're non-sleazy. Anyone that pays attention here knows that,
> and the trolls don't care about reality. I didn't think you needed
> it, but there you go.

Chris, I certainly don't. I'm rather surpised you didn't
recognise that as a spoof post, since the end of it was so
obviously parodic. Anything under bob and not progbob @ has
been a spoof post on this thread. Thomas without any question.

He's apparetly the dude who spoofed you the first time,
since he just reposed it gloatingly under my name.

rdw:

That's a realy lame response, Wooten. DHS uses profiling to question
suspicious characters at airports. You object to that, too?

Rush Limbaugh fucked underage girls in the Dominican Republic.

While I can't prove this concretely -- it is nonetheless quite the
prudent assumption, given the profile of Dominican sex tourists.

And now back to my regularly scheduled lurking.
Again, check the emails before assuming anything
posted under my name was written by me.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

Now that I think about it, I'm against racial profiling, so I'd better retract my posts on Rush too. Sorry for any confusion.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

rdw said:

broken,

You make my case. JFK did next to nothing except talk. He submits a bill in June and 5 months later the fact it's still sitting there means he DID nothing.

Let's see, JFK issued 2 executive orders, marshalled the national guard and the Commerce Dept against segragation, issued a major speach and submitted the Civil Rights Act to Congress in 34 months before he died, and you call that almost nothing? Might you have a little bias against JFK?

It took LBJ a further 8 months before he got JFK's Civil Rights Act through Congress, yet you cling to the fact that JFK hadn't got it through in the 5 months before he died. A little more history for you:

On November 27, 1963, addressing the Congress and the nation for the first time as president, Johnson called for passage of the civil rights bill as a monument to the fallen Kennedy. "Let us continue," he declared, promising that "the ideas and the ideals which [Kennedy] so nobly represented must and will be translated into effective action." Moreover, where Kennedy had been sound on principle, Lyndon Johnson was the master of parliamentary procedure, and he used his considerable talents as well as the prestige of the presidency in support of the bill.

On July 2, 1964, President Johnson signed it into law.

Posted by: Broken on September 29, 2006 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

Impartial:

> That was a good one, Bob. And if dicely comes back here, he'll
> never know you wrote it. Might give you a pity pass. Brilliant.

Uh-huh. I guess they don't call you "Impartial" for nothing, huh.

I took a good hard squint at that post before deciding that it was
probably Chris' -- and ultimately guessed that he just didn't bother
to read past the first few lines of what he responded to. If it's a
spoof, it's about the most authentic one I've ever seen here. Chris'
style isn't so easy to capture. I'd love to be able to say I owned
it if it were -- but I'm just not that talented as a writer :)

I just had to say that because it *bothers* you so fucking much.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas, posting as me but using my full email now:

Get a life. Whether or not I support profiling -- the fact remains that it exists.

The point here is that rdw supports profiling -- so it's asinine to hear him accuse liberals of stereotyping. Profiling isn't gratuitous prejudice -- it's a law enforcement technique.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

And I am seriously done now with this thread.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

If it's a spoof, it's about the most authentic one I've ever seen here.

Don't you mean "the most authentic one my renowned tin ear could detect?"

Posted by: Partial on September 29, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

Good to have you on the record admitting that racial profiling is not gratuitous prejudice but rather a legitimate law enforcement technique -- that could come in handy down the road -- remember your "worst Internet nightmare" that all the different people posting to you really are just Thomas1?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

Here I am, breaking my own damned rule again -- no doubt Trolls Suck above was absolutely correct and I'm being a fucking idiot here.

Partial:

You have any evidence my ear's so notoriously tin?

Thomas apparenly doesn't seem to think so -- but picking out Thomas is child's play. The color trolls disappeared once I identified their Britishisms. Persecution trolls have vanished mysteriously right when I fingered a suspect.

Maybe this is why I like playing this nasty little game. Because you're left only with inference. It's a tad more challenging than, uhh, winning a debate with the likes of you subterranean bridge dwellers.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

Profiling is not exclusively racial profiling. And I didn't say whether or not I supported it, idiot -- only that it exists.

The profiling of sexual predators or drug smugglers obviously doesn't lean heavily on their race.

You really will try to argue *anything*, won't you. Context to you means absolutely nothing.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

Having a good ear doesn't mean one is a mind reader. If it did, this wouldn't be challenging. I have no idea who they are, either.

And I doubt very strongly that Jason was "Bob's Persecution Troll," myself. That wasn't precisely my point.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

That's a damn good question. I'm playing stupid troll tricks on a dead thread with a bunch of spoof artists -- way against my better judgment.

I'm not pissed. I find it sort of entertaining. That it's also pointless and dysfunctional, sadly enough, goes without saying.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

Calling racial profiling a law enforcement technique implies nothing about whether or not it's legitimate.

Kicking down doors without a warrant is also a law enforcement technique.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Okay ... enough of *this* happy horseshit.

Once again, the standard disclaimer (which will bring them out of the woodwork as it always does):

Anything after this timestamp is not the real McCoy -- or rmck1, for that matter.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

Jason -- I didn't bring your name up.

Thomas, posting under my handle, did.

Sheesh, calm the fuck down already. I don't pursue grudges nor do I drag up old arguments. As far as I'm concerned, that war was forgotten the second the comments went off.

Nor am I the dude here who's being just a *tad* overdramatic. Or making threats, for that matter.

Chill, Jason. I consider you a political ally.

Enough said.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

And be thankful that I don't save your message, print it out, and give it to local law enforcement.

Seriously.

Chill.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

Chill, Jason. I consider you a political ally.

Enough said.

Except for my next post, which will contain a veiled threat. Because I just can't help myself.

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

And finally -- weren't you the one who ended your last argument with me with the immortal words "it's only a blog thread"?

*shaking head, sighing*

Indeed it is.

If you really feel that it's worth rearranging your family's life to travel across state lines to beat the living snot out of a person you post to on a blog ... *sigh* ...

Whatever's motivating you, that's quite clearly an illegal threat. I don't personally feel threatened -- not yet, anyway. But I do feel badly for you that you feel the need to take this so far out of all proportion.

Calm down, Jason. I don't disrespect you. I don't think you're an idiot. I actually enjoy reading your posts. You have a lot of good knowledge on stuff of which I am woefully undereducated.

There's really no reason you should find me so threatening.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas, STFU.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

Spoof Troll:

Suggesting that I might go to the cops in response to a scenario like that isn't a threat.

It's an act of self-protection.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

In the following message I immediately said that I wasn't serious.

Nor was it a threat, because the scenario I proposed was entirely hypothetical.

I said that *if* we were in the same barroom, etc.

An entirely different class than the direct threat that you posted above.

And any law enforcement officer would note the difference.

Once again -- chill out. There isn't even an argument here.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

This is what you posted to me, directly above:

> Bob, I will take time off from work and send my family off to my
> in-laws in order to devote my full time and attention to fuck you up.
> I will enlist the aid of my associates and co-workers and leave you
> drooling and howling in a steaming pile of sick. You won't be left
> with so much as a pot to piss in if you bring me into this.

And I think it clearly speaks for itself.

Enough, already.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

Note the "if."

It was a hypothetical.

Sheesh.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

The "contingent" of people are a handful -- two? three? -- anonymous trolls (and perhaps Thomas, who tries to be anonymous but never quite manages to pull it off). I correspond with some regulars here in email (a few who are your friends and allies); there is hardly some great groundswell of opinion that's trying to drive me off this blog.

If I was so terribly disliked here, don't you think I'd here it from the regulars? Instead, I have civil conversations with them. What's up with that, huh?

*shaking head, sighing*

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

Jason -- I withdrew that sentiment the next post.

People can say things in anger that they don't literally mean, y'know. It happens all the time.

You're overreacting like I've rarely seen.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

No, Jason, I'm not going to get my friends in the middle of this; that wouldn't be right.

And self-defense is hardly harrassment.

Once again, this is a blog thread, Jason.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

That's a realy lame response, Wooten. DHS uses profiling to question
suspicious characters at airports. You object to that, too?

It was a terrific response and we should profile at airports. Your profile is moronic.

Rush Limbaugh fucked underage girls in the Dominican Republic.

You are the master of sleeze.

Posted by: rdw on September 29, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

The profile came fron an NGO that investigates Dominican sex trafficking.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

As am I.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

Jason

1) That wasn't a direct threat. It was an "if," a conditional, regarding a purely hypothetical situation.

No cop would consider that statement a threat. A threat is: "I'm going to come to your house and punch in your fucking face if you don't do x y or z."

2) I withdrew the sentiment the next message. I told you, repeatedly, that it was said and anger and not meant literally. I also told you that the last time I was in a physical fight with somebody, it was in gradeschool.

3) I didn't bring up your name. Thomas did, posting under my handle. I made an allusion, which Thomas, posting as rmck1, incorrectly inferred to mean you, so he mentioned your name. So I'm not even guilty of the initial "sin" that set you off here.

4) I didn't remotely imply that the people with whom I'm corresponding are involved in conversations about you. I merely brought that up to rebut the charge that there's a "contingent" of people here who are trying to drive me off. Therefore, who they are is irrelevant, except that they also converse civilly with you in public. You like to say "this isn't about you." Exactly. Stop being so damned paranoid.

5) If anybody is guilty of harrassment here, it is clearly you. You're badgering me to reveal personal information and you're attempting to pick a fight over something I did not do, and your initial grievance is an angry comment that nobody would take literally because of the "if" clause and the obviously hypothetical scenario.

You're clearly attempting to pick a fight here, Jason. I am not interested in fighting with you.

I suggest you calm down and think about this rationally.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

This has also been one of the most off-the-scale bellicose exchanges I have ever had in cyberspace.

You're like George Bush claiming over and over again that Saddam Hussein is "threatening" him, so he can have an excuse to haul off and launch an attack.

Seriously, calm the fuck down. I didn't literally threaten you the first time. I am not threatening you now. I have held out a series of olive branches, which you've gone at with a chainsaw.

Chill, Jason.

Seriously.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

I don't know who you're corresponding with; I'm not particularly interested in who they are as it's entirely NOYFB. I wouldn't dream of making assumptions about them.

By "your friends," I meant people with whom you are friendly with on the threads.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

Let it be know for the record that you were the one who jumped into my shit without anything remotely like a reasonable justification.

You don't like drama?

Don't produce it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

Project?

You were the one going on and on about your oh-so-justifiable anger at my oh-so-serious threats.

Yeah, that's damn right you're the one who needs to calm down.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

You issued a direct threat. If I took that post to a cop, he'd have me fill out a report.

Name names? Who are you, Joe McCarthy?

Sheesh, Jason.

Stop projecting.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

This is a direct threat, not a hypothetical situation:

> Bob, I will take time off from work and send my family off to
> my in-laws in order to devote my full time and attention to
> fuck you up. I will enlist the aid of my associates and
> co-workers and leave you drooling and howling in a steaming
> pile of sick. You won't be left with so much as a pot
> to piss in if you bring me into this.

It is actionable verbal harrassment if I wanted to
take it to that level, which I fortunately do not.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

Stop projecting.

Own your hostility.

Take responsibility for your actions.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

You obviously know that your statement would clearly look more serious to a police officer than would mine.

I used "if." I referenced a hypothetical. You told me what you were intending to do. "If you were here right now, I'd" is an entirely different class of statement than "I'm going to ... "

I don't know you, Jason. Frankly, I don't know if you're a genuine threat or not. I'd be lying to you if I told you I wasn't a little intimidated by such a flatly unhinged and violent paragraph. I am. I could still print that post out. I'm certainly saving it.

Now, you're badgering me about who my friends are. Good grief, who I correspond with here is NOYFB, that simple.

You don't like drama? Maybe those people don't, either. You might at least show a little respect for *them*, since you post with them every day.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 29, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

"Inside information?" There's no inside information. I ALREADY EXPLAINED TO YOU that we don't, uhmmm, post about you. That was never the point.

*You* might spend your whole time in email gossiping about people but I like to discuss issues and mutual interests.

And if you'd like to consider me a liar on something you're incapable of proving -- you just go right ahead.

I'm certainly not trading away the resepct I share with my friends to satisfy your belligerent and decidely unhealthy curiosity.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 30, 2006 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry to see you go, Jason.

You were a great contributor.

Hopefully you'll come back when you've thought through all this.

Rest assured that I wouldn't hold a grudge.

I love arguing -- but I fucking *hate* fighting with people.

It's always hurtful, even when you "win."

Truthfully, I feel pretty shitty right now.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 30, 2006 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

that 16-year old boy is torturing me....

Posted by: gop mike foley on September 30, 2006 at 8:11 AM | PERMALINK

You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

I state my opinions as opinions. I don't go making up 'facts'.

You are the reason Rush say's things like "I'd like to tell you but I can't", with a gleam in his eyes. He knows the haters are going to spread all kinds of nonsense only other haters would listen to but keep you talking about him. As ABC learned about Clintons campaign against their movie all publicity is good publicity.

You are a sleezeball Bob and that's all you'll ever be.

Posted by: rdw on September 30, 2006 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Okay, Wooten. I'm a sleazeball. So are agencies who track and profile the men who engage in Dominican sex tourism. If I'm a sleazeball, they're sleazeballs, and that means I'm a sleazeball in the company of many righteous feminists -- but anyway ...

Let me ask you this, then:

Rush was busted with non-scrip M&Ms as you so call them, coming back from the Dominican Republics. Dems da fax.

So what do *you* think went down? Candlelight dinners with fourtysomething ladies of the Dominican elite? An opportunity to brush up on his highschool Spanish?

Seriously, Wooten. Tell us. Don't let your imagination run wild or anything -- I don't think we could stand the strain. But in all probability just what was Rush, uhhm, up to down in the Dominican Republic with a pocketfulla whoopie?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 30, 2006 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Certainly not screwing underage prostitutes, right?

I mean, every right-minded non-hating open-minded person know that's not even remotely in the realm of possibility :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 30, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

So what do *you* think went down

I have no idea. Neither do you.

Hatred is not logic and my mind isn't in the gutter. I'm not obsessed with Rush nor do I have your expertise on the Dominican sex trade. I can make the rash assumption there are other things to do there and that a single man with a wallet bigger than his ass might have the need for a steady supply of the little blue pills.


You've posted something you obviously have no knowledge of as if it was fact and that makes you a liar. You've posted something exceedingly sleezy and that makes you a sleezebag and a liar.

I can understand the frustration of liberals, wanting something a lurid as Monica and the cigar, to have as a comeback, but Rush will never be your guy. He's a private citizen not a public officer. Bill Clinton was the Presdient of the USA. When negotiating with Arafat he had his pants down, cigar out and Monica on her knees. That's an image for History that you have to live with because it's not going away nor will it ever be matched.

BTW: How does Bill Clinton fit your silly stereotype? We do know he likes them young, dumb and needy.

Posted by: rdw on September 30, 2006 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

I said that Rush Limbaugh rather snugly fits the profile of the Dominican sex tourist, as outlined by an NGO who tracks them.

Disagree with the analysis if you will (though I'd love to see anything remotely resembling a counterargument), but it's hardly a lie, Wooten.

Wooten -- if somebody held a gun to your head and told you you had two choices: Rush had sex in the Dominican Republic with underage prostitutes, or 2) Rush did not have sex in the Dominican Republic with underage prostitutes, and you were told that only the correct answer would save your life -- what would you honestly choose here?

It's a no-brainer, bro. Heh, either way, with that gun to yer head :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 30, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Clinton's not a cultural imperialist, first of all. You have to believe that America is soooo much better than anywhere else in the world, and that everybody else in the world just looooovees Americans, in order to sustain the rationalization fantasy that you going down there to schtup teenagers is doing something good for their country, their economy and those horny li'l Latin girlies themselves. Clinton might be a pig, but he's not a fricken wild boar. And being liberal in inclination, he'd never be able to endure all that grinding poverty enough to work up the compartmentalization necessary to exploit one of those underage girls and then just walk away. You have to be a conservative radical individualist in order to do that.

Monica was not only an adult -- she was solidly upper-middle-class.

Clinton doesn't fit the profile.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 30, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Although, to be perfectly honest, we might be able to make an exception here. Clinton definitely had (or still has) a sex addiction; you'd never hear me argue against that. I butted my head defending Clinton on the NYT Lewinsky forum for the fall and winter before he finally came out and admitted it. It was quite embarrasing for me; I realized I was wrong, and I became a little ashamed for arguing against a feminist POV -- even with Steinem et al. defending him.

But I don't know if he's ever entertained fantasies of sex tourism. That might not necessarily be his thing. It might be too anonymous for him. To my knowledge, Clinton was never into hookers. I think Bill fancies that superficially deep (deeply superficial?) personal connection thing -- and there just wouldn't be enough there with those girls to form that kind of empathic bond he seems to need so much.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 30, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Disagree with the analysis if you will

It's not analysis. It's garbage. Not that it matters anyway. You said you know what Rush was doing and I said your a liar.

You are a liar.

Posted by: rdw on September 30, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

It's a no-brainer

No, you're the no brainer.

It's no so much you're a liar. It's such a stupid lie. This is Dan Rather stupid. This is Joe Wilson stupid. This is Michael Moore stupid.

You will never be able to deny you are a liberal. There's too much evidence.

Posted by: rdw on September 30, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK


Clinton's not a cultural imperialist

I don't speak liberal. Either explain your pretentious nonsense or discuss it with the other liberal twits.

The profile Clinton fits is that of a pig. It's really quite simple. He found some needy, fat young girl to satisfy his perversions and then dumped her like she was trash when he got caught. He is by every definition a pitiful, perverted human being. Thus fitting the profile of someone only a liberal could love.

BTW: He destroyed what was left of the feminist movement which whored itself defending him.

Posted by: rdw on September 30, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

Follow the Money [John J. Miller]

This story in The Nation is the best piece I've read yet on the Democracy Alliancethe group of wealthy liberals who are trying to create an infrastructure of progressive policy groups that mimics what conservatives did starting in the 1970s. The article, by Ari Berman, is well reported, interesting, and skeptical. (He interviewed me for it over the summer, though I'm not quoted.)

One graf in particular stood outnot because it's about liberal philanthropy, but because it's about Bill Clinton and it reminded me of his recent Fox interview:

A surprise guest at the meeting was Bill Clinton, whose agenda seemed to be protecting his wife. But things didn't work out quite as planned. When Guy Saperstein, a retired lawyer from Oakland, asked Clinton if Democrats who supported the war should apologize, the former President "went [expletive deleted] ballistic," according to Saperstein. Forget Hillary, Clinton said angrily during a ten-minute rant; if I was in Congress I would've voted for the war. "It was an extraordinary display of anger and imperiousness," Saperstein says.

Posted at 9:07 AM

From NRO. Bill Clinton is all yours!

Posted by: rdw on September 30, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

Here's a question for any lib:

Suppose Mark Warner wins in 2008. We can all agree that immediately after the results are in and the GOP candidate concedes (either Rudy or Mitt) the 1st call from the Press and liberal faithful will be to name Bill Clinton as special envoy to the world.

So who will actually in in charge of US foreign policy? The man we elected or Bill Clinton?

Posted by: rdw on September 30, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

actually appoint Bill Clinton as President again. As cmdicely is so fond of pointing out, the two-term limit in the Constitution technically applies to "election" only.

Maybe but unfortunately for Mr. Chris we elect Presidents not Kings. Whomever is elected can step down (yeah, that's going to happen) but they don't get to appoint the next President, or VP.

Posted by: rdw on September 30, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

The more likely scenario is Bill Clinton confirmed as VP

It's not even remotely likely. He can't run for VP and he can't be 'appointed' VP.

The fact is while liberals will always be gaga over Bill the rest of the country is not. He'll always be Monica's boyfriend and the guy who sold all of those pardons among many other things.

It's good you love him. Everyone needs someone to love and it isn't like you have other options. But he's yesterdays news.

Posted by: rdw on September 30, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

rdw sez:

The profile Clinton fits is that of a pig. It's really quite simple. He found some needy, fat young girl to satisfy his perversions and then dumped her like she was trash when he got caught. He is by every definition a pitiful, perverted human being.

and:

Bill is your pary leader and a pig. The dumb bastard squirted all over Monica and got caught.

Nice visual. Having your little fantasies are you? Kinda like your buddy Foley, when he said to the teen-age Congressional Page,

Foley: it must feel great spirting on the towel
Teen boy: ya
Foley: wow
Foley: is your little guy limp...or growing
Teen boy: ehgrowing
Foley: so you got a stiff one now
Teen boy: notthatfast,hey,soyouhaveafetich?


You right-wingers are a bunch of perverted hypocrites. Maybe sexual reppression isn't such a good thing after all, hey? Could it be why we have these closet pedophiles like Foley, HEAD OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE on pretecting minor from sexual abuse?!!?

What a bunch of twisted fucks.

Posted by: Broken on September 30, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Broken,

Foley resigned in disgrace. Slick Willie was and remains the greatest liberal hero.

But that's OK. I hope William Jefferson Clinton lives to be 100 and is politically active every day of those next 40 years. It's due to his efforts we won the WH, Senate, House and the Supreme Court and the reason you are known as the party of cowards. And don't think I'm not aware he's the smartest man in the universe. I know this. But the kind of smarts that can deliver 54 House seats and 9 Senate seats to the GOP in just one election is the kinds of smarts we can live with.

Foley is already gone. Slick Willie will live in our hearts and minds forever!

Posted by: rdw on September 30, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK


fwiw...

foley is the 3rd republican to resign this year..

and its only september..

delay...ney...foley...

is that a record?

gop: majority rules....but dont blame us..

Posted by: mr. perspective on September 30, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

rdw sez:

Foley resigned in disgrace. Slick Willie was and remains the greatest liberal hero.

It ain't just Foley, bud. From the Carpetbagger Report:

Over the last 12 months (less, actually), House Republicans have made criminal defense attorneys in Washington very happy.

* Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) resigned in disgrace and went to jail.

* Tom DeLay (R-Texas) resigned in disgrace and is facing a criminal trial.

* Bob Ney (R-Ohio) has already pleaded guilty to corruption charges and will leave Congress in disgrace.

* Mark Foley (R-Fla.) has resigned in disgrace and may face criminal charges of his own.

That's just one party in one chamber in one year. In the Senate, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has been the subject of a criminal probe. In the states, Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R) was indicted and Ohio Gov. Bob Taft (R) has been convicted. In the executive branch, Scooter Libby (R) has been indicted, Claude Allen (R) has been convicted, David Safavian (R) has been convicted, and DHS spokesman Brian Doyle (R) pleaded guilty to cyber-sex charges and faces jail time.

But sex-obsessed folks like rdw can only worry about Clinton's penis. Evidently, the image of "The Clenis" staining that blue dress run over and over in rdw's mind, over and over- so he can't even sleep at night.

See, rdw, most non-Republicans don't obsess over sex as much as you apparently do. Maybe because we don't see sex as "evil" or "shameful", maybe because we aren't as sexually frustrated as you appear to be, I don't know.

Because we aren't so sex obsessed, we judge Clinton by other standards, like how good a job he did in office. Maybe if folks like rdw judged by the same standards, we wouldn't have someone as woefully unequipted for the Presidency as George Bush obviously is.


Posted by: Broken on September 30, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

It ain't just Foley, bud.

and yet they STILL call all the shots, bud!

Posted by: rdw on September 30, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

Broken,

I'm not even remotely sex obsessed but if you wish to think so knock yourself out.

I'm not Cinton obsessed either although he is a fabulous target. Think about it. The President of the USA and the smartest man in the Universe and Monica Lewinsky. The problem is one cannot discuss current politics without discussing the Democratic party and one cannot discuss the Democratic Party without discussing Bill Clinton and one cannot discuss Bill Clinton without discussing Monica Lewinsky. It's integral to the American Experience.

Think about it. Look at the vietnam / post vietnam generation. It's all about the boomers and what is the defining characteristic of the boomers if not narcissism and who is the most narcissistic person in the entire generation if not the entire history of civilization if not William Jefferson Clinton.

Be honest. When you hear the term the 'Me generation" isn't the 1st visual in your mind Mr. I didn't inhale?

I'm not making this up. Even liberals agree he's an ego-maniac He is the poster boy for all that is wrong with the boomers.

Listen, I get your love affair with Bill Clinton I really do. Eveyone needs hope and as we all know he is the man from hope. He may not be a liberal but he is a democrat who actually won a national election and only two are alive. Jimmy might not be anything to write home about but he won too.

Bill is a pig but at least he's your pig. You might as well celebate him since you don't have anything else to celebrate.

Posted by: rdw on September 30, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

gop: majority rules....but dont blame us..

Not to worry, you won't get blamed. In fact no one is giving you much of a thought. You of course remember all of that debate in the press and between Congress and the White House? Then you obviously noted the Democratic party was null and void. That's correct. Not a single member particiated in the debate not did their vote matter.


In order to get blamed for something you'd have to actually do something. Not much chance of that happening is there?

Posted by: rdw on September 30, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

thomas1..

despite the claim of 60....all you could find was an off hand comment from the arab american institute...

....it appears that looking for a reference to that watershed event was harder that finding the names of americans who died from terror...

maybe you are a victim....again

.

rdw: In order to get blamed for something you'd have to actually do something.

you mean like send e-mails, im's and pictures to underage teens while the republicans in control of congress look the other way for near a year?

shorter rdw: look...a pony!

Posted by: mr. irony on October 1, 2006 at 7:38 AM | PERMALINK

you mean like send e-mails

No, think cigars, interns and blue dresses.

You really do have to love Slick Willie. No matter what some sleezy thing low-level Congressman does there's always the smartest man in the world available for a benchmark.

Bill Clinton, the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by: rdw on October 1, 2006 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK


thomas1: The article above named several who had resigned, and said there had been 60 in 1992;


several....but not 60....


thomas1: I am not going to do your research for you


while i asked an open-ended question..

you....

offered a side comment in an article by the arab american institute..

as proof there had been 60 resignations...

i wouldn't call posting that..."research"..either.


Posted by: mr. irony on October 1, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: No matter what some sleezy thing low-level Congressman does there's always the smartest man in the world available for a benchmark.


gop....moral relativism ...

consenual sex with an adult...

is the same as...

foley...hitting on a child..

too funny...

and...well.....sick....

party over people...

Posted by: mr. irony on October 1, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

gop....moral relativism ...

Not quite. No one is comnparing foley with clinton and no one is defending foley.

the reason slick willie is so much fun is you have so much invested in him. your party is so destitute of leadership you've had to defend and excuse his lies and his slut act and now you've got to retread the pig.

It's hard to pick out a favorite part of the Clinton - Lewinsky scandal but I think the destruction of the liberal feminist movement is right at the top. How ironic is it that those selected to lead a vement supposedly dedicated to the eradication of sexual predators in Govt and the workplace, everywhere, end up prostituting themselves as common whores to protect William Jefferson Clinton, the most famous sexual predator of the last century.

Your party has fallen on your sword for WJC and History will make you pay.

Posted by: rdw on October 1, 2006 at 1:21 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