From my sister Kathryn: "God bless Ann Richards. She brought so much joy and humor to rough and tumble Texas politics. A true-blue Texas "yellow dog" Democrat (and a patriot.) The LA Times Obit says that in her autobiography she said that her parents put more stock in personality than scholarship. "I learned early on that people liked you if you told stories, if you made them laugh." So true - and she exemplified that with her jovial good spirit and friendliness."
I ran into her years ago with two of her close Texas inner circle friends at a movie theater in Santa Monica, and I went right up to her to say hello as if she were an old friend - said I was from Austin and had of course voted for her and I appreciated everything she represents - really gushed like a fan - and she was charming and friendly and cracked some kind of little joke and was very sweet."
One of the great luminaries - may her light shine on in life and politics forever.
Just heard a caller on Ed Schultz today say "Cheney and the Bush administration prides itself on being strong and wrong." STRONG AND WRONG: the new conservative trademark.
My heart goes out to Ann Nicole Smith. Maybe it's because I have sons, but I am heartbroken over the sudden death of Anna Nicole Smith's beautiful 20-year-old son, Daniel Wayne Smith. I found myself sobbing over this, though I have no particular affinity for Ms. Smith (just a lot of sympathy and compassion.) God Bless Daniel's soul and God bless his mother, who just gave birth to a healthy baby girl three days before the death of her firstborn. No mother ever should suffer losing a child.
As the Native Americans reminded us: "No tree has branches so foolish as to fight among themselves." 
We all have built into us the capacities for kindness and creativity and beauty. It's a matter of perspective. As Einstein said, "The single most important decision any of us will ever make is whether or not to believe that the universe is friendly." It's our choice.
SEPTEMBER 11: GOD BLESS THE FALLEN HEROES. Every single one who perished, and all their loved ones, are in our prayers. WE CAN ALL UNITE ON THIS: From Carl of SimplyLeftBehind "I wanted to highlight a really ambitious project that unites blogs from across the political spectrum (even extremists like Michelle Malkin!) to honor those who died on 9/11/01" DCROE We're trying to get the word out worldwide about this, a living memorial to the people who left us. Please spread the word.
For SPIRITUAL SOLUTIONS to the world crises, along with some amazing prayer miracles in the next few weeks, please check out RADICAL PRAYER at my other blog THE PEACEMAKERS* LIGHT OF TRUTH
You can reach my Home page at: LYDIA CORNELL
"Dear Lydia, I have to share something that my wife said after reading your blog. Without sounding flakey…I’m convinced that my wife is correct and that this goes hand in hand with your statement regarding the next frontier being the center or the middle. We both have a strong internal sense of something impending that is difficult to explain. A feeling that many of us are going to be called to stand out for what is right and rescue the Constitution of the USA so that the country can get back to being a democracy. It seems like while America slept, we were slowly and silently robbed of democracy. The irony is the fact that so many people who call themselves Christian as well as conservative played a big role in America silently surrendering democracy to those who regard the constitution as a mere technicality to work around in order to promote their self-serving agenda’s. Respectfully, Dennis Taylor"
And we uncover the truth about Ann Coulter like no one has ever done before at: COULTER KAMPF where you can also find breaking news about hate-speak, extremism, propaganda and smear tactics.
Former Texas governor Ann Richards dies at 73
ReplyDeleteGod Bless you Ann and rest in peace.
The FOOLE said;
ReplyDeleteThanks for making it crystal for everyone, clif:
Liberals favor the forcible dissolution of the state of Israel!
No stupid, I never said THAT thus
YOU LIE AGAIN, AS USUAL
If the TRUTH is so bad you have to DECRY it, well you just outed your BIGOTRY even more.
Everything was from WIKI and if the true histrory is soo bad you have to state that MY post is anti-Israel, that SPEAKS for itself.
If history of the region is anti-Israel...think about it SON....
Tiny garahaninTexan said...
ReplyDeleteI agree with FF: Clif, perhaps you can state, in your own words, the point of that anti-Israeli piece
the HISTORY of the region is ANTI-ISRAEL?
Makes you kind of a propogandist doesn't it son?
Oh yea your the repug operatibe, and because I showed the FOOLE he was a bit full of SH*T yopu both decry thw true History?
Mike said...
ReplyDeleteHe never called for the destruction of Israel FF, he merely pointed out that the way Israel was created coupled with their current policies are factors that are contributing to the problem rather than helping to solve it.
The FOOLE said...
Mike,
That's not what I heard.
Of course youy did not read what I posted, in your slanted biew of the world BECAUSE your a bigopt the truth is never what it is, you try to make it what you WANT
And the rest of your stupid spin is drivel, because IF the ISRAELI"S committed crimes to create Israel, those crimes should be addresed...right son
Israel has NO more right to criminal behavior than SADDAM or Iran
RIGHT FOOLE?
And Tiny gaharaninTexan, the truth about Mccarthy was KNOWN in the 50's.
ReplyDeleteEisenhower couldn't stand the idiot, and he was the one who went TOO far being a reichwingnut, and Just as the current crop of goosestepping fooles will have to accept the US citizens are tired of their ANTI-AMERICAN behavior come November....
Remember the swiftboating of Kerry, too bad they did not LOOK into mcCarthy's record closer son.
It is a matter of record that McCarthy (like many politicians who are also veterans) exaggerated his war record. He claimed to have enlisted as a "buck private," though due to his automatic commission he entered basic training as an officer. He flew 12 combat missions as a gunner-observer, but later claimed 32 missions in order to qualify for a Distinguished Flying Cross, which he received in 1952. McCarthy publicized a letter of commendation signed by his commanding officer and countersigned by Admiral Chester Nimitz, but it was revealed that McCarthy had written this letter himself, in his capacity as intelligence officer. A "war wound" that McCarthy made the subject of varying stories involving airplane crashes or antiaircraft fire was in fact received aboard ship during an initiation ceremony for sailors who cross the equator for the first time.
from wiki
And he was more for the NAZI's than the US soldiers they murdered
Following the lead of Senator Robert Taft, McCarthy lobbied for the commutation of death sentences handed to a group of Waffen-SS soldiers convicted of war crimes for their involvement in the 1944 Malmedy massacre of American prisoners of war.
(Yes this is the incident O'Liely lied abot TWICE)
And the censure that the US Senate voted on was supported by over half of the republicans, something Anny Tranny always misses, you know the truth you repugs HATE so much.
Let’s quit while we’re behind
ReplyDeleteBy Christopher Buckley
“The trouble with our times,” Paul Valéry said, “is that the future is not what it used to be.”
This glum aperçu has been much with me as we move into the home stretch of the 2006 mid-term elections and shimmy into the starting gates of the 2008 presidential campaign. With heavy heart, as a once-proud—indeed, staunch— Republican, I here admit, behind enemy lines, to the guilty hope that my party loses; on both occasions.
I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. In 2004, I could not bring myself to pull the same lever again. Neither could I bring myself to vote for John Kerry, who, for all his strengths, credentials, and talent, seems very much less than the sum of his parts. So, I wrote in a vote for George Herbert Walker Bush, for whom I worked as a speechwriter from 1981 to ’83. I wish he’d won.
Bob Woodward asked Bush 43 if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq. The son replied that he had consulted “a higher father.” That frisson you feel going up your spine is the realization that he meant it. And apparently the higher father said, “Go for it!” There are those of us who wish he had consulted his terrestrial one; or, if he couldn’t get him on the line, Brent Scowcroft. Or Jim Baker. Or Henry Kissinger. Or, for that matter, anyone who has read a book about the British experience in Iraq. (18,000 dead.)
Anyone who has even a passing personal acquaintance of Bush 41 knows him to be, roughly speaking, the most decent, considerate, humble, and cautious man on the planet. Also, the most loving parent on earth. What a wrench it must be for him to pick up his paper every morning and read the now-daily debate about whether his son is officially the worst president in U.S. history. (That chuckling you hear is the ghost of James Buchanan.) To paraphrase another president, I feel 41’s pain. Does 43 feel 41’s? Does he, I wonder, feel ours?
There were some of us who scratched our heads in 2000 when we first heard the phrase “compassionate conservative.” It had a cobbled-together, tautological, dare I say, Rovian aroma to it. But OK, we thought, let’s give it a chance. It sounded more fun than Gore’s “Prosperity for America’s Families.” (Bo-ring.)
Six years later, the White House uses the phrase about as much as it does “Mission Accomplished.” Six years of record deficits and profligate expansion of entitlement programs. Incompetent expansion, at that: The actual cost of the President’s Medicare drug benefit turned out, within months of being enacted, to be roughly one-third more than the stated price. Weren’t Republicans supposed to be the ones who were good at accounting? All those years on Wall Street calculating CEO compensation....
Who knew, in 2000, that “compassionate conservatism” meant bigger government, unrestricted government spending, government intrusion in personal matters, government ineptitude, and cronyism in disaster relief? Who knew, in 2000, that the only bill the president would veto, six years later, would be one on funding stem-cell research?
A more accurate term for Mr. Bush’s political philosophy might be incontinent conservatism.
On Capitol Hill, a Republican Senate and House are now distinguished by—or perhaps even synonymous with—earmarks, the K Street Project, Randy Cunningham (bandit, 12 o’clock high!), Sen. Ted Stevens’s $250-million Bridge to Nowhere, Jack Abramoff (Who? Never heard of him), and a Senate Majority Leader who declared, after conducting his own medical evaluation via videotape, that he knew every bit as much about the medical condition of Terry Schiavo as her own doctors and husband. Who knew that conservatism means barging into someone’s hospital room like Dr. Frankenstein with defibrillator paddles? In what chapter of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom or Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind is that principle enunciated?
The Republican Party I grew up into—Dwight D. Eisenhower, William F. Buckley Jr., Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon (sigh), Ronald Reagan—stood for certain things. It did not always live up to its ideals. Au contraire, as we Republicans said in the pre-Dominique de Villepin era—often, it fell flat on its face. A self-proclaimed “conservative,” Nixon kept the Great Society entitlement beast fat and happy and brought in wage and price controls. Reagan funked Social Security reform in 1983 and raised (lesser) taxes three times. He vowed to balance the budget, and drove the deficit to historic highs by failing to rein in government spending. Someone called it “Voodoo economics.” You could Google it.
There were foreign misadventures, terrible ones: Vietnam (the ’69-’75 chapters), Beirut, Iran-Contra, the Saddam Hussein tilt. But there were compensating triumphs: Eisenhower’s refusal to bail out France in Indochina in 1954, Nixon’s China opening, the Cold War victory.
Despite the failures, one had the sense that the party at least knew in its heart of hearts that these were failures, either of principle or execution. Today one has no sense, aside from a slight lowering of the swagger-mometer, that the president or the Republican Congress is in the least bit chastened by their debacles.
George Tenet’s WMD “slam-dunk,” Vice President Cheney’s “we will be greeted as liberators,” Don Rumsfeld’s avidity to promulgate a minimalist military doctrine, together with the tidy theories of a group who call themselves “neo-conservative” (not one of whom, to my knowledge, has ever worn a military uniform), have thus far: de-stabilized the Middle East; alienated the world community from the United States; empowered North Korea, Iran, and Syria; unleashed sectarian carnage in Iraq among tribes who have been cutting each others’ throats for over a thousand years; cost the lives of 2,600 Americans, and the limbs, eyes, organs, spinal cords of another 15,000—with no end in sight. But not to worry: Democracy is on the march in the Middle East. Just ask Hamas. And the neocons—bright people, all—are now clamoring, “On to Tehran!”
What have they done to my party? Where does one go to get it back?
One place comes to mind: the back benches. It’s time for a time-out. Time to hand over this sorry enchilada to Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Charlie Rangel and Harry Reid, who has the gift of being able to induce sleep in 30 seconds. Or, with any luck, to Mark Warner or, what the heck, Al Gore. I’m not much into polar bears, but this heat wave has me thinking the man might be on to something.
My fellow Republicans, it is time, as Madison said in Federalist 76, to “Hand over the tiller of governance, that others may f*ck things up for a change.”
(Or was it Federalist 78?)
What can I say, when he is RIGHT he is RIGHT.
My Resolution Calling for Rumsfeld's Immediate Resignation
ReplyDeleteToday I introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives calling for the immediate resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The President must show the American people and the world that there is accountability for the mistakes that have made in the war in Iraq. We must restore our credibility with our allies and the world in order to effectively fight the global threat of terrorism.
Secretary Rumsfeld has failed in managing the military response to this threat and should be replaced with someone who is capable of not only recognizing the mistakes that have been made but addressing them head on for the good of our military and our great nation.
H. Con. Res. __________
Expressing the Sense of Congress that the President should immediately replace the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 13, 2006
Mr. Murtha introduced the following resolution, which was referred to the committee on___________
Whereas ----
After 9/11, the United States government had unprecedented support from international allies as well as the American people for military action against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan
The initial phase of the war in Afghanistan was successful in dismantling al Qaeda operations, removing the Taliban authority which was harboring al Qaeda, and allowing for the Afghani people to establish a representative government
The Secretary of Defense imposed a cap on the number of ground forces in Afghanistan prior to the war in Iraq
The Bush administration concluded in April 2002 that Osama bin Laden was in Tora Bora, Afghanistan during the battle for Tora Bora in December of 2001 and that the failure to commit the sufficient number of ground forces directly resulted in the failure to capture him
A resurgence of Taliban influence and violence is now occurring in Afghanistan
In the months prior to the war in Iraq, The Secretary of Defense repeatedly and forcefully asserted to Congress and the American people that there was no question that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that they were a threat to the United States, which is now known to be false
The Secretary of Defense rejected estimates from top military commanders regarding the troop strength that would be required to secure Iraq, failed to anticipate the level of violent opposition among Iraqis to US occupation, and publicly doubted the war in Iraq would take [longer than] six months
The Secretary of Defense expressly forbade his staff to develop a plan for post-war Iraq and threatened to fire anyone who raised the issue
The Secretary of Defense failed to ensure that US troops had adequate protective gear for their mission at the start of the Iraq war, including a shortage of 40,000 protective body armor units, radio frequency jammers to thwart remote detonation of improvised explosive devices, and up-armored high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs)
Failure of the Secretary of Defense to anticipate the troop strength needed to secure Iraq or to develop a post-war plan resulted in foreign fighters entering the country who have incited attacks against US soldiers and fomented sectarian violence, the latter of which has precipitated a civil war between Sunni and Shia Iraqis
The Secretary of Defense asserted at the start of the Iraq war that Iraqi oil production would pay for the war yet US expenditures in Iraq now exceed $8 billion per month and Iraqi oil production is still below prewar levels
The Secretary of Defense failed to provide the necessary training, supervision, personnel and guidelines for the management of prisoners and detainees which directly led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, severely undermining US efforts to win hearts and minds of the Iraqi people critical to securing Iraq
The Secretary of Defense has failed to address the flagging readiness of US ground forces, in particular the US Army, whose preparedness for war has eroded to levels not witnessed by our country in decades, thus hindering the ability of the US to respond to other potential threats to national security
US armed forces cannot sustain the current operational tempo in Iraq and a large percentage of US troops have done over three tours in Iraq
With 130,000 troops, key measures of success in Iraq have not been met and in some cases are worsening, including: the level of employment; the level of oil production; the level of electricity production; the training of Iraqi security forces; and the number of violent incidents, which have increased from an average of 400 per week before the establishment of an interim Iraqi government in the spring of 2004 to almost 800 per week this year
The Secretary of Defense has failed to ensure adequate accounting of billions of dollars of expenditures of the Coalition Provisional Authority
At the time of the introduction of this resolution, 2,672 US service members have died in Iraq and 337 have died in Afghanistan, exceeding the number of people who died on 9/11; in addition, over 20,000 US service members have been wounded
Terrorism incidents around the world have increased since the US entered Iraq
A survey of 116 top national security experts indicates that eighty-seven percent of them believe the Iraq war has had a negative impact on the war on terrorism while ninety three percent of them believe that the war in Afghanistan has had a positive impact on the war on terrorism
Democrats and Republicans are united against terrorism; Democrats and Republicans are united for a strong military; Democrats and Republicans are united for a strong America
Therefore, be it resolved that --------
It is the sense of the Congress that, for the good of the country, the United States of America must restore credibility both at home and abroad and that the first step toward restoring that credibility must be to demonstrate accountability for the mistakes that have been made in prosecuting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq by immediately effecting the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and replacing him with someone capable of leading the nation's military in a strategy to resolve our deployment in Iraq, prevent regression in Afghanistan, reconstitute our military readiness, and refocus on the threats to national security posed by diffuse and proliferating terrorist cells as well as belligerent states.
__________________________________
JOHN P. MURTHA
Member of Congress
LET US SEE
ReplyDeleteGeorge Bush worst president ever....
Ronald Dumsfeld worst Secretary of Defense(or War) ever
IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD A STAINED BLUE DRESS ...
ReplyDeleteby Ann Coulter
September 13, 2006
If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy, consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC movie that relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed only 90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism, rather than 100 percent.
Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial "bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an excuse not to fight back.
The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.
For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)
In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace — al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" — staged car bomb attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with an excuse to do nothing.
Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohammed Atta proposed the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.
Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because — he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 — "(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him." Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.
Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.
Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters ("normal people") force Clinton into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a blue Gap dress.
The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed Iraq. This accomplished two things: (1) It delayed his impeachment for one day, and (2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.
So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't for the Clinton-haters.
As soon as Clinton was no longer "distracted" by impeachment, he went right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.
Clinton did nothing.
According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:
— Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."
— CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."
— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process." (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)
— Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."
This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton's surrender to Islamic savagery. For a president who supposedly stayed up all night "working" and hated vacations, Clinton sure spent a lot of time sitting around on his butt while America was being attacked.
Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s, followed eight months of President Bush — but eight years of Bill Clinton.
Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen.
Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are hoping we'll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite history.
Pathogens of cowardice
ReplyDeletePosted: September 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Mychal Massie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006
Liberal Democrats (and liberal Republicans) do not understand the nature of the threat that confronts America pursuant to the war on terror. They certainly do not understand the nature of the beasts we war against and they absolutely do not have a clue per the ramifications of America's ''cutting and running'' in Iraq as they advocate.
Steve McMahon, a top Democrat strategist and longtime advisor to Democrat Party Chairman Howard Dean, personifies this truth. During a recent appearance on Fox News Channel's ''Fox News Live,'' his comments revealed why it is paramount his kind be kept out of office, and those of his ilk that are in office be removed.
McMahon was asked: ''What do Democrats propose doing that Republicans haven't already thought of?'' His response was right out of a 6-year-old's primer – in fact his puerile answer was the equivalent to said child saying he wanted to be a fireman when he grew up.
''[Democrats],'' he responded ''would be about getting Osama bin Laden.'' He went on to say, ''Republicans haven't been very effective'' in catching bin Laden. He also used the phrase ''pinned down'' referring to our troops – a talking point he would use a total of five times in less than five minutes.
The problem with this liberal reasoning is that killing bin Laden, in and of itself, would accomplish nothing. His would simply be another bearded head, with a lice-infested beard, on a morgue slab. Liberals don't understand this war isn't about ''kill bin Laden and come home.'' This war is a battle between the forces right and the dark forces of Islamic evil.
Osama bin Laden has in reality long since ceased to be a central factor in this war. His top aides have been killed or captured. And there exists the very real possibility that he is either dead or in such poor health, even if he were an active potentate, his effectiveness would be significantly diminished.
McMahon's comments pursuant to our troops being ''pinned down'' show the contempt they have for our military. American and coalition forces are not pinned down – they are fighting valiantly and effectively. For these banausic insults to freedom to insinuate our men and women are unable and incapable of returning victorious is an insult to every active duty serviceman and veteran.
Then the well-to-do elitist liberal, whose assignment is to plot the way for a group of liberal, anti-military pathogens of cowardice to claim and/or retain seats in Congress, uttered the phrase that offends me most. He asserted that there was no ''exit strategy.''
What he and his kind refuse to recognize and acknowledge is that there is an ''exit strategy.'' To be blunt, it is called ''obliterate the enemy, stabilize the area, and then come home.'' That's a fairly simplistic formula, but when our military is daily bastardized by the liberal media and vilified by liberal Democrats, it gets complicated. It gets complicated because the president and the Pentagon then try to wage a war that doesn't upset the media and Muslim esprit de corps.
Such liberals are a one-trick pony (and a pathetic one at that). They raise the specter of defeat and quagmire in Iraq because they have nothing else to run on, save homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, race-baiting, and Bush is bad. Suffice it to say, none of which have been successful strategies in recent elections.
However, here again they are overlooking key factors in continuing to attack our military and advocating cut and run. They are overlooking the fact that military families and their friends, as well as the military personnel themselves vote. Having coiffed troubadours berate and castigate loved ones in harm's way does not ingratiate one's party to their families (Cindy Sheehan notwithstanding).
They perceive Americans to be like them, but they overlook that there exists a resolve in the being of Americans that makes us want to fight that which is wrong, and defend that which is right. That spirit embodied our forefathers and that same spirit exists in the hearts of Americans today.
The idea that our way of life isn't worth fighting for, may ingratiate those so persuaded to a George Soros or a Michael Moore – but it doesn't translate into support from the people that will decide whether or not they get into office or stay in office.
Terrorist Attacks Bill Clinton Stopped
ReplyDeleteJust for the record, under Richard Clarke's leadership as Czar of Counterterrorism:.
· CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy,
and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
· Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through
preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
· Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
· Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first WTC bombing even though it
occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively - and successfully
- to stop future terrorist attacks.
· Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats
and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911)
The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding.
It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking
of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
· Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
· Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
· Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
· Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
· Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism:
"Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
· Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as
he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
· Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office
having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration
to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".
Clarence Swinney,
Political Historian
by Ann Coulter
ReplyDeleteSeptember 13, 2006
If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy,
The truth which GOT him sentured by the senators McCarthy worked with STUPID; Jeese the pipe cleaner with hair is really being STUPID here.
In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.
Yes but NEITHER did George Bush after he became President, NOTHUNG AT ALL until AFTER 9-11-01, a year later after HE ignored Al Quaeda for a year.
With ALL the vicious words you KEEP spewing out of their minds they MUST be getting desperate, even MORE desperate, because they SEE a rerun of 1994 coming but Bush is NO Clinton, so People dislike the Chimp MUCH more than they ever disliked Clinton, and that MUST burn their corrupt souls deeply, they have to resort top supporting the man who ran as a Vice Presidential candidate against the MORON in 2000, and rooting for somebody who wouldn't even vote for the idiot even though they were supposedly in the same Party.
ReplyDeleteSUCKSD DON'T IT.........son?
ReplyDeleteClif, why are you deleting old posts and then reposting them in the same thread?
ReplyDeleteI really think you need to find another way to occupy your time. You have WAY too much time on your hands.
Maybe Lydia can offer you a job as her "guy Friday."
Better yet, start your own blog, and you can cut and paste to your heart's content, and no can say anything about it.
ReplyDeleteTo be a repug OPERATIVE and see all the Corruption Incompetence, Cronyism, Lies, Distortions, and Spin coming HOME to ROOST.
ReplyDeleteClif said: "see all the Corruption Incompetence, Cronyism, Lies, Distortions, and Spin coming HOME to ROOST."
ReplyDeleteSounds like the Clinton administration more than anyone.
TinygaharaninTexan said...
ReplyDeleteClif, why are you deleting old posts and then reposting them in the same thread?
what ever do you mean son?
I really think you need to find another way to occupy your time.
Well coming from somebody who stoops to defend the PNAC neo-con clown posse, that is HOLLOW advice.
You have WAY too much time on your hands.
My time, so why worry about it, son. Could it be because you fail so dismally to blunt the truth and facts?
Maybe Lydia can offer you a job as her "guy Friday."
Lasty time I checked she did not need one, as she IS married, unlike the pipe cleaner with hair.
TinygaharaninTexan said...
ReplyDeleteBetter yet, start your own blog, and you can cut and paste to your heart's content, and no can say anything about it.
Do NOT need to as Lydia has NO problem with me HERE, and since you just another BLOG troll, you have NO say son, go back to YOUR failed BLOG, 83 comments in 2 months.
TinygaharaninTexan said...
ReplyDeleteClif said: "see all the Corruption Incompetence, Cronyism, Lies, Distortions, and Spin coming HOME to ROOST."
Sounds like the Clinton administration more than anyone.
Sorry SON Bush only the idiot has the corner on this one.
WORST PRESIDENT EVER, you clowns never called Clinton that, and Bush is the clown who accepted Brownie at FEMA,
Clinton had James Lee Witt.
Bush has Ronald Dumsfeld, as the MOST incompetent Secretary of Defence, and TWO fiascoes to show for it, along with a Military that is becoming more Broken than it was at the end of Vietnam.
The REPUGS have the moniker of CULTURE of CORRUPTION...and they still think spin and liars like YOU post will pull their asses out of the mess they got themselves in.
Like Keith Olbermann SAID....Bush had the GOOD will of All Americans and the vast majority of this Planet after 9-11, and only HE could LOSE it, and of course being the incompetent failure HE is, He pissed it all away.
Hell the posts by the pipe cl;eaner with hair, and the a$$clown from worldnetliars also said;
ReplyDeleteYou have one member of the group, Mychal Massie, who said slavery was good for black people.
On the October 18 edition of the syndicated radio show Janet Parshall's America, Project 21 national advisory council member and columnist for conservative website WorldNetDaily.com Mychal Massie declared to host Janet Parshall that African-American churches today "have succumbed to hatred" and "disobedience to God." Massie went on to proclaim that "the black people today that curse America are cursing God because if God had not permitted the Ashanti and Dahomey tribes of ancient Africa to trap other Africans and sell them to Muslims, who sold them to Europeans, we would not have what we have today." Parshall praised Massie for his "straight talk" -- the name of a program Massie hosts on the conservative website Rightalk.com -- and called him "brother.
Now, I don't know what kind of pain this man has suffered, but clearly, he represents a view repugnant to most African Americans on its face. No sane party could think this man could relate to other African Americans in a rational way. In fact, Project 21 is run by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Which is another white run conservative think tank. How do they think such people can appeal to educated African Americans like my family? We know our history and cherish our culture. Such people are sad and deluded, at best, and offensive at worse.
and you QUOTE HIM?
And Massie, is very insulting to Black History as this commentator points out;
ReplyDeleteThis is one of Massie's columns from Wing Nut Daily.
The lie that keeps on living
..................
The well worn and errant dogma that conservative Southern (read Democrat) bigots fled their party in the wake of the civil-rights era, taking up residence in the Republican Party – which has been used by ill-informed race baiters for decades – was trod out yet again for public consumption. Let it be understood I in no way classify the author as such, quite the opposite; but it is important to note that continued usage of said misinformation supplies the haters with ammunition.
Common sense questions would be: If Southern bigots fled the Democrat Party to the Republican Party during 1964 and following, why was it the Republicans who fought for civil rights? Why was a Republican president (Richard Nixon) responsible for affirmative action? Why do Republicans have the stellar record of meritocratic inclusion in the highest echelons of their administrations? Why did Democrats led by Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., bitterly oppose the nomination of Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas and Janice Rogers Brown? Why did the Democrats sit silent as Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Janice Rogers Brown suffered vicious ad hominem attacks based on their race? Why was it the Democrats who opposed every civil-rights bill introduced in Congress (by Republicans) from 1856 well into the 1970s? Why do Democrats today support measures that retard self-sufficiency pursuant to blacks and the so-called poor, while Republicans champion the exact opposite (President Bush's "We will rebuild New Orleans" speech notwithstanding)? But I digress.
.................
Granted, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott and even George Wallace entered politics as products of their day and culture; but these men, by the grace of "Almighty God," had the scales removed from their eyes.
This kind of pathetic and insulting twisting of history is the kind of thing which enrages educated black people. Massie, like almost all Black Republicans, are afraid to debate these ideas before blacks. This nonsense is merely written for white consumption and acceptance. Who exactly attacked Powell, Rice and Brown on their race? Black people who felt they had isolated themselves from the community for personal gain. Massie needs to blame the Democrats of the past for the Republicans of the present.
To say the still racist Lott has had anything pulled from his eyes is an insult to the intelligence. Products of their day and culture? Thurmond ran with the Klan in 1948. He filibustered the Civil Rights Bill. He used race for the most cynical reasons possible, even more than Wallace, while he paid for his black daughter to attend college and enter the middle class.
As far as the Republicans supporting black self-sufficency, I don't see an end to redlining and support for insuring businesses in black neighborhoods or ending racial discrimination in housing. Basic, pro-captialist ideas which the GOP doesn't support when the people who need them aren't rich, white businessmen. The Republicans haven't fought for civil rights in a long, long time. The days of Edward Brooke and Jackie Robinson are long gone.
Also, after working on a campaign like Nic Lott, when they come to you with a job doing prison PR, in Mississippi, why do you take the job? Do you think some son of Barbour's white GOP buddies or their kids would be given a similar job with Lott's experience? ROTFLMAO. Hell no. They would have been an aide to the governor. Here's another guy who's future has been hurt because of the GOP's reactionary stands. After Barbour gutted Medicaid, who would work for Lott in the black community now?
But if you want to posy the LYING PLAGERIST, I will post somebody who warns us about IT, and the ilk of those who also mimic Goebbels, and McCarthy;
ReplyDeleteBrent Budowsky: A Republic, If You Can Keep It
In the entire history of our Republic, there is one day that rises above others as the profound and mysterious moment of the great American Idea: July 4, 1826.
On that day, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams lay dying, two of our greatest patriots and founders, one the father of the more progressive impulse, the other the father of the more federalist, two giant fathers of our democracy.
Resting in peace, in their final hours on earth, in different parts of our country, they breathed their last breath, thought their last thoughts, uttered their last words, and as their Maker prepared to take their spirits to Heaven, they spoke of America, speaking of each other.
"Jefferson lives," thought Adams.
"Adams lives," thought Jefferson.
And then together, they ascended to the skies, exactly fifty years to the day from the signing of the Great Declaration, in what reasonable people might conclude was a message from God addressing all of us, who would follow, in that special place called America, by taking them from us, with those words, on that July 4.
Can we put aside the partisan, the polemics, the pre-election defamations, long enough to ask: What would they think of us, today?
In ways that should alarm true conservatives, I propose, as much as true liberals, I believe, we have been slowly and systematically surrendering more and more of our basic freedoms, more and more of our democratic idea, to levels that have become dangerous by actions that would be unrecognizable by our Founders.
It is as unhealthy for true conservatives, as it is for true progressives, to have one party rule in America. Lord Acton was right: power corrupts, and corruption is rooted not in ideology, but in human nature.
That is why the Founders warned us about the dangers of hyper-factionalism, created checks and balances against abuses, believed in a free press, serving an informed people, in a civil debate, about the public good. When Ben Franklin was asked what kind of government they had given the world, and replied a republic if you can keep it, he was speaking not merely to them, but to us.
It is not true conservatism, nor progressivism, nor Americanism, when politicians hurl the accusations of treason towards those who believe in different views, or those who report the news, or those slandered as not being part of "the real America" because of their skin, their language, or their views.
It is not true conservatism, nor progressivism, nor Americanism, when a superstate of Federal power conducts itself in secrecy, through the massive apparatus of centralized power, with claims of unilateral authority to abrogate the Bill of Rights that America's conservative and progressive founders gave us, united in their belief in the rule of law.
It is not true conservatism, nor progressivism, nor Americanism, for our American Republic to be dominated by powerful factions, operating in secret, larded with piles of money, handed to the people's representatives, in return for the passage of legislation, and the granting of special favors, to a privileged class, that are not available to the heartland of the Nation.
It is true conservatism, true progressivism, and true Americanism for every man and woman in our land to fervently believe in their own personal faith, in their own personal way. But it is not true conservatism, nor true progressivism, nor true Americanism to treat our democracy as a holy war against each other, where fellow patriots are not allowed to disagree with honor, but are labelled traitors, demons, appeasers of terror, and placed on domestic enemies lists, by the politics of intolerance and hate.
It is not true conservatism, nor progressivism, nor Americanism, for politicians to create false fears, to surrender freedoms given to us by patriots who died of hunger and ice at Valley Forge, for the cause of freedom conquering fear.
Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin and the rest created a Republic with protections directly designed to prevent the abuses of the Crown, while General George Washington led the Continental Army, as our commanders lead our armies today, with fervent disdain for the use of torture and fervent support for the rules of law to prevent it.
Our Founding Fathers directly decreed, and the first generation of Americans directly ratified, that we are not a Nation of secret detentions, secret courts, secret defendants, secret crimes, secret trials, and secret tortures masked by labels of deception.
If there are policies that need to be pursued for special circumstances, let them be proposed in the open, debated by an informed citizenry, decided by a knowledgeable legislature, and subject to accountability. Even today, with all of the revelations of abuses and wrongs, not only are there abuses condemned by every democracy on the face of the earth, but our debate is deformed by a secrecy so pervasive, that whole giant blocks of policy are entirely removed from the traditions of our democratic debate.
The people are not allowed to know, those that report the truth are labelled as traitors, and wholesale attempts are made to conduct government through a giant superstate where one branch of government repeatedly, and wrongly, and with consequences we view every evening on the network news, seeks to remove the legislative and judicial branches from the sacred duties they took an oath to perform.
It is not true conservatism, nor progressivism, nor Americanism for any President to treat the Constitutional procedures for enacting laws as nothing more than mere formality, to be violated at will, signed without sincerity, and violated unilaterally, in what is so far removed from the Americanism of our Founders that it constitutes a systematic contempt, for the American notion, of the rule of law.
It is not true conservatism, nor progressivism, nor Americanism to have our vote counting itself done by electronic machinery, often of foreign origin, using secret codes, without adequate record keeping. This is neither partisan nor conspiratorial; there will be governments of both parties, and voters of all viewpoints must be assured integrity in the most sacred aspect of freedom, the counting and if necessary recounting, of votes. The status quo is a formula for scandal.
It is not true conservatism, nor progressivism, nor Americanism, for the legislative branch of government to systematically abandon its sworn duty of government oversight, its sacred oath to perform its duty in the fateful decision about whether, or not, our country should go to war.
Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Franklin did not design the Congress to be a Potemkin village of partisan cheerleaders, for an incumbent faction, in a one party state. They designed the Congress to serve as a check and balance against abuses of executive power, or Presidential misjudgment,
When the Congress and President are of the same Party, the framers believed the Congress would protect that President, at times, from himself, and protect the Nation, when necessary, from rush to judgment, to unwise war.
The framers believed that the blood of heroes should never stain the grounds of battlefields because of the failures of partisans, and, believing in the imperfection of human nature, they created institutions of democracy, called checks and balances, that have served our Nation well.
Is there anyone in America who believes the current American Congress has even minimally performed its constitutional duty of creating a check against executive misjudgment, or a balance against against executive abuse?
Many reasonable conservatives now agree: it is not true conservatism, nor progressivism, nor Americanism for a television network that operates as a public company, uses the public airwaves in trust, for a production that demeans a most solemn national occasion with a biased slander full of falsehood.
Disney investors and customers would be fair to ask, as the program implied:
Does the Mouse support torture?
There is no need to re-debate at length, the sad episode that shamefully diverted what should have been a national moment of unity and honor.
It is not a matter of free speech. Disney should be allowed to put on air what many Americans consider a propaganda film full of deceit, more akin to the government produced film of nations that do not honor the values of Jefferson and Adams. But we as investors have our rights, to hold management accountable, and we as consumers have our rights, to do what a lady who wrote me did, go through her house with her four year old daughter and throw out every product that carried the Disney name.
There is a larger issue, worthy of more serious thought, held by many thoughtful conservatives, and it is this: have we lost our sense of truth, our respect for facts, our integrity in relations with each other, our responsibility as people and corporations to rise above our divisions and embitterments, even at a moment so momentous as a national commemoration five years after September 11, 2001.
Is there anything left that can rise above these sentiments that demean our spirit, divide our Nation, and destroy those underpinnings of democracy and freedom that Jefferson and Adams spoke to each other, and to us, that July 4, exactly 50 years after the Great Declaration?
Or has everything become just another weapon in our arsenal of self-destruction, just another abuse in our respect for integrity and truth, where even a great network, on a great occasion, which is publicly traded, using public airwaves, exploits such a moment to cheapen 9-11 itself, and to cheapen our democracy, becoming another defamatory weapon in our politics of destruction?
Step by step, issue by issue, we have entered a dangerous age that devalues, more and more every day, the essence of our democracy, while it destroys, moment by moment, the very time honored institutions created by our Founders to preserve it. A Republic, if you can keep it, said Franklin. Tough luck, we do anything to win, reply the partisans.
It is not true conservatism, nor progressivism, nor Americanism to become a nation of giant computer banks, centralizing every form of data involving our deepest privacy, leaving nothing personal beyond the reach of Big Brother, in which the central superstate claims the power, the ultimate danger of one party government, without any oversight by Congress, when it chooses, without any review by Courts, when it Decides, to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, in secret.
We can debate our policies, and on many, reasonable people can disagree. But it is not true conservatism, nor progressivism, nor Americanism, to devalue our respect for truth, to demean each other as Americans, to destroy our checks and balances, to disregard the ideas of our democracy so casually, so lazily, so destructively, and so systematically.
In recent days, in response to several pieces I have written on the subjects discussed here, I have received an enormous number of email. I want to thank each and every person who has contacted me.
Because these matters involve great issues at a momentous occasion, what I read in these messages were mostly, but not always, from the progressive side. What was touching about them, in ways I cannot begin to find the words to fully describe, was a quiet, sincere, deeply felt patriotism and love of country that came into my box, one after another, day after day, which I read while we honored the heroes who gave their lives for the country we love, on that day five years ago, and since.
The Mom who taught her four year old about responsibility and freedom; the painter in New York who was inspired to art; the 15 year old young woman with her brief but eloquent words of patriotism, the sixtysomething grandma who faxed 53 letters to people of responsibility; the Canadian who said he wished he were an American so he would stand with us; a senior Disney official who wrote me privately that he was shamed by his company and stood with us in his heart.
These are the good people of America, with kind hearts and deep spirits that soar above what rules in the Washington today, that Mr. Smith has long ago left.
It is not true conservatism, nor progressivism, nor Americanism, nor the way to defeat the Bin Ladens of the world, to turn against each other, and turn against the institutions and ideals that Jefferson and Adams gave our Nation, as they spoke of each other, and spoke to us, on their last July 4, fifty years from our greatest July 4.
A Republic, if you can keep it.
Our country is so strong and so powerful that our Republic will never be destroyed from without; it can only be given away from within, which neither true conservatives, nor true progressives, nor true Americans, will ever permit to happen, no matter how dark our occasional days, no matter how dangerous the waters we have entered in our times.
A Republic, if you can keep it. The Republic that belongs to that four year old girl. The Republic it is our duty to Preserve for her, as those that came before us, Preserved for us.
Brent Budowsky
Oh HOW far the FOOLES have fallen,
ReplyDeleteThey back a candidate(In Rhode Island) who wrote the NAME of the father of repug party's candidate for president, instead of voting for the chimp.
And in Connecticut, they back a candidate for Senate who RAN against the Shrub's ticket in 2000.
Yea you a$$ clowns look strong there Tiny foole, and dusty.
What you gonna do in Iraq install a government that backs Iran and Hezbollah?.....oh right, you A$$CLOWNS have already accomplished that task.
What's NEXT, Osama is not really a bad guy, or at least NOT dangerous anymore?
Oh yea TinygarahaninTexan, posted Anny Tranny SAYING just about that, and IT calls others Traitors?
Next you Clowns are gonna front a Black man saying Slavery was good form Black people,
Right, Mychal Massie did just that.
And you PNAC neo-con repug clown posse BOOT LICKERS wonder why people do not BELIEVE YOU anymore?
So, Clif, are you for or against attacking the messenger?
ReplyDeleteTinygaharaninTexan said...
ReplyDeleteSo, Clif, are you for or against attacking the messenger?
I'm for exposing the truth, all the truth, and letting the voter decide.
However I am against nazi-like apologists, and McCarthy type unamerican tactics to LIE to people.
But haven't you attacked me for "attacking the messenger" while that is what you just did?
ReplyDeleteTinygaharaninTexan said...
ReplyDeleteBut haven't you attacked me for "attacking the messenger" while that is what you just did?
No son, just as Paul Harvey used to say, I am giving the rest of the story. You know so people can see what they say besides your cherry picked comments.
Like the letter from a Muslim Living in American posted in A Rupert Murdoch paper which LEAVES vast amount of History out, and even DENIES it ever happened.
Or a post by a reichwingnut christian with out admitting the VAST majority of people see him as a propagandist for the dominion reichwing christian movement.
His post is ANYTHING but christian in how he describes people.
You always seem to pick people from the FAR right fringe of this country, and want a PROGRESIVE BLOG to see them as NORMAL, when waht they profess and who they emulate is NOT normal to this country or the ideals it was FOUNDED ON.
They are the OPPOSITE of what George washington fought against King George for. In fact they seem to have Much more in common with the Loyalists of the Crown, which decried oppositioin to thoise who held power, and they have a lot in common with Goebbels, and people likewho spewed propoganda like Anny Tranny, who mirrors Stalin and Mccarthy both who used very similar tactics to supress their opponants in the media.
That IS what I am against, because it is DISHONEST.
I wonder what happened to the first part of this thread. Could it be that even Ms. Cornell was embarrassed by clif's vicious rant against Israel?
ReplyDeleteHere's an interesting theory:
Many of us surmised that cliffy was miffed at the Army and this caused him to become an ultra leftist radical. But perhaps the reverse is the case: He was always a closet liberal until the Army discovered his true beliefs.
Obviously cliffy's loathing of America and Israel, and fondness for our mortal enemies, would have left his superiors wondering about his loyalty to our country's mission and thus damaged his opportunity to advance within our armed forces.
Thanks for making it crystal for everyone, clif:
Liberals favor the forcible dissolution of the state of Israel!
No stupid, I never said THAT thus YOU LIE AGAIN, AS USUAL
-cliffy
Nice spin cliffy. Did you think no one would notice that you failed to answer or even recognize my question?
So let's try this again cliffy:
Is Israel a legitimate sovereign nation with the inherent right to defend herself from those who attack her and seek her destruction?
Just answer this simple, direct question -- yes or no; don't try to bury us in more goofy cut-and-pasting of other folks' opinions.
Be a man and answer the question, otherwise it will become your albatross. It's not going away I promise.
Yo Foole I answered the question BETTER than any repug has answered a question the LAST ten years, I support International LAW where it applies(and it applies here), which is where the crimes of the people who used FORCE to implant Israel in Palestine.
ReplyDeleteAnd If the Israeli's want to pay for ALL the land they have acquired since 1919 then maybe the problem might become less a problem. But instead to have a majority JEWISH state they resolved to the same tactics the other EUROPEANS did in America with an Indigenous people force then off the land with violence death if a few beads did not work.
Sorry but your set up yes or no question is just a bit TOO simplistic. It denies a lot of history and denies millions of peoples JUSTICE, but that is something PNAC neo-con repugs are real good at ... denying JUSTICE to those they use criminal means to suppress, then steal from, steal land, steal money, steal health, even steal their lives. then justify it with simplistic dualisms which omit the crimes.
So to PUT it in a way you can UNDERSTGAND your FRAMING of the discussion as two or three sentences and a yes or NO question, is NOT large enough FRAME to explain the TRUTH of the situation, and TRUTH is MORE important than your simplistic distortions to make a political point.
So as with your DISTORTION of the lynching in America I reject your distorting frame you attempt to distort this debate. It is NOT a yes or NO proposition because Israel is defending their criminal behavior with every bomb they drop to cover the anger they caused in the Palestinians. And their actions by ANY other country would be decried BY the US GOVERNMENT. actions which reduces Gaza to a Million and a half person Internment camp where people today are living in near starvation conditions, and have an occupying Army inside their COUNTRY. Holding members of their Parliament hostage or prisoner....but IT is OK because it is Israel.....Well I expect Israel to be held to the SAME standards we hold Saddam, Iran, Castro, Afghanistan etc...
You can not shame me to give you the right to FRAME the debate, I still have MY first amendment right to express MY views with out YOUR limits.
ReplyDeleteSo take your albatross and stick it where the moon do not shine.
Because you will get MORE pleasure that way than waiting for ME to answer a question based on distortions and lies suppressed. a question by you or the repugs psychophants who defend Israel "right or wrong". The rise of the Nazi's in Germany was a large part a result of the kind of position you espouse, I must accept your limits and frame or I am the enemy, the Nazi's slowly cut away those they wanted to eliminate by tightening the frame until only those they chose as acceptable HUMANS were left......a requirement to only have TWO choices is a fascist approach, which I reject...it smacks of Totalitarianism which this country used to reject, both in written from in it's Constitution and by the actions of those who carried those ideals forward through the ages till the current crop of sniveling cowards began to grasp for power, and decided that the tactics of Hitler and Stalin were OK if THEY used them, (like McCarthy did in the 50's) too bad for you, those tactics are and always will be UNAMERICAN.
Clif said: "denying JUSTICE to those they use criminal means to suppress, then steal from, steal land, steal money, steal health, even steal their lives. then justify it with simplistic dualisms which omit the crimes."
ReplyDeleteWell, by that standard, you must think that the United States should give all our land back to the Indians, no?
Tiny garahaninTexan said;
ReplyDeleteWell, by that standard, you must think that the United States should give all our land back to the Indians, no?
No son just a proper compensation of a people who were ROBBED by the Government of this country. No more than you would expect if you ever find yourself in similar circumstances.
Just like the South Africans apartheid government had to finally do, accept the real and legitimate grievances of those they sinned and committed crimes against. If the Israeli's would follow South Africa's example, then a resolution might be really possible, a resolution the vast majority of the peoples in the region might not be totally ecstatic with, but could learn to accept as they way it is, with out resentments and anger, which fuels the violence from their side.
YOU KNOW a solution everybody could agree with and PROPER compensation for those who need it, for crimes committed against them and their ancestors.
If it could work in a situation like South Africa, it just might work in Israel, and probably solve the hardest situation to world peace we have faced in the last quarter century. And as an aside it would deflate a large amount of air out of the islamist extremist arguments.
ReplyDeleteThat would be a good thing for Israel, the Palestinians, the middle east and the world as a whole.
Well people I will let you Mull that one over for a while, The situation in south Africa holds a solution if both sides could accept that they can not get everything they want, and by accepting the others right, and addressing the others grievousness a true and lasting peace not cease fire might be possible, but it would require both the US and Israel to stop demanding they Either it is their way or BOMBS fall.
ReplyDeleteBecasue as the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Spanards, French, English and Russians have learned they were NOT invincible, NEITHER is the US or the Israeli's. So attempting to keep the peace by the sword, are doomed to keep using it, till eventually they can not pay the bills of the sword. (As Reagan did to the Russians, and WW1 and WW2 did to the British Empire.)
So let's try this again cliffy:
ReplyDeleteIs Israel a legitimate sovereign nation with the inherent right to defend herself from those who attack her and seek her destruction?
Just answer this simple, direct question -- yes or no...
Sorry but your set up yes or no question is just a bit TOO simplistic. It denies a lot of history and... [it's vewy, vewy complicated, blah, blah, blah, I can't just tell everyone in simple terms that I want to destroy Israel so I must obfuscate]
-cliffy
Q.E.D. There you have it dear reader, clear proof that:
Liberals favor the forcible dissolution of the state of Israel!
It is proper to include all liberals because none have challenged cliffy's vicious hatred of the state of Israel and her right to exist. I trust Ms. Cornell's readers in Israel will take notice.
American Jews who vote for dhimmicrats need to have their collective heads examined. Conservatives are the best friends the Jews have ever had, not the spineless, Janus-faced libs.
Oh look FreeDUMB Foe is so desperate that he is back to his false dishonest sweeping generalizations, apparently through some form of clairavoyance FF knows how all liberals think and what their beliefs are..........................kinda impressive that the pseudo intellectual fool is able to read the thoughts and minds of millions of individuals on multiple complex issues but yet instead of being a billionaire he is just a simple accountant/database developer/repug slanderer and apologist in other words he is a liar!
ReplyDeleteNice try Mikey. Now it's your turn to answer the question:
ReplyDeleteIs Israel a legitimate sovereign nation with the inherent right to defend herself from those who attack her and seek her destruction?
While I think they are a sovreign nation with the right to defend themselves, that is not a blank check to say collateral dammage be damned, if they want to win the war against the terrorists and achieve peace they have to win the hearts and trust of the palestinians so they will want to give up the terrorists and make concessions.
ReplyDeleteBut to do that Israel also must make concessions, "might makes right" doesnt always win wars, look at Vietnam, we won almost every battle yet lost the war, Israel needs to open a dialogue with the palestinians and actually listen to what their beefs are, like Clif said some of the wrongs from the past may need to be addressed.
Israel is clearly an ally, but that does not mean turning a blind eye to their wrong doings just because we like them better, that type of cronism/favoritism and "might makes right" philosophy where you dehumanize your opponents and deem dialogue with them unneccessary because you claim to be just and moral and they are subhuman animals whose complaints have no merit is the biggest impediment to peace today.
And that inherent morality where you believe you are infallible and never wrong and your opponents are the enemy and subhuman and deserve to be attacked or deserve a lesser standard of justice than you do is a Right Wing mentality and is the biggest problem we face today, hopefully come November that problem will be lessened when you lose congress, you people are like a cancer that needs to be excised!
I agree Raphael, everything Clif posts is realavant on on point and if Troll Tex or Rusty dont like I hope the door doesnt hit them in the A$$!
ReplyDeletePowell blasts Bush’s plan for interrogations
ReplyDeleteLetter comes as president visits Capitol Hill to seek anti-terror support
AP Updated: 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed efforts to block President Bush’s plan to authorize harsh interrogations of terror suspects, even as Bush lobbied personally for it Thursday on Capitol Hill.
“I will resist any bill that does not enable this plan to go forward,” Bush told reporters back at the White House after his meeting with lawmakers.
The latest sign of GOP division over White House security policy came Thursday in a letter that Powell sent to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of three rebellious senators taking on the White House. Powell said Congress must not pass Bush’s proposal to redefine U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.
The campaign-season development accompanied Bush’s visit to Capitol Hill, where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans. His plan would narrow the U.S. legal interpretation of the Geneva Conventions treaty in a bid to allow tougher interrogations and shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes.
“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” said Powell, who served under Bush and is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”
Losing GOP support
Republican dissatisfaction with the administration’s security proposals is becoming more prominent as the midterm election season has arrived. The Bush White House wants Congress to approve greater executive power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects.
Leaving his closed-door meeting with the House GOP caucus, Bush said he would “continue to work with members of the Congress to get good legislation.”
“I reminded them that the most important job of government is to protect the homeland,” he told reporters after the session. Bush was accompanied to the Hill by Vice President Dick Cheney and White House adviser Karl Rove.
In an effort to drum up support for its proposal, the White House released a second letter to lawmakers signed by the military’s top uniformed lawyers. Saying they wanted to “clarify” past testimony on Capitol Hill in which they opposed the administration’s plan, the service lawyers wrote that they “do not object” to sections of Bush’s proposal for the treatment of detainees and found the provisions “helpful.”
Two congressional aides who favor McCain’s plan said the military lawyers signed that letter after refusing to endorse an earlier one offered by the Pentagon’s general counsel, William Haynes, that expressed more forceful support for Bush’s plan.
The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Asked if Haynes had encouraged them to write the letter, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, “Not that I’m aware of.”
Bush was forced to propose the measure after the Supreme Court ruled in June that his existing court system established to prosecute terrorism suspects was illegal and violated the Geneva Conventions. The White House legislation would create military commissions to prosecute terror suspects, as well as redefine acts that constitute war crimes.
For Bush, the election season visit capped a week of high-profile administration pressure to rescue bills mired in turf battles and privacy concerns. It also gave GOP leaders a chance to press for loyalty among Republicans confronted on the campaign trail by war-weary voters.
Va. senator requests alternative plan
At nearly the same time Bush met with House Republicans, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Thursday was asking his panel to finish an alternative to the White House plan to prosecute terror suspects and redefine acts that constitute war crimes.
The White House on Thursday said the alternate approach was unacceptable because it would force the CIA to end a program of using forceful interrogation methods with suspected terrorists.
“The president will not accept something that shuts the program down,” presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.
Warner believes the administration proposal would lower the standard for the treatment of prisoners, potentially putting U.S. troops at risk should other countries retaliate.
McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have joined Warner in opposing Bush’s bill.
The administration didn’t allow such a direct challenge to pass without criticism. On Wednesday, the White House arranged for a conference call with reporters so National Intelligence Director John Negroponte could argue that Warner’s proposal would undermine the nation’s ability to interrogate prisoners.
“If this draft legislation were passed in its present form, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency has told me that he did not believe that the (interrogation) program could go forward,” Negroponte said.
The other bill Bush is pushing would give legal status to the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. It was approved on a party-line vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, but is stalled in the House amid staunch opposition from Democrats and some Republicans concerned that the program violates civil liberties.
So the battle rages on for those who desire freedom and democracy against those who fight for torture and destroying those freedoms and constitutional rights and liberties our Founding Fathers fought so hard for, those like GWB, Dick Cheney and the other Neo Con cronnies and bootlickers who would prefer that America forsake democracy and become a fascist police state ruled by the wealthy elite.
ReplyDeleteThe FOOLE said;
ReplyDeleteQ.E.D. There you have it dear reader, clear proof that:
Liberals favor the forcible dissolution of the state of Israel!
Bull A$$wipe, it is NOT in the words, sentance structure, not paraghraph formation thuis it MUDST be between your ears, FOOLE,
It is proper to include all liberals because none have challenged
cliffy's vicious hatred of the state of Israel and her right to exist.
Because it is NOT in the words I typed numbnuts.
Hopefully your better at adding and subtractibng then your at reading ENGLISH.
I trust Ms. Cornell's readers in Israel will take notice.
since most of them KNOW a bit more about the history then YOUR willing to admit, only the ones who suscribe to the theory that one person has a "moral superiority to subjucate another" will question My advocating WORKING out their differences instaed of the crap you say is necesary, a war every 5 to 10 years, for a long time.
But a BIGOT like YOU is never willing to admit their insecurity based hatred for people who do not live, look or act the way your prescribe.
Q. E. D. the FOOLE proves he truly is a PNAC neo-con repug clown posse boot licking FOOLE.....and Loves it.
ReplyDeleteAnd Dusty you do not lick the boots, you lick the rear about 2 feet higher.
ReplyDeleteAnd you also seem to enjoy it also/
ReplyDeleteThe Foole can not see more than two solutions to the problem evebn though there are many possibilities, which only require a bit of COMPRIMISE on each side, just as the Northern Irish already did, and the South African people already did, and even the US came to the conclusion prejudice and rascism, is NOT the answer, The Foole can';t stand that approach, thus he attacks it every chance he gets.
ReplyDeleteMust be from some form of a LACK of true intellectual depth, and capability to think about a problem outside the parameters laid down by the PNAC neo-con repug clown possee, and that shows.
The Foole hates those he is told to hate......and even regurgates the hate on demand...like a trained monkey.
Just as when TinygaharaninTexan was asking me to Love Israel More than people and I was responding that I could not love an artificial state as Jesus commanded us to love GOD and HIS children...I do not Hate Israel or it's people, but wish they would apply the ten commandments as Christ pointed out to the Pharisees and Sadducees were FAILING to do with the way they treated people.
ReplyDeleteCritique of actions IS not hate no matter how much The FOOLE thinks it is, it is simply questioning motives and actions and judging their applications to the criteria and standards of a peoples stated religious beliefs. Both ours here against WHAT JESUS taught, and Israel against what the old testement taught, especially as the Jewewisj people were coventing the property of the Arabs whoi LIVED in Palestine in the era pre WW2.They failed to live by the commandment, then and continue to fail to live UP TO IT now.
I have NEVER said what THE FOOLE says I have, so with his dishonest statements which are repeated, he MUST be judges a LIAR, or a FOOLE.
ReplyDeleteWhich is it son. Too stupid to understand what I post, or Too dishonest to admit I do not say as you claim.
LIAR or FOOLE which is it?
Or is it actually BOTH son?
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Lydia made this post about;
ReplyDeleteAs the young Buddha discovered, along with every great spiritual thinker — the path to enlightenment is the middle. The extreme fringes should not be allowed to dominate politics or world affairs.
and you Foole, are an extreme, NOT close to any true enlightenment, just delusion.
So at least in a way your the before picture on the path to enlightenment...and do that quite well son.
cliffy save the drama for your mama
ReplyDeleteJunk spewingman said...
ReplyDeletecliffy save the drama for your mama
No drama here son, just a bit of the truth wich you clowns try to jusk, so you can slide your corrupt policies, of cronyism, kickbacks, special favors, bribes, illegal pay, bills of favoritism for your big money benefactors.
It is just that the American people ain't buying the same tired ole junk anymore...so peddle it down the block somewhere, cause it do not sell here anymore.
But if rafeal requests it: here it is;
ReplyDeleteBush Pushes Terror Plan; Powell Objects
President Bush went to Capitol Hill today to rally Republican support for his anti-terrorism policies, but even as he met with lawmakers, a former member of his cabinet broke with him on a crucial issue.
Mr. Bush said after conferring with Republican House members that he had “reminded them that the most important job of government is to protect the homeland.” As part of his plan, the president wants Congress to enact legislation that would authorize tougher interrogations of suspected terrorists.
And that is what Congress must not do, said Colin L. Powell, the former secretary of state. “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” Mr. Powell said in a letter to Senator John McCain of Arizona, one of the Republicans who differ with Mr. Bush’s policies.
Mr. Powell’s repudiation of the White House’s anti-terrorism approach was both stark and highly unusual for a former cabinet member. In 1980, Cyrus R. Vance resigned as President Jimmy Carter’s secretary of state to protest the failed mission to rescue American embassy personnel held hostage in Iran.
President Bush has contended that a section of the Geneva Conventions that applies to the humane treatment of prisoners is too vague, and that Congress should pass a measure redefining the extent of the United States’ compliance with that section, known as Common Article 3.
As part of its push for the legislation, the White House released letters sent to the Senate and House armed services committees by high-ranking military lawyers who said that clarifying the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3 “would be helpful to our fighting men and women at war on behalf of our country.”
Back at the White House after his visit to the Capitol, Mr. Bush said he was seeking “legal clarity,” so that Americans interrogating terrorist suspects would not be vulnerable to charges of mistreatment. “It is very important for the American people to understand that in order to protect this country, we must be able to interrogate people who have information about future attacks,” Mr. Bush said. “And that idea was approved yesterday by a House committee in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion.”
The president was referring to the House Armed Services Committee’s endorsement on Wednesday of a bill in line with what the White House desires. The Senate Armed Services Committee also sent such legislation to the Senate floor, but with competing measures, thereby guaranteeing a vigorous debate.
Mr. Powell, a former four-star Army general who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and had a leadership role in the Persian Gulf war of 1991, said in his letter to Mr. McCain that redefining Common Article 3 would only deepen worldwide doubts about America’s moral stature.
“Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk,” Mr. Powell said in his letter to Mr. McCain, reported this morning by The Associated Press. Critics of the Bush administration approach have argued that, if the United States is seen to be mistreating captives, Americans who are taken prisoner could be subjected to cruelty.
Mr. Powell resigned as secretary of state in November 2004 after it had become widely known that he had had deep misgivings about the Bush administration’s war to topple Saddam Hussein and was tired of repeatedly clashing with Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on the issue. In recent months, Mr. Powell has been advising Mr. McCain in connection with the senator’s possible presidential candidacy in 2008, according to McCain aides.
In 2002, despite his misgivings about the coming war, Mr. Powell argued the Bush administration’s case before the United Nations, asserting that there was strong evidence that the Baghdad regime had deadly unconventional weapons. When those weapons failed to materialize after Mr. Hussein was deposed, Mr. Powell was said to be hurt and angry.
Mr. Powell’s letter to Mr. McCain was the latest development in a struggle over Mr. Bush’s approach to fighting terrorism, a struggle that also involves how much power government should have to monitor communications, and under what circumstances surveillance can be done without warrants.
Democrats who oppose Mr. Bush’s policies have been strengthened of late by Republican dissenters. Besides Senator McCain, Senators John W. Warner of Virginia and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina have been prominent Republican opponents of the president’s attempts to authorize harsh interrogations of terrorist suspects. Mr. Warner is chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham, who is an authority on military law, are also members.
Senators McCain, Warner and Graham held a tense half-hour meeting with Vice President Cheney last July in which Mr. Cheney scolded them for proposing legislation that Mr. Cheney said would weaken President Bush’s power to protect Americans. The legislation, sponsored by Mr. McCain, bars cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners in American custody.
“The three of us were firmly of one view, he of another,’’ Mr. Warner said of the meeting.
The Senate and House eventually approved Mr. McCain’s measure by overwhelming margins.
enjoy.
Later.....
ReplyDeleteI have a suggestion regarding torture, many police officers are required to be subjected to being sprayed with pepper spray, tear gas and other various forms of force so they know what it feels like when they use it to subdue someone else.
ReplyDeleteI propose that Bush, Rummy, Cheney and the rest of the Neo Con clowns be subjected to waterboarding and other various "forms of interogation" that they deem is not torture so they know what it feels like first hand................................then we'll ask em again if they feel it is torture or not.
Facism, Bush-style
ReplyDeleteThe Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition, 1966, defines fascism as :
"a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of the opposition (unions, other, especially leftist, parties, minority groups, etc), the retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism and racism, glorification of war, etc."
"rigid one-party dictatorship"
-- Republicans currently control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and the Judiciary.
"forcible suppression of the opposition (unions, other, especially leftist, parties, minority groups, etc)"
-- This is currently being orchestrated through right wing talk radio networks by stirring hatred against these groups.
"the retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized governmental control"
-- This is the merging of corporate and government power. This is what you get when the government regulators are the same people who are the corporate executives.
"belligerent nationalism and racism"-
"glorification of war" -- check.
{ compiled by Jim Robison, Chair, Democratic Party of Multnomah County, Portland, Oregon }
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson: "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate." It may already be too late, but time is certainly running out on America's great experiment in Democracy. It was wonderful while it lasted!
Check out Fascism--Packaged as Democracy &
The Encyclopedia Britanica warning against "Despotism".
Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, wrote an article about fascism which appeared in Free Inquiry magazine, a journal of humanist thought. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The article is "Fascism Anyone?," Lawrence Britt, Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20.
ReplyDeleteThe 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 i s 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.
Any of this sound familiar?
What?s coming
ReplyDeleteWhen all fascisms exhibit the same social and political agendas (the 14 points listed by Britt), then it is not hard to predict where a new fascist uprising will lead. And it is not hard. The actions of fascists and the social and political effects of fascism and fundamentalism are clear and sobering. Here is some of whats coming, what will be happening in our country in the next few years:
The theft of all social security funds, to be transferred to those who control money, and the increasing destitution of all those dependent on social security and social welfare programs.
Rising numbers of uninsured people in this country that already has the highest percentage of citizens without health insurance in the developed world.
Increased loss of funding for public education combined with increased support for vouchers, urging Americans to entrust their children?s education to Christian schools.
More restrictions on civil liberties as America is turned into the police state necessary for fascism to work
Withdrawal of virtually all funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System. At their best, these media sometimes encourage critical questioning, so they are correctly seen as enemies of the state?s official stories.
The reinstatement of a draft, from which the children of privileged parents will again be mostly exempt, leaving our poorest children to fight and die in wars of imperialism and greed that could never benefit them anyway. (That was my one-sentence Veterans? Day sermon for this year.)
More imperialistic invasions: of Iran and others, and the construction of a huge permanent embassy in Iraq.
More restrictions on speech, under the flag of national security.
Control of the internet to remove or cripple it as an instrument of free communication that is exempt from government control. This will be presented as a necessary anti-terrorist measure.
Efforts to remove the tax-exempt status of churches like this one, and to characterize them as anti-American.
Tighter control of the editorial bias of almost all media, and demonization of the few media they are unable to control ? the New York Times, for instance.
Continued outsourcing of jobs, including more white-collar jobs, to produce greater profits for those who control the money and direct the society, while simultaneously reducing America?s workers to a more desperate and powerless status.
Moves in the banking industry to make it impossible for an increasing number of Americans to own their homes. As they did in the 1930s, those who control the money know that it is to their advantage and profit to keep others renting rather than owning.
Criminalization of those who protest, as un-American, with arrests, detentions and harassment increasing. We already have a higher percentage of our citizens in prison than any other country in the world. That percentage will increase.
In the near future, it will be illegal or at least dangerous to say the things I have said here this morning. In the fascist story, these things are un-American. In the real history of a democratic America, they were seen as profoundly patriotic, as the kind of critical questions that kept the American spirit alive ? the kind of questions, incidentally, that our media were supposed to be pressing.
We Americans won't be able to say
ReplyDeletethat we weren't warned :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edmund Burke :
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madison, in his "First Principles of Government"
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson :
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."
&
?When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. ?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI believe you are right and that Iran is a long way from nuclear capability and likely decades from the ability to strike the USA with long range nukes, but the truth is we will never know because Cheney and Libby and Rove and the rest of the Neo Cons outed Plame for political gain and greatly compromised our intelligence in that region..........................sad isnt it that the Neo Cons put their own self serving agenda over whats best for the nation and national security.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile Bush wants to change the Geneva Conventions.
ReplyDeleteI can't even believe I'm saying this.
Change the Geneva Conventions. America. The land of the free and the home of the brave, now wants to torture people on an offical basis,and change the Geneva Conventions.
Scum.
I have NEVER said what THE FOOLE says I have, so with his dishonest statements which are repeated, he MUST be judges a LIAR, or a FOOLE.
ReplyDeleteWhich is it son. Too stupid to understand what I post, or Too dishonest to admit I do not say as you claim.
LIAR or FOOLE which is it?
-cliffy
Spin, name-call and dissemble all you want, cliffy; it is not a trick question:
Does Israel have the right to exist or not?
What if you were a member of the U.N. (you would fit right in) and this were the resolution. How would you vote?
You will not answer because obviously you believe Israel should be destroyed. I am merely restating the essence of your lengthy cut-and-paste rant.
The destruction of Israel is what most of you yellow libs want, and you are one of the most flaming leftists I've ever met. Even Mikey has balls that you obviously lack.
That most American Jews continue to vote dhimmicrat is one of the most astounding phenomena I have ever observed.
This "rafael" character also apparently lacks the guts to answer the question, or to even address its opponents directly with anything approaching cogent thought. Another pathetic lib.
Ahhh shut up.
ReplyDeleteEver consider that maybe he doesn't respect you enough to answer any of your bs questions?
ReplyDeleteI know I don't.
Uh, anybody home?
ReplyDeletedr. elsewhere here
I know this is just terribly ad hoc, but what the hey. Truth is, working hard as I've been the past couple of weeks, I've had precious little time to follow the various nightmares and episodes of our whacked out world.
But one thing nagging me pretty incessantly is this bill Specter has now passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee (10-8) that gives the Prez unprecedented powers to spy on US citizens. Ever since it was first mentioned, I could not figure just how they would do this without continuing to violate the 4th Amendment. Remember, Judge Taylor did not just state that the spying violates law, she emphasized that it violates the Constitution.
So the question is this: How can they simply legislate against the Constition? Last I checked - um, in the Constitution - this sort of change requires an Amendment. Big difference.
Well, leave it to Christy at FDL to pose the question, and with far greater eloquence than my non-lawyer mind could ever.
And, be sure to read through, as she posts a comment contribution on what we believe that is stellar! You might also find this post on this same topic of interest there, too.
Finally, this is one to call both of your Senators about, and pronto! This question needs to be raised repeatedly on the Senate floor and in the press.
How can they legislate an unConstitutional action into law? Every Senator who votes for it will have then violated his or her oath to uphold the Constitution, and should be removed from office in shame.
Of course, Bush and his entire crew should be removed for same, on so many counts.
Permalink
Ahhh shut up.
ReplyDelete-Wharf & friends
Thanks for helping to prove my point with your towering intellect, and endearing witty style. You must be exhausted after that mighty synaptic effort.
So now it's not quite unanimous, because of Mikey, but all the other libs here apparently would enthusiastically vote in a heartbeat for Israel to be destroyed. Which begs the question:
Why Are Jews So Liberal? Six Reasons By Dennis Praeger
Freedom Faggot said...
ReplyDeleteThanks for helping to prove my point with your towering intellect, and endearing witty style.
My pleasure jackass.
The Foole said;
ReplyDeleteYou will not answer because obviously you believe Israel should be destroyed.
I never said that outright, or even hinted at Israel should be destroyed, thus you HAVE proven your self to ............
BE A LIAR, thus choice A
I am merely restating the essence of your lengthy cut-and-paste rant.
Only if your a FOOLE would you believe that IS WHAT I MEANT
THUS CHOICE B
and since every school child(except those who have to "attend home schooling where mama has to teach math) has learned the equation A+B=C
the real choice is C, BOTH
The destruction of Israel is what most of you yellow libs want, and you are one of the most flaming leftists I've ever met.
Good dishonest GENERALISDATION there boy, good dishonest repug lying spin...AS USUAL...a lying dishonest repug sycophant troll on a progressive BLOG who whouda thunk it, OH right the PNAC neo-con repug clown posse lying chickenhawk keyboard commando brigade command structure. Go Lie about the progressives, sling the propaganda of the PNAC group, so as to defend it FROM the truth about it's real intentions.
Captain in the reserves or NOT you fit right in with the chicken hawk keyboard commandos.
Remember your the IDIOT here that thinks he can dictate the debate on the BLOG, I just refuse to allow you to command ME boy, your NOT worthy of being followed.
Of course neither was Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Pinochet, and all the other narrow minded fascist totaliaristic fooles LIKE you.
The FOOLE said;
ReplyDeletebut all the other libs here apparently would enthusiastically vote in a heartbeat for Israel to be destroyed.
No wonder the repugs think they can program the Diebold machines to record our votes, the are clairvoyant as the FOOLE shows here he thinks HE IS,
He thinks he KNOWS how all libs would vote, even though, he has little PROOF to go on except his demand to be BLOG dictator and demand EVERYONE answer HIS QUESTIONS;
BUT he and the other trolls just IGNORE any we pose.
He's an idiot. An automaton reciting party blather.
ReplyDeleteAlmost everyone in here supports Israels right to defend itself and has told this pinhead so about a dozen times.
But what good does it do to answer him? He just comes back in and states our position for us to suit his silly little inbred argument.
I've cast enough pearls before this swine.
Let him go rooting somewhere else.
Bush is a disgrace.
ReplyDeleteToday I am ashamed for us all.
Bush publically trying to change the Geneva Convention is so disgraceful, so beneath contempt, that we should all hang our heads in shame.
And listening to the cowards on Fox news talking about how they have to "keep us safe" confirms for me that the republicans who support this bill, and any democrats who do, are cowards of the lowest order.
I've been ashamed of that piece of human waste for a long time Worf bit I agree I was MORE ASHAMED today that the worls would associate that ignorant thug with me or this great country or that anyone would support him, Bush pushing to publicly change the Geneva Convention, coupled with that piece of deceiving brainwashing propaganda clearly shows that fascism has grown deep roots and is allready well entrenched in America and is attempting to strangle and murder freedom and democracy and replace it with a fascist police state that supports and symbolizes torture and eternal war.
ReplyDeleteThe forces of evil must me fought with our dying breath if need be, I for one would much rather die from a terrorist attack than have my freedoms and constitutional rights slowly stripped away, that is a slow agonizing death and I would much prefer a fast one if it is inevitable.
Edmund Burke :
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madison, in his "First Principles of Government"
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
BTW, I urge EVERYONE to read what I posted on fascism then to objectively compare what they read to what they see going on the last few years, if it doesnt send a chill down youe spine because you dont see AMAZING similarities you need to open up your eyes and get conscious!
ReplyDeleteANd your wanna be "Furher" needs to do something real quick son, because his modern day rubberstamp reichstag is starting to revolt;
ReplyDeleteSenate committee rejects Bush anti-terror plan
Colin Powell also blasts president’s proposal for interrogations
A rebellious Senate committee defied President Bush on Thursday and approved terror-detainee legislation he has vowed to block, deepening Republican conflict over terrorism and national security in the middle of election season.
Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, normally a Bush supporter, pushed the measure through his Armed Services Committee by a 15-9 vote, with Warner and three other GOP lawmakers joining Democrats. The vote set the stage for a showdown on the Senate floor as early as next week.
Earlier in the day, Bush had journeyed to the Capitol to try nailing down support for his own version of the legislation.
“I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity,” Bush said at the White House.
The president’s measure would go further than the Senate package in allowing classified evidence to be withheld from defendants in terror trials, using coerced testimony and protecting U.S. interrogators against prosecution for using methods that violate the Geneva Conventions.
The internal GOP struggle intensified along other fronts, too, as Colin Powell, Bush’s first secretary of state, declared his opposition to the president’s plan.
“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” Powell, a retired general who is also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a letter.
A risk to our troops, Powell argues
Powell said that Bush’s bill, by redefining the kind of treatment the Geneva Conventions allow, “would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”
(snip)
In the committee vote, Warner was supported by GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine. Warner, McCain and Graham had been the most active senators opposing Bush’s plan. The vote by the moderate Collins underscored that there might be broad enough GOP support to successfully take on Bush on the floor of the Republican-run Senate.
(snip)
McCain, a leader on the issue of treatment of detainees, spent more than five years as a prisoner of war during Vietnam. Last year, he overcame Bush’s objections to pass legislation banning cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees.
Leaving his closed-door meeting with the House GOP caucus, Bush said he would “continue to work with members of the Congress to get good legislation.” He complimented a House bill but did not mention the Senate version.
'Protect the homeland'
“I reminded them that the most important job of government is to protect the homeland,” he said. Bush was accompanied by Vice President Dick Cheney and White House political adviser Karl Rove.
The White House also released a letter to lawmakers signed by the military’s top uniformed lawyers. Saying they wanted to clarify past testimony on Capitol Hill in which they opposed the administration’s plan, the lawyers wrote that they “do not object” to sections of Bush’s proposal for the treatment of detainees.
Two congressional aides who favor McCain’s plan said the military lawyers signed that letter after refusing to endorse an earlier one offered by the Pentagon’s general counsel, William Haynes, that expressed more forceful support for Bush’s plan.
The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Asked if Haynes had encouraged them to write the letter, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, “Not that I’m aware of.”
Another bill Bush is pushing would give legal status to the administration’s warrant less wiretapping program. It was approved on a party-line vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, but is stalled in the House amid opposition from Democrats and some Republicans concerned that the program violates civil liberties.
Let's see. Instead of stupid questions about the state of Israel, congress is trying to decide if undermining the protections afforded US troops by the Geneva convention is worth throwing away for a small political gain in an election year.
But one problem, The members who HAVE been in combat, and have lead troops in combat think NOT.(Too bad the current crop of sycophants in the White House have NO such expierence)
Also Ronald McDumsfeld had to water down his letter from the the Military lawyers, just to get them to sign it. Of course it would not look good if either he fired ALL of the leadership of the Military lawyers, or worse they resigned....the revolt against the reichwingnut PNAC neo-con repug clown Posse is starting to REALLY take hold.
In the Halls of congress, and the Uniformed Military.....because they have the CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to defend the constitution..NOT the lying shack of SH*TS which spew the propoganda of the IDIOT in CHIEF, Dead Eye who plays Edgar Bergen to the Idiot's role of Charlie McCarthy or Ronald McDumsfeld.
Too Bad, Soo Sad, the foole PISSED all that good will away .....EH SON?
Freedom Foe, you sound pretty frustrated there pops, could it be because clif has cleaned your clock and made you look like an utter folle all day.......................you know a man is getting desperate and has nothing left when he has to lie and dishonestly create our positions and arguments for us and that is exactly what you repugs do a typical repug troll tactic, also like a typical repug you think you are smarter than everyone else and you declare victory and run away even when you got youe A$$ handed to you......................but saddest of all i think you people are so twisted, deluded and completely out of touch with reality that you actually believe that you won or that you are intellectuals...SO SAD!
ReplyDeletemike did you know what a real ding dong you are? you are a real ring dinger
ReplyDeleteTell all you warmongerers in here what. You brag about your great humanitarian nature and your heroic military escapades.
ReplyDeleteYou wanna do some killin?
Go kill all those son of a bitches in Darfur, the "jungaweed" or whatever. Go in there and kick their asses back to the stone age.
You could mow these mutherf@$ers down like fish in a barrel for all I care.
Go do some good will ya?
Quit running your mouths and go kill someone that needs killing.
Go kill the Jungaweed.
Quit quoting Buddha and go kill some Jungaweed.
ReplyDeleteGo kill these sob's who are daily cutting off little kids arms and legs with machete's, raping their moms and killing their dads.
Go kill every last stinking one who won't like down on the ground and plead for his life.
You guys were right about one thing. The U.N is a worthless organization. Too bad your boy Bolton hasn't done anything either.
If you want to convince me you guys are indeed the master race, the elite high and noble warriors you claim to be, then convince someone to go and shoot down every jungaweed that won't leave the battlefeild and crawl back into their hole.
Then I will cheer you on.
E-Blogger is utterly useless, they are incompetent and corupt as the Neo Cons and their bootlickers.....oh yeah most of them are the bootlickers.
ReplyDeleteBTW speaking of corupt bootlickers where has Volt been lately?
To the hacker who has destroyed my blog, I am begging you, please restore my settings so I can publish.
ReplyDeleteThis is so wrong and so sad to do this to a person. It is also immoral and a crime. Why are you doing this? What have I done to you?
Worf do you think you could PLEASE give me that 45 minutes of advice this weekend or early next week, I understand you want to keep your privacy.
ReplyDeleteVoltaire said...
ReplyDeleteGee, I thought Muslims were OK
Well muslims ARE ok. Millions of them live here in the United States and are good upstanding people.
You're not saying they're all terrorists and evil doers are you?
Go ahead. Say it.
I dare you.
I didn't say the only terrible thing in the world is in darfur jackass.
ReplyDeleteBut if you're honestly comparing the mass genocide in Darfur with the Netherlands, then you're dumber than I gave you credit for.
And Darfur is at a critical turning point, where African Peace troops are withdrawing.
ReplyDelete2.5 million people on the run from murderers with machete's.
Yea.
You're a bunch of heroes.
My ass.
We can help with Darfur.
ReplyDeleteWe are wanted there. But we won't go.
Why?
No money in it.
Imagine what 20,000 US troops with Apache's could do to these loosers and their pathetic weaponary and skills.
ReplyDeleteWe'd mow them down.
And I'd cheer it on.
Kill every one of those murdering muth@#Eers.
Oh wait.
ReplyDeleteI can't say that can I?
I'm a pacifist. I know that because Voltaire told me so.
We'll, I'll just think it, hows that?
Why are you even asking this genocidal thug Worf, you know the answer he has proudly made his twisted position PERFECTLY CLEAR on many occasion and all I can say is at least this thug has the balls to admit what he is unlike the the fringe fascists hiding behind legitimacy that are running our country.
ReplyDeleteVoltaire said...
ReplyDeleteNo worf, I'm not saying ALL muslims are terrorists and evil doers.
Really?
Cause I could'a sworn that....
Well here. Lets see what you said.
Voltaire said...
Gee, I thought Muslims were OK
Hmmmm.
You used the term "muslims" without a qualifier or a quantifer.
You simply said "MUSLIMS".
In order to stipulate a specific "group" of Muslims, you would need to insert a qualifier here, like "some" Muslims, or "extremist" Muslims.
But simply saying "Muslims" is inclusive.
At least to anyone who speaks English.
Mike said...
ReplyDeleteWhy are you even asking this genocidal thug Worf,
Cause I'm an idiot.
Look at dolt attempt to rewrite history, my quote clearly shows I was refereing to the last few years and he didhonestly tries to make it about the Clinton Administration.......but me being the nice reasonable guy I am will allow eric.....er I mean Volt to make his case on how the Clinton Administration fits the definition I gave of fascism more than the Bush Administration
ReplyDeletein fact OPEN QUESTION to all bloggers who do you think more closely fits the definition posted of fascism Bush or Clinton?
Thanks Gen Patton for your wisdom, but get a clue.
ReplyDeleteThese guys are in the field. We would'nt be bombing their cities, we'd be fighting them on the battlefield.
And as for how long would we be there?
ReplyDeleteYou're kidding right.
It certainly never entered the equation going into Iraq.
who are these soft lib buddies you kep refering to dolt, i'm all ears.
ReplyDeletebecause you are certainly not refering to me, although I am strongly against the war in Iraw and the anti muslim campaign, I take a hard line on Osama and the war on real terrorists, far harder than you or your Neo Con buddies.............in fact in regards to Osama and the REAL war on terror it is the Right who is soft and weak!
Voltaire said...
ReplyDeleteIslam is a poison worf.
Thank you Charlemene.
Thanks for confirming publically what Democrats and liberals have been saying all along.
That the truth is the right wants a religious war. They are declaring war on Islam.
The Crusades are BACK ON!
So you think the IRA was Muslim Volt?
ReplyDeleteThey were'nt.
ReplyDeleteThey were Catholics.
And Protestants.
ReplyDeleteYou know.
ReplyDeleteChristians.
Why not drop the "muslim" lable and just say anyone who is cutting the arms of 6 year olds with machetes needs to be killed and leave it at that?
ReplyDeleteThen we could find some common ground.
Everything you just said about Islam, can be just as easily said about Christianity.
ReplyDeleteAnd I know you know the IRA isn't muslim.
ReplyDeleteWhich is what makes you stupid for saying all the ignorant things that you say about them.
All right.
ReplyDeleteI'm done.
Should've listened to Mike about 8 posts back.
I've cast all the pearls I can tonight.
Root around on those and I'll see you tomorrow.
Dolty Boy,
ReplyDeleteWhen Cliffy whines about Israel taking Palastinian land, he neglects to mention THEY took it from Christians who took it from the Jews in the FIRST place.
In a BOOK I read called the Bible, the Jews seem to have left Egypt and TOOK Palestine also....
Kind of makes you look kind of dumb son...the Bible shows the Hebrews TOOK it before thet were expelled...FOR almost 2000 years, kind of like they Lost the least, and somebody else was living there. But the Europeans wanted a place for the Jews....OUTSIDE of Europe.
Lease..not least
ReplyDeleteVoltaire said...
ReplyDeleteAnd as evil as they may be, all they want is Ireland. It's a regional thing.
Which is EXACTLY what Al Quaida wants.
America out of Muslim countries just like the IRA wanted the British out of Ireland.
If Muslims ARE SOOO bad, Dolty Boy, should the Idiot trust the Muslim he has as ambassador to Iraq?
ReplyDeleteIf he is not true to his faith as you see it, how can we trust HIM to be true to the US Constitution?
Al Quaida.
ReplyDeleteIRA.
Both were terrorist organizations, but you tolerate the IRA cause they've already accepted Christ.
And they're white.
Volt said;
ReplyDeleteAs I said once before, Christianity has moved into at least the 20th century.
So says you.
Hey Clif.
ReplyDeleteI think Voltaire thinks IRA bombs hurt less.
Dolty Boy said;
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Islam is that once it murderously "conquers" something, it is henceforth ALWAYS Muslim. The lands they steal are now "theirs" and they will fight and kill every infidel to keep them.
Unlike a group who were not even on the property for almost 2000 years, but still claim ownership, or the demand of the Idiot in Chief to decide who can has access to weapons, and who can not, or like the repugs decided when Iraq INVADED Iran that was OK, but when Iraq invaded Kuwait that was not?
Dolty Boy said...
ReplyDeleteYes Clif, but that was WAY before Mohammeds time.
They DIDN'T take it from muslims.
Not the first time the STOLE the LAND, just the SECOND time they stole the land.
Sorry Dolty Boy but if somebody shows up with Guns and uses them to take something that is normally CALLED stealing.
ReplyDeleteLike the Romans stole from the Jews what they stole before that...and the Europeans stole the "new" world from many Indigenous peoples. The Europeans tried to steal the world for Europe during their Empire period....we just use organisations like the UN so the victorious group of theifs can justify and radify their crimes.
Voltaire said...
ReplyDeleteI am NOT a bigot.
:|
Voltaire said...
Islam is a poison worf.
It's in ALL of them
Apparently, your definition of a bigot is somewhat more liberal then the rest of the planet.
ReplyDeleteVoltaire said...
ReplyDeleteI am NOT a bigot.
:|
Voltaire said...
I DO however hate Islam
Voltaire said...
ReplyDeleteI am NOT a bigot.
:|
Voltaire said...
I don't even "hate" muslims.,,,, I pity them,,,
Dolty Boy said;
ReplyDeletePeople trying to establish a peaceful democratic country, or a group who wishes a theological dictatorship whose stated purpose is to kill all infidels?
Careful son, because your comment here almost describes the Zionizst movement among the more radical jews in the first half of the 20th Century, but they did not call them infidels,
Dolty Boy said...
ReplyDeleteTell ya what Clif.
You go find some Phoenicians or Macedonians and we'll just give it to them OK?
Well son they might appreciate it, BUT since macedonia is North of Grece, they Might not want to move, BTW they still LIVE there and are NOT too hard to find if you visit.
And the Phonecians lived a bit north,
Phoenicia was an ancient civilization centred in the north of ancient Canaan, with its heartland along the coastal plains of what is now Lebanon.
Wiki;
Seems the Israeli's do have a problem with their decendants though son.
who are these soft lib buddies you kep refering to dolt, i'm all ears.
ReplyDeletebecause you are certainly not refering to me, although I am strongly against the war in Iraw and the anti muslim campaign, I take a hard line on Osama and the war on real terrorists, far harder than you or your Neo Con buddies.............in fact in regards to Osama and the REAL war on terror it is the Right who is soft and weak!
Voltaire said...
ReplyDeleteIf you actually CARED about these people you'd really want to get them out of this death cult.
I wish you ALL would wake up from your pious slumber.
You religious zealots have been killing in the names of your Gods for thousands of years.
Lets bring in the scientific thinkers and give them a try for the next thousand years and see how they do.
It seems only fair.
And Dolt, you dont like being called a bigot, then maybe you should speak up when your lying partners in Crime Ff and Tt and Rusty try to smear us and label us anti semetic and racist because we to not lick our chops and blindly cheer Israel on when the kill civillians in a blunt attempt to kill a few terrorists or to cow the palestinians into turning on the terrorists when in reality all they are doing is creating more through destructive scorched earth policies.
ReplyDeleteLook at dolt saying that the best way to bring peace is through the sword and via dictatorship...........change your handle to Darth sidious!
ReplyDeleteVoltaire said;
ReplyDeleteAnd if you REALLY want to bring "race" into it, why is it that the ones that do the MOST whining and hand wringing are GUILT RIDDEN WHITE LIBERALS
What makes you think I'm white?
And where did you hear me hand wringing?
Mikes right.
You've got this picture, this one single picture to define all liberals and you just can't get your tiny brain outside of that box.
Newsflash genius.
More than HALF the country and 90 percent of the planet disagrees with you.
Your liberal label is bullshit.
You're bullshit.
Tony Snow is bullshit.
The only one confused is you and the idiot in cheif and the mindless automatons like you who carry his coattails.
Dolty Boy said...
ReplyDelete"Islam" is not a "PEOPLE" Worf.
It's a cult.
A 1,476,233,470 member cult (out of 6,430,856,221 people on this planet). No Dolty something with That many people, 22.955% of this planets population is MORE than a cult son
You know, love the sinner, hate the sin?
Sorry son. Applying a Christian principle to JUDGE another religion is kind if of a BIGOTED approach son, even if a certain number of the 2,135,783,000 Christians on this Planet think they can judge every other person on this planet, all 4,295,118,221 of them, that way.
worf is absolutely right this is the Crusades of the 21st century, a war waged by regigious and political zealots but the out come is more about world domination and political powerr than religion although all are important factors.
ReplyDeleteYour mandate is gone.
ReplyDeleteAnd you got SMACKED down today, by your OWN PARTY members of all things.
Guess better put John McCain on the list of lilly livered liberals.
Whats hilarious is these knuckleheads, after the absolute clusterf$@#k they have made of practically everything they've touched, think that now, after 57 years, that we suddenly need THEM to change the Geneva Conventions!
ReplyDeleteWe have lived with these conventions for decades, and now these ninkompoops think that THEY have the wisdom to go screwing them.
It really boggles the mind.
Voltaire said...
ReplyDeleteAfter all, WE'RE ALL Jack booted fascist thugs, religeous zealots and worse right?
Well, I don't know about "all" of you, but thats a pretty good descripton of yourself.
Ohio congressman to plead guilty
ReplyDeleteNey expected to enter plea in federal corruption probe, GOP officials say
Nuff said, except NOVEMBER is a commin...and it does not look GOODS for the oparty of Bob Ney
Delay has to resign from Congress to save a seat(maybe..it do not look so good at this point)
ReplyDeleteNey might have to resign(He already decided NOT to run to try and save a seat
Gingrich quits after he was outed as majority leader.
Scarborough resigned after he cheated on his wife, and a dead intern was found in HIS Florida office
Livingston Quit agfter it was revealed HE cheated on HIS wife(after he castigated Clinton for exactally the same thing)
repug the hypocritical party of CUT and Runners....
Dolty Boy said;(again BTW)
ReplyDeleteJesus Worf. John McCain? You guys throw Lieberman under the bus for just ONE policy he doesn't agree with.
No son He LOST an election, you know WHERE the VOTERS decide. Lieberman was NOT thrown under the BUS, he LOST an election
We keep people like McCain, Specter and Chafee(the guy the RNC campaigned for, sent money to re-elect) even though they disagree on MANY policies...
Ever heard of a "RINO"?
Dolty Boy said WAAAAAHHHH they won't goose step they way I want
Dolty Boy said...
ReplyDeleteAnd Clif?
NO SON, HE LOST THE BACKING OF HIS PARTY BEFORE THE ELECTION.
No son, they did campaign with HIM, but it is STILL the individual voters who cast Ballots which added up MORE for Lamont than Lieberman.
Jeese, you know as little about US elections as you do Macedonia....
Must be that HOME schooling with all the bible readings instead of real history, and civics lessons.
Dolty Boy, it has been insightful plumbing the depths of your IGNORANCE.
ReplyDeleteBut I have a few things to do tomorrow.
Later.
Do try to read up on REAL history, and how the US election systems really work...son.
FASCISM by Freedom Fan
ReplyDeleteLiberals are fond of calling Conservatives “fascists” and “racists” and other lovely epithets. These are truly despicable terms, which flash disturbing images of Hitler, concentration camps, mass murder, the enslavement of citizens by tyrants, and imperialism. Fascism as perfected by the Nazis easily represents the lowest point to which humanity has ever sunk. When a Liberal brands someone with Conservative beliefs as a fascist, the victim usually dismisses the accusation as utter nonsense or recoils in shock and anger. But do you ever wonder what the hell the Liberals are really talking about? Do you wonder why this outrageous charge by Liberals has now become so routine? This article allows a Conservative to see himself from a Liberal perspective.
Here are definitions from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary comparing the two terms:
Conservatism- a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.
Fascism- a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
As I asserted in Conservative v. Liberal World Views on September 10, the essence of Conservatism is the celebration of the individual's free will. So attainment and protection of freedom are central to the Conservative philosophy. Therefore fascism and all forms of tyranny have the exact opposite goal from that of the Conservative. Ironically, it is the Conservative who typically honors the sacrifice of military heroes and patriots responsible for the total destruction of Hitler and similar fascist and racist tyrants.
However, according to SERMON: Living Under Fascism by Rev. Davidson Loehr, First Unitarian Church these are the specific reasons Liberals attempt to assert that Conservatives are fascist:
Identifying Characteristics of Fascism
(Excerpted from Fascism Anyone? By Laurence W. Britt )
[With translation from moonbat to English]
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.
[Translation: Apparently our brave troops, who defeated uber-fascist Hitler, were themselves probably fascist because they were patriotic Americans. Displaying a flag is a symbol that someone loves his country, and the U.S. and other evil western countries are not worthy of such recognition. Flag-waving is considered very un-cool by the Liberal elite, who are still bummed that the Communism thing didn’t work out. So if you wave a flag, or recite the Pledge of Allegiance or sing our national anthem, then you might be a fascist.]
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.
[Translation: If you think the events at Abu Ghraib prison were appalling, but doubt that some gal putting panties-on-the-head of terrorists warranted 32 consecutive New York Times front page articles, then you might be a fascist.]
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.
[Translation: Some sophisticated Liberals hold that terrorists attacking the U.S. was deserved—that it simply represented a case of “chickens coming home to roost” in repayment for all the “evil” the U.S. has done over the years. After the attack, a bogus “perceived common threat”, President Bush said:
Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.
If you cheered when Dubya promised this, then you might be a fascist in the throes of a patriotic frenzy.]
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.
[Translation: The military is evil; confiscatory transfer payments from achievers to full-time-Oprah-watchers represent the pinnacle to which a civilization may aspire. So if you favor a strong military or object to major universities from Harvard to Berkeley banning military recruiters or ROTC on campus, then you might be a fascist.]
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.
[Translation: If you believe that a human life begins at conception, that the sacrament of marriage exists between a man and woman to provide a stable environment for raising children, and that the traditional family is in dire trouble and deserves protection from the Liberal political agenda, then you might be a fascist.]
6. Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes the media are directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
[Translation: Any news source which departs from the New York Times or PBS Liberal agenda is probably controlled by evil Republican corporations. If you criticize the anointed folks of the mainstream media, then you are attempting censorship, and you might be a fascist.]
7. Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
[Translation: Just like Michael Moore says, the World Trade Center was destroyed by Bush so he could invade Afghanistan and Iraq. If you believe that terrorists are real, then you might be a fascist.]
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.
[Translation:
…the greatest threat to our freedom lies not in some mosque in Mecca, but in a simple church in the Bible belt. The time has come for all patriotic Americans to unite under a common cause: getting rid of the Christians…Their backwards, outdated belief system is based on unwavering moral absolutes, which only alienate those enlightened Americans who have no morals at all. Ironically, these so-called "morals" Christians claim to possess aren't even true morals, as they stem not from a Noam Chomsky pamphlet or a Michael Moore film - but from some silly old book they found in a motel room dresser. -Doglip All-Sader
So if you are a Jew or Christian or someone who fails, to embrace the secular humanist agenda as championed by the ACLU, then you might be a fascist.]
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.
[Translation: Corporations and the free market economy are evil, as are corporate contributions to political action committees. Only contributions from lawyers and labor unions should be allowed. If you own a share of stock in a corporation, or work for a corporation, or buy anything from a corporation, then you might be a fascist.]
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.
[Translation: If you fail to acquiesce to every union demand for exorbitant wages, bloated pensions, or lower productivity; if you believe that unions destroy jobs by driving them into foreign countries; if you believe that every person has the right to choose whether to join a union or pay dues for political purposes, then you might be a fascist.]
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.
[Translation: As history will attest, Hitler’s failure to fund the arts was his most egregious error. So don’t dare protest when taxpayer money goes to fund the piss-Christ or feces-smeared-Virgin-Mary “art” exhibits. And if you do, or if you protest when taxpayer funds are used to bankroll vicious America-haters like tenured college professor Ward Churchill, then you might be a fascist.]
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.
[Translation: If you favor three strikes laws for repeat violent offenders, life or chemical castration for child molesters, and the death penalty for murderers, then you might be a fascist.]
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.
[Translation: Halliburton is evil because…because…uh well Halliburton, Halliburton. If you don’t believe Halliburton is evil and Cheney is their stooge, then you might be a fascist.]
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.
[Translation: Bush stole the election…actually both of them. If you don’t believe this or if you voted for Bush, then you might be a fascist.]
[15. Firearm Confiscation.
Um, actually I added this item to the list because Laurence W. Britt seemed to over-look it despite his extensive “analysis of seven regimes which reveals fourteen common threads”. The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 was used together with inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms . Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members. Gun Control's Nazi Connection
Translation: Guns are a scary right-wing obsession; my Liberal buddies and I don’t like them, so I have omitted the fascists’ consistent gun confiscation pattern from my research. Hopefully, no one will notice that this omission makes my work look sloppy and/or biased.]
Fascism is utterly disgusting; no Conservative would ever allow his country to be taken over by fascists. Perhaps the only thing almost worse than actually being a fascist, is falsely accusing someone of being one. To do so trivializes the horror perpetrated by real fascists and minimizes the honorable sacrifices of those who oppose tyranny--whatever it is called--wherever it raises its ugly head.
The Foole said;
ReplyDeleteAs I asserted
With MANY false generalisations, distortions of reality, strawmen created which bear NO resemblance of real people. Just your "liberal strawman" you rant against which DOES NOT exist in reality. This is your delusional approach to political debate.
in Conservative v. Liberal World Views on September 10, the essence of Conservatism is the celebration of the individuals free will.
Funny son, free will is what you claim to revel in, but you then ATTACK those who USE it in ways you dislike.
You viciously attacked Kirk12 for HIS free will in flying his flag in an accepted sign of distress as a political statement. You DERIDED him for HIS FREE WILL, kind of Hypocritical eh ?
So attainment and protection of freedom are central to the Conservative philosophy.
Too bad they are not up to the TASK of putting this noble sentiment into practice, as you have demonstrated here time and again, and the national repugs have in their limiting definitions of what is acceptable as their narrow definitions, NOT TRUE FREEDOM, But hollow symbols and actions, instead of real open minded acceptance of the diversity of the American experience.
Therefore fascism and all forms of tyranny have the exact opposite goal from that of the Conservative.
Then why do conservatives KEEP stooping to the tactics of Goebbels, McCarthy? Why do they PUSH for laws to restrict Freedom of expression just because they do not like the particular expression?
They seem to turn their backs on the inspiration to the Jefferson Ideal of free expression...Voltaire, and no not the Blog Troll who claims that moniker, but;
François-Marie Arouet better known by the pen name Voltaire who known for his sharp wit, philosophical writings, and defense of civil liberties, including freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial. He was an outspoken supporter of social reform despite strict censorship laws in France and harsh penalties for those who broke them. A satirical polemicist, he frequently made use of his works to criticize Church dogma and the French institutions of his day. Voltaire is considered one of the most influential figures of his time.
(snip)
Voltaire is remembered and honored in France as a courageous polemicist who indefatigably fought for civil rights — the right to a fair trial and freedom of religion — and who denounced the hypocrisies and injustices of the ancien régime. The ancien régime involved an unfair balance of power and taxes between the First Estate (the clergy), the Second Estate (the nobles), and everyone else (the commoners and middle class, who were burdened with most of the taxes)
[hey volty, your really a french lib according to the FOOLE]
The quote I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it is commonly misattributed to Voltaire, but is actually a summary of his attitudes, based on statements he made in Essay on Tolerance, by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G. Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire
Wiki about Voltaire
Ironically, it is the Conservative who typically honors the sacrifice of military heroes and patriots responsible for the total destruction of Hitler and similar fascist and racist tyrants.
Right, but it was one of your HATED liberals who actually lead the charge in that war..Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and it was conservatives like Prescott Bush, Henry Ford, who aided Hitlers rise because they LIKED what they saw, and conservatives like Robert Taft, Gerald Ford, and Charles Limburgh who argued against stopping Hitler, as part of the Isolationist movement before they were FORCED to abandon that approach by none other than Pearl Harbor on Dec 7th 1941.
They conservatives like to honor the veteran with parades where the conservative can march with the veteran, and speeches which usually are self serving, and big public displays(you know the ones where everybody gets all misty eyed, but actually DOES not a real thing FOR the vet)
It was a Liberal FDR in 1944 who gave the vet the GI Bill...which allowed the vet you praise to raise themselves in this nation, Reagan and his band of conservatives CUT parts of the GI Bill.
And another Liberal Sonny Montgomery who modernised it against the wishes, AND VOTES of many conservatives.
AND BTW son...On September 13, 1988, Sonny Montgomery became the first Congressman to lead the U.S. House in citing the Pledge of Allegiance as a permanent part of its daily and morning business operations but YOU CLAIM we do not do things like that.
It was the Liberal who gave the Veteran medical benefits, it was Reagan who went and CUT those benefits, and educational benefits.
And the Liberals who fought for the benefits for the victims of agent Orange who had served in Vietnam, not conservatives.
It is liberals who want a raise in benefits for BOTH active duty uniformed military and veterans.
John McCain had to threaten(fellow conservatives) to stop the government to get then US Government to HONOR a pledge they made to Millions of veterans when the vets signed up to serve, McCain had to do this WHEN conservatives controlled both the White House, and congress.
Your right son...conservatives give veterans Parades and speeches.
While Liberals give them medical benefits, home loans, educational benefits, AGAINST the express wishes and VOTES of many conservatives.
Ms. Cornell said
ReplyDelete"As the young Buddha discovered, along with every great spiritual thinker — the path to enlightenment is the middle."
Obviously, this analogy is in honor of my greatness.....thank you!
Nevertheless, I cant help but notice libs seem to enjoy blaming the Jews for all the worlds problems.....how convenient.
Thousands of years of persecution and still, mankind refuses to allow these people to live in peace on a tiny chunk of dusty desert.
Sometimes, I wonder if libs simply want to hand over Israel to the silly extremists for appeasement and annihilation purposes.
If you kick a dog in the head continuously, sooner or later its going to become angry and attack.
A DEADLY KINDNESS
ReplyDeleteBy RICHARD MINITER
September 15, 2006 -- GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA
ON the military plane back from America's most fa mous terrorist holding pen, the in-flight film was "V for Vendetta," a screed that tries to justify terrorism. It was a fitting end to a surreal, military-sponsored trip.
The Pentagon seemed to be hoping to disarm its critics by showing them how well it cares for captured terrorists. The trip was more alarming than disarming. I spent several hours with Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., who heads the joint task force that houses and interrogates the detainees. (The military isn't allowed to call them "prisoners.")
Harris, a distinguished Navy veteran who was born in Japan and educated at Annapolis and Harvard, is a serious man trying to do a politically impossible job. I spoke with him at length, and with a dozen other officers and guards, and visited three different detention blocks.
The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives.
The politically correct regulations are unbelievable. Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours sleep and can't be woken up for interrogations. They enjoy three meals and five prayers per day, without interruption. They are entitled to a minimum of two hours of outdoor recreation per day.
Interrogations are limited to four hours, usually running two - and (of course) are interrupted for prayers. One interrogator actually bakes cookies for detainees, while another serves them Subway or McDonald's sandwiches. Both are available on base. (Filet o' Fish is an al Qaeda favorite.)
Interrogations are not video or audio taped, perhaps to preserve detainee privacy.
Call it excessive compassion by a nation devoted to therapy, but it's dangerous. Adm. Harris admitted to me that a multi-cell al Qaeda network has developed in the camp. Military intelligence can't yet identify their leaders, but notes that they have cells for monitoring the movements and identities of guards and doctors, cells dedicated to training, others for making weapons and so on.
And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate. "These folks are MacGyvers," Harris said.
Other cells pass messages from leaders in one camp to followers in others. How? Detainees use the envelopes sent to them by their attorneys to pass messages. (Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis, with more than 18,500 letters in and out of Gitmo in the past year.) Guards are not allowed to look inside these envelopes because of "attorney-client privilege" - even if they know the document inside is an Arabic-language note written by a prisoner to another prisoner and not a letter to or from a lawyer.
That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.
There is little doubt what this note-passing and weapons-making is used for. The military recorded 3,232 incidents of detainee misconduct from July 2005 to August 2006 - an average of more than eight incidents per day. Some are nonviolent, but the tally includes coordinated attacks involving everything from throwing bodily fluids on guards (432 times) to 90 stabbings with homemade knives.
One detainee slashed a doctor who was trying to save his life; the doctors wear body armor to treat their patients.
The kinder we are to terrorists, the harsher we are to their potential victims.
Striking the balance between these two goods (humane treatment, foreknowledge of deadly attacks) is difficult, but the Bush administration seems to lean too far in the direction of the detainees. No expense spared for al Qaeda health care: Some 5,000 dental operations (including teeth cleanings) and 5,000 vaccinations on a total of 550 detainees have been performed since 2002 - all at taxpayer expense. Eyeglasses? 174 pairs handed out. Twenty two detainees have taxpayer-paid prosthetic limbs. And so on.
What if a detainee confesses a weakness (like fear of the dark) to a doctor that might be useful to interrogators, I asked the doctor in charge, would he share that information with them? "My job is not to make interrogations more efficient," he said firmly. He cited doctor-patient privacy. (He also asked that his name not be printed, citing the potential for al Qaeda retaliation.)
Food is strictly halal and averages 4,200 calories per day. (The guards eat the same chow as the detainees, unless they venture to one of the on-base fast-food joints.) Most prisoners have gained weight.
Much has been written about the elaborate and unprecedented appeal process. Detainees have their cases reviewed once a year and get rights roughly equivalent to criminals held in domestic prisons. I asked a military legal adviser: In what previous war were captured enemy combatants eligible for review before the war ended? None, he said.
America has never faced an enemy who has so ruthlessly broken all of the rules of war - yet never has an enemy been treated so well.
Of Gitmo's several camps, military records show that the one with the most lenient rules is the one with the most incidents and vice versa. There is a lesson in this: We should worry less about detainee safety and more about our own.
Some 20 current detainees have direct personal knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and nearly everyone of the current 440 say they would honored to attack America again. Let's take them at their word.
Richard Miniter (richardminiter.com) is a bestselling author and adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.
Volt,
ReplyDeleteI'm goin with Hootie and the Blowfish.
Thats a lie. The detainees are on a 2700 calorie per day diet as reported by the Pentagon more than a year ago.
ReplyDelete2700 calories is a very, very lean diet.
Johnny the disinterested moderate said"Nevertheless, I cant help but notice libs seem to enjoy blaming the Jews for all the worlds problems.....how convenient.
ReplyDeleteThousands of years of persecution and still, mankind refuses to allow these people to live in peace on a tiny chunk of dusty desert."
Interesting how a disinterested supposed non political moderate would dishonestly use falsesweeping generalizations to smear an entire group.
when have any of us here blamed the jews for "ALL THE WORLDS PROBLEMS" that is a slimy uterly dishonest lie and smear, not to mention the fact that 5 or 6 liberals on this blog hardly constitutes "ALL" liberals.
While the jews may have contributed to some of the problems and share some of the blame saying that "ALL" liberals are claiming the jews areresponsible for "ALL
" of the worlds problem is a slanderous lie and is a sign of a biaded partisan not a disinterested moderate......COME OUT OF THE CLOSET PUNK!
Johnny the disinterested moderate said"Sometimes, I wonder if libs simply want to hand over Israel to the silly extremists for appeasement and annihilation purposes."
ReplyDeleteWhen have any of the liberals on this site said they want to "hand Israel over to the extremists for appeasement" thats another out right lie, you show me one person that said anything remotely like that, look at the incognito partisan blog troll repeating the partisan "appeasement" rhetoric stop pretending and COME OUT OF THE CLOSET SON, all you are is a deceitful lying partisan blog troll trying to deceive and smear people with sweeping false generalizations and stereotypes and repug rhetoric and prepackaged canned one size fits all talking points.
interesting that a supposed non partisan moderate repeatedly and dishonestly attemts to create our arguments for us and tell us what we think through some form of clairavoyance so they are easier for him and his repug troll buddies to attack and refute, a slimy blog troll through and through.
Facing revolt, Bush defends terror proposals
ReplyDelete‘Time is running out,’ president says, rejecting criticism by Powell, others
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 2 hours, 2 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Faced with a revolt by some fellow Republicans over treatment of foreign terrorism suspects, President Bush on Friday vigorously defended his strategy at a press conference.
“The enemy wants to attack us again,” he said in urging Congress to pass controversial legislation to detain, interrogate and try suspects in the war against terrorism.
“Time is running out,” Bush said from the White House Rose Garden. “Congress needs to act wisely and promptly.”
Senate GOP leaders will call for a vote on the proposal as early as next week. Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell said no decision had been made on when to vote on the measure, which critics say does not go far enough to protect suspects’ rights. He added that he hoped a floor vote would settle the issue.
Bush denied that the United States might lose the high ground in the eyes of world opinion, as former Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested on Thursday.
“It’s unacceptable to think there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective,” said Bush, growing animated as he spoke.
“If not for this (anti-terror) program, our intelligence community believes al-Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland,” he said.
“Unfortunately the recent Supreme Court decision put the future of this program in question. ... We need this legislation to save it.”
The high court earlier this year struck down Bush’s current arrangement for trying detainees held at the U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Battle on the Hill
Bush’s comments came a day after Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee broke with the administration and approved a rival bill for detention and trial of foreign terrorism suspects. Bush claims the measure would compromise the war on terrorism.
He is urging the Senate to pass a bill more like a House-passed one that would allow his administration to continue holding and trying terror suspects before military tribunals.
The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 15-9 on Thursday to endorse an alternative bill by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain that would protect the rights of foreign terrorism suspects.
McCain, Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner and South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham made up the core of the rebellion against Bush. Eleven Democrats on the Armed Services Committee joined them as well as Maine Republican Susan Collins in voting in favor of the alternative legislation.
The vote by the moderate Collins underscored that there might be broad enough GOP support to successfully take on Bush on the floor of the Republican-run Senate.
Powell, Bush's previous secretary of state, said in a letter to McCain that Bush’s proposal to redefine the Geneva Conventions would encourage the world to “doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism” and “put our own troops at risk.”
McConnell, R-Ky., is expected to champion Bush’s proposal on the floor. “We know (the program) has worked. We know it has saved lives. And we know the director of the CIA said that under the alternative bill, that program will have to be shut down.”
Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he supports the Senate approach championed by McCain and others because it would be less likely to be challenged by the Supreme Court as unlawful and violating the nation’s treaty obligations. He voted this week in favor of a committee bill that supports the administration’s position to “move the process along,” but said he will attempt to amend the measure when the bill reaches the floor next week.
“I don’t want to give any terrorist a free pass or get-out-of-jail-free card,” Skelton said.
Shortly after Bush went to Capitol Hill on Thursday, the Senate committee approved its own bill, which it said would meet demands made by the Supreme Court in striking down Bush’s original plan.
CONTINUED
CIA at center of debate
The vote set up a legislative showdown during an election year in which Republicans hope to protect control of both houses of Congress by appearing strong on fighting terrorism.
The main debate is over White House efforts to write definitions of what would be inhumane treatment under the Geneva Conventions, giving CIA interrogators guidelines on what interrogation methods may be used for a program it credits for breaking up eight terrorism plots.
Bush said the Geneva Conventions’ Common Article 3 is vague and must be clarified to protect CIA interrogators from prosecution by other countries.
The Washington Post wrote in an editorial on Friday that Bush was basically lobbying for torture and that the CIA wants permission to interrogate detainees “with abusive practices that in the past have included induced hypothermia and ‘waterboarding,’ or simulated drowning.”
How legislation differs
The Senate committee bill would require that defendants have access to classified evidence used against them, limit the use of hearsay evidence and restrict the use of evidence obtained by coercion.
The president’s measure would allow classified evidence to be withheld from defendants in terror trials, using coerced testimony and protecting CIA and other U.S. interrogators against prosecution for using methods that may violate the Geneva Conventions.
Friday's news conference is the president's first since Aug. 21, when he said the Iraq war was “straining the psyche of our country” but that leaving now would be a disaster.
Bush has made the struggle against terrorism and the war in Iraq the top issues in the November elections, hoping to persuade voters that Republicans are better than Democrats at protecting the country.
Bush’s voice rose and he chopped the air with his right hand several times as he spoke on Iraq. He denied anew that the surge in sectarian violence meant a civil war.
On other subjects, Bush:
All but acknowledged one of his top domestic priorities — immigration law overhaul — was essentially dead for now amid disputes on Capitol Hill. When will there be action, he was asked. “I don’t know the timetable. ... My answer is as soon as possible is what I’d like to see done.”
Said he will signal at the United Nations next week firm U.S. opposition to delaying nuclear negotiations with Iran. He said he won’t meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who also will be at the United Nations next week.
Cited a “level of frustration” with the United Nations, both on dealing with the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan and with spending its money wisely.
Responded that “I wouldn’t exactly put it that way” when asked if he agreed with comments by House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, that Democrats “are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.” But, he said, “there’s a difference in attitude” between Republicans and Democrats.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
How many times does this corupt thug get to look the American people in the eye and lie?
ReplyDeleteHe lied about torture by saying America doesnt torture then tried to do an end around by getting congress to approve torture, he lied about secret prisons by saying they dont exist then recently admitting they do, he lied about spying on all Americans without warrants by saying we are only spying on terroists, he lied us into the war on phony cherry picked intelligence that he is still spouting, Nixon was impeached for lying, Clinton was impeached, this man needs to be impeached and tried for treason, how can any one believe a word this incompetent liar and criminal says after all he said on many occasions that OSAMA a terrorist who killed 3000 Americans is irrelevant and doesnt matter yet he "PRETENDS" to be tough on terror how can anyone trust or believe a word this Fool says.
When have any of the liberals on this site said they want to "hand Israel over to the extremists for appeasement" thats another out right lie, you show me one person that said anything remotely like that...
ReplyDelete-mikey
Um...I believe that would be cliffy; he has unequivocally denounced the formation of Israel. While he maintains he "never said that", he adamantly refuses to specifically acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist. Ergo we must conclude that he believes Israel should be annihilated for the amusement of his Paleo head-chopper buddies.
Here's an entire site promoted by hysterical Sunni Holocaust-deniers who blame "Zionists" for all the world's problems, just like hitler did. These vicious Islamists are allies with liberals like cliffy, who is in love with them, but fears the vewy dangerous "ChristoFascists".
behold the slimy liar saying failure to deny something is the same asadmission.
ReplyDeleteso if I accuse you of being a child molestor and you fail to even answer because the accusation is so riddiculous then that is the same as an admission.........another slimy troll tactic do you beat your wife Fibbing Fascist? since I have not heard you deny it I guess I am to assume it is true, you must really be frustrated from the intellectual beat down Clif gave you yesterday to have to resort to that slimy tired old repug tactic.
Fascist Foole said "These vicious Islamists are allies with liberals like cliffy, who is in love with them, but fears the vewy dangerous "ChristoFascists""
ReplyDeleteReally the vicious Islamists are allies with liberals like Clif, got any proof or facts to back this outrageos unsubstantiated claim up or are you willing to admit you are a lying spinmeister/
As for Clif fearing the dangerous Islamofascist Fooles, I think he he despises them but I think it is more accurate to say the Islamofascists fear people like him or Lydia or else they would not be trying so hard to smear and/or silence them..
Rove sent Bush down to Capital Hill to sell his torture bill today, and the Congress sent him back, empty handed.
ReplyDeleteGee.
Trouble in doggyland?
Hey Worf what happens to thugs when people are no longer afraid of them.................do you think they will be sending Bush to the glue factory because from where I sit he's a washed up hasbeen that no one respects or is intimidated by any more, his own party doesnt even goosestep behind his party rhetoric anymore, looks like the pied piper lost his touch.
ReplyDeleteIf we can all agree that torture doesn't work, then whatever we did to get information from KSM was NOT torture.
ReplyDeleteVolt said
ReplyDelete"I don't care if we convert them into atheists"
Excellent choice Volt!
"efforts at justifying life by appealing to an ultimate truth or a transcendent purpose represent a kind of weakness, an inability to own up to the possibilities opened up by the collapse of God."
Nietzsche
"There are approximately 42,000 male and female Imam al-Mahdi scouts between the ages of 8-16 organized into 499 groups."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/hezbollahs-very-own-version-of-the-hitler-youth
FF
ReplyDeleteThat site you posted in your 12:44 PM post is some pretty sick sh@t!
They indicate those videos of American soldiers in Iraq being killed by snipers are Israeli's simply posing as Muslim's.
Apparently.....
"The videos are sent to Tel Aviv where Arab titles and Islamic chanting are added. The final "Iraqi Resistance" video is posted on the internet."
http://cytations.blogspot.com/2005/11/israeli-sniper-rifle-snuff-video.html#links
JMM,
ReplyDeleteYes, they literally blame everything on "Zionists", especially any dastardly deed committed by their own co-religionists. At first you want to laugh, but then you realize they are deadly serious and there are a lot of them.
This practice is known as taqiyyah -- it is similar to goebbel's big lie propaganda strategy or Orwell's black-is-white doublespeak.
Lib multi-culturists, who do not respect truth, are their willing tools.
I notice that Worfeus was allowed back on here to post but Kay, Larry and Carl are still banned.
ReplyDelete-Krista
That is a keen observation, Krista.
I have it on good authority that Karl Rove has personally targeted the Lydia Cornell blog because of its dangerous, subversive message which mortally threatens the very foundation of the neocon patriarchy.
Kay, Larry and Carl have been banned by Karl Rove because their incisive collective intellect cannot possibly be countered by even the best minds of the neocon brain trust.
Karl Rove allowed Worf back into the blog because he is so insane that no one will believe his goofy rants anyway.
Clif and Mike are actually Karl Rove's neocon sock puppets who spout such hateful anti-Western, socialist propaganda, that of course, almost all independent people will become disgusted and rush to vote for the Republican...any Republican.
Karl Rove is also preventing Ms. Cornell to post any more subversive material until after the election.
I have tried to report this to the authorities, but they will not listen. I suspect that they are all in cohoots and I fear for my life. In fact their is a fake Wonderbread truck parked outside my home as we speak.
I encourage you to notify the FBI and CIA at once, but do so anonymously and talk from a remote location on a cell phone with the GPS disabled. Be certain to wear one of these so that sophisticated intelligence satellites cannot decipher your brain waves.
Your success is paramount, so do not falter as you face this enormous personal risk. The fate of our great nation depends upon you. Good luck.
[Pope] Benedict, in a speech in his native Germany, quoted a medieval Christian emperor who said Islam had only brought the world "evil and inhuman" things," such as "the command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
ReplyDeleteSpeaking on September 12 at Germany's Regensburg University, where he taught theology in the 1970s, the Bavarian-born pope chose to quote a written criticism of Islam by Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus. Manuel ruled the Orthodox Christian empire from what is now Istanbul in the 1300s.
Benedict quoted a conversation that the emperor wrote about having with "an educated Persian." The quote read: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
...
Benedict then repeatedly quoted Manuel's argument that spreading the faith through violence is unreasonable, adding, "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."
-Islam: Pope Sparks Controversy With Jihad Remarks
Wow, the Pope has balls! What a "ChristoFascist" as the libs would say.
Of course, Muslim leaders were quick to go hysterical, because spreading the Islamic faith by violence is central to Islam. Violence is hardly "unreasonable" to a Muslim; it's called "Jihad", which is the duty of every Muslim. It is also their duty to speak taqiyya and deny that violence is their mission just before they kill you shouting "Allah Akbar!".
This was indeed a very important event. True, reform of radical Islam must come from within, but it is up to the West to keep pressure on Muslims until they are shamed by their silence as their Islamist buddies routinely murder in the name of "Allah".
Look for goofy Muslims to start rioting and killing innocent people in protest of the Pope's message that faith should not be spread by violence. Hey, just be glad that the Pope did not draw a cartoon of Muhammad.
Bush is a filthy tortue loving liar, he said a few days ago that he would abide by geneva con now he is attemping to have congress rubberstamp his difiance of geneva con, a true lying piece of human human waste
ReplyDelete-leisure suit larry
Wow larry. Good to know you hate liars. You musta been furious at slick willie.
Well let's suppose that you had captured the Moussawi on September 1, 2001, and he had information on the other hijackers which could prevent the incineration of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
What type of interrogation would be permissible in your world, larry? Tell us.
hey gandalf why dont you grab your staff, put on your pointy hat and saddle the cammel and get a scimmitar and go deal with the evil terrorists youself you big brave republican christofascist warrior you, ya arent leaving the fight for others are ya, yer not yella are ya, yer not a chicken hawk are ya
ReplyDelete-leisure suit larry
Wow, I'm impressed larry. You actually mustered the nerve to talk with a Conservative. I'll be gentle. I promise you won't feel a thing.
So the ol' "chicken hawk" charge, eh?
Clinton "loathed" the military and avoided military service at all cost. Did he have the moral authority to be the Commander-In-Chief and send our boys into harms way in the Balkans and Mogadishu? You will answer this question, won't you, brave guy?
And I'm certain you and your lib buddies support the presence of ROTC and military recruitment on college campuses, right?
I put in 4 years of full-time ROTC and 8 years in the Army Reserves and was honorably discharged as a captain, larry. How about you, brave guy?
Now in addition to my real job, my second job is to verbally put pressure on Islamists to reform or abandon Islam, and to counter quisling termites like you who continually gnaw at the foundation of our proud Republic. K?
but even more telling are over 805 of americans who are worried about the economy
ReplyDelete-leisure suit larry
Yeah that is a lot Volt, and I'm pretty sure all those "805" Americans worried about the economy are lazy dhimmicrats like larry.
Kristy since freedon fan is a military hero and says he has a real job, maybe you two should hook up. Or are you one in the same already?
ReplyDelete-rafael
Ya got me, rafael; Krista is my sock puppet.
So pardner are you a boy, girl, or metrosexual?
rafael just ignore mo moo/krista, its slime not worth the keystrokes especially when we have this itellectually challenged halfwit to play with.
ReplyDelete-leisure suit larry
Yes larry I see by your clever sentence construction that you are quite an itellectualll scholar, indeed.
But it is refreshing to observe that you have the balls to at least attempt to match wits with a Conservative.
However, next time I would advise brandishing something more than a sharpened lemon popsicle stick.
Maybe they are both unemployed because of the Bush economy like thousands will be at Ford.
ReplyDelete-rafael
Cousin it, I'm pretty sure the Bush economy is robust. In a free market economy, there is the concept of creative destruction in which less productive companies contract or fail when more productive companies do a better job of providing goods and services.
For example, Ford's average labor cost was over $60 per hour compared with over $45 per hour at Toyota, which consistently ranks number one in customer satisfaction.
Libs always want to step in to fix the market, but they end up making it become about as efficient as a soviet collective.
The Foole said;
ReplyDeleteUm...I believe that would be cliffy;
No son as usual, you LIE about anothers position, I have NEVER said what Johnny Moo Moo posted, or YOU lied about.
he has unequivocally denounced the formation of Israel.
What PUBLISHING the TRUTH is demouncing...sense when? since the repugs want to CHANGE what is written as history...that must be what you mean...you want HISTORY to be different that it is... I renounces NOTHING, but pointed out the people who created Israel committed crimes against those who lived on the land for centuries. The normal proceedure for Europeans to Take land that historically others lived on, But you ATTEMPT to twist what I say to FIT your BIGOTED MENTALITY
While he maintains he "never said that",
WELL SON I DID NOT SAY THAT...so at least you admit I deny saying it, you can not admit readimg the words, and accepting that I mean it, I did not say what you LIED and accused me of, But since your a repug slime spewer, I would expect nothing else from your delusional hypocritical smear posts.
he adamantly refuses to specifically acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist.
Well Foole I am NOT on your pathetic Blog, OH wait that was Tiny's Blog YOU ain't got one, So you do not make the rules ON THIS ONE...or dictate to ME what I have to address, I would prefer to spend MY time addressing THOSE things I feel worth MY time.
BTW last time I checked, that was not something I was called upon by the US or other internaational bodies to address, But if Kofi Annan calls, I will let him know how I feel...your JUST NOT THAT IMPORTANT enough to waste MY time with you, sorry son. Your NOT that important.
believes Israel should be annihilated for the amusement of his Paleo head-chopper buddies.
Typical repug, can not win the debate on the merits so accuses others of thioughts whic they never said, or HINTED at...good Goebbeels move there reichman. I will accept this POST as your admitting your a LIAR (because you admit While he maintains he "never said that",, you continue to LIE about it, Just as dead Eye and the Idiot continue to Lie about Saddam's suopposed connection to al Zarqawi....even after the senate report says the CIA says that connection is BULLSH*T. But about right now that is all youe PNAC neo-con repug clown posse boot lickrers have left ain't it son.
Thank you for your admittance that you CAN NOT debate on the merits. It has been noted, NUMEROUS times, but it is refreshing to see you admit it again now and then.
hey captain courageous how come your not over in the middle east torturing and killing muslims, could it be because your a cowardly blowhard warmongering wanna be tough guy.
ReplyDelete-leisure suit larry
The war on Islamic extremism occurs on two fronts:
Fight militant Islam militarily; fight ideological Islam ideologically.
Our military will do fine with the first task; I will now assist with the second. America will only fail if she loses her collective will because of yella libs like yourself.
I told you about my military service, now please tell us about yours, won't you?
The Foole said;
ReplyDeleteWell let's suppose that you had captured the Moussawi on September 1, 2001, and he had information on the other hijackers which could prevent the incineration of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
What type of interrogation would be permissible in your world, larry? Tell us.
How about the FBI when they have somebody like that INVESTIGATING and not have the DOJ lawyers under ashcroft deny them the ability ot search the computer, But actually at least GET a warrent to search, Instead of doing what the FBI did under bush....NOTHING
The Foole said;
ReplyDeleteNow in addition to my real job,
sweeping floors at the local bank
my second job is to verbally put pressure on Islamists to reform or abandon Islam, and to counter quisling termites like you who continually gnaw at the foundation of our proud Republic. K?
and I dress up just like the little pic shows and zap them with my staff, and sometimes I even get to wear a really neat hat while I am doing it.....
What do you mean I'm a moonbat....I am NOT those windmills are not what they seem at all, that is just the way they appear to those who can see the truth...you know the truth when you drinkl lots of Karl's KOOLAID.
Nice try cliffy, but you conveniently left off part of my post:
ReplyDeleteUm...I believe that would be cliffy; he has unequivocally denounced the formation of Israel. While he maintains he "never said that", he adamantly refuses to specifically acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist. Ergo we must conclude that he believes Israel should be annihilated for the amusement of his Paleo head-chopper buddies.
So from your rant, about how Israel is evil combined with your failure to simply state that Israel has a right to exist, the reasonable conclusion is that you want to see Israel destroyed.
Your weasel approach of stating something and then pretending "I never said that" will not hunt. Why not sprout a pair for a change and simply say what you mean?
The Foole said;
ReplyDeleteWhy not sprout a pair for a change and simply say what you mean?
I HAVE son...from Day one on this BLOG, I do NOT hide behind generalistaions, or dishonest attempts to restate anothers argument in ways that they NEVER said like YOU do, and I do not have to shriek about non exoistant statements....like YOU DO, cut down on the KOOL AID, and the windmills will leave you alone..
The Foole said; Now in addition to my real job, sweeping floors at the local bank...
ReplyDelete-cliffy
My cliffy, how did you ever guess my real job? But more importantly, I'm shocked that you actually know the meaning of the word "job", ya moped bum.
Dolty said;
ReplyDeleteBesides SON, the FBI's job is to handle DOMESTIC cases. NOT military ones.
Yo a$$wipe moussai was caught in Minniesota, BY THE FBI and last time I checked that was domestic....try reading about geography when you reread history to get that straight...FOUND Macedonia yet?
Testy there FOOLE, well after losing debat after debate, I can see why you would be a bit testy.
ReplyDeletea Dolty Boy said...
ReplyDeleteAnd your reluctance to come right out and say it tells MUCH.
No son, it has MUCH more to do with the fooles rants , screeching and howling when I ignore his numbnuts approach to the truth of HISTORY...he is ratgher like a child when it does not get it's way....and that is enjoyable ..to watch him throw a fit like he does.
Well you two enjoy yoyur repug circle jerk, I have better things to do..
ReplyDeleteLATER FOOLE and DOLT.
And we thought Clinton had
ReplyDeleteno self-control
By Joe Scarborough
When The Washington Monthly reached me at my office recently, a voice on the other side of the line meekly asked if I would ever consider writing an article supporting the radical proposition that Republicans should get their brains beaten in this fall.
“Count me in!” was my chipper response. I also seem to remember muttering something about preferring an assortment of Bourbon Street hookers running the Southern Baptist Convention to having this lot of Republicans controlling America’s checkbook for the next two years.
Maybe that’s because right-wing, knuckle-dragging Republicans like myself took over Congress in 1994 promising to balance the budget and limit Washington’s power. We were a nasty breed and had no problem blaming Bill and Hillary Clinton for everything from the exploding federal deficit to male pattern baldness. I suspected then, as I do now, that Hillary Clinton herself had something to do with “Love, American Style” and “Joanie Loves Chachi.” And why not blame her? Back then, Newt Gingrich felt comfortable blaming the drowning of two little children on Democratic values. Hell. It was 1994. It just seemed like the thing to do.
The terminally rumpled Dick Armey (R-Whiskey Gulch) even went so far as to suggest that the Clintons might be Marxists, drawing an angry personal rebuke from Bubba himself. But 12 years later, it is Armey’s fellow Republicans who should be sobered by the short and ugly history of Republican Supremacy.
Under Bill Clinton’s presidency, discretionary spending grew at a modest rate of 3.4 percent. Not too bad for a Marxist, even considering that his worst instincts were tempered by a Republican Congress. (Well, his worst fiscal instincts.)
But compare Clinton’s 3.4 percent growth rate to the spending orgy that has dominated Washington since Bush moved into town. With Republicans in charge of both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, spending growth has averaged 10.4 percent per year. And the GOP’s reckless record goes well beyond runaway defense costs. The federal education bureaucracy has exploded by 101 percent since Republicans started running Congress. Spending in the Justice Department over the same period has shot up 131 percent, the Commerce Department 82 percent, the Department of Health and Human Services 81 percent, the State Department 80 percent, the Department of Transportation 65 percent, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development 59 percent. Incredibly, the four bureaucracies once targeted for elimination by the GOP Congress—Commerce, Energy, Education, and Housing and Urban Development—have enjoyed spending increases of an average of 85 percent.
It’s enough to make economic conservatives long for the day when Marxists were running the White House.
This must all be shocking to my Republican friends who still believe our country would be a better place if our party controlled every branch of government as well as every news network, movie studio, and mid-American pulpit. But evidence suggests that divided government may be what Washington needs the most.
During the 1990s, conservative Republicans and the Clinton White House somehow managed to balance the budget while winning two wars, reforming welfare, and conducting an awesome impeachment trial focused on oral sex and a stained Gap dress.
The fact that both parties hated each another was healthy for our republic’s bottom line. A Democratic president who hates a Republican appropriations chairman is less likely to sign off on funding for the Midland Maggot Festival being held in the chairman’s home district. Soon, budget negotiations become nasty, brutish, and short and devolve into the legislative equivalent of Detroit, where only the strong survive.
But in Bush’s Washington, the capital is a much clubbier place where everyone in the White House knows someone on the Hill who worked with the Old Man, summered in Maine, or pledged DKE at Yale. The result? Chummy relationships, no vetoes, and record-breaking debts.
As a political junkie who wept bitter tears the night Jimmy Carter got elected and shouted with uncontrolled joy when Ronald Reagan whipped his sorry ass four years later, I find myself ambivalent for the first time over a national election. After six years of Republican recklessness at home and abroad, I seriously doubt Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or the aforementioned Bourbon Street hookers could spend this country any deeper into debt than my Republican Party. With any luck, Democrats will launch destructive investigations, a new era of bad feelings will break out, and George W. Bush will stop using his veto pen to fill in Rangers’ box scores and instead start using it like a conservative president should.
Good thing Joe 'claims" to be a republican, otherwise you Clowns would call HIM a traitor.
Ah, another cliffy cut-and-paste for everyone to scroll by.
ReplyDeleteSure they're boring but they are always so much better than watching cliffy struggle to eke out a semi-coherent thought of his own.
At least I do not HAVE to dress the part of the FOOLE while I act it FOOLE.
ReplyDeleteAnd with people like Joe scarborough saying things like this about the Idiot, you PNAC neo-con repus clown possee Boot lickers, should wonder why so many Normal republicans are RUNNING away from your Moron in Chief, and his minions.
Bush's second choice for Vice
ReplyDeletePresident to assail GOP over Schiavo, gay rights
Exclusive: Republican shortlisted to be Bush's Vice President to lay out most explicit case for gay rights; Blasts Frist, GOP handling of Schiavo case
The former Missouri senator shortlisted to be then-Governor Bush's running mate in the 2000 presidential election -- said to have been second choice only to Vice President Cheney -- will come out vehemently against administration and Congressional Republican policy in a book to be published next week., according to an advance copy obtained by RAW STORY.
John Danforth, who retired in 1995 after four terms in the Senate, briefly served as Bush's ambassador to the United Nations but resigned after Condoleezza Rice was tapped to be Secretary of State. According to CNN, he was second on the list of Bush's potential vice presidential choices in 2000.
In Faith and Politics, to be released Tuesday, Danforth blasts the alignment of the Republican Party with the Christian right, lays out his most aggressive pro-gay stance to date and attacks the handling of the Terri Schiavo case.
Some people have asked me whether America is a Christian country. The answer must be no, for to call this a Christian country is to say that non-Christians are of some lesser order, not full fledged citizens of one nation." Danforth is himself an ordained Episcopal minister.
Danforth calls the Terri Schiavo case -- where Congress intervened to attempt to keep a severely brain-damaged woman from being taken off life support -- "Big Brotherism."
"That the federal government could intervene in the Schiavo case was a threat to all the families that had seen their loved ones suffer through terminal illness," he writes.
It was a threat to people who were terrified that their own lives might someday be artificially extended in nightmarish circumstances. It was a threat to some of our most heartfelt values. It was Big Brotherism in the extreme, an exercise of the raw and awesome power of the federal government.
"They intervened not in the name of principle, but at the expense of principle," Danforth avers. "They abandoned principle by deciding a medical question without any firsthand knowledge of what they were doing."
Congressional Republicans face specific criticism. An attack on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) derides the Republican Senate leader for attempting to diagnose Schiavo without seeing the patient.
One views with a degree of pathos the role of William Frist, MD, graduate of Harvard Medical School and potential presidential candidate, who diagnosed a medical condition without examining the patient.
The former Missouri senator also comes out swinging for gay rights -- a cause he has championed since his retirement from the Senate. But in Faith and Politics, he lays out his most ardent support to date. Despite having a gay daughter, Vice President Cheney has remained relatively mum on the issue -- except to say that he disagrees with Bush over a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Danforth goes further.
"I believe that homosexuality is a matter of sexual orientation rather than preference," he writes. "Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is, in my view, comparable to discrimination on other civil rights grounds. It is wrong, and it should be prohibited by law."
"I think that the only purpose served by the campaign for the amendment is the humiliation of gay Americans, advocated by the Christian right and eagerly supported by its suitors in the Republican Party," he adds. "In reality, it is gay bashing."
Danforth then goes even further, saying supporters' assertions that the amendment would protect marriage is ludicrous.
"America's divorce rate is now over 50 percent, and marriage is under attack from a number of quarters: finances, promiscuity, alcohol and drugs, the pressures of work, cultural acceptance of divorce, et cetera," he pens. "But it is incomprehensible that one of these threats is when someone else, whom we have never seen, in a place where we may have never been, has done something we don't like."
But of course The foole will just skip the comments by the former US ambassador to the UN...CHOSEN by Bush43, after he served as a senator from Missuori as a republican, I for ONE always admired John Danforth, because he was straight forward, and honest, Unlike the current crop of corrupt dishonest hypocritical PNAc neo-con repug clown posse enablers and boot lickers.
ReplyDeleteBY THE WAY FOOLE the state of the United states military is MUCH more important to ME than ISRAEL will ever be.
ReplyDeleteSO
SO GO SUCK AN EGG OUT OF A CHICKEN.
Murtha Lays the Dead at Rumsfeld's Door
Democratic congressman John Murtha released a 12-page report outlining severe shortfalls plaguing the US Army as thousands of troops prepare to be deployed to Iraq.
Murtha, a 37-year Marine Corps veteran who entered the political arena in 1990, said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld bears full responsibility for the military's consistent readiness failures and demanded that the Defense Secretary resign.
"Many Army combat and support units scheduled to deploy to Iraq in 2007 will have less than the required one year period for rest and re-training," the report says. "This is one of the key indicators that lead many Army officials to conclude that current deployment rates cannot be sustained without breaking the force."
Murtha publicized the report at a news conference Wednesday where he was joined by Congressman David Obey, D-Wisconsin. Murtha read the most explosive parts of the report, much of which is based on detailed, internal Army documents his staff requested over the past few months.
The findings are damning.
"In effect, the Army has become a 'hand-to-mouth' organization," Murtha said, reading from the report. "Its inability to get ahead of the deployment and training curves is rooted in the Secretary's miscalculations and blind optimism about troop and industrial surge requirements for the US occupation of Iraq."
Murtha added that "thousands of key Army weapons platforms - such as tanks, Humvees, Bradley Fighting Vehicles - sit in disuse at Army maintenance depots for lack of funding ... there are over 600 tanks - enough for one full Army division - sitting at Anniston Army Depot."
An Army spokesman said Murtha's report is wildly overblown, and released a statement in response to the congressman's charges.
"Today's Army is the highest quality Army this Nation has ever produced - it has not 'gone south,'" a statement released by the Army says. "To imply otherwise is an insult to the young men and women who have volunteered to protect our nation's freedoms."
But Murtha refuses to back down. Frustrated by the White House's refusal to hold Rumsfeld accountable for failing to prepare for a lengthy ground war in Iraq, which, according to career military officials have led to thousands of US casualties, Murtha released a resolution calling for Rumsfeld to immediately step down.
"For the good of the country, the United States of America must restore credibility both at home and abroad and the first step toward restoring that credibility must be to demonstrate accountability for the mistakes that have been made in prosecuting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq by
immediately effecting the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and replacing him with someone capable of leading the nation's military in a strategy to resolve our deployment in Iraq," Murtha's resolution says.
Megan Grote, a spokeswoman for Murtha, said the resolution has five co-sponsors and is gaining support among House Democrats. However, she cautioned not to read too much into that, since the resolution is just starting to make the rounds among Murtha's colleagues in the House.
"It's still too early to know, because it's only been a day since the resolution was released," Grote said. "There are other members who've called for [Rumsfeld] to resign in the past whose offices may not have heard about the resolution yet."
Career military officials have long believed the reason the Iraq war hasn't been a "cakewalk," as Bush administration officials described it prior to the March 2003 US-led attack, is because of the flawed war plan Rumsfeld designed in 2002.
In October 2002, Rumsfeld ordered the military's regional commanders to rewrite all of their war plans to capitalize on precision weapons, better intelligence, and speedier deployment in the event the United States decided to invade Iraq.
The goal was to use fewer ground troops, a move that caused dismay among some in the military who said concern for the troops requires overwhelming numerical superiority to assure victory.
Rumsfeld refused to listen to his military commanders, saying that his plan would allow the military "to begin combat operations on less notice and with far fewer troops than thought possible - or thought wise - before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks," the New York Times reported in its October 13, 2002, edition.
Military officials viewed Rumsfeld's approach as injecting too much risk into war planning and said it could result in US casualties that might be prevented by amassing larger forces, according to published reports.
Those predictions have been borne out over the past 41 months, and that is of grave concern to Murtha, who spent most of his life in the military. Murtha said during Wednesday's news conference that issues plaguing today's military are so severe that "of the 16 active-duty, non-deployed combat brigades in the United States managed by the Army's Forces Command, the vast majority of them are rated at the lowest readiness ratings."
"The situation facing the Army Guard and Reserve is comparatively worse," Murtha added. "Of all the Guard units not currently mobilized, about four-fifths received the lowest readiness rating. Personnel shortages are the major reason behind the decline in Guard and Reserve readiness-shortages created for the most part by mobilizations having lapsed or personnel having been pulled from units to augment others. Perhaps most troubling to many of the Army's senior uniformed leaders is the lack of national attention to the Army's plight."
READ the article A$$wipe, because YOU claim to have been a captain, so this SHOULD arlam you...HOW bad the state of the UNITED STATES ARMY is in.
Or blow it off as usual, and PROVE yoour about scoring political points (at least in your delusions) thanm the real security of THIS COUNTRY(not ISRAEL) and the soldiers who have to serve in that Army.
Keith olbermann's book mobved from #19,000 on the sales ranking list to #4 and is currently sold out (and now requires 1 to 3 weeks for delivery).
ReplyDeleteThis happened after his commentaries about Ronald McDumsfeld, and The Idiots sad flip flopping and back again about Osama.
Olberman should THANK Dumsfeld, as Franken thanked O'Liely.
US outraged as Pakistan frees Taliban fighters
ReplyDeletePakistan's credibility as a leading ally in the war on terrorism was called into question last night when it emerged that President Pervez Musharraf's government had authorised the release from jail of thousands of Taliban fighters caught fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Five years after American-led coalition forces overthrew the Taliban during Operation Enduring Freedom, United States officials have been horrified to discover that thousands of foreign fighters detained by Pakistan after fleeing the battleground in Afghanistan have been quietly released and allowed to return to their home countries.
Pakistani lawyers acting for the militants claim they have freed 2,500 foreigners who were originally held on suspicion of having links to al-Qa'eda or the Taliban over the past four years.
The mass release of the prisoners has provoked a stern rebuke to the Musharraf regime from the American government. "We have repeatedly warned Pakistan over arresting and then releasing suspects," said a US diplomat in Islamabad. "We are monitoring their response with great concern."
The Daily Telegraph tracked down and interviewed several former fighters who were part of a batch of eight foreign prisoners released last month. Burhan Ahmad, a 32-year-old Bangladeshi who has an American degree in engineering, admitted helping the Taliban against US-led forces in Afghanistan five years ago.
He was arrested by Pakistani security agents as he passed back over the frontier in 2003. Last month he was released from jail, where he spent three years without facing trial.
Like thousands of other Taliban and al-Qa'eda suspects who have been rounded up in Pakistan, Ahmad is now being fed and sheltered by an Islamic welfare group as he waits while a travel agency that specialises in repatriating jihadis prepares his identity papers and air ticket.
He was handed over to the al-Khidmat Foundation, a welfare organisation run by the hard-line Islamist party Jamaat-i-Islami, by a local court in Peshawar.
"I was arrested on the very same day that I arrived in Pakistan as I crossed from Khost to South Waziristan," said Ahmad who then spent 28 months in the custody of one of Pakistan's intelligence agencies before being transferred to a jail where he was imprisoned for three months. "The situation has become too difficult in Afghanistan and so I wanted to go home. I felt I had played my part."
In the hands of al-Khidmat Ahmad was more concerned with worldly goods than attaining a martyr's end in jihad. He produced a list of his personal items that he wanted back from the security agency: socks, a laptop, a thermal vest and some money.
His lawyer, Fida Gul, said: "He is no problem. He will go to Bangladesh. He is not a criminal and he has been cleared by the security forces. His arrest was illegal."
One of those who spoke to this newspaper was a young Tajik who entered Pakistan last year to study, he claimed, at a madrassa in Peshawar. He was shot in the side by Pakistani police as he tried to escape when the madrassa was raided.
A third former prisoner, a 37-year-old Algerian, had come to fight the Russian-backed government in Afghanistan in the early 1990s. He married a Pakistani woman and claimed to have settled down and worked in the honey business when he was arrested last year.
"I am going home to Algeria as I want to take advantage of an amnesty offered by the government," he said. "I know I will be arrested on arrival and interrogated as this happened to several of my Algerian brothers. But then I will be released as I have done nothing wrong."
On the question of whether released militants would return to jihad, Hazrat Aman, a field officer of the al-Khidmat Foundation, said: "If they react like that it is a natural phenomenon. Some of these people spent two to three years in jail. Some of them will live peacefully and others will join jihad again."
But the Idiot CLAIMS that pakistan is an ally in his war on terra and we all know HE is NEVE wrong...just ask the FOOLES who slime around the Blog.
Too Bad the soldiers FIGHTING in afghanistan might have to capture some of these terrorists a SECOND time. and their lives are being put at risk, by somebody Bush claims is for the US, I'd hate to see what Musharraf would do if he was against the US
After all he lets Captured Taliban and al Quaeda fighters go, and makes peace with those he has not captured. But Bush "trusts" him...makes you wonder if the shrub is this DUMB, or just drunk again.
Idéologie has taken over
ReplyDeleteWith 9/11, George W. Bush was reborn (again). Until then, his presidency had been undistinguished and his poll numbers low. He had also made one particularly ominous decision. In August 2001, using an executive order, Bush blocked federal support for stem-cell research. In substance that was bad enough—like many people I oppose disease and early death—but equally disturbing was the mindset. Bush summed it up in 2004, when he described stem-cell research as a project “to destroy life to save life.”
Wait a minute. Here Bush was using the same word, “life,” to describe not only a minute clump of cells known as a blastocyst but also an actual human being. In this flagrant disconnect between words and actuality were the early indications of a profoundly ideological mindset.
Edmund Burke was the original enemy of ideology. In the slogans of the French philosophes, Burke saw something new and alarming in politics, and he struggled for language to describe it, writing of “abstract theory” and “metaphysical dogma.” Burke was seeking a way to describe a belief system impervious to fact or experience, and he brought to bear a permanently valid analysis of human behavior and the role of social institutions. William F. Buckley once summed up Burke’s outlook when he called conservatism the “politics of reality.”
But that was then. Today, the standard-bearer of “conservatism” in the United States is George W. Bush, a man who has taken the positions of an unshakable ideologue: on supply-side economics, on privatization, on Social Security, on the Terri Schiavo case, and, most disastrously, on Iraq. Never before has a United States president consistently adhered to beliefs so disconnected from actuality.
Bush’s party has followed him on this course. It has approved Bush’s prescription-drug plan, an incomprehensible and ruinously expensive piece of legislation. It has steadfastly backed the war in Iraq, even though the notion of nation-building was once anathema to the GOP. And it has helped run up federal indebtedness to unprecedented heights, leaving China to finance the debt.
Perhaps most damaging to the ideal of conservatism has been the influence of religious ideology. During the fight over whether to remove the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who had been in a vegetal state for 15 years, politicians began to say strange and feverish things. “She talks and she laughs, and she expresses happiness and discomfort,” Majority whip Tom DeLay said of a woman for whom cognition of any kind was impossible. (Oxygen deprivation had liquefied her cerebral cortex.) Senate Majority leader Bill Frist examined Schiavo on videotape and deemed her “clearly responsive.” As Schiavo’s case fought its way through the courts, Republicans savaged judges for consistently sanctioning the removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube. “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior,” threatened DeLay.
That members of the judiciary were being chastised for responding to the law as written rather than looking, presumably, to some sort of divine guidance was hardly surprising. In 2002, Bush himself had said, “We need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God.” In this chilling use of the word “God,” the president made his views on the rule of law all too clear. The conservative writer Andrew Sullivan has aptly coined the term “Christianism” to refer to this merger of religiosity and politics.
As Bush’s ideology leads from one disaster to another, one might ask: How far can it go? It has already brought us to Baghdad, an adventure so hopeless that Buckley recently mused, “If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced, it would be expected that he would retire or resign.” The more we learn about what happened behind the scenes in the months leading up to the war in Iraq, the more apparent it becomes that evidence was twisted to fit preconceived notions. Those who produced evidence undermining the case for war were ignored or even punished. It was zealotry at its most calamitous.
On the subject of democratizing Iraq and the Middle East, Bush has voiced some of the most extraordinarily ideological statements ever made by a sitting president. “Human cultures can be vastly different,” Bush told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute in February 2003, shortly before the invasion of Iraq. “Yet the human heart desires the same good things, everywhere on earth…For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror.”
Happy thoughts, breathtakingly false. If this amounts to a worldview, it’s certainly not that of Burke. Indeed, Bush would probably be more at home among the revolutionary French, provided his taxes remained low, than among Burke’s Rockingham Whigs. (Burke would of course deny Bush admission to the Whigs in the first place, as Bush would be seen as an ideological comrade of the philosophes —if a singularly unreflective one.) It’s no surprise that longtime conservatives such as Francis Fukuyama, George F. Will, and William F. Buckley have all distanced themselves from Bush’s brand of adventurism.
The United States has seen political swings and produced its share of extremists, but its political character, whether liberals or conservatives have been in charge, has always remained fundamentally Burkean. The Constitution itself is a Burkean document, one that slows down decisions to allow for “deliberate sense” and checks and balances. President Bush has nearly upended that tradition, abandoning traditional realism in favor of a warped and incoherent brand of idealism. (No wonder Bush supporter Fred Barnes has praised him as a radical.) At this dangerous point in history, we must depend on the decisions of an astonishingly feckless chief executive: an empty vessel filled with equal parts Rove and Rousseau.
Successful government by either Democrats or Republicans has always been, above all, realistic. FDR, Eisenhower, and Reagan were all reelected by landslides and rank as great presidents who responded to the world as it is, not the world as they would have it. But ideological government deserves rejection, whatever its party affiliation. This November, the Republicans stand to face a tsunami of rejection. They’ve earned it.
Meanwhile, as we wait out our time with this president, we can look forward to the latest in a stream of rhetoric that increasingly makes Woodrow Wilson look like Machiavelli. “One, I believe there’s an Almighty,” Bush declared this April, “and secondly I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody’s soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live to be free. I believe liberty is universal.”
Well, it is certainly taking a long time for the plans of the Almighty to show results in the actual world. As I write this, sectarian violence in Iraq is escalating. I’d call my skepticism “conservative,” but Bushism has poisoned the very word.
Jeffrey Hart, professor of English emeritus at Dartmouth College and senior editor at National Review, was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. He is the author, most recently, of The Making of the American Conservative Mind: National Review and Its Times.
In a letter to Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee released publicly today, 29 retired military leaders urged Congress to reject a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that would redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions so as to downgrade the Conventions' standards for humane treatment.
ReplyDeleteIn a separate letter, addressed to Senator John McCain, former U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Vessey, said: "If such legislation is being considered, I fear that it may weaken America in two respects. First, it would undermine the moral basis which has generally guided our conduct in war throughout our history. Second, it could give opponents a legal argument for the mistreatment of Americans being held prisoner in times of war." Read the full letter.
The letter signed by 29 former military leaders also urged Congress to make the safety and protection of U.S. troops, should they become prisoners, the highest priority.
"This is not just a theoretical concern," the letter signed by General John Shalikashvili, General Joseph Hoar and others, said. "We have people deployed right now in theaters where Common Article 3 is the only source of legal protection should they be captured. If we allow that standard to be eroded, we put their safety at greater risk."
The letter concluded: "We believe -- and the United States has always asserted -- that a broad interpretation of Common Article 3 is vital to the safety of U.S. personnel. But the Administration's bill would put us on the opposite side of that argument. We urge you to consider the impact that redefining Common Article 3 would have on Americans who put their lives at risk in defense of our Nation. We believe their interests, and their safety and protection should they become prisoners, should be your highest priority as you address this issue."
The full letter is available HERE
The letter was signed by:
General Joseph Hoar, USMC (Ret.)
General John Shalikashvili, USA (Ret.)
Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr., USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr., USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, USN (Ret.)
Major General John Batiste, USA (Ret.)
Major General Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.)
Major General John L. Fugh, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.)
Major General Fred E. Haynes, USMC (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.)
Major General Melvyn Montano, ANG (Ret.)
Major General Gerald T. Sajer, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard O'Meara, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Anthony Verrengia, USAF (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.)
Ambassador Pete Peterson, USAF (Ret.)
Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, USA (Ret.)
Honorable William H. Taft IV
clif, new blog is up.
ReplyDeleteCoulter's a frickin skank.
ReplyDelete