Responding to popular demand, I have not mentioned the "C" word for several posts now. But our own Mike C has, over on his blog, so I thought I’d let y’all know in case anyone is still interested (or just masochistic).
By the way, I notice SGM (ret.) — who has announced he is boycotting this blog — has been commenting over on that one. If you see him, please tell him we miss him, and would welcome his return.
Related Posts
Yep, and I, whom you probably wouldn’t miss, am still here.
A man who proudly associates himself with a long-dead, institutional serial killer daring to call someone wearing a Che Guevara shirt an idiot…
That’s rich.
Someone whose blog was so unnoticed that he is now piggybacking off this one. You’ve hit the big time now.
Here is Mike’s take on civility (remember that Brad and Cindi Scoppe are personally responsible for getting this guy on The Columbia Record):
“Leveling the charge of “chickenhawk” is akin to calling someone a “dirty stinking commie”; that too is not an argument or thoughtful response, even when the clown being attacked wears a Che T-shirt; s/he is simply an idiot who might relish the charge.
So refrain from calling Dirty Stinking Commies dirty stinking commies. Just get your own T-shirt.”
Mike used to contribute to this blog quite a bit, and on more than one occasion he called people he disagreed with, “dirty stinking commies”.
Perhaps “Filthy Fascists” should become the reply-so much for civility.
It’s a joke.
It’s like when the governor calls me a socialist. At least, I THINK it’s a joke when the governor calls me a socialist. He always chuckles…
Mark –
I may be wrong, but I believe I usually used the “dirty stinking commies” in sort of a third-person sense, referring to others. My point in my post on civility was simply that such a charge is charged and does nothing to counter an argument or aid in convincing anyone of the merits of one’s position. It’s simply a cheap shot, just like “chickenhawk” is. If I did level that charge at you or anyone else while exchanging comments, it was an idiotic thing to do.
I think you and I have spent a lot of time and many words trying to hash things out. I was intrigued by your modeling exercise and sought to understand your approach by introducing pertinent alternatives. I do regret a little that I did not go into economics full-bore professionally, but console myself with the thought that I do have enough of it under my belt to discuss it extemporaneously and cite specific concepts / principles as required.
As for my absence, I’ve been out of town a lot working on a tough assignment. The good news is that I was able to spend a lot of time with a sister and her family in Northern Virginia; my mom, who’s now 82, lives with her, so I was in hog heaven.
While in that neighborhood, my brother-in-law and I did a typical male-bonding thing that exemplified male obstinacy: we built a dollhouse for his nine-year-old daughter with no holds barred. I spent many nights catching a few hours sleep in their basement before heading off to a rough day at the office. I didn’t have the time or energy to stop by here or write stuff for my blog because I was obsessed with the durned dollhouse.
Anybody — maybe it’s because I’m retarded or just tired, but I don’t understand one reference in Capital A’s remark: who is the “long-dead, institutional serial killer” that I associate myself with?
As for being unnoticed, I admit that I have a hungry ego that needs to be fed, but that’s not why I write here or on my blog because my ego gets fed elsewhere. I write because doing so helps me figure out why I really believe what I do. I can’t / don’t compose screeds quickly like some folks I know do. Consider this practice, regard yourselves as guinea pigs subjected to cruel punishments as I get better and faster at incisively inflicting what ails me on you.
“I don’t understand one reference in Capital A’s remark: who is the “long-dead, institutional serial killer” that I associate myself with?”
Heh. I was wondering about that myself. BTW, my wife’s from Augsburg and I was stationed there with the 66th MI Bde myself, 1990-95.
It’s not a joke, and you know it. You being called a socialist is a joke. You being called a fascist, well, if the shoe fits…
I have to admit it; I was duped by your phony call for civility. I won’t make that mistake again!
Self-identified Mark Whittington,
“You being called a socialist is a joke. You being called a fascist, well, if the shoe fits…”
Hmmm… so if someone were to call you a dirty stinking commie, would the shoe fit or not? Please explain.
Save it Mike. Do I have to dig up your old posts?
Brad,
I don’t want to beat a dead horse. It’s nice to be wanted, but in this case, it’s somewhat like saying you miss Uncle Remus because the after-dinner conversation’s just not the same without him serving drinks in the background. His opinions are not valued. You just want him because he adds to the salon’s ambiance.
I think that your new civility policy’s double standard is unfair. I’ve tried to make my concerns clear, but either I’ve done a poor job stating them, or you’ve chosen to ignore them, or you don’t think the issue is significant enough to rethink your stand.
In any event, I have missed posting. The education thread tempted me several times, but after my complaints, rejoining the fray would just make me a hypocrite. If you won’t treat all the posters here the same then I won’t participate as a second class voice.
Just thought: I’d add that intelligent, civil conversation is where you find it. It’s not a necessary precondition that you agree with the other person to talk, only that you be willing to actually listen.
Mike C. is a gracious host. For those of you who hold tenaciously to the mythologies that form the basis of your various personal dogmas, you’re missing out on his blog as well as here (and probably everywhere else).
LexWolf –
My wife taught French, Spanish, and German at the Augsburg American High School 1976-1982. I worked as a civilian contractor at Field Station Augsburg 1978-1982 where my job was to, er, target dirty stinking commies for killing should the need arise. My wife, a Columbia native, and I met and married in Augsburg, so it’s a special place for us. We had some friends in the 66th which was in Munich at the time.
We lived northwest of Augsburg in Bonstetten.
Mike C,
the 66th itself moved to Augsburg in 1992, IIRC, but their subordinate 204th MI Bn, my first unit, was already at Flak Kaserne when I arrived (my second Bn Cdr is now running the NSA). The 701st used to run FSA but the 66th took over after their move from Munich. Of course, all of Augsburg is closed now, along with most of our old bases in Germany, but it was nice while it lasted. I lived in Deuringen at first, and then in Kissing after we married.
SGM (ret.) – I appreciate the comment. Thanks.
Mark – I did a quick google — mike mark commie site:http://blogs.thestate.com/ — and found stuff like this, but no pejorative that I directed at you or, in that particular post, Tom Turnipseed. The other results were similarly constructive.
I do not claim that I’ve never made snide remarks, snippy responses, and the like to others on a thread, because I know that I have. While I’d like to pretend that any insult I hurled occurred only after lengthy and reasoned debate, I know that sometimes my patience and sense of humor give out early and I just want hoist the black flag.
Sure LexWolf,
Your newfound right wing ideology comes from people like me. While you were in grade school, I was out preaching the philosophy that you have since adopted. Take it from a former right-winger; it doesn’t work. Brad and Mike know better, but they have no intention of changing.
Now let’s see if Brad deletes the above spam post, or was just blowing smoke about civility.
Anybody — maybe it’s because I’m retarded or just tired, but I don’t understand one reference in Capital A’s remark: who is the “long-dead, institutional serial killer” that I associate myself with?
Posted by: Mike Cakora | Aug 24, 2006 9:16:22 PM
See also: Andrew Jackson, Native American relations.
Why is it a “joke” when Mr. Cakora posts insults about a whole section of society, but I get a warning for referring to LexWOLF as an animal, an innocuous playful jab that the target recognized and merely shrugged off?
Hang on tightly, folks; slippery slope ahead.
From Mike C’s Blog:
The Jacksonian school, which takes its name from Sharp Knife, is strongly nationalist and advocates a foreign policy which puts America and its middle-class first. It scorns foreign alliances and interests, but assigns a high priority to national honor and defense. The Jacksonian way is to do business and fight by a code and is not very forgiving of foreign “quirks” in judging perceived violations of that code. The Jacksonian school is steeped in a proud cultural and democratic political tradition and is suspicious of globalist vision. You can wear a top hat, Mr. UN, but we reserve the right to laugh at it.
———–
I found this passage particularly laughable. You would think a man of your apparent age would have achieved a wisdom far greater than this scrawling suggests.
Yea, those Cherokee sure were “quirky.” What a tough guy…
Also, I am a gun owner and a Jeffersonian at heart. It seems there would be no explanation in your philosophy to account for the likes of me. Outside of a snide remark, that is.
Of course, you’d never do that. You’re too “civil.”
Brad, why didn’t your newspaper use the debate between Ravenel and Rainey to write a feature story about the bankrupt retirement system?
Is that topic the Third Rail of Journalism?
Or the 333rd rail?
Nice catch on Mike C’s blather, Cap.
Don’t get too puffed up about “Jacksonianism,” Mike. Most of the current crop of “Jacksonians” have no idea of the origins or numerous atrocities committed in the name of nationalism, American exceptionalism, nativism, and imperialism.
All these “isms” are various ways to describe bigoted thinking which believes that Americans are superior to the rest of the world’s inhabitants and get special rights (like “pre-emptive” wars) that we deny other nations.
Lebensraum, anyone?
The Mafia and various other unsavory organizations are proud of their “strict code” and “aren’t very forgiving” of transgressions, too. Do you admire the “pride” and “strict code” of the SS, also, Mike?
Divert your attention from irrelevant historical “atrocicities” to the contemporary failures of your own isms.
Divert your attention from irrelevant historical “atrocicities” to the contemporary failures of your own isms.
Posted by: Lee | Aug 25, 2006 8:38:11 AM
Isn’t he just the cutest, cuddliest thing since the old “Sharp” Knife, himself??
Capital A – Just imagine, if the Injuns had prevailed, America would be a nation of no running water, no medicine (but we would have witch doctors, take that Paul D.), no toilets, and we could be just like Africa. But the Injuns were heavy smokers so they couldn’t have been too bad.
Speaking of uncivil behavior, this from the U.S. News and World Report:
A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he’s still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can’t get enough of fart jokes. He’s also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides, but forget about getting people to gas about that.
The leader of the free world passing gas for laughs??? Now I feel so much safer.
Capital A – Just imagine, if the Injuns had prevailed
Posted by: Dave | Aug 25, 2006 11:31:04 AM
Not to get overly serious because I prefer the “lighter” Dave (as I’m sure you do that version of me), but I think this reveals a fundamental difference in our thinking. Why did one side have to “prevail” over the other?
There are times in history where compromise is not an option. AJ’s exercise in genocide was not one of them.
Thanks for reminding me; I googled up another reference too. It is too bad the Jackson was imperfect, that the world was a little tougher back then. A young man who loses his entire family to the ravages of war will certainly have a peculiar outlook on life. Seems to me that Jackson vowed not to let anything like what happened to him happen to his fellow countrymen.
Jackson was at times allied with the Cherokee, so I think that you meant to write Seminole.
I am 56 and do have an inkling of how things work. That’s what I write about. You folks are certainly entitled to your opinion of an evil, hate-filled Amerika; I just don’t share it.
I didn’t know they had commies in Bennetsville. No wonder Sanford chuckles.
I always love those crocodile tears about those poor injuns way back when. How good it must make our modernday bleeding hearts feel when they claim that they never would have been so beastly towards the original owners of this continent. No sirree! If they had been alive back then they surely would have stayed in Europe instead of getting on the Mayflower, and the Indians would still be hunting the buffalo on the wide open prairie.
Somehow these people never get around to volunteering to return all their property to the Indians and go on a one-way trip back to wherever their ancestors came from.
Empty posturing, pure and simple. Hypocrisy at its worst.
How about if we change the subject slightly. I have a different criticism of Old Hickory: I have generally thought of his election as being the moment when the republic sort of fell apart, and started moving toward being the kind of almost-pure democracy that gives us the likes of Clinton and Bush.
I hesitate to write this, because I’ve never studied that election as closely as, say, that of 1800. But the main impression I formed of it was this: That a guy whose one great claim to fame was winning a battle after the war was over was elected over the one single candidate who was probably better prepared, from birth, to do the job.
John Q. was never the leader his Daddy was, but he learned an awful lot at his knee, from the birth of the new nation through its first diplomatic dealings throught its second presidency. What did it say about us that that bumpkin, who once expressed a doubt that the world was round, beat him?
The inaugural party Jackson threw at the White House presaged the direction of American politics — downward thenceforth.
All you populists out there should have a good time with THAT one…
You mean it was as if Howard Dean had won the election?
Lexie, I guess that you get some sort of psychic gratification out of beating up on straw man arguments.
Kind of pathetic, really.
John Q. was never the leader his Daddy was, but he learned an awful lot at his knee, […] What did it say about us that that bumpkin, who once expressed a doubt that the world was round, beat him?
Why, change “John Q.” to Dub… wait, no, Dubya didn’t learn squat from his old man. Obviously.
Never mind.
“As for being unnoticed, I admit that I have a hungry ego that needs to be fed, but that’s not why I write here or on my blog because my ego gets fed elsewhere. I write because doing so helps me figure out why I really believe what I do.”
Mike Cakora (if that is in fact your name), I can save you a lot of time. You believe what you believe because you’re a racist. That’s why you (without cost to yourself) support a war that has proven a disaster for America – because you believe in the disgusting “Ledeen Doctrine” – that “every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” Of course, Ledeen may have had additional motivation for his support for the Iraq war, as this particular war was especially beneficial for him, as it gave his daughter an opportunity to help oversee the preservation of the assets of the Iraqi people, at a particularlly turbulent time, during which $9 billion of those assets vanished (whether with or without the complcity of Ledeen’s daughter is not yet known).
That’s why you made your long-winded posts in the wake of the Katrina disaster, condemning nonexistent looting and depravity among the black people of New Orleans, and drawing self-congratulatory conclusions about your superiority to them.
Did you ever consider why your interminable posts have essentially an audience of one, namely yourself, as compared with Atrios, who draws an audience of tens of thousands, with a few (sometimes only one!) well-chosen words? Did you ever consider that your lack of readership arises from your consistent and obvious racism, stupidity, and dishonesty?
For example, your consistent mischaracterization of your detractors. Chickenhawks and chickenhawk supporters, such as yourself and Warthen, consistently mischaracterize what a chickenhawk is. A chickenhawk isn’t merely someone who supports a war without having served in combat. Glenn Greenwald defined it best:
“Chicken-hawkism is the belief that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign of personal cowardice and weakness. A “chicken hawk” is someone who not merely advocates a war, but believes that their advocacy is proof of the courage which those who will actually fight the war in combat require.”
You can mischaracterize chickenhawkery and portray the calling out of chickenhawks like Warthen as an ad hominem attack all you want, but by so doing you simply give additional evidence (as if any were needed) of your dishonesty.
Although a talented man who’d served the nation from a young age, Johnny Q was selected, not elected, in 1824. He’ll be remembered as an author of the Monroe Doctrine , but did not accomplish much in the foreign policy arena during his one term.
He was certainly more experienced, especially in foreign policy, than the military master Jackson, and had grand goals in mind domestically, but the politics of the time — as bitterly partisan as we see today — worked against Adams and his policies.
Whatever one thinks of Jackson’s suitability for office, he did win a plurality in 1824 and could rightly claim that he’d been robbed. He spent the next four years campaigning through surrogates and building alliances, winning in a landslide after a bitter campaign. A clear majority apparently thought that he’d been robbed four years earlier and thus elected him president.
Jackson’s wife was also the target of many attacks during the campaign, a fact that Jackson charged caused her fatal heart two weeks after his election.
As for Adams’s service to the nation, I ran across one of those rare anecdotes about what spouses of great people contend with in supporting the one that they love. Johnny Q’s wife, Louisa Catherine Adams, had more than her fair share of frights:
Since RTH made a Chimp BusHitler comparison, I’ll join in. If the 2000 election were really viewed as unfair by the electorate as the 1824 election appears to have been viewed, Bush would not have gained more votes than any president ever. Recall that he had much working against him: an unresolved war in Iraq and an economy showing signs of recovery but still not quite strong, to name but two.
I welcome facts and argument supported by links in response.
Chickendoves = people who oppose the war without making any sacrifice or taking any risk with their opposition.
The following is a description of the direct result of your “hero’s” wondrous works, Mr. Cakora. I MEANT to type “Cherokee” so I did type “Cherokee.” Your memory of AJ would seem to be spotty despite all research suggesting that taste is the first sense to go. After further reflection on your posts, maybe both of those gifts have lately left you absent if ever they were present.
The protagonist of your fairytale responds to death by visiting destruction upon those not directly accountable for his tragedy. This speaks volumes about you.
If the best defense you can arouse for a mass murderer is “It’s a hard knocks life for us,” then what red-headed fibbery can you conjure to excuse Babybush?
He’s certainly no traumatized orphan left to toil in abject abandonment. Many of those left in the wake of his policies, however, are.
—————-
Leading up to a forced Death March, and in the aftermath half the Nation of Cherokee died. A white observer said, “They buried fourteen or fifteen at every stopping place.”
Like other government sponsored Indian death marches, this one intentionally took native men, women, and children through areas where it was known that cholera and other epidemic diseases were raging. The government sponsors of this march, again as with the others, fed the Indians spoiled flour and rancid meat and drove the Native People on through freezing rain and cold. American David E. Stannard, Holocaust, Conquest of the New World,
Oxford Press, paperback ed. 1992Chapter 4, p. 124
Thanks for the definition. I’ll first repeat it:
Now I’ll parse it.
I don’t believe that, and, from everything I’ve read, I don’t think that Brad and others do either. Speaking for myself, I advocate self-defense, preemptive attacks, and other attacks when all other means have failed.
Nope, I don’t believe that either. I generally oppose war too, but in the context of the Iraq war, which I support, I don’t hold that opponents are cowards or weak. I do think that some are afraid, but others have reasoned philosophical or practical reasons for opposing this particular war.
This general charge — somewhat poorly stated, so I assume that it comes from a rant — assumes a global motive. I don’t believe that my advocacy for the war in Iraq or the War on Terror proves any such thing. I served on active duty for six years and respect those who are in the military, but that has little to do with why I support the war. I understand that waging war takes courage, but this portion of the charge applies to Winston Churchill in the dark days of the 1930s who warned of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and pushed for increased military readiness.
I sure am glad that you posted a definition and that I was able to demonstrate that it doesn’t apply. Now that we’ve cleared that up we can continue with the regularly scheduled program which is now in progress.
Could you please return your regularly scheduled, long-winded program to your blog so that this viewing audience may continue ignoring it there?
I know low ratings are hard on the ego, but you don’t have to buy ad time just so that you may act out on a sister station.
I’d rather read the regularly scheduled program here than the alternative programming provided by your compadres.
Don’t you think Mike Cakora has just as much of a right to post on this blog as you do?
Of course not. A major tenet of modern liberalism is that it is unacceptable to ridicule modern liberalism.
By the definition of Chickenhawk that I go by Mike C is not one. Mike served 6 years on active duty and hence is disqualified. However, both our president and VP are charter members of the club.
But Mike is still wrong to support the war in Iraq. (No one has yet to provide a coherent explaination of the benefits we receive as taxpayers from continued involvement in Iraq. Nothing but vague generalities. The dominoes will fall, or withdrawl will embolden the terrorists.) Here’s the definition I go by (from the New Hampshire Gazette):
Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.
“Chickendoves = people who oppose the war without making any sacrifice or taking any risk with their opposition.”
Lex, that doesn’t make any sense; that’s why no one but you uses the term. Someone who opposes a war isn’t seeking to impose risks and dangers on others; they are seeking to minimize the risks and dangers to others. Chickenhawks such as yourself are advocating a course of action that creates risks and sacrifices which you yourself are not willing to undertake.
“I sure am glad that you posted a definition and that I was able to demonstrate that it doesn’t apply.”
Mike Cakora (if that is in fact your name) you have not “demonstrated” anything. You have made a few conclusory statements for which you have presented no evidence, and which are contradicted by readily available evidence.
The constant casting of the war in terms of “resolve” by its armchair supporters falls right in line with Greenwald’s definition of “chickenhawk”. Talking about the war in terms of “resolve” or “lack of resolve”, as Warthen, you, and other chickenhawks and chickenhawk apologists constantly do, draws a false parallel between personal courage and a willingness to send others into danger, and a false parallel between personal cowardice and a desire to prevent danger to others.
You can squawk and protest all you want, but Greenwald has you, Warthen, and all the other chickenhawks and chickenhawk apologists dead to rights.
And oh yeah, here is another demonstration of you dishonesty hypocrisy, and cowardice:
“Please stay in touch, and please, please, please don’t forget to take your meds.”
This after all your and Warthen’s interminable talk about “civility”. When you are defeated in argument, or even called on to support your arguments with evidence, you react like the coward you are – by characterizing your opponents as mentally unbalanced, as in your silly comment above, or as in your reference to “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, or in some other equally foolish and dishonest way. You do this because you’re a coward.
Because your are unable to support your own arguments with reasoning based on evidence, you seek to marginalize and exlude the arguments of your opponents.
I agree with Mary that Glenn Greenwald is arguably the finest solo blogger I’ve encountered on the web. His book “How Would A Patriot Act” is a $7 must read. This may be of interest to anyone wanting to explore the “modern liberal mind”. Many of ther “antiwar types” and the “pro-Constitution types” have been heavily influenced by him.
http://www.glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
Lex, Mary is right. Your Chickendove meme makes absolutely no sense at all.
At one time I had a modicum of respect for the pro-war crowd. But as my high school children rapidly approach the draft age my patience with the disaster in Iraq is running out. It’s starting to dawn on me that I’m not just waging a war of ideas on a blog, but rather the consequences could affect my kids directly. Brad, Lex, Lee, Mike and Dave, ask your self this question: Do I want my child suffering in 110 degree heat and risking life and limb to make sure Fallujah doesn’t fall into the hands of Sunni extremists? I can answer only for my self and the answer is not just no but HELL NO!
Winston Churchill once said: “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”
Replace Russia with neocon and it’s clear why our fight in Iraq continues. Our leaders offer nothing in the way of benefits to the American people by continuing the fight. They offer only scary unsupported scenarios of doom and phony platitudes. Yet their own self-interest is feathered by its continuance. Halliburton, companies that manufacture armaments and big oil are all making huge sums of money in the continued war in Iraq. And the rest of us pay through higher taxes and an increased threat either directly (soldiers lives) or indirectly (emboldened terrorists). The burden of proof to continue fighting and spending is 100% in the corner of those who favor staying the course. The high costs of continuing are clear.
It isn’t your fight at all. Leftist Democrats have had a hands off policy with terrorists and socialist thugs. They leave a mess for the others to clean up, from Rwanda, Haiti, Darfur, Afghanistan, Kenya, South Africa, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Red China, North Korea, Pakistan, Libya, Sudan.
Well, we’ve cleaned up about half of those, and the quitters want us to stop so the goons can rearm while American tax monies are diverted from eradicating these threats, into wealth transfer programs for guess who… the leftist, socialist, liberals who run the handout industry, from Food Stamps to Job Core, to academia.
Lee, I don’t understand your constant complaints against the “handout industry,” considering that the sole function of South Carolina (indeed, the entire South) is to consume federal handouts taken from the taxes of “leftist, socialist liberals”.
Bad as your life is now, imagine how much worse it would be if you had to depend on your own initiative and industry (such as it is) for your survival, and were unable to depend on the charity of people you hate.
Yeah, before 2000, the appeasers in power were waving the white flag at the terrorists:
– Republicans blocked 1995 bill provisions to allow swifter deportations and court viewing of sensitive evidence
— Republican controlled congress blocked roving wire taps and new powers to monitor money laundering; Phil Gramm and others lead the effort
— John Ashcroft and others rejected initiatives to tighten controls on encryption software (encryption used by 1993 bombers and 2001 terrorists)
— Clinton created the FBI Counter terrorism Center and increased the counterterrorism budget from $78 million to $609 million in four years
— Clinton signed a National Security Directive in 1998 to destroy al-Quada and seize or assassinate Bin Laden. Multiple assassination attempts were made
— Clinton’s CIA al-Quada unit thwarted bombing attempts in Los Angeles, New York, the UN, and the Israeli embassy in Washington DC. They also neutralized dozens of al-Queda cells overseas — all of this without any fanfare, then or post 9/11.
— Clinton was labeled by the Right’s Robert Oakely as having an “obsession with Osama”. Yet now Republicans attempt to claim Clinton, not Bush Jr, was soft on terrorism and ultimately responsible for 9/11
Again, another pro-war advocate, this time Lee, dodges the question. I would like just one pro-war advocate to explain how continuing to fight in Iraq benefits the average American. And please use some facts and figures not phoney rhetoric.
“– Republican controlled congress blocked roving wire taps and new powers to monitor money laundering”
You mean like the ones the NY Times just published a few months ago??
“– Clinton signed a National Security Directive in 1998 to destroy al-Quada and seize or assassinate Bin Laden. Multiple assassination attempts were made”
You mean like the one that was never made because Clinton preferred to continue his game of golf instead of authorizing the assassination?
Clinton ‘let bin Laden survive’
Legal Disputes Over Hunt Paralyzed Clinton’s Aides
Here’s a great roundup of the comically ineffective “response” by the Clintonistas, amazingly enough from the NY Times, of all places: Many Say U.S. Planned for Terror but Failed to Take Action
Bud,
do you believe that we are in an existential war with Islamic fascists? Do you believe that they will be coming after us until we either defeat them or we all become Muslims?
Again, this time Lex, more platitudes and scare tactics. I’ve explained this many times. There is a core of radicals that want to destroy us. In order to marginalize them we deal with moderates in a diplomatic manner. Instead what we’re doing in Iraq, far from being diplomatic, increases the threat by demonstrating to the moderates in the region that we have imperialistic ambitions. Hence they are likely to align themselves with the radical core. All the killing does is bread more terrorists.
It’s simply impossible to explain our involvement in Iraq with facts and figures, only scare tactics and platitudes are ever used.
Lex, why are you still blaming Clinton? Your guy is in charge now. Defend him instead of attacking Clinton. That is so Rush Limbaugh.
No Lex, Clinton attempted to institute legal surveillance and monitoring of terrorists, which is entirely distinct from the present commander in chief’s unconstitutional acts which continue today. The apocryphal Clinton golf story is far less plausible than the Bush “you’ve covered your ass now get the hell out of here” retelling of his response from Crawford to the dire 9/11 warnings. Or how ’bout the one where on the eve of the “liberation” of Iraq, his handlers are explaining the difference between the Shia and Sunnis and the President declares, “wait, wait, wait….I thought they were all Muslims? Can you cite anyone in either admin who has stated that the Bush admin had greater concern for terrorism/al qaeda than the outgoing admin? Certainly not Clark, O’Neill, Wilkerson, Tenet, or anyone I’ve read from CIA/FBI. There apears to be no evidence of any concern for terrorism prior to 9/11 despite the warnings from the outgoing team and infamous PDB’s. They made about as much effort to fight al qaeda prior to 9/11 as they did to “avoid” the war with Iraq.
With regard to the illegal NSA wiretapping, which we would not know about if not for the delayed NYT report, the FISA laws are very clear with regard to wiretapping-you just need a warrant. The FISA laws were amended with the Patriot Act after 9/11 to allow 72 hour delay in obtaining a warrant and to allow “roving” eavesdropping. After passage of the act (98 to1 in Senate), the Pres said he now had “all the survelillance power” he needed to track the telecommunications of terrorists. Congress had changed the law to conform to his requests, yet almost immediately he began to violate the very law he had just signed. Regardless of your opinion of the “quality” of the wrtinting of Judge Taylor’s opinion last week, her decision is correct-the President and those below him are committing a criminal felony, which is not suprising given the history of law breaking and “war crimes” cited in the Hamdi case. You can see why they would want to retroactively change the law prior to November, and continue to stall Phase II of the SIC report (don’t hold your breath on that one). The only reason to not allow oversight and warrants is…you are NOT spying on terrorists. You are spying on innocent Americans and political enemies as rogue administrations have done countless times. That was/is the purpose of the law.
I am just glad that we have these valiant defenders of the rule of law to protect us from the tyranny of the executive:
“This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.” Tom DeLay
“No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That’s the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.” Sensenbrenner (R)
“I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it’s not a vengeful one, it’s not vindictive, and it’s not craven. It’s just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. … as a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long life, I have a particular reverence for our legal system. It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit. The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door.” Henry Hyde(R)
“What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. Our failure to bring President Clinton to account for his lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under law, will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations. I want those parents who ask me the questions, to be able to tell their children that even if you are president of the United States, if you lie when sworn “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” you will face the consequences of that action, even when you don’t accept the responsibility for them.”Hagel
“There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America–one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?” Bill Frist
But, oh yeah I forgot …the Dems don’t want to spy on terrrorists and bin Ladin wants you to vote for Ned Lamont. I’ll try to stick to the script next time, Karl.
Back to impeachment, huh? In hindsight, it’s one of the greatest things that ever happened to this country that Clinton wasn’t convicted in the Senate. Thanks to that event, the Dems have continued in their slide – remember that when Clinton became president in 1993, the White House, Congress and most governorships and state legislatures were in Dem hands. When he left office 8 years later, all of them had switched to the GOP. In addition, a supposedly oh-so popular president wasn’t able to get his veep elected to follow him. In addition, the Dems lost all 3 elections since then and I’ll predict that this year’s election will be no different. And how could it be otherwise when liberals are literally Dying Out because they are not having enough babies?
In an act of desparation for a lost cause Lex does what any good neocon does, attack Clinton and the democrats. Common Lex, defend the president’s illegal actions. Jim has made it quite clear that the Decider has violated the law, that is, he has committed “a high crime or misdemeanor”. That’s the constitutional grounds needed for impeachment.
Jim has made it quite clear that in his opinion Bush has violated the law. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion but that doesn’t make it a fact, nor does it justify impeachment. The president, any president, has the inherent constitutional power to conduct surveillance on our enemies in a time of war. He doesn’t need an act of Congress to give him that power, nor can Congress take away that power.
In other words, there’s nothing that needs to be defended.
Any possible future attempt at impeachment will originate by law in the House, and even if the Dems held a majority, it will take some crossover GOPers to pass the vote. Then, it will still end up in the Supreme Court and won’t have a chance of happening since the USSC will uphold the President’s powers during war. So the lefties can dream but it is only a dream.
Lex and Dave, what is all this “time of war” stuff. We’re not at war. We haven’t declared war on anybody since 1941. And besides, the president can’t violate the law even in times of war. We have the constitution to protect us from abuses of the president at all times.
It’s funny how law and order is so important (to the right) when we’re talking about illegal immigration. But when it comes to the president violating the FISA law, well, he’s just using his constitutional powers to protect us.
To paraphrase Harry Truman (talking about Richard Nixon in the original): I’ve never heard of a group of people who could talk out of both sides of thier mouth and lie out of both sides the way the neocons can.
I didn’t call fror the Presidents impeachment and truly haven’t given it much thought (although if anyone deserves it, he does). I wanted to demonstrate the sincere concern the Repubs had for the strict rule of law with regards to Clinton’s sexual behavior and how it was a threat to the very existence of the Republic. Where are they today? On Fox parrotting the “Dems don’t want to spy on terrorists” and “Why do the traitorous Dems hate America so much? mantra. If this isn’t pure partisanship, then what should it be called?
It was very interesting when Gonzales was asked if there was anything that was NOT authorized and legal based on the AUMF, and he was eerily silent. The FISA laws were enacted specifically to define the war time powers of the Pres, and again the Repubs rejected Clinton’s requests to expand the act in the 90’s out of concern for an unchecked pres and the risk of abuse of civil liberties. But that was when the other party was in power. The FISA laws were amended in a bipartisan fashion in Oct 01 in accordance with Bush requests to allow immediate eavesdropping on “terrorists”, which no judge has ever rejected out of thousands of cases. The complaints of the inadequacy of FISA were not voiced until after he was caught, and have never been substantiated. As Judge Taylor said, there is no complex legal issue, you are not a monarch, and you clearly broke the law. This is not an eavesdropping scandal, it is a lawbreaking scandal (and if it was a Dem Pres, it would be framed as such). The only excuse Bush has is to claim that he has the right to do whatever he wants in the endless war on terror and there can be no limits on his power. The USSC suprised everyone in their condemning Hamdi ruling, but if they uphold the decider on this, we really do have a constitutional crisis on our hands, and it is a little more serious than some extra-curricular hanky panky. This argument is beautifully laid out by Glenn Greenwald on his site, and in his aforementioned book. Recommended.
LexWolf – great catch on the sock-puppetry – I’d forgotten about that, but I have read the comic book.
Lex,
I was truly impressed by the sincerity and quality of your posts yesterday but I guess I’m too dim to follow the “sock puppet’ thread. Go to Amazon and search for Glenn Greenwald-How Would a Patriot Act, or go to his website and read for your self. His arguments are clear, concise and he is a constitutional law atty of some note. His opinions have been used to debate these issues in court and in Congresssional committee. Are you aware of anyone who criticizes Judge Taylor’s ruling (not the quality) that the Pres is breaking the law? Are there any limits to his power? John Dean’s “Conservatives without a Conscience” seems to be applicable to this debate:
“They are tough cold-blooded ruthless authoritarians. They are limited in their ability to see the world from any viewpoint other than their own, and they are narrow in their outlook. They tolerate no dissent, use dissembling as their standard modus operandi, and have pushed their governing authority beyond the law and the constitution. They would gladly attack France, Massachusetts, or the moon if the President said it was necessary for “freedom”.
I thought the last line was priceless. You may want to inform the Congress that they relinquished all Constitutional powers when they voted for the use of force as a last resort, if necessary to disarm Saddam. (As it turns out, it was not necessary and he has been disarmed for over a decade). The checks and balances went out the window, FOREVER, or at least until Hillary is elected of course. The fact that laws are written specifically to disallow this behavior is irrelevant. We should all be in aggreement on this one guys-it is not too complicated.
Mike C,
No one denies that under Clinton many people in the intel community suspected Saddam of hiding weapons, etc as there were no insp allowed (after 2 CIA/coup attempts assoc with insp team). But even then, Clinton resisted the demands of the geniuses at the Weekly Standard/PNAC, as they demanded a pre-emptive invasion for the reasons discussed here ad nauseum. Read the Gore speech from SF before the invasion I mentioned earlier for a detailed explanation-pretty prescient I must say. Bush invaded WHILE the inpections were taking place (despite his frequent claim to those not paying attention that Saddam wouldn’t allow inspections-should that be considered a lie?) If we waited, we would have confirmed that he either had nothing or very little, and that he was certainly no threat to anyone outside of his borders. But disarmament was just the TV talking point. Boy, this debate never ends-will we ever see even a biased, Republican written SIC phase II report from Roberts, et al? It is only nearly 3 years overdue. Since I have to rebut the “Clinton hated Saddam too” charges, I will post a few paragraphs from the Gore speech on the eve of the invasion. This was at a time when it was nearly treason to question the decider and many weak Dems were caving. Feel free to scroll past:
“To begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another.”
“We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion.”
“Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment – right now – is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.”
“Moreover, he is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq and for that matter any other nation in the region, regardless of subsequent developments or circumstances. The timing of this sudden burst of urgency to take up this cause as America’s new top priority, displacing the war against Osama Bin Laden, was explained by the White House Chief of Staff in his now well known statement that “from an advertising point of view, you don’t launch a new product line until after labor day.” 

“We also need to look at the relationship between our national goal of regime change in Iraq and our goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be more difficult for the United States to succeed alone, but still possible. By contrast, the war against terror manifestly requires broad and continuous international cooperation. Our ability to secure this kind of cooperation can be severely damaged by unilateral action against Iraq. If the Administration has reason to believe otherwise, it ought to share those reasons with the Congress – since it is asking Congress to endorse action that might well impair a more urgent task: continuing to disrupt and destroy the international terror network.”
“By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network – much as we manage to squander in one year’s time the largest budget surpluses in history and convert them into massive fiscal deficits. He has compounded this by asserting a new doctrine – of preemption.”
“Far more damaging, however, is the Administration’s attack on fundamental constitutional rights. The idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedies, and that this can be done on the say-so of the President or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale.
Regarding other countries, the Administration’s disdain for the views of others is well documented and need not be reviewed here. It is more important to note the consequences of an emerging national strategy that not only celebrates American strengths, but appears to be glorifying the notion of dominance. If what America represents to the world is leadership in a commonwealth of equals, then our friends are legion; if what we represent to the world is empire, then it is our enemies who will be legion.”
“At this fateful juncture in our history it is vital that we see clearly who are our enemies, and that we deal with them. It is also important, however, that in the process we preserve not only ourselves as individuals, but our nature as a people dedicated to the rule of law .”
And that was the guy who LOST??? What were we thinking?
History lesson for Jim:
Clinton asked for Congressional permission to invade Iraq and to bomb Iraq, and received it with almost unanimous votes of the Senate, as sponsored by the Democrats in 1998.
Clinton dropped 80,000 tons of bombs on Iraq, “to destroy their weapons of mass destruction”. So how many of those did he destroy? We know he didn’t destroy 5,000 canisters of mustard, chlorine, and Sarin gas that we captured and have stockpiled.
President Bush still had that Congressional authorization when he took office, but the Democrats asked for another vote so they could go on record as favoring war, and again voted overwhelmingly to invade Iraq.
Jim – you wrote:
I was thinking that I was glad he lost.
I want to be very fair in what I write below, so please bear with me. I’ll grant that the Clinton Administration, to include Al Gore, did and said all sorts of things for principled reasons. But it’s clear to me that in the speech that you cite Gore’s primary motive was to avoid a vote in the Congress because our legislators would have to go on record as for or against what Bush’s Administration and Clinton’s had argued for: holding Saddam accountable.
You, in turn, have to grant that Gore’s vote for the Gulf War was in large part political; he surely seemed to be more interested in who’d give him more time to make whatever point he was going to make: it appears that he voted for the war because he a got a generous prime-time to so announce.
Back to the 2002 speech in opposition to a vote on Iraq, there’s another important aspect that we all see frequently in our daily lives: what’s logical and compelling is often hard to accept. Political advantage aside, forcing folks to make a difficult decision is difficult. Despite years of railing against Saddam, years of committing forces to patrol the no-fly zone, years of Saddam’s playing cat-and-mouse with the UN, the decision to play hardball at the UN was difficult for some members of Congress when they were asked to go on record. Even if a member thought that his/her vote had little political consequence, s/he understood the opportunity cost, the budget consequences. There was also the risk to committing US military personnel to combat knowing that some, perhaps many, would die.
In the end, the Congress voted as it did. Gore’s words had little effect, history will little note nor long remember his attempt to save Democrats and Saddam.
Save the whales: collect the whole set.
Lee,
Thanks for the history lesson. I was aware of the numerous bombings carried out by the Clinton admin and their insistence on disarming Saddam. I didn’t know he had congressional approval to invade but I will take your word for it. If only he had the foresight and the guts to get us in as invaders/occupiers sooner, I’m sure everything would be just fine by now. I was also not aware that the Repubs, being generous in their sharing of Congressional power of course, let the Dems pick the date of the AUMF to hurriedly go on record before the fall elections. How ….affable those Frist/DeLay types are…it never ceases to amaze me how they are so deferential to the opposition party. And the vote of 126 nea/81 yea in the house, and 28 yea/21 nea in the Senate is just as you said, “overwhelming”.
Mike, you are absolutely correct, history, and the civilized world, will never forget the actions of the Bush administration.
Jim,
just because you agree with what an author writes doesn’t mean he’s great or even correct. Constitutional attorneys are a dime a dozen. Here, for example, is another constitutional law professor eviscerating Taylor’s ill-founded decision.
Lex,
I thought I’d said enough for one day (or one year for that matter),
but since you bring up the Althouse article I’d suggest you go Greenwald’s blog and scroll down to his response from 8/23/06 “Althouse”. See what you think. Check out the book on amazon. IMHO, other than Brad of course, he is the strongest, most persuasive progressive voice on legal issues. What is that worth? Obviously not much, but maybe one of the baker’s dozen or so readers of this blog will check it out. Will he convert the “Lex Wolf” into a limp wristed yellow bellied liberal? Not a chance. But, check it out for laffs. If you find something that defends your “AUMF” removes all limits to Pres power and trumps the law and Constitution, then throw it up here.
http://www.glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
“Jim – you wrote:
And that was the guy who LOST??? What were we thinking?
I was thinking that I was glad he lost.”
Mike Cakora (if that is in fact your name)
Yeah, it would have been horrible if Al Gore had become president. The September 11 plot would have been quietly broken up the way Clinton broke up the Millenium Bomb Plot. Over 2600 U.S. Soldiers would still be alive. Tens of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive. The hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on the war would still be in the U.S. treasury (or, failing that, used to fund the handouts on which you and other residents of conservative states depend for your survival).
Yes, it’s wonderful, isn’t it, that Bush became president and was able to sit in a chair doing nothing while terrorists attacked the U.S., to allow bin Laden to escape, and to mire the U.S. into a useless conflict that has cost the U.S. a heavy price, paid in blood and treasure.
Of course, it wasn’t all bad. Various chickenhawks, children of chickenhawks, and Republican campaign contributors were able to either preside over the “disappearance” of Iraqi assets, or to engage in the outright theft of Iraqi and U.S. funds. So the relatives of the soldiers who died can content themselves with the realization that it’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good.
Lex, you said this:
“As for the surveillance, you can repeat your allegations over and over as long as you wish but the fact is that any president has the power to conduct surveillance against our enemies in time of war.”
If you have to resort to dishonesty to support your point of view (as you do here) your point of view isn’t credible. Saying that “any president has the power to conduct surveillance against our enemies in a time of war” is a dishonest argument (not suprisingly, coming from you). Bush is not claining the right to “conduct surveillance against our enemies”; he is claiming the right to conduct surveillance against EVERY AMERICAN. He doesn’t have that right. You are dishonestly attempting to avoid having to present evidence for your point of view by falsely defining “our enemies” as “those against whom Bush wishes to conduct surveillance.”
Not to mention, of course, that your willingness to sacrifice the principles on which this country was founded because of your panic over vague threats of terrorism bespeaks your deep-seated cowardice.
“Those who would sacrifice liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor secuirty”
–Benjamin Franklin
“The September 11 plot would have been quietly broken up the way Clinton broke up the Millenium Bomb Plot.”
Would this be the plot that was broken up mostly by luck, because a very alert customs agent became suspicious? The one where Clinton’s policies and feeble preventive efforts made absolutely zero difference?
“Bush is not claining the right to “conduct surveillance against our enemies”; he is claiming the right to conduct surveillance against EVERY AMERICAN.”
Really? Link, please. When has he ever said that? Talk about dishonesty!!
“Would this be the plot that was broken up mostly by luck, because a very alert customs agent became suspicious?”
Yep. Because Clinton took the information about the LA plot and acted on it, thereby leading him to break up the other plots that were planned to set off bombs all over the world.
“The one where Clinton’s policies and feeble preventive efforts made absolutely zero difference?”
How interesting that in spite of Clinton’s actions that made “zero difference,” there were no successful foreign attacks on U.S. soil between the WTC bombing (38 days into his presidency) and the end of his second term, in spite of numerous attempts. It was only AFTER Clinton left office and Bush put an end to his “ineffective” measures that al Qaeda managed to achieve success.
Yes, Bush’s going fishing the day after being warned about the September 11 plot, that hit al Qaeda pretty hard. And Bush’s sitting frozen with fear after being warned that the U.S. was ACTUALLY UNDER ATTACK, instead of attempting to stop Flight 77, thereby saving the Pentagon, that really hit al Qaeda hard, didn’t it?
Such a refreshing change from Clinton’s “ineffectiveness,” that somehow managed to save thousands of American lives.
Mike, I’d like to see you cite my post where I “made a Chimp BusHitler comparison […]”
Ummmm….do you have any links to what Clinton allegedly did to “break up the other plots” or even to what these other plots were?
If Clinton had done his job and hit back hard instead of being a “weak horse” according to Bin Laden, there might never have been a 9/11. No, I’m not blaming him for 9/11 but who knows how things might have been different if he had been tougher instead of being such a milquetoast on terrorism. Remember, most of those 17 UN resolutions against Saddam were passed while Clinton was president.
“It was only AFTER Clinton left office and Bush put an end to his “ineffective” measures”
What measures did Bush put an end to? He even kept most of Clinton’s security folks in office, e.g. Freeh, Tenet, Clarke. 9/11 took place just a little over 7 months afetr Bush became president, while Clinton’s anti-terrorism guys were still in office, and as far as I can tell, we haven’t had any successful attacks on US soil since then, or even on foreign soil other than the Middle East war zones. Instead the terrorists have been deprived of 2 of their state sponsors (3 if we count Libya), with the other 2 hopefully falling soon as well. After that, they’ll be back to killing people by onesies and twosies. Yeah, we’re “losing” alright. All without any help, and in fact despite active opposition, from the Left.
Oh, Mary, could we get an answer to this:
Mary: “Bush is not claining the right to “conduct surveillance against our enemies”; he is claiming the right to conduct surveillance against EVERY AMERICAN.”
LexWolf: Really? Link, please. When has he ever said that? Talk about dishonesty!!”
Here’s what to expect if we should ever have the extreme misfortune of getting a Dem president again.
I would refer you Richard Clarke’s “Against All Enemies”, Sy Hersh’s “Chain of Command”, James Risen’s “State of War”, or Simon’s “Next Attack”. Clarke in particular gives an inside account from a registerred Rep who honestly and fairly critiques the 4 Presidents he served. I will provide a few choice quotes later today if there is anyone left standing on this thread. I know of no one who has argued that the Bush admin made terror a priority or did anything proactive prior to 9/11.
Rather, the evidence is quite damning that they ignored concern from many and not wanting to “be like Clinton” halted all high level meetings, prevented experts from accessing the WH and simply had other priorities. I actually am uncertain if there is anything that this admin has done on any front in 6 years that has not been bungled, mismanaged, and a wonderful example of incompetence. Feel free to correct my impression.
Clarke began his attacks on the Bush admin. after he was passed over for the top positions in security. He was a Clintonite partisan all along. He also was the official who let all the Saudi private jets leave the US WHILE the FAA had all planes grounded after 9-11. It was never verified who was actually in those planes along with the Bin Laden family members.
Richard Clarke is a poster boy for inept bureaucracy that doesn’t really care about doing its job.
Tommorow is the first anneversary of the Katrina disaster. This was a good test of how well our new Homeland Security Agency could protect our citizens here at home. Four years after 9-11, the Bush Administration was given a test. And just how much had they improved our ability to address homeland security issues? The results are in and they somehow managed to make things WORSE! How could this happen?
If ever you needed an example of how not to handle a major disaster, the Decider and ‘Heckuva Job’ Brownie showed us. Bush with his arrogant trip to Arizona to strum a guitar while New Orleans was inundated. Clueless Brownie asleep at the wheel while the Cresent City was drowning. There was ample evidence that the Bush Administration was hopelessly incompetent before Katrina. Sadly, the last shred of doubt was removed after.
Yeah, how could one possibly believe the words of the 30 year Repub veteran who served on the NSC for 8 years and was head of the White House Comm for Security and Counterterrorism (working under Reagan, GHWB, WJC, And GWB). His points are absurd and have not been verified by what numerous others have stated, nor been fairly obvious to anyone not residing in a cave. To question or criticize the Decider is by definition admission of liberal/traitor sympathies and deserving of flogging and public disdain. The implausibilities include:
* Bush officials were obsessed with invading Iraq even before 9/11
*Bush admin did not take al Qaeda threat seriously before 9/11 and did nothing to enhance homeland security before or after 9/11
*After 9/11 Bush pressured intel experts to find connection between Saddam and al Qaeda and 9/11 even though one did not exist.
*invasion of Iraq has been counter-productive in war vs al Qaeda
Ridiculous. Some may say that this administration is not a governing body, but a rather an advertising agency with their own TV network, but I disagree. Clarke can go join the other closet liberals who will be cast into the dustbin of Bushworld history: William F Buckley, Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, Francis Fukuyama, Paul O’Neil, George Will, Brent Scowcroft, John Danforth, Sandra O’Connor, Chuck Hagel, Pat Buchanan, the Generals and all the rest.
Here is an interesting article on Clarke:
http://www.slate.com
Rats, the link didn’t work. Here is the site again.
http://www.slate.com/id/2097685/
Show us the Clinton plan for protecting New Orleans from a hurricane like Katrina, and show us how it was replaced.
We won’t hold our breath waiting for it.
Lee,
Not many would argue that Clinton dramatically improved the much maligned FEMA agency under the direction of disaster expert James Lee Witt. FEMA was elevated to a cabinet agency and was considered to be a world model in disaster perparation. If you recall, many on the right said that it was too good, too caring, too effective. Meaning…it cost too much, but they worded it differently…it removed individual responsibility for the govt to help too much. And, Clinton would always be there mugging for the cameras and hugging children of a certain skin tone-you probably remember those photo ops-pure cynical political exploitation of a tragedy-something a sincere, ethical Repub leader would never do.
Well, in the interest of time (I have to attend a public school meeting-I am not kidding) Bush chose to not keep Witt on, he appointed his college buddy Allbaugh who had no disaster experiece and FEMA’s budget was cut, it was taken out of the Cabinet level. Allbaugh quit shortly after to go to greener pastures helping companies lobby the govt (assisting in the transfer of public funds) and the infamous Arabian Horse expert Brownie was hired. Katrina happened and the rest is history. Bush was of course on vacation, Condi was watching Spamalot in NY and buying shoes on 5th ave, and Darth Vader was on the Eastern shore of Maryland touring multimillion dollar mansions to purchase with the Halliburton kickbacks he is not getting. The delayed recon contracts in New Orleans have gone almost exclusively to political allies via no bid contracts and the costs are astounding. Another Mission Accomplished.
The Katrina Video Congress Didn’t Want You To See
Very civil account of savage greed and incompetence, Jim.
Mission accomplished, indeed.
Wingnuts claim that the gubmint just can’t work, that gubmint is pernicious. Sure enough, they get control and it doesn’t function.
Mission accomplished, again.
Dave, concerning your cartoon showing the Kerry response to Iran’s nuclear program, that was the most absurd nonsense I’ve ever seen!! Why we would be using outdated B-52s for such a vital mission???
Bud, I dont remember that cartoon but I do remember Zell Miller pointing out in a national speech that Kerry had voted against every new military program that came up for vote. Remember the classic line, “With John Kerry as president, we will be sending our soldiers into battle with spitballs.”, or something like that. Even today, Kerry is so full of his pompous self, that while polls show that he couldn’t beat Gomer Pyle in a run for President, he still plans to run. I for one, hope he gets the Dem nod in 08. That guarantees another GOPer in the oval office.
It was Lex that posted the cartoon. For some reason I thought it was you. It showed a B-52 delivering a cruise missle loaded with happy face flyers saying something like “please don’t build Nukes”. I thought it was pretty funny.
Most of the weapons systems votes by Kerry were in the 1990’s and were also voted against by Cheney, et al. BTW, should we really be spending such an exorbitant % of the GNP on the military when schools, infrastructure, Soc Sec, Medicare, etc are in such dire straits and the deficit has reached an inconceivable level? Maybe a more cooperative multilateral approach to world conflict resolution would allow Repubs to make good on their balanced budget promise-the one only Clinton/Gore were able to accomplish.
Jim, don’t you understand? We’ve got to spend ourselves into third world status domestically on a massive military/industrial complex. See, we’re in the New American Century. Imperial America must enforce our domination over the rest of the world.
Some day Brad will actually understand the neo-con ideology which he embraces with superficial understanding now.
Like Rome the Pax American is doomed to failure. We already see that our enemies don’t need multi-million dollar technology to effectively cripple us.
I sure do miss the Clinton/Gore years. It was a happy time, a peaceful time. A time when Americans felt safe. I used to ride my bicycle through Fort Jackson without a care. The gates were unmanned. Americans could fly with a bottle of Perrier without being noticed. America was the most powerful nation on earth, yet we commanded respect. Clinton’s brilliant foreign policy team was fostering good will around the globe with peace breaking out all over. Remember the throngs of supporters who greeted Clinton whenever he went abroad? And the enormously efficient FEMA he created in the wake of bumbling failures by the senior Bush. Peace in northern Ireland was achieved. Even Isreal and the Palistineans were on the brink of peace. Yes, times were good, very good.
But sadly, it’s time to come back to reality. Our current president is despised abroad. He had a great opportunity to foster good will abroad following 9-11. And he blew it. Now, thanks to his imperialist ambitions in Iraq and failure to close the deal in Afghanistan we stand on the brink of a catastrophe in the middle-east with Iran’s nuclear ambitions in full swing. The hard work of the professionals at FEMA during the Clinton years have been discarded in favor of incompetent cronies. The result: a calamity in New Orleans for 5 days that resembled a sad third world country. Stagering budget deficits, increasing deaths to Americans from a variety of causes due to lack of attention.
History will undoubtably judge George W. Bush as the worst president ever. A title he richly deserves.
Dave, Zell Miller, like you, is stupid and dishonest. Kerry voted against one or two omnibus spending bills. That’s what happens in Congress; if a bill contains provisions you don’t like, you may vote against it, in order to get a revised bill that you think is better. So, for example, if you think a bill includes insufficient spending for personnel, or leaves out a weapon system you think is important, or includes a weapon system you think is wasteful, you may vote against it, so that if the bill fails, you can then get a chance to promote the bill that includes the provisions you want.
In so doing, you raise the possibility that a dishonest and stupid person (like Zell Miller, or like you) will accuse you have “voting against every weapon system) because, indeed, the bill you voted against WAS the bill to provide funding for every weapon system. But you didn’t vote against it because you thought the U.S. should laterally disarm. The failure of a particular funding bill isn’t the end of the process for funding whatever the bill is intended to fund; it’s simply part of the negotiation process where various views on the subject are reconciled.
It’s hard to believe that you’re so stupid that this has to be explained to you, but I guess that if you were smarter, you could support yourself without handouts from liberals.
Mary, Zell is definitely dishonest but stupid, well, that depends on what he was trying to accomplish. If he genuinely believed Kerry had undermined national security then yes, he is as stupid as a bedpost. But if he just wanted some attention and perhaps a cushy post-senate job even at the expense of national security, then he knew exactly what he was doing. Zell lied about Kerry’s voting record in an orchestrated extension of the swift-boat smear campaign to make Kerry look weak.
In any event those spitballs would probably be more effective in protecting our country than the gold-plated weapons systems pushed by Rumsfeld. As the effectiveness of our armed forces spirals downward under the Decider’s leadership it’s crystal clear who’s really destroying our armed forces and our security.
BRING IT ON, IRAN– RUMMY
Rumsfeld: U.S. able to take new fight despite Iraq
NAVAL AIR STATION FALLON, Nevada (Reuters) – U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned potential adversaries on Monday that the United States remained capable of responding to military threats at home and abroad, despite its troop commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[…]
More than three years into the Iraq war, the military is showing signs of stress. The Army and Marine Corps, in particular, must spend tens of billions of dollars to replace and repair equipment. Army officials have said the combat readiness of many units and their ability to take on new missions have suffered.
Rumsfeld, however, said the U.S. military has already shown its ability to respond to new missions. He noted the military’s evacuation of some 15,000 people from Lebanon during the war between Israel and Hizbollah as well as its role in responding to natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina last year.
[Absent LA. NG troops effective hampered response to Katrina.]
[…]
Rumsfeld said there was no doubt the United States could win militarily in Iraq if it stayed the course.
“The important question is not whether we can win. Of course we can win. We won’t lose a single battle,” he said. “But do we have the will?”
[Rummy and the neo-cons didn’t learn a thing from Vietnam.
“Stay the course” isn’t a strategy for anything but letting then next president take the blame.]
You can quibble about exactly which weapons systems Kerry voted against but the undeniable fact is that Kerry voted against every single defense appropriations bill in his 18 years in the Senate. This included:
the B-1 Bomber
the B-2 Stealth Bomber
the F-14
the F-15 Strike Eagle
the F-16
the AV-8B Harrier Vertical Takeoff and Landing Jet Fighter
the AH-64 Apache Helicopter
the Patriot Anti-Missile System
the Aegis Anti-Aircraft System
the Trident Missile System
the M-1 Abrams Tank
the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
the Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Sure, those bills included other provisions as well but the fact remains that Kerry voted to kill everything related to the military!
The B-1 and B-2 are completely useless today. Carter tried to kill the B-1 and he was right. It’s never been used for much of anything. It was too vulnerable against the Soviets and against weaker foes was inferior to the B-52. We probably should have killed the B-2 as well.
The F-14 and F-15 were developed in the late 1960s/early 70s. I’m not sure how Lt. Kerry could have voted against their development.
The F-16 is a useful weapon (developed in the 1970s I think) but we don’t need very many of them. If Kerry voted to keep them few in number, good for him.
The Harrier is a derivative of a British weapon. I didn’t know that Kerry was in Parliament.
I don’t know the history of the Apache but it’s been around a while. This also could be a weapon before Kerry’s tenure.
The Patriot missle was a flop in the Persian Gulf War. It should never have been developed. Again, good for Kerry if he voted against it.
The Aegis may have been useful against the Soviets but in today’s military environment it’s pretty useless.
The Trident was a complete waste of money. Earlier submarine missle systems were more than sufficient.
The M-1 is a good tank but was designed for the cold war against the Soviets. If Kerry voted to have fewer, good for him. We don’t need so many. They’re expensive and largely useless in Iraq/Afghanastan.
The Bradley had it’s share of problems while in development. Like the M-1 it’s probably more weapon than we need. The old armored personel carrier was sufficient.
The Tomahawk is pretty unnecessary. Clinton used them but as you and others have pointed out they were ineffective.
I say we need to cut more money and useless weapons from the military budget. They give us a false sense of security while wasting billions that could help save lives elsewhere.
But I am in favor of more spitballs. Now there’s a weapon that works. Just ask any teacher.
“Kerry voted against every single defense appropriations bill”
No he didn’t.
“Sure, those bills included other provisions as well but the fact remains that Kerry voted to kill everything related to the military!”
Like I said, voting against an omnibus bill doesn’t mean you oppose everything in it, and it doesn’t mean your purpose is to eliminate everything in it. Voting against an omnibus bill isn’t an attempt to eliminate everything in the bill. It is an attempt to refine the bill, to get a NEW BILL with provisions that one thinks are better, in total, than the bill voted against. Kerry did not “vote to kill” everything related to the military. He knew that if the particular bill didn’t pass, there would be a new bill, which he would then vote for if the provisions were satisfactory.
Saying that Kerry “voted to kill” everything related to the military based on votes against a particular version of an omnibus bill is retarded and dishonest.
Let’s take an example. Suppose that an omnibus bill for military spending also included a provision that federal expenditures in South Carolina were to be reduced to a level equaling the taxes paid by South Carolinians, thereby requiring South Carolinians to rely on their own initiative and industry for survival. Such a provision would, of course, represent a death sentence for South Carolina. Naturally, everyone in the South Carolina legislative delegation would try to get the provision eliminated, but if they couldn’t, they’d vote against the bill.
Would they, by so doing, be voting to eliminate the military? No, they’d be voting to keep their citizens from starving to death, knowing full well any attempt by South Carolinians to live without handouts would be unsuccessful.
John Kerry has supported over $4 trillion in defense funding and has supported virtually every successful weapons system in use by today’s military. In 2002, John Kerry voted for the largest increase in defense spending since the 1980’s. And because John Kerry understands that our national security begins with the men and women who risk their lives to protect it, he has supported pay increases, benefit increases, and quality-of-life improvements for America’s men and women in uniform throughout his career.
—JohnKerry.com
Where’d you get your info, Lex? FreeRepublic.com?
Massachusetts ranks among the top ten states for DoD contracts. ($4.7 trillion in 2003) SC only nets $1.09 trillion.
Would Mass. voters keep re-electing a Senator who NEVER voted for a weapons system?
You statement doesn’t get close to passing the laugh test.
This is just beyond incomprehensible. The Republicans are just the lowest, most contemptible bunch of chickhawk vermin the world has ever seen. From the Raleigh News and Observer:
http://www.newsobserver.com/110/story/480210.html
And and excerpt:
Whoops, I got so excited I hit the post button by mistake. Here’s the excerpt:
Brain injuries are so common among U.S. troops that they’re called the signature injury of the Iraq war, but Congress is poised to cut military spending on researching and treating them.
House and Senate versions of the defense appropriation bill would chop funding for the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center from $14 million to $7 million. The center runs 10 facilities across the country, including one at Fort Bragg that has performed research and treated soldiers’ injuries since 1998.
Bud, once you get past your emotions, did it ever occur to you that maybe the military brain research facilities have produced no definable improvements? Let’s let the private sector do brain research which then the military can take advantage of as needed. What is it with liberals that the government has to fund every idea known to mankind. No wonder we cant live within our means in this nation on the taxes we pay.
Dave, you of all people should be outraged at any cutbacks for brain injury funding.
Here’s an excerpt from the article:
“Employees at the Bragg facility could not be interviewed for this story. But in an interview this spring for another story, E. Wayne Johnson, the program manager there, said it tests 200 to 300 healthy soldiers each month for such things as cognitive skill, reaction time, mood and military skills.
Its clinic, meanwhile, treats 30 to 60 soldiers a month, most with mild injuries.
The center’s research at Bragg and elsewhere isn’t just academic, Zitnay said. “It’s developing new helmets, it’s developing drugs we can use to treat memory loss, it’s developing innovative rehabilitation strategies,” he said.
The center’s work, for example, can help battlefield commanders quickly determine whether a soldier who has received a blow to the head is fit for battle.”
So yeah, it looks like the center’s research has produced results; you just postulated that it didn’t because of your idiotic (might I say brain-damaged?) need to make excuses for anything the Repulicans do.
We have an obligation to do the best we can to take care of our soldiers. Supporting the troops isn’t automatic support of decisions to send them into danger. Supporting the troops is making sure they have what they need, and taking care of them.
It isn’t spending the money to do the research we need to do to help prevent injuries to our soldiers, and treat our soldiers for injuries they suffer on our behalf. It’s subsidies and handouts to lazy, shiftless conservative freeloaders. If you really want to do something about the deficit, figure out the federal taxes you paid last year, add another 36% of that, representing the excess of the handouts and services you received over the amount you paid in, and send that in to the treasury.
Mary, you have no idea what you are talking about. The military may have another brain medical center at Ft. Dix for all you know. Would you rather we close the one at Dix in your home state? I just had the misfortune of traveling into NJ recently. High gas prices, toll roads, extra fees on my car rental to support unionists and state pensioners. Talk about freeloading. And how much federal Homeland Security money did your governor McGreevey waste on his queer boytoy from Israel? Those were MY federal taxes at work in your pollution ridden, south hating, road rage driver, corrupt excuse for a state called New Jersey. You can have it.
Dave, shame, shame, shame. You support a war that creates 10s of thousands of causualties, including hundreds with serious brain injuries and yet you scoff at congress cutting funding for brain related treatments. The right wing in this country has simply lost its way. A phoney war against a phoney enemy and the party of campassionate conservatism can’t even spend a few pennies on brain injury treatments/research. This is just appalling to me. Just appalling. Of all the disgusting things pulled by the Repugs this might just be the most disgraceful.
Bud, last year the Democrats started harping about how veterans hospitals had been closed or downsized. How dare those evil Bushites reduce veteran care? As the truth be told, underutilized hospitals were rationalized and the VA care switched spending to more convenient and smaller local VA care centers. In the end, a success story. This lowering of funds for brain research to me is no different. How about waiting for the truth to come out instead of jumping on one anti-administration bleat from the leftist press and media.
“Those were MY federal taxes at work”
But you receive $1.36 in federal handouts and services for every $1.00 in federal taxes. Your federal taxes aren’t spent in New Jersey; because of the shiftlessness of yourself and your fellow South Carolinians, the federal government has to spend much more money in South Carolina than South Carolinians pay in. The shortfall is made up by people in places like New Jersey.
You can rail against people in New Jersey all you want, and hold yourself out as better than they are, but how can you be better than people from New Jersey when your shiftlessness and laziness requires you to take their charity to keep you from starving to death?
But you receive $1.36 in federal handouts and services for every $1.00 in federal taxes.
Actually we don’t. Please note that a large part of the “handouts” are actually spent on military installations which are usually no longer welcome in New Jersey and other blue states (and the weather is much better here). Maybe you should try to get Fort Dix, Fort Monmouth and the Bayonne Terminal reopened so you can get your share of the “handouts”. But it’s always entertaining to see someone, again and again, parrot some mantra picked up on a lefty blog.
Please note that a large part of the “handouts” are actually spent on military installations which are usually no longer welcome in New Jersey and other blue states
Do you have the slightest bit of evidence for this statement?
Whether the state is blue or red, geen (gubmint cash) swings a lot of weight. Undoubtedly, NJ lobbied actively and heavily to keep Fort Dix, Fort Monmouth and the Bayonne Terminal.
The decision to close them was made by a blue ribbon bi-partisan base closing commission based on military needs and how well they could be met by individual bases– not on some ideological litmus test.
“Actually we don’t. Please note that a large part of the “handouts” are actually spent on military installations which are usually no longer welcome in New Jersey and other blue states (and the weather is much better here).”
Yeah. South Carolina receives $1.36 for every $1.00 they pay in federal taxes; the federal government spends 57 cents in New Jersey for every $1.00 paid in federal taxes by citizens of New Jersey. That means that South Carolinians receive $2.4 times the federal expenditures per $1.00 of federal taxes as do citizens of New Jersey.
This vast differents is solely attributable to a difference in the amount spent on military installations. Yeah. Right.
Leave aside the fact that numerous military installations exist in communities in southern states for the sole reason of providing make-work jobs and otherwise funneling welfare into those communities without calling it welfare.
“As the truth be told, underutilized hospitals were rationalized and the VA care switched spending to more convenient and smaller local VA care centers.”
No, that’s a lie. What happened was that hosptitals were closed and the level of care and services was reduced. the “rationalization” is just a made-up excuse.
Similarly, your speculation about ineffectiveness of research and care is just something you randomly made up as an excuse. Something you just made up isn’t entitled to the same consideration as a real newspaper story.
Again, the real burden is shiftless freeloaders such as yourself. Instead of complaining about the federal government spending money on treating injured soldiers, why not take an additional 36% of your federal taxes, so that you will be paying in at least as much as you take out?
Spend the next year living on your own initiative and industry, instead of living on handouts from people in places like New Jersey.
I won’t be holding my breath waiting for it, though.
If you socialistic Yankee Democrats hate sharing your money so much, why doesn’t your party sponsor legislation to abolish all the federal wealth transfer payment programs, and the federal income tax?
Then New Jersey could be its own little socialistic state, and you would only resent sharing your wealth with poor Jerseyites.
Mary, ” a real newspaper story”. You mean like one written by Jayson Blair for example. Is that also like a REAL tv show. Like the Mapes/Rather fabrication of evidence about Bush, or maybe NBC and its exploding car. My advice for you is to keep on watering your Chia pet (probably your one and only friend) but how about getting out into the real world and find out the truth.
Nice dodge, Dave.
Lee,
that would be the obvious answer, wouldn’t it? If there are so many freeloaders on NJ’s tax payments, then let’s cut a bunch of those programs, along with the taxes, and Mary should be in seventh heaven. So would we!
Ah, so this is life under civil rule? Why was I so annoyed by the code Mr. Warthen propounded?
Life during Warthime… I can hardly tell the difference!
IOW, you can’t even think of an insult, much less something sensible to say about the welfare waste that Mary so hates.
That would be because I don’t support Mary’s viewpoint. I don’t suppport yours fully, either. In fact, in this “debate,” I see little difference between either “side.”
IOW. I’ve never seen that, Lee. Those chat rooms you visit are having a negative effect on your writing. Consider that the next time you so assail “them dern Mexicans” who are “ruining our language.”
Try again to get on topic, instead of sputtering insults about my typing errors.