and what of the heroic presidential candidate who's supporting the evisceration of the constitution? do we turn away from him as well?
donna L.
· 1 year ago
I think this whole thing is getting crazy and self-destructive. Now Move-On is demanding that Obama filibuster the FISA bill. How's he supposed to do that in the middle of a campaign? Further, I don't see why its so smart to let this be used by the RNC to attack Obama on national security. If anything, the smart thing to do is to know when to act. Getting a democratic president and congress elected is the top priority. After that, we can hold congressional hearings to air all the dirty laundry of the Bush administration. I thought the point of opposing retro-active immunity is to DISCOVER and correct. Why are mulitple lawsuits the only way to do it? Or is it really a desire for revenge? If that's the case, we'll only get a satifying revenge by winning, not by attacking our democratic nominee! In reading netroots commentary going after Obama on the FISA thing, I can't help but sense I'm hearing the coded language of disgruntled Clinton and Edwards supporters. I left a comment on this subject at politico and got the snark back that Obama can't "vote present on this one." Where the hell does that sound like its coming from? I don't trust the "netroots" on this at all.
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
After that, we can hold congressional hearings to air all the dirty laundry of the Bush administration.
no we can't. the bill prevents that.
this is pure politics and sucking up to his constituency: his corporate supporters.
that's what makes me feel so hopeless. all this hope and change crap is just more lies.
he is supporting the evisceration of the Constitution.
if that doesn't bother you, think about search and seizure laws, probable cause. will that not affect the black community? to castrate the 4th amendment? can you imagine how law enforcement will ultimately take this and run with it?
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
and equally horrible, is his parroting the right wing talking points on protecting us from the terrorists while destroying the constitution.
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. . . .
that's REPUBLICAN bullshit. they've used it since 9/11 to eviscerate the founding documents of this country. this isn't some campaign silliness, it is the fabric of our nation.
D.
· 1 year ago
Let's see: you wanna let terrorists challenge their detention in the US, and then reduce the government's ability to monitor their conversations.
And that's all supposed to be good for the country?
I've always been of the opinion that if you're a law-abiding citizen, you don't have anything to be concerned about with FISA.
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
I've always been of the opinion that if you're a law-abiding citizen, you don't have anything to be concerned about with FISA.
d. that is so utterly stupid it defies my ability to even put together a cogent response.
D.
· 1 year ago
What's the big deal, Belle? FISA has been around forever, and no one's cared. Until now.
If FISA is shown to be unecessary, it will go away.
Call me an idiot if you want. I'm more interested in doing what needs to to protect this country and her citizens.
Yourself included.
Bruce Dixon
· 1 year ago
"I've always been of the opinion that if you're a law-abiding citizen, you don't have anything to be concerned about with FISA."
That really is beyond the pale, d. If the 4th amendment means anything at all, the government has no business data-mining the lawful communications of citizens OR non-citizens, period, exclamation point. It's lawless behavior that allows the government to target not terroritsts, but anyone it conceivably disagrees with. It allows them to criminalize dissent, to research all the contacts of people who have committed or plotted no crime, but who merely disagree with the policies of the government. And it's been done already.
FISA itself was an abomination, a blank check, since in only a handful of instances did the secret judges in the secret court tell the government they could not have what they wanted. the new FISA "compromise" removes even that nominal check on police power.
You DO live in a police state. Right now. Thanks Stenny. Thanks Nancy. And thank you, candidate Obama.
Bruce Dixon
· 1 year ago
What will I do? I called up Regina Thomas, the credible black and progressive candidate for congress in the 12th district of GA, and offered to shoot a couple of YouTube videos for her next week so she can help raise a fw bucks to defeat her torture-loving, Bush-enabling, opponent John Barrow, whom Obama is supporting. Barrow publicly led the Blue Dogs in begging Nancy to allow him to vote for telecom immunity when the issue first surfaced about February, and played a major role in rounding up his fellow Bush Democrats to join a unanimous Republican black (and Obama) in supporting this thing.
So I'm gonna help her. That's what I'll do.
Ms.Martin
· 1 year ago
Does anyone realize what the telecom immunity is about.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
This is a principle issue. Obama's presented himself as a "Change Washington" Candidate. He's also talked and talked about his ability to reach accross party lines to reach common sense decisions. Well, it's time to prove it. Obama, all by himself, could've killed this bill! All the Dems had to do was extend the bill for another 6 to 12 months. A president, be him Obama, BUsh or Hillary C, cannot have the power over the American people.
And for those saying that Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the U.S goverment. You're kiddin' me right? Tell that to MLK, Malcom, and many Muslims after 911. One of the fears I have is that if we were to dig deeper into these whole Wiretapping thing we'll find a lot of malfeance done by Bush-Cheney-Rove-Gonzalez axis of evil
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
with the exception of Bruce, and a few others, apparently no one here, Ms. Martin.
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
One of the fears I have is that if we were to dig deeper into these whole Wiretapping thing we'll find a lot of malfeance done by Bush-Cheney-Rove-Gonzalez axis of evil. . .
and that is another outrage with this bill. it prevents us EVER knowing what they have done. ever.
it's bad enough that these war criminals aren't already impeached and incarcerated. this bill will ensure that their crimes are never known.
simply: it's legal if the president says so.
does that sound like america to all of you unconcerned people? it sounds like a fucking monarchy to me. or a dictatorship. but then he is the one who said he'd love to live in a dictatorship, as long as he's the dictator.
D.
· 1 year ago
Obama's pandering so as not to be seen as soft on terrorism. That's expected.
Most liberals would rather see us fight the War on Terror with warrants and handcuffs. We tried fighting terrorism as a law enforcement problem...and got 9/11.
If that's what you all want, so be it. But to me, that's not acceptable.
What will I do? I'll be calling my representative tomorrow and asking why he doesn't feel it's important to continue to be proactive against terrorism. And if that doesn't work, I'll pay him a visit.
Craig Hickman
· 1 year ago
Actually, we live in a plutocracy. Our nation has been a plutocracy from Day One.
Where was the rioting when the Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore?
Where was it?
Where was the outrage by Floridians? By the nation? I know Bush's limousine was covered with broken eggs on the way to his inauguration, but that seemed to be about the extent of it.
The Democrats are not at fault for where we are right now.
WE the people are.
Craig Hickman
· 1 year ago
We tried fighting terrorism as a law enforcement problem...and got 9/11.
::
That's soooooooo not true.
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
Most liberals would rather see us fight the War on Terror with warrants and handcuffs. We tried fighting terrorism as a law enforcement problem...and got 9/11.
and the right wing lunatics would rather us pretend that the "war on terror" has nothing to do with US policy, with our single minded support of anything israel does, with our depradations around the globe, with our looting of the riches of 3d world countries, with our active promotion of puppet governments in nations around the world.
that's what we want to sweep under the rug: that we brought 9/11 on ourselves and it is only by changing our policies, changing the way we do business, by making this a democracy once again instead of a subsidiary of global corporations, that we'll be safe. ever.
fact: by invading the sovereign nation of iraq for no other reason than that we wanted their oil, we have created terrorists where there were none.
fact: by dipping out greedy fingers into the governments of virtually every middle eastern government at one time or another, we have enraged a populace previously unconcerned with us.
fact: by continuing our reliance on foreign oil to meet our energy needs, our vulnerability increases every damn day.
fact: because we continue to serve the needs of big oil, we will never, as a nation, officially act on energy independence or on climate change issues.
fact: our groveling before the forces of globalization keeps every one of us in danger.
fact: global corporations are enemies of the people.
fact: most americans can't be bothered to care, to educate themselves on these issues, or even to read the most superficial analyses of what we're really facing in this country, in the world.
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
"Let's see: you wanna let terrorists challenge their detention in the US, and then reduce the government's ability to monitor their conversations."
They haven't been convicted of engaging in acts of terrorism. If they have committed such acts then they should be tried instead of being locked up for an indeterminate period. Given your willingness to stomp on our Constitution, it will only be a matter of time before you're posting messages on this site defending the government locking some of us for simply exercising our First Amendment rights.
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
"Now Move-On is demanding that Obama filibuster the FISA bill. How's he supposed to do that in the middle of a campaign?"
Simple. He suspends his campaign due to the grave danger posed to the citizens of the United States and their Constitution by this bill and he spends a day in Washington on the floor of the Senate speaking against the bill. This is not rocket science. Obama either believes this bill poses a threat to our constitutionally protected rights or he does not.
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
"I think this whole thing is getting crazy and self-destructive."
Yes, but only because the candidate that many of us favored appears to lack political courage. I am deeply disappointed in Obama's response to this bill. After reading his statement, I thought of this excerpt from George Orwell’s great essay “Politics and the English Language”
'AS SOON AS certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse."
"Politics and the English Language" April 1946
D.
· 1 year ago
It's interesting to watch people try to show interest in the Constitution now.
How many of you, prior to 9/11, really gave a damn? And more importantly, how many of you will continue to once Bush leaves office?
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
pt cruiser joins bruce dixon as my hero of the day. thank you for saying it far better than i could.
The Christian Progressive Libe
· 1 year ago
I hope I qualify as a heroine, Belle, because I spent most of the weekend debating whether or not objective criticism of Obama and his policies were off limits.
Did I not post a thread linking to articles calling him out on his preaching on last Sunday, and got my happy ass flamed until well done?
What say those of you who flamed and engaged in name calling of me last week for pointing out examples like this? And that was mild, compared to the fact that Obama, if we pay attention, is actually TELLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXACTLY WHAT HE IS GOING TO DO AS PRESIDENT.
Pay attention to how he adjusts his message to the audiences he addresses, and it is no excuse that he has to tailor his message to certain constituencies. Most of us have universal goals and policies we want addressed and none to exclusion.
AIPAC - Israel will be protected at all costs. Sounds like he's cosigning one of the Senators who's busy pandering to the GOP and slandering him, Joe Lieberman.
UCC - Quit when the heat got turned up. I don't care how distracting Jeremiah Wright was perceived to be; you are not going to tell me he sat under Wright's pastorage for over 20 years and never once heard one of those "controversial" sermons.
I'll give him a pass on refusal to accept public financing because if he does and McCain doesn't, he gets handcuffed and can't finance protection against being swift boated.
Obama is a shrewd politico, but the day we can't call him out on his shyt before he enters the White House, we've already descended into a police state...amongst ourselves. Never mind what the GOP will do; hell, they won't really have to do anything to us except sit back and watch us destroy ourselves because we want a Black Face in the White House to the extent we excuse, pander and give a pass to the brotha who has told us "there is no Black America".
The Christian Progressive Libe
· 1 year ago
Obama's pandering so as not to be seen as soft on terrorism. That's expected.
I call BS on this one, d. He doesn't have to pander to anyone - he needs to find his platform and either stick to it or get off. He's flip flopping more than Kerry to the point he's making Kerry look stable. Additionally, when he said he liked Ronnie Raygun, that should have given us all PAUSE.
Instead, we spent time defending him and parsing his statements praising Reagan. People of color got annihilated during the Reagan administration to the point we actually was happy to see Bush, Sr.
I will probably vote for Obama, but it will qualified with a "But", because there's probably more I'm going to have to call BS on before this is over.
At least I won't be expecting him to take people of color to the Promised Land if he wins. I won't be disappointed in his policies, either.
Let's be honest; the Bush Administration has amassed totalitarian power and no succeeding POTUS, be it Clinton, Obama or McCain, is going to willingly hand back the concept of checks and balances back to Congress, since Congress GAVE THEM UP IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Yes, I'm shouting, because in the face of evidence, there will still be some who will not "GET IT" and it will be to their own detriment.
Craig Hickman
· 1 year ago
I posted this in the Open Thread, but I'm going to post this here too:
I agree with the main thrust of both of these compelling essays.
Especially the second one.
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
"How many of you, prior to 9/11, really gave a damn? And more importantly, how many of you will continue to once Bush leaves office?'
At least since elementary school. My sixth grade teacher Pedro Jose Gonzales (He had to change his name to Peter Joseph to get a teaching job,) had us read the Bill of Rights and discuss what it meant. So did several of my teachers in junior high and high school. I remember all of their names and I still in touch with some of them but I suspect that you are impervious to a certain style of reasoning and belief.
D.
· 1 year ago
CPL, What were his real options? Endorse the compromise, or say nothing and vote no/"present" and be seen as soft on terror. Dhimmicrats make a lot of noise, but when its time to put up or shut up, they get right back in line.
This is Obama playing to Republicans and conservative independents.
But, hell, I wanna flush my representative anyway. Wanna help me? ;)
PT, I've just seen a lot of people who gave become legal/constitutional "experts" since Bush v. Gore.
If the shoe doesn't fit you, fair enough.
The Christian Progressive Libe
· 1 year ago
D., his real options are to name a platform and stick to it, instead of running this fluid campaign that allows him to be a damned chameleon at will.
And if he's pandering to factions that are not going to vote for him anyway, that's saying far more about his ability to lead than I need to know.
Even Bill Clinton accepted that there were factions of the country that weren't going to vote for him and he concentrated his efforts on the ones were most likely to vote for him. While that strategy worked for him, I like Howard Dean's 50-state strategy better, but really, while Obama needs to contend for votes in all 50-states, sometimes, he should know when and where to pack it in.
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
The shoe that you want to use doesn't fit a lot of people. The issue is really not about when that person or this person became concerned about the Constitution. Your line of argument personalizes and trivializes an extremely profound issue: whether we are going to have a government based on laws or a government based on the whims of politicians and bureaucrats.
The fact that many of the founders of this democratic republic were slave owners (Thomas Jefferson) or closeted authoritarians and monarchists (John Adams) does not minimize the importance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The fact that this same document and its protections were more often ignored than implemented to protect the lives and property of black folk does not mean that black people should ignore the dangers of FISA because a black man is running for president.
In my own life I have been harassed and threatened by government officials, FBI agents and the local police. In each instance I had to remind these folks that the Bill of Rights did not permit them to do what they were threatening to do to me. I know for a fact that the FBI spied and ran security checks on me and my neighbors simply because we lived across the street from the Black Panther Free Breakfast Program. It was not and is not a crime to live across the street from a Black Panther program. In addition, it was not illegal to feed hungry children either.
The police agencies of the state and, no, it doesn't matter what country we are talking about, are always trying to expand their reach and control over their citizens' lives. They will lie, cheat, steal, torture, harass, burglarize and, yes, even commit murder if necessary to advance their aims. These are well documented facts and they are not exclusive to the United States.
We have to resist these intrusions into our private spaces. The U.S. government and its police agencies had the necessary authority to prevent the airplane highjackings and subsequent destruction that occurred on September 11, 2001. There were at least two FBI agents, for example who thought it suspicious that foreign nationals with no flying expertise or experience were taking classes in this country to learn how to pilot passenger jets.
These two agents were blocked at every turn when they attempted to get their superiors to play closer attention to their suspicions. No, I don't think that 9/11 was a U.S. government sponsored conspiracy but I think it reveals, in part, that the people who are supposed to be protecting us lack a certain degree of imagination and are not very creative. No legal authority they are demanding over our lives will change this fact.
We live in a period of asymmetric warfare where many of the combatants are not states and they will not rely on the grid to communicate with each other. The argument that the government needs more authority to tap into the communications networks of terrorists is absurd. I am fairly certain that these terrorists are not going to take advantage of the latest price reduction in iPhones so that they can call each other faster and more cheaply.
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
What were his real options? Endorse the compromise, or say nothing and vote no/"present" and be seen as soft on terror. Dhimmicrats make a lot of noise, but when its time to put up or shut up, they get right back in line.
d. for an alleged conservative, you're just not very educated on matters of the founders' intent, eh?
Obama's response is not optional. It should be to defend the Constitution of this land. If he does not do that, then he is no better than Bush et al and we can be assured that an Obama presidency will be more of the same.
As CPL said above, the Reagan thing got my attention and yes, I remember discussing that very thing right here and getting flamed for it.
(And yes, CPL, thank you, thank you, I did not mean to leave you out.)
d., you refer to democrats as "getting in line," but it seems there are vast numbers of people in these times willing to submit to this authoritarian administration and to give up their freedom in exchange for the promise (not the actuality) of protection from . . . what. Protection from what, that which we have brought upon ourselves?
I'm not going to debate Republican v. Democrat because there are as many republicans and libertarians wrought up about this assault on our constitution as there are democrats.
This is profoundly important. It is not a political issue, it is not something you can just blow off and be uninterested in, it is not something you can, as a citizen of this country, ignore.
The Constitution of this country is what hundreds of thousands have fought and died for. It is this country; without it, we are nothing. And increasingly, I fear, that is the case.
Last fall Obama promised to filibuster this bill. We'll see if he does it. MoveOn has a campaign to educate him ~ to remind him of his obligation to defend the constitution.
ptcruiser has it right. This is police state bullshit. Earlier, you said "if you act right, why worry," or words to that effect.
I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse, if you are just ignorant of this country's history, or if you are out of touch with reality, but if you can't envision this increasingly authoritarian administration acting to eavesdrop on you, to surveil you and your associates, to swooop up every bit of electronic information about you, to spy on your home, your business, to pick you up on bogus charges, to search you without cause, then you just need to start paying attention.
You cannot ~ cannot ~ be paying attention to what has happened here since 9/11 and feel safe with this kind of power being vested in the executive. It is NOT safe. The founders knew that. They put in place safeguards to ensure that what has happened, is happening, would not be tolerated and could be stopped.
Barack Obama standing up on this issue, just as he has done on other issues, is critically important.
He needs to give the same thought, reasoned speech on the Constitution and why we must protect it that he did on race.
Reagan, the AIPAC pandering episode, his alliance with neoliberal economic theorists, his defense of hedge fund managers . . . all of that bodes ill, in my mind, for an Obama who will speak truth to power. We'll see what he does this week, but if he does not truly try to stop this bill, I am done with him and I will do everything in my power to educate everyone I know on how he sold out the last vestiges of this democracy.
D.
· 1 year ago
We live in a period of asymmetric warfare...
So what should we do? Wait for another attack? Continue to play by the rules while our citizens die?
If at some point there is concrete evidence that the government overstepped their bounds with FISA, I'll cry foul.
But I'm not going to give up on a valuable tool for preventing terrorism just because it makes people uncomfortable.
It amazes me how liberals can complain about how their freedom is provided, but offer no thanks for being kept safe.
Belle, I am safe. My family is safe, and hopefully my son will grow up with the sense of security that was taken from us on 9/11.
If preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution-which is what was in the oath I took-requires is to take drastic measures from time to time, so be it.
I would rather live with bent rules than be killed by an almost slavish obeyence of them.
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
If at some point there is concrete evidence that the government overstepped their bounds with FISA, I'll cry foul.
But I'm not going to give up on a valuable tool for preventing terrorism just because it makes people uncomfortable.
you'll never get that evidence if this law passes. that's what it's about.
the government's power to wiretap WILL NOT VANISH IF THIS BILL FAILS!! that's what they want you to believe, but that's not the case.
the only thing that will happen is that it will not be solely the decision of the executive (remember? we have Three branches of government???) as to when wiretapping or surveillance occurs.
you are not safe. and that stupid ignorant fool george bush could have prevented 9/11 if he hadn't been so arrogant and defiant of those who tried to tell him about the attack. that's a fact.
now that he attacked FOR NO REASON a sovereign nation, there are millions of people who couldn't be bothered with us who now hate us. you are endangered by the policies of this administration. if you can rest easier at night with these incompetent jackasses in charge, then you're blissfully unaware of the truth.
D.
· 1 year ago
Belle, Your inability to offer criticism without resorting to Bush bashing gives you very little credibility with me.
However...
Yes, I know that this bill will not completely kill FISA. But I believe that it will be to our detriment if it does not pass.
I sleep well at night knowing that I had a hand in keeping this country safe. And I will give everything-my life included-to make sure it stays that way.
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
"It amazes me how liberals can complain about how their freedom is provided, but offer no thanks for being kept safe."
This is a profoundly absurd charge and argument that really does not merit any reasonable response. I am beginning to think that if you had an original thought it would die of loneliness.
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
d. . . . when is it okay with you to dissent? or is it not okay?
i can't criticize george bush? isn't that another guarantee of our constitution?
i am baffled by your blind loyalty to these people.
was torture acceptable when you were an active marine? did you practice techniques? discuss methods? my father is a WWII veteran and he is OUTRAGED by what has happened in iraq. and he is a republican.
and you speak of democrats blindly falling in lockstep????
i think i'm wasting my breath. you're just arguing to be arguing because you are making. no. sense.
D.
· 1 year ago
Belle,
Navy. And I guess what you'd consider torture was accepted in the military, since I just got out in 2006.
I never said you couldn't dissent or disagree. Or criticize, for that matter. But your last argument was mostly bashing the President to prove your point.
My alliegence is found in the oath of enlistment; "to obey the orders of the President and those appointed over me." I still hold to that, even as a civilian.
The Christian Progressive Libe
· 1 year ago
Belle, I am safe. My family is safe, and hopefully my son will grow up with the sense of security that was taken from us on 9/11.
Okay, D., how will you feel if you find out your phones are being tapped because the government suddenly decided that despite your heroic and patriotic service to your country, for some strange reason, you're suddenly considered a "threat" and they need to watch you at all costs?
That's what is meant by evisceration of your 4th Amendment rights. And since you asked how many of us have been concerned about the constitution, I join in with PT Cruiser as having been concerned about the constitution since 1976 - when a Civics instructor named Dr. Orville B. Davis, made a class of kids memorize the preamble to it and recite it chapter and verse.
I was one of those junior high kids forced to memorize the thing and got re-introduced to it as a college freshman taking Con Law.
It's not that people had no concern about the constitution - it wasn't until the Supreme Court decided to violate their own commission to uphold, defend, protect and interpret the Constitution in favor of partisanship, and continual destroying of the provisions for the last eight years, woke up everyone with a brain and a conscious.
Senator Obama taught Con Law - therefore to support outright evisceration of the protections he lectured on as a law school professor, should be giving everyone pause.
But, we African-Americans with a critical thought are flamed when we voice such concerns, and if the true progressives not African-American say anything, they're either racist or straight hating.
I fully support MoveOn's campaign to make Obama put up or shut up. How he responds should be viewed how he will lead, and should he respond in a manner that speaks to censorship and whatnot, we will have our answer.
As in, "Meet the New Boss, straight from the Same Bush."
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
I, d., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God.)
apologies for the misstatement about your branch of service.
about that oath . . . what do you do when the two are in conflict?
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
by the way, my nephew's in the navy now. does NOT support this administration because he knows they have been desperately, fatally wrong.
Bruce Dixon
· 1 year ago
Yo. CPL.
You know I luv you, but I just gotta ask...
"I will probably vote for Obama, but it will qualified with a "But", because..."
How do you manage that? Down here in GA, and up in Chicago where I lived the first 50 years of my life they don't let us cast any 'but' votes, nor do they count whether we are holding our noses. You either vote for the bad Repubs, enabling them, or you vote for the nearly as bad Dems, enabling them, or you vote for somebody else, or you stay home.
You need to tell me where you live, so I can cast that kind of 'but' vote that is not really the full and unqualified endorsement that a normal vote seems to be.
*****************
And this is for the lady who just got out of the navy in 2006. I would humbly recommend that you stay out here and breathe in the free air for a while. You seem to be laboring under a lot of very strange notions, like that the so-called "war on terror" is really what your former bosses told you it was, and that torture and lawless behavior on the part of the government are somehow "protecting" you. or us.
There should be no doubt that in the military you were lied to. A lot. I mean a whole lot, night and day, for years by folks who outranked you, and some of whom may have even been smarter than you. No offense, but that's got to have an impact.
Remember, that as late as 2005 most of the troops in Iraq still believed they were over there to avenge 9-11, even though the whole rest of the world (outside the military) knew that Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the towers going down. Given the military's current role in generating deceptive propaganda and fake news for the civilian population, a recent military background is the least persuasive evidence one can present in favor of either (A) an accurate perception of what's going on; or (B) a willingness to tell the truth about it, assuming that one DOES know what's going on.
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
d -
The president of the United States is commander-in-chief of the United States military services. The president is not commander-in-chief of the American people. No president ever has been not in war or peace. You can still act as if the president is your commander-in-chief but that is something that you choose to do. It is not something that you, me or anyone else not in the military is legally obliged to accept.
The Christian Progressive Libe
· 1 year ago
Bruce, you know me better than that, but I will answer your question anyway, LOL.
I find myself in a growing number of people who are saying the same thing, "I will vote for him, but..." because at this point, I don't know how my vote is going to count, but I cannot afford to stay home. Who's to say - I might fool everyone and cast my vote for Cynthia instead - it depends on where I find myself between now and November, and it also depends on how much more we'll find out about Mr. Obama's platform before I really have to leave him Stuck Like Chuck.
He's come dangerously close to it with the situation with his former Pastor. And don't get me started with the FISA mess - I'm hoping MoveOn gets Color of Change to join him in holding him to his promise to filibuster FISA (new). His lame-ass statement sounded like regurgitating Lieberman-ReThug talking points, and they sure have Kos' knickers in a bunch.
We have to be willing to call out this brotha both on the negatives as well as the positives. Excusing them because he's running for office doesn't cut it with me anymore.
heartsandflowers
· 1 year ago
Boy do I feel discouraged right now. We're being given a choice between two very flawed candidates. The other Party candidates are not available in all states. If the Clinton's hadn't behaved so despicably would 90% of Black voters gone to Obama? Would we be having this conversation with Clinton as the nominee right now - and with such vigor?
You know if there weren't so many racist attacks still going on it would be easier to separate the small symbolic component that is there. I recognize it but will not ignore things. It's just like having a splinter. Things didn't get so messed up overnight and they won't be resolved overnight. There are people Obama [and the other 100+ Democrats] have to answer to because the foundation is and has always been FLAWED - we just need to make sure our voice is the one heard the loudest! The vote is in a few days. We still have time, but if we lose this time let this be a lesson for vigilance.
Politicians are not working for our interests when their ears are being bent by those who seek to undermine us at every turn.
One immediate course of action people can take is to divest yourself from consumer support of these companies. AT&T; was the worst perpetrator. Pick a new cell phone company like Credo or T-Mobile who did not violate FISA. They can't spy on you if you're not a customer. They should not be rewarded for foul behavior. Get the ACLU involved, try to get the cancellation fee waived, put it on YouTube, have a manifesto presented as to why millions of people are doing it.
Is it millions of people upset by this or a few thousand of the 'activist wing' as Clinton called it? Will it be enough to make some people back down? We should find out!
When I lived abroad and came back to the US the first 2 years I was flagged for random searches every time I went to the airport but do you think I believed that? No I figured I was on somebody's 'list'. Or flying while Black.
I still say these FISA violations have been going on since..forever. It can be couched as national security or whatever but I am not at all shocked or surprised by it. This is the history of this country to say one thing putting forth a set of ideals and to do the exact opposite.
India doesn't allow RIM Blackberry service because they can't tap into it yet.
D.
· 1 year ago
Belle, I don't know. That's one of the things I'm still trying to work out in my head. Of course I'll get up and go to work, but I won't be happy about it.
Bruce, Wrong gender aside...
I do believe that the War on Terror is what I was told it was. I never believed that Iraq was revenge for 9/11. But I did believe in the reasons for going in.
Now, some of those reasons have been shown to be suspect. Fair enough.
But I've never not seen the relation between Iraq and the War on Terror as a whole.
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
hearts . . . Would we be having this conversation with Clinton as the nominee right now - and with such vigor? yes.
d. . . . I've never not seen the relation between Iraq and the War on Terror as a whole. . . . i am honestly interested to know what that is?
BigAssBelle
· 1 year ago
and this, d. . . . from the Baltimore Herald (and many other sources)
This shocking, perhaps unprecedented declaration by a senior military officer was just one of many instances during the week when Establishment figures – not just retired officials like Wilkerson and Taguba, but serving officers as well – confirmed and condemned the injustice and criminality of the Bush gulag system. Even corporate media types began openly using the "T" word, after years of ridiculing or marginalizing those who dare call the Administration's "harsh interrogation techniques" what they plainly are.
This nascent coventional wisdom line was perfectly illustrated in a new piece by Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times. Rutten is a lifelong newsman, a liberal of the old school, whose columns have been scathing in their criticism of Bush and all his works. In his latest outing, Rutten doesn't flinch from telling it like it is on Bush's torture regime. Drawing on the Congressional hearings and other sources, Rutten gives chapter and verse on "how the White House forced the adoption of torture as state policy of the United States."
He notes also the highly significant fact that one major impetus behind the construction of the torture system was the Bush Faction's extremist "unitary executive" theory: the crank belief that a president can exercise unbridled, unaccountable authoritarian power in his role as "commander-in-chief." This includes the power to break the law -- and order others to break the law -- as he sees fit.
that "extremist unitary executive theory" is the same one at issue with FISA.
You might take the time to read that entire article. It goes into some depth about Obama's view of all of this, which I find terribly disheartening.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
Yall are giving d. to much creditability by repsonding to his right wing rhetoric he post on this blog posing as a right wing African American male.
D.
· 1 year ago
Anon, You know, that line of attack really hasn't gotten you anywhere, has it?
How 'bout you come over to my blog and we have a little talk...
Jack Turner
· 1 year ago
this is one of the best threads ever. wow. yall have jacked up my productivity today!
keep on pushing. i love the debate
D, good luck here bro :)
D.
· 1 year ago
Jack, Holding the line, as always.
Belle, Read your article. Here's what I think:
Yes, we as a nation have recently used methods that run counter to what our country was founded on. Am I completely okay with that? On some level, no. But the results of those actions-the fact that there hasn't been another attack on our soil-outweighs whatever uncomfortableness there is.
The reason why I view Iraq as part of the larger War on Terror is because when Saddam was given a chance to stand with us and renounce terrorism and extremism, he refused. I lose no sleep now that he's gone.
Personally, I look for vindication for our cause to come from history, cause it damn sure ain't coming from the majority of this country.
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
"The reason why I view Iraq as part of the larger War on Terror is because when Saddam was given a chance to stand with us and renounce terrorism and extremism, he refused. I lose no sleep now that he's gone."
Since the desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein was a focus of the Bush Administration prior to the events of September 11, 2001 whether he chose to stand with our government or not is hugely irrelevant. In addition, international law and the governing covenants of the United Nations does not recognize or support military action against another sovereign state because that state declines to participate in a global "War on Terror."
What you are actually implying here is that Saddam Hussein and his regime had something to do with the events of September 11, 2001. This canard, which had been promoted by, among others, the Bush Administration has been discredited over and over again. Again, it is not true.
What is true is that more than 800,000 Iraqis have died since our illegal and unjustified invasion of that country. Yes, Hussein was a brutal dictator but the rate of carnage and mayhem that has afflicted that country since our invasion and occupation far exceeds anything that occurred under his rule.
You should lose sleep, if you have any decency, over the deaths of so many Iraqis including women and children.
D.
· 1 year ago
PT, I only lose sleep when I think about the 4100 families in this country who have lost loved ones in Iraq.
(that's a tempered response. I'm not going to say what I'm really thinking in this forum)
Note that I said terrorism AND extremism. Yes, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But do you seriously think that, if left unchecked, he wouldn't have threatened our country at some point?
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
"Personally, I look for vindication for our cause to come from history, cause it damn sure ain't coming from the majority of this country."
People who are looking for vindication in the future for acts committed here and now are either praying that their side writes all of the history books or hope that they'll be dead when history proves them wrong.
The thing is, however, is that you don't have to wait any longer for an answer. The invasion of Iraq has been a disaster.
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
"I only lose sleep when I think about the 4100 families in this country who have lost loved ones in Iraq."
I am deeply disturbed about the deaths of Americans and Iraqis but 800,000 people is a hell of a loss. I'm sorry that you don't regard Iraqis as human beings and are too chicken to say so.
"(that's a tempered response. I'm not going to say what I'm really thinking in this forum)"
I already know what you really think on this particular issue. You believe that Iraqis are not human beings and are less entitled to live than Americans. That is exactly what you believe. I have relatives who are retired senior military officers. They would have had someone like you watched very closely if you had been under their command.
D.
· 1 year ago
PT, That's easy for someone who probably has no personal tie to the war to say.
Has it been easy; the cakewalk we all expected it to be? No. Has it been difficult? Yes.
But is it still winnable? The facts on the ground say yes.
And, since you wanna know, I would've said that the deaths of citizens of my country-especially of those who I was honored to wear the uniform with-are more important that those of another country.
Don't make the mistake of thinking me unsympathetic, because I'm not.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
Win what d.? What exactly will we "win" in Iraq?
What "facts on the ground" say the war is "winnable"? Whose facts?
How many more American soldiers are going to have to die or be wounded and maimed for life before we win whatever we win in Iraq?
Win what?
D.
· 1 year ago
Anon, America will benefit from a stable, secure Iraq. A democratic Iraq has the potential to be a strong ally in the War on Terror.
I could tell you that violence in Iraq is at its lowest levels since the height of the insurgency, that the Iraqi government has made several legislative gains (de-Baathifacation, sharing of oil revenues), and that the Iraqi military is-even in its infancy-becoming increasingly able to protect its citizens. But, if you'd like, I'll pull some articles from that bastion of conservatism known as the NY Times.
Unfortunately, several hundred. Maybe several thousand. And we best honor their memories by completing our mission there, and not tucking tail and fleeing.
Craig Hickman
· 1 year ago
ptcruiser,
Please don't stop.
Thank you.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
Uh, d., I hate to tell you this but Iraq was stable and secure BEFORE we invaded and occupied the country and threw it into chaos.
Who says violence in Iraq is at an all time low, that bastion of warmongering enabler The New York Times? Who says the Iraqi government is making legislative gains? That bastion of warmongering enabler Faux News? Who says the Iraqi military is becoming better at protecting it's citizens, Mr. Straight Talk Express McSame as Bush?
You still haven't said what we "win" in Iraq. What is the mission in Iraq? You believe to best honor the memory of those who have already died in Iraq is for thousands more to die in Iraq?
We need to cut and run from stay the course. Staying the course is getting thousands of our soldiers killed, wounded and maimed for life. I won't even mention the countless innocent Iraqi women and children who have lost their life since their lives are of no value to you.
D.
· 1 year ago
Anon, People-both military and civilian-die in war. Sorry, it happens.
But...fine. Since I'll ultimately spend the next 4-8 years under liberal rule, why don't you tell me what the plan is after we surrender and flee.
Talk about times when it's tough to love this country....
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
"That's easy for someone who probably has no personal tie to the war to say."
Hey, d, check this out:
I am a citizen of a democratic republic. I may take issue with my government's actions but in all respects when my government acts, it is representing me even if I strongly disagree with its actions. Consequently, I have, as citizen of this Republic, a personal tie to any war my government is involved in.
My right to express my opinion is not dependent on whether I have a "personal tie to the war" whatever that odd phrase means. American military personnel who are involved in the American War in Iraq are not serving there because one morning they all woke up and decided to invade that country. They are in Iraq because our government - my government - sent them there. In a democratic republic - presuming you actually believe in such a form of government - public policy issues, and war is a public policy issue par excellence, and their resolution cannot be based on whether one has "personal ties" or not. There is no hierarchy that we are bound to respect with regard to such issues. All of us have a right and a duty to speak and debate about these matters.
The Christian Progressive Libe
· 1 year ago
D, it's only tough to love this country because not enough people are agreeing with your point of view.
You better be careful because your comment like "tough to love this country" could get you flamed like the MSM did Michelle Obama, and you surely don't want that and still consider yourself an American, do you?
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
"But...fine. Since I'll ultimately spend the next 4-8 years under liberal rule, why don't you tell me what the plan is after we surrender and flee."
Surrender and flee what? The North American continent? What are you referring to here. We have no right to be in Iraq. It is not our country and the Iraqis have never agreed to be one of our colonial possessions.
D - didn't the old folks ever tell you that you can't lose what you ain't never had?
D.
· 1 year ago
PT, Go make the deployments; go walk the blocks in Guantanamo. Then come talk to me about a personal tie to this conflict.
I think you're a typical liberal: you'll second guess all day, but wouldn't lift a finger to defend this country if needed.
CPL, I thought about that before I typed it. And I stand behind it.
It is hard for me to love this country when I see people who are unwilling or unable to comprehend what 10% of this country has done-and is willing to do-so that the other 90% can complain. It makes me wonder what the hell I served for.
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
"Go make the deployments; go walk the blocks in Guantanamo. Then come talk to me about a personal tie to this conflict.
"I think you're a typical liberal: you'll second guess all day, but wouldn't lift a finger to defend this country if needed."
Look, D. in the first place I am not a liberal. You have no idea what a liberal is and you are simply repeating right-wing talking points. In addition, I don't owe you any special deference, as opposed to civility and respect, because you chose to serve in the military or agreed to participate in an illegal invasion of another country.
(The land that Guantanamo sits on, for example, belongs to the people of Cuba not the United States. The Cuban government at the time only agreed to sign a so-called lease because it was the only way to get our government to agree to accept and respect Cuban sovereignty to the small extent it ever did. [You don't really think the Brits owned Hong Kong do you or that the Chinese willingly signed a 99-year lease with England?])
Iraq posed no credible threat to the safety of the United States. The only country that poses a potential threat to this country is Israel because it has 250 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver their payloads to the United States.
If any foreign invaders show up in Puget Sound I will be among the first to confront them. Until that time...
D.
· 1 year ago
So, the only country that's a "credible threat" to you is one of our allies? Are you serious?
I hope that, if our enemies do come back to this country, you're not my last hope. Else, me and my family had best convert now.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
Who are our enemies d.? What are you afraid of? This is America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, remember? Don't be scared.
Iraq is not a threat to us and was not a threat to us. The intelligence was DEAD WRONG. What part of that don't you understand son?
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
D -
Re: Credible Threats
There is no country in the world that wants to get into a shooting match with the United States of America. You are arguing that because another nation's leader(s) don't like us we have the right to invade thagt country. Hugo Chavez doesn't like us but are you arguing that we should invade Venezuela? I'm sure that a lot of major league baseball players and their teams would not be happy campers.
My point about Israel is that there are very, very few nations that pose any credible threat to the sovereignty of the United States. In terms of military capability, we are the 1600 pound gorilla. Nobody else comes close. I'm not bragging. This is a fact. We are not, however, invincible. Wars like Iraq will eventually rob us of will; it is already robbing us of blood and treasure. If we follow your prescription, the end won't be a long time coming.
D.
· 1 year ago
To me, anyone who seeks to do this country and her citizens harm-either through action, or in some cases, inaction-is an enemy.
Personally, I'm not afraid. We still have a nuclear arsenal that's collecting dust. I fear no evil at all.
A question for you: have you read the Iraq Survey Group reports beyond the sections that said there was no stockpile of WMD in Iraq?
PT, I wouldve leaned towards 2400 pounds myself.
This war has already killed most of the country's will. Sometime within the next 4-8 years, we'll be tucked back behind our borders, doing nothing to take the fight to our enemies.
That, my friend, is change I can believe in.
I just hope we're ready to live with the possible results of that change.
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
"This war has already killed most of the country's will."
Well, it is kind of hard to get the populace stirred up on a full time basis when the kill ratio is close to 207 to 1 in your favor and the other side shows no signs of throwing up their hands and walking away. Two and half million Vietnamese had to die before we woke up to this reality: folks ain't rolling over anymore in the face of U.S. military power.
We also don't like Iraqis who employ suicide bombings and IEDs. We have some silly notion that folks who fight this way are not fighting fair.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
Doing nothing to take the fight to out enemies? WTF????? What fight? What enemies???? Who are those seeking to do harm to our country through action or inaction? What are you talking about d.? And no, I haven't read the Iraq Study Group report. Why?
If, d. represents the mentality of those that are in charge of our government Lord help us.
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
"f, d. represents the mentality of those that are in charge of our government"
What is more alarming, in my opinion, is that far too many Americans because of the incessant propaganda and lies promoted by our government and the MSM have bought into this meme. Look at all of the people who still believe that we could have "won" the war in Vietnam if the politicians had just stayed out of the way. This is crazy. The French have had to go through the same thing about Algeria. Dreams of empire die hard.
D.
· 1 year ago
Anon, I'd challenge you to read that before you cry that all the intelligence was dead wrong.
I'm certain you won't though.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
d., I challenge you to open your eyes and your mind. You have been lied to, and either you don't know it or worse you don't care.
There is nothing the Iraq Study Report can tell me to convince me that invading and occupying Iraq is keeping us safe.
D.
· 1 year ago
But, Anon, I didn't say there would be, did I?
Read it for yourself.
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
The head of the Iraqi government response to the Iraq Study Group report:
"Iraqi President Jalal Talabani called the group's conclusions "very dangerous" to Iraq's sovereignty and constitution, according to CNN. "As a whole, I reject this report," Talabani said.[19]"
So, D, why do you believe that folks need to read a report that has been rejected the Iraqi government? BTW, have you looked at the composition of the Iraqi Study Group?
D.
· 1 year ago
PT, Iraq Survey Group.
You both have the wrong ISG.
I should've corrected Anon.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
The Iraq Study Group has about as much creditability as George W. Bush. ZERO.
PTCruiser
· 1 year ago
I Googled "Iraq Survey Group" and found this entry on Wikipedia. I have no idea why D referred us to this report because it appears not to support his arguments.
Interim Progress Report
After six months searching for WMD, the ISG issued an Interim Progress Report on October 3, 2003. The team has found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. In addition to details of dormant WMD programs, the October 2003 report also includes discoveries of non-WMD programs banned by the U.N. and concealed during the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNMOVIC inspections that began in 2002. Lines of enquiry adopted by the ISG include the examination of sites across Iraq, as well as interviewing scientists, truck drivers and other workers with possible knowledge of WMD. The failure to find any stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons has proved a problem for Washington and London, who used intelligence indicating that Iraq did possess WMD stockpiles as one of the primary justifications for the invasion of Iraq. The British government, in particular, placed very heavy emphasis on this intelligence.
David Kay resigns
On January 23, 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties." In a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kay criticized the pre-war WMD intelligence and the agencies that produced it, saying "It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing." [1] Sometime earlier, CIA director George Tenet had asked David Kay to delay his departure: "If you resign now, it will appear that we don't know what we're doing. That the wheels are coming off."[1]
Kay told the SASC during his oral report the following, though: "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion-—although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
Kay's team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce chemical and biological weaponry if international economic sanctions were lifted, a policy change which was actively being sought by a number of United Nations member states. Kay also believed some components of the former Iraqi regime's WMD program had been moved to Syria shortly before the 2003 invasion [2], though the Duelfer Report Addenda (see below) later reported there was no evidence of this.
On February 6, 2004, Bush convened the Iraq Intelligence Commission, an independent inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and the failure to find WMD. This was shortly followed by the conclusion of a similar inquiry in the United Kingdom, the Butler Review, which was boycotted by the two main opposition parties due to disagreements on its scope and independence [3].
In 2003, The U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had been budgeted for $400 million, with an additional $600 million added in 2004.
Kay's successor, named by CIA director George Tenet, was the former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who stated at the time that the chances of finding any WMD stockpiles in Iraq were "close to nil."
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
d., I'm going to refer you to the Downing Street Memo.
badamerican
· 1 year ago
Oh God Belle, I just got here to see what you meant. Why do you argue with someone like "D." He's a True American Fascist. And, as a former Army Intelligence noncom, I'd call him that to his miserable freedom-killing face. One is either colossally ignorant and stupid or is a rooter for fascism. D. doesn't seem to be mentally challenged so I would place him in the latter category. For all we know, he works for one of the intelligence services in Washington and posts here as part of a deliberate disinfo campaign. Of course, after the next 'terrorist' attack, he'll have a great job lined up as one of the KBR Halliburton American concentration camp guards where he can stage his own little Gitmo tortures on those 'lib'ruls' he so hates. Bet he'll love the nifty silver and black uniform! All fascists do!
All Comments
no we can't. the bill prevents that.
this is pure politics and sucking up to his constituency: his corporate supporters.
that's what makes me feel so hopeless. all this hope and change crap is just more lies.
he is supporting the evisceration of the Constitution.
if that doesn't bother you, think about search and seizure laws, probable cause. will that not affect the black community? to castrate the 4th amendment? can you imagine how law enforcement will ultimately take this and run with it?
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. . . .
that's REPUBLICAN bullshit. they've used it since 9/11 to eviscerate the founding documents of this country. this isn't some campaign silliness, it is the fabric of our nation.
And that's all supposed to be good for the country?
I've always been of the opinion that if you're a law-abiding citizen, you don't have anything to be concerned about with FISA.
d. that is so utterly stupid it defies my ability to even put together a cogent response.
If FISA is shown to be unecessary, it will go away.
Call me an idiot if you want. I'm more interested in doing what needs to to protect this country and her citizens.
Yourself included.
That really is beyond the pale, d. If the 4th amendment means anything at all, the government has no business data-mining the lawful communications of citizens OR non-citizens, period, exclamation point. It's lawless behavior that allows the government to target not terroritsts, but anyone it conceivably disagrees with. It allows them to criminalize dissent, to research all the contacts of people who have committed or plotted no crime, but who merely disagree with the policies of the government. And it's been done already.
FISA itself was an abomination, a blank check, since in only a handful of instances did the secret judges in the secret court tell the government they could not have what they wanted. the new FISA "compromise" removes even that nominal check on police power.
You DO live in a police state. Right now. Thanks Stenny. Thanks Nancy. And thank you, candidate Obama.
So I'm gonna help her. That's what I'll do.
And for those saying that Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the U.S goverment. You're kiddin' me right? Tell that to MLK, Malcom, and many Muslims after 911. One of the fears I have is that if we were to dig deeper into these whole Wiretapping thing we'll find a lot of malfeance done by Bush-Cheney-Rove-Gonzalez axis of evil
and that is another outrage with this bill. it prevents us EVER knowing what they have done. ever.
it's bad enough that these war criminals aren't already impeached and incarcerated. this bill will ensure that their crimes are never known.
simply: it's legal if the president says so.
does that sound like america to all of you unconcerned people? it sounds like a fucking monarchy to me. or a dictatorship. but then he is the one who said he'd love to live in a dictatorship, as long as he's the dictator.
Most liberals would rather see us fight the War on Terror with warrants and handcuffs. We tried fighting terrorism as a law enforcement problem...and got 9/11.
If that's what you all want, so be it. But to me, that's not acceptable.
What will I do? I'll be calling my representative tomorrow and asking why he doesn't feel it's important to continue to be proactive against terrorism. And if that doesn't work, I'll pay him a visit.
Where was the rioting when the Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore?
Where was it?
Where was the outrage by Floridians? By the nation? I know Bush's limousine was covered with broken eggs on the way to his inauguration, but that seemed to be about the extent of it.
The Democrats are not at fault for where we are right now.
WE the people are.
::
That's soooooooo not true.
and the right wing lunatics would rather us pretend that the "war on terror" has nothing to do with US policy, with our single minded support of anything israel does, with our depradations around the globe, with our looting of the riches of 3d world countries, with our active promotion of puppet governments in nations around the world.
that's what we want to sweep under the rug: that we brought 9/11 on ourselves and it is only by changing our policies, changing the way we do business, by making this a democracy once again instead of a subsidiary of global corporations, that we'll be safe. ever.
fact: by invading the sovereign nation of iraq for no other reason than that we wanted their oil, we have created terrorists where there were none.
fact: by dipping out greedy fingers into the governments of virtually every middle eastern government at one time or another, we have enraged a populace previously unconcerned with us.
fact: by continuing our reliance on foreign oil to meet our energy needs, our vulnerability increases every damn day.
fact: because we continue to serve the needs of big oil, we will never, as a nation, officially act on energy independence or on climate change issues.
fact: our groveling before the forces of globalization keeps every one of us in danger.
fact: global corporations are enemies of the people.
fact: most americans can't be bothered to care, to educate themselves on these issues, or even to read the most superficial analyses of what we're really facing in this country, in the world.
They haven't been convicted of engaging in acts of terrorism. If they have committed such acts then they should be tried instead of being locked up for an indeterminate period. Given your willingness to stomp on our Constitution, it will only be a matter of time before you're posting messages on this site defending the government locking some of us for simply exercising our First Amendment rights.
Simple. He suspends his campaign due to the grave danger posed to the citizens of the United States and their Constitution by this bill and he spends a day in Washington on the floor of the Senate speaking against the bill. This is not rocket science. Obama either believes this bill poses a threat to our constitutionally protected rights or he does not.
Yes, but only because the candidate that many of us favored appears to lack political courage. I am deeply disappointed in Obama's response to this bill. After reading his statement, I thought of this excerpt from George Orwell’s great essay “Politics and the English Language”
'AS SOON AS certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse."
"Politics and the English Language" April 1946
How many of you, prior to 9/11, really gave a damn? And more importantly, how many of you will continue to once Bush leaves office?
Did I not post a thread linking to articles calling him out on his preaching on last Sunday, and got my happy ass flamed until well done?
What say those of you who flamed and engaged in name calling of me last week for pointing out examples like this? And that was mild, compared to the fact that Obama, if we pay attention, is actually TELLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXACTLY WHAT HE IS GOING TO DO AS PRESIDENT.
Pay attention to how he adjusts his message to the audiences he addresses, and it is no excuse that he has to tailor his message to certain constituencies. Most of us have universal goals and policies we want addressed and none to exclusion.
AIPAC - Israel will be protected at all costs. Sounds like he's cosigning one of the Senators who's busy pandering to the GOP and slandering him, Joe Lieberman.
UCC - Quit when the heat got turned up. I don't care how distracting Jeremiah Wright was perceived to be; you are not going to tell me he sat under Wright's pastorage for over 20 years and never once heard one of those "controversial" sermons.
I'll give him a pass on refusal to accept public financing because if he does and McCain doesn't, he gets handcuffed and can't finance protection against being swift boated.
Obama is a shrewd politico, but the day we can't call him out on his shyt before he enters the White House, we've already descended into a police state...amongst ourselves. Never mind what the GOP will do; hell, they won't really have to do anything to us except sit back and watch us destroy ourselves because we want a Black Face in the White House to the extent we excuse, pander and give a pass to the brotha who has told us "there is no Black America".
I call BS on this one, d. He doesn't have to pander to anyone - he needs to find his platform and either stick to it or get off. He's flip flopping more than Kerry to the point he's making Kerry look stable. Additionally, when he said he liked Ronnie Raygun, that should have given us all PAUSE.
Instead, we spent time defending him and parsing his statements praising Reagan. People of color got annihilated during the Reagan administration to the point we actually was happy to see Bush, Sr.
I will probably vote for Obama, but it will qualified with a "But", because there's probably more I'm going to have to call BS on before this is over.
At least I won't be expecting him to take people of color to the Promised Land if he wins. I won't be disappointed in his policies, either.
Let's be honest; the Bush Administration has amassed totalitarian power and no succeeding POTUS, be it Clinton, Obama or McCain, is going to willingly hand back the concept of checks and balances back to Congress, since Congress GAVE THEM UP IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Yes, I'm shouting, because in the face of evidence, there will still be some who will not "GET IT" and it will be to their own detriment.
The Right Wing Trap
I got your back, Barack
I agree with the main thrust of both of these compelling essays.
Especially the second one.
At least since elementary school. My sixth grade teacher Pedro Jose Gonzales (He had to change his name to Peter Joseph to get a teaching job,) had us read the Bill of Rights and discuss what it meant. So did several of my teachers in junior high and high school. I remember all of their names and I still in touch with some of them but I suspect that you are impervious to a certain style of reasoning and belief.
What were his real options? Endorse the compromise, or say nothing and vote no/"present" and be seen as soft on terror. Dhimmicrats make a lot of noise, but when its time to put up or shut up, they get right back in line.
This is Obama playing to Republicans and conservative independents.
But, hell, I wanna flush my representative anyway. Wanna help me? ;)
PT,
I've just seen a lot of people who gave become legal/constitutional "experts" since Bush v. Gore.
If the shoe doesn't fit you, fair enough.
And if he's pandering to factions that are not going to vote for him anyway, that's saying far more about his ability to lead than I need to know.
Even Bill Clinton accepted that there were factions of the country that weren't going to vote for him and he concentrated his efforts on the ones were most likely to vote for him. While that strategy worked for him, I like Howard Dean's 50-state strategy better, but really, while Obama needs to contend for votes in all 50-states, sometimes, he should know when and where to pack it in.
The fact that many of the founders of this democratic republic were slave owners (Thomas Jefferson) or closeted authoritarians and monarchists (John Adams) does not minimize the importance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The fact that this same document and its protections were more often ignored than implemented to protect the lives and property of black folk does not mean that black people should ignore the dangers of FISA because a black man is running for president.
In my own life I have been harassed and threatened by government officials, FBI agents and the local police. In each instance I had to remind these folks that the Bill of Rights did not permit them to do what they were threatening to do to me. I know for a fact that the FBI spied and ran security checks on me and my neighbors simply because we lived across the street from the Black Panther Free Breakfast Program. It was not and is not a crime to live across the street from a Black Panther program. In addition, it was not illegal to feed hungry children either.
The police agencies of the state and, no, it doesn't matter what country we are talking about, are always trying to expand their reach and control over their citizens' lives. They will lie, cheat, steal, torture, harass, burglarize and, yes, even commit murder if necessary to advance their aims. These are well documented facts and they are not exclusive to the United States.
We have to resist these intrusions into our private spaces. The U.S. government and its police agencies had the necessary authority to prevent the airplane highjackings and subsequent destruction that occurred on September 11, 2001. There were at least two FBI agents, for example who thought it suspicious that foreign nationals with no flying expertise or experience were taking classes in this country to learn how to pilot passenger jets.
These two agents were blocked at every turn when they attempted to get their superiors to play closer attention to their suspicions. No, I don't think that 9/11 was a U.S. government sponsored conspiracy but I think it reveals, in part, that the people who are supposed to be protecting us lack a certain degree of imagination and are not very creative. No legal authority they are demanding over our lives will change this fact.
We live in a period of asymmetric warfare where many of the combatants are not states and they will not rely on the grid to communicate with each other. The argument that the government needs more authority to tap into the communications networks of terrorists is absurd. I am fairly certain that these terrorists are not going to take advantage of the latest price reduction in iPhones so that they can call each other faster and more cheaply.
d. for an alleged conservative, you're just not very educated on matters of the founders' intent, eh?
Obama's response is not optional. It should be to defend the Constitution of this land. If he does not do that, then he is no better than Bush et al and we can be assured that an Obama presidency will be more of the same.
As CPL said above, the Reagan thing got my attention and yes, I remember discussing that very thing right here and getting flamed for it.
(And yes, CPL, thank you, thank you, I did not mean to leave you out.)
d., you refer to democrats as "getting in line," but it seems there are vast numbers of people in these times willing to submit to this authoritarian administration and to give up their freedom in exchange for the promise (not the actuality) of protection from . . . what. Protection from what, that which we have brought upon ourselves?
I'm not going to debate Republican v. Democrat because there are as many republicans and libertarians wrought up about this assault on our constitution as there are democrats.
This is profoundly important. It is not a political issue, it is not something you can just blow off and be uninterested in, it is not something you can, as a citizen of this country, ignore.
The Constitution of this country is what hundreds of thousands have fought and died for. It is this country; without it, we are nothing. And increasingly, I fear, that is the case.
Last fall Obama promised to filibuster this bill. We'll see if he does it. MoveOn has a campaign to educate him ~ to remind him of his obligation to defend the constitution.
ptcruiser has it right. This is police state bullshit. Earlier, you said "if you act right, why worry," or words to that effect.
I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse, if you are just ignorant of this country's history, or if you are out of touch with reality, but if you can't envision this increasingly authoritarian administration acting to eavesdrop on you, to surveil you and your associates, to swooop up every bit of electronic information about you, to spy on your home, your business, to pick you up on bogus charges, to search you without cause, then you just need to start paying attention.
You cannot ~ cannot ~ be paying attention to what has happened here since 9/11 and feel safe with this kind of power being vested in the executive. It is NOT safe. The founders knew that. They put in place safeguards to ensure that what has happened, is happening, would not be tolerated and could be stopped.
Barack Obama standing up on this issue, just as he has done on other issues, is critically important.
He needs to give the same thought, reasoned speech on the Constitution and why we must protect it that he did on race.
Reagan, the AIPAC pandering episode, his alliance with neoliberal economic theorists, his defense of hedge fund managers . . . all of that bodes ill, in my mind, for an Obama who will speak truth to power. We'll see what he does this week, but if he does not truly try to stop this bill, I am done with him and I will do everything in my power to educate everyone I know on how he sold out the last vestiges of this democracy.
So what should we do? Wait for another attack? Continue to play by the rules while our citizens die?
If at some point there is concrete evidence that the government overstepped their bounds with FISA, I'll cry foul.
But I'm not going to give up on a valuable tool for preventing terrorism just because it makes people uncomfortable.
It amazes me how liberals can complain about how their freedom is provided, but offer no thanks for being kept safe.
Belle,
I am safe. My family is safe, and hopefully my son will grow up with the sense of security that was taken from us on 9/11.
If preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution-which is what was in the oath I took-requires is to take drastic measures from time to time, so be it.
I would rather live with bent rules than be killed by an almost slavish obeyence of them.
But I'm not going to give up on a valuable tool for preventing terrorism just because it makes people uncomfortable.
you'll never get that evidence if this law passes. that's what it's about.
the government's power to wiretap WILL NOT VANISH IF THIS BILL FAILS!! that's what they want you to believe, but that's not the case.
the only thing that will happen is that it will not be solely the decision of the executive (remember? we have Three branches of government???) as to when wiretapping or surveillance occurs.
you are not safe. and that stupid ignorant fool george bush could have prevented 9/11 if he hadn't been so arrogant and defiant of those who tried to tell him about the attack. that's a fact.
now that he attacked FOR NO REASON a sovereign nation, there are millions of people who couldn't be bothered with us who now hate us. you are endangered by the policies of this administration. if you can rest easier at night with these incompetent jackasses in charge, then you're blissfully unaware of the truth.
Your inability to offer criticism without resorting to Bush bashing gives you very little credibility with me.
However...
Yes, I know that this bill will not completely kill FISA. But I believe that it will be to our detriment if it does not pass.
I sleep well at night knowing that I had a hand in keeping this country safe. And I will give everything-my life included-to make sure it stays that way.
This is a profoundly absurd charge and argument that really does not merit any reasonable response. I am beginning to think that if you had an original thought it would die of loneliness.
i can't criticize george bush? isn't that another guarantee of our constitution?
i am baffled by your blind loyalty to these people.
was torture acceptable when you were an active marine? did you practice techniques? discuss methods? my father is a WWII veteran and he is OUTRAGED by what has happened in iraq. and he is a republican.
and you speak of democrats blindly falling in lockstep????
i think i'm wasting my breath. you're just arguing to be arguing because you are making. no. sense.
Navy. And I guess what you'd consider torture was accepted in the military, since I just got out in 2006.
I never said you couldn't dissent or disagree. Or criticize, for that matter. But your last argument was mostly bashing the President to prove your point.
My alliegence is found in the oath of enlistment; "to obey the orders of the President and those appointed over me." I still hold to that, even as a civilian.
I am safe. My family is safe, and hopefully my son will grow up with the sense of security that was taken from us on 9/11.
Okay, D., how will you feel if you find out your phones are being tapped because the government suddenly decided that despite your heroic and patriotic service to your country, for some strange reason, you're suddenly considered a "threat" and they need to watch you at all costs?
That's what is meant by evisceration of your 4th Amendment rights. And since you asked how many of us have been concerned about the constitution, I join in with PT Cruiser as having been concerned about the constitution since 1976 - when a Civics instructor named Dr. Orville B. Davis, made a class of kids memorize the preamble to it and recite it chapter and verse.
I was one of those junior high kids forced to memorize the thing and got re-introduced to it as a college freshman taking Con Law.
It's not that people had no concern about the constitution - it wasn't until the Supreme Court decided to violate their own commission to uphold, defend, protect and interpret the Constitution in favor of partisanship, and continual destroying of the provisions for the last eight years, woke up everyone with a brain and a conscious.
Senator Obama taught Con Law - therefore to support outright evisceration of the protections he lectured on as a law school professor, should be giving everyone pause.
But, we African-Americans with a critical thought are flamed when we voice such concerns, and if the true progressives not African-American say anything, they're either racist or straight hating.
I fully support MoveOn's campaign to make Obama put up or shut up. How he responds should be viewed how he will lead, and should he respond in a manner that speaks to censorship and whatnot, we will have our answer.
As in, "Meet the New Boss, straight from the Same Bush."
apologies for the misstatement about your branch of service.
about that oath . . . what do you do when the two are in conflict?
You know I luv you, but I just gotta ask...
"I will probably vote for Obama, but it will qualified with a "But", because..."
How do you manage that? Down here in GA, and up in Chicago where I lived the first 50 years of my life they don't let us cast any 'but' votes, nor do they count whether we are holding our noses. You either vote for the bad Repubs, enabling them, or you vote for the nearly as bad Dems, enabling them, or you vote for somebody else, or you stay home.
You need to tell me where you live, so I can cast that kind of 'but' vote that is not really the full and unqualified endorsement that a normal vote seems to be.
*****************
And this is for the lady who just got out of the navy in 2006. I would humbly recommend that you stay out here and breathe in the free air for a while. You seem to be laboring under a lot of very strange notions, like that the so-called "war on terror" is really what your former bosses told you it was, and that torture and lawless behavior on the part of the government are somehow "protecting" you. or us.
There should be no doubt that in the military you were lied to. A lot. I mean a whole lot, night and day, for years by folks who outranked you, and some of whom may have even been smarter than you. No offense, but that's got to have an impact.
Remember, that as late as 2005 most of the troops in Iraq still believed they were over there to avenge 9-11, even though the whole rest of the world (outside the military) knew that Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the towers going down. Given the military's current role in generating deceptive propaganda and fake news for the civilian population, a recent military background is the least persuasive evidence one can present in favor of either (A) an accurate perception of what's going on; or (B) a willingness to tell the truth about it, assuming that one DOES know what's going on.
The president of the United States is commander-in-chief of the United States military services. The president is not commander-in-chief of the American people. No president ever has been not in war or peace. You can still act as if the president is your commander-in-chief but that is something that you choose to do. It is not something that you, me or anyone else not in the military is legally obliged to accept.
I find myself in a growing number of people who are saying the same thing, "I will vote for him, but..." because at this point, I don't know how my vote is going to count, but I cannot afford to stay home. Who's to say - I might fool everyone and cast my vote for Cynthia instead - it depends on where I find myself between now and November, and it also depends on how much more we'll find out about Mr. Obama's platform before I really have to leave him Stuck Like Chuck.
He's come dangerously close to it with the situation with his former Pastor. And don't get me started with the FISA mess - I'm hoping MoveOn gets Color of Change to join him in holding him to his promise to filibuster FISA (new). His lame-ass statement sounded like regurgitating Lieberman-ReThug talking points, and they sure have Kos' knickers in a bunch.
We have to be willing to call out this brotha both on the negatives as well as the positives. Excusing them because he's running for office doesn't cut it with me anymore.
You know if there weren't so many racist attacks still going on it would be easier to separate the small symbolic component that is there. I recognize it but will not ignore things. It's just like having a splinter. Things didn't get so messed up overnight and they won't be resolved overnight. There are people Obama [and the other 100+ Democrats] have to answer to because the foundation is and has always been FLAWED - we just need to make sure our voice is the one heard the loudest! The vote is in a few days. We still have time, but if we lose this time let this be a lesson for vigilance.
Politicians are not working for our interests when their ears are being bent by those who seek to undermine us at every turn.
One immediate course of action people can take is to divest yourself from consumer support of these companies. AT&T; was the worst perpetrator. Pick a new cell phone company like Credo or T-Mobile who did not violate FISA. They can't spy on you if you're not a customer. They should not be rewarded for foul behavior. Get the ACLU involved, try to get the cancellation fee waived, put it on YouTube, have a manifesto presented as to why millions of people are doing it.
Is it millions of people upset by this or a few thousand of the 'activist wing' as Clinton called it? Will it be enough to make some people back down? We should find out!
When I lived abroad and came back to the US the first 2 years I was flagged for random searches every time I went to the airport but do you think I believed that? No I figured I was on somebody's 'list'. Or flying while Black.
I still say these FISA violations have been going on since..forever. It can be couched as national security or whatever but I am not at all shocked or surprised by it. This is the history of this country to say one thing putting forth a set of ideals and to do the exact opposite.
India doesn't allow RIM Blackberry service because they can't tap into it yet.
I don't know. That's one of the things I'm still trying to work out in my head. Of course I'll get up and go to work, but I won't be happy about it.
Bruce,
Wrong gender aside...
I do believe that the War on Terror is what I was told it was. I never believed that Iraq was revenge for 9/11. But I did believe in the reasons for going in.
Now, some of those reasons have been shown to be suspect. Fair enough.
But I've never not seen the relation between Iraq and the War on Terror as a whole.
d. . . . I've never not seen the relation between Iraq and the War on Terror as a whole. . . . i am honestly interested to know what that is?
This shocking, perhaps unprecedented declaration by a senior military officer was just one of many instances during the week when Establishment figures – not just retired officials like Wilkerson and Taguba, but serving officers as well – confirmed and condemned the injustice and criminality of the Bush gulag system. Even corporate media types began openly using the "T" word, after years of ridiculing or marginalizing those who dare call the Administration's "harsh interrogation techniques" what they plainly are.
This nascent coventional wisdom line was perfectly illustrated in a new piece by Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times. Rutten is a lifelong newsman, a liberal of the old school, whose columns have been scathing in their criticism of Bush and all his works. In his latest outing, Rutten doesn't flinch from telling it like it is on Bush's torture regime. Drawing on the Congressional hearings and other sources, Rutten gives chapter and verse on "how the White House forced the adoption of torture as state policy of the United States."
He notes also the highly significant fact that one major impetus behind the construction of the torture system was the Bush Faction's extremist "unitary executive" theory: the crank belief that a president can exercise unbridled, unaccountable authoritarian power in his role as "commander-in-chief." This includes the power to break the law -- and order others to break the law -- as he sees fit.
that "extremist unitary executive theory" is the same one at issue with FISA.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/062008Floyd.shtml
You might take the time to read that entire article. It goes into some depth about Obama's view of all of this, which I find terribly disheartening.
You know, that line of attack really hasn't gotten you anywhere, has it?
How 'bout you come over to my blog and we have a little talk...
keep on pushing. i love the debate
D, good luck here bro :)
Holding the line, as always.
Belle,
Read your article. Here's what I think:
Yes, we as a nation have recently used methods that run counter to what our country was founded on. Am I completely okay with that? On some level, no. But the results of those actions-the fact that there hasn't been another attack on our soil-outweighs whatever uncomfortableness there is.
The reason why I view Iraq as part of the larger War on Terror is because when Saddam was given a chance to stand with us and renounce terrorism and extremism, he refused. I lose no sleep now that he's gone.
Personally, I look for vindication for our cause to come from history, cause it damn sure ain't coming from the majority of this country.
Since the desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein was a focus of the Bush Administration prior to the events of September 11, 2001 whether he chose to stand with our government or not is hugely irrelevant. In addition, international law and the governing covenants of the United Nations does not recognize or support military action against another sovereign state because that state declines to participate in a global "War on Terror."
What you are actually implying here is that Saddam Hussein and his regime had something to do with the events of September 11, 2001. This canard, which had been promoted by, among others, the Bush Administration has been discredited over and over again. Again, it is not true.
What is true is that more than 800,000 Iraqis have died since our illegal and unjustified invasion of that country. Yes, Hussein was a brutal dictator but the rate of carnage and mayhem that has afflicted that country since our invasion and occupation far exceeds anything that occurred under his rule.
You should lose sleep, if you have any decency, over the deaths of so many Iraqis including women and children.
I only lose sleep when I think about the 4100 families in this country who have lost loved ones in Iraq.
(that's a tempered response. I'm not going to say what I'm really thinking in this forum)
Note that I said terrorism AND extremism. Yes, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But do you seriously think that, if left unchecked, he wouldn't have threatened our country at some point?
People who are looking for vindication in the future for acts committed here and now are either praying that their side writes all of the history books or hope that they'll be dead when history proves them wrong.
The thing is, however, is that you don't have to wait any longer for an answer. The invasion of Iraq has been a disaster.
I am deeply disturbed about the deaths of Americans and Iraqis but 800,000 people is a hell of a loss. I'm sorry that you don't regard Iraqis as human beings and are too chicken to say so.
"(that's a tempered response. I'm not going to say what I'm really thinking in this forum)"
I already know what you really think on this particular issue. You believe that Iraqis are not human beings and are less entitled to live than Americans. That is exactly what you believe. I have relatives who are retired senior military officers. They would have had someone like you watched very closely if you had been under their command.
That's easy for someone who probably has no personal tie to the war to say.
Has it been easy; the cakewalk we all expected it to be? No. Has it been difficult? Yes.
But is it still winnable? The facts on the ground say yes.
And, since you wanna know, I would've said that the deaths of citizens of my country-especially of those who I was honored to wear the uniform with-are more important that those of another country.
Don't make the mistake of thinking me unsympathetic, because I'm not.
What exactly will we "win" in Iraq?
What "facts on the ground" say the war is "winnable"? Whose facts?
How many more American soldiers are going to have to die or be wounded and maimed for life before we win whatever we win in Iraq?
Win what?
America will benefit from a stable, secure Iraq. A democratic Iraq has the potential to be a strong ally in the War on Terror.
I could tell you that violence in Iraq is at its lowest levels since the height of the insurgency, that the Iraqi government has made several legislative gains (de-Baathifacation, sharing of oil revenues), and that the Iraqi military is-even in its infancy-becoming increasingly able to protect its citizens. But, if you'd like, I'll pull some articles from that bastion of conservatism known as the NY Times.
Unfortunately, several hundred. Maybe several thousand. And we best honor their memories by completing our mission there, and not tucking tail and fleeing.
Please don't stop.
Thank you.
I hate to tell you this but Iraq was stable and secure BEFORE we invaded and occupied the country and threw it into chaos.
Who says violence in Iraq is at an all time low, that bastion of warmongering enabler The New York Times? Who says the Iraqi government is making legislative gains? That bastion of warmongering enabler Faux News? Who says the Iraqi military is becoming better at protecting it's citizens, Mr. Straight Talk Express McSame as Bush?
You still haven't said what we "win" in Iraq. What is the mission in Iraq? You believe to best honor the memory of those who have already died in Iraq is for thousands more to die in Iraq?
We need to cut and run from stay the course. Staying the course is getting thousands of our soldiers killed, wounded and maimed for life. I won't even mention the countless innocent Iraqi women and children who have lost their life since their lives are of no value to you.
People-both military and civilian-die in war. Sorry, it happens.
But...fine. Since I'll ultimately spend the next 4-8 years under liberal rule, why don't you tell me what the plan is after we surrender and flee.
Talk about times when it's tough to love this country....
Hey, d, check this out:
I am a citizen of a democratic republic. I may take issue with my government's actions but in all respects when my government acts, it is representing me even if I strongly disagree with its actions. Consequently, I have, as citizen of this Republic, a personal tie to any war my government is involved in.
My right to express my opinion is not dependent on whether I have a "personal tie to the war" whatever that odd phrase means. American military personnel who are involved in the American War in Iraq are not serving there because one morning they all woke up and decided to invade that country. They are in Iraq because our government - my government - sent them there. In a democratic republic - presuming you actually believe in such a form of government - public policy issues, and war is a public policy issue par excellence, and their resolution cannot be based on whether one has "personal ties" or not. There is no hierarchy that we are bound to respect with regard to such issues. All of us have a right and a duty to speak and debate about these matters.
You better be careful because your comment like "tough to love this country" could get you flamed like the MSM did Michelle Obama, and you surely don't want that and still consider yourself an American, do you?
Surrender and flee what? The North American continent? What are you referring to here. We have no right to be in Iraq. It is not our country and the Iraqis have never agreed to be one of our colonial possessions.
D - didn't the old folks ever tell you that you can't lose what you ain't never had?
Go make the deployments; go walk the blocks in Guantanamo. Then come talk to me about a personal tie to this conflict.
I think you're a typical liberal: you'll second guess all day, but wouldn't lift a finger to defend this country if needed.
CPL,
I thought about that before I typed it. And I stand behind it.
It is hard for me to love this country when I see people who are unwilling or unable to comprehend what 10% of this country has done-and is willing to do-so that the other 90% can complain. It makes me wonder what the hell I served for.
"I think you're a typical liberal: you'll second guess all day, but wouldn't lift a finger to defend this country if needed."
Look, D. in the first place I am not a liberal. You have no idea what a liberal is and you are simply repeating right-wing talking points. In addition, I don't owe you any special deference, as opposed to civility and respect, because you chose to serve in the military or agreed to participate in an illegal invasion of another country.
(The land that Guantanamo sits on, for example, belongs to the people of Cuba not the United States. The Cuban government at the time only agreed to sign a so-called lease because it was the only way to get our government to agree to accept and respect Cuban sovereignty to the small extent it ever did. [You don't really think the Brits owned Hong Kong do you or that the Chinese willingly signed a 99-year lease with England?])
Iraq posed no credible threat to the safety of the United States. The only country that poses a potential threat to this country is Israel because it has 250 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver their payloads to the United States.
If any foreign invaders show up in Puget Sound I will be among the first to confront them. Until that time...
I hope that, if our enemies do come back to this country, you're not my last hope. Else, me and my family had best convert now.
Iraq is not a threat to us and was not a threat to us. The intelligence was DEAD WRONG. What part of that don't you understand son?
Re: Credible Threats
There is no country in the world that wants to get into a shooting match with the United States of America. You are arguing that because another nation's leader(s) don't like us we have the right to invade thagt country. Hugo Chavez doesn't like us but are you arguing that we should invade Venezuela? I'm sure that a lot of major league baseball players and their teams would not be happy campers.
My point about Israel is that there are very, very few nations that pose any credible threat to the sovereignty of the United States. In terms of military capability, we are the 1600 pound gorilla. Nobody else comes close. I'm not bragging. This is a fact. We are not, however, invincible. Wars like Iraq will eventually rob us of will; it is already robbing us of blood and treasure. If we follow your prescription, the end won't be a long time coming.
Personally, I'm not afraid. We still have a nuclear arsenal that's collecting dust. I fear no evil at all.
A question for you: have you read the Iraq Survey Group reports beyond the sections that said there was no stockpile of WMD in Iraq?
PT,
I wouldve leaned towards 2400 pounds myself.
This war has already killed most of the country's will. Sometime within the next 4-8 years, we'll be tucked back behind our borders, doing nothing to take the fight to our enemies.
That, my friend, is change I can believe in.
I just hope we're ready to live with the possible results of that change.
Well, it is kind of hard to get the populace stirred up on a full time basis when the kill ratio is close to 207 to 1 in your favor and the other side shows no signs of throwing up their hands and walking away. Two and half million Vietnamese had to die before we woke up to this reality: folks ain't rolling over anymore in the face of U.S. military power.
We also don't like Iraqis who employ suicide bombings and IEDs. We have some silly notion that folks who fight this way are not fighting fair.
If, d. represents the mentality of those that are in charge of our government Lord help us.
What is more alarming, in my opinion, is that far too many Americans because of the incessant propaganda and lies promoted by our government and the MSM have bought into this meme. Look at all of the people who still believe that we could have "won" the war in Vietnam if the politicians had just stayed out of the way. This is crazy. The French have had to go through the same thing about Algeria. Dreams of empire die hard.
I'd challenge you to read that before you cry that all the intelligence was dead wrong.
I'm certain you won't though.
I challenge you to open your eyes and your mind. You have been lied to, and either you don't know it or worse you don't care.
There is nothing the Iraq Study Report can tell me to convince me that invading and occupying Iraq is keeping us safe.
Read it for yourself.
"Iraqi President Jalal Talabani called the group's conclusions "very dangerous" to Iraq's sovereignty and constitution, according to CNN. "As a whole, I reject this report," Talabani said.[19]"
So, D, why do you believe that folks need to read a report that has been rejected the Iraqi government? BTW, have you looked at the composition of the Iraqi Study Group?
Iraq Survey Group.
You both have the wrong ISG.
I should've corrected Anon.
Interim Progress Report
After six months searching for WMD, the ISG issued an Interim Progress Report on October 3, 2003. The team has found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. In addition to details of dormant WMD programs, the October 2003 report also includes discoveries of non-WMD programs banned by the U.N. and concealed during the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNMOVIC inspections that began in 2002. Lines of enquiry adopted by the ISG include the examination of sites across Iraq, as well as interviewing scientists, truck drivers and other workers with possible knowledge of WMD. The failure to find any stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons has proved a problem for Washington and London, who used intelligence indicating that Iraq did possess WMD stockpiles as one of the primary justifications for the invasion of Iraq. The British government, in particular, placed very heavy emphasis on this intelligence.
David Kay resigns
On January 23, 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties." In a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kay criticized the pre-war WMD intelligence and the agencies that produced it, saying "It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing." [1] Sometime earlier, CIA director George Tenet had asked David Kay to delay his departure: "If you resign now, it will appear that we don't know what we're doing. That the wheels are coming off."[1]
Kay told the SASC during his oral report the following, though: "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion-—although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
Kay's team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce chemical and biological weaponry if international economic sanctions were lifted, a policy change which was actively being sought by a number of United Nations member states. Kay also believed some components of the former Iraqi regime's WMD program had been moved to Syria shortly before the 2003 invasion [2], though the Duelfer Report Addenda (see below) later reported there was no evidence of this.
On February 6, 2004, Bush convened the Iraq Intelligence Commission, an independent inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and the failure to find WMD. This was shortly followed by the conclusion of a similar inquiry in the United Kingdom, the Butler Review, which was boycotted by the two main opposition parties due to disagreements on its scope and independence [3].
In 2003, The U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had been budgeted for $400 million, with an additional $600 million added in 2004.
Kay's successor, named by CIA director George Tenet, was the former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who stated at the time that the chances of finding any WMD stockpiles in Iraq were "close to nil."
I'm going to refer you to the Downing Street Memo.