The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger

Pingback| 1.4.10 @ 6:30AM

Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger [spe links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…amspec American Spectator 2 Show more Tags #obama #tcot Topsy Retweet Button Add Topsy Retweet Button to your Blog or Web Site. WordPress Web Sites 3 tweets tweet The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger spectator.org/archives/2010/01/04/media-warns-of-grave-gop-dange – view page – cached The Christmas Day terrorist attack on Flight 253 was an actual disaster that…

PCC| 1.4.10 @ 6:50AM

Observation: Mr. Schuringa is Dutch, not Danish.

The author asks, "Would Moran and the legacy media prefer political arguments about affirmative action, gay marriage and abortion?"

Answer: Yes.

Son Of Sam | 1.4.10 @ 11:14AM

No they sure as hell wouldn't... gay marriage has gone down in flames 31 times in a row. In fact ANY place where "we the people" are given an actual choice, we choose real marriage of one man and one woman. The fossil-liberal media sure as hell doesn't want to talk about that, nor do they want to talk about how more Americans are pro-life than pro-choice. Affirmative action? Hmmmm....does a recent supreme court case involving some Connecticut firefighters ring a bell?

Face facts PCC: the only thing this damned rat pack of posers and pseudo "journalists" want to talk about is the supposed brilliance of the TelePrompter In Chief. Btw, when are they going to get his transcripts? I'm sure they're chock full of straight As

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/

The Big E| 1.4.10 @ 12:59PM

"Would Moran and the legacy media prefer political arguments about affirmative action, gay marriage and abortion?"

Answer: No. They would prefer no political argument at all. About anything. They don't want political argument, they want absolute political power - without question, without dissent, without debate.

Charles Newman| 1.5.10 @ 3:32PM

Glad someone realizes " they want absolute political power - without question, without dissent, without debate" and they essentially have it for now. 60 votes in the Senate until Jan. 19. Please, people of Mass. help your country, vote Republican for US Senate.

Margie| 1.5.10 @ 5:34PM

For Mass. Go to brownforussenaate.com

He's a great conservative running for senate~~ just heard him on Hannity. Voting's in 2 weeks.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 1:54PM

Am I the only one who thinks Terry "Moron's" above photo is hilarious? Geez, what a doofus!

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 2:05PM

SoCon,
I loved the fact that he posted that shot. It's what the Left always does.. whenever they present anyone whether in print or t.v. or online, it's always the worst possible shot.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 2:20PM

True. They always use old photos of Rush, never the new attractive ones. Doesn't he look great?
I'm so glad he's taking better care of himself.

It's hard for the MSM to do that to Sarah Palin, though; she always looks beautiful.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 2:37PM

Rush does look great. I somehow found some pics of him online.. forget if it was his website or not but he was dressed in golf shorts with outrageous patterns on them..so funny. But he looked really good, tanned and thin!
And yes, Sarah is so beautiful, she absolutely radiates from inside and the Lame Stream Media will indeed have a very hard time.. they can't even put a dent in anything she does.. because she loves God.

Ret. Marine| 1.4.10 @ 7:09AM

Yeah well, I believe the request for financial aid to the GOP is falling upon deaf ears anyway even if it is wrapped up in a selling points memo securing our liberties. While politics is a real world fighting match regarding everything of a Republic point of view and nothing about fear, the left seems to over look the legitimate concerns of the direction they ( the useful idiots and the Dem's) are forcing upon We the People. We don't need no stinkin socialism, communism, marxist, moa mumbling idiots telling us we are not at war. We know we are , some of are directly involved daily in this fight, many in our own ways but, nonetheless in it to win. I wish the left would at least pretend to get involved, oh wait they do that, and only that.
This country is going through growing pains, We the People are mad as hell, there is no way around the issue. I only hope We the People are as concerned about these liberties as were our forefathers. I know I am, and I'm not going to pretend we are not in a fight to keep these liberties either. Their pettiness (lamestream media) is only designed to distract the clueless and teet sucking parasites from the real concerns of National security, the National debt, the submission of our pretender-n-theif to the ideology of islam, his willingness to enslave this country to an international mindset and worst of all the selling out of our childrens inheritence and liberties.
Eight days before this CONgress sold their souls to the devil, our pretender-n-theif quitely signed away our sovernty away to the international criminal courts, and where were the pervaiers of truth on that day, where were the GOP in calling out this act of treason? you guessed it, now where to be found, and they think We the People did not take notice.

Charles Newman| 1.5.10 @ 3:38PM

They are only seven votes away from being able to ratify such treaties, but no one is talking about that either.

Pingback| 1.4.10 @ 7:28AM

The News Factor, an informative online Conservative News Magazine » OBAMA ADMINISTRAT links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…looming threats), and opposed supporting democracy movements (in Iran, the Middle East and elsewhere). And they’re still opposed to these commonsense measures! Continue reading this story HERE SIMILAR NEWS FACTOR POSTS: DISTURBING: BOMBER HAD NO PASSPORT, HELPED TO BOARD PLANE BY SHARP-DRESSED MAN WAKE UP CALL: UK COPS FEAR THAT 25 BRITISH-BORN MUSLIMS ARE PLOTTING TO BOMB WESTERN AIRLINERS…

ggoblue | 1.4.10 @ 7:35AM

heres what i always say when some democrat whines about tactics: the party of james carville wants to play nice? i dont think so.

Pingback| 1.4.10 @ 7:42AM

Must Know Headlines 1.4.2010 — ExposeTheMedia.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Us Terror In The USA Islamic Suicide Bomber Who Killed Six CIA Officers Was Trusted CIA Informant The Joke’s On Us–The Pantybomber Wasn’t The Big Joke. We Are. Old Media Media Warns Of Grave GOP Danger Sweden Invades DC: WaPo Hails First Wave Of ‘Climate Pilots’ To Instruct Us On Car-Free Lifestyles More Mission Essential For Those In Uniform Energy Companies Face Climate…

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.4.10 @ 7:45AM

Sigh,
Well, it looks like a bunch of Americans are going to have to be murdered by terrorists, to motivate some people to get off their dead butts and get these communists, (pardon the shorthand), out of power on their rears.
Very sad, very sad.

Louis Jenkins| 1.4.10 @ 9:02AM

The question I have is "why do these people want Americans to be targets?" Regardless of politics it should be every administration's goal to keep America safe! It appears that the Apologizer n Chief couldn't care less for our well being. Are these statists unofficially aligned with terrorists? If so then it is treason at the highest level and they're not losing any sleep over it either.

John R. Guardiano| 1.4.10 @ 9:16AM

Louis Jenkins,
You're an idiot and a fraud -- and probably a Lefty trying to discredit legitimate criticism and debate. No one ever said: "Why do these people want Americans to be targets?" -- and you know it. This is fiction of your own creation.

Of course, no American president, and no American official, wants Americans to be targets of terrorism. It is disgusting that you would even suggest that.

Why do you insist on coming to this site and polluting and debasing the debate? Your actions -- and words -- are shameful

John Guardiano

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.4.10 @ 10:29AM

Mr. Guardiano,
OKOK, Louis used the wrong word. I think his thought was more "let" than "want".

Louis has contributed a lot of valid thought in these forums over time. You owe him an apology.

If Louis had in fact used the word "let", I would pretty much agree with him.

I have stated here several times that the current government's actions...and words...have bared our throats to the barbarians.

Louis Jenkins| 1.4.10 @ 11:25AM

Thanks Old Texican for defense. God Bless Texas, but as far as using the word 'want' I'll have to stand by it. Want: to feel the need of, crave, wish for something, or to desire. I think it truly applies to the situation. And the "current government's actions...and words... " are what is to be considered. I do not believe the pretender n chief's actions speak of protection or safety from those who would harm the United States.

Crimminal court for terrorists? Continuing with open borders? Dithering with the Afganhistan surge? Stacking the cabinet with statist elites? Disparaging comments towards Town Hall attendees and Tea Parties? An open and transparent government that now votes on unread bills in the middle of the night. etc. You folks know the list better than I. According to Hillary, when she was a senator, the debate of the actions of our government is patriotic! Now it is condemned by this administration.

Mr. Guardiano: as far as being accused of being an idiot, or fraud, well, I've been accused of being idiotic before, no big deal, and it will happen again. I am not fraudulent. In fact, by your very comment I am too stupid to be fraudulent. I am certainly not a "lefty". Shameful? In no way do I have a strong feeling of guilt for the comments. Debasing the debate? Nay, seems the word 'want' has inspired a strong counter debate.

Tony in Central PA| 1.4.10 @ 12:39PM

Louis, don't you think this Administration is so disconnected from reality that we often can't identify a rational basis for its actions ? As far as terrorism, I can only conclude Obama and his supporters believe terrorists can be placated by making our country as inoffensive to them as possible. Hence the World Apology Tour 2009, the dithering on Afghanistan, the many well wishes for Islamic holidays, the civilian court trials for enemy combatants, etc.

I would say there's an element of adolescent narcissism in this worldview. Its a feel - good belief of whiners who were never in charge of anything to blame everything bad in the world on " The Man " ( George W. Bush most recently ). These people apparently believe that the United States is responsible for everything that happens in the world. If people hate us and want to kill us, its naturally our fault. The fault in this case was having somebody like George W. Bush represent us. Now that " The Man " has been replaced by " The One ", people should naturally love us and stop wanting to kill us.

Yes its infantile and irrational, but its the only explanation that I have found that seems to make sense of this Administration and the Left's approach to terrorism.

Louis Jenkins| 1.4.10 @ 1:08PM

"don't you think this Administration is so disconnected from reality that we often can't identify a rational basis for its actions ?"

There is no doubt that the wiring of this administration is different. From my corner of the world their actions are irrational, placating terrorists only invites more of the same, and getting the world to love the US is similar to believing pixie dust would make one fly. Sticking it to "The Man" seems to be an appropriate slogan, the Man being anyone who disagrees, has divergent political views, or is not an entitlement groupie. It is more direct than "Hope and Change."

darcy| 1.4.10 @ 8:29PM

Louis Jenkins -- your point is well taken: 'want' is the right word.

DIVERSION, diversion, diversion. As long as the the "right" is consumed with fear and angst and anger over the TERRORIST threat, it hasn't the energy or wherewithall (sp?) to focus like a laser on the REAL and imminent threat posed by marxist commies and their cronies, i.e., RINOs; it hasn't the time to reflect on the RADICAL changes to our society already underway in the guise of NON-DISCRIMINATION, tolerance, social justice, and on and on -- that have seaped their way into our society like a gangrene, green, and spreading it's contagion to the point of killing us off (figuratively, and literally --we'll see).

The Moran types and all his evil fellow-travelers have their knickers in a twist because they SEE on the horizon some REAL pushback -- so the first thing they want to do is SHAPE the message to deflect the arrow.

Little do they know it's not an arrow.

Ret. Marine| 1.4.10 @ 9:02PM

This admin. if headed by a devout muslim, can't get away from the fact (s) per his own statements. These barbarians are not all of a sudden interested in taking down this Country, they have been making inroads to their objective since the time of the Barbarian wars. Can't get away from this fact either. They are in fact conducting a Jihad, as per their religion wich commands they convert the entire world to islam, (submission) to their allah la-la moon god. Their problem will be one day the Christian Men in the western world are going to turn this whole lousy episode back on them, and start killing theirs in equal numbers, for different reason, tired of them killing ours, period.
The entire gubmint (s) will fail at stopping the slaughter right before their eyes. This is my biggest fear. It very well may happen just because we are sick and tired of their tactics. What a weak bunch they are. More times than not they simply ran for cover in their mosques and behind their woman. I know this to be a fact, been there done it and may do it again.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 1:25PM

Guardiano, what's really disgusting is that you're defending the democrats' disastrous/dangerous national security policies. Louis has every right to speak his mind and he's not alone in his suspicions.

Louis isn't the idiot troll here: You owe him an apology.

Jim| 1.4.10 @ 1:30PM

Guardino, you are the idiot, Obama IS A MUSLIM AND HE WANT TO KILL REAL AMERICANS OF WHICH YOU ARE NOT. PELOSI , REID AND ALL OF THE SCUM LEFT OF WHICH YOU MOST DEFINETLY MUST BE ARE ALL TRAITORS AND SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THIS COUNTRY IN THE WORST POSSIBLE WAY. YOU INCLUDED IDIOT.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 1:50PM

Louis isn't an Axelrod troll but the jury's out on Jim.

That you, Liberal Reader?

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 1:48PM

Mr. Guardiano,
May I try and be a little bit of a peacemaker here? In re reading Louis' post and then yours again it seems you may have taken Louis' saying ~"the question I have is why do these people want Americans to be targets?" as if he was quoting you in your article. He wasn't quoting you as asking the question.. he was asking it himself.
~It seems you may have thought that and took personal offense. Sometimes that happens (I've done it myself) .. hope that may help.

As to Louis's questioning the wanting of us being targets.. one does have to wonder if going by the actions of a man and not his words (Obama and co.). Obama certainly does seem to have more of a love for our enemies than for us regular folk, does he not?
Best regards!

Dai Alanye | 1.4.10 @ 2:17PM

Although this article was somewhat worthwhile I saw nothing new in it—just another recompilation of what we already know, somewhat wimpily presented.

What WAS new is the David Frum-like attack by the author on one of the guys on our side. Golly, we must be embarrassing the sensitive soul.

Feel free to counsel Jenkins, Guardiano, if you feel he's going a bit overboard, but spare us the RINOish vaporings of a skittish conservative.

What's next from you, attacks on Mark Steyn for use of hyperbole? Does Sarah Palin's crude populism disgust you? Or did you simply misinterpret Jenkins' meaning?

Maybe if Pete Hoekstra had just a teeny bit of Louie Jenkins in him he might have shocked Terry Moran out of his stupid rant.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 2:22PM

LOL

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 2:40PM

Grow up little twerp.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 2:48PM

Sorry Dai,
I thought you were talking to me as your post was under mine.. thought you were.. sorry old chap. I have committed this error more than once, and I must read more carefully, Forgive me?

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 2:59PM

LOL! You're not alone, Margie--I didn't realize Guardiano was the author until AFTER I made my @1:25 comment. Whoops!

Still, I thought he over-reacted to Louis' post.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 3:11PM

SoCon,
We're all soo fired up, right? So sometimes we make mistakes.. lately I try to fess up asap.. if I get a bad response, so be it but at least I tried.
I really think most of us are on the same page, but sometimes we want to make SO sure of it that we end up fighting amongst ourselves.

In my post to Mr. G. I thought maybe that he read Louis' post wrong.. I don't know. But like I said in that same post, how can we be blamed for thinking exactly as Louis stated if we are seeing abomination after abomination from this man, Obama? It certainly does "beg the question."
Sometimes I ask myself: WHO IS THIS MAN, REALLY?

Dai Alanye | 1.4.10 @ 3:34PM

I'll get you yet, Margie—you and your little dog, too.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 4:49PM

You guys are too funny! Thanks for brightening my day.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 5:01PM

SoCon,
Same here. This turned out to be a great thread IMHO.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 4:59PM

Please. please.... leave my little doggie out of this!

explosion proof light | 11.25.10 @ 1:35AM

That's the way it went in the U.S. for decades. People in poor communities were convinced that the police and justice system didn't give a hang about crime in their neighborhoods.

Michael Tomlinson| 1.4.10 @ 2:30PM

John the Obama backers at MoveOn.org and its offshoots in the world of paranoid leftist blogs routinely trotted out conspiracies and fallacious charges of President Bush wanting Americans to die (along with threats on President Bush's life). One ass presently in Congress from Florida even accused the GOP of wanting to kill the sick in the US (when the biggest threat to healthy Americans is Congressional Democrats and their plans to control health care) . So while it may be to extreme to imply Obama wants Americans to die it is safe to say Democrats and their supporters are quick to throw such mud on others.

Until Republicans brow beat him into acting I'd have said Obama was indifferent and ambivalent on the subject. Though John Kerry's wife in defending her husband's failed Presidential bid suggested Americans needed to be like Europeans and learn to live with terrorism. I'm not sure her attitude does reflect a sizable number of Democrats and members of the Obama administration.

Bruce | 1.4.10 @ 3:02PM

"Of course, no American president, and no American official, wants Americans to be targets of terrorism. It is disgusting that you would even suggest that."

That happens to be EXACTLY what the lefties/9-11 "truthers" claimed about GWB. So why the outrage?

Louis Jenkins| 1.4.10 @ 4:16PM

Very good folks. Using the word "want" has rallied the troops so to speak and contributed to the debate. (Maybe I shouldn't use strong words like rally or troops. Could send a negative message and spawn another name calling diatribe.) Often I think that born and bred Americans, particularly if they are of a conservative nature, have a target between their shoulder blades. But tonight, Mr. Guardiano, I will hug my kids, kiss my wife, pet the dogs, say a short prayer, and then sleep well with visions of a conservative Constitutional loving government dancing in my head. I extend the same thought to you.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 4:53PM

Nah, Louis, don't change a bit. We need strong Conservatives like you! :)

Charles Newman| 1.5.10 @ 3:48PM

"You're an idiot and a fraud -- and probably a Lefty trying to discredit legitimate criticism and debate"; actually it's you who resorts to name calling when you disagree with someones opinion. This is a standard left wing tactic which leads me to wonder if you are the "fraud" instead.

martin j smith| 1.4.10 @ 8:22AM

The Media are in the FIX--its about MONEY.
Voters who are "true believers" know something is wrong. Question is: How many ?
Its up to the voters to vote early and often--oh yea, stop Democrat voter fraud. And--its up to activists to challenge GOP Wimps in primaries to at least force voters to0 see the issues and or replace them with better candidates.

martin j smith| 1.4.10 @ 8:22AM

The Media are in the FIX--its about MONEY.
Voters who are "true believers" know something is wrong. Question is: How many ?
Its up to the voters to vote early and often--oh yea, stop Democrat voter fraud. And--its up to activists to challenge GOP Wimps in primaries to at least force voters to0 see the issues and or replace them with better candidates.

Mattled| 1.4.10 @ 8:25AM

I've said dozens of times before. Defeat the Media, defeat Obama and democrats.

Without the year in year out multi-billion dollar PR campaign the media wages against Republicans, the Democrats would be toast---at least in the form they are in today.

Last year I got my entire family (5 family members) off ABC, CBS, NBC and on to alternate sources. Got a neighbor off his liberal rag as well and on to WSJ home delivery.

If every person here accomplished that and got every one of the people to do that so on and so on, they could go down this year.

How about a chain-mail started by Mr. Tyrrell we could pass on?

Come on TAS!!! Start it!!

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 1:50PM

Mucho Kudos for your converts, Mattled! That's encouraging. May we all do likewise and it spread like wildfire.

Jeremiah| 1.4.10 @ 9:19AM

The asshole Moran is ashamed by fundraising? How did he think His Obamessiah ran for Prez? With federal funding? F.ucking liberals!

Jeremiah| 1.4.10 @ 10:47AM

Hey, be original with your handle. I am Jeremiah on this site and, however pointed my comments sometimes are, I don't use profanity. Accept no faux Jeremiahs - demand the real thing.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 1:30PM

BS you don't use profanity, Jeremiah @ 10:47--you little F-Bomb specialist, you. Go away forever, moron, you're Liberal Reader now.

I like Jeremiah @ 9:19. Stick around please!

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 1:59PM

Yup, one and the same skunk: He's a two-bit punk working for Axelrod, selling out his fellow Americans--like all Leftists.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 2:01PM

Leave the profanity to the liberals, please.

bluecollarbytes| 1.4.10 @ 9:44AM

I look forward to more Republicans "predictably" going after all Obama failures. After 1 year as president, it's clear that Obama's unique take on the world and our 'selfish place in it' is more than skin deep. It goes to the heart of who Obama is. And the activist in him refuses to allow a mitigation of his ideological foolishness. Abdulmutallab helps mark the transition from Bush to Obama. We're now living in the Obama age of national security, where temperature fluctuations present a greater threat than Islamo Fascists.

bud| 1.4.10 @ 9:55AM

I note the use of the phrase "political reality" in Mr. Guardino's well-done piece. That phrase seems an excellent candidate for the most surreal oxymoron to be associated with this administration.

Anthony| 1.4.10 @ 10:07AM

It finally hit me this weekend, Obama and Napolitano are the Abbott and Costello of this administration. Obama plays the straight man, with Napolitano as the comic dufuss. All she needs is a bowler hat. What we Americas are getting from these clowns is the series known as "Abbott and Costello meet al Qaeda".
What we get from the fawning MSM, are reviews of praise for this slap stick farce. What we Americans know is that both this administration and the MSM stink to high heaven. 2010 is when the Obama administration and the MSM are finally cancelled.

Mark30339| 1.4.10 @ 10:11AM

GOP ambushees need to be more prepared when MSM sycophants want to scold them. The Bush 41 rip on Dan Rather comes to mind (see http://newsbusters.org/blogs/r.....eorge-bush)

Richard Baker| 1.4.10 @ 11:37AM

The Kenyan may not want Americans to be killed but his efforts, to date, seem to be ambivalent on the subject. W may not have been so bad on this subject after all, eh?

Michael Tomlinson| 1.4.10 @ 2:16PM

Richard, President Bush was the only US President, since Muslims began attacking us and the West under Nixon, to actually fight terrorism and the supporters of terrorism.

As for the Kenyan he doesn't care if Americans are killed so long as he can globe trot around the world, have a monthly party in the White House and spend, spend, spend our hard earned money.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 2:26PM

He looks great in a pair of swim trunks, though. Maybe that will be enough to make everyone like us.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 3:12PM

Perish the thought!

murph | 1.4.10 @ 11:45AM

Does the Obama administration truly recognize that America is at war with al-Qaeda and the terror masters?"

Yes, I believe they do. Not only do they know there's a war going on, they know where it is happening better than the previous administration did.

The C.I.A. has launched 53 [Predator] strikes in Obama’s first year in office, more than during Bush’s entire presidency, according to data compiled by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann at the New America Foundation. In part, that strategy owes to increasingly precise technology that has made it easier in the last couple of years to hit a desired target with fewer civilian casualties. And in part, it underscores the ability to redirect resources away from Iraq now that the war has subsided there; when the Obama administration came into office, it learned that dozens of drones were devoted to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but just five or six in the tribal areas of Pakistan where Al Qaeda’s leadership is mainly holed up, according to officials who declined to be identified discussing a classified program. Obama has authorized doubling the number of drones in the Pakistani border area, as well as increasing the presence over Yemen and Somalia, officials said.

Nick| 1.4.10 @ 12:54PM

Murph,

You start off by citing data that claims President Dither has presided over more Predator strikes in his first year than in President Bush's entire presidency.

You then claim this was because of advances in technology in the past two years.

So, how can the Bush administration be criticized for not using technology that did not exist?

Do you believe President Dither ordered an increase in attacks? If so, is he not guilty of ESCALATING the war? Is he not guilty of war crimes for ANY civilians that are killed?

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 1:29PM

I thought the same thing as far as "the killing of innocent women and children" that the Left (including the Paulites) are constantly harping on about.
But perhaps most don't know of Obama's use of the drones. I don't watch t.v. but I doubt it has been broadcasted..? Even if it were, Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of his believers anyway.
It's OK for the Left to fight the war on terror, but not the Right.
So what else is new?

murph | 1.4.10 @ 2:00PM

Nick

You need to decide if the Obama administration is doing too much or too little. The point of Guardiano's post is that the President is not doing enough. The numbers I'm pointing out indicate the number of strikes have increased under this administration - and hellfire missiles can hardly be called a law enforcement approach. In other words, Pres. Obama is doing more to strike at the terrorist network that actually attacked the US.

You may not want to admit it, but the President did order an increase in the number of strikes - he even campaigned on that point. Baitullah Mehsud is now dead and his minions are fighting over what is left. This is actually fighting them over there - as opposed to fighting them in a place utterly unconnected to 9/11 - i.e. Iraq.

You remember, Iraq right? - that'd be the other reason cited in the article as to why the Bush administration did not commit more forcefully to the Afghan-Pakistan border region. And Iraq - beyond all question - is a mistake that has degraded our ability to go after Al Qaeda where they live.

Bush took his eye off the ball - and it's left to his successor to go after the people who actually attacked the US.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 2:11PM

Bush's successor, the Ditherer, isn't doing too well; all the predator drone strikes in the world won't mean a thing if our airliners are getting blown out of the sky. His continued incompetence won't be tolerated.

Obozo better get his act together or you liberals will never win another office--not even dog-catcher.

Michael Tomlinson| 1.4.10 @ 2:11PM

Please, quit the whine it is Obama who has taken his eye off the GWOT and refuses to call terrorists terrorists, has attempted to reach out to the Taliban terrorists, made nice with the Iranians and Hamas, wants to prosecute CIA interrogators, continues the Democrat inspired policy of sending terrorists to Yemen, thinks closing GITMO is smart, wants to imprison terrorists in the US, allowed the Detroit "diaper bomber" to lawyer up and compounds the absurdity by wanting to illegally prosecute Muslim terrorists in Federal court (if Federal law is followed the Federal judge will be forced to free the GITMO five).

Thank God Republicans have had the political courage to condemn this President and his administration for being soft on Islamic terrorism. The only reason Obama is even trying to talk and look tough is Republicans pilloried him. Time for Obama to quit taking so many vacations, partying in the White House, playing golf all the time and get down to the business of protecting America. I know it's a hard task for America's first vaginal President, but he wanted the job so now he's got to at least act like he's interested.

murph | 1.4.10 @ 3:11PM

Michael-
It takes absolutely no political courage for a sitting Republican to criticize the president, it is what their constituents expect them to do. I would think a partisan like yourself would understand that.

What's funny to listen to is the litany of "not tough enough" examples you cite - as if chest-thumping is going to convince Al Qaeda to give up.

And your examples are laughable-
The Yemeni terrorists you cite are being released because our government has said for years that they had no reason to hold them. You may think they are terrorists - but your gut feeling isn't really relevant here. The idea that this kind of release is taking our eye off the ball is curious, since Bush repatriated 14 Yemenis over the course of his term. I eagerly await your reference to your scathing criticism of that move - oh wait, you never wrote one, did you?

Prosecuting people for torture - I don't know if you got the memo, but torture is illegal under US law. If someone has engaged in torture, they have committed a crime. Pretending they had a good reason is not admissible under US law. You may want to live in a country where the law gets set aside anytime the Executive branch feels like it - but that's hardly an America that's worthy of our founding ideals. If you want to let the end offender off the hook and only prosecute the people who gave them the orders - I'd be okay with that. But the law is the law.

If you can demonstrate why indefinite, maximum security detention in Illinois is more dangerous to the US than indefinite, maximum security detention in Cuba, please do so. Are you afraid that the detainees will escape? Please. Nobody has ever escaped from a supermax facility. And if you're afraid that terrorists would attack the facility let me just say 1) letting that fear dictate US policy is kowtowing to terrorists and 2) better a secure site like a prison than a shopping mall.

Iran: Go ahead, tell me what brilliant policy towards Iran will prevent them from pursuing atomic weapons. Bombing them? Invading them? Iraq is an endless quagmire and Iraq is only a fourth the size of Iran with less than half the population. But go ahead, thump your chest and pretend that our country is up for a third war of occupation. It's the only idea the right ever seems to come up with.

"Illegally prosecuting detainees"? You have that backwards - we are detaining them extralegally (or illegally, if you like) the courts have a sterling record of striking down attempts to detain people on the basis of the executive's say so. Repeat after me, "Following the law is legal - not following the law is illegal. Michael Tomlinson's belief in a detainee's guilt has no legal relevance."

Dai Alanye | 1.4.10 @ 4:03PM

Poor murph. "Iran: Go ahead, tell me what brilliant policy towards Iran will prevent them from pursuing atomic weapons."

I'm sure this *murph* guy means well, but he sure lacks imagination. If we want to throw some sand in Iran's gears, howsabout we recognize a government in exile? It might be what the people's revolution needs to break the mullahs' backs. Or howsabout we respond to their sending terrorists into Iraq and Afghanistan by doing a little “shock and awe” on them?

murph on detainees: "You have that backwards - we are detaining them extralegally…”
Excellent point, murph, but I’m still trying to figure out why the Germans and Japanese didn’t offer our POWs civilian trials back in the forties.

murph again: “If you can demonstrate why indefinite, maximum security detention in Illinois is more dangerous to the US than indefinite, maximum security detention in Cuba, please do so.”
Let’s start with the ninety-mile swim.

murph: “Prosecuting people for torture - I don't know if you got the memo, but torture is illegal under US law.”
I’m pretty sure terrorism is illegal under international law, and that a memo has been sent to that effect.

murph: “…as if chest-thumping is going to convince Al Qaeda to give up.”
But bowing will work like a charm.

I could go on, but what’s the point? Murph hasn’t a clue to the difference between a Reagan and a Carter, nor does he realize that the fact Dubya made some mistakes doesn’t excuse
Obama’s far worse mistakes.

murph | 1.4.10 @ 4:31PM

Recognizing a government in exile: GREAT idea. We'll call it the Iranian National Congress. I think we can get Chalabi to head it, I hear he's free. Then we can wait ten years (just like we did with the Iraqi National Congress) and then find some pretext for invasion - like maybe WMD. So in a mere dozen years we can invade and occupy it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

"I’m still trying to figure out why the Germans and Japanese didn’t offer our POWs civilian trials back in the forties."
Here's the reason, Copernicus - because Germany and Japan are nations who declared war. They had boundaries and embassies and everything. Look it up. Al Qaeda does not have borders or embassies, they have members and converts. We can't invade an ideology any more than we can exterminate a tactic.

I'll quote a Federal Judge who spells it out to shoe bomber Richard Reid in terms even you might understand:

"You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature."

"ninety-mile swim" Once again - an aptitude for the soundbite, but no head for analysis. Nobody gets out of the yard in a supermax. Does. Not. Happen. There could be a city park or a field of lava outside the wire and it would make no difference. You seem to think these men posess superpowers. They are just men - and men can be controlled, be they terrorists or serial killers - it makes not difference.

"Bowing" And again - the partisan's knack for seizing onto something that has no relevance in the larger sense. Chest thumpers want to scream about American dignity any time they think America isn't kicking butt and dictating terms. Fact is, our stock is down in the world - we bullied our allies over Iraq and pissed them off. Then our economy tanked hard. The world knows we're overcommitted in two foreign occupations - so we're not going to kick in many doors in the near future.

Obama's speech in Cairo offends the America Uber alles crowd for the same reason it will anger Al Qaeda - it will show the Arab world that we are not coming to kill their children like the Arab press keeps telling them. Right now, the arab world is amazingly isolated from our point of view. To see a US president come to Cairo - and speak to them in terms that are reasonable and intelligent (as opposed to the "dead or alive" BS of Bush) does a hell of a lot more to advance our cause than you seem to appreciate. We need friends in the region - and we're not going to get any by bombing them until they like us. We'll buy them, to be sure - but governments who overrule the popular opinion risk overthrow (e.g. Pakistan) even after they cash our check.

I remember Regan - I remember he paid Iran to release hostages (Teaching Iran that terrorism pays). And that he pulled out of Beiruit after Hizballah blew up our embassay and the Marine barracks (teaching Hizballah that killing Americans will scare us off). Nice job, Reagan. Decades of terrorism victims salute you.

Look, you could go on - but you should probably look to shoring up what you've already tried to say.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 9:34PM

I notice you failed to mention, Jimmuh Carter, the worst (so far) President in American history.

Not only did Carter's liberal policies cause massive inflation of 13% in the '70s, interest rates hit 21% at one time. Try to buy a house with those disaster numbers! You could only buy gas for your car every other day and worst of all a "MALAISE" gripped the American people--kind of like now.

Communism spread like wildfire around the globe and Carter's fecklessness led to the Overthrow of the Shah of Iran. Carter's stupidity was responsible for much of our on-going trouble with Iran. Guess you forgot those facts, Murph--how convenient for you.

Remember the American hostages held by Iran? Carter's incompetence led to the deaths of American commandos attempting to rescue them.

Over all, Carter was an unmitigated disaster for our country, and Obama's shaping up to be the same.

God help us survive another democrat nitwit in the White House.

Michael Tomlinson| 1.4.10 @ 2:13PM

Bravo Nick!

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 1:42PM

Clinton's dereliction of duty dumped 9/11 in Bush's lap (only 8 months into his presidency) and we weren't hit again until Obozo was elected 8 years later.

Obviously, the clowns on the Left don't know how to protect the country. Jefferson was right when he stated, "People get the government they deserve." Unfortunately for us, we are just as endangered as the idiots who elected the incompetent fools now in office.

We tried to warn the country that democrats would put us in mortal danger; I just hope we can survive until November!

Michael Tomlinson| 1.4.10 @ 2:01PM

Poor murph like all Obama apologists wrong, wrong, wrong. Muslim terrorists don't fear Obama and know that thanks to his policies of appeasement future attacks will be successful (we've already seen terrorists attacks in Little Rock, Ft. Hood and Detroit).

Fortunately, it took almost a year for Obama to whittle down the wall of security erected by President George W. Bush. The wall that has kept us safe since the Bill Clinton's 9/11 caused tragedy. Had Obama been able to implement his pro-appeasement policies more quickly Americans can be assured there would have already been more deadly Muslim inspired attacks on the US.

Hopefully, the Republicans will be able to not only reverse Obama's policy of appeasement and lax security, but will win enough seats in November to truly make this failed President a lame duck till his eventual defeat in 2012.

murph | 1.4.10 @ 2:37PM

Michael
-Like the classic Bush apologist you're talking a lot but citing nothing to back yourself up. If you have polling data about how terrorists fear the US - please link to it.

Ft Hood is a fascinating example for a Bush Backer to cite - considering that the oft mentioned warning signs (the murder's 2006 powerpoint presentation and the 2008 email intercepts) occurred under Bush's watch.

In other words - the kind of pre-emption that Guardiano and other rightists demand of the current administration is the very thing that Bush's security apparatus did not do with regards for Hassan. Yet their criticism only goes as far back as their political opponent's tenure. You have to wonder - are they concerned with security at all, or are they just ignorant opportunists?

If you truly believe that this Administration (or any administration) can create an impenatrable Fortress America - you need to wake the heck up.
The sad fact is spree killings and isolated crazies can do a lot of damage before security forces can take them out. And dedicated psychos like Al Qaeda are actively seeking these kind of people out.

You can pretend that the underwear bomber wouldn't have been allowed on a plane if Bush were president if you want to - but the TIDE database (and the inexplicable partition between it and visa screening and the no-fly list) was created back in 2001. This guy fell through cracks that were authored by security officials working for your favorite cowboy. He happened under Obama because he happened now. If McCain had won - this event would still have happened and far from demanding McCain's head - you'd be braying about the brave passengers and waving the flag.

Partisans can pretend that this is a party issue - but the truth is rooted in the physical reality that we have to watch everywhere while terrorists can pick the time and place.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 3:05PM

You're an idiot. "The warning signs occurred on Bush's watch," yes, but the SLAUGHTER of 11 of our warriors occurred on OBOZO'S watch. Discern the difference, moron?

You're so stupid you give partisan a bad name.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 3:07PM

Correction: Make that 13 of our warriors (sad to say).

murph | 1.4.10 @ 3:22PM

I do discern the difference, but apparently you don't.

The 2009 murders at Ft Hood could have been prevented in 2008 had the security forces passed along concerns about Hassan. Likewise, Army colleagues who witnessed Hassan's bizarre presentation in 2006 could have taken action to dismiss him.

My point is not to shift blame but to point out the hypocrisy of the current criticism. If the president is always to blame when something happens - then Bush is to blame for the failure to stop Hassan with information gained under his watch.

The fact is - the NSA would never pass along intercept information to settle an Army personnel issue - and the Army chose to retain Hassan after 2006.

Neither is a warning sign that the current administration can be faulted for missing. This PC - BS meme that the right is pushing is just another knee-jerk attack that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

The right is even funnier with Hassan saying how he should have been kicked out of the Army - ignoring that that would have done precisely nothing to prevent him from taking his 5.7mm to a shopping mall and killing just as many people.

Typical partisan - scream the soundbye, but ignore the real issue.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 3:41PM

Fighting the terrorists in Iraq kept the fight out of our own country, killing Saddam Hussein was a bonus.

What's unforgivable is Obama's and the Left's relentless attack on the CIA, especially when these CIA patriots are being killed in Afghanistan. On Obama's watch.

murph | 1.4.10 @ 4:01PM

Wow. I can almost hear Bush's voice saying that. You have a good recall for talking points - but not much of a head for facts.

Saddam Hussein, dead or alive, posed no threat to the United States. The fact that you get a warm fuzzy thinking about his lynching doesn't really justify the cost. We were supposed to be eliminating the risk that WMD would be used against America - but there were no WMD, so if we'd never invaded we'd have faced the same negligable risk of WMD attack.

As has been pointed out countless times (I don't know how you managed to miss it) Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until after we got there. The terrorists we were fighting were a reaction to our presence. And they killed plenty of Americans who would still be breathing if we'd never have gone in there in the first place.

If you have hard evidence of a domestic terrorist attack that was thwarted because of our occupation of Iraq, I'm all ears.

Iraq didn't prevent the 2005 London bombings, never mind the British were in Basra - so I'm not sure your logic holds up.

And how Al Qaeda in Waziristan is in any way impeded by 150,000 troops occupying a country 1,200 miles away is something you'd need to explain.

And, just an aside - you know who really turned on the CIA? Pres. Bush - when it became clear that his push for war wasn't netting the WMD he had promised us. Suddenly the CIA was under the bus and the Bush administration was whistling a new tune. "We used the best intelligence available."

Sure, sure pal.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 3:46PM

The real issue is Democrat Presidents' dereliction of duty: neither Clinton nor Obama has proven to be up to the task.

Leftists, by nature, are un-American; so we're not surprised. Democrats can't govern. Epic fail.

murph | 1.4.10 @ 4:04PM

Of all the selective views of history....!

Iraq.
North Korea gets the bomb.
Hurricane Katrina response.
Financial meltdown.
Bin Laden lives.

and on and on.

GOP'ers want to think that Obama's charisma carried the last election. Truth is, the GOP tanked so bad when they ran the place - voters threw them out and gave the Dems the White House and majorities in both houses of congress.

THAT's an epic fail.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 4:39PM

Actually, Nimrod, Obama's and Democrats' tanking poll numbers, skyrocketing unemployment, out of control spending, Marxist takeovers of the Auto, Health care and Banking industries, numerous Communists and Marxists in Obama's administration, outrageous New York show trials for KSM, etc., Holder's attacks on the heroic CIA who are dying for us right now, Holder's protection of Black Panther thugs engaged in voter intimidation, illegal firings (can anyone say Michelle Obama?) of Inspectors General, Card Check anti-secret vote for workers, ACORN election thievery and corruption, SEIU payoffs and violent thug tactics, Globaloney Warming Cap and Trade and a coming soon USA economic collapse are YOUR EPIC FAIL!

Add to that disastrous mix the numerous terror attacks in 2009 and you have a recipe for democrat political disaster in November. Can't come soon enough for me.

murph | 1.4.10 @ 4:55PM

Actually, Rasmussen puts Obama's numbers as up since Christmas - and anyone who thinks a president keeps the numbers they come in with hasn't looked at history very hard.

Skyrocketing unemployment? Yeah, I wonder if it might have something to do with the disaster that happened last year - you know, the one that Bush and Co presided over. Remember Bear Stearns? I seem to recall the Fed and Sec. Paulson pushing hard to bail out that doomed institution.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Bailed out under Paulson/Bush.
A.I.G. Bailed out under Paulson/Bush.

And remember the free marketeers of Paulson and Bush - with their proposal to save the economy? "Give us $700 billion dollars and unlimited, unreviewable authority and we'll fix this."

Who invested in the banks using TARP funds? Paulson/Bush. Socialism! Socialism!

These are facts - not tinfoil hat conspiracy theories like ACORN stealing an election. (Great substantive tactic though, throw everything at the wall and surely some of it must be valid. Hah.)

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 5:20PM

Yeah, we know--BLAME THE EVIL BOOOSH!! Original thinker, aren't you?

There's so much stinking corruption in your crappy party you can't hide it any more.

Remember the date: November 2, 2010; it's National Pink Slip Day for you Fascist Liberals.

I just hope we still have a country left.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 5:22PM

Obama's numbers are the lowest of any first year president in history--try to spin that, fool. They're Bush's fault, right? lol

murph | 1.4.10 @ 5:43PM

That's just it, I don't have to spin it.

Because it's mostly true.

But only mostly true - and that's the funny part.

I'll quote the relevant bit to save you the click:

"Compared to these predecessors, Obama's numbers are indeed the weakest -- but he's tied with Reagan in that unflattering achievement."

His numbers are low - but then they are not the lowest in history, not even the lowest in recorded history.

More to the point - the idea that an arbitrary point in time percentage defines and predicts the course of a presidency - I would direct you to example of Reagan.

Time will tell.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 6:04PM

Time has already told: Obama is a failure.
Except he's worse than a failure. He has practically single handedly destroyed the private sector, putting millions on the dole. some for over a year.. dastardly taken over the auto industry, and is hell bent on further destruction of what's left of the economy with the Welfare Bill aka Health Care Bill.

But you love your fascism don't you? And your fascist leader.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 6:07PM

Obama's tanking poll numbers have already told us everything we need to know: You liberals are gonners in the next two elections!

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 6:09PM

Or is that goners? No matter, you clowns are toast.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 10:00PM

I remember Ronald Reagan, and Obozo is no Reagan. The attempted comparison makes me throw up.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 3:20PM

"Hopefully, the Republicans will be able to not only reverse Obama's policy of appeasement and lax security, but will win enough seats in November to truly make this failed President a lame duck till his eventual defeat in 2012."

~Hopefully you are right, Michael!
United We Stand.

Bill| 1.4.10 @ 2:37PM

Murph,
Bush began the Predator strikes. Dozens of sorties wer flown over Pakistan in the last several months of his admin. Also, on several occasions they have been used to kill Al Quada in Yemen and elsewhere.

murph | 1.4.10 @ 3:25PM

He did, and good on him for starting it. Pity he did that whole Iraq thing and allowed Bin Laden to get away.

Iraq is the unforgivable sin of the Bush administration. No matter what his defenders say - they cannot escape that it was Bush who took his eye off the ball.

Hundreds of billions of dollars gone - thousands dead, tens of thousands maimed - and NOTHING done for the cause of exterminating those responsible for 9/11.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 4:42PM

Obama is already a failed president; I hope he's a one termer like the clown, Carter.

Charles Newman| 1.5.10 @ 4:04PM

Murph, I hope you are right! It looks more like the old fight to loose from the Johnson era to me

Clyde3| 1.4.10 @ 11:47AM

Racking needs to be racked outa here NO place for advertisments.................

ken in people's republic of md| 1.4.10 @ 12:02PM

What do you expect out of our media?

Today I wake up to a Drudge Report full of doomsday news and in the midst of all the gloom, one tiny bit of good news...Obama has appointed a transgendered person to be a "senior technical advisor to the Commerce Department".

This lady, who went from boy to girl, says, as quoted in the ABC News story, "as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds, and that this appointment opens future opportunities for many others." At least they could have shown her(?) picture.

"Hundreds of transgendered appointees." Wonderful.

My question is, if the appointee wasn't transgendered, would the appointment of a new senior technical adviser to the commerce department even been announced?

And you expect the MSM to have even a little fairness?

Nick| 1.4.10 @ 12:39PM

Ken,

One correction.

This person is no "lady". He is a man. More accurately, he is a PERVERTED man. He was born a man. He will die a man.

No one has ever, nor will ever be able to change their gender. It's in our DNA.

Simply claiming to be a woman, when in fact you are a man, does not change reality. Just like when a State claims two homos are "married" by fiat, does not make them, in reality, married.

I'm not implying that this was your point, Ken.
I'm just correcting the record for all the bleeding heart liberals out there.

ken in people's republic of md| 1.4.10 @ 1:10PM

Thanks, Nick.

Honestly, I couldn't care less what is the person's sexual identity. If he, she or it wants to change identity from a man to woman, a woman to a man, or a human to rhesus monkey, it's none of my concern or business. As the noted philosopher Jimmy Dugan once said, "I'm in no position to tell anyone how to live."

My problem with gay marriage isn't because they are gay, but because through legal marriage, they want to share in any benefits awarded hetero couples based on the ability to bare children. And don't prate(I don't mean you, but anyone) to me about gay couples adopting, so they should have tax breaks and whatever.

My point was, would this story be worth even a mention if the person involved was a hetero male or female? I think not.

rt| 1.4.10 @ 12:17PM

as Rahm put it, never let a good crisis go to waste.

JP| 1.4.10 @ 12:45PM

"The New York Times, naturally, agrees. "The Republicans," they whined, "predictably seized on the [Dec. 25 terror] plot for political advantage by absurdly accusing Mr. Obama of being weak on national security." "

MMmmm....the President sits in a poltical office. He isn't King or dictator (yet). I don't remember the NYTs or ABC News coming to President Bush's defense when he was vicously smeared by the likes of the late Ted Kennedy, Rep Murtha, Sen Reid, or Rep Waxman (to name a few).

If anything, the GOP's response (outside of Rep Burton) has been tepid, or at the very least mild. I don't recall any "Obama Lied then We Died" mantras coming out of the blogesphere.

Talk about thin skin. And calls for ending this insane policy of treating terrorists like larcenists isn't politicizing national security. The NYT's strawman is telling. They are essientially raising the question of the President's competence on national security by attacking the GOP.

Nick| 1.4.10 @ 1:23PM

As someone who lives in the Metro-Detroit area, this attack hits close to home, literally.

For all I know, had this unlawful enemy combatant had better detonators, I might not be typing these words right now, if the plane was flying over my house at the time. Or, I could have lost two sisters and/or their husbands, 11 nieces and nephews, or any number of friends and family.

Hey Toddard, still think these terrorists, and those that harbor them, are no THREAT to the people of the United States?

And what is President Dither doing about it?

He has put this unlawful enemy combatant in the same system that deals with the likes of Bernie Maddoff, on one end, and John Dillinger on the other.

Had President Bush set-up the system correctly, this coward, Abdulmutallab, would be tried by military tribunal, convicted, and swinging from the end of rope by the time of the State of the Union speech.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 1:46PM

Nick, I'm glad you and your family are okay. I also have lots of family in Michigan and I was worried about their safety.

Thank God for the "Flying Dutchman," right?

Nick| 1.4.10 @ 8:09PM

SoCon,

Thanks!

I agree with Margie. "Flying Dutchman" Ha-ha!
Good one.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 1:57PM

I second that, Nick~~ I'm glad you and your loved ones are safe.
And to SoCon~~ Flying Dutchman.. good one!

Oldefarte| 1.4.10 @ 1:39PM

Pre 11/4/08, I opined that Obama's background and associations made him a dangerous and questionable person to be put in charge of America's security; and lo and behold, my words have predictably come back to haunt me [and all of us]. He is now what he was pre 11/4/08; and we all allowed him to become President and are therefore all responsible for not preventing same. It was not enough to vote against him----we all should have done much more to educate, encourage, enlighten, etc all of our friends, classmates, fellow church-attendees and employees,etc as to the extreme dangers of electing this man as our leader. We cannot do anything to remedy this situation until the elections of this year and 2012, and will just have to live with our extreme mistake. As to America's problem with these Muslim terrorists, I'm of the opinion that we should ASAP extract out courageous military from Iraq, Iran and the Middle East; since I do not believe we can ever win this war on terrorism [just as we could not win in Korea or in Viet Nam]. The only thing America needs from this area is OIL, and if we began fully developing our own domestic oil supplies and dedicating same to our domestic consumer needs only, we wouldn't need Middle Eastern oil. Also, by our not purchasing their oil, we would substantially reduce their oil profits, much of which is diverted by their shieks,etc to the funding of the terrorists' efforts toward killing Americans. We cannot defeat them militarily, but we can defeat them financially by eliminating our American dollars from purchasing their oil!!!!!!!!!

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 3:26PM

Olde Farte,
I wish I wish I wish we would do as you say concerning oil.
I do not understand it but it is like a the Big Taboo.
Guess what though? If Sarah Palin had anything to do with it, it would change!
Please Lord, let there be a Republican who will make it happen. So that we can drill for oil domestically, and once and for all be able to prosper like you want us to, One Nation, Under God.
Amen

Michael Tomlinson| 1.4.10 @ 1:50PM

From the economy to national security two words explain what's wrong in the US -- Barack Obama.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 2:04PM

You're so right! Obama's a one man wrecking machine.

Pingback| 1.4.10 @ 2:30PM

The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Abdulmutallab, with detonators and expl os ives in hand, ever managed to get on Flight 253 — especially after the terrorist’s own … See the original post: The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger By admin | category: american | tags: ever-managed, exodus, exodus-international, experience-stiffer, failed-bombing, farouk, farouk-abdulmutallab, gay-conversion, infamous,…

Bob| 1.4.10 @ 2:46PM

It is hard to believe the idiocy that AmSpec engenders. No wonder Republicans are in trouble.

First of all, there is no such thing as the "War on Terror". You can't have a "war" on a tactic. Do we include those who "terrorize" abortionists and the bullies on the playground? What about the gangs that "terrorize" citizens? The intelligence and military communities (including people like Patreaus) believe this is a "War on Al Qaeda" -- and Obama and even people like John Brennan (who worked for Bush and Cheney) believes the same. Furthermore, the evidence is that Obama has continued the policies of Bush in fighting this war -- including more efforts in Pakistan and Yemen than the Bush administration. Furthermore, it was Bush/Cheney who let the leaders of Al Qaeda in the Arabia out of Gitmo and it was Obama who killed one of them.

In terms of dithering, it took Bush over a week to speak about Richard Reed and that is a fact. Leaping without looking, as was done with Bush/Cheney, is far more dangerous than studying the issue a bit for the best solution. Furthermore, Obama has improved our relationships with other countries and that has increased our security.

I hear elsewhere on this board that some of you think that bailing out Fannie and Freddie is also wrong because you think that will lead to more bad mortgages. Again, you need to be educated about our financial system. Mortgage originators sell off their risk in a process called "securitization". This leads to instruments like derivatives and swaps. Without the ability to sell off their risk, bad mortgages would not be written because these guys would need capital reserves for bad mortgages (something that isn't required for derivatives). All lenders have a reserve for bad debt, but when this debt is sold off, they don't need to keep any reserves. Fannie/Freddie suffer from the housing bubble and bad mortgages. If they go under, all of you that have your mortgages written by Fannie/Freddie will have your contracts nullified and your interest rates will increase substantially. Is that what you want? Many of your mortgages and underwritten by Fannie/Freddie and you don't even know it (over half of you).

Now, there is much not to like with Obama, especially on the spending side. The health care bill will do nothing to lower health care costs and will most likely increase them. This will make us uncompetitive in the world market and we will lose more manufacturing capacity. Dems/Libs tend to value welfare more than budgeting and that is a huge problem. In addition, they want bigger government and that continues to make us less competitive as a country.

So, guys, do all of the real Republicans a favor and learn the issues and respond with some intelligence. Perhaps then we can grow fiscal conservatism as that is the only way we will improve the country for our children.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 3:16PM

Pity. I thought you were gone, dead and buried, Bob.

The Republicans aren't in trouble, Obozo lover; they're beating Democrats by 8 points in generic polling and Congressional Democrats are jumping their rat-infested mother ship in droves. Must be your senility rearing it's doddering head once again.

Your Old Folks' Home called, they're missing one of their geezers. Bye, bye.

Bob| 1.4.10 @ 3:35PM

Actually, Bozo, there hasn't been much change in generic polling according to Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124.....-Lead.aspx

Remember that Rasmussen is supported by Republicans and their methodology for these tracking polls is biased towards those who pay for the data.

Regarding the Old Folk's home, I'm sure they wouldn't allow adolescents like you to visit.....

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 4:04PM

You lie again.

Rasmussen is honest, his poll has proven to be the most reliable tracking service because he polls likely voters rather than generic adults. Also, Gallup is outrageously biased for liberals because it over-samples democrats by 10 to 15 points.

I suppose you're going to lie again and claim unemployment is really only 5%, not the true 10-17%--right, moron?

You liberals detest Rasmussen because he tells the truth--hate the message not the messenger, Blob. lol

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 2:55PM

So Bob,
You're a Democrat telling us to get our act together and become, or act like Republicans? And then you include yourself like you're a Republican?
Just exactly what are you, Bob?
And why would you care to tell us to get our acts together for the sake of winning a Republican election when you're a Democrat?
Just whose side are you really on?

Northern rebel| 1.4.10 @ 3:13PM

I love when liberals like Bob counsel conservatives, and tell us what is in our best interests.

Thanks Bob, for your illuminations. If you are a "real republican", than that's why the party is in so much trouble.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 3:23PM

Bob's an Axelrod pro Obama troll pretending to be a RINO. He constantly extolls Obama's many 'virtues' and lectures us on the requirements of a 'real' republican. Try to wrap your head around that!

Ignore the blowhard with the charts and graphs; he lies.

Bob| 1.4.10 @ 3:18PM

So Margie, I'm a lifelong Republican who believes in limited government and a libertarian approach to social issues, i.e., leave decisions about abortion/gay marriage, etc., up to the individual. In other words, keep government (and religion) out of our lives as much as possible. That's why I disagree with SoCons on those issues.

As to fiscal conservatism, I'm for cutting spending first, and then cutting taxes. Doing the reverse has never worked and on a macroeconomic basis, tax cuts are not stimulative -- and I have the data to prove that. The greatest problem our children and grandchildren face is our national debt. We will not regain jobs until we make it possible to manufacture competitively in the U.S.

On the financial front, we need regulations that force financial companies to pay for their mistakes but not regulations to tell them what products to create. Thus, I would require lending companies to keep a large portion of their loans so if they go bad, their company will suffer. I support bonuses that have clawbacks if management decisions cost the company money so managers will make long term decisions. I support regulations requiring companies to keep capital reserves. However, I don't support regulations forcing companies to make loans to specific individuals or forcing them to provide specific products.

On the national security front, I don't believe in going to war unless we are attacked. Like Ron Paul, I would cut back our international spending and would strongly recommend getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Fighting a war against Al Qaeda is proper as they attacked us.

In health care, I only believe the government should fund what they mandate. Thus, they should only fund the emergency care legislation requires of hospitals and doctors to serve everyone. Then people should be free to buy health insurance across state lines and with tort reform options at any level. If their policy doesn't support long term cancer care or end of life care, then they don't get it. Health care is a privilege, not a right.

Furthermore, I believe in education -- including getting my children in the best schools -- and that means Ivy League. Education got me out of the ghetto and I value that experience. Berating Harvard, Yale, and other Ivy League schools is just plain dumb.

I will not vote for an uneducated or incurious politician like Sarah Palin. I prefer people like Romney even though he as flip-flopped on a number of issues or even a Jindal. People like Bush or McCain who brag about doing so poorly in school are difficult to support.

Does that answer your question?

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 3:33PM

Stop lying, Bob. You voted for Obama and are partly responsible for the mess our country is in. Any decent "RINO" would slink off into obscurity after admitting such stupidity--but not you, troll.

You were a joke before, but now even more so, with Obama's poor showing as President.

Bob| 1.4.10 @ 3:38PM

Absolutely I voted for Obama because there is no way that I would vote for an uneducated fool like Palin. If McCain had chosen Romney, I would have voted Republican. And there was absolutely no lies in my post. I have always held these positions. The fact is that non-thinking people like you are hurting fiscal conservatives like me with independents and moderates -- those people that decide elections.

murph | 1.4.10 @ 3:45PM

It is good to see that there are actually some conservatives in the Republican party.

I think your position illustrates the curious state of the modern GOP.

Is as if the teabagging hard right believes not only that they are the only people in the GOP, but that there was never anyone else in the party.

I would hope the GOP could recover from this, and become a real party again - but I'm not optimistic.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 3:52PM

Murph, are you the dirtbag Liberal Reader?

Bob| 1.4.10 @ 3:54PM

I don't think there are many here at AmSpec that understand true economic conservatism. Educated conservatives in the Republican party have been replaced by populists/tea-baggers. These people would rather call the opposition names rather than actually discuss issues and facts. They won't view all sides of an issue and come to an informed decision. They listen to only one side (Fox/Limbaugh/Beck) and don't check the facts.

The facts are on the side of conservatism and not liberalism. But we no longer have educated conservatives in the base of the party. What a shame.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 4:48PM

More lies from Bob. SoCon is correct.
Bob, what we understand is you. We understand that you and your Leftist pals like Toddard are frauds trying to redefine the meaning of conservative. What we smart people understand and know is that it isn't what you spew.
The shame is that you back fascists like Obama and lie about a true conservative like Sarah Palin.
Rush, Beck, and Fox actually TELL THE TRUTH. If you were any sort of Republican or conservative whatsoever you wouldn't say what you say about them.
You won't succeed. Tuff luck.

Flee| 1.4.10 @ 3:52PM

You think Palin is uneducated? Why? Is Idaho not a state university with educated and qualified staff? It may not cost what it does to go Ivy but Obama didn't have to pay for any of his schooling unlike Palin. She still had more valuable experience at the time of the election than Obama but fools like you felt it was okay to look the other way. People like Palin for all the reasons you don't and that is what makes her special. A real Republican could never have voted for Obama with all we knew about him at the time and that is why you must not be a real Republican.

Bob| 1.4.10 @ 3:57PM

Going to school (for six years) and being educated are two different factors. Palin didn't know the issues when questioned, didn't understand foreign policy, didn't know about Supreme Court decisions, etc. That is being uneducated.

Road Kill| 1.4.10 @ 4:39PM

Dear Bob:

Just a question. Palin is uneducated but she went to school? Obama went to school too, but his records are sealed. How do we know that he is educated? What was his attendance record? He can answer questions on foreign policy, the supremes, etc., as long as he has a teleprompter.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 4:40PM

Lies. You prove who you are, Bob.

Obama is so stupid he has to rely not only upon his teleprompter, but upon who was it? Saul Alinsky to write his own autobiography?
Obama is programmed. A programmed fascist.
And you voted for him.
Did you not know this?

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 3:54PM

Bob,
You voted for Obummer, so you contributed to the cause of Communism in our beloved country.
You know it too.
You're the kind that no Republican is good enough for. In reality YOU are the problem. I'd ask you HOW on earth, as a Republican you could POSSIBLY vote for Obama, but you've already expressed your true colors.
Odd how you act like because McCain chose Sarah as his running mate you couldn't vote for him.
You really show your true colors and they are this: BINGO! RON PAUL! He and his ilk also cannot tolerate Sarah Palin. You are a Paulite. Therefore you will always vote Democrat (most likely).
You cannot tolerate anyone with morality because you are against morality~~judging by your very own posts. You want the Libertarian "freedom" which isn't freedom at all, way of life.. no laws... legalize everything and anything goes!
Thank God there are not enough of you to make a difference but what a shame that you are one of the many who would rather cast your vote for a Communist than for a true conservative, such as Sarah Palin.
(And I really don't want to hear a lecture on what "true conservative" "really" means.
You're just another Toddard, it seems.

Bob| 1.4.10 @ 4:01PM

So, Margie, do you really understand communism? By your posts, you obviously do not. I don't think there is much difference between the parties when it comes to actual performance. Neither party cuts spending and both parties lard up bills with special projects. People in both parties cheat on their wives and take bribes. Remember, it was a Republican president that expanded Medicare and wanted immigration reform (along with McCain). So don't give me this nonsense about there being a big difference.

As to morality, it is immoral for you to tell me how to live my life or who to marry or, like Brit Hume, which religion I should practice.

Sarah Palin is NOT a true conservative. A true conservative would actually understand the issues and make principled arguments -- something she has never done.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 4:15PM

See, Margie--according to Bob, Sarah Palin's not a real Conservative, but he is--he voted for Obama. Does that make sense to you?

He's nuts.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 6:30PM

SoCon,
A good barometer for me always is~~ if they don't like Sarah Palin, they're no real conservative.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 8:46PM

Me, too. :)

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 4:30PM

No one tells Bob how to live his life, or which Religion, if any he should choose, THAT is a LIE you you falsely accuse whoever it is you accuse.. I don't know.. your accuse du jour.
Liberals like you do this typical lying. When in truth, Bob~ it is the Leftists who try and shove THEIR immorality upon us!
So Bob, in truth you are dishonest in that you present a fallacy.
God fearing people made this country what is is~FREE. The tearing down has come through the Liberals and Leftists and now fascists who want to destroy morality in any way they can and give the power to do so in every aspect of our lives.
The Founders gave us the Constitution which is the Law of the Land. The Declaration of Independence which proclaims our freedom.
You guys have the freedom to choose the immorality you desire, and God Himself won't stop you~~ you've always had your freedom.
But you will never succeed in your determination to destroy us, along with your Leftist buddies like Obama, who believes the Constitution is obsolete.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 4:32PM

*give the power to do so in every aspect of our lives, to the Government.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 6:34PM

"So, Margie, do you really understand communism?"

~"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." ~ Ronald Reagan.

Read any good books lately, Bob?

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 3:40PM

Is that true, Bob? Did you vote for Obama?

Bob| 1.4.10 @ 3:45PM

That is absolutely true. When McCain picked Palin, I couldn't vote for the ticket. The President needs to understand the issues and be curious about the world -- two things Palin lacked. That made me question McCain's judgment. If I had voted for McCain, I would have validated Palin as qualified -- and at the end of the day, I just couldn't do that.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 3:50PM

He's a skunk, Margie, and not a very nice one at that.

Bob defended David Letterman's disgusting attack on young Willow Palin last year. He's blinded by his hatred for Sarah Palin.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 3:54PM

He lies all of the time, Margie--just ask Nick from Detroit and Ran. They have called him out so many times on his lies it's a joke.

Bob| 1.4.10 @ 4:03PM

Actually, SoCon, no one has called me out on "lies". They just can't believe what I say. But I have always challenged them to verify the facts -- which they will not do. Again, the people at AmSpec know who I am and can verify that information.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 4:09PM

Actually, Bob--they have! You've been proven to be a liar many times over--you're just hoping we've forgotten or maybe you can trick newer AmSpec posters.

You waited until 2010 to start posting again hoping that AmSpec erased the 2009 posts proving you're a liar.

Nice try, but it won't work.

Bob| 1.4.10 @ 4:48PM

Actually, SoCon, they have refused to verify their remarks. So, you didn't even make a "nice try". The one proper claim that Ran caught me on was on Biblical Aramaic. I claimed that my Rabbi said some of the original 5 books was actually written in Aramaic and not Hebrew. But I was 10 years old at the time and probably didn't know any better. Ran is far more educated in Hebrew than me. When he challenged me and I did the research, I found out that only a few words were based in Biblical Aramaic. That is the way I remembered my teacher some 55 years ago. If you want to call that a "lie", and that is all you have to claim that makes me a liar, then I question your intelligence. Everything else I've said has been totally true. Do you wish to challenge me on that? These things can be verified, you know.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.4.10 @ 4:51PM

Yes, SoCon...et al, Bob is a liar and a coward. I have called him out a number of times...heh...and he goes silent for a few days.

he has no personal courage, he is a liar, and he thinks I am kidding.

Would you guys like me to shit his pants by having my internet guru for my company sniff him out and give me his mommie's address? Maybe I could knock on his door and call him out. heh. Maybe simply sending him a "snail-mail letter at mommie's home would do the trick. heh

Maybe I should just snail mail mommie...and get him thrown out on his arse. heh.
(dead serious)

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 5:02PM

I would love it! I'm so sick and tired of the little self-righteous prig. He's such a liar.

Thank you, Old Tex.

Bob| 1.4.10 @ 5:04PM

Tex -- please have at it since you seem to be the liar here. I do travel -- so going silent has nothing to do with you. You are NOT the center of my world (talk about ego....)

Please feel free to sniff me out -- I invite you do to so. Check my educational record and my DD214. They certainly are public records. I have some websites, and you can check them out as well. Perhaps then you can make specific claims since you seem to always lack factual information. But then again, facts are not your strong suit....

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 5:12PM

Who cares if you went to Harvard? You're still a liar and a fool.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.4.10 @ 5:53PM

Heh,
Your DD214...is "faint praise" heh heh. looser.
Give us your websites... c'mon...looser.

"Check out my websites"...duh you never gave us a single website...coward.
Here is one of mine: www.myteamusa.org

If you want my business website e-mail me at
kbjudgeroybean06@gmail.com ...and I will give those to you as well.

I try very hard not to intimidate honest Americans about the opportunities I have been given. Yes, I have run some very large companies. Yes, I managed to recruit and appreciate the best of the best of the best...in the world.

I would not hire you. I never hired congenital liars.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 6:15PM

Old Tex, all I hear is crickets...how about you?

Flee| 1.4.10 @ 3:42PM

I'm curious if this wizard from ABC News noticed or criticized the fund raising new year's email sent by the Axelrod firm last week to non-Dems? Wasn't that a bit on the tasteless or borderline illegal side? How did Axelrod's old firm get the email addresses of non-Dems when they signed up for White House information? Didn't they state they would "never" use that information for any political purpose? I think I will have to wait a long time to see a story about the email anywhere but here at Amspec.

Pat| 1.4.10 @ 3:55PM

The yellowstream media has their standard response to incidents of this type outlined within a short pamphlet published by the Columbia School of Journalism and titled: "When Bad Things Happen to Good Democrats". The media likes Obama, Obama likes the media, so what to do? Columia's advice is blame someone else (Republicans, Fundamentalists, Darwin doubters, street vendors who sell those huge pretzels containing lethal levels of salt); there's a convenient list of 200 hundred suggested scapegoats listed in the pamphlet's appendix.

Or, minimize the problem. Was anyone killed over Detroit - no, so don't overreact is the media's message - everything is under control - "the system worked" according to one of Obama's drones. Several of Obama's media jock sniffers tried this approach last week - "Don't worry, be happy", act like an adult, no need to panic - cliches to live by.

Or, focus in excruciating detail on what Obama is doing to rectify the situation. For example, travelers flying from certain suspect countries to the United States will now be under increased scrutiny according to the media. And no, this isn't the hated "unfair" profiling of suspected terrorists which actually might work to prevent bombers from boarding planes, it's a brilliant security insight quickly thought up by Obama's security experts on the Democratic National Committee.

Unfortunately, Al Qaeda has their own pamphlet titled: "How to Make Bad Things Happen to People We Don't Like". Given this brilliant move by Obama, the pamphlet suggests that future bombers fly out of airports that aren't under "expanded" scrutiny and on the lookout for terrorists. Drive or take a boat or take a train to another country not on the watch list, fly out of their airport, avoid the extra security scrutiny. Oh, those wily terrorists, who would have thought of that?

David| 1.4.10 @ 4:07PM

Murph, I don't have much time to engage in this argument, and only have time address one of your claims: that closing a Gitmo and releasing terrorists back to Yemen is okay and that even Bush sent 14 prisoners back to Yemen.

Please recall that intitially there were 700+ enemy combatants in Gitmo. Now there are only 200+. As the Bush administration reviewed each individual's case, and if it was determined that the prisoner of was probably not an inordinate risk, the prisoner was let go.

What Bam Bam and you don't understand is that the 200+ still in Gitmo are considered the worst of the worst. The Bush admin saw no reason to release any of the 200+ that are left, and I sure do trust Bush's judgment over Bam Bam's on this matter. I wish I had the time to get into the issues of civilian trials, the closing of Gitmo, and moving the worst of the worst to American soil.

Oh, and as to Obama doing more drone bombing than Bush, Obama, like all democrats, do things to be seen. Bam Bam advertises such things, while Bush and his administration's nature, was to do things in secret. Yes, Yes, Murph, secrecy in national security is a good thing - a very good, smart thing to practice.

murph | 1.4.10 @ 4:45PM

David
"What Bam Bam and you don't understand is that the 200+ still in Gitmo are considered the worst of the worst."

No, David - what I understand is that it is very tempting to beleive that after the majority of people at Gitmo are released that SURELY now, surely eight years later we're down to the solid cases. But we're not.

Even after the Bush administration released hundreds of detainees (to little conservative ire) there were still people like Lakhdar Boumediene - a man who was held based on sources the administration refused to reveal (even to the judge) and ordered released in November of 2008. There were still people like Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed - a man who was ordered released because the court found the allegations against him "wouldn't be enough to detain Ali Ahmed even if proved."

Or Mohammed El Gharani - a man who was held on the conflicting information of other detainees - "whose believability was questioned by the government itself."

Or the Uighurs, people who in the government's own admission had never done anything against the United States, and were still detained because our government couldn't be bothered to find a place to relocate them.

I'd love to believe that after all this time, the Gitmo detainees were the right people (as surely some of them are) but the batting average so far has been abysmal - and letting people go who because the facts support doing so is not a sign of weakness. Holding them because you don't want to admit a mistake is.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 10:29PM

Obama's ex-czar, Van Jones, is an admitted Communist, Murph; I thought you'd be proud.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 4:12PM

Murph's just another commie idiot--all they can do is blame Bush; they never take responsibility for their own screw-ups--which are many. Losers, all.

murph | 1.4.10 @ 4:46PM

Commie? Well, aren't you cute? Can't seem to argue on substance, so you'll resort to name calling.

Give us a kiss.

Bob| 1.4.10 @ 4:58PM

SoCon doesn't have the intelligence or knowledge to argue on the merits. If it isn't in the Bible, it doesn't exist in her opinion. And by the way, I don't agree with you on Gitmo detainees. If you know anything about prisons, you would know that even if they were only circumstantially guilty when they were apprehended, they were probably radicalized while at Gitmo. It is a question of risk assessment. We now have data to know that a majority of the Yemen detainees who were not put in their country's prison system, have returned to fight against us with even more information learned at Gitmo then they had before. Mathematically, it makes sense to have a higher hurdle than before to let them out.

Security is a numbers game and we must deal with probabilities. You could make the argument on an individual human rights basis, but then you make the trade-off that if 1 of 10 go back to terrorism and each of them kill 20 of us, is that the right thing to do? I come down on the side of pragmatism -- don't let the Yemen detainees go.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 5:09PM

Blob's just mad because I remember his many lies and perfidies from last year and have outed him once again. Don't be mad, Blob--all's fair in war and blogging. Ha!

Besides, who is the real stupid here--you voted for Obama!

Stupid troll.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 5:19PM

Why is it that you Leftists have to always insult our level of intelligence?
What the Left has in book knowledge (perhaps), the conservatives have in SMART.
Smart as a whip, that is. Because that's what SoCon is. And that's what the conservatives posting on this thread are.
You see, we know them when we see them.
Leftists, that is.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 11:20PM

Thanks, Margie--that was nice.

Regarding Murph: Don't cast your pearls before swine, dear. :)

murph | 1.4.10 @ 5:25PM

I respect a person who will lay out their argument in rational terms - but I totally disagree with your premise.

Unless there's been some new finding of fact - the notion that the majority of released Yemeni prisoners have returned to the fight has been thoroughly debunked by Seton Hall's investigation (Link to PDF).

In the abstract - a finding of fact is going to be based on some threshold of probability ("reasonable doubt" or what have you).

But the idea that probability alone justifies indefinate detention, that's just monstrous. There should be some mechanism to challenge the government position - and a statistical model cannot be allowed to stand on its own. Otherwise, the government can lock people up with no appeal. That's why the Padilla case was so shocking. A US citizen was being detained without conviction, trial, or even charges. The courts eventually intervened and forced the government to back down. After all their posturing about how Padilla was the anti-christ who could never be let out, they relented and let the civillian courts send him to prison for 17 years. And the heavens did not fall.

As soon as you allow an accusation alone to justify detention - you've crossed a line that American should not cross.

That said, there is a middle ground between full trial rights and indefinate detention without trial. Some proceeding where evidence can be examined by an independent authority with the power to release or convict is well within our power to create.

All these shortcuts we've taken so far just cheapen America's good name.

Bob| 1.4.10 @ 5:36PM

I see nothing in this document that speaks to radicalization while in custody. Furthermore, we know that two of the Yemeni detainees that were let go under Bush became Al Qaeda leaders. This is not a perfect world. Perhaps many of the detainees should not have been captured. But that is after the fact.

I would not have created a Gitmo in the first place because of its use as a recruiting tool. But we do have Gitmo and have created a rat's nest that must be dealt with. Using probabilities is the only pragmatic way to deal with this unfortunately.

murph | 1.4.10 @ 8:00PM

The Seton Hall document primary rebuttal is aimed at recidivism rates claimed by the Bush administration. I have no data on radicalization while in custody, but that's not really relevant.

You're saying If you are in jail unjustly the government can say "we know you're innocent, but you've been around such bad people here for so long we can't let you out" - and suddenly they can keep you in jail forever?

That's not imperfect - that's seriously whack.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 5:37PM

What cheapens America's good name is a 'leader' who travels around the world bowing to kings, emperors and despots. You democrats are a shame and embarrassment to our country.

You have no honor because you have no conscience.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.4.10 @ 5:02PM

Hi Murph.
You can squirt all the ink you want. It just further proves you are a squid.
Yep, muddy the water with enough ink, you think.

Just send Mr. Soros an invoice for arguing and squirting ink here. You are full of SH_t!

You, like Bob are a wordy, non-entity. Your so-called arguments are all ink.
PS: I am not calling names. my email address is
kbjudgeroybean06@gmail.com
You and I can meet face to face anywhere. I have my own plane so make it easy on yourself.
but.....cluck cluck cluck cluck...you won't meet, coward.

murph | 1.4.10 @ 5:10PM

Oh Ken, how you disappoint.

Can't argue using, y'know *words* and *facts* - so I'll challenge you to meet in person. Act all tough 'n stuff.

This ain't the schoolyard, Ken.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.4.10 @ 6:13PM

NO SIR, MURPH!

This ain't the school yard. This is reaaaaaaaal shootin' times.
I am willing to risk my life here, challenging your twerps in power. I have put my name on every list the communists,(pardon the shorthand), have to kill, OK?
Sir, I am not acting tough. I am sucking wind and trying to stay courageous.

Candidly, I thought my years facing bullets were over. I never wear shorts or swimsuits...to keep from frightening children. My scars are pretty nasty.
I honestly thought those days were in my past.
Evidently they are not.

Bottom line...I shall never see you or the Bobs over open sights.

You guys will be hiding and sending kiddos out to kill for you.
I personally am going to try my best to look over their heads.....and shoot you cowards hiding behind them.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 6:23PM

Of course, you're right, Old Tex--Bob, Murph and liberal liars like them are all cowards: Yellow-bellied skunks who mouth off and nothing else.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 6:26PM

Dear Ken,
Please keep your powder dry!
(I can't believe I just said that).
But really~ these Dumbo's aren't worth it. (No offense to Dumbo).
Besides, some of us want you around here for a long time.

Bob| 1.4.10 @ 5:14PM

And, Tex, your arguments lack facts and logic... Do you really want to meet? Let me know your real name and I will certainly meet you. Are you too much of a coward to print your real name and location here? I won't because there is no one else in the U.S. with my name and my email will be stuffed by all of you who disagree with me. If you let me know who you are, I will contact you and you can check me out until your brain empties (that will be fairly quick, I assume).

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 5:41PM

You trolls never fail to amuse. Obama's a failure and democrats don't know how to govern, yet, you still spew your BS. How are those thirty pieces of silver workin' out for you?

No problem, stay delusional; we'll see you losers in November.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 5:05PM

Kiss your fellow commie, Bob--you liberals lean that way, you know. Identity politics R you.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 10:07PM

Well, Obama's ex-czar, Van Jones is an admitted Commie--so what's the prob, Murph? I thought you'd be proud of the bright red streak running up your back; it runs right next to the yellow one.

Pingback| 1.4.10 @ 4:28PM

Video:Lieberman Slams Obama For Trying Abdulmutallab in Criminal Court « Nice Deb links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Video:Lieberman Slams Obama For Trying Abdulmutallab in Criminal Court « Nice Deb Nice Deb About Word Press Political Blog Alliance Archives January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009…

Pingback| 1.4.10 @ 5:03PM

The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Abdulmutallab, with detonators and expl os ives in hand, ever managed to get on Flight 253 — especially after the terrorist’s own … View original post here: The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger By admin | category: AMERICAN | tags: carrie-underwood, CLARK, david-cook, disaster-looms, ever-managed, farouk, farouk-abdulmutallab, flight, kelly-clarkson, people-rightly,…

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 5:40PM

I think Murph the squirt is a Libertarian, like Bob.

Am I right, Murph?

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 5:43PM

He's probably a Paultard or a Myth Romney fan. Who knows, who cares? They both voted for Obozo, makes them losers in my book.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 5:51PM

I know, Patriot.. It's a teaching tool I use for the thousands that read here. You see, people like Bob and murph SAY they are conservatives. But when they speak they show whose side they are really on. The Left's.
Since I've been reading & posting here, I've learned an awful lot.
I've learned that Ron Paul's followers call themselves Libertarians. They also like to try and say they are Republicans, and may register as such, like Ron Paul himself. In truth they actually despise conservatives. You are witnessing it here, live, right now.
My husband likes to call the LiberalTerriers because they are biting nasty Leftists in disguise.
The truth speaks for itself.

Pingback| 1.4.10 @ 5:54PM

Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger : 70085 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Uncategorized United States Home > United States > Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger January 5th, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/04/media-warns-of-grave-gop-dange Special Report Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger By John R. Guardiano on 1.4.10 @ 6:08AM The Christmas Day terrorist attack on Flight 253 was an actual disaster that never…

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.4.10 @ 5:58PM

Margie,
THAT WAS FUNNY! I needed a good laugh. These guys are the little yappy heel biters the comedians make jokes about.
Great post!

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 6:21PM

Ken,
Yeah, except that the little yappy doggies are actually cute. :^)

Pete| 1.4.10 @ 6:03PM

"Furthermore, Obama has improved our relationships with other countries and that has increased our security."

Priceless stuff, Bob. Too bad you don't write your own material.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 6:19PM

Tell the nearly 300 passengers on that Christmas day flight that nearly exploded into a fireball that Obama has increased our security.

Bob's senile and that little gem proves it.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.4.10 @ 6:39PM

Guys,
again...a copy/paste from above in case you missed it:

NO SIR, MURPH!

This ain't the school yard. This is reaaaaaaaal shootin' times.
I am willing to risk my life here, challenging your twerps in power. I have put my name on every list the communists,(pardon the shorthand), have to kill, OK?
Sir, I am not acting tough. I am sucking wind and trying to stay courageous.

Candidly, I thought my years facing bullets were over. I never wear shorts or swimsuits...to keep from frightening children. My scars are pretty nasty.
I honestly thought those days were in my past.
Evidently they are not.

Bottom line...I shall never see you or the Bobs over open sights.

You guys will be hiding and sending kiddos out to kill for you.
I personally am going to try my best to look over their heads.....and shoot you cowards hiding behind them.

Reply to this

Pingback| 1.4.10 @ 7:33PM

The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Abdulmutallab, with detonators and explosives in hand, ever managed to get on Flight 253 — especially after the terrorist’s own … Originally posted here: The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger Posted in American | Tags: and-explosives, because-the, disaster-looms, ever-managed, farouk, farouk-abdulmutallab, know-how, own-, people-rightly, with-detonators Comments are…

martin j smith| 1.4.10 @ 7:39PM

trolls are trolls--what do you expect ?

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 7:51PM

God bless you, Old Tex; you're my kind of American!

Burke| 1.4.10 @ 7:59PM

When I was a senior in high school, Terry Moran who was a junior, Terry decided to pick on my brother who was a freshman. Once Terry the "tough guy" found out it was my brother he was very apologetic. He hasn't changed a bit. I let him off the hook with a warning about bullying...I should have given him a wedgie instead.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 9:03PM

Burke, Terry looks like someone's giving him a major wedgie in the photo above. Too bad you didn't give him a swirly.

What a weenie he is.

Nick| 1.4.10 @ 8:05PM

Pay no attention to 3/5 Bob, folks. He is not worth your time.

For those who don't already know, until fairly recently (last June), 3/5 Bob thought blacks had 3/5 of a vote under the U.S. Constitution, as originally written.

This is the same guy who doesn't think Sarah Palin is EDUCATED enough about constitutional matters, like supreme court decisions.

3/5 Bob also doesn't know the scientific fact of when biological human life begins, because he's not sure when "ensoulment" happens!

These are not examples of his lies. Just of how truly ignorant someone can be with a Havard degree.

Off the top of my head, an example of one of his lies would be when he claimed Hitler was a practicing Catholic.

When called on it, 3/5 Bob lied and try to claim that what he meant was that Hitler WAS Catholic, not that Hitler WAS A Catholic.

When pressed further, all 3/5 Bob could do was cherry-pick quotes from the late 1920's and early 30's (when politician Hitler was running for office) where Hitler said positive things about Christianity. This, he lyingly wrote, proved Hitler was a Christian.

3/5 Bob is not worth your time, everyone.

Thanks to Margie, SoCon, Mr. Tomlinson, and anyone else who liked what I wrote.
Happy New Year!

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 8:39PM

Happy New Year to you too, Nick!
About Hitler, I remember reading a long time ago that he may have been a believer at one time in his life but he turned his back on God. I have some books by Richard Wurmbrand where he talks a lot about Hitler and he wrote a book about Marx too called "Marx & Satan" which is extremely eye opening. Rev. Wurmbrand spent 14 years in Communist prisons and became the head of the underground church in communist lands. Their website is Persecution.com. He is with God in Heaven now but wrote the most beautiful books about how close he got to Christ while suffering torture while imprisoned.
Anyway, I was going to say that a favorite trick of the Left is to always pin atrocities on Christians. Well the truth is true Christians do not commit atrocities. They may call themselves Christians, but they are not. I am sure you know this, but for the sake of others I post it.
God bless.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 8:59PM

Marx and Hitler were atheists; satanists, actually: Both hated and persecuted Catholics.

Liberals like Bob and Murph have a lot in common with the godless monsters!

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 9:23PM

Yes, they did persecute Catholics. In fact they persecuted anyone who wasn't exactly like them, and whoever didn't think like them. They even persecuted each other as well. Rev. Wurmbrand said there were countless times where the Communists would throw their own in the prisons along with the rest. Many of these were converted to Christ.
But it is the same, you are so right, as with the Leftists among us here.. if you don't march in lockstep with their thinking then you are the enemy. Just that now they try and call themselves the "true conservatives." They are the wolves in sheep's clothing!

Nick| 1.4.10 @ 8:58PM

Murph,

Like most bleeding heart liberals, you are a master of deflection. Try responding to what I wrote.

You repeated the claim of two liberals from a liberal think tank that President Dither had increased Predator strikes. Thus, B.O. was doing more than President Bush had done to combat the terrorists.

You then claimed the technology had only recently become available to lower civilian casualties. You did this to try to insulate President Dither from criticism.

If more strikes had occured under President Bush, the left would have screamed about the collateral damage, which was already low.

In your response, you wrote President Dither was "doing more to strike at the terrorist network that actually attacked the US." How could you possibly know this? Are you privy to classified information?

You then claimed the Ditherer "[...] did order an increase in the number of strikes [...]". Can you please explain exactly how one does this? Terrorists are targets of opportunity, since they are, you know, HIDING!!

If your enemy is hiding, and you can only take them out when the opportunity arises, then you can't simply order an increase in strikes.

I know you guys think President Dither is a god, but he can't demand there be more strikes if the targets don't present themselves. Something of which he has no control. This is common sense.

Now, if B.O. changed the ROE, that's a different story. But you never claimed he did.

I'm more interested in what policies his administration has changed since it took over. Specifically, what, if anything, has Shrillary the Hut changed concerning how visas are obtained. And have screening procedures changed under Incompe-tano.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 9:06PM

Nick, unfortunately common sense is not so common, especially among liberals.

murph | 1.4.10 @ 10:02PM

Nick, you're hilarious. There are two items referenced in the NYT piece. You focus in on the tech issue. I'll meet that one head on: I'll grant that the lack of tech is not relevant to a discussion of policy. Bush can't use what doesn't exist. Fair enough.

But now I'll ask you about the second item you pointedly did not mention: Iraq. Any quality defenses of pursing an Iraq policy that takes resources away from using drones in Afghan/Pakistan?

I'm all ears.

REO discussions are moot to my original point which was that the Obama administration clearly recognizes that it is at war with Al Qaeda. The fact that it has increased the strike rate runs contrary to Guardiano's claim that Obama has been less agressive.

As for targets of opportunity - if you're suggesting that you cannot increase the number of opportunities - surely you'd concede that you can have more drones in the air, more intelligence assets in the area.

My statement about striking at the terrorists responsible for 9/11 still stands. We invaded Afghanistan in 2001. We had drones killing guys in 2002. It takes six YEARS for Bush and co to dial up the pain in Waziristan? What might have distracted them?

Perhaps that massive deployment in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Ya think?

Think of all the manpower, lives and expense that could have been directed towards Al Qaeda that instead went to knocking over some two bit dictator and trying to hold onto the resulting ruins. All because Bush was obsessed with doing something other than getting Al Qaeda.

What a waste.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 10:13PM

Waste--exactly the word I'd use to describe your existence.

All I know is that Bush protected our country after the debacle of Clinton's 9/11; Obama's incompetence is now on full display for all to see.

Democrat's Dereliction of duty--EPIC FAIL.

SoCon| 1.4.10 @ 11:14PM

You know what's more pertinent to the debate, Murph? The fact that September 11th didn't have to happen at all if Clinton had only agreed to accept just one of Sudan's numerous offers to extradite Bin Laden. He truly was guilty of Presidential dereliction of duty.

We know this and we won't forget; Obama is on a short leash because of Clinton's moral turpitude.

Clinton's moral failure led to thousands of American deaths, including our American warriors who've fallen on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

You want to blame someone for this mess? Look in the mirror.

Nick| 1.5.10 @ 1:28AM

Murph,

Thanks for conceding my point.

I'll address Iraq in a moment. I raised ROE only as a possible reason for the increase in Predator strikes. And, yes, I agree better intelligence is another possibility. But no one, not even President Dither, can wave a magic wand and demand that more strikes against Al Qaeda take place and *POOF*, there are more strikes. Not without the opportunities presenting themselves. If you believe a president has this kind of power, you are deluding yourself.

The fact that President Dither is treating Abdulmutallab as a criminal and not as a unlawful enemy combatant runs contrary to your claim that he is acting more agressive against Al Qaeda.

Now, I will try to summarize succinctly my thoughts on Operation Iraqi Freedom.

-Saddam was a sadist and a psychopath.
-He did not work with the world community.
-After fighting an eight year war with Iran, he foolishly invaded Kuwait.
-After we humiliated him, he agreed to UN sanctions to get a cease-fire, not to end the war.
-He immediately violated the UN resolutions, and continued to violate them for 12 years.
-He tried to assassinate former President G.H.W. Bush.
-He repeatedly shot at the U.K.'s and our military aircraft.
-Bubba the Pervert did practically nothing.
-After the attacks of September 11th, despite what liberals think, the world changed.
-Saddam could not be allowed to have WMD's.
-He could not be allowed to build nukes.
-He continued to play games with the inspectors.
-Al Qaeda and al-Zarqawi were in Iraq prior to OIF.
-The GOP led House and the DEMOCRAT led Senate voted to authorize the use of force in Oct. 2002.
-President G.W. Bush used the UN resolutions to force Saddam to comply finally after 12 years.
-The UN Security Council passed resolution 1441 in Nov. 2002, which provided for "serious consequences" for non-compliance.
-Saddam CHOSE not to comply, making it HIS war of choice.
-President Bush gave Saddam a deadline to comply with the resolutions he agreed to, or we would "inspect" by force and defend ourselves if necessary.
-This fulfilled the requirements for a just war.
-Saddam tried to stop the coalition forces and was removed from power.
-Even Saddam's own generals thought they had WMD's. If his own generals thought they had them, how was GWB supposed to know they didn't have WMD's? Hmmmm?

Thus, Operation Iraqi Freedom was necessary, completely justified, and accomplished something that is not debatable: Saddam Hussein, and his sons, will never, ever be responsible for the death of one more American again. And that's a good thing.

I have a lot of problems with the way President Bush handled the post-war period, especially unlawful enemy combatants, but there is no question his leadership saved American lives.

Now, isn't President Dither guilty of war crimes for escalating the war and killing civilians?

Margie| 1.5.10 @ 1:28PM

Notice, dear readers the intelligent, well thought factual post written by Nick.

Is it not interesting that Bob & co, chose to ignore this, among others?

Proving their hypocrisy yet again. Their rallying cry is always~ "Where's the debate! There's never any intelligent debate!"

murph | 1.5.10 @ 5:17PM

I'm going to boil your Iraq justifications down to the essentials.

====================
Saddam is a bad guy:
-Saddam was a sadist and a psychopath.
-He did not work with the world community.
-After we humiliated him, he agreed to UN sanctions to get a cease-fire, not to end the war.
-He continued to play games with the inspectors.
-He repeatedly shot at the U.K.'s and our military aircraft.

Irrelevant Rubbish. The world is chock full of bad guys, and we pointedly ignore that fact. If being a bad guy was a criteria for war - we'd have invaded Myanmar years ago. You'll recall Saddam killed US sailors on the USS Stark during the Iran-Iraq war and not only didn't bomb him for being evil - we continued to fund his warmaking. Usama bin Laden is a bad guy – but he was a bad guy who attacked us directly and was still at large. We had a war we needed to win against his crew, Saddam being evil is a regional problem that the Middle East could have handled until we exterminated the 9/11 plotters.

====================
Kuwait:
-After fighting an eight year war with Iran, he foolishly invaded Kuwait.
Completely irrelevant. Kuwait has nothing to do with the second gulf war. Iraq was nowhere close to invading Kuwait in 2002 or 2003. If they’d have had an invasion staged, we have hit their invasion force when we ripped through their southern border. Go ahead and search for evidence of that happening. You will fail.

====================
Zarqawi/Al Qaeda:
-Al Qaeda and al-Zarqawi were in Iraq prior to OIF.
First of all, Zarqawi had no ties to Saddam whatsoever - he was in northern Iraq because that was an area that Saddam had no control over Kurdistan.
Zarqawi was allied with a militant group Saddam would have exterminated if he could, since they posed a threat to his government. See the Senate Report on Pre war intelligence in Iraq

Al Qaeda likewise had no operational links to Saddam - something established by the 9/11 commission. When VP Cheney continued to assert a link existed - the Commission challenged him to produce the intelligence that backed that up. Cheney could not.

Get it into your head: there was no terrorist link to Al Qaeda and Iraq.

====================
UN Resolution violations:
-He immediately violated the UN resolutions, and continued to violate them for 12 years.
-President G.W. Bush used the UN resolutions to force Saddam to comply finally after 12 years.
-The UN Security Council passed resolution 1441 in Nov. 2002, which provided for "serious consequences" for non-compliance.
-Saddam CHOSE not to comply, making it HIS war of choice.
-President Bush gave Saddam a deadline to comply with the resolutions he agreed to, or we would "inspect" by force and defend ourselves if necessary.

First and foremost - you're presenting these items as if they are a policy vacuum. All other things are not equal. The US has suffered a major attack originating in Afghanistan & Pakistan. Afghanistan has been taken over, but the bulk of the Al Qaeda network is still at large.

Saddam had been violating these UN resolutions for years – we could have waited to punch his ticket until after we had Bin Laden’s head on a pike. Instead, we shifted the bulk of our assets away from Waziristan and let Al Qaeda off the hook.

The capper to all arguments against our enforcement of UN resolutions being a justification is to ask the UN itself. The UN did not authorize the US invasion. We couldn’t even muster a moral victory on the resolution since the majority of UN nations wanted us to negotiate rather than invade.

Despite this, we invaded anyway over the UN’s objections and the UN Sec General declared our invasion illegal.

Q.E.D.

====================
-He tried to assassinate former President G.H.W. Bush.
No, he didn’t. And if you read the details on what the Kuwaiti officials sold to us as an “assassination plot” you would be amazed that story ever made it into the press. Read The Iraq War Reader. Basically, the Kuwaitis “discovered” a plot prior to GHWB’s visit by grabbing some vagabonds in the desert who admitted under severe interrogation that they’d planned to kill GHWB using a car bomb. That they had not built yet, did not have explosives for, and had no expertise in creating, and had no knowledge of how they would be able to get it in the proximity of GHWB. In other words – it might have been an aspirational plot – but the men were not Iraqi agents, and no direct connection with Iraq was ever established.

====================
Irrelevant Nonsense masquerading as reasons:
-Bubba the Pervert did practically nothing.
-After the attacks of September 11th, despite what liberals think, the world changed.
-This fulfilled the requirements for a just war.
-Saddam tried to stop the coalition forces and was removed from power.

These rants may be fun to say – but they have no relevance on whether or not Iraq needed to be invaded prior to exterminating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The one about trying to stop coalition forces is especially meaningless, since it occurred after we invaded.

====================
Nukes:
-Saddam could not be allowed to have WMD's.
-He could not be allowed to build nukes.
-Even Saddam's own generals thought they had WMD's. If his own generals thought they had them, how was GWB supposed to know they didn't have WMD's? Hmmmm?

We get that – but as has been proven to an embarrassing degree – we had no solid intelligence to believe that Iraq had an active nuclear program. See the Senate Intelligence Committee report PDF It lays out the disparity between what policymakers knew – and what they claimed in public to justify war.
The danger was not imminent, it was not growing – and even the preliminary stages of a reconstituted nuclear program were years away.

More to the point – we had UN inspectors crawling all over Iraq prior to the war. It’s common for proponents of the Iraq war to point to Iraq not allowing inspectors access – but the simple fact is a nuclear program is too big to hide from people who have on the ground access. Read Richard Rhodes to get an idea of how staggering the infrastructure is for such a program.
It is also popular to dismiss the opinions of the UN inspectors as inaccurate, but remember the UN inspectors said there was no active program – and they were proved right.

====================
-The GOP led House and the DEMOCRAT led Senate voted to authorize the use of force in Oct. 2002.

Yes they did. But a bad decision taken by many is still a bad decision. Let’s recall that the Bush administration was banging the drum for war. If they had let up, the war would not have happened. They demanded a resolution from Congress (well, actually they almost didn’t, but rather than invade without one- they demanded one eventually) so Congress caving to the president is their own shame. But the war belongs to Bush- and your trying to foist it off on Congress does nothing to explain why Iraq was a more urgent conflict than the one with Al Qaeda.

Nick| 1.5.10 @ 9:20PM

Murph,

I did not make a list of "justifications" for OIF, I made a historical summary for the historically ignorant, like yourself.

If you don't have the analytical skills to see that my list was in chronological order, then maybe you're not worth my time.

So trying to separate this list of facts into separate events won't work. It's like "you're presenting these items as if they are a policy vacuum." When taken in their entirety, this is the history President Bush was dealing with when he decided to remove Saddam from power.

Now I will deal with your inanities.

Saddam was not just "a bad guy." Stalin and Hitler were bad guys. They had others do their dirty work. Saddam watched his victims being fed into industrial shredders and let his sons pick women off the street to rape them. He was, as I wrote, a sadist and psychopath.

Kuwait. As already stated, this was a history lesson. How you could think I was trying to imply Saddam was about to invade Kuwait in 2003 is truly mind-numbing.

Zarqawi/Al Qaeda. Nobody knew the status of Zarqawi/AQ in Iraq in late 2002/early 2003. Just that they were there.

UN resolutions. If the UN won't enforce it's resolutions, as a member nation, we can. Koffi Annan is a crook who was on Saddam's payroll.

You gloss over the fact Saddam shot at our aircraft for 12 years. And the fact that his generals thought they had WMD.

And whenever the question comes down to believing Saddam and the terrorists, you believe they are telling the truth. And naturally the Bush administration is lying to "get us into war." Pretty sad.

I'm sorry, but after the attacks of September 11th, a president of the United States could not afford to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt.

I also forgot to mention the fact that Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program after we removed Saddam. Another bonus.

But, you Bush haters don't care about facts. It is only important to find propaganda to reinforce your belief that Bush "lied us into war."

Now, why won't you answere my simple question? Should President Dither be tried for war crimes for escalating the war and killing civilians?

murph | 1.5.10 @ 11:47PM

===================
I did not make a list of "justifications" for OIF, I made a historical summary...
===================

So, you can't justify scaling back operations in Afghanistan to invade Iraq?

Or you just wanted to waste everyone's time with your puffed up chronology because you like to type?

===================
Saddam was not just "a bad guy." Stalin and Hitler were bad guys. They had others do their dirty work. Saddam watched his victims being fed into industrial shredders and let his sons pick women off the street to rape them. He was, as I wrote, a sadist and psychopath.
===================

So are the guys in Myanmar. So was Turkmenbashi. You have this childlike belief that we run to save the world from bad men. US policy should be to advance its national interests, like raining death on those who caused 9/11 so their smouldering remains serve as warning to others.

Saddam was a bad man - but he was a bad man we could have safely ignored for years - and your positioning him as the next Hitler just establishes your inability to think critically. Saddam was never going to overrun the Middle East and you know it. He couldn't beat Iran in eight years - with the US backing and our sattelite intel. If he brutalizes his own population he is Iraq's problem.

Bin Laden was our problem.

===================
As already stated, this was a history lesson.
===================

If your list of inaccuracies is a history lesson, then by your own admission - you are avoiding the central argument that Iraq was an unjustified diversion.

===================
Zarqawi/Al Qaeda. Nobody knew the status of Zarqawi/AQ in Iraq in late 2002/early 2003. Just that they were there.
===================
My point exactly. They didn't know - yet they crowed about these imagined connections as if they were a cause for war. Thanks for conceding that.

===================
UN resolutions. If the UN won't enforce it's resolutions, as a member nation, we can. Koffi Annan is a crook who was on Saddam's payroll.
===================

Isn't it great how you can cite the UN as a legal framework for justifying war - yet utterly dismiss it when your (belatedly) realize their framework opposed our war. Saying that Koffi Annan was on Saddam's payroll is a joke of a Parthian shot. You can't establish that as fact, so you'll throw it out there and walk away. Weak.

===================
You gloss over the fact Saddam shot at our aircraft for 12 years. And the fact that his generals thought they had WMD.
===================

I don't gloss over it. I think the fact that he's been shooting at our aircraft for TWELVE years establishes that the situation is not urgent. Suddenly, 2003 is the moment to address this situation? To the detriment of our pursuit of Al Qaeda? Laughable.

And "His generals thought they had WMD" I'll refer you to the point you conceded earlier. Nobody knew what his generals thought then - and the point you can't seem to get past. They DIDN'T have any - and we had no solid intelligence that said they did. Yet our government told us they did.

===================
And whenever the question comes down to believing Saddam and the terrorists, you believe they are telling the truth. And naturally the Bush administration is lying to "get us into war." Pretty sad.
===================
I defy you to find a reference of mine that asserts that an uncorroborated statement of a terrorist is accepted as established fact. I think you'll find I apply skepticism of any unsupported statement (take yours, for example). If you read that Senate report on our intel vs. Bush statements you'll have little reason for your blind faith in their honesty.

===================
I'm sorry, but after the attacks of September 11th, a president of the United States could not afford to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt.
===================
Once again - a fine sound bite, but completely unsupported by any established threats posed by Iraq in 2003. They were not supporting Al Qaeda and we had no proof that they were at the time. Iraq had no capacity to strike at the US directly - and Iraq was well aware that we could end them if their fingerprints were on any violent act against us.

===================
I also forgot to mention the fact that Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program after we removed Saddam. Another bonus.
===================

Y'know what else you forgot to mention.? North Korea getting the bomb after we removed Saddam. Lovely symmetry that completely undoes your point. Oh, and Iran (who right after Afghanistan was offering to make massive concessions to us) was ignored until they resumed their atomic program.

Does it bother you that the "facts" you claim to cite are unsupportable talking points?

And I have no idea where you are going with this War Crimes distraction. You can't defend the Iraq distraction - so now you want to change the subject?

Okay - here's a hard stop to that tangent. If you think I have any problem with collateral damage in pursuit of the bad guys you have no idea who you are talking to. If Al Qaeda was strapping children to themselves I'd be in favor of blowing them into the next life.

Now back to the question you've been dodging: Why do you defend shifting US resources to attack Iraq in 2003?

Pingback| 1.4.10 @ 9:26PM

Legacy : Southwest Indian Art at the School of American Research | The African Art St links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…generated) Related posts on American The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : TNR: Dems to Skip Conference … The American Spectator : Harry's Shameful Victory The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger Related posts on Indian Desi Spotlight – Indian Muslims Fighting for Rights in India … Indian economy hardly misses a beat | East Asia Forum Share and Enjoy: Categories:…

Northern Rebel| 1.4.10 @ 9:39PM

Once again Old Tex, you have elucidated in print, with the help of Marge, and SoCon, the transparency of the communist argument, and ripped it to shreds before their eyes.

Ole Bob and Murph can dance like a drunk cowboy doin' the lead two-step, but they can't refute the facts.

Bob thinks he's a libertarian because of his stance on abortion, and gay marriage?

As a great conservative named Bugs Bunny once said, "What a maroon!"

Don't worry Ken, when you are shooting over the heads of their useful idiots, I'll be one of many Northern Rebels behind you, protecting you from harm.

Margie| 1.4.10 @ 10:33PM

Yes Northern Rebel, we certainly did rip it to shreds didn't we? Along with Louis Jenkins, you, Dai, Patriot, and others.
And what is their response? It is the usual mind boggling one: where's the debate? They act like we haven't said a word, only "name-called"...
They always ALWAYS act like we haven't said a thing!
Their only interest is to take over the place with their stupid propaganda I guess in the hopes that whoever is reading might be converted to fascism. But as a kind poster told me the other day.. she liked what I say and that she really liked reading the authors and commentators because she really learns! That means all of us she learns from. So while these communists think they are running the show~~they are only serving as the truly rotten examples of what they believe in.
Most Americans do not want what they want.

murph | 1.4.10 @ 10:04PM

While I can't say I'm surprised at the quality of debate on an internet comment board - the response patterns here are pretty telling.

I am sure there are serious conservative posters who debate issues with supported arguments - but there's precious little of that going on here.

Props to David, Bob and Nick for posts that actually further the discussion, but even by internet standards - there are some truly sad posts around here.

SoCon, Patriot and Margie seem to alternate between "Obama is Bad!" and "you're a [insert one: fascist/ fake conservative/libertarian/commie idiot/dirtbag Liberal Reader/Ron Paul fan/Mitt Romney supporter]"

Ask yourselves: as self described conservatives - is that really the best argument you have? Are you really so unable to advocate for your point of view using facts?

Is this really how you want to present your ideology?

And Ken - oh my.

Ken's idea of patriotism is to act like he's going to attack the US government. Out of a sense of patriotism. 'Cause he's a tough patriot, you see.

He's not just posting on a comment board - he's going to "put his life on the line" - whatever that means.

And he wants us all to know he's willing to shoot people - because for some reason this is more natural to him than defending his ideas in a public forum.

Ken - if you are serious, seek professional help.
If you are not serious, seek professional help.

Patriot| 1.4.10 @ 10:17PM

No one invited you here, troll; you may leave at any time. And.. don't come back.

Remember the Date: November 2, 2010

Democrat's Pink Slip Day

Get rid of them all!

Margie| 1.5.10 @ 12:33PM

"but even by internet standards - there are some truly sad posts around here."
~ You can say that again. Yours and those of your Leftist friends.

Pingback| 1.4.10 @ 10:47PM

Turnabout catches up to Obama. GOP uses Obama as rallying cry … | Racing Automotive W links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Turnabout catches up to Obama. GOP uses Obama as rallying cry … Related Blogs on Gop Fundraising Woes Could Hold Back the GOP in 2010 – The Gaggle Blog … The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger GOP House Candidate: Battling Liberals More Important Than … Related Posts Obama Team Rallying the Market With Lies « Therearenosunglasses's … Rallying:…

Yosemeti Sam| 1.5.10 @ 12:09AM

" ... Van Hollen and the Democratic Left -- aided by Moran and the legacy (or liberal) media -- don't want that. They want to change the subject. They want to argue, instead, about Republican Party tactics. They want to whine that conservative Republicans are too big and too bad and too mean. Boohoo! ...."

Remember Pittsburgh Steeler middle line backer great Jack Lambert?

He offered - and I paraphrase - that those on the
field of competition who wail about getting 'hit'
simply wear dresses. Men can work around the
dainty ones.

LOL.

Northern Rebel| 1.5.10 @ 1:20AM

Murph:

What you are doing is a classic case of projectionism. Trying to tell conservatives that they resort to name calling, instead of providing facts, is as ironic as it gets.

The fact is, the less government intrusion, the better America is.

When taxes are cut, gummint revenue increases. These are facts. Lookit up, look it uppers.

Murph, Bob, and whatever the other socialist dipshit's name is, all you statist's want is control over Americans, so you can attempt to put your ill fated utopia into place.

Some of you are misguided, and others want the power over others. I frankly don't give a damn which of this type you are.

But to try to insinuate that Margie, and Ole Texican, and SoCon, are name callers, and don't present facts on this forum, tells me you are either dishonest, disengenuous, naive, or a fucking liar.

(Ooops! name calling!;o)

Go back to mother Jones, or New republic, and get some more talking points, because you are a fool amongst intellectuals here, and your embarrassing yourself.

Thanks for the comedy Murph, and If you don't like conservative thought,

GET YOUR OWN COUNTRY!

Nick| 1.5.10 @ 1:43AM

Northern Rebel,

You must be psychotic, er, I mean psychic.

I was going to make the same point about what Murph wrote about Ken, Margie, Patriot, and SoCon!

I was even going to say Murph was projecting. You beat me to it, darn it.

Great minds think alike. (he said humbly, ha-ha!)

Murph,
To rebut two of your earlier posts, the federal judge you quoted who said Richard Reid was not an "enemy combatant" or a soldier shouldn't be on the bench. He was right, but not for the reason he thought. Reid WASN'T an "enemy combatant", he was an Unlawful Enemy Combatant and was subject to the Laws of War and military tribunals.

And, North Korea got the bomb because Bubba the Pervert gave them nuclear reactors that made weapons grade plutonium.

Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 1:37AM

Rebellion News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Government Continues To Own Problem of Eminent Domain (Townhall – Malia Zimmerman) Are planned airport scanners just a scam? (The Independent UK – Jane Merrick) *Must Read* Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger (American Spectator – John R. Guardiano) Fireplace Police Nab 47 in California (AllAmericanBlogger.com – Duane Lester) *Must Read* Tags: Bill Bonner, Cliff Kincaid, duane…

Brooke| 1.5.10 @ 2:59AM

Billy Boy Clinton, the Pervert Prince of the democrat party; just one of many.

Too bad Billy Boy didn't pay more attention to matters ON his desk rather than those UNDER his desk. Ahem.

Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 7:56AM

The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Abdulmutallab, with detonators and explosives in hand, ever managed to get on Flight 253 — especially after the terrorist’s own … Here is the original post: The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger Posted in American | Tags: and-explosives, because-the, disaster-looms, especially-after, ever-managed, farouk, farouk-abdulmutallab, flight, know-how, own-, people-rightly,…

Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 7:56AM

The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Abdulmutallab, with detonators and explosives in hand, ever managed to get on Flight 253 — especially after the terrorist’s own … Here is the original post: The American Spectator : Media Warns of Grave GOP Danger Posted in American | Tags: because-the, disaster-looms, especially-after, ever-managed, farouk, farouk-abdulmutallab, flight, know-how, own-, people-rightly, with-detonators…

Bob| 1.5.10 @ 8:04AM

So let me get this straight. Nick now says I'm not a liar (because he can't prove it), but says I misuse facts. Well, guys, there is no reference to 3/5ths counting of blacks in the Constitution, is there? And with reference to Hitler, it is a strong distinction that he claimed he was Catholic but was not "a Catholic"???? These are really strong smoking guns. I'm quaking in my boots. But I can't hold a candle to the misstatements and misuse of facts from you guys on the extreme right.

And yes, Tex is a coward and a conspiracy addict. The communists are after you? Your internet gurus are going to come after me? I'm just quaking in my boots. I didn't back down in Vietnam and I won't back down to anonymous people like you who are hurting this country by not seeking the truth.

For those of you that call me "liberal", you can only be religious fanatics. You don't want to believe that a fiscal conservative can believe that religion is bunk and that real liberty can't just be restricted to financial matters, it affects all matters.

People who call themselves libertarians, like Ron Paul and Eric on this board, shy away from the part of the libertarian platform that talks about abortion being a personal matter as well as taking drugs and keeping government out of your lives. For those of you from Rio Lindo, that is the OPPOSITE of being liberal and believing in big government.

The fact is that we should be allies her, but we are not. The main reason for this is that you guys are not Republicans, you are religious fanatics. Brit Hume proved that this last Sunday.

Even though you uneducated hacks don't want to hear factual information, I will continue to provide counterbalance at my leisure when I'm not traveling.

See you later....

Nick| 1.5.10 @ 10:19AM

3/5 Bob,

All this time spent at high altitude "traveling" has deprived your brain of too much oxygen!

Go back and read my post. I didn't say you weren't a liar. I gave examples of both your stupidity and your lying.

And you're right, we should be allies. But your hatred of people of faith will always keep you on the liberal side of the libertarian camp.

Ron Paul is very Pro-Life, yet libertarians of all stripes are Pauliacs. They can accept a Pro-Life, religious candidate, why can't you?

Bob| 1.5.10 @ 10:37AM

Actually, Nick, when the primaries came to my state, I did vote for Ron Paul over McCain. Romney was no longer in the race.

And by the way, Nick, you are lying again. I have supported both Romney and Jindal on numerous occasions -- and both of them are anti-abortion and very religious.

So, Nick, why can't your support non-religious people like me????? Who is the bigot here?????

Margie| 1.5.10 @ 11:56AM

Bob is free to vote Republican but voted for Obama and is a Paulite. Yet he cries that "we" don't support "him" because he's non-Religious.
Hey Bob, you are free to vote whichever way you want, but quit the hypocrisy, would ya?

SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 1:54PM

You're the bigot, Bob--you've proven it more than once with your mentally unbalanced rants against the Religious Right.

Margie| 1.5.10 @ 12:07PM

"The fact is that we should be allies her, but we are not. The main reason for this is that you guys are not Republicans, you are religious fanatics."

More twisted lies from good old Bob. What does an ally make? You have to agree on certain principles, do you not? The fact is that you can vote Republican, no one's stopping you..so why the hames? YOU are the one who is trying to change the meaning of Republican and conservative. The fact is you voted for Obama.. you are NO conservative.
You lie about us calling us fanatics because YOU don't like it. You want us to come down to your level of non-believer and then YOU will accept us? That will never happen.
The Republican party will not be taken over by you Paulites who want to lower the standards, remove moral laws, and trash America for its strong Military Defense. Try all you may but there are way more of us than you.
Lotsa luck!
p.s. For all of you and your pal "murph's' complaining of how there's never any real debate~~anyone can scroll up and read the NUMEROUS replies to your posts, to see that you never reply to any of the well thought out posts by the many conservatives who take (waste) their time treplying to you both.
More utter hypocrisy!

Margie| 1.5.10 @ 12:14PM

"Even though you uneducated hacks don't want to hear factual information,"

Wow Bob the Paulite... neither does Ron Paul. Have you listened to him lately? He says the terrorists are terrorists because of us.

He's about in his right mind as you are.
That's why you voted for Obama rather than McCain. Because you actually despise republicanism. You are a Leftist fanatic! There Bob~~ I can call you a fanatic just as you do.. oh but I forgot.. it's only the Left that is allowed to "name-call!"

Margie| 1.5.10 @ 12:26PM

"For those of you that call me "liberal", you can only be religious fanatics. You don't want to believe that a fiscal conservative can believe that religion is bunk and that real liberty can't just be restricted to financial matters, it affects all matters."

Leftists keep repeating the same things over and over thinking that that makes them true.

Keep repeating the lie as long as you wish, it's still a free country, but it doesn't change the fact that you are again lying. If I am a religious fanatic because I believe in God and the laws of God, then so be it. That is what this country was founded on. Talk about avoiding the facts!

The truth is that Bob doesn't appreciate that "type" of conservative, and wants to change this country along with the Paulites, to their form of "conservative." You guys admit to being immoral, that you despise Christians like Sarah Palin, you admit to wanting to do away with the laws of the land, and yet you have the nerve to try and re-invent conservativism.

Like I said, thank God there are not enough of you to make a difference. Bob, did you know that the stance you take is actually bad for your health? You ought to consider what God has to say: Agree with God and be at peace, thereby good will come to you." Job 22:21.

Bob| 1.5.10 @ 12:45PM

Margie, you are a religious fanatic because you want to impose your beliefs on me, not because you believe in Christianity. I don't care about your religious beliefs until they begin to restrict my liberty.

As for despising Christians, I have continued to support Romney and Jindal. They are educated, intelligent, and experienced.... AND quite religious.

Margie, you don't know what you're talking about. Give it up....

Margie| 1.5.10 @ 1:10PM

No Bob,
Obfuscate all you want. You say the exact opposite of the truth.
I want to keep our rule of law, our Constitutional form of government. I do not believe like the man you voted for, that our Constitution is obsolete.
I believe that the Declaration of Independence declares the freedom to practice or practice not whatever you believe or don't believe in.
You wish to change and do away with that freedom You, like the ACLU wish to take away religious freedom by discarding the rule of law, do you not? That is what Libertarianism is all about.
You will never bring this great republic down to your level because you will not succeed. Those of us who still want One Nation Under God will have that. Because God is in control~~ not Liberal fanatics.

Margie| 1.5.10 @ 1:43PM

"As for despising Christians, I have continued to support Romney and Jindal. They are educated, intelligent, and experienced.... AND quite religious."

Bob The "conservative" told us that he voted for Obama because McCain had Sarah Palin, a Christian, as his running mate.

~He reports, you decide.

SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 2:09PM

Pity the poor fellow, Margie-- Blob's diminished brain function is due to lack of oxygen. Perhaps that contributes to his unpleasant manner, too.

You need to do some jumping jacks, Bob; vigorous exercise would get the old ticker moving again--probably would take more than that to make you less disagreeable, though.

A whole lot more.

racking | 1.5.10 @ 9:42AM

good article

Pete| 1.5.10 @ 9:56AM

"Furthermore, Obama has improved our relationships with other countries and that has increased our security."

Very factual. Thanks so much.

Bob| 1.5.10 @ 10:12AM

Actually, Pete, if you had done any research, you'd know that our favorability ratings in other countries have dramatically improved. I happen to believe that helps our national security. It will take many years, however, to prove that case. Remaining "factual", here is the data to back up my statement:

http://pewglobal.org/docs/?DocID=24

I didn't expect anyone here to actually look at the fact, Pete, especially you....

Margie| 1.5.10 @ 12:31PM

I love Pete's posts. They are brief, succinct, and to the point!

Keep them coming, Pete.

and I am NOT being sarcastic.

Bob| 1.5.10 @ 12:46PM

Admit it, Margie... You like Pete's posts because you agree with them, not because they have any merit...

Margie| 1.5.10 @ 1:04PM

Bob,
I will admit to no such thing. They have perfect merit.

SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 2:17PM

I think Pete is the blogger who posted a comment about Liberal Reader, saying, "LR spends his day goosestepping around his step-mom's basement." Was that you, Pete?

That was awesome--it still makes me laugh when I think of it.

Pete| 1.5.10 @ 4:44PM

I think that was directed at Rolfe (Herr Rolfenfuhrer), though he and LR could be one and the same.

SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 6:06PM

That was just one of the many alter egos possessed by the little jackass. It's fun to out him.

Pete, I knew that was you! You're hilarious. The mental image it conjures up always makes me laugh. Hope you don't mind that I've used your clever comment to needle trolls I've encountered along the way.

Usually I say "goosesteps in circles in his step-mom's basement."

Pete| 1.5.10 @ 6:49PM

Not at all. They are on the site to annoy and insult, no reason not fight back. If I could stomach the content on lib sites, I might try to be a turd in the punchbowl as well, but I can't.

SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 7:01PM

It's so easy to get to Liberal Reader; just call him a fascist and he immediately hurls an F-Bomb and wets his pants (not necessarily in that order!).

Works like a charm every friggin' time.

Pete| 1.5.10 @ 7:16PM

They don't pay him enough to take abuse...just give it.

Pete| 1.5.10 @ 1:09PM

1) When you first wrote the gem I quoted, there was no evidence provided, nor even a weak attempt as you have now provided.
2) You cite PEW? Really? Even if I did believe anything from those lefty clowns, how does a "favorability rating" increase our security exactly? Draw that link for me, oh mighty one.

The bottom line here is that you ran your mouth above and simply asserted that we are safer because the Mocha Messiah has gone around spewing his "America is just another country" and "so sorry for whatever you dislike us for" crap. Because you say something does not make it so, even if you were a CEO in 20 different industries and know the minds of all living creatures.

Your most recent post is far more sensible - that YOU believe we are safer...very different from your initial assertion.

Bob| 1.5.10 @ 1:21PM

Pete, when you shorten comments into sound bites, they can often be misunderstood. When you challenge comments on a site like this, people like Nick and you often take advantage of that procedure.

But you are certainly correct that based on my experience, I believe that terrorists (and more importantly their financing) are affected by their perception of their enemy. This comes directly from my personal experience with psyops in Vietnam. I did the analysis on operational program effectiveness in III Corps the year I spent there. Enemy activity was inversely related to how well we were liked. Support for the enemy was far more difficult when the villagers liked us. The reverse was true for the Cong. When they raped and killed villagers, the amount of intelligence we received from them was enhanced dramatically.

Does that experience apply today? I believe it does and have not seen evidence to the contrary.

Pete| 1.5.10 @ 4:42PM

I don't even know where to start with your post. What exactly is the correlation between a set of contrived Pew surveys and your example? If we are able to survey the terrorist (and or those who finance them), why not just kill them? Or do they provide just a phone number and no address? What your kind never admits is that there are BAD people in the world that HATE us no matter what, and wish to exterminate us like roaches. Whether it is our relative wealth, white, full set of teeth, belief in God, whatever, they want us dead, and no amount of apologizing or bowing from anyone, no matter how black and 'edgy' he is, will change that fact.

Dick| 1.5.10 @ 1:50PM

If Contessa Brewer had been on that plane,,,oh never mind. She'd just blame Bush.

Smitty| 1.5.10 @ 2:20PM

Is it true that Don Imus said Contessa Brewer had a big butt? Does she?

Nick| 1.5.10 @ 3:33PM

3/5 Bob,

I didn't know you were running for office. Tell me which one, so I can send money to your opponent.

Also, there is a big question about whether Romney is Pro-Life or not.

And you are right, I will never support/vote for a liberal, atheist (redundant), or anyone who doesn't have firm Jewish or Christain beliefs. Not in today's day and age.

So, you were for Romney, the guy who was liberal when he was governor and then conservative when running for president. In other words, you supported the weasel candidate. What a surprise!

After he dropped out, you voted for the guy who was against waging war on terrorists and thinks the Patriot Act is tyrannical. So you did a trade off. Paul is Pro-Life, but you ignored it. And how much support did Paul get? 7%?

You RINO/Libertarians will always have to decide what is more important to you. Social issues or fiscal issues. Most of the time it will be money, because you guys are selfish and greedy.

I won't have to make that decision, because I am the base of the Republican Party. A GOP presidential candidate CANNOT win without me.

And don't blame me if you can't express your thoughts clearly in words. Try thinking before you type.

You were probably a REMF paper-pusher in Viet Nam. The Radar O'Riley of your unit.

SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 4:15PM

Nick, great post! I always enjoy a good Bob smack-down.

Margie| 1.5.10 @ 5:26PM

"I won't have to make that decision, because I am the base of the Republican Party. A GOP presidential candidate CANNOT win without me."
~Great great line and absolute truth.
Amen to that!!

Nick| 1.5.10 @ 9:25PM

Thanks SoCon and Margie!

I do aim to please.

David| 1.5.10 @ 4:32PM

To Murph and every0ne else who has commented on the release of Gitmo prisoners, allow me to refer you to an excellent article by Andrew McCarty in National Review, on Mon, January 4. He throughly debunks the idea that the courts have any legitimate constitutional role to play in matters of war and with regard to prisoners of war. He also trashes Congress and the admins for abdicating their responsibilities in this area.

It's a must read if you want to know the facts about the separation of powers during wartime.

Murph, I question the examples you cite. Those judges were almost certainly forum-shopped by the prisoners lawyers - you know, lawyers like those from Rahm Emmanuel's law firm and the ACLU. It is not difficult to find a liberal, sympathetic judge on almost any issue - just ask Sonia Sotomayor.

SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 6:09PM

Holder's law firm, too.

Unfortunately, Liberals never let facts get in the way of their bias.

murph | 1.6.10 @ 2:47PM

I did read McCarty - thanks for the reference.

Far from debunking anything, his article ads a lot of bunk.

Here’s a great example:

"The courts should have no say in the disposition of alien enemy combatants in wartime. If they try to have a say, they should be ignored. Courts and presidents refuse to enforce unconstitutional acts of Congress, and Congress and the courts rein in unconstitutional acts of presidents. Unconstitutional judicial acts must likewise be checked by the other branches."

McCarty is suggesting that the Executive and Legislative branches ignore the courts.

As in, I don’t like this ruling, so I’ll ignore it. I won’t litigate it, I won’t appeal. I won’t pass a law clarifying the provisions struck down as overbroad or too vague – I’ll just ignore the ruling I disagree with.

So, in McCarty’s dystopian view of the world – the Judicial branch is not a co-equal branch of government – it is a branch whose power can be freely ignored.

Even if say, the court bases their ruling on the foundation document of the Constitution itself. “This is unconstitutional” may be ignored by the Executive if it so chooses.

That’s so breathtakingly stupid it’s hard to know where to go. McCarty is the guy who viewpoint has lost in the highest court in the land – and his solution is to create a constitutional crisis.

And David, - as to your hopeful comment that the judges were “almost certainly” the result of forum shopping – you practically gift wrapped yourself for a rebuttal.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - the case that started it all. Concurring in the majority was flaming liberal who went by the name William R Rehnquist.

Then there’s Parhat v Gates: Two out of the three ruling judges were appointed by Republican presidents
The Chief Justice David B. Sentelle appointed by Ronald Reagan
and Thomas B. Griffith appointed by George W. Bush

The case ordering the release of Lakhdar Boumediene – one Hon. Richard Leon appointed by George W. Bush – who has also ordered the release or transfer of six of the other detainees.

Sure there are some Clinton appointed judges in that list of 41 cases, but what’s striking is that series of judicial setbacks dished out to the Bush administration’s position on detainees is how the most scathing rebuttals come from conservative judges. See the Parhat ruling in the D.C circuit. Owch.

I’m sure it’s tempting to think all the reversals in court are due to some vast left wing conspiracy of judges – but the remarkable thing is, conservative judges who believe in an independent judiciary are none to pleased by attempts to create an extralegal process where courts cannot intervene.

Nick| 1.5.10 @ 9:23PM