1
About time!! Thank goodness.
Posted by: Maggie45 at December 29, 2005 09:44 PM (yre9V)
2
Btw, Sarah, have you heard anything about the new book by a female soldier "I love my rife more than I love you: young and female in the US Army"? I was in Costco a couple of weeks ago and was reading a little of it while there. I didn't get very far into it before I realized that I didn't want to waste my money. I was thinking "this woman is totally full of herself" And I can see on Amazon that some of the reviewers think the same thing, one of them being a fellow female soldier. I was remembering also the post that you did on female soldiers and sex. If you want to take a look here's the link.
http://tinyurl.com/8ud6a
Posted by: Maggie45 at December 29, 2005 10:12 PM (yre9V)
3
Sarah...
Great pickup! I think that's a pretty good rundown of how we got to where we are...and supports the arguments that we should be there.
The one item that somewhat bothers me is the fact that the press continues to get it wrong about "proving we were wrong" about the WMDs. Try as some might a negative CANNOT be proven! Until we search EVERY SQUARE CENTIMETER of the globe for Iraqi WMDs, we cannot conclusively say that Saddam never had them. What we can say is that IF they ever existed, is that Saddam was good at hiding them (and he can help me hide MajorBaby's presents next year).
See you on the high ground and hope you're gearing up for a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year!
MajorDad1984
Posted by: MajorDad1984 at December 30, 2005 09:44 AM (tdEnf)
4
The leftist obsession with toppling George Bush at any cost, including championing the "rights" of the enemies of civilization, defending the "sovereignty" of torturing dictatorships, and protecting the sanctity of brutal theocracies, is simply foolish.
This is not going to win them any elections. It's only funny that they haven't learned from past losses. They have yet to learn that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
The problem is that a small part of the anti-Bush movement was coming to the table from the other direction. They're anti-Bush because they were already anti-American. There are a surprising number of islamofascists, communists, anarchists and just plain kooks out there. And unfortunately for the Democratic party, the party leaders saw this as a great voting block. Never mind that the "antiwar" nutcases don't care if Democrats are running the country either. They just don't like this country. Period.
And thus we have a disintegrating party, which sucks, because a democracy really does need a loyal opposition. It used to be that we had two parties that both wanted this country to succeed and its enemies to fail.
And no, by the way, all you Dems out there, I am not questioning your patriotism. It's not a question. It's a fact: you don't have any.
Posted by: Korla Pundit at December 30, 2005 12:10 PM (FHlAi)
5
Koria,
I am glad I am not a Dem. since then I would not be a patriot. I have to wonder though. I believe (along with most Liberals) that the most important aspect of our county to protect, its constitution and laws. It appears that you do not agree, since you want to trash the constitution. By selectively granting rights that are guaranteed to all in the Constitution (including 'enemies of civilization', whatever that means), and ignoring our laws (we are a party to international law that defines soverign nations and forbids invading them).
Since it is clear that the principles our country were founded on do not matter to you, what does? If we 'save' our country from whatever perils you imagine we face at the cost of gutting all our principles, what do we have that you would still want? Is patriotism an ethnic thing for you?
Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 01, 2006 03:41 PM (kWQWR)
6
What international law is that, Mr. Stupid? There is no such thing, unless you are referring to the League of Nations making war illegal. We all know how effective that was.
The invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, was simply enforcement of the ceasefire agreement that ended the Gulf War, which Saddam signed to save his skin and then broke for 12 years, along with a bunch of toothless UN resolutions. It was his actions that were clearly "illegal," and it was time to finally end it.
As for defending the Constitution, part of that is to defend the country itself, and to defeat our enemies. Those who wish to extend our freedoms and protections to foreign terrorists are not patriots. They are traitors. You are disingenuous at best.
So you don't categorize people who cut off heads of kidnapped civilians for propaganda, massacre a school full of children, fill mass graves, and send airplanes into office buildings as "enemies of civilization"? Then I have to assume you agree with their methods, as well as their ends, and as such you are NOT a patriot. So why even protest that people "question" your patriotism? You should proudly shun the notion of patriotism if you aren't a hypocrit... oh, that's right; I forgot.
America's freedoms were exploited on Sept. 11, and that is why these freedoms are endangered. Not because the President is doing his job and going after these evil bastards. For lefties like the NY Times (and you) to seek to sabotage the war on terrorists for cheap political goals is the height of scummery. And it won't work either.
Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 03, 2006 02:09 PM (FHlAi)
7
It really is troubling to see a citizen of the U.S., so completely unfamiliar with it's laws. I think this is a good argument for significantly increasing funding to public schools.
The notion of national sovereignty is enshrined in the charter of the UN to which we subscribe, and to whose laws we are bound as a nation by our constitution (I'd encourage you to read it, I think you would find it quite surprising).
You advocate defending the constitution by violating its letter and spirit. I can almost hear you saying, "We had to destroy the constitution to save it."
Unlike you, I advocate following our constitution, which admits a single rule of law for all citizens, whether they be considered 'enemies of civilization' or not.
I think that if you hadn't pulled out 9/11 I would have felt disappointed. Thanks for showing that you actually think in cliches. America's freedoms were not exploited on 9/11, they were tested. If we throw away our freedoms out of fear then we have failed the test. Give me liberty or give me death. If you want to cower in fear and let Osama get his way that's your choice, but we patriots will be there to point out that the bed-wetting cowards who go running to the government to protect them rarely find much comfort or security there in the end, and you are the ones caving to the terrorists wishes.
Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 04, 2006 01:08 AM (kWQWR)
8
>The notion of national sovereignty is enshrined in the charter of the UN to which we subscribe, and to whose laws we are bound as a nation by our constitution (I'd encourage you to read it, I think you would find it quite surprising).
I guess you would have extended this "notion" to Germany and Japan as well. And you would have tried to prevent FDR from intercepting messages to and from spies on American soil as well. Because you certainly had counterparts during every war we've ever fought.
So instead of having you hide behind your own version of what is and isn't Constitutional, let's put this in practical terms:
We capture Bin Laden's number three guy. He has a cell phone. The phone rings. Should the agents on the scene:
a. Pick it up and trace the call?
b. File papers for a warrant?
You vote for b, because that call might be coming in from the United States. In your world, that call is ignored, and a cell goes undiscovered, and they get tipped off to the capture. And even if we know the call is from the U.S., you think it's necessary that we extend the same protections of privacy to some person calling the Al Qaeda leadership on the phone as any other American.
And that's just stupid.
Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 04, 2006 01:37 PM (FHlAi)
9
> If we throw away our freedoms out of fear then we have failed the test.
No, if we fail to close the loopholes, fail to enforce immigration laws, fail to allow the FBI to talk to the CIA, fail to capture and kill these bastards, and fail to ignore people like you, then we die.
The test is whether or not we run away, because that's what they expected thanks to past experiences.
Your appeasement and surrender friends would fulfill Bin Laden's expectations dramatically.
Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 04, 2006 01:42 PM (FHlAi)
10
You are mixing up questions of national soverignty with questions of warrants.
WRT you uninformed question:
a. Pick it up and trace the call?
It depends. If the call is not from the US nor to the US, we can do what we want with surveillance according to FISA. If the call has a US endpoint, then we trace the call. Then we apply for a warrant within 72 hours of the trace so that we comply with FISA. Since those warrants are virtually never denied, we get the intel., and are on the correct side of the law. Bush has chosen to violate the law, and should be treated appropriately for a president that commits a felony in office.
>Your appeasement and surrender friends would fulfill Bin Laden's expectations dramatically.
Your imagine people who want to appease and surrender, but in reality nobody holds that position. The leftist I have read in general holds a more nuanced and realistic picture of how to fight terror, but appeasement and surrender are not part of it. FWIW, considering that the madrasa that taught Mullah Omar is still running in Pakistan, I'd say Bush is the appeaser here.
Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 04, 2006 02:42 PM (kWQWR)
11
> If the call is not from the US nor to the US, we can do what we want with surveillance according to FISA
So just in case it's from a terrorist on US soil, you just let the phone ring. And as such, we should miss the very time-sensitve information that could prevent another subway bombing or another hijacking. Because the right to live is outweighed by the right to call a foreign terrorist unmolested.
> Since those warrants are virtually never denied, we get the intel...
Well, this is just misinformation. In case you haven't read it yet, since Bush came into office, suddenly those warrants are a lot harder to get, because Judge James Robertson, a Clintonista, was using his position to stymie the President's efforts against terrorists. Just another lefty like you who finds nothing wrong with endangering American lives (and others) to settle purely political grudges.
As long as this man was on the secret court, the President had no choice but to circumvent him in time-urgent cases, because otherwise people would die, and more landmarks would now be holes in the ground.
> Your imagine people who want to appease and surrender, but in reality nobody holds that position
Bullshit. You all do: Get out of Iraq. No blood for oil. Why do they hate us? Let the inspections work! The UN is in charge of the world and the war is illegal! Bush lied! Saddam led a sovereign nation, and we had no right to invade! Make me a human shield! Halliburton! US out of Afghanistan! US out of New Orleans!
Funny thing is you all haven't changed a bit since the Reagan years, with the same claims, the same tired slogans, the same "X = Hitler" posters, the same flag-burning. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.
Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 04, 2006 04:37 PM (FHlAi)
12
Korla,
Of those warrants less than 5% were ever denied. If there is some new difficulty with getting them (of which I have seen no evidence, please do cite. otherwise I'll assume you are making it up, or repeating what some wingnut has made up), then the Bush admin should work with congress to alleviate the issue, not break the law.
The funny thing about making blanket statements is that they can be turned around on you. I have seen some conservatives who are racists, relativists, anti-rational zealots, blood lusting creeps who revel in seeing people die, and cowards who are willing to give up liberties for a feeling of safety. Therefore you are a racist, a relativist, an anti-rational zealot, and a saber rattling jingoist who revels in death, and a coward.
Hopefully that is an adequate illustration of the fallacy in your post. If not, I can explain it more clearly.
Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 05, 2006 04:27 PM (0MHXm)
13
No, a coward is somebody who would much rather have the Brooklyn Bridge collapse into the East River than to have his deadly dull phone conversations about Chomsky to his fellow moveon.org deadbeats intercepted by "Big Brother." Even though the program under discussion was exclusively to trace the calls to and from known terrorists in foreign countries.
A coward is somebody who organizes parties to celebrate the 2000th death of an American serviceman in Iraq, because they perceive it as some kind of magic number that will unseat Bush who is "the worst terrorist of all."
A coward is somebody who anonymously leaks classified information about top secret operations to new organizations because they value their own petty political views and hatred of Bush over the lives of Americans and other targets of terrorists.
A coward is anybody who tries to throw any obstacle they can think of in front of the war effort, and replies to any criticism at all with a cry of "How dare you question my patriotism!"
A coward is somebody who refuses to call a terrorist a terrorist. Somone who panders to the other side in the vain hope that they will spare them for being more "understanding" of their "reasons" for trying to kill us.
Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 06, 2006 03:33 PM (FHlAi)
14
Koria,
You seem to have a lot of difficulty following up with a point, you keep going on tangents. Please try to focus.
What I said was that you were committing a fallacy by creating a blanket statement based on the acts of a few members of a group.
With respect to your oddball definitions of coward:
1) The issue that people are concerned about is not tapping lines, the government is allowed to do this with a warrant, and the warrants are easy to get. The problem is illegal spying. When the administration decides it is above the law, that checks and balances from other branches of the government do not apply, and so the administration does not follow the law that is a serious problem, it is an attack on the very core of out nation, and is as serious as a terrorist attack on our soil.
2) Nobody had a party to 'celebrate' the 2000th death. While right wing blogs pointed to one event, it was a candle light vigil, not a party. I did not see anyone celebrating. The mood on the left was in general disgust that so many had died for no reason, a sentiment I agree with.
3) Leaking news that the government is breaking the law is not a cowardly act, it actually requires some serious cojones. Whistleblower laws are in place to protect such individuals, since they can be put in serious jeapordy by telling the truth. Note that it is not partisan to tell the truth. The face that you think that telling the truth is partisan illustrates how out of touch you are.
4) I am unaware of people throwing any actual obstacles in front of the war effort. Criticism is not throwing an obstacle and is patriotic. Maybe you should read some of the writings of out founding fathers and their views on the immportance of being able to criticize any act of the government.
5) It is not cowardly to use words in the correct way. Calling the insurgents in Iraq terrorists is not always correct. Some use terrorist tactics, some do not. Also the only way to defeat an enemy is to understand their motivations. Pretending your opponent is an imaginary irrational monster who only wants to do bad things for the sake of doing bad things is ignornat. Ignorance of one's enemy during wartime leads to poor tactics.
Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 06, 2006 04:17 PM (0MHXm)
15
> Calling the insurgents in Iraq terrorists is not always correct.
People who intentionally target civilians are terrorists. Period. If you disagree, then you prove my point about the left wing's relativism and their lack of morals.
> Leaking news that the government is breaking the law is not a cowardly act
Anonymously, it is. And to the press instead of the GAO, it is. Have that person stand up and say it openly to the proper channels, and I will give him credit for courage. But to reveal it to the world as an unnamed source is treason.
> When the administration decides it is above the law...
Says you. This is a war, regardless of those who think it's a law-enforcement issue, and that gives the Commander in Chief the right to do what he did. For you to judge his actions as illegal is based on a lack of knowledge of the facts of the case.
> Criticism is not throwing an obstacle and is patriotic.
Going overseas to personally try to persuade our allies not to cooperate with us is an obstacle and is very unpatriotic. Giving the enemy free propaganda by blathering on and on about Abu Graib as if that personified the entire war was an attempt to defeat the war effort. Making statements that the war is illegal and the President is a liar, demanding withdrawal of troops, etc., is a constant with the leftists in Congress. This isn't some nobody at DemUnderground. This was the Democratic leadership, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Carter, the whole lot of them. They haven't done a damned thing to help, only to hinder. This isn't criticism. It's a pack of crap.
> The mood on the left was in general disgust that so many had died for no reason, a sentiment I agree with.
Then why is Cindy Sheehan a hero to the left, somebody who is constantly whooping it up with every radical she can find, somebody who makes excuses for the actual terrorists who personally murdered her son, while demanding that we not only abandon the Iraqis to Al Qaeda, but that we stop supporting Israel, and that we even pull our troops out of New Orleans? She is the perfect symbol for the glib extremism that now defines the Democratic party. But how dare we question their patriotism! Or their sanity.
Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 06, 2006 04:37 PM (FHlAi)
16
1) "People who intentionally target civilians are terrorists."
Sure, but not all insurgents in Iraq target civilians, which is why the distinction is made.
2) No, it is not illegal to be a whistleblower. It certainly is not treason either, it is the mark of someone who cares about our country's principles to reveal when the government is secretly breaking laws.
3) "This is a war, regardless of those who think it's a law-enforcement issue, and that gives the Commander in Chief the right to do what he did. For you to judge his actions as illegal is based on a lack of knowledge of the facts of the case."
Spying on american citizens in the borders of our country without a warrant is illegal (a felony), war or no war. You claim I am ignorant, but it is you who don't even have even a basic grasp of FISA.
BTW, here is the NSA saying spying without a warrant is illegal:
http://www.nsa.gov/coremsgs/corem00003.cfm
4) Bullshit. WRT visint other countries, i am not sure what you are talking about, but criticizing our leaders for their failures is patriotism, even when there is a perpetual war going on. The founding fathers were very clear that about this. Read some of Jefferson and Franklin's letters. They are interesting in themselves, and will help you to get out of your incredibly petty partisan views of things.
5) Who cares about Sheehan? She has a right to say whatever she wants. If you disagree, you have that right. She has never demanded that we abandon Iraq to Al Quaida, not is that a realistic possibility. Al Qaida is a Sunni organization, and Iraq is predominantly Shiite. As for the Democratic party, they are hardly extremist. They are generally cowards afraid of their own shadow, who can barely take a stand on black and white issues let alone those that are nuanced. But I still don't think it is reasonable to question their patriotism. Everyone I see accusing others of lacking patriotism, seems to always break it out when they don't have a real argument. And it is generally used as an ad hominem.
Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 06, 2006 05:34 PM (PbrmL)
17
>1) "People who intentionally target civilians are terrorists."
And most of the bombings in Iraq target civilians. A lot more innocent bystanders die now than American GIs.
>2) No, it is not illegal to be a whistleblower.
Yes it is if you reveal classified information and don't go through proper channels. Very illegal. it's called treason.
>3) Spying on american citizens in the borders of our country without a warrant is illegal
There is legal precedent to prove you wrong.
>4) criticizing our leaders for their failures is patriotism
Criticism in and of itself is not "patriotic." Criticism is not "unpatriotic." But when it is a pack of lies, and when the lies come with such fervent glee about how evil this country is, and when every piece of propaganda from the enemy is touted as fact on the Senate floor, then these people are in fact unpatriotic. But why should that label bother them? They seem proud of their stand against defending the country.
5) Al Qaida is a Sunni organization, and Iraq is predominantly Shiite.
Now you're just stuck on stupid. The terrorists are Sunni, led by Zarqawi who is affiliated directly with the Al Qaeda leadership. Read Al Qaeda's own missives on Iraq. They consider Iraq the front in the war against us, and they admit losing in Iraq would be a major setback for them. And they know that they are not welcome there by the majority, so violence is their only hope of intimidating Iraqis into allowing anarchy, ie a safe haven for terrorists.
The fact that you have sympathy for those savages shows your true colors. And why should we take national security and Constitutional advice from somebody who champions the rights of suicide bombers to kill Americans and Iraqi civilians?
This is obviously not a debate. I don't expect you to agree with any of this, because you and your DU ilk have been set on bashing everything this President has done to protect the country and foster democracy in the middle east at every opportunity.
I personally think the left wing in this country is beneath contempt, but more because of their disingenuousness than for their opposition to the defense of the nation.
Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 06, 2006 06:23 PM (FHlAi)
18
>And most of the bombings in Iraq target civilians.
Many do, but not all. There are many targeted attacks on GIs, oil lines, police, and other non-civilian targets. Various imams have come out and said that attacking US soldiers is acceptable, but civilian targets are not. Conflating things just confuses them. You are clearly confused.
>Yes it is if you reveal classified information and don't go through proper channels. Very illegal. it's called treason.
Your ignorance is showing. Please look up anonymous whnistleblower laws, you will feel better when you are informed, and won't be so inclined to repeat misinformation.
>There is legal precedent to prove you wrong.
No there isn't. Nixon did it, there was murkiness in the laws, FISA came and filled most of the gaps. Clinton used a loophole, that loophole was filled. Please give me the specifics of the legal precedent. If you cannot cite the case law I will just dismiss you as making crap up yet again.
>But when it is a pack of lies, and when the lies come with such fervent glee about how evil this country is...
Umm, first off most of the criticisms given against the administration by educated have been both well thought out and well cited. Whenever you hear something you don't like you call it partisan, and a pack of lies, and whatever other handy little weasel words you want to keep yourself from having to think. I am very sorry to say it, but until someone can actually address the substance of a criticism with a thoughtful response that does not include a load of fallacies, they are a nitwit. You are a nitwit.
>I personally think the left wing in this country is beneath contempt, but more because of their disingenuousness than for their opposition to the defense of the nation.
The left is not any more disengenuous than the right. They both puff up full of themselves and are thoroughly full of crap. But the left does tend to have some erudite members who can think, and do present much more well thought out and cited reports on issues. Sadly the right wing intellectuals tend more towards emotional appeals and fallacies.
Making crap up about how the left want to destroy America, hate the U.S., are all atheists, or what have you is a classic example of a conservative who can't actually articulate anything that is actually wrong with their opponenent, so they dish out a vitriolic strem of straw men, ad hominems, and emotional appeals and hope it will be glossed over.
My suggestion for you is to do a few things. First off, take a critical reasoning course at the local junior college (assuming one is nearby, otherwise get a book). Then get a copy of the constitution, the federalist papers, and the papers/letters of Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin. Read them. Then wake the hell up. I used to be a Republican until I read these things. Now I don't have a party.
At that point hopefully you will grasp that both the Republican and Democratic parties do not represent the principles that this nation is supposed to embody, (both have made encroachments into the bill of rights), you will hopefully understand why the bill of rights is far more important than any other aspect of our way of life, and you will be able to be offended when any politician attack your rights, irrespective of party.
Here's the final insight ytou might get if you are attentive enough. No political party give a rat's ass about you. They are not your 'team.' You should not root for them no matter what they do. You should not listen to their propaganda uncritically.
Wouldn't that all be great? Here's hoping you learn to think one day. Until then, I am talking to someone who is either incapable of recognizing a fallacy, or is willing to use them when arguing. In either case it is reprehensible, so my part in this thread is over. Have fun humiliating yourself intellectually when you post your last word. I'll just be pitying you.
Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 06, 2006 10:35 PM (kWQWR)
19
>so my part in this thread is over
Oh, woe is me.
Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 09, 2006 03:38 PM (FHlAi)
20
While you're away, here's a dose of sanity:
>In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734
But don't worry. I'm sure your calls to those porno chat lines are safe from scrutiny.
Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 09, 2006 03:56 PM (FHlAi)
21
Here's another gooey tidbit to chew on, just to highlight the pitfalls of trying to second-guess the President.
Let's just say, theoretically, that somebody tipped off an agent that Judge James Robertson, just for example, was leaking classified info about who was under surveillance. Not too unrealistic, considering that somebody on the inside was in fact leaking all over the place.
What could you do under such a scenario? None of us will know for fifty years why the judges had to be bypassed for certain surveillance operations. But it is the President's call, and he is charged with protecting us from a dangerous enemy with operational cells still in this country, communicating with their bosses overseas.
This current NY Times leak itself proves the President had every reason to fear the chain was compromised. And now we've lost a vital avenue of intelligence gathering thanks to their politically motivated treason.
Treason, by the way, is not covered by whistleblower protection laws.
Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 09, 2006 04:15 PM (FHlAi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I'm paying for Internet access in London, so that is all I have time to say. Except that I wopuld never have posted here, or on Erin's blog, if I thought the two of you were so wedded to a party line that you'd never consider a contrary idea. It is nice to see that we can find some common ground, sometimes. 
HA HA HA HA!
