Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[heretic888]

Understandable. I'm not Republican either. However, what could have possibly happened with Kerry/Gore is irrelevant to your political affiliation.

It is also irrelevant to what President Bush has done. The latter does not somehow justify or rationalize the former.

I don't believe dissidence is met w/ accusations of treason.

With all due respect, if you sincerely believe this then you just haven't been paying attention the last 5 or so years.

In 2004 alone, Vice President Cheney practically said that a vote for Kerry/Edwards was a vote for Al Queda. And he's doing the same thing now with Mr. Lamont. This is consistent pattern of this presidential administration and its congressional allies to impugn the patriotism and loyalty of those that disagree with their policies.

Many people passionatly believe in some things, and they are free to discuss them. HOWEVER, I also hold that those who passionately believe the opposite should have a chance to respond.

That being said, there are limitations on "freedom of speech". You can't openly discuss assassinating the president. You can't malliciously slander. You can't divulge national secrets. Thats treason. There has been talk that the disclosure of the phone tapping procedures constitutes treason. I personally agree with that.

Most of what you are probably talking about is probably not along that lines. Discussion should be fostered. However, those that disagree with you have an equal right to speak. Will problems be uncovered? possibly. Thats part of the process.

Actually, what I was specifically referring to was the "debates" (if you can call them that) that took place during the 2004 presidential election. Third-party candidates were barred from the debate and the questions the candidates received were "pre-selected" beforehand. "Freedom of speech", my ***!!

It got even worse with the "town house meetings" the president attended in 2004, in which attendants had to sign a loyalty paper just to attend. It was no coincidence that every other question the president answered at these "meetings" began with the prologue, "You are a great man, President Bush!". Then, of course, there are the "freedom zones" that are erected in cities the president appears at.

That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

ok, what exactly are these "breaking of laws" are you refereing to. Lets get specific. I'm betting this thread has already discussed most of them.

Wiretapping the phonelines of American citizens without a warrant, torturing prisoners of war, and leaking classified information to the media.

You are taught not to speed. If your wife is having a heart attack, would you not speed to the hospital? If you are having a baby, would you not encourage your husband to speed? Why would you consider breaking the law?

You encourage your child not to fight. If a bully starts punching him, would you expect your child to lay down and get pummeled? Would you hope he would defend himself? If you teach your child to not be violent, why would you consider him breaking this command?

You are taught not to kill. If you are in the military, would you chose not to kill? If someone breaks in your house and threatens to murder you and your family, would you not attempt to disable/kill him first? If a terrorist has his hand on a bomb and will be blowing up you and 100 people, would you not try to disable/kill him first? Would you still not consider yourself different from him?

You are forced into circumstance that forces you to reconsider certain laws. Is the speed breaking law worth my spouses life? Is the ideal of non-violence worth my child getting multiple broken noses and potential life threatening injuries? Is the law against murder worth the lives of my family or 100 people? In the legal system we have, there are clear exceptions to certain laws. I believe the circustances we have been forced into are unprecented and may force legal definitions similar to the laws that might govern speeding/self-defence.

I hate to break this to you, but nothing you have just described is illegal.

Torturing prisoners of war, domestic wiretapping without a warrant, and leaking classified information, however, is quite illegal. In the last case, it is also treasonous.

There are provisions within some laws that allow individuals to circumvent in the case of extreme circumstances (i.e., speeding during emergencies or killing in self-defense). However, an individual cannot disregard the law just because its expedient to do so. This administration has done just that.

Does not make it right, just shows precedent. If you want to criticize one, then you better do it to all of them. Lets call Lincoln/Roosevelt/etc a villian too. I take it from your statment that they were all incorrect and worthy of criticism?

If what you said is actually true (I somehow doubt that Congress was not involved in those historical cases), then yes.

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

So, in conclusion: context context context.

With these recent news events, you demand context.

What was the context of the 'Perjury' reference you brought out above? What about the context of the person whom we believe you are describing, was tried in the United States Senate before the Supreme Court of the United States in an Impeachment trail and accquited? Is the context of your reference from the point of view of a sore loser?

What the **** is the context of this comment ... "“She’s probably not an al Qaeda affiliate, probably not a terrorist, could just be a Ned Lamont supporter, we don’t know.”" ... oh, that's FOX ****ING NEWS reporting on the United Airlines jet that diverted to Logan International Airport today. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/16/al-qaeda-candidate-redux/

http://thinkprogress.org/?s=Chuck+Roberts

Remaining incurious is a wonderful way to maintain a pre-existing worldview.

 

[mrhnau]

With these recent news events, you demand context.

What was the context of the 'Perjury' reference you brought out above? What about the context of the person whom we believe you are describing, was tried in the United States Senate before the Supreme Court of the United States in an Impeachment trail and accquited? Is the context of your reference from the point of view of a sore loser?

What the **** is the context of this comment ... "“She’s probably not an al Qaeda affiliate, probably not a terrorist, could just be a Ned Lamont supporter, we don’t know.”" ... oh, that's FOX ****ING NEWS reporting on the United Airlines jet that diverted to Logan International Airport today. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/16/al-qaeda-candidate-redux/

http://thinkprogress.org/?s=Chuck+Roberts

Remaining incurious is a wonderful way to maintain a pre-existing worldview.

Dude, don't burst a blood vessel I am curious as to why you refer to popular people with pronouns. Makes it alot easier to use their names when relevant.

Context of Perjury was with Clinton during the Lewinski mess. I don't consider myself a "sore loser". Impeached but not removed from office. The deal is done and I don't lose sleep over the fiasco.

Regarding the Fox News broadcast, when I first read it, I found it kind of humorous, which I am quite sure was their original intent. However, I could see how someone would be offended. If you want to maintain Fox is evil, thats your right. I've personally found them a refreshing change from CNN/MSNBC/ABC/etc. Their views are all about the same. Seen one, seen them all. Do I always agree? no, but thats ok.

I'm still waiting for the context of earlier quotes you offered.

 

[michaeledward]

I'm still waiting for the context of earlier quotes you offered.

The context is that anyone who disagrees with anything the Bush administration says or does, or the media presented story of the Bush administration, are traitorous.

http://thinkprogress.org/?s=Chuck+Roberts

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/08/15/ap2951605.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/10/cheney-ct/

 

[mrhnau]

The context is that anyone who disagrees with anything the Bush administration says or does, or the media presented story of the Bush administration, are traitorous.

http://thinkprogress.org/?s=Chuck+Roberts

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/08/15/ap2951605.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/10/cheney-ct/

One of the reasons I don't like politics LOL. This reminds me alot of how in the mid-90's the democrats were claiming that the republicans were going to be taking the social security checks from seniors away. Scare tactics. Works on both sides. Don't like it from either. Not a huge fan of mud-slinging for any reason, but it happens, with both sides.

I think this is mostly just politics beaming proudly. I think the Republicans honestly do believe the Dems are weak on security. I do too. I think Cheney would much rather have Lieberman in office, for understandable reasons (if you are Cheney that is).

I found the comments in the Thinkprogress pretty funny, especially the Cheney ones.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, the first post on the English terror plot has been posted and as I suspected, it was an attack on Bush.

There is an interesting article, and I think relevant, at the Nation this week.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060828/groundhog_day

From all official statements so far, we are led to believe that August 10 was a highly developed, far-advanced conspiracy, under surveillance for some time, which could have been put into action within just a few days. And perhaps 8/10 really was the biggest thing since 9/11. But then again, perhaps it wasn't. We don't know yet. And it's not too early to ask the questions on which final judgment must depend.

Well, then. Here is a checklist of some things we should shortly be hearing about. Bombs. Chemicals. Detonators. Labs. A testing ground. Airline tickets. Passports. Witnesses. Suspicious neighbors. Suspicious parents. Suspicious friends. Threats. Confessions. Let me spell this out: By definition, you cannot bomb an aircraft unless you have a bomb. In this case, we are told that there were no bombs; rather, the conspirators planned to bring on board the makings of a bomb: chemicals and a detonator. These would be mixed on board.

 

[Don Roley]

There is an interesting article, and I think relevant, at the Nation this week.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060828/groundhog_day

Yeah, it really sounds like a guy who wants to take a shot at the administration while complaining that they have no information yet. Some of his leaps of faith are amazing. Some of the conspirators did not have passports. Out of over 20, how many were going to be on the plane? All of them? And the idea that someone could not mix chemicals on a plane seem quite a bit far fetched. People do things I can't talk about on martialtalk in the lavatories of planes and get away with it.

I think that in the next few months we will get more information on the plot. But the idea of getting in shots now when there is not really a lot of information to shoot down these strange accusations are a sign of the political times.

 

[michaeledward]

Yeah, it really sounds like a guy who wants to take a shot at the administration while complaining that they have no information yet. Some of his leaps of faith are amazing. Some of the conspirators did not have passports. Out of over 20, how many were going to be on the plane? All of them? And the idea that someone could not mix chemicals on a plane seem quite a bit far fetched. People do things I can't talk about on martialtalk in the lavatories of planes and get away with it.

I think that in the next few months we will get more information on the plot. But the idea of getting in shots now when there is not really a lot of information to shoot down these strange accusations are a sign of the political times.

Strange that asking a question is defined as 'getting in shots'.

What is incorrect in asking these questions?

Why is the search for answers to these things defined as an attack?


P.S. You know what .... let me go a step or two further ...

I am a pretty frequent traveler by air. And immediately upon the arrests, the DHS elevated all flights to a higher threat level, flights from the United Kingdom were elevated two levels. An awful lot of travelers have been, and continue to be pretty damned inconvienenced. --- personally, I am driving from New Hampshire to Syracuse, NY next week, rather than flying, because of the extra security measures --- I think it is imperative, amongst these costs (financial and otherwise) that citizens of this country, and Great Britain to have clear concise answers to these questions. The airlines have claimed something like half a billion dollars in extra costs - their shareholders and stakeholders have the right to know if these costs are legitimate.

Really, these questions are much, much bigger than some writer at the Nation 'getting in shots'.

How real was the threat? ... how imminent? Enough to restrict all carry on luggage for the rest of time?

 

[Don Roley]

Strange that asking a question is defined as 'getting in shots'.

What is incorrect in asking these questions?

Why is the search for answers to these things defined as an attack?

Well, there is a difference in a legitimate question and something along the line of, "are you still beating your wife?"

The guy says right out that there are things that we do not know yet, and then he tries to plant the idea that there is something going on. He mentions that some of the people in custody did not even have any passports and wonders why. He does not take into account the possibility that not all of the people involved would actually be travelling and may only be support staff like chemists and money people. And he does not mention the fact that two of the guys they have filmed tapes that were supposed to be shown after they died explaining why they did what they did. I can believe that some guys would not be on the planes and would not need a passport a lot more than I could believe that they would film these very explosive pieces of evidence unless they were pretty close to the wire. Otherwise they could be discovered (as they were) and the plot foiled.

But of course his entire bent seems to be that unless all the answers are laid out right now that something must be going on. Well, I do not expect the British to reveal too much while they are still trying to see if they caught everyone. Anything they reveal to the world might allow people to get away. And this author seems to be counting on that fact to make it sound like there was not a threat and the British police picked up 20 or so innocent Muslims in order to make the US president look good.

It is just kind of sad that there are people like this author who look at this case, understand that it might strengthen the standing of the president and immediatly try to sow the seeds of doubt in people's minds before even a fraction of the facts are known.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

But of course his entire bent seems to be that unless all the answers are laid out right now that something must be going on. Well, I do not expect the British to reveal too much while they are still trying to see if they caught everyone. Anything they reveal to the world might allow people to get away. And this author seems to be counting on that fact to make it sound like there was not a threat and the British police picked up 20 or so innocent Muslims in order to make the US president look good.

It is just kind of sad that there are people like this author who look at this case, understand that it might strengthen the standing of the president and immediatly try to sow the seeds of doubt in people's minds before even a fraction of the facts are known.

It certainly fits Al Quaeda's methodology of major hits (or attempts) every three to five years.

Both parties will try to use this and any other similiar event to their advantage. However; apparently top-notch gumshoeing by British Police and (probably more than one or two others) and American and British Intelligence, foiled this potentially devastating plot.

 

[Don Roley]

It certainly fits Al Quaeda's methodology of major hits (or attempts) every three to five years.

Both parties will try to use this and any other similiar event to their advantage. However; apparently top-notch gumshoeing by British Police and (probably more than one or two others) and American and British Intelligence, foiled this potentially devastating plot.

We may never know just what went on and who was involved.

The thing that gets me about this demand for all the details is that those details may cost innocent lives.

I was involved on the fringes of intelligence activity in the military. One big thing I picked up was that you now only want to learn all you can about the enemy, you don't want him to know how much you know. If they know what you know about them, they can figure out how you got that information and plug the leak.

Here is an example. During the Clinton administration the order came down to play for foriegn dignataries a tape of Osama Bin Laden talking with his mother on what he thought was a secure satelite phone. A lot of people had a good laugh over that. But years before 9-11 Osama stopped using the phone. Eveidently word got back to him somehow. We do not know if it could have caught the 9-11 plot, but the case shows how letting too many people know what is going on may lead to your sources being shut off.

I have been looking through reports on this case and I can't find a reference to how the British police became aware of this plot. If it is something that might lead to other plots being caught, I doubt we ever will hear them. The British are a lot more strict than America about that type of thing. We may have a way of intercepting certain communications to Bin Laden and the moment we reveal something that was communicated to him he will know enough to stop us.

I expect the police to release the videos of the guys saying why they were about to do what they did. But those that are playing the political game of demanding every little detail are either ignorant of the harm they may do, or are counting on the goverments being more concerned with protecting innocent lives than in them making points for the next election. That is rather sad I think.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

We may never know just what went on and who was involved.

The thing that gets me about this demand for all the details is that those details may cost innocent lives.

I was involved on the fringes of intelligence activity in the military. One big thing I picked up was that you now only want to learn all you can about the enemy, you don't want him to know how much you know. If they know what you know about them, they can figure out how you got that information and plug the leak.

Here is an example. During the Clinton administration the order came down to play for foriegn dignataries a tape of Osama Bin Laden talking with his mother on what he thought was a secure satelite phone. A lot of people had a good laugh over that. But years before 9-11 Osama stopped using the phone. Eveidently word got back to him somehow. We do not know if it could have caught the 9-11 plot, but the case shows how letting too many people know what is going on may lead to your sources being shut off.

I have been looking through reports on this case and I can't find a reference to how the British police became aware of this plot. If it is something that might lead to other plots being caught, I doubt we ever will hear them. The British are a lot more strict than America about that type of thing. We may have a way of intercepting certain communications to Bin Laden and the moment we reveal something that was communicated to him he will know enough to stop us.

I expect the police to release the videos of the guys saying why they were about to do what they did. But those that are playing the political game of demanding every little detail are either ignorant of the harm they may do, or are counting on the goverments being more concerned with protecting innocent lives than in them making points for the next election. That is rather sad I think.

Yes, it's a lose, lose issue for intelligence services - you CAN'T talk about the majority of your successes and folks can take UNTRUE cheap shots at you with impunity.

 

[michaeledward]

That satellite phone story is not as accurate as you believe. Nice story though, if only it were true.

I also don't think that asking questions is the same as 'demanding answers'. And, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Republican National Committee Chair Melhman have been out "making hay" with the British arrests - the President's annual visit to NSA was timed rather nicely, wasn't it.

It would seem that if they are going to use what the Brits and Pakistani's did to their political advantage, then some of these are fair questions.

The British Secretary in charge of this thing recently said that there was 'substantial physical evidence', fair enough, when the time comes, here are some things to look for.

Oh, and regardless of whether all require passports or not .... at least some would require a plane ticket, don't you think?

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, it's a lose, lose issue for intelligence services - you CAN'T talk about the majority of your successes and folks can take UNTRUE cheap shots at you with impunity.

What are implying is "UNTRUE" ?

 

[michaeledward]

I saw this article this morning.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

I am not very clear about what went on, but apparently, President Bush has signed into law the transfer of ownership of some land in San Diego from the city / state to the Federal government. This action occurred because there is a large cross on the property. California's constitution calls for a seperation of church and state. An ongoing legal battle has been going on for close to two decades, which the city / state has lost at every turn.

According to the State Constititution, the cross is not allowed.

In an apparent move to circumvent the rulings of the courts, President Bush is transferring the land to control at the Department of Defense.

This quote, from the article is especially troublesome.

Kurt Olney, 57, a landscape contractor from La Jolla, came to the cross to take some pictures. His father, a World War II veteran, is on one of the plaques on the memorial and he is a Vietnam veteran himself. He said he thinks now that the tide has turned on the fight to keep the cross and that the memorial wouldn't be the same without it.
“What are they going to do, take the crosses off Arlington?” he asked

This Vietnam Veteran has apparently never visited Arlington National Cemetary (or even seen any of the movies shot there). The United States Constitution, through the First Amendment, also calls for a separation of Church and State. So, despite what some idiotic country songs say, and to Mr. Olney's ignorance, this is how Arlington National Cemetary marks the dead.

 

[Don Roley]

I also don't think that asking questions is the same as 'demanding answers'.

Well, the article you linked to seemed to imply that if there were no answers, that the goverment must be hiding something. Either the British reveal something that may give terrorists a clue as to how they are being caught, or the impression is that they picked up over 20 innocent Muslims for some nefarious scheme. And the British don't even open up their court proceedings to the public like the one that just let the security forces keep their suspects for about another week for questioning. They tend to be very tight lipped about these things, so don't expect them to give too many details to the press.

And tickets can be bought fairly late most of the time. It does put people under more scrutiny, but also gives security forces less time to catch them.

 

[Don Roley]

I saw this article this morning.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

I am not very clear about what went on, but apparently, President Bush has signed into law the transfer of ownership of some land in San Diego from the city / state to the Federal government. This action occurred because there is a large cross on the property. California's constitution calls for a seperation of church and state. An ongoing legal battle has been going on for close to two decades, which the city / state has lost at every turn.

According to the State Constititution, the cross is not allowed.

In an apparent move to circumvent the rulings of the courts, President Bush is transferring the land to control at the Department of Defense.

Amazing. The cross has stood there for almost a century and has been a symbol of the area. A few die hard atheists and others that can't stand any religious symbols on public property took things to court to try to get it torn down. The president found a way to keep up this historical monument despite its original religious overtones.

I am against anything like prayer in school and do not even like the idea that religions get tax breaks. But to go after a historical monument like this just because it has a cross on it seems looney.

Bush clearly sided with those who believe the cross is part of a long-standing and culturally significant tribute to the war dead honored at the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, and that it does not amount to a government preference for one religion over others.

I have to agree with the above. I would scream bloody murder if the goverment currently put up a monument that had a cross on it. But you have to acknowledge that at the time this thing was put up as a war memorial (in the 50s), they did that sort of thing. There is still the words "In God We Trust" on the currency we use.

 

[mrhnau]

A Federal judge rules against the Bush Administration regarding phone taps

I'm sure this is going to be appealed. However, very interesting...

 

[Ray]

The United States Constitution, through the First Amendment, also calls for a separation of Church and State. So, despite what some idiotic country songs say, and to Mr. Olney's ignorance, this is how Arlington National Cemetary marks the dead.

Are there plus-signs on the tomb-stones? I can't be sure from the pic that was posted...

 

[mrhnau]

Are there plus-signs on the tomb-stones? I can't be sure from the pic that was posted...

*snickers*

He was probably thinking of the Normandy cemetary