The Bush administrations assault on some of the founding principles of American democracy marches onward despite the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections. The new Democratic majorities in Congress can block the sort of noxious measures that the Republican majority rubber-stamped. But preventing new assaults on civil liberties is not nearly enough.
Five years of presidential overreaching and Congressional collaboration continue to exact a high toll in human lives, Americas global reputation and the architecture of democracy. Brutality toward prisoners, and the denial of their human rights, have been institutionalized; unlawful spying on Americans continues; and the courts are being closed to legal challenges of these practices.
It will require forceful steps by this Congress to undo the damage. A few lawmakers are offering bills intended to do just that, but they are only a start. Taking on this task is a moral imperative that will show the world the United States can be tough on terrorism without sacrificing its humanity and the rule of law.
Today were offering a list which, sadly, is hardly exhaustive of things that need to be done to reverse the unwise and lawless policies of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Many will require a rewrite of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, an atrocious measure pushed through Congress with the help of three Republican senators, Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham and John McCain; Senator McCain lent his moral authority to improving one part of the bill and thus obscured its many other problems.
Our list starts with three fundamental tasks:
(I've included only the section titles here; RTWT for the whole drivel) Restore Habeas Corpus
Stop Illegal Spying
Ban Torture, Really
Then they continue with the rest of their laundry list of WoT-crippling demands: Close the C.I.A. Prisons
Account for Ghost Prisoners
Ban Extraordinary Rendition
Tighten the Definition of Combatant
Screen Prisoners Fairly and Effectively
Ban Tainted Evidence
Ban Secret Evidence
Better Define Classified Evidence
Respect the Right to Counsel
...and end with a flourish:
Beyond all these huge tasks, Congress should halt the federal governments race to classify documents to avoid public scrutiny 15.6 million in 2005, nearly double the 2001 number. It should also reverse the grievous harm this administration has done to the Freedom of Information Act by encouraging agencies to reject requests for documents whenever possible. Congress should curtail F.B.I. spying on nonviolent antiwar groups and revisit parts of the Patriot Act that allow this practice.
The United States should apologize to a Canadian citizen and a German citizen, both innocent, who were kidnapped and tortured by American agents.
Oh yes, and it is time to close the Guantánamo camp. It is a despicable symbol of the abuses committed by this administration (with Congresss complicity) in the name of fighting terrorism.
In the event of another 9/11-style mass-casualty attack on this country, these idiots must be dealt with-- quickly-- so they don't get us all killed with their foolishness.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/04/2007 12:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The sooner the Sulz bunch gets bankrupt, the better off we'll all be. They're all traitors who make it very clear they hate America. If I saw the Black Marias taking the lot of their editorial staff away to Gitmo I'd be cheering at the top of my lungs.
Posted by: mac ||
03/04/2007 13:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
How 'bout this simple definition - shoot at or even threaten any American anywhere, and we smoke your whole clan. Of course, in the in-bred arab middle east, that means pretty much all of 'em. Works for me...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/04/2007 14:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Ban Extraordinary Rendition
Created by the Clinton Administration
Tighten the Definition of Combatant
Er, wouldn't this reinforce the administration's position that al'Qaeda and other jihadis are not subject to GC protections?
Or is the NYT using a different definition of "tighten" than the rest of the English-speaking world?
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
03/04/2007 15:03 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Five years of presidential overreaching and Congressional collaboration continue to exact a high toll in human lives, Americas global reputation and the architecture of democracy."
Arthur Sulzberger is all for democracy -- he just doesn't like that part where duly elected representatives in the Congress, Senate, and Presidency don't do it his way.
How about this: The editors and reporters of the New York Times (and other MSM media) who regularly publish state secrets and do all they can to encourage our enemies and harm the moral of our troops are ILLEGAL combatants. They are actively and knowingly working for the enemy. They do not wear a badge or uniform announcing that they are combatants, and they hide in the civilian population.
Social conservatives, Rudy Giuliani, and the end of the litmus test.
by Noemie Emery
Next year may see the party of the Sunbelt and Reagan, based in the South and in Protestant churches, nominate its first presidential candidate who is Catholic, urban, and ethnic--and socially liberal on a cluster of issues that set him at odds with the party's base. As a result, it may also see the end of the social issues litmus test in the Republican party, done in not by the party's left wing, which is shrunken and powerless, but by a fairly large cadre of social conservatives convinced that, in a time of national peril, the test is a luxury they cannot afford. For the past 30 years of cultural warfare, there has been only one template for an aspiring president of either party with positions that cross those of its organized activists: Displeasure is voiced, reservations are uttered, and soon enough there is a "conversion of conscience" in which the miscreant--Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, George Bush the elder, even the hapless Dennis Kucinich--is brought to heel in a fairly undignified manner, and sees what his party sees as the light. The Giuliani campaign seems to be departing from this pattern. And this time, a pro-life party, faced with a pro-choice candidate it finds compelling on other grounds, is doing things differently. It is not carping or caving or seeking a convert. Instead, it is making a deal.
One has to wend one's way back through the litmus test saga to see just how big this could be. In 1980, the parties for the first time took radically opposed views, with a plank in the Republican platform calling for a constitutional amendment to ban all abortion, while the Democrats (over the protests of President Carter) insisted abortion should be not only legal, but funded by taxpayers. Four years later, these planks, and the lobbies that backed them, were fully entrenched. By 1988, top tier candidates in both parties had undergone forced conversions; and in the 1990s, both sides attacked their dissenters full bore. In 1992--The Year of the Woman--Democrats famously silenced pro-life Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey at their New York convention, parked him up in the bleachers where no one could see him, and gave his slot to a pro-choice Republican. Four years later, pro-life groups pulled Republican nominee Bob Dole through a knothole, torturing him for a week before denying his suggestion that an expression of "tolerance" for those who dissented be inserted into the plank. As late as 2003, the Democratic candidates began their campaign season with a joint appearance at a NARAL fiesta, all eight of them tugging their forelocks before the group's leader and pledging allegiance, while a repentant Gephardt begged her forgiveness for the pro-life views he had been so ill-advised as to utter two decades before.
With this in mind, it was no minor matter when a small number of conservatives began to float ideas about how Giuliani and the party's activists might all get along. As early as August 2004, from the Republican convention in New York, David Frum was dispensing helpful suggestions: "He should not try to deny or conceal his own views," he wrote of the mayor. "He should not invoke Lee Atwater's 'Big Tent' . . . nor should he spend minutes and minutes parsing his views. . . . His job is not to persuade pro-life Republicans to agree with him, but to assure them that they can live with him." The Powerline blog weighed in in June 2005. "Some pundits think [Giuliani's] views on the social issues will bar him from getting the nomination," wrote Paul Mirengoff. "I disagree. . . . There is a national, largely bipartisan consensus that issues like gay marriage and abortion should be decided democratically, and not by the courts. If Giuliani emphasizes the process issue, and says . . . the key question is whether such issues are to be decided democratically, by legislatures, or autocratically, by judges, he could forge a solid Republican majority." National Review recalled a precedent. "The late Sen. Paul Coverdell," its editorial stated, "supported legal abortion. But once he won his primary, pro-lifers supported him since he promised to vote to ban partial-birth abortion, oppose public funding of abortion, and support conservative nominees to the judiciary."
The 2006 midterms, aka "the bloodbath," brought more people over. Texas pollster David Hill, writing in the Hill, observed that "Giuliani might bargain with the right. He's a transactional politician who might welcome the entreaty, and concede even more than McCain." Actually, Giuliani had been dealing already, by taking the bloggers and pundits' advice. In 2006, he campaigned for many pro-life candidates, spoke out against judicial activism, and cited the likes of Samuel Alito and John Roberts as the kind of judges he wanted to see on the bench. There has been some resistance, but since the start of this year a sizable cadre of social conservatives have declared either their willingness to consider supporting the mayor, or their intention not to write him off. Since Giuliani emerged as a possible candidate, people have known he would have to deal with the base of his party, but everyone thought this would involve a supplicant bending of the knee and begging leave of the Republican voters he had dismayed. No one imagined that so much of that base would come looking for him, and then make it their business to hand him a strategy. But that is what they have done.
Why has this happened now, after decades of litmus-test dictates? Four reasons come to mind.
(1) The War, Stupid: There is the war, which overwhelms everything as the major issue in the eyes of the base. No group in the country backs the war on terror as fervently as social conservatives, whose main criticism of the president's policy is that it has not been aggressive enough. To them, Rudy is the ultimate warrior, a man who not only survived 9/11 and rallied the city, but whose success in routing the gangs of New York is a template for engaging the Islamic terrorists, and an indication that he has the resolve and the relentlessness to carry this bloody task off.
They see him as a more ruthless version of George W. Bush, someone who would not have consented to less-than-aggressive rules of engagement; who would have taken Falluja the first time, and not have had to come back later; who would not have let Sadr escape when he had him; who would not have been fazed by whining over Abu Ghraib and Club Gitmo, and would have treated critics of the armed forces and of the mission with the same impatience he showed critics of the police in New York. As nothing else, the terror war sits at a nexus of issues dear to the heart of the base: the need to use force when one's country is threatened; the need to make judgments between good and evil; the need to protect and assert the moral codes of the Judeo-Christian tradition; the need to defend the ideals of the West.
"For a majority of the GOP primary electorate, it is the war, the war, the war (and judges)," writes the influential radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt. "The war on terror hasn't just changed Giuliani's profile as a crisis-leader," writes columnist Jonah Goldberg. "It's changed the attitudes of many Americans, particularly conservatives, about the central crisis facing the country. It's not that pro-lifers are less pro-life. . . . It's that they really, really believe the war on terror is for real. At conservative conferences, on blogs, and on talk radio, pro-life issues have faded in their passion and intensity. . . . Taken together, terrorism, Iraq, and Islam have become the No. 1 social issue." And the earth surely moved on February 21, when the writer Maggie Gallagher, as tough and principled as they come on abortion and marriage, allowed in her syndicated column that she just might consider the mayor. "I never voted for Rudy when I lived in New York City for one simple reason: abortion. . . . Why would I even think of changing my mind? Two things: national security, and Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court appointments." Keep your eyes out for more of these eye-popping moments. This one will not be the last.
(2) Not Your Father's Pro-Choice Republican: There were pro-choice Republicans before Giuliani, but they held no appeal for conservatives, and there was little desire to cut them a break. They were politicians like Christie Todd Whitman, Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chafee, and the ladies from Maine, from the near-extinct school of northern-tier liberal Republicans, regarded as "soft" on a wide range of issues. Or they were like Bill Weld, a fiscal conservative but a libertarian otherwise, whose watchword on most issues was "anything goes." A great many things do not "go" with Rudy, an enforcer by nature, seen as a Puritan scold by most of his liberal critics, who deplored his crackdowns on porn and on crime. As he told the conservative attendees at the CPAC conference in Washington last Friday, quoting Ronald Reagan, "anyone who is with you 80 percent of the time is your 80 percent friend--not your 20 percent enemy." Previous pro-choice Republicans tended to look down on the social conservatives, to agree with the press that they were cringe-making yahoos, and to accept the condolences of the media for the terrible people they had to put up with in their party.
To the press, Rudy was one of those terrible people--too quick to defend the police when they were attacked on brutality charges; a fascist, a bully, and a prude. With most pro-choice Republicans, their views on abortion are only one of a set of positions and attitudes that arouse the ire of the base. Giuliani is that very rare animal, a pro-choice Republican who is also the furthest thing possible from a liberal on a wide range of issues (law and order among them). "In case after case, he refused to accept the veto of liberal public opinion," writes John Podhoretz in his New York Post column. "More than any other candidate in the race, Rudy Giuliani is a liberal slayer. When he rejects liberal orthodoxy, which he does often, he doesn't just oppose it. He goes to war with it--total, unconditional war." If you believe that the enemy of your enemy must be your friend, conservatives have no better friend than the mayor, bête noire and scourge of the limousine liberals, the race hustlers, the friends of identity politics, the opponents of capital punishment, the municipal unions, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the New York Times. Some will want him to be president, if only to annoy all these people--a temptation too big to resist.
(3) The Shape of the Field: Strict conservatives are not all that enthralled by any of the three main contenders--Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. This is their weakness, but also their strength, as they all tend to give each other cover along with other conservative stars. Did Giuliani leave his first wife? So did McCain. Did he leave his second wife? So did Newt Gingrich. Is he pro-choice and gay-friendly? So was Mitt Romney a scant four years ago. McCain is the only one with a firm pro-life record, but the base doesn't like him for a number of reasons, among them tax cuts, immigration, campaign finance reform, and being used by the press to score points against conservatives on too many things to enumerate.
Some day their prince may come--the conservative who hits all the bases--pro-life, pro-supply side, pro-tax cuts, pro-deregulation, and hawkish in foreign policy--but this day is not it, and that day may never arrive. In this case, as the base will be forced to cut slack to someone on something--on his public stances or his private life, on his past or present positions--they may want to do it for someone who in many ways truly excites them, who bonds with them on many issues, and who, so far at least, leads Hillary Clinton and all other comers in the polls.
(4) Mugged by Reality: After 30-plus years of fierce, intense arguments, much emotion, and many polls taken, both sides in the abortion wars have been mugged by reality, and realize that neither is likely to reach its major goals soon. Dreams of outlawing abortion on the one hand, or, on the other, of seeing it funded, legitimized, and enshrined as an unassailable civil right, have faded in the face of a large and so-far unswayable public opinion that is conflicted, ambivalent, and inclined to punish any political figure it sees as too rigid, too strident, or too eager to go to extremes. For this reason, no politician shrewd enough to make himself president is likely to go on a pro-life or pro-choice crusade. (Like Ronald Reagan before him, George W. Bush addresses the March for Life by phone and long distance; the new Democratic Congress, for its part, has wisely decided to leave the whole issue alone.) With this has come an understanding that, aside from the appointing of judges, and some tinkering with executive orders, the president's role is not large.
Purists will want someone whose heart is with them, but, in the real world, the state of the president's heart does not count: Support for abortion remained fairly high under Reagan and Bush 41, and began to fall off under Bill Clinton, the most pro-choice president in American history, strongly backed by the feminist movement, and pushed by his feminist wife. A strict constructionist justice appointed by a president who is pro-choice is no different from a strict constructionist appointed by a pro-life president, at least in the view of the practically minded, and better than an activist justice appointed by somebody else.
For some people, this argument will not be sufficient, and debates have now broken out among social conservatives. But the surprising thing is that these debates are occurring, which had not been foreseen or expected a few months ago. This is why early assessments of Giuliani's possible weakness may be misleading, among them polls indicating that many social conservatives would never back a pro-choice nominee. They do not show what might happen if the nominee pledged not to push for a pro-choice agenda, or if he were endorsed and supported by conservative icons who vouched for him, campaigned with and for him, and swore to their backers that he was all right.
The deal in the works has been carefully crafted to make sure that no one loses too much. Conservatives would be getting a pro-choice nominee, but one who would not push a pro-choice agenda, and one who would give them (as far as presidents can be sure in these matters) the kind of judges they long for. Giuliani would not be required to renounce his beliefs, merely to appoint the right kind of judges and to remain more or less neutral in a policy area in which, to be honest, he has never shown that much interest. The Republicans will remain the pro-life party--as desired by the bulk of their voters and required by the workings of the two-party system--though now with a larger, more varied, and in some ways more competitive field of candidates. And it is worth noting in this altered context that the Democrats also are starting to change. One of the reasons Democrats now run both the houses of Congress is that canny recruiters defied their own culture war lobbies and rammed a number of pro-life and pro-gun candidates down the throats of their interest groups, assessing correctly that control of Congress was worth a few unhappy activists. They are not yet at the point of nominating a pro-life candidate on the national level, but the lid has been pried open a crack. Someday, they too may find a candidate whom they find attractive--say, for irony's sake, a Bob Casey Jr.--except for this single and glaring impediment. And at that point, they too might deal.
And now, as the litmus test slowly expires, it is time to consider its costs. It has been a very good deal for the people who imposed it, but a very bad one for the country at large. It has meant that a candidate for national office must begin by embracing ideas that have been rejected by seven in ten of Americans, while a candidate who comes close to the center of public opinion would never be allowed to compete. It has made candidates for the post of commander in chief of the world's greatest power kick off their campaigns by groveling before leaders of interest groups, which does not make them seem leaderly and causes voters to lose all respect. Worst of all, it posed the real possibility that a candidate would come forth who seemed equipped to deal with a crisis, but who, because he held the "wrong views" in the eyes of the interest groups, would not be allowed to emerge. In Giuliani, some social conservatives think they have found such a candidate and do not want to waste him. And so, they are making a deal.
Noemie Emery, a Weekly Standard contributing editor, is author most recently of Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families.
#1
sorry, but Rudy has to change on guns - otehrwise, no. I'm OK other than that, and would welcome his backbone on the WOT
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/04/2007 7:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
When the house begins to burn down, the question of who can capably man the water buckets usually takes precedence over other, long-standing arguments.
#3
The only litmus test now is the defense of civilization. Yes, we should choose the best candidate from amongst those who will take up the sword but only from amongst those who will take up the sword.
#4
I heard Rudy recently talk about his stance on guns w/Bill O'Reilley. He must be coming more center on that issue because he didn't sound at all moonbatty to me about it (& I'm a NRA lifetime member). If guns is the only issue and it's Rudy versus McCain than I go w/Rudy. McCain has been too weak on the border and too unstable on just about everything else.
Posted by: mac ||
03/04/2007 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Agree that Rudy's stance wrt the 2nd Amendment will be critical. We know the Dhims intend to disarm the populace. I won't vote for a Trunk that isn't clearly for civilian ownership of firearms - even if he seems to get it on the WOT. I do not believe that I can trust the government to protect my family as it currently exists.
#7
for my vote and cash Giuliani must promise [no homilies]
1a) back strong second amendment rights
1b) deport the illegals/ no amnesty
2) stop socialized medicine/ the pols keep promising more benefits from the same pool of cash. The assholes insist on including more and more people for benefits even though they never paid one dime into the system.
Sure as sh*t the benefits for those of us who paid into the system will be cut; whether they are Private Pensions, the VA, Medicare and Social Security, just to cover the blank checks these political criminals keep floating.
#8
For Giuliani to get My vote, he needs to be running in the election against a DemocRat. Actually, they would work with Romney. Come to think of it, Gingrich, too. McCain, maybe.
#10
#2: When the house begins to burn down, the question of who can capably man the water buckets usually takes precedence over other, long-standing arguments.
But NOT from those who wish to destroy all water pumps, and consficate the water buckets claiming ""We're all safer without those dangerous things that could be used to drown people"
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/04/2007 21:22 Comments ||
Top||
#11
And after all those buckets can be used to smash somebody's head in. So get rid of them all, imprison anyone even trying to use a bucket, and if anyone even eays "Buckets are not dangerous, people are" you must immediately arrest that dangerous "Bucket Promoter"
Get the point?
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/04/2007 21:27 Comments ||
Top||
#12
OTOH, there's Dem POTUS candidate CHRIS DODD > belabeled MOUD a "Thug" whose a de facto threat to the Region + World, ergo Amer must redeploy = retreat, andor withdraw, get out of the region.
In 2002, ABC made the decision to not renew Bill Maher's contract after he made some disgraceful comments on his program "Politically Incorrect" concerning America's military response to 9/11. After what transpired on "Real Time" Friday, the heads of HBO should be equally outraged, if not more.
As the discussion moved to the attempted assassination of Vice President Cheney last week, Maher asked his panel why it was necessary for the Huffington Post to remove comments by readers concerning their disappointment that the attempt failed. As the conversation ensued, Maher said one of the most disgraceful and irresponsible things uttered on a major television program since Bush was elected.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/04/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So what's next, Bill? Farm reports at 4AM on Sundays?
#2
Maher has been an irrelevant ass-hat for some time now. Prolly even has the Official Certificate. Being politically incorrect is one thing, being stupidly incorrect is a whole 'nother game.
#4
Well, I'm sorry nobody has assassinated Bill Maher and, yes, lefty lurkers, people do die because of the encouragement these poltroons give to the terrorist savages in Iraq and elsewhere.
#6
No surprise about Mr. Maher; he lives for that moment of shocked response from his vastly diminished audience. Ms. Coulter,esq., however, was rude. Her comment calling John Edwards a faggot added nothing useful to the discussion, and I can only suppose there was medication involved, of the type that loosened the tight bridle she usually keeps on her tongue.
Surely Presidential Candidate Edwards has so many more pertinent faults than whether or not he fits Ms. Coulter's image of a proper man. And most assuredly Ms. Coulter has a large enough vocabulary to find a better insult in any case!
nice visual, TW. Is there a riding crop and tall leather boots involved?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/04/2007 7:26 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Well, I'm sorry nobody has assassinated Bill Maher and, yes, lefty lurkers, people do die because of the encouragement these poltroons give to the terrorist savages in Iraq and elsewhere.
#13
Besoeker, you been in the sand too long! My morning coffee is all over the floor! That was a classic.
I saw Ann on O Riley the other night and she made a complete ass of herself. She was ranting with no background facts, and did not know her enemy that night. She accused Darryl Hannah of not practicing what she preached about living green. Even I know she is the "living green" poster child. Darryl's reply was measured, and with a straight face she said she is not an advocate forcing everyone to live off grid but that she has been living off grid for 12 years. I howled, Ann was owned!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/04/2007 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Maher's outrageous remarks should be enough for the DoJ to launch an investigation into Maher to make sure he has no terrorist links. To do otherwise would be imprudent.
#15
As far as I'm concerned, Ann Coulter is one of the few conservatives who can give it back to the libs in the manner they dish it and beat them at their own game. I've enjoyed seeing her rip those pompous bastards apart for years and I hope she lives a long life so she can keep doing it. As for Maher, flogging, revocation of citizenship and deportation to Zimbabwe would be too good for him.
Posted by: mac ||
03/04/2007 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Hey! That's the first time (I think) I've ever had one of my comments on another article related to from a different one.
I'm famous!
Not (yet).
Thanks SR-71. That was painful to write, but I feel it's truer than ever.
NEW YORK -- While Canada's Liberal party is busy pandering to terror suspects, an NYPD report this week actually named my street as a potential target of Mideast terrorists. Such an attack wouldn't even rattle Liberal leader Stephane Dion's champagne glass, but it would transform my neighbourhood into Beirut. This might explain why Dion cares more about trees than I do.
In the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to have Parliament rework the security certificate program for foreign terror suspects on Canadian soil, Dion said that he "never liked" the certificates, used to deal with our suspected wartime enemies. Spoken like a true Frenchman -- as in France.
Then, in a recent vote on the anti-terror provisions brought into force by the Liberal government after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Dion and his party struck down the ability of police to hold terror suspects for even three days.
Would it really be too much to ask people who might want to blow stuff up to forego a few home-cooked meals? Mind you, three days may seem like a long time to Dion.
France barely lasted much longer before surrendering to Germany in WWII.
If the terrorists were planning to detonate some ferns in Vancouver's Stanley Park, you know Dion would be all over it.
What's bogging down both the U.S. and Canada in the war on terror is the fact that people want to conduct a war under the rules of basic law enforcement, worrying about the rights of those who manage to arouse enough suspicion to create a blip on the intel radar. (By the way, if you think that intelligence officers are so masochistic as to want to listen to the average, non-suspicious phone chat, you've never sat beside an idiot with a cellphone on the bus.)
Here's a thought: How about someone whose passport (Canadian, American or otherwise) is loaded with stamps from terror-sponsoring states, or who hangs out with people spotted doing monkey bars exercises with AK-47s, should have to think twice about coming to Canada or the USA? Otherwise, you're fair game. Don't like it? Too bad -- try Cuba, or something.
In today's ridiculous, politically correct climate, had 9/11 terrorist Mohamed Atta actually been hauled off his flight before ramming it into the World Trade Center, he'd probably be a member of the millionaire's club today, while having the cops apologize to him.
Everyone could use a bit of a pep talk in the war on terror. U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney made a trip this week to give Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf a nudge in the right direction. Musharraf, who is supposed to be rooting out bin Laden and his boys, instead cut a "peace agreement" with terrorists, allowing them to hang out in the northern part of his country, with easy access to the U.S,, Canadian and U.K. troops in Afghanistan.
JUST LIKE HOME
Cheney didn't even have to use a Power Point presentation to drive home the message that Musharraf has fumbled the ball, since al-Qaida conveniently set off a bomb during Cheney's stop in Afghanistan, nearly fulfilling every far-leftist's wet dream. For Cheney, it must have felt just like any other day at the office: Folks who don't shave, don't bathe, and want him dead. Wow, feels just like back home!
Meanwhile, here's hoping the only bomb Dion will ever have to face is his performance on election day.
Not even total conversion of our entire populations and submission of our governments to Islam and abject national abeyance and obescience before Ayatollah Khomenei's Iranian Revolution will be enough for some of these murderous animals.
They will kill millions, maybe billions, if we let them, in the name of Islam and take the entire world back to 700 AD.
A world with no electricity, no cures for disease, no science, medicine, healthcare, no space programs, no dreams of bettering oneself ever except for the ruling elite (ie the mullahs).
A world of death, disease, poverty, mass executions, barbaric punishments for trivial crimes, racial hatred and ethnic cleansing, and the uneducated masses of pathetic survivors scratching out a living against a bleak and blasted landscape.
That's exactly how "nice" we have to be to the terrorists.
The power of their hatred is so strong that the choices are clear on how we have to act. This is harsh, but I am convinced that it is true - we must kill them or conquer them or they will conquer us and kill us!
I no longer believe that there can be any sort of reconcilation or accommodation between civilization and those I have come to believe are barbarians barely removed from a state of complete animalism.
Again, we must become wolves!
We've been acting like monkeys for far too long already.
#7
Okay answer5 this, "What percentage of Germany's population did we and other Allies Kill, as compared to what percentage of Germany's population did the Nazi party under the late unlamented Adolf Sthickelgruber kill?
Simply put who was the more deadly? My bet is Adolf and company.
That's what we face now, unrestrained "Nazism," or Squash the Facists now.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/04/2007 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Of the 70 million Germans, 11% died from all causes inflicted by both sides. So the question is:
"Should the Allies have killed the 62 million German survivors too?" Zenster's logic would say "yes".
#9
not sure, but I think Zen was just using stats/numbers to expose the disparity in numbers. most likely not suggesting the literal death of all Muslims.
your point is taken tho Darrell for it focuses on the distinction, we must never become savages.
Zen is quite capable of answering himself so I'll shut up.
#10
To take Darrell's reasoning to its logical conclusion, we must allow the slaughter of 3 billion people in order to avoid harming however many ostensibly moderate Muslims there might be lurking among Islam's 1 billion adherents. If he is to interpret my statement as he does, we must interpret what he say in exactly the same fashion.
What happens if there are no moderate Muslims? Time and again this continues to arise as a potential fact. Will we let 3 billion die for fear of killing a few million or hundred thousand moderates? The safety and the security of the West must be foremost above all other considerations. Moderate Muslims must take back their religion by force or face up to the fact that they are indistinguishable from the terrorists.
By Ramzi Al-Husseini
The white glove treatment Hezbollah has been receiving from the democratically elected government has gone on too long. Hezbollah has not earned its privilege to be at the negotiating table. The shi'ite militia has worn its welcome, and their recent actions in Lebanon have proven their allegiance is not to the country they operate in. Since the withdrawal of Syria, Hezbollah's actions have become too obviously pro-Damascus, leaving most Lebanese to question their patriotism.
Hezbollah's swift and steady decline
What drove Hezbollah to their current state? What made Hezbollah followers outcasts in the eye of the Lebanese public? Political analysts are at odds on the specific event that was the "last straw" so to speak.
Hezbollah's existence was never threatened during Syria's 29 year occupation of Lebanon, despite forcing every other militia to disband. What Hezbollah did on March 8, 2005 to pay gratitude to their Syrian allies left a bad taste in the mouths of the millions of Lebanese fighting for independence from Syria. Following the unthinkable massacre just weeks before on Valentines Day, Hezbollah instructed its supporters to plead Syria's innocence, and demonstrate that their allegiance goes beyond protecting Lebanon. A week later the real Lebanon was revealed, filling Martyrs Square with over a million freedom seeking patriots demanding that Syria leave. A month later Syria was finally gone.
Hezbollah's existence was threatened the minute the last Syrian troop completed his long overdue one way trip back home. Since the end of Syria's physical presence in Lebanon, their loyalist politicians have squandered to secure a back door for their re-entry. Hezbollah's leader - Hassan Nasrallah - once widely admired by the Lebanese for his honesty and transparency, emerged as a nervous and desperate Syrian stooge who was willing to do whatever it takes to appease his leadership in Damascus.
Hezbollah showed complete disregard for Lebanon when they chose to engage in a war with Israel in July 2006. The unforgivable operation was in the peak tourist season of a country finally starting to recover from a war. The tourism industry is Lebanon's cornerstone that has attracted multi-national investors and grand projects that helped revive the economy. When engaging in the July war, Nasrallah was quoted as saying he could care less about tourism. After all, Lebanon's tourism had no impact on his militia, or more importantly - Syria was no longer a benefactor.
The July-August War alienated many previous Hezbollah supporters/sympathizers, and in the eyes of many Lebanese erased any prior victories of the militia because of the death and destruction that was brought on their own country.
Rather than face reprimands for engaging in an unnecessary war that Lebanon clearly lost the most in, Hezbollah have continued to exercise their free will to prevent Lebanon from doing what it has become unnervingly good at - moving on. From illegal tents set up in downtown Beirut to protest the democratically elected government to illegal road blocks set up to create chaos, Hezbollah has worked relentlessly to help Syria reclaim Lebanon.
The deplorable protests in January 2007 sent Lebanon back in time to its darkest of days, thankfully this time it did not last longer than a few days.
How can Lebanon trust Hezbollah?
As a solution is negotiated, how can anyone in Lebanon who truly cares about his country trust anyone brandishing a yellow Hezbollah flag? The militia and its leaders have time and time again proven their allegiance to Syria is stronger to that of Lebanon. While allies are important, leaders who place their allies interests above the interests of their own people are not worthy of being leaders. In fact most would consider them traitors.
Hezbollah is using the most deplorable of tactics to get what it wants. What kind of message does it convey to reward their behavior? The National Unity Government is not the answer - any negotiations with Hezbollah should be for the sole purpose of their disarmament. Lebanon first needs plain and simple justice for the countless murders that have taken place over the past two years. Anyone that has the nerve to stand in the way of justice has no place in Lebanon's future.
With regards to Hezbollah, the negotiations should be on a National Unity Army, not a National Unity Government. The militia may have a disguised political wing, but the events outlined above have uncloaked their entire organization as a military force, orchestrated to support Syria and Iran's demands. Hezbollah has no place in Lebanon's future, the time to disarm and disband is now.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/04/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Rueters or AP might run this photo but not until it's been photshopped with a pic of Obama, or Al Gore, or Edwards, or Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
03/04/2007 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'd love to hear that conversation.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
03/04/2007 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
In a few other interesting stories in the Mail and Guardian that day, there was one about how Winnie Mandela had 4 million rand of jewelry stolen from her home, the community safety minister of Gauteng Province (with his wife) was mugged by two armed men, and Thabo Mbeki wants 90 million rand to build a security wall around his home. These ANC bastards sowed the wind and now they're reaping the whirlwind. It was okay as long as it was only whites getting robbed, raped and killed. Now that it's even people at the top of the ANC, it looks like it's a different story.
Posted by: mac ||
03/04/2007 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The video was all over the news yesterday, the woman was giggling like a school girl. It was a great shot!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/04/2007 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I hate when this happens. We are at war, damn it! Not time for a social lab in liberalization.
Posted by: Captain America ||
03/04/2007 18:34 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
