Confederate Yankee: Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.

June 30, 2006

Curses! Foiled Again

It looks like one of them college edumacated fellers over at the Daily Kos musta figgered us out.

With smart folks like that, how are we ever going to keep those negroes out of office?

They's too swift for us.

I wonder what going to happen come the 'lections?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:38 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Always good to know what the other side thinks of us. Yet another reason why I don't have much use for lefties. There has always been a certain amount of regional distaste inherent in my own dislike for the Left: primarily based on sentiments like this, which I have always known existed even where un-uttered.

Posted by: El Jefe Maximo at June 30, 2006 01:17 PM (J1MfB)

2 I don't normally waste my time by reading anything on Kos, but every now and then it is an interesting exercise to go over there and get my annual lesson on tolerance, diversity, inclusion, compassion, and concern for the well being of all of mankind. Then I return to the real world. By the way, arguing the rights and wrongs of 1860 through the prism of 2006 is plain dumb.

Posted by: SouthernRoots at June 30, 2006 01:22 PM (jHBWL)

3 "By the way, arguing the rights and wrongs of 1860 through the prism of 2006 is plain dumb." Southernroots, go figure that the left would do such a thing...

Posted by: Old Soldier at June 30, 2006 02:18 PM (owAN1)

4 That guy has a terminal case of 'angry'.

Posted by: Kevin at June 30, 2006 03:17 PM (++0ve)

5 The very definition of seething. Poor spelling, improper punctuation, lots of profanity and personal slurs. Throw in some racially motivated invective, and you have a moonbat cocktail! There should be a group blog that highlights all the insane lib stuff in one spot

Posted by: William Teach at June 30, 2006 03:47 PM (IRsCk)

6 I get the vibe that eventually this whackjob or somebody very like him will send letter-bombs to Wal-Mart execs in the manner of the Unabomber.

Posted by: Zhombre at June 30, 2006 04:01 PM (/31Si)

7 I just get a chuckle everytime I see some liberal come unhinged and speak like this. What is really amusing is to hear this kind of nonsense and then watch them scream about the "intolerance" of conservatives. Even better is when they scratch their heads and wonder just why the South and West is so difficult for them to win. Well duuuuh...

Posted by: John (AGJ) at June 30, 2006 04:30 PM (D5Sti)

8 Um, California, Oregon and Washington St are all quite blue.

Posted by: Lint at June 30, 2006 05:44 PM (uAgTv)

9 As a minority who grew up in the South who considers himself well left of center on social issues, I think that rant on Kos was moronic. I think people can disagree on political issues and still remain on cordial. Raising the level of invective to these ridiculous heights doesn't do any one any good. I make fun of my so-called "peckerwood" friends for their guns and trucks, they make an equal amount of fun for my vegetarianism. We all manage to suck a few beers down at the end of the day and toast each other. Getting along isn't really all that hard. Yell all you want about the other guy. But, jeez, don't take it so damn personally (like this Kos fool) and don't make fun of people's mothers. In any case, happy 4th of J. Hoist a cold one to your favorite lib (or conservative). At the end of thet day, we're all still Americans...regardless of our differences in opinions.

Posted by: Lint at June 30, 2006 05:55 PM (uAgTv)

10 Some expanded thought on the elite of this country and those who follow rank and file, thinking they are part of the elite....Some cold hard truths....I said "some"...so don't attack Johnny tonight...But dude!...That guy is pissed! He needs a drink! Get that guy a drink! Quick!

Posted by: Johnny at June 30, 2006 07:09 PM (Vtwo9)

11 I'm a native New Yorker who lived in North Carolina for five years, and I tell my southern friends that the smarter than thou bigotry they will encounter in Manhattan by the self-styled lefty elite is far worse than anything I encountered from the "good ol' boys" in Dixie.

Posted by: Tom TB at July 01, 2006 05:30 AM (Ffvoi)

12 Amen, Lint. Look me up when you're in Knoxville, and I'll buy you that beer.

Posted by: kev at July 01, 2006 08:56 AM (YH8EG)

13 I wonder if them college edumacated fellers over at KOS and them Bimbo's out in Ca. have figured out that if a BIO/Chem attack using the same type of non-existant WMD that have been found in Iraq are to be really effective they will be launched in Ca. All the need is a few baloons a mile off shore to release the BIO/Chem and the prevailing wing (west to east) will spread it all over Ca. and inland. If the terrorists have located and recovered anything near what the U.S. military has i'd consider living somewhere else for a while. I'm not one of them edumacated fellers but i figured this out real easy.

Posted by: Scrapiron at July 01, 2006 08:43 PM (wZLWV)

14 Think that all they have to do to get rid of the terrible people in Dixie is to allow them their freedom. The concept of this is once again becoming real in our lifetime.

Posted by: David Caskey, MDd at July 02, 2006 06:16 PM (FwPOn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Further Thoughts on Hamdan

From a comment left on this post:

Without law to govern our actions, we are no better than the terrorist who's objective is to destroy our way of life.

And therein lies a key thought of many American liberals. HeÂ—and others like himÂ—truly believe that courts protect our liberties and our lives.

He will never understand that the Supreme Court did not have the legal authority to rule on Hamdan (Congress passed DCA '05, legally stripping them of jurisdiction, which SCOTUS then illegally usurped back from Congress). He will never understand that the Constitutionally defined Commander in Chief powers outweigh those powers the Court unilaterally gives itself.

He will not bother to understand the Court trampled on the Constitution in Hamdan with a murky application of international law, nor will he admit that they ignored the plain meaning of the Geneva Convention, which all but specifically exempts terrorists from Geneva protections under Article 4.1.2. To people like him, the Supreme Court, an un-elected body of political appointees, is the ultimate and unquestioned law of the land.

This is not how this nation was set up. The Court is but one of three co-equal branches of government, and it does not rule over the others. But my, oh my, it tries.

The Court in this decision pulls a trifecta. It ignores Congress, overreaches into the President's executive powers as Commander in Chief, and not content to stop there, decided a case based upon international law instead of following the U.S. Constitution.

And yet, people view the court to be infallible with an almost religious fervor, and actually think that the court protects our lives and liberties.

It doesn"t.

Tens of millions of men have protected our lives and liberties by putting on a uniform and picking up a rifle to stop the barbarians crashing the gates, while judges simply sat.

Don't tell me who guards my liberty. Is isn't a sleepy Ginsberg, or a decrepit Stevens, or a gesturing Scalia, or any other Supreme Court judge through the history of a Court that misunderstood for nearly 200 years the simple phrase, "that all men are created equal."

The people protecting my liberties are 20-year-olds with guts and guns.

In the end, the law is just a piece of paper, reflecting the ideas of a culture, and those ideas are not always just or fair or true. Often, despite the veneer of precedent and legalese, court decisions are arbitrary, capricious, dangerous and cruel.

The Hamdan decision is one such poor example, and highly why the Supreme Court is anything but infallible.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:09 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

1 great! another point: the geneva convention is a friggin TREATY, and is NOT INTERNATIONAL LAW! the scotus treats it as if it is LAW and not merely a mutual benefit treaty among signatories. and according to the GENEVA TREATY, it DON'T APPLY TO AL QAEDA!

Posted by: reliapundit at June 30, 2006 11:48 AM (84Fts)

2 whatr happened here was the LEFTIES of the court had made up their minds YEARS AGO, and kennedy went with them - his leftie buddies, instead of making a stand with the right which would have made him UNPOPULAR wi9th the left. his home has been on the left for a decade.

Posted by: reliapundit at June 30, 2006 11:50 AM (84Fts)

3 CY, So now you're a constitutional scholar? Jeez, grow up. The Supreme Court finally decided that the other branches of government are not irrelevant after all. Even during a "war". Now, if only we can convince Congress that they have a role to play too. Also, if you have a problem with the Supreme Court being the "ultimate and unquestioned law of the land", you have a problem with the constitution, not Nancy Pelosi. I wonder if you' re willing to give say, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton the same executive supremacy you're giving George W.

Posted by: jordan at June 30, 2006 12:06 PM (vgzEN)

4 Regarding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, Scalia's dissent makes some good points, but is far from a winning argument. When a statute takes away jurisdiction in one section (1005(e)(1)), and only applies retroactivity for pending cases to *other* sections of that statute (retroactivity explicitly applied to sections 1005 (e)(2) and (e)(3) but did not mention (e)(1)), then it isn't unreasonable to believe they meant to exclude (e)(1). This is not radical interpretation. Arguable, yes. Clearly wrong, no. On the Geneva Convention, the opinion says it only applies to Hamdan because he was not a combatant when they got him. The GC has provisions for treatment of noncombatants by signatories. The opinion is pretty clear on this, and so is Art. 3 of the GC. I also point to the fact that no judge dissented from this holding. Their dissents were basically (Scalia) that the Court didn't have jurisdiction; (Thomas) that the Court should have deferred to executive authority on whether the tribunals were necessary; and (Alito) that the tribunals were "properly constituted" under the UCMJ. *None of the judges questioned the majority's holding that Article 3 of the GC applies to Hamdan.* Finally, your comments about the court not protecting your liberties--in a way it is right. Ultimately, guns protect our liberties. But guns can just as easily take them away. Dictatorships have men with guns. But they don't have an independent court system. Guns do not make us different. Our independent courts do.

Posted by: pcrh at June 30, 2006 12:33 PM (eCiUG)

5 a clarification: "the Supreme Court... is the ultimate and unquestioned law of the land"... but only so long as they rule in ways liberals like. When they do something like Bush-v-Gore, liberals want them thrown off the bench. which segues into a recurring theme of mine: us on the right are no different than those on the left: when we like the decision (for the right, the earlier decision on the texas redistricting, and, for the left, Hamdan), we're fine. when we don't like the decision, the court is a bunch of idiots.

Posted by: steve sturm at June 30, 2006 12:39 PM (bZSI1)

6 pcrh - When a president exceeds his Constitutional authority, congress, the courts, and the electorate have recourse into correcting that behaviour. When Congress exceeds their Constitutional authority, the courts have an opportunity to reign them in and the electorate can also have a shot at them. When the courts exceed their Constitutional authority - who controls them and how? As you said, "This is not radical interpretation. Arguable, yes. Clearly wrong, no." Who gets to argue it? To whom? If the President or Congress disagrees and thinks that SCOTUS exceeded their authority, how do they perform their "checks and balances"?

Posted by: SouthernRoots at June 30, 2006 01:11 PM (jHBWL)

7 That comment you quote is priceless. Typical lefty reasoning: it doesn't matter if our cities are laid waste, our soldiers killed and thousands of civilians dead, as long as we are "legally" and "morally" not to mention "politically" correct in a manner pleasing to the New York Times editorial board. Even if we're dead, we'd be "better" in some mystical way. I mean, it'd be better for the Lefties that we lost the war rather than "win" it in some way that made us "more like them."

Posted by: El Jefe Maximo at June 30, 2006 01:21 PM (J1MfB)

8 SouthernRoots: Congress can, and almost surely will, revise the statute in question to pass muster. They would have to explicitly authorize the president to convene the tribunals (the prez asserted the authority under the law and under constitutional warmaking powers, and the Court disagreed--but would have consented if the statute had been clearer). The other problem the court had was that the tribunals did not conform to courts martial or civil courts rules--for example, they repeatedly pointed to the fact that defendants had no right to be present at their own tribunals. Such differences, they argued, meant the tribunals were not "properly constituted" according to the UCMJ and the GC. But again, this can be fixed by legislation--pass a law explicitly authorizing tribunals to try the detainees, and require that the tribunals adhere to courts martial (or similar) procedures. On your larger question--who watches the watchmen? I agree, the Court does have highest authority in one sphere--interpretation of our laws and Constitution. But this power is not absolute. Congress can rewrite the statute, and more importantly they can amend the constitution itself--probably the biggest power held by any part of government. This is what the recent flag burning issue was about--the Court has ruled that banning flag burning is counter to rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Congress wanted to amend the Constitution--the only way they could get around the Court's ruling. That is the check on the Supreme Court. Also, the president has indirect influence on the court--he appoints its members. And the Senate has some influence--they can veto the president's appointees. So though they can't contradict the Court's rulings, the do have influence, and Congress can ultimately override them with a constitutional amendment. It's the worst system of government except for all the other ones.

Posted by: pcrh at June 30, 2006 01:33 PM (eCiUG)

9 "...why the Supreme Court is anything but infallible." --CY "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." --Justice Jackson

Posted by: pcrh at June 30, 2006 01:52 PM (eCiUG)

10 Who watches the watchmen? The answer--we do. Extensive research suggests that the Supremes do indeed respond to the court of public opinion. Furthermore, a weak congress fails to overturn the decisions of this court the public has the ability to fire those people and hire new ones that are more in line with what they believe. Unfortunately, conservatives and liberals alike have perverted the system such that issues have been compartmentalized to fit neatly within one or the other category, making sound reasonable judgements on issues more susceptible to knee-jerk positions, or, in other words, to the ideology not their own powers of reason. In fact, those of us who choose to be realists, rather than ideologues are marginalized, even looked down upon for not picking sides. Ideological dogma,--opposite of the pragmatism that has so characterized American fortunes and governments over the past 200 years-- is far more dangerous than the courts, an inept Congress or even and over-reaching executive.

Posted by: melruk at June 30, 2006 01:57 PM (/tXOW)

11 So what someone previously stated, that the SCOTUS decided, extra constitutionally, other branches of government are relevant in a war? Seems the honored men and woman in black think we can fight a war by committee. Funny, the founders didn't.

Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at June 30, 2006 02:33 PM (HJFfL)

12 CY - Nice. Typical, but nice. Taken out of context but at least you had the guts to link to my original comment. I do understand how the Supreme Court works. I believe what Congress passed will be at some point determined unconstitutional as it has the right to determine what is legal and what is not, it does not have the right to undermine the constitution by striping the SCOTUS from being the final word in judicial review. (marbury vs Madison:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison). You may not agree with that but that has been the standard for quite some time. Longer than the "herald" interpretation of GC treaty. Artice 3 Section 1 and 2 of the Constitution reads: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section 2 The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. I'm not a law scholar but reading those two sections would say to me the SCOTUS has authority over any court the Congress ordains and power of any case between the US and any foreign citizens or subjects. So rather blithering on to your make-Bush-emperor base, why don't you try and provide a rationale for how they over-reached. To illustrate, look at the ruling. There was NO DISENT from any SCJ that Al-queda was protected under GC3. None. The 3 conservative judges dissented (seperately and not on the same subject so taken as a whole, only 1 discented from other the othe 8 judges in other aspects of the ruling) about other aspects of the ruling but not on that. So whining about how this is liberal issue is pure rhetoric. Just the mere statement that the "Commander in Chief powers outweigh those powers the Court unilaterally gives itself" demonstrates that it is you that will never uderstand the concept of checks and balances put into place by our founders. The SCOTUS does not rule over the others. It simply does not bend to the whim of chest-thumping and the political scenario playing out in Congress today. Would this Congress had given Gore the same authority as it tried to give Bush. I think not. SCOTUS was designed to be governed by unelected appointees, it was almost like the founders could see the day when politicians would put special interest groups ahead of their constituents... I never said the court was infalliable but the SCOTUS was designed to step in (see: Brown vs. Brd of Education, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_vs._Board_of_Education) when Congress didn't have the guts or the fortitude to correct injustices. The court decision is basically restating that its authority is not defined by Congress but by the Constitution and that the president has the power to faithfully execute the Laws and make treaties, not ignore laws and treaties. "who guards you liberties" statement is simply wrapping a "support the troops" bumper sticker slogan around ignorance. That 20 yr old if ordered to by his superiors, would gun you down in a moment. He doesn't guard your liberties, he guards your life. Ask a black man or a woman who gave them the right to vote. It wasn't a 20 year old with a gun. Ask a Japanese-American from the WWII era who took away their liberties, it still wasn't a 20 year old with a gun. Your final argument is simply not worth responding too. If the law is just paper, go try anarchy instead...

Posted by: matt a at June 30, 2006 02:48 PM (IHMpz)

13 Matt a - You missed a portion of Article III Section 2: [2] In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. [3] The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. The Constitution clearly sets up SCOTUS, but Congress defines the boundries.

Posted by: SouthernRoots at June 30, 2006 06:23 PM (jHBWL)

14 The Military trials were only a proposed procedure to get rid of some of the nasties at Gitmo. It was never used so what beef does the left wing have? None. As soon as we're attacked again we'll have a beef with the lefties and they'll pay dearly for every death and injury. The silent majority (republicans) will stand up and be heard, if it requires extreme violence, so be it. The simple solution to to the SCOTUS and Gitmo problem is to transfer 100 bad a** terrorist to each of their (five traitors) home towns for imprisonment and trial. Let their local population handle it, the locals provide the security, judges, and they serve on the juries. Not one of the five members that made this ruling would ever dare return home, that is if they had a town to return to after the terrorists from CAIR got done with them.

Posted by: Scrapiron at June 30, 2006 07:02 PM (Ffvoi)

15 Southern Root - Thanks for the addedum. I was rushing out the door and didn't have time to research original vs appellate jurisdiction but here's a definition: APPELLATE JURISDICTION. The jurisdiction which a superior court has to bear appeals of causes which have been tried in inferior courts. It differs from original jurisdiction, which is the power to entertain suits instituted in the first instance. So what does exceptions and regulations mean? Per Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Original_and_appellate_jurisdiction) it means that Congress can refine the process by which the appeals can raise through the inferior courts but it does not have the power to undermine the original jurisdiction responsibility of SCOTUS. Pretty cut and clear that Congress can't "cut out" (without a constitutional amendment) the Supreme Court from seeing any appeal such as this case. If anything, that section alone makes the law past by congress more likely to be overturned at some point. The other part of section 2 highlighted, where trials take place, I'm not aware of anyone challenging. Congress can pass a law saying that that all terrorist trials will be held at Gitmo, makes sense to me.

Posted by: matt a at June 30, 2006 10:58 PM (qnzM6)

16 If the law is just paper, go try anarchy instead... Anyone who has won a judgment in court knows the law is indeed just paper. All the court does is give you the right to TRY to collect what you're owed. Getting it may take years or it may never actually happen.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 01, 2006 04:35 AM (JuWpl)

17 Good post. I've linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/07/re-further-thoughts-on-hamdan.html

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at July 01, 2006 06:48 PM (kxNCe)

18 The statement by pcrh that it was unquestioned by the dissenters that the Geneva Convention applies to al-Qaeda is wrong. Given the grounds of the dissents by Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito, those justicesa did not decide the specific question, which is really no question at all. The Supreme Court majority was just dead wrong to resort to the fiction of so-called international customary law to interpret the Geneva Convention in accordance with a proposed Protocol to the Geneva Convention that in 1987 then President Ronald Reagan recommended to the Senate not be adopted by the United States (there is no answer to the Gipper's explanation on this one) and that the Senate did not adopt, not then and not since. The democratically elected branches of the U.S. Government thus had made a decision as to the Geneva Convention that the Supreme Court had no business ignoring, just as the Supreme Court had no business ignoring the act of Congress stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction in the Hamden case. The Supreme Court majority decision in Hamden really is an illicit, ill-conceived and illegitimate power grab that should be denounced as such. Sorry, Jordan, but the response should not be and cannot be well, the Supreme Court tells us what the law is. I recommend to you all a book by the Dean of Stanford Law School Larry Kramer, "The People Themselves." The original view of the matter, one espoused by none other than Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, is that the Congress and the President have a co-equal responsibility of constitutional interpretation because the people are sovereign, not the justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has made some bad mistakes in its history. Certainly, Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson are examples. What the Supreme Court majority did in Hamden was badly mistaken. At every turn, the Supreme Court's Hamden decision should be so treated.

Posted by: Phil Byler at July 02, 2006 09:53 PM (/kIDl)

19 Purple - Criminal law and civil law are 2 different beasts. Winning a judgement and being convicted of something are 2 different things. I agree that Congress and the Executive branch are both co-equal interpreters of the constitution. IMO, SCOTUS did not make a power move here. Congress did by trying to take away judicial power from SCOTUS. The President did by establishing his own trial procedure. As per all the talk shows this Sunday has suggested, if the President comes to Congress and asks for the tribunals, Congress will set them up. SCOTUS can and will be the final appeal on the tribunals will apply law. That is how the constitution works.

Posted by: matt a at July 02, 2006 10:39 PM (qnzM6)

20 >>The statement by pcrh that it was unquestioned by the dissenters that the Geneva Convention applies to al-Qaeda is wrong. Given the grounds of the dissents by Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito, those justicesa did not decide the specific question, which is really no question at all.<< Not sure what Mr. Byler means here. The justices are free to dissent on any issue they see fit. None of the dissenters brought up the majority's statements that Art. 3 of the GC applied to Hamdan. That's a fairly important part of the case, and if they disagreed, one would think they would have mentioned it in their dissents. To assume that their silence on the issue indicates *disagreement* is hard for me to accept.

Posted by: pcrh at July 03, 2006 09:37 AM (eCiUG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Tour De Turtle Bay

Isn't it an almost perfect metaphor?

American power dominates for years over European interests, and is then accused of using underhanded nefarious means to achieve the pinnacle of success. We find out later that it was the Americans won because of our unmatched work ethic, while the Europeans who cried that we were cheating, were actually guilty themselves the entire time.

Sounds a bit like the Oil for Food Scandal, doesn"t it? Guess again:

France Â— Favorites Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso and other cyclists were barred Friday from the Tour de France in the biggest doping scandal to hit cycling in years.
The decision to prevent Ullrich, Basso and others from racing threw the sport's premier race into upheaval the day before it begins.
Tour director Christian Prudhomme said the organizers' determination to fight doping was "total."
"The enemy is not cycling, the enemy is doping," he said.

Doping of course, is what seven-time American Tour De France Winner Lance Armstrong has repeatedly been accused of, and a charge he has repeatedly denied. Every time he has been vindicated, the latest time just four days ago.

Americans win, and continue to win, through unrelenting work, while soft, decadent western Europeans break the rules and still continue to come up short.

Someone please tell me why American liberals (John Kerry would be a prime example) so aspire to be like these people. Is cheating to lose that much fun?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

June 29, 2006

Defenders of Oppressors

Via U.S. Newswire:

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following the United States Supreme Court decision that trying Guantanamo detainees before military commissions violates U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions:
"Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.
"The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration's detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."

Translates PunditGuy (via Hot Air):

'If you plan terrorist attacks against America, if you kill Americans in a successful terrorist attack, if you kill our troops in Iraq or on any battlefield, we, the Democratic Party, will defend your right to be defended.'

If terrorists maim and murder innocents by the thousands, anywhere on earth, the Democratic Party will rush to defend their rights under American law.

White flag. Yellow back. Brown pants. Your Democratic Party.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:15 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

1 CY, your comments tonight are a stretch and a little over the top...anyone, no matter what the crime, is entitled to a fair and may I say speedy trial. In addition, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I don't see how any true American disputes these very basic and what I consider "conservative American" standards. As I have said before, the double standards have no boundaries with the Bush Administration. Not saying we have our greatest humanitarians down in Guatanomo Bay, but you cannot detain somebody with no charges, and hold them for years at a time with no trial! This is OK with the right wingers? Yes, it seems like we should let things slide, cut a corner here, and do this and that to "gett'r done" in a time of war, a voluntary war I might add. But, what happens when an unfavorable leader or party (in your case, the dems), takes office and decides to continue these substandard methods when it doesn't suit your cause anymore? There is a line, and our wise forefathers drew it long ago. I think it is people who agree with me who are the "true" conservatives....help your fellow man, spend wisely, follow the constitution even when it is not "convenient". Character under fire is defined by following standards when they are not always easy to swallow (i.e. giving Osama Bin Laden a trial. that is if we ever catch him). It is what separates us from them. I think "cowboy cool" is going out of style. We will see in November.

Posted by: Johnny at June 29, 2006 06:38 PM (Vtwo9)

2 Corn fed. Inbred. Brain dead. Your Republican party.

Posted by: Lint at June 29, 2006 06:44 PM (1gQpi)

3 Â”Â…anyone, no matter what the crime, is entitled to a fair and may I say speedy trial.Â” When a crime Â– as in breaking our laws Â– is concerned, youÂ’re correct. However, under the GC we are entitled to detain captured enemy combatants as POWs for the duration of hostilities. There is no requirement to try them under a military tribunal or certainly no requirement to try them under our civil laws. If you advocate such absurdity, would you also prescribe our soldiers Miranda-izing them as well? Shall we be required to gather physical evident on the battlefield in order to substantiate and indictment? Shall we also convene a grand jury to deliver an indictment? The answer is, Â“No!Â” because our civil laws do not apply to war and warfare. Â”In addition, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.Â” Does that mean that enemy combatants captured on the battlefield would be eligible to post bail? Wow, you give the term Â“bleeding heart liberalÂ” a whole new meaning. Fortunately, what you advocate is not part of the SCOTUS ruling. However, IÂ’d love to see you on the front lines advocating the requirement to Miranda-ize captured terrorists. Lots of luck!

Posted by: Old Soldier at June 29, 2006 08:07 PM (owAN1)

4 Soldier - Nice perversion there. Ignore the facts and create hyperbole out there. This guy Hamdan was Osama's driver, not the 20th hijacker or some mastermind strategist. He HAS been accused of a crime "conspiring against U.S. citizens" from 96-01. He IS on trial. The SCOTUS ruling says that he has civil liberties afforded to him by the constitution. The kangeroo court the President tried to set up would have in effect made a mockery of the entire judicial system. Secret evidence the defendent isn't allowed to see, witnesses the defense can't cross-examine, etc. I think the SCOTUS did the right thing and is in effect doing what the framers intended. History has shown us what happens when the US govt acts from emotion and tries to "safeguard" us from some foreign "menace" by restricting civil liberties (The McCarthy hearings or Japanese internment camps for examples). Its the SCOTUS's responsibility (per Stephen's own words) "in both peace and war, to preserve the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty". I think that SCOTUS took a step back and viewed this from a point of presedent. The US can't simply point to an individual's group affiliation and say that our current legal standards for humane treatment of individuals don't apply. Take Al-Queda out of the equation. What if President declared that Doctors without Borders was a terrorist group. Could he arrest US citizens and citizens from other countries (France, Germany, etc) and say their group affiliation means we can ignore GC and "humanely" torture them and hold them indefinitely? The answer you hear back is, "Well, if they are blowing up babies, sure!" But the key word is IF and that can't be determined without a fair trial. No, Al-queda did not sign the GC and neither did DWB but every individual within both organizations are citizens of some country, most of which probably did sign the GC (not sure about who's on the list). To your point, soldiers shouldn't be merandizing anyone on the battlefield, but the executive branch of the govt is also not judge, jury and executioner. The ironic thing is that Sadam Hussein is on trial for the same thing right now the Bush wants to do (waiting for the love on that). A group of people tried to asassinate Sadam and he ran a bunch of people that he thought (based on intel to be sure or maybe they just drove one of the guys around who did try to asissinate him, who knows)through a "legal" court and had them convicted and then executed (At Sadam's trial, one of the co-defendants is the trial judge who's defense is he was only following the rule of law). He's getting a better trial over in Iraq, from the country who's citizens he "allegedly" slaughtered and is now struggling to put a democracy in place, then we, the leaders of democracy in the free world are providing those that "conspired" against us. Sad.

Posted by: matt a at June 30, 2006 06:52 AM (IHMpz)

5 Lint? As in navel lint. Johnny, it's people like you that endangers our way of life. Those detainees are POW's not pickpockets or people who drive off without paying for their gasoline. They were caught in the act of trying to kill our soldiers on a battlefield. Whether you agree or not, U.S. Law does not apply to them. Those people down there would kill you me and everyone in this country if they could. GET IT!!! When are we as a nation going to see the insanity of trying to apply our law's to people who could care less about it? So we can feel good about ourselves, that we tried to show the world what our country is all about. Thats a crock, there are more people trying to immigrate to this country than any other country in the world. It's obvious they know that we have a better way of life and more freedoms than anywhere else. Johnny we don't live in a nirvana world. so, you need to grow up. The ones that have been released some of them were caught or killed on the battlefield again. Not all rightwingers as you like to refer to us are redneck getrdone types. Most are people who worked for our education are self starters and can appreciate the value of hardwork, not sit on our butts and whine because the world isn't fair. Oh BTW we need to give UBL a dirt nap not a trial.

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at June 30, 2006 06:53 AM (JSetw)

6 Johnny, "cowboy cool" is the only thing keeping our butts from being blown up. The jihadist IS the weapon; they will kill and maim with whatever they can get their hands on, and have proved it more times than I can count. If you think treating them with due process will make them kind and considerate global citizens, you are sadly mistaken.You tell them to "Give Peace a Chance"!

Posted by: Tom TB at June 30, 2006 07:16 AM (wZLWV)

7 FP - We apply our nation's law to others because we are a civilized nation and are the recognized leader of the civilized world. Without law to govern our actions, we are no better than the terrorist who's objective is to destroy our way of life. We lead by example. If we can't treat those captured humanely and civilly, then the terrorist has proved that our ideals and way of life are a fraud. More concretely, why should anyone respect an American's rights if there is no guarantee that we will respect their citizens' rights?

Posted by: matt a at June 30, 2006 08:46 AM (IHMpz)

8 OS - Thanks for demonstrating the terrorist's point by showing how to have a civilized debate. I would suspect that any declared enemy of the US would try to kill me if given the opportunity. Been around since the inception of the US, doesn't mean we need to lower ourselves to their level. I did summarize what I thought the SCOTUS did based on what Justice Stephens wrote in his brief which I read. If the constitution didn't apply to them, the SCOTUS would have never made a ruling as their responsibility is interpreting laws based on the constitution. Since they did, its pretty obvious they feel the constitution does apply to them. My interpretation. Not that its legally binding, just my interpretation. If the President wants to abdicate his responsibility to enforce the laws (or ignore them by declaring signing statements), then he shouldn't have ran for office. He didn't seem to have a problem with SCOTUS when they made up law to get him into office.

Posted by: matt a at June 30, 2006 09:21 AM (IHMpz)

9 Matt, you almost made a point. The problem is that SCOTUS DID make a ruling when they had no grounds to. Terrorists don't fall under our Constitution because they arent U.S. Citizens. (Before you go there, our homegrown ones DO go through our legal process) Geneva convention states clearly for those that signed the Convention (Article 1). But lets say for the sake of argument (that you like to do) we let that pass. They aren't uniformed, Most aren't from the 'Occupied' country, there are no diplomatic ties because, well, they're terrorists and aren't recognized as a government, you get the idea. Lets pretend they pass all that, now go to article 5 (Geneva convention) if they committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. Military tribuanl is competent, has been for years. So tell me Matt, exactly where in the Geneva Conventions do terrorists fall under? I can't find it and just read it.

Posted by: Retired Navy at June 30, 2006 10:56 AM (JYeBJ)

10 Oh absolutely right CY. I mean, Al Q can murder thousands on 9/11... and if necessary thousands more, all so the little terrorist darlings, who aren't citizens; who are not soldiers of any army, or any legitimate government -- can have their "civil rights."

Posted by: El Jefe Maximo at June 30, 2006 01:27 PM (J1MfB)

11 Navy - In your readings, where and when does it say that the President is allowed to ignore the Constitution? I don't remember seeing that. I can see 2 arguments that need to be made: 1. Where does it say that the Constitution only applies to US Citizens? Foreign nationals have the same rights as Americans here if they are arrested here. They pay taxes. They contribute to SS (even though they can't collect it). They can own property, marry, work a job, etc. They can even serve in the millitary. If they get arrested, they are araigned, grand jury can indite, trials can convict. Every illegal immigrant caught here gets his/her opportunity in court to prove he/she should be here. They aren't yanked half way around the world and held indefinitely or convicted without a fair trial. I don't remember a police officer asking if the crook he caught is American before reading his rights to him. 2. Until the constitution is amended, SCOTUS did what it was supposed to do which is rule on the merits of a case in front of it. Its called checks and balances. The President overstepped his constitutional authority by assuming he could ignore treaties and the rule of law during "war" time. A legal case was made to decide it. Its not the first time this has happened (war time presidents deciding to ignore the law. Lincoln tried to set aside Habeus Corpus and was rebuffed eventually) and each time, SCOTUS has brought the president back from the brink of becoming an emperor rather than the President. He wants tribunals, the Congress must authorize it. Its the way the govt is supposed to work.

Posted by: matt a at June 30, 2006 01:43 PM (IHMpz)

12 matt a, The ruling basically states that we cannot hold tribunals for these POWs. It also throws it right back into Congress's lap to create a new law on how they will handle terrorist POWs. I have heard that a quick poll of Congress shows that the majority supports new legislation. I suspect you will lose on that too. There is another, maybe more serious problem though. The original DTA 2005 said that no court had the right to hear habeus petitions from any Gitmo prisoner. Congress, under equal and separate powers, has the right to do that. They did. The SCOTUS apparently overstepped their bounds that were limited by Congress. Now let's hear your argument about that as compared with the President's NSA TSP policy. Can't have it both ways pal.

Posted by: Specter at June 30, 2006 10:18 PM (ybfXM)

13 Matt. How can you stretch the U.S. Constitution to other countries???? The foreign workers over here are guarenteed some protections under the Constitution and U.S. laws, not in other countries. The 'Treaty' the President was following was the Geneva convention. It's been pointed out time and again to you how it is for Uniformed militants. If you made an argument that the 'Detainees' (terrorists) should be put on trial in the countries that they were captured in, I would whole heartedly agree with you. Other countries are not afforded U.S. Constitution Protections.

Posted by: Retired Navy at July 03, 2006 05:18 AM (y67bA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Bush Loses Hamdan, SCOTUS Loses Its Mind

According to the Associated Press:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.
The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.
The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison in Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.

I'm familiar with a saying that goes, Â“if you can keep your head, while everyone around you is losing theirs, then clearly, you don't understand the situation.Â”

When it comes to Hamdan, that is certainly the case for me.

Quite frankly, I've never been sure about the military tribunal route for terrorism suspects captured overseas. To me it either makes sense to try them as criminals in a federal court, hold them until hostilities were over (if we deem the Geneva Conventions apply), or execute them like rabid dogs (if we deem the Geneva Conventions don't apply). The tribunal route just seemed odd to my sensibilities.

Over at Hot Air, Allah seems confused:

So if they try him, they have to take him to federal court Â— but they don't have to try him? What?

He also notes this from SCOTUSBlog:

As I predicted below, the Court held that Congress had, by statute, required that the commissions comply with the laws of war -- and held further that these commissions do not (for various reasons).
More importantly, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"Â—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.
This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).
If I'm right about this, it's enormously significant.

Quite frankly, if SCOTUSBlog is correct in that SCOTUS is saying the Geneva Conventions apply to non-state terrorist entities, then the court is out of it's ever-lovin' mind.

What is then to keep them from applying the Conventions to other non-state groups? Can drug cartels now claim to be protected under Geneva? How about serial killers?

The message to the soldier in the field seems clear: Take no prisoners, and collect whatever intel you can gather off the bodies.

Great job, Stevens. I think it's time you retire.

Update: Stop the ACLU has a roundup.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:29 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 4 kb.

1 "This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia" False. The CIA are not part of the US Armed Forces. The UCMJ and all relevant international treaties regarding the behavior of armed forces do not apply to them. And what I got from the ruling this morning (I was on duty when the news broke) was that they could be tried by the military, but would have to be granted all rights and priveleges customary to a military trial, i.e. a court-martial, complete with judge, jury, and a defense lawyer. I'm perfectly ok with this and I think that CNN touting the ruling as "a huge defeat for the administration" is warped.

Posted by: Dawnfire82 at June 29, 2006 11:14 AM (RvTAf)

2 To paraphrase President Andrew Jackson, Justice John Paul Stevens has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

Posted by: SicSemperTyrannus at June 29, 2006 11:41 AM (lNB+R)

3 CY, "What is then to keep them from applying the Conventions to other non-state groups? Can drug cartels now claim to be protected under Geneva? How about serial killers?" We don't hold members of drug cartels in offshore prisons. We try them, convict them and put them in jail. Same for serial killers. Not so for our guests at Gitmo. This is about the separation of powers between the three branches of government.

Posted by: jordan at June 29, 2006 01:24 PM (vgzEN)

4 I agree with CY. There is no reason why we, the United States of America, the leader of the FREE world, should have a higher standard of humane treatment when it comes to prisoners then terrorist groups and drug cartels. Lowest common denominator and all that...Amazing how fragile our resolution to our own standards becomes when faced with someone who doesn't hold those same standards in regard and our eagerness to adopt their lower ones.

Posted by: matt a at June 29, 2006 02:57 PM (IHMpz)

5 This ruling is unconstitutional! For all intents and purposes, the Supreme Court has entered the US into a treaty with a foreign, non-governmental entity. The constitution expressly gives this authority to the President and congress. Also this sets up a constitutional crisis because congress passed the Detainee Treatment act which expressly said that no court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider `(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or `(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who-- `(A) is currently in military custody; or `(B) has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.' I believe the president should follow the actions of Andrew Jackson and tell Justice Stevens to stick it were the sun donÂ’t shine.

Posted by: Radical Centrist at June 29, 2006 03:04 PM (iWRYt)

6 Great article, Bob. Your trackbacks hate me. Called me a fruitcake

Posted by: William Teach at June 29, 2006 05:43 PM (doAuV)

7 I think Ed Morrissey (Captain's Quarters) hit on something here when he said, "SCOTUS seems to argue that we must violate the Geneva Conventions in order to uphold them."

Posted by: Jim at June 29, 2006 06:52 PM (YkmII)

8 So it's a matter of 'treaty obligation'. Could someone refresh my memory? When exactly did Al Qaeda sign a treaty? Did they sign it with us? Who signed it? I guess the only response to this is to order the military to shoot any and all enemy combatants who fail to wear an identifiable enemy uniform. That ought to clear out Gitmo, right quick. Geneva Convention says we can do it; USSC says we have to. Works for me.

Posted by: Tim at June 29, 2006 07:42 PM (WiHUE)

9 Can drug cartels now claim to be protected under Geneva? How about serial killers? This resolves the debate. You are, in fact, that stupid.

Posted by: jpe at June 29, 2006 11:28 PM (qWiph)

10 Who's the stupid one, the one that writes blatent sarcasm or the one that runs with it that can't tell?

Posted by: Retired Navy at June 30, 2006 07:18 AM (elhVA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

WMD fired at Israel...Or Not?

Or so a Palestinian militant group claims (via Drudge):

A spokesman for gunmen in the Gaza Strip said they had fired a rocket tipped with a chemical warhead at Israel early on Thursday.
The Israeli army had no immediate comment on the claim by the spokesman from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement.
The group had recently claimed to possess about 20 biological warheads for the makeshift rockets commonly fired from Gaza at Israeli towns. This was the first time the group had claimed firing such a rocket.
"The al-Aqsa Brigades have fired one rocket with a chemical warhead" at southern Israel, Abu Qusai, a spokesman for the group, said in Gaza.
An Israeli military spokeswoman said the army had not detected that any such rocket was fired, nor was there any report of such a weapon hitting Israel.

Silly al-Reuters reporters. They weren't supposed to release that story until tomorrow.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

June 28, 2006

Resurrecting Ghosts

"Mothball Fleet."

Just hearing those words conjures up images of worn down, obsolete rusty freighters, decrepit warships, and sepia-tone pictures of half-sunken Liberty ships whose glory days have long since past.

They are the abandoned hulks and hulls no longer wanted or needed, destined for an ignoble end at the bottom of the sea after being used as a naval target, or at the end of a scrapyard's cutting torch.

But what if some of these grizzled veterans of wars past still had a story left to tell? What if some of these salt-flecked graybeards of the fleet still have a purpose, and can be called forth once more?

Finding that purpose is the calling of Ward Brewer, CEO of a little-known and unheralded non-profit Beauchamp Tower Corporation (BTC). Operation Enduring Service, the program started to press these aging ships back into service, began with a glance at a picture on a wall. As the Operation Enduring Service web site explains:

A 1944 Will Cressy lithograph of the USS Orion, which hung on James Gulley's living room wall since he returned from the war, now hangs on his grandson's office wall. In April of 2002, while working on his company's National Emergency Urban Interface Program, a momentary glance at that picture drew Ward's attention.
Taking a break from working on the company's emergency response program, Ward began searching for the USS Orion on the Internet to find out more about her. Several sites had pictures and brief histories of the USS Orion as well as other Fulton Class Submarine Tenders. There was one site, however, that would dramatically change future events. The USS Torsk Volunteers had been aboard the USS Orion in order to obtain various parts that were needed for the continued restoration of their submarine. While searching the ship, the "Torsk Bandits" as they called themselves, took numerous pictures of the USS Orion. It was these pictures that caught Ward Brewer's eye.
The USS Orion was built like a small city, carrying with her everything she could possibly need to perform her mission. It was all there, Machine Shops, Foundry, Electronics, Utilities, Berthing, Galleys, etc. This incredible concentration of capabilities made the USS Orion and her Fulton Class sister ships efficient, effective, and one of the most versatile assets in the United States Navy. It was the versatility and unique assets of these ships that resulted in Ward Brewer considering a project design so bold and unusual that few would believe it was even possible.

Brewer's general concept was simple; save these aging ships from the scrapyard, and refit them with the most modern technologies this generation can bring to bear to create a small fleet of ultra-capable disaster response and recovery ships.

The Fulton-class of Submarine Tenders was Brewer's first choice for this mission, but as more modern ships began to retire, the Mars-class Combat Stores Ship became the most logical choice to be refitted as the very first purpose-built Fast Attack Disaster Response Ships.

The former USNS San Diego may be the very first of this new breed of ships.

Outfitted with an emergency response center, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operations center and a land/sea/air communications center than can coordinate across military, law enforcement and civilian radio frequencies, this ship will be the coordinating hub of disaster response in coming hurricane seasons, working with FEMA, the Coast Guard, Salvation Army and other organizations that response to the worse storms Mother Nature can throw at Gulf and East Coast states.

Able to provide food, water, fuel and emergency supplies to an area measuring of thousands of square miles, these ships will be able to do what no agency in any country has ever been capable of doing.

The problem, of course, is securing these aging vessels and finding a way to finance their refitting and return to duty.

Operation Enduring Service has long been pushing the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) to release a substantial number of ships to Beauchamp Tower Corporation from the James River and Suisun Bay National Defense Reserve Fleets.

National Defense Reserve Fleet, Suisian Bay, California

National Defense Reserve Fleet, James River, Fort Eustis, Virginia.

Ships of historical significanceÂ—particularly World War II-era shipsÂ—would be brought back to period standards and used as museum ships, providing future generations insights into how the Greatest Generation fought to preserve this nation's freedoms. A handful of vessels such as the USNS San Diego would be refitted for emergency response.

A substantial part of the operationÂ—both museum ships and modernized disaster response vesselsÂ—would be financed by selling the salvage and scrapping rights to other vessels too far gone to be of further use except for as recycled raw materials. The total cost of this program to taxpayers?

Not one dime.

The salvage and scrapping of those vessels beyond their useful days will partially finance both the historical and rescue operations, with the rest of the costs being absorbed by the deep pockets of major corporate donors already committed to Beauchamp Tower Corporation.

As fantastic as it sounds, the operation will actually save the American taxpayer tens of millions of dollars that the Maritime Administration has been paying to companies across the Atlantic to tow away and dispose of ships as American shipyards want for work.

* * *

Long-time readers of this site know that I've been trying to do my small part to help make Operation Enduring Service a reality, as I've been writing posts advocating readers to help pressure Congressmen and Senators for support about it off and on since early November of last year.

Back in March I had something of an idea, an alternative to harassing Congressmen, and being in near daily contact with Brewer (who I have since come to regard as a long-distance friend) I passed that idea along. I then more or less stopped my public advocacy for this project, even as that idea went to the right people and things began to get a bit more interesting (to put it mildly) behind the scenes.

It pains me as a blogger to sit on a good idea, but I've done just that thus far. If things go as planned, I should be able to break that silence very, very soon.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:25 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1043 words, total size 8 kb.

June 27, 2006

A Few Fries Short of a Happy Meal

Poor Glenn Greenwald. It seems that he has once and for all stepped away from the land of the credible, and his latest missive on reaction to the New York Times banking story blowback makes that painfully obvious:

Any doubts about whether the Bush administration intends to imprison unfriendly journalists (defined as "journalists who fail to obey the Bush administration's orders about what to publish") were completely dispelled this weekend. As I have noted many times before, one of the most significant dangers our country faces is the all-out war now being waged on our nation's media -- and thereby on the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press -- by the Bush administration and its supporters, who are furious that the media continues to expose controversial government policies and thereby subject them to democratic debate. After the unlimited outpouring of venomous attacks on the Times this weekend, I believe these attacks on our free press have become the country's most pressing political issue.

Any doubts have been dispelled, eh, Glenn? By this, I would be so bold as to infer that you have concrete proof of your allegation that the President has the intention to thrown journalists in jail. Certainly, you would not be so bold as to make such a wild accusation without so much as a shred of proof. Why, such a strong claim, without any evidentiary support whatsoever, would be absolutely Leopoldian.

Sadly, the condition seems degenerative:

Documenting the violent rhetoric and truly extremist calls for imprisonment against the Times is unnecessary for anyone paying even minimal attention the last few days. On every cable news show, pundits and even journalists talked openly about whether the editors and reporters of the Times were traitors deserving criminal punishment. The Weekly Standard, always a bellwether of Bush administration thinking, is now actively crusading for criminal prosecution against the Times. And dark insinuations that the Times ought to be physically attacked are no longer the exclusive province of best-selling right-wing author Ann Coulter, but -- as Hume's Ghost recently documented -- are now commonly expressed sentiments among all sorts of "mainstream" Bush supporters. Bush supporters are now engaged in all-out, unlimited warfare against journalists who are hostile to the administration and who fail to adhere to the orders of the Commander-in-Chief about what to print.

"All-out, unlimited warfare against journalists..." Well, that would certainly explain why the CNN Building in downtown Atlanta was just leveled by Tomahawk cruise missiles, and why Navy SEAL 13.5 (Documents and Records) are presently engaged in a fierce, close-quarters battle against the Times editorial staff in the brie cooler.

Oh wait... none of that is happening.

Greenwald's article presumably continues after that point, but I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would care.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:26 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.

1 The brie cooler. Nice one.

Posted by: see-dubya at June 27, 2006 04:10 PM (sF5cK)

2 Quit worrying about what the press did. Lock up the reporters till they divulge the leaks then excute them.

Posted by: David Caskey at June 27, 2006 04:49 PM (rpr/1)

3 The copius tears I shed for the poor widdle Times people should be proof enough that I am not at war with the media. Now, where did I put that shotgun and rope?

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at June 27, 2006 05:31 PM (3nKvy)

4 The unauthorized disclosure of classified information bears consequences. If anyone is interested this is the US Code that applies. Title 18, United States Code Section 798. Disclosure of classified information (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully ommunicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information-- (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. For a little more information check out: This Link CY, I apologize for that shameless plug, but there really is some good info over there (I know the author).

Posted by: Old Soldier at June 27, 2006 05:50 PM (owAN1)

5 The link failed, so cut and paste the following: http://myrepublicanblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/security-classification-long-and-short.html

Posted by: Old Soldier at June 27, 2006 05:52 PM (owAN1)

6 As usual, the lefties revel in their delusions. I can't comprehend how people who live such safe, secure, and comfortable lives can be so utterly cynical and paranoid.

Posted by: Zhombre at June 27, 2006 06:23 PM (sdnSs)

7 None of those that are attempting to excuse the NYT actions have come up with a credible reason why anyone should trust the NYT editorial board when it determines to run a story over an Administration that claims that running such a story would result in serious and ongoing harm to national security. So, where we stand right now has the NYT continuing to run stories from leakers who are providing the paper with classified information, an Administration that's trying to stop leakers, and a paper that refuses to work with the Administration. There's a story in there somewhere. Oh yes - it's called newspapers refusing to give up the names of those providing leaks of classified information. The failure to assist in any such investigation should result in criminal action against the editors as to contempt. The papers are playing high stakes poker, thinking that they can pull another Pentagon Papers case out of their hats, and further expand their power against any Administration. And yet I have some serious concerns about trying papers for treason or other criminal charges stemming from the leaks. Do we really want to turn what is already a bad relationship into a poisonous one? Does that actually help anyone, least of all this and future Presidents to communicate messages, deal with any and every crisis, etc. But Instapundit says it so much better than I.

Posted by: lawhawk at June 27, 2006 09:00 PM (nW448)

8 I love it when the Bush administration gets so bent out of shape when the Times exposes their "questionable/grey area" programs. Yes...when you say "Times", you know it came from New York, city that is.... Black gold,Texas tea is responsible for this big Al-Qaeda boogieman debacle! As painful as it is for all my sexless friends, this is what makes our country great, the checks and balances of a free America. Remember...if the Bush administration begins to hunt down journalist for leaking sensitive information, they better start at Pennsylvania Ave first. The irony is so thick and the double standards so frequent, it is sometimes seems like a joke. As a spineless Massachusetts Factor guest today exclaimed..."What if France came into the U.S. and barged into our banks to sift thru our banking records in the name of French national security?" That would go over well wouldn't it boys?

Posted by: Johnny at June 27, 2006 09:48 PM (Vtwo9)

9 Is that the famous of Johnny of "Why Johnny Can't Read"?

Posted by: Zhombre at June 28, 2006 08:43 AM (Xm4xl)

10 Congress was briefed? Harry Reid was quoted as saying he was briefed just a couple of weeks ago. The program has been running for years. They just now getting around to it? Admin officials also admitted the only reason why they briefed members of congress was because they knew the NYT was sniffing around asking questions about the program. The program itself maybe legal but the President refusing to allow the US Congress to have insight into those programs is the grey area. As far as Title 18 goes, when they prosecute Novak (and all the editors of the papers he is syndicated to that printed his article) for outing Plame, then they should go after NYT. Classified is classified whether its a program or a person's cover.

Posted by: matt a at June 28, 2006 10:27 AM (IHMpz)

11 Matt, Plame wasn't outside the states within 5 years so wasn't covert. TITLE VI-- PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION Section 606 terms and definitions, # 4 A

Posted by: Retired Navy at June 28, 2006 11:42 AM (JSetw)

12 matt a, For once...just once...try to get the facts right. No one has been arrested or indicted or officially accused of "outing" Plame. Why after so many years of investigation do you think that is? Could it possible be that NO LAW WAS BROKEN? Stop with your whining mantra. Plame was not "covert" and not "classified". Hadley at CIA told Novak she worked there when he was asked. Figure this out. These are not the same cases at all.

Posted by: Specter at June 28, 2006 03:42 PM (ybfXM)

13 Navy - I googled plame and found this summary from WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102800982.html - first link to come up). "Bob Woodward told Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald on Nov. 14, 2005, that a senior government official talked to him about Plame and her covert status two years ago. This revelation cast doubt on allegations that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was the first Bush administration official to out Plame. Woodward's testimony also raised questions about his decision to keep silent about the conversation during the past two years, despite an ongoing investigation into the affair." I'm not arguing whether she was in country or not, but her cover most certainly was classified. Reporter Miller got Plame's name from Libby, Reporter Cooper got it from Rove, Rove got it from Libby. Cheney heard it from Tenet but Tenet doesn't remember telling Cheney. The only one to get screwed here was Libby for trying to lie about where he heard it from (Tim Russert). We still don't know who Woodward talked to 2 years ago or how did Libby find out. If it was that simple as title and verse, why wouldn't someone just step up and say, "I did it"? Why the who's on first, what's on second routine? Spectre - Don't be nieve. In politics, laws don't matter. Nixon was never charged with a crime so I suppose under your interpretation, no laws were broken? US Rep. Cynthia McKinney didn't get charged with assaulting a police officer so I guess she didn't break a law either. Those are just 2 examples. Politicians get a way with breaking the law all the time. Its the exception to the rule to actually hold someone accountable. Amazing how conservatives want to hold a politican accountable for lying about an affair with an intern but not accountable for lying about giving classified information out. The NYT sure. The WSJ nope (they had the same story brewing as did LA Times and WaPo).

Posted by: matt a at June 29, 2006 10:19 AM (IHMpz)

14 Matt, I don't get why you believe the Washington Post over the actual instruction that governs the situation. Plame came back in the states from her last covert assignment in 97. The instruction clearly states that to be deemed "covert", an agent is out CONUS or was within the last 5 years.

Posted by: Retired Navy at June 29, 2006 10:24 AM (nFSnk)

15 I can pull a dozen similarly worded summaries about Valerie Plume and I don't have a problem with the summary from WaPo in this case because Woodward (you know, WaPo most famous reporter) is shown to be the administration's lap dog that he is. His words, that he knew she was classified 2 years ago and he got it from someone senior. Who was it? No one knows. You seem to be hung up on covert vs classified. Her cover was covert in that she was not in the "open" doing what she was doing oversees but even after she came back, her role still remains classified. For example, a US Navy SEAL could be inserted covertly and execute an operation, but his role in that operation and the fact that he participated is classified. Leaking the name of the Navy SEAL as being a covert operative when it was still classified would still be wrong. Again, I contend that if ANY of this was actually the case for Valerie Plume in terms of regulations and status, there wouldn't have been an investigation at all as someone should have stepped up and said she didn't have a classified status anymore. Didn't happen.

Posted by: matt a at June 29, 2006 01:50 PM (IHMpz)

16 Whatsamatta matt a? Can't handle the fact the nobody you wanted to get charged did? Let's call the Wahhhhmmmmbulance. You sound like a little kid at times - and we can tell when you are angry because your spelling goes out the window. But really - are you actually following the story? There is an individual identified as UGO (Unidentified Government Official) who told Fitz in early 2004 that he was the one who told reporters. So far the individual's identity has been protected, but speculation is that it is Armitage. He was Woodward's source and it appears he was Cooper's first source. You can speculate all you want, but the case is basically done with and nobody is going to be charged - no laws broken. Now when Rocky gets hit for the NSA leak - we are going to have lots of fun.

Posted by: Specter at June 29, 2006 02:18 PM (ybfXM)

17 Matt, Did you even read the statute? Not what you remember about it but what I actually pointed to. Your summation is completely off. Classified isn't even mentioned about an agent back in the states. Classification pertains to information or details of what an Agent had done, not the Agent themselves. They are either covert, or not. She was at one time, but wasn't since 97 so dosn't qualify anymore. It is that simple.

Posted by: Retired Navy at June 29, 2006 02:29 PM (elhVA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Biodegradable Journalism

I see the AP's Laurie Kellman has an article up today about the President's use of signing statements.

Compared to the earlier works that unsuccessfully attempted to gin up controversy on this subject, I find Kellman's recycling attempt to be uninspired.

Personally, I found the April 30 story in the Boston Globe to be better written from the liberal hysteria point-of-view, and so I'm a little disappointed that Kellman didn't improve it. Material collected from the April Globe article, Lithwick's timeless hyperventilating on January 30 in Slate, or the snarky January 2 article in the Washington Post, really should have enabled her to come out with a stronger post-consumer recycled product.

Instead, it appears that far from being 100% recyclable, this attempt seems destined for composting. I guess some media stories aren't all that recyclable after all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

Taking Money From Crackers

That seems to be the "sin" that so shocked Washington Post staff writer Mathew Mosk. A black conservative candidate actually accepted campaign contributions from white conservative donors. Oh, Bartleby! Oh, Humanity!

Not one to waste time, Mosk starts race-baiting out of the gate:

The fundraiser thrown for Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele on Thursday night, while ordinary in most ways, struck some African American leaders as notable because of the host.
Unlike the dozens of high-dollar events across the country in his U.S. Senate bid, this event was thrown by the producer of the famous "Willie Horton" ad, the 1988 commercial that came to symbolize the cynical use of skin color as a political wedge.
It seemed a most unusual choice for Steele, the first African American elected to statewide office in Maryland and a Republican whose strategy for winning a Senate seat in a state dominated by Democrats has involved the aggressive courtship of black voters.

I was in high school when the Horton commercial came out and honestly don't remember it, but this is what Wikipedia had to say about Mr. Horton:

William R. Horton Jr. (born August 12, 1951 in Chesterfield, South Carolina) is a convicted felon who was the subject of a Massachusetts weekend furlough program that released him while serving a life sentence for murder, without the possibility of parole, providing him the opportunity to commit a rape and armed robbery. A political advertisement during the 1988 U.S. Presidential race was critical of the Democratic nominee and Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis for his support of the program.
[snip]
Beginning on September 21, 1988, the Americans for Bush arm of the National Security Political Action Committee, began running an attack ad entitled "Weekend Passes," using the Horton case to attack Dukakis. The ad was produced by media consultant Larry McCarthy, who had previously worked for Ailes. After clearing the ad with television stations, McCarthy went back and added a menacing mug shot of Horton, who is African-American. He called the image "every suburban mother's greatest fear." The ad was run as an independent expenditure, separate from the Bush campaign, which claimed, as is legally required, not to have had any role in its production.
On October 5, a day after the "Weekend Passes" ad was taken off the airwaves, and also the date of the infamous Bentsen-Quayle debate, the Bush campaign ran its own ad, "Revolving Door," which also attacked Dukakis over the weekend furlough program. While the advertisement did not mention Horton or feature his photograph, it depicted a variety of intimidating-looking men walking in and out of prison through a revolving door.
The commercial was filmed at an actual state prison in Draper, Utah, but the persons depicted - thirty in all, including three African-Americans and two Hispanics - were all paid actors. Attempting to counter-attack, Dukakis's campaign ran a similar ad about a Hispanic murderer named Angel Medrano who murdered a pregnant mother of two while on furlough from a federal, rather than state, prison, the idea being that this would reflect negatively on Bush, who was the sitting Vice-President. Dukakis's ad stated Medrano's name and showed his photograph.

So while the effectiveness of the Horton commercial made Americans remember it as a symbol of using race as a wedge, both Parties were guilty of using racism in their 1988 campaigns. Republicans just had the more memorable commercial. It is interesting how the Post writer chose not to cover both sides of this low point in American politics, but considering his already obvious agenda, it should hardly be surprising.

Mosk makes his angle even more apparent just a few paragraphs down:

Nor, Steele said, was there anything incongruous about donations he took from others who have offended black audiences in the past, including Republican Sens. Trent Lott (Miss.) and Conrad Burns (Mont.) as well as Alex Castellanos, the man behind the racially charged "White Hands" ad that then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) used to attack his black challenger.
It featured a close-up shot of a pair of white hands crumpling a letter as the narrator says, "You needed that job . . . but they had to give it to a minority."

Perhaps the Washington Post could find a more thinly-veiled way to attempt to label Michael Steele as a race traitor, but short of directly calling him "Uncle Tom" (as Maryland Democrats have already done), I'm not sure that they could.

Having gone so far to smear Steele, Mosk apparently felt no compunction to maintain historical accuracy when the opportunity arises to smear others.

Democrats said there are several names on Steele's donor list that won't help him. It includes Lott, who lost his leadership post for seeming to endorse Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidential candidacy, and Burns, who drew sharp criticism for saying he found it "a hell of a challenge" to live among all the blacks in Washington, D.C.
Steele also has received support from former Reagan administration education secretary William J. Bennett, who was criticized for suggesting that aborting black babies would help reduce crime, and former first lady Barbara Bush, who turned heads when she mused that mostly African American evacuees from Katrina living at a Houston shelter "were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them." Steele accepted $1,000 from Castellanos, the man behind the "White Hands" ad.
"Having that kind of support sends mixed messages and are going to make it very difficult for him to make inroads with African American voters," said Isiah Leggett, a former state Democratic Party chairman. "He should be smart enough to see the inconsistency there."

Mixed messages? Inconsistency? Mr. Mosk, you have no shame.

Trent Lott's comments on Thurmond's 100th birthday rightfully cost him his seat as the Senate Republican Leader, in a Senate that today counts Democratic Senator and former Klansman Robert Byrd as its longest serving member.

Burns was hammered and rightfully so, for the way he responded to an elderly racist rancher's question about how he could live in Washington, D.C.. Perhaps he simply should have ignored him.

The attack on William Bennett, however, was dishonest. Bennett did not suggest aborting black babies would reduce crime, he pointed out how ridiculous it would be to abort black children to reduce crime. For that matter, if you aborted all children, your crime rate would go down to zero because there would be no people to commit crimes. Common sense, ripped completely out of context, trotted out by Mosk to continue a reprehensible line of attack. He may be morally bankrupt, but at least he's consistent.

After a half-hearted feint at objectivity that was quickly revealed as a strawman, and a vague warning to black voters that "People are going to want to know where he stands, and who stands with him [my emphasis]," Mosk concludes:

To this point, Democrats vying to challenge Steele in the Senate race have focused on the money Steele has received from those with ties to President Bush. Their accusation: that Steele is campaigning as someone without partisan ties but is being bankrolled by Bush and his supporters.
Steele has countered that the money does not make the man -- that Bush's name won't be on the ballot in Maryland and Bush won't occupy the Senate seat if Steele wins. The same holds true for such donors as Lott and Burns, Steele said last week.
The important message he has for black voters, he said, "is that it will make a difference for them to have me at the table."

Not to belabor the pot-and-kettle too much, Democrats aren't the only people focusing on contributors to Steel's campaign. That is after all, the very idea that Mosk's article seeks to advance. How much further could he reveal his strong Democratic bias?

Liberal blogger Steve Gilliard is perfectly content to be led to follow Mosk's script. He puts up a picture of Steele with the caption, "I take money from racists."

Gilliard would know. He is, after all something of an expert on racism.

Either you're a black Democrat, o you're a race traitor, says Gilliard.

We learned from Clarence Thomas about how skin color doesn't equal loyalty.

I think Matthew Mosk just found his reader base.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:44 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1380 words, total size 9 kb.

1 I remember the Willy Horton ad quite clearly. The message that came across was that Dukasis was soft on crime. (Recall also that he said that if his wife was raped he wouldn't want the death penalty). For what it's worth, I don't recall the ad evoking a race issue at all.

Posted by: Jane at June 27, 2006 01:46 PM (uGLhr)

2 Well, they've got some confusing views over there. 1) You can tell everything about a man's politcal views by the color of his/her skin... and presuming to know someone based solely by the color of their skin isn't racist anymore... 2) Politics break down into 2 viewpoints, "Black issues" and "non-black issues". Candidates who support "black issues" should get black votes; which somehow doesn't presume that non-blacks should allow this obvious and clear dichotomy to affect their voting habits at all (unless they're racist).

Posted by: Gekkobear at June 27, 2006 02:41 PM (X0NX1)

3 Interesting that an article on "the cynical use" of race as a "political wedge" managed to reach back nearly 20 years for the Horton ad, but avoided the NAACP ad just six years ago implicating the GOP presidential candidate in the dragging death of James Byrd of Texas. This feat is made all the more impressive because the article mentions the man who OK'd the ad, "Kweisi Mfume, a former congressman and NAACP president," and a candidate in the current race. Of course, even though the NAACP spent (if I recall) $2 million airing the Byrd ad, few if any mainstream media outlets brought attention to it in 2000, when just about every campaign spot was scrutinized. Because the storyline that mainstream media desperately clings to -- in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary Â– is that only Republicans, and only whites, engage in racial politics, and/or are swayed by racial politics. So one of the two major parties in the nation can engage in overt, race-based politics, while reporters like Matthew Mosk pretend not to notice. Rather cynical, IÂ’d say.

Posted by: CJ at June 27, 2006 03:00 PM (9KqcB)

4 OK, a little math. (sorry, NEA). But if an ad shows 30 prisoners, and 3 are black, 2 hispanic, that means 25 are white. Hmmm... 80% white. That's more than you need to end cloture. No wonder the libs were pissed.

Posted by: Tim at June 27, 2006 05:36 PM (xqtXG)

5 Being against crime: racist. Demanding race loyalty: not racist. Because, you see, "racist" is actually a synonym for "Republican" and has nothing to do with "race."

Posted by: TallDave at June 28, 2006 03:24 PM (nHHeX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

NYT Announces Formation of Shadow Government

Heh:

In a move experts said was expected for months, New York Times executive editor Bill Keller today announced the formation of a shadow government for the US, effective immediately.
"The power that we have taken is not something to be taken lightly," said Keller. "The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us and is among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor."
Times' publisher "Pinch" Sulzberger was named shadow President, but was said to be disappointed that he wasn't named shadow Prime Minister.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:49 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

June 26, 2006

Punking Rosemary's Brother's Baby

Normally I'd leave gossip sheets such as the New York Post's infamous Page Six alone, but as this particular edition features pro-military filmmaker tearing anti-war pretty war George Clooney it was hard to resist:

June 26, 2006 -- GEORGE Clooney may be Steven Soderbergh's muse, but the director's ex-agent sure doesn't seem to be a fan of the outspoken Oscar winner.
Pat Dollard was Soderbergh's 10- percenter until he ditched his lucrative Tinseltown career to make a pro-war documentary about U.S. Marines fighting insurgents in Iraq. Last year, his Humvee convoy was blown up in Ramadi, killing two Marines and sending Dollard to the hospital with a concussion and shrapnel wounds.
So it's understandable that Dollard might have been annoyed when Clooney chastised Democrats last year for not having the guts to condemn the war. While Dollard was careful not to name names, he told Page Six that he went into "a black rage" while in Iraq after reading a certain movie star's pompous pronouncements online.
"I read something on the Internet in which someone was patting himself on the back for having the courage to oppose the war," Dollard recalled. In an obvious reference to Clooney, who owns a villa in Italy, he said, "They actually equate bravery with speaking out against the president because [losing fans] might cost them one less servant at their Italian villa . . . It put me into a black rage and made me sick to my stomach."
Squeamish viewers of Dollard's "Young Americans" will likewise be reaching for their Tums. "It's the most graphic real-war documentary ever made," Dollard says. "It has the spirit and experience of the grunts, absolutely unfettered. I never had an officer standing over my shoulder supervising what I was doing. But I also have the president of Iraq, the prime minister, the generals - so it's not just a grunt's-eye view."
Dollard says his enthusiasm for the war has left some of his former showbiz colleagues cold. "Being a Republican in Hollywood today is not much different than being a communist in Hollywood in the 1950s," he said. "I'm not trying to overstate the case, but the reality is there is a blacklist in Hollywood. It's very McCarthy-like. It just shows the hypocrisy of the left."
And what does left-leaning Soderbergh think of "Young Americans"? "He loved the footage," Dollard says. "He's seen a lot of it, and he has given me some advice."
Dollard says he's in talks with HBO and Showtime about airing "Young Americans" but may end up releasing it as a DVD. "Given the sort of grass-roots support and cult status that it's been getting, it's going to come out somehow," he said. The trailer can be viewed on patdollard.com.

As many of you know, I found out about Pat Dollard several weeks ago and I've been promoting "Young Americans" as new trailers come online. I thinkÂ—based upon the trailers I've seen so farÂ—that the project may develop into the definitive documentary about the U.S. Marines in the Iraq War.

As alluded to above, Dollard is a Hollywood rebel for making this documentary. He isn't being backed by any major producers or studios. Everything he filmed was paid for out of his own funds, which are now running short. If you want to support the completion of "Young Americans" and show the rest of America what our Marines are really doing, instead of listing to George Clooney opine from his lakeside Italian villa, simply go to Pat's Web site and drop a couple of bucks (say, a ten-spot?) via the Paypal link. You can help produce a movie, and you don't have to be a millionaire.

Consider it as film-making via an Army of Davids.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 628 words, total size 4 kb.

Prosecute Them

I just sent the following email to comments@whitehouse.gov,

Dear Mr. President,
I strongly urge you to listen to the request from NY Rep. Peter King, and instruct the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute editor Bill Keller, and reporters Eric Lichtblau,and James Risen of the New York Times under Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 37 > Ã‚Â§ 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, and any other applicable crimes.
I also ask that you request that the Justice Department seek out the identities of those who have leaked the existence of this program to the NY Times, and prosecute them as well.
I recognize that this is an extraordinary request, but we all recognize that we live in extraordinary times. A major newspaper has deemed itself the ultimate gatekeeper of national security information, and it then disclosed information about a specific program, hence destroying it's effectiveness.
Investigating and aggressively prosecuting these crimes will hopefully reign in those who seek to profit from disclosing classified information, and it will hopefully spare the lives of Americans such disclosures put in jeopardy.
Thank you respectfully and sincerely,
Bob Owens
Confederate Yankee Blog
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu

If you, too feel that the New York Times went over the line, I'd suggest sending along an email of your own.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:10 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I love reading your blog. As a wife of an Active Duty soldier, it seems all too much the truth is swept under the rug as to what is REALLY going on, and all too often these days our men and women in uniform are being used as a scapegoat for deeper problems at hand. I support our troops and those like yourself who do not sit quietly in the shadows and allow the Liberal media (or drive by media as stated by Rush Limbaugh) to be the only source of information available. God bless and I hope you can enjoy this link i received, as I believe THIS is what American's need to see but are being denied. http://objflicks.com/GladiatorAmericanStyle.htm Sincerely, Lindsey A Gile wife to SPC Brandon Gile US PARATROOPER USAJFKSWCS

Posted by: lindsey gile at June 26, 2006 01:48 PM (cvf6P)

2 I don't know if this will have an impact, but consider that an effort be made to obtain a list of those who adverstise on the Times and boycott them. This would likely hurt more than anything.

Posted by: David Caskey at June 26, 2006 01:49 PM (6wTpy)

3 I have written the President, as well as my other elected officials. The continuing exposure of classified material puts America in jeopardy. Yet the government as yet to act. I fear if we continue to ignore the law concerning the release of claasified material, the framework in which that law is applied will become moot. I don't want my grandchildren under islamic law or the bhurka. It is plain that the Times would prefer it.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at June 26, 2006 01:54 PM (3nKvy)

4 I generally don't like to stereotype (I leave that to the conservatives. Oops!) but this is typical wag-the-dog rhetoric. I hate to revoke your poetic license, CY, but every day since the birth of the US has been extraordinary times. I don't recall any era of US called the "ordinary times". There will always be an enemy of the US wanting to "destroy" everything we hold dear and we will always live in extraordinary times. The rhetoric is historical. pre-911 thinking? What about pre-civil war thinking? pre-pearl harbor thinking? pre-industrial revolution thinking? Pre-US Cuban Missile crisis thinking? The list can go on. The problem for conservatives is that general public is finding out that the conservative solution to the problem isn't working. The program has been in existence for almost 5 years and we just got zarcowi (mis-spelled on purpose) thru Iraqi intel and we still can't find Osama or his direct reports. So let's attack the free press. Its the only branch of the republic the conservatives don't control (the 4th estate). Its blatantly obvious that this administration feels no compulsion to inform Congress of what it is doing or adhere to laws that the Congress passes. Congress has long given up the right to oversight which is its express responsibility so it becomes the press's obligation to make sure that what the executive branch does doesn't go over the line. So polls out say most of the public is fine with wire tapping. Good. But of course, the public is also fine with knowing what their govt is doing. The problem with the argument of "fill-in-the-blank" endangers the US is that it assumes not saying anything makes us any safer. You don't think the bad guys don't know that we are monitoring every signal/transaction in and out of the middle east? I mean its not to hard to put 2+2 together when terrorist A calls from a safe hole in Afgan/Iraq and 3 minutes later he is eating a 500 lb bomb or that after hitting a couple of ATMs, that terrorist B is wondering why he can't withdraw money from his phony accounts. Its almost like you want to believe that we live in some pseudo-James Bond plot where if the bad guys had been tipped off by the London Times that 007's watch was also a laser beam, they would have taken that away and Sean Connery (my fav) would still be locked away in some dungeon. The only people that aren't aware of what the US govt is doing, is the citizens of the US.

Posted by: matt a at June 26, 2006 03:06 PM (IHMpz)

5 matt a - Your lack of insight is only outweighed by your verbosity. Freedom of the press does not include the right to put American lives in danger. The power of the Executive is not derives soley through Congressional approval. It derives from the Constitution. Having said that, the current program under discussion was briefed and nobody in that congress has objected. As for your assertion that conservatives create crisis in order to gain power. . . it's laughable.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at June 26, 2006 05:39 PM (3nKvy)

6 All of Matt a's rhetoric aside, I sent a note to the President's office too. It is not a matter of attacking the so-called free press. It is a matter of keeping the free press from freely divulging national secrets that harm this nation's ability to deal directly and forcefully with terrorism, terrorists and their financing. Having spent more than 36 years protecting America's most secret of secrets, I think I know just a wee bit more than the likes of Matt A.

Posted by: Retired Spy at June 26, 2006 05:39 PM (Xw2ki)

7 Shouldn't the other newspapers like the WSJ, LA Times, and other publications also be prosecuted. Didn't the WSJ break the story?

Posted by: downeastbeach at June 26, 2006 05:47 PM (JKQGb)

8 Prosecute the media for letting me know what my government does in my name? No thanks.

Posted by: Robert at June 26, 2006 05:56 PM (SWXS5)

9 So I guess it would be ok for them to publish the identity of a CIA operative who acts in your name? Oh wait. That's a crime too. What about nuclear secrets? Also a crime? Who'd have guessed? If you really see things in such simple terms... well, such words aren't usually considered polite.

Posted by: Dawnfire82 at June 26, 2006 10:14 PM (RvTAf)

10 The WSJ didn't "break" the story. They were the second wave after the NYT broke it. It was already out of the bag at that point.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 27, 2006 04:28 AM (M0Kdm)

11 MCPO - No one has the right to put Americans in danger. Not even the President("bring it on!" -- to the terrorists). The sad part is you definitely in to at least the third cup of the conservative kool-aid philosophy. NYT isn't putting us in danger, its the terrorists out there that are putting us in danger. NYT doesn't want to kill anyone. But GWB with God, Congress and the Supreme Court on his side can't seem to find them so lets divert the public's attention by focusing in on the messenger of their inneptness... As far as conservatives needing a crisis to gain power, where did these slogans come from? "War on Drugs", "War on Marriage", "War on Christmas", "War on Values", "War on terror". If you can't find a real crisis to leverage(911, Desert Storm, War in Iraq/Afgan), invent one. When did we declare "Mission Accomplished" on the War on Drugs??? Oh yeah, that's right...How many times has Cheney/Bush invoked 911 in order to justify the War in Iraq? Retired - Unless we've been introduced formally, don't presume you know a wee bit about anything. I've worked the majority of my life in classified environments. There are probably many reasons why we haven't caught the bad guys yet but it isn't because the NYT publishes these operations, its because the terrorists are smarter than most give them credit for. They know where and when the orbits of satellites are, how to get around electronic monitoring, and financial transaction tracking. They've been doing it for decades. Have you ever thought that maybe this is another "spin the media" from the govt? These programs have been in existence for years and no leaks about them until AFTER the second election? Seems if someone had a beef with this and wanted to leak it, it would have happened long before this. We can't find these guys using these programs, so it gets leaked to the press in hopes that the bad guys will learn about it and change their methods so they do become visable to us? Maybe I've missed it but other than some "off-the-record" statements and the usual election year chest thumping from some "elect GWB for Pope" US Congressmen, have you notice that while Bush/Cheney both denounced the article, neither stated that the need for an investigation into how it got leaked...hmmm...

Posted by: matt a at June 27, 2006 07:34 AM (IHMpz)

12 Matt, Trying to follow you. If there is a crisis and war is declared, that means you are battling the crisis. We will continue to battle drugs and addictions forever. The President doesn't have the right to put us in danger, he has the responsibility to try to keep us safe. He is attempting to do that with the (Actual) War in Iraq. If you worked in Classified information, (I have) you should know that leaking it has consequences. Usually bad ones. It was wrong to leak it, it was wrong to print it. Freedom of the press carries responsibilities to the public. This tool is no longer valuable to combat terrorist activities. There have been too many leaks during this war on terror. This is just the latest one and main stream america is getting upset (finally). They may think things are being watched, now they have confirmation and can switch tactics. Simple question, why should we let the likes of the Liberal News broadcast all the ways we are trying to track terrorists? It helps only the terrorists and hurts our efforts.

Posted by: Retired Navy at June 27, 2006 08:42 AM (elhVA)

13 Navy - The key word is "if". Declaring a crisis and there actually being one are two different things. Having our politicians grandstanding every 2 years about some "threat" to our nation is what main stream american is finally getting tired of. I forgot War on illegal immigration in my last post. Boy that went somewhere... Actually, we all have a responsibility to keep US safe. I contend the president isn't interested in keeping us safe, otherwise we would have found Bin Laden by now and dismantled Al-queda. He needs a bad guy to make everyone afraid and keep the current "crisis" alive. What? Can't get social security reform passed when you control all of congress...uh...Duck, Zarcowi sighting! For all the moaning and groaning they do about the media's attention to the car bombings in Iraq, the adminstration doesn't want them actually showing any progress or the calls to bring the troops home would be that much louder. How do you think the nightly car bomb footage shows up on your TV? The military escorts them to and from every attack because it too dangerous for news crews to go out by themselves... Yes, having worked in a classified env, I know the penalties for unauthorized disclosure. However, those penalties apply to the individual(s) that disclosed the information, not NYT. As soon as it became "public" knowledge (i.e. to those not cleared to know it), the Karl Rove defense becomes available (I disclosed classified info but wasn't the first one to spill the beans). But with this administration, depending on the govt for defining what is classified and what is not is a joke. Things that have been de-classified for years are now re-classified (US archives) and of course, any time he likes, the president can decide to disclose under-cover identities when ever he likes (which ought to make all of our under covers feel warm and fuzzy unless your spouse says something to annoy the pres). I contend that these tools weren't that valuable to begine with (these tools have been available for years and even pre-911, FBI/CIA could go to FISA and get anything they wanted) and it was intentionally leaked to the press. From the spin group put together to rationalize the Iraq war (WHIG) to the whole Plume affair, we know that this administration has no problem leaking information to the press and then spinning it to their advantage. Frankly, I'm wondering if the NYT editors aren't feeling a bit stupid in realizing they got played. The administration has got them in a catch-22, if NYT responses by naming the leakers to show this was an orchestrated leak, they in effect blow their creditability forever with future leaks. If they don't expose the leakers, they in effect give the administration the platform to rally against the "liberal/communist/terror-loving/red-hating" media...

Posted by: matt a at June 27, 2006 10:17 AM (IHMpz)

14 Matt, I just reviewed the Non-disclosure agreement and applicable U.S. Codes. The one that gave up the information origionally is at fault but the Times was in violation of Title 18 United States Code Sections 793, 794, and 798 at least. They obtained the information and was told it was classified and not to print it, they did anyway and that constitutes a violation of National Security. Plame wasn't OUTCONUS and wasn't for over 5 years, she doesn't fall into the statute anyway. As far as a crisis is concerned, "IF" is a judgement call. I see a problem with all those things you mentioned and more. If the govt wants to call a war against them and it helps every day citizens combat the problems that plague our society, I'm all for it. The problem isn't in what it's called, the problem is when people don't recognize there is a problem. Any advantage that gives us any edge over someone trying to do us harm is valuable. Each system was helping us to gather information on terror cells around the world and actually stopped some. They have also been using them for years (even under Clinton). The problem is with the Bush-haters that are trying to poke holes in the dam. The idiots don't realize they are on the wrong side of the dam and there is a lot of water coming. As far as spin goes, well, thats politics and it's spun everywhere. I prefer to use the cautious method. I believe in keeping America safe first, Allies second, then the rest of the world. There are bad guys out there no matter how you slice it, Trying to lump the President in with them is idiotic.

Posted by: Retired Navy at June 27, 2006 11:36 AM (elhVA)

15 Navy, You're assuming NYT signed a non-disclosure form and signed THAT particular non-disclosure form (I've signed dozens at different times never the same one twice). Even if all of that, the Rove defense still can come into play (we didn't "KNOW" it was classified). But even if all that is true, great! Where is the Bush/Cheney/WH team public outcry to prosecute NYT???? They are the executive branch. They execute the laws. As far as Plame goes, it was the President's decision to declassify her, so by default everyone involved saw her as still "classified. even so, if it was that cut and dry, there wouldn't have been as much "cloak and dagger" BS with Rove, Cheney, and his chief of staff playing the press off each other. If she wasn't "leaked" why wouldn't the president or VP come out and say, she wasn't classified anymore. End of story. Crisis - I see problems with alot of things in the US that declaring war on won't solve. The stop light by my house stays left green way longer in one direction than the other side, but I don't declare war on stop lights. The govt did not declare war on terror but on those responsible for 911 and for Iraq. War on terror is a political slogan used as a rationale for an agenda. Like War on Marriage. I haven't seen any evidence that any of these programs stopped anything. Of course, if they have been going on for decades, then their record isn't very good considering the number of attacks that succeeded (embassy bombing, USS Cole, the 1st WTC attack, 911, London subway attack, Spainish trains, etc). Would the govt admit that they hadn't or simply classify the results? I didn't lump the president in with the bad guys. Bad guys want to do us harm, blow things up and generally cause bad things to happen. I never said GWB wanted to do any of those things. Its just not in GWB's best interest to catch the bad guys. What would have happened if Osama was caught 2 weeks after 911? To Kerry's point, why did we pull back from capturing Osama and rely on local warlords to do it? Would we still have gone to war with Iraq if Osama had been captured? What if 911 never happened? Do you think Bush with his failed SS reform, Medicare fiasco, illegal immigration, Hariet Myers, sky rocketing deficits, soaring gas prices, record ear-marks, etc gets re-elected? 2004 election was all about National security because Osama was still out there. If he wasn't, Bush would have joined his Daddy as a one-hit wonder...

Posted by: matt a at June 27, 2006 02:39 PM (IHMpz)

16 "If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter." Thomas Jefferson "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: TJ at June 27, 2006 08:06 PM (WSrIx)

17 Matt, Title 18 doesn't have to be signed, just aware of classified information, you can be in violation of it, they are. Again, Plame wasn't out of the country, wasn't for over 5 years and didn't fall under the statute. I never said YOU lumped the President in with the bad guys, but a lot on the Left do. They found cells in Saudia Arabia, Afganistan, England, France, U.S. all using the tactics mentioned. I agree that during the Clinton years (When he slashed, slashed, slashed the national defense budget) things went bad, I see Bush as trying to change that track record. At least he's doing something. I don't agree with everything like you are alluding to, I don't agree with Harriet Miers, illegal immigration and agree something should be done with Medicare. I think his SS plan would have worked well if the Democrats didn't set up to block it. (TSP is a great investment), He has nothing to do with gas prices, that's supply and demand and private organizations (gas companies).

Posted by: Retired Navy at June 28, 2006 05:20 AM (JSetw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Another Blind Keller

New York Times editor Bill Keller has offered up a vapid dodge for his once great newspaper's repeated disclosures of anti-terror programs, blaming the messengers for how poorly his message was received:

I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands, but our story about the government's surveillance of international banking records has generated some questions and concerns that I take very seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish that story, I'd like to offer a personal response.
Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting [sic] the threat of terror.

You will note there is no link to Keller's excuse. My tiny contribution to their readership (and hence advertising revenue) is infinitesimal, but even that was too much. I will not link the NY Times again.

In any event, the Keller obfuscation satisfied very few people, including President Bush who lambasted the Times just a few moments ago:

"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America," Bush said. He said the disclosure of the program "makes it harder to win this war on terror."
[snip]
"Congress was briefed, and what we did was fully authorized under the law," Bush said, talking with reporters in the Roosevelt Room after meeting with groups that support U.S. troops in Iraq.
"We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America," the president said. "What we were doing was the right thing."

Bill Keller is blind to this fact. "Right" doesn't matter, and it often seems, "right" is the enemy. Getting the PresidentÂ—hurting Bush, bringing down this AdministrationÂ—seems to be the primary focus of the New York Times under Bill Keller's leadership.

The offending Times article publicized and hence destroyed an effective and legal way of tracking and disrupting those who finance Islamic terrorism, solely so that it could stick a thumb in the eye of George Bush.

Bill Keller has visions of a Bush Administration hobbled, embarrassed, and ineffective. What his newspaper's disclosures do to tip off terrorists and enable their success at the possible cost of American lives doesn't apparent enter into this blind man's view.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 3 kb.

Crash

That crashing sound you hear is shatering of the liberal myth that Saddam Hussein's Iraq didn't have ties to the Taliban and al Qaeda. Of course it did, and the documented ties are getting stronger:

Newly declassified documents captured by U.S. forces indicate that Saddam Hussein's inner circle not only actively reached out to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan and terror-based jihadists in the region, but also hosted discussions with a known Al Qaeda operative about creating jihad training "centers," possibly in Baghdad.

Hussein had been host to Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, and Abdul Rahman Yasin, and so adding more terrorists to the Baghdad social scene would make perfect sense.

If nothing else, Saddam was consistent in his ties with the "movers and shakers" of Islamic terrorism.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:43 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The horse has been dead for years, yet you still beat it. No serious observer can claim Saddam was cozy with quaeda, or even an imminent threat for that matter, and no reports of meetings with solitary actors tangentially related to al Qaeda will change that. Zarquawi's training camp was out of Saddam's sphere of influence, and Bush actually held off bombing it pre-2003 so as not to blow up a key piece of Saddam-linked-to-quaeda pretext (it's true, look it up!). Iraq was not a legitimate target in the GWOT, and makes the GWOT look like a ruse to justify military action taken for entirely different purposes. Then again, what Bush says must be true... leaders would never obfuscate their true intentions or propagandize with lies, right? We must analyze the GWOT by accepting everything bush says as truth. Then and only then will we really understand what's going on! Laughable.

Posted by: ME at June 26, 2006 12:31 PM (veqnU)

2 You are an uneducated dolt, desperately grasping at non-extant straws to save your already dead hide. Wake up and smell the rigor mortis.

Posted by: WhoCares at June 26, 2006 12:36 PM (Wo8Wk)

3 ah yes the magic "documents" that were so valuable to us intelligence that they gave them to fox to review!!!!!

Posted by: madmatt at June 26, 2006 12:39 PM (J8hqn)

4 I can tell by the disjointed thoughts of the previous posts that Peter Daou's readers has arrived once again to trumpet what they "know" instead of taking the extraordinary step of reading the referenced material. The "Cliff's Notes" mentality really shines through with the comments that have come through so far. Not a single fact rebutted, not so much as a single bit of analysis intelligently argued against. Instead, we get cut and paste generic arguments (no specifics, of course, because details can be challenged)) that havenÂ’t been updated since the war started, and the requisite name calling that shows the true spirit of the Â“superiorÂ” liberal mindset. How about a change of pace, gentlemen and gentlewomen? Why not try discussing the actual evidence presented in this post? You could argue that the high level meetings between members of SaddamÂ’s government and members of the Taliban leadership for Â“diplomatic and intelligence based cooperationÂ” were done by freelancers, and did not constitute official or even back-channel communications between two known state sponsors of terrorism. You could presumably argue that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar didnÂ’t really have the authorization to speak for the Taliban when he asked SaddamÂ’s government specifically for a Â“centerÂ” in Baghdad or Tajikistan, and you could argue (without any support,.mind you) that this al Qaeda associate was talking about a center of a different sortÂ—a Planned Parenthood center in Sadr City, perhaps? You could even argue that Fazlr Rahman KhalilÂ’s visit to Iraq as a known Taliban/al Qaeda associate who signed bin LadenÂ’s 1998 fatwa against the United States was unsanctioned, or try to present evidence it didnÂ’thappen because Khalil was somewhere else. ANY of these approaches would be welcome, because they question facts and analysis of those facts. Do you think that arguing the facts is possible, or is name-calling and unsupported platitudes based upon what you Â“knowÂ” the best you have to offer?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 26, 2006 01:28 PM (g5Nba)

5 get over it. we have lost 2500 soldiers, spent 300 billion dollars, and killed 50,000 innocent iraqis all in order to overthrow a third rate dictator that posed absolutely no threat to us. AND YOU STILL THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. wanna buy a bridge? do you belong to any cults besides the bush cult?

Posted by: j. at June 26, 2006 02:20 PM (yu9pS)

6 There's no point in "arguing the facts" unless and until we can be sure they ARE facts. If the Administration had any real confidence in this information, they would have to be utterly insane or politically suicidal not to have officially publicized it long ago. They do not seem to be either; I conclude that they don't have confidence in this information. However, they may be cynical enough (because they are pols, not because they are this particular Administration) to milk it all the same by giving those who are willing to believe the chance to latch on it and publicize it on their own. Think about it.

Posted by: gbbalto at June 26, 2006 02:46 PM (/KYC8)

7 I'll cut to the chase: even IF these documents bear a passing resemblance to reality, and even IF the worst of the implications were accurate - there is still FAR LESS connecting Iraq to the Taliban and Al Qaeda than there is Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and others. 'Reaching out' to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, to hold meetings about possibly maybe one day working together in the future, simply does not equal the donations of millions in support, resources, passports, money laundering, and other services provided by OTHER Middle Eastern governments to Al Qaeda. Things which have been done by powerful men in nations such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan and others. And things which are documented, *undisputed* fact. I remind you that NOT ONE of the hijackers was Iraqi, and that 3/4's of them were from Saudia Arabia. UBL himself is Saudi, and worked with the Taliban. Zarqawi was Jordanian. And yet we invaded a country with a safely contained emasculated dictator, and *brought* Al Qaeda there, increasing their recruiting in the process. This is not a success.

Posted by: jim at June 26, 2006 03:09 PM (pjusE)

8 Here we go again....Everytime the cheney administration is caught destroying another constitutional item, a new "document" (or something) purporting to prove the administrations claims surfaces. Are you folks really that blind to the manipulation of your thoughts and feelings? I mean, come on. Please use your own brain for a change. It just might surprise you to know that all the folks you are supporting don't give a damn about you, your family, your country, or your future. They don't care about you at all. I know alot of you have invested so much emotion and time in these peop-le, but please stop. I have tried many times to understand why (and how) people would want to be so lied to, and the only reason I can think of is that you are so frightened. I really thought the "right wing" was a strong and confident bunch of Americans. I am now admitting that I was wrong. Those folks are scared out of their minds. What are you afraid of? If it is osama been forgotten, you are mistaken. Even the cheny administration doesn't think about him at all. Why should you? What are we getting for our $300 million dolars a day? And lastly please answer one simple question for me: what civil right would you folks NOT allow to be taken away? Their looking at our medical records, phone and internet, bank and credit, library records, spying on the Quakers, etc...Please answer. What would it take for you folks to finally say "enough". Please remind me again why being a patsy to the administration is patriotic?

Posted by: Tom at June 26, 2006 03:34 PM (2/n6+)

9 Jim said, "not one of the hijackers were Iraqi" Brilliant Jim, and not one of the pilots dropping bombs on pearl harbor were German. Tripartite pact anyone? The enemy of my enemy is my friend anyone? Come on now libs, it is much better to admit you are wrong than to show yourselves completely ignorant of history... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Pact

Posted by: Ray Robison at June 26, 2006 04:51 PM (CdK5b)

10 The BIG LIE has been the lefts' strategy from the beginning of Bushes first administration. Remember that the recession started under Bush? And the economy is poor? Then we have ALLLLLL the GWOT and Iraq War lies. No WMD! No relationship with Iraq and al Qaeda! We're losing in Iraq! We have caused al Qaeda to expand. We brought al Qaeda to Iraq! And, may I add the often unsaid, but "known" fact, it is allllll our fault. But, facts do seem to get into the way. These documents are slowly uncovering the lies. WMD found! More and more opeational contacts uncovered between the two parties that never "operational" relationships! Fewer and ever fewer strctly US only ops and increasing Iraqi only ops in the Iraqi war on terror. We can't be losing because that was the goal from early on! I think if we could poll/count heads of al Qaeda we would find that their leadership has been dramatically reduced. Ask ole al Zar! The Big Lie that drives me up the wall is "The Iraqi want us to out! Usually with the implication NOW! But when we ask the Iraqis the same question with NOW! appended the answer is NO!!!!!! Silly season is starting. The Dems have manuevered so that they can take credit for the inevitable redeployment/withdrawal. The rabid red eyed beasts that they consider their base will actually believe the tranparent strategy. Just as they have converted the "Big Lies" to their belief structure. As someone once told me: It is very hard to change someone's beliefs. Slowly my beasties you will see the light. Slowly!

Posted by: CoRev at June 26, 2006 04:55 PM (Hr52v)

11 Hurray Hurray Hurray!!!! The Right Was Right!!!! Saddam was an Evil Evildoer of Evil Evil for Evil EvilDoers of Evil Evil. Now let's have that victory parade for the Dear Leader and come home before anyone else gets hurt. OK, Righties?

Posted by: george at June 26, 2006 08:46 PM (HDBFT)

12 Hussein was also host to Rumsfeld when the U.S. was providing Hussein with weapons and money to support Iraq's war with Iran. Watch the video from the NSA archives: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ Stop beating a dead horse. You have no credibility.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at June 27, 2006 06:03 AM (Zd60f)

13 Saddam Hussein is on trial for murder. Rumsfeld can travel as he pleases. It must suck to be a loser.

Posted by: Tom TB at June 27, 2006 07:16 AM (Ffvoi)

14 Wow, who let the loonies out? Hey boys and girls, you are absolutely clueless. The Bush lied and there are no WMD's mantra. You folks need to get over it. Here are the facts. 1) Saddam funneled money to Palistinian Terrorist. 2) Saddam played host to a number of world terrorist. 3) Saddam sent hitmen to kill George H. W. Bush. 4)Saddam stalled lied and manipulated the World Body for years. 5) Saddam continued to shoot at coalition aircraft patrolling the no fly zones after Gulf War One. Now when they find munitions with sarin and mustard gas the first thing out of the loonies pie holes are. "well its old, nothing to worry about". Did you guy's forget about Syria? Bashir and Saddam had ties to each other. Syria is hosting a bunch of Saddam bathist party members. He had ample time to move his chemical and nuclear programs to Syria. And furthermore why should the Gov't come out and say they found weapons. It doesn't make any difference to you folks it will be spun into a lie and a conspiracy. You guys keep touting the 300million a day. Does any of you know that it takes appoximately 200million a day just in salary and benefits that our troops recieve. Thats even if there at home. They still get paid and they still cost the gov't money. Personnaly I would rather spend the money on them than some B.S. welfare program for people that don't even appreciate what they have nor would get off of their lazy A$$ and get a job.

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at June 27, 2006 07:24 AM (lNB+R)

15 Conservative management of government has now officially been proven to be a disaster, for everyone but the elites that is. Grasping at straws with which to drink the kool-aid is pathetic. I trust you are not a billionaire. If I am correct you had better wake up and start holding the Bush Crime Family accountable. Shrub has no intention of EVER leaving Iraq. Don't bother talking troop levels and withdrawals. Remember the PNAC, and the fourteen PERMENANT bases we're building there. Everything the Crime Family says and does is smoke and mirrors. They plan to keep us all distracted for another three-and-a-half years, and steal '06 and '08 like they did 2000 and '04, so they can keep troops there forever. He plans to give Iraq's oil to Exxon-Mobil, cell phone monopoly to Verizon, etc. He thinks that will be his legacy and make up for all the dead.

Posted by: tommo at June 27, 2006 09:54 AM (kmaBF)

16 Hey, Ray. Brilliant. Except that the connection between Germany and Japan was already fact, on the basis of signed treaties. To make a more accurate comparison using WWII examples, invading Iraq because of 9/11 would be like invading Easter Island because of Pearl Harbor. That is, if you are really interested in defeating the enemy who attacked you, both invasions are *pointless distractions*. I bet you could even find some Japanese soldiers stayed at Easter Island at one point. It's in the same region of the world, the Pacific. There's just one problem - it isn't where the enemy was stationed when you attacked. The rest of your response skips all my other points, because each of them destroy this article's argument.

Posted by: jim at June 27, 2006 09:58 AM (tLCEb)

17 Jim said "Hey, Ray. Brilliant. Except that the connection between Germany and Japan was already fact, on the basis of signed treaties." And that is exactly what this document proves, a treaty for diplomatic, intelligence, and security cooperation. Did you read it? I mean, you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If you chose not to read it, then how about not wasting everbody's time with un/misinformed commentary that shows no capacity for research or critical thinking. I mean you could just go on over to the MTV blog and say "bush lied" or "vote or die" and that would be just as effective as trying to argue that this document does not show collaboration. Stop embarassing yourself, the grown ups are trying to speak now.

Posted by: Ray Robison at June 27, 2006 10:09 AM (CdK5b)

18 Pssst! I have some documents that show Saddam tried to buy uranium from some place in Africa! They came from the notebook of some guy names...ummm...Muhammad. Thats it. Muhammad. And they were translated by a guy named...errr...Ali! So obviously they are real. Snark aside the US had better diplomatic relations with the Taliban then Saddam. We were paying them off to not grow opium. I wonder how much H an enterprising PFC can hide in the hold of a C-130?

Posted by: John Gillnitz at June 27, 2006 10:56 AM (eHLUP)

19 I wonder how much H an enterprising PFC can hide in the hold of a C-130? About half as a Kennedy can hide booze in a rum runner, or twice as much as William JEfferson can hide in his freezer. Why do you ask?

Posted by: anon at June 27, 2006 11:06 AM (g5Nba)

20 Man, those Kennedy and Clinton jokes just never get stale! No wonder pseudoconservatives are losing the comedy war.

Posted by: shingles at June 27, 2006 11:34 AM (hMENh)

21 Dumbass: "I can tell by the disjointed thoughts of the previous posts that Peter Daou's readers has arrived once again to trumpet what they "know" instead of taking the extraordinary step of reading the referenced material. " CNN Article: Old news. Thanks anyway. Doesn't prove jack. Navy Article: Abu Nidal: Location/Area of Operation Al-Banna relocated to Iraq in December 1998, where the group maintained a presence until Operation Iraqi Freedom, but its current status in country is unknown. Known members have an operational presence in Lebanon, including in several Palestinian refugee camps. Authorities shut down the ANOÂ’s operations in Libya and Egypt in 1999. The group has demonstrated the ability to operate over a wide area, including the Middle East, Asia, and Europe. However, financial problems and internal disorganization have greatly reduced the groupÂ’s activities and its ability to maintain cohesive terrorist capability. External Aid The ANO received considerable support, including safe haven, training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from Iraq, Libya, and Syria (until 1987), in addition to close support for selected operations. Yeah, we've known about them forever too. But there's one important caveat to using them as EX POST FACTO rationale for those whose Kool Aid wasn't strong enough. I'll tell ya at the end of my post. USA Today in 2003 on Yasin: "The Bush administration is using the evidence to strengthen its disputed prewar assertion that Iraq had ties to terrorists, including the al-Qaeda group responsible for the Sept. 11 attack. But President Bush, in contrast with comments Sunday by Vice President Cheney, said Wednesday, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved." Now, what's that about Al FRIGGIN' QAEDA? WHAT? OHHHHHHH... N O T H I N G ! ! ! CY, exactly what are you trying to accomplish with your links from 2003? Pretend you don't love the hits that Daou generates. If only you didn't have to lie to get them...

Posted by: KC at June 27, 2006 11:49 AM (Efww0)

22 The Iraqi insurgents are not terrorists. The War On Terror is a fake. Remember, we are killing the Iraqis to set them free, free of their bodies, that is. So our multi-national corporations can take over their economy and we can build permanent bases there.

Posted by: tommo at June 27, 2006 12:05 PM (kmaBF)

23 "About half as a Kennedy can hide booze in a rum runner, or twice as much as William JEfferson can hide in his freezer. Why do you ask?" Yeah, liberal. Take that! It's also about 1/4 of the number of oxycontin/viagra/vicodin/etc. that Rush can cram between his man-tits. Oh, and it looks like he's not done yet. Busted AGAIN!!! Incidentally, look where he was with his viagra: From a 2001 Wired.com article: the Dominican Republic is one of the biggest sex tourism destinations in the world, thanks in part to Internet sites that extol the country as a "single man's paradise." ... Among banner ads for Viagra, members can shuffle through pictures of dull-eyed prostitutes engaged in flagrante delicto with the members/amateur pornographers. You neocons are such hypocrites, that it's just too easy.

Posted by: KC at June 27, 2006 12:25 PM (Efww0)

24 This is pathetic. You guys sound like little kids arguing on the playground. All of you. You guys don't deserve to have policy debates.

Posted by: My dad has a bigger gun than your dad's gun at June 27, 2006 01:37 PM (J4anS)

25 Still holding on tight to that lie and trying to breath some more life into it eh? Everything the conservatives have said would happen in Iraq has turned out to be wrong. Everything liberals said turned out to be right. The conservative movement is morally bankrupt. Even your theories on tax cuts equaling smaller government have been proven wrong by the Cato institute. You are a group of people who say one thing and do another, whose principles are determined by whatever wins elections. the conservative movement is a joke. For years you have railed on anti poverty programs that amounted to almost a billion dollars a year (heritage foundation) yet your pathetic incompetent government spent 1.5 billion on Public Relations in the same year. And the conservative movement is full of cowards. Cowards who are willing to trumpet the military but not sign up, who are perfectly all right risking the lives of innocent iraqis in the "fight for freedom" as long as they do not have to risk a single thing themselves. Fight them over there not here? Thats the call of cowards afraid to risk their own for what counts. The recruitment age is now 42. Go put your blood where your mouth is. I am not afraid of Al Q and never have been. The conservative movement however is frightened of their own shadow. the elephant afraid of the mouse.

Posted by: Alexande at June 27, 2006 02:05 PM (n3clO)

26 Ray, what did you read? This is what I read. Quoted directly from the article at the top: "Newly declassified documents captured by U.S. forces indicate that Saddam Hussein's inner circle not only actively reached out to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan and terror-based jihadists in the region, but also hosted discussions with a known Al Qaeda operative about creating jihad training "centers," possibly in Baghdad." So, IF these documents are correct, some people who worked for Saddam invited some guy who worked for Al Qaeda to talk about possibly having training centers in Iraq at some time in the future. - How is that a signed treaty? - How does that even prove a treaty ever existed? - How is that even an operational connection of any sort? - How does that show that Saddam and Al Qaeda every actually did anything? Answer: it does not, in any way, show that any of these things actually existed. You might as well say that Rumsfeld and Saddam worked together to gas the Kurds, because they met twice. That would be just as ridiculous. Ray, please look at the quote, and look at what you made it mean. The difference between the two, is the difference between what is, and what you want to believe.

Posted by: jim x at June 27, 2006 04:05 PM (pjusE)

27 "This is pathetic. You guys sound like little kids arguing on the playground. All of you. You guys don't deserve to have policy debates." You want policy debate? You came to the wrong place, buddy...er...Dad.

Posted by: KC at June 27, 2006 04:46 PM (Efww0)

28 You might as well say that Rumsfeld and Saddam worked together to gas the Kurds, because they met twice. That would be just as ridiculous. Right. It wouldn't be riduculous, however to say that Rumsfeld and Saddam worked together to gas the Iranians.

Posted by: KC at June 27, 2006 04:49 PM (Efww0)

29 Uh huh, right. So where is the evidence for any kind of active collaboration between Saddam and al Qaeda? After all, if merely hosting a representative make you part of their team, then Saddam was on Rumsfield's team. Yes, Saddam seems to have been trying to stay on good terms with al Qaeda: "Yeah, guys, we'll have to do something together sometime soon. I'll call you. Buh-bye." Then again, that's probably good diplomacy in dealing with fanatics who are prone to send in stooges with explosive vests if they decide that you are a Bad Muslim.

Posted by: trrll at June 27, 2006 05:43 PM (zGwRo)

30 KC - sure. That was probably exactly what they meant to discuss. That's why the US was Saddam's ally for most of the 80's and up to the first Gulf War - he was the enemy of our enemy Iran. We sold him tons of weapons, propped him up financially. And when I say 'we', I of course mean the Reagan-Bush administrations. With many of the same players, including Rumsfeld and Cheney. This inconvenient history somehow gets lost by conservatives in the Iraq debate. I wonder why?

Posted by: jim x at June 27, 2006 07:48 PM (pjusE)

31 jim x said "Ray, please look at the quote, and look at what you made it mean. The difference between the two, is the difference between what is, and what you want to believe." is now a good time to tell you I may know what the quote means better then you do? I mean, I am the author after all.... the very fact that you did not know I am the author is a good indication you really have no idea what you are talking about... now put your head on your desk and play the quiet game.....lol BUT ANYWAY -How is that a signed treaty? - How does that even prove a treaty ever existed? - How is that even an operational connection of any sort? - How does that show that Saddam and Al Qaeda every actually did anything? It is a verbal treaty as evidenced by the fact that both the father of the taliban and the IIS director agreed to cooperation on dimplomatic, security, and intelligence fronts. The bosses agreed to it, that makes it a fact. Again, they both said they would work together on diplomatic, intelligence, and security matters. How is that not operational? How does that prove they really did anything? I am sure that both parties had something better to do than to sit around and make agreements for no particular reason. I mean, we have three terrorist leaders meeting with the highest ranking people in the Saddam regime. Doesn't that tell you something? Of course, you couldn't figure out who you were talking to anyway. Guess drawing those dots isn't a particular talent of yours, LOL

Posted by: Ray Robison at June 28, 2006 02:03 PM (CdK5b)

32 is now a good time to tell you I may know what the quote means better then you do? I mean, I am the author after all.... You are not the author of the quote, are you? The evidence you don't know what it means, is proven below. It is a verbal treaty as evidenced by the fact that both the father of the taliban and the IIS director agreed to cooperation on dimplomatic, security, and intelligence fronts. The quote doesn't say that. AT ALL. The quote says they would have a meeting to discuss it. Period. You really do need to go back and read it again. You being the author of the article, makes this misinterpretation into what you want to believe, even worse. The bosses agreed to it, that makes it a fact. Got a signed document? No. Got a taped agreement? No. Got a credible witness? No. Got any evidence after this that they worked together? No. If you have no evidence, then it is not a fact. Period. Again, they both said they would work together on diplomatic, intelligence, and security matters. How is that not operational? That is not what they said. Do I have to quote the quote for you again? The quote, if true and accurate, only says they discussed meeting to discuss it. If someone schedules an interview to hire me, does that mean I got the job? I can tell you, no. So. What leads you to be so certain a discussion DEFINITELY means an agreement, with no other evidence? Of course, you couldn't figure out who you were talking to anyway. No. I assumed the writer of an article would have a clearer understanding of a quote that he was building his case on. My bad. Guess drawing those dots isn't a particular talent of yours, LOL No, I don't draw dots and then connect them. I at least try to find dots that are already there. In other words, I try to make decisions about the world depend on evidence. When they aren't clear, and what is clear is that there is no pressing danger, I don't send in soldiers to die. Nor do I draw dots afterwards, in a desperate push to prove a bad idea was a good one.

Posted by: jim x at June 28, 2006 04:53 PM (pjusE)

33 jim x said "You are not the author of the quote, are you?" I will try to make this as simple as I can. Yes, I am. Look at the name on this comment. "Ray Robison" Look at the name of the author of the fox news article that this post is about. "Ray Robison" For the reasoning impaired: I am the author of the quote, I wrote the article, I am the author of the Saddam Dossier, I did the original research, I read every word of the translations Maulana Falzur Rahman and the vice president of Iraq both said "we will enter into a secret intelligence relationship." doesn't get much clearer than that. if you choose not to understand that, well you can take a horse to water....

Posted by: ray robison at June 28, 2006 06:39 PM (4joLu)

34 a little help then? the VP of Iraq "For the future we think that we will arrange relations between us, as an intelligence service, and them in a secret way to establish the strong base of this relation." Fazlur Rahman: "Concerning the relations between the Taliban and Iraq I was informed that they are going to start those relations in a secret manner and they are waiting for the answer and I will inform them that you will answer them through the embassy" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200820,00.html

Posted by: ray robison at June 28, 2006 06:51 PM (4joLu)

35 Well then, thank you for clarifying that, and for for finally providing some sourcing. Now, quoting from Fox's own analysis of this information, at the bottom of that URL which you provided: Due to the information provided in this notebook, we see a possible secret, intelligence based, operational relationship between the Taliban and the Saddam regime Emphasis mine. Intelligence-based, with the Taliban. Which, while being a vile government, was not itself in any way an international terror organization. The US itself maintained relations with the Taliban up until just after 9/11. ...We also have an annotation that indicates Pakistani Fazlur Rahman Khalil, a known bin Laden associate, Al Qaeda terrorist and a 1998 fatwa co-signatory, also was traveling to Iraq in 1999. This annotation is about meeting with a member of Al Qaeda. The note, and the analysis, says nothing further about any operational connection of any sort between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda. So, "for the reasoning impaired": - The Iraq agreements you mention were proposed with the Taliban. - The Taliban does not equal Al Qaeda. Right? Is that simple and direct enough? The Taliban was/is a government, or at least a group of warlords, in a specific geographical area. NOT an international terror group, and most specifically not Al Qaeda, which was run by the Saudi UBL and was almost entirely Saudi funded. - In the info you cite, there is STILL no operational connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Got some other actual connections to cite, that don't offer this false conflation of the Taliban with Al Qaeda?

Posted by: jim x at June 29, 2006 01:43 PM (pjusE)

36 jim x said "Well then, thank you for clarifying that, and for for finally providing some sourcing." jim, this post which Bob has created on his web site is about the source article, the one quoted here, the quote that you argued with me about. you may have realized if you went to the link "getting stronger". Trying to say I had not sourced my statement is completely stupid. Cease and desist from embarrassing yourself any further as I dont think my sides can take the laughter any more. Really, my sides literally hurt from somebody explaining to the author of a quote what the quote really meant. But at least you have been wonderful fodder for the visitors on my website whom I have linked over to this article so that they may have a good laugh as well. thank you for that. "Emphasis mine. Intelligence-based, with the Taliban. Which, while being a vile government, was not itself in any way an international terror organization. The US itself maintained relations with the Taliban up until just after 9/11." rrrriiiiiggggghhhhhtttttttt, I guess that is why we went into afghanistan to destroy the taliban. You do realize we fought a war in afghanistan with the taliban, don't you? "the US maintained a relationship with the taliban" FYI, threatening to kick some ones ass for several years is not a "relationship". Clinton was shooting missiles at them for crying out loud. Shooting missiles at someone does not mean you have a relationship. our dealings with the taliban was to make them kick out bin laden so we could get him. Christ, the guy even says so in the translation that they are at war with the US, how do you get we had a relationship with them up until 9/11? this was 1999 for crying out loud! they would not. therfore, they were harboring bin laden. therefor they were working with al-qaeda. it's all very technical you see. "This annotation is about meeting with a member of Al Qaeda. The note, and the analysis, says nothing further about any operational connection of any sort between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda." read part 3 where khalil (the al qaeda terrorist and signatory of the 1998 bin laden fatwa against the US) meets with the IIS director and pledges the support of 120 million people to Saddam. that kind of sounds like Saddam and a major al-qaeda terrorist leader working together, doesn't it? " The Iraq agreements you mention were proposed with the Taliban. - The Taliban does not equal Al Qaeda" jim, the taliban was not the same thing as al-qaeda, nobody said it was, it only hosted, protected, recruited for, provided operation support for 9/11 and fought a war against the US to protect al qaeda. that means that anybody supporting the taliban, was also supporting al-qaeda. and if that is not enough, there are 2 al-qaeda leaders meeting with and making agreements with the IIS. "The Taliban was/is a government, or at least a group of warlords, in a specific geographical area. NOT an international terror group, and most specifically not Al Qaeda, which was run by the Saudi UBL and was almost entirely Saudi funded." oh good lord what is wrong with you? if your neighbor has a guy living with him and that guy tells you neighbor he is going to steal your stuff and he needs a place to hide and your neighbor then provides him with the tools to break into your house and then hides him, isnt your neighbor just as guilty? did he not also steal from you? why is this so hard for you to understand. the taliban provided direct support to al qaeda in the form of training, funds, and safehaven so that al-qaeda could attack us on 9/11. To not accept this is to state that the war agianst the taliban was wrong. Are you willing to state that publicly? there is no way around this jim, either the taliban was helping al-qaeda or not. either we were right to destroy them in afghanistan or not. and if it was right, then they were our enemy and Saddam was supporting them. "In the info you cite, there is STILL no operational connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Got some other actual connections to cite, that don't offer this false conflation of the Taliban with Al Qaeda?" yes, again in part three, Hekmatyar, also meet with saddam and asked for support with terror training camps. hematyar just recently identified himself as an al-qaeda member. so know we have 2 al-qaeda leaders and a taliban leader (remember jim, we fought them in afghanistan and they supported al-qaeda in the 9/11 attacks) all meeting with saddam and making diplomatic, intelligence, and security agreements. I cant explain it any simpler than that. your refusal to understand the obvious from this point on is your problem and anybody who reads this will now know you are just denying an inconvenient truth.

Posted by: Ray Robison at June 29, 2006 03:31 PM (CdK5b)

37 jim, this post which Bob has created on his web site is about the source article, the one quoted here, the quote that you argued with me about. you may have realized if you went to the link "getting stronger". Trying to say I had not sourced my statement is completely stupid. Whatever. The information you based your argument on, was not on this page. It is not my responsibility to argue about anything except what is on this page. Once it's brought here, I'm happy to discuss it. But I am not going to go reading things not directly in this article, to argue against this article. Sorry if that inconveniences you. I could now insult you back for not being clearer about this in the first place, and we can push this around all day. I won't. "Intelligence-based, with the Taliban. Which, while being a vile government, was not itself in any way an international terror organization. The US itself maintained relations with the Taliban up until just after 9/11." rrrriiiiiggggghhhhhtttttttt, I guess that is why we went into afghanistan to destroy the taliban. Hey Mr. Reading Comprehension - note the date I mentioned. "Just after 9/11". I think you realize that we invaded Afghanistan *after* 9/11, right? The US met with the Taliban many times between 1997 and 2001 - http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/ "From 1997 to as late as August 2001, the U.S. government continued to negotiate with the Taliban, trying to find a stabilizing factor that would allow American oil ventures to proceed with this project without interference." therfore, they were harboring bin laden. therefor they were working with al-qaeda. it's all very technical you see. Uh-huh. So 3 degrees of separation means that Iraq helped Al Qaeda pay for and plot 9/11. Only 1 degree further and I'm sure Kevin Bacon was involved. read part 3 where khalil (the al qaeda terrorist and signatory of the 1998 bin laden fatwa against the US) meets with the IIS director and pledges the support of 120 million people to Saddam. that kind of sounds like Saddam and a major al-qaeda terrorist leader working together, doesn't it? No, it does not. Once again, Mr. Reading Comprehension, that sounds like them DISCUSSING it. Because that's what they're doing - talking. Once again, if I go on a job interview, does that mean I definitely work for the company? No. jim, the taliban was not the same thing as al-qaeda, nobody said it was. OK then! So stop using indications of agreement between Saddam and the Taliban, as *certain eveidence* of agreements between Saddam and Al Qaeda. it only hosted, protected, recruited for, provided operation support for 9/11 and fought a war against the US to protect al qaeda. Saudi Arabia also hosted, protected, recruited for, provided operation support for 9/11, and additionally FUNDED Al Qaeda. Saudi Arbia only didn't go to war because they didn't have to - we didn't so much as put an ounce of pressure on them. Ditto Jordan (Zarqawi's home), Syria (sponsors Hamas, among other groups), and Pakistan (where most think UBL is now). that means that anybody supporting the taliban, was also supporting al-qaeda. OK. But, Saudia Arabia supported the Taliban, AND Al Qaeda. And Bin Laden is a member of the Saudi royal family. And 3/4 of the hijackers were Saudi. Therefore we invaded...Iraq. and if that is not enough, there are 2 al-qaeda leaders meeting with and making agreements with the IIS. They're not making agreements. They're at most DISCUSSING making agreements. I'm not going to fight my way through your document. I'm taking you at your word with your translation - but you have to provide a higher level of proof than "they talked about possibly working together in the future". if your neighbor has a guy living with him and that guy tells you neighbor he is going to steal your stuff and he needs a place to hide and your neighbor then provides him with the tools to break into your house and then hides him, isnt your neighbor just as guilty? did he not also steal from you? I supported the invasion of Aghanistan. They harbored UBL - not Iraq. They are the harboring neighbor, in your metaphor. So, let's say that after I take care of the neighbor who harbored the thief, I had a choice of two other neighbors to go after. One shared info with the neighbor who harbored the thief(Iraq). The other shared info, money, resources with the neighbor who harbored - and ALSO did this directly for the thief AND CONTINUED to do so for the thief's whole crew (Saudi Arabia), up to the present day. By your own metaphor, which one should I go after? To not accept this is to state that the war agianst the taliban was wrong. Are you willing to state that publicly? Hello - I support the invasion of Afghanistan. We are talking about the justification for invading and occupying IRAQ. And I repeat: Saudi Arabia provided more support for the Taliban, AND provided direct support for UBL and Al Qaeda, AND this is more heavily documented. ...they were our enemy and Saddam was supporting them. And, once again I repeat: Saudi Arabia, as well as Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran and Dubai all supporting the Taliban MORE, and most also supported Al Qaeda DIRECTLY. And this trail is more established and documented, as well. yes, again in part three, Hekmatyar, also meet with saddam and asked for support with terror training camps. hematyar just recently identified himself as an al-qaeda member. ...all meeting with saddam and making diplomatic, intelligence, and security agreements. No, sigh, once again, discussing something does not prove agreement. Any more than going on a job interview means you got the job. Let me sum up: 1. I support the invasion of Afghanistan. We are discussing if the invasion of Iraq was justified. 2. You are stating that: a) Iraq agreed to share intelligence and some operations with the Taliban. b) there was some meetings, which produced some discussion about possibly working together in the future, between members of Iraq's gov't and members of Al Qaeda c) this justifies the invasion of Iraq 3. I am pointing out that: a) Iraq working with the Taliban does not prove that Iraq helped Al Qaeda plan terrorist attacks b) even if it did prove that, there are several other Middle Eastern nations which provided far more financial and political support for the Taliban, including Saudi Arabia foremost - and thus would be by this standardmore guilty b) taken at their worst, Iraq's possible connections to Al Qaeda are dwarfed by Saudi Arabia, which DIRECTLY financed and supported UBL and Al Qaeda, and provided him with personnel, resources and cover - which according to the evidence Iraq did NOT. OK? And to just say it again - evidence of hypothetical discussion is NOT evidence of action. I don't know how to be any clearer. In this light, your final statement is as clear a case of projection as I expect to ever see: your refusal to understand the obvious from this point on is your problem and anybody who reads this will now know you are just denying an inconvenient truth.

Posted by: jim x at June 29, 2006 05:30 PM (pjusE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 23, 2006

Killing Times

Hi Eric! Hi James!

Once again, I see you've taken it upon yourselves to disclose national security secrets (I refuse to link to the article, thus putting advertising dollars in your pockets), and your good buddy Bill was more than happy to let it fly, even though the program you compromised:

was legal
had congressional oversight
had built-in protections against abuse
was effective at catching terrorists

Does that just about just about cover it? Maybe. Maybe not.

I tend to agree with quite a few others who think you have gone far too far, once again.

At first, I caught myself nodding my head when Patterico said:

I am biting down on my rage right now. I'll resist the temptation to say Ann Coulter was right about where Timothy McVeigh should have gone with his truck bomb. I'll say only this: it's becoming increasingly clear to me that the people at the New York Times are not just biased media folks whose antics can be laughed off. They are actually dangerous.

And they are dangerous, but I think Patrick is wrong to even imply a truck bomb should be used against the New York Times. Even when paraphrasing someone else as a dark form of humor, that is a horrible thought. Someone radicalized enough could get it into his head to try to build such a bomb, and were he successful in detonating it, many innocent people in nearby buildings could be killed or injured.

Besides, the editorial staff, hidden behind the impenetrable wall of Times Select, would walk away untouched.

Nor do I advocate the much more precise use of small arms, in case some of you were thinking that route. There should be a chilling of the New York Times staff to run stories such as these, but cooling staffers to room temperature isn't the way to do it. Monetary damage is all they seem to understand.

Can you file lawsuits as private citizens on behalf of national security against the Times?Can their sources be indicted for exposing classified information, and how do we bring about pressure to bear on the government to pursue such charges?

I'd like to see the terrorist protectionist NY Times broken as a business, and I'm open to suggestions.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:27 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 3 kb.

1 CY, we make a thousand Jayson Blairs bloom! If we leak enough fake information to their reporters, even Al-Qaeda will cancel their subscription!

Posted by: Tom TB at June 23, 2006 11:28 AM (Ffvoi)

2 There is some talk about forming a class action suit against the NYT for endangering rerular Americans. What do you think?

Posted by: Specter at June 23, 2006 12:28 PM (ybfXM)

3 Specter You should get everyone you know to file a class action suit against the NYT cos. I bet you and both of your friends could take them down. Their market cap this morning was 3.5Bn. Are you going to also file a suit against Forbes, WSJ and Fox News? Or is it just the NYT you want to take down. Also, is it OK to use trial lawyers when its the NYT on the other end? Or are trial lawyers only bad when Republicans are being sued?

Posted by: Lint at June 23, 2006 01:20 PM (ovkHy)

4 Lint, trial lawyers are a pain because of frivolous lawsuits against corporations that drive up the price of products that people actual need, such as medical services. In the case of the NYT, it is a victimless crime.

Posted by: ray robison at June 23, 2006 02:14 PM (4joLu)

5 Oh I see. But the New York Times Co (NYSE: NYT) is a publicly traded company. A lawsuit against the NYT company would drive up the price of a product that people want.

Posted by: Lint at June 23, 2006 02:55 PM (ovkHy)

6 Lint, you made a funny. A product that people actually want and would actually pay more money for.

Posted by: NLC at June 23, 2006 05:11 PM (2Vvcp)

7 Lint, I'm in your corner on this one; The NYT is invaluable when training new puppies... all those pages for one low price... it's a bargain. But then, you would expect competition from the Wash Post to drive the price down. Sometimes it's hard to figure out the puppy papers market.

Posted by: Old Soldier at June 23, 2006 05:36 PM (owAN1)

8 Why are you guys letting the Wall Street Journal off the hook? They had the story front page today also.

Posted by: Nate at June 23, 2006 06:55 PM (UlkGh)

9 Lint, whether or not suing the NYT is a good idea, I think most of us understand the frustration behind making the suggestion. The NYT is undermining the national security without justification. Also, the NYT is increasingly a product that people do not want. I am one of many who has cancelled his subscription due to that paper's insanely biased reporting and absurd editorial positions. Nate, the WSJ should not be let off the hook, particularly since the WSJ reporting can be quite at odds with what is that paper's very good editorial pages. A legitimate question is raised whether there is legal liability on the part of the NYT and any other paper for the kind of reporting the CY post concerns. I am a lawyer who has done First Amendment litigation, and I do not accept the NYT's position that what it has been doing is protected by the First Amendment.

Posted by: Phil Byler at June 23, 2006 09:54 PM (/kIDl)

10 Seen the NYT's stock price lately? They're doing a bang up job of "breaking themselves as a business" without any outside help. Poor Pinch S. will be forced into a Yugo and living under a bridge in a cardboard box if the trend continues.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 24, 2006 11:15 AM (M0Kdm)

11 PA - Pinch is working for a Soviet comeback. That way, he'll be treated like a People's Champion. Probably get one of those big Russian limos and give up his evil corporate Lincoln.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at June 24, 2006 11:50 AM (3nKvy)

12 Lint (good name - like what comes out of belly buttons...lol), You are right. It may not be worth suing them seeing as their stock and circulation are declining sooooo fast. Maybe you should buy an extra subscription to help them out. Sorry that you can't even debate the substance of the issue of leaks - but hey - that's what NYT readers devolve into.

Posted by: Specter at June 24, 2006 03:27 PM (ybfXM)

13 I think Patrick is wrong to even imply a truck bomb should be used against the New York Times ... many innocent people in nearby buildings could be killed or injured. I don't believe you are a terrorist sympathizer or a hypocrite, so why say things like this? Coulter can get away with it because everyone knows she's a sideshow.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 24, 2006 03:38 PM (gvayH)

14 ...so why say things like this? As an expression of (that most favorite liberal sentiment) "outrage"...as in we're "outraged" that the NYT is a treasonous pack of terrorist aiding weasles.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 24, 2006 03:46 PM (M0Kdm)

15 By coincidence I think I just ran across the article that you are so upset about. You mean the "Cheney Assails Press on Report on Bank Data" one, right? I'm a citizen and feel very strongly about government abuse of power, so I'm glad the Times reported this. How on earth does this revelation help the terrorists? The govt could already do this sort of thing with a warrant. There is too much room for abuse of the democratic process with such practices. Suppose say, Hillary gets elected, and realizes that she can listen in on any call, including calls to and from the GOP headquarters, or can monitor financial transactions concerning her adversaries. I sure as hell don't want to see this happen. It's a risk we have to take to protect the Union. Which brings up an awkward point -- if we suspect that such and such is a terrorist, why not GET A WARRANT? It's the same as the phone tapping controversy. FISA basically never turns down warrant requests, even 72 hours after the fact. Whatever evidence comes up from this can't be used in court, so we'll never be able to charge anyone we catch. The courts will throw out illegally obtained evidence. Thus we have to keep criminals locked up in Gitmo, whereas we should be convicting them. Cheney is a bold liar. A year ago he said the insurgency was in it's last throes, and just the other day he lied and said he was taken out of context. He also just said that there are over 250,000,000 fully trained, independent Iraqi troops, which is total hooey.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 24, 2006 03:53 PM (gvayH)

16 PA -- of course he's outraged, but you're missing the point, Either he wants the Times to be blown up, or he doesn't. In the first case he's a terrorist sympathizer, in the second he said something he doesn't believe. Explain to me how outrage fits in here.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 24, 2006 03:56 PM (gvayH)

17 I meant "250,000 troops" up above, not "250,000,000 troops."

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 24, 2006 03:57 PM (gvayH)

18 Cyrus, You should read the article. It states there was nothing illegal done, that congress was briefed, and that the program was within the law. There was not outraged "whistleblower" who felt the government was overstepping its' bounds. So maybe you could rationalize and explain this: I'm a citizen and feel very strongly about government abuse of power, so I'm glad the Times reported this. How on earth does this revelation help the terrorists? The govt could already do this sort of thing with a warrant. Oh...wait...I know. It is because you think that if the NYT reports it, then it must have been illegal. You really should read and study before opening your mouth. What the Times actually did was to reveal a national security secret that in their own article they say was not illegal. They just did it because they wanted to. And that is what you think of as good journalism? Maybe you should become a regular over at TruthNot. They like your brand of irrational non-logic.

Posted by: Specter at June 24, 2006 04:18 PM (ybfXM)

19 OH...BTW...the program is apparently covered under the Patriot Act.

Posted by: Specter at June 24, 2006 04:19 PM (ybfXM)

20 Specter -- You should read the article. It states there was nothing illegal done, that congress was briefed, and that the program was within the law. It sounds like you didn't read the article. Several people provide differing viewpoints. For instance Arlen Specter is quoted as saying he "was concerned about the legal authority for the operation." You really should read and study before opening your mouth. That's rich.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 24, 2006 04:36 PM (gvayH)

21 Cyrus - Good try. Give me a specific link Cyrus - and I mean one that specifically claims that something illegal has been done. Here are the articles I read: http://www. washingtonpost .com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/23/AR2006062300919.html http://www. washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/23/AR2006062300754.html, which included this excerpt: The program to examine banking transactions is run out of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and overseen by the U.S. Treasury Department. The records examined mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas or into and out of the United States. http://www. washingtonpost .com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/23/AR2006062300167.html, including this (emphasis mine): ...has used the agency's powers of administrative subpoena to compel an international banking consortium to open its records. The Brussels-based cooperative, known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT, links about 7,800 banks and brokerages and handles billions of transactions a year. ~snip~ The program is "on rock-solid legal ground," Levey said, and is based on the IEEPA, which he said "specifically gives us the authority to conduct this type of investigation if there is an emergency declared by the president." ~snip~ In addition, the administration informed major central banks, including the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank, of the program. "They were all briefed so they could exercise appropriate oversight," Levey said. "We have kept it confidential but made sure the appropriate people knew about it," including members of Congress involved in intelligence matters, he said. ~snip~ In a statement, SWIFT said it "responded to compulsory subpoenas for limited sets of data from the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury. Our fundamental principle has been to preserve the confidentiality of our users' data while complying with the lawful obligations in countries where we operate. Striking that balance has guided SWIFT through this process with the United States Department of the Treasury." Arlen Specter? The darling of the NYT/WaPo. Listen - he was wrong on everything else he called hearings for - why would you think he's right on this? Again - try reading before you open that big trap.

Posted by: Specter at June 24, 2006 10:09 PM (ybfXM)

22 Specter -- About the NYT article you said this: You should read the article. It states there was nothing illegal done. That's simply not true! It quotes Cheney as saying it's legal, the paper doesn't assert that it's legal. Of course he's going to say that. There are several dissenting views in the article, including the Arlen Specter one. But no, you say that one doesn't count, even though he's much more impartial than Cheney. I read the first link you posted from the WaPo, and that was enough. Again there are about three dissenting views, in addition to the quotations that you reproduced. And again, it's Stuart Levey's opinion that this is legal, and of course he's going to say that given his position, it's not proof as you believe. try reading before you open that big trap I remembered someone saying something particularly stupid on this forum, and on a hunch I Googled for it, Sure enough: "Sorry - you are wildly uniformed. Depends on which program you are talking about though. If you are talking TSP - yes." --Specter http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/179743.php I wouldn't have brought this up were it not for your ill manners.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 24, 2006 10:58 PM (gvayH)

23 OK Cyrus - I see that you did not take my challenge. Again. Instead you dodged the issue, just like any good disinformationalist when confronted by data. I asked you to find any article that clearly asserts that something illegal was done - not just innuendo based on nothing simply because it is a Bush project. The problem Cyrus is that you are so quick to call everything the Bush administration does illegal. Everything, whether or not someone actually claims it or not! I was serious that you should hang at KOS or TO! You and your interpreting skills would be very welcome there. I have read many articles on this and nobody has outright said it is illegal. Not one. So let's go back to the article that started the whole thing - Lichtblau and Risen's NYT article (emphasis mine - and note that the emphasized portions talk about the various aspects of legality): The Bush administration has made no secret of its campaign to disrupt terrorist financing, and President Bush, Treasury officials and others have spoken publicly about those efforts. Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value. ~snip~ "We know the terrorists pay attention to our strategy to fight them, and now have another piece of the puzzle of how we are fighting them. We also know they adapt their methods, which increases the challenge to our intelligence and law enforcement officials." ~snip~ While the banking program is a closely held secret, administration officials have held classified briefings for some members of Congress and the Sept. 11 commission, the officials said. More lawmakers were briefed in recent weeks, after the administration learned The Times was making inquiries for this article. ~snip~ Similar subpoenas for the Western Union data allowed the F.B.I. to trace wire transfers, mainly outside the United States, and to help Israel disrupt about a half-dozen possible terrorist plots there by unraveling the financing, an official said. ~snip~ In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans had no constitutional right to privacy for their records held by banks or other financial institutions. In response, Congress passed the Right to Financial Privacy Act two years later, restricting government access to Americans' banking records. In considering the Swift program, some government lawyers were particularly concerned about whether the law prohibited officials from gaining access to records without a warrant or subpoena based on some level of suspicion about each target. ~snip~ For many years, law enforcement officials have relied on grand-jury subpoenas or court-approved warrants for such financial data. Since 9/11, the F.B.I. has turned more frequently to an administrative subpoena, known as a national security letter, to demand such records. ~snip~ Indeed, the cooperative's executives voiced early concerns about legal and corporate liability, officials said, and the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control began issuing broad subpoenas for the cooperative's records related to terrorism. One official said the subpoenas were intended to give Swift some legal protection. ~snip~ Underlying the government's legal analysis was the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which Mr. Bush invoked after the 9/11 attacks. The law gives the president what legal experts say is broad authority to "investigate, regulate or prohibit" foreign transactions in responding to "an unusual and extraordinary threat." ~snip~ Several former officials said they had lingering concerns about the legal underpinnings of the Swift operation. The program "arguably complies with the letter of the law, if not the spirit," one official said. So again I ask - other than in your own mind - where did someone say that what was done was illegal? Remember I made that challenge in response to your post: I'm a citizen and feel very strongly about government abuse of power, so I'm glad the Times reported this. So - where is the reported abuse of you as a citizen? Care to point it out? Let's see...subpoena's were used, Congress informed, all gathered information audited - including the reasons to go after the information, etc. etc. Just specifically Cyrus - How were you abused by this? You are very good at dodging the issue though Cyrus. So answer my questions. Simple enough. Don't try to wiggle out of what you said by saying "I read the first link you posted from the WaPo, and that was enough." Remember what I asked: Cyrus - Good try. Give me a specific link Cyrus - and I mean one that specifically claims that something illegal has been done. As to you bringing up what I said on this forum months ago - get over it. No criminal action from anyone in either the TSP or the data-mining operation. Interesting huh? I was right about that and you were not. So much for calling my post "stupid". Oh - BTW - We should all thank the NYT though - Bush's numbers are going up again. Some day they may get it through their minds that most rational americans (the majority) support the President in his efforts to track down terrorists. LOL.

Posted by: Specter at June 25, 2006 10:53 AM (ybfXM)

24 dang...forgot a tag again.

Posted by: Specter at June 25, 2006 10:55 AM (ybfXM)

25 I have read many articles on this and nobody has outright said it is illegal. Not one. Then tell me, why do people regard this as news? That's not a rhetorical question. Specter, you're making a strange argument here. The articles that you quoted present opinions from both side of the SWIFT monitoring debate. Now you're saying, no one happened to use the word 'illegal'. That's fatuous. We're just learning of the existence of the program, so it's not obvious whether the program is illegal or not. The whole point of these articles is that this secret program exists, and some people think it's an illegal abuse of power, and needs to be investigated. Most important, I don't know that it was illegal! Maybe it is legal, I don't know enough to say. What I said was, "illegally obtained evidence gets thrown out of court," which is true. We need to find out ASAP if the SWIFT thing is legal. Again, the articles you quoted question this. I'll clarify the point of my post: I'm glad the Times is reporting on the monitoring. I don't favor blindly trusting the government like extreme liberals do, I don't trust them at all, regardless of affiliation. That is the clear lesson I learned from the Founding Fathers and the Constitution; tyranny is the most dangerous enemy. It's ridiculous to think that terrorists have been moving money with impunity, of course it's already occurred to them that they could be caught this way. Monitoring can for sure be done legally with a warrant, after all.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 25, 2006 12:12 PM (zz6Dj)

26 Cyrus, Didn't answer again right? Thought not. How is is hurting you as a citizen. C'mon - be specific. You are the one who said it. It's ridiculous to think that terrorists have been moving money with impunity, of course it's already occurred to them that they could be caught this way. Monitoring can for sure be done legally with a warrant, after all. And yet again you make a veiled comment that if something isn't done by warrant then it is illegal. Subpoena's are legal documents Cyrus and are used to track down data on a regular basis.

Posted by: Specter at June 25, 2006 12:41 PM (ybfXM)

27 Specter, How is is hurting you as a citizen. C'mon - be specific. You are the one who said it. What I said is, I'm a citizen and feel very strongly about government abuse of power, so I'm glad the Times reported this. You're putting words in my mouth. If you mean, why am I concerned about government abuse of power, refere to what I said above: I don't favor blindly trusting the government like extreme liberals do, I don't trust them at all, regardless of affiliation. That is the clear lesson I learned from the Founding Fathers and the Constitution; tyranny is the most dangerous enemy. Your arguments have been 1) no opponent used the word 'illegal'; 2) I have not been harmed as a citizen; 3) the quotations in your referenced articles prove that it was legal. None of these is worth debating in any detail. And it's not the fist time. Again, you once said "Sorry - you are wildly uniformed. Depends on which program you are talking about though. If you are talking TSP - yes." In a context of where OF COURSE I was talkng about the TSP. You effectively said that I'm wildy uninformed, but correct. Your arguments have plenty of heat but not much coherence. I won't spend any more time debating you.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 25, 2006 02:35 PM (zz6Dj)

28 Good....I win. Take your ball and go home. You are the one who said (all right implied through a direct statement) that somehow the government was abusing its power in this. And since you made the statement in the light of "I am a citizen" the natural way to interpret it is the government has been abusing it's power against citizens. I haven't seen it in any article besides the obligatory references to "officials that can't be named". You followed that with the statement that you are glad the NYT told everyone about this legal, supervised program that has shown results in tracking down terrorists. So why? Why do you think this is an abuse of power. Why do you think that it adversely affects citizens? Why do you think it is OK for the NYT to publish national secrets? Extreme liberals trust the government? Who? I guess I will have to spend the effort to look up where you got the quote. How much do you want to bet that you took it out of context?

Posted by: Specter at June 25, 2006 05:21 PM (ybfXM)

29 You know...I was looking at my portfolio earlier today, thinking of some good stocks to purchase that are at 52 week lows. Then I did some stuff around the house (I won't bore you). Time passes, and here I am reading political blogs. Here I am reading CY, among others, about terrorists, bombs, threats, etc. Then I go back a few hours in my mind when I was thinking about stocks and my financial future and saying to myself..."aren't we all tired of talking about stupid bombs and terrorists that are so hyped in the so called liberal media and these ridiculous blogs? Why can't we go back to the 90's and think about social ideas, financial ideas, and real progress? The only thing people had to complain about was Clinton getting a blowjob, mainly the conservative hators, people who couldn't get laid in a women's prison with a fist full of pardons!" Go back and remember that everyday middleclass people were becoming millionaires via small business and the stock market. Now...we are trying to pay for our gasoline and the dow teeters back and fourth at 10 to 11 thousand for the past decade. In the past years...how backwards we have journeyed. It is such a waste of time and progress. Some people will never evolve. They will only think about guns and blowing up stuff, and how the boogie man is going to get us. Meanwhile, Bush and Cheney are building their business infastructure in Iraq at taxpayer expense, and continue to stablize the region to maintain their existing business partners, mainly Saudi Arabia. What a waste.

Posted by: Johnny at June 26, 2006 12:01 AM (Vtwo9)

30 So the gist of this is that there is a lot of oppinion that this may or may not be legal depending on whom is quoted. Of course, no one would have been quoted if this topic was given some light. It'll be interesting to watch how conservatives will do 180's on all this executive power extensions if/when a non-republican gets in office.

Posted by: matt a at June 26, 2006 03:24 PM (IHMpz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Netroots Meltdown?

The Netroots movement will fail because it's a myth based upon a lie sitting upon a foundation of fragmented political thought.

Gee Dan, tell us what you really think.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

June 22, 2006

Democratic Underground: Miami Terror Raid Keeps the Black Man Down

The Democratic Underground is all over the Miami terror arrests, quickly discerning the real reason for the raid:

This raid sounds like b.s. and voter intimidation to me

This is more of J.E.B.'s campaign to keep black people in Florida from voting. Bet on it.

The Democratic Underground: Because sometimes, you feel like a nut.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:42 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Damn straight.

Posted by: Jim Hoft at June 22, 2006 09:04 PM (o2uob)

2 Good find. I linked to it!

Posted by: Jay at June 22, 2006 09:11 PM (4YGmN)

3 "Feel like a nut?" Man... they make my balls ache.

Posted by: Acidman at June 22, 2006 09:24 PM (1NV83)

4 It's the jihad stupid! The local blacks in the nieghborhood being interviewed by CNN are talking about how wierd the behavior of the Miami 7. Most muslims aren't black. Remember Johnny Walker Lindh? Islam is a religion, more accurately, a cult.

Posted by: kevin at June 22, 2006 09:45 PM (FlgkN)

5 Is the DU so racist that its thinks that Muslims of colour cannot contribute to the Jahid against the western materialist Christians and Jews

Posted by: PaulV at June 22, 2006 09:58 PM (y6n8O)

6 The DU has it all wrong. Karl Rove planted those guys to distract attention from the searing debate in Congress on John Kerry's proposal on Iraq. Everybody knows that Kerry actually won the election, and now that Kerry is overwhelming getting the country to go against the war, which he was against from the absolute beginning, Bush is trying to steal headlines from him. Kerry's plan was about to be voted on and passed and Karl Rove planted WMDs in Iraq. When that didn't get traction, he then called in anonymous tip to have these guys busted. C'mon, Miami? How long did it take Rove to have those patsys brought in from Gitmo? An hour and a half? Everyone knows that 90% of the country agrees with the brilliant Democrat plan of redeployment, and Rove is desperate. Bush is losing, and Rove can't save him, no matter how many innocent Muslims he tries to scapegoat.

Posted by: Brian at June 22, 2006 10:30 PM (zAQ9h)

7 Brian nailed it - the conspiracy against the Democrats is deep and wide - and notwithstanding that 90% or better - I'm thinking at least 110% - of America, including the caribou in ANWR - oppose the ChimpyBushCheneyHalliburtonHitler endless war machine - we don't stand a chance until someone starts telling truth to power. Like Michael Moore. But, you know, slimmer. And without food stuck in his teeth. And with clean, combed hair. But not John Kerry. He's to thin. And his teeth look fake. And his hair is too clean and combed. Someone else. Maybe Mother what's her name?

Posted by: Tim at June 22, 2006 10:42 PM (VrD3d)

8 you guys ought to be locked up at gitmo for "writing while stupid". what a bunch of conspiracy nuts; i'm ashamed to share the same country with you!

Posted by: scooter at June 22, 2006 11:06 PM (SrL1m)

9 Hey...I'm a Democrat and I could care less. Oklahoma City bombing wasn't the "Jihad stupid". Them were Conservative white boys who liked Jesus.

Posted by: Trevor at June 22, 2006 11:07 PM (QqVLv)

10 Sheetcan! Sheetcan! That's her name Shee can' do it nobody can.

Posted by: Richard at June 22, 2006 11:08 PM (WCcZ3)

11 trevor, we're generalizing a little bit, aren't we? somehow, i don't see mcvey and what's-his-name being all that religious. deluded, irrational, and generally psychotic, maybe, but not religious...

Posted by: scooter at June 22, 2006 11:10 PM (SrL1m)

12 McVeigh had more of his philosophy in line with the Aryan Nation and the Neo-Nazis than with the Christian Right, Trevor. That puts him firmly on YOUR side, especially as far as your shared opinions on Iraq and President Bush.

Posted by: DaveP. at June 22, 2006 11:39 PM (xiXrT)

13 Come one guys and gals, you can't blame the DU's because 95% of the US is out of touch with "mainstream America"... ;-)

Posted by: Faith+1 at June 23, 2006 05:33 AM (N2nlb)

14 You know I have travaled this country from east to west north to south and a good part of the world.I can only say that the nuts at KOS and DU do not come out in public much. They must inhabit the wood work like cockrochs and just come out when the lights are off. What idiots. cvey was a democrat.

Posted by: Jack Hamilton at June 23, 2006 06:38 AM (hdbKo)

15 Scooter, Thanks for your liberal insight.Now allow me to enlighten you.Brian and Tim were using an ancient writing style called sarcasm.You are the idiot.

Posted by: Ritchie Skrongpal at June 23, 2006 07:09 AM (kLgZd)

16 And the point of posting one comment from that site and applying it to everyone was...what?

Posted by: g at June 23, 2006 07:25 AM (ZDZQ0)

17 You can see then on parade any sunny afternoon in downtown Burlington VT. It is very entertaining.

Posted by: moptop at June 23, 2006 08:01 AM (oPLPa)

18 I wouldn't worry too much about the democratic underground and what they think. They are only 10 or 11 thousand, and when you realize that the same poster may sign up with different names, probably even less. I actually think the forum is a plot by Rove and other Republicans to push the Democratic party off into the left wing fringes and to turn off the conservative Dems who they hope will swing to the Republican party. What both parties do not realize is that by pandering to the extemists in their own parties, they are alienating most people from political debate and from participating in our political process. A government that does not represent the country will lead to our downfall. About the bust of the terrorist group, we should give the FBI credit where they are due. This isn't about politics. The FBI is suppose to be unpolitical and functioning no matter how bad our president is. I hope the media plays this up big time so that the rest of the world sees we are just not as weak as they think. This is a time to be tough and for every American to be proud. It is also a time to be honest and realize that both immigrants and muslims may be here for the wrong reasons. It isn't racism...it's profiling. Let the FBI do what they do best, and force the politicians to run our government better or find another job.

Posted by: Momintn at June 23, 2006 08:51 AM (fMJUx)

19 dude; As stupd as you misspelling "boggling"?

Posted by: droast at June 23, 2006 10:16 AM (1Q9iV)

20 Anyone who has frequented that pathetic site should not be surprised at what those laughable dingbats spew.. It truly is the laughing stock of the web!

Posted by: Ann at June 23, 2006 10:52 AM (N9kTt)

21 Droast, Even stupider. In fact, as stupid as you misspelling stupid!

Posted by: noggin at June 23, 2006 11:01 AM (PjXTN)

22 I'd be surprised if the DUmmies actually had more than 1-2,000 DUmbAsses at that site! I see MANY of the clueless there touting their 90,000 PLUS strong numbers, as shown on their registrations! HEY IDIOTS... Those are "REGISTRATIONS"!!! If they'd show "BANNINGS", I'm SURE you'd see 89,000! I've been banned NUMEROUS TIMES and I know MANY others that have been also. Check out the DUmmie FUnnies at Freerepublic to get some GOOD insight on the way their wilted minds work!

Posted by: frank at June 23, 2006 11:23 AM (euY8f)

23 The attack of the Hadji Homeys! LOL Homey doan play dat! Me I blame it all on the influx of 7/11s owned by Habeebs in the hood as when they go to pick up some 40's and Kools they are indoctrinated! Da man be out fo jack ya'all up!

Posted by: mrdick at June 23, 2006 02:05 PM (uvxQa)

24 Jack Hamilton- Great post, I have never met in the flesh a single moonbat, seen hundreds on TV and read the many posts but heard one with my own ears right in front of me , no. I have tried to catch up with a few while driving because of thier moonbat bumper stickers, just to see a real flesh and blood moonbat a little like when I take my boys to the zoo.

Posted by: Lisa at June 23, 2006 03:47 PM (Z212r)

25 um, yeah, Lisa. Get out of your trailer park and go to a city. Try NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston, LA, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, Miami Plenty of, er, "moonbats" in every urban metro area in the United States.

Posted by: Lint at June 23, 2006 04:35 PM (ovkHy)

26 Actually Trevor, you are way off call McVeigh a Christian. He was a self proclaimed agnostic. In an article by United KingdomÂ’s Â“The GuardianÂ” about McVeighÂ’s execution, we find this reference: Â“In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would "improvise, adapt and overcome", if it turned out there was an afterlife. "If I'm going to hell," he wrote, "I'm gonna have a lot of company." His body is to be cremated and his ashes scattered in a secret location.Â” He also said he was an agnostic to Lou Michel during a cyber interview with CNN. Lou Michel spent hours interviewing McVeigh in writing a book titled, Â“American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City BombingÂ”. Lou Michel: McVeigh is agnostic. He doesn't believe in God, but he won't rule out the possibility. I asked him, Â‘What if there is a heaven and hell?Â’ He said that once he crosses over the line from life to death, if there is something on the other side, he will -- and this is using his military jargon Â– Â‘adapt, improvise, and overcome.Â’ Death to him is all part of the adventure.Â”

Posted by: Xpyder at June 23, 2006 08:08 PM (nT2T8)

27 Mr. McVeigh made and received a few hundred phone calls to/from the Philippines before he blew up the Murah Building. The Reno Justice Department (you remember them, the ones that repeatedly used military force against their own citizens with deadly effect, killing women and children) did everything they could to not investigate any complication in Mr. McVeigh's crime and he might hold the modern record for an American felon for least elapsed time between arrest and execution.

Posted by: Dan Roll at June 23, 2006 09:22 PM (jiktV)

28 Hey, Oliver Willis thinks they're just a "cult" rather than a bunch of terrorists. I believe him! Cults are something democrats KNOW how to deal with. Get Janet "torch" Reno and her Zippo and your cult problems just vanish. At least I think Willis was suggesting we exterminate them using the Clintonian approach by declaring them a cult wasn't he?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 24, 2006 11:19 AM (M0Kdm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Sears Tower Targeted For Terror

ABC News has the details:

ABC News has learned that federal agents, including the FBI, are launching a series of raids tonight targeting a suspected terror cell based in Miami.
According to sources familiar with the investigation, the group allegedly planned to bomb the FBI building in Miami and the Sears Tower in Chicago.
The group has been under surveillance for some time and was infilitrated by a government informant who allegedly led them to believe he was an Islamic radical. The suspects are described as African Americans and at least one man of Caribbean descent.

I guess that NSA "domestic spying" program works pretty good, doesn't it? (Yes, I know it sounds like a classic infiltration operation, but still.) At least one was an illegal alien.

This operation is on-going, expect more details to follow.

As always, Allah is on top of it. It's almost like he has something to do with Islamic terrorism...

Update: moved D.U. quote to it's own thread.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:41 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 2 kb.

Talking Moore

Via InstaPundit, we hear thoughts about a man we don't hear too much of these days, Michael Moore:

With all the uproar over what rating the movie "Facing the Giants" will get, surely Moore would be offering some thoughts?
After all, when "Fahrenheit 9/11" was given an R rating, Moore told teenagers to disregard authority: "I encourage all teenagers to come see my movie, by any means necessary. If you need me to sneak you in, let me know." Moore said, "There is nothing in the film in terms of violence that we didn't see on TV every night at the dinner hour during the Vietnam War."

Speaking of Michael Moore and wars and small screen violence, a frontline Iraqi interpreter named "Hoss" at Pat Dollard's has a few words (Quicktime, NSFW) for Mr. Moore in his latest Young Americans teaser. I didn't catch all of it, but I think he compared him to poison ivy.

At least, I think he called him a "little itch." I might be missing something in translation.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:29 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Not able to pull your trailers, but Moore is obviously a target for right wingers. Yes, Moore gets carried away oftentimes, but his prior movie has unfortunately proven to contain more truth than many would care to admit. I use the word "unfortunately" because as much as I am disliking the current administration, I do hope for the best possible outcome given the mess our current leadership has put us in...I think Jack Cafferty said it best when he stated..."North Korea and Iran are building nuclear weapons, and we are in Iraq". We jump to Iraq, but now we must use diplomatic caution with somebody who undisputedly has an nuke! Face the cold hard truth. We are in Iraq for the oil, nothing but. If Somalia had oil, we'd be over there so fast helping poor people, you couldn't blink. What a mess. Before everyone attacks. I watch Fox news more than I do CNN. Not too long before the Reps get a correction in November. As Bill O'Reilly (The Factor is my favorite) said it...If Reps don't fix our influx of immigrants, that will be their Waterloo, the final straw for abandoned "true" conservatives. Though prices of services are low because of their work, our healthcare and other social services are skyrocketing. Amazing how all we hear is talk about security, but any Tom, Dick, and Harry (should I say Pedro, who could pass as a Muslim extremist) can cross our boarder. Oh...except prescription drugs. That would be unsafe to get drugs from Canada. Corporate America and the American Medical Association own our current congress and administration. What a joke, and the conservative middle class keeps falling for the same song and dance every time. Keep your eyes out for polarizing legislation in the fall, like gay marriage. It's coming! See where it gets you. Nowhere.

Posted by: Johnny at June 22, 2006 06:09 PM (Vtwo9)

2 Your tinfoil hat is too tight. It is cutting off the flow of blood to your brain.

Posted by: David Gillies at June 22, 2006 06:20 PM (RC1AQ)

3 Johnny, Jack Cafferty says nothing "best." You need to take some quality Brawny Academy time. Think of it not so much as 'reeducation' camp but as doubleplus good right learning time http://www.brawnyacademy.com/index.html

Posted by: BumperStickerist at June 22, 2006 06:26 PM (PcDvW)

4 As I suspected...nothing with any substance...a lot of manly man anti-liberal BS.

Posted by: Johnny at June 22, 2006 06:37 PM (Vtwo9)

5 Folks let's keep the comments PG, please.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 22, 2006 07:24 PM (0fZB6)

6 But Johnny, you have to win elections to make laws. Slight problem there for the past 12 years, and it look like you'll blow this next opportunity in typical fashion.

Posted by: murtha abscam okinawa at June 22, 2006 07:39 PM (Olu/e)

7 OK, Johnny, we'll invade North Korea and Iran next. Happy now?

Posted by: Anon E. Mouse at June 22, 2006 07:46 PM (d3avk)

8 Liberal: "conspiracy theories and sophistry, repeating talking points without intellectual examination." Conservative: mockery Liberal, with haughty tone: "As I suspected...nothing with any substance." Yeah. Go play the game somewhere else.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 22, 2006 07:48 PM (Pwzb0)

9 "If Somalia had oil, we'd be over there so fast helping poor people, you couldn't blink." There are substantial oil deposits in Darfur, so according to your theory, we should have gotten there "so fast you couldn't blink". Why aren't we?

Posted by: Robert Crawford at June 22, 2006 08:50 PM (bH9q3)

10 Why aren't we? Good question.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 22, 2006 09:08 PM (FRalS)

11 Uh, because Murtha talked Clinton into pulling out in '93?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 22, 2006 09:12 PM (0fZB6)

12 Wait a minute... If we're robbing all of Iraq's oil, why did I just pay 2.69 a gallon 15 minutes ago? Where is all this ill-gotten oil being stored? Rove's ass? That is the biggest straw man bullsh*t argument against the war yet, but that wont stop the Democrats from banging that drum all the way to yet another defeat.

Posted by: The Drizzle at June 22, 2006 09:18 PM (jstHd)

13 Why aren't we in Somalia? CY beat me to it. We WERE in Somalia. But the left considered the warlords not the real enemy, Somalia not a threat to us and decided to get out before we lost anyone else "for no good reason." Bin Laden spicifically mentiond our retreat there as a reason he thought 911 would suceed.

Posted by: monkeyboy at June 23, 2006 05:52 AM (8Ms63)

14 I highly recommend the documentary "Michael Moore Hates America" by Michael Wilson. There is a segment with Sgt.Peter Damon, who lost both his arms in Iraq, talking about how Moore used NBC footage of him in the VA hospital in "Fahrenheit 9/11" without his consent. Sgt.Damon has since filed a lawsuit against Michael Moore.

Posted by: Tom TB at June 23, 2006 08:22 AM (y6n8O)

15 We were in Somalia. Murtha demanded we leave.

Posted by: drjohn at June 23, 2006 10:00 AM (Bglwi)

16 Michael Moore Hates America is a very good movie. I do wish the title were different so that some of my liberal friends would be open to seeing it --- maybe a title like Chickenhawk 2017 ---. This documentary exposes Moore and his style of documenting "facts."

Posted by: Greg at June 23, 2006 11:45 AM (zaFvd)

17 Johnny, Yeah, the damn conservative middle class can be so easily bought off with a phone in the pocket, broadband internet, and 100 channel cable TV (and Hi-Def). They're being bought off by 'the man' and they don't even know it. On the other hand, maybe you (and Bruce Springsteen) think you're a character in the Grapes of Wrath. In the 30s the poor worried about their next meal. In the 'oughts' the poor have obesity problems. You want to help the poor then help elect law and order mayors for the cities. Because that's where our lives diverge the most - order and security. Sweetie

Posted by: Sweetie at June 23, 2006 02:42 PM (CGv6G)

18 Venezuela is a pain, and they have oil. Why aren't we there? We have troops in South Korea, which helps contain NoKo. We have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which helps (a little) with the whackjobs in Iran. Before 9/11, we didn't have troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. In war, as in real estate; location, location, location.

Posted by: sulla at June 23, 2006 04:16 PM (tNTd5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

272kb generated in CPU 0.0435, elapsed 0.1404 seconds.
68 queries taking 0.1097 seconds, 407 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 4912
Files: 64
Bytes: 116.8M
CPU Time: 2:48
Queries: 249733

Content

Posts: 3653
Comments: 35960

Feeds

June 30, 2006

June 29, 2006

June 28, 2006

June 27, 2006

June 26, 2006

June 23, 2006

June 22, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds