Olbermann — the gift that just keeps giving


If you don’t get the reference in this great Day by Day cartoon, you have to read Olbermann’s latest defense of Clinton and attack on Bush. Here’s a link to the video and a transcript.

Then, read Iowahawk’s satire. The only problem with the satire is that, when you have such an over the top piece of material to work with, it’s very hard to take it anywhere further. That is, since the original speech itself reads like a satire, what’s left?

Be Sociable, Share!
  • erp

    It’s impossible for parody to exist in today’s world when all the world’s a stage playing satire 24/7.

  • http://none philport

    Olberman is the only man on network television with the guts to tell the truth and you right wingers cannot take it. You own the air both radio and television and you constantly spew
    lies and propaganda such as there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I lived in Utah and there is more WMD in that one state along than most of the Middle East.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Phil’s being sarcastic like me, right? Right?

    Okay, nevermind.

    All of the problems we have, are engineered by a super-rich class who allow illegal immigrants to take our jobs because it is good for the multinational corporations who do not care about America

    Phil wrote that on the Roman Empire thread. Useful context.
    http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2006/04/17/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-roman-er-american-empire/#comment-12089

    This is how the super rich Hollywood decadents in charge corrupt people’s minds. They get you believing that their henchemen are “telling the truth”, a little bit fake, but all the more accurate, dontcha know.

    The Senators in Rome were too busy deceiving each other and the “common mob”, that they were completely ignoring outside threats to the common security. But it has its benefits I suppose, if you can get people to hate the rich, but love you for being rich.

  • BigAL

    No Ymarsakar, Phil is not being sarcastic like you. Phil is crying foul the same way Olberman is crying foul and the same way I am crying foul. We believe the Bush Administration is continuing to do a great and tragic dis-service to this country. There are many of us out there. Good thing for you, we will never try to put you in jail for the things you say, we are freedom of speech lovers. We will also never allow any President or anyone else to classify you as an enemy combatant and waive your right to habeus corpus. And we will never allow anyone to torture you for any reason. So there may be a lot of us, but at least you can take comfort in the fact that we are big fans of the constitution and we believe that the Bill of Rights is a pretty damn good thing! God Help Us!

  • jg

    Certainly the Left and mouthers like Olbermann are more than a little insane. That’s the worth of Iowahawk’s Olbermann-(ober)kill.

    Philport and Big Al seem to need protection from themselves.

  • erp

    The Democratic party consists of public sector union members, including the enormously large teachers unions; poor and ignorant blacks being kept in that sorry state by poverty pimps; and the left-wingers at the academy and in the “arts.” In no way do these disparate groups constitute a majority of voters by any standard of calculation and if bona fide ID cards were mandatory for voting, your team would be in the majority only in college towns where students can vote (thanks to Mr. Carter) from their campus location.

    Once students grow up and take on responsibilities, most of them figure out that the politically correct claptrap they were force fed during their school days has nothing to do with the real world of adults — a world where moonbat buzz words and anti-American protest marches are anathema.

    Just a quick reminder that liberal talking points are bogus.

    The United States of American gets no oil from Iran or Iraq, but most of Europe does, that’s why they were in on the “Food for Oil” scam with Kofi Amman and Saddam Hussein; the deficit is going down because of the enormous increase in revenues which resulted when taxes were cut; Bush didn’t lie about Iraqi WMD — tout le monde was convinced Saddam had ‘em; Niger was trying to sell yellowcake and J. Wilson knew it;
    Bush served us well during his National Guard tour — he ‘s actually a very good pilot who flew 500 missions safely in a plane that doesn’t have a very good safety record; the plastic turkey he was carrying while visiting the troops in Iraq was a joke (humor is something liberals lack); the banner saying “Mission Accomplished” wasn’t a publicity stunt because the mission being referred to was accomplished; no constitutional rights have been abrogated, nor have first amendment rights been silenced; it’s unlikely any of us would be classified an enemy combatant, because it’s is term used for those who aren’t soldiers of a sovereign state, but are terrorists seeking to do us harm — they have no constitutional rights; the NIE report just released doesn’t say that our being in Iraq has increased terrorist recruitment; and monitoring suspect communication is legal and necessary if we are to thwart another 9/11.

    Lots more, but right now I’ve grossed myself out thinking that there are people who believe this stuff.

  • BigAL

    Distrust and caution are the parents of security.
    -Benjamin Franklin

    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. -Benjamin Franklin

  • BigAL

    Most of the people who post messages on this site like to classify anything that is against the current administration’s policies as “Liberal”. I know more real conservatives than ever nowadays that are accused of being liberal. Most of them were followers and supporters of Barry Goldwater–who had a very serious influence on the political philosophy of another conservative “Ronald Reagan”. Give me a break, putting faith in one man- “The President” — to make the decision about whether someone should be considered an enemy combatant and not receive the rights guaranteed in our constitution (this includes US citizens) is absolutely insane. If you want another King George, that’s exactly what you’re going to get. These are constitutional talking points!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • erp

    Another ridiculous accusation. The president doesn’t make the determination about who’s an enemy combatant, and awful as it to contemplate, some of them are native born.

    Why are you so upset by this? These are really bad guys, not teenagers stealing a car for a joy ride.

  • jg

    “If you want another King George, that’s exactly what you’re going to get. These are constitutional talking points!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    Big AL, you need to meet Iowahawk.
    That’s where your asylum is.

  • kevin

    “I lived in Utah and there is [sic] more WMD in that one state along [sic] than most of the Middle East.”

    Amen to that philport! I mean it’s just a damn shame that the Germans or the Japanese didn’t develop the nuclear bomb first–maybe this time it will be up to one of these Middle Eastern countries to get it right!

    No, wait, you’re not warning me that I should be watching out for the LDS are you?

  • http://none philport

    To Kevin: I could have used North Dakota with its ICBM’s or Connecticut with its nuke submarines or any other state that I have not lived in to make my point. We are the most heavily armed nation on the planet and the world hates us because we PREMPTIVELY invaded a destroyed country called Iraq. This invasion was planned over ten years ago by the Project for a New American Century and the signers are running our sick foreign policy now. We have lost our moral leadership due to torture, depleted uranium contaminating both Iraq and our troops, and the sheer arrogance of so called christians saying that God is on their side. The Nazis had something similar on their uniforms. Hitler used Christian anti-Semitism to rile the people and the Reichstag fire to eliminate the legal rights of the Weimar Republic. The Third Reich lasted about 12 years. Gestapo in German referred to homeland security The Fatherland. Prescott Bush who was George Bush’s grandfather openly financed Thyssien, the German steel industrialist who put Hitler in power. The Bush family made their first million from the death camps and the Nazi regime. The first billion came from their friendship with house of Saud and the house of the Ben Ladins. Osama and al Qaeida were created by Daddy Bush to fight the Russians. Now this is coming back on us. We gave these people 100 stinger anti-aircraft missiles that are unaccounted for. To my critics I would suggest you check my facts instead of a few grammatical errors because it is obvious to me that you do not like liberals or teachers because we deal in facts not emotions or Republican talking points. Thanks to my defenders. I enjoy my critics.

  • jg

    Wow, philport, you’ve wandered in from the Kos group.
    You are pretty vile. Go back home.
    Were you my fellow employee, I’d call 911 and have you accosted for mental evaluation. With a swat team as a precaution. To confiscate the weapons.

  • Zhombre

    I’ve said before and will say again to anybody who listens that the paranoid style in American politics, which Richard Hofstadter define in a seminal essay in 1962, is now firmly entrenched on the left, and as evidence I adduce Philport’s perfect pitch rant above. Forty years ago, they were Birchers; today, Kossacks. The thread remains the same: “exaggeration, suspiciousness and conspiratorial fantasy.”

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    Tell you what, BigAl…..if I go to Pakistan and train in how to use explosives, then bring my knowledge back and plot to use it against American cities and citizens, I hope and pray that the leaders of this nation will declare me an enemy combatant, put me in a safe place where I can’t hurt anyone, try me outside of the normal criminal justice system without allowing me the “help” of the ACLU or other leftist lawyer’s group, and then stick me in the cooler for a long, long time.

    Since I’m not going to be doing my part in the above scenario, I have little worry about the American government’s part. Please point me to something besides your paranoid imaginary scenarios that indicates I should be worried.

  • kevin

    “* * * we PREMPTIVELY invaded a destroyed country called Iraq.”

    Hummmm–you know, I guess you’re right; having reconsidered, in view of your persuasive argument; it WAS a pretty good country that we had the audacity to go and destroy. I mean, to be given the choice of whether you are dropped alive into a wood chipper head or feet first–oh yeah, I guess that was Saddam’s choice. Well, maybe being dipped into a hot acid bath or having your children raped while you were forced to watch–heck, that happens daily here in America (we just don’t hear about it because everyone knows the MSM is owned by Bush.) Once again philpost–I see the light; we’re bad and Iraq was good and we had no right whatsoever to interfere with all the fun they were having over there.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Phil is crying foul the same way Olberman is crying foul and the same way I am crying foul.

    Glad to hear your point made so clearly for the audience to see. Saves me the trouble, at least.

    Since Olberman’s on your side, I’ll leave his defense up to you.

    We believe the Bush Administration is continuing to do a great and tragic dis-service to this country. There are many of us out there.

    While there are many of “us”, people who criticize Bush, you aren’t one of them. Those to whom you are a part of , aren’t part of ours either.

    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. -Benjamin Franklin

    You guys need to read your history better. Do you know what Franklin’s actual quote was?

    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    * This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of “s”: “Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard’s Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.”

    Bunch of ignint people.

    There’s nothing essential about terrorist rights, to me. And my head being dettached from my body is not a “temporary inconvenience” that I can just wait awhile for somebody to fix.

    There’s nothing little nor temporary about keeping someone alive.

    You don’t even know the right language and history, how are you going to uphold your so called Constitution? Which other phrases have you twisted and manipulated?

    — to make the decision about whether someone should be considered an enemy combatant and not receive the rights guaranteed in our constitution (this includes US citizens) is absolutely insane.

    You think the Constitution is there to protect terrorists and their rights. I think the Constitution is there to empower the Executive branch to execute policies to the common benefit of all of America. Big difference, BigAl.

    Hey Don Quixote, sometimes when you find that the people on your side are a little bit wack, you might want to reconsider your policies and beliefs.

    Here’s the deal, so far.

    Earl made the counter-point that it isn’t reasonable the arguments he sees. The reason being, they don’t have chess skills, Earl. That makes a big difference. Why does chess skills matter? Something I found while doing BigAl’s Franklin research for him.

    The Game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement; several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired and strengthened by it, so as to become habits ready on all occasions; for life is a kind of Chess, in which we have often points to gain, and competitors or adversaries to contend with, and in which there is a vast variety of good and ill events, that are, in some degree, the effect of prudence, or the want of it. By playing at Chess then, we may learn: 1st, Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action … 2nd, Circumspection, which surveys the whole Chess-board, or scene of action: – the relation of the several Pieces, and their situations; … 3rd, Caution, not to make our moves too hastily…

    * “The Morals of Chess” (article) (1750)

    They are looking at one piece, terrorists in GitMo and the power of the President, and they are going panicking and telling themselves, “Oh no, the queen is going to take my rook, what do I do, what do I do, I know, let’s move the KING out of the way”

    Instead of protecting the rook, which is vital to the defense of the king, they go all panicky and think the king is in trouble of being checkmated, when he really isn’t. So they waste a move, they waste energy by attacking the Executive Branch, instead of terrorists or those actually threatening the outlying pieces of America.

    So they are a bit shortsighted, and of course, they are also unable to see the big picture in a way. Their logic analysis and psychological behavioral analysis algorithmns need upgrading.

    There is no way someone could see Ben Franklin’s quote, and realize it was wrong, without understanding the purpose of Ben Franklin’s quote. The ultimate end game purpose. Liberty is there to make sure people live better lives. They would sacrifice essential freedoms, the freedom from death threats, for a temporary safety from the government. They would prefer to be protected from the government that protects us, than to have the government protect them from terrorists. In a sense, it does not even make sense logically, forget chess. But, they believe. They be self-righteous, of course. Belief ain’t enough.

  • BigAL

    “The president doesn’t make the determination about who’s an enemy combatant, and awful as it to contemplate, some of them are native born.”

    that is false:
    Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

    Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence. If a person is guilty of being a terrorist, the evidence should show that, and they shall be convicted and punished accordingly. Harsh punishments. Justice still served! Just ensures that innocent people aren’t accidentally implicated in something they did not do
    –you have to admit it is possible for military and police officers to make mistakes!

    Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

    Are you kidding me? What country did you grow up in? Almost all of you I see post things on this site, you’re not liberal, you’re definitely not conservative (unless you’re compared to those whack-jobs Hitler or Stalin then you’d still seem pretty conservative ). But compared to traditional American political values, you’re nothing like the conservatives or liberals before you. The people who wrote the constitution and warned us repeatedly of the dangers of power without transparency are most certainly rolling over in their graves.

    Can someone please explain to me what your long-term philosophy is? I am serious. Go off on me, spill your guts about why this whole thing is A-OK in your minds?
    I seriously want to know why all of you think Bush is so great in the big picture. I know you don’t like me or agree with me–i don’t like you either. But that doesn’t mean we can’t try to learn from eachother. At the very least, you’ll improve your arguing skills by making your case to me. For instance, what are we going to do now to turn the tide in Iraq? What are the ideas for this new “adapt and win” strategy we have? In my previous posts I’ve made the point that I believe accountability and checks and balances in government are the most efficient and effictive way to make sure we are making the correct military strategic choices. So why aren’t we making the case for specific new strategies for winning in Iraq? What are these strategies and where are they? What general is devising a master plan?

    As long as we’re in Iraq, I would hope we’re doing everything possible to win over there. But I don’t see the Republican controlled congress or executive branch doing much, really. Why are many of our soldiers still driving around in out-dated under armoured HumV’s that were determined to be ineffective against protecting soldiers in IED attacks? It seems like with all these billions we’re spending our soldiers would only drive around in vehicles that have been modified to guard against the kind of attacks our troops have suffered in the first 3 years of the war. You know, ADAPT AND WIN.

  • BigAL

    “The president doesn’t make the determination about who’s an enemy combatant, and awful as it to contemplate, some of them are native born.”

    that is false:
    Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

    Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence. If a person is guilty of being a terrorist, the evidence should show that, and they shall be convicted and punished accordingly. Harsh punishments. Justice still served! Just ensures that innocent people aren’t accidentally implicated in something they did not do
    –you have to admit it is possible for military and police officers to make mistakes!

    Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

    Are you kidding me? What country did you grow up in? Almost all of you I see post things on this site, you’re not liberal, you’re definitely not conservative (unless you’re compared to those whack-jobs Hitler or Stalin then you’d still seem pretty conservative ). But compared to traditional American political values, you’re nothing like the conservatives or liberals before you. The people who wrote the constitution and warned us repeatedly of the dangers of power without transparency are most certainly rolling over in their graves.

    Can someone please explain to me what your long-term philosophy is? I am serious. Go off on me, spill your guts about why this whole thing is A-OK in your minds?
    I seriously want to know why all of you think Bush is so great in the big picture. I know you don’t like me or agree with me–i don’t like you either. But that doesn’t mean we can’t try to learn from each other. At the very least, you’ll improve your arguing skills by making your case to me. For instance, what are we going to do now to turn the tide in Iraq? What are the ideas for this new “adapt and win” strategy we have? In my previous posts I’ve made the point that I believe accountability and checks and balances in government are the most efficient and effective way to make sure we are making the correct military strategic choices. So why aren’t we making the case for specific new strategies for winning in Iraq? What are these strategies and where are they? What general is devising a master plan?

    As long as we’re in Iraq, I would hope we’re doing everything possible to win over there. But I don’t see the Republican controlled congress or executive branch doing much, really. Why are many of our soldiers still driving around in out-dated under armoured HumV’s that were determined to be ineffective against protecting soldiers in IED attacks? It seems like with all these billions we’re spending our soldiers would only drive around in vehicles that have been modified to guard against the kind of attacks our troops have suffered in the first 3 years of the war. You know, ADAPT AND WIN.

  • http://none philport

    I see ad hominem arguments like jg’s are a substitute for logic because those people are not chess players like me. Chess has been used for military training for many centuries. It is obvious neocons are checker players to the enemies’ chess players. We are creating more terrorists than we are killing by torturing people and brutalizing the civilian populations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The same technique was a success in Vietnam or should we have nuked it? I have family in the Middle East and as far as I am concerned the heaviest armaments they all should have is water pistols. The reason the fighting goes on is that war is the biggest business in the world. Israel gets its weapons from everywhere possible, even Russia in 1948 until the start of the Cold War. We of course arm everybody either directly or indirectly. The Arabs use their oil and their European friends for arms but there is no Shalom or Salaam or Peace because everyone is too pig-headed to use an unKosher and inappropriate term. I think it is possible to talk even if you are a narrow-minded ideologue or a violent sociopath given the proper atmosphere. Once you have denied your perceived enemy his humanity you lack understanding and the ability to rationally deal with him. You become your enemy. Let us try to dialogue and stop name calling. Thank you. Todah rabah, danke schein,muchos gracios!

  • BigAL

    “The president doesn’t make the determination about who’s an enemy combatant, and awful as it to contemplate, some of them are native born.”

    that is false:
    Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

    Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence. If a person is guilty of being a terrorist, the evidence should show that, and they shall be convicted and punished accordingly. Harsh punishments. Justice still served! Just ensures that innocent people aren’t accidentally implicated in something they did not do
    –you have to admit it is possible for military and police officers to make mistakes!

    Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

    Are you kidding me? What country did you grow up in? Almost all of you I see post things on this site, you’re not liberal, and compared to traditional American political values, you’re nothing like the conservatives or liberals before you. The people who wrote the constitution and warned us repeatedly of the dangers of power without transparency and government without checks and balances are most certainly rolling over in their graves.

    Can someone please explain to me what your long-term philosophy is? I am serious. Go off on me, spill your guts about why this whole thing is A-OK in your minds?
    I seriously want to know why all of you think Bush is so great in the big picture. I know you don’t like me or agree with me–i don’t like you either. But that doesn’t mean we can’t try to learn from each other. At the very least, you’ll improve your arguing skills by making your case to me. For instance, what are we going to do now to turn the tide in Iraq? What are the ideas for this new “adapt and win” strategy we have? In my previous posts I’ve made the point that I believe accountability and checks and balances in government are the most efficient and effective way to make sure we are making the correct military strategic choices. So why aren’t we making the case for specific new strategies for winning in Iraq? What are these strategies and where are they? What Military General is devising a master plan to improve things over there?

    As long as we’re in Iraq, I would hope we’re doing everything possible to win over there. But I don’t see the Republican controlled congress or executive branch doing much, really. Why are many of our soldiers still driving around in out-dated under-armoured or poorly arounred HumV’s that were determined to be ineffective against protecting soldiers in IED attacks for three years now? It seems like with all these billions we’re spending our soldiers would only drive around in vehicles that have been modified to guard against the kind of attacks our troops have suffered in the first 3 years of the war. You know, ADAPT AND WIN. Republicans say it all the time–they support our troops–THEN IF YOU HAVE THE MAJORITY IN CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENCY WHY DOESN’T YOUR LEADERS FIX THE PROBLEMS THEY HAVE THE POWER TO FIX?

  • kevin

    BigAL-

    “I seriously want to know why all of you think Bush is so great in the big picture”

    On a whole, I don’t like Bush all that much (his seriously underwhelming lack of leadership on the Social Security debate, illegal amnesty, etc.) but he was, by far, the lesser of two evils when compared to Kerry. With regards to Iraq, however, I harbor no reservations that he is pursuing the right policy.

    The reason we got there is moot so the real question is what do we do about it now? I think it should have been obvious that removing Saddam would not suddenly make the Iraqis love democracy and liberty. They have no comprehension of these concepts, having lived (in the case of Saddam) for over thirty years under his brutal rule (i.e. if it takes 30 years to create the problem, by what logic would you expect it to take significantly less than 30 years to fix?)

    Think about it; if we can establish a fledgling (albeit shaky) democracy in the middle of the Islamic countries, it will continue to grow stronger over the years as people begin to comprehend liberty. As this continues, people in the adjacent countries will observe the freedoms enjoyed by the Iraqis and begin to demand changes within their countries. As a liberal friend of mine commented, “we probably have more in common with the average Iraqi and that it’s just the leaders that are the problem.” I replied, “well then you should love Bush because he’s actively trying to prove your point—that given the opportunities of liberty and democracy, the Iraqi citizens will prove themselves worthy of the challenge and rise to the occasion.”

    As these countries begin to change, their citizens will begin to enjoy more prosperity and thus, less reason to resent the prosperity of the west. I’m not saying that Islam, in general, won’t still be a problem because I don’t buy the PC, “it’s a religion of peace” but I think we should at least offer them a chance at liberty, democracy, and peaceful coexistence.

  • kevin

    BigAL-

    “THEN IF YOU HAVE THE MAJORITY IN CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENCY WHY DOESN’T YOUR LEADERS FIX THE PROBLEMS THEY HAVE THE POWER TO FIX?”

    Sorry, I didn’t address your final question–I agree with you that we should do everything necessary to win the war but unfortunately, Republicans don’t have the “super majority” necessary to invoke cloture. As the current Democrat position seems to be, “obstruct Bush at all costs,” only so much can get done.

  • BigAL

    Thanks Kevin! I appreciate your sincere efforts to answer my questions. Regarding my points about enemy combatants, habeus corpus, and judicial review (not to mention torture)–I am interested in what you and other Bush supporters have to say about that.

    here are these points again:
    Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

    Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence. If a person is guilty of being a terrorist, the evidence should show that, and they shall be convicted and punished accordingly. Harsh punishments. Justice still served! Just ensures that innocent people aren’t accidentally implicated in something they did not do
    –you have to admit it is possible for military and police officers to make mistakes!

    Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Any “detainee” of the United States can defend themselves in a military tribunal. Since we don’t need these cases to be in the courts, it doesn’t matter if it clogs or not, it is superficial and superfluous when by necessity everything can be handled by the military law structure.

  • erp

    Big Al, you’re right. A president who is a shameless liar and who cares not a whit for his country, can do a lot of things like pardon drug dealers, child molesters, etc. in return for his own and his family’s financial gain. This kind of president could also sic the IRS on those speaking against him or his wife in a public forum. Lots more on this subject, but dredging all up again is too depressing. We survived Clinton and by the grace of God replaced him with a man the polar opposite of him in every imaginable way.

    You may disagree with the president’s policies as is your right, but to imagine that this president would do anything to deliberately discredit himself, his family or our nation could only come from someone with a rabid case of BDS.

  • kevin

    BigAL-
    Sorry for the delay in the reply but I rarely post on weekends.

    With regards to the three issues you bring up, my quick and honest answer is–hey, it ain’t happenin’ to me. I realize this is facetious but my point is that these guys are being caught either directly fighting Americans or through intelligence. Until President Bush declares Nancy Pelosi an illegal combatant and throws her into prison (ah, such a wonderful dream), I’m not all that worried. And before you give me Benjamin Franklin’s quote on giving up rights for security, take a flight to anywhere and tell me we haven’t done that already. Justice Robert Jackson wrote “The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” I agree.

    Another reason I’m not too concerned is that President Bush (or any president for that matter) can only keep someone locked up until the next President takes office so there are still checks and balances over his executive power. The next president can review the cases of each of the detainees and make the determination of whether they should continue to be held. Maybe, if the detainees don’t like their current condition, I would support their right to rendition to maybe the Egyptian security police, where they can be properly interrogated.

    Habeas Corpus–if the right to challenge their imprisonment means access to classified information (which, in turn, would enable one to determine how that information was obtained), that’s life. In the case of classified intelligence, as far as I’m concerned, the rights of the many should overrule the rights of the few. The courts are not cleared for classified information so military tribunals are the correct forum to try these types of cases. Personally, I believe the detainees are lucky the military doesn’t use summary execution as much as they did in the past.

    Judicial review–congress has the constitutional right to put anything out of the reach of the courts, the check being you have to convince a large group of people who (hopefully) believe in the Constitution enough that they don’t take this action lightly.

    Conservatives are by no means monolithic. These answers are only mine and others may disagree entirely or may have come to the same conclusions that I have but based on entirely different logic. In my case, however, I hope I have answered your questions.

  • BigAL

    Ok, well, we obviously all disagree. And none of you have really good answers except that we need to “trust” the president even without checks and balances in place. Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they heard your answers. Personally, I can’t trust this guy George W. Bush. He’s a deuschbag. He has proven to be a liar and we’re finding out that his own father (George H.W.) is in anguish over this war and believes Rumsfeld is the one who led Bush down this wrong path–so I really hope Bush will come to his senses and get Rumsfeld out of there. The current military strategy to win in Iraq is vague and weak, and even Rumsfeld’s own commanding General Abizaid has said that Rumsfeld no longer has credibility on the subject. Bush sucks, but he sucks much worse with Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was the one with the bright idea that we could win in Iraq with only 150,000 soldiers —even though most military experts (including Tommy Franks) were calling for 400,000 troops. It would be a good change for everyone if Rumsfeld stepped down.

  • kevin

    Ah, but I disagree, as I stated above, the check is the Twenty-second Amendment so you are right; we’ll have to agree to disagree. Now, I have a few questions for you if you would be kind enough to return the favor.

    Do you believe that National Security Agency surveillance of suspected terrorists abroad must cease when the subject calls someone in the United States until a court warrant can be obtained?

    Should attorneys be given access to classified information to defend these detainees even if this information can lead to compromising our intelligence sources (e.g. trusting lawyers like Lynn Stewart comes to mind?) What if the compromise closes effective avenues of intelligence? What if the compromise results in the identification of the informant which ultimately leads to his death?

    Have you ever held a security clearance and if so, to what level? If not, and I mean this respectfully, how can you speak authoritatively on something for which you have no practical knowledge?

    We elect people to handle this type of information and they have the right to pick their staff (providing they pass the necessary background check.) This information is restricted for a reason and the founding fathers would have understood this (actually they were quite experienced with the concept of military tribunals followed by summary execution for those found guilty of spying or sabotage so I wouldn’t particularly use them as an example.)

  • BigAL

    “Do you believe that National Security Agency surveillance of suspected terrorists abroad must cease when the subject calls someone in the United States until a court warrant can be obtained?”

    No, I believe, for the case of “enemy combatants” that a warrant should be able to be obtained after the surveillance is conducted. Meaning that surveillance can always be conducted on possible terrorist suspects at the time it is needed, but the people conducting the surveillance must go to a judge after the fact and explain exactly why they conducted the surveillance within 24 hours of when the surveillance takes place. If the judge deems that the surveillance was unwarranted, all the information obtained during the surveillance would be erased and could never be used against someone. In most cases though, as long as the CIA or FBI or NSA are conducting surveillance for legitimate reasons, the judges would probably allow the surveillance and the information obtained would be useful in the fight against terrorism. This would just ENSURE that government officials are not abusing power.

    No, I’ve never held a security clearance.

    “We elect people to handle this type of information and they have the right to pick their staff (providing they pass the necessary background check.)”

    Yes, Bush has the right to pick his staff, but when the General in charge of the Iraq war is saying Rumsfeld has no credibility–There is a problem. At the very least, Bush needs to get rid of Rumsfeld.

  • jg

    Kevin, point 22 mirrors my hope as well. It’s beyond belief that so many Leftists in the West, including Americans, have turned their backs on the desperation of Iraqis hoping for a civilised country.

    Overwhelming ugly, selfish hypocrisy and politics of the Left. All of which undermines the Left’s so-called claim to support ‘human rights’ around the world. They support only the terrorists in Iraq.

  • kevin

    BigAL-

    That’s the wonderful thing about our democracy–the military does not run the country; the Commander-in-Chief is a civilian. Having grown up a military brat of a senior officer, I can tell you from experience that it’s pure politics at that level. The President and his staff should listen to their military commanders and be mindful of their assessments. However, when it comes to making the final decision, they make the call–not the military commanders.

    I personally agree with your assertion that we should have more troops in Iraq. The problem is that to get 400,000 troops, I’m guessing that a draft would most likely have to be implemented–and then look out for the wailing and gnashing of teeth. The shrill cacophony from the left would be deafening. My opinion would be that the President is doing the best he can with what he has available. Maybe if the liberals would spend less time politicizing the war by obstructing the President at every opportunity and instead support the President in time of war (that they voted to authorize I might add), he would be able to fight it in such a manner as to achieve a much quicker victory.

  • http://www.kevincumblidge.com kevin

    BigAL-
    I hope you happen across this because I’ll be the first to admit when I’m wrong. Andrew McCarthy offers a wonderful response to your question regarding habeas corpus at National Review at: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWNlMjg3YWRlNmNjMTk0NDc1NzE0ZWI2YzBlOGRlNzU=