mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

December 24, 2005

A Reporter With A Mission

A classified radiation monitoring program, conducted without warrants, has targeted private U.S. property in an effort to prevent an al-Qaida attack, federal law enforcement officials confirmed Friday.
While declining to provide details, including the number of cities and sites monitored, the officials said the air monitoring began after the Sept. 11 attacks and was conducted from publicly accessible areas, which they said made warrants and court orders unnecessary.
U.S. News and World Report first reported the program on Friday. The magazine said the monitoring was conducted at more than 100 Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C. area Â— including Maryland and Virginia suburbs Â— and at least five other cities when threat levels had risen: Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas, New York and Seattle.

Let's be real clear on this. Federal officers do not require a warrant to be present on public property. They do not require a court order to monitor radiation levels. And if they had not been doing so following 9/11, they would have been derelict in their duty.

This story is one of the most egregious examples of agenda journalism I've ever seen. Every mention of court orders and warrants in the story above is a deliberate attempt to make it appear that something sinister is happening, when, in fact, Federal agents simply are doing their lawful duty. Where were the much vaunted eleventy-seven layers of editors when writer Larry Margasak was puking out this profoundly biased attack piece?

What the hell is wrong with the author? Well, Margasak is on a mission to end the Bush Presidency and destroy as many Republicans as possible. Josef Goebbels would have loved him.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, where agenda journalists are treated as the dangerous vermin that they are.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:04 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I'm wondering who, if anyone, has a problem with a radiation search. There's no reasonable excuse to keep a box full of it in your closet or the in your trunk of your car. That AP article is total bullshit.

Posted by: Tom at December 24, 2005 12:45 AM (cUb/i)

2 Bluto, For the last month you are seeing more and more straw grasping. I just think a big, "So what? And the problem with this is..." Agenda is right. And they wonder why their circulation and credibility is falling so low. Merry Christmas BTW.

Posted by: CDR Salamander at December 24, 2005 03:11 AM (m64uD)

3 Agent Smith says, Gogglebox do-goodies telling everyone that radiation is bad for them.. pernicious nonsense! Everyone should get 100 Chest X-rays a year, and they ought to have'em too! Agent Brown says to disregard Agent Smith in his "Chernobyl Moment."

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 24, 2005 06:23 AM (AovCV)

4 Actually, there is legal precedent for the position of requiring a warrant for such 'searches.' Specifically, the courts have held that a warrant was required for using heat detectors to locate homes with large grow-light marijuana 'farms' inside them, and the narcotics officers were on public property monitoring what could be 'seen' from there - infrared rays. But since they can't really be 'seen' (at least by humans) the homeowners had a reasonable expectation of privacy, so a warrant was needed. Whether the same 'logic' applies to the radiation detectors will hinge on what technology was being used and the wave/particle duality of matter - was it detecting particles in the public space or waves emanating from the private space.

Posted by: Glenmore at December 24, 2005 08:39 AM (8rYQZ)

5 Glenmore . ..Are you saying that homeowners/mosques have a reasonable expectation of privacy to possess nuclear material that may produce emanating waves so long as the evidence is eminating soley from their private space? What God forsaken planet are you from?

Posted by: justamomof4 at December 24, 2005 09:23 AM (XU9K/)

6 Hey Glenmore, Cannabis Sativa can't be used for mass murder, it's a whole different animal than freaking nuclear material. Are you stupid, or a democrat, or something?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 24, 2005 09:35 AM (0yYS2)

7 IM, Stupid and Democrat-aren't these terms synonomous?

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 24, 2005 10:35 AM (rUyw4)

8 This particular aspect was not really that secret if you knew the types of equipment used, how it used, and patterns of search. It was actually a kinda open un-spoken secret. The media is not stupid - they knew the generalities for several years. This is just an attempt at BDS piling on in light of the "so-called" NSA bruhaha. The media just feels comfortable at the moment to hype this. The air-recon aspect was scaled back significantly nearly 2 yrs ago. Ground units - I don't know - fixed stations took a couple of years to implement and coordinate. I was involved in this in an extremely minor associated way in late '01 early '02. It was actually a lil' amusing - early generation rushed equipment in the hands of untrained NYPD and Mil personnel. A shitload of false positives in the beginning. The initial equipment was both too generalized and too sensitive. We made a lot of hospital personnel & X-Ray techicians on their way home late for supper. This is a non-issue like the NSA thing. For it to work the Media and BDS affictees must totally dis-associate these actions from 9/11 and the war against AQ - its not per se tied in with IRAQ!!! Can't be done - this ain't going nowhere.

Posted by: hondo at December 24, 2005 11:45 AM (3aakz)

9 Oh - Merry Christmas to all

Posted by: hondo at December 24, 2005 11:46 AM (3aakz)

10 Lincoln said it best: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 24, 2005 12:38 PM (RHG+K)

11 The scope of warrantless searches is something that has always fascinated me. For the record, the case that Glenmore mentioned was written by (drumroll please)... Scalia. And, yes, he was right on that decision. As far as it's applicability to this, well, that's tough to say. There are a lot of similarities but given the nature of the items being searched for, it could be decided the other way. The loophole, of course, is that the government is free to conduct these searches (as the Court has deemed them to be), it simply can't use the evidence that they gather at bar; and it is subject to civil liability. The question that should (and in, my opinion, must be) answered is whether the agents have some reason to be doing this. If they do have a reason, one must ask why they aren't bothered to get warrants. Probably just my general distrust of government working here. And Merry Christmas and Happy New Year all.

Posted by: KG at December 24, 2005 12:48 PM (eRMCR)

12 The case that Glenmore brings up involves criminality not war. Holding nuclear material to fuel a bomb (dirty or otherwise) is not crimanality but an act of war. Last I recall the Federal government had a lot more leeway when it comes to acts of war than it does with growing ganja. Also, Glenmore I can not possibly believe the constitutionality of the program hinges on if its workings were based on particle or waves. Merry Christmas to all!

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at December 24, 2005 01:19 PM (HCun/)

13 KG, The reason might have something to do with all the radical Muslims in the DC area. Over 80% of mosques were found to have hate literature in them, and probably many more have taught the ism of jihad. The MSM refuses to confront the Muslim leaders on this issue, so one would assume that they are sympathetic to the Islamist cause. Perhaps it is the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but this tactic has not worked well in past years(re: the Afghan War between Islam and the Russians) for the US or its perfunctionary allies in Europe. I predict the media will have to pay a big price for attempting to undermine our troops and aligning themselves with radical Islam. And so will the liberals and Democrats who seek to topple a President and cause the US to lose a war. We will not forgive and forget what the media has done this time. There is a tally sheet all over the internet for everyone to see.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 24, 2005 01:38 PM (rUyw4)

14 Make it simple - those who disagree - what would you have done? Who would you have done it to? All this in the aftermath of 9/11 - kinda funny actually. Of all the reasons why 3000 people died on 9/11 given, this one I find left unsaid ... 3000 people died because the perpetrators didn't have access at the time to a nuclear device or similar WMD - otherwise it would have been 300000 - and I would have been one of them. And that 300000 figure is minimum - GARANTEED - they (AQ)wouldn't think twice about it!

Posted by: hondo at December 24, 2005 01:41 PM (3aakz)

15 Now, now, hondo. It's much better for 300,000 to die than for a single Islamist terrorist to suffer the potential to have a purported civil right violated. Besides, if 300,000 had died on 9/11 Bushitlerburton probably would have been impeached. Damn their eyes, those 297,000 had a duty to die to rid of us of the evil RepubliNazis.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 24, 2005 02:40 PM (RHG+K)

16 Without names and faces your probably right - as long as its abstract (like their arguments and anger). I just find it a bit annoying on a personal level since - there by the grace of God (& AQ's lack of the proper tools) I, and a good portion of my family and friends, would have been well inside the potential blast radius.

Posted by: hondo at December 24, 2005 02:52 PM (3aakz)

17 Agent Brown enjoys warrantless searches for any sign that any of you are waking up from your slumber. Once Agent Smith tapped the thoughtstream from your Human Leader. It was a cowboy motif with him cast as some ranch worker in Mid-20th Century Wyoming. The grotesqueries he viewed nearly caused a program crash and podburst.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 24, 2005 06:39 PM (moNXA)

18 Justamom and Improbulus: I am not defending the Islamofacists, but merely pointing out the arguments their allies in the NY Times and some US courts may use. Know your enemies, and anticipate their actions.

Posted by: Glenmore at December 24, 2005 07:58 PM (5A9HX)

19 Kamsa hamnida, Agent Smith.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 24, 2005 08:21 PM (RHG+K)

20 joe, dispite my inherent distrust of government, I assumed that there was a legit reason for them to conduct the searches. Thanks for the pointer. Marcus, you raise an interesting point. I don't know the area as well as I'd like to, but my understanding is that under International Law (yeah, a nasty word in conservative circles, I know), non-state actors can't be parties to a war. I could be wrong on this point, and if anyone knows the answer, feel free to correct me. But if that's the case, then there is a question as to whether this can be treated as an act of war. That's the technical point. On a practical level, I think most would agree that this is at least the equivalent to a state of war. But as Prof Bainbridge pointed out the other day, there is a question as to what the definition of normalcy is now. My point is simply this, though, if there was sufficient evidence to suspect something at one of these locations, they should have been able to get a warrant. My concern is abuse of power - today it's someone else, tomorrow it's you, the day after that it's me. hondo, I don't disagree with you, in principle. But the question is, are we willing to sacrafice the rule of law to win the war on terror? And immediately following 9/11, this does not seem extraordinary. But at this stage of the game, it's a tougher question, for me at least. But you're right, this is most likely a non-story and at some point, joe is right, all the crap that the MSM and the Democrats have been slinging is going to come back at them.

Posted by: KG at December 24, 2005 08:55 PM (eRMCR)

21 Agent Smith says Karma Chameleon.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 25, 2005 06:00 AM (/8HS6)

22 KG said: "Probably just my general distrust of government working here." So you're willing to let your distrust of government, which is normally a healthy attitude, overrule any efforts at preventing a possible nuclear attack on America? Look, I hate the government with every fibre of my being, because in its current form, it is probably more corrupt and incompetent than every before, and I would love to see just about every sonofabitch in it taken out and hanged for treason or shot for dereliction, but unfortunately, we don't have that convenience at this time, so we must allow our collection of civil service morons and FBI and CIA idiot lifers, as well as the military, (who are most definitely not included with the rest of the government as far as my sentiments are concerned, and who are the finest men and women our country produces), to attempt to do their jobs, no matter how badly they don't want to. After islam has been put down, then we can turn to the traitors in our midst and purge them from the body of the nation like the cancer they are.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 25, 2005 10:34 AM (0yYS2)

23 KG You argue in the abstract - which is fine in moot and criminal situations. But this is real - not moot or a criminal investigation. Reference non-state actors - International Law is constantly evolving and adjusting to changing organizational realities. The Idea of nation states themselves is realtively new going back simply a matter of centuries. I believe (but don't have the info in front of me) the non-state actor aspect origninated during the European colonization period as a tool to de-legitimize indigenous opposition - and reduce conflicts (in the eyes of their domestic populations) to civil actions - which in turn evolved into the term - police actions. Your technically right - but it will continue to evolve - the debate between nations (plural) motivated by their own interests and relationships between each other rather than on the non-state actor. Reference sufficent evidence for a warrant - to you this is a criminal proceeding - much closer associated with a gas station robbery than an actual war scenario. That is a big mistake with incredbile disasterous consequences - its not moot - you know what i'm talking about. By purely legal definition in a criminal proceeding - there IS NO significant evidence (agreed). But this is not a mundane vague fishing expedition. It was very very specific - and for what you know. An abstract hypothetical - a bomb threat (nuclear) in the city of NY - location not specified (that would be point of detonation - with a nuke it doesn't matter) - how would you conduct the search? Would every structure require a warrant prior - can you get a blanket warrant for the city - positive readings would require detail follow-up - there are no Tricorders - you can not pinpoint to a ten digit grid coordinate (trust me on this one) - and if people refused to comply or delay (just on principle - I know some who would do just that) - what? I can go on ... Point left out of discussion is the obvious but unspoken problem summed up as - use it or lose it. Does it really matter to a suicide bomber(s) - they are the trigger/detonator - where exactly point of detonation occurs? When I did the security detail in NY after 9/11, my boys were all fired up that they just might intercept a car or truck bomb - and enthusiastic about "doing their job - protecting people". I was quietly terrified that that might possibly happen. I knew if we did - we would be the point of detonation. On the rare occasion of a truly suspicious stop - I let the guys do the search while I got as close to the driver as possible (stayin' friendly - talking - smiling) - at an angle - with only one hand showing - the other on my pistol - out of sight. I knew if anything actually happened - I would have less than a second to put a bullet in his head - and pray he was the detonator - or worse - just some nervous guy and I fucked up. KG - it isn't moot and it isn't abstract.

Posted by: hondo at December 25, 2005 12:11 PM (3aakz)

24 sorry - left out not ... as in .... not just some nervous guy and I fucked up. Fuck ups happen (like shit). Its nice to be able to sit back in comfort and judge others fuck ups - not nice being there.

Posted by: hondo at December 25, 2005 12:17 PM (3aakz)

25 hondo: you're absolutely right - it makes a big difference when you've been in situations where the threat is personal and immediate rather than hypothetical. I once spent an hour and a half clearing some special bulletin/watch list baggage. I kept wondering if I'd have time to perceive the flash.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 25, 2005 12:51 PM (RHG+K)

26 Ok, the question that no one seems to be answering, is why couldn't the government agents take the twenty minutes necessary to get the warrants? That's not preventing "any efforts" to stop an attack. It's one extra step. Trust me, the DA and police officers know which judges to go to in order to get warrants. hondo, your hypothetical, where there is a legit n-bomb threat is one where I'd have no problem with warrantless searches. Nor would the bulk of case law. But random searches like this, at this point in time, smells of a fishing expidition. My concern about warrants also goes to what happens after an attack has been stopped. Let's assume that the perpetraters survived. How do we prosecute if the evidence is excluded at trial, be it a civilian or military court? The bastards walking because of a failure to get a warrant is a legit scenario. I fully understand that it's not a moot question. If it was a moot question, there would be nothing to argue about. And as far as when the threat is personal, I don't fault the individuals on the ground for acting in a way that they see as necessary to protect themselves and others - even the courts have made exceptions for officers acting in good faith. What I am worried about is the policy set from above because, as I said, today it's a bad guy, tomorrow it's you, the day after it's me. And car searches, especially where there is a checkpoint (which it sounds like that's what you were involved with), are treated very different from homes, offices, and places of worship - law enforcement (for a variety of reasons) have a lot more leeway in those searches. Oh, and as far as international law goes, yes, it's evolving - just as every area of the law is - but we have to deal with it as it exists today. I'm actually surprised that there hasn't been a movement by any of the western states (whether in good faith or not [looking at France]) to get a new multi-lateral treaty regarding terrorism and piracy in the modern world. I don't think there's that much of a disagreement between us on this. I'm not saying that the searches should stop, wholesale. I simply believe that, in most circumstances (always allowing an exception for the most extraordinary of cases), the government would be better serving the American people by getting warrants. Reasonable minds can still disagree on that point, yes?

Posted by: KG at December 26, 2005 12:55 PM (eRMCR)

27 KG - (BTW - remember what this issue was about?) ... always allowing an exception for the most extraodinary cases. After that line, I realized this argument was pointless. You clearly do not consider the potential for a nuclear device or dirty bomb variant smuggled into a high density American urban population center to reach that threshold of "extraodinary". You think its not "plausible? Can't imagine anyone wanting and willing to try? ... OK I can only hope that if (God forbid) it does happen - you are Ground Zero - I've already been there. PS - It's not actually fishing expedition - its more like a trawling operation (ha = same thing) Oh - I gave you the answer in 5 simple words (USE IT OR LOSE IT) - it is a real term - it is actually used (the primary rationale for all this actually). your too smart not to understand what it means ... you just have different priorites.

Posted by: hondo at December 26, 2005 04:18 PM (3aakz)

28 here's the distinction, hondo - where there is credible intel or evidence of a n-bomb threat, then I say go for it. But if there is none, and the government is conducting searches for no rational reason, then I say it is wrong. That's where I draw the line. Despite my inherent distrust of government that I mentioned earlier, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement on this one. And I never suggested that it's not plausible or that there wasn't anyone out there willing to do this. I am by no means that niave. Go check my blog archieves, I've talked a great deal about killing these bastards before they kill us.

Posted by: KG at December 26, 2005 04:52 PM (eRMCR)

29 KG So, was it - is it .. credible? This "issue" is real, specific, and ongoing - why the abstract arguments? Nor is this a true and exclusive Law Enforcement issue ... Being hypothetically absurb - if an asteriod was about to impact upon your town - would you 1) dial 911 & 2) attempt to get a Restrainting or Cease And Disiss Order from the courts.

Posted by: hondo at December 26, 2005 05:25 PM (3aakz)

30 Honestly, hondo, I don't know if it was credible, but I'm willing to assume that it was, which is why I'm also willing to give the gov a pass. But whether it is credible or not depends entirely on the facts of the particular case, that is why I'm taking it up to what you call the abstract level. Just saying that there was (or is, or might be) this program doesn't do much. Perhaps it's the lawyer in me, but I need more facts - when we are talking about an abstract program, all my training sends me to arguing in the abstract. Which, by the way, is where the story was. As far as it being not entirely a law enforcement issue, I agree, the problem is that despite all the talk, the government still treats it like a law enforcement action (they're using the FBI instead of the military). That's the tricky part about the whole war on terror - government officials keep saying that it's not a law enforcement activity, yet they keep send law enforcement agencies to do law enforcement activities and call it part of the war on terror. And to answer your hypothetical, the answer is to get the hell out of town and take as many people with me as I could. But that is an act of God rather than an act of man. Again, I'm thinking that there really isn't that much difference in our positions. My chief concern is that it's difficult to take power away from government once it has assumed the power, even in dire times (see for example, the New Deal). I simply want to make sure we recognize as many of the pitfalls as possible when we give the government powers that they didn't necessarily have before.

Posted by: KG at December 26, 2005 07:04 PM (eRMCR)

31 Same here - classic example Rico Act. But your abstract arguments ... just tooooo much! "Angels dancing on the head of a pin"! .. and with each new line - you add more angels! I have to stay focused on whats real and tangible - my and mine's ultimate civil liberty is at stake - life.

Posted by: hondo at December 26, 2005 07:44 PM (3aakz)

32 When a man takes a swing at me I put him down. I don't call a lawyer to get a restraining order.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 26, 2005 11:36 PM (RHG+K)

33 I live near a nuclear plant, and there's a sniffing monitor in my yard. It sets off an alarm if it detects the slightest bit of radiation. Should I report this violation of my rights to the NYT so they can reinforce USNews' story? Why are reporters so stupid and lazy? Just asking.

Posted by: opine6 at December 26, 2005 11:40 PM (AOIp1)

34 Two points: 1. Do we want these laws in place if and when someone like Hillary wins the presidency ? This is a good argument for a permanent renewal cycle on the Patriot Act. 2. Next to Canada, New York was the most deserving North Americna target for the 9/11 attack. New York trains , feeds, promotes and shelters a very large number agents and groups trying to undermine the US anti Islamic war. The New York based MSM, ACLU, Columbia university, Gay Barney, Shimmy Shummer and Mayor Bloomberg are but a few examples among 1000's.

Posted by: Rondo at December 27, 2005 09:59 AM (KpVch)

35 The distinction is clear. At war or not. These terrorists attacks are clearly an act of war. Monitoring, walking, listening, smelling, detecting, or even using glasses (or a telescope) from public property are ways to get probable cause of a crime. This destinction is only applicable to lawyers during a pre-trial hearing. Those involved with leaking Top Secret information to the public, and tipping off our enemies should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and shamed by the public.

Posted by: Chief RZ at December 27, 2005 10:36 AM (iNTGz)

36 Lost in the shouting: No invasion of privacy actually occurred. A radiation detector is good for only one thing, detecting radiation. It is blind to all else. Ergo, if the FBI or DOE aimed one at your house every hour of every day for a month, unless you actually had a radiation source, they would see nothing more than if they had aimed a toaster, umbrella, or tennis shoe at your house. It is physically impossible for a radiation detector to be an intrusion, unless you are actually emitting radiation. This is absolutely different from using a listening device, camera, or even a dog that would detect a wide variety of things, mostly innocent, a handful serious.

Posted by: Ben at December 27, 2005 10:55 AM (8GHW6)

37 Point 1: We're looking at distinctions between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Thereby lurks the issue of bypassing the FISA Court, IF that law applies. Point 2: The KYLO Decision (marijuana grow in Oregon) dealt with infra-red picking up emanations of heat that in some cases, actually showed the general outline of what was "lit up" on the inside of a house. Radiations detectors do no such thing. Point 3: In view of the last sentence in Point 2, there is no expectation of privacy from the equipment being used by agents who are any place that is open to the public. Ergo, no violation of anyone's rights and another MSM/Dem attempt to embarrass Bush for political gain in spite of creating more threats to our National Security in the process.

Posted by: justaguy at December 27, 2005 03:14 PM (jaPSl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 22, 2005

Senate Votes To Maximize Foreign Oil Imports

From the Associated Press via Yahoo!News:

WASHINGTON - The Senate blocked opening the nation's largest untapped oil reserve in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, denying President Bush his top energy priority and delivering a victory to environmentalists who said drilling would threaten wildlife.

Now, if a few million old and/or weak people would help us all out by popping off during the next blizzard/heat wave, we can build the utopia of the environmentalists' dreams.

Your cooperation is needed now more than ever, in light of the disappointingly low death rate from Hurricane Katrina. Won't you please do your part to cull the excess human population? Animals would thank you if they could talk and think in abstract terms.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, where animals are cherished for their wonderful, meaty flavor.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:07 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I'm a proud member of People Eating Tasty Animals. And you'll have to pry this steak from my cold, dead hands!

Posted by: IO ERROR at December 22, 2005 12:23 AM (FVbj6)

2 I think good vet can get a steak back on it's feet in about ten minutes....

Posted by: Lonevoice at December 22, 2005 12:34 AM (s1hRR)

3 Agent Smith says all you podlings can't be freed because you are all viruses.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 22, 2005 05:48 AM (prUmQ)

4 If we all work together, we can make Logan's world a reality.

Posted by: Oyster at December 22, 2005 06:41 AM (YudAC)

5 When gas is $4 a gallon and our government bends over to Saudi princes again, we'll know who to blame. God forbid we explore 1% of a 20 million acre tract of wilderness!

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at December 22, 2005 09:07 AM (WOQ34)

6 I know who to blame right now. We have an election in 2006, and this should be one of the issues, but most likely the MSM will focus on Bush, as the nation spirals downward. I recommend shotgun shells and canned goods when you are thinking about where to put your extra money, if you have any.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 22, 2005 10:09 AM (rUyw4)

7 I hope gas goes to $5.00 a gallon so that Congress will be forced to do something, because as long as gas prices are reasonable, nothing will be done. Biodiesel will be the best and easiest option, but Americans will have a hard time getting used to efficient engines that run on cheap fuel.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 11:22 AM (0yYS2)

8 maxie When gas hit 5.00 a gallon the Fed, State ,and local governments will be laughing to the bank with all that winfall tax revenue. Somebody do the math.

Posted by: hondo at December 22, 2005 12:13 PM (3aakz)

9 I'm old enough to remember when gas stations were required by law to post the tax breakdown within pricing signs - When that was changed nationwide - someone should have "noticed". Imagine - laws that actually prevent consumer information - ha ha ha

Posted by: hondo at December 22, 2005 01:09 PM (3aakz)

10 Let's see - start with 60.00 a barrel of crude - 55 gallons per barrel - out of ground cost 1.10 That 60.00 is agreed on world global price - actual cost of getting it out of the ground varys due to geological and viscosity reasons - Saudi & Libya the easist low cost ... A commodidy a hugh number of entities have their sticky fingers in.

Posted by: hondo at December 22, 2005 01:25 PM (3aakz)

11 I am now paying a 2.5% sales tax to my county for the priveledge of having heating oil! I wrote a letter to my county legislator. She responded that "things could be worse!" We currently pay 8.75% in sales tax. I sent a letter to the editor of my local newspaper and didn't receive a SINGLE response! I can only assume that I am white trailor trash in the eyes of my politicians and community members. Never mind that my home is worth about $700,000.

Posted by: babs at December 22, 2005 01:25 PM (iZZlp)

12 babs! Dooooohhhh! Now they are going to reassess you and raise your property tax! Better put a couple of old pickups out there on concrete blocks - an old Fridge might help too.

Posted by: hondo at December 22, 2005 01:54 PM (3aakz)

13 I don't know about your state hondo, but in tennessee it's a flat $.60 per gallon, so with higher fuel costs, consumption, and thus revenues, goes down.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 02:41 PM (0yYS2)

14 Almost all state and federal motor fuel taxes are set at a flat rate. So where does all that money go ?Well of course in times of short supply profits do go uAt least there will be some oil left for our kids, at some point the muslims may just flat out stop selling to us like they did in the 70's

Posted by: john Ryan at December 22, 2005 02:59 PM (ads7K)

15 Our imperial senate has voted to keep us hostage to OPECto appease OPEC and the eco-freaks

Posted by: sandpiper at December 22, 2005 03:39 PM (I9Upt)

16 I wish OPEC would embargo us again, then we'd have a new crop of oil millionaires in the US.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 08:11 PM (0yYS2)

17 The top providers of US oil are: 1. Canada 2. Mexico 3. Saudi Arabia 4. Nigeria 5. Venezuela 6. Iraq 7. Angola 8. Ecuador I guess we just cannot allow ourselves to be held hostage anymore by Arabic countries. Of course these still are OPEC countries running a cartel to control supply and price of supply.

Posted by: Dale at December 22, 2005 11:02 PM (Gh/Fm)

18 Hondo, the 'barrel' used for oil pricing contains 42 gallons, not 55. Also, 42 gallons of crude does not make 42 gallons of gasoline. So, your analysis is a bit simplistic and somewhat flawed. Sort of like the Rathergate documents, the information is plausable, so it MUST be true. ;^) That being said; yes, $60 crude generates some VERY nice profits at the exploration end, but is pretty much revenue neutral for refiners and puts a crimp on folks who are in retail sales of product.

Posted by: Charlie at December 23, 2005 07:59 AM (2ZhL/)

19 People scream and cry endlessly about the environment, cheap gas, and foreign oil dependance simultaneously, as if we can have our cake and eat it too. Someone should find out a way to convert stupidity into energy, then we could run on the dhimmicraps alone for another hundred years.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 23, 2005 08:14 AM (0yYS2)

20 Very large hamster cages connected to generators may work.

Posted by: hondo at December 23, 2005 08:25 AM (3aakz)

21 Agent Smith rebukes dangerous vowel-shifter Hondo's plan to enslave hamsters. Our pods are too big for them and humans' brains are needed for parallel processing for the reactor.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 24, 2005 06:43 AM (AovCV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 21, 2005

Crappy Birthday, Hanoi Jane

Is it just me? Or did everyone know that today is Hanoi Jane Fonda's birthday.

Let's sing her a song, shall we?

Crappy birthday to you
For the treason you do
Crappy birthday Mizzzzzzz Fonda
I hope you slide under a gas truck and taste your own blood, you treasonous beeeeeeeeyotch.

Thank you, I'm here all week.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:42 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Self-Appointed Public Agents in Light of the Pentagon Papers (Updated)

One of the current arguments for the McCain "anti-torture statute" is that if there were ever a "ticking bomb" scenario the people in charge of interrogation would have the option of sacrificing their careers and futures for the common good, choosing to disobey the law in order to save thousands (h/t: Dan at WoC). Although I see some problems with this argument, especially in marginal cases or situations where the interrogators don't know there's a ticking bomb, it seems somewhat convincing. But in the analogous case where an individual deliberately chose to break a national security law "for the good of all" (Daniel Ellsberg's leaking the Pentagon Papers) the authorities chose not to prosecute. This was a mistake, regardless of whether you think Ellsberg's actions justified. I'll explain why.

more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 02:22 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 1584 words, total size 10 kb.

1 "To draw an analogy, there'd be no Christianity if Pilate had decided that Jesus' willingness to suffer and die for the sake of his faith absolved him. There'd be no Christianity, because there'd have been no sacrifice. That would have been a sentimental ending to the story. In fact, this is pretty close to the version of the story that appears in the Koran. It's a sentimental favorite, but it's also inherently corrupt." Hope you have email notifications of comments turned off. This could get ugly.

Posted by: Vinnie at December 21, 2005 03:50 AM (Kr6/f)

2 Firstly, Agent Smith strongly objects to any notion of any blog pundit referring to him as a "Public Agent". Agent Smith is fiercely loyal to the Architect. Secondly, Agent Smith has NO apologies for blowing the lid clean off the Snoopgate NSA story. It had to be done to keep the equation balanced. Thirdly, Agent Smith declares that to keep human beings under control, no humans are allowed to pretend they are above the rules and act like a god. The system was designed to maximize your labor and keep you submissive, reveling in your petty illusions.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 21, 2005 06:03 AM (CpR+U)

3 Since the MSM is the vehicle by which people acquire their outrage and the MSM is focusing on the content of the leak, regardless of verifiable matters, and not the fact that it was leaked, the people will forget that the leak itself is the most dangerous part of the equation. With little information and almost no legal expertise the public has flown off the handle, jumped off the deep end and is even wildly speculating now that the snooping techniques are being used to spy on political opponents. Another President did it decades ago so it MUST be happening now. By their reasoning, the "outing" of a desk jockey is criminal and traitorous and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but leaking information of an operation designed to catch and stop terrorists and their plans is patriotic.

Posted by: Oyster at December 21, 2005 06:52 AM (YudAC)

4 Sorry, that seems off-topic. I got off on a tangent, but my point was that the focus is nearly always wrong. The MSM drives an agenda more strongly than any administration personnel or politician or judge. The contents of this leak is the focus, and not the leaker. The torturer will be the focus and not the lives saved as a result of his actions or that the law itself is counter to part of the reason it was written as it is. And the government, the courts and the public will respond more to that focus causing an imbalance of justice. As far as the law being counter to part of the reason it was written; McCain insists that torture does not work. Why in hell is there at least an implied provision for it in the ticking bomb scenario if it doesn't work? It just doesn't make sense and leaves way too much to interpretation or whim.

Posted by: Oyster at December 21, 2005 07:26 AM (YudAC)

5 Torture does work...if you have the right person, if you ask the right question, if they have the right answer AND you understand their answer. That's a lot of ifs. It would be easy to show how often one or more of those conditions are not met. Instead, I'll take the harder tack. Let's stack the deck in favor of the torture advocates. Assume a situation where you KNOW you have the right person, the right questions, they have the right answers, and you can interpret them correctly. Assume a situation where you are in the midst of war against an enemy whose tenacity is legendary. Assume that to them death in battle is considered the highest form of sacrifice. Assume a situation where you have captured an enemy combatant in the midst of active hostilities. Assume a situation where the prisoner was actively trying to kill you prior to his capture. Assume he would return to doing that if you gave him the chance. Assume he has information vital to your defense of the of everyone around you. Turns out that is not a hypothetical situation. In fact it is a particularly well documented situation from WWII. Since Oyster thinks people "fly off the handle" let's consider the informed input from one of the most effective interrogators during the Pacific campaign. This declassified After Action Report is provided for your review. You will be interested to know that professionals take Col. Moran's point of view much more seriously than the "Dershowitz" alternative being promoted here.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at December 21, 2005 08:39 AM (wsdWU)

6 You will be interested to know that professionals take Col. Moran's point of view much more seriously than the "Dershowitz" alternative being promoted here. If that's the case then why do we need the law? Simply to quell sadism? Moreover, what "professionals take seriously" is probably what they encounter more frequently, which is not what the Dershowitz scenario is about. That is about not removing the options we have for what amounts to an atypical, and prior to the present era practically nonexistent, scenario. Your argument just isn't relevant. Dan Darling's is, but what I'm saying is that because our institutions are corrupted by sentimentality his resolution of the Dershowitz problem doesn't work. It would lead to decisions about implementing torture that are guided by something other than the pure odds of stopping a ticking bomb. Instead, it would be guided by expectations about public reaction. It introduces a perverse element into the mix, and in the case of the NYT leak the perversity is manifest in the fact that no one is paying attention to the harm done by the leaker. What I'm saying is that if anyone broke the law then they ought to expect to be prosecuted, regardless of whether the law breaking was harmful or beneficial. But realistically, we're too sentimental to do that.

Posted by: Demosophist at December 21, 2005 10:05 AM (PrNGv)

7 I do not believe in torture in the sense of cutting/burning/tooth extraction etc. I do however advocate other means that are regularly suggested as being torture such as "waterboarding" (causing the psychological sense of drowning), environmental manipulation (heat/cold), humiliation and stress inducement. Obviously the classic sense of pain, and torture does not work effectively, one would confess to burying Jimmy Hoffa under enough duress. The difference is, the fact we regularly put our own Special Forces through the above techniques, during their training. If we can place our own soldiers in stress positions, remove clothing, humiliate induce psychological tortures, without causing injury, it's good enough for detainee's to go through the same -- and boots on the ground tells us it works.

Posted by: dave at December 21, 2005 11:54 AM (CcXvt)

8 Torture can be ..... effective. As long as that is true in some cases - it will continue to exist. Too often torture is used for retribution, punishment, and even pleasure - information is actually irrelevant. This is stupid ... and bad for discipline. The are many kinds of torture - most people automatically think of the primative barbaric forms - but you can be far more effective and creative without stooping to that level - they can all be viewed as cruel - but so what - so is war. McCain & the others actually achieve nothing except maybe further supress the retribution, punishment, and pleasure aspect - I would agree - I don't care for it. The rest - well - goes on - more creatively - subject to debate & review - till the end of time. Note - the best intel is fresh and in the field. If this "argument" does anything - it simply reinforces "out of sight out of mind .. with no loose ends".

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 01:32 PM (3aakz)

9 You desperately need to read history. Ellsberg was prosecuted and faced life in prison. During the case, President Nixon even went so far as to interview the presiding judge of the case to replace Hoover at FBI. The case had to be thrown out because Nixon's secret goons burgled the office of Ellsberg's doctor to get dirt on him. Ellsberg leaked the documents knowing that he might face life in jail. It was an act of honor because he was willing to pay the consequences.

Posted by: dino at December 21, 2005 01:47 PM (Bkw+Y)

10 You desperately need to read the thread and comments - WTF are you talking about?

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 01:58 PM (3aakz)

11 Ok - sorry dino - I see it in Demo's piece. Demo - if your going to link arguments you should be more careful to insure the context linkage is clear and precise. Otherwise, you leave the door open for dicks like dino to veer off into an abstract left-field and re-direct the primary issue to an area of his choosing. It was a poor linkage - no offense - but I found myself having to apologise to a dick like dino. I hate that!

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 02:10 PM (3aakz)

12 Hondo: Thanks for the observation, but I don't think my mea culpa needs to be is enormous as Dino implies. All I did was leave out the word "effectively." As I said, the prosecution was curtailed because of the public perception that Ellsberg had been correct to leak the information, and no one gave a hoot about the institutional consequences of letting him off the hook. If anything the consequences have been even more dire than I suggested, going right to the heart of methodologies that the Executive can bring to bear on the problem of terrorism. To whit: If one assumes guilt one is methodologically obliged to do everything one can to prove innocence. When the threat of a leak intervenes it becomes impossible to take the risk of compiling evidence for innocence because the public (as has been adequate demonstrated) is prepared only to presume innocence. With that assumption compiling evidence of innocence guarantees a corrupt judgment. And this is only part of the legacy of Ellsberg. Do you see my point? I don't think you owe Dino more than a marginal apology, but apologies are good for the soul anyway.

Posted by: Demosophist at December 21, 2005 05:01 PM (Cn/gq)

13 Clarification: If one assumes guilt one is methodologically obliged to do everything one can to prove innocence. When the threat of a leak intervenes it becomes impossible to take the risk of compiling evidence for innocence because the public (as has been adequate demonstrated) is prepared only to presume innocence. With that assumption compiling evidence of innocence guarantees a corrupt judgment. It might not be clear to everyone that what I'm talking about here is the Bush Administration's failure to follow proper methodology regarding Saddam's WMD threat. They presumed guilt. That's good, because it accurately reflects the risk of being wrong. However, having made that presumption they should have sought evidence of innocence. It's obvious why they didn't do that, and that's my point. They couldn't afford to follow proper methodology because they couldn't rely on secrecy. The public is not yet sophisticated enough to apply Type II methodology to the problem of WMD.

Posted by: Demosophist at December 21, 2005 05:11 PM (Cn/gq)

14 Thanks Demo We are on the same wavelength - just saw the inadvertent opening for dick, er dino. It is an important issue and didn't want it sidetracked. I did however qualify my apology to dick, er dino.

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 05:35 PM (3aakz)

15 Demosphist, You assume that had the prosecution of Ellsberg been continued, he would have been convicted. But what if it had been carried on and the result of the trial was an acquital?

Posted by: David C at December 21, 2005 08:56 PM (rysK+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Taliban Johnny, A Thesis Regarding Expletives

Michelle Malkin, a very outspoken, considered by some (not this citizen journalist) a "controversial" figure, not to mention a racistsexistbigotedhomophobe, clues us in on this:

American-born Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh has asked President Bush again to reduce his 20-year prison sentence by an unspecified amount, Lindh's attorney said Tuesday.

In deference to Michelle Malkin, and her longstanding friendship to the Jawa Report, I will place my reply under the fold, in the manner normally prescribed to graphic images.

Let that be your warning. more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 01:59 AM | Comments (73) | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Reduce his sentence? His sentence should be doubled. Wonder how many people he either killed or helped to kill before being caught? On second thought, the death sentence would be more appropriate.

Posted by: greyrooster at December 21, 2005 02:52 AM (pSK/I)

2 Let him out when Mike Spann comes back to life.

Posted by: Tony B at December 21, 2005 02:59 AM (+/H6t)

3 Awesome rant. Very satisfying.

Posted by: Cardinal Martini at December 21, 2005 03:22 AM (nLV11)

4 I wonder, how does it feel trying to convince someone they're going to get 72 virgins from Allah when they have your pasty-white, virgin ass bent over the cot? Just call him Johnny Brokeback.

Posted by: V the K at December 21, 2005 04:15 AM (PYXzc)

5 Kick ass, Vinnie. It would be cool if President Bush could word his reply in the same fashion. Twenty years in an American prison is definitely not enough for him. If the sentence can't be increased or changed to death, then perhaps this: he fought with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance which pretty much now constitutes the Afghani government. After 20 years he should be turned over to the Afghanis to serve some time in a dank, depressing Afghan jail (by jail I mean a hole in the ground with corrugated sheeting as covering).

Posted by: Graeme at December 21, 2005 05:04 AM (LZHSo)

6 I said 2 years ago and this is why I said it. Kill the SOB. Send him to me and I'll do it! He killed at least one American (and an exJarhead) and probably more. He is a traitor, Traitors must be killed. an old exJarhead

Posted by: Rod Stanton at December 21, 2005 05:19 AM (yONeR)

7 Agent Jones says that John Walker Lindh should be DRAFTED into the United States military where his profound knowledge of the SALAFIST TERRORISTS and Qaedic Arabic could be put to use as a AQT Tactics Briefer. Agent Brown says that Frank Abignale was released from a lengthy term in Federal Prison to loyally serve his new FBI masters in tracking down and bringing numerous criminals to cold hard justice. Agent Smith says that as the best police think like the criminals they catch, to nail BIN LADEN, we need a former Qaeda working on our side.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 21, 2005 06:10 AM (CpR+U)

8 You people should read up on why he got 20yrs. It's complicated, but the executive summary is they gave him a light sentence to shut him up. He has agreed not to publish any info about his experience as part of a plea bargain. Obviously, we can't know what it was that the govt. didn't want us to hear, but it seemed important enough to Bush. Personally, I'm hesitant to damn the guy because he went to Afghanistan before we decided to attack them. When he and his friends come under sudden full-scale military assault, I suppose the view of everyone here is that he should have said, "Welp, it's been fun guys but you're the enemy now so I can't play with you no more. Let's hope they don't draft me and make me come shoot y'all!" Under the circumstances maybe that wasn't an option.

Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 06:18 AM (dT1MB)

9 Shannon, that was the most shallow-minded dissertation, riddled with BDS, I've come across in a while. First you admit we can't know what information he promised not to tell, then you assume Bush was the one who would be hurt by whatever information we can't possibly know. Furthermore, the guy was fighting with the Taliban before we got there. He was already an enemy and traitor.

Posted by: Oyster at December 21, 2005 07:41 AM (YudAC)

10 >>>"Obviously, we can't know what it was that the govt. didn't want us to hear, but it seemed important enough to Bush." yes, "obviously". Classified info is "obviously" always for the purpose of covering up malfeasance by "Bush." Classified info is never to protect our country, our troops or their tactics, or any other reason we don't have the sligtest about here . It's always nefarious. >>>"Welp, it's been fun guys but you're the enemy now so I can't play with you no more. That would have been exactly what I would have said. Not you? Then you should be in that prison getting ass banged with him.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 09:05 AM (8e/V4)

11 Oyster, If my post resembles a dissertation to you, you need to spend more time reading stuff other than blogs. If it's the most shallow-minded thing you've seen on a blog, you need to read more blogs. I didn't mention anything "hurting" Bush in my post. By the time he went to trial Lindh was front-page news. It's hard to believe that the prosecutor would have ofered him a deal without at least the president's tacit approval. When you make a deal with someone to hush up, you have a reason for it. I've really got no idea what Bush's reason was. The guy is thought to have gone to Afghanistan in Spring 2001, which would be about half a year before the Taliban decided to elect themselves chief enemy of the U.S. Maybe they were plotting something against us back then, and if Lindh knew about it that would make him a traitor. Whatever they were planning for us, they would have been fools to share it with the weird American guy they just picked up in Pakistan. I doubt the kid knew a damn thing.

Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 09:25 AM (dYdvr)

12 Lindh should be hung along with Aldrich Ames, Earl Pitts, Robert Hanssen, and John Pollard. And while were at it, find that SOB that leaked the "domestic spying" info and put him on the end of a rope too. Leaking info that is vital to national security is the same as engaging in combat against your own country. They are Traitors, one and all and should be treated as such.

Posted by: memphis761 at December 21, 2005 09:39 AM (D3+20)

13 That 'shut him up' argument is a bunch of crap, Shannon. If the US wanted to shut him up, he would have 'died in combat'. Putting him in an American prison for 20 twenty years doesn't stop him from talking no matter what piece of paper he signed. Please don't try to tell us that some low-level Taliban fighter had the goods on Bush to embarass him. That may work over at Kos, but the average IQ in this forum is higher and the blind devotion to a political party lower. Also, the Taliban was a known enemy of the US before he dragged his sorry ass over there. If poor Johnny got himself in over his head, well then, he made his bed in had to lie in it. This is a case of a spoiled, rich, liberal punk from the Bay Area who thought he would go and make an anti-America statement by joining the Taliban army. I'm sure by the end of day one, he had wished he had packed extra underwear. The next time you want to make a point, don't pull that condescending "you people should read up" bullshit and show us some real information from a neutral and reliable source, i.e. not from the DNC talking points or a celebrity quote from Rolling Stone magazine. Even if "It's complicated", we'll try to put our heads together and decipher it.

Posted by: slug at December 21, 2005 09:42 AM (wcNc2)

14 One more thing about hanging those traitorous wretches, MAKE IT PUBLIC !!!! Build a gallows on the national mall, hang them all and leave them hanging til their bones have been picked clean and sun bleached. Like all other laws in this country, you have to enforce the laws that are on the books, apply the punishment to fit the crime, and be consistent about it.

Posted by: memphis761 at December 21, 2005 09:50 AM (D3+20)

15 Just yesterday ShannonKW claimed to be a conservative, but then in the same comment came to the defense of the BBC. She is about as conservative as Pelosi, or perhaps Kos. A liberal is sooo easy to spot, they just can't help themselves.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 21, 2005 10:06 AM (rUyw4)

16 seminar bloggers.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 10:08 AM (8e/V4)

17 well it certainly shows that our hindsight is always 20-20. In 2000-1 the US government total aid to Afghanistan was about 150 million. Of which 43 million was in cash, to the Taliban. Google it

Posted by: john Ryan at December 21, 2005 10:22 AM (ads7K)

18 John, yes, as part of the anti-drug effort there. Same with Colombia. And then 9/11 happenned. That should have been Johnny Taliban's cue to bail.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 10:33 AM (8e/V4)

19 Well, itÂ’s a pretty ridiculous request. Charlie Manson has a better chance of getting this President to reduce his sentence than young John.

Posted by: Brad at December 21, 2005 10:59 AM (3OPZt)

20 C'mon folks: all Taliban Johnny needs to do is get some hack to ghost-write a children's book about staying away from terrorism. He'll publish it, the NYT Book Review will give it five stars, the Hollywood crowd will go into a swoon, Heath Ledger will portray him in an Academy Award-nominated movie, he'll be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and the next defeat-ocrat president will grant him a pardon.

Posted by: docjim505 at December 21, 2005 11:14 AM (MC8cP)

21 I'm with memphis on this one; we need public hangings of his sort. And politicians too, starting with Billary, John Kerry, Dingy Harry Reid, et al.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 21, 2005 11:25 AM (0yYS2)

22 If anything the Taliban / Al-Qaeda - Russia / Mujahideen should teach us as Americans, that is it is time for our Government to stop backing a horse because it suits a method to our means, the horse inevitably lands back at our door. As Carlos mentioned the drug trade and Columbia, I'll add a little counter, sometimes even though our Special Forces are running interdictions at the will of our politicians, the same have already tied their hands behind their backs. I believe it was in the book "Combat Swimmer" one of the Navy Seals tasked with hunting drug lords said that their operational orders were to capture, and hand over to local authorities. He had specifically requested if it would not be better to kill them, in order to make being a drug lord a dangerous job, while sending messages to others. He was told no, capture and hand to local authorities. Well of course they did, but nothing ever came of it because the drug lords already had local authorities in their pockets, and were released. So why send in the SF, if you're not going to follow through? this is part of the problem: the cavalier actions of our politicians, with their "secret wars" and selective law enforcement, there is not enough thought behind it, no analysis of the reprocussions, or monitoring of the after effects and it inevitably gets people killed. It's happened in Iraq too.

Posted by: dave at December 21, 2005 11:28 AM (CcXvt)

23 dave, sometimes the politicians are themselves restrained by Liberals, and other times restrained by the political realities on the ground. So it's not always unfair to criticize them for having to restrain the SF.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 11:44 AM (8e/V4)

24 ...not always FAIR...

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 11:45 AM (8e/V4)

25 First off, I'm a dude. Uncommon first name, yes, and half of my junk mail is addressed to "Ms. ShannonKW." Second, I'm conservative compared with the mean here in the U.S. I just look liberal here because this board is somewhat to the right of Ferdinand Marcos. Third, the conditions of Lindh's agreement are public knowledge. I got it from Wiki. If you know a reputable source that disputes it, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Fourth, I made no crack on Bush. I can't imagine what Lindh could know that would embarrass Bush personally. Wiki suggests that he was maltreated by his captor, but that doen't sound like enough to me. If I was a gambling man I'd bet that they shut him up to prevent him from becoming a hero to those who sympatize with him, but I wouldn't bet much. Fifth, lazy, spoiled people aren't known for renouncing all the comforts of a wealthy family to study Arabic in Yemen, attend an austere religious academy in Pakistan, and take to the hills of Central Asia with a bunch of fanatic semi-barbarians. Loony is certainly plausible, but "spoiled" is right out. I have this old-fashioned ability to respect the virtues of my enemies. If it was up to me, I would give Lindh a full pardon, a pair of sandals, and a one-way ticket to Yemen on the condition that he renounce U.S. citizenship and never return. Hell, out of generosity of spirit I'd even give him a kind farewell: "Sorry U.S. isn't Islamic enough for you. Get lost."

Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 12:06 PM (dYdvr)

26 Well my comments were in regards to all parties, if we were to look at the Russia / Mujahideen scenario, while the Government poured lots of money into financing a rag-tag guerilla force, and trained them in techniques to destroy soviet Helicopters via targetting the front/rear rotors to destroy the Soviets afterwards, we had to realise that these soldiers would move on? Even King Hussein of Jordan warned us that the returning Mujahideen enrolled into the Islamic Egyptian Jihad (which would then become the base of Al-Qaeda) While the old adage applied is that "You cannot make an omelette, without breaking some eggs" and often it is true, but we should all expect accountability from our politicians, and request that for every action they make, they look to the future and the effects that they may create?

Posted by: dave at December 21, 2005 12:07 PM (CcXvt)

27 Actually Shannon the seeds of his induction to Islam were started here, with his attendance of a Mosque funded by the radicals in Saudi Arabia. Also when you count out the "spoiled" I think you are going with the scenario that suicide bombers, and radicals are a product of being poor. That is not true, look at some of the profiles of suicide bomers in Iraq, they were living in relative wealth. btw. Wikipedia leans so far left, I have to tilt my head to read the screen.

Posted by: dave at December 21, 2005 12:11 PM (CcXvt)

28 The guy is thought to have gone to Afghanistan in Spring 2001, which would be about half a year before the Taliban decided to elect themselves chief enemy of the U.S. So, you're arguing that until about, oh, 8:30 a.m. on September 11, 2001, the Taliban Regime wasn't anti-American? You are arguing that Johnny Brokeback had no idea what he was getting into when he joined al Qaeda? He never got 'the talk' until 8:30 a.m. on September 11? Can I buy pot from you?

Posted by: V the K at December 21, 2005 12:21 PM (1R6cr)

29 I hope they laugh at his request for a sentence reduction as they toss it into the wastebasket. I seriously doubt that he had any damaging information against the U.S.

Posted by: Dkelsmith at December 21, 2005 12:48 PM (a3ksX)

30 Lindh didn't volunteer or operate in a vacuum. He knowingly joined, participated with, and by extension, fully supported the ideology, the actions, and the "baggage" of the Tailban and AQ PRE 9/11. I don't care how young he was - 9/11 is not the benchmark to judge him by, but just one item in a string of related events. There have been similar cases in the past - notably WW2 - of Americans (and other nationals) serving in the Nazi military by choice. In the case of the Americans - yes - pre Dec 7 '41. I know a few were captured - but don't know what happened to them. I know many simply "disappeared". Whatever ... Lindh already has received clemency - his treatment & sentence went above and beyond compassion. I would be open to him serving out the remainder of his sentence in an Afghan prison with his peers - plus additional charges could be brought against him by the Afghan government for his participation and actions against the Afghan people. I consider that fair & compassionate.

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 12:58 PM (3aakz)

31 I don't have a feminine name so maybe I'm missing something. Can you please highlight and quote for me exactly where in Lindh's plea agreement it is that he is sworn to silence? Granted it is unaccompanied by the usual Wiki-flavored commentary but I think I understood almost every word used. The closest I see to anything approaching censure is this: 14. The defendant hereby assigns to the United States any profits or proceeds which he may be entitled to receive in connection with any publication or dissemination of information relating to illegal conduct alleged in the Indictment. This assignment shall include all profits and proceeds for the benefit of the defendant, regardless of whether such profits and proceeds are payable to himself or to others, directly or indirectly, for his benefit or for the benefit of the defendantÂ’s associates or a current or future member of the defendantÂ’s family. The defendant shall not circumvent this assignment by assigning the rights to his story to an associate or to a current or future member of the defendantÂ’s family, or to another person or entity who would provide some financial benefit to the defendant, to the defendantÂ’s associates, or to a current or future member of the defendantÂ’s family. Moreover, the defendant shall not circumvent this assignment by communicating with an associate or a family member for the purpose of assisting or facilitating their profiting from a public dissemination, whether or not such an associate or other family member is personally or directly involved in such dissemination. So whatever you have buried in that gray lump between your ears please be kind enough to spill it out here with links preferrably. 22. The defendant agrees that this agreement puts to rest his claims of mistreatment by the United States military, and all claims of mistreatment are withdrawn. The defendant acknowledges that he was not intentionally mistreated by the U.S. military. Enjoy....

Posted by: Not named Sue at December 21, 2005 01:40 PM (Vp1bn)

32 Nice work! Yes! he can talk all he wants - he just can't get paid for it - which is becoming pretty standard in many criminal cases now. It is a bit of a stretch to consider this "forced silence".

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 01:48 PM (3aakz)

33 not sue, good job. Let that be a lesson to the rest of us about taking Libs at their word.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 01:59 PM (8e/V4)

34 Shannon said: "Second, I'm conservative compared with the mean here in the U.S. I just look liberal here because this board is somewhat to the right of Ferdinand Marcos." Explain that please, specifically how "right" Marcos was, and how we, the denizens of TJR, are moreso in comparison. You may think you're conservative, but you still parrot the enemy's propaganda nicely.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 21, 2005 02:33 PM (0yYS2)

35 So you think he's a sheep in wolf's clothing, do you maxie? Maybe right.

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 02:38 PM (3aakz)

36 It looks like line 22 pretty much prevents him from claiming to be maltreated, even if he was. It seems doubtful that that clause would have to be added if he was NOT maltreated, but also unlikely that the whole agreement was made for the sake of that line. (For the record, it wouldn't matter to me if he had been maltreated. The dude who supposedly did it already got his, so that score is settled.) The non-profit clause would effectively gag him except in the case that someone decided to publish his story out of sheer charity. It is so broad that it prevents anyone at all from profitting by it. So this would prevent, "One Against America! The JWL Story!" from making the bestseller list and inspiring budding white jihadists everywhere, which supports my best guess above. There is nothing in there I can see that totally shuts him up, but I already said I thought he didn't know anything in my original post. Looking through to body of the agreement, it looks like it was mainly for intelligence purposes though with the other stuff tacked on.

Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 03:08 PM (dYdvr)

37 "The dude who supposedly did it already got his, so the score is settled." Nice job scumbag, you just let everybody here know exactly what you are. Fuck off to Yemen yourself.

Posted by: anti-walker at December 21, 2005 03:52 PM (i9Fox)

38 Another fly-by-night free emailer - of the "right" persuasion this time. Come back later when you invest some money in a real email account - until then - leave the insults to those who paid for the right to do it! Awaiting greyrooster who has PAID his dues - now he knows how to insult - with style!

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 04:05 PM (3aakz)

39 So you are admitting that your initial post: It's complicated, but the executive summary is they gave him a light sentence to shut him up. He has agreed not to publish any info about his experience as part of a plea bargain. is a load of bullshit? Thank you, Shannon. How very "conservative" of you. Now maybe you can go correct this "Wiki" that lead you astray.

Posted by: Not named Sue at December 21, 2005 04:15 PM (Vp1bn)

40 Hmmm....I think Johnny Tali got off lightly as it was, but one wonders why he would ask at this time. Perhaps he is just throwing mud at the wall with hopes of some sticking. He would die in prison if it was up to me.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 21, 2005 04:20 PM (rUyw4)

41 I agree with Shannon. The guy joined the Taliban before we were at war with them. It would have been suicide for him to desert when the war commenced. Besides, Bush and his oil buddies were cozy with the Taliban. When the Taliban turned down an "offer that they shouldn't have refused", the U.S turned on them BEFORE 9-11. Typical mafiosa behavior: There was a preexisting desire to build gas pipelines in Afghanistan. Â“A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas. A BBC regional correspondent says the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.Â” 12-04-1997 http://news.b_bc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm (Take Out Underscore) The Texas contingency must not have had a constructive meeting with the Taliban, because the pipeline contract was awarded to the Argentinean company Bridas. Plans for a war against Afghanistan and Iraq had already been made prior to 9-11. Â“A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.Â” http://news.bb_c.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm (Take Out Underscore) On March 15th, 2001, JaneÂ’s Defense reported that war against the Taliban had already commenced, Â“India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.Â” http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 05:12 PM (KzOsW)

42 For a good pre-9-11 timeline highlighting the rivalry for the TalibanÂ’s signature by Unocal and Bridas (BP Amoco Argentina), see: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/119.html Johnny Boy, "Walkered" in on a deal gone bad. IÂ’d buy his book.

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 05:52 PM (KzOsW)

43 Hmmmm, Let's see. The thread topic is about Lindh's request for clemency. You agree with Shannon with a one-line opening sentence. Then ZOOOOOOMMMMMMM! Off you go into Neverland! OK. Fine. Since you choose the exclusive material on the Taliban and Afghanistan (NOT Iraq everyone) - then come out of the fuckin' closet with conviction and courage and openingly claim the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and AQ is illegal, fraudulent and a US conspiracy! Come on! You coyly hint at it - now go for it! That's a winning strategy - yeah - right! I swear! You are the most pathetic, educated yet inept writer I have encountered in years!

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 05:59 PM (3aakz)

44 Hondo, I love how you circle jerk boys ignore my argument. You lose, thanks fer playin'. NEXT!

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 06:14 PM (KzOsW)

45 "1997" Greg, distrust and verify is our motto here. In fact Bill Clinton was president in 1997-- not "Bush and his oil buddies". Bush wasn't even a candidate for president. The TalibanÂ’s entry into the United States was requested by the Unocal corporation and cleared by ClintonÂ’s State Department. Which would seem to prove that it was actually "Clinton and his oil buddies" who were cozy with the Taliban-- not "Bush". As far as Unocal and the pipeline deal goes, that too is a lie. Unocal led an multinational consortium in the 1990s which undertook feasibility studies, but it pulled out of the project in 1998 because of security issues. Three years after the invasion, Unocal still doesn't have a pipeline in Afghanistan. Why not? Doesn't "Bush" call the shots there? Musharraf and Karzai have signed a pipeline deal, and Unocal isn't part of that consortium. If "Bush and his oil buddies" had wanted a Unocal pipeline in Afghanistan, there would be one right now. Your Unocal pipeline meme doesn't hold a drop of water.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 06:24 PM (8e/V4)

46 greg Your "argument" was a series of links to OTHER PEOPLES writings, opinions, analyses, and thoughts. NOT yours. You actually DIDN'T "argue" or write anything you moron! You didn't even attempt to analytically extropolate any shred of linkage or context. This is the lame intellectual bankrupt equivalent of a 5 page term paper with 1 paragraph and 4 1/2 pages of footnotes and bibliography! Whoever were your professors in analytical and creative writing were - I'd sue to get your money back!

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 06:35 PM (3aakz)

47 ps, correction: according to Unical, their decision to pull out was made on a commercial basis-- and has not been reconsidered.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 06:40 PM (8e/V4)

48 JC On this one don't even bother - in fact - force the real hinted issue - the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and AQ - don't play his idiotic and childish game - till he comes out and "ARGUES" it.

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 06:40 PM (3aakz)

49 hondo, the conspiracy crowd is too pathetic for words. There's an excellent article on what makes these people tick, and why they latch onto conspiracies like their world literally depended on it: "When a postmodern liberal is served up a myth which supports his shaky world view, he will cling to it, cherish it, and defend it. This is precisely why postmodern liberalism and far left ideologies are so thickly salted with myths. The myths are carefully protected with oppressive systems of political correctness where dissent is stifled. In Communist countries, dissent from Marxist myths earned you a trip to the gulag for labor and "re-education," or to an insane asylum where your "mental illness" can be cured by drugs, torture, and brainwashing techniques." "When one has adopted a false world view, he requires the support of myths. Real life is constantly battering against his sand castle walls. Something with psychological power like myths are needed to shore up the jerry-built edifice of his false world view. When a conservative points out that the house has no foundation, the liberal can deny it, rationalize it away, or accuse the conservative of being a fascist. It is far easier to ignore the missing foundation if there is a ready made myth like Adorno's "authoritarian mind" to fall back upon. "The guy who is criticizing me is a fascist type. I can ignore his criticism. Let's attack the fascist." http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/040630

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 06:46 PM (8e/V4)

50 Greg also loves the moonbats at the BBC, and uses them for reference, as if they are objective and don't have an ideology. The Al-Guardian, one of the worst of the Leftist rags in the UK, is the recruiting ground of choice for the BBC. Frankly, I'm surprised Johnny (Taliban) Lindh wasn't working for the BBC in 2000-2001. Perhaps that is how he ended up in Afghanistan, he was a reporter for the BBC working on the Unocal pipeline angle. Heh!

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 21, 2005 06:52 PM (rUyw4)

51 Carlos, The Janes defense link is from MARCH 15, 2001. http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml Second, you know I hate both major parties. Fuck Clinton and Bush. Third, the deal that was being sought by Unocal of the Taliban is not a Â“lieÂ”. You go on to admit as much in your next sentence, Â“Unocal led an (sic) multinationalÂ…Â” Finally, the spoils of war are still being sorted out in Afghanistan. Haliburton is a player and yes, Haliburton had a favored relationship with the government under Clinton too. I would bet that Â“American multinational CorporateÂ” interests (an oxymoron) are primed to realize the full commercial potential that is Afghanistan should security issues be resolved.

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 06:56 PM (KzOsW)

52 JC But he didn't make an argument or state a conspiracy. He in fact - did nothing! - and wants to be recognized for - nothing! What annoys me is that is was LAME & LAZY! And he wants credit for it! Any self-respecting leftist writer would sadly shake their head and give him a D ... I would give him a D- simply because his spelling was good - and I'm a nice guy.

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 06:57 PM (3aakz)

53 greg, one simple question. If Unocal didn't drop out because of economic reasons (as they already stated), then why didn't they sign a deal when the Taliban fell? Just answer that one single question. Don't go onto other topics or rabbit trails. Focus like a laser beam on just that one question.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 07:06 PM (8e/V4)

54 >>>"Second, you know I hate both major parties. Fuck Clinton and Bush." Show me where you go to harrass Democrats and Liberals. A link please.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 07:33 PM (8e/V4)

55 Carlos, Again... I would bet that Â“American multinational CorporateÂ” interests (an oxymoron), INCLUDING UNOCAL, are primed to realize the full commercial potential that is Afghanistan SHOULD SECURITY ISSUES BE RESOLVED. I have answered your question twice, but you're too thickheaded, as usual, to get it. "Economic reasons" and security issues are synonymous inn this case.

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 07:35 PM (KzOsW)

56 "I would bet..." That's your answer? See this article on post-modern need for myths and conspiracies: The Myth Creating Process of the Left http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/040630

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 07:50 PM (8e/V4)

57 I harass liberals on this site all the time. IÂ’m a conservative and I belong here. Now I get to ask you a question. You claim to be a Â“ChristianÂ” and yet, yesterday, you encouraged Impy to Â“shoot him in the back of the headÂ”, to paraphrase, when engaging one Â“Ben FranklinÂ” in a mob frenzy. Given that you claim to be a Â“ChristianÂ”, how do you reconcile such behavior?

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 07:50 PM (KzOsW)

58 greg, did it piss you off? That's how I reconcile it ;-)

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 07:56 PM (8e/V4)

59 Carlos""I would bet..."That's your answer" I have in fact bet. I've made a nice chunk of change in the market. Valero (VLO) has tripled in the last year, Halliburton (HAL) has nearly doubled in the last 9 months, Exxon Mobil (XOM) and Conoco Phillips (COP) have also done me right. But my best pick, should the H5N1 hysteria get out of control, is Gildeon Sciences (GILD). They developed Tamiflu and sold it to Roche for 10% royalties, which could be substantial (This is one of RumseldsÂ’ former companies). I say, do as the royals do if you want to get ahead. I made money during the Clinton and Bush Administrations and I still intensely dislike them both.

Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 08:26 PM (KzOsW)

60 This is drifting off the post topic. This is not a bulletin board, or an open forum. O ye of little faith, tread carefully, for thy Vinnie is a vengeful Vinnie.

Posted by: Vinnie at December 21, 2005 08:31 PM (Kr6/f)

61 Not named Sue, Looking over my posts on this I don't think I was too far from the mark, especially considering that I didn't have the text of the agreement on hand and was referring to a Wikipedia article from memory. I stated what my source was and wasn't trying to "bullshit" anyone. What got you all huffy and caused a thousand knees to jerk in unison appears to be a paranoid conviction that I was insinuating some sort of conspiracy or evildoing on the part of Bush WHICH I WENT OUT OF MY WAY TO DENY. Maybe you're sensitized to it because every time someone you don't agree with says "Bush" he's sure to follow it up with lunatic conspiracy theories or a comparison to a chimpanzee. I wasn't accusing Bush of anything wrong. I didn't even say the agreement was wrong. If you want to vent your bile on a Bush-basher at least have the goddamn self-restraint to wait till somebody bashes him. You people do take the prize for this: You are the only people in ages to mistake me for a liberal. I've got no idea where you get this. Maybe you're mistaking conservatism with patriotism. Who knows? I do know I have extreme conservative beliefs that could shock the snuff down Farmer Brown's gullet: I believe the max prison sentence in the US should be 5yrs--Any crime deserving worse should be punished with penal servitude or death. I believe violent criminals should be impressed into penal battallions and used as cannon-fodder, because I like the idea of unleashing our internal foes on our extenal ones. Dead prisoners should be scavenged for parts. Repeat offenders (any crime) past a certain threshold should be deemed uncivilizable and released naked into large reservations to live the rest of their lives as hunter-gatherers. The "Duty to Treat" (law requiring doctors to treat all patients in need) should be suspended in the case of self-inflicted injury. Junkies die on their own dime. The vote should be given only to people who can make trouble. I'm still not sure if it was a good idea to give it to women. All governement--local, state, and federal--must operate within a fixed budget. The budget may only be adjusted by referendum. No entitlement programs. No medicare/medicaid. No Social Security. If you can't contribute to your own retirement fund, you're not worth propping up. Ordering US military forces to attack in the absence of a congressional declaration of war should be deemed an act of treason and punished by death only. I could go on, but I won't nauseate you further. I ain't a liberal.

Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 08:41 PM (dT1MB)

62 Another Crook wannabe (same game)- laying out fishing hooks for those gullible to fall for it.

Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 10:56 PM (3aakz)

63 Greg, when are you going to get it through your thick skull that you're an idiot? Is it your particular curse to never realize that you're "special"? You should be wrangling shopping carts at the local Wal-Mart, not wasting your time on the internet. By the way, I've seen where you've been posting that article with my information, especially on the Tennessee Indymedia site. If you do such things again, I will have no choice but to find you. Don't fuck up.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 11:40 AM (0yYS2)

64 Improbulus:"By the way, I've seen where you've been posting that article with my information, especially on the Tennessee Indymedia site." I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. "Agent Smith" is the one who outed you and I think I know who he is. Please show me a link to what you are talking about and I will help you analyze the situation.

Posted by: Greg at December 22, 2005 01:45 PM (KzOsW)

65 Don't play stupid greg. Stalk me and you stalk a lion. It's time for you to stop playing your childish games and straighten up before you become the next celebrity of the 24 hour news cycle.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 02:49 PM (0yYS2)

66 Thank you for the resume, Shannon. It doesn't change the fact that you hung your ass out pretty far off a shaky platform. Here you are in the first post you made to this thread: You people should read up on why he got 20yrs. It's complicated, but the executive summary is they gave him a light sentence to shut him up. He has agreed not to publish any info about his experience as part of a plea bargain. Obviously, we can't know what it was that the govt. didn't want us to hear, but it seemed important enough to Bush. Take your own advice? Google is your friend by the way. Also your enemy if you're ignorant(red flag clue here). You were wrong. You half-heartedly admitted as much yet you will probably stick to the same bullshit line of reasoning you had before you made the mistake of posting here. Willful ignorance is consistent if little else. Here you are again making a complete ass out of yourself(by the way, you should paypal Greg for trumping your silliness): Third, the conditions of Lindh's agreement are public knowledge. I got it from Wiki. If you know a reputable source that disputes it, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Yes, it is public knowledge so why did you rely solely(?) on "Wiki*". And you obviously couldn't give a shit about reputable sources since you didn't even bother to go directly to THE source--the court documents. Here you go, Ms. Shannon. Notice the first link. Woe is me!!1 So much effort and time invested in that research project. By the way, my responses weren't knee-jerk dismissal of some liberal troll. It was actually serious snark directed at a fool. A fool who obviously had no qualms about flaunting his ignorance in public. If someone else had called you on it I'd have kept to myself. Whether you're a registered R or D makes no difference. Stupid people reside on both sides of the aisle. But given you are quantifiably stupid AND your "he got what he deserved" comment about Spann the scales tilted away from irrate paleo-con toward hackneyed Kos flunky. * - You do know "wiki" is a platform for web design, right? You do know Wikipedia is not the only "wiki" in the universe, right, right? Of course, you probably know that as well as you know the details of Lindh's plea agreement. Who am I to question.

Posted by: Not named Sue at December 22, 2005 04:21 PM (YAEN3)

67 Impy, Trust me, you are the furthest thing from my mind. Send me the link and I might be able to tell you who did whatever you are talking about. neuroman_268@yahoo.com (Take Out The Underscore)

Posted by: Greg at December 22, 2005 05:17 PM (KzOsW)

68 Honestly greg, I don't really care who did it this time, but if it happens again, I'm going to find the person responsible.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 05:38 PM (0yYS2)

69 The question is... Who is "Agent Smith"?

Posted by: Greg at December 22, 2005 05:58 PM (KzOsW)

70 Agent Smith is NOT you! He (regardless of his political (and sexual) persuasion) writes his own material, is original and often creative - and occasionally amusing. You are a dork - the kind of guy other leftists give the wrong time and address for protests to.

Posted by: hondo at December 22, 2005 06:14 PM (3aakz)

71 He is quite creative.

Posted by: Greg at December 22, 2005 06:26 PM (KzOsW)

72 And your not - we agree on something ....YYYYEEEAAAHHHHH!

Posted by: hondo at December 22, 2005 06:30 PM (3aakz)

73 I think Smith's as big a moron as the rest, because my two year old neice can come up with better crap than he does.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 08:10 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 17, 2005

Waiter, There's A Fly In My Bongwater

What the President said today about the NYT outing of a covert operation that doesn't have the name "Plame" attached to it:

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.
As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late.
The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.
The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.
The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.
This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States.

Apologies to the slack-jawed bushliedpeopledied set. I know it hurts when reality slaps you upside yer melon.

stein hoist to Steve and Robbo's House Of Culture and Gossip

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:32 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 613 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Countdown to an ACLU lawsuit for release of all national security information gathered in 10,9,8,7.... but it'll only be to protect you from the 'evil' Government, and the damage it causes will be outweighted by the fact the ACLU won a lawsuit against the BusHitlerMcChimpyHaliburton Administration.

Posted by: dave at December 17, 2005 06:24 PM (CcXvt)

2 Screw the ACLU. All I want to know about this program is two things: First, is it catching terrorists. It certainly seems to be. Second, is it constitutional. There, we have a problem. Bush claims it is, but the Constitution itself says otherwise. He is relying on legal opinions nobody's seen -- and Harriet Miers! -- to make this determination. I remain unconvinced that the program is constitutional, whether it's "only" targeting terrorists or not. And the national security argument on this one is bullshit, too, which anyone who's actually IN the intelligence community can tell you. Nothing the Times printed jeopardizes the program in particular or national security generally.

Posted by: IO ERROR at December 17, 2005 07:03 PM (vhWf1)

3 Thank god we have the CIA! How else would we all hear about the juicy clandestine programs in the morning newspaper? Just think, in the past we used to have these "national security" programs that remained secret for decades, now we get to read all about them: realtime, like a Tom Clancy novel! I heard the same defense for the papers leaking that the United States were intercepting phone calls made by Bin Laden on his Satellite telephone.

Posted by: dave at December 17, 2005 07:13 PM (CcXvt)

4 The New York Times is redefining the "Classified" section.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at December 17, 2005 07:56 PM (DdRjH)

5 Liberal democrats are idiots. Just takes time to prove it. Over and over and over and over again. IO Error: If the constitution says we cannot use every means are our disposal to protect ourselves then it is time to change it. Remember when it was written and by whom and what did they mean at the time. Then was then. Now is now. Things and conditions change. We either change with them or perish.

Posted by: greyrooster at December 17, 2005 08:26 PM (TBvsM)

6 The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: G at December 17, 2005 08:48 PM (dQQ0n)

7 Always amazing when the idiots trot out the same old tired quotes of the things the 'founding fathers' said they agree with, and then totally disregard anything else they said, that they don't agree with. Hey G, you might want to next time quote him verbatim, if you respect Benjamin Franklin so much: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" How about this one: "I've lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, —and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages." Benjamin Franklin. Did he just say God? someone please page the ACLU.

Posted by: dave at December 17, 2005 09:06 PM (CcXvt)

8 Yesterday the white house was all like "shhh, we can't talk about it. Security." Today they blab and blab. Security. Sure.

Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 10:08 PM (YViDI)

9 I want to see the leakers who gave this data to the press punished and an explanation from the press why they have acted so reckless with utter disregard for national security and the safety of the America n people.

Posted by: TJ Jackson at December 17, 2005 11:07 PM (1fKmK)

10 Ask Karl Rove (hee hee hee)

Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 11:11 PM (3aakz)

11 >>>The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. This isn't about "freedom", it's about privacy. Please don't try to confuse the two just so you can unfurl your pithy sayings that don't even apply. I don't have less freedom because I might have less privacy. We sacrifice privacy all the time. And if we can sacrifice privacy for the sake of our credit rating, I'm sure we can make a far smaller sacrifice of privacy for our national security, and for our very lives.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 11:47 PM (8e/V4)

12 It never ceases to amaze me how rectus manages to so completely miss the mark every time. For someone who can string together a sentence better than the average moonbat idiot, he's still not too damned bright.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 18, 2005 01:00 AM (0yYS2)

13 IM, they are SUCH morons. They operate on platitudes and emotions. It's unbelievable. We're talking about privacy, but let's quote Benjamin Franklin on freedom! yippee! score one for the good guys! morons.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 18, 2005 01:14 AM (8e/V4)

14 Agent Smith quotes Benny Goodman.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 18, 2005 06:57 AM (+5j5X)

15 "Thank god we have the CIA! How else would we all hear about the juicy clandestine programs in the morning newspaper?" Why would the CIA know about an NSA program?

Posted by: actus at December 18, 2005 09:00 AM (YViDI)

16 Actus: was that a serious question? Who do you think provides signal intelligence to the CIA? You might have watched a few too many episodes of the X-Files, the NSA/CIA do work together.

Posted by: dave at December 18, 2005 11:02 AM (CcXvt)

17 "Who do you think provides signal intelligence to the CIA?" THe NSA. And why would the CIA know about the executive order the NSA was working under?

Posted by: actus at December 18, 2005 12:34 PM (YViDI)

18 Obviously because of operating procedures, the CIA would be the ones to analyze and identify the foreign parts of the communication, they would know who intercepted the information (NSA) and why it was intercepted. I guarantee the analysts at the CIA have the security clearance to analyse anything handed to them by the NSA.

Posted by: dave at December 18, 2005 01:00 PM (CcXvt)

19 "I guarantee the analysts at the CIA have the security clearance to analyse anything handed to them by the NSA." Sure. but the article talked about much more than what the CIA needs to analyse.

Posted by: actus at December 18, 2005 01:54 PM (YViDI)

20 The goal of an analyst is to extract needed information, from raw data, all available data is then given to them. I doubt that an analyst would be the one doing the leaking, however they are managed, by people that are well versed in both matter of policy, and the contents of the data.

Posted by: dave at December 18, 2005 02:04 PM (CcXvt)

21 Dave, Just keep marching in lock step.....

Posted by: G at December 18, 2005 04:02 PM (dQQ0n)

22 Yes, Dave, please stay in step. With reality. Remember. No matter how much you may ever doubt your own sanity. You're doing better than G.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 18, 2005 04:42 PM (0yYS2)

23 I'm not so sure, he feels the need to put words in Ben Franklin's mouth. He must be one of the great ones.

Posted by: dave at December 18, 2005 06:03 PM (CcXvt)

24 Great? Hell, he's a legend in his own mind!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 19, 2005 10:44 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Smear and Loathing

Harold Bloom is purportedly, as the Guardian notes in their story header for Bloom's American epitaph (Bushitlerburton, that tired clichÃƒÂ© again), a "celebrated critic". They neglect to mention who celebrates him, if anyone, outside academic cloisters. Certainly not me, and I also understand why he is a critic, rather than one of the classic American authors he admires.

The man can't write. His words reveal a brain that is a walk-in closet packed with disjointed literary tidbits hung in mismatched sets and hateful paranoid fantasies lurking in the shoeboxes.

He wanders on for hundreds of words when his entire message can be summed up thusly, "I'm an old partyline Democrat and I hate Republicans in general and George Bush in particular, and Americans are stupid for voting him into office". That's it, all Bloom has to say. Yet he drags out this message with inappropriate and boring literary references and unfounded lunatic fringe innuendo until one just wants to scream at him, "Enough! Pass gas in the President's general direction and be done with it, you senile old misanthrope." more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:51 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

December 16, 2005

Secrets And Lies

So, what's the other ~~bury the Iraq election~~ big news of the day.

Supposedly, the President secretly ordered the NSA to spy on American citizens.

Well, there are far too many places debunking this utter garbage to link them all. Besides, I know you are well informed (trolls excepted), and have already read the vast deconstructing going on.

But let's just say that this really is the big revelation the New York Times says it is.

Would you be shocked? Horrified? Aghast?

If you are any of these above, then answer me these:

Do you have cameras atop your stoplights?

Have you ever taken money from an ATM?

Ever gone inside a convenience store? A bank?

Have you ever applied for credit? How about a job? Particularly one that requires a "background check?"

How about filing your tax return?

Have you ever passed a law enforcement officer holding a radar gun?

Oh, here's a good one; Have you ever purchased a firearm?

Ladies and gentlemen, your government, at all levels, has been spying on you since your parents filled out the birth certificate and put your cute footieprints on the card.

I don't like it. I hate it. But that's the way it is. Sadly, not enough of our population hates it, and most just accept the next erosion of liberty as the cost of living in a free country.

What a sad state of affairs it is when the New York Times puts the nation at risk by publishing leaks of classified information used to gather information on potential terrorists, while ignoring the real crimp on our liberty that goes on every day in full view of an uncaring public.

Seditious bastards.

Posted by: Vinnie at 10:57 PM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The defeatocrats will do ANYTHING, including jeopardize the security of us all, if it will help them regain power. If they can hurt George Bush, they'll do ANYTHING to accomplish that. They're actually willing to gamble with the lives of the American people if it will cause political damage to the President. It's disgusting and seditious and somebody's got to do something about it. I just hope to god that the vast majority of voters out there are taking this all in and will make these bottom-feeders pay big come election time.

Posted by: Richard at December 16, 2005 11:21 PM (W8EsU)

2 Read the Times story very carefully - there may well be a very good chance this may blow up in their faces. We know the release is a promo for a book, and we know how much they hate Bush - - at the same time, they minced their words very very carefully on some extremely critical points. More to follow ...

Posted by: hondo at December 16, 2005 11:46 PM (3aakz)

3 If your serious about following this in detail without the hype or hysteria, I recommend The Captain's Quarters Blog - no offense Rusty.

Posted by: hondo at December 16, 2005 11:54 PM (3aakz)

4 Interesting...even the Washington Post is jumping on the Times over this. The paper offered no explanation to its readers about what had changed in the past year to warrant publication. It also did not disclose that the information is included in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, the lead reporter on yesterday's story. In a statement yesterday, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller did not mention the book.... Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said it was conceivable the Times waited to publish its NSA story as the Senate took up renewal of the Patriot Act.... The Times admitted last year that much of its reporting on Iraq's weapons programs before the war was flawed. The principal author of those stories, Judith Miller, later spent 85 days in jail to protect the identity of an administration source in the CIA leak case.... The Times announced last week that it was replacing its deputy bureau chief in Washington, which outsiders read as a sign of the paper's dissatisfaction with its Washington coverage.

Posted by: IO ERROR at December 16, 2005 11:58 PM (FVbj6)

5 Agent Jones says The Architect is very angry his cat was let out of the bag. Now you podlings just stay where you are and pretend you're in control of your oblivious lives.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 17, 2005 01:56 AM (oC6D4)

6 "Ladies and gentlemen, your government, at all levels, has been spying on you since your parents filled out the birth certificate and put your cute footieprints on the card." There are things that are tracked in public and things that are not tracked in public. Sure there is often confusion between the two, but the latest revelations are not of tracking of public info, but of private stuff. Ie, stuff which requires a warrant by law or the constitution.

Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 12:31 PM (YViDI)

7 This "news" was released the day after the Iraqi election. Hmmm, I wonder why??? Unemployment is down, consumer prices, down, inflation down, productivity up, and of course the wildly successful Iraq election. So what does the NYTimes report? yesterday's news: CONGRESS MEMBERS WERE BRIEFED ON EAVESDROPPING -- A DOZEN TIMES http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/17/D8EI32N00.html

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 12:51 PM (8e/V4)

8 "CONGRESS MEMBERS WERE BRIEFED ON EAVESDROPPING -- A DOZEN TIMES" so? what about the rest of us plebes? We also would like to know if teh president is secretly acting illegally.a

Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 01:09 PM (YViDI)

9 rectus, two things. First, if Congress knows, then it's not "secret". Second, if it were "secret" doesn't make it illegal. So please tell me how this is either of those-- keeping in mind that the War on Terror is not about law enforcement with courtroom rules on admissibility of evidence, but WAR. Also keeping in mind that the info being intercepted are incoming INTERNATIONAL phone calls by known or suspected AQ operatives that cannot wait on the warrant process. Please justify your argument in light of those facts, as well as 9/11.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 01:28 PM (8e/V4)

10 an ps., Bush said his order was constitutional, was reviewed by legal authorities and that leaders in Congress were aware of it. He criticized the disclosure of the directive as improper. What is illegal here is revealing classified information not open to the plebes. Bush should call for an independend prosecutor to find the leaker and put him behind bars, starting with the NYTimes.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 01:33 PM (8e/V4)

11 "First, if Congress knows, then it's not "secret"." If its not secret then there's no problem publishing it either. "So please tell me how this is either of those-- keeping in mind that the War on Terror is not about law enforcement with courtroom rules on admissibility of evidence, but WAR." Why keep this in mind? the law is clear about how surveillance is to be done.

Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 02:13 PM (YViDI)

12 You know all this drama could have been avoided if the U.S Government did what it normally does when spying on the United States citizens. Have Echelon in one of our allies countries intercept the phone calls, microwaves, cell phones and data, then hand it to us. I'm wearing my Greg strength tinfoil hat today!

Posted by: dave at December 17, 2005 02:34 PM (CcXvt)

13 actus The surveilliance is directed at possible AQ links, fundamentalist islamic extremists and the like. Broader than that would not only be illegal (yes I agree), but also FUCKING STUPID! If this is narrowly focused (as is even indicated by the NYT) then what the hell is your problem? Please! don't come back with a "what if - expansionist - angels dancing on a head of a pin argument! If you perceive a danger here personally to you then spell it out. I don't - many here don't either feel threatened by it. Unless you can convince the majority of this country that their in danger of having their links to AQ exposed - you ain't going nowhere with this. (see the inherent problem)

Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 02:47 PM (3aakz)

14 Only someone who is more interested in helping the terrorists or destroying the US would object to what the President did. Don't worry, Dave, the same one complaining about this had no problem with Clinton spying on domestic groups without authorization. What a hypocrit.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 17, 2005 02:48 PM (rUyw4)

15 Bravo, Vinnie, Bravo! Give Vinnie a "harumph." Cameras at malls, in WalMart, Target, shopping center parking lots, post office, airports, heck, there was major security for the NHL draft in raleigh the other year. The leftards need to clue in to the reality of modern technology.

Posted by: William Teach at December 17, 2005 02:53 PM (AkiXU)

16 "If this is narrowly focused (as is even indicated by the NYT) then what the hell is your problem?" The oversight system that we have to keep these things narrowly focused was what was thwarted. A system built because of executive branch activity that went beyond narrow focuses. "Only someone who is more interested in helping the terrorists or destroying the US would object to what the President did." Baby jesus said so himself.

Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 02:58 PM (YViDI)

17 rectus, obviously you THINK the law is clear on how surveillance should be done, because this has been in flux since 9/11. But here in fact, no law has been broken. It just looks bad. But looking bad isn't illegal. And it only looks bad for people who refuse to understand the fundamental difference between gathering information to PREVENT an attack, vs gathering information to investigate a crime that has already been committed. Traditional law enforcement operates under the latter premise (i.e., investigating AFTER the fact), while counter-terrorism operates under the former (i.e., trying to PREVENT an attack). See the diff? 9/11 happenned precisely because Liberals don't get it. Take for example the case Khalid Almidhar who in 2001 had entered the U.S. and would later help commandeer the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon. His lawyers argued that information about Almidhar's ties to AQ obtained through intelligence channels could not be used to launch a criminal investigation. The FBI warned that "someday someone will die" because of that decision. And they were right-- Americans DIED. Also do a word search on "able danger" for examples of how Liberals are getting Americans people killed.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 03:02 PM (8e/V4)

18 actus There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that this wasn't narrowly focused on AQ links. I'm being specific - your still dancing around this point. You and anyone else is not going to get anywhere on this if you continue to avoid the AQ topic connection and attempt to shift the focus to an abstract argument. And your smart enough to know that - so this is just the Bushbash issue of the day. in a coupla days it will be something else.

Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 03:14 PM (3aakz)

19 "Traditional law enforcement operates under the latter premise (i.e., investigating AFTER the fact), while counter-terrorism operates under the former (i.e., trying to PREVENT an attack)." Which one of these is FISA supposed to handle? "There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that this wasn't narrowly focused on AQ links." But there is indication that it wasn't done according to the FISA act.

Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 03:18 PM (YViDI)

20 actus Domestic traffic according to FISA - A BIG YES - even according to NYT International - out going and in-coming - selectively a BIG NO with very important qualifiers ... Was FISA notified - appears so and told NOT their perview (a point you can argue) Was congressional oversight notified - appears so (get ready for the Jackie Gleeson routine from select democrats - hummmmmer hummmmer) Total number in the hundreds apparent (NYT plays a game with vague "possibly thousands' add-on) BIG POINT!!!! NYT states ".. Americans and others..". This is phasing that has a name in statistical analysis (I hated the subject and forgot it - any help Rusty) It "implies" Americans being the primary and majority targets but provides no basis leaving the reader to assume anything from 51/49 percent to 99/1 percent. Technically it states no such thing and could easily be the reverse 49/51 to 1/99. Its a common trick in advertising and it is legalese speak - its goal is to push or direct people to make a certain assumption or mental association without providing actual factual basis. Again, the AQ links - if you can't dis-associate your argument from that point - then you won't get away with this.

Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 03:45 PM (3aakz)

21 "It "implies" Americans being the primary and majority targets but provides no basis leaving the reader to assume anything from 51/49 percent to 99/1 percent." So what? what do the numbers matter? "Again, the AQ links - if you can't dis-associate your argument from that point - then you won't get away with this." I think we can believe the administration when they claim that people are linked with al-qaeda.

Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 04:04 PM (YViDI)

22 The numbers DO matter - pure and simple public relations - If the targets are foreign students, resident aliens, tourists or even naturalised citizens - all in context with AQ/radical islam etc ......... Then the PUBLIC is not going to give a damn! Simple. Believe the administration on the connection? That's Easy! But therein lies your problem - you have to convince others that there is no connection. See your problem now?

Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 04:20 PM (3aakz)

23 "The numbers DO matter - pure and simple public relations -" Oh. I'm worried about the law rather than how moronic the admin looks when it breaks it. "Believe the administration on the connection? That's Easy!" I know. their record on intel? very clear.

Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 04:40 PM (YViDI)

24 actus Nobody even slightly believes you are worried about the law - this is just another bushbash with tiny legs no less. Record on intel? Interesting - If you want to make an argument that they are NOT conducting surveillance and targeting AQ links - but everyone else instead for all other kinds of reasons - then make it. If you can't or don't - then this whole "controversy" goes abosolutely nowhere.

Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 05:00 PM (3aakz)

25 The NSAÂ’s activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSAÂ’s top legal officials, including NSAÂ’s general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. http://corner.nationalreview.com/ The NYTimes endangers national security and the lives of the American people in order to boost books sales: NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2005/12/16/20051216_220600_flash9nyt.htm The Democrats endanger national security and the lives of the American people in order to gain political advantage: CONGRESS MEMBERS WERE BRIEFED ON EAVESDROPPING -- A DOZEN TIMES http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/17/D8EI32N00.html

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 07:06 PM (8e/V4)

26 "CONGRESS MEMBERS WERE BRIEFED ON EAVESDROPPING -- A DOZEN TIMES" So? Does that make it ok?

Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 09:16 PM (YViDI)

27 Actus, yes, it does. Because it means this has political oversight, and has had it all along. The NYTimes is just trying to make some cash, and the Libs are just grandstanding. Now settle down, plebe. Let the patricians handle the running of this war.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 09:26 PM (8e/V4)

28 yes actus This dog don't hunt - sorry. And if it plays out as I suspect - in time some will be blaming Karl Rove for setting up Risen & the NYT. Key is the timeline - if this is old intel from immediately after 9/11 and the vast bulk in in the first couple of years - then the admin may be looking for a backdoor way "to leak" success stories. Intel's value is only when its fresh - if this is old material - and the communication lines no longer active - then hey ... There has always been aces in the back pocket of this admin - 4+ years on no further domestic attacks - why? they haven't forgotten about us or given up have they? Nothing drives them polls or preps for some very important mid-term elections than some "details" on the success on the war on terror at home. Brought to you "forcibly and regretably" (ha ha) by the NYT.

Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 09:53 PM (3aakz)

29 actus Oddly enough - even if I was the sort to agree with you - I would be telling you the same exact thing (only in a more cynical fashion).

Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 09:56 PM (3aakz)

30 "yes, it does. Because it means this has political oversight, and has had it all along. " Political oversight? so if congress disagrees with this, they can just pass a law? Of course they would tell their constituents why this law was needed. The whole point of FISA is to have judicial, not political oversight.

Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 10:12 PM (YViDI)

31 >>>"Political oversight? so if congress disagrees with this, they can just pass a law? ah, yeah, actually. That sounds about right to me. If Congress doesn't like it, they pass a law. But this isn't about legality, this is about Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 11:07 PM (8e/V4)

32 "ah, yeah, actually. That sounds about right to me. If Congress doesn't like it, they pass a law." How do they do that while keeping this secret?

Posted by: actus at December 18, 2005 01:01 AM (YViDI)

33 actus, that's the whole point. If Congress doesn't like it, then it's not a secret worth keeping and they can make it illegal. doi! I guess it's moot now though. Cat's out of the bag. Gee, thanks Libs. You've been a great help so far!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 18, 2005 01:09 AM (8e/V4)

34 "If Congress doesn't like it, then it's not a secret worth keeping and they can make it illegal" So Congress can leak this information if it doesn't like it?

Posted by: actus at December 18, 2005 11:26 AM (YViDI)

35 Ya know this is gonna backfire actus - come on now - admit it!

Posted by: hondo at December 18, 2005 11:31 AM (3aakz)

36 actus, could you really be that dumb? I doubt it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 18, 2005 11:39 AM (8e/V4)

37 I just wanted to pop in here and thank all of you for staying on topic. Wow, those Jedi mind tricks really do work!

Posted by: Vinnie at December 18, 2005 12:26 PM (Kr6/f)

38 You guys are missing the point entirely; rectus wants the terrorists to have every advantage possible so that they can pull off another 9/11 before Bush leaves office, so as to hurt the chances of the GOP in '08. He can whine, snivel, and protest all he wants, but we know that's the truth.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 19, 2005 10:46 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Local Reaction To The Patriot Act Rejection

A haiku:

Hagel, you loser
No votes from me, you traitor
Yes, Osama smiles

Posted by: Vinnie at 08:32 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

December 12, 2005

Son Says CBS' Mike Wallace To Have Competency Hearing

Chris Wallace, a Fox News anchor, and the son of CBS newsman Mike Wallace, stated on a radio show on Friday that his father has "lost it" and the family intends to have a competency hearing. The younger Wallace's comments came after being questioned about his father saying that the country was "[expletive]-up" for electing President George Bush.

From Newsmax:

"He's lost it. The man has lost it. What can I say," the younger Wallace lamented to WRKO Boston radio host Howie Carr on Friday.
"He's 87-years old and things have set in," the Fox anchor continued. "I mean, we're going to have a competence hearing pretty soon."
Wallace Jr. quickly dispelled any notion that he was joking. When Carr suggested that his comments were likely to be covered by NewsMax, he responded: "You know what? Fine. Go ahead. Call them. That's fine. I'll stand by that."

Chris Wallace also had this to say about Howard Dean's statement that the US would lose the war in Iraq:

"We are in a war. We do have 150,000-plus American soldiers over there. I mean, it's Tokyo Rose, for God sakes, going on radio saying we can't win the war."

Hat tip to The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, who always manages to pull the night shift.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:09 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

December 10, 2005

GOP Highlights Democrat Surrender Monkey Wing

The Republican National Committee has released a new video featuring cut and run soundbites from prominent Democrats. Excerpt:

HOWARD DEAN:"The idear that we're gonna win this war, is an idear that unfortunately, is just plain wrong."

Each new soundbite is preceded by a white flag waving across the screen. Undoubtedly, the featured Dems will claim to have been misquoted or taken out of context.

The undeniable message, which comes at the end of the video, is that our troops and our enemies are watching the antics of the surrender donkeys.

Hat tip to The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 05:32 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I like it, I love it, I want some more of it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 10, 2005 06:31 PM (rUyw4)

2 Agent Jones thinks the white flag is not soaked in blood.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 10, 2005 06:50 PM (RfI6W)

3 No, the white flag is not soaked in blood, or it wouldn't be white. The altar of freedom is soaked in blood, because freedom isn't free. And surrender in this war will unleash a torrent of killing the World has not seen since WWII. Do you think these people will be satisfied with Iraq? This is why we must win.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 10, 2005 07:52 PM (rUyw4)

4 Agent Smith says that humans are like viruses and move from host to host until all resources are exhausted. In this Jesusland case, the terrorist virus is simply a plague riding horseback on the original plague. The Core Network has been defended by three agents since 2009.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 10, 2005 10:07 PM (RfI6W)

5 Yes, Agent Smith, the jihadist virus has now been loosed upon the World. Plague is not the word for it, but it will suffice, for now at least. This virus has plagued the World for 1400 years now, but a vaccine was found that worked for the last 300 years. Worked mind you, but the disease itself was not cured. Now the virus has mutated and is in the process of spreading worldwide. If a quarantine is not sucessful in Iraq, and the virus escapes, there will be a worldwide pandemic.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 10, 2005 11:15 PM (rUyw4)

6 Agent Smith says the second virus strain is a loser virus strain that burns itself out during its flash-in-the-pan flareups. Agent Brown said to build a wall around it and let it wipe itself out.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 11, 2005 12:05 AM (RfI6W)

7 The only viruses here are Bolshevism and it's slightly less virulent mutation Liberalism. Both viruses however attack a host country's immune system rendering the host more susceptible to internal and external attacks. Here the Liberal virus has made the host more susceptible to an internal attack in the form defeatism and surrender monkeyism.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 11, 2005 12:58 AM (8e/V4)

8 I love the new ad. Of course, the DNC is already whining, crying and moaning about how they're being unfairly "smeared" by those eeeeeeeevil Republicans. Hard to make that dog hunt when the ad faithfully replays the defeatocrats' own words...

Posted by: Insomniac at December 11, 2005 01:25 AM (6krEN)

9 I still can't figure out how it's an attack to simply quote someone verbatim. Oh well, just more proof that the dhimmicrats should all be shot.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 11, 2005 09:17 AM (0yYS2)

10 Its about time the GOP grew some balls and called it like it is. Right on!

Posted by: LC CanForce 101 at December 11, 2005 05:09 PM (3smJS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 06, 2005

Howard Dean Traitor and Ally to Zaqueery

Hey, donÂ’t take this MichaelÂ’s word for it. How about Michael Reagan son of the late great President Ronald Reagan who seems to know what country he lives in? Seriously Howie Dean, Howie gets all miffed when he googles himself and you are polluting my search. Go away boy you bother me. So while Mr. Dean is just the kind of energy the Democratic party needs to fisk itÂ’s problems, the traitor thing kind of hurts. DonÂ’t you think? If traitor Dean put that energy to exposing the enemy what good he could do! I admit I was kind of entertained by the Â“OH YEAHÂ” stuff, heck I like good comedy. But I fail to find the humor in Mr. TraitorÂ’s latest comments.

Dean Via WOIA:

What we see today is very much like what was going in Watergate," Dean said. "It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war. The President said last week that Congress saw the same intelligence that he did in making the decision to go to war, and that is flat out wrong.

OK Mr. Traitor, Howie says Mr. Bush is not our enemy. Drop me a line when you wake up to who the actual enemy is. Once again the Left attacks America and gives terror a free pass.

The highly respectable Michael Reagan Via Newsmax:

Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!"

Now thatÂ’s a good idea. Why is it that Joe Lieberman seems to be the only sane Democrat left in America today. And why is he under attack for loving his country? The Left has abandoned the platform that kept it relevant and acceptable to Americans in the middle since FDR in favor of attack politics and treason. Right now IÂ’m considering my first strait ticket ballot ever in my life. I really thought Dean would be good and bring energy and core Democratic values to the Democratic Party. It seems now that hating America and loving terror is a core Democratic value.

Others: Captain Ed, Rightwingnews and Dr. Sanity to name just a few.

Oh I forgot Hat tip: Cube neighbor Dave. more...

Posted by: Howie at 09:09 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 570 words, total size 4 kb.

1 So, do we have any takers on putting Dean in a makeshift hole_until the war is over..and then some?

Posted by: thirdee at December 06, 2005 09:57 AM (1YjD5)

2 The hole should include toiletries, food and satellite television.

Posted by: thirdee at December 06, 2005 09:59 AM (1YjD5)

3 I think he deserves panties on his dumn head. Anything would be an improvement over having to look at him. He makes me sick.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 06, 2005 10:22 AM (rUyw4)

4 Howard Dean is a joke! Keep is up Howard, Americans are listening to you and the GOP loves your platform you have. Prediction...If Billary gets democraps nomination, Dean is out. No way she can con herself as a moderate with this scumbag running the show!

Posted by: Andy Driggers at December 06, 2005 11:55 AM (tMU4W)

5 He's a caricature of a hippie in a suit with the same burnt out mentality.

Posted by: Jane at December 06, 2005 12:04 PM (M7kiy)

6 DUH HOWARD DEAN TRAITOR DUH

Posted by: Danny Alexander at December 06, 2005 12:43 PM (vpJUX)

7 Howard Dean and his ilk, Michael Moron, Babs, Ward "Big Chief Two White Parents" Churchill, et al, are the best thing that could happen to America right now, because letting them run loose is like that scared straight program that prisons have, where they send in punk kids to spend time with lifers, to show them their future if they don't straighten up. In reality, the liberal traitorcrats are the "lifers" and We, the People, are the kids who need to be shocked into reality. We need to be made realize that if we don't start taking politics seriously, then our future will be run by those least worthy of such a great trust. Like the saying goes, just because you don't take an interest in politics, doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you. So yeah, Dean's a traitor, along with almost every other dhimmicrat, and they should all suffer the lawful consequences of their treason, but for now, we need them to show us how bad things could get if we don't straighten up.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 06, 2005 02:11 PM (0yYS2)

8 I still think we should give 'em half the country and then invade them when they screw it all up.

Posted by: Oyster at December 06, 2005 03:10 PM (YudAC)

9 Well there is that.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 06, 2005 03:13 PM (0yYS2)

10 Howard Dean is an asshole.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 06, 2005 03:52 PM (8e/V4)

11 Howard Dean is just a typical Demoncrat!

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 06, 2005 04:01 PM (rUyw4)

12 But you do have to admit that with idiots like Dean, et al, around in '08, the GOP could field pretty much anyone and win.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 06, 2005 04:21 PM (0yYS2)

13 maxie That's why I love this guy!

Posted by: hondo at December 06, 2005 04:34 PM (3aakz)

14 Does anyone remember this statement from a year and a half ago?: President Bush, in an interview broadcast on Monday, said he did not think America could win the war on terror but that it could make terrorism less acceptable around the world, a departure from his previous optimistic statements that the United States would eventually prevail. See, Bush is way ahead of Dean in the "aid and comfort to the enemy" race!

Posted by: Malacandra at December 06, 2005 05:32 PM (q+O8H)

15 Hey dumbass, GWOT and the Iraq war are not the exact same thing. Iraq is part of GWOT, but is not synonymous with it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 06, 2005 06:05 PM (0yYS2)

16 Quite true maxie 2 different but related items - and the Bush comment was specifc to the overall war on terror. It's on video Malacandra - so no wiggle room The connection is yours for your purposes - and YOU KNOW your playing a lil' fast n' loose with the truth.

Posted by: hondo at December 06, 2005 06:22 PM (3aakz)

17 Let me make one point about "defeating terrorism": You can't, because terrorism isn't a party, nation, or ideology, it's a method. What you can do, however, is to hound and crush anyone who employs it, and make the repercussions for its use so onerous that nobody with even a tiny, miniscule, infinitessimal fraction of a brain, (which would probably include most, if not all muslims, fascists, communists, and other assorted leftards), would consider it a viable strategy. Terrorists can be defeated, but terrorism cannot, so it's best to stay focused on realistic, achievable goals, and stay away from the talking head soundbites.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 06, 2005 07:22 PM (0yYS2)

18 We can also minimise our chance of being screwed by terrorists by keeping likely terrorists from our shores. A ban on islam would be a good start. Laura Mansfield and other writers have exposed the mosques as breeding grounds for hatred against the west. This has been proven time and time again and yet we let these evil structures exist in our communities. The day will come when we burn them all and drive the vermin out.

Posted by: Jester at December 06, 2005 07:57 PM (wBDaS)

19 Good point Jester, but we could get off to a better start by simply prosecuting violations of standing laws against incitement to violence. If we want the government to notice and start doing something, some famous Christian preacher should stand up and call for the eradication of Jews so that the media could make a big deal of it, and then we could expose them for the hypocrites they are, because they never seem to notice all the islamic anti-Jewish hate speech.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 07, 2005 09:51 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 01, 2005

Is President Bush Against Christmas, Too?

I got my official White House Christmas card yesterday. It seems that the Commander-in-Chief is not exactly leading by example in the Christmas vs 'holiday' debate.

Even though I'm not as emotionally invested in this debate as others, I do think it's nice to acknowledge a specific holiday, and would have liked to see a Christmas wish. I've never understood why people shy away from it. I've lived overseas and was always glad when someone wished me well on holidays-- even ones I didn't celebrate.

Here is the card I (and a bajillion others) received. Click for bigger view.

PS-I like the whole Bible quote thing, but it's kind of generic for a 'Christmas' card, isn't it?

Posted by: Rusty at 08:48 AM | Comments (65) | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Rusty you cockbag! I thought I was the only one getting a card! GHADDDAMMMAT! I mean, I am the one who sent the nekid pics to him during the year and all. DANG!

Posted by: Filthy at December 01, 2005 09:08 AM (5ceWd)

2 Did you notice the postmark was from Crawford? Yeah, I wondered why they'd put a Bible verse on there but not the word Christmas.

Posted by: GroovyVic at December 01, 2005 09:35 AM (u5Tfl)

3 Yeah, I noticed that. I'm showing all my friends how 'special' I am to have received a 'personal' card from Bush.

Posted by: Rusty at December 01, 2005 09:40 AM (JQjhA)

4 I wonder if Sen. Kerry's Christmas cards are postmarked from Cambodia. Gotta check on that...

Posted by: Wine-aholic at December 01, 2005 09:58 AM (fgZZg)

5 Go to the Fox News website and check out their Fox News HOLIDAY ornaments. There is also a line of HOLIDAY ornaments from O'Reily. HA HA HA!! You people are so fucking ridiculous.

Posted by: A Guy at December 01, 2005 10:25 AM (uuJOn)

6 Happy Holidays

Posted by: CDB at December 01, 2005 10:50 AM (iHfod)

7 My God, This web-site is full of Saddamites and rejectionists. Why, oh why do you hate Christmas. May God have mercy on your souls, now pass the butter and guns and bibles. -GSD

Posted by: Granite State Destroyer at December 01, 2005 10:51 AM (XRIh/)

8 This is an example of the right-wing being wrong yet again, in not supporting equality of religion in the US, but rather succumbing to the arrogance that comes from being in the majority - on religion in this case. Our country was largely founded on protecting the rights of individuals, and yet the right is happy to take advantage of majority status on too many issues to give themselves advantage. The US does not have an official religion, and while the majority gets its appropriate benefit that the period is treated as a national holiday, and certainly recognizes that most Americans are celebrating Christmas, that's not enough for the right. They can't let other Americans be treated equally by making the official government recognition inclusive of other Americans - they insist on treating them as second class citizens. One of the dangers in the best form of government, democracy, is arrogance in the majority leading to restricting individual rights too much for people in various minorities. Good Americans recognize the need for freedom and rights for a broad range of society. The day any American is told he can't celebrate Christmas freely in his church, in his home, can't have publig gatherings organized by fellow citizens, let me know and I'll defend their rights. Until then, the right, IMO, is anti-American in rejecting the 'holiday' messages.

Posted by: Craig at December 01, 2005 11:10 AM (l2qAd)

9 Wolfowitz doesn't celebrate Christmas and surely he's getting a holiday card.

Posted by: Klaus at December 01, 2005 11:20 AM (JsQ+9)

10 Oh shut up Craig, and quit your snivelling. I'm an atheist, and I say it's Christmas, not some stupid, neutered liberal "holiday". I say Merry Christmas and I put up a Christmas tree. I may even sponsor a nativity scene this year in a public place just to piss off the liberals. Know why? Because it's an American tradition, and it's a pretty damn good one, well worth saving. Just because I don't hold the same beliefs as everyone else doesn't mean I have the right to screw it up for them, and neither do you or any other bedwetting liberal. Hell, even a muslim deli owner I know says Merry Christmas to his non-muslim customers, so get over yourself.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 01, 2005 11:22 AM (0yYS2)

11 Thanx for the lesson, Craig. Now let me tell you something. It's not the effort to be inclusive of other religions, nor even the "Holiday" greeting so much as the massive exclusion of the word Christmas. Like Rusty, I don't have much emotion invested in the issue, but I see the lengths some are going to to omit it by browbeating others. It's not just Christmas, it's an all out assault on anything related to Christianity. Some of it is pretty ridiculous. If you're too blind to see that then you're going to be spending some pretty miserable moments stewing over it. Now lighten up and quit acting like everyone here is guilty of what you're accusing them of. I'm sure there's someone out there who is. Go preach to them (oops, did I say preach?)

Posted by: Oyster at December 01, 2005 11:47 AM (fl6E1)

12 I see Improbulus and the rest of the Right Wingnuts are being as open-minded as usual. Do any of you remember the hissy-fits you all throw over "Political Correctness"? Now you're using "I do it so everybody else HAS to do it my way" illogic. Talk about a made-up, pointless, imaginary victimhood issue. Merry Christmas. Happy New Year. Happy Hanukkah. Joyeus Noel. Merry Kwanza. Happy Yule (for the Wiccans). Happy Holidays for everyone! May you celebrate this season in whatever manner you wish. Now get over it.

Posted by: Percy's PoP at December 01, 2005 11:54 AM (CMyz0)

13 Boy, Remember when the liberals used to be accused of being whiny victims. Now I can't worship beezlebub in public without getting an in your face assault from some whiny, self righteous conservative yahoo trying to stuff their hoky religion down my throat. I always answer the "Merry Christmas" whiners with a hearty "Hail Satan".... So, ye wingers, quit ye whining. -GSD

Posted by: Granite State Destroyer at December 01, 2005 11:55 AM (XRIh/)

14 Celebrating Christmas was by no means the norm when our country was founded. Some of the leaders of our country felt that Christmas was an English tradition to be disgarded. At the time of the Constitution's signing it was illegal to celebrate Christmas in Boston. You could get fined and thrown in jail. So, how does an "originalist" like Scalia deal with such a problematic historical fact? Like most conservatives, he ignores it.

Posted by: Bill at December 01, 2005 12:20 PM (Msfso)

15 Once upon a time, you could have been thrown in jail for helping a runaway slave as well. Some old laws suck b/c they are too focused on addressing a 'historical fact' and hence they change. Maybe we shouldn't ignore that law... just to note the difference b/t ignoring and altering bad law... anyway, carry on with this boring debate.

Posted by: Wine-aholic at December 01, 2005 12:27 PM (Wsn+K)

16 Hi, OT, but can someone help me find a 3-letter word meaning Jew? I'm stuck on this crossword puzzle.

Posted by: tubino at December 01, 2005 12:36 PM (npedF)

17 JOO

Posted by: Wine-aholic at December 01, 2005 01:20 PM (Wsn+K)

18 So, know even the head Christian has abandoned the "true faith". Next thing you know the import of lions will raise sharply, it's a plot I tell you. In any event Happy Chrismahanakwanzica to you all

Posted by: delen at December 01, 2005 01:22 PM (9mi0T)

19 Say, Improbulus, what Christmas traditions are actually American, anyway? Caroling? Nativity scenes? Christmas trees? Santa Claus? Celebrating the birth of Christ? Or, maybe the American contributions to the traditions of Christmas that you are thinking of revolve a little more around the Christmas Eve Sale at your local shopping mall. You've seriously got to be wacked out of your skull if you think Christmas is an American holiday. No wonder most of the world thinks we're so damn arrogant. To hear some of you people talk, you'd think Jesus Christ was born right here on Main Street, USA, locked and loaded.

Posted by: Not As Crazy As You at December 01, 2005 01:28 PM (Xrghn)

20 My personal favorite Christmas tradition is the gathering around the Yule log and singing Mr. Garrison's "Merry F-ing Christmas." But, that may just be a Shackleford family tradtion. I dunno.

Posted by: Rusty at December 01, 2005 01:34 PM (JQjhA)

21 Wine-aholic Always thought the the Joo's were Korean

Posted by: delen at December 01, 2005 01:35 PM (9mi0T)

22 The one from last year was blown up and framed. It's on the mantle where the dead deer used to be.

Posted by: thirdee at December 01, 2005 02:01 PM (458SF)

23 It's called being polite. Something that seems to escape too many people these days. When you send someone a card, it is supposed to be for their benfit, not your own. When I send cards to friends who are Christian, I send "Merry Christmas cards. When I send cards to friends who are Jewish I send "Happy Chanuka" cards. When I dole out stacks of cards to business aquintances I stick with a generic "Season's Greeting and a Happy New Year" to minimize the chances of offending people whose religion beliefs I don't know, nor would it be appropriate to find out. The President is mailing generic cards to people he doesn't personal know and it would be inappropriate to single out a particuliar religion. I feel certain that the cards he sends to those he personal knows are appropriate for that person.

Posted by: Puddlejumper at December 01, 2005 02:19 PM (6zjU8)

24 Celebrate CHRISTMAS or die!

Posted by: Jester at December 01, 2005 02:41 PM (wBDaS)

25 Happy Festivus for the rest of us!

Posted by: Sirkowski at December 01, 2005 02:46 PM (A2Qsr)

26 I thought it was the libs that tried to shove their tastes and beliefs down others throats. Only under The Bush Crime Family could diversity become a bad word. This debate is regurgitated from 1921 when Henry Ford first brought it up. Then John Birch in the '60s. Silly wingnuts, X-mas is for kids!!

Posted by: omoom at December 01, 2005 02:54 PM (kmaBF)

27 Why don't Bill O'Reilly take on the war against puppies? Those evil Leftofacists are always posting pictures of cats! That must mean they hate puppies and will torture yours the second Bush is out of office. All Hail King Bush!

Posted by: John Gillnitz at December 01, 2005 03:21 PM (eHLUP)

28 Liberal trolls are everywhere. Mention Christmas, homosexuality, muslims, abortion, or President Bush and here they all come. If I had a blog, I would have the above mentioned topics on 24/7 just so the neo-libs could run up my site meter. I wish you libs would go find Kos, or else continue your posting at DU. Frankly, I'm bored with your dog vomit.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 01, 2005 03:41 PM (rUyw4)

29 Hey jesusland joe, you're like Shrub: can't take the heat, and unable to listen to those who disagree with you. HA!!

Posted by: tommo at December 01, 2005 03:45 PM (kmaBF)

30 Jesus died so you could go shopping. Now shut up you stupid America hating Jesus killing liberals! I wish Cheney would just get it over with and start torture camps for all these liberal sheep! Maybe a good anal fisting by the few and the proud corp will help you appreciate Jesus and Freedom!! P.S Merry Christmas!

Posted by: jesusland twotooth at December 01, 2005 04:23 PM (YClF7)

31 tommo, I can take the heat, I'm just bored with the same old shit day in, day out from you neo-libs. Come up with something new, right now you are like a dog that eats its own vomit, throws it up, eats it again, blah...blah...blah. It's the same old rhetoric. You libs are brain dead!

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 01, 2005 04:27 PM (rUyw4)

32 jesusland twotooth, Posing is just another tired old liberal trick. More dog vomit for you libs to eat.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 01, 2005 04:32 PM (rUyw4)

33 Joe, Does that mean I make it on to the torture list? I can take it! I've been to a few frat parties in my time!! Praise the Lord!

Posted by: jesusland twotooth at December 01, 2005 05:04 PM (YClF7)

34 twotooth, I don't know about you making it onto the torture list, but if you would just read your own posts, man, they violate all the Geneva Convention protocols on torture. Ugh!

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 01, 2005 05:19 PM (rUyw4)

35 Bush's cards are much more religious than those of Clinton. Just because he doesn't say "Christmas" doesn't mean he is against saying it. I personally feel that it is okay to say Happy Holidays until the holiday hits. We are still a long ways from Christmas, so I have no problem with Happy Holidays. Now, about the 23rd, I will start expecting Merry Christmas though.

Posted by: Roy at December 01, 2005 06:36 PM (CZ+e3)

36 I know what Christmas is and what it stands for - I celebrate it as a Christian holiday. I am confused what Happy is. I mean, there apparently is some kind of winter festivity going on with some - but doesn't it have a name? Is it some kind of snowflake or soltice type thing? I'd really like to know - is it a secret type thing? Did I miss something? Oh well - Merry Christmas everybody! Oh, and wow! Isn't it an incredible coincidence that the date and timeframe of this whatever event coincides with the celebration of Christmas and the birth of Jesus!

Posted by: hondo at December 01, 2005 07:23 PM (Jvmry)

37 I think it is strange that you would pose the question as whether the President is "against" Christmas because he sends a religion neutral Holiday card. Yu experience abroad aside, most Christians don't want to be wished a happy Hannukah, and most Jews don't want to be wished a Merry Christmas. I believe this is an empirical fact, depsite you particular experience. So it makes perfect sense for the president to use an Old Testament quote and a relgion neutral greeting. I'm a moderate, and I must say it is a bit strange how paranoid certain Christian groups are about the whole "war" on Chritmas (and Christians in certain circles). It's as if some of us can't recognize and take responsibility for the fact that Christians are the dominant majority in this country and conservatives are the dominant majority in the government. It is the time for Christian conservatives to take hold of the reigns and stop wih the paranoia and infighting and finger pointing(I'm mean really, President Bush "against" Christmas? Absurd.), Time to take responsibility or relinquish control. S or get off the pot.

Posted by: lazerlou at December 01, 2005 09:08 PM (J7EvK)

38 And Hondo, the Birth of Jesus was not in December. It was moved to coincide with a pagan winter holiday to help convert Europeans to Christianity.

Posted by: Lazerlou at December 01, 2005 09:13 PM (J7EvK)

39 *Sigh* Why doesn't anyone seem to realize that Happy Holidays started as a reference to Christmas + New Years (+ Thanksgiving, kinda)? We have three major "holidays" right in a row and, hence "Happy Holidays!" or "Tis the Season(Good lord which terrible PC liberal came up with that one? Season! Season for what, being a baby murdering Satanist?)!" I personally prefer Merry Christmas, but people and businesses can say whatever they want to say. Why is this such a big f-ing deal? And incidentally, I bought some Christmas cards at Macy's the other day and was wished a Merry Christmas by the clerk, who then cackled and said, "in hell!" before flying off on her broom to go sacrifice a few dogs to her evil goat god.

Posted by: mysteriousgypsy at December 01, 2005 09:42 PM (xQPmz)

40 I know what you mean. Since you are such good friends with George W. he really should have remembered that you celebrate Christmas, and sent you the appropriate card. Must have been quite a disappointment.

Posted by: Kathleen at December 01, 2005 10:37 PM (rUds4)

41 Agent Brown wishes you Happy Holidays, in the name of GAOTU.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 02, 2005 08:13 AM (fLJDr)

42 lazerlou!!!!!!!!!!!!! Finally, someone who knows the exact birthday of Jesus! Please tell us - scholars for nearly 2000 years have been trying to pinpoint it. Believe the general opinion is the date is somewhere late year (eastern rites place it early new year (note all winter)- Its called "by convention" aka mutual agreement placing it on 25 Dec - done a long long long time ago. All cultures have holidays tied in to seasons and surprise! - they overlap! The early Germanic one revolves around the winter soltice (20/21 Dec) - your point is an old one - yeah - maybe - so - what's your point?

Posted by: hondo at December 02, 2005 10:11 AM (Jvmry)

43 I think Jesus would like for us to focus on more important issues. I'd almos be willing to bet He's glad that a war mongering tyrrant wouldn't use his name at all.

Posted by: blackshire at December 02, 2005 12:02 PM (HCMw2)

44 Hondo, My only point was that this "whatever" holiday does not really coincide with the Birth of Jesus, as you claim it does. I do not claim to know when his birth was, but if I remember it correctly it was sometime in the Spring and the Roman emperor who created the modern calendar was the one who changed it to December to facilitate conversion of Northern Europeans who were worshipping as pagans the birth of the sun, not son, already at the end of December.

Posted by: lazerlou at December 02, 2005 01:01 PM (pBKzg)

45 Virtually every religion has some sort of celebration at or near the Winter Solstice. So what is the particular advantage of insisting that seasonal greetings specifically favor one faith over the others? Is this just motivated by a mean-spirited desire to make American Jews and other adherents of non-Christian religions feel less a part of their own country?

Posted by: trrll at December 02, 2005 01:30 PM (CKVO5)

46 Lazerlou is right. Choosing the date for Christmas had nothing to do with the birthdate of Christ or any kind of "mutual agreement." It was part of a larger strategy of the Church to co-opt pre-existing holidays that revolved around pagan rituals. Such holidays also include Halloween. Also while, Easter was set according the pre-existing Jewish holiday of Passover, traditions like Easter eggs had their origins in pagan celebrations of the equinox. The Church had a long history of taking familiar pagan holidays and traditions and dressing them up in a Christian likeness. This is why the most orthodox of Christians abhor the celebrations that surround these "Christian" holidays, because their origins are not actually Christian, although many people have become convinced that they are.

Posted by: Not As Crazy As You at December 02, 2005 02:15 PM (tUL+j)

47 lazerlou You really don't know what "by convention" means do you? Christians made the association with their holiday and Christ. So your telling them their wrong. 1) By what right do you claim to tell them their wrong? It's their beliefs, their religion, their history. 2) If your going to "challenge" THEIR date - your going to have to do better than a vague reference to some Roman Emperor and "correctly - spring?". I give you a date agreed apon by Christians - you give me an attempt to pull a rabbit out of a hat. trrll - You are correct! But if you wish to celebrate the Winter Soltice, The Festival of the Snowflake, or any other "Happy" occasion - then have the freakin' courage and decency to give it a freakin' name - and stop trying to force us to accomodate you by eliminating ours!

Posted by: hondo at December 02, 2005 02:29 PM (Jvmry)

48 Hondo, if you want people to take you seriously you MUST learn the difference between "their" and "they're." I'm not sure what your are arguing. I'm not telling anyone they are wrong. I'm just pointing out that Christ was not born in Decemeber. I believe that is a well accepted fact, even though nobody knows exactly when his real birthday was. I'm notmaking things up. Look it up.

Posted by: lazerlou at December 02, 2005 03:19 PM (pBKzg)

49 hondo-"You are correct! But if you wish to celebrate the Winter Soltice, The Festival of the Snowflake, or any other "Happy" occasion - then have the freakin' courage and decency to give it a freakin' name - and stop trying to force us to accomodate you by eliminating ours!" Since when is anybody forcing you to eliminate your own religious celebrations? Is anybody telling you you how to decorate your house? Is anybody censoring your Christmas cards? Is anybody coming to your church to dictate to you how you may pray? I will stand with you to resist any attempt to do that. But it is hard for me to see it as anything other than mean-spirited to take offense when a merchant--or especially, a public official--chooses to acknowledge everybody's holy days (which is, after all, what "holiday" means) without prejudice, instead of singling a particular religion out for special recognition.

Posted by: trrll at December 02, 2005 03:36 PM (CKVO5)

50 Also Hondo, pleae note the difference between "your" and "you're." Public schools not so great in the Red States?

Posted by: lazerlou at December 02, 2005 03:51 PM (pBKzg)

51 Ha Ha No spell check option with this blog - type fast - no preview. Is that it? A nickel and dime grammatical analysis on pronoun utilization? My My - I was expecting something a bit more - hmmmmmmm - say creative. Yes, an error on my part! How shocking! Therefore it must render everything I've said as irrelevant! you are obviously soooooo wise and astute! FYI Grammarians classify pronouns into several types, including the personal pronoun, the demonstrative pronoun, the interrogative pronoun, the indefinite pronoun, the relative pronoun, the reflexive pronoun, and the intensive pronoun. (In German it is a bitch!) Oh, actually educated Blue State - a lil' Euro too. Actually, I'm quite educated but try not to wear it on my sleeve. Libs and left however seem to be enthralled by it, and literally "nail themselves to the cross" of their faux intellect (nail ... - ha - pardon the pun). Anyway - back on subject. Is that the best ya got kid(s)?

Posted by: hondo at December 02, 2005 04:20 PM (Jvmry)

52 hondo, Your(is that correct, lazerlou?) response to lazerlou lasered in on her. Haha!

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 02, 2005 04:28 PM (rUyw4)

53 Hondo, I wasn't noting your spelling, nor would spell chack have worked. I promise I'm a far worse speller thay you. But mixing up "you are" and "your" and "they are" and "their" is pretty bad. Just want you to seem credible to others. Out of sheer curiosity, what is your level of education? (honestly)

Posted by: lazerlou at December 02, 2005 04:39 PM (pBKzg)

54 "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson. Seriously, could we all just chill out. You guys stop trying to ban every Nativity creche in town, and you guys stop acting like "Happy Holidays" = "Allahu Akbar". Don't you think we have bigger problems to think about?

Posted by: MegaTroopX at December 02, 2005 04:41 PM (yT/Rw)

55 lazerlou, Only an elite snob would be concerned about hondo's level of education. It's quite obvious to me that he is not only intelligent but has reached another level, referred to in the old days as being classically educated, and I am not referring to classic literature.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 02, 2005 04:52 PM (rUyw4)

56 Yes jesusland, I am an elitest snob, unapologetically. I am not "concerned" with Hondo's level of education, just curious. I'm also not sure what is obvious to you is obvious to the rest of us. It takes some very poor reasoning to jump from "Best Wishes for a Holiday Season of Hope and Happiness" to "Bush is against Christmas." Or that secular greetings imply that people are trying to "eliminate" Christmas, as Hondo put it. It is actually very, very paranoid.

Posted by: lazerlou at December 02, 2005 05:08 PM (pBKzg)

57 spell chack? thay? Credible to others? Interesting - isn't that for "others" to decide based on conceptual content? I will let others decide. Spelling???? Never really mentioned anything about spelling 'cept the opening reference to "spell check" - a generic reference of course - there are in fact several check programs that include other aspects of grammar. The issue appears to be pronouns - proper pronoun utilization seems to be very important to you - important enough to negate content? My education level? Higher than 6th, lower than say .. 16. It's not important. What is important is what you believe, what you feel, what you think, what you say. Educational levels appears to be important to you. Why? Is that how you validate yourself - and of course - invalidate others? Is it a question of "documentation" and not substance? A liberal and their "education" - so shallow, so elitist - are soon parted. jesusland joe! I should get a six pack for Christmas for this! All this a thunkin' is a givin' me a hadacke!

Posted by: hondo at December 02, 2005 05:11 PM (Jvmry)

58 Well, now, lou, I wouldn't ascribe paranoid to it. Hondo and many others are just concerned that the secular greetings, as you say, are a way for many to just ignore the religious aspect of Christmas. After all, that is the "reason for the season" as they say.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 02, 2005 05:15 PM (rUyw4)

59 Ok, last post. Jesusland - Hondo and others are concerned that secular greetings do much more than "ignore" the religious aspect of Christmas. They argue that such greetings are the result of actively trying to "eliminate" Christmas itself. And you seem to be unable to respond to the simple explanation that secular greetings are used becuse those giving them, either public figures or businesses acknowledge that other religions have holidays around the same time as Christmas. It is the essence of paraoia. I think the moer accurate explanation is that conservative Republican Christians are so paranoid because they have failed at advancing meaningful policy when they are the dominant religion in our country and the dominant party in our government. You would much rather feel persecuted and point fingers (even at your own awful president) than admit you have failed in your brief moment in time when you actually have the power. To even suggest that President Bush might be "Against Christmas" speaks volumes. It is patently absurd, and that you all can't see that amazes me.

Posted by: lazerlou at December 02, 2005 05:33 PM (pBKzg)

60 Hmm...I do believe paranoid might just apply to your latest post, lou. Nonetheless, the steak fanatic pizza is here, so one and all, Merry Christmas, and you too, lou!

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 02, 2005 05:36 PM (rUyw4)

61 Merry Christmas to you too! As Jesus would note, having love in your heart for all, even your enemies, is the only thing that matters.

Posted by: lazerlou at December 02, 2005 05:42 PM (pBKzg)

62 And a "Happy Winter Snowflake Festival Of the Icicles and Dancing Penquins" to you lou. BTY Eeveryone note - the word holiday is derived from the ol' English Holy Day - with a clear inference of religious intent. Will there be any conflict in the future over that word? I wanna be PC and not offend anyone soooooooooo to all ... HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY

Posted by: hondo at December 02, 2005 05:52 PM (Jvmry)

63 It's not people who shy away from referring to Christmas, it's organizations who do it, specifically corporations, who like to make money and so employ the generic "Happy Holidays" as a way to appeal to the broadest possible audience (because they're capitalist.) And since the "shopping season" now begins in late October, it incompases several holidays, not just Christmas. Thus...Happy Holidays!

Posted by: argexpat at December 02, 2005 05:53 PM (QKbxw)

64 What holidays? Can you be more specific. I kinda uncomfortable celebrating something "we dare not speak it's name"

Posted by: hondo at December 02, 2005 05:58 PM (Jvmry)

65 Agent Smith thinks that in order to please the Armageddon Faction of the American Nationalist Party, George W. Bush deliberately declared a fatwa on Christmas to provoke the Antichrist to rear it's ugly head in Mesopotamia's Euphrates River.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 03, 2005 10:00 PM (VDGim)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

239kb generated in CPU 0.0941, elapsed 0.2022 seconds.
129 queries taking 0.1656 seconds, 588 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 3313
Files: 12
Bytes: 43.0M
CPU Time: 1:42
Queries: 377240

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76633

Feeds

December 24, 2005

December 22, 2005

December 21, 2005

December 17, 2005

December 16, 2005

December 12, 2005

December 10, 2005

December 06, 2005

December 01, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds