Less is more, Ace.

Life?s a thread and we all play a part.

That has got to be the worst metaphor ever.

You ever get a turtlehead happening, but you're so busy you can't get to the bathroom, so you gotta hold it off for a while?

I bet he has the same issue with blogging. He has shit to say, but he's just so important and stuff he never gets around to it.

You need a dedicated biweekly "Atrios day" or something. Not TOO frequent.

Wow. I thought this was a joke, but then I actually went and looked at Atrios' site.

Wow.

Wow. That was my first time viewing Atrios' blog and yikes, what an empty place. Even more lame than my own abandoned blog.

The major problem with the Left today is that they're so disconnected from reality. Claiming that Bush is a worse terrorist than the people involved in 9/11 makes perfect sense to them, yet it sounds like they're freakin' insane to the rest of us.

The main reason why they're like that is because they live in an echo chamber. They surround themselves with fellow travellers who all shout the party line without thought, and they get a great deal of positive feedback if they respond in kind.

Atrios and Kos just tapped into that. Most of the people who leave comments are just there to write the most amazingly vile, hate filled screeds you can imagine. Then they're praised for doing so, which encourages them to come back for more later.

James

I yearn, Jerry.

Claiming that Bush is a worse terrorist than the people involved in 9/11 makes perfect sense to them, yet it sounds like they're freakin' insane to the rest of us.
No one on the left is claiming that Bush is a worse terrorist than the people involved in 9/11. You're making up a claim and then attacking it; it is common ploy by those who don't have facts to marshal to an argument. But I'll assume that you aren't being disingenuous, and that you honestly concluded the opposition by moderates to Bush's policies somehow are equivalent to claiming that Bush is a terrorist.

First you claim

No one on the left is claiming that Bush is a worse terrorist than the people involved in 9/11.

In this sense the Bush et al are worse than anything the terrorists can do.

Thanks for playing, now move along dip shit.

No one on the left is claiming that Bush is a worse terrorist than the people involved in 9/11.

Really?

No one on the left is claiming that Bush is a worse terrorist than the people involved in 9/11.

In this sense the Bush et al are worse than anything the terrorists can do

Cognitive Dissonance! Catch the Fever!

damn. was I always this slow?

Ah, shit. Ignore the last. Pilger was picking on Clinton but I pasted the wrong damn link.

The Pilger story I intended to link is here, and includes this gem:

This is not to say the threat from al-Qaeda and other fanatical groups is not real; what the normalisers don't want you to know is that the most pervasive danger is posed by "our" governments, whose subordinates in journalism and scholarship cast always as benign:

capable of misjudgement and blunder, never of high crime. Fuelled by religious fanaticism, a corrupt Americanism and rampant corporate greed, the Bush cabal is pursuing what the military historian Anatol Lieven calls "the classic modern strategy of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert mass discontent into nationalism", inspired by fear of lethal threats. Bush's America, he warns, "has become a menace to itself and to mankind".

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Okay.

I must confess that going back to work after a building nearly dropped on my head was nervewracking, but as it turns out all I had to fear was my own fear. Looking back, it was a little silly to be startled by every banging noise on the subway for a few weeks and I should not have been afraid that buildings near the WTC site were unsteady and might collapse in sympathy to their fallen neighbors. For the record, Bush had nothing to do with my concerns--that was Atta et al.

Thing is, I can pretty much take care of myself one on one so I don't really get nervous around rowdy drunks or loud teenage hooligans. But I can't really crescent kick a falling building or elbow a jet in the ear--this is out of my league. I think most Americans are in the same boat.

So when you tell us the Bushies are making off with our liberties it tells me you don't really think we're in a war. You think WTC was a one-off, a sucker punch and I really wish I could agree. But the same freaks who perpetrated that would dearly love to pop us with much much worse if they could. I am convinced of this. Claiming they can't really bring us down is whistling past the graveyard.

At the same time, alerting us to our shrinking liberties would have been helpful, but I'm afraid the loyal opposition has exhausted us with one batshit claim after another. Looks like you guys are going to be hollering down a well until we really end up living in a police state. Maybe you should have thought of that when you were lying about this President before. Don't be too quick to believe others are so willing to forego liberty for safety. You all just cry Wolf a little too often to be taken seriously.

That said, we have plenty to fear from Islamo-nutters and most folks understand the need to take a wartime posture here.

"making up a claim and then attacking it"

You mean like "extortion of the press"?

Bi-weekly is too often, I'm all for once a decade for Atrios style.

No one on the left is claiming that Bush is a worse terrorist than the people involved in 9/11.

And again, I point you to some leftists whose antics prove you wrong.

A few minutes later, protesters led by Gaurav Jashnani showed up and started chanting and beating drums as they walked back and forth in front of the police guarding the theater.

"And who is a fascist?" asked Jashnani.

"Bush, Bush, Bush!"

"The world's worst terrorist?"

"Bush, Bush, Bush!"

I highly recommend this story, by the way. Very well written feature piece that gives you a good sense of what the protests were like in New York last summer.

no 9/11-style attack will bring down this nation.

It was certainly a nice try. In one stroke they were attempting to decapitate the executive branch and the military, while simultaneously causing severe economic damage. From Wikipedia:

When the stock markets reopened on September 17, 2001, after the longest closure since the Great Depression in 1929, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (“DJIA”) stock market index fell 684 points, or 7.1%, to 8920, its biggest-ever one-day point decline. By the end of the week, the DJIA had fallen 1369.7 points (14.3%), its largest one-week point drop in history. U.S. stocks lost $1.2 trillion in value for the week.

and from the Navy's Center for Contemporary Conflict:

he September 11 attacks inflicted casualties and material damages on a far greater scale than any other terrorist aggression in recent history. Lower Manhattan lost approximately 30 percent of its office space and a number of businesses ceased to exist. Close to 200,000 jobs were destroyed or relocated out of New York City, at least temporarily. The destruction of physical assets was estimated in the national accounts to amount to $14 billion for private businesses, $1.5 billion for state and local government enterprises and $0.7 billion for federal enterprises. Rescue, cleanup and related costs have been estimated to amount to at least $11 billion for a total direct cost of $27.2 billion.

. . . and had they not been: sent scrambling by the Afghanistan invasion, thwarted by increased security, and distracted bya counter-thrust in the heart of the Middle East, they would have kept at it.

Saying that Bush is worse than terrorism is not saying that Bush is a terrorist.

The country was in no danger of collapsing on 9/11. The most dangerous thing about 9/11 was the fear it caused. This is what it means that fear itself is the most damaging aspect of our situation.

Yes, there are Islamists who want America dead. This is nothing new.

Extortion of the press is a reality. The press has been cowed by this administration like no other. There is no doubt that Bush has been able to go as far as he has because the press is afraid to challenge him, and for good reason. Those not in favor with him are systematically excluded access. Anyone who gives Bush a hard time is cut off.

Clearly you're afraid and you think Bush is going to keep you safe. In the meantime he's gutting the core values of this country.

Really? Guess that's a distinction lost on those protesters who were shouting that Bush is the world's worst terrorist.

Damn semantics.

I knew that's where you were going with that. Everyone's a pussy but browster. Browster's looking out for the rest of us and the liberties that the Evil One is trying to make away with by fear-mongering.

What you are is blindly partisan and a wishful thinker. You're willing to downplay Islamo-terrorism with "it is ever thus". Well why is it ever thus? If we don't change it, who will? Do you think these freaks will go quietly? Why should we let them pervert our free society and take their shots? Do you see no value in thwarting them?

WTF are you talking about denied access? Even if that were a problem, can you really equate that with extortion? Why should we take you seriously when you compare a frosty reception for the press with repression? Don't you understand that sort of dishonesty is why noone takes you people seriously?

The most dangerous thing about 9/11 was the fear it caused.

um. call me crazy, I thought it was the dead victims, thousands of parentless children, tens of thousands of mourning loved ones, not to mention the economic and political/military impact mentioned by geoff.

we're not afraid douche. we're serious.

you aren't.

Atrios:

"I'm also for rounding up and arresting all the people "who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings, and churches" and I'm a bit puzzled why the Bush administration isn't doing so."

Maybe because the people "who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings, and churches" have a tenancy to blow themselves up at the same time, moron! And for those few individuals who do not, why do we have to wait until they "have a history" of blowing things and people up? Oh... I know! Because idiots like you don't want illegal warrantless searches by our criminal president that might actually find those people before they do so. Must have probable cause, you know!

What a tool.

"No one on the left is claiming Bush is a worse terrorist than the people involved in 9/11."
Wonderful Clintonian parsing there, browster. So when Cindy Sheehan says "They're not waging a War on Terror, but a War of Terror. The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush," she's only claming that Dubya's a terrorist - but hey, lots of people are terrorists. Why, even George Washington could have been considered a terrorist by George III. He's not worse than the 9/11 boys (just like he's not Hitler, but he could be if he applied himself, eh?)

"The press has been cowed by this administration like no other."

Yeah, just yesterday I got a phone call from a trembling Pinch Sulzberger. I could hear Dick Cheney's SS-Cockwaffen pounding on his door ready to drag him off to Gitmo.

Boy, I wish I were a liberal, sometimes. The drugs have got to be better than anything I had in college.

"Dick Cheney's SS-Cockwaffen"

Beautiful.

I knew that's where you were going with that. Everyone's a pussy but browster. Browster's looking out for the rest of us and the liberties that the Evil One is trying to make away with by fear-mongering.
Yes, that's right. Out of respect for you I wouldn't care to word it that way, but the gist of it is correct.
What you are is blindly partisan and a wishful thinker. You're willing to downplay Islamo-terrorism with "it is ever thus". Well why is it ever thus? If we don't change it, who will? Do you think these freaks will go quietly? Why should we let them pervert our free society and take their shots? Do you see no value in thwarting them?
Actually, partisanship has nothing to do with it. I don't care much for the democratic leadership these days. I voted for Reagan. I just can't stand this assault on our freedoms.

Destroying our freedoms won't kill Islamofascism. You're on the mark about the ongoing perversion of our free society. It is just that I see this being done by our current leadership. I certainly want to thwart those who wish to do us harm, but there must be a weighing of costs (loss of liberty) against the risk.

WTF are you talking about denied access? Even if that were a problem, can you really equate that with extortion? Why should we take you seriously when you compare a frosty reception for the press with repression? Don't you understand that sort of dishonesty is why noone takes you people seriously?

There are many documented cases of Bush seeking retribution on reporters that don't cast his administration in a favorable light. I don't mean they pose physical threats (which you may have taken my meaning by using the word "extortion", and if so, I regret the choice of the word), but professional threats. The media is cowed by this administration.

"Extortion of the press is a reality. The press has been cowed by this administration like no other. There is no doubt that Bush has been able to go as far as he has because the press is afraid to challenge him, and for good reason."

Man, if only that were true. I'd be willing to live with a super-constitutional God-King who trampled my ancient liberties if it meant getting to watch Bush order David Gregory shot on live TV.

Oh, and what do you mean by "professional threats," exactly?

Oh, and what do you mean by "professional threats," exactly?
Denial of access, either to a specific reporter or the news organization he/she works for.

He means they cry when you call them "major league assholes"

There are many documented cases of Bush seeking retribution on reporters that don't cast his administration in a favorable light. I don't mean they pose physical threats (which you may have taken my meaning by using the word "extortion", and if so, I regret the choice of the word), but professional threats. The media is cowed by this administration.

Um...you haven't been in many newsrooms, have you? Reporters thrive when they feel like they're being martyred upon the altar of the first amendment. They rally at the slightest whiff of 'supression.' It's like a drug.

They'd be feted at dinners, given awards. Heck, I'll bet David Gregory prays every night that he gets supressed by the White House.

um. call me crazy, I thought it was the dead victims, thousands of parentless children, tens of thousands of mourning loved ones, not to mention the economic and political/military impact mentioned by geoff.
I'm referring to dangers on the scale that could destroy the entire nation. The Cuban missile crisis, and the cold war in general rise to that level. The 9/11 attacks were horrific, certainly, but they don't rise to that level, except for the fearful response that Bush pursued after (propertly) dealing with Afghanistan.

we're not afraid douche. we're serious.
If you were serious, you would resort to calling me a "douche" for trying to engage you in a civil discussion.

Denial of access, either to a specific reporter or the news organization he/she works for.

Bwahahahaha!

Okay, let me tell you what happens when a good reporter is "denied access."

He or she finds another source.

we're not afraid douche. we're serious.
If you were serious, you would resort to calling me a "douche" for trying to engage you in a civil discussion.
Sigh. Meant to type "wouldn't"

So browster, are you arguing that the press has a fundamental right to access, similar to that of a government employee, and that anything less than this is a dangerous assault on the 1st Amendment?

Because that sounds a bit precious.

browster said: "I voted for Reagan. I just can't stand this assault on our freedoms."

Man, with every liberal moonbat who shows up here having voted for President Reagan, I'm shocked Mondale carried even Minnesota and the District! Didn't ANYONE ever vote for that poor man?

I'm having a sort of Pauline Kael moment now, albeit in reverse.

So browster, are you arguing that the press has a fundamental right to access, similar to that of a government employee, and that anything less than this is a dangerous assault on the 1st Amendment?
No, I'm not. But I think and open society is an important ingredient to democracy, and this administration is more secluded and secretive than any other. Part of it is addressing only audiences of supporters, part of it is paying columnists to write favorable opinions, part of it is putting stooges (Jeff Gannon) in the WH press corps, part of it is putting pressure on reporters that don't toe the line. It is a general pattern of secrecy and media manipulation. It just isn't healthy to democracy.

Here's the thing, browster. Imagine yourself as Bush, having to open the paper every day, or watch the news, and seeing, oh I don't know, Dan Rather pimping forged documents about your National Guard service.

Would it be unreasonable to come to the conclusion that these guys are really more interested in seeing you brought low than straight reporting? And if so, would you really lose any sleep over denying a few assholes access?

I'm of the opinion that the press, by acting like a bunch of bitchy junior high school girls, brought all the stuff you mentioned on themselves.

I'm referring to dangers on the scale that could destroy the entire nation.

Driving the nation into a depression is close enough for me. Which they nearly did. Which we avoided by interest rate cuts, tax cuts, and deficit spending, which by liberal accounts, will eventually cause the collapse of the country anyway.

You are aware that the 9/11 attack was only 50% successful and yet still caused $89 billion in direct damage (GAO report) and a huge drop in the stock market? And that the terrorists were not going to quit after 9/11?

You're either awfully complacent, or blissfully unaware of how close disaster was.

Whoa, there bowser. Easy on the moonbat, okay?

Every administration does what you just described. That doesn't make it right, but it certainly makes liberal criticism of the Bush administration somewhat opportunistic, doesn't it?

Oops. Meant "browster."

Sorry about getting your nick wrong. Was not intentional.

I'm of the opinion that the press, by acting like a bunch of bitchy junior high school girls, brought all the stuff you mentioned on themselves.
I agree with you. The press is pretty irresponsible, and it didn't start with Bush. The press is complicit in permitting the current situation. Just look a Bumiller from the NYT, confessing that she was afraid to ask Bush a difficulty question on the eve of the Iraq war.

I don't know when the press lost its compass, but it was certainly gone by the time of the Lewinsky scandal, and the Bush/Gore race in 2000.


I don't want to paint myself into the corner of having to defend the conduct of today's press. But Bush doesn't have to exploit their failures; he could rise above it. But he hasn't.


You're either awfully complacent, or blissfully unaware of how close disaster was.
Perhaps. I remember feeling very paranoid and vulnerable at the time. But the larger bad outcomes that you cite are fear-based outcomes (except for the $89B in damages, but compare that now to the money wasted in Iraq today; I mean they misplaced -- cannot account for -- $10B). The potential for a Depression, dropping stocks, etc., are all results from being afraid for the future. This is what it means that fear itself is the worst danger.

But the larger bad outcomes that you cite are fear-based outcomes

Or projections based on economic models. Come on, fear may be the mind-killer, but a $1.2 trillion drop in the stock market is a fact-based economy killer. Period. The economic damage and impact was measurable and tangible, and more people across the country have realistically feared for their livelihoods than ever feared for their physical safety.

I mean they misplaced -- cannot account for -- $10B

Not that old canard. Long ago debunked, it serves now only as a clear marker for BDS.

I remember feeling very paranoid and vulnerable at the time.

But I've forgotten all that. If it kills 3000 people again but doesn't destroy the nation, well, that's certainly better than this fascist slippery slope Bush is inflicting on us.

And you call that civilized discourse.

If it kills 3000 people again but doesn't destroy the nation,

. . . and if you only *think* that it will destroy the nation, you're fear-driven. You have to wait until it *does* destroy the nation to make sure that you're a rational actor.

Not that old canard. Long ago debunked, it serves now only as a clear marker for BDS.
Really? I didn't know that. Can you point me to a reference on this? (sincerely).

Oh, and what is BDS?

"I don't know when the press lost its compass"

This is hardly controversial, but I'd say after Watergate. Every smartass J-school graduate dreams of being the next Bob Woodward.

The bigger point is that the media now clearly sees itself as hugely important, probably more so than those they cover. Now, I'm all in favor of a free press, but seriously: know your place, guys.

You know, I'm beginning to suspect browster may not have voted for Reagan, and may not be all that moderate...

part of it is putting stooges (Jeff Gannon) in the WH press corps,

In this sense the Bush et al are worse than anything the terrorists can do.

Clearly you're afraid and you think Bush is going to keep you safe. In the meantime he's gutting the core values of this country.

compare that now to the money wasted in Iraq today; I mean they misplaced -- cannot account for -- $10B)

Red flags, browster.

Go easy on browster, Dave. He's an okay son of a bitch.

But I've forgotten all that. If it kills 3000 people again but doesn't destroy the nation, well, that's certainly better than this fascist slippery slope Bush is inflicting on us.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying (via sarcasm) that it would be better for the US to be a fascist state than for another 9/11 to happen?


If that's the case then we fully understand our differences, and they lie in a divergence of values that no discussion will change.

A definition of BDS.

browster,

I'm weary of the "denied access" line. But I am happy to discuss the illegal leaking of wiretapping and the wiretapping itself. Do we agree that the Congress authorized the use of military force? Has congress rescinded such authorization? So then the President, as C in C, has the right to listen in on suspected terrorists in Uzbekistan, right? So now that some of these suspected terrorists may be here in the US, we MAY NOT listen in on them? This makes no logical sense.
Further, you seem to be conflating the issue of detecting and preventing further terrorist attacks with the criminal prosecution thereof. The Prez has a DUTY under Article II of the Constitution to protect and defend the Constitution, and that does not mean only the paper the Constitution is written on. And congress can no more abridge this inherent power of the Prez via FISA than it can pass a law to remove from the Prez the right to nominate judges.
Now, about those illegal disclosures of classified information, I'm sure you are in favor of a Fitzgerald-type investigation to expose and prosecute those who leaked, and those who published, AS THE LAW REQUIRES, right?

A definition of BDS.
Hmm. I see. Thanks. Must be a mutant strain of CDS.

Hmm. I see. Thanks. Must be a mutant strain of CDS.

Actually, wasn't it known as "Clinton Hatred," not "Derangement?"

Ah, the 90s...

Red flags, browster.
Blue flags, you mean.


Go easy on browster, Dave. He's an okay son of a bitch.
Gee. Uh, thanks.

For the record, I oppose wiretapping and the USA Patriot Act and many other efforts the Congress and the Bushies have made to protect us. I didn't like this stuff when it was okay for catching drug dealers and I don't like it now.

But my dislike is based upon a very different set of asumptions than browster's. I don't believe the government is capable of protecting us. I think the government is a bureaucracy-bound batch of fuckups and union dipshits all playing CYA.

But be clear on one thing: If we are unsuccessful in preventing another attack along the lines of 9-11, the public is going to clamor for restrictions you won't even believe. What's more, I find the same people who think the Bushies are stealing our rights are awfully sympathetic to "Bush Knew and let it happen" and other such moonbattery. Yet they try at every turn to prevent the President from pursuing Islamo-nutters.

I don't blame the President for doing anything the law and the Congress lets him since he's going to be blamed for anything that happens. This is your bed, you moonbats who disparage the Great Gannon, and you must now assume the position.

Oh, and what is BDS?

Bush Derangement Syndrom.

Really? I didn't know that. Can you point me to a reference on this? (sincerely).

You have to read the audit reports by the Special Inspector General, but the upshot is that the $8.9 billion that was supposedly "unaccounted for" was delivered to the Iraqi government. The criticism was that we had no means of ensuring its proper usage after it entered the Iraqi Ministry of Finance. Here's what Stuart Bowen said in June '05 testimony to Congress:

This audit addressed $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds overseen by the CPA. The number attracted a lot of attention and led to some misunderstanding. To be clear: our audit report did not say that the DFI was “lost taxpayer money,” nor did we allege or imply that U.S. officials had engaged in any fraudulent practices.
As noted, our DFI audit report did not address U.S. appropriated funds; this distinction does not lessen the importance of our oversight nor of our findings. Indeed, the CPA’s management of Iraqi money was an important responsibility that, in my view, required more diligent accountability, pursuant to its assigned mandate, than we found. After many months of careful interviews and scrutiny of the documentation available, my auditors concluded that there were not adequate systems in place to ensure that the CPA knew what happened to the DFI funds after they were disbursed to the Iraqi ministries.

Geoff's administering his Moonbat Test.

Watch the reponse for determination of moonbat status.

So now that some of these suspected terrorists may be here in the US, we MAY NOT listen in on them?
Yes, you're right. We need to be able to do this. The ruckus is because Bush did it extralegally. He broke the law, and moreover, he doesn't care and will gladly do it again. He could have followed appropriate channels to do the wiretapping, but he didn't.


Do you really think it is ok for the executive branch to spy on anyone, without accountability to anyone? The question of Bush or any personality aside, do you want the president to have this power? Can you see how dangerous this is? Without checks and balances, nothing stops a president from spying on political enemies for political gain. I'm not implying that Bush does this now, but if the system is subverted it could happen (again, not necessarily by Bush).


Our institutions and laws are designed to work even when some of the participants don't have good intentions (again, no comment here implied about the current admin). It is similar to the way that science works; it gives a good result despite the failings (ego, dogmatic thinking, malfeasance, etc.) of any of its individual participants.

And here we see why Atrios blogging works- for Atrios.
The poor attempts at debate (Jesus bowster, you invalidated your own original premise in your opening monolouge) the ever shifting goalposts, the lack of links or even admitting their errors is becoming to common to the left.

The Sinistrospheres isn't interested in debate- they've forgotten how. Atrios, DU, Kos et al provide nothing more than campfire rallies for the true believers to thump their chests at. "Bush is worse than Hitler" "They're going to throw all the LGBT in camps" "Screw em"
As such Atrios doesn't need longwinded entries or even topics. It's just one long Deanish "YEAAAARGHHALIBURTONCHIMPHITLER*NOBLOODFOROILSTALINRULESSSSS!!!"

Meanwhile over on the dextrosphere, you actually see arguments being made. McCain-Feingold? Schiavo? Miers? ID? Rudy vs McCain vs Romney vs HILARY!?
Point and counterpoint, the forms of forensics. A skill increasingly lost to the left.

Or maybe my views just slanted because I skim the DU for humor.

browster,

My point was that it can't have been done extra-legally, as you put it, because the Constitution provides the President with the power. The Constitutional power inherent in the Executive trumps the attempts by congress to restrain or impinge upon it. This is a critical distinction. Yes congress passed a law, but it cannot restrict Executive power without changing the Constitution.

It is OK for the Executive branch to spy on foreign agents and their suspected operatives, either here or abroad. And it is perfectly legal, and does not require a warrant. Your concern, properly so, is that the Executive branch will expand the use of this power, to unreasonably spy on parties domestically. Such monitoring would be illegal. Attempts to criminally prosecute persons with such illegally obtained information would likely be and should be unsuccessful. But that does not prohibit the Executive branch from collecting such information to prohibit a planned attack. As I said before, this is conflating preemption with prosecution.

I appreciate that you can cogently and respectfully articulate your position here. It is much better than the discussion that can be found in other quarters.

I stand corrected. It was $8.8B that was misplaced. I don't know where I got the $10B figure from.

I don't know where I got the $10B figure from.

DU perhaps? Kos? Michael Moore?

In re-reading the post on the $10B, I see your point might not be the figure in question, but where it came from. The money was Iraqi funds, not US taxpayer money. I understand the distinction, and perhaps we differ on the importance of this point. I think that the loss is relevant because (1) it is indicative of the scale of money that is sloshing around over there; (2) it is money lost to do things that must be made up elsewhere, and likely it will involve US funds.

How would you score that response, geoff? True moonbat? Barking moonbat? Goal-post shifting moonbat?

Well guys, I really should get on with the other demands of the day.


Thanks for the respectful discussion (esp. Mike R., Slublog, Geoff and Andrew). We disagree on important issues, but as Americans we have a lot of core values in common. I think it is healthy to engage each other; I know I've grown a bit from this interaction.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying (via sarcasm) that it would be better for the US to be a fascist state than for another 9/11 to happen?

Yes, I can see you struggling with this. I wasn't using the first person. Tricksey me.

It's not about what I'm saying, it's you saying better to lose another 3,000 Americans than to allow Bush to (in your opinion) usurp extra-legal powers to "spy on Americans", since you feel that's a greater threat to the nation.

We assert with examples your position is wrong on the law, and wrong in it's extrapolations. We expect Bush to use the powers granted to him by the Constitution and the Congress to wage war using all of the military capabilities at his disposal, not just the "pointy end" of the military, the guys with guns and mortars and shit.

I think it was geoff who coined "pointy end", but I could be mis-remembering that.

Well guys, I really should get on with the other demands of the day.

"Demands of the day..." Suuuure. Pretend you have a life.

All of the rest of us are adept at avoiding those pesky 'life demands.'

That's right, folks. Having NYC nuked and then having to glass most of the Middle East doesn't threaten the existence of our nation, so we can't take it seriously.

You think Atrios is bad? Have you ever checked out Buzzflash? Here are some samples.

Hey, why should I care if NYC gets nuked? I live down here in little central Texas, not really a kick-ass target of opportunity (although Beslan wasn't exactly Metropolis).

I'm not giving Bush a blank check to spy on browster. I don't think anyone has.

But if he makes a call to Kandahar, I hope the NSA is on the ball.

Because I really do love all you NYC boys and girls, even you Yankees fans, and I'd just as soon keep you safe and sound.

So I can mock you when the Giants lose.

browster,

Thanks for the give & take. I did want to have you address my final point about the illegal leaking of classified information. I guess we can save that for another time? I suspect that prosecution of those should rank ahead of even, oh, never mind.

Dave in Texas,

I like that "pointy end" line. I'll probably have to steal it and use it somewhere. Thanks for that!

Haven't finished reading these comments yet, so if this has been covered, my apologies in advance.

Bowster, who is a douche, seems to think that the 'non-nation threatening event' that occurred on 9/11 was an isolated incident rather than the latest in a series of attacks on the US. He also seems to think they stopped there.

I think douche sums up that thinking pretty well.

I don't want to paint myself into the corner of having to defend the conduct of today's press. But Bush doesn't have to exploit their failures; he could rise above it. But he hasn't.

Browster, you're putting the cart ahead of the horse with this whole press thing. Since you seem to agree that the press has behaved like a bunch of catty high school girls, it then follows that any "denial of access" on their part is to the common good since said denials are only in response to the press' inability to report news in a responsible fashion.

In light of that, the "failure" of President Bush to "rise above" the press' behavior should logically appear somewhere near the end of your personal sh!tlist - well back of the press antics he is responding to. However the fact that you instead freely rant about Bush while your disdain for the press has to be dragged out of you clearly shows that the facts come second to your BDS.

But at least you've got your priorities straight.

How would you score that response, geoff? True moonbat? Barking moonbat? Goal-post shifting moonbat?

That was the lesser Hearing-What-It-Wants-To-Hear moonbat.

The critical point is *not* that it was not US taxpayer money, but that the money was properly handled, tracked, and accounted for on the CPA side of the transaction (though the CPA's overall performance needed improvement). So there was no wrongdoing, no mismanagement on the US side (at least of that money), no $10 billion of incompetence, embezzlement, or waste. That's why it disappeared as a story after congressional review.

The SIG's criticism was that the CPA had no mechanism for tracking the funds inside the Iraqi government, and no way of enforcing its proper use. The CPA replied that there was no practical way to do that, that they thought their responsibility had ended when the money was delivered, and that they were focused on improving the internal accounting mechanisms at the Ministry of Finance so that greater transparency would be afforded to all parties.

"Those not in favor with him are systematically excluded access. Anyone who gives Bush a hard time is cut off."

Can you elaborate on this claim or provide an example, please, Browster?

"Clearly you're afraid and you think Bush is going to keep you safe."

I can only speak for myself about how I feel. On Sept.11th, I felt shock until noontime. Then deep sadness and anger. Finally, by that evening I was filled with resolve - Never Again. I support those politicians who agree with me that we should never let this happen again. Not once did I feel fear. Not for an instant.

"In the meantime he's gutting the core values of this country."

Again, can you provide examples, please?

Maybe YOU think Atrios is a public utility, but most of us real human beings take some time off over the holidays.

Guess this blog must be part of that War on Christmas I keep hearing about.

Jealous, much?

Aside from the fact that Atrios's "Blogging" is a running joke that been brought up a couple of times before, and the fact that I saw 3 posts on his front page with more than 5 lines of thought behind them, there's the simple fact that Atrios just sucks. For reason's I mentioned above. He's like Instapundit, without the wordy TCS articles to show his capabilty for thought.

Seems to be a case of envy. Although Atrios made his reputation last year and this year taking inspiration from Instahack found he could coast.

Sounds like somebody is so jealous they're stealing content wholesale and then complaining about it.

You're an asshat.

Brewster "Well guys, I really should get on with the other demands of the day."

You should have deleted Osama's number from your speed dial yesterday, Brewster.

Two years ago when the left got the vapors I was concerned. A year ago, I thought they were misguided but earnest. Now I want to hang them from the nearest tree. I blame this on that Vice Squad video game that I've never played but read about, Bruce Springsteen, and my dog passing last summer.

I miss that damn dog.

Sounds like somebody is so jealous they're stealing content wholesale and then complaining about it.

Posting content, crediting it, linking it, mocking it, and then parodying it does not constitute theft. But that's just a 'reality-based' interpretation - you go on and enjoy yourself.

Ok, as long as you're all comfortable that unchecked presidential power can go to whoever is president...

How about Hillary? Michael Moore? Jimmy Carter?

You want them able to hold people indefinitely without charge, without access to the courts etc?

Do you want them to be able to wiretap you without any court oversight - simply on the executive say-so?

How about rendition? Is it ok that you or someone you know is declared a "terrorist suspect" and sent to some backwater nation and tortured? Again, purely on executive order without any check, balance or oversight?

I say this not because I consider Jimmy Carter a bad guy, or anyone in specific.

What I can tell you is that since forever, people have been abusing others. And people who have power without check, without oversight and without transparency and direct accountability to the people - well those people are almost certain to abuse those under their power.

Our founding fathers knew this. They experienced it under King George. We're getting some of the same.

Having a wall between non-probable cause surveillance and criminal investigations are there for a reason - a damn good reason – because when you can investigate, search and seize the persons property, liberty and possessions without probable cause, then the police state gets around to terrorizing those that disagree with it. Doesn’t matter if the police state is republican, democrat, socialist, soviet, or nazi – the victims are just as wrongly abused.

So, you’re all welcome to worship at the feet of Bush et al. I won’t. My liberties are too precious to give up to ANY president, republican or democrat.

Once Americans decide “I don’t miss those rights, I wasn’t using them anyway…” is the point at which we’ve given up being the land of the free. We just sold out. The coming abuse, should these expansions of unchecked power go un-stopped and un-reversed is inevitable. Kind of like jumping out of a plane, sans parachute and saying 5 seconds later – “See, I’m fine!” Yup, you currently are. You ARE going to hit the ground sometime soon though. You’re dead, you just don’t know it yet, and claiming you’re just fine currently makes just as much sense as claiming that these actions by the Bush WH are just fine by you.

Your democracy is dead – you just don’t know it yet.

I hope they stick around to read my views on homo-sexuality.

(Geoff, stop staring at my ass.)

Greg, the guys get shirts.

That's just the f'in way it is, okay?

"Your democracy is dead – you just don’t know it yet."

I thought it died in Florida in 2000? Can you kill something twice?

I hope they stick around to read my views on homo-sexuality.

Man can you clear a room. If we could bottle that, we could drop it in the Pakistani mountains and flush out the Taliban in minutes.

The major problem with the Left today is that they're so disconnected from reality. Claiming that Bush is a worse terrorist than the people involved in 9/11 makes perfect sense to them, yet it sounds like they're freakin' insane to the rest of us.

The main reason why they're like that is because they live in an echo chamber. They surround themselves with fellow travellers who all shout the party line without thought, and they get a great deal of positive feedback if they respond in kind.

Atrios and Kos just tapped into that. Most of the people who leave comments are just there to write the most amazingly vile, hate filled screeds you can imagine. Then they're praised for doing so, which encourages them to come back for more later.

James


funny, but the people who post on Atrios and Kos say the same things about you guys.

I guess the only solution to this disconnect is outright civil war. Who's game?

funny, but the people who post on Atrios and Kos say the same things about you guys.

Plenty of foibles are shared by both sides. It all comes down to the Lakoffian dichotomy.

Wow, I would think that if you spent as much time reading Atrios as you seem to that you would be much more intelligent than you are by now. Of course, one works with what one has.

True.

I wonder if we'll find a solution before there's nothing left to care about.

No one should be deluding themselves. Both sides of the blogosphere are circle-jerk echo chambers. We are just the prisoners arguing about the shadows on Plato's cave. These days we don't kill the messenger. They just get Swiftboated.

My goodness.

What a remarkable bit of copyright theft, malice and sheer jealousy.

Where does it come from, sirrah? Do you imagine that any of those 2,000,000 are deservedly yours?

What a remarkable bit of copyright theft, malice and sheer jealousy.

You're an idiot. Not a minor idiot, either. A leviathan idiot.

What a remarkable bit of copyright theft . . .

Yet another thoughtless and presumptive legal opinion that amounts to naught. Typical loose-neuroned liberal thought process.

You're an idiot. Not a minor idiot, either. A leviathan idiot.

Yes, starting with the adjective "remarkable." Was it really? Cutting and pasting is "remarkable?" We have other wonders, then - behold the "a href="http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/">hyperlink." Which Ace used to link to the original site. Truly remarkable.

And witness the astounding "credit" that Ace gave to Atrios in the original post. The jaw-dropping "parodies" on the main page. And the incredible "fidelity" of those parodies, bearing truth to his original, amazing observation.

Must be great to be a little mental magpie, captivated by any shiny idea.

I read Atrios every now and then, but I have to take it in small doses, since I usually feel stupider for having read it.

Aw crap, did I really screw up the hyperlink above? Better go read more Atrios, I guess.

"I'm of the opinion that the press, by acting like a bunch of bitchy junior high school girls, brought all the stuff you mentioned on themselves. "

I've noticed this theme on a few of the righty blogs.

Oh, those people reporting about Bush -- they're meeeeeaan.

The rise of Girly Conservatism.

As opposed to "Those swiftboaties are mean. And they must be lying- John Kerry said he was a hero AND a babykiller"

Or "Fake but accurate" or "the DSM" (oh wait thats covered by Fake but accurate).

Or maybe you could actually read the 100+ posts above where browster lamented the death of the Republic because W is persecuting reporters.
And how is W presecuting them? Is he locking them in jail for sedition? Sending commisars to the NYT to make sure nothing untowards gets through? Hauling Wolf Blitzer out of Atlanta and leaving his body in a ditch?

No, he's denying them access. The HORROR

From Steve:
Maybe because the people "who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings, and churches" have a tenancy to blow themselves up at the same time, moron!

uhh, so who is bush wiretapping then? dead people?

Kyle, I don't suppose you saw the fawning BBC interview of Bill Clinton a year or so ago, where the interviewer became a teeeeeensy weeeeensy bit less than worshipful (the Brits tending to be that way, no matter how they admire their interviewee) and Bill well nigh came unstrung? One of the reasons the left has been able to drift so far into preposterous waters is, our press does nothing but pelt them with fluffy kittens and cotton balls.

Get back to me when a Ted Kennedy or Chuck Schumer survives the typical interview reserved for Bob Republican.

Hey Kyle, I am so fucking into you, but Betsy's so fucking jealous . . . I told Betsy you're into her and if you get this message just look at me and say yes. I want to suck your tits and get crazy. I don't know why I'm like this, but you have to be with Betsy, too."

uhh, so who is bush wiretapping then?

Well, if he's wiretapping them, then Atrios's original complaint doesn't stand.

Happy Holidays

I see you all got taken down hard at firedoglake. You're called communist pussies. Pretty funny really.

I see that geoff is still a tool about the abuse of Iraqi billions.

browster,

Geoff knows full well, but will not tell you why the CPA went to great lengths to "distribute" billions in UNREQUESTED funds to incapable Iraqi ministries.

geoff is fundamentally dishonest. He simply ignores the questions about why Bremer requisitioned the funds in cash and distributed them in a rush prior to leaving, when no system was in place to account for them, and they were NOT requested.

Liar.

Well, if he's wiretapping them, then Atrios's original complaint doesn't stand.

Dishonest. Go read the post and you'll see.

yes. I want to suck your tits and get crazy.

P.S. browster, I'll see you back at Firedog. We can laugh at all these losers with our friends.

geoff,

What kind of audit has nothing to show for the exchange?

Unbelievable that you would defend this. And after I gave you the tip-off on Bowen. Tsk tsk.

I'll pop by every so often to rub your nose in it until you learn.

And, of course I will pop by to celebrate the 2,200th casualty in the illegal and immoral war.

Get back to me when a Ted Kennedy or Chuck Schumer survives the typical interview reserved for Bob Republican.

Great moments in journalism: when the young Irish reporter treated Bush the way all pols in Europe get treated. The WH reaction was instructive.

In this country the WH has them on a leash, or on the payroll.

You want fawning interviews of Bush?

Chris Matthews has a boner for him. Brit Hume loves him. How much do you need?

What more do we need?

Well, he needs to be into Betsy.

Bush Apologists,

Why does Bush ignoring the law make us safer?
Does that darn GOP congress make it too hard for him to get his FISA legislation passed?

If some loss of liberty will result in our being safer, it does not follow that EVERY loss of our liberty will make us safer. Why do you assume that EVERY act of extremism from this administration is some stroke of genius? Think about it this way: do you want President Hillary ( ;) or some other Dem) to have this sort of attitude toward your elected congress? I fear the next attack from the Islamofascists, but I also fear a President (and any of his enablers) who thinks he can just do whatever he wants.

You guys can paint this as more hand-wringing from the liberals, but Federalist society folks, AEI scholars, and Repubs like Graham and Barr also think this move by Bush is rotten.

PS- No, Bush is not worse than a terrorist, but that is a pretty low standard, no? The guy on our side ought to take democracy seriously enough to respect the law.

Why does Bush ignoring the law make us safer?

It doesn't make us safer, it makes me safer.

Who cares about you?

CNN practically repeats the White House's talking points verbatim. And the Nation magazine is Bush's paid shill.

I hear High Times is pretty decent to Bush too.

I try to slant my coverage in Bush's favor, and I'm not embarrassed to admit it.

Although atrios occasionally says batshit crazy things, that's very rare. and although he occasionally takes a day off, that's rare too.

he's reliably thoughtful, and generally well informed.

two million hits a day.

Although atrios occasionally says batshit crazy things, that's very rare. and although he occasionally takes a day off, that's rare too.

he's reliably thoughtful, and generally well informed.

two million hits a day.

"No one on the left is claiming that Bush is a worse terrorist than the people involved in 9/11.

In this sense the Bush et al are worse than anything the terrorists can do"

Uh... I fail to see the contradiction here. Let's review.

Statement A: Bush is not a terrorist.

Statement B: Bush is really, really bad.

Am I missing something?

Oh, right, silly me: both statements superficially appear the same because they contain the word 'terrorist'.

Bravo, chaps. You sure beat him at his own game, or something, I guess.

scar, I mean this respectfully,

is English your second language?

BDS sufferers,

Will you stop at nothing to "get" Bush?

Why can you not accept that you lost?

Twice?

Dave, are you kidding? He used the words "bravo", "chaps" and "silly"....clearly he IS English. Not very bright, but clearly English

Why can you not accept that you lost?

Twice?

Let's be inclusive here.....
we all lost twice.

I have no axe to grind about Atrios, but I don't visit him much these days.

The reason is the 'clubiness' and clique-culture that exists there.

A small number (12 to 15) regulars make up the majority of the posts.

A real cunty braod named "Tena" has a bad habit of chasing off anyone who dares to challenge her omnipotence. Then there's a "Vicky" who posts {{{HUGS}}} to every thread subject and mentions her 40DD breasts. There's an assorted group of hanger-ons like a "ql' whose main contribution is to tell everyone what the weather is in her region.

Atrios attracts a fairly dumb group of regulars who use the blog as a social outlet because they're such losers that they can't make it in the real world.

Oh well, so much for the power of blogs.

Let's be inclusive here.....
we all lost twice.

Right. All you Donk douchebags lost twice. That's what I said.

Excuse me? The difference between "is a worse terrorist" and "[is] worse than anything a terrorist can do" is pretty enormous. It's a frickin' gulf. Without a nuclear device, there's very little a terrorist can do that seriously impacts the future of our nation. (If you disagree, you're quite a pessimist.)

9/11 pretty much represents the upper bounds of the damage a terrorist can inflict, and in the long run most people will agree that it wasn't exactly a killing blow. Now, I can conceive of worse things a President could do. Starting a nuclear war is the very worst, but to my knowledge this hasn't happened. Well, okay, we nuked Japan once or twice, but you get my drift; we're still alive.

Now, let's talk about lesser disasters. Bush has, like many other presidents, effectively suspended habeas corpus. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your point of view, I suppose, although history has judged every other suspension of habeas to be a perfectly terrible idea. Nevertheless, it's gone, at least for the time being, and no amount of bombs or crashed airplanes would have gotten rid of it otherwise. Similarly, there are a hell of a lot of things that shouldn't be classified, and yet they are classified. There are a lot of misplaced budgetary priorities, to the extent that we're wasting more money than any conceivable terrorist attack could cost to repair. And so on, and so forth. Terrorists didn't do any of this. Nobody is saying they did, so I don't see why everyone immediately jumped on Browster.

Can someone point out the flaw in my reasoning here? Evidently it was so patently false that people went straight to grammatical errors which, come to think of it, I couldn't find, either.

Without a nuclear device, there's very little a terrorist can do that seriously impacts the future of our nation.

So, if you just happily forget about the possibility that terrorists might get their hands on nukes, from say, Iran, or Pakistan, or Russia or North Korea, then maybe (just maybe) your reasoning had some merit. But then I read this piece of crapola

"we're wasting more money than any conceivable terrorist attack could cost to repair"

How do you repair the loss of life? This isn't just about knocking down big buildings. It's about killing people.

9/11 pretty much represents the upper bounds of the damage a terrorist can inflict

In a world without nuclear, chemical, & biological weapons, you'd probably be correct. But in our world, the ceiling is much higher.

"How do you repair the loss of life? This isn't just about knocking down big buildings. It's about killing people."

Or, instead, removing the freedoms that our fouding fathers cared so deeply about, and risked their lives to obtain for us. GWB is pissing those rights away in the wind - without as much as a public debade and discussion.

If his methods are so dang reasonable, and if such a vast percentage of the public agree with him then asking congress to pass legislation should be a piece of cake - a constitutional ammendment even.

But we all know that wouldn't happen - we all know that public support for warrentless wiretaps on "suspects" (read, anyone Bush cares to "suspect" of being an evil-doer) is not very high.

But go ahead. Keep drinking the koolaid. It's all fine as long as "our" guy is in the WH. They came for democrats, and it didn't bother me because I was not a democrat. etc and all that.

Your liberties took a winger off a big cliff a long time ago and you cheered them on. We'll see how much you cheer when the guaranteed abuse of yourselves or your decendants receive.

Unckecked power, power without oversight and direct responsibility to the people has ALWAYS been a terrible thing. It will be the same this time around.

Sadly, it will be *everyone* who suffers, not just those complete morons who cheer this kind of ignorant pissing away of your freedoms.

Your freedoms are dead, you just don't seem to realize it yet.

I think the difference in perspectives depends on whether you see the 9/11 attack as a one-time fluke, or the most successful in a 25-year history of gradually increasing attacks. Terrorists are not nearly done with us - they've got major ambitions, as the Madrid, London, Beslan, Manila, etc., attacks show.

So saying that 9/11 attack are survivable doesn't play with this crowd. As I mentioned above, the stock market lost $1.2 trillion value as a result of 9/11, and there was $89 billion in direct damage. And that attack was only 50% successful.

As far as the effect on our freedoms - nobody likes having fewer rights. But if you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs (or a competing model), you'll find safety very near the bottom (i.e., one of the most fundamental needs). Conservatives rank the threat of terrorism (and by that we're really talking about the longer-term threat of radical Islam) higher than the threat of government excess, and liberals rank them in reverse order.

There's no evil here, and I think the debate between the two sides is a healthy part of the political process. But talk of impeachment and hysteria over rampant abuses of power that have not occurred is not a constructive part of that debate

"P.S. browster, I'll see you back at Firedog. We can laugh at all these losers with our friends."

P.S. Tubino, don't forget to bring your lotion, teehee. Is all of the "sinestroshpere" like a 9 yr. old girls slumber party?

damn sepll checker

"I think the difference in perspectives depends on whether you see the 9/11 attack as a one-time fluke, or the most successful in a 25-year history of gradually increasing attacks"

This is a very good point. I believe we are at war, and have been for a number of years. As in previous wars, this means we may have to temporarily sacrifice personal wealth, comfort, and, unfortunately, some freedom/privacy.

This galls me, because I am not naturally a rule follower. I believe drugs and prostitution should be legal. At one time I was enough of a cracker that my nick was on the Hall of Fame of several underground boards. I play p.oker for a living because it means I don't have to answer to a boss or customer. I like doing what I want, when I want, without anybody interfering.

However, the simple truth is that there is a determined group(s) of people out there who are doing everything they can to kill me and the few people I actually like. I had former classmates die in 9/11. I have a close friend who can describe the sound of bodies hitting the ground around her as she got out of the towers.

There'se tension between privacy/freedom and the necessities of war, it calls for tough trade-off decisions. However, what I see from the Dems is simply enthusiasm for finding another thing to bash Bush with, not an interest in balancing war needs with personal freedom.

steve_in_hb:

I'm glad you find something in that rambling, agrammatical comment that was worth anything.

Sheesh, 'find' should be 'found.' It's just getting worse. I think that retiring for the evening is my only course.

Well, you are competing with Woody repeatedly (1) calling me a PUSSY (2) suggesting I fuckmy Mom (3) insulting my genitalia. So don't get a big head.

"This is a very good point. I believe we are at war, and have been for a number of years. As in previous wars, this means we may have to temporarily sacrifice personal wealth, comfort, and, unfortunately, some freedom/privacy."

The only "temporary sacrifice of personal wealth" being made is by the non-affluent. The rich are getting another tax cut. And how many republicans are sacrificing personal confort or safety by going to Iraq?

"However, what I see from the Dems is simply enthusiasm for finding another thing to bash Bush with, not an interest in balancing war needs with personal freedom.'

And what I see from republicans is piss-your-pants terror, and a willingness to sacrifice hard-won freedoms for a little personal safety. The pioneers would have found your cowardice disgraceful. Are you Americans - or mice? Show some courage for once - try not accepting everything the Bush administration spews at face value. Dems showed the courage to accept the impeachment of Clinton - but all I see here are syncophants.

"He broke the law, and moreover, he doesn't care and will gladly do it again. He could have followed appropriate channels to do the wiretapping, but he didn't."

"Ok, as long as you're all comfortable that unchecked presidential power can go to whoever is president...

"How about Hillary? Michael Moore? Jimmy Carter?"

Let's get something straight for all you anti-Bush idiots: your entire premise that Bush broke the law is wrong, false and based on willful ignorance. Idiots cite nothing but rhetoric, because the law and, as usual, the facts, don't help them. You should not carry on with those arguments unless you want to continue saying things that are wrong, false and willfully ignorant. Having said that, I am comfortable with the way Bush has exercised his inherent, established and long-standing Presidential powers. I would not be comfortable with trusting Hillary!, Moore, Carter, Al Querry or any other leftist idiots because they can't be trusted to protect America with the same resolve, judgement and integrity as Bush.

Maybe that's what angers you guys so; you sense that you are children in a time that requires adults, idiots in a time that requires intelligence, monkeys fighting over dust in a time that requires no monkeys.

Hush, now, idiot monkeys.

And how many republicans are sacrificing personal confort or safety by going to Iraq?

Well, since the military in Iraq voted overwhelmingly in favor Bush in '04, I'd say that the Republicans are sending more than their fair share. When are the Dems gonna pony up?

Show some courage for once

This is where you guys completely fall off the path. We're planning on being in the GWOT for 2 or 3 decades, and we've just finished year 4. This is a war, not a police action, and it's a war that will last through several administrations (unless the Dems turn tail). We're not exchanging freedom for security, we're exchanging freedom for the chance to defeat our enemies more quickly and soundly.

That said, it'd be nice if we didn't have to give up our freedoms, even temporarily. But until the left sounds like it grasps, even slightly, the magnitude and import of this endeavor, their plaintive whining will fall on deaf ears.

Dems showed the courage to accept the impeachment of Clinton

That's funny - the democratic visitors here *still* haven't accepted the impeachment of Clinton.

Geeze. What are yall? 6th graders?

This seems pretty clear to me. Democrats don't really think we are in that much danger from the terrorists. Thats it. Pure and Simple. They think that the last 4 yrs of no terror attacks was because the terrorists just decided not to do any.

They take any issue and blow it out of poportion, even at the risk of national security, to make Bush look bad. They convince themselves of the ridiculous notion that we are somehow becoming a police state because Bush wanted to keep track of the bad guys.

Well, the American people seem to understand the necessity of this, Thank God. And you guys just look bad.

My advice? Get some real ideas that don't involve tax hikes and more government programs.

Hating Bush is just not a winning political strategy.

Fuck the left.
The whole lot of those lying little pussies has nothing to say about abuses of power, or absolute power, when it's in the hands of fidel, kim jung il, robert mugabe, che, mao, stalin, etc etc.
They want to control everything and everyone, and don't think for a second that they don't desire and plan for their absolute power grab.
Fuck tubino and all tubinos.
There's just not enough rope for 'em.

bush is worse than the terrorists. they kill a few thousand (1 of which i knew) while you cheer bush on as he shreds the constitution, destroys our military, and destroys the country. and you stupid fuckers love him for it because youre a bunch of chickenshit pussies who wants daddy to take care of you, never mind that he abuses you at the same time. "take my liberty, i dont want to die!" is your rallying cry. patrick henry is spinning in his grave.

and to the poster above me - check the list asshole: http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

I rest my case.

"bush is worse than the terrorists. they kill a few thousand (1 of which i knew) while you cheer bush on as he shreds the constitution, destroys our military, and destroys the country. and you stupid fuckers love him for it because youre a bunch of chickenshit pussies who wants daddy to take care of you, never mind that he abuses you at the same time. 'take my liberty, i dont want to die!' is your rallying cry. patrick henry is spinning in his grave."

I rest my case.

Yes, ex, I am above you, in so many ways, but not nearly as much as Dick Cheney's cock.
I bet you make prank phone calls to Dick Cheney's cock just to piss it off, so that when the day comes, the day that it finds you, it'll give you an angry double-cougar, just like you like it.

Ex is just another example of those who don't have the stomach for what needs to be done. And his silly link is a prime example of stacking evidence without a pretense of objectivity.

I have to say that the FireDogLake visits have presented a new low in erudition and content. And I thought Tubino was bad.

Ex et al are Columbine killer-types.
Complete pussies who hate jocks, hate the smart kids, hate everyone, but find that special someone who hates just like them, then goes and shares a circle-jerk about killing everyone they hate.
It always turns out that when they finally go, they won't go face-to-face, hand-to-hand.
Cowards attack the unarmed, and shoot people in the back.
Too afraid to lose, so they don't venture.
They talk about the right 'living in fear'.
Fucking cowards.

Uncle Jefe,

Tell us what you really think. Don't hold back now.

;-)

I'm glad you pointed this out. I used to be a regular reader at Eschaton but quit several months ago. There is little energy, thought or wit put into it. The comments are fileed with blathering nonsense by a clique of blathering losers. It is barren and devoid of rich content that can easily be found elsewhere at any number of great blogs.

Yeah - you can go to polipundit and to redstate - but if you don't sing along with the choir they ban you from their site.

Yes, you guys spend a lot more time with your posts defending warrantless spying on the American people, torture, Guernica-like bombing of cities, and putting up the pretense that the Iraq War is going well. It takes a lot of time to create posts that can twist logic to the level you have reached, and I'm sure that the best is yet to come.

P.S. Bush really kicked butt with Katrina.
P.P.S. Find those big weapons of mass destruction, yet?

Some bloggers post a lot less around Christmas time. You know, people with a life?

OK, I guess you wouldn't know, Ace.

My goodness, I haven't seen a troll infestation like this in many moons...

Some bloggers post a lot less around Christmas time. You know, people with a life? OK, I guess you wouldn't know, Ace.

You know what's fucking hilarious about this one?

Irony impairment.

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: this blog sucks a great deal of ass.

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: this blog sucks a great deal of ass.

And you, being an expert on ass-sucking, are the go-to guy for opinions on the subject.

Thank you.

Now kindly fuck off and go back to whatever shitblog sent you here.

Oh, and a question for 'steve expat:' have you ever had an original thought in your life, or have you always sucked the flaccid tit of liberal thought?

I do thank you for stopping by, though. I'm sure posting here cut into the time you usually spend masturbating like a wild monkey to the Nixon resignation speech.

Eh. Whoever that is spoofing tubino, it's dreadfully bad form and you aren't making a very good job of it. Worse: you aren't funny.

"Two. Million. Hits. Per. Week."

Jealous, much?

You wingnuts are just sad, sad, sad.

You wingnuts are just sad, sad, sad.

What's wrong? Couldn't think of another word for 'sad?'

Morose. Depressed. Down. Melancholy. Cheerless. Heartrending. Poignant. Gloomy.

See how easy that was?

Okay, Liberal and Proud, it's your turn.

Go on, you can do it...expand that vocabulary!

Lee Atwater is DEAD

No shit, sherlock.

Man, you are one scary-smart motherfucker.

You moonbats are just stupid, stupid, stupid.

Check out the big brain on Mike E

Hey Mike, I'm dead too.

You're still my bitch

Envy!

Envy!

Unoriginal!

Trite!

Hackneyed!

Shallow!

Obtuse!

You guys are getting your asses kicked just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's pretty funny, actually.

I know, I know. That "faggy fag fag" stuff really smarts. I think I need a Tylenol.

Our Faithful Servent writes:
your entire premise that Bush broke the law is wrong, false and based on willful ignorance

First, this is a disputable assertion. Your premise is, that as Commander in Chief Bush has unlimited power to do anything he wants during wartime -- the Yoo Doctrine, right? This is hardly a settled issue. Many competent people, on both the left and the right, dispute this idea.

Even if you restrict yourself to saying that Bush has the right, as C in C, to spy on agents of foreign powers, you are getting into disputed waters. What i have read, and i am not a legal scholar, so i don't consider the matter settled, but what i have read is that yes, Bush as president has the power to conduct FOREIGN wiretaps of FOREIGN nationals without warrants. But it is highly disputable whether or not he has the power to pursue DOMESTIC wiretaps without a warrant. His C in C powers do NOT abrogate the 4th amendment, and past law seems to side with the idea that he needs a warrant to do domestic wiretapping, even if 1/2 the conversation is foreign. This issue is NOT settled, in my understanding, and you may be right, he may be within his rights to do it. But you may also be wrong. I hope that the courts will be given the chance to decide.

You also state:
I am comfortable with the way Bush has exercised his inherent, established and long-standing Presidential powers. I would not be comfortable with trusting Hillary...

i'm sorry, but that's not the way it works. If Bush has those powers, then president Hillary would too, regardless of whether or not you trust her. Liberals don't trust Bush, you see, so it's the same issue in the mirror. You simply cannot say "Bush has this power, but a liberal president would not." Because that's not the way the rule of law works. It is not the man but the office that has the power, so if you say, "The President has that power" then you are saying that ANY President will have that power, ad eternam.

Anonymous poster at 2:07pm-
Liberal presidents have used these powers time and again.
Liberals don't trust Bush, you see

No shit.
Liberals don't trust anyone who isn't for giving away our hard earned cash to whomever the libs see fit.
They don't trust anyone who stands up for individual, personal responsibility.
Not only does that take away their warm fuzzy feeling that big brother will keep them safe and well fed, but that by individuals succeeding, they'll lose their victim status, and won't vote for the libs anymore.
Libs are hypocrites.
Crying about the loss of liberties.
Horseshit.
Look at SF, home of the leftiest, so blue they're black.
They've spent years doing everything they can to discriminate based on sex, sexual orientation, race, etc in the form of 'affirmative action'.
Now they've voted to eliminate gun ownership in the city.
Yeah, all sorts of civil rights, constitutional protection in SF...
As long as you're not straight, white, male, and a gun owner.

Ever hear of COPYRIGHT VIOLATION???

Horse's ass.

You just violated a copyright. Dumbass.

Oh, and a question for 'steve expat:' have you ever had an original thought in your life, or have you always sucked the flaccid tit of liberal thought?

I remember Steve Cowpat from when he used to troll over at Right Wing News, and the answer to your question is assuredly the latter.