Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Ann Coulter :: Townhall.com Columnist
O.J. trials for terrorists
by Ann Coulter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The Democrats claim they want to treat terrorism as a criminal law problem, but when we give them an American citizen convicted of aiding terrorists -- as happened this week -- a Democrat judge gives her a slap on the wrist. Or he was going to give her a wrist slap until someone told him that wrist-slapping was banned under the Geneva Conventions, so he let the wrist off with a warning.

Last year, a New York jury found Lynne Stewart guilty of helping her former client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, communicate with his Egyptian-based group of murderous terrorists, appropriately known as "the Islamic Group."

The blind sheik needed to instruct his followers to abandon a truce and resume murdering innocents, but he couldn't get the message through because, by sheer coincidence, he was in prison for conspiring to murder innocents here in America by plotting the first World Trade Center bombing. So Stewart and a "translator" met with her former client in prison and took his messages for transmission to his followers in Egypt.

With the full constitutional protections Democrats want for terrorists in Guantanamo, Stewart was convicted by a New York jury last year.

This week, Judge John Koeltl -- appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994 -- spurned the prosecution's request for a 30-year sentence and gave Stewart 28 months for being a terrorist's mule. Now she'll clog up the criminal justice system with endless appeals for the next several years -- using procedures that liberals also want for Guantanamo detainees.

At Stewart's sentencing, the judge noted that the defendant's actions had not resulted in any deaths. I'll have to remember that in case I'm ever on trial for attempted murder. "Hey, your honor, did I mention that the guy lived? Yeah, the darn gun jammed on me. Go figure, huh?"

In rejecting a 30-year sentence in favor of a 28-month sentence, the judge commended Stewart for her "public service, not only to her clients, but to the nation" for representing members of the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground. In a sane world, that would have justified a longer sentence, not a shorter one.

If only Democrats could turn the entire war on terrorism over to the courts, they could release terrorists and terrorist sympathizers with wild abandon -- and Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton would never have to take a position.

When Americans are allowed to vote, a fireman's vote counts as much as George Soros' vote. But if liberals can just get terrorists into the judicial system, a Clinton-appointed judge can rule on a defense funded by George Soros -- precisely what happened in Stewart's case. Note that even in liberal New York City, average citizens on the jury voted to convict Stewart, despite her Soros-funded defense.

Democrats run apparently sane candidates for office, like James Webb in Virginia and Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, who can puff up their chests and pretend they want to pursue terrorists -- while carping about any and all military action in the terrorists' general direction. Instead, let's turn terrorists over to courts full of Clinton and Carter judges! Democratic candidates get to look tough, and the terrorists go scot-free.

It would be frightening enough to treat terrorism as a criminal law problem if it were Republicans saying it. But these are Democrats. Their idea of a major criminal case is Tom DeLay's campaign treasurer accidentally depositing a campaign contribution into a checking account rather than a savings account.

By contrast, terrorists imprisoned in Guantanamo for trying to kill Americans must be treated as innocent little lambs. Oh, to be there when Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman is exonerated due to previously unavailable "DNA evidence"!

After President Bush signed a law this week providing for military tribunals for terrorists being held at Guantanamo and prohibiting their torture, Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history." (Note to Democrats: It's still too soon to use "stain" as a metaphor for a White House brouhaha.)

Democrats stood outside the White House shouting "Torture is a crime!" and "Bush is the terrorist!" Yep, these are the people who claim they're going to keep us all safe, America. Everybody good with that?

Gen. George Washington tried Major John Andre, Benedict Arnold's British co-conspirator, by military tribunal and ordered Andre hanged within 10 days of his capture. Nazi saboteurs, including an American citizen, captured on U.S. soil during World War II were tried in secret by military commission and promptly executed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Nuremberg trials were a form of military tribunal.

But Democrats think military tribunals aren't good enough for the terrorists plotting to kill Americans today. Liberals are going to make the terrorists love us! What better way to start than with criminal trials in front of judges like John Koeltl?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Ann Coulter and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Brilliant as usual...
Great point - the American people want terrorists to be dealt with like the enemies that they are, while the Democrats talk a big game and then do everything they can to keep us from treating our enemies like enemies. Terrorists are not common punks to be treated lightly; they are our enemies, and their mission is to kill us. It would behoove the Democrats to remember that.

I'll second rccar.
The idea of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue is a joke in and of itself. Then, when you see what can go awry in the courts, the joke becomes even funnier. Except that there's actually people who want to go that route. Now that's sobering.

Great article Ann!
Yeah, sure, we want the Liberals in control. Like we need a broken sewer line. Stewart should have been tried for Treason and hung!

If she was a man baby...
If Lynne Stewart was a man, then she would have received a sentence of life in prison.

Other examples of feminist favors in our courts are in divorce court where the woman receives the benefits, kids, 18 years of income, most of the property, and government protection, while the man receives the bill and blame.

Another example in criminal court where a woman pedophile is sentenced to house arrest for having sex with a child, while a man is given 3-5 years in prison for typing a dirty message to a cop on the Internet.

American Terrorists
Why is it that Timothy McVey was tried, convicted, and put to death quite promptly, even in our ridiculous legal system? Is it because it is the PC thing to do as long as it is a white male of European descent? Which brings up another interesting topic; where was all the outrage over the extermination of all of those "dangerous women and children" in Waco, whom if memory serves, were inside their own compound? (BYW it took less time to take Bagdad from Saddam than it took Reno to take Waco.)I am also still wondering why nothing has been done about the treasonous NYT's national security leaks.

Liberal justice
Clinton judicial appointees - never saw a criminal, a traitor or an Islamofascist/jihadist they didn't like.

American Terrorists
Why is it that Timothy McVey was tried, convicted, and put to death quite promptly, even in our ridiculous legal system? Is it because it is the PC thing to do as long as it is a white male of European descent? Which brings up another interesting topic; where was all the outrage over the extermination of all of those "dangerous women and children" in Waco, whom if memory serves, were inside their own compound? (BYW it took less time to take Bagdad from Saddam than it took Reno to take Waco.)I am also still wondering why nothing has been done about the treasonous NYT's national security leaks.

Extradition?
Can Egypt extradite Lynn Stewart for aiding the terrorist organization that then killed all those tourists? Wasn't that one of the subjects of her secret messages, to end the cease fire?
I think that would be the best outcome. Have her serve her 28 months and then be handed over to Egypt, that would be a nice thing to have happen the last week or so of President Bushes term in office.

New Words
Ann makes another brilliant and witty case here and she uses logic, something the left seems not to have been infected with. One must admit, however, that the left is very good with words. We call that government function that destroys families and enslaves the masses in poverty "welfare." We can't call them illegal aliens, we call them "undocumented workers." We dare not call them terrorists or Islamo-fascists, we must call them insurgents or freedom fighters and compare them to the Founding Fathers. So maybe we need to use words better also. If, instead of the death penalty we started calling it post-partum abortion, Lynn Stewart may even sign up for it! If some clever fellow had leaked a story that there was an abortion clinic in the basement of the World Trade Center, the liberals would have made sure Shiek Omar never lived long enough to face trial. If we can't win the argument with clean, clear logic perhaps a bit of subterfuge would carry the day.

Still looking for the evidence
that Ann Coulter is a "McCarthyite" as Paul Greenberg recently charged.

I'd agree with "Menkenite" maybe; but "McCarthyite"?

Besides, is "McCarthyite" a compliment or a slur?

Bipsy
In Treason, Coulter defended McCarthy. I'm convinced after reading Treason that McCarthy was a hero, so it would be a compliment in my opinion. Greenberg either did not read Treason or does not agree with it.

To Kimberly:

As you are sure to read/comment here, I'm just wondering why you have not answered the questions posed to you on the Michelle Malkin column comment section by me at Wednesday, October, 18, 2006 6:02 PM?

See:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichelleMalkin/2006/10/18/a_reality_check_for_angelina_jolie?page=full&comments=true

Cat got your tongue?

Simple analogy for dems vs. gop
There's an easy way to understand the differences between democrats and republicans on terrorists and criminals in general: Democrats are like defense attorneys and republicans are like prosecuting attorneys.

Democrats look for a justification for the terrorists' actions, a way to explain the aberrant behavior so that they can be rehabilitated and mercy can be shown. They see a terrorist as the inevitable product of his environment, rather than his choices. If terrorists had better health care, maybe 9/11 never would have happened (my choice for a Hillary for Pres campaign slogan).

Republicans primarily look for punishment, empathizing more with the victims, and ensuring that justice is done. They believe people should take responsibility for their choices, regardless of their circumstances. They want nothing more or less than a fair trial and an appropriate sentence.

Kimberly is not in at the moment ...
but if you'll please take a number, she'll be with as soon as possible. She's hasn't yet receive instructions from Screamin' Dean and The Lefties and therefore cannot respond.

Please God, Don't let Dim rats take over
Ann,
It is all about rights with the Democrats and the limp-wristed lefties. If a person comes to America, and commits a crime(think illegal aliens) they should not have any rights as an AMERICAN! They are not Americans and they do not get the same rights. What is so hard for the Dems to get about this.
Then, if they perform, or try to perform an act of Terrorism, Not only do they not have American Rights, But Also, They should be tried, and if found guilty, be executed with due haste.
Of course the Libs can't say too much since several of their fair-haired boys (Clinton - Hanoi Jane) and girls are blatantly guilty of High Treason from exploits overseas in the 60s & 70s.
The Dems won't change, and the GOP base better wake up!
All GOP Voters should remember when they all go to the polls, Even if your GOP candidate did not do all you wanted, they still maintain your conservative interests in WASHINGTON.
The Democrats are still the Godless Liberals that want Homosexuals, and the transgendered to teach your children Liberal, Communist, and homosexual ideas. To vote Dem, or to not vote at all, justs plays into the hands of the enemy. Remember, you cannot give them an inch, never never never give up.

Grammatically Incorect?
Stewart should be tried for treason, and hanged!

ANOTHER EXAMPLE
For why elected and appointed officials should be restricted by term limits. And let's just hope that come election day, voters remember this slap in the face to American integrity sentence that this inept, jackass, pompous, card carrying member of the ACLU judge provides yet another example of why for the sake of national security Democrats cannot be left in charge of anything except changing the empty rolls of toilet paper in Washington.

Visit http://www.headsneedtoroll.org and post your views, thoughts and opinions.
Heads Need To Roll

Secular-Progressive Jews
There are Christians you can criticize with impunity and there are Muslims you can vilify, just as well. The Islam-fascist and Fundamental or Charismatic Christians are the ones I make reference to. On the other hand, if you criticize a Jew, any Jew, you are labeled an Anti-Semite. Well get out your labeling gun. Secular-Progressive Jews, those that control the MSM, movie industry ,ACLU, and the purse strings of the Democrat Party are an insidious, America hating group that are plotting to seize power and change our form of government. There are an inordinate number of S-P Jews sitting in our courts as Judges, arguing cases as lawyers, attacking our Judea-Christian values, and occupying seats in the US Congress. I am not talking about all Jews here--I am talking about the Radical S-P left and in many cases children of the Communist Secular Jews that fled Europe in the 30s. These people should be identified for what they are--they are dangerous and insidious. George Soros is one of them and his actions are treasonable. BTW so is Judge John Koeltl.

scottmcd9999
Be Patient, it takes time to reveiw the Soros surogate webb sites and cut and organize your arguments for the day. Kimberly and r2_d2 will be along shortly.

COULTER FOR SOMETHING!
Ann Coulter must start now to seek some office that will build her resume up to the point of making her "qualified" to run for president. I'm sure she'll be 35 by 2008.

Ann gets it! What she gets is this: (and if I mis-state the case, I'm open to criticism). The reason democrats don't care about justice for people who massacre Americans is the same reason that Rahman doesn't care about Americans -- 'cause he's not one of us -- he's not an American.

Besides being lucky enough to avoid a democrat brain-blender in the delivery room, what makes these democrats American? Nothing! They don't think like us; they think like Karl Marx on valium. They don't act like us; they act like John Kerry, faking injuries in Vietnam, and then
ratting out his own soldiers for war crimes.

They don't talk American; they talk PC, which is just another way to steal your right to speech.

Democrats don't do anything that is really American, because in their hearts, they hate America.

I don't care what they say -- I know what they do.


Mr. Right
Great analogy!
You're absolutely right,they do spin better than us.

Mountain Rose
You are right there are gentile S-Ps and I despise them all. My point was to say , "there are Jews (too many based on population)that should be identified as dangerous to our Republic. No one should have their right of dissent or their right of debate stifled for fear of the anti-Semite label". The S-Ps are the creators of the Christian Right vilifying mantra--it is time to identify the Jews that think they are untouchable because of the label intimidation factor. I am not intimidated; we need to identify the leaders of this insidious group and illuminate them for what they are: Anti-Americans engaging in sedition and treason.

No, Michael, Stewart Should
be imprisoned for life with Janet Reno for a cell-mate, so she can get raped twice a day, which would be absolutely appropriate for defending muslim trash.

One More Thought
Elect the Democrats and you give the Secular-Progressives (S-Ps) the power base from which to more effectively continue their treasonous work. Do not be misled; the Democrat Party is in the pockets of this S-P Radical Jew dominated group.

Vigilante
There is a not-too-obvious danger in cases like the miscarriage of justice in the Stewart case, and that is that infuriated people take vigilante action when institutions fail them. The KKK and the Sicilian Cosa Nostra had their beginnings in the lack of justice coming from gov't institutions responsible for justice. When my son was six he asked me what i would do if a bad man kidnapped him? I replied i feared i would resort to vigilante justice. Whats that he asked? Daddy means he would take his deer rifle and shoot anybody who tried to hurt us said his slightly older sister. Horrifying miscarriages are all too common. Remember the girl who was raped, had her arms cut off with and axe and left for dead. The man who did it was put out on the street a few years later. Who would find guilty her parent who blew away the rapist, the judge who gave him a slap on the wrist, or the parole board who let him out, or all the above. Not me. Violence decides things. It was the systematic assassination of moderate Japanese politicians in the 1930's that tipped Japan onto the path of Empire that led to Pearl Harbor.

Warrior
Your comments on left wing Jews illustrate my own observations, and i find their positions crazy, to use a common word. These people exist in large numbers in Israel and in my opinion are responsible for the on-going drag out of the Arab-Israeli war. Like-thinking people, the majority not Jews, are responsible for our pasting in Viet Nam. Their problem is they want to win nice. When force is on the table, nice jumps out the window. These wishful thinking dreamers think an invasion can be negotiated like the price of a house for sale. Sometimes reality intrudes and their education is in time to save themselves. Sometimes not.

Waco
Waco--I will admit I do not know everything that went on down there but there are some truths that I believe are undeniable.
In America:
1. We do not gas our children. Anyone approving such an idea is a criminal of the highest order.
2. Gassed children could not possibly escape from a burning building--neither could their Mothers. Whoever approved the gassings are guilty of at least Manslaughter and murder may be appropriate.
3. We do not burn our citizens even those in cults.
4. Owning weapons and being in a religious cult are not crimes, both actions are protected by the 1st and 2nd amendments to our Constitution.
Waco still has the smell of Federal Power gone awry. Waco is a lingering stain and it needs to be washed clean(by appropriate investigation and action) from the fabric of our history.

Just the Facts Ann!!
Another brilliant piece of writing Ann but you need to slow down on the facts. You know the libs can't handle that in the am. You know they can't respond until after they've gone over there lib talking points for the day from one or some of their "idiot idols".

Allow me to break the group think...
There are a lot of errors in "reporting." Too many to attempt to explain. I know, I know "you should back what you say up." It doesn't matter, none of you would listen to what I say anyway. I am not week on terrorism. I am an Iraq War vet. I have fought for my country, and I love my country. That being said, the country we are in right now is not the country I fought for. Having a government systematical taking away rights is treason. I am just curious, how many of you have actually read HR6166? That is the Military Commissions Act for those of you that don't know. I doubt if many of you have. "They who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty, nor security." -Benjamin Franklin. I have a lot more I could say, but I'm sure it will be a waste of my time. Just remember one thing, it's all about the conquer and divide. As long as we are at odds with issues like this, we can never have the unified country that benefits all that live here. But then again, what do I know.

NRAlifer
LOL!! Just went over and read your resume for Hanoi John! Outstanding resume and very accurate indeed.

The rest of it was very interesting as well, especially the Geneva and Libstain hypocrite columns.

I appreciate the information.

Richard, on the nail!
How about also confining them in Surat (in a state of Inida ruled by anti-Muslim AND anti-western party which claims "Christianity first entered India with the Union Jack"; I'm sure they would just love to have a westerner who sympathises with radical muslims in their hands) jail?

Three cheers for Ann!
She nailed it again!

"Democrats run apparently sane candidates for office, like James Webb in Virginia and Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, who can puff up their chests and pretend they want to pursue terrorists -- while carping about any and all military action in the terrorists' general direction."

The word "sane" - like "awesome", "gay", and others I can't think of at the mooment - has been cheapened and/or shifted in meaning. DO you know that Goebbels (sp?) and Adolf Eichmann were examined by psychiatrists right after their capture post-WW2? One was the top man in charge at the Nazi SS - secret police, responsible for rounding up Jews wherever they might be hiding, as well as any "Jew-sympathizers"; the other was in charge of all the concentration camps, implementing the "Final Solution", via ovens, poison gas and mass graves dug by the Jews themselves.

These two were still spouting their racist hate-rants, but they were found to be "sane".

If being "sane" means nothing one way or the other about civilized behavior, what difference does it make that Democratic candidates are "apparently sane"?

NRAlifer
I am aware of Brady's remark. Some leftie on another thread was bleating about how gun control is not on Pelosi's agenda because it was not "even mentioned" on her 100 points(or whatever). What a laugh. Slick Willie learned the hard way that announcing for gun control costs votes big time. So now the D's will keep their mouths shut in hopes they don't awaken the owners of the millions of legal firearms in this country.
Heading for your blog.

Michael - "Grammatically Incorect?"
I've been on this site for a few months already, and I just noticed the handle on your post. I don't recall seeing one from you before; are you new?

I was out all of last week, and part of this week, with an eye infection, so I did no reading and no posting.

To avoid confusion, do you want to change your handle, or should I change mine?

Surprise, surprise
Ann......you are preaching to the choir...now conservatives should take action...Americans are sheep for the slaughter. Republicans (which I are one) have been betrayed by the Bush crowd and most people want them to stay...or do not have the guts to throw them out...wake-up people, we need to send a message now....no incumbents reelected. Wouldn't that rumble through as an earthquake, tsunami, devastating announcement? America has taken their government back...

Jerubaal and Bipsy
I don't think I'll go so far as to say McCarthy was a hero, but I will say that he has gotten the short end of the historical stick. He was right to alert the nation of the Communist infiltration of the Gand he was telling the truth about it. It seems that a lot of the 'lies' that the left attributes to McCarthy were made up by the left to discreit him, ala the CBS hit piece that Ed Murrow did on him.

On the whole, though, I would much better be a McCarthyite than say...a Clintonite...or a McGovernite!

Lynne Stweart Trial
The decision rendered by the judge was one of the most egregious that I can ever remember. Ann is clever and funny and insightful as usual, but this isn't really a humor subject.

It is terrifying that half this country is so stupid that they cannot see the handwriting on the wall. I wonder why liberals are blind. The need to notice the birthrate in Europe and the statements of our enemies. I would recommend Melanie Phillips's LONDONISTAN.

Kerry Resume
Love it, complete with references,

Of course, I will admit, I enjoyed "Unfit for Command"

Well, to pat my own back
and shamelessly plug my blog, I have an essay entitled "Terrorism... Crime or Act of War?" up on there from a few weeks ago.

Hey! Maybe I'm the guy originating the Conservative talking points?

Anyway, if you do visit, you can also see my hilariously funny new essay "Give Pies a Chance", which has pictures and everything.

McCarthy
McCarthy was an unattractive person, with questionable motives, but he had a more than legitimate axe to grind. Clarke (Venona) could have supported him and made him look good, but like so many in the intelligence gathering business, he refused to release any info, even to FDR, because he felt it would compromise gathering more data. I worked for many years here and there in the business and have seen this mind set more than once. Operational people are desperate for info, and the people who have it won't release it. Truman did get some info late in his term, but suppressed it because he believed, rightly, it would make the D's look like fools and/or traitors. McCarthy was an easy target for the folks who knew or suspected he was right, but wanted to suppress the truth. They were aided by the usual useful idiots. There are still defenders of Alger Hiss out there, although the Venona project obtained (memory check) copies of his KGB pay records.

WACO

.....warrior....

......1. THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE: DISTURBING QUESTIONS ABOUT WACO WHICH MUST BE ANSWERED. By Carol Moore. Gun Owners of America & Legacy Communications.

.....2. THE ASHES OF WACO: AN INVESTIGATION. By Dick J. Reavis. Simon & Schuster.

.....3. WHY WACO? CULTS AND THE BATTLE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN AMERICA. By James D. Tabor and Eugene V. Gallagher. University of California Press.

.....COLOSSUS

nothing controversial
I have noticed this before, coming from our "loyal opposition party" - they have a long list of radical positions on various issues, which they _do_ _not_ _mention_ in their campaign slogans.

If (re-)elected, however, they will certainly push for the rights of convicted felons to vote (in several states, once convicted of a felony, you can never vote, for the rest of your life, even after you're released from prison); they will push for the rights of illegal aliens to become citizens; for higher tax rates (with loopholes that they can drive a truck thru); for stricter CAFE standards (while they drive Large SUVs and/or ride in limousines); for stricter gun control (while they continue to own guns, legally or illegally), .........

They have a special strategy for the US Senate, where only one-third of the Senators are up for re-election (and/or open seats due to retirement) in any one year: Those who are up for re-election vote moderate, or even conservative, while the other two-thirds of Democrats & RINOs vote the liberal line. Then those up for re-election can go back to their constituents and say, "I voted for stricter measures to catch terrorists who may be living aamong us." (to pick on one particular issue as an example) "Sadly, the bill didn't pass the Senate." (Oh, yes, so sad. Can you spell crocodile tears?) So the liberal Senators keep getting re-elected - because Americans have such short memories and forget the first four years of voting against "domestic spying", etc - while the majority in the Senate continues to impose everything politically correct on the rest of country. Does Shrillary's recent drift toward the middle ring any bells?

If she was a man baby

.....Mark.....is Lynne Stewart a woman?...

.....I couldn't tell from the pictures...we went through a couple of million years of evolution to end up with this?...

.....She/he should be the poster child for celibacy.....COLOSSUS

Kimberly

It is no longer a "crime", it is a crime.
She was found guilty.

What you criticize Coulter for doing is the same as Michael Moore, Al Franken, and most other "commentators". Selecting those points that agree with your point is nothing new.

Look at your own posts. You do exactly that, quoting from Kos, but not from O'reilley.

To Correct Michael
Um, Eichman was not in charge of the SS. He was the head of Jewish Policy withing the Gestapo (a subdivision of the RSHA inside the SS). Himmler was the head of the SS, and Heydrich (until 1942, afterwards Kaltenbrunner) was head of the RHSA. Eichman's immediate supervisor was Mueller, who reproted to Heydrich/Kaltenbrunner. As you can see he was quite far from "Head of the SS".

Just to correct a small misstatement.

My mistake
I reread your post and it sounds you are saying Goebbels was in chargs of the SS, he was actually Reich Minister of Propaganda. Ok. last correction from me.

And the difference is?
"Hey, your honor, did I mention that the guy lived? Yeah, the darn gun jammed on me. Go figure, huh?"

I've always wondered why we make attempted murder a lighter crime than murder. Is it that we want the idea, "If at first you don't succeed..." to apply here or are we just punishing the incompetent less that the competent.

Today's McCarthy
With the terrorists, the libs have basically endowed them with their cowardly qualities. It takes someone such as Ann Coulter to point out the liberal's self hating, self destructive idiocy since our Repubs in office are too chicken.

Terrorists are fairly tough. Well, except when they're hiding among civilians and under kids' beds. But they are tougher than liberals. This is lost on the liberals, who think that everyone at Gitmo would go back to the middle east and make sand candles on the beach and burn incense if that big mean fascist Bush would just let them.

The libs want evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the terrorists. Well, besides the fact that they were picked up on the battlefield fighting against American Forces. This is lost on them. Was it a battlefield? Are we in a war? Did Mohammed really pull the trigger? Do you have evidence of that? Did you catch it on tape?

This is a crime to them. They will need hard evidence and forensics to convict one of these louses to serving a few months. This is so absurd, that I am shaking in my boots that in less than 3 weeks, these people may take control of congress. If it happens, expect terrorists to be given a ferry ride to a Florida jail where they will be allowed to have bond posted by the ACLU and run around Miami awaiting trial. Just imagine... if liberals have their way, these thugs can be back killing Americans again in 28 months! But, your honor, Akhbar didn't actually kill anyone!

Today's McCarthy is Ann Coulter. Although she holds no real power, she creates an "air" or a "climate" of intolerance, hate, fear, etc. and that's all you really have to do to get a whiny lib to jump out of a window these days.

BTW
I think I forgot to mention in my earlier shameless blog plug that Ann Coulter is featured prominently in my new "Give Pies a Chance" essay.

That's for all you fellow Coulter fans out there, but I also (as always) invite those of the other persuasion to join the fun.

Kimberly:
You're still blaming the White House for leaking the name of Valerie Plame? The CIA desk jockey? Have you been watching the news? Sheesh.

baseball
This is off topic, of course, but I wonder if you have any source for a statement that Clinton made on national news immediately after Waco was incinerated?

It was something having to do with "a bunch of religious fanatics" but my memory fails me and I don't want to misquote.

Thanks ahead of time.

The Broader Picture In The War
"the defendant's actions had not resulted in any deaths"

To use this idiot (Clinton appointed)judge's reasoning in sentencing Stewart, IMO, completely null and voids the highly touted 9-11 Commission's so-called [findings] ... If, as they concluded, the Bush Administration had only stopped those 19 bad boys from boarding those 4 planes ... WHAT?! WHAT?!!?? Yeah, arrest them, charge them, put them to trial ... and WHAT?! ... get another display of asinine logic and reasoning from another NeoBol judge? (Recall the B.S. the NeoBol judge in ... I believe it was Chicago ... the trial of the 20th hijacker came up with!)

These 19 jihadists not only might have gotten off (because no one was actually harmed) to plot and kill another day, but would have used the very same ACLU lawyers to represent them in their "class action" law suit against those involved in their arrest and trial in the first place! The only reason the 20th hijacker DID get sentenced (not strongly enough, however) was because 3000+++ people WERE harmed or killed, and it wouldn't look [good] if # 20 walked ... but oh, how the judge did try ... oh she tried.


I am convinced the infamous Clinton/Reno/Gorlick Wall goes far deeper than just a "not sharing" of vital security information between law enforcement parties ... That "Wall" was also built inside the skulls of the American people who flock to their TVs for the MSM (BM) to tell them what/how/when to think. "The economy is good" was the Clinton administration's Oz-like curtain to the American people. Like us. Love us. Listen to us. We'll tell you what we want you to know.

The Islamic threat to this country we face is enhanced and aided by the the growing threat within. Can the people in this country, (who are overly comfortable almost to the point of being sinfully lazy about THEIR democracy), who love their lifestyles and freedoms please wake up and remember the words of one of the NoeBol's prophets?


Nikita Kruschev said, "We will take America without firing a shot.......We will BURY YOU! ... We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within!"

People may believe Kruschev was only talking about the USSR. But in the broader context he actually meant Communism. For all the poo-pooing, old Joe McCarthy was right.


Dig this site, if you dare (Not to worry. It has Spanish/Mexican translation):
http://www.cpusa.org/

It is the "Communist Party USA" site. And see what they have posted there now:

1) A Call To Action: DEFEND DEMOCRACY. Change Congress in 2006!

2) This Battle Can Be Won!

3) The Nov. 7 midterm elections are less than six weeks away. The stakes have never been so high: Control of the House and Senate and governorships nationwide. A recent poll shows that 75 percent of voters are disgusted by the Republican majority House and Senate, the highest disapproval rate since 1994. They are frustrated at Bush’s endless Iraq war, by Republican cronyism and corruption, tax giveaways to the rich, cutbacks in vital services, and criminal negligence in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Side Bar:

I am convinced certifiable "Kimberly" not only frequents the site, but may even be a contributor.

End Side Bar

Now, I don't hear of any "Commie" candidates running in the races they state above. And it's obvious the site shares the anti-Bush / anti-Republican views. So, exactly WHO do you think they are pulling for to win in the Nov. 7th elections? And why?

If I were any of the democrat Senators or Congressmen/women named on their site, in support of ... and I were a true American democrat in every sense of the word, not this NeoBol-s#it ... I would be horrified and angry to see my name there.

The NeoBols in this country think they are using the jihadists to advance their "revolutionary" plans for this country. But it's actually the other way around. They're being used, and will be exterminated along with everyone else when the jihadists [arrive]. The NeoBols see, as did the Communist revolutionaries of last century's Russia, hundreds of thousands of human lives lost in the fight for power as acceptable losses for "the cause". They will use ANYONE to get what they want ... criminals, illegal aliens, terrorists, jihadists ... Kim Jong Ill ...

RICHARD (and most others posting here ... who are sane) get it. There may be hope for us.

NeoBol
NeoBol - (noun) Neo-Bolshevik - 1) person(s) also known as secularists, socialists, progressives, liberals, leftists, and celebrities who hide behind said names to disguise who/what they really are, Communists. 2) May also be called NeoComs, as in Neo-Communists - (noun) people that have actually witnessed the massive deaths, failings, crimes, and atrocities of Communism throughout the world history and completely believe that Ronald Reagan was mortally wrong in defeating it ... and that the USSR just "did it wrong".

Harry
The trouble with that is that we presently have more Republicans - at least, if RINOs are included - in office than Democrats. So we would likely end up with a Dem-controlled Congress, for at least two years: no more conservative judges approved, to the SCOTUS, or to any Federal court, so we will continue under the tyranny of un-elected judges who can make our Constitution say whatever they want it to say; we will get tougher CAFE standards, driving more Americans to "buy foreign" when it comes to cars, hurting the domestic auto industry, increasing unemployment, which will then be blamed on GWB and any other Republicans still in office; we will get increasing assaults on our rights to private property (get ready! Kelo vs New London is comng to your town - your house may be next!); we will get more hate crimes legislation (check around and see what it has already done in Canada and some parts of Europe); and the list goes on....

Bear in mind that the House of Representatives, at least, has been doing pretty well defending - or trying to - our freedoms AND our security. How many good bills passed the House, only to sit in the Senate during 2001-2002, while Sen Tom Daschle (DEMOCRAT, BTW) was Senate majority leader? How many more got filibustered in the Senate after the Democrats lost the majority in the Senate?

I don't like everything GWB has done - that Education funding bill, that he ASKED Sen Ted Kennedy to write, and the "guest worker"-aka-amnesty issue come to mind. But the alternatives in 2000 and 2004 were revolting - what could we do - vote for the global-warming-tree-hugger, or for the one who couldn't make up his mind whether the War in Iraq was the right war at the right time ("I voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it")? You want to give them another shot at it??

The real answer is to get better candidates on the ballot, and then, of course, persuade a majority of Americans to vote for them, but #1 it's obviously pretty late for this year, #2 for 2008 and beyond, we seem to have a much better chance of getting better candidates from/through the Republican Party, than from the Democratic, and #3 since you are obviously conservative through and through - how about you - are you running for office? Will anyone have a chance to vote for you, for US Senate, Congress, State governor, legislature, mayor, city council? I know write-in campaigns are technically allowed - in every state, as far as I know - but they are VERY seldom successful. Practically speaking, we can't vote for, and elect, good, conservative candidates unless/until they are on the ballot. This has to be our "front line" in this fight. along with persuading the US Senate to develop a spine, while strengthening the one the House has.

Guilt by Association
"Kimberly writes: Thursday, October, 19, 2006 10:07 AM
Reality check
First of all, Ann, your outrage of aiding and abetting terrorists, and letting off terrorists too easily in a court of law is touching. How is it you aren't quite so inflamed about the outing of a CIA agent who was directly involved in WMD investigations"?

Are you letting "FACTS" get in the way again?? Or are you just spewing again?? We all know who outed the CIA agent.

"Stewart was wrong,but she is not a terrorist".

So,on one hand you say she is, "wrong", but on the other hand, you say...........what??????

If I drive a car to a bank so my buddy can rob it,kill someone inside, and then drive off to only get caught by the Police, guess what? I am charged with murder as well. I didn't pull the trigger but I was in on the robbery.

Guilt by association.

Drive the car, pay the price.

In bed with a "Terrorist", pay the price.


Politically Correct War
I have been critical of our Leadership in this war. Now I find out our no-win position in the war has become military doctrine. I am a retired Colonel--I love American soldiers--we are fighting a war to determine how best to lose and leave. I am sick.
Please read this article and see why I am sick.

POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR
By RALPH PETERS
HAVE we lost the will to win wars? Not just in Iraq, but anywhere? Do we really believe that being nice is more important than victory?
It's hard enough to bear the timidity of our civilian leaders - anxious to start wars but without the guts to finish them - but now military leaders have fallen prey to political correctness. Unwilling to accept that war is, by its nature, a savage act and that defeat is immoral, influential officers are arguing for a kinder, gentler approach to our enemies.

They're going to lead us into failure, sacrificing our soldiers and Marines for nothing: Political correctness kills.

Obsessed with low-level "tactical" morality - war's inevitable mistakes - the officers in question have lost sight of the strategic morality of winning. Our Army and Marine Corps are about to suffer the imposition of a new counterinsurgency doctrine designed for fairy-tale conflicts and utterly inappropriate for the religion-fueled, ethnicity-driven hyper-violence of our time.

We're back to struggling to win hearts and minds that can't be won.

The good news is that the Army and Marine Corps worked together on the new counterinsurgency doctrine laid out in Field Manual 3-24 (the Army version). The bad news is that the doctrine writers and their superiors came up with fatally wrong prescriptions for combating today's insurgencies.

Astonishingly, the doctrine ignores faith-inspired terrorism and skirts ethnic issues in favor of analyzing yesteryear's political insurgencies. It would be a terri- fic manual if we returned to Vietnam circa 1963, but its recommendations are profoundly misguided when it comes to fighting terrorists intoxicated with religious visions and the smell of blood.

Why did the officers in question avoid the decisive question of religion? Because the answers would have been ugly.

Wars of faith and tribe are immeasurably crueler and tougher to resolve than ideological revolts. A Maoist in Malaya could be converted. But Islamist terrorists who regard death as a promotion are not going to reject their faith any more than an ethnic warrior can - or would wish to - change his blood identity.

So the doctrine writers ignored today's reality.

Al Qaeda and other terror organizations have stated explicitly and repeatedly that they're waging a global jihad to re-establish the caliphate. Yet the new manual ignores religious belief as a motivation.

The politically correct atmosphere in Washington deems any discussion of religion as a strategic factor indelicate: Let our troops die, just don't hurt anyone's feelings.

So the doctrine writers faked it, treating all insurgencies as political. As a result, they prescribed an excellent head-cold treatment - for a cancer patient. The text is a mush of pop-zen mantras such as "Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction," "The best weapons do not shoot," or "The more force used, the less effective it is."

That's just nutty. Should we have done nothing in the wake of 9/11? Would everything have been OK if we'd just been nicer? What non-lethal "best weapons" might have snagged Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, where the problem was too little military force, not too much violence?

Should we have sent fewer troops to Iraq, where inadequate numbers crippled everything we attempted? Will polite chats with tribal chiefs stop the sectarian violence drenching Iraq in blood?

On the surface, the doctrine appears sober and serious. But it's morally frivolous and intellectually inert, a pathetic rehashing of yesteryear's discredited "wisdom" on counterinsurgencies and, worst of all, driven by a stalker-quality infatuation with T.E. Lawrence, "Lawrence of Arabia," who not only was a huckster of the first order, but whose "revolt in the desert" was a near-meaningless sideshow of a sideshow.

Lawrence is quoted repeatedly, with reverence. We might as well cite the British generals of the Great War who sent men over the top in waves to face German machine guns.

You can trust two kinds of officers: Those who read a great deal and those who don't read at all. But beware the officer who reads just a little and falls in love with one book. A little education really is a dangerous thing.

The new manual is thick - length is supposed to substitute for insight. It should be 75 percent shorter and 100 percent more honest. If issued to our troops in its present form, it will lead to expensive failures. Various generals have already tried its prescriptions in Iraq - with discouraging results, to put it mildly.

We've reached a fateful point when senior officers seek to evade war's brute reality. Our leaders, in and out of uniform, must regain their moral courage. We can't fight wars of any kind if the entire chain of command runs for cover every time an ambitious journalist cries, "War crime!" And sorry: Soccer balls are no substitute for bullets when you face fanatics willing to kill every child on the playing field.

In war, you don't get points for good manners. It's about winning. Victory forgives.

The new counterinsurgency doctrine recommends forbearance, patience, understanding, non-violent solutions and even outright passivity. Unfortunately, our enemies won't sign up for a replay of the Summer of Love in San Francisco. We can't treat hardcore terrorists like Halloween pranksters on mid-term break from prep school.

Where is the spirit of FDR and George C. Marshall, who recognized that the one unbearable possibility was for the free world to lose?

We discount the value of ferocity - as a practical tool and as a deterrent. But war's immutable law - proven yet again in Iraq - is that those unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end.

The new counterinsurgency doctrine is dishonest and cowardly.

We don't face half-hearted Marxists tired of living in the jungle, but religious zealots who behead prisoners to please their god and who torture captives by probing their skulls with electric drills. We're confronted by hatreds born of blood and belief and madmen whose appetite for blood is insatiable.

And we're afraid to fight.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer.

RE: Mr. Matt
What rights are systematically being taken away? I personally can name quite a few:

1) The right of the people to keep and bear arms. This one's been disappearing for about 100 years now, though.

2) The right to own property without it being seized by some agency without cause and due compensation. Again, disappearing for ages.

3) The right to freely exercise one's religion without prohibition or infringement by the government. This one's been disappearing since about the '70s.

But which ones are YOU talking about?

Most leftists immediately snap to the "privacy" and "illegal wiretaps" crap, but what they fail to comprehend is that the Constitution does NOT prohibit "searches and seizures" without a warrant. It only prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures, and I'm sorry, but if your cell phone number appears on Osama bin Laden's Rolodex, then only a total moron would call tapping your cell phone "unreasonable".

Finally, just what is your problem with the Military Commissions Act? It doesn'e even apply to US citizens or lawful combatants. It states so right in Section 948c, the section titled "Persons subject to military commissions".

The law ONLY applies to non-citizen combatants who are not members of established State run regular or militia forces. Even US citizens who are captured fighting for al Qaeda -- like John Walker Lindh (or Howard Dean) -- are not subject to this law.

Politically Correct War
I have been critical of our Leadership in this war. Now I find out our no-win position in the war has become military doctrine. I am a retired Colonel--I love American soldiers--we are fighting a war to determine how best to lose and leave. I am sick.
Please read this article and see why I am sick.

POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR
By RALPH PETERS
HAVE we lost the will to win wars? Not just in Iraq, but anywhere? Do we really believe that being nice is more important than victory?
It's hard enough to bear the timidity of our civilian leaders - anxious to start wars but without the guts to finish them - but now military leaders have fallen prey to political correctness. Unwilling to accept that war is, by its nature, a savage act and that defeat is immoral, influential officers are arguing for a kinder, gentler approach to our enemies.

They're going to lead us into failure, sacrificing our soldiers and Marines for nothing: Political correctness kills.

Obsessed with low-level "tactical" morality - war's inevitable mistakes - the officers in question have lost sight of the strategic morality of winning. Our Army and Marine Corps are about to suffer the imposition of a new counterinsurgency doctrine designed for fairy-tale conflicts and utterly inappropriate for the religion-fueled, ethnicity-driven hyper-violence of our time.

We're back to struggling to win hearts and minds that can't be won.

The good news is that the Army and Marine Corps worked together on the new counterinsurgency doctrine laid out in Field Manual 3-24 (the Army version). The bad news is that the doctrine writers and their superiors came up with fatally wrong prescriptions for combating today's insurgencies.

Astonishingly, the doctrine ignores faith-inspired terrorism and skirts ethnic issues in favor of analyzing yesteryear's political insurgencies. It would be a terri- fic manual if we returned to Vietnam circa 1963, but its recommendations are profoundly misguided when it comes to fighting terrorists intoxicated with religious visions and the smell of blood.

Why did the officers in question avoid the decisive question of religion? Because the answers would have been ugly.

Wars of faith and tribe are immeasurably crueler and tougher to resolve than ideological revolts. A Maoist in Malaya could be converted. But Islamist terrorists who regard death as a promotion are not going to reject their faith any more than an ethnic warrior can - or would wish to - change his blood identity.

So the doctrine writers ignored today's reality.

Al Qaeda and other terror organizations have stated explicitly and repeatedly that they're waging a global jihad to re-establish the caliphate. Yet the new manual ignores religious belief as a motivation.

The politically correct atmosphere in Washington deems any discussion of religion as a strategic factor indelicate: Let our troops die, just don't hurt anyone's feelings.

So the doctrine writers faked it, treating all insurgencies as political. As a result, they prescribed an excellent head-cold treatment - for a cancer patient. The text is a mush of pop-zen mantras such as "Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction," "The best weapons do not shoot," or "The more force used, the less effective it is."

That's just nutty. Should we have done nothing in the wake of 9/11? Would everything have been OK if we'd just been nicer? What non-lethal "best weapons" might have snagged Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, where the problem was too little military force, not too much violence?

Should we have sent fewer troops to Iraq, where inadequate numbers crippled everything we attempted? Will polite chats with tribal chiefs stop the sectarian violence drenching Iraq in blood?

On the surface, the doctrine appears sober and serious. But it's morally frivolous and intellectually inert, a pathetic rehashing of yesteryear's discredited "wisdom" on counterinsurgencies and, worst of all, driven by a stalker-quality infatuation with T.E. Lawrence, "Lawrence of Arabia," who not only was a huckster of the first order, but whose "revolt in the desert" was a near-meaningless sideshow of a sideshow.

Lawrence is quoted repeatedly, with reverence. We might as well cite the British generals of the Great War who sent men over the top in waves to face German machine guns.

You can trust two kinds of officers: Those who read a great deal and those who don't read at all. But beware the officer who reads just a little and falls in love with one book. A little education really is a dangerous thing.

The new manual is thick - length is supposed to substitute for insight. It should be 75 percent shorter and 100 percent more honest. If issued to our troops in its present form, it will lead to expensive failures. Various generals have already tried its prescriptions in Iraq - with discouraging results, to put it mildly.

We've reached a fateful point when senior officers seek to evade war's brute reality. Our leaders, in and out of uniform, must regain their moral courage. We can't fight wars of any kind if the entire chain of command runs for cover every time an ambitious journalist cries, "War crime!" And sorry: Soccer balls are no substitute for bullets when you face fanatics willing to kill every child on the playing field.

In war, you don't get points for good manners. It's about winning. Victory forgives.

The new counterinsurgency doctrine recommends forbearance, patience, understanding, non-violent solutions and even outright passivity. Unfortunately, our enemies won't sign up for a replay of the Summer of Love in San Francisco. We can't treat hardcore terrorists like Halloween pranksters on mid-term break from prep school.

Where is the spirit of FDR and George C. Marshall, who recognized that the one unbearable possibility was for the free world to lose?

We discount the value of ferocity - as a practical tool and as a deterrent. But war's immutable law - proven yet again in Iraq - is that those unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end.

The new counterinsurgency doctrine is dishonest and cowardly.

We don't face half-hearted Marxists tired of living in the jungle, but religious zealots who behead prisoners to please their god and who torture captives by probing their skulls with electric drills. We're confronted by hatreds born of blood and belief and madmen whose appetite for blood is insatiable.

And we're afraid to fight.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer.

WACO: Clinton press conference

.....Bipsy Quee...
.....Quotes

....."The Federal Bureau of Investigation then made every reasonable effort to bring this perilous situation to an end without bloodshed and further loss of life. The Bureau's efforts were ultimately unavailing because of the individual with whom they were dealing, David Koresh, was dangerous, irrational, and probably insane.

.....Yesterday's action ended in a horrible human tragedy. Mr. Koresh's response to the demands for his surrender by federal agents was to destroy himself and murder the children who were his captives, as well as all the other people who were there who did not survive. He killed those he controlled, and he bears ultimate responsibility for the carnage that ensued."

.....if you want to read the entire press conference go to:
..... http://www.skepticfiles.org/waco/clinton.htm
.....COLOSSUS

Michael #1 & #2
As it is obvious that (you) Michael have been commenting here longer than (I) Michael have been, it seems purely logical that I change my identity. However, I must admit to being unfamiliar with how I might go about making the necessary changes as this site apparently signs the name with which I registered a couple of days ago. I am woefully inept when it comes to basic computer knowledge. I will be happy to do whatever I can, but you'll need to inform me as to how to go about it. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Michael#2

Want More Judges Like John Koeltl?
___ When conservatives punished the Republican Party for George H.W. Bush's reneging on his promise "Read My Lips... No New TAXES!" by staying home in the next election - WE GOT CLINTON and then he gave us Judge John Koeltl and many more like him. Boy, we really showed them! Right? Happy? Any idea how big the body count is, starting at Waco and running all the way through 'till today?
___ For evil to flourish, it will only take good men to stay home on November 7th. Don't like the RINO in your district, then vote for him anyway and join your local GOP and start working for a conservative challenger for the next primary. Write firm, polite letters on issues important to you and mail them. Get your family and friends to do the same. Each signed letter will be regarded as representing the opinion of at least 25 other constituents - take about impact. Why do you think so many RINOs are liberal? Because they think it works for them in their district, of course. Disabuse them of that notion. How do you think a RINO will react to a strong conservative challenger being groomed by vigorous grassroots support in his district? By further inflaming and motivating an organized conservative constituency? Don't be daft! And should he do the right thing, write again - this time with a mellow AttaBoy!
___ Got a real conservative in your district? Then get busy helping him with voter outreach so that his constituency knows what a gem they have. Get going to make his district safe from Soros liberal challengers. He, too, will appreciate a written or emailed AttaBoy!
___ No reason to mount a lonely crusade; political activism is a lot more fun when done in concert with other vigilant Americans. Networking will bring friends as well as allies. And a lot more clout!!! DON'T CRITICIZE, DUDE, ORGANIZE! :-)
___ Sound like too much work? Too busy? Then quit your carping, buy a six pack, settle back in your EasyBoy and await the Jihadi apocalypse.

OK, I haven't followed this closely, but
isn't the lawyer in question dying of cancer? At the very least she's up there in age. She doesn't have "several years" left is my guess, and 28 months is a significant chunk of what she does.

What she did was stupid (she admits that) and she let her heart (!) get in the way of her brain.

What I'd like to know is this: Was the message dictated to her in English, or did the "translator" give her an English "copy" of the message? Have these questions been answered by the press?

If the message was dictated in Arabic and the translator gave her an innocuous message that could be released without harm, but the real message was something different, then she's stupid. If it was dictated to her in English with no Arabic words, and she had it translated herself, then she's guilty.

To both Michaels
Don't know which one of you corrected my grammar. But thanks.
Of course it would make no difference to the person being hanged. LOL

When one of you log in, your taken to the "Manage Your Townhall" section. Then go to "Update Your Information." There you can change your log-in name.

andrews
Thank you, I stand corrected.

My point remains, however: I would have expected that these two, with their beliefs/attitudes - racist in general, and anti-Semitic in particular - would be considered raving lunatics. But, no --- "they're perfectly sane, as sane as you or I." Really.

At this rate, what is the point of determining whether or not anyone - political candidate of not - is "sane"? Being "sane" has become meaningless.

NRALifer,
Off-topic alert!

Just curious. The government took away automatic weapons 73 years ago, but you still have rifles, shotguns, and pistols. What are you guys worried about? Canada has way stricter gun control laws than we do and they still have guns. The State of Illinois requires a Firearm Owners ID (FOID). They still have guns.

No reasonable Liberal, and I stress reasonable, wants to take away all your guns.

If you want home defense, I have no problem with a pistol in your house. The problem is what happen when it hits the street? I'd wager most pistols are never used for home defense.

If cops were really serious about taking guns off the street with their gun buy-backs, they would have a vat of acid or a guy with a blowtorch standing there ready to cut it up or dissolve it.

Sorry to go off-topic so long, but I just have to know. My own brother thought it was perfectly OK to go hunting with an AK-47 and a 40-shot clip. I told him if you need 40 shots you ought to be at the range practicing and not out in the woods.

You can reply to bounkz6436 at sbcglobal (on the .net domain) if you prefer. We can go off-list to discuss this.

I am embarrassed
The liberal mind is not something to be taken lightly. They are all "save the trees" one second, then calling for your execution the next. Anyone that doesn't see their misguided point of view is an enemy. I for one am embarrassed to say that Russ Feingold is a Senator from my state. He is not only an embarrassment to the state of Wisconsin but also to our country. He will do anything to get himself into the national spotlight and spew idiocy. Mr. Feingold, how is that garage door doing? You know the one you told your constituents that they could point to with all of your campaign promises on it if and when you didn't follow through on them? Last I heard, days after you were elected to Congress, magically, the promises disappeared from the door. Wow, magically the people and the state of Wisconsin are not being accurately represented in Congress either, what a shock...

Ha,
She let her heart get in the way of her brain. Typical liberal, reminds me of something Churchill would observe.

A Few Thoughts From An Old Phart
1. I remember the McCarthy hearings. I remember the doctored photos..."evidence"... that brought down the career of McCarthy and his hearings. Since that time the libs have been able to say and scream pretty much what they wanted but if the other side had anything to say, they were facists, nazis or McCarthyites..... McCarthy set the Conservative movement back 35 years. More, we are still hurting from him.

2. I do not understand all the brough-ha-ha over the treatment of the terrorists and their access to treatment according to the Geneva Convention.
We should treat these terrorists according to the Geneva Convention, which states that if an armed combatant is captured, NOT IN UNIFORM, HE IS TO BE CONSIDERED A SABATEUR OR PROVACATEUR AND SHOT...ON...THE...SPOT!
What is wrong with treating them according to the Geneva Convention???????

Goshawk, buck
Goshawk, it was the other Michael who corrected your grammar - I'm Michael 1. Thank you for the brief instructions for using this website. I was going to post something like that, but you beat me to it.

buck, I certainly do not dispute your assessment of the "rights" of captured terrorists (ie, "armed combatants, not in uniform"); yes, they have no right to expect anything better than summary execution. However, we have found it useful to interrogate them first, and find out where their friends/supporters might be hiding, where their stockpiles of ammunition are, etc, etc.
After we finish picking their brains, I have no problem with spending just two more resources on them: a bullet in the head, and a grave, possibly space in a mass grave.

CLINTON on WACO

.....Bipsy Quee...

.....this is probably the quote you were looking for.....

....."I will say this, however. I was, frankly, surprised would be a mild word, to say that anyone that would suggest that the Attorney General should resign because some religious "fanatics" murdered themselves." (Applause)...Bill Clinton 21 Apr 1993

.....you have to give the guy credit...he could talk the birds out of the trees...even make cynical reporters applaud the fact that he incinerated innocent children and none of it was his fault.....COLOSSUS

postscript...you can read it all on the link I provided on my prior post.

ahhh Kimberly...
You have certainly illustrated the point that differentiates conservatives and liberals today. I grew up in New Orleans and I love the place still. But when I lived there, we knew it was irresponsible to not carry sufficient insurance. That is called personal responsibility. We also knew way back then that when a big bad Hurricane was coming like Betsy or Camille, that you should make preparations. That meant securing thigs as best you could and leaving town.

The whole country has come to accept and expect the federal government to be the insurer of last resort. Conservatives don't believe government is competent in either insurance or emergency management and it should be left to people who actually know what to do and how to do it rather than some faceless bureaucrat or randomly elected politician who may never have enven visited the current disaster du jour location. If government is the answer in some limited cases, it should be decided upon and handled locally. That is true whether we are talking about hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, blizzards, wildfires, and any other natural disaster you might imagine. If Katrina had happened during a democrat presidency, the results wouldn't have been much different. It really isn't about who is president. It is about how you can deal with a calamity of gigantic proportions. Americans are the most charitable people in the history of the world. We bail out anybody in need whether they are enemies, allies, or our own people. The sad thing is that because we have delegated emergency response to the government, we don't do as much either to understand and plan for risks before a catastrophe or to help out afterwards.

The conservative solution, which only proves that Bush is at best a weak conservative, is to expect people to look out for themselves and allow voluntary efforts be applied to help out or supplement the pre-planning that was insufficient to make victims whole again. The fact that Bush and other republican presidents are so quick to make a federal response to any disaster and that republican governors are so quick to ask for federal help (by asking for designation as a federal disaster area) sickens me and ultimately hurts our country. Why should anybody worry about risks with a rich Uncle Sam just waiting to bail us out to win votes from soccer moms who give them points for compassion?

Lol, NRAlifer
on your correct observation on how it is usually the fat, ugly chicks who engage in this type of behavior.
We are treated as well to them loudly and obnoxiously deriding anything decent and good while hosting the View.
Also, if one ever catches a glimpse of the NARAL and Planned Parenthood marchers,you will again be flooded with their images.
I suppose feeling oneself outcasted produces this sort of warped behavior.

Kimberly, any of this ring a bell?

Jay_in_Milwaukee
She may be dying of cancer. She may be stupid. She may have a problem with heart/brain interference. As far as I know, being a nitwit does not constitute a legal defense.

But what she did could have, and may have, caused many deaths. She was found guilty, end of story. Now the judge should have followed the law and sentenced her accordingly.

so does that mean...
If I get cancer I can go on a crime spree, since I will get a lenient sentence?

The Ben Franklin Quote, unbiased?
As unbiased as a wiki can be: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
(it seems fairly neutral, but the exact context is missing, so it is difficult to ascertain exactly what he was talking about), but it seems as reasonable to assume that he was talking about wussing out in the revolutionary war as it does to assume that he was talking about surrendering our bill of rights:

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

The Ben Franklin Quote, context
This link gives more history of the quote:
http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

Most revealing, in the section "contextualization" it appears Franklin is talking about "skulking murders" (native Americans) attacking colonists, and the colonists appeasing them instead of killing them. This would be decidedly non PC to say this today, but the parallels with the Jihadi terrorists is striking.

On the Iraq War
Well, I have to say that if you take a look at the following Washington Times story

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20061019-120324-9846r.htm

You’ll see that once again my essay of July 14 on my blog, in this case “Can There Really Be an Arab Democracy?”, was ahead of the cutting edge of political thought. The powers in Washington are now apparently coming to the conclusion I reached months ago: that a Western-style democracy in Iraq is at this time pie-in-the-sky. It’s time to install our own strongman like the Shah of Iran.

I predict that over the next couple of weeks the rest of the Big Time published columnists will all be weighing in on this topic which was already covered by humble ole me.

You heard it here first.

Now signing off with my usual modesty.

Nastimann, you illiterate twit!
I did not proofread my previous post very well. My last sentence should read:

It would be decidedly non PC to say that today, but the similarity to the situation today with the Jihadi terrorists is striking.

JayMilwaukee re: Guns
Try owning a handgun in NYC, Chicago or Washington DC and see what happens.

No liberal wants to take away guns? Dianne Feinstein: "If I could say, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn in your guns, just turn them in, I would".

San Francisco's now-overturned Prop H gun ban.

Leftifornia's Prop 15, which would have banned guns statewide, which was so soundly defeated at the polls it propelled Deukmejian to the governorship, proposed and sponsored and pushed hard by the Dems.

I could go on and on and on. Don't even TRY to make a case that Dems and Lefties support gun ownership. It's so ludicous an idea that words fail me.


Futile Exercise


.....feedfwd....

.....you cannot use logic on the Libs because they are zealots and cannot be reasoned with...recognize them for what they are and work toward defeating them.....COLOSSUS

baseball...
...where's "dr"?

Kimberly
"If our government is not in place to protect the weakest amongst us, then what is it good for - "

Our government is in place to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the GENERAL welfare... (see the Constitution of the United States of America for details).

It is NOT in place to provide for the SPECIFIC welfare or protection of anyone, "weakest among us" or otherwise.

Jay_in_Milwaukee - Off Topic
One of my pistols was once used for home defense. I was glad I had it, too.

My guess is your brother used to hunt with a 40 round MAGAZINE. AK-47's do not use clips, they use magazines.

Kimberly
Why are you so far behind the news? All the other Dumocrats and liberals have shut up about the Plame affair since it has now become known that the leaker was a "Dumocrat" named Arbitage. Since it wasn't a Republican involved, the MSM has not written anything more about it. It's just like the "Dirty Harry"? Reid affair. Since he is a Dumocrat, there is basically NO news about his scandalous behavior. Where are the calls for the resignation of the Senate leadership who knew or should have known about this immoral behavior? Oh! Stupid me. He (Reid) is the leader of the Dumocrats in the Senate. Where is the outrage of the 'High Moral Ground" Dumocrats about this scandal?

Political Correctness - Deadly Newspeak

.....Warrior...What is Political Correctness?...

....."Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob, if not prosecuted by the State." by Philip Atkinson

....this was the beginning of the end of the "First Amendment" and "free speech" with "Campaign Finance Reform"... (McCain?Feingold) signed by President Bush and upheld by our Liberal leaning Supreme Court as a way station along the way...

.....if you want to read the entire ominous article...go to http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm .....COLOSSUS

Kinberly
I was of course, referring to our Federal government in my post above.

State governments, if their respective State Constitutions allow it, are certainly able to endeavor to "take care of the weakest among us" (whatever that means). The Feds aren't supposed to be involving themselves in that sort of thing, though.

PC Redux

The inevitable result of Political Correctness...

...By using the excuse of not upsetting anyone, the politically correct are demanding that people behave like the fool who would please everyone; that everyone must become such a fool! All must accept the notions of the Politically Correct as truth, or else! This is the same mentality that inspired the Inquisition and forced Galileo to recant; the same mentality that inspired the Nazis and obtained the Holocaust...

.....Once expression gets placed in a straitjacket of official truth, then the maddness that occurs in all totalitarian states is obtained. Life, in private and public, becomes a meaningless charade where delusion thrives and terror rules...

.....COLOSSUS

New Orleans
Why didn't the Dumocrats read "Crazy Ray" and Gov Blanco do anything before the hurrican hit? We have all seen the pictures of the row of buses waiting in NO. What happened to the buses? Instead of ordering them used to evacuate the "poor" from NO "Crazy Ray" did nothing and the buses were destroyed in the flood and the "poor" were abandoned in NO. If "Crazy Ray" had been a take charge person, he would have ordered the buses to be used to take the "poor" out of NO and save BOTH the "poor" and the buses.

Gov Blanco did nothing either. I don't know what she was waiting for before doing something.

If President Bush had ordered troops into NO, the Dumocrats would have been screaming that he was invading a sovereign state without be invited to do so. So my conclusion is that it was a Dumocrat conspiracy to shaft President Bush for political advantage. No matter what President Bush did, the Dumocrats would blame him for doing something wrong. Never mind that people died in NO and most probably they were Dumocrats, the "greater good" was accomplished. The Dumocrats now had a club that they could use in their irrational hatred of President Bush.

Wasn't "greater good" a theme of the Communists?

Didn't the Communists also allow lying or anything else that furthered the Party? The Islamists are doing the same thing. They even have a doctrine in their violent and hate filled religion that expressly states that lying in the furtherance of Islam is a "virtue" not a "sin".

Dull as a Butter Knife used to Chop Wood
Ann's exceptional dull mind is clearly on display.

The question of whether or not terrorism is a law enforncement problem or military problem is not a question of liberals vs. conservatives.

Ann's constant framing of every issue as liberal vs. conservative show how stupid she really is.

We don't swear loyalty to a party in this country. At least not yet anyway. We swear loyalty to the Constitution. The only arguments that matter are the legal ones. If Democrats fail to implement the Constitution correctly, or Republicans fail, in neither case does that justify changing a law to be unconstitutional.

Terrorism is a law enforcement problem. Ann's arguments are anecdotal and irrelevant.

Legally, declaring war on a tactict, terrorism, is stupid and unconstitutional. Wars are declared between countries.

All the historical legal precedent is on the side of law enforcement. The fact that Ann the Republicans want perpetual state or war to maintain a perpetual state of power, the fact that Ann wants to exalt the Republican party above the constitution, the fact that Ann wants to promote unconstitutional law based upon the failures of the Democratic party, only goes to show how dim, dumb and dull she is. And her readers.

liberal dialog
Isn't that name an oxymoron? To be honest why don't you change your name to liberal talking points?

Liberals always say, don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up. They don't want to hear the facts because the facts don't back up their propaganda.

liberal dialog
Where in the Constitution of the United States of America are attacks by organized foreign forces on this sovereign nation defined as a law enforcement issue? I do note that Congress has the power to call up the Militia to enforce the Laws of the Land, and the POTUS is the CIC of the Militia when it is so employed, but I am not sure whether that is relevent to your argument. Historically, organized attacks by FOREIGN forces have been met with military action by this Country, thereby placing us in a position of being at war.

You reference "historical legal precedent" as being on the side of terrorism being a law enforcement problem. I am as dull as a butter knife, etc... so I will appreciate it if you will please provide some cogent examples. Try not to use any words with more than two syllables as I am, after all, as dull as a butter knife, etc...

Thank you.

Kimberly, Update Your talking points
Since it has been made official (Fitzgerald knew 3 years ago BTW) that Armitage leaked Plame's name to the press, you could at least stop embarrasing yourself with that nugget.

Also, Stewart knowingly released instructions to a terrorist group from thier Shiek. This person who you so lovingly admire, defended a Shiek whose group butchered 34 Euro tourists vacationing in Egypt in the late 90s.

Just so you know, the tourists were either shot in the back (the lucky ones), or taken and gutted from thier bowels to thier chest. This group also has been linked to other terrorist acts too many to number. Your love affair with these people and thier allies should keep you awake at night. Stewart herself finds nothing morally wrong with them, and I suppose will continue to support thier "cause".

Justice
I don't mind the 28 month sentence, if she serves it sewn inside Saddam's anus.

What purpose does anger serve? Outrage? Well, it seems to be the driving force of the left, and for all that they're racing us over the cliff, at least they're moving. So get mad, right? No. Get effective. If it takes anger to do that, so be it. If it takes something else, like intelligence, all the better.

Torture, then -- contrary to what my little, um, crack about Saddam's anus implies -- isn't about justice. We do not torture anyone to death. Torture is about expedience. We leave the torture-as-justice, quite literally, to God, who consigns to H*ll those suited for it.

http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com/2006/09/torture.html

"Comments" will not allow a proper spelling for H*ll as a proper noun? This is an outrageous abridgement of my right of free splelling!

J

Constitution & libs...
Conservatives swear loyalty to the Constitution where as marxists (aka libs) swear loyalty to the communist lawyers of the ACLU & their attempts to destroy the constitution for the implementation of communism.

NRAlifer
Thank goodness our gun magazines let everyone know who is against controling guns, as a lot of people do not keep up with politics, and just listen to the MSM.
We, who go on line, and are up on what these
Dem-o-nuts stand for have to get out and vote I believe we will win.

Kimmy...
Man... have you been off your game the last few days.

Did you open the wrong email... maybe one from like, June or something? FYI... Valerie Plame talking points are off the table now. In fact, you aren't even supposed to acknowledge there was ever a Valerie Plame scandal... you are supposed to say: "Huh?... What?... Valerie Plame? I don't know WHAT you are talking about! You "snippy" conservatives are trying put words in our mouths! This is just another orchestrated attack on Democrats by that evil Karl Rove!"

BTW... I'm really sorry if I came across as "snippy" (haven't heard that word used since Al Gore used it, Election Night, 2000).

And I'm REALLY sorry if I gave you the impression that I expect to be the center of your universe, aka, "radar screen." But I DO appreciate your reply... even if you DID dodge the question about why Mississippi doesn't seem to be having the post-Katrina recovery problems Louisiana is having.

Of course, we both know why, don't we?

And Kimmy... ya knows I luvs ya!

:-)

RE: WayneS writes:
Mmm, ok. You actually seemed interested.

The U.S. is the signatory on a whole bunch of treaties with foreign countries on how to handle crimes committed by foreign citizens.

So, to wit, lately Bush is trying to get South Korea to supply a ship whenever the U.S. decides to storm a North Korean Ship. Why? Because South Korea has an existing agreement that they can *legally* board North Korean ships. None other than the Bush Administration is treating this as a LAW ENFORCEMENT problem, going through the U.N. and South Korea.

If the U.S. starts wantonly boarding North Korean ships then North Korea, by treaty, has the right to declare war on the U.S. and the U.N. will support that decision.

Otherwise, Bush would not be trying to put up the South Korean front.

It's interesting to me that in all the converstations of suspending habeus corpus for foreigners and torturing of foreigners, conservatives seem to forget that the reason we are signatories to the Geneva Convention is that America wanted to insure its citizens were not unduly treated by foreign countries. By suspending habeus corpus and torturing foreigners, it is hard to criticize any foreign country for doing the same to U.S. citizens.


liberal dialog - You provided one...
...example. One which did not relate to the issue at hand; unless of course you can tell me exactly when North Korea made a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

I asked for COGENT examples. You know, relevent examples. Specifically, historical, precedent- setting examples of organized foreign persons (e.g. Imperial Japan, Great Britain, terrorists, etc.) attacking this country on its own soil and having this nation treat the attack as a law enforcement issue instead of a military issue.

I guess I'll just have to remain as dull as a butter knife... because you have not even come close to enlightening me on this issue. Will you try a little harder to make your case, please?


By the way, I do not recall (previously) mentioning habeus corpus, the torture of foreigners nor the Geneva Convention in ANY post that I have ever made at this forum, EVER. Consequently, I do not know why in the H- E- double-hockey-sticks you brought them up. Now that you have, though, I will say this: That good ol' Geneva Convention sure did help out our boys in Korean and Vietnamese POW camps, didn't it?

NRA Lifer
Is that $300 tax stamp a one time payment or is it an annual tax? Also, is it $300 PER automatic weapon, or does one fee cover multiple machine guns?

PS - I've been reading your posts for a while. I'm glad to know you're here in the Old Dominion.
Sic Semper Tyrannus

baseball,
I believe that was it. My memory was a bit rusty concerning the exact wording, but, even after all these years I can never forget the shiver down the spine upon discerning the spirit behind those sentiments.


Thanks for the link. I knew I wasn't crazy.

NRALifer
By the way, isn't the 2nd Amendment supposed to be the only concealed weapons permit we need in this country?

Liberal Justice
Grubby, it's not "liberal justice."

It's Socialist (or worse) justice as in one more minute part of destroying this country. The sooner the ignorant masses realize that the better, but I'm afraid that ain't gonna happen. As I've stated here before I think we're doomed. Its all over and the fat lady hasn't even sung.

Go to http://www.discoverthenetworks.org and learn what's going on, and the conections between various socialist groups.

GUNS and JayMilwaukee
Notice how after his absurd statement, and the response of all here, he kind of evaporated into the stratosphere on that.

Firstr of all, did he think there's no one here -- HERE -- who knows anything about the political issue on guns?

Further, he obviously knew his legs were cut out from under him -- probably with a burst from an M-16 -- and had nowhere to go with that nonsense.

And yet the Libs still put that stuff out there, even here, like we're all a bunch of Tin Men with no brains who are going to nod along and say "Yep, y'er right, ah-huh, ah-huh!"

Oh, Puh-leeze, Jay in Spaceland!

Enough already
In hundreds of articles and thousands of posts here and a few other like spots one reads with utter dismay the chronicle of the rapid destruction of this great country at the hands of its enemies disguised as judges, lawyers, reporters, professors, news writers, talking heads, actors, singers, teachers, gays, lesbians, race baiters, poverty pimps, community activists, to name a few disguises. Of course, not ALL those in the above professions, but substantial numbers of them.

I want to see the tough talking folks on this or similar blogs start the action to take this country from its enemies! Talk is cheap, and it's very late in the game! Only action, real action, demonstration, riots, revolution, WHATEVER IT TAKES, can save us. There must be millions willing to take to the streets, to take up arms if need be, to sacrifice their lives if need be, all they are waiting for is the catalyst, the man or woman able and ready to lead us.

I don't want to read this depressing stuff any more, I want to do my part in saving this once great country. It can be great again.

How about it?










WayneS
___ Last time I looked, it was a one time $300.00 Tax Stamp per weapon (non-transferable). This one reason some multi-owner automatic weapons are so expensive - the former owners generally try to recover their tax stamp expense in the sale price to the next fellow. Each owner has to pony up their own $300.00.

Whew !What a load of ---== these letters
Christ,I tried to read through all these letters from ,christian fundies,NRA freaks,armchair warriors and all
I have to say is this : My grandaughter's school is having a fair and I volunteered to twist balloons in the shape of a neocon's logic.

RE: WayneS
"...example. One which did not relate to the issue at hand; unless of course you can tell me exactly when North Korea made a terrorist attack on U.S. soil."

Well, I guess I could refer to all the attacks on the US Embassies during the 1980s and 1990s. The attack on the USS Cole. The Iran Hostages. A few million other incidents. Before and after the Revolutionary war the British regularly scuttled our ships with impunity which we responded too with diplomacy. Actually, the list of acts committed against the U.S. where we treated the act as police action is long and historcial.

But, I guess one would need to have read some history to know that, eh?

Bush's pre-emptive doctrine is about using military might, no police action, just for the notion of being a a threat. We didn't invade Afhganistan or Iraq because these countries attacked us. Nor did we preempt with police action. The Bush doctrine says he'll use military force if he simply deems a country is a threat. So why hasn't he bombed North Korea back to the stone ages I wonder?

Bush is being a hypocrit for treating North Korea as a police action. Where is the chicken cowboy now? Iran and North Korea were no where near the threat they are today until Bush called them the "axis of evil." Then they decided to grant his wish.

Guess you'd better be careful what you wish for, eh? Bush can't even handle the war in Iraq. It's amusing to think that now the Cowboy could handle Iran, Iraq and North Korea as simultaneous fronts. Then of course there is always Venezuela. The fact is that once the sharks smell blood in the water they will all come gunning for us preceise because we are number 1. We cannot be at war with the world without allies. We have no allies, everyone hates us. We could've had police action throughout the war with lots of allies. It is clear that Bush made 100% wrong decisions in response to 9/11.

There are 4 billion people on this planet with only 300 million Americans. Time to back off the war mongering and step up to diplomacy and strategic terrorist fighting otherwise known as police enforcement. Time to admit mistakes, make amends and shift gears. Seems Bush has smelled that coffee with respect to North Korea with his desparate appeals to the U.N. and South Korea.

To to reverse the Bush doctrine, reverse gears and go into police mode.

The only thing declaring war on the planet will do is get us all killed. But I won't hold my breath. If Ronald Reagan has taught liberals anything its that Republicans never change their minds, no matter how egregious and ridiculously stupid something is.




Ordinaire: Thank you for...
... your absolutely irrelevant, meaningless, and liberally doctrinaire comment on this column.

Your well-thought-out presentation of your position is, I'm sure, bound to sway many minds and opinions.

Unbelievable
Let me see if I understand what the majority of the posters on this forum believe:

1 No one has the right to disagree with any decisions made by the current administration. If you do then you are a traitor, hate America and want the terrorists to be sucessful.

2. That you can somehow wage war against a tactic. (I am still waiting for someone to explain how that is even possible)

3. That the invasion of Iraq was absolutely necessary to protect the U.S. from being taken over by Sadaam and his non-existant WMD's. (or is that old news that's "off the table"?)

4. That at it's inception, the invasion of Iraq was the "front line" in the "war on terrorism".

5. That Iraq supplied material support and helped plan the attacks of 9/11/01.

6. That every non-republican in this country has no other ideas to deal with Iraq other than to "cut and run". (Seems as though Bush himself was talking about ways to bring our soldiers home a.s.a.p. How is that not "cutting and running" by your definition?)

7. That a western style democracy can be forced onto Iraq.

8. That there is absolutely no way any of the people being held at Gitmo can be innocent. (Despite the fact some innocent people have already been released from there.)

9. That it is OK to torture people.

10. That if your a republican politician you are above the law.

11. That every negative thing that has ever happened or will happen is Bill (the meaning of "is" is) Clinton's fault. (Just how powerful is Clinton? Out of office for 6 years and still has more of an affect on this country and the world than Bush and a rubber stamp congress?)

12. That fellow U.S. citizens who do not subscribe to their idealology are their enemies who should be tortured and killed.

13. That they are morally superior to non-conservatives. (But yet see number 12 above...hmmm)

14. That the biggest threat to the survival of the U.S. for them to no longer be in power.

15. That if the republicans lose control of the senate and/or house of representatives nuclear and biological weapons will instantly rain down upon the U.S.

16. That if the U.S. was being invaded, non-conservatives would not fight with every ounce of strength and to their death to protect this country. (Actually the U.S. is being invaded by illegal immigrants and I don't see ANY politicians truly trying to stop it. Just a lot of lip service. see the last minute admendment to the border fence bill.)

17. That any dirty trick or illegal tactic or outright lie is permissable as long as it gets conservative republicans elected.

18 That it is OK for businesses and lobbyists to bribe politicians to vote the way they want them too.

19. That being loyal to their political party is more important than being loyal to the country.

And finally.......

20. That I am a liberal democrat who hates America and wants to see the Islamo-fascist rule the world. (I am not even a democrat much less liberal. I would give up my life in defense of this country and it's citizens, including you, Ann Coulter and Michael Moore. The thought of an islamic theocracy ruling the world scares and angers me beyond description. So does the thought of an evangical christian theocracy.)

OK, go ahead and call me names and disperage my intellect since that's all a lot of you seem to be able to bring to the debate.

Above and below
BrianR ,read message below yours.
mountain Rose read message above yours.
I mentioned neocons minds and logic and as the saying goes "if the shoe fits,wear it!".

Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem writes:
"...I am not even a democrat much less liberal."

and -

"OK, go ahead and call me names and disperage my intellect since that's all a lot of you seem to be able to bring to the debate."....

No problem.

If it walks like a duck....

O.J. Trials Says It All
The article is excellent as usual but the title is truly superb.

liberal_dialog
The British scuttled our ships BEFORE the Revolutionary War and we settled it with diplomacy? HELLO - It led to the Revolutionary WAR!!!

When diplomacy did not work in settling our post-Revolution differences with the British it led to the WAR of 1812.

And of, course, after the Revolutionary War, when pirates (terrorists?) were preying on our merchant shipping, who responded? The NYPD? The SFPD? The FBI? Why no! It was the United States Navy; which, for those of you who may not know, is part of the MILITARY of the United States. Then again, maybe they've been transferred to Homeland Security; I don't read that much history after all. (By the way, thus far I have not made ONE personal attack or insult against you in any of my posts. I have been completely civil. I just wanted to let you know that if you keep personally attacking and/or insulting me in your posts I will continue to be civil in mine. I want to set a good example for the kiddies, you know).

I'm curious: where in any of my posts have I defended,or even mentioned, the "Bush doctrine".

Further, simply believing that military actions against terrorists are more appropriate than hurling prosecuting attorneys at them (and subsequently providing them with free defense attorneys) does NOT automatically make one a proponent of the "Bush doctrine".

I asked you to explain and expound upon your thoughts/beliefs that terrorist attacks MUST be treated as a law enforcement issue and MUST NOT be responded to militarily. You responded by attacking me regarding the Geneva Convention, torture, habeus corpus; and now the "Bush doctrine". Just because one President (or more) has FAILED in the past to act properly when our buildings, embassies and ships were attacked does not mean such failure should become our historical or legal precedent.

On diplomacy - Diplomacy only works when you are dealing with a rational enemy/antagonist who shares at least SOME of your own beliefs and interests. Somtimes it does not work even then. When you are dealing with a country or countries or entity or group whose STATED purpose is your total annihilation then diplomacy is a joke. It is sad, but it is true. It is the real world.

The fantasy of world peace with eveyone getting along and diplomacy solving everything is a wonderful FANTASY, but it has not worked in the past and will not work in the future and it is NOT George W. Bush's fault nor it Bill Clinton's nor any other individual's fault. It is simply the way this world is. The world is inhabited by human beings and human beings are flawed and selfish creatures, each and every one.

The bottom line is, I live in a Country which my forefathers built on this continent. As a citizen of the United States, I SUPPORT the continuation of the United States as a nation; as do, I suspect, the VAST majority of my fellow citizens. As a nation which wishes to continue in existence, sometimes we need to talk with our adversaries and sometimes we need to fight against them. It is a wise leader who can tell which is appropriate at what time. I will not reveal my thoughts on exactly how many wise leaders we have had in the U.S. or the World in the last 100 years or so, but I will say this: Sometimes, when a leader has spent time talking when he should have been fighting, then the leader(s) who come after him must fight instead of talking.

That's funny...
"At Stewart's sentencing, the judge noted that the defendant's actions had not resulted in any deaths."

...I thought the same thing when I was pulled over for DUI after a couple drinks, but he judge kept harping on how people COULD HAVE been killed. Maybe I should have spoken Arabic?

I got demoted

.....Jimmy Carter...

.....apparently even a conservative site is not immune from PC...humor is the enemy of political correctness because it might be offensive to someone...to whom?...why the Lib/Socialists...that is why we need speech codes and PC police...go to http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm to get all the sad details .....COLOSSUS

Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem - Unbelievable

By your numbers:

1. No one has the right to disagree with any decisions made by the current administration.

By all means – disagree. But bring some supporting arguments. Most Liberals posting here seem to spew and split. They add no substance to the discussions, just rant and rave the Liberal talking points. Some others nitpick spellings or pounce on points taken out of context with a goal of obfuscation.

2. That you can somehow wage war against a tactic.

I agree that you cannot wage a war against a tactic. My view is that, as distasteful as it may be, we are at war with a religion. Until we as a people come to terms with that concept, we will be spinning our wheels in the sand.

3. That the invasion of Iraq was absolutely necessary to protect the U.S. from being taken over by Sadaam and his non-existant WMD's.

It seems to me that historically Saddam was in bed with the terrorist organization that hit us. That makes him an accomplice. As far as WMD is concerned, no one has any explanation as to the contents of the military convoys heading west into Syria just before the beginning of the invasion. One point is definite. Over 500 WMD artillery shells were found. These were probably just some that did not make the journey west. It still entirely possible that there are more yet buried in the sand.

4. That at it's inception, the invasion of Iraq was the "front line" in the "war on terrorism".

It seems to me that the majority of the fighters in Iraq are foreign agents from surrounding Islamic countries. In that respect Iraq is, in fact, the “front line” on a war. They come to Iraq to fight a war.

5. That Iraq supplied material support and helped plan the attacks of 9/11/01.

Refer back to point #3.

6. That every non-republican in this country has no other ideas to deal with Iraq other than to "cut and run".

Are you a non-Republican? What your ideas on winning in Iraq?

7. That a western style democracy can be forced onto Iraq.

I am a Conservative and I do not believe that our style of government will fit with Islam in any country. That includes here in America. When they (Muslims) outnumber us they will vote out of existence the Constitution. Isn’t that what the Liberals want?

8. That there is absolutely no way any of the people being held at Gitmo can be innocent.

To the best of my knowledge, the people held at ‘Gitmo’ were captured on or in the vicinity of a battlefield. That makes them people of interest. Some have been determined to be innocent and have been returned to their homes.

9. That it is OK to torture people.
The Geneva Convention says that combatants out of uniform are to be treated as spies and executed. Does lining the ‘combatants’ against a wall and executing them constitute torture? Does it become torture when we, instead of immediate execution, detain at them ‘Gitmo’. Perhaps we should hold and treat the Muslims just as their fellow Muslims hold and treat our people. Is anyone here in favor of sawing their heads off while they are still kicking? Oh, but you mean make them parade around naked. This is tough… parade naked or saw head off at the neck. Let’s ask Daniel Pearl if he would have rather been paraded naked through the streets or beheaded. Too bad – he can’t speak for himself any more.

10. That if your a republican politician you are above the law.

I don’t see any Republican politician standing above the law. Perhaps you meant were referring the Democratic Representative that engaged in statutory rape (I’m sorry that was consensual sex with a minor – so he gets a pass). Or maybe you were referring to a president that lied during an investigation (again I’m sorry, he gets redefine ‘is’ – again he gets a pass). Your duplicity is so predictable.

I am only halfway through this tirade of your and you weary me. All these points have been made before. You choose to ignore them. I never could have guessed that you are a Liberal Democrat if you had not told me at the end of you post.

At least give them a trial
I don't have a problem with trying the Gitmo detainees with a military trial as opposed to an American Courts Criminal trial, but PALEEEEEZ, get them before a dang judge so we can determine if our tax dollars should continue to house them or ship them back to Afghanistan! Did you know the average detainee (immigrant deemed to be eligible for deportation) spends at least an average of 6 months in a detention center (aka, unused prison) until they get before an INS judge? Do we really want to bog down our own system this way? At least in a military court, the attorneys have to do it cut and dry...no appeals, etc.

With that said, we need a speedy overhaul of the whole system. When murderers are allowed to walk the streets freely and kill again, but the poor immigrant spends months in a jail equivalent because they wanted to come to California to pick lettuce and were detained at the border, there is something tweaked in the whole process. Why not trade the two and get the hard working immigrant out to work on bail while anyone accused of murder has to sit in a jail cell? What a novel concept!

Gitmo detainees

Are the 'Gitmo' detainees applying for US citizenship? Why should they stand before an INS judge?

I have no problem interrogating them before executing them as spies or as enemy compatants. If during interrogation they are determined to be innocent, they are allowed to return to their homes. Anything else is an injustice to the US victims.

These people are not gentle little lambs that have lost their ways. They believe they are commanded by Allah to kill unbelievers. They chose to attack the US. We should respond in the most appropriate manner.

Now, if you want Christ as part of the equation, we could explain the gospel to them while they are locked up. Then they can choose to meeet their Maker cleansed of their sins. Otherwise, they can meet Allah and hope they have earned enough points to enter their version of heaven. Either way, the law (of all people except Muslims) says they deserve to die for killing others. (BTW God is for the death penalty.)

Nobody escapes this world alive. We are all destined to die a physical death. The trick is to live in the hereafter with God. The alternative will not pleasant.

Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem
Ok, I will try to address at least a few of these.

1 No one has the right to disagree with any decisions made by the current administration. If you do then you are a traitor, hate America and want the terrorists to be sucessful.
Wrong - the Right to Free Speech (part of the First Amendment, as I recall) has not been repealed. The flip side, however, is that we expect every American to have some sense of loyalty; during WW2 - let's see: FDR was president then, wasn't he? and he was a Democrat, wasn't he? - there was a common saying that "loose lips sink ships", meaning that if you have ANY information that might be related to our efforts to defend ourselves and our allies, DON'T spread it around! Keep your mouth zipped! - because you don't know who might be listening in, or who might overhear, and pass our secrets to our enemies, to the advantage of our enemies.

2. That you can somehow wage war against a tactic. (I am still waiting for someone to explain how that is even possible)
Correct, as far as that goes; we are actually waging a war against those who believe that their goal/end (making the whole world Moslem) justifies anything they do, including flying airliners into large office buildings full of innocent people. - despite Bush and many others calling it a "war on terrorism". I suppose that "war on terrorism" is more convenient than "war on those who think terrorism is perfectly justified, in order to achieve their goal".

3. That the invasion of Iraq was absolutely necessary to protect the U.S. from being taken over by Sadaam and his non-existant WMD's. (or is that old news that's "off the table"?)
The UN inspectors had already found WMDs in Iraq during the 1990's; the UN passed more resolutions between 9/11/2001 and the invasion in March 2003 to the effect that Saddam should give an account of them - how many had been destroyed, used in some kind of test, sold/given to other countries/organizations, or were still there in Iraq; and that ALL of the WMDs in Iraq should be removed from Saddam's control - either handed over to some other nation that could be trusted more, or destroyed. He could have avoided the invasion, and might even still be President of Iraq now, in 2006, if he had complied with the resolutions - but, no, all we got was

UN inspector/whoever was supposed to get this info from Saddam's government: "Where are the WMDs?"
Saddam's minister of Information, or whoever: "No, we don't have any."
"Did you destroy them?"
"We don't have any."
"Did you sell them to somebody?"
"We don't have any."
"Did you give them away?"
"No, we don't have any."
"Do you still have them?"
"We don't have any."
With such enlightening responses from Saddam and his subordinates, we felt like he might be trying to hide the WMDs...... Excuse us if we got a little nervous. It now appears, also, that many of them got smuggled out to Syria; whether Saddam expected Syria to consider them a loan, or what, I don't think anyone knows - he's still _terrifically_ informative ("We don't have any…..")

We have found, among other things, 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium in Iraq. I had a document from some news website, listing this uranium and others – Sarin gas already in warheads, to be mounted on missiles; cyclosarin gas (five times more deadly than Sarin), missiles, etc. But I can’t find it now. This is one of the reasons why I go to websites like this for my news, instead of watching the alphabet soup people (CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, PBS), or read most of the newspapers in this country, like the NYT. They have mysteriously neglected to report on these WMDs that _were_ found in Iraq; I take this as conclusive evidence of their bias.


Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem
Ok, I will try to address at least a few of these.

4. That at it's inception, the invasion of Iraq was the "front line" in the "war on terrorism".
As I understood/still understand it, it was/is _Part_ of the front line.

5. That Iraq supplied material support and helped plan the attacks of 9/11/01.
Yes, they helped with training the hijackers; there was a 737 fuselage on the ground in Baghdad, so they could rehearse the takeover, practice using boxcutters, etc.

6. That every non-republican in this country has no other ideas to deal with Iraq other than to "cut and run". (Seems as though Bush himself was talking about ways to bring our soldiers home a.s.a.p. How is that not "cutting and running" by your definition?)
It seems that every Democrat - and some Republicans referred to as RINOs - have no ideas on the subject other then cutting and running; at least, they haven't been talking about any other ideas, that I've heard of, and I gather that most of the other posters here haven't heard of any such, either. There is still one important distinction between Bush and the Dems: he still hasn't given a precise date on which _All_ Americans will leave Iraq, whether the job there is done or not, even though he has buckled under the pressure to do so, and said that he wants to bring them home ASAP. Of course, we would all like to see our troops come home tomorrow - but only if all the terrorists in Iraq are either dead or captured and a stable Democratic government is in charge, so as to prevent more terrorists from entering.

7. That a western style democracy can be forced onto Iraq.
Forced? I don't know. But the millions of Iraqis proudly holding their ink-stained fingers in the air - evidence that they had just voted - in spite of terrorists' warnings that they would kill anybody who participated in their election, says a lot about what they want, and how much they want it.

8. That there is absolutely no way any of the people being held at Gitmo can be innocent. (Despite the fact some innocent people have already been released from there.)
No, _because_ of the fact that some people held there have been released: we have investigators/interrogators whose job is to get any information from the detainees concerning who else was working with them to construct bombs, etc (yes) BUT ALSO to determine which of the detainees might actually be innocent, and get them released. The fact that some have been released is evidence that we _are_ trying to determine who’s innocent and who isn’t. Further evidence on this point is the statistics (which I don’t have in front of me, sorry) of how many of those released are later re-captured in battle, with AK-47s and/or bombs in their hands, or bombs strapped around their waists, etc – so we get the impression that they weren’t so innocent, after all. When in doubt about these, we let them go.

Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem
I will tackle a few more of these.

9. That it is OK to torture people.
Depending on what you mean by torture – feeding them feet-first into a wood-chipper, for example, like one of Saddam’s sons was fond of doing, is not allowed: _we_ _don’t_ _do_ _that_. I understand that (was it Uday, or Qusay?) liked to hear them scream, that’s why he sent them in _feet_ first, not _head_ first; putting them in head first would have killed them more quickly.
At various times, we _have_ paraded them around with underwear on their heads – I’ll admit that; I’m not sure that I approve of it, but I understand that we don’t anymore – compare this “underwear parade” with the treatment al-Qaida has given to several of their hostages: cutting off their heads (sometimes with a dull knife, I understand). Let’s see, which is crueler – having to wearing underwear on my head, or having no head at all? We have subjected them to bright lights in the middle of the night to prevent sleep, loud music, and other treatments. Do any of them compare with the beheadings? I don’t think so.

10. That if your a republican politician you are above the law.
Huh? Mark Foley being drummed out of Congress when his misbehavior came to light means that he’s above the law? I understand that someone in law enforcement is still investigating the question whether or not he can be charged with something – if the page(s) with whom he actually had sex were under the legal age of consent _at_ _the_ _time_, then charges _will_ be filed – so I understand. Most of the fuss about Rep Foley - I get the impression - is about the sleazy e-mails; as disgusting as these are (my impression based on what I've heard), they are emphatically _not_ illegal.
As to politicians being above the law, Bill and Hillary Clinton have a lot of shady dealings, concerning Bill’s sex life – which he seems to have made public on some occasions – and some financial deals. No charges filed yet………

11. That every negative thing that has ever happened or will happen is Bill (the meaning of "is" is) Clinton's fault. (Just how powerful is Clinton? Out of office for 6 years and still has more of an affect on this country and the world than Bush and a rubber stamp congress?)
His still-effective power is largely due to his eight (not just four) years in office – selling nuclear secrets to North Korea and missile-building know-how to Communist China, in exchange for campaign contributions, treating the first attack on the WTC (1993), the bombing of the Khobar towers, attacks on our embassies, bombing the USS Cole - and I’m sure there are a couple more that I’m forgetting – as crimes, and each as an isolated incident, rather than as acts of war, and the policy – written out in detail by Jamie Gorelick, and approved by X-President Clinton - that the FBI and the CIA couldn’t share information, set us up for 9/11/2001. That “wall” between the FBI and the CIA, in particular, kept us from “connecting the dots”, simply because the FBI knew about some of the “dots”, and the CIA knew about some others, but neither agency knew about _all_ of them. drillanwr referred to this “wall” in his post on 10/19 at 10:42 am.

Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem
I will tackle a few more of these.

12. That fellow U.S. citizens who do not subscribe to their idealology are their enemies who should be tortured and killed.
If it’s only a matter of ideology, that’s one thing, which brings us back to the First Amendment.
Those who _act_ on some ideology, which calls for the destruction of America and/or killing innocent people by the thousands – or even dozens, is another thing. A born-in-this-country-American who converts to Islam, and then goes on a killing spree, should not get a pass because of his religion. In case anybody has to ask, it would make no difference to me, on this point, if he were _raised_ Moslem from birth (no conversion), and then went on a killing spree - no pass for him, either.
Are you referring to some other ideological differences – other than Islamic fanaticism vs the way most Americans live?

13. That they are morally superior to non-conservatives. (But yet see number 12 above...hmmm)
Being morally superior to the liberals (Democrats and RINOs and those that profess no political party) that I’ve heard of/know of/have heard speeches from/etc, is, first, a matter of _having_ morals, and second, of living up to them – or trying to live up to them, and being honest enough to confess wrong-doing when confronted. X-President Clinton, for example, seems to have no concept of being faithful to his wife, and when he was confronted with some evidence, he lied: “I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. Not one time.” When confronted with more evidence, he quibbled about the meanings of “is” and “alone”. When more evidence piled up and it became indisputable, then he finally admitted to it. The more moral of us would have confessed the first time; no one would hear that "I did not have sex with that woman" speech.

14. That the biggest threat to the survival of the U.S. for them to no longer be in power.
Yes, because – for example – of Representative Nancy Pelosi’s declaration that if she had 52 Democratic Senators, she would immediately take away everybody’s guns (see Jay_in_Milwaukee’s post, 10/19, 8:00 pm)

15. That if the republicans lose control of the senate and/or house of representatives nuclear and biological weapons will instantly rain down upon the U.S.
Perhaps not _instantly_ - but probably within two years. There haven’t been any successful attacks on US soil since 9/11/2001, but not because the terrorists haven’t been trying – have you forgotten already the sleeper cell broken up in Buffalo, NY? The attempt to bring liquid explosives on US-bound airliners in Britain? Obviously, we can thank the British for catching that one – and they can thank us for catching some, too, I believe - and leading the invasion in Iraq. (BTW, have you also forgotten that some British and Australian troops are helping out in Iraq?)
The nuclear and biological weapons issue isn’t all – see http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/what_if_libs_win_congress.pdf for a list of other liberal goals that I, personally, find equally scary, and I think that lot of other posters here do, too.

Michael

I remember hearing a quick blurb about military convoys heading west from Iraq into Syria. I remember hearing once about the 55 gal drums of chemicals. And I remember hearing once about 500 WMD artillery shells being unearthed. Thanks for the info on the rest of it. Where was Left Bank Media when this news was being brodadcast?

Sounds to me like alot of evidence of WMD; but not to the the Liberals. Facts only get in the way of their preconceived positions on reality.

Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem
One more...

16. That if the U.S. was being invaded, non-conservatives would not fight with every ounce of strength and to their death to protect this country. (Actually the U.S. is being invaded by illegal immigrants and I don't see ANY politicians truly trying to stop it. Just a lot of lip service. see the last minute admendment to the border fence bill.)
Actually, some politicians are trying to stop it – so far, a woefully small minority, but I thank God for the ones that we have, I pray that they all get re-elected, and that others join them. As you noted, that was a _last-minute_ amendment to the border fence bill; those who proposed it, originally, intended to pass it, and have Bush sign it, without that amendment.

As to the border fence bill and the issue of immigration in general, there seems to be a lot of Democrats (and Republicans, I must admit, to my shame) who want to increase the numbers of legal immigration per year _and_ allow those already here illegally to eventually become citizens. But, as I said, there are a few who are working to prevent the enactment of any such Amnesty – whether or not the liberals put the word “amnesty” in the bill (This comes back to that saying that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck, even if there’s a tag around its neck declaring it to be an elephant.)

Furthermore, most Democrats, if not all, apparently don’t want to fight the terrorists on foreign soil (we’re back to that “cut-and-run” strategy, ie, bring the troops home immediately, if not sooner), which would then encourage the terrorists, and then we could expect that they go back to concentrating on training for more 9/11-scale attacks. Granted that they would very likely not use boxcutters, due to the security measures now in place – but that just means that they have to get creative again, and think of other ways. It boils down to what many others have said: we’re now fighting them in Iraq, so that we don’t have to fight them here; the corollary to this, of course, is that if we leave Iraq before all the terrorists are either killed or captured, then we can expect to fight them here instead. We have a choice: to fight them there, where any “collateral damage” will be in Iraq, and injured civilians will be Iraqis – or we can give up there, get out, and let Saddam’s and/or Osama bin Laden’s supporters seize control, kill civilians, much the same as Saddam was doing before we invaded – and then we'll see what OBL and/or Saddam instruct their sleeper cells to do to us on our own soil. I don’t like the idea of pulling out of Iraq before the job is done, personally, and I hope that we don’t see another disaster like 9/11.

Would non-conservatives fight if we were invaded by al-Qaida (or Hezbollah, Hamas, et al), if groups of these Islamic fanatics roamed the country, looking for large groups of Americans to kill all at once? Since this invasion hasn’t happened yet on a large scale, it’s hard to tell, really, but their approach to the War in Iraq, their idea of calling all such attacks “crimes”, not acts of war, their tendency to give criminals, of any sort, light sentences and slaps on the wrist, don’t seem encouraging.

Ann
Good column as usual. Was just looking at my 30yr old daughter,god they look a like.Anyway,just another excellent reason to go vote Nov.7 Even if you have to hold your nose.

Oh man, I'm to late
To tell all you wacky democrat party members the suicide watch begins 1900 hours, November 7, 2006.

Your Foley gambit failed, backfired, flamed out so to speak. The law enforcement aspects of the Lynn Stewart trail is an outstanding example of the democrat party anti-terror methods in action.

Not wanting to miss a chance to show how bankrupt the democrat party really is, the Clinton's old justice department hand, whatever her name, is on the side of the terrorist sympathizer Lynn Stewart. This old Clinton hand who argued for leniency for the convicted terrorist, Ms. Stewart, was second to Jamie "The Wall" Gorlick and reported to Janet "Waco" Reno.

I see it now, the democrat law enforcement solution to terrorism. In fact, everyone watching the news tonight will see it. While you nutty leftist are so proud of how the court showed mercy on this poor old sickly woman, normal people are thinking, man here is another reason not to trust the democrats with something so mundane as national security.

I can see the democrat anti-terror program now, look it's.... it's.... Janet Reno running through the slums of Karachi in fishnets, high heels, and a red see-through thing, kinda like Ol'Bubba's favorite, oh wait... wait... she is waving subpoenas at the terrorists.

Oh no look it's working, the suicide bombers are blowing each other up trying to get away from her, oh no they are gouging each others eyes out.... oh the humanity. Man, I got to see what's in these cigarettes.

The democrat solution to terrorism on display in the Stewart trail is just another self-inflicted wound but, when given a chance they can't help themselves. Like Foley this is going to blow up in their faces like an exploding cigar.

We will see the democrat meltdown of the century come November 8, 2006. The shrieking, howling, and gnashing of teeth will me music to my ears.

There will be reports of single car crashes, bridge jumpers, drug overdoses, random gun shots man Hillery will call for emergency legislation to legalize Felons to vote while still in jail to replace the mass casualties in the democrat voter base..... wait.... wait.... since when did being dead stop someone from voting democrat?

Oh man God, this is more serious that I thought. She will call the Teacher's Union and make an emergency requisition of another 50 million illiterate students to replace the losses.

I'm proud of the ol'demos for showing yet again why they will be lining up at the koolaid jar after this election.

The democrats are going to get the slats kicked out from underneath and fall on the part of their body they think with. The same place Karl Rove will put his foot when they pull their head out of the way.

Can you hear it? ...the popping sound.... there it goes again. Wait is must be these stale cigarettes, cause that popping is the sound when you pull your head out, .... wait... wait, can't be that, I'm talking about democrats.

I need another beer.




laws
Now that we have that wonderful law that Bush signed last week we don't have to worry about all those meanies out to make Anne pout. The government can just sweep any of us off the street, hold us for good without communication, legal representation, charges, or due process.

Congratulations, Anne - Now America can have it's own population of disappeared. Can't make arrests without good reason you say? Well, since you're the one who claims all dissent is an act of treason this should really make that warm, caring heart of yours beat quickly.

JayJay
We already have our "own population of disappeared". They disappeared on 9/11/01.

An Air-Slap on the Wrist
Good thing Lynne's name wasn't Martha. She would have wound up in the slammer for the rest of her unnatural life.

Ann is as dizy and daft as usual
Once again Ann Coulter shows her particular talent for taking one ant hill and turning it into a mountain of idiotic claims about the people who don't agree with her every point of view.

LETS TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT STEWART WAS ACTUALLY CONVICTED OF.
She was a defense lawyer for a despicable excuse for a human being who was on trial for terrorist plots in the NYC area. But at that time there were no "military tribunals." So that was not an alternative. Someone had to defend this terrorist so we could get the trial over with and put him in jail where he belongs.

She herself was convicted of passing Shiekh Rahman's blessing for a resumption of terrorist operations to his fundamentalist Muslim terrorist cell in Egypt after cell members inquired whether they should continue to honor a ceasefire that was in place against the Egyptian government.

BUT WHAT WAS IT SHE ACTUALLY DID?
She passed one communication on behalf of her client to supporters via a Reuters article, followed by a clarification after it appeared to have been misinterpreted. The clarification said: "I [Omar Abdel-Rahman] AM NOT WITHDRAWING my support of the cease-fire, I am merely questioning it..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Stewart

Hardly the equivalent of flying planes into the world trade center.

Now, I am not arguing she did not commit the crime she was accused of. She HAD AGREED NOT TO PASS ANY COMMUNICATIONS when she was assigned to the case. She clearly broke that agreement and was duly convicted of it.

But I think sane people (which probably does not include Ann Coulter) can reasonably conclude that the sentence meted out was not all that unreasonable.

Ann in her usual illogical rant goes on to turn this into some kind of justification for the horrible law that puts the majority of the people in Guantanamo in a "black hole" where they quite literally could disappear forever without anyone knowing whether they are really terrorists or not.

She doesn't mention the fact that the most HORRIBLE prisoners there, some 70 to 80 of them got the BEST DEAL! THEY ARE THE ONES WHO AT LEAST GET A TRIBUNAL! THEY get to hear the charges against them. THEY get a chance to at least defend themselves.

The other 400 or so people the government does not want to put up before a tribunal now have NO RECOURSE. They cannot offer any evidence in their defense. They cannot talk to a lawyer. They cannot talk to the press. They have no hope.

Of course I am not saying that these are all choir boys. But it makes no sense and flies in the face of all we Americans stand for to put people in jail and throw away the key without a chance for anyone but the jailor to scrutinize the proceedings and whether they were wrongfully accused or not.

And it adds insult to the injury to treat the WORST of the WORST better than those the government for lack of evidence or other reasons cannot even bring before the tribunal system.

Then she further piles on the baloney that anyone that doesn't agree with her perverted point of view on justice doesn't want to see real terrorists punished with anything but a slap on the wrist.

Ann, you top yourself in every utterance with your pig headed, un-American inanities.

Ann:

Along with your very aptly making the point, for our avoidance of OJ-like trials, you also illustrate how, even when the jury gets it right, liberal judges still find ways to subvert justice. The fact that we even entertain military tribunals for these unlawful combatants speaks volumes concerning our humanity; to extend privileges (we don’t afford our own military personnel) to these murderous thugs would not only be, a mockery of justice, it would also be, an insult to every individual that ever served in the armed forces of our country. Thank you Ann; for once again, exposing the left wing and their continuing self-loathing pursuit of our Constitutional Republic’s demise. God Bless and keep you.

Any neo-con wanna Respond?
Hay Laughingatyou, "NeoCon" is liberal code for Jew, are you another anti-Semite?

So what if the war is for oil as you say. I don't care. See your problem is no one else cares either, accept for like minded anti-American communist like yourself.

Your problem is you are really late with your "War for Oil" dribblings.

The democrat suicide watch starts at 1900 hours, November 7, 2006, make sure your there. I'll be passing out the koolaid.


Slacker
The people in Gitmo, by all international standards and law, are subject to execution by firing squad upon mere establishment of hostile action out of uniform. They are classified as spies, entitled to no quarter, even if signatory to the Geneva Convention. But they do not even have this non-protection. We would be perfectly justified in execution of them all tomorrow, just as every nation has done in similar circumstances. Why is your point in defending them?

Hay Slacker
The trial is over, Lynn Stewart is guilty. Your lefty friends got her off with 28 months.

Your fellow travellers on the left think this is good. Common since dictates, she deserved 28 years in prison. Or to your liberal buddies, does providing material support to terrorist only count if someone gets killed?

The point is, the leftist solution to terror "a law enforcement matter" is exposed as a "Trial Lawyer Employment Act". When given the democrat solution, a criminal trial, your buddies can't get her off on a technicality so they get her leniency.

I find it great the liberal plan for the war on terror, the "law enforcement" approach has been exposed as the moronic farce tailored to cowardly peacenik, "Neo-hippie", anti-American democrat party faithful.

The leftist are pushing for Constitutional Rights for the terrorist. This is also part of the democrat solution to terrorism. I bet the terrorist wet their pants laughing at the extreme leftist who are the base driving this idiocy.

With the escalation in violence in Iraq, it looks like the terrorist are voting democrat. They see the war will turn in their favor with the democrat's "Terrorist Bill of Rights", and "Trail Lawyer Employment Act".

I'm sorry, but like the Kerry exit polls in the last election, polls can be manipulated for any desired outcome. Historically, democrats have always lead the polls until the one that counts.

The usual tightening polls prior to election day are because most pollsters need to maintain some credibility. As far as the "Cut and Run" conservatives, they are an invention of the leftist press.

Sorry buddy, conservatives, both democrat and republican will show up. It is show up or blow up. The American people are not stupid, they know Iraq is drawing terrorist from all over the world. That beats, Wal-marts, shopping malls, gas stations, schools, etc. as a draw for terrorist activity.

The up coming election results will again make the Suicide Watch necessary starting at 1900 hours, November 7, 2006, it will be pandemonium.

Do you like grape or orange koolaid?



Pistol,
You say,
"The people in Gitmo, by all international standards and law, are subject to execution by firing squad upon mere establishment of hostile action out of uniform."

The point is NO ONE KNOWS if these people are guilty of any hostile action, in or out of uniform.

And anyway, by what international standard and law are you saying the US is bound to? Sounds very strange for conservatives to be saying that.

If we have evidence that they are terrorists then the administration should tell us and them what they are accused of and let them defend themselves. Anything else is unAmerican.

And why should we treat the ones we KNOW are terrorists better than the ones for which we don't have enough evidence to put them in front of a tribunal? Thats just sending the wrong message to the rest of the world about what America stands for.

G.I Joe, I SAID she was guilty
And, yes, I agree it was a court action. Big Deal. She was convicted, the prosecutor asked for the maximum penalty and the defense said let her go free. The judge made a decision and sentenced her to a reasonable amount of jail time according to the laws on the books. Case closed. That's the American way of justice.

You may not agree with her sentence. I might not. So what. We don't get to vote on what sentence is applied in a court by a judge.

And OF COURSE government actions against a US Citizen, which Stewart is, should always be law enforcement actions. Are you REALLY suggesting otherwise? That the government should have the ability to drag any citizen they dislike off to jail for any length of time just by accusing them of a connection to terrorism without having to prove it. Sounds like a police state to me.

Will you still think that if Hillary Clinton is president? Or someday someone you think is even worse starts dragging people who criticize them off to jail for acts of treason with no trial?

As for NON CITIZENS-

The people incarcerated in Guantanamo are not US Citizens, like Stewart. I am OK with having a different standard of justice for them. Thats why Ann Coulter's argument is so stupid. Just because you want the constitution enforced for US citizens doesn't mean you want to treat non-citizens captured in a war the same way.

I just don't agree with the specific silly act that Congress passed regarding the tribunals. If they set up a fair tribunal system for all the prisoners I and I think most democrats could live with that.

And for now I will agree with you that the republicans will continue to control both houses of congress.

But just to be sure, please get out and vote - on NOVEMBER 8TH. All Democrats should continue to vote on November 7th!

Are The Democrats REALLY This Stupid?
They conspire with the mainstream media to create a fantasy then proceed to convince themselves it's all true!

They've been claiming victory BEFORE the election for fourteen years. Poor little Libs. For an amusing look at the Dems and the enemies of Conservatism visit this site=> ALIEN NATION REPORT, http://www.aliennationreport.com

Be sure to check out the ARCHIVES section.

Doc

Sharia law

Surely we don't need trials at all. It's expensive and time consuming, and occasionally the guilty go free. Far better to have people brought before a judge in private (in the South this might be a leading religious figure) and they can decide whether the defendant is innocent or guilty and on appropriate punishments.

Hay Slaker
The point is, Lynn Stewart was supporting terrorist. A lefty judge gave her a slap on the wrist after hearing arguments for leniency from lefty lawyers.

It is the "slap on the wrist" mentality, for a terrorist sympathizer which exposes the "law enforcement" approach your democrat buddies support as another trial lawyer employment scheme.

Like your democrat buddies you sure are concerned about a bunch of scum who would saw your head off with a rusty knife if they had a chance.

Under the Geneva Convention the terrorist captured on the battle field in civilian clothing, not a uniform of a country, are considered unlawful combatants. As such they are not protected by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

All this military tribunal garbage is necessary because of the liberal justices on the supreme court usurping executive authority of the Commander in Chief.

The reason why the democrats don't approve of the tribunals, which is far more than the terrorist deserve, is they do not provide jobs for ACLU trail lawyers.


The reason why the democrat suicide watch starts at 1900 hours, November 7, 2006, is the democrats are weak on national security and family values, will raise taxes, and do whatever they can to undermind our president during time of war.

They are serving koolaid at the polls November 8, 2006 for all you democrats, complements of Karl Rove.

poor poor G.I. Joe
You sadden me.

Neo-cons aren't Jews, silly dude, they are former leftists who distort American values into unilateral (look it up) foreign policy designed to exonerate the U.S. and povertize the less fortunate countries who need aid.

"So what if the war is for oil as you say. I don't care. See your problem is no one else cares either, accept for like minded anti-American communist like yourself."

...OMG... [one tear] The supposition that the Iraq war was based on a truly hostile oil-business take over is "ok"?! If NOT wanting to kill thousands of innocent people, use American soldiers as pawns, and demolish an entire country is Anti-American, then Pro-American is Anti-Human, Anti-Moral, and Pro-Genocide. Nazis thaought it was "ok" to gas innocents because they wanted a "better, whiter world." Evidently, you do too. Jesus would open-hand slap you.

It's never too late to examine a massive cultural war. That would mean that history class, which you obviously weren't paying attention to, or were too stupid to understand, is unnecessary.

You are the reason why America's streets are paved in the blood, sweat, and tears of innocent foreigners. Because no one cares.

Truelikehabit
Hay buddy, "NeoCon" is a code word for Jew used by you and your pinko communist leftist buddies.

It is snivelling cowards such as yourself that take things out of context. The statement which you so boldly quote was to another one of your fellow travelers who dutifully repeats the "war for oil" mantra to which I grated him his premise.


Like a good commie loving democrat lackey you compare America to the Nazis. See the only way you might ever see your way through the communist indoctrination you received in your "History" class would have been if you had to jump from a burning building September 11, 2001. Maybe you would figure it out by the time you "paved" the streets in blood.

It is obvious by you cliche anti-American dribblings you are just a punk college student with the intestinal fortitude of a fleck of dandruff.

In your comment "better Whiter World" I guess you think I'm a racist. So, just want you to know I don't like America hating, twinkle toed, communist pinko, punks no matter what color they are.

If I ever cause "streets paved in blood" believe me it will be with the blood of snivelling cowards such as yourself.

Hay, "stupid" the post which you take offense was to tell one of your fellow commies the suicide watch starts 1900 hours, November 7, 2006.

I suggest the cherry koolaid for you, Numbnuts.

G.I. Joe
The only one I see linking NeoCon to Jew is you, and heartless republican philistines like you.

The context was "war for oil" and it still is. It will be until the Bush Admin./Haliburton have completely subsidized the entire country if Iraq and turned it into an overseas "7-11" for the "convencience" of America's overdependence on oil.

Communism is just a philosphy. A philosphy that, at it's best, feeds the working class as much as the executive. Sounds horrible I know, but somebody has to counteract the corruption in the ranks of our government/corporate Aristocracy (that's another philosophy you would do well to learn--maybe in history class).

Your anger is directed back at America, at me. I don't hate America. I see it as a golden opportunity to increase the standard of living for everyone. I do hate fear-mongers who use words like "pinko."
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.