home

Tancredo Calls for Arrest of College Activists

Via Think Progress:

Democrats were planning to hold a press conference today featuring three college students whose parents came to the United States illegally in order to promote the DREAM Act. But the event was postponed after anti-immigrant Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) called on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to arrest the three students:
“I call on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to detain any illegal aliens at this press conference,” said Tancredo, who claims to have alerted federal authorities about the well publicized press confrence. “Just because these illegal aliens are being used for political gain doesn’t mean they get immunity from the law. If we can’t enforce our laws inside the building where American laws are made, where can we enforce them?”

The DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act would allow undocumented students to become permanent citizens after several years provided they complete two years of college, trade school or military service. Details of the bill are here (pdf). The requirements are below:

To qualify for immigration relief under the DREAM Act, a student must have been brought to the U.S. more than 5 years ago when he or she was 15 years old or younger and must be able to demonstrate good moral character. In the Senate version, the student must also be under 30 years old on the date the DREAM Act is signed into law. Under the DREAM Act, once such a student graduates from high school, he or she would be permitted to apply for conditional status, which would authorize up to 6 years of legal residence.

During the 6-year period, the student would be required to graduate from a 2-year college, complete at least 2 years toward a 4-year degree, or serve in the U.S. military for at least 2 years. Permanent residence would be granted at the end of the 6-year period if the student has met these requirements and has continued to maintain good moral character. The House version — but not the Senate version — of the DREAM Act would also eliminate a federal provision that discourages states from providing in-state tuition to their undocumented immigrant student residents, thus restoring full authority to the states to determine state college and university fees.

The Dream Act is a good thing. Tancredo's being a bully.

< House Passes Ammonium Nitrate Bill...and Another Database | Hillary Joins Dodd Filibuster Of FISA Telecom Amnesty >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Join Me and Jim (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by glanton on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:58:11 PM EST
    I challenge everyone to join me in joining Jim, who takes his hat off the Tom Tancredo.  Both Jim and I know that keeping Tancredo talking as long and as loud as possible is a good thing for future elections.

    Jim's a sly one.  He knows that Tancredo and  and a few others with their obssessive, socially illiberal rhetoric pose little danger in terms of actually getting what they screech for.  But on the other hand, wink wink, the whole thing does divide/cause problems for the GOP (they're brown and speak Spanish!!!  no wait--who's going to pick my watermelons? Etc.)

    We challenge you to join us.  That you haven't already joined us speaks volumes.

    Stay alert, and stay with Fox.    

    Stay Alert Glanton says... (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 11:54:21 AM EST
    What? It escapes me....

    But yes. I like Tancredo's stand on illegal aliens and illegal immigration.

    And you may quote me.

    Tehe

    Parent

    Tancredo's stand (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by glanton on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    and you are wed.  It is so noted.  And I thank you, and all others on the Internet and around the country who keep validating him.  For keeping him, and his screeching, squarely in the news.  

    May it tear the bigots from the moneylords in unholy divorce.  In other words, may it tear the GOP apart.

    Parent

    Out! Out damn spot!! (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:35:21 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    Good non-answer (none / 0) (#85)
    by glanton on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:41:35 PM EST
    Nevertheless, I have joined you in this cause.

    Stay alert!  The brown 'uns are here, and some of em aint even speeking Ainglish.    

    Parent

    Stay Alert Glanton (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 10:18:03 AM EST
    has joined me?

    I am honored.

    Parent

    That is what I said (none / 0) (#95)
    by glanton on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:10:52 AM EST
    And I challenge others to join us in celebrating Tancredo's impact on the Republican party.  Surely this is something we can all agree on.

    But seeing as how my hands are happily clean, I cannot personally join you in your unintentionally revealed Lady MacBeth crisis.  No worries, though; there are plenty of others who join you in that department.

    Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Parent

    Stay Alert Glanton (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:21:38 PM EST
    has now extended his challenge...

    Way to go Stay Alert!!

    Parent

    Lady MacBeth Crisis? (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:28:10 PM EST
    No ppj loves the bloodstains. Unlike Lady MacBeth, ppj is not bothered with pesky things like ethics, morality or conscience.

    As long as it is my enemy's blood (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:20:21 PM EST
    I wear it with pride.



    Parent
    Squeaky (none / 0) (#99)
    by glanton on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:03:43 PM EST
    It's subconscious.  He doesn't know why he quotes Macbeth, it just comes out of him.  By now I'm sure he's spun it to fit his furtive, ersatz worldview.  

    You don't have to be a psycologist to understand that these people are carrying around a lot of buried guilt for the destruction they have wrought.  

    My 2 Cents anyway.

    Parent

    Kindness (1.00 / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:15:54 PM EST
    I find that a rather generous assessment though. Doesn't seem to me as if there is anyone home, just a dusty old bag of GOP talking points.

    But I do like your humanism, it speaks well of your character.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by glanton on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:33:24 PM EST
    On this site he once brilliantly explicated the lyrics to a Bob Seger song.  And, supposedly, he has not only children but grandchildren.  There is of course someone home, with him as with all of them, underneath their furious barrage of talking points and conceits.  

    But that just enhances the tragedy. Which ironically, is one of the primary issues in Macbeth.

    Parent

    In this thread (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by glanton on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:48:58 PM EST
    Jim writes:

    And no. I do not think that a man who will not wear an American Flag lapel pin should be President. H. O. Barrack has defined himself.

    Isn't he cute?

    The rest of us can only hope that such base ignorance in this country is severely limited in scope.  

    Durbin's Dream (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Himtngal on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:47:20 PM EST

    Sentor Durbin, have you no shame?  Allowing illegal aliens to attend a press conference by invitation is aiding and abetting. Rep. Tancredo is right on target when asking for encorement of our immigration laws.  Is it any wonder this Congress has an 11% approval rating?  Your Dream is our Nightmare!

    Tancredo's dream in my nightmare.... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 09:47:13 AM EST
    Now what do we do?  I say the best we could hope for is some kind of compromise as to where neither of us is caught in a nigtmare, but all our dreams are not realized.  You won't get hoardes of immigrants in the chains you desire, and I won't get the free movement of human beings I desire.

    We need some leaders who won't play our emotions to make it happen.


    Parent

    "Free movement" (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Pancho on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:57:11 AM EST
    Don't you mean "open borders?"

    No border=no country

    Parent

    Nonsense..... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:26:57 AM EST
    People were moving freely over that border until about 50 years or so ago....are you saying we didn't have a country till then?

    If by open borders you mean Joe Blow from Mexico or Canada can walk up to a crossing point, give his name and reason for crossing and be on his merry way...then yeah, I'm for open borders.

    Parent

    By open borders I mean (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Pancho on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:39:11 AM EST
    Joe Blow from Mexico Canada can move here and put his kids in our schools and collect food stamps.

    Parent
    See... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 10:08:33 AM EST
    we've got room for compromise.  You don't seem to be against people moving about freely, just that they use services without paying their share.  I've got no problem with people paying their share...though I think they pay more than you think they do.  For example, if they rent they indirectly pay property taxes, which funds schools.

    Bottom line, immigration laws and regs need to be overhauled.  The current laws and regs enable and encourage illegal immigration because they do not jive with the will of people and the marketplace. If Tancredo and his ilk, as well his bizarro counterparts on the pro-immigration side would stop with the overblown rhetoric and fear mongering maybe we could strike a compromise most everybody could live with.  

    Parent

    Fair share (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Pancho on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 10:23:57 AM EST
    One point that you miss or are not aware of is that the illegals pack multiple families into single family homes and also require bilingual education (or so we're told by our pandering politicians). So, NO, they are not even coming close to paying their fair share.

    This would be much more tolerable if I did not know that they send large sums to Mexico as well as spend money on things like custom (loud) mufflers for their cars. I have no problem helping the needy, but we are being played for fools.

    The impact of these huge expenses falls disproportionally on the lower income areas where they live, rather than on the higher income areas that may see the benefits of getting their homes cleaned ands lawns serviced.

    I've been told by less polite posters that the solution is for me to move. What is your solution?

    Parent

    I don't have one..... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 10:51:05 AM EST
    I see no easy solution anyway.

    In a global economy where corporations and investors are free to wire their money from Mexico City to Liberia, I believe a laborer must also be free to move to where the wages are highest.

    I'm open to any solution that doesn't involve inhumane ICE raids in the middle of the night like what was done by me in Nassau County recently, mass deportation of people in chains, and my beloved country becoming infested with informants calling ICE on their neighbors.  Those things I can't stomach, and it's the only solution knuckleheads like tancredo come up with. I'd rather the govt. do nothing at all.  

    Parent

    I can give you part of the solution (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Pancho on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    Right now, no matter what anyone says, there is a heavy burden imposed on the communities where they live.

    Any reform needs to address that issue by eliminating unfunded bilingual education mandates.

    Also, when my city tried to enforce overcrowding ordinances they were sued by activists claiming that the ordinance unfairly targeted Hispanics, who were the ones doing the overcrowding. That kind of ACLU crap has to stop.

    Parent

    The difference is in the numbers. (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:32:39 PM EST
    And the fact that 50 years ago there wasn't a political movement to "take back" the US SW.

    There was also a ready market for labor.

    That no longer exists.

    Parent

    Democrats were planning to hold a press conference today featuring three college students whose parents came to the United States illegally in order to promote the DREAM Act.
    it would have been much more neutral, factual and truthful to say:
    Democrats were planning to hold a press conference today featuring three college students who, along with their parents, came to the United States illegally in order to promote the DREAM Act.


    WTF (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:46:57 PM EST
    Reading difficulties, or did you just not bother to follow the link:

    All three of them [college students] have faced legal hurdles and potential deportation, but have been given temporary extensions that allow them to stay in the country.


    Parent
    I'm sorry, and my comment conflicts (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:20:49 PM EST
    with your quote exactly how?

    Parent
    I don't know... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:49:28 PM EST
    If a minor comes across the border with their parents, it's not like they have a choice.  Is it fair to label them illegal?  

    To me, that would be like calling the minor child of a bank robber waiting in the getaway car during a heist an accessory.

    And check this out..I was reading in the NY Daily News that 60 firefighters from Tijuana crossed the border to help their American brothers fight a blaze yesterday.  Good thing Tancredo wasn't around, he might have called ICE on 'em.

    Parent

    Fair point, however, (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:19:25 PM EST
    If a minor comes across the border with their parents, it's not like they have a choice.  Is it fair to label them illegal?
    are they still minors? If not, then I don't see the problem with calling them what they are.

    Parent
    Don't you think they were granted (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:29:53 PM EST
    the right to cross?

    Come on Kdog.

    Parent

    According to the article.... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:41:38 AM EST
    which wasn't too specific, they came across on their own accord, I'd assume following the fire.

    Don't worry though Jim, they went back across when that particular blaze was contained.

    The reason I brought it up is we need to never forget the human element of this issue....we aren't talking about illegal dvd bootlegs coming across the border, but flesh and blood.

    Parent

    What (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Pancho on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:56:14 PM EST
    could anyone have possibly done without hysterics and lawsuits from the ACLU?

    Could we have searched Moussaoui's computer or given greater scrutiny to young arab males at airports? You and the ACLU would have been out of your minds had we done that.

    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by kovie on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:25:52 PM EST
    And please stop spouting this "Liberals were to blame for 9/11 and stabbed us in the back in Iraq" nonsense. The FBI dropped the ball because Louie Freh was a freaking idiot who still thought that good investigative work was about beefy manly-men walking around in sturdy leather shoes with notepads and guns, ready to arrest or shoot the bad guys. He actively resisted efforts to get him to modernize the FBI and its computer systems, and despite the great work done by lower-level field agents and other law enforcement officials, the folks who worked for him back at headquarters and running the field offices refused to connect the dots or listen to the lower-level people. None of this was Clinton or the ACLU's or Che Guavera's fault. It was the fault of stupid careerist beaurocrats who didn't want to jeapordize their careers by taking any initiative.

    The idea that the ACLU prevented the FBI from seriously investigating reports of strange men from the mideast with no prior flight experience paying for lessons to fly but not take off or land 747s with loads of cash, is beyond ludicrous. 9/11 happened, to the extent that it could have been prevented, because career managers at the FBI and other agencies dropped the ball. If this was in any way Clinton's fault, then so be it. I'm not here to defend Clinton. But to blame the ACLU, and by implication the constitution, just shows where you're coming from.

    I fully expect your side to loudly spout this rancid crap for years to come, of course. It'll be your main rallying cry as you try to rebuild your tattered party and movement after it gets crushed in '08, upon largely nativist, racist, nationalist, anti-constitutional grounds, blaming the libs, illegals, gays and such for all that you feel is wrong with America--never once looking in the mirror, or being honest about what you see when you do. Shades of late Weimar Germany...

    We'll be ready this time. Trust me on that.

    Parent

    gesh (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:09:52 PM EST
    As for bombings in WWII and Vietnam, well, you conveniently forget Dresden, Cologne, Berline, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and other cities, which had no appreciable military or industrial value

    Nope, I didn't forget them. They were all part of the country's infrastructure.

    As for the A bomb, that was a simple exercise in saving some 100,000 US soldiers lives by showing the  Japanese that we could absolutely destroy them.

    It worked, too! You have a problem with that?

    Why yes. You obviously do.

    BTW - Are you rational? I made no mention of the following:

    The idea that the ACLU prevented the FBI from seriously investigating reports of strange men from the mideast with no prior flight experience paying for lessons to fly but not take off or land 747s with loads of cash, is beyond ludicrous.

    You rant and make claims and don't support them.

    The Japanese have a pejorative comment that describes people like you.

    "He is not a serious person."

    Now. Go tell somebody who will believe you that to have a degree in history. You have demonstrated that you are just another Leftie who doesn't provide links because his arguments aren't supported by facts.

    Parent

    And what are YOU talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by kovie on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:19:09 PM EST
    I wasn't responding to you re the ACLU. Are you delusional?

    Also, odd how you have no regard for the lives of Japanese, and yet revere their sayings. How transparently sociopathic. I mean that literally.

    And please support the contention that rows of apartment houses in the various cities I named were part of their "country's infrastructure". By "infrastructure, do you mean living, breathing civilians, including children, and their domiciles? No wonder Hiroshima and Nagasaki bother you not in the slightest. Even people who supported dropping the bomb on them had deep feelings of guilt over it. As is only fitting for anyone who can be considered to be fully human. But I guess that that wouldn't concern a sociopath.

    Social liberal, eh?

    Also, not sure what facts I'm supposed to back up? What part of the part of my comment that you thought was addressed to you (but wasn't) do I need to back up? Seems to me that the person (that I WAS responding to) needs to back up their assertion that the FBI's fear of the ACLU was what allowed 9/11 to happen.

    Parent

    Rovie rants and I reply with facts and links. (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 09:40:19 AM EST
    Also, odd how you have no regard for the lives of Japanese,

    Got some proof?? I mean like a link?? Oh, you mean my approval of the A bombs??

    Well, you see given the Japanese culture re 1945 an actual invasion would have killed many more people than the two A bombs. It would have also destroyed more of the country, etc.

    Didn't you claim to be a history major??

    If you want to do some historical study/research, you can go back in time and note how the fate of the "civilian populace" has changed over time. Rape, pillage and plunder gradually was replaced with standing armies that stood breast to breast and shot at each other with large caliber rifles.
    Viewing battles was actually somewhat of a spectator sport.

    What is mostly missed in that is the interruption in commerce and the resulting civilian deaths by starvation, disease, etc., yet the "infrastructure's" damage was somewhat limited. Some even argue that the 100 years war could have been over much quicker had the opposing forces fought "total war."

    The attitude in the west started to change during our Civil war when Sherman burned Atlanta and marched through to the sea burning and destroying as he went. He then turned and captured Columbia and burned much of it. Cruel? Yes. But many credit it with shortening the war.

    With the invention of the airplane and the ability to deliver destruction and death to the civilian populace the circle was complete, although the rape and pillage was mostly suppressed. The Germans have the honor of being first, but it is the US and England who perfected it.

    The heavy bombing of Dresden and Berlin was part of a strategy to hamper the German's efforts to reinforce their eastern front which was being attacked by the Soviets.

    The list sent back to him included oil plants, tank and aircraft factories and the cities of Berlin and Dresden. In the discussions which followed, the Western Allies pointed out that
    unless Dresden was bombed as well, the Germans could route rail traffic through Dresden to compensate for any damage caused to Berlin and Leipzig.
    Antonov agreed and requested that Dresden be added to his list of requests.

    Link

    I trust that aids your understanding and knowledge. Did you study WWII in your classes?

    Of course it was the bomb you decry that actually turned out to suppress "total" war. Mutally Assured Destruction - MAD - kept the peace between the Soviets and NATO until the Soviets collapsed.
    (Yes, there were limited proxy wars.)

    We are now facing a war based on cultural and religious differences fueled by the radical Moslems. It is an asymmetrical war that has one side, the radical Moslems, relying on terror attacks and mostly limited in weapons, while the US has decided to limit its weapons in an attempt to limit damage and win the hearts and minds... etc. That is terrible strategy on our part and we can not win with it.

    So yes, I am a social liberal concerned about the US, and if possible, the rest of the world.  But the US first because I am a citizen, and secondly because without our leadership western civilization will be in danger of collapsing in the not too distant future.

    BTW - I find it amusing that you bring up the fact that it is generally accepted that the claim maker is responsible of providing proof.

    It is very delicious to note that you have provided NO links to your various claims.

    Which proves that you don't want to debate, just attack and rant.

    However, in the interest of accuracy, it was not fear of the ACLU which stopped the examination of the infamous hard drive, but a dogged following of policy which had been highlighted by Jamie Gorelick from the Clinton administration in a memo  that has been much discussed.

    Link

    The water has been further muddied by the inclusion of claims that the memo didn't hamper the FBI sharing info with the DOJ.

    Perhaps not, but the fact is that it prevented the FBI from examining the hard drive. Had they done that I am confident they would have told whoever needed to know what was on the drive.

    So have a nice day, Kovie. But do start taking a few minutes and providing some links to prove your "points." It will help your credibility immensely.

    And the library will be open til 5PM today. Why don't you use it??

    Parent

    Blood on Jim's hands (none / 0) (#92)
    by glanton on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 10:02:57 AM EST
    He knows the spot won't come out.

    Parent
    As long as it is my enemy's blood (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:20:21 PM EST
    I wear it with pride.

    Parent
    I agree with this: (none / 0) (#89)
    by Pancho on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 11:41:49 PM EST
    It was the fault of stupid careerist beaurocrats who didn't want to jeapordize their careers by taking any initiative.

    but there is no way that people like you or the ACLU would have allowed us to scrutinize young Muslim men as we should have and should now. Blame Jamie Gorelick for "The Wall", which stopped the search of Moussaoui's computer, although I'll send that back to your point about bureaucrats not having the balls to do it anyways.

    Parent

    bully? (none / 0) (#1)
    by diogenes on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 07:25:09 PM EST
    If the Dream law is a good thing, then pass it.  If you think that the feds shouldn't enforce laws currently on the books about deporting illegal aliens, then vote to grant a blanket amnesty rather than ignore the law.  

    Bully? (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 07:29:54 PM EST
    Next time you get pulled over for speeding, try explaining to the officer that there are rea; crimes he could be stopping, and that he's being a bully.

    Bad bill, bad policy (none / 0) (#3)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:14:48 PM EST
    We can't allow people to come here illegally expecting that they can receive benefits because of their race. Not to mention that many of those who come here illegally think they have some sort of claim on our land.

    Please call your Senators and tell them NO, and ask your friends to do the same.

    The details of this massive amnesty are listed here and here.

    This is the same LeMayite (none / 0) (#4)
    by kovie on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:43:49 PM EST
    Who called for the nuking of Mecca and Medina. Nuff said. Up to a quarter of the country appears to agree with him. That's far more worrisome.

    Telephone games (none / 0) (#7)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:15:53 AM EST
    I was thinking earlier today that how MediaMatters spreads their smears is with knowledge of the effect of the "game of telephone". They'll print a smear - leaving out vital facts and/or context - and one person will tell a slightly different tale, with that person telling someone else a slightly different tale, until the smear has transformed into more or less of a fabrication.

    Thus it is with this comment. Tancredo said that we might attack those cities as a response to nuclear weapons going off in several U.S. cities. Obviously, this is an updated version of MAD, and one wonders what the Democratic response would be to hundreds of thousands of Americans having been incinerated. Most likely appeal to the U.S. to issue a strongly-worded condemnation of the attack.

    Parent

    yeah, that media matters, (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by cpinva on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:01:01 AM EST
    spreading their smears by quoting people. how could they, the cads! what tancredo didn't bother with, was finding out who actually might be responsible for said blasts. personally, i think that's kind of important.

    unfortunately, in this case tancredo is on the right side of the law. it was a stupid idea for a stunt, that blew back in their faces.

    Parent

    UN, not U.S. (none / 0) (#8)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:17:05 AM EST
    Should be:

    "Most likely appeal to the UN to issue a strongly-worded condemnation of the attack."

    Parent

    Let me get this straight (none / 0) (#10)
    by kovie on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:20:44 AM EST
    Several nukes go off in US cities, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and without knowing if they were planted by Saudi Arabia, where these two cities are located, we nuke the two holiest cities in Islam, which also happen to be of zero military value? This is supposed to somehow comfort me about Tancredo's incredible stupidity, recklessness, bigotry and vileness?!? The man is INSANE!

    This sounds like it's straight out of the same peanut gallery mindset (of which you are clearly a charter member) that decided that the best response to 9/11 was to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (and please, spare me the CT's about WMD being secreted in the dead of night to Syria and Salman Pak and all that other rancid idiocy that Redstaters talk about when they're waiting for mommy to bring down the cookies and milk).

    And they wonder why they're down to 24%.

    And btw, Democrats won both world wars, ordered the only two nuclear attacks in history, got the US into Korea and Vietnam, arguably prevented WWIII in the Cuban Missle Crisis, and ended the strife in the Balkans, bringing down a dictator in the process. What did your guys do, overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran, help kill tens of thousands of Central and South Americans and millions of Southeast Asians, defeat the mighty Grenadine military, fail to capture the men behind 9/11, bomb Afghanistan back into the pre-stone age, and start a total catastrophe of an unnecessary war? Way to go, Pubs!

    Oh yeah, one of them did a commendable job in Desert Storm. But he wasn't a wingnut like his son, and I guess that the exception proves the rule: Pubs today don't know jack about foreign policy or the military. Once again, you guys prove that you talk tough but have zero follow-through. The Baghdad Bob of politics and policy. Boneless chickenhawks to the core.

    Parent

    Rovie forgets (1.00 / 2) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 09:14:22 AM EST
    Calling the Democrats of today the Democrats of WWII is laughable.

    If you want to compare them, please show me where the Senate Majority leader said the war was lost, the Senator from Illinois (or any state) declared our troops to be Nazis or any Senator said the troops were in the military because they were stupid.

    I also don't think any of them would have refused to wear a US flag lapel pin. Or remain a Senator and a Democratic candidate for anything if they had done so.

    You are a perfect example of someone who knows nothing of history yet wants to take credit for the actions of giants and heroes.

    Taking the nuclear option off the table is beyond ignorant, it endangers the country. We are engaged in an asymmetrical war, and while it is argued that SA, Iran, Syria, et al, do not not control the radical Moslems in their midst, in point of fact they have a great deal of control. The thought of having their cities turned into glass should we be attacked should be a powerful motivator for them to do the right thing and destroy the disease they are enabling and exporting.

    And the nexus for the current problem wasn't Desert Storm, but your Democratic President Jimmy Carter's foreign policy in he ME, especially Iran that created an atmosphere for terrorist attacking the US with the expectation that we would do nothing. That Bush the elder stirred a hornet's nest and didn't finish the job was a continuum of a series of mistakes, further enhanced by Clinton's inability to come to completion in the war, and specifically his failure to arrest bin Ladin when he was handed to him, and his inability  to act in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Perhaps OBL should have been dressed in a blue dress and made to smoke a cigar. They could have, if nothing else, met for lunch in a Little Rock Chinese restaurant where he could bribed OBL with an offer to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom.

    I suggest you contact a local junior college and enroll in some history classes.

    Parent

    I have a history degree from (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kovie on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:35:09 PM EST
    a very well-respected university, where they tought us to seek out and respect the actual facts, and not what we might want them to be. I am quite comfortable with my knowledge of history--especially compared to someone such as yourself, who knows nothing of it.

    I do agree with you that today's Dems are a pale imitation of past Dems. No argument there. But that's probably the only thing we agree on. And I would also remind you that today's Pubs are NOTHING like yesterday's Pubs, especially the most admirable of them such as Lincoln, TR and Eisenhower. Today's Pubs are neofascist corporatist chickenhawks. To even pretend otherwise is simply laughable. They almost ALL despise the constitution, work as elected lobbyists, and support endless wars despite never having served themselves. The rare exceptions merely prove the rule.

    But again, you LIE, in too many ways to list. Reid declared the war lost because it IS lost, and anyone who thinks that it can be "won", is an armchair chickenhawk idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about--the idea that we can defeat the insurgents is laughable. It's never been done short of all-out genocide (e.g. Caesar in Gaul). Is this what you're suggesting by saying that we shouldn't leave the nuclear option off the table? If so, then you're a genocidal lunatic in addition to being a liar, idiot, coward and troll.

    But tell me, how do we "win" this war, and what does "victory" even mean? You got any concrete thoughts on that beyond those idiotic slogans that your side keeps spouting such as "surrender is not an option"? Seriously, how do we "win" this?

    Again, Durbin did NOT call "the troops" Nazis, but said that a few of them engaged in Nazi-like tactics. How was he in any way wrong here? Are you suggesting that what they did wasn't Nazi-like, or are you simply saying that calling this out was wrong, even if was true? Again having problems with the truth, are you?

    What is it about inconvenient truths that your side seem to have such a problem with, that you need to deny them so massively? It's quite sad, really, but also laughable.

    Kerry called Bush stupid, or are you still too stupid to get that? Or just lying, once again?

    I don't take credit for anyone's actions, but merely refuting your assertions that Dems have never been strong on defense.

    But why am I bothering? You're an idiot, a liar, a coward and a troll, and you know nothing about history, war, foreign policy or national defense. Your entire thoughts about these are that so long as we keep killing Muslims, and threaten to kill many more, we'll be ok. (And you probably call yourself a Christian--hah!). You're a fascist--and an armchair one at that, who doesn't have the guts to enlist and join in the Most Glorious Crusade to Rid the World of the Greatest Threat to Western Civilization in History! At least have the honesty to admit it.

    Parent

    Did your (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:59:03 PM EST
    "very well-respected university" teach you anything about the amnesty of 1986 and how none of the enforcement measures were followed?

    This is a thinly veiled mass amnesty for millions.

    Parent

    I have no idea what you're talking about (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by kovie on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:47:24 PM EST
    since this has nothing to do with this subthread about Tancredo's call to nuke Mecca and Medina and various other wingnut idiocies. You're redirecting.

    Parent
    If you actually have a (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:18:50 PM EST
    degree in history from ANY university I will be totally surprised based on your unreasoned comments and inability to not make risible comments comparing Demos then and now. It was so easy I actually was a little embarrassed to zap you on that.

    And your inability to understand that the vast majority of ALL politicians will feather their nest reflects a naive outlook unmarked by the realty of experience.

    And your continued declaration of the word "lie" only adds to the picture of an sophomore student who doesn't understand that the use of such a claim, when it is refuted, makes the user look very bad. Trust me. I will do so.

    You write:

    I don't take credit for anyone's actions, but merely refuting your assertions that Dems have never been strong on defense.

    Using WWII examples doesn't prove that point. It smacks of someone who thinks they are smarter than everyone else and who doesn't know history and tries to slip a misleading concept in.

    The real question is, what have the Demos done lately? Besides surrender I mean.

    Durbins comments were what they were. Look at what  Aljazeera told the Moslem world:

    A US senator has refused to apologise for comparing the actions of US soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis, while others have decried or defended the mandate and method used to hold prisoners there.

    Do you opine that his statement was NOT helpful to our enemies?? (And yes, he later tearfully apologized. By then it was too late.)

    BTW - Do you actually think our actions should be compared to Pol Pot, the Soviets Gulag or the Holocaust on the Jews by Nazi Germany?? If you do, please tell me what university you graduated from.
    I want to make sure that my Grandchildren do not attend such a school.

    BTW - Such statements as:

     is an armchair chickenhawk idiot

    Parent

    hit post too early (1.00 / 2) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    is laughable at all times when it is apparent you have never been in the military.

    BTW - I spent 10 years in Naval Aviation. Was I wrong when I wrote you have never served?? I don't think I was.

    In the meantime, keep floundering about. You are going to be fun to have around.

    Parent

    You want to stand with the Nazi-like guards (none / 0) (#49)
    by kovie on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:05:14 PM EST
    at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, be my guest. Just shows that you haven't learned the lessons of the history that you claim to know so well or have much of a conscience. Sounds like you have a special fondness for torture. Makes you feel all warm and special inside, doesn't it?

    What have the Dems done lately? They won a war in the Balkans. What have Pubs done lately? Failed to prevent the worst attack on US soil and engaged in two clearly disasterous and massively failed wars. What is it about the word "failure" that you don't understand? You're yet to make a single point supporting your contention that the war is not lost and can be won, despite my asking about to do this repeatedly. Like all trolls, you attack instead of defend, because you know that you've got nothing to defend.

    But Dems are generally smart enough to not get the US into unnecessary wars, let alone without a plan or sufficient troops and equipment. Vietnam unfortunately tought them that (and I bet you're fool enough to believe that we should have fought that war and could have won it).

    I also like the way you despise freedom of speech. What other parts of the constitution do you hate and feel are unnecessary? I bet it's not the 2nd amendment--as interpreted by you, no doubt. If you think that the US is so weak that words spoken by a politician that don't divulge state secrets might actually hurt its security, you further prove what a constitution-hating fool you are.

    And yes, clearly the US has committed acts that compare to those of Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler, if not in number, then certainly in type. Or do you deny the slaughter of millions of Indians, enslavement of Africans, firebombing and nuking of hundreds of thousands of innocent Germans and Japanese in WWII, and bombing of  similar numbers in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia? Or do you simply deny the evil that this was?

    You were a naval aviator and have grandkids, eh? Dropped a few on those "gooks", did ya? Now it all makes sense.

    I just love the way you devalue all human life except that of people you like, and your foreign policy, which basically consists of killing people in mass numbers to create the illusion of keeping you safe. I'll let you decide what that says about you.

    Again, I benefitted from a reality-based education that was based on facts, not right-wing propaganda about how the US is always right no matter what. And unlike you, I actually respect the constitution and what the US is supposed to stand for, not your weird, Naziesque version of it.

    Sieg Heil, dude.

    Parent

    Rovie (1.00 / 2) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 10:16:27 AM EST
    What a troll you are. Nothing factual just claims.
    Let's look at them. First, you want to claim that Bush was responsible for not stopping 9/11.

    Let's look at some historical facts:

    December 5, 2001 By MANSOOR IJAZ
    President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
    I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

    That would have been in the year 2000.

    LA Times

    Bill Clinton denies it now, but he once admitted he passed up an opportunity to extradite Osama bin Laden.

    And NewsMax has the former President making the claim on audiotape. [You can listen to the tape yourself] -- Click Here

    Link to site and then lick on the link to hear Clinton claim that he didn't think he had a reason to arrest him. HAHAHAHAAHA

    What did Clinton's NSA, Richard Clarke say?

    Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

    So Clinton did nothing about al-Qaida because they couldn't aid the Northern Alliance because they couldn't work with Pakistan. Ergo. OBL had a free ride and hiding place courtesy of Bill Clinton's policies and his failures.

    So, what did Bush do when he came into office? Did he dither? No. Again from Clinton's NSA:

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February (2001), uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

    QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

    CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process

    When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

    Richard Clarke Link

    Now. Let's remember the August 8 PDB that the Left   likes to make so much about. The problem is, all of that was old news:

    "At the special meeting on July 5 (2001) were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    Link

    Guess your schooling missed that, eh?? You complain, but what a reasonable person will come away from that is that the Clinton Administration could have picked up OBL and aided/attacked the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan but didn't because of problems with Pakistan that had existed for over two years and a failure to understand the threat. Put another way, they took a law enforcement approach that said we have to be attacked before we can respond.

    That doesn't work with terrorists. That "stand and wait" philosophy led straight to 9/11 and enabled the terrorists.

    The same reasonable person will see a President who was immediately engaged with the problem and increased resources and told his staff to get busy and fix the problem.

    And they will also see a President who had his NSA call all of the security agencies together and warn them, just over two months prior to 9/11, that an attack was expected.

    See Rovie? You don't know the history, just what your buds have been telling you.

    Now. On top your other false claims.

    I also like the way you despise freedom of speech

    Provide some proof. You can't and you know it. So what you have done is make another false claim.

    And then you launch into attacking the country:

    And yes, clearly the US has committed acts that compare to those of Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler, if not in number, then certainly in type.

    heh. So your contention is that bombing in Germany and Japan was the same as Pol Pot killing people who wore glasses. Or Stalin's forced resettlement of the millions of peasant farmers. Or Hitler's killing of 6 million Jews.

    The bombing was to do two things:

    1. Reduce their ability to wage war by destroying factories and infrastructure.

    2. Thus ending the war sooner and save the lives of the Allied soldiers who were engaged in trying to get rid of Hitler.

    Uh, did you get the part about "save the lives of the Allied soldiers...?"

    Or do you even care about them?

    I find your blather regarding the NA's and blacks instructive of your general level of understanding. Watch my lips.

    None of us existing today are responsible for anything, bad or good, done by our ancestors. To claim otherwise is to believe that Time Travel exists and we are continually going back in time to do evil things.

    I find your attempt to place blame on us illogical but demonstrable of the self-blame culture so prevalent among many on the Left.

    But to help you get a better understanding of the situation I recommend you get a copy of a book titled, "The Contested Plains." The author's name(s) escapes me, but it was published by the University of Kansas Press.

    If your school's library doesn't have it, check with your local high school.

    You will find that among the excellent points it makes is that the NA's terrorities were poorly defined and subject to change quite easily. In fact, the tribes had been displacing each other for some 10,000 years.

    On a personal basis I think it plain that the NA's ran into another society/culture that was very aggressive and more technological advanced that wanted what the NA's had. And took it.

    Just as we will be displaced and our culture lost if we continue with self-hatred and don't defend our borders and cultures.

    And then we come to this.

    If you think that the US is so weak that words spoken by a politician

    You claim to be a history major, yet you apparently have no understanding of how the morale of the troops and the enemy is affected by words. Especially words of supposed leaders.

    So let's look at Vietnam, and how the actions of the Left were treasured by  North Vietnam:

    Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young,  a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist  [in The Wall Street Journal, 3 August 1995]. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975

    Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
    A:  It was essential to our strategy.  Support of the war from our rear was completely secure  while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.  to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence  that we should hold on  in the face of battlefield reverses.

    Link

    Now. To the war. Unlike that noted warrior and military guru, Harry Reid, I make no great claim as to what I "know." But I do think I know more than you, and I certainly know that Reid's comments, and Durbin's and all of the other "we lost - we bad" comments are studied closely by the leaders of the Radical Moslem Terrorists. Just as the comments of the war protesters and lily livered politicians were watched by the leaders of the North Vietnamese.

    Again, a reasonable person would say that if the North Vietnamese were encouraged by such statements, then so are the Radical Moslem Terrorists.

    Can we overcome this handicap and win?

    I think we can. The surge is working, and deaths are down. As I type this I heard on the TV that for the first time since the war started there were no deaths in Anbar Province. But, I again don't claim to be an expert.

    Was that elite school you attended West Point? Naval Academy? Air Force Academy?

    As to your:

    You were a naval aviator

    Yes. I was in Naval Aviation for 10 years. I have made no other comment about my service.

    Again. Did you serve?

    Finally, I am not a Repub or a conservative. I am an Independent who is a Social Liberal. My comments in support of national health care, gay rights, minority rights, tax reform, drug law reform, etc are well documented in the archives of this blog. I am also a strong believer in national defense and understand that we are engaged in a long war with an aggressive, intelligent and violent enemy who is motivated by a warped view of the Islamic religion. I oppose Bush's social polices but support his war efforts 110%.

    BTW - I note you never provide any links to information that support your points.

    History shows that those that do not are not paid a lot of attention.

    Have a wonderful day. And don't forget those history classes at your local junior college.

    Parent

    Holy mother of God (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 12:04:30 PM EST
    Jim aka:Bandwidth manages to revisit (yet again), Hanoi Jane, "Im a social liberal", ten years in Naval Aviation, The Contested Plains etc all in the same post.

    A regular career retrospective.

    Lets examine more closely pokerputz's less-than-junior-college-level historical acumen more closely, shall we?

    The Contested Plains plains argument says, basically, that if some Indians had previously displaced other tribes as a consequence of warfare, then any degree of barbarism and treachery inflicted on those same Indians later on by whites is somehow excusable (meaningful discussions of morality never entering into it),i.e., committing rape and murder is o.k as long as you can prove that the victim's grandfather did the same thing.

    So much for the deformed moral compass that accompanies the Bob Jones level scholarship.

    Likewise, our resident (idiot) savant can bypass the the historical reality that the Vietnamese had been fighting for their independence (promised by Roosevelt) for decades, were battle-hardened after helping drive out the Japanese and defeating the French, and fixate on the Rush/Hannity school of historical analysis which has determined that the U.S's defeat was the result of the Left "emboldening the enemy".

    Of course, if hell-bent-for-leather warriors like Jim had gone over there, instead of passively emboldening the enenemy, maybe things would've turned out differently, but probobly not.

    And again, of course, any meaningful disussion of the moral component of the events under discussion dosnt merit any further attention. In this topsy-turvy, Talk Radio bizarro world, all wars involving the good ole U.S of A are basically the same and all you need to know is love it 'r leave it, dadgummit!

    Lit' Jim, Pat Robertson and Dubya do the thankin'.

    Parent

    I agree with all your points (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kovie on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:54:40 PM EST
    Except to note that he's actually not unintelligent. Quite the contrary, in fact. He actually puts together an argument--a dishonest, illogical, and quite reprehensible one, of course, but an argument nonetheless. And whenever a wingnut can do this, and rise above the level of your typical mouth-breating, glue-eating, nose-picking, pajamas-wearing momma's boy Bushie, it gives one hope that maybe all is not hopeless on the cuckoo side of the aisle.

    As Bush might say: My wingnuts do learn!

    Neoconservatism--which our troll friend clearly subscribes to--is such a moral and mental disease. I can only guess that most of those who subscribe to it suffer from some sort of early life trauma that left them feeling powerless and violated, and this ideology and movement represents some sort of salve for or escape from that trauma, as drugs and alcohol do for others. After all, domestic and especially child abuse--of which neoconservatism is really just the ideological and political manifestation of--tends to propogate itself from generation to generation. So if someone abused you when you were young, if you don't get treatment or otherwise deal with it on your own, chances are that you'll do this to others yourself as an adult, be it physically, emotionally, or politically. Neoconservatism is nothing more and nothing less than the political, military and ideological worldview of people who feel hurt and powerless, and deal with it by trying to bully and hurt others, and deprive them of power. It's so blatantly obvious. And just look at its key players, and how they all fit the profile.

    Personally, although I don't approve of it either, I'm more comfortable with a guy who deals with his demons by chasing skirts while in elected office, than by killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, so he can feel empowered and finally lord it all over daddy--and secure mommy's love and affection for all time. So Oedipal, so creepy, so vile. Same goes for his followers--get some help, please!

    Parent

    Sigh...... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 07:59:27 PM EST
    that if some Indians had previously displaced other tribes as a consequence of warfare, then any degree of barbarism and treachery inflicted on those same Indians later on by whites is somehow excusable

    It's obvious you haven't read the book.

    The point is simply given as a fact. It has nothing to do with right or wrong.

    The South Vietnamese had their liberty. The North wanted to make them communists.

    Can you see the difference. (To myself: No, he can't.)

    Parent

    Lapel Pins (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by glanton on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 07:55:44 PM EST
    I also don't think any of them would have refused to wear a US flag lapel pin. Or remain a Senator and a Democratic candidate for anything if they had done so.

    Really? Nobody ever got elected in the Democratic primaries in the 20th century without wearing one?  Oh, that's right.  It wasn't a fad yet.  Congratulations, you've been reduced to snarking over a brooch.  

    Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Parent

    Stay alert Glanton managed to miss (1.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:20:21 PM EST
    It was during WWII.

    Now, oh Stay Alert One, tell me that a Senator taking off an American Flag pin that he had been wearing would have:

    1. Happened

    2. Been acceptable if it had.


    Parent
    Because they wore it for a time (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by glanton on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:46:53 PM EST
    Means they have to wear it always?  Otherwise they're breaking some patriotism test. It's now okay to see it as Obama "refusing to wear" the lapel pin, the flag, the brooch on their suits for God's sake, as though this were a viable issue of some sort?

    That said, if you're gonna speak to it,then say something real.  How long should they wear the brooches, thou purveyer of lapel pin decore, before it's okay to take them off?

    Hmmmmm?

    Parent

    Watch my lips oh Alert One. (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:14:18 PM EST
    My response was to Rovie's comment re WWII Demos.

    That was the context. What would happen to a WWII Demo Senator should he remove an American Flag lapel pin.

    Try and concentrate on that and think.

    Parent

    What would happen indeed? (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by glanton on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:08:59 PM EST
    People who would vote against a candidate because he takes off a brooch deserve everything bad that they get, politically.  This was true then, when it was a real war. And it is certainly true now.  Only the petty and ignorant truly concern themselves with such drivel.  And of course, the hyper-aware.

    You only brought up the brooch thang to try and make some sort of contrast regarding Old Dems/New Dems, one that of course reflects badly on the post-Jesse Helms Dems.  Because we have a new Dem who no longer wears the brooch he used to wear.

    I can't believe you would really, deep down, be so base as to think it's a transgression to take off a brooch.  You who profess to love America.

    Because as far as I can tell, nobody who would write of removing the lapel pin as a transgression, has muich ground to stand on, exhorting someone else to think.

    I have challenged you, by the way, to join me in condemning people who would exploit jewelry as a political tool.  That you will not do this speaks volumes.

    Stay alert.

    Parent

    Sarcasm? (1.00 / 2) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 10:19:37 AM EST
    Or has your Alterness failed you??

    tehe

    Parent

    So you won't join me? (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by glanton on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:58:36 PM EST
    Come on, I thought this is something we could all agree on.  You won't join me in condemning the exploitation of innocent jewelry for political purposes?

    I repeat.  That you will not join speaks volumes.

    (p.s. the brooches are crass.  hey look at me middle america im wearing a flag on my heart, i fit in.  me, im signing off deeply saddened that you would take it seriously, let alone fall for it head over heels.  but then i guess that's what you get for staying alert, and staying with fox).

     

    Parent

    Don't forget those car magnets! (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by kovie on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:35:10 PM EST
    Which are perhaps our most powerful weapon against the Evil Islamofascist Jihadis Who Would Utterly Destroy Western Civilization And All Things Pure and Jesus Like Funnel Cakes And NASCAR And SUVs and McMansions and Professional Wrestling. Ooh! What patriots people are for slapping them on their Hummers! The Evil Ones are quaking in their burkas and caves!

    On which topic, check this out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsOIjzQ1V8

    Exactly.

    Parent

    Gee.... you finally provide a link. (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 09:43:19 AM EST
    but not as a prover of fact, but as an attack.

    How drool.

    Do you send cartoons to your creditors when they demand proof of payment??

    Can you spell reality? Ever visit it?

    Parent

    Just like a wingnut (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by kovie on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:13:24 PM EST
    to fixate on meaningless symbols while actual people are paying the ultimate price for your side's lunacy out in the real world. You know, the one outside your wood-panelled den with the posters of Curtis LeMay and Joe McCarthy, where you go to watch Fox and listen to Rush and read your little Regnery library?

    How does Cheney's putting on a lapel pin make him a patriot? And how does getting five consecutive deferments in a war that he supported make him a patriot? Same for Bush, Rush, Kristol, and just about every other chickenhawk moron you bow down to every day. Interesting how you conveniently duck the glaring reality that far more Dems served--honorably--than Pubs.

    But the truth is usually inconvenient for you guys, of course, which is why you hide behind empty symbols like lapel pins and slogans like "defeat is not an option". Whatever. Enjoy the Kool Aid.

    Parent

    Rovie - Thanks for the giggles! (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 11:43:00 AM EST
    You know, I think you are Paul in LA come back in disguise.... (Note to the long beards around here. How's that for a blast from the past??)

    Tell you what. I'll trade you a Che poster I found at the local city dump for a "Rudy in 2008."

    Speaking of that. Here's a snap shot of one of the Left's hero's.

    "'What did you do?' We asked horrified. 'I tried to defend my papa,' gasped the bloodied boy. 'I tried to keep these Communist sons of b**tches form murdering him! But they sent him to the firing squad.'"

    'I said, KNEEL DOWN!' Che barked again.

    "The boy stared Che resolutely in the face. 'If you're going to kill me,' he yelled. 'you'll have to do it while I'm standing! MEN die standing!'

    "And then we saw Che unholstering his pistol. It didn't seem possible. But Che raised his pistol, put the barrel to the back of the boy's neck and blasted. The shot almost decapitated the young boy.

    Are you sure you want the poster?

    As you know, the lapel pin comment was pointing how the modern Demos have abandoned the principles of national defense so wisely embraced by the Demos of WWII. You even said:

    I do agree with you that today's Dems are a pale imitation of past Dems.

    And no. I do not think that a man who will not wear an American Flag lapel pin should be President. H. O. Barrack has defined himself.

    As for your attacks on Cheney, be my guest. I don't care.

    But, are you saying that you must have been in the military to be worthy of being in the Government?
    Now, if you say that, does that mean that you can't comment if you haven't served? Well, there goes 99% of the Left's side of the blogosphere.

    Good bye dear ones! It has been fun! We will miss your sparkling prose! Maybe the newspapers will publish your rants. ;-)

    The issue isn't what you did in the past, but what you are doing now.

    Kerry proved that when, after serving honorably in Vietnam, came home and dishonored himself and the US military in total.

    And it rightfully cost him the Presidentancy.

    Murtha has also traded honorable service for unacceptable comments about the military.

    Link

    Tehehe

    BTW - Where are the links to prove all of these points???

    Parent

    I kneel before my Lenin poster every day (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by kovie on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:11:59 PM EST
    right next to the ones of Stalin, Marx, Engels and Fidel.

    Don't you guys ever give up with the straw men? WTF is eating you up inside that you need to resort to such idiotic distortions and black and white thinking? I.e. either you 110% support Bush and Cheney's war, or you're a radical Trotskyite. Please, enough, you're killing me with you idiocy.

    I have no idea who PFLA is or was, and am not him.

    How does wearing a flag pin make one patriotic? And how does not wearing one make one not patriotic? Still haven't answered either? We're fighting wars and defending the "homeland" with symbols now? And we're enforcing loyalty oaths now, Mr. McCarthy? So if I wear one, I'm suddenly a great and glorious patriot too?!?

    And btw, not that you care, but within minutes of hearing about 9/11--I was living in NYC at the time, in Manhattan, and had previously worked in WTC7--I put up a small American flag on my apartment window, and kept it there until I moved out half a year later--in fact I kept it up there, for the next resident. Didn't make me some hero or great patriot, though. I just felt that it was the right thing to do, and my choice, and I didn't think any less of anyone who didn't do this. We still live in a free country, no?

    And btw, Bush evaded not only his military service, but his evasion of military service--in a war that he strongly supported. He was doubly a coward. As was Cheney, and with the exception of Powell, as were just about all the other neocons who launched this war. I didn't say that military service was a necessary qualification for being in politics, per se, just that it does make one's advocating a war of choice somewhat more credible. Any moron can figure that one out.

    Love how you clumsily twist words to match your "argument". Just like a troll.

    Are you sure that you're living in the right country? You know, the one that has a constitution that guarantees freedom of speech? Because you clearly seem to have a problem with the first amendment. Heh, who's the totalitarian?

    Parent

    Rovie trolls (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:28:32 PM EST
    I have no idea who PFLA is or was, and am not him

    I believe you.  He was smarter.  ;-)

    Freedom of speech?? Well, we are both flapping our gums. BTW - You are not being accurate.

    I challenge you to show where I have denied you, or anyone, the right to speak.

    Now. Put up or shut up. The blog's archives are available. Use them.

    And btw, not that you care, but within minutes of hearing about 9/11--I was living in NYC at the time, in Manhattan, and had previously worked in WTC7-

    You are correct. I don't care. I didn't care when H.O. Barrick put his on, or when he took it off.
    It was the fact that he had to tell everyone he had that defined him, and the people he was trying to impress.

    Did you also know Dan Rather? Have a relationship with a few dozen firefighters? Jet's season tickets??

    Are you getting the idea I don't believe anything you say? If not, let me be specific. I don't believe you.

    And btw, Bush evaded not only his military service, but his evasion of military service-

    Wrong again. When Bush signed up for pilot training there was no waiting list. There was a waiting list for ground pounders.

    There is a difference, you know.

    Also, at that time, ANG units were deployed in Vietnam. Bush had no way of knowing if he would be deployed there or not.

    BTW - He made it through flight school. No small trick I might add. No, I will add. Could you??

    So again you demonstrate a startling lack of knowledge for someone who has a degree in history from an elite school... ;-)

    Parent

    Tancredo is right this time (none / 0) (#5)
    by Charlesoutwest on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:14:00 PM EST
    Children born to illegal alien parents already have the same rights to student aid, so why do we need to encourage more illegal tresspass? Does America have an obligation to provide a free college education to all the world's children? This is not a left-right issue, it is a right-wrong issue, and Democrats had better figure that out real soon!  

    A little clearer. (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:31:27 AM EST
    Children born in the US to illegal alien parents are US citizens and are entitled to all the rights of US citizens.

    The Dream Act is entirely different and, in fact, is an amnesty bill for the children of illegal aliens who have been brought her at least five years ago when they were 15 years old or younger... The fact is that the young people in question are themselves illegal aliens.

    At some point they will be made citizens, and at that point will be able to make their parents citizens, as well as other family members.

    This nothing but pure ignorance and nonsense. My hat is off to Tom Tancredo.

    Parent

    Girlymen And Bedwetters (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:55:51 AM EST
    Once again ppj shows his true feelings toward non white (possibly democratic) children.

    Now his big fear is if it is not the Muslims or the Immigrants it is dark skinned spanish speaking American children that will bring white america down.          

    Digby has his number:

    Doesn't Zakaria realize that today's enemies are the strongest, most evil threats the world has ever known? Stalin and Mao were a couple of girlymen compared to Ahmadinejad. And Hitler was nothing but a big baby compared to bin Laden. That's why we need the gargantuan, turgid, throbbing rhetoric of giants like Rudy Giuliani to save us from these monsters. Doesn't he understand that they are coming to kill us all in our beds any minute and we will have to run for our lives unless the Republicans protect us?

    digby

    Now it is the children.
               

    Parent

    If the children are here illegally (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 01:44:01 PM EST
    they are illegal aliens.

    Is that too difficult for you to understand?

    sigh....


    Parent

    Squeaky, (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:04:49 PM EST
    this whole idea that any effort to stem the flow of millions of illegal invaders that have completely screwed up the city I live in is based on racism,is just plain freaking ridiculous. The last resort of morons like you is to scream racism.

    What do you say to the would be immigrants that are not lucky enough to live in a country from which they can walk across the border?

    How many more will be granted amnesty after these? How about the new arrivals and the siblings and the parents? You can't break up the families,right? This is an amnesty bill that will reward MILLIONS of illegals.

    You have NO idea what you are talking about.

    Parent

    Sounds Like (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:01:50 PM EST
    It is time for you to move to a place that you are not unhappy in. Life is too short, and no matter what any of your neofascist girlymen promise you, those immigrants are here to stay.

    Parent
    Why should I move (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:58:00 PM EST
    to accomodate illegals? Why can't they follow the rules whether they are here to stay or not? Part of that answer is because they merely have to buy a new ID when they get in trouble.

    Do they really have to be taught in Spanish? According to people like you, yes.
    That means spending MILLIONS of dollars (beyond any government reimbursement) on educating kids that are here illegally with multiple families in single family housing.

    Don't you dare tell me to move to accomodate the illegals.

    Parent

    hahahahhaha (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:39:02 PM EST
    It is your life Pancho, not mine. I would try to get used to it if I were you because your condition will continue to get worse and one day your head will explode.

    Parent
    You are quite the (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:25:42 PM EST
    problem solver, Squeaky. Where do you draw the line in the "if you don't like it move" solution?

    Certainly, in your mind, horns as doorbells and emergency rooms as free clinics qualify, but is there any problem that cannot be solved by moving? Would that be your solution if a white supremacist group took over your neighborhood?

    Parent

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:33:35 PM EST
    Not sure what I would do but i can guarantee you I wouldn't suffer.

    Many people fall victim to the Petty Tyrants of the world and being defeated by one means a loss of one's vital energies. The Seer Don Juan explained to Castaneda that it was the task of Warriors to learn to face these Petty Tyrants with temperance and to prevail against their torments. Dealing with Petty Tyrants called for four qualities of warriorship: control, discipline, forbearance and timing. Whereas to be defeated meant to act in anger, and potentially join the ranks of the Petty Tyrants....

    The point is made quite clear: Toiling without complaining under the supervision of a brute given to excess and violence and doing so without fear or resentment, simply biding one's time certainly develops control over impulses, rids one of excess self-importance or vanity....

    In Castaneda's book, Don Juan even says that if one does not have a petty tyrant to begin with, one must go seek one out.

    link

    Count yourself as lucky

    Parent

    OK, (none / 0) (#41)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 07:10:27 PM EST
    I understand your point, but that falls under the category of "accepting things that I cannot change". Mass amnesties which will make the situation worse are preventable through contact with elected representatives. All other recent attempts have failed, because congress has been overwhelmed with calls from people like me.

    By the way, your assertion that I am living a miserable life is just plain wrong. I do what I can politically and I am planning financially and career wise to move before my oldest starts Junior High if the situation does not improve. Next week, I will be volunteering at Tortilla day and I will happily serve all the immigrant children whose parents did their part by teaching them English.

    Parent

    Squeaky quotes: (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 11:47:28 AM EST
    Whereas to be defeated meant to act in anger, and potentially join the ranks of the Petty Tyrants...
    .

    How's the weather in your new location. Lots of buds around to stroke your ego??

    Have a nice stay!

    Parent

    Squeaky has found a new word (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:33:21 PM EST
    "girlymen."

    I see that you are projecting again.

    Parent

    Not New (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:48:09 PM EST
    Schwarzenegger brought it into popularity. But digby's ode to girliemen along with the more traditional bedwetter  condition you have sums up you and your friends behavior.

    Look at the demographics. The west is being out bred and is importing Moslems at a rate that insures the end of western culture.

    hahahahah

    and the one about sharia law being here.....  you'd think that you were trying to form a modern day sect of Shakers.


    Parent

    Your lack of information (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 11:49:31 AM EST
    remains astounding.

    As does this:

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.


    Parent
    Where I'm from.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 09:17:41 AM EST
    we've got a word to describe Tom Tancredo...we'd call him a rat.  The lowest of the low.

    Dropping a dime on some college kids...he should be ashamed of himself.  I thought Rudy was the worst case scenario for president, I doubt even Rudy would stoop so low.

    Praise the sun god this rat has no shot.

    Kdog (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 09:19:39 AM EST
    One of the current problems that the ghetto has is an inability to recognize that outing criminals is a very good thing.

    Parent
    I sleep well.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 09:35:21 AM EST
    because I don't drop dimes on my neighbors.

    Part of the problem old friend, due to over-legislation, the word criminal has lost all meaning.  Remember you're talking to one.

    Parent

    Really (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 01:45:22 PM EST
    A criminal, or an ex-criminal?

    Say it aint so, Joe!

    ;-)

    Parent

    Actually.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:30:42 PM EST
    we are all criminals.  Every single one of us.  

    Like Ayn Rand said, they've made it impossible for man to live without breaking laws.

    I've been an ex-criminal for about 7 hours (I exceded 55 mph on the way to work).  I'll be a criminal again in about an hour and a half (speeding again), 2 hours (after work smoke), and then again at 7:30 EST (going to the card club)  I'm winning the damn tourney tonight too unless John Law steals the pool:)

    Like she said...impossible to live:)

    Parent

    Come on Kdog (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:28:06 PM EST
    The issue isn't that we all may break some minor laws, but that the inability, or lack of desire, by many in the inner cities to assist the police in finding and removing the bad guys is NOT some deep heart felt political belief, but is based on fear of being killed by the bad guys.

    And yes, most of the bad guys are drug related, which is why I would make most drugs legal. It would remove the bad guys by putting them out of business in the drug market. The question is, would they merely move on to another activity. Say illegal card rooms??

    Parent

    BTW - Good luck (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:31:56 PM EST
    May you never see an Ace on the flop when you have kings.... unless you also see one King(dog)

    Parent
    I cashed.... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:38:22 AM EST
    but only a small one....6th out of 50.  I'll take it.  

    As for being an informant, part of it is fear of reprisals, I won't deny that, but another part of it is the community fears the police more than the criminals, and yet another part is a moral objection to being a rat.  Several factors at work.

    I'll guess we'll just have to legalize gambling as well as drugs...and prostitution. Leave the bad apples with as few black market revenue sources as possible. And stop making criminals out of good citizens.

    Parent

    Congrats (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 11:51:49 AM EST
    Next time I'm in NYC you can buy lunch and show me your club... We'll be criminals together.

    ;-)

    BTW - Agree with your last paragraph.

    Parent

    Better hurry.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 01:24:19 PM EST
    before it's raided or robbed.

    Hope you like dirty water dogs:)  

    Parent

    I never eat or drink booze (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:34:09 PM EST
    when I play....

    I'll buy dinner...

    ;-)

    Parent

    Taking responsibility. (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 12:18:26 PM EST
    Kinda like Monkey Boy saying he'd fire any leakers.

    He sets such a good example for us all.

    In "the ghetto" people get shot fairly frequently for "outing", which wouldnt happen nearly as much if people felt they had adequate protection; but, that often requires tax dollars, which are generally slated to be stolen by war contracters and their pals.

    Parent

    Nope Wrong again (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 10:13:53 AM EST
    and committed an act of treason by it.

    I haven't claimed that. Can you get nothing straight??

    And condemning someone's comment does not deny them the right to speak.

    Good heavens. Is that your best argument?

    As for not believing you... I just don't. I don't have to, and you don't have to try and prove anything.

    You write:

    Everyone knows that Poppy Bush pulled major strings with the draft board and NG to get his boy put at the front of the waiting list.

    "Everyone knows?" Is that your version of  proof?
    BTW - There was no waiting list for pilot training. There was a waiting list for ground support. So "Daddy" didn't need to pull strings.
    He didn't "jump in front" of anyone.

    Transcript of Col Lively of the TANG.

    Col. Lively: No. Actually, I wasn't the head of the Air National Guard. But I was the head of Operations. I was Director of Operations and I oversaw and inspected all of the units in Texas. Flew with them. And the, there was no waiting list for this. See, this is often confused with another thing. Which was a waiting list to simply enlist in the Guard and do your service their rather than in the regular military. And there were lots of people on those waiting lists.

    Now, in the course of reading all this stuff, I discovered that Lt. Bush took the Air Force Pilot and Officer examinations while he was still at Yale finishing up. So obviously he was looking for a place to be a pilot.

    See the difference Rovie??? You say "Everyone knows..." and within 30 seconds of reading your false claim I Google up a transcript of an interview with the TANG Director of Operations who said it isn't true.

    Does that help you when I say I don't believe you?

    And understand something else. Saying that I don't believe you is not saying you lied. It may be that you actually believe what you are ranting about, or you may just be mistaken. So I don't call you a "liar" because that only proves that the attacker is intemperate, and angry people are often wrong, and anger never solves a problem.

    But your disregard for easily found information does call into question your claim to have a history degree, lived in NYC on 9/11, etc.

    Have a nice day. And do stick around. You are enjoyable.

    You wrote: (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by kovie on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:48:04 PM EST
    If you want to compare them, please show me where the Senate Majority leader said the war was lost, the Senator from Illinois (or any state) declared our troops to be Nazis or any Senator said the troops were in the military because they were stupid.

    Also:

    Do you opine that his statement was NOT helpful to our enemies??

    Here is what Durbin actually said (I hope that you trust that the source, which I'm guessing is a favorte publication of yours, is being truthful:

    If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

    Where did he call the "troops" Nazis here? You're either making stuff up, or can't tell the difference between referring to an ACTION (committed by a few troops) as Nazi-like, and the "troops" as a whole being Nazi-like.

    Lie #1 (or gross distortion, if you prefer).

    And by implying that this statement was helpful to "our enemies", you were obviously invoking the treason clause of the constitution:

    Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    You didn't have to call Durbin a traitor. You were clearly implying it. And since treason is a felony, you were denying his right to make what you believe to be treasonous statements. Plus, you failed to provide any proof or "links" to back up your assertion that his comments did in fact help "our enemies". How exactly did they do that? How do YOU back that up? Can you show me a single instance--with proof--where Durbin's comments, or comments like them, actually led to harm being committed against the US or the troops, that would and/or could not have been committed otherwise?

    Although I can't "prove" it myself, I would argue that Bush's statements about "crusades" and "bring it on" were just as and likely far more "helpful" to "our enemies", in the way in which you claim that Durbin's were. And since you haven't bother to prove your point, I see no need to try to prove mine. Not that it can be proved, of course, which is why I only brought it up to show how rediculous yours was.

    There, you've got your precious links and "proof". As if any of this was necessary. See, here's the thing about honest, open and intelligent debate. The participants generally don't need to back up their facts with links, because they're generally common knowledge, and accepted. And your assertions that I'm making stuff up and/or not proving "proof" of commonly known facts is redirection and projection, obviously, because you're actually the one making stuff up (e.g. Durbin's calling the "troops" Nazis or Nazi-like).

    See, I can actually argue a point using actual facts and logic, if I care to. The effort involved just isn't just justified with you, seeing how you are either unable or unwilling to reciprocate in an honest manner yourself. I am not the one making stuff up here. Nor am I trying to hide between dishonestly used "facts" and "links".

    Parent

    Rovie doesn't read. (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:50:08 PM EST
    You clearly don't believe in free speech, and all but said so yourself--your words. Parsing them differently doesn't make it not so.


    Again you provide no proof. If possible, you are worse than squeaky. You slur and smear.

    I repeat. I have the right to condemn statements I find to be condemnable. That I do has nothing to do with the free speech rights of others. I find it risible, juvenile and basically uneducated that you would even make such a claim. It is even funnier when I consider that you try and use my free speech against me.

    And you don't read. You write:

    Bush sat on it and refused to order the FBI, NSA and NSC to make it a priority to prevent it.

    You speak of Clarke. This is from the comment I made yesterday which you must have failed to read.

    (Clarke) So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    .....And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

    Now remember. That is Clinton's NSA speaking, on record, in a public interview. Do you claim he was lying?

    "

    At the special meeting on July 5 (2001) were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    Now these are the words of Rice, Bush's NSA. And they clearly show that all of the agencies were put on notice 68 days prior to 9/11. BTW - This two was a public interview. Are you saying she is lying?

    As for Clinton. I have provided a link in which he admits to having the ability to arrest OBL, but did not.

    As these comments show, and as the philosophy of the Left claims, the conflict is between waiting until you are attacked, versus understanding a problem exists and taking preemptive action. The former is often called a "criminal justice" or "defensive approach." Defense can never win long term. 9/11 proves that. Do you remember that we caught the terrorist coming across the border from Canada who were going to attack LAX??

    Now. Let us return to Clarke.

    RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

    Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

    So Clinton had dithered over these things for two years. Bush took immediate action.

    Link

    Now you have been told the above information the second time. If you ignore and make your inaccurate claims again I must assume that you are not interested in the truth.

    So I will place this comment in my archives, and be pleased to display it to show how you operate.

    As to Durbin. I condemn his comments. I do NOT claim that he has committed treason. I do not know the law. You do not know the law. I urge you to stop making false claims.

    As to the war, and since you mention OBL. The following is from an interview with Perter Arnett of (then) CNN:

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN....So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    I find those words very instructive. It clearly shows the global intent of the radical Moslem terrorists, and shows that withdrawal is useless.

    So Iraq is but a single battle. A battle that we must not lose, because to do so will add great credibility to the radicals claims that they can win. You should not lose sight that it is the so-called moderate Moslems who will eventually chose to believe that the US can and will win, and come to our side, or believe that we will not win and make peace with the radicals.

    Finally you ask:

    How dumb are you?

    I am smart enough to recognize what I don't know. I am also smart enough to know that I have seen "you" dozens of times through out my life.

    You think political claims are facts, that insults are reasoned debate and you disrespect your opponents. Bad beliefs, dude.

    Have a nice day. And see if you can provide some proof to go with those claims. If you can.