Check out the latest presidential comments on the 'War on Terror'...
---
The national security challenges we face are just as grave and just as urgent as our economic crisis. The national security challenges we face are just as grave and just as urgent as our economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. Our old conflicts remain unresolved, and newly assertive powers have put strains on the international system. The spread of nuclear weapons raises the peril that the world's deadliest technologies could fall into dangerous hands...
Last week, we were reminded of this threat once again when terrorists took the lives of six Americans among nearly 200 victims in Mumbai. In the world we seek, there is no place for those who kill innocent civilians to advance hateful extremism.
----
Guess we'll be sending troops to help in India's war on Pakistan soon, throw in with a new ally to get across the border from the South - maybe we'll finally find Bin Laden...
Posted by at December 3, 2008 01:12 AM"In the world we seek, there is no place for those who kill innocent civilians to advance hateful extremism."
To bad he didn't feel that way while killing innocent Iraqi civilians.
Posted by Judith at December 3, 2008 05:23 AMNo veto proof firewall. Chambliss wins.
Posted by Judith at December 3, 2008 05:26 AMNo veto proof firewall.
It wasn't about veto proof. It was ostensibly about filibuster proof. And that was a pretty bogus pipe dream anyway.
Posted by snark at December 3, 2008 05:29 AMI didn't expect Martin to win, did anyone else? Last I saw, he was down by 20 points.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 3, 2008 05:42 AM"We wouldn't have invaded Iraq if we knew the truth about WMDs." Between Rove and Bush, the rewritting of history continues.
The remarks, delivered at a debate in New York on Bush's legacy, came amidst a vigorous defense by Rove on behalf of the war's purpose and outcome. At no point was it mentioned that the administration, specifically Vice President Dick Cheney, reportedly advanced faulty or poorly sourced information to fit the conclusion that Iraq possessed WMD, or that intelligence reports from the run-up to the war suggested that such a case was flimsy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/02/rove-we-wouldnt-have-inva_n_147923.html
For me, torture is a singularly important issue, and I have been gratified on the several occasions that Obama has raised it, because he has (so far) been unequivocal in his statements of opposition to torture.
I'll be looking for some actions that will demonstrate Obama's presumed sincerity on this issue. For me, this is the issue that can have no political excuse, no possibility of compromise.
This is my personal view, and I recognize that some might not find it such an absolute as I do. It's primarily an emotionally-based position, but there are obviously many straightforward paths to a rejection of torture also.
Posted by kleven-stein at December 3, 2008 06:00 AMSince it is the Christmas season, here is something that should warm your heart.
Two sources close to Jeb Bush, including one who has spoken to the former Florida governor within the past few hours, say he is seriously considering a run for Senate now that incumbent Republican Mel Martinez has retired.
"The party should establish a loyal opposition and organize ourselves in the form of a shadow government that would address key issues, providing the public with a loftier debate about policy rather than mere partisanship."
Loftier debate? That statement sent Republicans rushing to their dictionaries to look up the word 'loftier.'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/01/jeb-bush-gop-setting-up-a_n_147495.html
On another note, new tapes from the Nixon Administration has Tricky Dick revealing his beliefs about who the enemies really are:
The press is the enemy.
The professors are the enemy.
The establishment is the enemy.
Doesn't differ much from the frat boy's belief system, does it.
Posted by Judith at December 3, 2008 06:14 AMIt's primarily an emotionally-based position, but there are obviously many straightforward paths to a rejection of torture also.
kleven-stein, it may be an emotionally-based position, but it is also against everything we have stood for in this Country. We have also signed international treaties. Bush found those treaties irrelevant.
Snark thanks. That's what I meant.
Posted by Judith at December 3, 2008 06:47 AMBuckle up your seat belts, here we go.
Last night, Campbell Brown criticized President-elect Barack Obama for glibly dismissing questions on the way his relationship with Senator Hillary Clinton shifted from critical to collaborative as the press "having fun" slicing and dicing old campaign rhetoric. Brown objected to Obama's comments, saying, "As annoying how you may have found it, it is a fair question."
Obama will be on Meet the Press this Sunday, and is expected to be asked this same question. Hope he has answer to satisfy the 'liberal' press.
Posted by Judith at December 3, 2008 07:46 AMHAVANA (Dec. 2) - Barack Obama will be the first American president in nearly 50 years to have a relatively free hand in deciding whether to ease punitive Cold War-era policies toward communist Cuba, and the foreign policy team he announced this week seems predisposed to make it happen.
Obama said during the campaign that immediately after taking office, he will lift all restrictions on family travel and cash remittances to Cuba, not just roll them back to previous rules that were tightened by the Bush administration.
Obama also said he would uphold the embargo imposed after the island went communist. The embargo is where the two nations have been stuck, each side demanding that the other change first.
What's different now is that Obama says he will talk directly with Cuban President Raul Castro, who recently and repeatedly offered to negotiate on neutral ground as equals.
http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/bbdp/obama-team-seen-easing-cuba-embargo/241927?icid=200100397x1213987072x1200959049
Posted by Judith at December 3, 2008 08:31 AM"For me, torture is a singularly important issue, and I have been gratified on the several occasions that Obama has raised it, because he has (so far) been unequivocal in his statements of opposition to torture."
Oh really???? Then splain this Lucy...
From Salon:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/16/brennan/
"It simply is noteworthy of comment and cause for concern -- though far from conclusive about what Obama will do -- that Obama's transition chief for intelligence policy, John Brennan, was an ardent supporter of torture and one of the most emphatic advocates of FISA expansions and telecom immunity."
Snip....
"Without more transparency, the value of the C.I.A.’s interrogation and detention program is impossible to evaluate. Setting aside the moral, ethical, and legal issues, even supporters, such as John Brennan, acknowledge that much of the information that coercion produces is unreliable. As he put it, “All these methods produced useful information, but there was also a lot that was bogus."
Then Brennen in his own words:
"Then there is Brennan's December 5, 2005 appearance on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, in which he vehemently defended the Bush administration's use of rendition -- one of the key tools to subject detainees to torture:
JOHN BRENNAN: I think over the past decade it has picked up some speed because of the nature of the terrorist threat right now but essentially it's a practice the United States and other countries have used to transport suspected terrorists from a country, usually where they're captured to another country, either their country of origin or a country where they can be questioned, detained or brought to justice. . . .
MARGARET WARNER: So was Secretary Rice correct today when she called it a vital tool in combating terrorism?
JOHN BRENNAN: I think it's an absolutely vital tool. I have been intimately familiar now over the past decade with the cases of rendition that the U.S. Government has been involved in. And I can say without a doubt that it has been very successful as far as producing intelligence that has saved lives."
Well, we'll need that torture policy when we round up alla youse guys for liberal re-education. Couldn't turn America into a socialist paradise without it. I'm volunteering for the branding room. See ya soon, trolls! I'm sure you won't mind I've submitted your names for admission, so you'll be first in the stocks. Woohoo!
Posted by iamcoyote at December 3, 2008 08:46 AMJohn Brennan removes himself from any consideration for Obama administration position.
It's hard for me to understand the failure of people to be able to process the idea that people can expose themselves to a variety of opinions and positions contrary to, or in conflict with, their core beliefs and not actually have that exposure alter those beliefs. It's not necessary to live in a bubble to maintain your core beliefs when they are...eh you know...things you actually believe. Seemingly this was not possible for George Bush. But give the rest of us some credit.
Posted by snark at December 3, 2008 08:54 AM"It's hard for me to understand the failure of people to be able to process the idea that people can expose themselves to a variety of opinions and positions contrary to, or in conflict with, their core beliefs and not actually have that exposure alter those beliefs."
Right....the way you are exposed to an opinion other than your own and immediatly call people names.
So why are the lefties for the fairness doctrine?
Hasn't Obama shown us you should expose yourself to a variety of opinions and positions? If Obama were to appoint Ann Coulter to his advisory staff would you still spout the same nonsense?
Let's see if you are still drinking the kool aid after a year or so of Obama throwing all the left wing tenents under the bus.
Posted by manapp99 at December 3, 2008 09:15 AMSo why are the lefties for the fairness doctrine?
First of all, dickwad, do you even know what the Fairness Doctrine is? And, secondly, what makes you say that "lefties are for the Fairness Doctrine"? And, thirdly, what the fuck does the Fairness Doctrine have to do with surrounding yourself with a variety of opinions?
You really are stupid.
I am not "for the Fairness Doctrine," per se. What I am for is breaking up media monopolies, not allowing the same corporations who provide me with information also owning companies that directly benefit from said information and I am for demanding that corporations who benefit from use of the Public Airways providing a public service.
None of those things are the "Fairness Doctrine."
Dumb ass.
(Oh, and I am calling you names not because I disagree with you, I am calling you names because you are stupid. If the shoe fits...)
Posted by Anjha at December 3, 2008 09:24 AMHilarious, Anjha! Funny how the idiots have become irrelevant so quickly, huh? Finally, back where they belong - objects of derision.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 3, 2008 09:39 AMI could give a flying fuck what you are for as your opinion has no relevence anywhere but in the blogosphere. I am more concerned in what Pelosi and Reid are wanting to do and they are the lefties that want to bring back the fairness doctrine. I do not want government to determine what news and opinion can be delivered by any free press organization. You should not want big brother deciding what news is fit to air either.
There is no longer a shortage of outlets to gather whatever news and or opinion you want. If you do not like Fox tune in to MSNBC. It is that simple. The only people wanting to bring back the fairness doctrine are lefties. They call it the Hush Rush bill. Wake up dumbass.
What this has to do with Obama and his merry band of dissenters is that you are fooling yourself if you think that he just wants opposing views and is not aligned with them.
Throughout the entire campaign he changed his "views" to match the electorate he wished to woo. He was far more left in the primaries than the general and now far more right than the general. He will not end enhanced interrogation because he still needs to combat the enemies of this country. He will not tax the rich because he knows how economics works. He is not surrounding himself with dissenting opinions he is surrounding himself with those that agree with his policies and will implement them. You will see but will still be an apologist for him because he conned you into voting for him and you will not be able to admit that you were wrong.
So why are the lefties for the fairness doctrine?
Well to start Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine. So you know it was bad for the majority of Americans to begin with, yet an advantage to conservatives and big corporations.
RFK Jr. can explain it much better:
This all started in 1988 when Ronald Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine said that the airwaves belong to the public. They were public-trust assets, just like our air and water, and broadcasters could be licensed to use them but only with the proviso that they use them to promote the public interest and to advance American democracy. They had to inform the public of issues of public import. They had to have the news hours. (None of those networks wanted to show the news, because it's expensive, and they lose money on it.) They had to avoid corporate consolidation. They had to have local control and diversity of control. That had been the requirement of the law since 1928.Today, as a result of the abolishment of that doctrine, six giant multinational corporations now control all 14,000 radio stations in our country, almost all 6,000 TV stations, 80 percent of our newspapers, all of our billboards, and now most of the Internet information services. So you have six guys who dictate what Americans have as information and what we see as news. The news departments have become corporate profit centers. They no longer have any obligation to benefit the public interest; their only obligation is to their shareholders, and they fulfill that obligation by increasing viewership.
How do you do that? Not by reporting the news that we need to hear to make rational decisions in our democracy but, rather, by entertaining us, by appealing to the prurient interests that all of us have in the reptilian core of our brain for sex and celebrity gossip. [applause] So they give us Laci Peterson and Michael Jackson and Kobe Bryant, and today we're the best-entertained and the least-informed people on the face of the earth. This is a real threat to American democracy.
I do 40 speeches a year in red states, and there is no difference between how Republican audiences and Democratic audiences react when they hear what this White House and this Congress are doing. There is no difference except that the Republicans come up afterward and say, "Why haven't we ever heard of this before?" I say to them, "It's because you're watching Fox News and listening to Rush." Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's going on. [applause]
I do not want government to determine what news and opinion can be delivered by any free press organization. You should not want big brother deciding what news is fit to air either.
See above article by RFK Jr.
The only people wanting to bring back the fairness doctrine are lefties. They call it the Hush Rush bill.
Now who is the dumbass? You are believing what the conservatives are feeding you!
Ru$h gets around the Fairness Doctrine by calling himself an entertainer. Even though he spreads conservative ideas and hate for liberals.
Posted by Seven of Six at December 3, 2008 10:01 AMI give that performance a 4.5, trollboy. You wrestled that straw man to the ground, didn't ya? But it's still a straw man, innit? Good boy, here's a liv-a-snap!
Posted by iamcoyote at December 3, 2008 10:05 AMRFK junior's opinion is relevent how? Just because his last name is Kennedy?
You sure set you standards low.
Posted by manapp99 at December 3, 2008 10:28 AMCool! A new game! I'll bet we hear about Chappaquidick in two posts! Anyone else wanna bet?
Posted by iamcoyote at December 3, 2008 10:33 AMRFK junior's opinion is relevent how?
Well, it's only relevant if you an iota of interest in removing your head from your ass. So I understand your failure to appreciate it.
manapp99, I'm sorry to say that responding to your really poorly thought out comments is not worth the time and effort involved. If you can't get your head beyond the idea that the only consideration relative to tax rates is whether the government is going to bring in enough in the next fiscal year to fund it's operations you're an idiot. There's not much of a clearer way to state that. Sorry if it means you think poorly of us lefties.
Posted by snark at December 3, 2008 10:47 AMRFK junior's opinion is relevent how?
You asked the question pissant and he has the answer for most lefties.
Just because his last name is Kennedy?
No... because he is correct on the issue of the Fairness Doctrine.
Admit it man-ape, you're afraid you'll lose your daily hatefest with ru$h, o'lielly and sean hate-nitty! What would you then do for entertainment... think for yourself?
So stay uninformed on the Fairness Doctrine, revel in the concealment of true journalism, enjoy your ignorance on Democracy. It's apparent that you want the dumbing down of America to expand so you neo-con slobs can continue to provide false arguments.
But not here asshole!!
right-wing war criminals like manAPE99 simply do not understand why should we oppose torture:
it kills AMERICANS
AN INTERROGATOR SPEAKS
I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq
By Matthew Alexander
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html
...I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans....
Posted by Gay Veteran at December 3, 2008 11:01 AMWow SoS. Does not take long to scare away the trolls, does it.
A couple of facts to burn their straw men and they are gone.
I could give a flying fuck what you are for as your opinion has no relevence anywhere but in the blogosphere. I am more concerned in what Pelosi and Reid are wanting to do and they are the lefties that want to bring back the fairness doctrine.
Damn. I read just about every statement that Pelosi and Reid put out. I missed that one. Provide me a link, please. Enlighten me. I am a fan of Enlightenment, hence my Love for this country and its Founders...you know, the ones who fought for a Free Press because they knew that without a Free Press there could be no democracy...those guys.
The only people wanting to bring back the fairness doctrine are lefties.
Hmmm. I do not think that this is what I said; did anyone hear me say that I want to "bring back the Fairness Doctrine"?
You sure threw out a lot of first person accusations there dickwad.
because he conned you into voting for him and you will not be able to admit that you were wrong.
I did not do a single thing that I did not want to do. And I do it with my eyes wide open and a whole lot of research - and with a gratitude for the Freedom of choice that I enjoy and the honor that it is to be able to vote and support whom I want.
Remember, I am one of those damned Liberals who fight every fucking day for education and the rights to freedom that you and your ilk enjoy. Before you continue with all of those bullshit first person accusations, again, you might want to consider that a Thank You might be in order.
"You should not want big brother deciding what news is fit to air either."
Well, excuse me manapp99, but exactly what in the hell do you think has been going on the past eight years? Try to be a little objective thinking once in a while.
Posted by Judith at December 3, 2008 04:04 PM
Judith,
When I said "emotional" I was just trying (poorly) to describe my reaction to torture, which could be described as:
I cannot comprehend a human wanting another human, someone who is their captive and completely under their control, to feel pain. I just simply don't get it, and I feel a deep revulsion when I am exposed to depictions of torture.
I spend all my spare time working for an animal rescue group, and I find the mistreatment of other animals equally disgusting.
So, I am trying to point out that there are also numerous logical arguments why torture is less than useless, but for me those are secondary to my emotional reaction. It's in my DNA.
Call me wacky, but that's how I am.
Posted by kleven-stein at December 3, 2008 06:56 PMOh for sure. Everyone loves America now. As long as Democrats are in power, we're golden.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
Bush was worse than Hitler
and Stalin and Mao
and the Devil combined
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
you can ALWAYS blame Bush
when Obama and Congress
ALL Democrats mess it up
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
NEVER ELECT a woman
OR a minority
if they are Right of center
.
kleven-stein, I completely agree with you. I was just pointing out that torture goes against our values and we have signed Treaties against it.
I've told this story before, but I walked out of a movie called 'The Devils'years ago, because of the depiction of torture in the Catholic Church during a period of their history. Like you, I cannot wrap my mind around man's inhumanity to man. To inflict purposeful suffering of that magnitude to another human being is, in my book, pure evil.
Posted by Judith at December 4, 2008 06:52 AM