Letters to the Editor
-
What!? No Fan Dance?
I want a refund!
Was that an oriental fan dance or burlesque? I love Sally Rand.
-
That didn't take long......
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mccain27feb27,1,4180769.story
-
The Flag
Back when every car in my neck of the woods was flying a flag I noted that more than a few were ending up literally in the gutter. When I pointed this out in a right wing forum I was met with total apoplexy and charges that I "lacked patriotism".
I then posted the flag code, which clearly indicates that the little flags clamped to the roofs of cars are not acceptable..
http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html
When the flag is displayed on a motorcar, the staff shall be fixed firmly to the chassis or clamped to the right fender.
I seem to have this way of being irritating without really trying all that hard. :-)
-
Intelligence Letter
That letter from Richard Clarke and others is about as crystal clear an explanation I've yet to see on FISA. Wouldn't it be great if John King had read that? Hopefully, more MSM coverage will continue to expose the lies and deception of Bush and McConnell.
-
Bucky
All tryanny flows from the government that is instituted to preserve the state. Or is it the state that preserves the government? Anyway, they have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and that really sucks because I might have to do something I don't like or agree with, or even allow others to do it when I'm not being forced to. It was so awful that founders actually founded a... government! And the colonies became... states!
-
@ Dirks
I don't get what you meant by the following:
It's also necessary to take into consideration those pesky VOTERS! Try as you might to ignore the fact, the average American voter has quite a bit to say about the government that we end up with and it's not that far removed from all the nasty stuff that we're willing to accuse the politicians of promoting.
I too remember 2003. But perhaps more importantly for the sake of context, I also remember the late 90's. But in any case, I would direct you to the Iraq Liberation Act, which states: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
That was a mild start. Our anti war candidate of 04, John Kerry, made this impassioned speech in 1997, which you can see for yourself at the Library of Congress.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r105:./temp/~r105yIZru8
Kerry argued strongly for use of force in Iraq and boots on the ground.
"This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out."
Kerry also argued that "should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted--which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to have even begun--the United States must not lose its resolve to take action.
And you will find familiar sounding, if now discredited fear-cards throughout the speech such as:
"If he has such weapons, his attack is likely to employ weapons of unspeakable and indiscriminate destructiveness and torturous effects on civilians and military alike."
All this is largely forgotten today. The democratic party, led by its superstars, including the man Nader opposed in 2004 as being virtually indistinguishable from Bush, purposefully built the foundation of today's Iraq war. Would their invasion have cost so many lives? Would it have caused a civil war? Would it have been so incredibly destructive? Who can really know.
I would submit that Obama's greatest strength for the Democratic party is that his career has been too short to be involved with any of these machinations. But that seems like a wolf in sheep's clothes; much more clever this time, of course.
-
@ Dirigo
From WaTimes, via Think Progress:
“We’re very concerned about his apparent lack of understanding on the threat of radical Islam to the United States,” said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who is pro-Iraq war and a Fox News analyst. “A lot of retired senior officers feel the same way.”[…]
Hmmm, McInerney, where have I heard that name before... Oh yeah, Fox News. Consider the (single) source.
-
This Bill Cunningham?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cunningham
-
-- William Timberman, slick warmonger ...
Timberman: " ... My point, aych, is that the injustices of the drug war are a symptom, not a cause, and that the causes might be addressed more effectively ..."
What is the cause?
We can all name many more examples of injustice in the USA than just the drug war. Can you name the cause? -- bucky1
-- William Timberman
Did you mean to add anything there WT? Seems that only a page or three later is a little early to just quote an exchange that everyone can see.
Oh, I see. You are whining that I was setting a trap for you of some sort. What a pitiful, paranoid thing to think; you are getting old. I simply asked a question and you blew it out of all proportion. No wonder you 'love' the little wanker man and all his disruptive antics.
Peas in a pod and so forth.
-
Charlie Savage's Questions
I apologize if I've missed this mentioned in other comments, but did you see charlie Savage's list of questions in the NYTimes op-ed?
1. Responding to a questionnaire from The Boston Globe on presidential power, you both criticized President Bush’s use of signing statements, with which he has asserted a constitutional right to bypass more than 1,000 sections of bills that he has signed into law. You both also said you would continue using signing statements, though in a less aggressive way.
But the American Bar Association has called for an end to this practice, and Senator John McCain says he will never issue a signing statement. Why are they wrong?
2. Both of you have said the Constitution does not allow a president to detain a citizen without charges as an enemy combatant. But President Bush won court rulings upholding the indefinite detention of two Americans as enemy combatants. Were the courts wrong? Does a president have the authority to interpret the Constitution differently from the judiciary? Would you ever use the court-approved authority to hold a citizen indefinitely as an enemy combatant?
3. Both of you have said that President Bush cannot attack Iran without first obtaining Congressional authorization for the use of military force. But two Democratic presidents, Harry Truman and Bill Clinton, ordered American forces into extended armed conflicts without Congressional authorization. Did the Korean and Kosovo wars violate the Constitution? Would an attack on Iran be legally different, and if so, how?
4. Are there any circumstances — including in matters of detention, surveillance, interrogation and troop deployments — under which you believe that presidents have the constitutional power as commander in chief to bypass laws in order to take an action they think is necessary to protect national security?
5. Proponents of the so-called unitary executive theory argue that the Constitution does not allow Congress to enact statutes that place the actions of executive-branch officials beyond the president’s control, such as by giving independent decision-making authority to the head of a regulatory agency. Do you agree?
— CHARLIE SAVAGE, a reporter for The Boston Globe and the author of “Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26debate-questions.html?ref=opinion
What are the chances that they will be asked and answered by any of the candidates? Why is it that intelligent and prepared reporters aren't able to interview candidates in the manner that CNN, MSNBC and Fox allows?