Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
The "big lie" on which much national (let's get rid of the word "homeland" asap) security policy rests even today is that somehow the September 11 attacks were inevitable because measures in place were not adequate to the task of preventing it. By perpetrating this lie (without much challenge from the myopic political opposition), the Bush Administration has incredibly avoided responsibility (and, yes, blame) for the attacks while even more incredibly taking credit for there having been no subsequent attacks. By perpetrating this lie, much of the public has been convinced that it is necessary to their own security that they yield fundamental Constitutional rights (their own and that of others). By perpetrating this lie, a security apparatus worthy only of totalitarian states has been erected which threatens to topple entirely the Constitutional order and rule of law on which this fragile experiment in self government rests. By perpetrating this lie, the Obama Administration is being pressured to continue much of this shameful legacy lest it be accused of sacrificing national security should another attack take place.
Clearly, the first thing that must be done in the new administration is to reject the "big lie" and substitute it with the truth. The truth is that the national security safeguards in effect prior to the September 11 attacks were adequate to the task. It was the lazy, slipshod, inattentive implementation of them by principals in the Bush Administration starting with the President himself that allowed those attacks to be completed. Once that fact is publicly acknowledged, the remainder of the sorry Bush legacy on national security can be jettisoned--and, not to put too fine a point on it, our Constitution and the rule of law restored.
One of the main reasons I am a conservative is because the consequences of liberal empathy are almost always disastrous for the victims of that empathy.
____________________________________
Oh, assuredly!
I never realized the profound truth in this opinion until I saw what that liberal bastard George W. "President Unitard" Bush did to those poor NOLA residents after the catastrophic flooding caused by those defective levees during Hurricane Katrina!
And his empathy towards the wretched populace of Iraq suffering under Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship! Don't get me started!
One of the main reasons I am a conservative is because the consequences of liberal empathy are almost always disastrous for the victims of that empathy.-- ehillesum
...and the other reason is because if dynamite were brains, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
There are many homeless people who haven't lost their minds, they've lost their jobs, or they lost their homes, or their retirement savings, or their healthcare insurance, because of policies people like you put implemented.
Alex Linder the founder of VNN and the lead organizer of the rally kicked off events by rushing the clowns in a fit of rage, and was promptly arrested by 4 Knoxville police officers who dropped him to the ground when he resisted and dragged him off past the red shiny shoes of the clowns.
that is awesome!
I would also suggest (without harmful intent or hostility) attempting to stage manage the voting patterns of elected official, save through elections, is a fool's errand.
I believe our typical congress critter spends most of his time in activities involved in "stage managing his voting patterns". Some legal, some borderline illegal, and most of it way beyond what individuals can do. Yet you would deny us this right, diminished though it may be?
'So, for example, many of the homeless are on the streets because liberals thought it wrong to keep the mentally ill in live-in psychiatric facilities."
That is a problem of both liberals and conservatives. Liberals keep families and counselors out of decisions for people with psychiatric problems. However is liberals, not conservatives who push to fund programs both drug treatment, and psyhchaitric treatment. Conservative rather incarcerate than deal with treatment. It was Reagan who did away with funding for outpatient psychiatric housing and treatment care funding. Most medical plans cover psychiatric drugs, but not psychologist or therapy. Drugs without therapy and monitoring does not work.
I do agree people should be able to be committed in some circumstances. After 18 the patient has total control, and many do not have the ability to make these decisions.
not an easy decision for all the s**t he's likely to take from the intelligence community, but they may all sigh in relief once it's done. indefinite detention in the United States would be the beginning of the end of Americans' right of habeas corpus. it must not happen.
Do I detect a Derbig Mooser influence on Blumenthal?
"Inlfuence" yes, but Derbig would have gone one further; he would have said it looked better while simultaneously rueing the loss in volume. ;-}
Blumenthal's awesome. It's just amazing to watch the expressions on their faces when they realize they're being pwned using their own words.....well, at least for the few who are bright enough to figure it out.
Thanks for sharing that Chris.
[You have an] even younger generation who never READ the newspaper or anything else but poorly written misinformed blogs.
Wait. What?
So you're defending media organs who work so very hard to support an elite that is as entrenched as it is blithely dismissive of the people to whom it hawks its product?
Take a look at this (from consortiumnews.com):
With only 10 days left before George W. Bush leaves office, the Washington Establishment – and its chief mouthpiece the Washington Post – are trying to stymie any meaningful accountability for the outgoing administration and thus cover up for their own complicity in Bush’s crimes and incompetence.
http://tinyurl.com/9bt5lt
You can READ the rest of this assessment about a staunch, stalwart and thoroughly reputable establishment newspaper. And once you've done so, perhaps you'll have a better understanding of why the younger set has gone elsewhere.
I've been wondering why the UN hasn't expelled Israel for ignoring their resolution. Does the UN have a spine?
The irony is that some of these guys will probably get sent to a country where they will be treated far worse than they are treated at Gitmo. In fact, wait until the US starts trying to move these guys. Almost certainly, some of them are going to find ACLU lawyers to represent them and keep them from leaving (or at least, keep them from getting sent to a place where a prison is really a prison).
Once again, the assumption that what ever country is taking them should incarcerate them, "where a prison is really a prison". Wow, you are tough. Men were men, huh?
Actually, the ICRC is warning about illegal refoulement. You know, Geneva Conventions, those "quaint" documents you think it's manly to defy? The ones that protect our troops? The troops you'd apparently rather see treated to some manly foreign prisons? You'd be the first to squawk if one of them got their stomachs filled with water laced with hot peppers, feces, and clorox bleach. Damn that's manly.
The prisoners can be released or tried. Help for the likes of you is much less certain. Tough guy.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
