[Edit -- changed thread title to match post/article and remove pointless insult. --PJ]
[ December 13, 2005, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm no fan of Bush, but that story made my BS detector tingle something fierce.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Thanks for giving me a newfound appreciate for the Onion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I find it charming that you're able to buy into that article's basic premises and yet still believe in the effectiveness of the impeachment process. It's kind of adorable.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Wow, that's a pretty vile piece of trash. I'd be concerned if I thought there was a thread of truth to it....
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
Power is given by The People.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The power to make good funny apparently is not given by those people.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farsical aquatic ceremony.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now we have this authoritarian cretin on record trashing the Constitution
Apparently this guy has his own personal definition of "on the record."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Things like "reality"
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I am NOT a Bush fan, but it set off my BS meter too.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Yep, time to take your internal BS meter in for calibration. While you're at it, have them get rid of that sticky "r" on your keyboard Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
Check out that site's 9/11 archive.
I, for one, do not accept the pronouncements of the tin-foil brigade as being 'on the record.'
Also amusing, that site is calling for a boycott of Coca-Cola, tap water, and bottled water. I suppose if you get thirsty you're expected to stand outside face up to the sky and pray for rain.
People like this are standing on that thin line that exists between being committed and getting committed.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Yeah, this doesn't hold even a shred of credibility. Sorry, no dice.
Still, it's fun to read. Like encouraging the crazy people preaching their philosophy in New York.
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
Even if this is not true, you have to look at our god-given rights protected in this document of The Constitution of the United States of America being trampled by such acts as the PATRIOT ACT.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Even if this is not true, you have to look at our god-given rights protected in this document of The Constitution of the United States of America being trampled by such acts as the PATRIOT ACT.
Why don't you take a minute and present a reasoned case that this is happening, rather than just stating your conclusions.
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
If you want to understand, read the patriot act, and the 4th amendment, you should see my case.
Edit: Especially since 80% of the so-called "sneak and peak" warrantless searches (forbidden by the 4th amendment) have been unrelated to terrorism, the supposed reason for them. This has been admitted by the DOJ publicly, btw.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If you want to understand, read the patriot act, and the 4th amendment, you should see my case.
Wow. It's amazing how rarely things are ACTUALLY self-evident.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hey, Papa, where are you? Doesn't the title of this topic violate the terms of service here?
I'm not a big fan of President Bush, but having that subject name jump out at me like that was really off-putting. If you're waiting for an explicit complaint, this is it.
Thanks.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you want to understand, read the patriot act, and the 4th amendment, you should see my case.
Well, I don't, because you haven't made a case. And I'd bet a large amount of money that I'm more familiar than you with the fourth amendment, the patriot act, and the court cases which actually say what the fourth amendment means.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Dagonee- What do you think about the Patriot Act? I recently wrote a paper that brushed up against the issue and I'd love to hear what you think.
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
All the more reason you should already see my point, and shouldn't have to be snarky and dig it out of me.
This is a good article I was refering to about the DOJ.
I fail to see how the TOS has been violated.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
CS, you don't have a case unless you state your case. If you just tell him to read the relevant materials, then he'll draw his own conclusions. Again. He's read them already and drawn his own conclusions, and he doesn't necessarily agree with you. You can't just tell him to look again - you have to say what you are seeing in there.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Here's a sequel, btw.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"All the more reason you should already see my point, and shouldn't have to be snarky and dig it out of me."
Dag, if you know ANYTHING about the constitution or the Patriot Act, you'd clearly see why he was right. Everyone knows that only uneducated people agree with the Patriot Act.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Maybe I'm just missing where your 80% is coming from. From your "source" (not that I'd personally use an Op/Ed article as a primary source):
quote: To date, for example, the Justice Department has failed to disclose how many U.S. citizens' homes, businesses or records have been secretly searched under the Patriot Act provisions, such as Section 213 ('the sneak and peek' provision), or even how many National Security Letter searches (without any judicial supervision) have been executed."
Even the not-even-slightly biased source doesn't claim 80%.
And I'm certainly not one to take Dagonee's bet on this one...
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Thanks for the link, Sroup. Nimmo is my favorite comedy writer! Too bad that Walmart thing didn't work out for him, but he's way too funny to be chained to a photo-processing machine. More funnies, please.
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
Amendment IV; US Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Sec. 102 a; USA PATRIOT ACT (1) Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia play a vital role in our Nation and are entitled to nothing less than the full rights of every American.
Sec 106 1c; USA PATRIOT ACT `(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.'; and
Amendment V; US Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
As you can see with the emphisis I have provided stating my points clearly, that Section 106 of of the Patriot Act is not in harmony with Amendment IV of the Constitution. For our President to say that the Constitution is "a goddamned piece of paper." is very good reason to call him a moron, and to call for impeachment. He did his part in pushing the Patriot ACT through.
Further evidence of the Patriot Act attacking our "full rights of every American" [Sec. 102 a] is as follows:
Sec. 213; USA PATRIOT ACT
`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.
Black's Law Dictionary: "Reasonable cause; having more evidence for or against. A reasonable ground for belief in certain alleged facts. A set of probabilities grounded in the factual and practical considerations which govern the decisions of reasonable and prudent persons and is more than mere suspicion but less than the quantum of evidence required for conviction."
So, First Looking at The Constution Amendment IV, basically stating that without evidence or FACT for or against you can not have a warrant to search; Where the Patriot ACT doesn't require a warrant until sometime after the search, when they can state what they have seen after being in or seizing what they came for. Part of getting a warrant is that you describe what it is you are going to seize or where you are going to search. Not to mention that they can extend the amount of time which is 'reasonable' to issue the warrant.
BTW: Architraz Warden, You're right, it wasn't 80%. "The Justice Department recently conceded that 88 percent of Section 213 search warrants have been executed in non-terrorism cases."
quote:the Patriot ACT doesn't require a warrant until sometime after the search, when they can state what they have seen after being in or seizing what they came for.
You are wrong. The notice is delayed, not the warrant: "any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if..." "With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section" is what the notice will be about.
The Fourth Amendment does not say on its face that a warrant is required to search; it says searches mus be reasonable, and warrants must be issued only on probable cause. Courts have interpreted "reasonable" to include a probable cause requirement and a requirement for a warrant except in certain circumstances.
The Fourth also says nothing about when notice for a warrant must be given.
Again, NOTICE is delayed, not issuance.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee- What do you think about the Patriot Act? I recently wrote a paper that brushed up against the issue and I'd love to hear what you think.
I don't have time to give anything other than a brief summary. I think the majority or all of it of it is constitutional. I think its tendency to remove safeguards will cause it to be applied unconstitutionally. That is, it removes safeguards that are not constitutionally required, but that might catch some attempts to use it constitutionally.
In general, I want law enforcement to stay well back from the edge of constitutionality, but recognize the need to go right up the edge or even risk going over that edge (with exclusion of the evidence found) at times. The safeguards tend to help make sure that the near-the-line tactics are justified.
To me, the constitution is a floor of rights. We should expect more in general. But it also means that not every search policy I disagree with is unconstitutional.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Here are my questions about the original article:
1) Did President Bush actually refer the US Constitution as "just a <insert use of God's name in vain here> piece of paper?"
2) Is it even plausible that he would do so?
3) If he did it, should we take it seriously -- as an indication of something important about his beliefs or character?
Here are my questions about the Patriot Act:
1) When even liberal politicians are talking about "striking the right balance between security and civil liberties" haven't we already lost something on the civil liberty front?
2) If we are really concerned about the potential for abuses under the Patriot Act, wouldn't it make sense to have sunset clauses that suspend the law as soon as abuses are found? (or perhaps we should suspend upon proof of abuse?) Rather than have it sunset every x years...
3) Has anyone ever explained how the name "The USA Patriot Act" was arrived at, or why it is a particular good name for this law?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
USA Patriot Act is an acronym.
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act"
As for 3 on your first part, yes, we should most definetely take it seriously. I would find it very disturbing if a president has no respect for the document which defines his scope of power.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Okay, someone has serious acronym generating skills.
Wow!
I never knew it was an acronym.
THANKS!
I just thought they were being ironic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What do you think Congress REALLY sits around doing all day? Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm pretty sure they mainly work on inserting pork into legislation.
Surely they have clever staffers who come up with the acronyms.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When even liberal politicians are talking about "striking the right balance between security and civil liberties" haven't we already lost something on the civil liberty front?
No. Providing security is one of the most important jobs of a government. Any system that allows searches and seizures by force HAS to strike the right balance between security and liberty. There's no particular reason we should allow arrests or searches of our homes using a standard of probable cause (a pretty low standard when you think about it) other than balancing security and civil liberties. The words "reasonable" and "probable cause" are attempts to strike that right balance, and both are very ill-defined.
If we're not always asking that question, we're failing to meet one of our obligations.
quote:If we are really concerned about the potential for abuses under the Patriot Act, wouldn't it make sense to have sunset clauses that suspend the law as soon as abuses are found? (or perhaps we should suspend upon proof of abuse?) Rather than have it sunset every x years...
No, because I don't see how you could put such a sunset clause in place. How would you draft the triggering event? One abuse? One hundred?
How would you even define what was an "abuse of the act"?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Wait, that's not true, is it? Is it seriously an acronym?
Yes.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:3) If he did it, should we take it seriously -- as an indication of something important about his beliefs or character?
No more so than, say, a president getting a blowjob from a secretary in the oval office.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd say there's a bit of separation from poor quality of personal character, and poor quality of executive character. I'd rather have a slutty president that respected the Consitution than a bible thumper that considered it TP.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, I consider both Presidents Clinton and GW Bush extremely flawed characters who express their flaws in different ways that are harmful to this nation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Aye, I'll agree to that in general.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I think we all agree, if it was actually said, that it's serious. I find it hard to find this guy credible, though
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Adam, I think it's more about putting the mistake in perspective than defending Bush. When people accuse Bush of being dishonest/wrong, saying that Clinton got a blowjob is showing that all presidents make mistakes. I think. I'm guessing there and I just thought of that.
Edit: That's like the 8th time today I've had to edit my post to make sure it's clear who I'm talking to because someone posted before me. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag,
How would I set the triggering event for an event-based sunset clause? Or how could such a thing be done in general?
In this specific case, I'm not sure exactly what the best way to do it would be, but I would say that the law should be suspended (suspense could trigger a raft of required actions in a future Congress, such as reopening the law to be rewritten THEN as opposed to waiting until the sunset period is open; it could require an advisory panel be put in place to review...there are any number of actions that could be triggered by Congress in their wisdom.)
The triggering events would be, I propose, a list of things that the crafters of the bill specifically state they do not intend for the law to be used for. For example, if wiretaps that could be obtained through normal means are using the provisions of the Patriot Act to avoid something, that would be contrary to what the people who crafted the law said they wanted. So...if that turns out to be the case, then let's hold things in abeyance until that part of the law is fixed.
As it stands now, the law has to be challenged just to get it back to the track on which it was supposed to be.
In other areas of the law, I think event-based sunset provisions may make more sense than here, but that doesn't mean I don't think they could work here, if people thought hard enough about it.
My example is in speed limit increases on highways. I suggested to the Iowa legislature that they include a sunset provision that if the fatality rate climbed above some predicted value on the affected highways, that the speedlimit would be immediately rolled back. The reason for this suggestion was that the legislature had bought into the argument that enforcement alone would keep the death rate increase to a minimum after we raised the speed limit to 70 mph. They bought into arguments that had no data to back them up, and lots of data to contradict the "no increase in death rate" folks.
I figured, if they really believed that they could decouple the death rate from the speed limit, they should be willing to create a provision that would automatically undo the law if they found out they were wrong.
They didn't go for it either.
But it seems to me that it's a far more honest approach to decision-making under limited information than just plowing ahead with whatever consensus enough of the colleagues can swallow.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Fun, the patriot act is one of the things I debate in Debate.
One of the things we debate is whether or not it violates the fourth ammendment, and if so, what should happen.
If I were to get my debate files which are currently at school, I could grab some of the cards that state the Patriot Act has its own checks to make sure it doesn't violate any ammendment.
The Roving Wire Taps... were they passed or rescinded in the review of the Patriot Act?
And Dagonee, I have a question in all seriousness. Why is the senate pulling a filibuster on library searches of all things? I'm sure there are things possibly more 'questionable' than that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think it's more about putting the mistake in perspective than defending Bush.
I'm not sure that lying about a casus belli and -- presumably -- deliberately subverting the U.S. Constitution is really "put into perspective" by comparing it to lying about oral sex.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It's all about misuse of force.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How would I set the triggering event for an event-based sunset clause? Or how could such a thing be done in general?
Specifcally.
I have no problem with the idea of triggering events that can be objectively evaluated. Tax decreases that roll back if revenues fall below X (or increases that roll back if revenues rise above Y) would be pretty easy to implement. Assuming there's a well-documented methodology for fatality rates, the speed limit roll back is feasible.
Here, though, you are looking to objectively evaluate something that is an aggregate of many, many fact-specific determinations which, almost by definition, will be close calls. I just don't see it as practical.
Beyond that, you would need a finding of fact that the wiretaps could have been obtained under other laws. Who would make it? There are pretty thorny constitutional issues here with it being anyone but the President or an executive officer.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well, like I said, I would hope that the clever people in Congress could translate their list of "thou shalt nots" into events that would trigger a suspension of the law.
Posted by AYC (Member # 8859) on :
Chreese Sroup
If "Power is given by the People" then the people have voted in the patriot act. The senate and house (representatives of the people) voted in the patriot act on behalf of the people.
I really see the issue as the American people willing to trade away more "rights" for security. Not as the "government" forcing an unwanted law upon the people.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
The source cited in the article is Doug Thompson of 'Capitol Hill Blue', who in turn mentions three conveniently unnamed sources. Thompson has previously been caught fabricating alleged sources out of whole cloth (try Googling "Terrence Wilkinson" + Capitol).
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm not sure that lying about a casus belli and -- presumably -- deliberately subverting the U.S. Constitution is really "put into perspective" by comparing it to lying about oral sex.
Oh yeah, the new and improved, "Bush Lied" meme. I just love how before the invasion of Iraq the hue and cry was that Rumsfeldt had SUPPLIED the WMD to Saddam. But then when the WMD somehow disappeared suddenly there weren't ever any wMD's there in the first place, and Bush had made it all up. How he had managed to convince the entire Clinton administration that Saddam's WMD programs were flourishing in 1998 and 1999 must truly be worthy of Machievelli's Prince.
Or the Democrats are must making things up as they go along, with no reference to anything they had said even within the past 24 hours. Today we need to withdraw. Tomorrow, we just need a different plan. The next day, that different plan is exactly the same as the current plan, only somehow in some completely unexplained details it is entirely different. In one moment, we have too many troops in Iraq, it creates and atmosphere of an occupation. In the next moment we don't have enough troops in Afghanistan -- I can only suppose they don't realize they're being occupied, or something.
Did Bush act on bad intelligence? Probably. Did he act on intelligence his biases prefered in lieu of better intelligence that did not match what he wrongly figured was the case? More probably. Did Bush make up the entire thing and knowingly lie to the American Congress and people? Not a chance. Because we would have FOUND WMD's in Iraq. If he knew there weren't any there, he would have known to sneak some in so they could be planted, wouldn't he?
So ditch the "Bush Lied" mantra of the radical left. Anyone with half a brain can see that it is stupid.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
quote: I'm not sure that lying about a casus belli and -- presumably -- deliberately subverting the U.S. Constitution is really "put into perspective" by comparing it to lying about oral sex.
That's a meaningless slogan. Nobody really thinks Pres. Bush lied about Iraqi information--since there was no one at the time who disagreed with the gist of it. Not the former pres or VP, Senators, foreign intel, next-of-kin of gassed Kurds, probably Sadam himself. One shouldn't use the word lied when one means "made a tough decision based on patchy and incomplete inteligence and then made the best case for it which later turned out to be wrong."
People don't call defense attorneys liars when they defend people widely believed to be guilty by trying to make a definitive case based on the facts availible.
As for the P. Act-- I can't admit to ever having read it. I've yet to hear of abuses of it, and the parts that are usually objected to are laughable. My civil liberties are being violated because some FBI agent knows I checked out memory of Earth? Why, we've become just like the enemy, haven't we?
As for the original article... riiiiiiight...
Edit--was there a page two? sorry! Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Dagonee- Thanks! I just wanted a general idea. I mean I'll read with interest if you supply more, but it's not really the legal details I'm interested in, it's the political ones.
I wrote a paper this semester about democracy promotion post- 9/11 and one of the things I touched on was anti-terrorist legislation. I thought the topic was really interesting, and being the dork that I am have continued to accumulate information and opinions on it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
WntrMute and Nikisknight...
I think you both missed what Tom was actually saying there.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
A Mormon for President would be fun. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Bob - it's okay. They couldn't see the forest for all the jerking knees. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And barking up them.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Ooookay, where to start...
quote: I just love how before the invasion of Iraq the hue and cry was that Rumsfeldt had SUPPLIED the WMD to Saddam. But then when the WMD somehow disappeared suddenly there weren't ever any wMD's there in the first place, and Bush had made it all up.
I understand your confusion here, Wntr. The US DID supply Iraq with chemical and biological weapon precursors, and ways to deploy them. I've also heard that US companies aided in building sites to make the weapons, AND that Rumsfeld met with Saddam to assure him of US help, but I can't find any good documentation at the moment, so I'll leave those as iffy. If someone knows of any good evidence, I'd like to see it though. There's a great Wikipedia article that touches on this here: Wikipedia Article - Hajaba Poison Gas Attack
The article references a senate report commonly known as The Riegle Report, published in 1994, the text of which can be found here: The Riegle Report
This brings me to the second part of your statement, the part about the missing WMDs. In Chapter 1, Part 1 of the Riegle Report, there is a section titled "Destruction of Iraq's Chemicals and Chemical Weapons by the United Nations." This just some of the documentation of how Iraq's WMD programs were crippled. I'll leave you to find more on your own if you like.
Next:
quote: Nobody really thinks Pres. Bush lied about Iraqi information--since there was no one at the time who disagreed with the gist of it. Not the former pres or VP, Senators, foreign intel, next-of-kin of gassed Kurds, probably Sadam himself. One shouldn't use the word lied when one means "made a tough decision based on patchy and incomplete inteligence and then made the best case for it which later turned out to be wrong."
I DO believe Bush lied us...err sorry, led us into Iraq. And by "lied," I mean he deliberately misled the country. Actually, the thing is, I agree with every part of your definition, too, except one. And that's the part where you say he "made a tough decision..." The reason I say he lied is that I believe Bush decided long before he saw the any evidence or intelligence of any kind that he wanted to invade Iraq.
quote: From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
That quote is from a CBS news article about a book by Ron Suskind Titled The Price of Loyalty. The focus of the book is Bush's former Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neil, and well, there you go. The full article can be found here:
quote:I say he lied is that I believe Bush decided long before he saw the any evidence or intelligence of any kind that he wanted to invade Iraq.
Operative word - believe. That's not proof. It's a possibility, and one even I won't rule out and good grief am I getting sucked into this pointless Bush Lied No He Didn't argument again?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
<insert giant slurping noise here>
Belief can be pretty powerful stuff. In some ways it is harder to fight than proof is. And hence, the futility of this direction of discussion.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I'm like a moth to a flame. And when I'm not getting burned, I burn myself. Ack!
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Well, that's why i linked that article as evidence for my claim.
Richard Clarke wrote similar things in his book, Against All Enemies.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I thought the original Patriot Act had a time limit? Like a year or two or something like that? Then it had to be voted on again to keep it enacted? I could be wrong about that though. I suppose I should go look it up. I think for legislation like the Patriot Act we should set a time limit, one year or two years, possibly 3 but not more than that and then it should have to be voted on again to keep it enacted.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I see my terminology is causing problems here. I used the word believe because I'm making a case about a motivation, which can be an exceedingly difficult thing to conclusively prove. By using the word believe I was trying to show that I recognized the lack of conclusive proof but fuond the evidence to be in favour of my claim. I certainly didn't intend to use it in any kind of faith-based way.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jux...the problem with ONeill as a source is that the Administration can paint him as a renegade who left the reservation and had to be slapped down. He then became bitter and is now lashing out.
It's still not proof.
DK: Different provisions in PA have different sunset dates. A bunch of them expire on Dec 31st. What's going on at the moment is a rush to get the whole law re-enacted with or without tweaking. I think that Congress is about to give itself a few more months to think things over, by extending the sunset dates as an interim measure (just for about 3 months) under a continuing resolution.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Most of the Patriot Act expires on Dec. 31st this year.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Yes, this administration is very good at slapping down the renegades. But when you have multiple "disgruntled ex-employees" all saying things along the same lines (O'neil, Clarke, Shinseki, Bremer, for example), then I become a little more then suspicious.
And, I admit, it's not proof. But it is pretty damning.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
Juxtapose, if what you are saying was that Bush was predisposed towards believing intelligence that supported his intentions, I even said as much in my post. If you are saying that he completely and knowingly said things he knew to be complete fabrications, then that is where we disagree, because he would have been prepared to continue the deception. I think the administration was caught flat-footed when the things they thought were true ended up not being true.
Anyways, I now think that there could have been no success in Afghanistan if there were not a more ideologically important target for the jihadis to fight for that was not as naturally condusive towards guerrila warfare as Afghanistan is. Where are the Belgian 'reverts' to Islam blowing themselves up, Kabul or Baghdad? I don't think this was a planned strategy, but nonetheless I think that it is the effective strategic outcome.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
I really didn't realize my last post sounded like barking. I fear this may be seen as such as well...
To be honest, you may have a point about WMD intl being given much more weight than it merited, and as well about Bush already having made up his mind. I'm sure he now regrets his initial emphatic words.
Thing is, I'm not overly upset about it, because I strongly believe in all the other reasons for the invasion that could be (and have been) made. There were no nukes. Shrug. I'm still happy we went in. It's ugly now, but the end is in sight and it's no uglier than mass graves, rape rooms, I'm sure everyone has heard the litiny. Our planes were often being shot at to enforce a no-flyzone. why were our planes there? To prevent Iraqi gunships from firing on his own people when they revolted. Sadam also gave 25,000$ to families of suicide bombers. We saw on 9-11 how terrorism once restricted to "just the jews" could come around and smack the rest of the world in the face.
No men are angels, certainly not our president who makes mistakes. Stretching the truth (in this case, omiting reasons why some doubt your genuinely held conclusion) should not be employed. But I'll save my outrage for the real evil.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I think Bush decided to go into Iraq with the best of intentions, because he thought that the authoritarian political systems in the middle east were a primary cause of terrorism and he further believed that Iraq was the best place to begin (to topple a domino if you will) moving the whole region towards democracy.
The problem is that that's not a a soundbite. It's not an idea that can be sold, there are too many abstract connections in it. And so the Bush Admin came up with another reason that they could sell to the American people to justify going into Iraq- WMD. It was a bad choice, because it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction, and now Bush is facing the fire because of it. But it isn't a new strategy. There's a fundamental difference between being a good politician and being good at governing. And sometimes a good governor is going to have to be less than honest politically in order to govern well. I don't think it's something one should be particularly surprised or upset about.
That said, I don't think Bush is a good governor. I think his reasons for going into Iraq, while understandable and sympathetic, suffered from an excess of idealism. I don't think there's any way we can win in Iraq, nor am I particularly confident that if we did, it would see a decrease of terrorism in the region. I also don't think that other Middle Eastern countries are going to see the example of Iraq and fall all over themselves trying to emulate. Furthermore, I don't think Bush has a very good plan to convert Iraq to democracy when he began the war, and I don't think he realized how long it would take, and how it wouldn't be a short, wildly successful mission.
So, to sum up, I don't think we should judge President Bush on the whole WMD thing. I think we should judge him on his true intentions of spreading democracy in the Middle East, which, unfortuantly for him, is an area in which he also fails.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
To say that as Iraqi's line up to vote is so stupid and blind that I do not have to say any more about the rest of the recent Democratic reforms in the region, I am surprised your brain can keep your lungs working.
BC
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Which part is stupid?
That I don't think we've produced a democratic system in Iraq (you do realize there's a lot more to democracy to voting, right?)
That I don't think a democratic system in Iraq will create a domino effect eventually turning the Middle East into a haven of democracy (Because all of those Middle Eastern countries are just lining up to be invaded next, right?)
Or that I don't think an advent of democracy in Iraq is what's needed to end terrorism?
If it makes you feel any better, all of the democrats in this thread are going to be just as pissed at me as you are.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
BC, personal attacks are not acceptable. Knock it off.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
Harsh.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
Who wants a cigarette?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
blackwolve,
You stated that very well. I believe what you've said about Bush's intentions and reasoning for going to war. I might place his belief in WMD a little differently on a scale of priorities-I still think he really did believe they were there, otherwise why the hell not cook up something else?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
PJ, can you weigh in on the title as well while you're in this thread? Thanks.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: blackwolve,
You stated that very well. I believe what you've said about Bush's intentions and reasoning for going to war. I might place his belief in WMD a little differently on a scale of priorities-I still think he really did believe they were there, otherwise why the hell not cook up something else?
I think it's likely he did think there were WMD, we knew during the Gulf War that Saddam had them, and there wasn't any evidence that he got rid of them. I think that's probably why Bush choose them, because they seemed like a safe bet.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
blacwolve, I didn't think what you wrote was worthy of contempt - your reasoning seems sound, even if I don't agree with the results. BC, that was pretty uncalled for.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Rakeesh, I agree. And I think their NOT being there sent him through a loop: he was just not prepared for that possibility. Much of his public relations faux-pas since then derive from this.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
*nods* I hadn't thought of that, but it does make a lot of sense and explain much of what's happened since.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree with that. I still think it was a mistake, however, to do as I think he did-manipulate and exaggerate and lie about certain things. It would take much, much more to come out for me to think he was lying all those times he said he was sure. But he lied-or those in his employ, which amounts to the same thing-about degrees of certainty and factuality.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
<Edited thread title.>
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Papa!
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Oooh! Maybe there were WMD's there, but since he was being accused of planting them, he didn't tell anyone!
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Thanks, Papa.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:If he knew there weren't any there, he would have known to sneak some in so they could be planted, wouldn't he?
I nominate this for post of the year.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
That good, huh?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote: we knew during the Gulf War that Saddam had them, and there wasn't any evidence that he got rid of them
Know how a lot of US troops were affected by chemical weapons during the Gulf War? The fallout from us blowing the crap out of Saddam's production facilities.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote: we knew during the Gulf War that Saddam had them, and there wasn't any evidence that he got rid of them
Know how a lot of US troops were affected by chemical weapons during the Gulf War? The fallout from us blowing the crap out of Saddam's production facilities.
I'm not quite sure how that's relevant?
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: That I don't think a democratic system in Iraq will create a domino effect eventually turning the Middle East into a haven of democracy (Because all of those Middle Eastern countries are just lining up to be invaded next, right?)
I don't think any Middle Eastern country will become a true open society until the thing that OSC repeatedly points out in the Shadow series is fixed within mainstream Islam: the punishment of apostasy.
That having been said, I think that a more democratic Middle East can be better for us than the kleptocracies that are in place now. The obvious concern, especially in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, would be that they would become Iranian-style theocracies. However, the current theocracy (or mullahcracy) is in a slow self-destruct. The question is how far that destruction will range. With nukes, it will be very dangerous, and the current EU/UN policy of handwringing and mealy-mouthed worry is not at all productive.
Changes in Lebanon and Libya, however, are (in my opinion at least) directly linked to what we have done in Iraq.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Sorry I wasn't clear, Blacwolve. It's relevant because that's how a large part of his weapons capabilities were destroyed. The rest atrophied over the years until they were at the point where we went in and found...nothing. I suppose you could argue that it's not him getting rid of him so much as US getting rid of them, but for the purposes of the point I was making, they come down to the same thing.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Afghanistan is currently considering executing a man who writes editorials in favor of women's rights. His crime is that doing so is in violation of religious law, but it is the state that will be carrying out the execution if that is the decision of the courts. So far, he's just in jail for writing the editorials.
I'm not really sure how we count Afghanistan as a success if that is the status of their legal system.
And if we are duplicating that success in Iraq, I'm not really sure what we are accomplishing for the long run. Replacing Saddam with codified religious law is not going to be in our best interest in Iraq...if that's how this plays out.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)