Gay Patriot Header Image

We Are A Nation At War…

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 8:57 am - December 20, 2005.
Filed under: War On Terror

And this is our Commander In Chief (photo via Lucianne, hat tip – Polipundit).

And this is what our enemy does…

And this is what we do…

If you are a liberal or a member of the American news media…. whose side are you on? If you say “America”, then you need to start acting like it.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

127 Comments

  1. “If you are a liberal or a member of the American news media…. whose side are you on? If you say “America”, then you need to start actingn like it.”

    Sorry, darling- that’s not going to happen.

    Allegiance to the party (Dems) will trump allegiance to the country as a whole, especially when the country is being run by conservatives (every liberals worst nightmare).

    The split between left & right is not only a chasm, it’s still widening.
    From the WOT to school vouchers – cultural & moral relativism and the lefts disdain for established religion there is less common ground than before.

    I’d suggest the left put their brain trust to work (don’t they control academia?) and actually articulate a vision and / or a plan of how they would address the major issues of our day (national defense and the economy being the top two they don’t seem to have a handle on) instead of acting like petulant children screaming “no! No! No!” to whatever policy or plan is being put forward by the right.

    The democrats and the MSM are not only being accused of anti Americanism – they’re becoming irrelevant to an increasing number of people as well.

    Comment by Vera Charles — December 20, 2005 @ 10:12 am - December 20, 2005

  2. Let’s hope they wake up soon before it’s too late!

    Comment by syn — December 20, 2005 @ 10:22 am - December 20, 2005

  3. Good photo essay, Bruce.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 10:25 am - December 20, 2005

  4. LOL…let’s not forget our systemic torture, our spying on our citizens and our rendition of suspects to secret prisons. This administration has rewritten what our country stands for, and we’re all losers because of it. Wake up you ignorant morons; we’ve already lost the war on terror as we’ve lost our standards. We’ve attacked a soverign nation which had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and we’ve created new generations of people who will give their lives to keep us out of theirs. Shame on you for supporting this pathetic excuse of a charlatan. Bush is destined to go down in history as the WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

    Comment by rightiswrong — December 20, 2005 @ 10:54 am - December 20, 2005

  5. Are you saying there’s not a way to defeat terrorism without illegal activities on the part of the American government? That Patriotism somehow necessitates bending the rules?

    Are you saying that those individuals that put the respectability, the character, the lawfulness and the decency of the United States ahead of nation building some ass-backward, third-world hellhole are bad Americans?

    Y’all are starting to sound like Democrats around here. End justifies the means and all that.

    Comment by JustAThought — December 20, 2005 @ 10:55 am - December 20, 2005

  6. Yes, by all means let’s do a photo display to evoke emotional patriotism and fear of our “enemy” so that we can avoid an honest discussion about a man who continues to twart the Constitution of The United States. Where is the outrage that your president believes that he is above the law? Will you people not wake up until the phones that are tapped without warrants are your own? How long before it is the homosexuals that are a threat to national security. WAKE UP YOU LEMMINGS!

    Dear Mr. President,
    Unless I fucking woke up in China this morniing, YOU NEED A WARRANT!

    Mo

    Comment by Mo — December 20, 2005 @ 11:10 am - December 20, 2005

  7. #4 “…let’s not forget our systemic torture…”

    Stop, you’re breakin’ my heart.

    Ooh rah!

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — December 20, 2005 @ 11:14 am - December 20, 2005

  8. To 4 and 5: go suck an egg.

    You’ve made it clear that the Democratic opposition to action in Iraq is based on two things — pure, hate-filled racism and a foreign policy that puts pandering to corrupt governments over dealing with supporters of terrorism and brutal abusers of human rights.

    When you and your fellow liars can come back here and admit that Saddam Hussein continued to build banned weapons, support terrorists, and killed, tortured, maimed, and imprisoned literally MILLIONS of people while under UN “containment”, then we’ll pay attention. But you cowards know full well that your lies to the American people would unravel if you started telling the truth….that’s why you cover up atrocities like Saddam’s imprisonment and torture of children because of their parents’ political beliefs in the name of “dealing peace”.

    Personally, I think what would suit the “respectability, the character, the lawfulness and the decency of the United States” best would be acting, instead of sitting on our hands and making racist excuses. But then again, I’m not a liberal or Democrat.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2005 @ 11:14 am - December 20, 2005

  9. Where is the outrage that your president believes that he is above the law? Will you people not wake up until the phones that are tapped without warrants are your own? How long before it is the homosexuals that are a threat to national security.

    How long before Democrats like you start caring about peoples’ lives rather than your Bush-bashing?

    How long before Democrats like you admit that there are terrorists out there who want to see every man, woman, and child in the United States dead?

    How long before you realize that your fake threats of a fascist state in the US are nothing more than DNC talking points meant to lead you away from the REAL threats of REAL fascists whom your DNC leadership supports?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2005 @ 11:18 am - December 20, 2005

  10. And for the last, DNC operatives Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, both supported by leading Congressional Democrats, say that the same people who committed the acts you see on the photo essay above, are “freedom fighters” who are justified in what they are doing.

    The Democrats have made it clear whose side they are on. Kiss off.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2005 @ 11:19 am - December 20, 2005

  11. #4 “…let’s not forget our systemic torture…”

    Of which there is no … zip zero nada … evidence. Unless you define any type of discomfort (sleep deprivation, isolation, uncomfortable temperature) of any duration suffered by a terrorist as torture.

    #9 — Amen. At least Bush cares more about protecting America than he cares about appeasing the ACLU… who are on the side of the terrorists anyway.

    Comment by V the K — December 20, 2005 @ 11:22 am - December 20, 2005

  12. #4 – “Let’s not forget our systemic torture, our spying on our citizens and our rendition of suspects to secret prisons.”

    Nah, let’s forget them. Because, you see, they don’t exist in the form you’ve stated, or with the implications you’re attempting to make.

    Example: Name one incident of America torturing anybody. I mean actual torture, of course – NOT your baloney that an interrogator waterboarding a key terrorist or wrapping them in an Israeli flag is ahem, “torture”. Plus, if America debates and regulates even such NON-torture incidents as those, and in some cases prosecutes them, in what sense can it be considered “systemic”? Do you have any idea what a systemic practice of torture would look like? Hint: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

    Example 2: your claim of “spying on citizens” – let’s be honest here. You refer to wiretapping of legitimate terrorist suspects, whose phone numbers change all the time, only when time is of the essence, and only within the limits of law created by Congress and/or the Constitution. Newsflash: We’re at war with people who want to kill you. For that wiretapping to happen, AND for it to be that little and that legal, is all pretty good.

    Long story short – You’re going out of your way to slur and slander America, and now we know which side you’re on.

    Guess you’ll have to change that handle yet again, if you want to be taken seriously in your next comment.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 11:25 am - December 20, 2005

  13. Let me see if I can correctly characterize left/Democrat feelings on national security and the war on terror:

    1.) It was great the way the whole world sympathized with us on 9-11. It was like we were sad, and the whole world was hugging us.*

    2.) So, let’s surrender in Iraq, scuttle the Patriot Act, and stop all intelligence operations against terrorists, so we can have another 9-11 and the world will like us again! Hurray!

    * Except for those Muslims who were dancing in the streets, but we won’t mention that.

    Comment by V the K — December 20, 2005 @ 11:28 am - December 20, 2005

  14. “Are you saying there’s not a way to defeat terrorism without illegal activities on the part of the American government?”

    Obviously Bruce isn’t saying that.

    And what would the “illegal activities” be? Please give an example of what you would consider an illegal activity in the War on Terror, and then we can discuss whether you’re correct or incorrect in regarding it as such.

    In other words, you’ve tried to slip in an invalid – or potentially invalid – premise. That doesn’t work here. Let’s evaluate your premise first.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 11:29 am - December 20, 2005

  15. above goes to #5

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 11:29 am - December 20, 2005

  16. Yea keep supposrting a president who could care less if you ever gain Equality in the land of “Liberty & Justice for ALL” – Everyone wants the Troops to be safe – period! So don’t give me that -“Your with us or against us BS” I guess you don’t care that your wonderful A-hole President breaks the law whenever he feels like it….and his wonderful Theives (Repub Congress) passes a $40B budget cut on the Poor, elderly, school programs etc….all the while passing that $70B tax cut for the 1% wealthiest of Americans…whats wrong with you people???

    Comment by JRC — December 20, 2005 @ 11:30 am - December 20, 2005

  17. “How long it is before the homosexuals that are a threat to National Security”

    Well, since Islamic Jihad Fascist terroize homosexuals buy hanging them openly in the public square, I would guess homosexuals will NEVER be a threat to National Security.

    Unless of course they begin strapping bombs on their bodies and blow people up in the name of Jihad, then they would be Islamic Jihadist threatening our National Security.

    Comment by syn — December 20, 2005 @ 11:33 am - December 20, 2005

  18. Where does North Dallas Thirty find racism come in in opposing the war? I would think that with conservative harpies like Michelle Malkin trumpeting racial profiling and WWII-era internment camps for Arabs I would guess that the right-wing is the racist side.

    Oddly enough no pro-war supporter seems to have come up with a counter argument to Brent Scrowcroft, Bush’s father’s former National Security Advisor and mentor to Condi. But then again he subscribes to a more realistic view of foreign policy.

    Nice emotional display though. Bolster the party line, play on emotions, and show the “war” (note: We are not constitutionally at war) to distract people. Heck, let’s raise the terror alert from Yellow to Orange again to distract the populace even further. All the while Bush’s apologists stand around chanting “Inter arma enim silent legis” (In times of war, the law falls silent) and Bush putting those words into practice. I guess we’ve become a 21st century Rome and are driven by the idea that Caesar can do no wrong.

    Comment by The Angry Fag — December 20, 2005 @ 11:35 am - December 20, 2005

  19. A propos of this thread:

    THIS is how the United States treats its enemies: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012607.php

    Now, do they treat us that way? Would they ever?

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 11:36 am - December 20, 2005

  20. “Oddly enough no pro-war supporter seems to have come up with a counter argument to Brent Scrowcroft, Bush’s father’s former National Security Advisor and mentor to Condi. But then again he subscribes to a more realistic view of foreign policy.”

    That’s quite a false claim. Victor Davis Hansen has written entire articles in which he rebuts Scowcroft’s view specifically.

    Be more specific about which argument of Scowcroft’s you mean, and I’ll be happy to give you my own rebuttal.

    And remember: Scowcroft’s “realism” (hah hah) is what gave us 9-11. Decades of our cruel and cynical support for dictators only contributed to the building Islamo-fascist wave of hate, that Clinton did his best to ignore in the 90s.

    The only way to beat terrorism and Islamo-fascism is: (1) Capture or kill the perpetrators, and (2) Repair the damage we did in supporting dictators, by supporting the spread of democracy instead. That’s the ultimate answer to any and all “realist” (hah hah) arguments.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 11:40 am - December 20, 2005

  21. I seem to recall the photo of GWB was when he was on the aircraft carrier, where he pronounced “victory” in the Middle East. That was over two years ago. Thousands more have died and been maimedsince then. Why?

    How much closer today are we to “getting” Osama bin Laden? Wasn’t he our target in Afghanistan? No. It changed to the Taliban, but I can’t seem to remember why. Then it morphed again to dethrone Hussein. Again, why? Besides, that was accomplished over a year ago, and we’re still fighting the infidels, why? Oh, that was because Hussein and bin Laden were compatriots in the war of terror, except that it turns out they weren’t even close, and Hussein did not have WMD after all. Still, I’m sure our people are giving their lives for some good purpose, I just wish our Commander could identify it for us.

    Well, it’s good that Iraqis voted. Of course, it was the U.S. that provided them the environment in which to vote. So the Iraqis should be celebrating in the streets. But when are Iraqis, not Americans, going to come to the defense of their own new democracy? We’ve been there three years, and still not a single Iraqi battlement for self-defense has formed? That seems more than odd. We care, but they don’t?

    That’s right. A recent poll of 80% Iraqis wanted the U.S. invaders out now. Americans by a clear majority want the U.S. to leave. But, it seems that Iraqis have nothing but contempt for their liberators. The U.S. puppet didn’t even get elected. No, a new Islamic state based on Shia law, backed by Iran, will come to power. So instead of one crazy middle-eastern nation, we’ll now have two. Was that the game plan all along? And this is good, why?

    Still, it nags me that our Commander proclaimed “victory” years ago, but this “entanglement” continues. No body, Iraqis and Allies, no body wants the U.S. in Iraq, and most Americans share this sentiment. The Commander insists we’ll be there for many years, at least seven. So, I guess our 160,000 invaders occupying a foreign land in which they’re not wanted or welcome is the Commander’s idea of “victory.” Odd.

    It could be that the “game plan” mapped out and delivered is the “victory” our Commander proclaimed it was, but not fully. I guess it was one of those white lies, he tells. 2,100 dead Americans, another 18,000 maimed, and over 30,000 Iraqis dead, and what do we get for this river of blood? Another Iran! The same Iran that our Allies are financially supporting in its attempt to build nuclear armaments. I guess this is “victory” of a sort — for Iran.

    But as your photos demonstrate, these “new” democrats will obviously turn from their wicked and bellicose ways. A “new” civilization will rise on the ashes of the former one. Surely, someday? Oh, that’s right, the Commander has already proclaimed “victory.” I’m sure he’ll provide us with another raison d’etre for our being there, but I cannot imagine what nifty idea he can possibly find. Surely Cheney can offer up an idea or two!

    Comment by Stephen — December 20, 2005 @ 11:41 am - December 20, 2005

  22. Stephen: rant rant rant rant

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 11:44 am - December 20, 2005

  23. ‘what wrong with you people”

    We got wise to the fact that your insane concept of Socialist utophia is what leads everyone down the road to serfdom’s equalized poverty, misery and oppression for all, while at the same time opening the door to Islamic Jihad Fascism.

    We don’t like it when homosexuals are hanged openly in the public square, we don’t like it when children and women are blown to bits by cowards wearing homocide bombs on their backs, we don’t like it when Liberalism frauds itself with the concept of containing tyrannical dictatorships and we don’t like Rather Fake but Accurate News agencies with their unchecked power to contain the unwashed masses inside a big bubble of dumb-downed brainwashing. And, we don’t like it when that 1% of the uber-wealthly receiving their ‘tax-break’ (didn’t their marginal rate go up?) are mostly uber-rich Socialists (like Soros, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, Ted Turner, Steven Bing, Peter Lewis, Bill Gate’s and his wife, etc) in sheep clothing who put all their money in TAX-FREE trust funds which fund the hideous serfdom of Socialism!

    Shall I continue…..

    Comment by syn — December 20, 2005 @ 11:50 am - December 20, 2005

  24. OK, all you left-wing moonbats who think it’s wrong to monitor the phone calls of terrorists, who think it’s wrong to monitor the activities of people with links to terrorist organizations, who think it’s wrong to arrest terrorists and put them in prison, who think it’s wrong to interrogate terrorists to see what they are planning against us, and who think it’s wrong to send our soldiers to attack terrorists instead of waiting for the terrorists to attack our civilians… all of you who are appalled by that… tell us what your alternative is.

    Comment by V the K — December 20, 2005 @ 11:53 am - December 20, 2005

  25. Calarato:

    So basically we are cleaning up Reagan’s mistakes then. Since he was the one who built up Saddam and thus gave us Osama bin Laden as well.

    Comment by The Angry Fag — December 20, 2005 @ 11:55 am - December 20, 2005

  26. In response to The Angry Fag:

    Where does North Dallas Thirty find racism come in in opposing the war?

    In these remarks:

    Are you saying that those individuals that put the respectability, the character, the lawfulness and the decency of the United States ahead of nation building some ass-backward, third-world hellhole are bad Americans?

    And next up, Stephen’s sarcasm:

    But as your photos demonstrate, these “new” democrats will obviously turn from their wicked and bellicose ways. A “new” civilization will rise on the ashes of the former one.

    These smack of the arguments that black people are inherently vicious and ignorant, incapable of governing themselves. Previously, that was used to justify colonialism. Now it’s used to justify Bush-bashing and complete isolationism.

    Just how far the left has descended into Bush-hating should be obvious. Their main argument used to be that countries under repressive, brutal dictatorships like Iraq and Afghanistan were breeding grounds for the hatred and despair that fuel terrorism. 9/11 made that obvious. However, when the Republicans and Bush started advocating that we actually DO something about said regimes, as Democrats had been screaming for decades, the reversal was worthy of a ZTR lawnmower on Dems’ part. Because Bush supported it, they opposed it, even though they had data showing it was right.

    All the while Bush’s apologists stand around chanting “Inter arma enim silent legis” (In times of war, the law falls silent) and Bush putting those words into practice. I guess we’ve become a 21st century Rome and are driven by the idea that Caesar can do no wrong.

    What the 9/11 Commission found, The Angry Fag, is that “the law” stood in the way of enforcement agencies and others being able to a) gather and b) share data that could have prevented the deaths of thousands of people.

    If I could have a single liberal stand up and say that it was more important to follow the law than it was to put an end to 9/11, I’d be most appreciative, because that is in essence what you’re asking us to do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2005 @ 11:57 am - December 20, 2005

  27. V the K:

    Afraid of Quakers are you?

    Comment by The Angry Fag — December 20, 2005 @ 11:57 am - December 20, 2005

  28. So basically we are cleaning up Reagan’s mistakes then. Since he was the one who built up Saddam and thus gave us Osama bin Laden as well.

    Reagan left office in 1988. GHW Bush reversed the policy of support for Saddam and, in fact, forced him to start complying with international law. GW Bush finished the job by removing Saddam after ten-plus years of noncompliance with the strongest diplomatic sanctions known.

    You had ample opportunity to do/say something from 1992 to 2000, The Angry Fag. It was obvious that Saddam wasn’t complying and was in fact flat-out defying the UN, but the only response was to loosen restrictions on him and remove weapons inspectors.

    GHW Bush cleaned up most of Reagan’s mistakes. GW Bush is stuck with the job of cleaning up Clinton’s mendacious ignorance of Saddam’s brutality and willingness to suck his country dry to keep himself in power.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2005 @ 12:01 pm - December 20, 2005

  29. #25 – No, Angry Fag. The mistakes were bipartisan.

    The cruel and cynical U.S. policy of supporting dictators in the Middle East began under FDR. It continued under Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter (the latter’s entirely fake “human rights” campaign notwithstanding), and Clinton.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 12:02 pm - December 20, 2005

  30. P.S. And support for Saddam in particular got bumped up at key moments in the late 1970s under Zbigniew Brzenski (sp?) and the Carter administration.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 12:03 pm - December 20, 2005

  31. #27 –

    Huh? What’s the reference to?

    If the reference is to V’s post #24, you would do better to simply to explain your proposal for dealing with Islamo-Fascism, Angry Fag.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 12:06 pm - December 20, 2005

  32. #26 – NDT, here is where we disagree.

    You appear (?) to be accepting the premise that the Bush administration has violated the law, or set it aside. – They haven’t.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 12:09 pm - December 20, 2005

  33. North Dallas Thirty:

    Saddam was posturing between the end of GHB’s war and GWB’s war. We’ve been there for almost three years now and where are these illegal weapons? The last reports of Saddam’s supposedly evil weapons,that I can recall off hand, were missles that, without guidance systems, had a raqnge greater than what he was allowed to have and they were crunched.

    And let’s not forget some of the chemicals he used on his people had “Made in the USA” on the packagaging.

    And you still haven’t answered to Reagan’s cultivating Saddam giving us Osama.

    Comment by The Angry Fag — December 20, 2005 @ 12:09 pm - December 20, 2005

  34. And also, Calarato, V the K…let’s give The Angry Fag a chance to answer.

    While I often disagree with him, the man is no knee-jerk moonbat; plus, having dealt with being dogpiled on Americablog, I know well that when you’re being attacked from all corners, you can’t take the time to collect your thoughts evenly. He’s proven to me he’s capable of making a good argument; let’s give him the time to make one and respond.

    Thanks!

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2005 @ 12:10 pm - December 20, 2005

  35. I can’t see where I’ve piled on TAF inappropriately, but I need to go anyway. If you want to deal with him, be my guest.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 12:14 pm - December 20, 2005

  36. Just one more thing: In comment #33, TAF’s reference to “Saddam’s supposedly evil weapons” certainly makes TAF sound like a kneejerk moonbat, NDT.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 12:16 pm - December 20, 2005

  37. Calarato:

    In reference to #24, a group of Quakers were one of the groups that were being spied on. So was the group OUTlaw at NYU and they were classified as “possibly violent”. The Freepers are more potentially violent than gay lawyers.

    Comment by The Angry Fag — December 20, 2005 @ 12:24 pm - December 20, 2005

  38. Calarato:

    So nice that you’ve dropped to name calling. Moonbat makes you sound so Michelle Malkin. What’s next, breaking Godwin’s Law?

    Comment by The Angry Fag — December 20, 2005 @ 12:27 pm - December 20, 2005

  39. V the K, considering their acts over the past decade their alternative would be to live in the moment, ignoring the evident until they see NYC wiped of the face of the planet then ask the question “how could we have let this happen?”

    I am beginning to wonder that if even the canaries in the cold minds were to be wiped away would it motivate them to change their perspective?

    Comment by syn — December 20, 2005 @ 12:27 pm - December 20, 2005

  40. Interesting, if true.

    What are the links/articles for those claims? And did either group have (or is it reasonably possible they had) contacts with known terrorist organizations?

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 12:30 pm - December 20, 2005

  41. #38 – I’m sorry, but I don’t understand the comment.

    (1) There really are some people in the world who may be fairly described, in shorthand, as “kneejerk moonbats”. Sorry, but I don’t get to make up reality. It is how it is. I put Stephen, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan in the category. If that’s name-calling, so be it.

    (2) You made at least one comment that makes you sound like them, as I observed correctly. That observation is fundamentally different in character from attempting to claim that you (as a person) are one. Deal with the distinction.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 12:34 pm - December 20, 2005

  42. Or better yet – Answer my substantive arguments 😉

    And now I must really walk out the door. ‘Till later.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 12:36 pm - December 20, 2005

  43. North Dallas Thirty:

    Well my arguements against the “war” are simple. Before it started there are two: First is that Bush is highly suspicious when it comes to this. Not because he is a Republican, a conservative, or what not but because his ties to Saddam were a bit more intimate and he had personal reasons for wanting Saddam taken out. No one can deny that. If John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Bob Dole, or whoever from the Republican Party had been in Bush’s place the call would have been a bit more credible. My other reason was that Saddam was contained still and that Osama was a bigger threat because if an attack from Iraq happened, we’d know the source and could neutralize it. Osama and his network of sympathizers are a lot more dangerous since we don’t know where they are and in some cases who they are.

    Now that we’re entrenched, my arguement for bringing the troops home is that there are other nations in the world and, whether they agree with the war or not, I hardly see the Europe, Asia, Africa, or Australia opposing UN Peacekeepers take over. From a PR standpoint that would look great because it removes the *appearance* of a US/UK occupation and replaces it with a multinational force there for the purposes of stability.

    As for Bush’s behavior, it is deplorable because he really is subscribing to the “inter arma enin silent leges” theory Cicero wrote.

    Comment by The Angry Fag — December 20, 2005 @ 12:41 pm - December 20, 2005

  44. Calarato:

    Yes, it is name calling because you shift the focus off their opinions/ideas and make it about them. When you have to drop to that level, your own opinions/ideas get discounted.

    Comment by The Angry Fag — December 20, 2005 @ 12:47 pm - December 20, 2005

  45. Ahhh… nothing like a simple posting with a simple message to send the Moonbats into orbit. Pictures equal one-thousand excuses from the Left.

    Comment by GayPatriot — December 20, 2005 @ 1:12 pm - December 20, 2005

  46. Um, Mo, in #6, have you ever read the 4th Amendment? It protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” While that word unreasonable is not emphasized in the Constitution, it is there. And given that this wiretapping took place in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was pretty reasonable to listen in to the phone conversations of these suspects.

    Stephen in #21, that 80% number you cite has been widely discredited, like most of the figures your cite which seem to come from left-wing blog. Most Iraqis are grateful for the Americans for freeing them from a tyrant and helping them build a democracy where they can choose their own leaders.

    Wish I had more time to weigh in, but must do some mythological research today. Thanks, Calarato, ND30, syn and V the K for standing up for this fine post!

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 20, 2005 @ 1:26 pm - December 20, 2005

  47. Dan-

    Everyone THINKS they know what the Constitution says….but most of them of have never read it.

    -Bruce

    Comment by GayPatriot — December 20, 2005 @ 1:27 pm - December 20, 2005

  48. Since most “American” news media are owned by mult-national corporations, I think the question is pointless as far as the “American” part goes.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 20, 2005 @ 1:31 pm - December 20, 2005

  49. Nicely said, Bruce! Don’t think it’s going to happen any time soon though, they only seem to get further polarized into dementia. There is hope though, America will stop voting for them, and stop reading their papers.

    Comment by Michael Hodges — December 20, 2005 @ 1:37 pm - December 20, 2005

  50. And so what the fuck does any of this have to do with the government spying on gay groups?

    http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?section=5&record=2548

    Comment by jimmy — December 20, 2005 @ 1:44 pm - December 20, 2005

  51. #3 “Photo essay”? Looks like a pornography of violence to me. And missing was any photo of the 4th Amendment and some wiretaps.

    Comment by jimmy — December 20, 2005 @ 1:45 pm - December 20, 2005

  52. George W. Bush, 4/20/04, Buffalo, NY: “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

    He lied. And you post pictures.

    Comment by jimmy — December 20, 2005 @ 1:46 pm - December 20, 2005

  53. #52 source: The White House–http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html.

    Comment by jimmy — December 20, 2005 @ 1:47 pm - December 20, 2005

  54. “One thousand excuses”????

    The 4th Amendment. Do you not care one bit about it? Give it an original intent or strict constructionist reading. See what you come up with.

    This blog was interesting for one reason: GPW. GP has always been a histrionic fool who sounds like a drunk guy playing macho at a bar. Actually, that’s not true. I nominate him for Diva of the Year…

    Now, this blog can not be taken seriously at all. Not even a bit of nuance. The 4th Amendment is being stepped on and all you can come up with is an attack on the media and Democrats? Do you have nothing to say about Republicans that are alarmed at this? Nothing at all?

    [Once you look at what the president did, how he consulted with congressional leaders, Justice Department lawyers and even alerted a judge, you can see clearly that he considered the constitutional issues and found that he was on firm legal ground before proceeding. It seems that, in this case, the histrionics are coming from those opposed to the president. –Ed.]

    Seriously, you are a joke.

    Comment by jimmy — December 20, 2005 @ 1:52 pm - December 20, 2005

  55. #44 – Angry Fag – 2 hours and that is the best you can come up with???

    Why not respond to the substance of my points in comments #20, #29, #30, #31, and #40? as I did for you in those comments, and requested of you in #42?

    Great distractionary tactic, by the way, Angry Fag. I mean, whine about someone else supposedly being responsible for “shifting the focus away” from substance when, in fact, you have done it, with your own #44 being a continuation, after the matter (the side issue of possible name-calling) was addressed squarely in #41.

    I’m not fooled. Sorry NDT, but I don’t get it why you think Angry Fag is on the level, making substantive arguments. I hope we’ll see something better from him!

    #48 – Gryph has this weird thing he keeps repeating about the phrase of “American media” being invalid, as if American is somehow not a country serviced by media, among many other countries also serviced by media. I’ve never seen that bit of his add to a discussion.

    #50 – #54, inclusive: What if Jimmy threw a party, and no one came? Would anyone care? 🙂

    I am searching Jimmy’s comments for substantive points to respond to, and not finding a whole lot. For a full, complete, total and substantive refutation of the “Bush lied!!!” silliness, simply click here.

    Jimmy’s other comments seem mostly silly, and GP has answered.

    Re: #52 – Jimmy, what was Bush supposed to do, say “We’ve got a hot new process that lets us track known terrorist phone calls faster”???

    It was supposed to be a secret program. Look up the word. It means that, yes, the President would knowingly and intentionally lie about its existence – but with good reason, and only after consulting Congress. That’s the functional meaning of “secret”, Jimmy.

    Let’s go back to the basics:
    – Did the Administration restrict it to legitimately terrorist suspects?
    – Did the Admin. consult the Legislative and Judicial branches?
    – Did the Admin. strictly follow U.S. law, and intend to?

    On present information, the answers would be: yes, yes and yes. NOTE, I am still wait for some actual news link or other proof about the claimed “spying on gay groups”; I asked Angry Fag for that in #40, to no effect (still waiting.)

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 3:21 pm - December 20, 2005

  56. Well my arguements against the “war” are simple. Before it started there are two: First is that Bush is highly suspicious when it comes to this. Not because he is a Republican, a conservative, or what not but because his ties to Saddam were a bit more intimate and he had personal reasons for wanting Saddam taken out.

    Pure, Michael Moore-derived moonbat juice.

    No one can deny that. If John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Bob Dole, or whoever from the Republican Party had been in Bush’s place the call would have been a bit more credible.

    I’ll deny it, because the media would gang-bang any Republican simply for being a Republican. The only reason the media has been easy on McCain, Dole, and Alexander is because they are losers, which is the only kind of Republican the media likes.

    My other reason was that Saddam was contained still …

    Except when he was shooting at allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, sending $25,000 checks to Palestinian terrorists, harboring terrorists like Abu Nidal, coordinating with al Qaeda through his security services, training terrorists at Salman Pak, and bribing the UN through the oil-for-palaces program, all while defying seventeen UN resolutions to disarm. Really contained, un-huh.

    And that Osama was a bigger threat because if an attack from Iraq happened, we’d know the source and could neutralize it.

    Just like we neutralized the terrorists before 9-11. Which we couldn’t do because of the wall between intelligence gathering and law enforcement that was removed with the Patriot Act, and which will go back up because of the Democrat filibuster of the Patriot Act.

    Not to mention, if an attack happened, it would be too late, because people would be dead. But hey, who cares if people are dead. The important thing is that liberals feel good about themselves.

    Osama and his network of sympathizers are a lot more dangerous since we don’t know where they are and in some cases who they are.

    And if we can’t tap their phone calls and imprison and interrogate the ones we capture, how the Hell are we going to find out? Do you think they’ll tell us if we just ask nicely.

    Now that we’re entrenched, my arguement for bringing the troops home is that there are other nations in the world and, whether they agree with the war or not, I hardly see the Europe, Asia, Africa, or Australia opposing UN Peacekeepers take over.

    Then why aren’t they offering to? They can’t. Europe’s military assets are practically nonexistent outside Great Britain. Australia’s already there. Nobody else has the capability to do what we’re doing in Iraq. And if we retreat, as you advocate, we’ll be sending the same message to al Qaeda that Clinton sent to OBL when we ran out of Mogadishu; America doesn’t have the stomach to finish the job.

    From a PR standpoint that would look great because it removes the *appearance* of a US/UK occupation and replaces it with a multinational force there for the purposes of stability.

    Oh, yeah, PR and world opinion are the most important objectives aren’t they? I guess we should have a few more 9-11’s, because 9-11 did wonders for our PR and world opinion.

    As for Bush’s behavior, it is deplorable because he really is subscribing to the “inter arma enin silent leges” theory Cicero wrote.

    See comment #24.

    Comment by V the K — December 20, 2005 @ 3:34 pm - December 20, 2005

  57. #56 — I’ll also add that the media like McCain because he is a RINO who backstabs the president at every opportunity.

    Comment by V the K — December 20, 2005 @ 3:35 pm - December 20, 2005

  58. #4 Systemic torture? Water-boarding and sleep deprivation are torture? Do you Democrats even know what torture is?! Spend a couple of hours reading about the Bataan Death March, and then a couple more hours reading about the Hanoi Hilton, and then maybe you’ll understand what torture really is.

    There is no evidence that Bush’s wiretaps break the law.

    You complain about the Bush administration “lowering our standards” presumably with such as the Patriot Act. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and Franklin D. Roosevelt sent Japanese, German, and Italian Americans to internment camps for years. That’s lowering standards and abridging civil liberties. Please explain how the Patriot Act has even once inconvenienced you, much less done anything to your civil liberties.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — December 20, 2005 @ 3:43 pm - December 20, 2005

  59. #56 – Good job, V.

    I have yet to see any credible “Bush ties to Saddam”, and/or “Bush ties to the Saudis” for that matter, where in fact the Democrats, George Soros etc. don’t have equal or more ties under the same class of evidence. (example – Carlyle Group and Saudis – were totally in bed with Soros and the Clinton Administration.)

    And to say that one key reason you’re against the war is, in essence, because it was Bush doing it (not some other Republican) amounts to an irrational focus on Bush (a.k.a. “Bush hatred”).

    And to say “Saddam was contained” or that the sanctions hadn’t already collapsed, with all the arms smuggling under the aegis of U.N. “Oil for Food” – Utterly absurd.

    And to claim that the U.N., which is very much in Iraq today under our protection by the way, is somehow going to come up with other-than-Coalition troops to fight the terrorists and effectively train Iraqi security forces – Wrong!

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 3:49 pm - December 20, 2005

  60. Re: the Cicero bit…

    A thought just hit me. Perhaps the fact that the Bush Administration has been so extraordinarily legal and concerned with legalities in this war is, in itself, one of the reasons so many liberals think we’re not in a war?

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 3:56 pm - December 20, 2005

  61. I think V the K and Calarato have handled things very nicely — although I do disagree with the characterizations of moderate Republicans as “losers”. They are what they are, but “losers” they are not.

    And as for Jimmy’s statement about “spying on gay groups”, as long as those gay groups keep making alliances with moonbat groups like ANSWER, the Hamas-sponsored “Free Palestine” groups, and others to get people to their rallies, they should expect that people are going to treat them differently. I’d like to see SLDN come out with their list of groups that were represented at the “protests” that were supposedly spied upon; given that they were on college campuses, where leftists like Nicholas De Genova that call for “a million Mogadishus” for US troops are praised, I’d be watching them too.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2005 @ 4:14 pm - December 20, 2005

  62. #55. There is a SECRET court for getting SECRET WARRANTS for this purpose. They did not get warrants. They broke the law. And Bush approved it again and again…

    #46. “Warrant” was interestingly omitted from that comment. The issue about breaking the law has nothing to do with reasonable or unreasonable searches, etc., but has everything to do with not getting a warrant.

    Conservative scholars such as Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein, among others, even concede as much. But this caricature of a “blog” just becomes more and more of a sycophantic freak show echo chamber that supports ‘dear leader’ on anything he does.

    But we have a Constitution.

    Comment by jimmy — December 20, 2005 @ 4:26 pm - December 20, 2005

  63. Jimmy still gets it wrong.

    When they get a terrorist phone number, Jimmy, they sometimes have only a few hours to act on it. Going to the FISA court would quite simply take too long. And not all wiretaps require warrants anyway, even before the War on Terror. Congress agreed with all this and approved the program, including Democrats who now want to deny it.

    For one fuller discussion of the facts (you sure could use it, Jimmy) see here.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 4:31 pm - December 20, 2005

  64. #61. Your broad sweeping generalizations are outrageous. And childish. Let me ask you this: should all of these college campuses be spied upon? Your bubblegum wrapper political slogans don’t get to the heart of the matter. Does the 4th Amendment–and, by extension, FISA–allow the President of the United States of America to spy on American citizens without a warrant? Is the President above the law? And, if so, which other laws are you prepared to throw aside for the White House? This is the 4th Amendment–not perjury about a blow job.

    Further, I am wondering: do the owners of this blog, and their cheerleaders, think that Nixon did anything wrong? The reason I ask is this: somewhere around 26% of the population still supported Nixon and gave him a thumbs up approval rating on the day he got on the helicopter to disappear from the White House. Are you all part of a percentage that will never even entertain the thought or possibility that George W. Bush could break the law while in the White House?

    As to the original post, one can only wonder what kind of pleasure the Conservative Diva had putting it together, knowing that there would be a reaction–which he laughs about. And the reason that the Conservative Diva knew there would be a reaction and a swift and strong one is that the Diva knows at some level that George W. Bush has created a huge problem. Respectable conservatives know as much; clowns put together photo montages in an attempt to change the terms of the debate. But this is no laughing matter. This isn’t a time for “moonbat lefties” talk and all the other sophomoric wish wash. This is very serious. And it scares me that so many of you could just spout off about a conspiracy against your dear leader when he is engaged in an illegal action against the American people.

    Comment by jimmy — December 20, 2005 @ 4:39 pm - December 20, 2005

  65. #63. The warrants can be obtained from the secret court after the fact. There is no reason not to use the court. Sorry.

    Comment by jimmy — December 20, 2005 @ 4:39 pm - December 20, 2005

  66. Norm Ornstein, from the AEI, http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.48,filter.all/scholar.asp

    “I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.”

    http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/05/12/19.php starting around 33 or 34 minutes.

    Comment by jimmy — December 20, 2005 @ 4:43 pm - December 20, 2005

  67. Bruce Fein, deputy attorney general, Reagan Administration:

    http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm

    “I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.”

    http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/05/12/19.php (also starting around 33 or 34 minutes)

    Comment by jimmy — December 20, 2005 @ 4:47 pm - December 20, 2005

  68. And with those last several comments, I’m done with this “blog.” It lacks, down to its core, any semblance of intellectual honesty anymore.

    Enjoy each other’s thumbs up your asses while you masturbate to Patriot Porn. You are all True Believers. God bless you and Happy Holidays.

    Comment by jimmy — December 20, 2005 @ 4:51 pm - December 20, 2005

  69. Your broad sweeping generalizations are outrageous. And childish. Let me ask you this: should all of these college campuses be spied upon?

    I assume, Jimmy, that your attack on me indicates your support for Nicholas De Genova, communist groups like ANSWER, and terrorist-supported Free Palestine groups.

    Denounce each and every one of those first, and then we’ll talk; otherwise, I shall take your ravings as nothing more than those of a liberal whose style is being cramped, not someone who actually cares about American lives or civil rights.

    What bothers you the most, Jimmy, is being confronted with the facts about what the “freedom fighters” you support and whose actions you would render law enforcement powerless to stop out of your sheer, irrational, anti-Bush hatred.

    Nowhere in the Fourth Amendment, as Calarato’s source pointed out, does it say warrantless searches shall be banned. It says “unreasonable”; making an international call to a known terrorist vaults well into the range of “reason”.

    And, since you admit in 65 that the approval of the court is not necessary for the President to act, you just completely unraveled your entire argument that the President cannot act without the approval of the court.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2005 @ 5:44 pm - December 20, 2005

  70. Brucie: here are your boys in action…perhaps one day they’ll turn on you!!Pentagon anti-terror investigators labeled gay law school groups a “credible threat” of terrorism
    by John in DC – 12/20/2005 11:35:00 AM

    Jesus f-in Christ. This has gone far beyond the pale. We need to do something now, and in massive numbers. I’ve been talking with several of the blogs and politicos in the last few days. This is even worse than I thought.

    From the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a great organization that was created ten years ago to help overturn the military’s anti-gay Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.
    According to recent press reports, Pentagon officials have been spying on what they call “suspicious” meetings by civilian groups, including student groups opposed to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. The story, first reported by Lisa Myers and NBC News last week, noted that Pentagon investigators had records pertaining to April protests at the State University of New York at Albany and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school’s LGBT advocacy group OUTlaw, which was classified as “possibly violent” by the Pentagon. A UC-Santa Cruz “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” protest, which included a gay kiss-in, was labeled as a “credible threat” of terrorism.

    Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) condemned the Pentagon surveillance and monitoring. “The Pentagon is supposed to defend the Constitution, not turn it upside down,” said SLDN executive director C. Dixon Osburn. “Students have a first amendment right to protest and Americans have a right to expect that their government will respect our constitutional right to privacy. To suggest that a gay kiss-in is a ‘credible threat’ is absurd, homophobic and irrational. To suggest the Constitution does not apply to groups with views differing with Pentagon policy is chilling.”

    In January, the Department of Defense confirmed a report that Air Force officials proposed developing a chemical weapon in 1994 that would turn enemies gay. The proposal, part of a plan from Wright Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was to develop “chemicals that effect (sic) human behavior so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely effected (sic). One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior.” SLDN also condemned that report, and the Pentagon later said it never intended to develop the program.

    “The Pentagon seems to constantly find new and more offensive ways to demean lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people,” said Osburn. “First, we were deemed unfit to serve our country, despite winning wars, medals and the praise of fellow service members. Then, our sexual orientation was suggested as a means to destabilize the enemy. Now, our public displays of affection are equated with al Qaeda terrorist activity. It is time for new Pentagon policy consistent with the views of 21st century America.”

    SLDN announced it plans to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to learn if it or other LGBT organizations have also been monitored by the Pentagon. To date, only a small portion of DoD’s total database of information has been made public.
    Sources that show the Pentagon keeping tabs on gay groups include this news report:
    A secret Pentagon document obtained by NBC News reveals that the military has been spying on what they call “suspicious” civilian meetings – including many “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” protests.

    Only eight pages from the four-hundred page document have been released so far. But on those eight pages, Sirius OutQ News discovered that the Defense Department has been keeping tabs NOT just on anti-war protests, but also on seemingly non-threatening protests against the military’s ban on gay servicemembers. According to those first eight pages, Pentagon investigators kept tabs on April protests at UC-Santa Cruz, State University of New York at Albany, and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school’s gay advocacy group “OUTlaw,” and was classified as “possibly violent.”

    All of these protests were against the military’s policy excluding gay personnel, and against the presence of military recruiters on campus. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network says the Pentagon needs to explain why “don’t ask, don’t tell” protesters are considered a threat.

    Comment by chezchas — December 20, 2005 @ 5:57 pm - December 20, 2005

  71. #59 — Calarato. Thanks. I now can forgive you for not LOL at the Bumpin’ Donuts comment.

    So, jimmy, if we’re not allowed to spy on terrorists, and if we’re not allowed to engage in surveillance to determine who the terrorists are, and we’re not allowed to imprison or interrogate terrorists to lead us to other terrorists… how are we supposed to defend ourselves?

    Oh, I forget, we shouldn’t defend ourselves. Because defending ourselves is bad for “world opinion.” It’s much better off to let a few thousand Americans be killed in terrorist attacks… because then all the world gives us rhetorical hugs. Those of us who survive, anyway.

    Comment by V the K — December 20, 2005 @ 6:11 pm - December 20, 2005

  72. what an incredible photo montage,,,it’s hard to follow up with words that so eloquently conveys the reality of the WoT
    Thank you!!!!

    Comment by SixStringBassPlayer — December 20, 2005 @ 6:13 pm - December 20, 2005

  73. Bravo!

    Well done.

    Comment by Richard Platt — December 20, 2005 @ 7:14 pm - December 20, 2005

  74. #45 — Count your blessings. At least, on your blog, your friendly commenters don’t get angry when you miss a couple days of promoting the best comments to the front page.

    Comment by V the K — December 20, 2005 @ 7:29 pm - December 20, 2005

  75. #50 “And so what the fuck does any of this have to do with the government spying on gay groups?” – jimmy

    It’s not out yet, but when you get a chance, watch Indoctrinate U available from:
    http://onthefencefilms.com/movies.html

    Protesting against DADT is certainly understandable and just an expression of free speech, but he goes to these protests and gets footage of them going far beyond that topic as the left is inclined to do and making very broad statements about the military and the war. If they start saying we’re the bad guys and sympathizing with terrorists (and they do), I think it’s worth looking into to see if they are not a threat, within the law of course. The left uses gay people and other minorities to demonize conservatives and America in general.

    And they are getting court orders. It’s just the orders are attached to people instead of to a phone number. That’s just the law keeping up with modern technology which is needed since the terrorists are taking advantage of that technology for their networking.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — December 20, 2005 @ 7:37 pm - December 20, 2005

  76. #75 — Good Point. Perhaps the surveillance only is because so many gay groups have aligned themselves with the radical, America-hating left.

    If I were the FBI, I would certainly be interested in knowing who showed up at a “Queers for Palestine” rally, as well as any rally where people were displaying banners reading “We Support the Troops When They Shoot Their Officers” and “I Like NYC Better Without the WTC.” And the Secret Service, I think, has a duty to follow up on any group or organization calling for the overthrow of the US Government, or the assassination of the president.

    Comment by V the K — December 20, 2005 @ 7:49 pm - December 20, 2005

  77. And since there have been several incidents of violence and vandalism against campus military recruiters — in part because of DADT — it is totally reasonable to monitor groups who oppose military recruiting on campus.

    Comment by V the K — December 20, 2005 @ 7:52 pm - December 20, 2005

  78. Monitoring, spying… same difference.

    Comment by Gaylord McGay — December 20, 2005 @ 10:20 pm - December 20, 2005

  79. Jimmy in #52

    Nice quote but it has nothing to do with the wiretapping of calls from terrorists in other countries. As your quote refers, the president was talking about the Patriot Act, which deals with extending domestic “roving” wiretapping to terrorist suspects inside the United States, similar to what we were already doing with drug dealers, gangs and mobsters.

    Here is a corrected link from the one you gave.

    and in #54
    The 4th Amendment. Do you not care one bit about it?

    and in #62
    There is a SECRET court for getting SECRET WARRANTS for this purpose. They did not get warrants.

    Does anyone remember the Aldrich Ames spy case in the 90s? President Clinton ordered much more than warrantless wiretapping and he felt more than justified in doing so. As did Janet Reno and Jamie “The Wall” Gorelick. Clinton made the exact same arguments as Bush is making now.. Why was there no uproar then? Where were the calls for congressional investigations? Where was the news coverage?

    Comment by John — December 20, 2005 @ 10:34 pm - December 20, 2005

  80. In addition, if Jimmy is so worried about the fourth amendment, why would he care if Bush got a secret warrant from a secret court anyway?

    Comment by John — December 20, 2005 @ 10:43 pm - December 20, 2005

  81. I think that this boils down to the Tookie Factor. When I look at Tookie, I see a cold, remorseless killer who founded a gang responsible for ruining the lives of ten’s of thousands. The Left see a victim who made some mistakes, “wrote” some childrens books that didn’t sell and turned in to a harmless and kindly old uncle. Similarly, when I see people who constantly tell me how much they hate me, see them chop off heads, blow up children and watch them kill 3,000 Americans live on TV, I believe my eyes. I want them dead before they get to me. The Tookie Left sees victims of US imperialism who may have been a bit over the top in their quite understandable reaction to opression. But they can be contained, then reasoned with (unlike evil Republicans) and in no time they will only be interested in bunny rabbits, cotton candy and women’s rights. They believe in what they believe things should be. Stephen, Jimmy et al are so full of Tookie that it’s really a waste of time to respond. They live in a different universe. Just say No!!! to Tookie.

    Comment by Bobo — December 20, 2005 @ 11:47 pm - December 20, 2005

  82. Jimmy is all concerned about warrants and that’s nice, but the answer comes down to 2 points people have made, which I shall summarize:

    (1) The Constitution does not have a universal or blanket requirement for warrants. Not in its text. Nor in American caselaw. Warrants are great. But they are not required in exceptional circumstances. Not even “after the fact”.

    (2) The whole process of going to the FISA court has a turnaround of at least one day. Generally, after capturing some terrorist’s laptop, they have only a few hours before terrorists get wise and never again use the phone numbers on that laptop’s hard drive. That’s exceptional circumstances.

    Jimmy says, despite point (1), they should have gone to FISA court for after-the-fact warrants. Really? I’d need a lawyer to respond. My first reaction is: what’s the good of doing it after? And I have to say, apparently the Democrats in Congress who were briefed at least a dozen times on all this, agreed.

    As for Jimmy’s claim that Bush has not been consulting the other branches: Rubbish. Consulting Congress is exactly what Bush did.

    Finally, Jimmy, a moral equivalency check for you.

    It isn’t Bush who has created a huge problem. It’s the terrorists.

    Plus, secondarily, 60 years of badly chosen U.S. policy in supporting dictators and, at the same time, largely ignoring the hateful terrorists that flourished in consequence.

    Bush’s policy of establishing a democracy in the heart of the Middle East is the solution, not the problem. Sure, it superficially looks worse at first. Housecleaning always does. Grownups understand that, and get on with the effort.

    Comment by Calarato — December 21, 2005 @ 12:34 am - December 21, 2005

  83. As for the possibility of the Pentagon monitoring college groups who protest the Pentagon – That may be somewhat disturbing, but not outrageous.

    Let’s dispense with the outrage. But I would hope the Pentagon has much better things to than monitor college groups for very long. I would expect them to monitor just long enough to establish that the group is not planning to attack the Pentagon or other targets; then move on.

    Request: More light and less heat, please.

    Comment by Calarato — December 21, 2005 @ 12:42 am - December 21, 2005

  84. Final note – I love (?) the pompous self-righteousness of Jimmy’s “pornography of violence” accusation.

    I guess his answer to images that are inconvenient to his position – images like 9-11 or what our enemies are really like – is to brand them “pornography” arbitrarily. Just as the general liberal tactic for handling dissenters from liberal orthodoxy is to arbitrarily brand the dissenters “fascist”.

    Comment by Calarato — December 21, 2005 @ 2:10 am - December 21, 2005

  85. O.k. I skipped over a lot of comments so forgive me if I repeat something.

    From comment #4

    LOL…let’s not forget our systemic torture,

    What torture?

    our spying on our citizens

    1. How do you know who was spied upon and whether or not they were citizens? BTW, what you call “spying on our citizens” was enacted by your precious Jimmy Carter and practiced by your lord and master BJ.

    and our rendition of suspects to secret prisons.

    Uhmmm, you know that was started by your master BJ too, don’t you?

    This administration has rewritten what our country stands for, and we’re all losers because of it.

    Thank GOD!!! We’re no longer a country that bends over so we can get f*cked dry by your terrorist buddies.

    We’ve attacked a soverign nation which had NOTHING to do with 9/11

    If you were an honest person, you’d readily admit that the only folks who have mentioned anything about a connection between Iraq and 9/11 are liberals.

    Comment by rightiswrong — December 20, 2005 @ 10:54 am – December 20, 2005

    Guess who’s going down as one of the WORST LIBERAL LIARS IN HISTORY? You. Don’t worry though. Your lord BJ will prepare a place for you.

    16. Yea keep supposrting a president who could care less if you ever gain Equality in the land of “Liberty & Justice for ALL”

    Quick question. What the hell do you care about equality if you’ve assumed room temperature?

    – Everyone wants the Troops to be safe – period! So don’t give me that

    We will give you “that”. As long as the left keeps falling over themselves to undermine the troops and spend all their time fawning over some BS CIA leak investigation instead of gettig pissed off at the real security leaks, we will give you “that” as long as you support it.

    -”Your with us or against us BS”

    It’s not BS. It’s called reality.

    I guess you don’t care that your wonderful A-hole President breaks the law whenever he feels like it

    We did. That’s why he was impeached, disbarred and is now a felon. You’re the ones who spooge all over yourselves defending his criminal actions and lies even after he looked you square in the eye and essentially told you it was none of your damn business.

    and his wonderful Theives (Repub Congress) passes a $40B budget cut on the Poor, elderly, school programs etc….

    Name one program which has been cut which was actually being used fully. Please explain to me why the welfare program was advertising for enrollments because people weren’t using it and they had to justify themselves for funding.

    all the while passing that $70B tax cut for the 1% wealthiest of Americans…whats wrong with you people???

    Actually, your buddies like Ted Kennedy, George Soros etc. have hidden their assetts in trusts or in off shore accounts in Curacao or the Bahamas so they don’t have to pay taxes on them period. Fact is, the majority of the people affected by the tax cuts fall into the top 50%, not the top 1% as you and other liberal liars contend.
    And what about the thousands of low income folks who don’t have to pay taxes anymore PERIOD due to the tax cuts? Would you demand that they go back to paying more?

    Long story short, you and your buddies are, in fact, pathological liars. Sad thing is that I seriously doubt that you even know it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 21, 2005 @ 2:42 am - December 21, 2005

  86. Do you have nothing to say about Republicans that are alarmed at this? Nothing at all?

    Yeah. They’re

    A. Douchebags who won’t stand for anything.
    B. RINOs (Liberals)
    C. Posturing for the benefit of the voters.
    D. All of the above.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 21, 2005 @ 2:47 am - December 21, 2005

  87. Well, since I last checked these comments, our pal Jimmy has decided he’s done with this blog. He certainly did spend a lot of time here for someone who hates us so much.

    I’m too tired to try to figure out how he managed to get from Bruce’s post to his comments on the eavesdropping case, but then again it seems our critics don’t want to take issue with our posts — or our ideas, but to use our comments section as an occasion to bash Bush — which seems to be their entire focus in life. Driving in tonight I heard one guy on KABC bash the centrist talk show host as an “evil Republican.” Indeed, that was his response to every point that host (I think it was Kevin James) and his guest made.

    While Stephen, Jimmy and others rant endlessly against the president on this one, claiming he broke the law and violated the constitution and while Barbara Boxer thinks impeachment may be in order, those who have take the time to look at the facts soberly find that this case is not as cut and dried as they would like it. There are legal opinions on both sides of the issue. Some libertarian-leaning legal scholars think that the president broke the law, but acknowledge that it is not a “slam dunk” case while others find the law “murky” on the subject. Others are convinced the president was on solid legal ground in taking the actions that he did. While still others cite similar — and more far-reaching programs — in the Clinton Administration.

    From what I’ve read so far, the long and the short of it is that the law is not settled on this issue. And the record shows that the president did look into the legality of this program. Belmont Club quotes intelligence officer Emily Francona who points out that the president did “follow requirements for legal review of his orders by consulting with the NSA Legal Counsel and the U.S. Attorney General. He also followed congressional oversight requirements by notifying the appropriate congressional committees in a timely manner.

    In the end, the president made a judgment call which, after all, is the responsibility of the executive. While some legal scholars do not believe the law supports him, others are certain he followed the law. Perhaps the law was murky, but in the aftermath of 9/11, the president made the right choice.

    In short, the president respected the law and the separation of powers. Pat Roberts, the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who was briefed on this program, commented Tuesday that (in the past three plus years) none of the Democratic Senators who were similarly briefed informed him of their objections to the wiretapping even though they had ample opportunity to do so.

    Instead of ignoring the constitution (as his critics have suggested), the president showed great respect for that august charter.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 21, 2005 @ 4:18 am - December 21, 2005

  88. Lest anyone buy into Angry Fag’s delusion that we can count on our EUrotopian allies to be of any use at all, Germany frees terrorist wanted for murder of a US soldier.

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2005 @ 5:51 am - December 21, 2005

  89. I’m too tired to try to figure out how he managed to get from Bruce’s post to his comments on the eavesdropping case, but then again it seems our critics don’t want to take issue with our posts — or our ideas, but to use our comments section as an occasion to bash Bush — which seems to be their entire focus in life.

    We know that liberals don’t want to compete on ideas because they CAN’T. Rather, they prefer to criminalize and demonize instead.
    One searching for examples need only to look at the fact that since they can’t win elections, the voters are stupid, the elections were rigged, gotta criminalize Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Libby, DeLay, even Limbaugh etc. etc. etc. They gotta call Condi “Aunt Jemimah” (but that’s not racist). They even got so desperate they had to criminalize Bush over a f*cking turkey. That’s what our liberal “friends” are good for.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 21, 2005 @ 6:17 am - December 21, 2005

  90. “Intelligent ” Design went down in flames yesterday. Aren’t you loonies busy working on a spin for that one? Next to go, Sicko Santorum.

    Comment by hank — December 21, 2005 @ 6:54 am - December 21, 2005

  91. Yeah, the secular jihadists in the press corps were really doing a Snoopy dance over that ID case. But, they never mentioned the ACLU losing a 10 Commandments case in Kentucky.

    Writing for the Court, Circuit Judge Suhrheinrich said that the ACLU’s “repeated reference ‘to the separation of church and state’ . . . has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2005 @ 8:08 am - December 21, 2005

  92. And I would put it this way…..the Dover school board was inept enough to perjure themselves to the point where the judge didn’t have to really confront the issue of whether or not telling kids there were alternate beliefs on evolution should be suppressed by the education establishment fascists.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2005 @ 10:00 am - December 21, 2005

  93. #90 – Hank – hah hah hah hah – what happened to the numerous, repeated declarations that you were leaving? 😉

    Comment by Calarato — December 21, 2005 @ 10:07 am - December 21, 2005

  94. Here is but one of them, in case Hank has conveniently forgotten.

    Comment by Calarato — December 21, 2005 @ 10:16 am - December 21, 2005

  95. #94 — Marijuana has a devastating effect on short-term memory.

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2005 @ 10:29 am - December 21, 2005

  96. #85 “Quick question. What the hell do you care about equality if you’ve assumed room temperature?” – ThaiGayConservative

    A gay conservative friend of mine has an expression that I love: “You can’t be married if you’re buried.” Not that any Democrat presidential contenders support gay marriage anyway, but let’s go ahead and demonize Bush for it.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — December 21, 2005 @ 11:13 am - December 21, 2005

  97. I told you that you were a morbid curiosity. And whats this, no “welcome? back? ” No warm hugs? Aw. Well at least you seem gleeful.
    After reading this incredible unbeliveable stupifying thread, I realized that you were being vicious to me, because I was the only one there who was not marching in lockstep with you.But then along came Stephen, Jimmy , and JRC to suffer your wrath. The way you guys can spin a phase is brilliant. Incoherent , but brilliant. You really should work at The White House!

    I dropped in to let ThatGayConservative know the verdict . He asked meonce “what part of intelligent design I didn’t understand The “intelligent”part. So, he’ll be happy to see some other real dumbells who don’t get it. Judge Jones used the words “breathtaking inanity” and “an utter waste of monetary resources” Those words are probably to grownup for you TGC. How old are you anyway? The last thing you said to me was that “I made a fool of myself by showing my ass.” So my guess is 9 or ten rears old, right?
    Ok… um
    You’re a real doo-doo-head.
    Ooh, that kind talk makes me blush.

    As I said this thread rekindled my interest. I’ve sent many many people here to see it, and they were VERY impressed. Why Calarado you’re becoming quite the little celeb. Signing autographs yet?
    Don’t worry ,I set straight about you sutation. I explained that you are writing in a second language and they should cut you some slack, because you’re really doing very well. And that should explain the mistakes in syntax, grammer, and spelling. I’m sorry but I don’t know if you’ve told me what your mother tongue is . I’m guessing Italian. So beautiful . But I don’t think that last crack you made at me “you shouldn’t lecture your BETTERS”, is nice in any language.Doyou? And you silly boy, to say you never call names. Why this thread alone is rife with your invective.
    Hey, by the way are you gonna be at the big birthday bash for Mussolini in July? You know, at The Ayn Rand Inst.? I hear you’re gonna use a real live Mexican as a Pinata! What fun!!!
    Snooky, if you really don’t want people to think you’re a Fasist, you should stop spewing that kinda stuff. And for Heavens sake, drink more milk, I worried about you. All that acid in your stomach could be what has driven you crazy. We’re gonna need our strength to work on the Jeb Bush forPres.campaign aren’t we? He’s done such a swell job in Florida. Why a person can lose his hearing, his eyesight, and his short term memory, yet still KEEP his Florida drivers permit;) Calarado that was…oh yeah um…Calarado Che era una scherzo!:)

    And V…dear old V, how could I forget you?I don’t remember if you ever called me names, although todays’ silly bit about marijuana wasn’t nice. And some of comments are “priceless”. I’ll bet you’re being quoted around watercoolers all over town today!

    So,dear OLD V,I wish you a Merry Christmas
    To ThatGayConservative…coal for you , you bad bad boy
    For last and least Carlotta Buon Noel…ottenga una vita
    CIAO

    Comment by hank — December 21, 2005 @ 12:00 pm - December 21, 2005

  98. Ah, but you forgot to say “I’m leaving for sure this time.”

    Buon Noel

    And a Gutes Neues Año to you.

    Comment by Frank IBC — December 21, 2005 @ 12:50 pm - December 21, 2005

  99. Hank, I feel so left out. My self-esteem may never recover. Please drop a snarky remark my way. For Tookie and The Children.

    Comment by Bobo — December 21, 2005 @ 12:52 pm - December 21, 2005

  100. I’m sorry Bobo. You never struck me as mean or stupid.
    Merry Christmas

    Comment by hank — December 21, 2005 @ 1:15 pm - December 21, 2005

  101. You don’t need a translation, Bobo, but I will translate Hank’s remark just the same, for Hank’s own benefit:

    He means that you never attempted to hold him (Hank) accountable for his onging displays of meanness and stupidity.

    Comment by Calarato — December 21, 2005 @ 1:58 pm - December 21, 2005

  102. Anybody have a guess about what “I set straight about you sutation” is supposed to mean? It sounds like something Robert Byrd might mutter on a “Cranky Bowel” Day.

    (It’s especially comical because it is immediately followed by the author {lamely} insulting another commenter’s spelling and grammar.)

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2005 @ 2:01 pm - December 21, 2005

  103. Oh, and I made a spelling (actually typing) error in #101!!!!!! I’m so mortified by what it must mean about me!!!!!!!!

    LOL

    Comment by Calarato — December 21, 2005 @ 2:02 pm - December 21, 2005

  104. I set straight about you sutation

    What a pity that GP does not have Rotating Titles. 🙂

    Comment by Frank IBC — December 21, 2005 @ 2:42 pm - December 21, 2005

  105. I set them straight about your situation
    It wasn’t a typo.
    If you must know, I am vision impaired, and sometimes simply can’t see.
    Now I expect you’ll make nasty “blind” cracks.

    Comment by hank — December 21, 2005 @ 2:52 pm - December 21, 2005

  106. Ridor’s twin?

    Comment by Frank IBC — December 21, 2005 @ 3:07 pm - December 21, 2005

  107. Martyr complex?

    Comment by Calarato — December 21, 2005 @ 4:44 pm - December 21, 2005

  108. Oh Snooky, gettin all Grinched up here at Christmas. tsk tsk tsk.
    I really thought you’d be pleased with my little card. After all, you got the most print. And isn’t that your raison d’etre here?

    Comment by hank — December 21, 2005 @ 5:17 pm - December 21, 2005

  109. Wow – V – Here’s another one, that I only just caught.

    I’m to be chided for “mistakes in syntax, grammer [sic], and spelling” – note Hank’s creation of a new word, grammER.

    So let’s re-cap.

    When Hank makes really bad errors in spelling, syntax and grammar – think “you sutation” – it’s OK, because he has a vision disability; unlike others of us who ALSO have vision disabilities (e.g., me) but must be put down and lectured pretentiously about far fewer, smaller errors.

    For me, Hank just entered Stephen’s Wonderful, Wacky Solipsistic World of Fantasy 🙂

    Yes Hank, it’s been fun watching you. I should thank you for that, and as well, for the compliment implicit in your not only giving me ‘ink’ but also recommending me to others. Thank you and Cheers!

    And keep working on that “Walking away now” thing, Hank – being able to actually do the thing you had said, and said, and said, and said – we know you’ll get it one day. 😉

    Comment by Calarato — December 21, 2005 @ 5:17 pm - December 21, 2005

  110. Well, if the vision impairment is due to glaucoma, that would explain the memory loss — medicinal marijuana. (Oh, no. I name-called. I’m a bad, bad person now.)

    Besides which, “Sicko” Santorum may have been onto something: Four pro-gay marriage Massachusetts Democrats introduce bill to reduce penalties for bestiality.

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2005 @ 5:35 pm - December 21, 2005

  111. OK, I admit it. You’re funny.

    Sometimes I don’t say LOL because a lot in this place is funny… and I already have to repeat myself enough as it is, to the s-l-o-w folks.

    Comment by Calarato — December 21, 2005 @ 5:43 pm - December 21, 2005

  112. #96

    You can’t be married if you’re buried.”

    Love. Can I use that?
    😉

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 22, 2005 @ 6:42 am - December 22, 2005

  113. #112 — What do you have against necrophiles?

    Comment by V the K — December 22, 2005 @ 7:26 am - December 22, 2005

  114. In case Jimmy (or some such) comes back:

    This information excerpted from Powerline may answer the question of why they didn’t obtain FISA warrants in certain cases, even after-the-fact.

    Comment by Calarato — December 22, 2005 @ 2:28 pm - December 22, 2005

  115. FYI
    I’m a registered Republican who voted for Bush (doesn’t mean I have love everything does).
    I wasn’t kidding about the vision, but I WAS kidding you. I know there is nothing wrong with your grammar, syntax or spelling. Do you even smile?
    Oh, one more thing. Even though I lost 60% of my vision. I still have my Florida Drivers License.

    Comment by hank — December 22, 2005 @ 2:46 pm - December 22, 2005

  116. LOL….not to be mean, but from what I’ve seen of Florida drivers, I think even Ray Charles had a Florida DL. 🙂

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 22, 2005 @ 3:46 pm - December 22, 2005

  117. Very glad to see that one of your “we” pictures is of a *British* soldier.

    Comment by Fruitbat44 — December 23, 2005 @ 1:28 pm - December 23, 2005

  118. PS I’m British, and if it matters, I’m also straight. Still like the picture though, and the photo-essay as well.

    Comment by Fruitbat44 — December 23, 2005 @ 1:32 pm - December 23, 2005

  119. A great post, Bruce. Thanks.

    Comment by Rocco DiPippo — December 23, 2005 @ 9:59 pm - December 23, 2005

  120. #21:

    You are a typical MORON that cn’t be bothered with facts. The banner on the Aircraft Carrier proclaimed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED you blathering MORON. President Bush did not proclaim this, the men of the aircraft carrier proclaimed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED to their Commander In Chief you puling idiot!!! As they HAD accomplished THEIR mission it was a completely appropriate sign you MENTAL DEFECT!!

    If you and the lefty media had anything but an agenda you MIGHT actually look into these false claims that are made based on the flimsiest of evidence YOU GUTLESS MORON!!!

    Comment by kuhnkat — December 24, 2005 @ 12:04 am - December 24, 2005

  121. #90 Yankin Hank scribbles: ““Intelligent ” Design went down in flames yesterday. Aren’t you loonies busy working on a spin for that one? Next to go, Sicko Santorum.”

    And what has one Judge, deciding most of the case against on the poor behavior of the School Board, as opposed to the “is ID Science” question, got to do with this post??

    Comment by kuhnkat — December 24, 2005 @ 12:35 am - December 24, 2005

  122. #97 Yankin Hank continues to scribble about the Judge on the ID case.

    Uhh Hank, just where did this legal authority get his science degrees??

    I believe this was another famous Expert Witness case. If the term Expert Witness doesn’t make you laugh you must be close to room temperature yourself.

    As North Dallas Thrity mentioned in #92, the Judge decided the case primarily on the defendants perjuring themselves. He didn’t need to stretch his brain past lefty setting.

    Oh yeah, YOU MORON!!!

    Comment by kuhnkat — December 24, 2005 @ 12:43 am - December 24, 2005

  123. #105 Yankin Hank explains his visual problem.

    Hank, do you have hair on your palms also??

    (yes I am also a MORON and WILL stoop that low!!)

    Comment by kuhnkat — December 24, 2005 @ 12:46 am - December 24, 2005

  124. I would laugh at this pitiful tantrum, but I just read “Steve” in post four, and I can’t. Read it and get your priorities straight.

    Comment by hank — December 24, 2005 @ 10:34 am - December 24, 2005

  125. Well Yankin’ Hank, you are obviously too stupid to exist. Everything Steve mentioned is, at the least, a serious distortion of facts that only MORONIC Brain Diseased lefties can swallow whole.

    Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah

    Comment by kuhnkat — December 24, 2005 @ 1:34 pm - December 24, 2005

  126. Adjust your medication, and forget your future career as a diplomat.

    Comment by hank — December 24, 2005 @ 3:14 pm - December 24, 2005

  127. […] Gay Patriot […]

    Pingback by The Angry Fag » Blog Archive » “We Are a Nation At War” — January 2, 2006 @ 12:48 am - January 2, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.