When Mary Cheney was on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, she echoed a point she made in her most excellent book, Now It’s My Turn : A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life that while she disagreed with the president on the Federal Marriage Amendment, the War on Terror was a more important issue. She so articulated the essence of my support for President Bush. Upset that he had announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment on February 24, 2004, I refused to vote for him in the California Republican primary the following week; I wrote in Rudy Giuliani instead.
But, as the campaign progressed and John Kerry failed to convince me that he had a plan to win the War on Terror and as I was reminded of the president’s steadfast leadership in that endeavor, I returned to my original support of President George W. Bush. The New York Times publication of another clandestine surveillance program offered further proof of the wisdom of my choice.
Within 10 days after the attacks of 9/11, the president had already put a plan into place to trace the financial transactions of terrorists. This shows that while he may have been initially stunned by the attacks, within days of this unforeseen catastrophe, he and his team were already developing plans to track down those villains who would do us harm before they could realize their terrible plans. This particular program helped capture the most wanted Al Qaeda operative in Southeast Asia.
As the program reveals how quickly — and responsibly — the president (and his team) acted, I believe that the publication of this information is close to treasonous. Watching “Special Report” on FoxNews tonight, I learned that in addition to the president, both the chair and the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission (i.e., a Republican as well as a Democrat) asked the paper not to publish the article because it could jeopardize this important tool in the War on Terror (confirming what Trace Phelps had said in a comment to my previous post on the topic).
In light of such revelations, Mort Kondracke said the decision of the paper’s editors showed the “totally adversarial attitude of the New York Times to its own government,” adding that it had to be “based in Bush-hatred.”
I write this post, in part, because I fear that some may have misunderstood the intended sarcasm of my previous post. I wrote in haste and don’t think I succeeded.
Let me conclude by repeating my two basic points ont this story; (1) it shows that the president is fully committed to the War On Terror, acting to catch terrorists before they harm us and so protect Americans, (2) the New York Times is more interested in attacking George W. Bush than in the promoting the security of the United States.
That paper has shown so little respect for the government which protects its freedom to criticize it.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Dan, there’s a third point hidden in your analysis that draws my attention to understanding the true nature of these “BushHatred” moments that so many on the Left seem destined to wallow in… it’s that Bush appears to be personally immune to the disaffection of polled respondents –he leads through character, conviction, and tenacity– and that unwillingness to yield to the convenient pressure of the Left irks them to no small amount. It isn’t that the polling results are all about the Left –it’s that the Left use those results for “Ahh ha moments” of indictment against Bush.
Most of the people who read your blog have been around politicians, worked for politicians, may even still be actively engaged with politicians from all walks of life –I am. We all know how cravenly politicians can pursue the results of “being liked”, “being believed”, “being followed” –to the peril of policy by flipfloping, tossing and ricocheting from polled policy issue to polled policy issue… pursuing that opportunity to be “out in front of the parade” rather than leading on policy.
It is a craven lust that lies in the hearts of nearly all politicians I’ve met. Americans don’t like it: it’s why the Kerry Flip-Flop Windsurfing ads were so compelling. But it is there –it’s part of the animal.
And yet, despite rotten polling and public dissent by his partisan opponents, this President maintains he isn’t driven by polls. Through Dick Morris’s testimony, we know the last president SURE WAS driven by polls and Morris catered to that like a toe sucking prostitute pursuing a wad of C-notes.
I think what irritates the BushHatred guys so much –and the media is a BIG big part of that community– is this president doesn’t seem to care about polls.
“Seem to care”. The truth of course, is that he does care in part about polling –hence all the parallel talk by the Administration about troops reductions, Iraq force upticks, etc. But it appears to most that he doesn’t seem to care… he leads by conviction, character and tenacity. And that nixes a major avenue for the MSM to steer nat’l debate, nat’l policy.
And just like some of the BushHatred folks who comment here, the MSM like the NYT, simply loathes a president who doesn’t appear to be driven by poll results.
Nice post, Dan.
This post makes no sense whatsoever. First, it appears that you laud the report published by the NYTimes because it shows that Bush is “resolute” (my word, not yours) in regards the War on Some Terror. Then, you suggest that the NYTimes is to be denigrated because they did so because they are in an “adversarial attitude to its own government.” Aside from the fact that the news media should not be in a position of merely kissing the nether regions of their “own government” (which would make them nothing more than cheerleaders for the Dubya’s cheerleadership), it seems to me that the NYTimes running the article does what you believe that you want–in your view, it shows that Dubya is “resolute.” What more do you want? In your view, in what way is it an attack on the Bush malAdmininstration to show that he is “resolute” in the War on Some Terror?
BTW, some of us who are sentient are aware that so-called terrorists are not necessarily stupid. They can figure out when their financial transaction activities trigger responses. From Ha’aretz
In early April, 2003, an Islamic Jihad activist went to a Western Union office in Lebanon and ordered a money transfer to Hebron. The Justice Department authorized Western Union to release this information to the FBI and the CIA, and eventually to the Shin Bet. According to Suskind, all this took just minutes, enabling Israeli intelligence to track the person who collected the transfer in Hebron and to uncover the terror cell.
According to the book, this method was used successfully many times over the next year and a half, until autumn 2004, when Palestinian operatives realized that their Western Union transfers were being used to trap them.
Information from U.S. companies helped Israel locate terror cells.
Another BTW. I’m glad that you believe that Bush is resolute in his commitment to the War on Some Terror. The lead lemming is also resolute in his commitment to jumping off the cliff. That doesn’t mean that I would want to follow the lead lemming merely because he is resolute. Presumably, you would.
Ethics does not exist in journalism. The media is a horrible roadblock to success in these times. They can’t adapt, they only know one way to be and they can’t change just because the nation needs them to.
Anyway, its the leakers in the government/CIA that need to be swinging by the neck from lamposts.
Shortly after 9/11, President Bush gave a speech in which he announced the war on terror. He clearly stated that there would be many fronts to this war, it wouldn’t end quickly and we would experience both successes and failures.
He also made it very clear that parts of this war would be very obvious and out in the open. Others would be done in secret and even if successful, would remain secretive, in order to maitain their success.
So the fact that the NYT and the LA Times feel it is their perogative to the these secret operations does make them treasonous. And Raj, the fact that Haaretz, or Suskind in his book, are doing the same thing to Israeli intelligence doesn’t make it right. Thank you for linking to the article.
What I don’t get about the Left is their priorities. Sure, when the world is at peace go ahead, put your causes above all else. Be they gay marriage, or late term abortion. But when our whole way of life is being threatened, why is it so hard for the Left to join the battle?
NYT just scored a big one against President Bush. But if God forbid they actually succeed in aiding the enemy, what do you think the result will be? Will the Islamofacists change their stated beliefs and adopt progressive Leftist ideology? Or will we face another devastating attack on our soil, such as the one that was planned for the Sears Towers in Chicago?
There’s no way around the conclusion that the MSM and the NYT have chosen sides in this war on terror. Some of the leftists as well. They want the American military and this American Administration to lose. They are not invested in our victory. If America wins..W will be lauded as resolute and visionary. Much like Reagan after the fall of Communism. I remember how Reagan was vilified in the 80’s. When the walls fell, the whole world could’nt deny his brilliant steadfastness.
The NYT and the leftists have chosen sides. And if they can push the people to force a retreat..then they’ll worry about picking up the pieces of a weakened America later. I know what the leftists don’t want to do to fight the war on terror. Almost everything done the past 5 years. Will someone list the things they would do?
What hysteria passes for commentary these days in wingnuttia! The neocons are really panicking I think.
Immediately after 9/11, it was highly publicized that there was unusual trading activity in “puts” of American and United parent companies and that US authorities were searching worldwide with the cooperation of many countries to not only identify who was involved in those specific transactions but how to better monitor financial transactions worldwide. Since then, there have been many stories and papers (e.g. http://www.douglasfarah.com/pdfs/NAF-Final.pdf) discussing details of how terrorists move money around and how we’ve developed techniques of nailing them when they do. So five years after the attacks, the NYT publishes another such story about a program that in all likelihood has declined in utility as terrorist groups have grown more savvy about financial transactions. Indeed, al Qaeda itself began to use more hard to track methods (such as the hawallas) way back in 1998.
So the NYT prints another of these many stories about how we’re after al Qaeda’s finances and transfers and wingnuttia goes … well …. a little nuttier. Now, I know things just haven’t been going quite as well for Dear Leader ever since those heady days of “Mission Accomplished”, but please, try to get a grip.
#2
This post makes no sense whatsoever.
Is anybody else surprised that Reinemachefrau doesn’t get it?
#6
but please, try to get a grip.
Yeah. Who gives a damn if they’re asked not to run the story. To hell with the people, they’ve got to sell some papers so they can buy lunch tomorrow.
raj baby, I can understand that Dan’s writing or this post about the RESPONSIBILITY of the press would make no sense to you… and, I would offer, the reason for that failure on your part is because you have no sense of responsibility or obligation –all that matters to you is feeding your singular lust to denigrate America while sponging off her riches and the collary BushHatred impulse that animates nearly every single comment you –and others here– make.
It’s ok, raj baby. You don’t get it. We don’t expect you to. Honest.
What’s refreshing for me is that along with you, Ian S, lester, CowBoyBob, QueerPat, Mr Moderate, Edw TJ, GOB and many mnay other incarnations of those same people, are a distinctly minority element in the electorate… and what’s better: you guys rarely vote (about 17% of GayLeft males vote in nat’l elections).
It’s ok that YOU don’t get it. The voters do. That’s why the sea-change you’re looking for at midterm elections won’t net your side control of either chamber, nor new governorships, nor new state legislatures and it won’t net you electoral success in the ’08 elections.
You just don’t get it. It’s cool. It’s a good thing, too. And I’m smiling all the way to the proverbial “Policy Bank”.
Ian S writes: “What hysteria passes for commentary these days in wingnuttia!”
LOL. You’re worth a million bucks to the Right, Ian S. You just keep going, guy… you make the issues a slam dunk for the Right. Rep Peter King announced on Sunday that he has a bipartisan group of 47 representatives (after just 48 hours) ready to sign a letter asking the Atty Gen to investigate the NYTimes for sedition and treason on this matter.
Democrats and GOPers concerned about nat’l security… oh, wait, your next move will be to Lieberman-ize those Democrats who dare question the integrity of the Left’s mouthpiece, the New York Times. It ain’t working for ya’ Ian S… the balance of the natl debate is heading back into a favored status for the GOP. Those midterms are looking pretty bleak for your party, for your cause.
#4 Leah — June 24, 2006 @ 1:01 pm – June 24, 2006
And Raj, the fact that Haaretz, or Suskind in his book, are doing the same thing to Israeli intelligence doesn’t make it right. Thank you for linking to the article.
You’re welcome for the link, but apparently you do not understand the reason for the citation. The cited articles showed that the terrorists are not stupid and that they are perfectly capable of figuring out what is going on regarding wire transfers without the help of Ha’aretz, Suskind, the NYTimes etc.
Moreover, the fact is that some years ago it was speculated that one way of attacking terrorism was to go after their means of funding. It strains credulity to believe that the terrorists weren’t listening.
#10. Raj, one of the reasons I appreciated your posting the link was because of this line: “According to the book, this method was used successfully many times over the next year and a half, until autumn 2004, when Palestinian operatives realized that their Western Union transfers were being used to trap them.”
Without the help of the media it took the Palestinians a year and a half to figure out what was happening. Maybe without the help of the NYT it would have taken Al Qaida another few years to figure out the bank taps.
So despite your saying “The cited articles showed that the terrorists are not stupid”, actually thank God, I think it proves they are, if it took them a year and half to figure it out.
And I’d rather keep them that way, not help them via the pages of the NYT and the Los Angeles Times
Leah, raj baby is one of those apologists from the Left abetting the terrorists and “the cause” by all victims of imperialist capitalism and Western cultural aggression.
He wouldn’t think of speculating that if Americans in the WH and Americans, Brits and others in the field make serious mistakes, that the terrorists could make mistakes. Like not watching financial transactions made in intern’l markets.
Oh gosh NO! That would mean that his beloved terrorists and brothers in the crusade against America aren’t thuggish murderers and sociopaths… why, they are freedom fighters. This is just a policing action by imperialist nations seeking domination over Arab oil –you didn’t read the wiki memo raj baby attached to one of his earlier screeds on this very topic? It was written by a Kerry campaign staffer and, as any 1st year law student knows, the Kerry campaign was talking and consulting with world leaders when Bush was just governing.
Leah, raj can’t understand or comprehend anything that doesn’t prove America to be wrong, ill informed, or evil.
raj’s new mantra: The NY Times must be fair and impartial to both terrorists and the criminals in the Bush mal Administration… it’s journalistic integrity. He joins other notable “journalist” scumbags on that point like Ben Bradlee and Bill Moyers and Maureen Dowd and Helen Thomas. “We’re an independent press!”
Matt, I figured Raj out a while ago, I’m not trying to convince him, or change his mind. Just want him to know, that his arguments aren’t working.
Haaretz is the NYT of Israel, every so often they will cross the line to the detriment of Israel. Though I have yet to see them as blatantly seditious as the NYT is.
#9: “asking the Atty Gen to investigate the NYTimes for sedition and treason”
They can put the letter on toilet paper for all the good it will do them. What part of the First Amendment is unclear to you?
The part, Ian S, that says it trumps issues of national security.
That part, Ian S. Go read it –it isn’t absolute… unless you’re Ben Bradlee or Bill Moyers or some other unpatriotic leech of journalism’s lower class.
You consistently confuse the concept of showing loyalty to the government and constitution of the US with showing loyalty to the current leader. They are 2 vastly different things. No elected leader is perfect, they all have their problems, both perosnal and prfessional.
As a leader, GWB has a lot going for him to bash. When I look at George, he doesn’t measure up to what I want in a leader. He showed no kind of individual achievement in his life prior to politics; he cant’ finish a sentence when speaking on his own. If you removed his family name, his family wealth and the entourage of advisors who have surrounded him since he began his successful career in politics when he became governor Texas, there’s not much there. Like many politicians (of both parties), he panders to the emotions of people to get votes (gay equal rights being a favorite these days) and many times his actions doesn’t match his words. The majority of of our leaders in the past have shown some quality, through leadership, intellectual achievements, etc, which have distiguished them as people who can be a leader. GWBs roles as a governor and now president show for the first time a true win of marketing over real substance in a leader on a presidential level. Even conservative posters to this board more and more (like the american public) have a growing dissatisfaction with this guy and can’t wait to see him gone from the White House.
So don’t attack a newspaper when, in fact, we got stuck with a true lemon of a president.
I think that you’re the one getting it confused, Kevin.
It’s not “okay” to harm national security or reveal military secrets (or even OPSEC) just because Bush is a moron.
If the newspaper is putting their dislike of a “lemon” of a president first… they deserve to be loudly criticized.
When an elected leader is *really* bad… or at least people think so… the most reasonable response is damage *control*. My mom said Minnesota was like that when Jesse Ventura got elected… I don’t know if he turned out to be a poor governor, he seemed to do okay, but when he was elected both parties freaked and, apparently, started cooperating to avert the disaster they imagined was looming. They cared more about the State than proving the voters made a mistake.
Putting the *country* first, given a lemon of a president, would mean trying to take up the slack for his mistakes… trying to mitigate damage and get a good result despite the lemon-ness and hold everything together until the next (praise God) election.
I had a “lemon” NCOIC once… believe me, in a crisis, NO ONE was trying to undermine this guy. Everyone worked twice as hard to make everything work because as much as we’d have loved some poetic payback, we weren’t willing to let anything *important* fail just to get to see it.
Murtha (gotta love the guy) has been going on about how Iraq needs a non-military solution. (Most of us are like… Duh! The military is for military problems, not *all* problems.) But rather than push a non-military agenda… I’m not sure what he’d like to see that isn’t being done already, but maybe we could do it *more* or something… it’s all about doing his best to make the “failed” military policies fail even more.
Which leads me to believe that Bush isn’t a lemon president. People aren’t scrambling to make his plans work, somehow, so that things don’t tank too badly or get irrevocably broken. The “fear” is all oportunistic… just a tool to make political points.
Synova, good job of repsonding to Kevin’s silliness of the day. These guys continue to fail to comprehend the simplest of concepts. No wonder they’re kept at the DNC to roles like stuffing envelopes, making placards, marching against 3rd World Debt and Saving the Rain Forests.
Yeah and the Pentagon Papers should never have been published and no one should have investigated Watergate either.
“trying to take up slack for his mistakes”? If his mistakes are that bad it means he’s hurt the country and should be oh, say, impeached and removed from office. “worked twice as hard for some poetic payback”? So a lot of people have to work to do the old “What the president meant to say was…..”.
I noticed you spent a lot of time on how to “fix” Georgies problems problems, but niether of you seemed to refute anything I mentioned about his past/history. interesting.
How exactly does he put the country first when there are more and more people who are being put out of work by large greedy companies and the president suggests a guest worker program to pay lower wages (meanwhile at the same time when we’re allegedly trying to keep down immigration as a security precaution). And don’t give me that tired old line about “aliens will do jobs Americans won’t do”. There are many Americans out there who would do unskilled labor jobs, as long as they could make some kind of basic living wage.
Or how about promises that our millitary personnel come first, yet the men and women in combat in Iraq/Afghanistan can’t get all the materials need to fight and protect themselves (at the same time, record fines are levied against companies like Haliburton for ripping off the government)
Or, how about the infamous “mission accomplished” banner that appeared on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln? Originally, the story given was that the crew of the carrier arranged, but as it turned out, the White House actually had it made.
PS – I’m not affiliated with the DNC, thank you very much. Jumping to conclusions must be the only exercise you guys get…
It’s because refuting you is pointless, Kevin. You don’t listen.
Oh what the heck…
You see, Kevin, when you talk about what a terrible “lemon” of a president Bush is, you have to talk about “Mission Accomplished” signs (meant to praise the sailors on that carrier). Or maybe “plastic” turkeys. Or else Rummy stating what anyone in uniform agrees is a truism. For the most part the military likes Bush. They even *like* Rummy. And while everyone always wants better stuff and the supply Sgt is GOD… a person in the military fears nothing quite so much as when someone higher up decides to *help* you.
You have to talk about immegration policies… Bush is nearly to the liberal side of moderate on that one… and then start with claims that the economy is bad. In what reality?
In other words, Kevin… you can’t *actually* come up with anything that would even imply that this president is a lemon, much less that he’s actually managing to break anything important. Obviously he’s not doing everything exactly the right way but you’re still left with minor complaints (Mission Accomplished) and ordinary policy disagreements.
If he was breaking something *important* people would be scrambling to mitigate the damage, not trying to tear things down even farther.
22: I would say supporting the inclusion of discrimination in the constitution at least qualifies for the intent of trying to break something important.
Giving more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans at the same time miring the middle and lower classes with mere pennies in tax savings certainly is breaking something; not to mention growing the defecits to their highest levels in US history.
And (the grand-daddy of all his lies): taking us into a war based upon information that is now being refuted by people in just about every level of government who have come across it. (Claims of WMDs) And don’t quote the Santorum announcement to me…I read those links….the munitions they talk about are not the ones claimed in the reports back in 2003 and they don’t have any appearance to have been in a position for immediate usage (hell, why didn’t Saddam’s forces try to use them against the US and the “coalition of the willing” in 2003?) If it has been so important to validate the original reasons, then why are we only hearing this now? Additionally, why is it the independent news sources don’t seem to be reporting this story? It’s only 2 republicans and conservative websites (like this one) who wag their fingers and have a vested interest in vindicating Bush.
Like others, I have family serving in Iraq. They truly believe we should be there and openly they give their full support to the President (they are career military). In private however, they have voiced their concern over how much support they are actually receiving in the way of weapons and protective gear.
And as far as the “mission accomplished” sign, it’s but a small example of how people in the white house circle are continually lying to us to engrandize Bush as some sort of demi-god. If the white house did it as a tribute to the sailors, as you say, then why did they initially lie about it and change their story?
When the Americans and allied forces entered Berlin at the end of WWII and Hitler committed suicide, that was a mission accomplished. What we now have is guerilla warfare with terrorists in that country that shows no end in sight as well as waning support at home and abroad. (By the way – in a few months it will be 5 years since 9/11/01 and for all the kick-ass talk from George, et al, we still have yet to find and capture that SOB Osama Bin Laden)
I would say supporting the inclusion of discrimination in the constitution at least qualifies for the intent of trying to break something important.
Be honest, Kevin; if Bush were a Democrat, you would call that “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Just like you did with John Kerry and Inez Tenenbaum.
Giving more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans at the same time miring the middle and lower classes with mere pennies in tax savings certainly is breaking something; not to mention growing the defecits to their highest levels in US history.
That is because the wealthiest Americans pay the most in taxes. You Democrats are obviously unfamiliar with the fact that, if you cut taxes, people with higher incomes are going to have larger amounts of tax savings.
Furthermore, given that Democrats like yourself want to triple spending while doubling taxes on working people, as John Kerry’s economic “plans” laid out, it is obvious you don’t have a problem with deficits; if Democrats create them, you support them.
Like others, I have family serving in Iraq. They truly believe we should be there and openly they give their full support to the President (they are career military). In private however, they have voiced their concern over how much support they are actually receiving in the way of weapons and protective gear.?
the munitions they talk about are not the ones claimed in the reports back in 2003 and they don’t have any appearance to have been in a position for immediate usage (hell, why didn’t Saddam’s forces try to use them against the US and the “coalition of the willing” in 2003?)
Because, Kevin, the US battle plan was drawn up specifically to isolate and negate the chance for Saddam to do so.
We understand that, as a Democrat, you view the military as incompetent, bumbling fools and baby-killers, but in actuality, they aren’t.
In private however, they have voiced their concern over how much support they are actually receiving in the way of weapons and protective gear.
I would be concerned too, given that Democrats like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore are funding terrorists and improved terror weapons.
Do you tell them how you support her and her party, too?
#15 Michigan-Matt — June 25, 2006 @ 5:17 pm – June 25, 2006
The part, Ian S, that says it trumps issues of national security.
Odd, I went back to my copy of the Constitution–which stemmed from pre “politically correct” days–and found nothing in the 1st amendment that provided any exceptions. Apparently, 2L’s nowadays have trouble reading.
#13 Leah — June 25, 2006 @ 2:35 pm – June 25, 2006
Just want him to know, that his arguments aren’t working.
Facts and arguments based on those facts rarely “work” with ideologues with their pre-conceived notions.
BTW,
Haaretz is the NYT of Israel, every so often they will cross the line to the detriment of Israel. Though I have yet to see them as blatantly seditious as the NYT is.
Oh, so let me guess. In your view, it was apparently borderline seditious of Ha’aretz to now publish an article that released facts that were known to Palestinian terrorists almost two years ago. That’s amazing.
And further in your view, it was apparently more than borderline seditious of the NYTimes to now publish an article regarding the Treasury Department’s investigation of international banking transactions to combat international terrorism notwithstanding the fact that the Treasury Department itself released at least one major press release touting its program almost three years ago (and probably others before and since) and even as recently as April 6, 2006, the Treasury Department posted the Testimony of Stuart Levey, Under Secretary, Terrorism and Financial Intelligence touting the program. Just how secret do you believe the Treasury Department’s program could be when it, itself is publicizing the program?
raj baby at #25 writes, trying to assist Ian S out of the dung box: “Odd, I went back to my copy of the Constitution… and found nothing in the 1st amendment that provided any exceptions.” Right; lol.
Cute raj… now, try googling on 1st A natl security and read a couple of seminal decisions by SCOTUS, even head over to your beloved Wiki and glean some knowledge about things other than snake pits and religious cults, and then take some time to reflect on this kernel, raj baby… the #1 reason a federal govt exists is to protect and defend the security of American citizens and the Nation. #1 raj baby… the NYTimes journalistic “duties” are a tad down the list.
Your trying to be cute and it isn’t working… the 1st A language encompasses SCOTUS decisions and federal legislative action… any 1-L student could tell you that. Cute may win in your neck of the woods, but it hasn’t for HarryReid, NancyP, the HillaryBeast, or drive-me-2-drink Kennedys. And any voter could tell you that… and he doesn’t need a 1-L student to tell him what the NYTimes did in this case was treasonous despite your insincere and ineffective ploy that terrorists knew about all this a while ago.
It isn’t a game anymore, raj. Your 3 minutes of cute ankle biting expired.
#27 Michigan-Matt — June 27, 2006 @ 9:39 am – June 27, 2006
You, too, are admitting that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says. Apparently 2Ls are unaware that the Constitution can be explicitly amended to make it say what you want it to say. I guess that explicitly amending the Constitution to mean what you want it to mean is too much bother for self-described conservatives.
So self-described conservatives really shouldn’t complain when the courts judicially “amend”–in their view–the Constitution to say what they don’t want it to say. But they do it–complain, that is–quite often. The rhetoric about “unelected judges,” don’t you know?
#27 Michigan-Matt — June 27, 2006 @ 9:39 am – June 27, 2006
You also are admitting that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says. Apparently 2Ls are unaware that the Constitution can be explicitly amended to make it say what you want it to say.
So self-described conservatives really shouldn’t complain when the courts judicially “amend”–in their view–the Constitution to say what they don’t want it to say. But they do it–complain, that is–quite often. The rhetoric about “unelected judges,” don’t you know?
I guess that explicitly amending the Constitution to mean what you want it to mean is too much bother for self-described conservatives.
Not really. Hence the drive for the Marriage Protection Amendment.
But unfortunately, Raj, you whined that doing that was illegal.
#30 North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2006 @ 12:53 pm – June 27, 2006
But unfortunately, Raj, you whined that doing that (amending the constitution) was illegal.
Oh, really? Where?
Cite chapter and verse, with links. From experience, I have learned that your “paraphrasing” is usually wrong.
How soon Raj forgets. 🙂
#32 North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2006 @ 12:57 pm – June 28, 2006
No citations. No surprise.