Gay Patriot Header Image

SCOTUS Undermines Troops, Gives GOP Big Gift

First… I’m going to ramble a bit. I’ve had a tiring company meeting in Florida and I haven’t been home in over a week.

I would first say “Kudos” to Dan for ignoring the Log Cabin self-love fest with Arnold. LCR’s hard Left turn is complete as I saw a teaser for the Arnold dinner on CNN in the airport this afternoon. *rolling eyes* Log Cabin won’t get a red cent of my hard-earned money until they realize that they are not a solely-owned and funded subsidiary of the anti-American Gay Left. Log Cabin has a role to play….they have just relinquished it. Instead they are simply one of the tired old voices in the losing chorus of Leftist Anger. But more on my “Log Cabin Principles For The Future” another time…

Now let’s discuss matters of real importance — the safety of Americans in the ongoing War on Terror. Today the Supreme Court dealt a victory to al-Qaeda and their American sympathizers by siding with the enemy combatants at Club Gitmo.

Best of the Web has a good summary of the idiotic Hamdan ruling.

For now at least, the court has not mandated that terrorist detainees be granted the rights of either ordinary criminal defendants (who cannot be held indefinitely unless charged and convicted) or prisoners of war (who, among other things, cannot be interrogated).

The chief result of this ruling will be to delay the trials of Guantanamo detainees until Congress or the Pentagon establishes a regime of military commissions that meets the court’s approval. For those concerned with the duration of terrorists’ captivity–a perverse thing to worry about anyway–there’s little to cheer here.

On the one hand, Oakleaf at Polipundit summed up my initial reaction. This sucks.

These individuals have no idea what they have done. I wasted 12 months of my life in Afgahnistan for this. Support by the military in the GWOT is going to collapse. This opinion will go from a ripple to a wave throughout the uniformed military. We were slapped by John McCain last December. Today, we are slapped by the Supreme Court.

And I do agree. Does the Court now believe al-Qaeda will uphold the Geneva Convention?

But in a Karl Rovian twist, I began to realize how bad this is for Democrats as we head into the fall Congressional elections. Remember 2002? The Democrats chose their union buddies over the security of you and I in the battle to pass legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. The Hamdan ruling creates a new but similar dilemma for liberals running for Congress. We will now have a pre-election Congressional session dominated by enabling legislation for military tribunals.

The November election will come down to this: Do Democrats choose to protect American security? Or do they side with the ACLU and choose to protect the civil liberties of known terrorists that are have pledged to destroy our nation and that are beheading, maiming and killing our citizens around the world?

There is NO middle ground.

It appears Nancy Pelosi has already chosen who she will stand up for. (Hint: it is not American citizens)

When Nancy Pelosi says, “Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system,” what exactly does she mean? I understand that honorable people can disagree on the Hamdan decision, but surely “all” aren’t entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system.

A major battle in the WOT may have been lost today at SCOTUS, but this also may be a political turning point that results in a stiffer resolve by the American public. We shall see.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): Andrew Cochran at Counterterorrism blog appears to agree with Bruce, finding the decision “a huge political gift to President Bush.” As Glenn (to whom I tip my hat on this one) would say, read the whole thing!

Share

39 Comments

  1. Ah, yes, the demoncRAT national committee…the gift that keeps on giving – to the GOP.

    Speaking of which, why are Pelosi and Reid flapping their gums off-time on the air so often? I don’t recall any GOP minority leaders prior to 1994 getting so much face time. Does anyone else? In fact, does anyone remember WHO these House/Senate minority leaders were?

    And they say the MSM is not biased…yeah, and I’m Ted Kennedy’s love child…NOT!!!!!!!

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 29, 2006 @ 6:30 pm - June 29, 2006

  2. Something went very wrong with this decision. The Geneva Convention, at least, explicitly applies only to reciprocal signatories of the Geneva Convention.

    SCOTUS has made bad decisions before that have had to be reversed – Bowers v. Hardwick 1986, Dred Scott, etc. – and this may be another.

    Comment by Calarato — June 29, 2006 @ 6:32 pm - June 29, 2006

  3. We just need to take it as a positive test that allows America to continue to strive even as we struggle. Strange that this increasingly fascist supreme court (as all Leftists claim) gave terrorists/ACLU a victory.

    It will be good to see Kennedy’s Terrorist Bill of Rights brought to a vote this fall.

    Comment by VinceTN — June 29, 2006 @ 7:11 pm - June 29, 2006

  4. It heartens me that both the supreme court and the congress are now showing some legal backbone in standing up to the executive branch of the government. Bush has said on more than one ocassion that it would be easier for him if he were a dictator; well pal, you’re not. in our arrest, interrogation, prosecution and incarceration of these people, we need to do things like follow the Geneva convention. If we don’t, then we’re no better than them. Government policies based on retribution and revenge is a pretty bad thing.

    So who exactly do you blame now guys? Republican in the white house, republican controlled congress, conservative majority on the supreme court. hmmmmmm

    Comment by Kevin — June 29, 2006 @ 8:24 pm - June 29, 2006

  5. thank god the court sees the necessity of checks-and-balances in our government. this filthy administration had their hands slapped. no more blank check in this “war on terror.”

    Comment by rightiswrong — June 29, 2006 @ 8:25 pm - June 29, 2006

  6. Obviously Kevin/Rightiswrong wants to protect Terrorists’ civil rights. He’s made HIS choice, folks!

    Comment by GayPatriot — June 29, 2006 @ 9:15 pm - June 29, 2006

  7. Reading further into Taranto’s discussion of the decision:

    “The court did not decide that unlawful combatants at Guantanamo are entitled to Geneva Convention protections as either civilians or prisoners of war, only that [one GC article,] Common Article 3… applies–though because of [Justice] Kennedy’s demurral, precisely how it applies is an open question… The court also did not hold that the government is under any obligation to release Hamdan.”

    So the impact of the decision seems pretty muddy.

    It looks like the decision focused on detail interpretations of WHAT existing or applicable law says about Hamdan’s case, not on grand constitutional principles – contra nutcase Pelosi.

    Thus, it looks like the Republican Congress is in a position to pass new law that will clear up the muddy situation(s) and keep the detainees detained… and, in the process, to politically fuck the Democrats this summer – as Bruce suggested.

    It will be interesting to see what action Congress takes, when they return from recess on July 12.

    By the way – Isn’t it cute how this blog’s resident moonbats carefully re-type the Kos or DNC talking points in these threads; as if we aren’t all going to know them just from the New York Times and CNN? ;-)

    #4 – “Bush has said on more than one ocassion that it would be easier for him if he were a dictator…”

    Looks like Kevin needs another “Calling Bullshit” type of slapdown. Kindly provide citation AND CONTEXT for Bush saying that, Kevin. Note the importance of providing the context; I would expect that, if Bush does have a quote like that, it wil be in a context of Bush HONORING our democratic and Constitutional multi-branch traditions.

    Comment by Calarato — June 29, 2006 @ 9:24 pm - June 29, 2006

  8. Even if I actually trusted the President to wage an effective “War on Terror”, I’d be pleased at this decision. Maybe you are willing to turn your will and your life over to the care of Bush, but I’m not. I’m not interested in joining that particular 12-step program.

    I’m always glad when the Supreme Court or Congress puts limits on what my Government can do. President Bush might as well have been running around the White House with a Tiara on his head the way he has been acting lately.

    He’s just a President you know. They are, by design, not supposed to be particularly important. Easily replaceable even. So enough with the puerile Monarch-Envy coming from the Right these days. What a bunch of wimps, always looking for Daddy Bush to lead them around the yard
    by the ring in their nose.

    I can hear the GOP sheep bleating now…

    “Oh but if we don’t let Bush have his way then those nasty terrorists will come after us.”! So what. They are welcome to try. Bring it on!

    The people of Flight 93 didn’t need any President CIC to tell them what to do did they? Quit being sheep and live the life of the sheepdog.

    But do feel free to indulge in the Bush Cult of Personality. Really. I’d be surprised to learn if Bruce had even read the decision yet before spouting off on this pre-programmed rant. Very Pavlovian. (Or maybe thats “PavRovian”). Even if the Court had said “the sky is blue” he would no doubt be screaming about black-robed despots. He’s just been programed that way. Well, now we know what buttons to push, much hilarity will ensue.

    I have to admit this blog is addictive, if only to see what Bruce is going to pull down out of his little book of Drama today. I mean, doesn’t he ever get tired of being outraged all the time? Must be like living in a house with FoxNews on at full blast 24-hours a day. No wonder the dog bit him.

    Well, while y’all are running around screaming about “judicial tyranny” and the like this weekend, I’m going to relaxing, proudly flying my Old Glory, and thanking God I live in a country that has had the wisdom to place restraints on even well-intentioned tyrants.

    Good Job Supreme Court! WooHoo! And God Bless America!

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — June 29, 2006 @ 9:30 pm - June 29, 2006

  9. Actually that is the silver lining of this decision.

    And the dems should notice that when it comes to terrorists, the majority of US voters aren’t going to want to see a bunch of stonewalling from dems.

    Comment by just me — June 29, 2006 @ 9:33 pm - June 29, 2006

  10. Patrick #8, where the heck is the Bush Cult of Personality? It seems to exist only in the minds of Bush-haters?

    And Kevin, can you please tell me why we are supposed to observe the Geneva Convention for terrorists who are not fighting for — or serving under — officers of a signatory to that treaty. Mark Levin does us the favor of quoting that treaty:

    “A. Prisoners of war … are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
    “1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
    “2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this terrirory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
    “(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
    (c) That of carrying arms openly;
    (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”

    It would seem that a Party to the conflict would have to be a signatory of the Convention. But, even if Al Qaeda were, those terrorists captured on the battlefield do not wear such a distinctive sign. They usually do not carry their arms openly. And in directing their attacks against civilians, they are clearly not acting in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

    As Levin puts it, the “purpose of this language” is that “in order to receive the Convention’s protections, combatants must accept and comply with basic rules of war.

    From my initial reading of the opinion–and I’ve only skimmed it–but it seems to accord with that of James Taranto whom Bruce links above is that Justice Kennedy did not join the opinion as to whether Geneva Convention applies, thus there is only a plurality on that holding.

    If the Supreme Court held that the U.S. was entitled to apply the Geneva Convention to those who did not sign it and don’t even pretend to follow it, it will have undermined the incentives that document provides to encourage nations to observe the rules of warfare.

    It’s a mess of a decision and is poorly written to boot. Justice Stevens owes the nation the favor of stepping down. As does Justice Souter. Their opinions seem to bypass the laws they seek to interpret.

    Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — June 29, 2006 @ 10:06 pm - June 29, 2006

  11. “this also may be a political turning point that results in a stiffer resolve by the American public.”

    A stiffer resolve for what? The public is sick of the Iraq war and this administration’s “resolve” to pass the buck to the next President. If we ever have one:

    “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” George W. Bush Dec. 18, 2000.

    At the time we all thought he was kidding.

    I’m surprised no one has suggested what I think Bush will actually do: he’ll ignore the SCOTUS decision just as he ignores laws passed by Congress when it suits him. What could the SCOTUS do about it? And why would anyone believe that Congress would object when they don’t seem to care whether or not Bush follows the laws they pass? And honestly, I’d be willing to bet that everyone whining on this blog about the decision would applaud him for it. Am I right?

    Comment by Ian S — June 29, 2006 @ 11:04 pm - June 29, 2006

  12. If only the Left could hate and fear terrorists as much as they hate and fear their fellow Americans.

    Comment by VinceTN — June 29, 2006 @ 11:16 pm - June 29, 2006

  13. [...] Gay Patriot [...]

    Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Welcome Back 9/10 — June 29, 2006 @ 11:26 pm - June 29, 2006

  14. If only the Left could hate and fear terrorists as much as they hate and fear their fellow Americans.

    You mean like, maybe condemn the insurgents for butchering, mutilating, and booby trapping the bodies of our soldiers as much as they condemn our soldiers for mishandling a Koran?

    Brilliant point, Vince.

    Comment by V the K — June 29, 2006 @ 11:27 pm - June 29, 2006

  15. 6: yawn. Guess under the Bush plan, you’d enjoy that I could be arrested and held as a terrorist with no proof, no trial, no witnesses. I guess Anne Coulter must have her hand up your ass. Here’s one liberal who’d be happy to see Osama Bin Laden captured, tried and executed for his crimes against America, but it seems your kick ass president and his underlings are incapable of that. Of course without that supreme symbol of terror out there to keep people in fear, he’d be the emporer with no clothes (or at least the guy who reads “my little goat” upside down).

    Perhaps maybe you should have a chat with some people who lived under dictators who started off promsing to restore order and see where it got them when they were allowed to continue on unchecked in the name of the public good.

    Comment by a nannie mouse — June 29, 2006 @ 11:29 pm - June 29, 2006

  16. #12 – LOL – so true -

    #11 – Ian, I notice you omit a citation for the alleged Bush quote – BUT – at least you acknowledge that, taken in its proper context, the quote is essentially meaningless. Which was my point. So I’ll take Kevin, #4, as slapped down.

    I also loved your pre-emptive (because it’s one of your things) use of the word “whining”. I can’t find whining in my comments; only a correct (I think) description of how the SCOTUS decision is confused, and how that could play out, politically. Good luck to you.

    #8 – Well Gryph, at least you’re admitting you have a problem, in the hobbled way you constantly return to the house of a guy (Bruce) whom you claim to have only reasons to sneer at. At least you aren’t claiming to be “hanging out with people you disagree with” respectfully. Looks like I got you to move forward that much? Good luck to you too ;-)

    Comment by Calarato — June 29, 2006 @ 11:49 pm - June 29, 2006

  17. Newton’s Laws apply everywhere it seems…For every brilliant, wise and well thought decison the Supreme Court hands down, it issues one equally astounding in it’s stupidity, idiocy and murkiness. This one clearly is the latter and I’d say the same regardless if Clinton, Carter or LBJ were still President. John Marshall must be spinning in his grave on days like today.

    Comment by PatriotPartner — June 30, 2006 @ 12:47 am - June 30, 2006

  18. Your complaint about delays this will cause is rather strange. Had the president actually decided to operate within the law in the first place, we would by know have a legal framework for dealing with the prisoners. Instead we had a president who felt no need to bother with silly things like the staying within the powers granted him by the Constitution… and so here we are.

    Comment by John — June 30, 2006 @ 1:07 am - June 30, 2006

  19. Here’s one liberal who’d be happy to see Osama Bin Laden captured, tried and executed for his crimes against America,

    Right. So why didn’t you capture him during Clinton’s term, when he was a) orchestrating the killing of numerous Americans and b) right out in the open where he could easily be found?

    Furthermore, given that Democratic spokesperson Cindy Sheehan has made it clear that the Democratic Party even opposes the war in Afghanistan and thinks no American troops or resources should have been sent there, how exactly were you planning to capture him?

    Dems like yourself had your chance and you didn’t; the fact that you’re now trying to sabotage every single thing being done shows where your loyalties lie.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 30, 2006 @ 1:40 am - June 30, 2006

  20. $4 & 11

    “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” George W. Bush Dec. 18, 2000.

    Is this or is this not a true statement?

    Forget for a moment Bush said it. Imagine it was a quote by the maxi-pad lord BJ you worship.

    Isn’t it a true statement?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 30, 2006 @ 2:03 am - June 30, 2006

  21. #19

    Right. So why didn’t you capture him during Clinton’s term,

    Are you kidding? They couldn’t find subpoenaed documents in the White House. Do you really think they would have been able to find bin Laden in Pakistan?

    BTW, I STILL want to know why liberals are so worried about our prisoners, but don’t give a FUCK about theirs.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 30, 2006 @ 2:09 am - June 30, 2006

  22. Ian S, your comment #11 proves one thing that you’ll use whatever you can against the president. Just like Michael Moore who used a clip of the president making a joke and suggesting he was serious.

    To look at this president and claim he’s acting like a dictator is to borrow rhetoric from Andrew Sullivan and other left-leaning blogs and use that as facts.

    As muddle-headed as this Supreme Court decision is, the president must follow it. I don’t think any serious conservative would suggest otherwise. As far as I understand the decision, it seems that congressional action would remedy the most pressing issue, subjecting terrorists to military tribunals. It seems we need await another decision before the court decides the Geneva Convention issue — and on that one the Chief Justice can participate.

    One thing the court’s liberal plurality did give us was an answer the the argument from the left that indeterminate incarceration of these terrorists was cruel and unusual punishment. The court said they could hold them as long as active hostilities existed. Whatever active means.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 30, 2006 @ 2:52 am - June 30, 2006

  23. #22

    We know had some other presidents been in office, these Club Gitmo oxygen thieves would have been tried and executed long ago. Yet we still have shitheads like Ian bashing Bush for letting them live?

    How about we get it over with. Try them, fry them and shut down Club Gitmo.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 30, 2006 @ 5:21 am - June 30, 2006

  24. Get off your “blame Clinton” high horse; he’s been out of the white house for over 5 years. We’re tallking about the person currently in the White House who has said on more than one occassion that we’re going to capture Bin Laden, yet he can’t deliver on it.

    Besides, you all miss the point of yesterday’s ruling. It doesn’t say that he can’t do it. It says he can’t do it without approval of congress. Already, members of Congress are ready to introduce legislation to allow special tribunals. So what’s your problem with simply following the checks and balances of the constitution? It’s not about stopping the capture, trial and imprisonment of terrorists. It’s about 1 man attempting to use the constitution to wipe his ass and thumb his nose at the principles upon which our country is based and making sure he governs within the confines of the constitution.

    20: Yes, it is true; here are some references:

    You don’t get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.” Describing what it’s like to be governor of Texas.(Governing Magazine 7/98)
    – From Paul Begala’s “Is Our Children Learning?”

    “I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other, but that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” Bush joked.
    – CNN.com, December 18, 2000

    “A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it, ” [Bush] said.
    – Business Week, July 30, 2001

    Also, I know I’ve seen him on video make one of these comments, probably the cnn reference. One time is a joke; multiple mentions is something to be concerned about. Interesting how the business week comment was made just days before his infamous month-long vacation after only 6 months on the job and less than 45 days before 9/11/2001

    Comment by Kevin — June 30, 2006 @ 6:46 am - June 30, 2006

  25. #2 Calarato — June 29, 2006 @ 6:32 pm – June 29, 2006

    Something went very wrong with this decision. The Geneva Convention, at least, explicitly applies only to reciprocal signatories of the Geneva Convention.

    This is demonstrably untrue. (You really should read the GC.) The GC explicitly states in Article 2, relating to conflicts between nations:

    Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

    and in Article 3, which relates to conflicts “that are not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties (a signatory nation)”

    each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions (list omitted)

    The text of the GC is available here. It should be evident from Article 2 that a Power that is a signatory is bound to apply the convention in relation to another Power that is not a signatory, if that other Power accepts and applies the provisions of the GC. That is pretty much an irrelevant issue in this case, since the United States, Iraq and Afghanistan have all ratified the GC.

    On the debatable assumption that the US’s war in Afghanistan was not a conflict between nations, the article of the GC of interest in the Hamdan case is Article 3, and the only issue there is the meaning of the phrase “not of an international character occuring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties.” That issue is addressed at pages 65 through 68 of the majority opinion (pages 73 through 76 of the Acrobat (pdf) file–the link to which is available all over the Internet), and they conclude that a conflict that is “not of an international character” is a conflict that occurs, but is not a conflict between nations. In other words, an armed conflict that occurs between a contracting Power and an entity that is–or may be–independent of the government of the nation on which the conflict is fought.

    Comment by raj — June 30, 2006 @ 7:44 am - June 30, 2006

  26. #20 (and others)

    *rolls her eyes*

    I’ve heard the quote (Randi Rhodes likes to play it during the intro to her show).

    Bush was OBVIOUSLY joking…while being accurate.

    Of course it is be easier to be a dictator, rather than leading a free country. A dictator gets to murder the opposition, rather than running against them.

    Bush was talking about disagreeing with others (not sure who) and that he and they had to deal with it, following with his assertion that it would be easier if he didn’t have to. With the implied “but I do”.

    Comment by DinaFelice — June 30, 2006 @ 8:51 am - June 30, 2006

  27. From the post

    But in a Karl Rovian twist, I began to realize how bad this is for Democrats as we head into the fall Congressional elections. Remember 2002?

    You do realize that, what you are saying, is that the Republican party seeks to appeal to American voters who do not believe in the so-called “rule of law.” The Bush malAdministration could have filed bills to try to amend FISA to conform to its wishes. Why didn’t it? Because they believed that the Congress would not give them the authorization to do what it wanted to? Or because it just couldn’t bother?

    The Bush malAdministration could have filed bills seeking authorization to wire-tap communications of anyone and everyone–whether the communications are international or national. Why didn’t it? Because they believed believed that the Congress would not give them the authorization to do what it wanted? Or because the legislation might have been determined to be unconstitutional? Or because it just couldn’t bother?

    The Bush malAdministration could have filed bills seeking authorization to suck up records of the many international (and national) wire transactions for analysis. Why didn’t it? Because they believed believed that the Congress would not give them the authorization to do what it wanted? Or because the legislation might have been determined to be unconstitutional? Or because it just couldn’t bother?

    And, to the point of the Hamdan case, the Bush malAdministration could have filed bills seeking authorization to use military tribunals for the mandated hearings. Why didn’t it? Because they believed believed that the Congress would not give them the authorization to do what it wanted? Or because the legislation might have been determined to be unconstitutional? Or because it just couldn’t bother?

    As I said above, what you are saying, is that the Republican party seeks to appeal to American voters who do not believe in the so-called “rule of law.” Hey, whatever. It’s been long evident that there are a significant number of Americans who do not believe in the “rule of law.” And it’s been fairly apparent for some time that to Republicans, the “rule of law” claptrap is just that–clap-trap. But, be careful of what you wish for–it might come back to bite you.

    Comment by raj — June 30, 2006 @ 8:53 am - June 30, 2006

  28. #22: “As muddle-headed as this Supreme Court decision is, the president must follow it. I don’t think any serious conservative would suggest otherwise.”

    I will hold you to this commitment in the event I am right about what Bush will do. I appreciate your answering my question Dan; you’re the only one who has.

    #26: “Bush was OBVIOUSLY joking…while being accurate.”

    You ignored the second part of his “joke”: “just so long as I’m the dictator.” Who knew that a few years after he said this that he’d be openly flauting laws passed by Congress and ignoring the Bill of Rights?

    Comment by Ian S — June 30, 2006 @ 10:09 am - June 30, 2006

  29. Kevin, your attempt to read into the president’s humor is beyond amusing. Attempting to prove the president wants to be a dictator because he has repeated a joke three times. So what? How many people do you know who have use the same laugh line on different audiences? Reagan did it. Clinton did it.

    And Dina in #26, if Randi Rhodes uses this to intro her show, she proves herself to be of Michael Moore’s ilk, taking the president’s words out of context. There’s no implied “but I do” in his words.

    You seem eager to use whatever material you find, no matter how meager it is, to accuse this man of being a manic megalomaniac. Let me repeat what I said in comment #22, those who he’s acting like a dictator do so based on evidence garnered from Andrew Sullivan and other left-leaning blogs. You just can’t back it up with the facts of his Administration.

    Just look at all his controversial programs. He has had lawyers vet them and consulted with the appropriate congressional leaders.

    No, Raj, the Admnistration couldn’t have filed bills because they would have tipped the terrorists off. They consulted with Congress — and relied on practices of past Administrations, including Democratic ones.

    Once again, Ian S, you’ll use anything you can against this president, even if drawn out of context. Of course, he’d say “just so long as I’m the dictator.” Wouldn’t anyone? That’s part of the joke.

    If he were a dictator, he would have long since closed down The New York Times not to mention canceling Randi Rhodes show.

    So, lighten up. Despite the burdens of his office, as your (and Kevin’s references show) your arch-nemesis sure does.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 30, 2006 @ 12:06 pm - June 30, 2006

  30. Patrick #8, where the heck is the Bush Cult of Personality? It seems to exist only in the minds of Bush-haters?

    True, in a sense. I honestly don’t think it would matter whether it were Bush or not, so long as its a life-form that someone has stamped “GOP” on. To his followers, thats all that counts. But in the name of the famous GOP Party Loyalty, they have put into the Presidency someone that is anathema to most of the GOP’s founding principles.

    Apparently if you take a seismograph out to Simi Valley, you can always hear a rumbling in the ground day or night. Its the sound of Reagan, perpetually rolling in his grave. With this court decision, maybe he can take a few breaks. I don’t think he will be able ever stop completely until Bush is out of office.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — June 30, 2006 @ 1:01 pm - June 30, 2006

  31. #29 GayPatriotWest — June 30, 2006 @ 12:06 pm – June 30, 2006

    No, Raj, (a) the Admnistration couldn’t have filed bills because they would have tipped the terrorists off. (b) They consulted with Congress — (c) and relied on practices of past Administrations, (d) including Democratic ones (indicia added).

    Regarding

    (a) Poppycock. Aside from the fact that FISA was already in place, and could easily and with little fanfare have been amended to allow for at least part of both the NSA and inter-bank transfer records surveillance, the facts are that the USA “PATRIOT” act certainly would have given a “heads up” to prospective terrorists, and the Bush malAdministration itself touted at least the inter-bank transfer records surveillance over a period of years, as I showed in a comment thread on a post downstream. They may have even been touting the electronic surveillance over the same time period, but I haven’t sought evidence of that.

    (b) Preposterous. The Bush malAdministration consulted with a few members of Congress, who were sworn to secrecy. Those members couldn’t even notify the other members of Congress what the Bush malAdministration was up to. Irrespective of that fact–and, as far as you or I know, the Bush malAdministration’s plan may very well have presented to the members who were notified as a fait accompli–the fact is that there was no legislation passed by Congress authorizing the Bush malAdministration’s actions. If you’ve gone to law school, I’m sure that you are familiar with what legislation is. If you haven’t, I suggest that you read Article I of the US Constitution.

    (c) Irrespective of the fact that illegal acts by previous malAdministrations could hardly be used as an excuse for illegal acts by the current malAdministration, I have yet to see a citation supporting the contention that the current malAdministration was relying on past illegal acts to support its current illegal acts. Perhaps you would be so kind as to supply a citation or two.

    (d) “Including Democratic ones”? That might be of interest to some people, but not to me.

    Try again.

    Comment by raj — June 30, 2006 @ 3:28 pm - June 30, 2006

  32. #29 GayPatriotWest — June 30, 2006 @ 12:06 pm – June 30, 2006

    Once again, Ian S, you’ll use anything you can against this president, even if drawn out of context. Of course, he’d say “just so long as I’m the dictator.” Wouldn’t anyone? That’s part of the joke.

    It was about as much of a joke as his quip at the press conference in the Rose Garden to the (legally) blind reporter a couple of weeks ago who was wearing sun glasses to shade his eyes from the sunlight. As far as I’m concerned, both were faux pas in connection with “small talk.” It’s been apparent that Bush doesn’t do “small talk” very well and it’s surprising that his handlers haven’t trained him to just STFU instead of even trying to do “small talk.”

    Comment by raj — June 30, 2006 @ 3:36 pm - June 30, 2006

  33. #1 Peter Hughes — June 29, 2006 @ 6:30 pm – June 29, 2006

    Speaking of which, why are Pelosi and Reid flapping their gums off-time on the air so often?

    I’m sure that you will soon be emailing the people who control “the air” to find out why they provide “the air” to them so often. And I’m sure that you will thereafter report back to us as to what they have told you.

    Comment by raj — June 30, 2006 @ 3:39 pm - June 30, 2006

  34. raj, your name should stand for “Really Annoying Jerk,” which is how I will henceforth address you.

    And to answer your asinine question, NO, I do not need to email anyone in the MSM to find out why they keep going to the demoncRATS to find out why they are always in front of the cameras. It’s called MEDIA BIAS.

    Think back to the 1994 election (if you can). The GOP sweeps both houses and the voters put them back into power after 40 years. All of a sudden, you have Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, two respected lawmakers who were the “minority” leaders but now the majority leaders in Congress, and the MEDIA HAS NO CLUE WHO THEY ARE OR WHAT THEY STAND FOR.

    Why? Because the Fourth Estate had been buddy-buddy with the powers-that-be (read: DNC) for the past forty-odd years and were close warm personal friends. And who was the GOP? None other than the “minority party.” In other words, UNIMPORTANT to the drive-by media.

    And just because you think you know so much, Really Annoying Jerk, answer this question: Was Bob Michel on television every day talking about Desert Storm and what he thought the USA should do about Desert Storm? No, he wasn’t. And who was Bob Michel? He was the minority (GOP) leader in the House in 1991. It was Tom Foley (D) who supposedly ran the House.

    Now, how can the news be “fair and balanced” if it is only dedicated to covering ONE POINT OF VIEW? It wasn’t…until the blogosphere and Fox News came into power. That’s why the NYT and other “old” media are showing their biases and very soon, their irrelevance in mainstream society. Just like you and your ilk.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 30, 2006 @ 4:32 pm - June 30, 2006

  35. 29: And I stand by what I say: one time is a joke. repeated is something a bit more.

    Comment by Kevin — June 30, 2006 @ 6:08 pm - June 30, 2006

  36. Kevin in #35, LOL. ROFL. Oh, come on, you know people (I’m one of them) who when they come up with a witty line, tend to repeat it ad finitum.

    You’re just out to use whatever you can against this president, regardless of the facts. But, at least your comments are good for amusement on this hot and humid day.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 30, 2006 @ 6:20 pm - June 30, 2006

  37. #34 Peter Hughes — June 30, 2006 @ 4:32 pm – June 30, 2006

    And to answer your asinine question, NO, I do not need to email anyone in the MSM to find out why they keep going to the demoncRATS to find out why they are always in front of the cameras. It’s called MEDIA BIAS.

    In other words, “I’m (meaning you) a conservative, and I have no interest in finding out the facts.”

    That is one reason why I stopped being a conservative. Conservatives appear to have pre-conceived notions, and are uninterested in trying to determine whether their pre-conceived notions have anything to do with reality. Sometimes their preconceived notions do have something to do with reality, sometimes they don’t, but I have discovered that one of the touchstones of conservatives is that they aren’t going to let reality divert them from their preconceived notions.

    But I’m a Libran. Some of use actually are interested in determining whether our pre-conceived notions have something to do with reality. You apparently are a Taurus. Or maybe a Capricorn. They usually aren’t.

    And just because you think you know so much, Really Annoying Jerk, answer this question: Was Bob Michel on television every day talking about Desert Storm and what he thought the USA should do about Desert Storm? No, he wasn’t. And who was Bob Michel? He was the minority (GOP) leader in the House in 1991. It was Tom Foley (D) who supposedly ran the House.

    Um, and just why would you expect the media to put Republican Rep. Bob Michel on the air when they had Republican President George HW Bush and his minions to put on the air during Desert Storm? This petty diatribe of yours makes no sense whatsoever. Just how many Republican congresspersons do you believe the media were going to put on the air during Desert Storm, when they could put representatives of the GHWBush administration on?

    Think back to the 1994 election (if you can). The GOP sweeps both houses and the voters put them back into power after 40 years. All of a sudden, you have Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, two respected lawmakers who were the “minority” leaders but now the majority leaders in Congress, and the MEDIA HAS NO CLUE WHO THEY ARE OR WHAT THEY STAND FOR.

    Oh, so you are suggesting that the media, after having touted Gingrich’s “Contract With America” for some time prior to the 1994 election, had no idea who he was or what he stood for. Interesting. It sounds like a bit of revisionist history to me, but interesting.

    BTW, apparently you are unaware that Lott did not become the Senate majority leader following the 1994 election–at least not in the session immediately following the election. Bob Dole did. So much for your research capabilities.

    Now, how can the news be “fair and balanced” if it is only dedicated to covering ONE POINT OF VIEW?

    Oh, so the news is supposed to be “fair and balanced”–whatever that means–instead of reporting what the reporter believes is some version of reality. If the news is reporting on the shape of the earth, is he obligated to balance a statement that the correct view that the earth is (generally) spherical with a statement from someone of the “flat earth society”? Give me a break. One of my objections to MSM is that, every time they have an article or a radio/TV segment regarding equal rights for gay people, they apparently feel it necessary to have comments from the wacky religious conservatives (you know, part of the Republican coalition) oppositing equal rights for gay people. They don’t feel the need to get similar “balance” when the issue is equal rights for Negroes or other minorities, so why when the issue ie equal rights for gay people?

    raj, your name should stand for “Really Annoying Jerk,” which is how I will henceforth address you.

    Feel free. I addressed this juvenile diatribe of yours in a comment thread downstream.

    Comment by raj — July 1, 2006 @ 10:34 am - July 1, 2006

  38. “There is NO middle ground.”

    You should really make this the blog’s motto.

    I love the continual use of the term “terrorists” to describe the detainees. The improrpiety of that, considering the issue at hand, OUGHT to be obvious. But here in GPLand, it ain’t.

    Comment by donny — July 4, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - July 4, 2006

  39. #38 donny — July 4, 2006 @ 12:34 pm – July 4, 2006

    I love the continual use of the term “terrorists” to describe the detainees. The improrpiety of that, considering the issue at hand, OUGHT to be obvious. But here in GPLand, it ain’t.

    No, it ain’t. I prefer the formulation by the Charles Swift, the US Naval officer who had been assigned to represent Hamdan in his case against the United States, and who took the case to the US SupCt–at considerable risk to his Naval career–and won. From the transcript of an interview on Chris Matthew’s “Hardball” program:

    MATTHEWS: What about the charge made recently, just a couple minutes ago by Kate O‘Beirne of the “National Review,” that people who fight us who are not in uniform, who do not represent countries who are party to the Geneva Convention shouldn‘t be free riders? They shouldn‘t get Geneva Convention treatment. They should be treated like thugs.

    SWIFT: Well, you know, if you‘re looking at it from that way, we have a lot of criminals here in this country. And to prejudge anyone that we capture outside the country as a thug, why are we having a trial in the first place? We‘ve already decided they were guilty.

    What the Supreme Court said is you have the trial first, you use the procedures that are set up under international law, and then you decide whether they‘re a thug. You don‘t make the thug determination going in.

    ‘Hardball with Chris Matthews’ for June 29

    The members of the 101st Keyboard Brigade, such as here, have made the determination that they are thugs going in. Some “patriots” they are. /sarcasm

    Comment by raj — July 6, 2006 @ 9:03 am - July 6, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.