Who is for aggressive and secret initiatives to monitor terrorist groups and suspects, trace their finances, interrogate captured combatants thoroughly and detain combatants as long as necessary?
Wow, quite a lot of hands today – even in Connecticut. Thank you.
And who is for prohibiting all the above, and revealing as much as possible about what intelligence and covert initiatives we have underway, because the public (and, oh, yes, our enemies, too) have a right to know?
Ned Lamont, thank you. Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller, thank you, as well. The gentlemen and gentlewomen from the ACLU, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Gov. Dean, Mr. Moore, Ms. Sheehan, Mr. Baldwin — loved you on Saturday Night Live! — thank you all so much.
I couldn’t have stated it better myself!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
You should’ve tried, at least.
Bruce, no one wants the Islamist terrorists to “win” this conflict. No one. What happened, though, is that this administration took its eye off the goal of capturing Bin Laden, and hopefully decapitating Al Qaeda.
The Patriot Act was constructed in secret. After the justifiably emotional responses to 9/11, everyone looked again at the weaknesses and some decided to argue that the PA went too far in certain instances.
No one wants surveillance to end. The administration could have most of what it wants if it would only follow the established law. It chooses not to do so. As a patriot, one who understands the Constitution, you should not support this imbalance in the Constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances.
Fight the Islamists. Do it within the Constitution. Otherwise, what good is it? Lincoln’s extra-Constitutional machinations turned out well. This is a different era, different enemy, different weapons. You might be right to support a dictatorial Presidency. But what if you’re wrong?
Caution should be a key word in any vocabulary of a conservative. “Bring ’em on” are not the words of a cautious man.
There is no hatred here; there is concern for the future of the Republic.
Let’s discuss the issue; not the debators.
Agape.
Gene, I’m trying my best to understand your point of view. Could you please elaborate on how to fight the Islamists by doing it within the Constitution. Also, more specific examples and detail on why you feel President Bush has strayed from it.
And Gene, where did the Patriot Act go too far? How has it affected your daily life or infringed upon your civil liberties?
You say George Bush runs a “dictatorial presidency”; please compare him to a bona fide dictator, such as Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein, and explain how they are similar. Do you believe, like some liberals do, that Bush=Hitler?
You make it sound like George Bush is a bigger threat to the future of the Republic than are the Islamists. Please explain how. If George Bush succeeds, what happens to the Republic? If the Islamists succeed, then what happens to the Republic?
Pish and Piffle. Get serious.
Here’s a Brit’s take on Islam in England. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/565niapc.asp
It’s very interesting reading. This Islamo-fascism could be developing here, but we’re doing very little to promote a discussion about it. However, with all the invective being bruited about, maybe that’s not such a good idea. Don’t scare the horses (they tend to panic and stampede). Let’s cool the rhetoric, guys, and get something started.
Agape.
Over 700 “signing statements” which state, in essence, “If I choose, I will disregard the will of the Congress.” Is “virtual” dictatorial Presidency acceptable?
The potential is there for a violation of civil rights. Ask Padilla.
C’mon, guys. These butchers are serious, and we’re engaging in a bitch-slap.
Agape. (And I mean it!)
Gene, I’m honestly and seriously asking a question. Your response did nothing to even attempt to answer it.
I really am trying to understand your point of view. With real examples of what you believe, why do you think President Bush has strayed from the Constitution?
So signing statements that might, at some point, bring the executive branch into conflict with the legislative branch make a dictatorial presidency (never mind that other presidents have also issued signing statements). And the Patriot Act goes too far because there is the potential for a violation of civil rights. Somehow I’m still far more concerned about the dangers posed by terrorists than the dangers of George Bush’s “dictatorial presidency.”
I read your linked article Gene and I still don’t understand your point. “Cool the rhetoric and get something started,” you say. What is that something we are supposed to start?
I believe that on past occasions, I’ve seen Gene be good at rhetorically accusing others of being rhetoricians, and not as good at answering / tolerating substantive questions on his views
It’s my impression that he loves saying things like “There is no hatred here; there is concern for the future of the Republic” while (or, by way of) dressing up accusations on others that are, in fact, hateful.
Note that accusing anyone here of supporting a “dictatorial” Presidency (as Gene does in #1) is grossly false and distortive; and, because grossly false and distortive, it is in itself hate speech.
Barry and Conservative Guy, I see you doing a great job of asking Gene calm, specific questions as to what he means, or how he might substantiate his claims.
Gene, I don’t see you addressing their questions or substantiating your claims.
So.
I tend libertarian. (I’m even registered Libertarian at the moment.) I do think that freedom has to take precidence over safety, (or we’ll have neither, etc., etc.)
Just the *word* “Homeland Security” gives me the heebie jeebies.
I don’t trust government but I do take comfort in the reality of data overload. If we have any privacy at all it’s because we’re individually lost in the electrons. But that was the case even before 9-11.
The things that Bush has done don’t strike me as excessive. I might be more worried about it except for all the hoopla from people who, on a normal day, don’t seem to mind intruisve government. The outrage that would seem genuine coming from anti-government people just seems… opportunistic coming from quasi-socialists.
As far as I can tell a plausible understanding of the rules has been followed by the Administration. NOT an understanding that everyone agrees with but a rational, plausible understanding of how anti-terror surveilance can be carried out. I might expect libertarians to be up in arms… but Democrats? It just *feels* like grandstanding.
And I do want our government to be data mining, pattern sorting, and listening to *anyone* called by a suspected terrorist in a foreign country… even if it’s me because of a wrong number. I want financial transfers to be followed… it’s not as though I’ve got any sort of financial privacy to worry about, I send it all to the IRS in detail every spring.
Funny how Gene brought up a series of wild-eyed statements with no facts to support it….. then when challenged he pulled the old bait-n-switch.
I think he’s made clear which side he’s on.
Gene is a Fifth Columnist!
From Time Magazine:
“MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group’s communications.”
Alert the ACLU! How dare BushCo violate the privacy rights of those young Arab men! They should have their airline tickets and liquid explosives returned immediately, along with profuse apologies and punitive damage awards!
Damn it! We need Ned Lamont now more than ever!
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It seems Bush’s NSA wiretapping without a warrant violates the fourth amendment. What do you all think. Is the war on terror worth giving him such power? Is hea really above the law? Does his signing statement on the torture ban claiming he’ll torture if he wants to not make him a terrorist? I thought we we’re fighting for freedom, against torture. If we torture detainees, we certainly cannot be surprised if american detainees are tortured as well. To me, it’s just so hypocritical (and unconstitutional).
Why is it that we can’t focus onprotecting our country and securing our borders instead of inciting more terrorists and getting deeper and deeper into this horrible conflict spending unbelievable amounts of money (and lives) when we could really use it for the good (and security) of the american people here? It’s crazy, but I sound like an old school republican. Sorry for the rant. I’ll check back later for your thoughts. Thanks.
ck
I guess sane, reasonable questions in answer to a plea for discussion doesn’t move the discussion forward, Gene?
Here’s my problem with your cute but not too inventive tack above, when asked for specifics to back up your claim that the Bush team has imperiled the Constitution, you offer us Padilla in #5 comment.
Tell me, Gene, is that the same Padilla whose name was raised by the DailyKos folks in their lead yesterday –you know, the one where they propose that Bush/Blair “created” the British Air Terror Plot in order to take attention off the stunning victory of the anti-war movement in the CT race?
I appreciate some civil libertarians might feel –feel, Gene, feel– that a Presidential Signing Statement is akin to gutting the Constitution, but of course it is NOT. You offer us a great insight when you concede by your silence the question of “What civil liberty have you lost since 9-11 and the Patriot Act?” Chrip, chrip, chrip.
The truth, Gene, is that you and others on the Left have not lost a single liberty, a single right, a single opportunity to employ all the laws of this govt in defense of even the enemies who wish to severe us harm –let alone yourself.
You haven’t. The claims of TeddyK and JoeyB and PaddieLeahy and other cut&run Democrats in the Senate that SCOTUS would become a monster and strip America of her “rights” isn’t happening. SCOTUS told the Bush team to protect the rights of even our enemies at GitMo and give them a trial, adequate counsel, etc. What? Are you mad because they didn’t give the ACLU attorneys triple legal fees?
Gene, you offer a dismissive tone to the legitimate questions others here have placed before you –that tells me a lot about your willingness to have a honest debate.
Great rhetoric, Gene. At the end of the day, it’s just hot air and easily forgotten sentiments. I would love it if the Left would engage in serious, moderated debate. You won’t though; it would mean no more drive-by slogans, no more headline mentality and you’d be held accountable for your positions.
Gene, you “move” or ploy in this thread isn’t unique.
In another thread, one of the GayLeft voices here offered that Republicans wanted to recriminalize sodomy. Proof of the evil that exists in the heart of darkness known as the GOP. I asked him to cite a single responsible GOPer who believed that. he came up with some nutcases in blogs who claimed to be GOPers.
Really, it’s about the same level of honest, fair debate as you claim to plea for here, Gene. You don’t want it –you just want to feel good about asking for it.
charlie, the NSA wiretaps don’t violate the 4th.
Re-read the text you posted. The 4th guarantees that:
(1) people will be secure from UNREASONABLE searches; and
(2) IF/WHEN (implied) warrants kick in, said warrants shall have probably cause, oath, specificity, etc.
The fact of the matter is that we all submit to warrantless searches all the time, and – because they are reasonable – they are perfectly constitutional.
When you undergo metal detection, X-ray, and searches of your bags as you board a plane – those are warrantless searches.
When a sobriety checkpoint stops you, and the policeman shines a flashlight in your car and casually tries to look for open alcohol containers – that’s a warrantless search.
They’re allowed, because they’re reasonable. Well charlie: having the NSA screen general data about overseas phone calls (NOT even listening in, yet) to KNOWN terrorist phone numbers that they just captured on some other terrorist’s cell phone, is also reasonable.
And that’s all the NSA terrorist surveillance program does. That’s all the big, fake, political hoopla is about.
Further, there is also the fact that the President has inherent powers under Article 2 of the Constitution to gather intelligence on the activities of United States enemies, whether or not they are citizens, without warrants. All Presidents (of both political parties) have asserted that, and all court decisions (thus far) have upheld it.
Warrants kick in mostly where something called “criminal jeopardy” is to kick in. In other words: If you are going to put a citizen up to a criminal trial and formally deprive them of rights by due process, you better have honored their rights, used warrants, etc., as you gather the evidence against them.
But military intelligence gathering – merely trying to figure out if the United States is going to be attacked (and where, when, which ones, how, etc.) is something different. Again, both political parties have always asserted that and courts have always upheld that.
It seems Bush’s NSA wiretapping without a warrant violates the fourth amendment.
Wrong. Leaving aside the ample precdent and legal opinions, let’s look at that word “unreasonable” in the Fourth Amendment. Do you really believe it is unreaasonable to listen in on the communications of foreign terrorists?
Is the war on terror worth giving him such power?
Is losing the war against Islamo-Fascism and sacrificing thousands of innocent lives to terrorism a fair price to pay for protecting the comfort and privacy of terrorists?
Why is it that we can’t focus onprotecting our country and securing our borders
Short answer, because left-wing liberals wouldn’t let us. Any action taken to secure the borders (except for hiring more bureaucrats) is met with shrieks of “racism” and “profiling” and lawsuits from the ACLU… who don’t even want the police to inspect backpacks on the New York subway. And look at you, one sentence you complain that Bush has gone too far to protect us from terrorists, and a few sentences later, you’re whining that security should be increased. The only way to be completely secure, by that model, is to create precisely the garrison police-state left-wingers delude themselves into thinking we’re already in.
#14 cont –
So charlie – it appears you are assuming a bunch of things that aren’t so.
You assume that NSA terrorist surveillance would violate the Constitution – but it doesn’t.
You assume that Bush has grabbed some new powers or put himself above the law – but he hasn’t.
You assume that we “torture detainees” – we do not. (Or else please cite a case, if you think we do, where the perpetrators weren’t investigated and tried and punished for breaking our laws.)
You seem to be assuming that the Iraq war isn’t about fighting terrorism – but it is.
You seem to believe that we should crouch into a totally defensive posture and not take the war abroad to the terrorists themselves, as the latter only “incites” them. I disagree.
But – I do agree we should be doing more to secure the borders. Many criticize the Bush Administration for not doing enough there, and I do too.
And for all these adbridgments (alledged and otherwise) of citizen’s civil liberties the only “terrorists” our govenerment seems to find are teenagers and Floridian malcontents that may or may not have ever proved a genuine danger.
Let’s send Chertoff & Co. across the pond to learn how to do it right.
#17 — Still waiting for a left-lib to name a civil liberty of mine that’s actually been abridged or taken away by ‘Bushco.’ I’ve been asking for several months now. So far, nada.
So, just to keep it straight for you — Terrorists: Real. Violations of Civil Liberties: Left-Wing Paranoid Delusion.
the only “terrorists” our govenerment seems to find are teenagers and Floridian malcontents that may or may not have ever proved a genuine danger.
I guess Alex doesn’t hink it’s fair to arrest terrorists before they commit terrorist acts.
#19 – Well V, the basic Dem answer to terrorism is that we should wait to be attacked.
Clinton followed it. Kerry promised it in the 2004 campaign.
Kerry’s nomination acceptance speech: I can’t remember the exact words, but he emphasized how he was absolutely committed to the DEFENSE of America and would respond with everything we had WHEN ATTACKED, etc.
The Bush Administration, by contrast, believes that the best defense is a good offense, we have to take the war to the terrorists, we have to start fixing a couple of these totally dysfunctional states that breed hate and despair, etc. There is a difference.
#19: Have you ever noticed that the Democrats’ terrorism proposals are always focused on ‘First Responders,’ i.e. people who will mop up the blood after the terrorists have already attacked?
I guess it’s easy for Kerry, Pelosi and other people who fly in their own private Gulfstream V’s not to give a damn about preventing terrorists from blowing up commercial airliners.
I also suppose it’s just a coincidence that the ‘first responders’ Democrats want to hire more of are almost entirely unionized public employees. And which party receives almost all of the political contributions from public employee unions?
Yeah. The Dem attitude is more fatalistic – that we should live with a certain number of terrorist attacks.
There was another Kerry quote in the 2004 cycle, I forget it now, but it gave the flavor of an underlying belief that terrorist attacks (killing people) should be considered an inevitable nuisance, one for international police to deal with.
#14 Calarato — August 11, 2006 @ 11:09 am – August 11, 2006
The fact of the matter is that we all submit to warrantless searches all the time, and – because they are reasonable – they are perfectly constitutional. (Emphasis added)
You really should consider restraining yourself from giving legal advice. Warrantless searches, may be reasonable, but they may not be. A prominent example of a warrantless search that the court deemed reasonable was that by Mark Fuhrman et al., of OJ Simpson’s compound a number of years ago. Since that search was deemed reasonable, it was deemed constitutional at the trial court level. Of course, since Simpson was acquited, the constitutionality of the search was not tested on appeal.
Other warrantless searches have not been deemed reasonable. Notable such searches include those involving searches of automobiles, for a variety of reasons.
Further, there is also the fact that the President has inherent powers under Article 2 of the Constitution to gather intelligence on the activities of United States enemies
It’s nice that you believe that. Cite us a case.
#21: The quote is “We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.”
Calarato, I hope you ignore the raj… he should be working on the language for some apologies to others here.
raj, stay on task. Get focused.
#23 – That was it, thanks. It reminded me of Dorothy clicking her heels 3 times, “There’s no place like home… There’s no place like home…”
And, the willingness to live with the “nuisance”.
#24 – No problem, Matt. Did he say something about me? LOL. I honestly don’t read him, most of the time (like 90-95%). The occasional one-liner may get through. Emphasis on “may”, and “occasional”.
Poor flailing RajIan; he must still be shaken from the humiliation he underwent over Ben Stein’s credentials.
Note what RajIan says are “soft subjects”:
Ben Stein (Benjamin J. Stein) was born November 25, 1944 in Washington, D.C., (He is the son of the economist and writer Herbert Stein) grew up in Silver Spring, Maryland, and attended Montgomery Blair High School. He graduated from Columbia University in 1966 with honors in economics. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1970 as valedictorian of his class by election of his classmates. He helped to found the Journal of Law and Social Policy while at Yale. He has worked as a poverty lawyer in New Haven and Washington, D.C., a trial lawyer in the field of trade regulation at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C., a university adjunct at American University in Washington, D.C., at the University of California at Santa Cruz, and at Pepperdine University in Malibu, CA. At American U. He taught about the political and social content of mass culture. He taught the same subject at UCSC, as well as about political and civil rights under the Constitution. At Pepperdine, he has taught about libel law and about securities law and ethical issues since 1986.
Since RajIan says his credentials are better, let him produce them before he gets any other citations.
VdaK, was that before or after Kerry offered that fighting terrorism stateside was just a “police-action”?
Could that fringe of the Democrat Party be any more lost? Wow.
NDXXX, raj/Ian won’t do that –post his credentials– because he hides in the recesses of GayLeft debate and seeks to inflame, incite, ankle bite and draw any –ANY– attention he can to himself in the vain hope that it validates him, he matters, his view is considered worthy.
I have it from good sources that he works diligently at hiding his IP and other identifying information, modifies those tags in order to escape blocking actions and his drive to remain a commentator is so paramount to his self-esteem that he will repeatedly try to circumvent blocking software in order to keep posting. I am not alone in thinking raj’s effort to keep posting might be pathologically psychotic.
He won’t submit to your pleadings. His credentials are mercurial.
Thanks Calarato, Lotsa info. I’ll have to do more reseach and get back. Quick point though: I didn’t claim that we’d tortured. But Bush’s signing statement makes it clear that the law he was so proud of signing means nothing to him. What is your opinion on that? Also, what is your opinion on torture? Is it ever justified?
Interesting info on the “un/reasonable” searches. In my brief reading, it seems the word has been debated a lot, which must be why the NSA spying is so debated. I guess my issue is that I believed the FISA court was set up to keep unwarranted spying from happening. This is not to say that Bush is spying on us, but that, if he needs no warrant to conduct such surveillance, then there can be absolutely no oversight. It’s not that he’s spying illegally (or torturing), but that he’s giving himself the power to do so, and it’s all in secret. This may seem moot if it is true that the military is above the constitution (I know, I know, we’re still arguing the reasonable/probable cause…), but, in the end, is it just? I think other liberal wackos like me jump on these issues because they’re so suspect. Why can’t they get a warrant? What else are they doing that we don’t know about? How can Bush sign the torture ban and say that the ban “is to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad” and then sign a statement saying he can disregard the ban? These are the things that make jump to seemingly extreme conclusions. Sorry, I went off again. I’m sure you’ll all have a field day with those comments. I know I’ve still misunderstood some of your comments calarato and I’ll do more work later. Right now, I’ve got other work to do. Be back later.
Alex (a new one from the Left) writes at #17: “Let’s send Chertoff & Co. across the pond to learn how to do it right.”
I have a better idea, Alex. Let’s send the entire Congressional Democrat Caucus and the DNC Leadership and most of Hollywood’s “Elite” over to France where they can witness first-hand the love muslim radicals have for the West.
Better yet, I’ll help raise money for their boat passage to Damascus –of course, the boat will be registered to a Libya based company and all suspected Jews will be shot once the boat is past the 200 mile limit… but what is that when we’re talking about solidarity with muslim extremists… opps, freedom fighters. My bad.
Yeah Alex, you knock the guys who have help keep American safe since 9-11… just like you support the troops but not the mission, eh?
charlie, thank you for the civil response. Several points, in random (sorry) order.
(1) It’s entirely possible that FISA as such is unconstitutional. Its constitutionality has never been tested. It was passed by a relatively left-wing (read: not sticking to the letter of the Constitution) Congress in 1978. It could very well be a significant violation of the President’s Article 2 powers – and duty – to protect the United States, including gathering appropriate intelligence.
(2) FISA also contains provisions that its own requirements are limited or suspended in the normal course of a war authorized by Congress. Congress authorized the War on Terror, formally and legally, sometime after 9-11 (I forget the exact name of the resolution).
(3) Accepting FISA as valid for the moment: I am told it is a very convoluted, yet technologically outdated Act. It’s entirely possible, for example, that if the communications monitoring equipment were physically positioned outside the United States AND at least one of the end points of the phone call is international, FISA on its own terms would not apply. And the second condition (international calls) is, to my knowledge, certainly part of what we’re talking about in the NSA terrorist surveillance program. I’m also told that the Administration/NSA does often seek FISA warrants. So it’s quite POSSIBLE that they have figured out, in a legal and valid way, when the Act would tend to obligate them and when it would not, and in truth, have been following the letter of the Act.
(4) You may not know this, but it bears repeating: Congress has been consulted and briefed on the NSA terrorist surveillance from the beginning. And by Congress, I mean “Democrats”. And they had no objections to the program – that I have heard of – that is, not until the NYT’s public release and politicizing of the program late last year. You can find information about those briefings here and here. Note the dates and the prominence of Democrat names such as Harman (8 briefings), Pelosi (5 briefings), Jay Rockefeller, etc.
(5) Ditto for Justice Department consultations. I believe the program undergoes Justice Department review every 45 days, or something like that. So the program has happened all along with careful review from lawyers and, again, from Congress, including the minority party. It cannot be fairly characterized as some big Executive power grab.
Sorry for the big information dump, but you seem interested.
As for torture: My position is that we have to ban it – AFTER defining it rationally. And in that context, it’s reasonable to discuss where the line falls between “coercive interrogation” and “torture” – while making sure the former remains permitted where it is appropriate / necessary. And I believe the Bush Administration has more or less done those things.
Signing statements don’t get my blood up – on any issue. President Clinton did them, I believe. But I have to admit that I have not read any. If you feel strongly that the Bush signing statement says in effect “I do plan to torture”, please post a link and I’ll have a look.
P.S. Please note, I for one have not said (and would never believe or accept) that “the military is above the constitution” as you put it.
charlie, I think you’re listening too much to spin. The issue could be argued either way, really. I just don’t see those arguments. What I see are wild eyed alarmist posturing about *obvious* constitutional violations. Where is the place where honest disagreement about interpretations can exist?
But it’s not politically *useful* to present something as reasoned disagreement. Anyone who’s ever watched television understands that warrents are required for searches. So long as the details aren’t dwelled upon the specter of the US government wiretapping US citizens without warrents makes incredible press.
How do *you* solve the problem of a foreign originating call from a number that is being tapped being placed to a number in the US?
#20 — Great point. And just exactly how were “First Responders” responsible for breaking up the Air Atlantic Terror Plot?? Correct, they weren’t.
It was intelligence involving data mining that helped stop the mass murder.
Policies that the MadLibDems oppose.
“It was intelligence involving data mining that helped stop the mass murder.”
Please stop playing Pin the Tail on Raj in the Sandbox and substantiate this claim. Evidence, please.
And then substantiate that the techniques used are opposed by Democrats.
This should be funny.
#34 – Here you go, sean…laugh your ass off:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13537214,00.html
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
#33 GayPatriot — August 11, 2006 @ 7:53 pm – August 11, 2006
It was intelligence involving data mining that helped stop the mass murder.
Odd, I had been led to believe that it was a tip from an informant in the UK, confirmed through Pakistan, that initially implicated the plot.
And, lest there be any doubt, it is amazingly highly likely that the American FISA court would have issued warrants for NSA monitoring of those implicated in the plot, even if any of them were from the US. (Note for the uninitiated: there is no restriction on NSA monitoring of communications between parties abroad.)
As far as can be determined, data mining (yes, I do know what that term means) had nothing to do with this incident.
Peter, thanks for nailing another “lower case” GayLeft commentator’s butt to the wall.
For those ignorant puffs who think data mining had nothing-zero-zilch to do with the BritishAirlinerTerrorPlot, you’re sorely mistaken… again.
British intelligence indicated that it was first alerted to the terror cell’s activities because American intelligence provided information about seven Pakistani “charities” trolling the Brit masques for $$ to assist “Islamic purification” programs –a phrase in use since the Taliban days of Osama bin Laden– and then diverting up to 80% of those funds to Brit-based operations.
In short, some of the GayLeftDailyKos commentators here are either just stupid, talking without a license, or disingenious to the point of being disloyal to America. Either way, they might want to switch their source from the DailyKos to maybe the DailyShow or DailyBuzz –at least they won’t be uncomfortable when the laughing starts at their next opining session.
We’ll wait for the GayLeft to withdraw from the “knowledge and opinion business” and go back to limiting their practice to arm-chair quarterbacking and second guessing now.
You’re welcome anytime, M-Matt.
Regards,
Peter H.
Wow… it’s been almost a whole week and Gene (“Let’s cool the rhetoric, guys, and get something started”) still hasn’t responded to fair and straightforward questions. Pathetic, but not surprising.