Do you support Bush?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The administration agrees with your reason for opposing Hussein. WMDs and 9/1 were excuses, not reasons for the invasion. They thought they were making the world safe for us to prosper in it. They see the Middle East as the key to remaking the world in their image.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you or anyone really think that the Middle East, and the world of this nascent century, can work in (or even with) the Middle East's current paradigm? Well yeah, I guess the jihadists do, but they're insane.

If there's a portion of the world that needs to be remade, it's the Middle East. The past and present paradigms of the Middle East are a perfect prescription for oppression, corruption, war and disaster--and not just for the Middle East, but for much of the world as well (e.g., nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, for just one HUGE future disaster)

Remake faster, please.

[andyfox]

I don't know if we can remake the Middle East. If we can, it's not going to be done well by the group currently running things in Washington, because they are an arrogant, ignorant bunch. They are certainly capable of causing a lot more trouble than, for example, the relatively impotent madman currently running Iran.

That said, I think honest people can disagree with my second sentence above. That you and I, basically 180 degrees opposite on the war in Iraq, agree with the sentence you highlighted from my original post should awaken some eyes to the probability of the three sentences you didn't highlight also being true.

[MMMMMM]

Good thoughtful post Andy.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

OVERALL i support Bush.

I don't know about the "overall" part, but I support the war.

Yes, it would be best if such sticky actions were free of constitutional issues, but it's most inportant that WE ARE FINDING TERRORISTS THAT ARE PLANNING TO KILL US EN MASSE

To paraphrase Ben Franklin "anyone who would sacrifice some piece of his liberty for a small measure of security deserves neither and soon will lose both."

And as to killing us "en masse", stop being a wimp. On 9/11/01, 1/1000 of 1% of our population was killed. I'd hardly call that "en masses."

The terrorists hate us for our open, secular, free, mercantile society. Every reduction in liberty in the name of security is a victory for Osama bin Laden, et. al.

As 2-time presidential Candidate Harry Browne put it, "We need to put forth our best efforts to bring those responsible to justice, and the best way to do that is to avail those suspected of every constitutional protection afforded all Americans."

2700 deaths do not warrant the loss of one ounce of liberty for 270,000,000 people.

[BluffTHIS!]

Bush, may he ever be right, but Bush right or wrong!

er . . uh . . I meant . . .

[CORed]

I'm certainly not suggesting that there should be no wiretapping of terrorists. I'm simply suggesting that it should be done under the laws that are already in place, which even allow the retroactive issuing of wiretaps on communications with foreign parties.
Bush wants an unfettered right to wiretap anybody he classifies as a "terrorist" with no review or controls. He has asserted the authority to imprison any U.S. citizen classified as an "enemy combatatant" without trial, and has done so (Padilla). It is becoming increasingly apparent that the "war on terror" is a convenient excuse for a massive increase in presidential power and usurpation of civil liberties. Bush has asserted that the fact that we are "at war" (which, legally, we are not) trumps every conceivable check on his authority. Some time in 2008, he will likely assert that it's just too dangerous to elect a new president while we are "at war" and unilaterally cancel the election, so he can remain in control until the "war on terror" has been won. The biggest threat to this country is not lurking in a Middle East desrt somewhere, he is sitting on th Oval Office.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the "war on terror" is a convenient excuse for a massive increase in presidential power and usurpation of civil liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly does Bush have to gain from a "usurpation of civil liberties"? "Hey let's start a war so that I can run some wire taps and take away people's civil liberties!"

[ QUOTE ]
Bush has asserted that the fact that we are "at war" (which, legally, we are not) trumps every conceivable check on his authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

What he has said about the wire taps is that their secrecy was essential for their effectiveness, hence not wanting to go through a court process. Whether or not you buy it, it's certainly conceiveable that his actions are intended for our protection; saying he's asserted that he can go unchecked whenever he wants is a big jump.

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest threat to this country is not lurking in a Middle East desrt somewhere, he is sitting on th Oval Office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I guess democracy sucks.... why are you living here?? That was some A+ rhetoric though, well done.

[ QUOTE ]
What he has said about the wire taps is that their secrecy was essential for their effectiveness, hence not wanting to go through a court process. Whether or not you buy it, it's certainly conceiveable that his actions are intended for our protection; saying he's asserted that he can go unchecked whenever he wants is a big jump.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, that FISA court leaks like a sieve. (rolls eyes) Do you even believe this stuff or are you just typing off of some talking points?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest threat to this country is not lurking in a Middle East desrt somewhere, he is sitting on th Oval Office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I guess democracy sucks.... why are you living here?? That was some A+ rhetoric though, well done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, clearly you have decided that democracy sucks since you support unchecked executive power. But "why are you living here??" Is that really the best you can do? Sorry, you get an F.

[andyfox]

"it's certainly conceiveable that his actions are intended for our protection; saying he's asserted that he can go unchecked whenever he wants is a big jump."

I agree with the first part. He may have acted in what he thought were national security interests. Let's assume that he did.

I don't see the big jump that you see in the second part of your statement though. The arguments that he, the attorney general, and the vice president have made assert that he has inherent powers under the constitution to act in the national interest. And that those powers permit him to wiretap, without a warrant, when he sees fit. They are saying precisely that he can go unchecked whenever he wants.

[ALawPoker]

"The arguments that he, the attorney general, and the vice president have made assert that he has inherent powers under the constitution to act in the national interest. And that those powers permit him to wiretap, without a warrant, when he see fit. They are saying precisely that he can go unchecked whenever he wants."

Well I would agree that he has asserted that he has the power to go unchecked, whenever he wants, as long his actions are necessary to national security.... and if that is the case, I don't have a problem with it.


Elliot, I'm just telling you the administration's stance on it (as far as I know). Do I really believe it? Sure. But I haven't informed myself on this subject as much as an uber-partisan Democrat looking for any reason to complain. Perhaps you're better informed. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]