Terrorists will do nothing differently because of this egregious mistake.

The message being sent to the enemy is: "We are weak."

You know and I know it's not weakness to treat an enemy humanely. However, what WE think doesn't count, because the terrorists from Russian and Arabic cultures view all concessions and negotiations as weakness.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's little use debating the dangers of a suicidal, homicidal enemy with folks who deny evil exists or believe jihadists can be reasoned with. It's quite obviously a very dangerous world and Democrats have a terrible track record of protecting America.

You fellows like to pretend Bush has somehow shut down or taken away your rights. Bullshit. Name ONE of YOUR rights being affected, and I don't mean cut-n-paste hearsay from the Daily Komatose. How has YOUR life been affected? Taps on your phone? Waterboarding suspects at the local library? Credit score? Resume? The very act of typing anti-Bush or anti-government sentiment shows you don't believe you're in any danger whatsoever. Even the presses of the traitorous New York Slimes continue to roll.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Think of the Franklin quote the next time you want government to take over your health care and give vote-buying "tax cuts" to people who don't pay taxes.

They're total assholes, the NSA.

They claim they're protecting America, but all they really care about are the rich people and the big corporations.

Criticism by those who refused to protect America, before AND after 9-11.

meh, when I tried to post it, it failed
http://www.videosift.com/video/FISA-Protecting-America-or-executive-power-grab

anyway, good insightful clip!

Oh man you gotta love shit like this.

When the dems don't renew the (newspeak) "protect america act" - it's putting AMERICA AT RISK!!!

But if Bush vetoes the bill because it doesn't protect the telecoms from litigation - no problem.

Hypocrisy - It's the new democracy!

Rush D. Holt Jr.

the Restore Act

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

the (so-called-) Protect America Act

I like reading coolhund's point of view, but I disagree with most of it : ) The civil war has already begun, people will die in large numbers either way, the sevice(wo)men have already died for nothing (unless you count taking down Saddam, which was a double-edged sword) or, if not for nothing, for Americans and Iranians and everyone else to go in and try to make Iraq into whatever they need it to be to fit their goals. It's true people will bitch whatever the US does now. So, we'll have to deal with it. I know there are actually still some people who want the Americans to stay and appreciate what help they've brought, but I don't think they are in the majority any more. As for the rebels, they are not a single group of people and have many differing goals-- some just want power, some want something other than democracy, some just want the Americans out. I seem to recall learning about American colonists killing Whigs and anyone percieved as "Loyalists" back in the American Revolution (I could be wrong; I'm no historian).
Lastly, you don't join the military to "bring freedom and democracy to other countries." While the US military has indeed done that in the past, the purpose of the military is defensive (protect America from enemies foreign and domestic) and offensive (protect friends and allies of America and American interests). Being nice and helping other countries is lofty goal but what America does and when with its military always depends on the civilians in charge-- the government and Commander In Chief (president).
Don't kid yourselves-- while the US did free many countries from tyranny in the past, it wasn't because "that's a good thing." What the US does, both good and bad, is because someone thinks it's in their best interest. Most other countries are the same way.
As a German, if you are grateful be grateful for this: that the Japanese bombed Pearl harbor and got the Americans involved. They may not have otherwise.
All the above is just my opinion.

President Bush is overreaching his powers... excessively...

1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.


Let’s start with number one. Bear in mind that the so-called Protect America Act that was stampeded through this great body in August provides no—zero—statutory protections for Americans traveling abroad from government wiretapping. None if you’re a businesswoman traveling on business overseas, none if you’re a father taking the kids to the Caribbean, none if you’re visiting uncles or aunts in Italy or Ireland, none even if you’re a soldier in the uniform of the United States posted overseas. The Bush Administration provided in that hastily-passed law no statutory restrictions on their ability to wiretap you at will, to tap your cell phone, your e-mail, whatever

i.e.

1. “I don’t have to follow my own rules, and I don’t have to tell you when I’m breaking them.”

2. “I get to determine what my own powers are.”

3. “The Department of Justice doesn’t tell me what the law is, I tell the Department of Justice what the law is.”

We don't know how to protect America? Please, enlighten me. Why do you say that?

The military has been in business for a long time. Now they don't know how to keep an inventory? Don't forget that they don't know how to protect America, also!

Clinton did nothing for national defence. HA, ROFL, Source please? The right will want you to believe that the "Bush doctrine" to protect America is new under Bush, but Clinton always had America's security first and took preemptive actions whenever he could (remember, he didn't have 9/11 to justify illegal action), in the interview he cites situations where this is/was true including the attempted off of Bin Ladin and creating defence against terrorism, it was the inaction of the right when they took office that allowed for 9/11 to happen. Not to mention Bush has failed to find/kill Bin Ladin even when deploying the armed forces in an illegal war and invading two countries, has lied about much worse things than fellatio including torture and inhumane treatment, pretences to invade a country and kill thousands of innocents and our soldiers, and his campaign policies. He has alienated the entire world KILLING any hegemony that Regan, Bush Sr, and Clinton established during their presidencies, created NCLB which does nothing but hurt the public education system, and has done jack shit with the economy except raise the national debt. I would go on, but anyone who doesn't get the point will never be swayed.

"Were it not for Perot, he would've lost in '92 and much of today's hells might've been avoided."
Were it not for the electoral college, a flawed election system that is based on 18th century paranoia GWB wouldn't be president and ALL of today's hell might be avoided.

He didn't just kick ass in this ambush because he's a good orator, he also spoke the truth and not some partisan bull shit that CNN and Fox always spew.

I can't wait for someone to say that he's fiscal policy only worked because he was riding Regan's econ policy...

/edit - http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview the full transcript... I think it isn't translated perfectly, I read it via another website and they used this as a source and the english was broken at places but it's still there.

Ah, my many fans...

"Is the ol' "Bush hater" chestnut the best you can do, quantum?"

>>> Hating Bush is how leftists define *themselves*, dude. *I'm* not calling them that, I'm calling them ON it.

>>> The "rest of the world" briefly sympathizing with us after 9-11, while a nice Hallmark moment for about 15 minutes, did NOTHING to protect America, just like the "world's" worthless UN resolutions against Iraq didn't slow down Saddam.

"...you can't fight terrorists the way Bush is fighting them, the more you kill the more you create."

>>> Giving in to and/or ignoring terrorists like Clinton did in the 90s is what creates and emboldens more terrorists. Bubba's non-response to Al-Qaeda's cowardly attacks paved the way for 9-11. Killing terrorists en masse is what gets rid of them. islamofascists are cockroaches: you won't kill them all but you can prevent infestations almost indefinitely.

>>> To summarize: war works. It's the only way slavery, nazism, fascism and communism were defeated. I am sorry many innocents must die, but you can't stop the spread of evil by doing nothing.

Finally, an intelligent response.

"Liberals just happen to think we should also strive to do better socially, not just economically. It doesn't mean "Bush-hating" or "hating America first" (two signs of a real intelligent debator), it just means expecting us to live up to the expectations of our Constitution, not simply compare ourselves to the rest of the world."

What part of this speech was about doing better socially?

The liberal adgenda is higher taxes, unrestricted abortion, gay marrige, the erosion of personal stanards, political correctness and appesement of those who would attack us. But they can't get up in front of a crowd and say it. There was a democratic political ad posted by you two weeks ago about "A new direction for america." The problem with the ad is that it won't tell you what that direction is. Every fundraising speech they give, Howard Dean will tell you that they have a "new comprehensive plan" for _-insert issue here-_ but they won't tell you what that plan is. They'll toss out a few vague generalities at leave it at that.

But this speech doesn't talk about any of that. The title says it all. It's an "Anti-Bush" protest. They all get together and talk about how much we hate Bush, how much we hate America and for all of his chanting about the truth, I will submit to you that Rocky Anderson would not know the truth if it landed on his head. More importantly in his entire speech, Anderson does not offer a single solution, he has no answers, he doesn't know how to protect America from another attack and he's not going to tell you what he is going to do to fix things. When he looks out over the global-political landscape, he sees Bush's America as the enemy, as the oppressor. He doesn't want to talk about the groups and countries who have stated as their goal to see America torn down and destroyed; paging Islamic Fascist.

As the city's mayor, his term is up, once he's done, he's out. He is not staking anything on this protest, he's not risking his job. This man does not have the spine that you think he does.