Comments on: Bush: Ruling May Free Terrorists In U.S.

White House Lashes Out Again At Supreme Court Decision On Gitmo Detainees

[flajoe1]

"Bush: Ruling May Free Terrorists In U.S."

It may also free totaly innocent people.......

[j-whitman]

obama8years,,,, You are too much Dude -- You Nazi''s (National Socialist Party) are trying to accuse liberals of Socialism ??? ------ ROTFLOL

[zoopster1]

"There is a constant Class War struggle that has been going on in this nation since its founding, it just so happens the proletariat have lost all control to money changers who have no loyalty to nation."

Posted by curse914

Whoa be careful there, sparky. Those are Marxist words. We live in a Republic, remember? :)

Seriously though, there were people sounding warnings of that ever since the OPEC crisis, but they were tiny voices drowned out in the din. The fact is the American public DEMANDED things like cheaper gas, larger cars, comfortable homes, more conveniences etc. Industries sprang up to cater to those demands because that''s what happens in a free market economy. So I submit to you that we have actually been WELL-represented up to now, since we have gotten everything that we want. You know the old saying about being careful what you wish for, right?

And now we''re stuck with it. Switching away from oil cold turkey now with no transition period would wreck our economy, and drag the world economy down with it. While I agree that we should just dump oil and switch to fusion power, solar power, wind power, water power, soy-based plastics, superconducting materials and battery-operated cars... it''s gonna take us awhile to get there. It won''t happen overnight.

[j-whitman]

obama8years,,, Want to buy some freshly cleared property in Big Sur ?? I can sell it to you cheap.

[gkc99]

Don''t worry, Bushits! There''s plenty of room for Curious George (Chimp in chief), Dik "Chikenshit" Cheney, and Donald "Victory through Strength" Rumsfeld in the slammer!

[obama8years]

Its funny I keep reading messages about Bush Lied, he should be in prison. You Libs are still chanting that when its already been proven he didnt. And even Liberal news writers are breaking ranks and saying bush didnt lie. I am not saying bush is a great president , he might not even be a good president, but the fact is there has not been a successful terrorist attack since 911. Bushes Policys like it or not are working. And I hope Obama or Mccain continue to improve on them. That is all.

[whiskyrocker]

He''s right on this one. I say set the prison on fire and walk away from it.

[lemonskink]

Hey, Bush is still walking around and they haven''t arrested him yet, so what is complaining about?

[brianbwb-2009]

The words of Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector who spent three years searching Iraq for WMDs and bio-weapons,

"Speaking to the BBC''s Newshour programme, Mr Blix said he hoped Saddam Hussein would now reveal the truth about his chemical, biological and nuclear programmes.

"I doubt that he will reveal any WMD, because I think both we UN inspectors and the American inspectors have been looking around and come to the conclusion that there aren''t any," Mr Blix said."

His report, pre invasion, said exactly this.

For all of those who still think Saddam''s lack of WMDs was not known, even I knew it pre invasion, because I have more sources of news than a complicit and compliant US media.

[brianbwb-2009]

The words of Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector who spent three years searching Iraq for WMDs and bio-weapons,

"Speaking to the BBC''s Newshour programme, Mr Blix said he hoped Saddam Hussein would now reveal the truth about his chemical, biological and nuclear programmes.

"I doubt that he will reveal any WMD, because I think both we UN inspectors and the American inspectors have been looking around and come to the conclusion that there aren''t any," Mr Blix said."

His report, pre invasion, said exactly this.

For all of those who still think Saddam''s lack of WMDs was not known, even I knew it pre invasion, because I have more sources of news than a complicit and compliant US media.

[zoopster1]

...So it was of national security concern to ensure we had enough cheap energy to keep our inept Empire going...

Posted by curse914

Ah, you touch on one of my favorite topics. Everything you say is absolutely true, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. The oil-for-food program was so corrupt that it rendered the UN sanctions almost completely ineffective against the main people they were designed for: Saddam and his inner circle. Oh well, they still hurt the Iraqi citizenry plenty bad though, didn''t they?

And yeah, we need the cheap oil to keep our "inept empire" going. Just keep telling yourself that the next time you put gas in your SUV, turn on your air conditioning or your heat, buy and store food in plastic containers in a refrigerator that runs 24/7, and strap on your new pair of Reeboks. Oh and while you''re at it, be sure to mention it to the Indians and Chinese, whose own consumption of oil is rapidly dwarfing our own now. Of course, we also use that oil for the cultivation and transport of FOOD to hungry nations around the world, but it''s getting more expensive for us to do THAT too, ain''t it.

And yeah, we should have heeded the warning of the OPEC crisis in the 70s, but we didn''t. By your definition, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Dubya should be held accountable for that. But in truth we are the ones to blame. That''s right, I said US. So we may as well just suck it up, and try to deal with what''s in front of us.

[rwkincaide]

Ever heard of the concept of the Unitary Executive? It basically makes the president like a King and Reagan was pushing hard for it. It is why there was a flap about Alito''s nomination for the supreme court since he supported the concept.

Posted by curse914 at 12:47 PM : Jul 04, 2008
_________________________

Yup. "Unitary Executive" was John Yoo''s euphemism for dictator. He claimed there was a constitutional basis for making the president omnipotent.

[davelangton]

I would like to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed released, in times square at noon on a Friday. NY could have a long weekend to f*ck him up. Hell, release them all in NYC, that would make a great reality show! See how long they last, torture would be re-defined if we could get our hands on these mutts.

[jon2012-2009]

Iraq was a lie. This is beating a dead horse. There was no evidence beforehand to invade. On the contrary, the evidence that there were no WMDs was dismissed.

Posted by jon2012

Ahhh, what was I thinking?? Since you just said it, that must be how it really went down!

Posted by zoopster1 at 12:36 PM : Jul 04, 2008

The world has moved on. There isn''t anything new to be said. What is done is done. This is another thing or two with Republicans. The inability to assess evidence of any complexity seems to be a genetic predisposition. And that you think you can still change the outcome that''s Iraq this late in the game.

[taotxzen]

Rove%u2019s Third Term
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Al Gore never claimed that he invented the Internet. Howard Dean didn%u2019t scream. Hillary Clinton didn%u2019t say she was staying in the race because Barack Obama might be assassinated. And Wesley Clark didn%u2019t impugn John McCain%u2019s military service.

Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, titled his tell-all memoir %u201CWhat Happened.%u201D But a true account of modern American politics should be titled %u201CWhat Didn%u2019t Happen.%u201D Again and again we%u2019ve had media firestorms over supposedly revealing incidents that never actually took place.

The latest fake scandal fit the usual pattern as an awkwardly phrased remark, lifted out of context and willfully misinterpreted, exploded across the airwaves.

What General Clark actually said was that Mr. McCain%u2019s war service, though heroic, didn%u2019t necessarily constitute a qualification for the presidency. It was a blunt but truthful remark, and not at all outrageous %u2014 especially given the fact that General Clark is himself a bona fide war hero.

Yet the Clark affair did reveal something important %u2014 not about General Clark, but about Mr. McCain. Now we know what a McCain administration would represent: namely, a third term for Karl Rove.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

It was predictable that the McCain campaign would go wild over the Clark remarks. Mr. McCain%u2019s run for the White House has always been based on persona rather than policy: he doesn%u2019t have ideas that voters agree with, but he does have an inspiring life story %u2014 which, contrary to the myth of the modest maverick, he talks about all the time. The suggestion that this life story isn%u2019t relevant to his quest for office was bound to provoke a violent reaction.

But the McCain campaign went beyond condemning General Clark%u2019s remarks; it went out of its way to distort them. %u201CThis backhanded slap against John as not being a worthy warrior because he just got shot down is one of the more surprising insults in my military history,%u201D said retired Col. Bud Day, who participated in a conference call organized by the campaign. In fact, General Clark had said no such thing.

The irony, not lost on Democrats, is that Col. Day himself has done what he falsely accused Wesley Clark of doing: he appeared in the 2004 Swift boat ads that impugned John Kerry%u2019s wartime service.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

The willingness of the McCain campaign to engage in these tactics, employing such tainted spokesmen, tells us that the campaign has decided to go negative %u2014 specifically, to apply the strategy Karl Rove used so effectively in 2002 and 2004 (but not so effectively in 2006), that of portraying Democrats as unpatriotic.

And sure enough, Adam Nagourney of The New York Times reports signs of the %u201Cincreasing influence of veterans of Mr. Rove%u2019s shop in the McCain operation.%u201D

Will Rovian tactics work this year?

In 2002 and 2004, Republicans were so successful at playing the patriotism card thanks to a combination of compliant media and cowering Democrats. At first, the Clark affair suggested that nothing has changed. News organizations reported as fact the false assertion that General Clark criticized Mr. McCain%u2019s military service, and the Obama campaign rushed to %u201Creject%u201D his remarks.

%u201CTwo days into the Wesley Clark fallout,%u201D wrote the Columbia Journalism Review on Tuesday morning, %u201Cthe press, the G.O.P., and the Obama campaign all seem to have agreed that Clark%u2019s recent remarks on John McCain%u2019s service record were at best impolitic and at worst despicable.%u201D

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

Since then, however, both the press and the Obama campaign seem to have recovered some of their balance. Opinion pieces have started to appear pointing out that General Clark didn%u2019t say what he%u2019s accused of saying. Mr. Obama has also declared that General Clark doesn%u2019t owe Mr. McCain an apology for his %u201Cinartful%u201D remarks and denies that his own condemnation, in a speech given on Monday, of those who %u201Cdevalue%u201D military service was aimed at the general.

In the end, the Clark affair may have strengthened the Obama campaign. Last week, with his cave-in on wiretapping, Mr. Obama was showing disturbing signs of falling into the usual Democratic cringe on national security. This may have been the week he rediscovered the virtues of standing tall.

Furthermore, my sense, though it%u2019s hard to prove, is that the press is feeling a bit ashamed about the way it piled on General Clark. If so, news organizations may think twice before buying into the next fake scandal.

If so, the campaign has just taken a major turn in Mr. Obama%u2019s favor. After all, if this campaign isn%u2019t dominated by faux outrage over fake scandals, it will have to be about things that really did happen, like a failed economic policy and a disastrous war %u2014 both of which Mr. McCain promises will continue if he wins.

[rwkincaide]

"Iraq was a lie. This is beating a dead horse. There was no evidence beforehand to invade. On the contrary, the evidence that there were no WMDs was dismissed."

Posted by jon2012
________________

No intelligent, informed person would dispute this assertion.

[zoopster1]

If you are embarking on a course that will get thousands of Americans killed, not to say a hundred thousand Iraqis, you better have evidence beforehand that will stand up to a high standard of proof.

Posted by jon2012

Absolutely no disagreement there. But how does one gather such evidence from a hostile nation? Iraq was hostile to the UN and to us in particular prior to 2003, was it not? Wasn''t their apparent lack of cooperation one of the main reasons for the invasion to begin with?