http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/62885.htm

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/62885.htm

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/62885.htm

Originally Posted by Earthshine

...it is also worth noting that the BUSHes and the SAUDs are rich oil ruling families with four-letter, monosyllabic names who believe in religious conservatism of some form or another and practice teetotaling behavior (and there's almost definitely more where that came from!)

Teetotaling? What about Dubbya's Drunk Driving conviction?

25 years ago and sober for the past 15? That's like saying you've got a problem wetting the bed.

Originally Posted by Earthshine

...it is also worth noting that the BUSHes and the SAUDs are rich oil ruling families with four-letter, monosyllabic names who believe in religious conservatism of some form or another and practice teetotaling behavior (and there's almost definitely more where that came from!)

Teetotaling? What about Dubbya's Drunk Driving conviction?

25 years ago and sober for the past 15? That's like saying you've got a problem wetting the bed.

Originally Posted by Earthshine

...it is also worth noting that the BUSHes and the SAUDs are rich oil ruling families with four-letter, monosyllabic names who believe in religious conservatism of some form or another and practice teetotaling behavior (and there's almost definitely more where that came from!)

Teetotaling? What about Dubbya's Drunk Driving conviction?

25 years ago and sober for the past 15? That's like saying you've got a problem wetting the bed.

http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm

http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm

http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm

Nat Hentoff cites growing resistance to the Bush administration and wishes to establish a parallel to the pre-Revolutionary War committees of correspondence (or would like the resistance to take that form). However it is not clear to me whether he would place us before or after 1773 (3T or 4T).



http://villagevoice.com/issues/0248/hentoff.php

(Usual disclaimers)



Nat Hentoff
Resistance Rising!
True Patriots Networking
November 22nd, 2002 5:15 PM


With advances in technology and ever-increasing government surveillance, the situation has worsened since Orwell's imaginings of the future. ?John Whitehead, the Rutherford Institute, November 4, 2002


Despite the self-satisfaction of George W. Bush and John Ashcroft, and the somnolence of the press, there is rising resistance around the country to the serial abuses of our liberties. More Americans are becoming aware of what Wisconsin Democratic senator Russ Feingold prophesied from the Senate floor on October 11, 2001, when he was the only Senator to vote against Ashcroft's USA Patriot Act: "There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where police were allowed to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country where the government is entitled to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your e-mail communications; if we lived in a country where people could be held in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, the government would probably discover more terrorists or would-be terrorists, just as it would find more lawbreakers generally. But that wouldn't be a country in which we would want to live."

Some of that warning has come to pass. What has become more specifically evident is underlined by Lincoln Caplan in the November-December issue of Legal Affairs (A Magazine of Yale Law School): "The [USA Patriot Act] . . . authorized law enforcement agencies to inspect the most personal kinds of information?medical records, bank statements, college transcripts, even church memberships. But what is more startling than the scope of these new powers is that the government can use them on people who aren't suspected of committing a crime."

As then house majority leader Dick Armey?a conservative Republican libertarian?told Georgetown University law professor Jeffrey Rosen in the October 21 New Republic: "The Justice Department . . . seems to be running amok and out of control. . . . This agency right now is the biggest threat to personal liberty in the country." (The Defense Department is an even bigger threat, with its Orwellian plan to place all of us under surveillance?more on that in a later column.)

One sign of the growing fear of losing our Bill of Rights protections against an out-of-control government came from the heartland. On September 8 of this year, the Journal Gazette, a daily newspaper in Fort Wayne, Indiana, published a full-page, five-column editorial?its first such broadside in nearly 20 years. The headline was "Attacks on Liberty": "In the name of national security, President Bush, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and even Congress have pulled strand after strand out of the constitutional fabric that distinguishes the United States from other nations. . . .

"Actions taken over the past year are eerily reminiscent of tyranny portrayed in the most nightmarish works of fiction. The power to demand reading lists from libraries could have been drawn from the pages of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. . . . The sudden suspension of due process for immigrants rounded up into jails is familiar to readers of Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here."

But what is most encouraging is the continued growth in cities and towns throughout the nation of Bill of Rights Defense Committees or their equivalents, a number of which are working with ACLU affiliates. The first BORDC, as reported here, was formed in February this year in Northampton, Massachusetts, when about 300 doctors, nurses, lawyers, students, teachers, and retirees formed a group to protect the citizens of that town from the USA Patriot Act and the subsequent unilateral attacks on our liberties by John Ashcroft.

After the Northampton city council unanimously passed in May a resolution officially supporting the protests of the BORDC, other towns and cities learned how to organize similar committees through the Northampton group's Web site: www.bordc.org.

Fourteen town or city councils?from Takoma Park, Maryland, and Alachua County, Florida, to Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Berkeley, California?have now passed, sometimes unanimously, similar resolutions originated by local BORDC organizations. Other proposals are pending before local government bodies in 40 more cities and towns, in 24 states. One BORDC is in formation in New York City.

Next week: The details of some of these resolutions that involve city and state police and local members of Congress. The roots of the Bill of Rights Defense Committees, it is important to remember, are in the pre-revolutionary committees of correspondence, initiated by Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty in Boston in 1754.

In 1805, in Boston, there was published Mercy Otis Warren's History of the Rise and Progress and Termination of the American Revolution. A historian, playwright, and political pamphleteer, she wrote in this, her major work: "Perhaps no single step contributed so much to cement the union of the colonies, and the final acquisition of independence, as the establishment of committees of correspondence. This supported a chain of communication from New Hampshire to Georgia that produced unanimity and energy throughout the continent." Sam Adams and other patriots continuously spread the news of attacks on the liberties of these new Americans by the King, his ministers, and his governors and officers in the colonies.

These committees, as Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once told me, were a precipitating cause of the American Revolution. Yet John Ashcroft accuses his critics?among the most active of which are the Bill of Rights Defense Committees?of "capitulating" to the enemy. More Americans are coming to agree with Dick Armey that Ashcroft's Justice Department "is the biggest threat to personal liberty in the country." Who, then, are the American patriots now?

Nat Hentoff cites growing resistance to the Bush administration and wishes to establish a parallel to the pre-Revolutionary War committees of correspondence (or would like the resistance to take that form). However it is not clear to me whether he would place us before or after 1773 (3T or 4T).



http://villagevoice.com/issues/0248/hentoff.php

(Usual disclaimers)



Nat Hentoff
Resistance Rising!
True Patriots Networking
November 22nd, 2002 5:15 PM


With advances in technology and ever-increasing government surveillance, the situation has worsened since Orwell's imaginings of the future. ?John Whitehead, the Rutherford Institute, November 4, 2002


Despite the self-satisfaction of George W. Bush and John Ashcroft, and the somnolence of the press, there is rising resistance around the country to the serial abuses of our liberties. More Americans are becoming aware of what Wisconsin Democratic senator Russ Feingold prophesied from the Senate floor on October 11, 2001, when he was the only Senator to vote against Ashcroft's USA Patriot Act: "There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where police were allowed to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country where the government is entitled to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your e-mail communications; if we lived in a country where people could be held in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, the government would probably discover more terrorists or would-be terrorists, just as it would find more lawbreakers generally. But that wouldn't be a country in which we would want to live."

Some of that warning has come to pass. What has become more specifically evident is underlined by Lincoln Caplan in the November-December issue of Legal Affairs (A Magazine of Yale Law School): "The [USA Patriot Act] . . . authorized law enforcement agencies to inspect the most personal kinds of information?medical records, bank statements, college transcripts, even church memberships. But what is more startling than the scope of these new powers is that the government can use them on people who aren't suspected of committing a crime."

As then house majority leader Dick Armey?a conservative Republican libertarian?told Georgetown University law professor Jeffrey Rosen in the October 21 New Republic: "The Justice Department . . . seems to be running amok and out of control. . . . This agency right now is the biggest threat to personal liberty in the country." (The Defense Department is an even bigger threat, with its Orwellian plan to place all of us under surveillance?more on that in a later column.)

One sign of the growing fear of losing our Bill of Rights protections against an out-of-control government came from the heartland. On September 8 of this year, the Journal Gazette, a daily newspaper in Fort Wayne, Indiana, published a full-page, five-column editorial?its first such broadside in nearly 20 years. The headline was "Attacks on Liberty": "In the name of national security, President Bush, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and even Congress have pulled strand after strand out of the constitutional fabric that distinguishes the United States from other nations. . . .

"Actions taken over the past year are eerily reminiscent of tyranny portrayed in the most nightmarish works of fiction. The power to demand reading lists from libraries could have been drawn from the pages of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. . . . The sudden suspension of due process for immigrants rounded up into jails is familiar to readers of Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here."

But what is most encouraging is the continued growth in cities and towns throughout the nation of Bill of Rights Defense Committees or their equivalents, a number of which are working with ACLU affiliates. The first BORDC, as reported here, was formed in February this year in Northampton, Massachusetts, when about 300 doctors, nurses, lawyers, students, teachers, and retirees formed a group to protect the citizens of that town from the USA Patriot Act and the subsequent unilateral attacks on our liberties by John Ashcroft.

After the Northampton city council unanimously passed in May a resolution officially supporting the protests of the BORDC, other towns and cities learned how to organize similar committees through the Northampton group's Web site: www.bordc.org.

Fourteen town or city councils?from Takoma Park, Maryland, and Alachua County, Florida, to Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Berkeley, California?have now passed, sometimes unanimously, similar resolutions originated by local BORDC organizations. Other proposals are pending before local government bodies in 40 more cities and towns, in 24 states. One BORDC is in formation in New York City.

Next week: The details of some of these resolutions that involve city and state police and local members of Congress. The roots of the Bill of Rights Defense Committees, it is important to remember, are in the pre-revolutionary committees of correspondence, initiated by Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty in Boston in 1754.

In 1805, in Boston, there was published Mercy Otis Warren's History of the Rise and Progress and Termination of the American Revolution. A historian, playwright, and political pamphleteer, she wrote in this, her major work: "Perhaps no single step contributed so much to cement the union of the colonies, and the final acquisition of independence, as the establishment of committees of correspondence. This supported a chain of communication from New Hampshire to Georgia that produced unanimity and energy throughout the continent." Sam Adams and other patriots continuously spread the news of attacks on the liberties of these new Americans by the King, his ministers, and his governors and officers in the colonies.

These committees, as Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once told me, were a precipitating cause of the American Revolution. Yet John Ashcroft accuses his critics?among the most active of which are the Bill of Rights Defense Committees?of "capitulating" to the enemy. More Americans are coming to agree with Dick Armey that Ashcroft's Justice Department "is the biggest threat to personal liberty in the country." Who, then, are the American patriots now?

Nat Hentoff cites growing resistance to the Bush administration and wishes to establish a parallel to the pre-Revolutionary War committees of correspondence (or would like the resistance to take that form). However it is not clear to me whether he would place us before or after 1773 (3T or 4T).



http://villagevoice.com/issues/0248/hentoff.php

(Usual disclaimers)



Nat Hentoff
Resistance Rising!
True Patriots Networking
November 22nd, 2002 5:15 PM


With advances in technology and ever-increasing government surveillance, the situation has worsened since Orwell's imaginings of the future. ?John Whitehead, the Rutherford Institute, November 4, 2002


Despite the self-satisfaction of George W. Bush and John Ashcroft, and the somnolence of the press, there is rising resistance around the country to the serial abuses of our liberties. More Americans are becoming aware of what Wisconsin Democratic senator Russ Feingold prophesied from the Senate floor on October 11, 2001, when he was the only Senator to vote against Ashcroft's USA Patriot Act: "There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where police were allowed to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country where the government is entitled to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your e-mail communications; if we lived in a country where people could be held in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, the government would probably discover more terrorists or would-be terrorists, just as it would find more lawbreakers generally. But that wouldn't be a country in which we would want to live."

Some of that warning has come to pass. What has become more specifically evident is underlined by Lincoln Caplan in the November-December issue of Legal Affairs (A Magazine of Yale Law School): "The [USA Patriot Act] . . . authorized law enforcement agencies to inspect the most personal kinds of information?medical records, bank statements, college transcripts, even church memberships. But what is more startling than the scope of these new powers is that the government can use them on people who aren't suspected of committing a crime."

As then house majority leader Dick Armey?a conservative Republican libertarian?told Georgetown University law professor Jeffrey Rosen in the October 21 New Republic: "The Justice Department . . . seems to be running amok and out of control. . . . This agency right now is the biggest threat to personal liberty in the country." (The Defense Department is an even bigger threat, with its Orwellian plan to place all of us under surveillance?more on that in a later column.)

One sign of the growing fear of losing our Bill of Rights protections against an out-of-control government came from the heartland. On September 8 of this year, the Journal Gazette, a daily newspaper in Fort Wayne, Indiana, published a full-page, five-column editorial?its first such broadside in nearly 20 years. The headline was "Attacks on Liberty": "In the name of national security, President Bush, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and even Congress have pulled strand after strand out of the constitutional fabric that distinguishes the United States from other nations. . . .

"Actions taken over the past year are eerily reminiscent of tyranny portrayed in the most nightmarish works of fiction. The power to demand reading lists from libraries could have been drawn from the pages of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. . . . The sudden suspension of due process for immigrants rounded up into jails is familiar to readers of Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here."

But what is most encouraging is the continued growth in cities and towns throughout the nation of Bill of Rights Defense Committees or their equivalents, a number of which are working with ACLU affiliates. The first BORDC, as reported here, was formed in February this year in Northampton, Massachusetts, when about 300 doctors, nurses, lawyers, students, teachers, and retirees formed a group to protect the citizens of that town from the USA Patriot Act and the subsequent unilateral attacks on our liberties by John Ashcroft.

After the Northampton city council unanimously passed in May a resolution officially supporting the protests of the BORDC, other towns and cities learned how to organize similar committees through the Northampton group's Web site: www.bordc.org.

Fourteen town or city councils?from Takoma Park, Maryland, and Alachua County, Florida, to Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Berkeley, California?have now passed, sometimes unanimously, similar resolutions originated by local BORDC organizations. Other proposals are pending before local government bodies in 40 more cities and towns, in 24 states. One BORDC is in formation in New York City.

Next week: The details of some of these resolutions that involve city and state police and local members of Congress. The roots of the Bill of Rights Defense Committees, it is important to remember, are in the pre-revolutionary committees of correspondence, initiated by Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty in Boston in 1754.

In 1805, in Boston, there was published Mercy Otis Warren's History of the Rise and Progress and Termination of the American Revolution. A historian, playwright, and political pamphleteer, she wrote in this, her major work: "Perhaps no single step contributed so much to cement the union of the colonies, and the final acquisition of independence, as the establishment of committees of correspondence. This supported a chain of communication from New Hampshire to Georgia that produced unanimity and energy throughout the continent." Sam Adams and other patriots continuously spread the news of attacks on the liberties of these new Americans by the King, his ministers, and his governors and officers in the colonies.

These committees, as Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once told me, were a precipitating cause of the American Revolution. Yet John Ashcroft accuses his critics?among the most active of which are the Bill of Rights Defense Committees?of "capitulating" to the enemy. More Americans are coming to agree with Dick Armey that Ashcroft's Justice Department "is the biggest threat to personal liberty in the country." Who, then, are the American patriots now?

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Yes, I can see how terrible it would be for the truth to get out.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Yes, I can see how terrible it would be for the truth to get out.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Yes, I can see how terrible it would be for the truth to get out.

Osama, Tom, Al, Bibi...now it's Gerhard's turn to whine:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798269/posts


Schroeder: Media in Campaign Against Him
Yahoo! News 11/30/02

BERLIN (AP) - Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Friday said his family had received a series of threatening letters and accused the media of a campaign against him.

"The unmistakably threatening letters that we are receiving beat everything," Schroeder told ARD television. Schroeder, who lives with his wife and her daughter, gave no details of the threats.

The chancellor has been under sustained pressure from political opponents and media commentators over Germany's weak economy since his re-election Sept. 22.



Is this 3T behavior or is it because these losers are not "beauteous"?

Osama, Tom, Al, Bibi...now it's Gerhard's turn to whine:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798269/posts


Schroeder: Media in Campaign Against Him
Yahoo! News 11/30/02

BERLIN (AP) - Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Friday said his family had received a series of threatening letters and accused the media of a campaign against him.

"The unmistakably threatening letters that we are receiving beat everything," Schroeder told ARD television. Schroeder, who lives with his wife and her daughter, gave no details of the threats.

The chancellor has been under sustained pressure from political opponents and media commentators over Germany's weak economy since his re-election Sept. 22.



Is this 3T behavior or is it because these losers are not "beauteous"?

Osama, Tom, Al, Bibi...now it's Gerhard's turn to whine:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798269/posts


Schroeder: Media in Campaign Against Him
Yahoo! News 11/30/02

BERLIN (AP) - Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Friday said his family had received a series of threatening letters and accused the media of a campaign against him.

"The unmistakably threatening letters that we are receiving beat everything," Schroeder told ARD television. Schroeder, who lives with his wife and her daughter, gave no details of the threats.

The chancellor has been under sustained pressure from political opponents and media commentators over Germany's weak economy since his re-election Sept. 22.



Is this 3T behavior or is it because these losers are not "beauteous"?

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Chris '68

Click and find wisdom, my fellow Nomad:

oh, brother.

according the definition of treason we're working with here, a traitor is one who "knowingly inflict[s] damage on their own society". let's see.... they apparently (according to the article you posted the link to):

went to iraq....

"said the Bush administration should give weapons inspections a chance to work before taking any military action"....

"suggested that the sanctions..... led to the starvation and malnutrition of Iraqi children, and the death of 50,000 annually"....

"said that U.S. and British airplanes have been bombing illegitimate targets"....

"said that he thought 'the president would mislead the American people' in order to justify action on Iraq"....


which part of that is known to inflict damage to our society? it may inflict "damage" (in the metaphorical sense) to the administration's policy, but that's part and parcel of politics. no, i'm talking about real damage, on par with espionage or sabotage, to our society. i think it's a bit overzealous to claim that is what happened here.


TK

I'm not sure which I find more annoying-- the true-to-Silent-form backpedaling of the good Congressman from West Seattle, or the 'Pub from Texas slandering Vietnam-vet McDermott as "un-American" for daring to disagree with his precious right wing.

Regarding McDermott, I'm glad someone has the balls to take the Bush Administration to task on their Iraq policy, which I still maintain smacks of a diversion from our failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. But if you are going to do so, dammit Jim be a man and stand by your principles. His in-the-end cowering before the Great Elephant makes me just plain sick, and substantially less likely to vote for Mr. McDermott should I ever return to Zip Code 98136.

As for Rep. Johnson, well shit...IMHO it would behoove conservatives who support the Bush Administration wholeheartedly to play Devil's Advocate with the Administration periodically. This, in order to keep them honest, since the President is human too and humans have this nagging tendency to mislead others in the process of getting their way.

Vietnam vet? Granted that he may have been subject to UCMJ during the period 1963-73, sitting in an armchair listening to made-up stories by Klinger types, and signing off on their medical discharges, doesn't exactly make a Patton out of him. Bush 43 was technically in the military at the time too, but at least has the decency not to make himself into a hero. Hell, I was fixing radars in California during the Gulf War, but I don't call myself a "war vet," since the closest I've ever come to the Middle East was Okinawa (or maybe England, since I visited it as a child--not sure of the distances).

Then again, this is the DNC strategy, isn't it? Put up someone with no ideas, no charisma, no clue, but who was a cook in Germany for a few months in 1973; and when the Republicans show the sack to disagree on foreign policy, shriek, "How can you question a Vietnam vet's patriotism?" Case in point: Chambliss specifically said IN AN AD that he wasn't questioning Cleland's patriotism, IN SO MANY WORDS--yet the Lying Party continues to make the opposite statement.

I don't question the Democrats' patriotism. I state, flat out, that they have none. No "question" about it.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Chris '68

Click and find wisdom, my fellow Nomad:

oh, brother.

according the definition of treason we're working with here, a traitor is one who "knowingly inflict[s] damage on their own society". let's see.... they apparently (according to the article you posted the link to):

went to iraq....

"said the Bush administration should give weapons inspections a chance to work before taking any military action"....

"suggested that the sanctions..... led to the starvation and malnutrition of Iraqi children, and the death of 50,000 annually"....

"said that U.S. and British airplanes have been bombing illegitimate targets"....

"said that he thought 'the president would mislead the American people' in order to justify action on Iraq"....


which part of that is known to inflict damage to our society? it may inflict "damage" (in the metaphorical sense) to the administration's policy, but that's part and parcel of politics. no, i'm talking about real damage, on par with espionage or sabotage, to our society. i think it's a bit overzealous to claim that is what happened here.


TK

I'm not sure which I find more annoying-- the true-to-Silent-form backpedaling of the good Congressman from West Seattle, or the 'Pub from Texas slandering Vietnam-vet McDermott as "un-American" for daring to disagree with his precious right wing.

Regarding McDermott, I'm glad someone has the balls to take the Bush Administration to task on their Iraq policy, which I still maintain smacks of a diversion from our failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. But if you are going to do so, dammit Jim be a man and stand by your principles. His in-the-end cowering before the Great Elephant makes me just plain sick, and substantially less likely to vote for Mr. McDermott should I ever return to Zip Code 98136.

As for Rep. Johnson, well shit...IMHO it would behoove conservatives who support the Bush Administration wholeheartedly to play Devil's Advocate with the Administration periodically. This, in order to keep them honest, since the President is human too and humans have this nagging tendency to mislead others in the process of getting their way.

Vietnam vet? Granted that he may have been subject to UCMJ during the period 1963-73, sitting in an armchair listening to made-up stories by Klinger types, and signing off on their medical discharges, doesn't exactly make a Patton out of him. Bush 43 was technically in the military at the time too, but at least has the decency not to make himself into a hero. Hell, I was fixing radars in California during the Gulf War, but I don't call myself a "war vet," since the closest I've ever come to the Middle East was Okinawa (or maybe England, since I visited it as a child--not sure of the distances).

Then again, this is the DNC strategy, isn't it? Put up someone with no ideas, no charisma, no clue, but who was a cook in Germany for a few months in 1973; and when the Republicans show the sack to disagree on foreign policy, shriek, "How can you question a Vietnam vet's patriotism?" Case in point: Chambliss specifically said IN AN AD that he wasn't questioning Cleland's patriotism, IN SO MANY WORDS--yet the Lying Party continues to make the opposite statement.

I don't question the Democrats' patriotism. I state, flat out, that they have none. No "question" about it.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Chris '68

Click and find wisdom, my fellow Nomad:

oh, brother.

according the definition of treason we're working with here, a traitor is one who "knowingly inflict[s] damage on their own society". let's see.... they apparently (according to the article you posted the link to):

went to iraq....

"said the Bush administration should give weapons inspections a chance to work before taking any military action"....

"suggested that the sanctions..... led to the starvation and malnutrition of Iraqi children, and the death of 50,000 annually"....

"said that U.S. and British airplanes have been bombing illegitimate targets"....

"said that he thought 'the president would mislead the American people' in order to justify action on Iraq"....


which part of that is known to inflict damage to our society? it may inflict "damage" (in the metaphorical sense) to the administration's policy, but that's part and parcel of politics. no, i'm talking about real damage, on par with espionage or sabotage, to our society. i think it's a bit overzealous to claim that is what happened here.


TK

I'm not sure which I find more annoying-- the true-to-Silent-form backpedaling of the good Congressman from West Seattle, or the 'Pub from Texas slandering Vietnam-vet McDermott as "un-American" for daring to disagree with his precious right wing.

Regarding McDermott, I'm glad someone has the balls to take the Bush Administration to task on their Iraq policy, which I still maintain smacks of a diversion from our failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. But if you are going to do so, dammit Jim be a man and stand by your principles. His in-the-end cowering before the Great Elephant makes me just plain sick, and substantially less likely to vote for Mr. McDermott should I ever return to Zip Code 98136.

As for Rep. Johnson, well shit...IMHO it would behoove conservatives who support the Bush Administration wholeheartedly to play Devil's Advocate with the Administration periodically. This, in order to keep them honest, since the President is human too and humans have this nagging tendency to mislead others in the process of getting their way.

Vietnam vet? Granted that he may have been subject to UCMJ during the period 1963-73, sitting in an armchair listening to made-up stories by Klinger types, and signing off on their medical discharges, doesn't exactly make a Patton out of him. Bush 43 was technically in the military at the time too, but at least has the decency not to make himself into a hero. Hell, I was fixing radars in California during the Gulf War, but I don't call myself a "war vet," since the closest I've ever come to the Middle East was Okinawa (or maybe England, since I visited it as a child--not sure of the distances).

Then again, this is the DNC strategy, isn't it? Put up someone with no ideas, no charisma, no clue, but who was a cook in Germany for a few months in 1973; and when the Republicans show the sack to disagree on foreign policy, shriek, "How can you question a Vietnam vet's patriotism?" Case in point: Chambliss specifically said IN AN AD that he wasn't questioning Cleland's patriotism, IN SO MANY WORDS--yet the Lying Party continues to make the opposite statement.

I don't question the Democrats' patriotism. I state, flat out, that they have none. No "question" about it.

Dominic:

Chambliss specifically said IN AN AD that he wasn't questioning Cleland's patriotism, IN SO MANY WORDS

And Lyndon Johnson said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he wasn't going to send American boys to do what Asian boys ought to be doing; and Richard Nixon said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he wasn't a crook; and Ronald Reagan said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he didn't recall what was done in his own administration; and Bill Clinton said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he did not have sex with that woman.

Deeds count for more than words, and questioning Democrats' patriotism -- implicitly confusing patriotism with warmongering -- is an old Republican tactic that, of course, cannot be openly acknowledged.

I don't question the Democrats' patriotism. I state, flat out, that they have none. No "question" about it.

You can get away with lying that openly and blatantly only because you aren't running for office yourself. Actual Republican politicians are more subtle.

Regarding the question of treason, I think it's valuable to note that this is the only crime actually defined in the Constitution. Treason, according to that document, consists of making war upon the United States, or, in wartime, taking the side of the enemy, to give him "aid and comfort." As we are not at war with Iraq at present, no support of Iraq can be treasonous.