Originally Posted by KaiserD2

After Oklahoma City, in which two white domestic right-wing terrorists killed 168 Americans who were working on behalf of their fellow citizens, there was talk about holding hearings in Congress about rightwing extremism, which had just proved itself a serious danger. But the Republicans now controlled Congress, and instead, they decided to hold hearings on . . .Waco. . .as if to show that Timothy McVeigh and Nichols had been right (that was their official reason for the attack.)

Kinda makes you wonder what might have happened if McVeigh and Nichols had struck the previous year. Might said Congressional hearings (televised, of course) on right-wing extremism have lead to the Democrats being able to retain, or even increase, their majority in both houses (to a filibuster-proof level in the Senate, perhaps), thus permitting President Clinto to proceed with his agenda, rather than being forced to go along with the GOP's?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Any extremist insurgent group, Left or Right, deserves the scrutiny of law enforcement -- especially if it is amassing arsenals of illegal weapons (which David Koresh was doing).

You really should read up on the Waco incident. There is actually little evidence that the Branch Davidians violated any firearms laws. There is no evidence that Koresh or his followers ever planned any violent acts. (Hint: surrounding people who believe in end times theology and demanding their surrender is a really dumb plan.) The ATF made catastrophic decisions based apparently on a desire to score a "big raid."

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Private, politicized militias pose extreme danger to a government of law.

Which is why the United States disintegrated as soon as it was formed . . . oh wait, that didn't happen. It's not whether people are armed, or whether the armed people are political, it's whether people think the government is responsive to their interests or antagonistic to them.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Kinda makes you wonder what might have happened if McVeigh and Nichols had struck the previous year. Might said Congressional hearings (televised, of course) on right-wing extremism have lead to the Democrats being able to retain, or even increase, their majority in both houses (to a filibuster-proof level in the Senate, perhaps), thus permitting President Clinton to proceed with his agenda, rather than being forced to go along with the GOP's?

I doubt Clinton 42 would have tried to escalate the spiral of violence in any way. He was fairly consistent in trying to deescalate things. I believe he was aware of turning theory, was concerned about the upcoming crisis, and was attempting to defuse as many spirals of violence as he could. Thus, the FBI and BATF were directed to be much less confrontational when confronting right wing militia or armed religious groups. Thus, his efforts in Northern Ireland, Palestine, the Balkans, East Timor and Somalia.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

You really should read up on the Waco incident. There is actually little evidence that the Branch Davidians violated any firearms laws.

I thought it was Randy Weaver who got entrapped into violating some federal firearms code subsection clause...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I thought it was Randy Weaver who got entrapped into violating some federal firearms code subsection clause...

Well, in Weaver's case is was outright entrapment. In Koresh's case it was "suspicion" without any hard evidence combined with a really aggressive means of serving a warrant.

Guns were the issue in both cases, though, which is why its a good thing the Democrats have backed off on gun control (and why it would be really bad to bring it up right now).

There is a widespread tendency--universal among Republicans and, as we see here, very common among apolitical Xers--to argue that the heated tone of our political discourse is a bipartisan problem, that the two sides are just as bad as each other, etc.

There's an interesting column by Tom Friedman today--not my favorite pundit--that illustrates very well, unconsciously, what is wrong with that picture. Friedman is very concerned that the climate in the US today reminds him of the climate in Israel in 1995, just before the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, which was in fact quite similar to the JFK assassination (Rabin was the last of the Hero generation in Israel) in its significance and impact. But then, bowing to the bipartisan mantra, he says this:

"Sometimes I wonder whether George H.W. Bush, president “41,” will be remembered as our last “legitimate” president. The right impeached Bill Clinton and hounded him from Day 1 with the bogus Whitewater “scandal.” George W. Bush was elected under a cloud because of the Florida voting mess, and his critics on the left never let him forget it.

"And Mr. Obama is now having his legitimacy attacked by a concerted campaign from the right fringe. They are using everything from smears that he is a closet “socialist” to calling him a “liar” in the middle of a joint session of Congress to fabricating doubts about his birth in America and whether he is even a citizen. And these attacks are not just coming from the fringe. Now they come from Lou Dobbs on CNN and from members of the House of Representatives."

The "Florida voting mess" actually involved the second theft of an American presidential election. It had two parts. First, the Republicans managed to purge thousands of Democrats from the rolls before the election by matching their names with those of felons from other states. Second, the court battle, eventually decided by five Republican appointees (against the votes of two others!), stopped a recount which, we now know, would have shown, had it included the whole state, that Al Gore had won the election.

But more importantly, with the exception of the Congressional Black Caucus on the day the Congress officially counted the electoral votes, not one elected Democratic politician ever made an issue of the election after Bush's inauguration. I defy any one to find one office-holder who made an issue of this in public during the whole of Bush's Presidency. Even after 2006 when the Democrats got control of Congress they never pulled out all the stops in the battle against the war in Iraq and tried to refuse to appropriate money for it. There were some bloggers and authors who continually questioned Bush's legitimacy, but no pundits, TV networks, or important Democratic officeholders.

The key difference here, I think, is that Democrats understand that we need a functioning government, no matter who is in power. Republicans, including Republican office holders, essentially deny that. The question is, what does the country think?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Well, in Weaver's case is was outright entrapment. In Koresh's case it was "suspicion" without any hard evidence combined with a really aggressive means of serving a warrant.

Guns were the issue in both cases, though, which is why its a good thing the Democrats have backed off on gun control (and why it would be really bad to bring it up right now).

Koresh was violating federal firearms laws by modifying existing (licit) ones illegally.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

There is a widespread tendency--universal among Republicans and, as we see here, very common among apolitical Xers--to argue that the heated tone of our political discourse is a bipartisan problem, that the two sides are just as bad as each other, etc.

There's an interesting column by Tom Friedman today--not my favorite pundit--that illustrates very well, unconsciously, what is wrong with that picture. Friedman is very concerned that the climate in the US today reminds him of the climate in Israel in 1995, just before the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, which was in fact quite similar to the JFK assassination (Rabin was the last of the Hero generation in Israel) in its significance and impact. But then, bowing to the bipartisan mantra, he says this:

"Sometimes I wonder whether George H.W. Bush, president “41,” will be remembered as our last “legitimate” president. The right impeached Bill Clinton and hounded him from Day 1 with the bogus Whitewater “scandal.” George W. Bush was elected under a cloud because of the Florida voting mess, and his critics on the left never let him forget it.

Such represents the decay of civic life in a 3T -- the Hard Right could never accept Clinton, and it could never recognize any criticism of George W. Bush except as sedition. It's "heads I win, tails you lose" politics. A 3T is a conservative time.

"And Mr. Obama is now having his legitimacy attacked by a concerted campaign from the right fringe. They are using everything from smears that he is a closet “socialist” to calling him a “liar” in the middle of a joint session of Congress to fabricating doubts about his birth in America and whether he is even a citizen. And these attacks are not just coming from the fringe. Now they come from Lou Dobbs on CNN and from members of the House of Representatives."

That fringe will never be satisfied until it gets its way 100%. Its behavior toward both Clinton and Obama, as well as its unwillingness to treat dissent with Dubya as anything less than sedition demonstrates its contempt for democratic process. Its willingness to co-opt the symbols of an old democratic revolution on behalf of the destruction of democracy is hypocritical in the extreme.

The "Florida voting mess" actually involved the second theft of an American presidential election. It had two parts. First, the Republicans managed to purge thousands of Democrats from the rolls before the election by matching their names with those of felons from other states. Second, the court battle, eventually decided by five Republican appointees (against the votes of two others!), stopped a recount which, we now know, would have shown, had it included the whole state, that Al Gore had won the election.

But more importantly, with the exception of the Congressional Black Caucus on the day the Congress officially counted the electoral votes, not one elected Democratic politician ever made an issue of the election after Bush's inauguration. I defy any one to find one office-holder who made an issue of this in public during the whole of Bush's Presidency. Even after 2006 when the Democrats got control of Congress they never pulled out all the stops in the battle against the war in Iraq and tried to refuse to appropriate money for it. There were some bloggers and authors who continually questioned Bush's legitimacy, but no pundits, TV networks, or important Democratic officeholders.

I wonder whether deals -- or threats -- were made. Maybe Democrats thought that Dubya would be a very weak President who could easily be defeated in a re-election bid. What could the GOP have done? Enacted legislation that would outlaw the Democratic Party in the event that Democrats challenged the Florida vote on the basis of discriminatory behavior, most notably the "felon list", by GOP hacks?

There's no way of challenging an election once settled. The electoral vote count is a fait accompli. Removal of a sitting President and Vice-President would have handed the Presidency to Dennis Hastert, a stooge politician, after impeachment and conviction. Besides, both Dubya and Cheney could not have been impeached and convicted for what others did on their behalf. They were not in any conspiracy to disenfranchise voters.

Nothing in our Constitution dictates that we will have a fair election except perhaps interpretations of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. The States have considerable power to decide how the President will be elected with the electoral votes of that state. I don't know: could a state cast its electoral votes on the basis of a coin toss?

The key difference here, I think, is that Democrats understand that we need a functioning government, no matter who is in power. Republicans, including Republican office holders, essentially deny that. The question is, what does the country think?

A 4T requires a strong, attentive, effective President who has support for doing what is necessary to undo 3T damage and restore civic life while creating a viable economy and meeting international dangers or domestic insurgencies. Tyranny is of course unacceptable -- but so are unfounded theories of usurpation of power.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

There is a widespread tendency--universal among Republicans and, as we see here, very common among apolitical Xers--to argue that the heated tone of our political discourse is a bipartisan problem, that the two sides are just as bad as each other, etc....The key difference here, I think, is that Democrats understand that we need a functioning government, no matter who is in power. Republicans, including Republican office holders, essentially deny that. The question is, what does the country think?

I don't write these things down, but your memory of history is different than mine. I am an Independent because I have differences with both major parties and my recollection is that both sides seem to care more about their party & power than the country. I see nothing to conclude that the Democrats are any better than the Republicans( or vice-versa). We know what the country thought in Nov based on election results. We will know again in 2010. I see little to commend either party and anticipate the Republican's to either improve or stay permanently on sidelines.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...y_comment.html

"Interview with Senator Harry Reid, NBC’s Meet the Press, December 5, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation's nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country.".."

Originally Posted by radind

I don't write these things down, but your memory of history is different than mine. I am an Independent because I have differences with both major parties and my recollection is that both sides seem to care more about their party & power than the country. I see nothing to conclude that the Democrats are any better than the Republicans( or vice-versa). We know what the country thought in Nov based on election results. We will know again in 2010. I see little to commend either party and anticipate the Republican's to either improve or stay permanently on sidelines.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...y_comment.html

"Interview with Senator Harry Reid, NBC’s Meet the Press, December 5, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation's nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country.".."

The problem is that Wilson kicked a dog down the center aisle of a Catholic church in the middle of Mass.

No one is arguing about the claim that Obama lied, but only that he did it in the venue he did. It's the wrong argument, IMO, but it is what it is.

Originally Posted by Joral

The problem is that Wilson kicked a dog down the center aisle of a Catholic church in the middle of Mass....

I would never defend Wilson's action.( that is a problem-it is not THE problem) Just trying to make point that this is not a one-sided situation where one side wears all the White hats.

Originally Posted by radind

I would never defend Wilson's action.( that is a problem-it is not THE problem) Just trying to make point that this is not a one-sided situation where one side wears all the White hats.

I happen to agree with you. Wilson's outburst was uncalled for. So was Reid's, as was Kennedy's "Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie" statement in his remarks from the Senate floor.

But the argument put forth is entirely that interrupting the President in the middle of his speech was the grievous crime, not specifically the claim of dishonesty. I only wish it were the other way around.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Koresh was violating federal firearms laws by modifying existing (licit) ones illegally.

How was he modifying them? IIRC, that's exactly what they used to entrap Weaver (something about having him trim a quarter-inch off a shotgun barrel for them or something stupid like that).

Originally Posted by Joral

The problem is that Wilson kicked a dog down the center aisle of a Catholic church in the middle of Mass.

Do you recognize how fucked-up it is that you would refer to a den of thieves and asylum for pauper intellects (Mark Twain's words -- still as valid today as they were then) as a church? And the ranting of a politician as Mass?

Or were you (one hopes) being ironic?
Or maybe you just dislike Catholicism?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Do you recognize how fucked-up it is that you would refer to a den of thieves and asylum for pauper intellects (Mark Twain's words -- still as valid today as they were then) as a church? And the ranting of a politician as Mass?

Or were you (one hopes) being ironic?
Or maybe you just dislike Catholicism?

I won't go into the people in this country who would honestly believe that comparison to be valid and true as-is.

It was a gross exaggeration for the purposes of making my point. My entire point was that the issue wasn't individually:

1. What was said
2. How it was said
3. Where it was said
4. When it was said

but that the combination of all of these together was what was at issue. My strong belief is that point 2 in this case (and my admittedly horribly contrived example) was wrong in this situation. Interrupting the event is seen as the event which needs attention and rebuke, not necessarily what was said.

Or such is the argument that's made as to why "that's different."

Originally Posted by Joral

It was a gross exaggeration for the purposes of making my point. My entire point was that the issue wasn't individually:

1. What was said
2. How it was said
3. Where it was said
4. When it was said

but that the combination of all of these together was what was at issue. My strong belief is that point 2 in this case (and my admittedly horribly contrived example) was wrong in this situation. Interrupting the event is seen as the event which needs attention and rebuke, not necessarily what was said.

Aha. Fair enough.

I've always been a fan of the British (even moreso, Taiwanese) level of politicians' respect for each other. Practically all of the scumbag officeholders need good ass-kickings -- and since they are our legal superiors, we the people are not allowed to administer such ourselves. So best they give it out to each other.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I doubt Clinton 42 would have tried to escalate the spiral of violence in any way. He was fairly consistent in trying to deescalate things. I believe he was aware of turning theory, was concerned about the upcoming crisis, and was attempting to defuse as many spirals of violence as he could.

I was not speaking of Clinton escalating any spiral of violence, but rather of televised hearings, and the possible consequences on mid-term elections.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

"Sometimes I wonder whether George H.W. Bush, president “41,” will be remembered as our last “legitimate” president.

I have heard that some people claim that JFK was our last 'legitimate' president, and that the legitimacy of the entire American system died with him, in Dallas, on November 22, 1963. Still, your point about every president since Bush Sr. finding his legitimacy under attack from day 1 is well taken - and actually a frightening development. My boss at work, in fact, believes that we are living in pre-revolutionary times, and that this 4T will feature some sort of revolution.

Originally Posted by Joral

I happen to agree with you. Wilson's outburst was uncalled for. So was Reid's, as was Kennedy's "Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie" statement in his remarks from the Senate floor.

But the argument put forth is entirely that interrupting the President in the middle of his speech was the grievous crime, not specifically the claim of dishonesty. I only wish it were the other way around.

But what if the President proves himself an inveterate or programmatic liar? What if he is even certifiably deluded about reality and thus shows himself unable to govern due to the disappearance of his mental faculties? The test isn't ideological discordance; it is deliberate or reckless mis-statement of facts relevant to the decisions that Congress makes because it trusts the President.

What the President says outside a Joint Session of Congress deserves polite attention. Once he has gone elsewhere, his statements and policies are fair game. The President has no prerogative to commit any crime -- one of which is lying to Congress.

Originally Posted by radind

I don't write these things down, but your memory of history is different than mine. I am an Independent because I have differences with both major parties and my recollection is that both sides seem to care more about their party & power than the country. I see nothing to conclude that the Democrats are any better than the Republicans( or vice-versa). We know what the country thought in Nov based on election results. We will know again in 2010. I see little to commend either party and anticipate the Republican's to either improve or stay permanently on sidelines.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...y_comment.html

"Interview with Senator Harry Reid, NBC’s Meet the Press, December 5, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation's nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country.".."

Was the accusation true? I don't know if it was or not. That's exactly what I'm talking about, though: independents like yourself equate false accusations by Republicans with true ones by Democrats.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

I have heard that some people claim that JFK was our last 'legitimate' president, and that the legitimacy of the entire American system died with him, in Dallas, on November 22, 1963. Still, your point about every president since Bush Sr. finding his legitimacy under attack from day 1 is well taken - and actually a frightening development. My boss at work, in fact, believes that we are living in pre-revolutionary times, and that this 4T will feature some sort of revolution.

That wasn't my point, it was Friedman's.

Millions of Americans regarded JFK as illegitimate, actually--but they were regarded as fringe.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

That wasn't my point, it was Friedman's.

Millions of Americans regarded JFK as illegitimate, actually--but they were regarded as fringe.

Was that because of the Illinois controversy, because he was Catholic... or both?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Was that because of the Illinois controversy, because he was Catholic... or both?

Because he was Catholic, liberal, Harvard-educated, and pro-civil rights and eventually pro-detente. The Illinois thing has been blown WAY out of proportion. Losing Illinois would not have changed the outcome. However, you can't compare the scale of the feeling against him to Obama or Clinton.

This is the seditious material from a right-wing nut. Note well that I consider everything in this article appalling.


Here is the full text of John L. Perry's column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to "resolve the Obama problem" is becoming more possible and is not "unrealistic." Perry also writes that a coup, while not "ideal," may be preferable to "Obama's radical ideal" -- and would "restore and defend the Constitution." Newsmax has since removed the column from its website.


Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention

By: John L. Perry

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

.. I shall make comments in the next post that I offer.

This was pure agitprop. I can guarantee you after 20 years among the military that there is no group of officers thinking along those lines. It is not in their DNA.