Conservatism = Radicalism
The perverted version of what is now called Conservatism is a massive failure. A rampaging elephant trampling the crop of our freedom, which was fertilized with the blood of one million dead American Soldiers.
As usual by the Orwellian Newspeak Conservatives, Conservative no longer means Conservative. It means a Radical overturning of the established order. Read the first 20 pages of Paul Krugman's book, The Great Unraveling.
In "The Great Unraveling" Krugman quotes from Henry Kissinger's doctoral dissertation regarding revolutionary movements. Paraphrasing, a revolutionary movement sees the existing order as illegitimate, and must be overthrown by whatever means necessary. According to Kissinger, the Revolutionary has the power of his convictions, and sees all attempts to reason and preservation of the existing order as the only goal toward working toward.
In America, the existing order is Constitutional Government, protection of political freedoms, and the preservation of all the freedoms embodied in the Bill of Rights and the Civil War Amendments which extended the protection of the Bill of Rights to the states, in effect, nationalizing the Bill of Rights, and making it unconstitutional for states to override those protections. The existing order recognized the separation of Church and State. It recognized the Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights to no Self Incrimination, and a Right to a speedy, fair trial by jury when charged with the violation of a law.
The existing order in America followed the Constitutional requirement that no Bill of Attainder be permitted. Yet, this Congress and this President passed a Bill of Attainder to torure a brain dead young woman.
A traditional Conservative did not accept the premise that all change was bad, but they did have a philosophy that sought to take a look at what changes were being forced on America due to changes in technology, political events in the world, and to limit both the speed of that change and its impact.
Traditional Conservatives in general wished to maintain the status quo regarding the means to accumulate wealth and political power, but they also had a strong preference to follow constitutional principles and to protect our freedoms. None of this is bad on its face.
The Perversion of what passes for Conservatism today seeks to, in a radical way, overturn all of the things conservatives of the 1950's and 1960's held dear. They seek the breakdown of Constitutional protections. They seek to tear down the wall between Church and State. They seek to overturn social progress, interfere with the most precious Right we have as Americans, the Right to Vote and to select our political and economic leadership. They seek to pervert the elections process to provide a permanent advantage to press their Radical Agenda.
Therefore, at this time in our History, Conservative is Radical. A Liberal who seeks to impose fiscal dicipline on our rampaging government, protect our freedom and liberties, to preserve the Constitution is now painted as rabble-rousers who are supporting a Radical Agenda.
Freedom is Slavery. Liberal is Radical, even though they espouse traditional conservative causes. Environmental protection is the support of Environmental Destruction. No Child is Left Behind is designed to Leave all Children behind and to destroy public education in America.
Today, Conservatism = Radicalism.
Prove me wrong. Bring it on!
As usual by the Orwellian Newspeak Conservatives, Conservative no longer means Conservative. It means a Radical overturning of the established order. Read the first 20 pages of Paul Krugman's book, The Great Unraveling.
In "The Great Unraveling" Krugman quotes from Henry Kissinger's doctoral dissertation regarding revolutionary movements. Paraphrasing, a revolutionary movement sees the existing order as illegitimate, and must be overthrown by whatever means necessary. According to Kissinger, the Revolutionary has the power of his convictions, and sees all attempts to reason and preservation of the existing order as the only goal toward working toward.
In America, the existing order is Constitutional Government, protection of political freedoms, and the preservation of all the freedoms embodied in the Bill of Rights and the Civil War Amendments which extended the protection of the Bill of Rights to the states, in effect, nationalizing the Bill of Rights, and making it unconstitutional for states to override those protections. The existing order recognized the separation of Church and State. It recognized the Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights to no Self Incrimination, and a Right to a speedy, fair trial by jury when charged with the violation of a law.
The existing order in America followed the Constitutional requirement that no Bill of Attainder be permitted. Yet, this Congress and this President passed a Bill of Attainder to torure a brain dead young woman.
A traditional Conservative did not accept the premise that all change was bad, but they did have a philosophy that sought to take a look at what changes were being forced on America due to changes in technology, political events in the world, and to limit both the speed of that change and its impact.
Traditional Conservatives in general wished to maintain the status quo regarding the means to accumulate wealth and political power, but they also had a strong preference to follow constitutional principles and to protect our freedoms. None of this is bad on its face.
The Perversion of what passes for Conservatism today seeks to, in a radical way, overturn all of the things conservatives of the 1950's and 1960's held dear. They seek the breakdown of Constitutional protections. They seek to tear down the wall between Church and State. They seek to overturn social progress, interfere with the most precious Right we have as Americans, the Right to Vote and to select our political and economic leadership. They seek to pervert the elections process to provide a permanent advantage to press their Radical Agenda.
Therefore, at this time in our History, Conservative is Radical. A Liberal who seeks to impose fiscal dicipline on our rampaging government, protect our freedom and liberties, to preserve the Constitution is now painted as rabble-rousers who are supporting a Radical Agenda.
Freedom is Slavery. Liberal is Radical, even though they espouse traditional conservative causes. Environmental protection is the support of Environmental Destruction. No Child is Left Behind is designed to Leave all Children behind and to destroy public education in America.
Today, Conservatism = Radicalism.
Prove me wrong. Bring it on!




38 Comments:
I see you are doing the exact same thing in your propaganda that you accuse conservatives of doing: demonizing your enemy.
Pathetic.
By
Steve, at 11:26 AM, July 14, 2006
Demonizing who?
You object to a lucid and clear statement of the facts with references you can follow.
How can a statement of fact be construed as demonizing my enemy?
Demonizing the enemy is ascribing powers to that enemy that it is incapable of executing. Just read your local paper and see if the diminution of our freedom (yours and mine) is not happening. Look at who is advancing this agenda of destroying our freedom in the name of security or the spreading of fear. It ain't the Liberals, they are not in charge.
I reject the charge that I am demonizing anyone.
I will tell you this, I will defend our Constitution, and the premise that no man is above the law. Why don't you join me in this?
By
Ohiodem1, at 1:37 PM, July 14, 2006
Ohiodem,
I understand that you are painting with a broad brush, in order to pick a fight.Most movements today seem to go in one extreme or the other. Anybody that agrees with any part of the opposition is strung up and crucified by their own. Look at poor old Joe Leiberman
The Neo libs or socialist left is out to ruin him for agreeing with Bush on Iraq, so we rally don't want a discussion here we want to throw out accusations that this president did this and conservitives did that,conservitives are evil, even more evil than Saddam or Osama. Ihave to agree with Steve, it is pathetic. where is your critism of the socialists trying to take your party over. whereis the critism of the Clintons for burning out 70 women and children at Waco? What about their rights? Are3 you going to try and defend that?What about Vickie Weaver?Shot down in cold blood while holding her baby in her arms. What about her rights? Do you remember Oklahoma city? What did CLINTON do after that? He signed a terrorism bill that gave authorities more power and us less rights in the name of domestic terrorism. What about the war Clinton started, without be provoked,without imminent threat to our country without the leader having WMD,s was that war illegal? We're still there to this day and now that is falling apart as Montengro becomes independent. Oh what about the warrantless wire taps the Clintons executed on U.S. citizens,yes your beloved defenders of freedom the Neo-Libs actally did that in thye name of national security. So for you to get on your high horse and paint all conservitives as radicals ,and use the term radical as a perjoritive is why the left and the right can't dialogue. So again I say that you are not looking to dial;ogue you are looking to pick a fight because you can't defend your own Marxist idealogues, and their radical views that will turn this country into France.
By
Whaler, at 8:57 AM, July 16, 2006
Whaler,
I will try to address each point you raise. It would help if you put some paragraph breaks in so your prose would be easier to read, but here goes. Your comments will be italicized.
I understand that you are painting with a broad brush, in order to pick a fight. - I would prefer to say that I wish to bring up points for discussion. In this post you are responding to, I made a series of statements concerning my opinion on why the President has failed America. Pick a fight, no. Raise an issue for a mature discussion, yes. The point of this post is to illuminate a subtle point of the propagandist’s art, and to show how it works, and to present a current implementation of the technique. For more on the art and science of propaganda read my article How to Sell a War.
Most movements today seem to go in one extreme or the other. Anybody that agrees with any part of the opposition is strung up and crucified by their own. Look at poor old Joe Leiberman
I agree that "Movements" tend toward the extreme. Nazism or Communism are examples of extreme political movements. Movements are generally started by those who are generally considered the firebrands or radicals, and are led and grow through the efforts of the newly converted true believers. Joe Lieberman has moved away from the Democratic Party and in his positions he stands primarily with the President on most issues. I believe Joe Lieberman would be more comfortable as a Republican. His drift right has alienated some on the Democratic side and has enraged some others, Sam Seder and some other left side talkers in particular. He has a younger primary challenger who sides with the more progressive elements of the Democratic Party, and Lieberman’s stated desire to run as an independent if he loses the primary has pissed off some democrats, as in their opinion it would allow the seat to go Republican. My own opinion is that if he runs as an independent, it will hurt the Republicans more. I am just disappointed with Lieberman.
The Neo libs or socialist left is out to ruin him for agreeing with Bush on Iraq, so we rally don't want a discussion here we want to throw out accusations that this president did this and conservitives did that,conservitives are evil, even more evil than Saddam or Osama.
I agree that Joe has become a target for some left leaning radio and blogs. Since you brought out the "Neo libs or socialist left" that kind of leads me to what I have characterized as the 5 step process to deflect attention from the Bush Administration’s missteps that is used by the right. 1) Blame Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter 2) Blame Hillary 3) Distract by bringing up old unrelated issues that have nothing to do with the current discussion 5) if all else fails, call the person you are discussing something with, and your position is inherently weak, call them a Communist, Socialist, Neo Lib or some other pejorative that is intended to cause your true believers to agree that the person you are debating (and losing to) that they are inherently bad, and at that point there is no use for further discussion, you have dismissed the subject. Below, I will simply put a number beside each comment when any of the five points above are used.
Regarding what the President did or did not do, if I made a statement that he did or said something, you can easily find out if it is true, either by reading your local newspaper or by going to WhiteHouse.gov and reading the transcripts of every word he has ever uttered in public since he became President. If I quote the President, I have the common decency to quote the entire passage and to state the proper context. In that respect, I give the President a fair shake, and then make an argument to the contrary. That is my right, and I will not have it taken away from me. I believe anyone who has followed me in the blogs will agree to the accuracy of this statement, regarding the full quoting and identification of context. You will NEVER find that I said that Conservatives are more evil than Osama bin Laden. My consistent position is that the president and his political minions ordered our forces who could have captured or killed Osama bin Laden, to stand down at Tora Bora and allow some paid mercenary warlords do the job, and they were paid by Osama to let him go. I have never said that Saddam was not evil either. Nor Joe Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and any others of a rogues gallery of mass murderers of the last century. I have consistently disagreed with the war in Iraq because the President would not come clean and tell the American people why he wanted to take out Saddam. No, he and his administration made stuff up to deceive Congress, the American People and the World why he wanted to go to war with Iraq.
In another of my essays, Conservativism = Radicalism, I address the hijacking of the term Conservative and how it has been corrupted to mean a revolutionary movement. Again I challenged those to a discussion on this point. Read it and see my views on how this word has been stolen. On the same track, I believe that many who have been led down this false path have less in common with Movement Conservatives than they have with Democrats, which have been pulled to the center as the Bush Tragedy continues.
Ihave to agree with Steve, it is pathetic. where is your critism of the socialists trying to take your party over. whereis the critism of the Clintons for burning out 70 women and children at Waco? What about their rights? Are3 you going to try and defend that?What about Vickie Weaver?Shot down in cold blood while holding her baby in her arms. What about her rights?
Techniques 1) Blame Clinton, and 4) distract with unrelated issues. I do not condone or think no mistakes were made in either case. In Waco, at least the Attorney General stood up and took responsibility for the botched response. Remember this, Waco started because the people inside killed one, and I think two federal agents. Randy Weaver also was doing something illegal, although I can’t remember what it was. Was it wrong to shoot Mrs. Weaver and her baby, of course it was. But this is a total diversion from the issue in question., which is Propaganda and the administration’s and his party’s willingness to ignore basic human rights.
Do you remember Oklahoma city? What did CLINTON do after that? He signed a terrorism bill that gave authorities more power and us less rights in the name of domestic terrorism. What about the war Clinton started, without be provoked,without imminent threat to our country without the leader having WMD,s was that war illegal?
Technique 1) Blame Clinton. Since you asked what Clinton did after Oklahoma City, his Justice Department investigated the tragedy, located the two conspirators, tried both, executed the perpetrator, and put the other conspirator in prison for life. The laws passed by a Republican House and Democratic Senate increased the ability of the government to deal with domestic terrorism (OK City was done by a couple of right wing nutcases by the way), and to require the use of Warrants based upon Probable Cause. So how does that impinge on your rights? Let me tell you some legislation that REALLY tramples your rights. Let me tell you about a runaway freight train of a President who not only does not respect the law, but he does not feel that he is subject to the oversight of either Congress, the Supreme Court or even the Constitution. Do you think that Oklahoma City did not present an imminent threat to America? I do.
We're still there to this day and now that is falling apart as Montengro becomes independent.
Technique 4) Total Distraction. What the hell does Montenegro have to do with anything that is being discussed here?
Oh what about the warrantless wire taps the Clintons executed on U.S. citizens,yes your beloved defenders of freedom the Neo-Libs actally did that in thye name of national security. So for you to get on your high horse and paint all conservitives as radicals ,and use the term radical as a perjoritive is why the left and the right can't dialogue.
Technique 1) Blame Clinton. What Warrantless Wiretaps? Technique 5) Losing argument, revert to name-calling, (Neo-Libs). Also an attempt to incorrectly attribute a false statement to me. Nowhere have I ever said that ALL conservatives are radicals. I have made the argument (as have others) that the MOVEMENT Conservatives seek the radical overthrow of our existing system, the existing order if you will. The existing order is first and foremost Constitutional Government, having the Government, and the administration in particular, not ignore the laws, not ignore the constitution, to seek laws that limit our freedoms, not to break laws they do not like, not to avoid seeking warrants even though Congress offered to change the law to improve the administration’s ability to fight terrorism, and not to engage in wholesale spying on ALL AMERICANS, INCLUDING YOU, WHALER.
So again I say that you are not looking to dial;ogue you are looking to pick a fight because you can't defend your own Marxist idealogues, and their radical views that will turn this country into France.
I have taken an hour out of my life to engage in a detailed dialog with you, Whaler. You took some time to do your comment to my post. I consider that to be dialog. Steve will tell you that I generally wish to engage in a non-emotional give and take, without the name-calling that characterizes some blog discussions. Steve and I sometimes agree. Many times we don’t. But we still get along without being butts about it.
I am not a Marxist, and I disagree with most Marxists, including their radical approach to solving problems. In my view, radical approaches from either left or right always end in failure. I think our present situation has taken America too far right. I do not want it to proceed any further. My view is that this is hurting America, its middle and low wage earners to the benefit of its highest wage earners and its corporate elites. My main gripe is that they are shifting their tax burden on to you and me.
I don’t thjnk we will turn into France in 10,000 years. I will say this, however. France war right about Iraq’s lack of WMD. I will also say this, Condolezza Rice, the President and the young Senator from Virginia, whose name escapes me right now were all over the public affairs Sunday programs singing the praises of France as one of those who are standing for restraint in the Middle East and for sanctions against Iran. Check it out. We only hate France when they do not agree with us.
OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 9:37 AM, July 17, 2006
Here is a nice article covering two points. Bill Kristol, the leading journalist neo conservative, (Go to the Project for the New American Century website for confirmation of this point) strongly advocating for war with Syria and Iran, and being challenged directly on it by Juan Williams. Here is a link:
George Will calls neocons Radical
Then on This Week With Geroge Stephanopolis, George Will, a leading conservative pundit, explicitly calls the neo conservatives "The most magnificantly misnamed neoconservatives are the most radical people in this town."
People are noticing, and some of the people are not those you would expect to come out in this way.
The question remains; prove that the conservatism of the right wing radio, the right wing base, and those Republicans whose hands are on the levers of power in America are not radical. I do not believe it is possible to do so.
By
Ohiodem1, at 11:39 AM, July 17, 2006
I provided a bad link in the post immediately above. Here is the good link to Steve Clemons.
Bad link above
By
Ohiodem1, at 11:43 AM, July 17, 2006
You're whole argument regarding what a conservative is is based on a major fallacy that you don't even see, at least with what a political conservative is. A true political conservative uses the legislative process in order to change law, something liberals have undermined over the last several decades by using the courts as an unelected legislature.
How do I say this? How about the classic, Roe v. Wade? Since 1973, every single law to restrict abortion that has been challenged has been overturned through the courts and used Roe as a super-precedent. This would include not allowing spousal notification (not approval, just notification), not allowing parental notification if a minor is to get an abortion, and allowing partial-birth abortion. There have been no federal guidelines for abortion (thankfully) except that the federal government is not to fund it (again, thankfully). But, it is "liberals" in Congress who seem to make this a pseudo-campaign issue for their unprecedented (and unconstitutional) questioning during judicial confirmations.
It's a lie that 1) oveturning Roe means abortions will become illegal; and 2) Roe is a well-judged case. To answer the latter, even the most liberal SCOTUS Justice in the land, former ACLU hack Ruth Ginsburg, believes this was badly ruled. A new precedent is absolutely needed, just as one was needed for Plessy v. Ferguson (which was done with Brown). As far as my first point, Roe actually says that abortions can't be made illegal, which is different than saying Roe legalizes all abortions. It does say restrictions can (and should) be put on them, and that laws must be established to note exceptions. The courts have destroyed that by overturning all challenged abortion restriction laws.
I'll put in another example, so-called same-sex marriage. The courts in California and Masschusetts absolutely made up the law (became legislatures) in ruling that people of the same sex can marry each other. Clearly, consensus has shown that people believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and have enacted laws or amended state constitutions to say so. Yet, these courts have seen fit to ignore the constitutionally legislative process by finding invalid and unknown rights and "making it up". What's interesting, Justice Kennedy in Roper v. Simmons overturned the death penalty for minors in all states because he wrote in his opinion (and was vilified in Scalia's dissent) that consensus mattered as part of his ruling. If that's true, then the same-sex marriage rulings have no place. (Roper is considered another liberal flop ruling because of its idiotic insistence on consensus and international law.)
Let me move on. The recent Hamdan decision. All of the leftists who believe this is such a significant case of civil rights just don't have a clue. One, none of the Gitmo inmates have to be freed (which, I believe is the only good part of this ruling) while our forces are engaged in combat. Second, Justice Stevens just made non-uniformed terrorists the equivalent of legitimate soldiers captured on the battlefield. Third, the Congress has all of the power to determine when cases are allowed to be brought before the court and determine which courts get them (Article I, Section 8 and Article III, Section 2). The SCOTUS had no business hearing this case.
Lastly, I provide the last bit of liberal tyranny through the courts, Kelo v. New London. This is a travesty of the Fifth Amendment in that private property taken by the government and given to another private entity does not constitute taking for private use, but for private purpose. The same five "liberals" ruled on Kelo as on Hamdan. This case, more than any other, shows how "liberalism" is equal to tyranny, not that "conservatism" is equal to radicalism. I know that legislators of all parties are working on creating laws to strengthen the Fifth Amendment (as if it needed it); but, challenges could possibly overturn those laws because of the idiocy of the Kelo decision.
I also find it ridiculous that members of Congress call things like the NSA terrorist surveillance program illegal when they are clearly political matters. I've discussed this with you before with Feingold's censure resolution. Not only that, I find his resolution and all resolutions trying to get Bush to draw down troops a clear violation of his Commander in Chief of the military role and Congres's Article I, Section 8 role. Their job is to finance military actions, that's it. If they don't like something, they can defund it. But, I wouldn't call their actions illegal; they are politically unconstitutional.
I would agree with you that the Schiavo deal was a terrible way to use Congress to override the courts. Although I've seen things with the case that are questionable, it does seem that the law did allow Michael Schiavo to act as guardian and to act in what he thought was her benefit (allowing her to die). Those that tried to use the courts to overturn this were wrong. To call it torture, as you did, was ridiculous however. That was partisan demagoguery.
I have more, but this is a good start in determining what is a "conservative" and what is radical. True conservatives will use the courts when a clear violation of the Constitution occurs. But, the legislative process is used, as outlined in the Constitution. That is why they are called conservatives to begin with. Those called "liberals" use the courts first as a super-legislature, then worry that conservatives will do the same thing. I don't think so.
By
Steve, at 5:17 PM, July 17, 2006
ohiodem,
Technique-1 start out by criticizing the other persons grammar to make you feel smart and them dumb.
Technique-2 Say stuff like" I didn't call all conservatives" that lets you off the hook.
Technique-3 Equate conservatives with Nazis and communists, to degrade and name call.
Thought I'd try your way of writing but I don't care for it.
Anyways I'll apologize up front for not having the writing skills that you have. But thanks for theadvice on the run-on paragraphs and the use of puncuation.
Joe Leiberman did not stray from the Dems, they strayed from the Democratic party and let it get taken over by extremists like Howard Dean and Moveon.org.
Janet Reno didn't take responsibility for killing those people at waco, she merely said the words, She didn't resign, she didn't throw herself in jail, she just said the words, thatis not taking responsibility for your actions.
The war I was referring to was the war in the Balkans,there wwas no imminent threat to our country, we didn't get the U.N. to give us the ok, we didn't find WMD's and we are still there today. We even used NATO in an offense for the first time, and against NATO's constitution.(illegal)But I'm sure your ok with all that and it was done better and by smarter prople.
The reason i used terms like neo lib and marxist is because thats how all the authors on this site write. just wanted to see if you can take some of your own medicine.But I never see you refer to them as "butts' like you did to me.(name-calling)
you said "what warrantless wiretaps"?ever hear of Aldrich Aames? He was an American citiczen and Clinton justice Dept. officials admitted to wiret tapping his home,(domestic) without a warrant for national security . But again your probably ok with that too because we got a conviction.
Any time the congress passes and the president signs a bill giving law enforcement more power and authority over their subjects it infringes on my freedoms. You should understand that, with all the abuses of power going on now the last thing we need is to give them the right to circumvent the constitution in the name of 'terrorism' they can now call any body or any activity terror related and use their expanded powers.
technique-whatever losing argument revert to name calling. I'm not name calling if like you said,it is a lucid and clear statement, a statement of fact.
My whole point of responding to your post was to show that their is no differnce in Clinton, or Bush or any other politician from the ruling parties. you seem to think that the dems have the answer or silver bullet, and if only the stupid people of thecountry would wake up and realize it we would be better off than we are now. But we are where we are now because of these two parties and the way they abuse the power when they get to office,BOTH parties!They aren't out for the best interests of this country they are out to get re-elected and keep and gain more power. Thats it.
show me a real statesman that stands up and has a plan and isn't afraid to call "A" an A. Until there is either a total collapse of the system or some alternative choice at th eballot box we are resigned to playing the blame game with the other side.
By
whaler, at 8:40 AM, July 18, 2006
ohio dem ,
sorry but I did want to say that Vickie Weaver did not break a law, her husband had TAX law problems. So pay your taxes like a good subject or this king too might come looking, like they did for vickie weaver.
The people at Waco had to defend themselves against an armed assault of Gov't agents.
whaler
By
whaler, at 8:46 AM, July 18, 2006
Whaler,
I have deadlines this week, and need to take some time off blogging. I will get back to you on most of your post later.
I take issue with your characterization that I called you a "butt".
From your post:
(snip)
The reason i used terms like neo lib and marxist is because thats how all the authors on this site write. just wanted to see if you can take some of your own medicine.But I never see you refer to them as "butts' like you did to me.(name-calling)
(snip)
I was discussing that Steve and I disagree frequently without being "butts about it". In no way did I call you a "butt". That is absolutely not my style. I prefer to engage in respectful dialog. Here is what I said:
(snip)
I have taken an hour out of my life to engage in a detailed dialog with you, Whaler. You took some time to do your comment to my post. I consider that to be dialog. Steve will tell you that I generally wish to engage in a non-emotional give and take, without the name-calling that characterizes some blog discussions. Steve and I sometimes agree. Many times we don’t. But we still get along without being butts about it.
(snip)
OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 10:57 AM, July 18, 2006
Whaler,
You said I said "what warrantless wire taps?". I don't recall saying that. I did not find it in my post, and ths blog format lacks a search tool.
Here is what you said:
(snip)
"you said "what warrantless wiretaps"?ever hear of Aldrich Aames? He was an American citiczen and Clinton justice Dept. officials admitted to wiret tapping his home,(domestic) without a warrant for national security . But again your probably ok with that too because we got a conviction."
(snip)
Technique 1)blame Clinton, Technique 3) distract by bringing up old issues unrelated to the current discussion.
Aldrich Ames is a Traitor who was acting as a Mole in the CIA, and he was feeding vast amounts of intelligence to the Soviet Union starting in 1985, during the second Reagan administration, and completely through the Bush 41 administration and he was brought to justice in 1994, one year after the start of the Clinton administration.
He failed routine polygraph tests, and the FBI opened an investigation into his treason in May, 1993, four months after Bill Clinton took office. I will link the FBI account of this investigation. It does not indicate that illegal surviellance took place, although they mention intensive physical and electronic surviellance. I am certain much of this case is still top secret, but I am guessing that the FBI went to the FISA court for a warrant.
Here is a link to the FBI website:
Aldrich Ames info
OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 11:25 AM, July 18, 2006
Since today is the 200th anniversary of Webster's first American Dictionary, I decided to look up the main definition in question in order to break this dicussion down to its core components.
"Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Function: noun
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change."
If one doubts that the ruling party does not live by these tenants and seeks a radical shift to re-write the constitution and elevate the executive branch as the supreme "decider" of where this country is headed, witness the issues this executive team prioritizes.
Abortion - Will never be outlawed. It is too much of a wedge issue to be taken off the table. The so-called religious right has used this issue to gain votes of single issue true-believers for many, many years. Why have we seen no call for laws to outlaw abortion by our republican leaders? After all they dominate every level of the federal government.
Gay Marriage - While fighting against gay marriage may be seen as a conservative issue, the fervor and lack of perspective on its surface displayed by our so-called leaders points to another wedge issue used to gain votes from true-believers. In case you haven't noticed we may have a couple more pressing issues in America today.
Executive Signing Statements - The way this president uses signing statements is relegating the congress to second-class status. No wonder why Bush hasn't vetoed any bills. He just has to modify them to his liking.
Demonize the Press and Crusify Whistle-Blowers - Anytime the press grows some balls and reports on something the president does not like, the right-wing attack dogs swing into action. By the way, these rad-cons are robbing America blind. What ever happened to the initial missing $6 Billion from the first months of the Iraq war? Ask Bunny Greenhouse, oh yeah she no longer works for the Army.
Pre-emptive War - See the Project for the New American Century for the blue-print of the radical re-ordering of the American Empire.
Re-Distribution of Wealth - The tax cut for the richest Americans has had the trickle-down effect of choking off funding to states and cities. Witness the layoffs of police and firefighters in most major cities.
And on, and on, and on it goes.
By
REB 84, at 11:18 PM, July 18, 2006
So predictable. This will be easy.
"If one doubts that the ruling party does not live by these tenants and seeks a radical shift to re-write the constitution and elevate the executive branch as the supreme "decider" of where this country is headed, witness the issues this executive team prioritizes."
First off, if you look at what has gone on throughout the last several decades, Democratic and Republican led Congresses have done much to give the executive branch this power (regardless of the President's party affiliation), and, in many cases, have given it to the judicial branch as well.
I'll cite two examples. The first is the War Powers Resolution. It was designed to give the President the speed to react to external threats with Congressional authorization. What we have seen with both Iraq and Afghanistan (and other conflicts) is seeing Congress back away from even their own votes, and their responsibility in voting that way. This is something that would never be seen with a declaration of war. The constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution has never been tested in the courts, and I believe the executive branch could make a case to get this overturned.
My second example goes right into the following:
"Abortion - Will never be outlawed. It is too much of a wedge issue to be taken off the table. The so-called religious right has used this issue to gain votes of single issue true-believers for many, many years. Why have we seen no call for laws to outlaw abortion by our republican leaders? After all they dominate every level of the federal government."
As I've stated earlier, even Justice Ginsburg believes Roe v. Wade was a horribly written opinion, open to abuse by the judicial branch. The Democrats in past Congresses avoided doing anything with creating federal abortion laws because they didn't want to piss off their constituents, most of whom are against the abortion-on-demand (during any term of a pregnancy and at any age) that has been allowed by the courts. The liberals abrogated their responsibilities by letting the courts handle abortion and getting ACLU types (like Ginsburg) confirmed to the courts. Conservatives have handled it by confirming good judges and Justices (except for Souter, who is a disaster) selected by conservative Presidents. They know abortion is a state issue, not a federal one.
"Gay Marriage - While fighting against gay marriage may be seen as a conservative issue, the fervor and lack of perspective on its surface displayed by our so-called leaders points to another wedge issue used to gain votes from true-believers. In case you haven't noticed we may have a couple more pressing issues in America today."
Agreed. But, again, liberals are using the courts to determine a purely political issue, not a legal one. Same-sex marriage isn't about love, it's about money. That's fine, but get the state legislatures to pass laws that either recognize same-sex marriage (in that state), or recognize some benefits (health insurance coverage, for example) from same-sex civil unions.
"Executive Signing Statements - The way this president uses signing statements is relegating the congress to second-class status. No wonder why Bush hasn't vetoed any bills. He just has to modify them to his liking."
And Congress earmarks the hell out of bills, adding appropriations without voting on them. This is something both parties do, although the Republicans have gotten way too good at it. Amend the Constitution to allow the President to do line-item vetos and make sure to add a no signing statements clause.
"Demonize the Press and Crusify Whistle-Blowers - Anytime the press grows some balls and reports on something the president does not like, the right-wing attack dogs swing into action. By the way, these rad-cons are robbing America blind. What ever happened to the initial missing $6 Billion from the first months of the Iraq war? Ask Bunny Greenhouse, oh yeah she no longer works for the Army."
This is such a load of crap. OD1 has said the same thing. How about the trillions spent over the last forty years to fight the War on Poverty (through LBJ's Great Society program) and is an absolute failure of waste? How about the $14 billion Big Dig fiasco? How about the $60 billion Oil-for-Food scandal at the UN? Whistleblowers may have their place, but not in revolt of the elected government, as seen at the CIA especially.
Demonize the press? That's a joke. Maybe if they actually did some "journalism", instead of editorializing the news with a "liberal" bent (and it is), then maybe they could be considered "the press". And who elected the New York Times to determine national security policy? I know I didn't. I don't even own any stock. But liberal politicians don't seem to mind them since they are doing the supposed "oversight" the liberal politicians won't do.
"Pre-emptive War - See the Project for the New American Century for the blue-print of the radical re-ordering of the American Empire."
Blah, blah, blah. By the way, did you notice how the Iranian and Syrian backed Hamas (Saddam backed them too) and Hizbollah terrorists committed acts of war without provocation? Gee, sounds like the Afghan and Saddam (and others) backed Al Qaeda.
"Re-Distribution of Wealth - The tax cut for the richest Americans has had the trickle-down effect of choking off funding to states and cities. Witness the layoffs of police and firefighters in most major cities."
This is a fiction. A socialist's fiction. It was a tax rate cut, and even liberals acknowledge the amount of revenue received by the federal government increased due to increased consumer and capital spending (because individuals gave less to the federal government). If there are any layoffs of police and firefighters in major cities, its probably because the cities have chased out businesses (and jobs) and people out of those cities due to stifling local regulations and/or taxes (sales, property, income; you name it) and don't get the revenue. Add the fact that many of these major cities are run by liberals who have made them sanctuary cities for illegal aliens (the police are not allowed to ask for an immigrant's status if the immigrant gets in trouble with local law enforcement). These cities willingly, and due to past cases ruled by the Supreme Court, provide education and emergency medical treatment (and abuse of the medical system) at the expense of their own taxpayers, at least the ones that are left. Face it, these cities screwed themselves and taxpayers at all levels of government.
By
Steve, at 12:48 AM, July 19, 2006
Hey, you all are big on the rule of law and war crimes. I mean, Bush commits them all the time, right?
How about these? First, neither Hamas nor Hizbollah has allowed the International Red Cross to view the kidnapped prisoners (who were in uniform when kidnapped, in an unprovoked act of war). Is this due process? Where's the outrage?
Second, is this a war crime by Hizbollah?
"The IDF has found that Hizbullah is preventing civilians from leaving villages in southern Lebanon. Roadblocks have been set up outside some of the villages to prevent residents from leaving, while in other villages Hizbullah is preventing UN representatives from entering, who are trying to help residents leave. In two villages, exchanges of fire between residents and Hizbullah have broken out. (Hanan Greenberg)"
By
Steve, at 12:57 AM, July 19, 2006
Whaler - I re-read above, and did find where I said "What warrantless wiretaps?"
I apologize to you for saying I did not say that. Did Ames, who was a mole in the CIA, a traitor who sold out his country for cash, did he sign a contract when he received a high security clearance that waived his need for a warrant? I do not know, because the CIA is secret by design.
Did the FBI really not obtain a FISA warrant? Not on the FBI website. Can the government use illegally obtained evidence in court? No. Did Ames attorneys challenge the means for which evidence was collected? I have no idea, since I have not chosen to do any research on this point. I don't intend to become your research staff either.
You can come up with one maybe. Do you want to challenge me to come up with, say 3 million for sures of the Bush administration? Next thing you will do is say give me the names. I will take a guess. It is you, me, your neighbors, Reb 84 and millions of others who were wiretapped, had financial records accessed, had email monitored, had web use monitored, probably had people who use blogs monitored. You visited this kind of progressive blog. Maybe they monitored you for being here. What do you think?
By
Ohiodem1, at 7:29 PM, July 19, 2006
Is Conyers on crack [note bold type, my emphasis]?
"I am extremely concerned over the increasing deaths, injuries, destruction and suffering in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and Israel. We all agree that actions of the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah that sparked the present conflict were reprehensible. We also believe there needs to be a change in America’s posture of non-involvement. These two beliefs are not mutually exclusive. President Bush must intervene immediately to work with the UN and EU to begin negotiating the terms of a ceasefire that has the necessary elements to preclude another outbreak of violence."
Negotiating a ceasefire and allowing Hizbollah to rearm allowed them to commit an unprovoked act of war. Obviously, Bush's push towards democracy in Lebanon (without enforcing UNSC Res. 1559) didn't help, but, in my opinion, their representation in the Lebanese government was meant to give them something to live for instead of trying to kill Jews and destroy Israel. As we have seen with Hamas, nobody should negotiate with Nazis, and that's what Hizbollah and Hamas are.
Next idiocy:
"None of us condone terrorism in any way, shape, or form, and I believe Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that was, is, and remains a threat to peace in the Mideast, and must be dismantled and disarmed. This conflict cannot be resolved militarily; only diplomacy can bring an end to the bloodshed."
Would Conyers "negotiate" with the Black Hand Mafia gangs of a hundred years ago? Is he trying to be the next Neville Chamberlain and bring more "peace in our time"? How many more innocents are Hizbollah and Hamas (and Syria and Iran) allowed to kill before Conyers gets in his thick skull that negotiating with terrorists only gives them time to regroup for another unprovoked act of war?
Then comes this tripe:
"The Bush administration’s Katrina-like effort to get Americans out of the war zone is disgraceful. The State Department now estimates that 5,000 Americans will be evacuated by the end of the week. That’s one-fifth of the 25,000 Americans in Lebanon evacuated in 9 days. At the current rate, it will take 3 or 4 more weeks to evacuate the rest of the Americans. This response is unacceptable."
I hate to break it to everyone, but Lebanon and Beirut are war zones. In case anybody forgot, Hizbollah (with probable help from members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard) fired Iranian-built missiles into an Israeli warship (seriously damaging it and killing four of their sailors) and a Cambodian merchant ship (with an Egyption crew) that was sunk. Can you imagine what kind of targets the evacuation ships are for Hizbollah and how much damage their Iranian-built missiles could do to these vessels? Does Conyers want the Mediterranean to be a literal sea of blood? If this had happened, Conyers, using his absolute hatred of Bush, could then accuse the President of haphazard planning causing the deaths of many Americans. I believe that Conyers would do this.
But, this is the kicker:
"There are close to 7,000 Americans from the Detroit area presently stranded in Lebanon."
And:
"The US should make immediate arrangements with the Israeli and Lebanese militaries and the UN to ensure that these Americans can be evacuated. A secure route from the south to Beirut should be arranged with the Israeli military so our citizens can get to the U.S. Embassy safely."
Uh, Hizbollah controls the area where these 7,000 Detroit area Americans are, and I don't think the Lebanese military is in any way able to do something with this. Is he condoning a massive Israeli ground assault on Lebanon? Somehow I don't think so, since many of Conyers' constituents protested against Israel the other day, even though Hizbollah is guilty of this unprovoked act of war. And why, after major State Dept. warnings on travel to Lebanon after the Syrian government murdered former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, would 7,000 Detroit area Americans be in Lebanon anyway?
So is Conyers on crack? Conyers probably knows better about this situation, he's been in Congress so long. He knows these "peace initiatives" have been nothing but failures. So, he is either really stupid (not out of the realm of the impossible, but doubtful), or is doing what he does best, trying to make political points through his hatred of President Bush. What would be interesting is to see who contributes to his campaign.
By
Steve, at 8:23 AM, July 20, 2006
Hey REB, whistleblower dude (or dudette; I don't know if you're a man or a woman), how about getting Conyers and his ilk to promote whistleblowers in Hizbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran. That way he can try to undermine real fascist governments, not the one that doesn't exist in the US.
By
Steve, at 8:26 AM, July 20, 2006
Test - recent comments failed to publish.
By
Ohiodem1, at 12:32 PM, July 20, 2006
Whaler - I indeed did say "what warrantless wiretaps?" My apology for saying I did not.
Aldrich Ames was a CIA mole and a tratitor. Nothing in the FBI account says that illegal wiretaps were used, not that I would expect them to say that.
What we also cannot know is that if a person chooses employment in top secret sections of the CIA, they may or may not have signed a waiver concerning wiretapping their phones. We will never know because it is secret. If illegal wiretaps were used, then the product of that illegal wiretap could not be used in court. Did Ames' attorney get wiretap evidence thrown out? I do not know, and I do not intend to look it up.
You can come up with one instance of an illegal wiretap in the Clinton years. I expect that 100 million Americans have had their electronic information including email, web use, telephones, financial information, credit information and much other stuff. 1 vs 100,000,000 and the 1 was a bona fide tratior.
Since you are accessing a liberal blog, maybe they are looking at you.
By
Ohiodem1, at 12:42 PM, July 20, 2006
"You can come up with one instance of an illegal wiretap in the Clinton years. I expect that 100 million Americans have had their electronic information including email, web use, telephones, financial information, credit information and much other stuff. 1 vs 100,000,000 and the 1 was a bona fide tratior."
Where's your proof?
Since you are examining Clinton, how about all those IRS records he was tracking, without a warrant, of those he considered his enemies? Very Nixonian, I think.
By
Steve, at 5:00 PM, July 20, 2006
Steve, I did not bring up technique 1, Blame Clinton, Whaler did.
I do not really think Clinton is a hero. I do not think every thing he did is good, nor do I think every thing Bush does is necessarily bad. The Hawaiian nature reserve of 140,000 square miles (nearly as big as California) is a very good thing, for instance. Bush's approach to the immigration problem makes more sense than most other approaches I have seen, particularly those who would make 11,000,000 immigrants felons, which would make each and every one of them subject to the reach of our federal court system, each with the right to a trial by jury, habeous corpus, legal representation, the protections of the 5th and 6th amendments, the whole shooting match. How about the endless appeals of government paid attornies. Bush's comprehensive immigration approach with a long, tortuous path to citizenship for those who work, pay their taxes, obey the law makes a lot of sense. I give Bush a lot of credit for that position because it actually does not agree with the base of his party. He actually took a political risk to take that position.
So, Clinton's not all good, Bush is not all bad. Bush and his supporters really have no legs to stand on when they blame Clinton for anything. They have had almost 6 years at the helm. Whatever happens now has happened on Bush's watch, and they have had nearly 4 years of control of both houses of Congress, judicial appointments (over 97 per cent by my recollection), all the tax cuts they could possibly want, a clean sweep of whatever legislation they wanted, anything they did not want, they just attempted to get around it with Signing Statements.
So, we have two wars ongoing, it looks like we will have another 1, 2 or 3 soon. We have increased our debt by a trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000.00), the Middle East is a tinderbox, and the people over there have a box of matches. I certainly hope that the Bush diplomatic team can come and defuse this situation.
But please, don't try to blame Bill Cliinton for this mess we are in. George W. Bush is President of the United States. Get over it.
Filegate was discovered, it stopped. Illegal wiretaps were discovered, it continued, it was revealed that it was reauthorized by the president over 30 times, and when it was pointed out to the president that this activity was unconstitutional, he turned his middle finger (in a figurative way) to Congress and the American people and in effect said, I will do whatever the hell I want to do, and you can't make me stop.
You always fall back to the "give me names" routine. Read the paper.
By
Ohiodem1, at 5:37 PM, July 20, 2006
So many comments so little time. Well Steve, I see that OhioDem1 has given you a couple points on Clinton. Tell us is Bush perfect in your book? You seem too intelligent to swallow all of his fairy tales.
Once again you have given me plenty of ammunition, so I will begin at the end.
"Hey REB, whistleblower dude (or dudette; I don't know if you're a man or a woman), how about getting Conyers and his ilk to promote whistleblowers in Hizbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran."
You really surprise me with that intro. I figured a dude of your obvious research expertise would have taken the time to view my Blogger profile. Where I come from Male=Dude.
Hizbollah and Hamas are not nation states or multi-national corporations. They are militant organizations that have been given mixed reviews over the years from their respective populations. When successful, they have managed to win the hearts and minds of their Shiite and the Palestinians by combining their military wing with a humanitarian approach of delivering food and medical aid to impoverished populations.
The U.S. backed Israeli military has helped the Hizbollah and Hamas recruiting efforts by an indiscriminate use of force that has resulted in much collateral damage over the years. Having said this, both organizations are ruthless in their determination to inflict damage (the old biblical "eye for an eye" retribution) on Israel. Hamas invented the suicide bomber in the 1980's. This is a brutal and barbaric practice. The blind devotion of their adherents is born of hopelessness and a twisted sense of religion. So, just who in these organizations would be a likely whistleblower?
Regarding Syria and Iran, brutal dictators used to be some of America's best friends in the region. After all Iran did have a democratically elected government before the CIA helped overthrow it and installed the Shah. Once again, a misguided foreign policy came back to bite us in the ass.
Syria has a history of brutally quashing any dissent. I suspect most potential whistleblowers have left the country of choose to keep quite in the current atmosphere.
There are several whistleblowers and friends of freedom in Iran. Unfortunately, they are not in charge right now. By isolating Iran and encouraging Israel to "have at it," we have given the hard-line stronger support and greater rationale for clamping down on dissent.
I'll get back to you other points later.
By
REB 84, at 10:47 PM, July 20, 2006
This post seems to have hit a few nerves. Does anyone else care to weigh in?
By the way. I began QuestionItNow with the idea of keeping posts and comments short in order to attract readers who suffer from attention deficit disorder due to 21st Century Information Overload. I appologize for the length of my previous comment. I could not figure out how to make it any shorter.
By
REB 84, at 11:34 PM, July 20, 2006
OhioDem1,
I believe I have figured out the problems you have had posting a few comments. Have you hit preview before you hit publish?
I have noticed that the word verification can be tricky. It is often hard to tell a 'v' from a 'u' or a 'g' from a 'q' for example. That is why I hit preview first. If Blogger asks me to key in the letters I see again, then I know I typed something wrong. Try "Preview" and let me know if you have any more problems.
By
REB 84, at 11:38 PM, July 20, 2006
I Think PT said it best about this subject...
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war
I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the party on the left
Is now the party on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
I love cynics...
JH
By
Cal Trask, at 9:32 AM, July 21, 2006
Cal,
This post is starting to feel like a QuestionItNow reunion. First Whaler visited, and now you are back. I love Pete Townsend's lyrics.
Thanks for bringing another voice of reason to this discussion. I hope you are doing well.
Welcome back!
By
REB 84, at 9:47 AM, July 21, 2006
Steve,
I re-posted your "Conyers is On Crack" comments at ConyersBlog.us We are in no position to speak for Rep. Conyers. However, I did add a couple of comments:
Comment #2: DTW 06 said on 7/21/06 @ 1:37am ET...
Steve,
Since you decided to attack Conyers on my turf, I believe it is only right that I bring the argument to Conyers' turf.
Prior to cutting and pasting your post over here, I did not have a chance to really read your post.
"And why, after major State Dept. warnings on travel to Lebanon after the Syrian government murdered former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, would 7,000 Detroit area Americans be in Lebanon anyway?"
This comment demonstrates your lack of support for the family and global thinking. Did you ever think that these American citizens in Lebanon are spending time with their families?
Family is very important to people in the Middle East. These are the blood ties of the survivors of bloodshead since the beginning of time.
Comment #3: DTW 06 said on 7/21/06 @ 1:43am ET...
BTW - Crack is the drug of choice for those who start wars, not those who fight for peace!
By
DTW 06, at 10:45 AM, July 21, 2006
OD1
You said:
"But please, don't try to blame Bill Cliinton for this mess we are in. George W. Bush is President of the United States. Get over it."
I absolutely blame Clinton for some of the mess we are in around the world. Because, neither history or Clinton's influence ended when George Bush took office.
The North Korean problem was a holdover from the Clinton since he paid extortion (with our taxes) to keep the Kims from building nukes. But he never followed up and their nuke program continued unobserved. Now, he and his idiotic Sec. of State (Madeline Albright) open their big mouths and lie how it is all Bush's fault.
Then there is Iraq. Clinton succumbed to the fools at the UN and allowed the travesty known as Oil-for-Food to start and go on. He also allowed Saddam to dictate how UN weapons inspectors were to do their job and then let Saddam kick them out.
You don't like it, too bad. Get over it.
By
Steve, at 9:46 AM, July 23, 2006
REB
You said:
"Hizbollah and Hamas are not nation states or multi-national corporations. They are militant organizations that have been given mixed reviews over the years from their respective populations."
Not anymore. Hizbollah has representation in the government of Lebanon, and are now guilty of treason against the Lebanese government by starting their part of this war. Hamas is the majority party in the government of the Palestinians in Gaza.
Then you said:
"When successful, they have managed to win the hearts and minds of their Shiite and the Palestinians by combining their military wing with a humanitarian approach of delivering food and medical aid to impoverished populations."
This is as pathetic a sentence on the situation as I've ever seen. Hamas was given (first by the Israelis, then by their voters) Gaza to govern. What is their policy? Lebensraum. This was seen before, and the world took steps to try to stop it before it had a chance to fester. Israel has done its fair share in keeping the peace process moving (Olmert, against the advice of the US, was looking to withdraw from the West Bank before this erupted), and it was up to the elected Hamas leadership to do anything. They chose war.
You said:
"The U.S. backed Israeli military has helped the Hizbollah and Hamas recruiting efforts by an indiscriminate use of force that has resulted in much collateral damage over the years. Having said this, both organizations are ruthless in their determination to inflict damage (the old biblical "eye for an eye" retribution) on Israel. Hamas invented the suicide bomber in the 1980's. This is a brutal and barbaric practice. The blind devotion of their adherents is born of hopelessness and a twisted sense of religion. So, just who in these organizations would be a likely whistleblower?"
Gee, maybe if the CIA would have concentrated on undermining them instead of the Bush administration, we might have found a few.
Next item I'll highlight:
"There are several whistleblowers and friends of freedom in Iran. Unfortunately, they are not in charge right now. By isolating Iran and encouraging Israel to "have at it," we have given the hard-line stronger support and greater rationale for clamping down on dissent."
You people never talk about them. I don't believe you even support them. In a comment some time ago, I asked OD1 if he would support the US backing a revolution in Iran and I believe he disagreed with it if it became violent. Yet, how else does one overthrow a violent tyranny, especially when the tyrants violently clamp down on dissent? And to think what Israel is doing just further exacerbates the situation in Iran is naive. Iran had been quelling protesters, violently, in the preceding several weeks. But, the MSM and the so-called "civil rights supporters" never bothered with it, while the conservatives have been all over the issue. Even the new UN Human Rights Council has seen fit to continuously harp on the US and Israel and ignoring real human rights violations in North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba, the usual suspects. Bolton knew they were going to do this and wisely advised the President to denounce the new group before it formed. But the UN went ahead and put it in place anyway.
I don't believe there is very much concern about human rights here. Just support for those who would undermine the US.
By
Steve, at 10:24 AM, July 23, 2006
DTW
Thanks for putting my piece over at Conyers' site. I believe I was banned over there. I have added another post on my blog (I also put the "Conyers on crack" there) called "...or is he just a pandering anti-Semite?. Feel free to share it there, but make sure you put the links and highlights in.
You said:
"This comment demonstrates your lack of support for the family and global thinking. Did you ever think that these American citizens in Lebanon are spending time with their families?
Family is very important to people in the Middle East. These are the blood ties of the survivors of bloodshead since the beginning of time."
I don't doubt they support their families. And as such, they should recognize that if their families live in Hizbollah controlled territory, those families are in great risk of being used by the Hizbollah terrorists by being forced to be suicide bombers (or not forced in some cases), or human shields, a disgusting tactic used by the Hizbollah terrorists.
Hizbollah, for decades, has chosen to bring death to the people around them for their own pathetic purposes (establishing an Iranian style theocracy, enslavement of its own people, Islamofascism), even their own people. If Conyers is so concerned about the families of his constituents being in harm's way in Hizbollah controlled Lebanon, then Conyers should complain to the Lebanese government or work on how to get those families out of there, not blaming President Bush to make political points.
By
Steve, at 11:12 AM, July 23, 2006
Steve - from your post 2 above here:
"You people never talk about them. I don't believe you even support them. In a comment some time ago, I asked OD1 if he would support the US backing a revolution in Iran and I believe he disagreed with it if it became violent. . . ."
We discussed backing a revolution in Iran, and my point was that the United States has a poor record of supporting revolutions where we encouraged them to occur. I used the example of the Shiites in Iraq after Gulf War I, and maybe, I cannot remember for sure, Hungary in 1956. You agreed that our nation has had a dismal record of supporting revolutionany movements that we supported in the getting started phase.
I don't recall getting cold feet if it became violent, my point was that such a revolutionary movement would have scant evidence that the United States would come through with necessary help, and would leave them hanging out to dry.
Bloodless revolutions are few and far between.
By
Ohiodem1, at 2:57 PM, July 23, 2006
OD1
I do recall you saying it that way. It's been awhile.
But, there does need to be a revolution in Iran. I've read that one Iranian revolutionary is discouraging US involvement (I don't have a link) so that his movement does not appear to be beholden to the US. It's a tough call.
By
Steve, at 3:58 PM, July 23, 2006
Steve,
For my recreational reading lately, I have been reading Winston Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples.
I tried reading it from chapter one, which starts about 1100 AD or the like. I found that the people and incidents were so remote, and so far outside of my general field of knowledge, that I felt I would have a better chance for better understanding if I read volume four first, since it starts during the reign of George III and ends with WWII. The people and events, while some are still obscure or unknown to me, is set inside a reasonable frame of reference, that makes understanding the whole easier for me. Placing the events in hte context of my own understanding is making this a much more enjoyable read, and my understanding is much greater.
Anyway, I am reading of the period of George IV, which covers approximately the first 30 to 40 years of the 19th Century. What I find interesting is that in the 1820's England was engaging in diplomatic intrigues in the Middle East, then, supporting one side or another against the Turks, doing this or that in Egypt, and so on.
Since about 1000, or the start of the Crusades, Europeans have been at loggerheads with the Islamic world. We are in agreement that time nor history stops when one leader is replaced by another. This happens in all countries and all times.
Same goes for when Clinton replaced Bush 41 and Bush 43 replaced Clinton.
Point is that leaders come and go, and that in stable democracies, there is a continuity of policies that spans admininistrations and even 40 to 60 year time frames. The Truman policy of containment of the Soviet Union was continued until the total collapse of the Soviet Union during Bush 41. The Khrushchev/Eisenhower policies of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) as nuclear deterrent policy was carried on until the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Both nations continue to be wary of the other.
To say that Bush 43 was hogtied by the policies of Clinton is facile, just as it would be facile for Clinton to say that he was hogtied by Bush 41's policies. When you take the job as President, assume full responsibility for what goen on during your own watch, and the further you get into your administration, the more time you have had to make all policies that you hold your own. No president has to accept the status quo that was handed to him and keep that status quo if the policies inherent with that status quo are in his view, wrong, or do not fit the situation that exists today. The president, with the help of Congress is free to change the direction if he so chooses.
No president has ever goen through a term without having made mistakes. No president has done all bad either. They all make mistakes. Some make more than others. I had a big beef with the Clinton administration, and by extension Clinton himself, when they closed an Air Force aircraft manufacturing plant in Columbus. It started as a Curtis-Wright plant during WWII, then went into civilian manufacturing, then back to military aircraft production with a series of companies, (North American Aviation, Rockwell Aviation, McDonnell-Douglas). About 1995, the plant was slated for a complete shutdown of aircraft production operations. The McDonnell-Douglas operation was making about 29,000 different aircraft components at the time of the shutdown.
This plant had been retrofitted several years earlier for the manufacture of the B1-B fuselages, and wings for large transport aricraft like the C-17. This production required the use of 4 massive multi-axis milling machines made by Cincinnati Milicron Company. When installed, each machine cost about $2 M, and this was a defense industry critical capability.
When the decision to close this plant was made, a group of local employees obtained financing, put a solid management team in place and was prepared to purchase the assets of the plant to save American jobs, to continue the production of aircraft parts, and to preserve the capability in America.
The Clinton administration gave the Chinese government first shot at the assets of the plant, the local group were not permitted to make their offer, and effectively the Chinese were permitted to cherry pick the assets, and the remainder were sold at auction.
The Chinese bought all four milling machines, giant presses, and much other stuff. They agreed not to put the machinery into military production, which anyone who knew anything would be violated. Almost immediately after being installed in China, the milling machines were immediately put into service making military aircraft parts that they agreed not to do. Surprise! Surprise!
The point here is that despite what you may think, I do not think Bill Clinton did not make mistakes during his presidency. He did. Bush makes mistakes as well. Sometimes presidents make bad policy but they did it knowing full well what they were doing, and still made the choices anyway.
I think more of Bush 43's policy choices are bad ones, than are good ones. You disagree. I'm ok with that. I just think that is a cop-out to, six years in, to blame Clinton for everything. Had Bush considered N. Korea a priority, then he had the choice to pursue a more agressive N. Korea policy sooner. He did not make this a priority, in effect accepting the status quo with which he was presented when he took office in 2001. Same goes for Iran. He chose not to put Iran on the front burner, when maybe he should have, given that Iraq did not have the WMD's that Bush claimed he did, and, which appears from many sources, he and his administration knew he did not have them.
So. After six years on his watch, I have to believe that blaming Clinton just seems to be a little weak. Blame Bush. It's his watch.
By
Ohiodem1, at 9:21 PM, July 23, 2006
Too cool. I absolutely love English history, and Winston Churchill is one of my favorites from Britain's past (along with his ancestor, John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough). Others who were my favorites include Horatio Nelson, along with Henry II and Elizabeth I. All were such amazing people, personally (and sometimes politically) duplicitous, yet such great world influences. Wait until you get into the battles of Gladstone and Disraeli, and how the politics of the time influenced the American Civil War (some of which you may already know). Enjoy.
You said:
"To say that Bush 43 was hogtied by the policies of Clinton is facile, just as it would be facile for Clinton to say that he was hogtied by Bush 41's policies. When you take the job as President, assume full responsibility for what goen on during your own watch, and the further you get into your administration, the more time you have had to make all policies that you hold your own."
I would have to agree, and that's why I highlighted the ones I did. The Clinton policies regarding North Korea and Saddam's Iraq were holdovers for Bush 43, completely unresolved by President Clinton. It could be argued (and I think correctly) that Saddam was a holdover from Bush 41 to Clinton, since the first President Bush decided to go along with the UN and avoid regime change in 1991, although it would have been prudent (in hindsight) to take Saddam out as part of Operation Desert Storm. He didn't. But, Clinton made the situation worse by allowing Oil-for-Food and not punishing Saddam for kicking out UN weapons inspectors in 1998, something Bush 43 had no intention of continuing after 9/11.
And, speaking of 9/11, I would never blame Clinton for 9/11. You are absolutely correct in saying that Bush has not done what he said and eliminated Osama bin Laden, just like Clinton didn't eliminate Osama bin Laden. Bush's mistake was continuing much of what was the existing bureaucracy left behind by Clinton (and others) in order to concentrate on his domestic policies. But, one can't blame Bush for 9/11 (except for the pathetic conspiracy theorists), just as one can't blame FDR for Pearl Harbor (and he had been President for eight years prior, not just eight months).
I'll tell you what though. Bush's tax cuts have reaped huge rewards that would have been even bigger if 9/11 hadn't happened. More discretionary spending is available to all people becuase of them; Bush 41's and Clinton's 1993 tax increase stifled spending to the point that it took longer for business to recover than necessary. The Bush 43 plan allowed the recovery to occur in less than three years and while a war was being fought. The deficit is being reduced without a tax increase, and without destroying the military and the CIA (the CIA is destroying itself, as seen with the moronic Valerie Plame incident).
You said:
"I think more of Bush 43's policy choices are bad ones, than are good ones. You disagree. I'm ok with that. I just think that is a cop-out to, six years in, to blame Clinton for everything. Had Bush considered N. Korea a priority, then he had the choice to pursue a more agressive N. Korea policy sooner. He did not make this a priority, in effect accepting the status quo with which he was presented when he took office in 2001. Same goes for Iran. He chose not to put Iran on the front burner, when maybe he should have, given that Iraq did not have the WMD's that Bush claimed he did, and, which appears from many sources, he and his administration knew he did not have them."
You're correct; I disagree with you and think more of President Bush's policies are good ones (definitely not all of them). I don't consider my position on blaming Clinton as a cop-out, mostly because big mouth Madeline Albright, who did nothing to correct our policy with North Korea as Secretary of State, continues to blame the Bush administration for our problems with the Kim government. She helped create the problem, and then lies about it. If she doesn't want to take blame, then fine; tell her to shut up. Bush was absolutely correct in treating Kim Jong Il like the vermin he is and moving to get the Chinese government to handle him. Clinton was wrong in thinking he could deal with a parasite like Kim Jong Il.
Bush probably chose not to deal with the Iranian government for what I would think is the same reason; Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is scum and the CIA finally was forced to tell Bush that the Iranian government was pursuing nukes in October, 2003 (I believe the CIA purposely kept this information from President Bush; my own conspiracy theory based on no evidence other than how the CIA handled the Plame affair, and that ex-CIA jerk Larry Johnson is a scumbag). By the way, Iraq under Saddam did have WMDs (500 chemical weapon warheads; old, but still dangerous), and was seeking them in Niger ("Yellowcake" Wilson's testimony to the Senate confirms it, along with British Intelligence). To continue to say otherwise is a lie, along with denying Saddam's support of Al Qaeda (even if only financial), which proves he was neck deep with the Al Qaeda terrorists, supported by evidence by the 9/11 Commission and evidence coming out of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was involved with the terroists who caused the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US, even if he wasn't involved operationally. Remember, Al Capone wasn't involved with the operational aspects of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, but everyone knows he was behind it.
By
Steve, at 11:41 PM, July 23, 2006
Steve,
I'm beginning to wonder if you are really only one person. What do you do for a living? I have received 15 emails today and you sent eight.
I'll get back to you later this week.
By
REB 84, at 12:13 AM, July 24, 2006
REB,
I haven't been able to either blog (on my site) or comment until today; no time. I am one person.
By
Steve, at 1:11 AM, July 24, 2006
I'm about a person and a half but I need to loose weight
By
Cal Trask, at 11:05 PM, July 24, 2006
Conservatism = Radicalism was cross-posted at TeamBio.org. Follow the title link to view additional comments.
By
REB 84, at 10:38 PM, August 30, 2006
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home