"Authorities are holding out hope that [Abdulmutallab] will change his mind and cooperate with the probe, the officials said."
The damnfool President and his lackey Holder decided to prosecute this non-State combatant/terrorist as a common criminal, which led to 'lawyering up,' which led to.........
The HopenChange embraces Nigerian/Yemeni AlQuaeda members! Hey, Jude!
Richard Reid, aka The Shoebomber, failed also, but still got a life sentence.
The Reid and Abdulmutallab cases offer nearly identical circumstances -- same chemical, same target, same intended consequence, same month of the year, same twisted ideology. Reid was charged, convicted, sentenced, and locked up for life. Neither conservatives nor liberals whined about it. But if the Obama administration subjects Abdulmutallab to an identical process, Republicans are outraged? Either they're idiots or they think we are.
But let's take this one step further. In December 2001, Reid tried to blow up an airplane en route to the United States, intending to murder the Americans on board. In December 2009, Abdulmutallab tried to blow up an airplane en route to the United States, intending to murder the Americans on board. To hear several prominent far-right Republicans tell it, Abdulmutallab's attempt must be President Obama's fault -- as they see it, the suspected terrorist wouldn't have tried to commit mass murder were it not for the administration's policies. Failed attempt or not, the effort itself, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said, is evidence of the White House's "approach" being wrong.
For any grown-up, that's obviously insane. But taken at face value, doesn't that necessarily mean that Bush/Cheney policies were equally responsible for Reid's nearly identical terrorist plot? If Abdulmutallab's attempt is evidence of Obama's national security strategy being misguided, wouldn't Reid's attempt also be evidence of the Bush/Cheney strategy being equally misguided?
What's more, is there any evidence -- any at all -- that congressional Democrats attacked Bush/Cheney for Reid's failed attempt? I suspect there isn't, which is why it seems like the two parties simply aren't playing the same game.
You don't find me defending GWB's asinine cave-in on the profiling question.
He was wrong about profiling, just as he was wrong about prosecuting Reid, given what we know about his case.
So why does the GOP complain now when they didn't before? Isn't it just politics by a bunch of hypocrites?
January 30, 2003. The day U.S. District Judge William G. Young sentenced to life in prison Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber" who failed to blow up an airplane when he couldn't light his shoe on fire. Judge Young's comments to Reid, after Reid pledged his fealty to Osama Bin Laden in court, still stand as some of the most eloquent in explaining how many Americans feel about al Qaeda and both its leaders and followers. Judge Young told Reid:
"You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice. So war talk is way out of line in this court. You're a big fellow. But you're not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders. "
Of course it's politics.
Which is one reason that I am a Tea Party guy. Screw ALL of 'em.
Is the Tea Party a Registered Party?
What's their platform?
Who's the leader of the Tea Party?
Do they have candidates?
Who implied anything about Tea Party members having a party affiliation? Members can be registered Republicans or Democrats, Independents, and conservatives or liberals.
Let me guess.............Not you?
Ok, I got it. The Tea Party isn't really a "Party" in terms of a political party. It's more of a bi-partisan, all inclusive, non-ridged, open minded following, with no leader or party affiliation, that encompasses all beliefs from all sides of the American public.
Sounds nice. If it were a Party I might want to join.
You're not invited.
Was I wrong with my assumptions?
Let's get back on the point here, anony.
The One has made a couple of crucial mistakes:
1. Not calling a spade a spade. Is this asshole panty bomber an "extremist" or a "terrorist"? The One would have you believe he is the former.
2. Closing Gitmo. - Let's send a message to the world that Americans are a bunch of pussies. You can stay in our comfortablt prisons stateside with all of our due processes and rights, even though you aren't a citizen and are a terrorist.
3. Khalid's upcoming circus trial in NYC. Again, non citizen terrorists getting the American citizen treatment of due process, rights and attorneys.
Shall I go on?
Oh, and in regards to your tea party affiliation/comments. I am not registered with any party. I have not attended a tea party event. I tend to vote for the lesser of two evils. If I had my choice, I'd throw all of those money grubbing assholes out of DC and start over. Better yet, how about instituting term limits? If your little brain can comprehend a movement, maybe you can comprehend the tea party movement. The sick and tired are getting sick and tired of being sick and tired. Take your "wealth sharing" hands off of my cash and stop dictating to me how to live my life(including, but not limited too, health care, the car I drive and how much energy I use).
Get it? Or are you too obtuse to figure it out?
"Oh, and in regards to your tea party affiliation/comments. I am not registered with any party. I have not attended a tea party event."
Alright, and your point is?
Hey PJ, are car sales slow today at Hall?
My point is, anony, that it isn't a party, rather a mindset and a movement than a political party.
This mindset has been around for ever and has surfaced under different movements.
Richard Hofstadter wrote about this
in 1964, and published in Harper's Magazine titled, The Paranoid Style in American Politics.
"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wind. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics., In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant."
Well, I suppose that using the term 'paranoid' is adequate, given Hof's defining of the term. I also note that he does not restrict it to 'right-wing' folk.
But he's avoiding the real issue.
Clearly, there are two distinct political philosophies at play. Deneen took a stab at them (follow the internal link from here: http://dad29.blogspot.com/2009/12/worth-pondering.html ).
Upshot: the country has over-consumed its capacity (more or less, see his original article.)
Clearly, the Left is in 'paranoid' mode, as they are convinced that (inter alia) the Big Oil People owned Bush and Cheney, and so did Wall Street.
The Tea Party people are not all that convinced about Big Oil, but are certain that Wall Street is a player, as are the "internationalists" which were favored by Bush One.
Behind all that is the REAL issue: what is the appropriate use of the State's powers to tax and spend? How much is TOO much State--or too little State? Is all the money actually mine, or should it be spent on you? How much?
The Tea Party people are not unified on a solution, but they ARE unified that there is a 'problem.' In contrast, the Left is comfortable with Statism. That comfort has a history going back to TR and including Wilson, FDR, Carter, Bush I and II and Obama, albeit Lincoln's war was a manifestation of same. (I happen to agree that slavery had to be eradicated--I do not KNOW that it required the Civil War to do so.)
I agree that Statism is a problem; to me, the solution is subsidiarity, addressed by the 10th Amendment, more or less.
No, not that simple. Though I wish it were.
It's hard to say what the founding fathers would have written into the bill of rights today versus 1789. World issues are completely different. Issues within our country are different. Health care practices and technology in 1789 were so completely different than they are today.
Our founding fathers wrote the first 10 amendments to appease all states. Yes there was partisanship back then. George Washington complained greatly about it. But in order to have the constitution ratified concessions were made thus the 10 bill of rights written. They did not believe that they were creating these liberties in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they were merely acknowledging some of the rights that no government could properly deny.
But those were just the rights that couldn't be denied, and not the only rights the society were limited to. That's why the 9th Amendment was written.
The Ninth Amendment is key to understanding how the Founding Fathers thought about the liberties they expected Americans to enjoy under the Constitution.
The purpose of the Ninth, and the Founders' intent, was to protect what constitutional lawyers call unenumerated rights, which were those rights the Founder assumed and felt no need to specify in the Bill of Rights.
World issues are completely different. Issues within our country are different. Health care practices and technology in 1789 were so completely different than they are today.
Irrelevant and immaterial.
What has NOT changed, and never will, are: 1) Natural Law and 2) the Human Condition, both of which are implicitly acknowledged in the Const/BOR.
The Founders could care less about healthcare or the number of countries in Africa, and rightly so. It is still irrelevant to the philosophy of governing, albeit the application of such philosophy has changed with different conditions.
IOW, the framework would be identical no matter the time-period. It addressed (or acknowledged) permanent things, which is what a Constitution should do.
What evidence do you have that the founders would have cared less about health care?
About the same as that which you could bring to prove that the Founders wanted "healthcare" addressed IN the Constitution--or the BOR.
The evidence that they were NOT concerned is simple: it ain't in the document.
Post a Comment