Comments on: The WaPo – and the President – Impress Again

By: Muffin the Cat

Muffin the Cat — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 02:56:38 +0000

Not to gloat but as I predicted last night, Kansas is now a concealed carry state. Both the House and the Senate with a bunch of help from Democrats have over rode the Governor’s veto. See post 11. The Star is crying in their beer tonight. Both Missouri and Kansas are now concealed carry.

By: Mookie

Mookie — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:44:10 +0000

On the war in Iraq, perhaps Bush should watch Lawrence of Arabia again. The problems over there are tribal and religious and have been going on for centuries. They should divide the country up into sections, one for each [religious and tribal] faction, where they are located now, then let them create a central leglslative entity where they may argue and compromise or whatever they want to do to their hearts content. You just can’t force a political regime on people who aren’t ready to accept it, who know nothing about it and have never experienced it before. Such a change must come slowly and from within. We have been at it for over 200 years and we still haven’t got it right, so why try to force it on them in a year or two.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:58:42 +0000

Yeah, just figured it out this morning…I might add some formatting flourishes at a later time…

By: peter

peter — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:55:19 +0000

I’m not familiar with Glenn Greenwald — and I’m not sure that I would use the term lawless — however I think there is a clear violation of the FISA law by the NSA. I think the enemy combatant designation is a fig leaf to avoid the Geneva Conventions, which we are a signatory to, so in that sense the administration has broken the law.

Whether detaining foreign prisoners at Gitmo without due process is a violation of US law is not something I know the answer to. I think it is morally repugnant and directly contrary to what our country stands for, but I am not sure whether or not it is illegal.

So “lawless:” I don’t know. These are the facts, choose your adjective.

Also, just noticed the numbering of each post — very nice –

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:48:59 +0000

Well, as is often the case, we’ll have to agree to disagree – you share the Glenn Greenwald view of a lawless president, and I see a man determined to take the fight to the terrorists. One man’s treasure is another man’s junk.

In any event, I intend to blog more on what I see as the winning Republican agenda for 2006 in the days and weeks ahead…but it will, of course, only be my opinion. I can no more speak for the base than I can for the man in the moon – and many of the hardcore Republican activists would find me hopelessly compromised.

Nevertheless, I’ve been doing some thinking (always dangerous, I know), and I hope to get to the posts very soon.

I think that it’s a misapprehension that the base can agree on many of the items you listed – so I’m going to try to keep it big picture and basic…

By: peter

peter — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:35:49 +0000

George Bush has claimed that he can detain foreign nationals and, by labelling them enemy combatants, he can detain them indefinitely without charge. Bush has never recognized any limitation on his right to seize people if in the government’s sole discretion the detainee could be a terrorist. Administration lawyers have fought in court to deny prisoners the right of habeas corpus. Do you dispute that?

I didn’t say “for no reason,” but as we now know, many of those who were captured were innocents who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. So yes, there is a history of plucking people with no valid reason.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:25:10 +0000

So – you think Bush is just plucking anyone, anywhere off the streets for no reason, and sticking them in Gitmo?

You should be taking to the streets if that’s your belief…

By: peter

peter — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:07:52 +0000

As for the first: this is what the administration is doing — do you see the Republicans objecting to it?

As for the second: when Dick Cheney lobbied on the Senate floor to explicitly permit the use of torture and coercion, did you see the Republicans objecting to that?

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:05:17 +0000

…the right to detain anyone, anywhere and stick them in Gitmo without charges against them…and the use of torture and other means of coercion with suspected enemies.

That’s neutral?

By: peter

peter — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:51:45 +0000

Not so — I think I described the Republican positions neutrally (“reducing access to abortions”) and you responded with hyperbole (“a death culture that glorifies abortion as the most sacred human right.”

The fact is that the Republicans do want to reduce access to abortion — just refer to the party platform.

The GOP does want to reduce taxes, and they are pro-business. When business is balanced against consumers, for example, the Republicans will typically tilt towards business and the Democrats towards consumers. Tort reform is one aspect of that (and also something I agree with the Republicans about).

And so forth and so on. I don’t think there is any description of GOP policy I named which does not describe it neutrally.