Words cannot express my appreciation of some of you bloggers and your stand against the Leftists. Your actions go a long way to showing the intolerance which pervades the leftist's bloggers and their agenda which is destroying this great country from within.
Its not surprising to see that the Liberal's feel it is better to lie through ones teeth than to be true to ones beliefs.
We are conservative, we hunt, we fish, and we cling to our religion and our guns. The left would rather go to their protests and be Brainwashed and sing Kumbaya, hold hands, cry about how the country is Imperialistic, feel guilty about having parents who make more money than the wino who doesn’t want to do a decent days work for a decent wage, etc.
I’m going to do just like the asswipes on the left did, and call for the Impeachment of the sitting President, who we all can see now is an idiot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You just might have grounds for that, with the situation going on with the Bank of America - Merill Lynch fiasco.
ReplyDeleteJust remember we conservatives have one thing on our side the left never has...the truth.
Keep up the good fight.
On what grounds would you call for the impeachment of our President?
ReplyDeleteWe've only impeached two presidents ever. Clinton and Adams.
Ah, Conservative Scalawag, if you have the truth on your side, and if you believe that because of the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch situation the President should be impeached...well that occurred under Paulsen which would mean that you are advocating the impeachment of GWB!
ReplyDeleteI am sure that is exactly who you meant to impeach!
The TRUTH sure makes a reactionary brillant!
Another leftie trick. Take sarcasm and turn it into fact. Thanks for helping me with my list of lib tactics.
ReplyDeleteOT, but from one fellow red head to another, you know I had to come check out your blog. I posted about being a red head .
ReplyDeletehttp://jungle-hut.blogspot.com/2008/03/im-endangered-species.html
Bluepitbull, conservatives use the same tactics as the left.
ReplyDeleteA Bluepitbull, why don't you help Scalawag out with his facts won't you?
ReplyDeletePeeks over here......been so busy I have had trouble getting around to everyone blogs..... But I am here for ya Red. gives ya a hug!!
ReplyDeleteLets just talk about impeaching him because he is screwing this country more then a hillbilly in a goats patch... The first 100 days have been a fiasco. He put nothing but liars and cheats in his cabinet. and is making a huge mess out of this economy. He is buddying up to our enemy's that are laughing at him, and daring him to do something. This man is a joke!!! A community organizer, I think he should have been a boy scout leader, instead of the leader of the FREE world, at least it is free for now!!
ReplyDeleteTalk about screwing the country more than a hillbilly (gross image, btw)...where were you when Bush decided the US Bill of Rights didn't apply anymore? The John Yoo Memos. Here are some examples:
ReplyDeleteSeptember 25, 2001 Memorandum for David S. Kris, Associate Deputy Attorney General, "Re: Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Change 'Purpose' Standard for Searches" (signed by John C. Yoo). Claims the US's "right to self defense" authorized warrantless searches under the Fourth Amendment.
October 23, 2001 Memorandum for Alberto Gonzales and William J. Haynes, "Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States" (signed by John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty). Claims the military can ignore the Fourth Amendment, the Takings Clause, and can also override the First Amendment.
December 28, 2001 Memorandum for William J. Haynes, "Re: Possible Habeas Jurisdiction Over Aliens Held in Guantanamo Bay" (signed by John Yoo and Patrick Philbin). Sixth Amendment.June 8, 2002 Memorandum for the Attorney General, "Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention" (signed by Jay S. Bybee). Concludes that the military has the legal authority to detain US citizen Jose Padilla as a prisoner captured during an international armed conflict. Fifth and Sixth Amendment.
June 27, 2002 Memorandum for Daniel J. Bryant, "Re: Applicability of 18 U.S.C. 4001(a) to Military Detention of United States Citizen" (signed by John C. Yoo). Claims that statute flatly saying "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress" does not, and constitutionally could not, interfere with Bush's authority to detain Jose Padilla as Commander in Chief. Repudiated. Fifth and Sixth Amendment.
August 1, 2002 Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, "Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation Under 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A" (signed by Jay S. Bybee) (the Bybee memo). Eighth Amendment.
Just a few freedoms Bush took away. Can you name any Obama has?
As for impeachment: "The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may only be impeached and removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
ReplyDeleteSo, where is the treason, bribery, or other high crime or high misdemeanor? In fact, can you name one crime Obama has committed?
Sorry, we impeached Clinton and Andrew Johnson, not Adams.
ReplyDeleteRed Headed Sister, why are you letting him cut and paste from the internet on your site? I had to stop him after a while.
ReplyDeleteI'm not cutting and pasting anything but the legal text...the comments surrounding are my own.
ReplyDeleteCpdcoppurr said...
ReplyDelete"Lets just talk about impeaching him because he is screwing this country more then a hillbilly in a goats patch."
Good one!
James Wolfer don't you ever do anything but comment on blogs?
Get a Life and Get a Job!
Red: What? Didn't you ridicule someone for saying something similar to you? Or do you only care if they are liberal?
ReplyDeleteI have a blog. You know that. You have commented there a few times. And never once have I ridiculed you for it, even though we disagree.
And I have a job, as well as owning my own business on the side.
Blogging is what I do to relax.
Also, when you come to someone's blog and say something, then turn it into a post on your own (you've done it twice about me, btw) don't ridicule that person for coming to your blog and commenting.
ReplyDeleteNo problem Red. Keep speaking the truth and that will give the libs fits.
ReplyDeleteI must admit that wolfer is amusing and kind of sad all the same time. He reminds me of the attention starved little kid that keeps saying "look at me, look at me".
Why do YOU need support? I'm confused. You're silly.
ReplyDeleteI'm a newcomer to this site.
ReplyDeleteBut any site which bashes the left is a site I like to visit.
Keep up the blogging! Catharsis really is good for the soul.
Lynne said...
ReplyDelete"Why do YOU need support? I'm confused. You're silly"
No surprise here at all, YOU ARE ALWAYS CONFUSED!
No, I'm not ALWAYS confused, just when I try to make sense of you people. Of course, it is difficult to make sense of nonsense.
ReplyDeleteWow...Wolfer and Co in here doing the same thing they always do: try to turn the good guys into the enemy and imply that terroirst have some sort of 'rights' that have been violated.
ReplyDeleteMemorandum: If you have a problem with pouring water up the nose of some Islmofacist weenie in order to extract information that could (and definately HAS) saved INNOCENT American lives, then there is clearly something wrong with your moral compass.
PJs: After WWII we put Japanese Americans in internment camps because we couldn't tell if they were spies or not. We did it to "save American lives." Didn't make it right.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it has definately NOT saved American lives. Give an example.
I believe our founding fathers would disagree about moral compasses here. Wasn't it Ben Franklin that said "giving up freedom for safety" makes you worthy of neither?
James Wolfer said: "Also, it has definately NOT saved American lives."
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, James...
Are you out of your fucking mind?
If you want an example, how about the plan to bomb the US Bank Tower, formerly the Library Tower, which is the tallest building on the West Coast-the prevention of which has been directly tied to waterboarding. There you have it: so-called "controversial" methods saving INNOCENT lives. And that's just the tip of the iceberg- if your Obamessiah will quit redacting memos and let both sides of the story out, I think you'll find numerous more examples on the way. The Obama folks are already upset that this is out because it directly contradicts their lies to the American people.
If you would like to read the memo and educate yourself so that you're not publicly embarrassed like this as often, it's here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/OLCmemo_May30_Part1.pdf?sid=ST2009041602877
And since it's now an established fact that lives WERE saved as a result of these methods (sorry to shock you like that, I'm sure it sucks), please tell us all how many American lives you're willing to sacrifice just in order to be able to feel all warm and fuzzy when you say "Oooohh, we don't waterboard."? 100? 1,000? Say it!
Actually, never mind. This is a debate for grown ups. You come of like a naive sandalista behind on his student loans. Stop bothering the good people here; you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.
PS- The interred Japanese were American citizens. Sorry; apples and oranges.
In the weeks after September the 11th, while Americans were still recovering from an unprecedented strike on our homeland, al Qaeda was already busy planning its next attack. We now know that in October 2001, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad -- the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks -- had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door, and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We believe the intended target was Liberty [sic] Tower in Los Angeles, California.
ReplyDeleteRather than use Arab hijackers as he had on September the 11th, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad sought out young men from Southeast Asia -- whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion. To help carry out this plan, he tapped a terrorist named Hambali [Riduan Isamuddin], one of the leaders of an al Qaeda affiliated group in Southeast Asia called "J-I" [Jemaah Islamiyah]. JI terrorists were responsible for a series of deadly attacks in Southeast Asia, and members of the group had trained with al Qaeda. Hambali recruited several key operatives who had been training in Afghanistan. Once the operatives were recruited, they met with Osama bin Laden, and then began preparations for the West Coast attack.
Their plot was derailed in early 2002 when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative. Subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations made clear the intended target, and how al Qaeda hoped to execute it. This critical intelligence helped other allies capture the ringleaders and other known operatives who had been recruited for this plot. The West Coast plot had been thwarted.
Which aspects of this plot could Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's waterboarding have revealed?
We learned about Al Qaeda's interest in flying planes into buildings on September 11, 2001.
We knew about Al Qaeda's use of shoe bombs from Richard Reid, captured in December 22, 2001.
We knew about Jemaah Islamiyah at least since the Bali Bomb attack on October 12, 2002.
The "key al Qaeda operative" and pilot for the plot, Zaini Zakari, was arrested by Malaysian authorities in December 2002.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003 — after the plot was discovered, after the plot was "derailed", after the pilot of the plane was captured. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed could not have "provided valuable information and saved lives" when all aspects of the plot were well-known and the attack had been foiled prior to his capture.Source:
http://waterboarding.org/success_story
PS: Only 62% were American citizens.
ReplyDeleteThere were also Italian-Americans & German Americans, as well as Latin Americans put in those internment camps.
Its not apples & oranges: it was the same debate. "How many immigrants are we willing to put away to save other american lives." Its the same thing: what human rights are we willing to squander to save American lives.
Btw, I'm not a "sandalista." I'm educated, yes, but a graduate with a degree in spanish and business administration as well as a small business owner. I haven't insulted anyone here for having differing opinions, I've merely contributed an opposing viewpoint to the debate, PJs.
As has been said before, here's Ben Franklin's take on the "how many American lives" argument:
"Anyone who would give up a little essential liberty for temporary safety deserves neither."
Also restated later as "Any nation that would trade liberty for safety deserves neither."
And another thing, PJ, you seem to be the one with a short memory on history. On your blog you ream President Obama for shaking hands with Castro, like its some sort of cardinal sin for a US President to actually touch a foreign diplomat that we have friction with.
ReplyDeleteGerald Ford laughed with Brezhnev, a soviet dictator.
Nixon shook hands with Mao Zedong, bloody dictator of China.
Reagan laughed and shook hands with Gorbachev.
George Bush kissed Abdullah on the mouth.
And Donald Rumsfeld (not a president, I know) shook hands with Saddam Hussein.
Okay Musey, that’s quite a mouthful of BS. I don’t have time to clean it all up, but I will offer a little mouthwash:
ReplyDelete1. It’s is beyond illogical to assume that Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s plan for the Library Tower simply died with the arrest of four plotters in 2002; Al Qaeda clearly had the capacity for another attempt…and that’s exactly what has happened here, and why the whole “problem with the timeline” liberal attack on the CIA memos is being completely destroyed:
"Federal counter-terrorism officials on Friday disclosed for the first time that during his interrogations, Mohammed said he hadn't completely abandoned the prospect of a second wave of attacks, but had turned the idea over to a trusted aide named Hambali, the chief of operations for an Al Qaeda affiliate group in South Asia, Jemaah Islamiyah.
"Hambali, also known as Riduan Isamuddin, in turn is believed to have chosen several men to launch the attacks, including a pilot, and had set aside some money to pay for them, according to one senior counter-terrorism official.
"Those men were soon captured, however, and the plot never progressed past the planning stages, according to several counter-terrorism officials.
"To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous," said one senior FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with departmental guidelines.
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/22/more-on-the-los-angeles-plot
So I’ll repeat: the use of enhanced interrogation techniques of on al Qaeda figures Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah INCLUDING THE USE OF WATERBOARDING caused them to reveal actionable intelligence that allowed the government to stop a planned attack on Los Angeles.
2. I make no mention on my blog of the Obamessiah shaking hands with Fidel Castro, dictator of Cuba. To my knowledge he’s never done so. If you can show me otherwise, I’d love to see it. As for the other presidents you note, Ford, Nixon, and Reagan were engaged in diplomatic negotiations at the highest level with other nuclear-armed world powers (in the Soviet’s case a superpower). Saudi Arabia’s help has been key to accomplishing a number of our goals in the middle east. All of these governments are reprehensible to one degree or another, but the ability to negotiate with all has been key to US strategic interests- they may be nasty people, but they’ve also been able to offer things we’ve wanted, so it has been necessary to deal with them. Guys like Castro and Chavez (who I assume you were referring to), on the other hand, are tin-pot clowns who suppress only their own people because they don’t have the power to suppress anyone else. They gain credibility only when we pay attention to them.
3. Again, this debate has nothing to do with World War II. American citizens are not being rounded up and put into interment camps. Have ever, some pieces of terrorist trash have been cleaned up.
4.Ben Franklin? Really, Musey…that’s quite the reach, don’t you think? Surely you aren’t suggesting that my liberties, or yours, are threatened by taking a piece-of-shit terrorist and subjecting him to some rowdy fraternity hazing? Do you honestly think Ben Franklin would give a rat’s ass about the discomfort of a bunch of Islamic mass murderers? Remember, Franklin belonged to a group of men who started a very bloody war because they didn’t like paying taxes to some poofy European monarch. Not likely they'd have a problem pouring water up a murderer's nose.
I know that I might seem overly harsh to you, but I am really quite sick of people who are preoccupied with things like settling political scores with the previous administration while we are at war (oops, your Obamessiah told me not to say that anymore) with terrorists (damn! not supposed to use that one anymore either). Just because the current administration is engaging is revisionist history and some Orwellian vocabulary scrubbing doesn’t change the facts. Militant Islam is the bad guy, not the Bush administration. Every bit of energy we waste on debating this obvious and irrefutable fact takes away from the effort we as a nation should be channeling toward destroying that strain of Islam.
Here's a little "mouthwash" for yours:
ReplyDelete1. From your article, PJ:
But there's no reason why conservatives, as a matter of ideology, should be committed to defending the interrogation techniques used during the Bush administration. All that should matter is whether or not they made us safer relative to the damage those practices did to our image around the world, as well as to undermine American resolve in the War on Terror. And we simply do not have enough information at this point to honestly assess this question.Simply saying, when presented with evidence that the plot was foiled before he was even captured, that "oh, another one was on the way" without anything backing it up is foolish.
2. Sorry about the mistake. Yes, it was Chavez. Even still, he is a world leader, dictator or not, which isn't anything new that a US President would shake hands with one. Saddam Hussein was once our ally. Saudi Arabia? All they have is oil that keeps them in our good graces. They also have one of the most oppresive governments on earth. And Bush kissed Abdullah on the mouth. And danced with him. And Obama may have curtsied. It doesn't matter. US Presidents have a long history of being polite to those that we disagree with, and then turning around and being their enemies still.
3. There are still parallels to WWII. The reasons behind them remain the same. Back then, they thought Japanese Immigrants could be spies. So they took away their constitutionally given rights. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights gives habeas corpus, right to a trial, and the rest not just to American Citizens but anyone arrested by us. Its the same thing. We let our President circumvent the US Constitution both times we've been attacked domestically. Pearl Harbor it was internment camps for immigrants and their children. 9/11 it's torture and denial of due process for anyone suspected of terrorism.
4. By letting GWBush and his cronies do these things, we have given up our liberty. Have you read the rest of the memos, PJ? The same ones that give "authorization" for waterboarding, circumventing the Congressional Ban on torture, gave authorization for these methods on anyone suspected of terrorism, including US Citizens. The Bush administration basically said that because of the war on terror, and because anyone could be a terrorist, then anyone, including US citizens, could be classified as "enemy combatants" and denied due process and be subject to "enhanced interrogation," including waterboarding. So yeah, we've given up some liberty for the sake of safety.
“But there's no reason why conservatives, as a matter of ideology, should be committed to defending the interrogation techniques used during the Bush administration.” I’m not committed to defending them as a matter of ideology, I’m committed to defending them because they are practical, they are NOT torture, and (again) they work (and they also fly in the face of the left’s beliefs, which makes them wonderfully American, but that’s another story). There’s an easy way to settle this: Since national security is admittedly a secondary consideration of the Obamessiah's administration, let's just do what Cheney has been pushing for: stop the cherry picking and get ALL the info out. The democrats are essentially trying to have it both ways; they’re citing the supremacy of freedom of information over national security….then heavily editing what they release. The Obamatrons need to quit hiding show their hand. And just for the record, we didn’t say we ‘thought” there might be a second tower plot. The subject told us that.
ReplyDeleteMy bigger problem, though, is the Obamatrons trying to retro their interpretation of the law to the Bush years. If they want to discontinue the policy, well, that’s within their right, even if it’s a stupid move (this is after all an administration composed largely of stupid people). But if they actually are serious about going after the Bush people for that, it would cross a line we will never be able to un-cross. Do you really think democrats are going to stay in power forever? Should they actually move ahead with such treachery, the vengeance of the right, whenever it may come, would be a terrible thing to behold.
Saudi Arabia, while despicable, is important to our foreign policy for a number of geopolitical reasons. Venezuela is not. By smiling like a dumbstruck puppy while posing with Chavez, he gave that crackpot more credibility than 1,000 of his staged rallies (and better press than he ever could have gotten if…well, he shut down all the opposition papers in his country, so never mind). AS for the “Bush kissed him on the mouth” fairy tale the left seems to be fixated on, it’s pretty clear from the existing CNN footage that Bush kissed him on the cheeks and held hands in what would be considered an appropriate greeting of peers in that culture. Photoshop is a fun tool, is it not? What Bush didn’t do was bow before him like a groveling dog like the Obamessiah, who would up looking like Abdullah’s fourth wife.
I really don’t have time to get into the rest of this again today, but you really sound silly when you start talking about the constitution and habeas corpus. A terrorist captured by the military or our security apparatus (CIA, etc) is not a citizen under arrest. If you’re not an Islamofacist pig, you have nothing to worry about.
Pj,
ReplyDeleteI'll agree with you on the first part. I don't think we should prosecute anyone, because that would be crossing a line and opening up precedent for partisan prosecution. But on Cheney: He says there are "other reports" and has put Obama in an impossible situation. If there aren't other reports, then it looks like Obama is hiding them and Cheney can go on lying about these "reports" forever...
Venezuela is important to us, too. We actually get some of our oil from them. From wikipedia: "Venezuela contains some of the largest oil and natural gas reserves in the world."As for Constitutionality, you are extremely ignorant. but you really sound silly when you start talking about the constitution and habeas corpus. Hmm, isn't that what our country was founded on? Remember this? We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Nowhere in the US Constitution or its Amendments does it say these things are only for US Citizens.
Have you read the memos? Remember Jose Padilla, the US Citizen locked up without due process for awhile until the Supreme Court got wind of it? Also, look up the case of Ali al-Marri, a legal resident arrested on the US Mainland and held as an enemy combatant without any due process or formal charge since December, 2001.
These memos gave the authority to the president to determine anyone, US Citizen or not, as an enemy combatant and waterboard them and deny them due process, including you or me. That is illegal and against what our country stands for.
Also, see Watergate for precedence of this kind of thing. We went after Nixon back then for doing many of the same things...and state "secrets" being declassified didn't weaken us then.
ReplyDeleteWell, Obama settled this tonight:
ReplyDelete"I am absolutely convinced that it was the right thing to do -- not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways -- in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are."
Sorry, but there you have it. If lives hadn't been saved, if plots hadn't been foiled, there was his chance to say so. But he didn't, and the reason that he didn't was that he knows that would be a provable lie. He may feel (wrongly) that these techniques are torture, but he can't say they haven't worked.
Padilla and al-Marri cases are by far in the minority- I don't think most people care that they're off the streets. They can claim American "citizenship" but we know who they really were.
AS for Watergate, executive privilege (which is what Nixon claimed for his tapes) is a fairly broad claim most presidents use at one point or another to try to protect various pieces of information. "We" didn't go after Nixon- he resigned (and was never impeached as many wrongly believe) when he knew the jig was up. Those who were prosecuted for their roles in Watergate broke existing laws and knew they were doing so. Nixon was not getting legal advice telling him what they were up to was okay. Watergate really has little to do with this, much like your strained WWII analogy.
James' Muse said...
ReplyDelete"And another thing, PJ, you seem to be the one with a short memory on history. On your blog you ream President Obama for shaking hands with Castro, like its some sort of cardinal sin for a US President to actually touch a foreign diplomat that we have friction with.
Gerald Ford laughed with Brezhnev, a soviet dictator.
Nixon shook hands with Mao Zedong, bloody dictator of China.
Reagan laughed and shook hands with Gorbachev.
George Bush kissed Abdullah on the mouth."
Why do all you ass-hat or Ass-holes thing that because Nixon or Bush did something wrong that makes it FINE-AND Dandy for Obaba to act like a schmuck?
IT'S WRONG FOR AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT TO BOW BEFORE A KING..PERIOD!
No matter what or who did anything in the past.
Even like kissing Arafats wife on the face.. Did you know you can get Swine Flu from doing that!