Shorter President Bush

Of course I support the inclusion of the McCain amendment to outlaw torture in the Defense Bill. I’ll just fucking ignore it.”

More here.

133 replies
  1. 1
    ppGaz says:

    I’ll resist the tempation to say “But I won’t vote Democratic until they put up Jesus Christ or some other perfect candidate.”

    No, actually, I won’t resist it.

    Here it is.

  2. 2
    demimondian says:

    OK, John, you want a reason to vote Dem? Fine — if the centrists of the party ever tried to pull a stunt like this, the left wing would bolt. The big difference between the Democratic left and the Republican Right is that the Democrats think they represent a set of secular American ideals, however inperfectly, while the Republicans think that America represents a set of religious ideals, however imperfectly.

    That means the Left is tied to reality in ways the Right is currently not.

  3. 3
    Krista says:

    John, you have to promise to always summarize politicians’ bullshit in this manner. It makes life so much easier than having to wade through all of the rhetoric.

  4. 4
    srv says:

    Why of course. Congress spent all that time fine-tuning the Patriot Act/FISA sections after the AUMF, because they were just a bunch of busybodies who innately understood Unitary Executive Theory and Article II meant nothing they did applied…

    Why is this so fucking hard for everyone to understand?

    I’m wondering, has anybody checked if the authorization to overthrow Saddam (1998?) was before Monica or after? I mean, if there was an authorization, couldn’t Billy just invoke Article II over perjury?

  5. 5
    Pooh says:

    He’s too chickenshit to even veto the damn thing.

    This, I might add is a completely predictable result of regime which values loyalty uber alles (sp?). A competent, non-toadying OLC/DOJ/What have you would cry instant bullshit. Instead, where telling the boss what he wants to here is what gets you promoted, you get a quasi-Darwinian process by which the more outlandish the position, the higher the rewards.

    You can see this effect in just about every policy that comes to light: A plan for post war reconstruction in Iraq? Nah, we’ll be out in 90 days. Sensible economic policies in light of a looming R-word? Nah, tax cuts will increase revenues anyway, so why try to reign in spending? (I’m not sure there’s a more aptly named relic of academia than the Laffer Curve).

    It’s not like there aren’t good historical examples of what happens when you try and make reality fit you ideology instead of vice versa – THAT’S WHY WE WON THE COLD WAR – The soviet economy collapsed under its own, apparitchik-bloated weight.

  6. 6
    Pat R. says:

    Our inimitable host has been reduced to ripping off posts by Andrew Sullivan, who logged this very item and Link at roughly 12:50 PM Eastern Time. And by the way, this is NOT something newly invented and practiced by Bush. Clinton made similar type remarks when signing the initial major part of the Welfare Reform legislation in the 1990s.

  7. 7
    jg says:

    6 posts to get to ‘Clinton did it too’.

  8. 8
    demimondian says:

    Pooh — you left out a hëävy mëtäl umlaut: it’s “über alles”

  9. 9
    Eural says:

    Clinton made similar type remarks when signing the initial major part of the Welfare Reform legislation in the 1990s.

    You know it says something about the Bush defenders that the minute I hear a “Clinton did it defense” my first thought is “hey, I bet they’re actually wrong once someone looks it up.”

    But, as Colbert likes to say, “I’m not a big fan of facts.”

  10. 10
    my cat says:

    John, you are my favorite Republican. Except for my dad’s best friend who isn’t a Republican anymore since he married a Democrat.

  11. 11
    SomeCallMeTim says:

    Welcome to the South, kids, where all you need to know and believe is what Big Daddy says you need to know and believe.

  12. 12
    Pb says:

    Eural,

    In this case, I don’t even care if they’re subsequently found to be right–it’s a cowardly and pathetic dodge to even attempt to equate Clinton and *welfare reform*–of all things–to Bush and torture.

    I mean, unless it turns out that Clinton was also torturing those welfare recipients, which surely will be the next lietop story on NewsMax et al…

  13. 13
    Toren says:

    Excellent. Thank you, President Bush.
    Now, if you’d only vetoed the Campaign Finance Reform fiasco…

  14. 14
    capelza says:

    I do wonder if Bush will ever veto anything before he leaves office, just to say he did. That isn’t Bush hate, just bemusement.

  15. 15
    Slide says:

    How many true and honorable conservatives can continue to support this president? How many true and honorable Americans can continue to support this president? The next few months should be telling.

    Give me liberty or give me death.
    God bless America.

  16. 16
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    The general rule of thumb for me is to take whatever so-called president Bush says, and then assume the opposite is true.

    Bush says Brownie is doing a heckuva job: Brownie has his head up his ass.

    Bush says we don’t torture: We torture.

    Bush says he only wiretapped a few people domestically, all of whom have dated Osama bin Laden in the past: He wiretapped millions of American citizens, almost all of whom had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

    Bush claims he received faulty intelligence that caused him to start a war over WMD that didn’t exist: He made all that shit up because it suited his purposes at the time.

    Bush says he will fire anyone suspected of leaking the name of a covert CIA agent: He is bending over backwards to hide all the evidence and get the culprits off scot-free.

    Bush says he wants to save Social Security: He wants to gut it and throw all the old bastards out into the streets.

    Perhaps you disagree.

  17. 17
    Slide says:

    In 1933 the German parliament went up in flames. Terrorism. Germany had to fight this enemy. A war on terrorism was called for.

    Nineteen days later, The Reichstag passed the Law for Terminating the Suffering of People and Nation, also known as the Enabling Law, essentially granting Adolph Hitler dictatorial power. A Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State immediately abolished the following German constitutional protections: Free _expression of opinion, Freedom of the press, Right of assembly and association, Right to privacy of postal and electronic communications, Protection against unlawful searches and seizures, Individual property rights, and States’ right of self-government. The rest, as you know, is history.

    Food for thought. And no, I am not calling Bush, Adolf Hitler. But I am sure there were many in Germany, like there are now in American that were more than willing to give up a little liberty in exchange for security. We are at war you know.

    Repeat. Not calling Bush Hitler.
    Repeat. Not calling Bush Hitler.
    Repeat. Not calling Bush Hitler.

    for those that will find the irritable urge to make that the issue and now that our Leader is doing in the name of security.

  18. 18
    Pb says:

    Slide,

    On September 24, 1862, an American President made a huge power grab in the name of suppressing insurrection and keeping order. He claimed that he had the right to hold Americans indefinitely and try them under military law. And no, I am not calling Bush, Abraham Lincoln… :)

  19. 19
    Doug says:

    As time passes, 9/11 is looking more like our generation’s Reichstag Fire and less like its Pearl Harbor.

    George W. Bush: 9/11/24/7.

  20. 20
    Eural says:

    My brain has now been officially blown (and not in that good way either):

    George Bush is Adolf Lincoln. God save us all.

  21. 21
    capelza says:

    Off topic, sorry..but what is a “crunchy conservative”?

    Adolf Lincoln? Seriously, any effort to conflate George Bush with either of those guys is ridiculous.

  22. 22
    srv says:

    Pb,

    Slide,

    On September 24, 1862, an American President made a huge power grab in the name of suppressing insurrection and keeping order. He claimed that he had the right to hold Americans indefinitely and try them under military law. And no, I am not calling Bush, Abraham Lincoln…

    Uh, the difference was there was an ‘insurrection’ and Abe did suspend habeas corpus. You know, he followed the law. So yeah, you are exactly right about Bush not being Abe.

  23. 23
    CaseyL says:

    Pb:

    If I remember correctly, Lincoln didn’t announce a war on a tactic or an emotion.

    If I remember correctly, Lincoln referenced an actual, defined enemy, against whom we’d be fighting an actual, defined war, towards a defined victory.

    Let me know who our actual, defined enemy is; let me know where the war theater(s) will be; and let me know what victory we’re fighting for.

    Until then, your comparison of Bush to Lincolni isn’t just risible, but libelous.

  24. 24
    Slide says:

    PB, as others have pointed out the Constitution specifically gave Lincoln justification for what he did:

    “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

    Bush’s claims to Constitutional justification for defying laws enacted by Congress are somewhat “less” specific.

  25. 25
    CaseyL says:

    Hey, is that “Bush = Lincoln” nonsense a new GOP meme?

    Because that’d be another similarity with Nixon, who tried the same bullshit tactic. Didn’t fly then, either.

  26. 26
    ppGaz says:

    Books I always meant to read:

    Lincoln: The Man, and the Car.

    (old Dick Cavett joke).

  27. 27
    T Mag says:

    Slide, you lose: Godwin’s rule. You mentioned Hitler first.

  28. 28
    Steve S says:

    We’ve already lost the War on “Torture”.

  29. 29
    Gary Sugar says:

    Jeez, we’re getting all Hitler and Lincoln over this legalist rhetoric? The Bush administration is already torturing detainees all over the world. We knew that and re-elected him. Anyway, I’m pretty sure that’s how he sees it.

  30. 30
    Krista says:

    T Mag – you’re right. Slide, you need to put $5 in the kitty. We’re saving up for John’s presidential campaign.

  31. 31
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Q) What is the difference between George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler?

    A) Adolf Hitler completed his military obligation.

  32. 32
    Tulkinghorn says:

    If I remember correctly, Lincoln referenced an actual, defined enemy, against whom we’d be fighting an actual, defined war, towards a defined victory.

    And what’s more, along with the constitutional basis Slide cites above, Lincoln’s war was a profound existential threat to the country. This exceeded the threat FDR faced, as even triumphant Axis powers would have been unable to take on all of North America.

    Bush and his supporters keep talking about how it is the president’s job to protect Americans. It is not — the government as a whole has that responsibility. The president’s oath is just (just!) to protect and defend the constitution. He can let half of us die if it means protecting the constitution, and rightly so.

    Bush now stands in contempt of the Constitution, both in deed and declared intent. That is the astonishing thing– he does not even try to hide his villainy. He has declared himself an enemy of the constitution. This means that we all now have an affirmative moral obligation to see to it that he is removed. At least those of us who have sworn similar oaths (lawyers, other public officials) have that obligation, ordinary citizens need to examine their consciences to see if they prefer a man who claims to be a benevolent monarch to their own freedom.

  33. 33
    T Mag says:

    This exceeded the threat FDR faced, as even triumphant Axis powers would have been unable to take on all of North America.

    Agreed, but the threat we now face is perhaps even more dangerous and certainly more insidious.

  34. 34
    RTGthe3RD says:

    “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

    And you don’t think the 9/11 attacks constitute an actual invasion? Need I remind you that there are terrorist sleeper cells all throughout America right now. We are at war people, the invasion has already occured! Just look at the growing muslim population. And don’t give me that bologna that Islam is a religion of peace. There a bunch of throat slitting bastards that would like nothing more than to eat our hearts.

    Thankfully, President Bush is exercising his constitutional DUTY to protect this nation. Just like Lincoln, Bush doesn’t pay attention to poll numbers. He has made some tough choices, but he has made the right choices. The only way to beat these guys is to become like them. We have to show them what crazy really is.

    And What about the ticking time bomb scenario? Look, we need to torture people so more Americans don’t die as a result of the muslims’ extremism.

    At first, I was dissappointed when Bush accepted McCain’s “limp-wrist” amendment, but thankfully Bush didn’t take this shit laying down as the article shows.

    He signed the bill with one hand and punched McCain in the balls with the other. Good show, Mr. President!

    God Bless America.

  35. 35
    Tulkinghorn says:

    This is where you lose me.

    Even the worse case scenario raises (one or two cities nuked, op to 30 million dead) is less of a threat to the constitution than Jefferson Davis was.

  36. 36
    Tulkinghorn says:

    And you don’t think the 9/11 attacks constitute an actual invasion? Need I remind you that there are terrorist sleeper cells all throughout America right now. We are at war people, the invasion has already occured!

    If those cells are there, they are not sleeping. They are comatose.

  37. 37
    T Mag says:

    It could be much, much worse than what you suggest, Tulkinghorn. We are facing an ideology of pure hate. It is unlike anything we have ever seen before.

  38. 38
    Tulkinghorn says:

    Thankfully, President Bush is exercising his constitutional DUTY to protect this nation.

    His duty under oath is to protect the constiution.

    If we can’t save the country under the constituion as it is written then we have to change the constitution. After all, it has been just 4 FUCKING YEARS since 9/11, why has Bush not asked to do so?

    The only possible answer to this is Bush prefers to violate the constitution rather than to follow it.

  39. 39
    Pat R. says:

    It would be helpful if those of you who know nothing whatsoever about constitutional law, and it appears clear that that includes virtually ALL of you, would refrain from idly tossing around claims of illegal acts, lies, and ever now and then, a Hitler reference. The legitimacy of the NSA intercepts will ultimately be resolved by the courts, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that the judiciary will come down differently on this issue than they have on similar cases in the past.

    Ultimately, as the courts have noted, the test is whether the legitimate government interest involved–in this instance, discovering and preventing new terrorist attacks that may endanger tens of thousands of American lives–outweighs the privacy interests of individuals who are communicating with al Qaeda terrorists. And just as those of us who fly on airplanes have accepted intrusive government searches of our luggage and person without the slightest showing of probable cause, those of us who communicate (knowingly or otherwise) with foreign terrorists will have to accept the fact that Uncle Sam may be listening.

    Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant. The Supreme Court may ultimately clarify the competing claims; but until then, the president is right to continue monitoring the communications of our nation’s declared enemies, even when they elect to communicate with people within our country.

  40. 40
    T Mag says:

    Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant.

    Indeed, Clinton did many of the same things that Bush has done with the NSA. I don’t say this as a criticism, merely as an observation. Although, frankly, Filegate involved a violation of privacy on a much larger scale than anything we’ve seen in this administration.

  41. 41
    MC says:

    The Republican defense of Bush’s tactics invoking Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War is one of the most ironic developments of this entire episode.

    Forty years ago, Frank Meyer, then a Senior Editor for the National Review, a trusted fellow-traveler of Buckley himself, the “godfather” of modern conservativism, attacked Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War as a violation of the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

    Meyer wrote in 1965:

    “Such a judgment of Lincoln requires an evaluation of the role he played in our history. That history is the history of the exalted attempt, through the Constitution in its original form, to establish for the first time in human experience political mechanisms to guarantee the liberty of the individual person by limiting the power of government. Essential to this constitutional concept was the establishment of what has usually been called “checks and balances,” but is more accurately designated as the setting up of a state of tension between all the political centers of power so that effective final power rests in none of them. Confounding almost every school of political theory, the American Constitution rested sovereignty nowhere (unless it were in every individual citizen), by establishing such a state of tension that no political body in the constitutional structure could accerete to itself sovereign power…

    Total war is war conducted to achieve victory neglecting every other moral end. It is least excusable, moreover, in a war between brothers. Nevertheless this was Lincoln’s pattern of war leadership: in the North, a repressive dictatorship; against the South, the brutal meat-grinder tactics of “Unconditional Surrender” Grant and the brigand campaigns waged against civilians by Sherman; in war aims, no effort at reconciliation, only the complete triumph of central government.

    Were it not for the wounds that Lincoln inflicted upon the Constitution, it would have been infinitely more difficult for Franklin Roosevelt to carry through his revolution, for the coercive welfare state to come into being and bring about the conditions against which we are fighting today. Lincoln, I would maintain, undermined the constitutional safeguards of freedom as he opened the way to centralized government with all its attendant political evils. “

    For Meyer, Lincoln’s approach to the Civil War was completely flawed, not just because of the attack on States’ Rights but because of the conditions imposed in the Union North. Frank Meyer also believed that nuclear war was preferable to Communist oppression, the idea that American ideals and democracy were more important than the lives of American civilians that surely would be killed in a nuclear engagement with the Soviet Union.

    Today, the Republican Party has become exactly what Meyer condemned. Waging total war at the expense of the Constitution by vesting control in a sole Executive and putting individuals above ideals. Even you believe this is a struggle of culture, that American identity is truly at stake beyond terrorist attacks, it’s still very hard to reconcile the idea of plenary powers with Meyer’s attack on Lincoln. The idea is more important that anything and the conflict shouldn’t be waged in a manner that destroys American ideals.

  42. 42
    Tulkinghorn says:

    T Mag Says:

    It could be much, much worse than what you suggest, Tulkinghorn. We are facing an ideology of pure hate. It is unlike anything we have ever seen before.

    What the fuck?

    If it is unprecedented, and requires us to violate the constitution to defend ourselves, then why not just come out and say you are for throwing out the constitution?

    I mean, while I don’t think Al Qaeda is an existential threat, I could be wrong, no? Lets just adopt a dictatorship for a few decades and then see if we like it. Shouldn’t be too much trouble to shrug off a totalitarian regime of our own devising, with all the modern aparatus of surveillance at its disposal?

    I am going to vote for Hillary just to piss you off!

  43. 43
    T Mag says:

    There are indeed many parallels between this conflict and the War Of Northern Aggression.

  44. 44
    RTGthe3RD says:

    The only possible answer to this is Bush prefers to violate the constitution rather than to follow it.

    Sometimes you have to violate the Constitution in order to protect it. This is one of those times. As T Mag said, the threat we face is the most dangerous we ever have. You need to stop thinking in black and white, Tulk. Sure, in peacetime, violating the Constitution is a black and white matter, but we aren’t in peacetime and in wartime the issue turns into a vast mixture of grays.

    A slightly burnt Constitution is better than no Constitution at all. Think about it.

  45. 45
    Tulkinghorn says:

    Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant. The Supreme Court may ultimately clarify the competing claims; but until then, the president is right to continue monitoring the communications of our nation’s declared enemies, even when they elect to communicate with people within our country.

    God forbid anyone at the White House think about getting and advisory opinion about FISA, especially where even political appointees at the DOJ are opposing it.

    Nice characterization counselor: FISA is a ‘mere statute’. Do you want to start speculating about legislative intent here, or are you going to sit down?

    It is a duly enacted law specifically enacted to end abuses by the executive. With a safe harbor provision as broad as the ocean, that the President prefers to violate rather than obey, prefers to violate rather than to change, prefers to violate because he is president, and well, the rest of us are not.

  46. 46
    capelza says:

    “mere”, “quaint”….what’s next? Charming? Dainty? Cute?

    That Contstitution sure is cute…

  47. 47
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    I can’t tell who’s real and who’s a troll anymore.

  48. 48
    srv says:

    Today, the Republican Party has become exactly what Meyer condemned.

    That’s Conservative Values for ya.

    Tulkinghorn, remember DougJ.

  49. 49
    Tulkinghorn says:

    Sometimes you have to violate the Constitution in order to protect it. This is one of those times. As T Mag said, the threat we face is the most dangerous we ever have. You need to stop thinking in black and white, Tulk. Sure, in peacetime, violating the Constitution is a black and white matter, but we aren’t in peacetime and in wartime the issue turns into a vast mixture of grays.

    A slightly burnt Constitution is better than no Constitution at all. Think about it.

    But it is not necessary to violate it, at least not in this instance. Bush could have gotten anything he wanted when the USA PATRIOT act was passed. If this came up after the Patriot act, so be it — go ahead and violate FISA, but at least file for the ex post facto warrants after the three day deadline to show good faith.

    “Hey, we thought ten million people were going to die, so we were six weeks late filing the warrant applications. So shoot me.” I would have bought that.

    But having hundreds of un-warranted surveillances without leaving a paper trail. Way fucked up. Transparant case of bad faith.

  50. 50
    Steve S says:

    The Constitution is safe!

    I just learned, it’s still under glass at the Library of Congress. There is absolutely no risk that any of the Bush administration has opened that glass to damage the paper by trying to read it’s contents.

  51. 51
    Tulkinghorn says:

    DougJ?

    Oh shit. I been trolled.

  52. 52
    ppGaz says:

    DougJ?

    Oh shit. I been trolled.

    You are in good company, sir!

  53. 53
    Pooh says:

    Yeah, T Mag did give a certain whiff, an aroma, a penumbra? (no we don’t do those).

    Pat R., you are just wrong, I might suggest mendaciously so. It is not the mere assertion of a ‘legitimate government interest’ as such, nor is ‘foreign intelligence information’ a code word for whatever you want it to mean.

  54. 54
    srv says:

    DougJ,

    I can forgive you for playing TD (or was it Darrell?) the other week, but I have a suggestion. How about John adds a script decoding your IP and appends a special character to your psuedonyms?

    Then all of us ‘in the know’ can enjoy your games AND our albeit lame discussions. And you can play unfettered…

  55. 55
    RTGthe3RD says:

    But having hundreds of un-warranted surveillances without leaving a paper trail. Way fucked up. Transparant case of bad faith.

    The NSA program is limited in scope. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there has been “hundreds” of warrantless wiretapping cases. President Bush made it clear that the only calls that were being monitored were incoming international calls from known terrorists. And you have a problem with that?

    Look, if you want to defend the civil liberties of known terrorists in foreign countries then be my guest. At least then we will all know for sure who’s side you are really on.

  56. 56
    T Mag says:

    Srv, I wasn’t TD. Most of the people accused of being me aren’t me.

  57. 57
    Tulkinghorn says:

    The NSA program is limited in scope. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there has been “hundreds” of warrantless wiretapping cases. President Bush made it clear that the only calls that were being monitored were incoming international calls from known terrorists. And you have a problem with that?

    I really should know better than to respond to this.

    Actually, I do. Good night all.

  58. 58
    srv says:

    Srv, I wasn’t TD. Most of the people accused of being me aren’t me.

    I know you weren’t really him, but you were impersonating him or Darrell. You came out and admitted it in the thread. Otherwise, he was impersonating you.

  59. 59
    RTGthe3RD says:

    The real reason you won’t respond is that there isn’t any evidence that the NSA program consisted of “hundreds” of wiretaps.

    Either provide some sources for your claims or stop making them up. I’m not going to blindly take some Democrat’s word at face value. Clinton taught me better than that.

  60. 60
    Bill Arnold says:

    Is it my imagination or is the left (or at least the un-wingnut-o-sphere) better able to mock the right through imitation than v.v.? ‘Cause DougJ or whoever is really really cunning, and he’s not alone, straightup mockery ala The Poorman or Michael Berube is also often pretty spooky.

  61. 61
    Andrew says:

    Steve,

    Unless it’s up and moved in the past week, I do believe them fancy old documents are still located in the National Archives, where I visited them just before Christmas, not the LoC.

  62. 62
    Eural says:

    “A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.” NYT, Dec. 20

    You Bush supporters need to stop defending Bush’s use of wiretaping – it’s perfectly legal. Unless you’re doing it without warrents. Or on domistic communications. Oh, now I see why you’re constantly trying to change the subject.

  63. 63
    demimondian says:

    You are in good company, sir!

    You honestly didn’t realize that he was DougJ?

    People, look, DougJ is *very* good, but he has a “signature”. One give-away is this post:

    There are indeed many parallels between this conflict and the War Of Northern Aggression.

    Single-sentence postings written in the passive voice are frequent in DougJ sock puppets, but rare in other people’s postings.

    (And, no, I am not Dr. Doug J.)

  64. 64
    RTGthe3RD says:

    Like the NY Times is a credible source… Jayson Blair anyone? And don’t give me that crap that Blair’s actions were the result of a lone reporter. How do you explain Howell Raines’ and Gerald Boyd’s unethical actions in the matter?

    Try not to quote liberal clap traps when making your points next time and I might actually listen, Eural.

  65. 65
    T Mag says:

    You’re right, Demi, about my give away. The trouble is that writing longer comments actually takes effort. To maximize reaction, the easiest thing to do is write short comments.

  66. 66
    capelza says:

    So is RTGthe3RD the real thing? Please say no…

  67. 67
    Pooh says:

    The War of Northern Aggression was a dead give away for me too, sorry…

  68. 68
    T Mag says:

    Of course, the War Of Northern Agression is a give away!!! I already got caught on one of the other threads, so I knew my time was short here — wanted to get something truly nuts in while I could.

  69. 69
    Pooh says:

    I love you Doug

  70. 70
    demimondian says:

    It’s always nice to see a true master at work. I am always appalled and astounded at what you can get to crawl from underneath the rocks.

  71. 71
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    I’d like to thank everyone here for helping me kill time during this interminable dull day night at work.

  72. 72
    Pb says:

    CaseyL,

    your comparison of Bush to Lincolni isn’t just risible, but libelous

    Perhaps you missed the part where I explicitly wasn’t comparing them… or rather, I was pointing out how useless Slide’s comparison was. Bush isn’t Hitler. He isn’t Lincoln either. We don’t really need to compare him here–I think he’s done enough all by himself.

    Oh, and do you like dogs? Hitler liked dogs… etc.

  73. 73
    Pb says:

    Slide,

    the Constitution specifically gave Lincoln justification for what he did

    And as you noted earlier,

    The Reichstag passed the Law for Terminating the Suffering of People and Nation, also known as the Enabling Law, essentially granting Adolph Hitler dictatorial power

    So… you’re saying that Lincoln had a valid legal justification for his power grab, and so did Hitler, but Bush doesn’t… So, Bush definitely isn’t Hitler, but maybe Lincoln was? Now I’m really confused.

    This is why I’m glad I wasn’t making any comparisons. I guess you should be too.

  74. 74
    demimondian says:

    Ah, GSfRB, my two weeks of vacation ends this evening, and tomorrow, it’s back to work for me. Since my project will be entering a critical phase, I’ll be up to my eyeballs in alligators for the next several weeks, so this is my last chance to be entertained.

  75. 75
    Pooh says:

    Dem, the thing is TD doesn’t even need a parody. Apparenly without knowing, he says the most self-ironic things I’ve ever read…

  76. 76
    demimondian says:

    In fact, the only reason TD hasn’t be [plonked] into my kill file yet is that he’s so entertaining. Darrell, I’m afraid, is no longer a part of my BJ experience — I just lost patience with him.

  77. 77
    Pooh says:

    Must resist obvious joke….
    Must resist obvious joke….

    Ok, the temptation has passed…

  78. 78
    Pb says:

    CaseyL Says,

    Hey, is that “Bush = Lincoln” nonsense a new GOP meme?

    No, actually, it’s an old one. But they tend to do it in a more flattering way than I have–watch them closely, and sometimes they’ll even call themselves “the party of Lincoln”. They’re lucky that Lincoln is dead, so he can’t see what they’ve become.

    They also tried a little “Bush = Reagan” nonsense at one point, but fortunately Ron Reagan was around to tell them how utterly full of shit they are. Applicable quote: “My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush” –Ron Reagan Jr., April 2003

  79. 79
    demimondian says:

    Must resist obvious joke….

    Errr…now that you mention it, “my BJ experience” was a poor locution, wasn’t it?

  80. 80
    T Mag says:

    Yes, the use of BJ abbreviation leads to some great straight lines.

  81. 81
    demimondian says:

    Pb — I’ve been predicting the formal suspension of habeas rights for a while now. I don’t like the idea, but the notion of “enemies in our midst”, which was proven by the 9/11 hijackers, does make this a case of asymmetric war from inside the country. I wouldn’t be surprised to see SCOTUS, very reluctantly, grant the president extraordinary powers in such a case.

  82. 82
    Zifnab says:

    This harkens back to the old question that they asked Chief Justice Roberts during his confirmation – “What does the Commerce Clause NOT allow Congress to regulate?”

    The beautiful thing about Bush is that he doesn’t even need an Enabling Act. He just reinterprets the Constitution however he damn well pleases.

    Makes you wonder what the definition of “is” is.

  83. 83
    The Other Steve says:

    Unless it’s up and moved in the past week, I do believe them fancy old documents are still located in the National Archives, where I visited them just before Christmas, not the LoC.

    But it’s still safe, right!?

    See! Bush is protecting the Constitution, even if he doesn’t know how to read.

  84. 84
    Pooh says:

    Errr…now that you mention it, “my BJ experience” was a poor locution, wasn’t it?

    The whole thing is just wrong. I mean, not that there’s anything wrong with that…

    Tangentially (or perhaps not), doesn’t Brokeback Mountain look like the biggest chick-flick since Titanic?

  85. 85
    demimondian says:

    doesn’t Brokeback Mountain look like the biggest chick-flick since Titanic?

    What about _Bridges of Madison County_?

    Bear in mind that at my stage of life, I’ll be lucky to see Brokeback Mountain on DVD. I certainly won’t get to see it in a cinema; if the title doesn’t include “Potter”…well, it’s just not happening.

  86. 86
    Pooh says:

    I think BMC was mid 90s, well before King of the Worldism struck. I’ve really found that episodic TV is far better than movies at this point. Thinking back on it, I think the best movie I saw in 2005 was basically the sequel to a TV show. (I of course mean Serenity…)

  87. 87

    Bush is out of Control

    Bush is out of Control… Where does this end? And how long will Conservatives continue to justify the absolute destruction of our democracy in the name of security. The parallels with past dictators can not be ignored….

  88. 88

    So is RTGthe3RD the real thing? Please say no…

    Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I’m almost positive that RTG is a real person. I think he comments over at another blog I frequent. I’ve seen him get into very serious and lengthy discussions with other Republicans. I’m fairly certain he goes by both RTGthe3RD and Ralph, which I assume is his first name.

    If he is the same guy that I’m thinking of, he can actually be somewhat reasonable at times.

    Though, I’m sure that is hard to believe after reading some of his comments in this thread.

  89. 89
    Eural says:

    Like the NY Times is a credible source… Jayson Blair anyone? And don’t give me that crap that Blair’s actions were the result of a lone reporter. How do you explain Howell Raines’ and Gerald Boyd’s unethical actions in the matter?

    Now that’s a sad – but expected – response. Ask for evidence, get it and then criticize the source (just one among many if it matters) based on something else from years ago.

    I repeat – now I see why the Bush defenders want to keep changing the subject. There is no defense that does not eventually evolve into a fascist rant praising the great leader and damning the evils of constitutional democracy’s limits on executive power (especially in such times of trouble). I don’t think Bush is like Hitler – I’m beginning to think that Bush’s supporters are like Hitler’s supporters (or Peron’s or Mussolinni’s or…)

  90. 90
    RonB says:

    T Mag=Tom Maguire. I knew it was DougJ, but I just got the handle.

    (sigh)

  91. 91
    Krista says:

    That was a clever name, wasn’t it?

    And demi, I’m with you about the Potter-mania.

  92. 92
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    TDV: I must say RTG does have the Yosemite Sam agitated wingnut thing down pretty well. Of course, this kind of stuff has been so thoroughly statirized, mimicked and mocked both here and elsewhere it is getting very hard to tell the real thing from the joke.

    RTG uses a 3 step approach that is fairly standard stuff in the vast wasteland of discredited reactionary blogs. I wonder if Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, or Ann Coulter would have ever thought that they would have spawned so large an army of wannabes?

    Step 1 – In the face of all known evidence deny a commonly accepted truth. Always make it personal: “The real reason you won’t respond is that there isn’t any evidence that the NSA program consisted of hundred of wiretaps.”

    Step 2: Upon being presented with evidence to the contrary, deny the honesty and credibility of the source: “Like the New York Times is a credible source … Jayson Blair anyone?” or: “I’m not going to blindly take some Democrats word at face value. Clinton taught me better.”

    Step 3: Smear the targeted poster. Suggest that the person in question is an terrorist sympathizer driven to so dastardly a stance due to a burning ideological hatred of America: “Look, if you want to defend the civil liberties of known terrorists, be my guest.”

    Pretty cliched stuff, right? But as we all know, the little brothers of Joe McCarthy are out there.

  93. 93
    Stormy70 says:

    Good. Eff McCain, waterboarding works, so I am for it. It worked on Al Qeda’s guy who masterminded the 9/11 attacks, and he rolled over on his network. I don’t consider it torture. I know this crowd will go nuts on me now with the personal attacks, but consider this: If military men personally insult terrorists, isn’t it a form of torture in most of you poster’s eyes? Food for thought or red meat thrown at raving moonbats, take your pick.

  94. 94
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Stormy: C’mon, it’s been years since someone went nuts on you. And if what I hear is true, the last guy who did is still in therapy.

  95. 95
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Wake up sleepy heads. CNN and MSNBC are reporting Abramoff is pleading guilty and will testify for the prosecution.

    He’s going to sing like a little birdy.

  96. 96
    DougJ says:

    Paddy, you’re three step approach there describes Brian more or less perfectly.

  97. 97
    Shygetz says:

    Good. Eff McCain, waterboarding works, so I am for it.

    Yeah, and the N. Vietnamese proved that McCain is a traitor and a baby-killer anyway using those methods, so we should just ignore him. Hell, we should stand him up against the wall and shoot him for war crimes, since he did confess to doing all of those horrible things under interrogation.

  98. 98
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    DougJ: The thing is this stuff has been around forever. Unfortunately McCarthyism is now big business and there is lots of money to be made selling shit to the lunatics. Book sales, radio advertising, Ann Coulter dolls and other fetish items …

  99. 99

    Here’s a comparison, wonder if anyone knows where it’s from:

    Bush = Windrip

    Bonus points to anyone who notes the Sci-fi miniseries related to that Windrip stuff.

  100. 100
    p.lukasiak says:

    C’mon guys, Doug gave away “RTG” in his very first comment, when he wrote..


    And What about the ticking time bomb scenario? Look, we need to torture people so more Americans don’t die as a result of the muslims’ extremism.

    Real wingnuts don’t deal in theoretical constructs (“ticking time bomb scenario”) but in hypothetical “straw men” situations that mirror the theoretical constructs (“we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” is classic wingnut rhetoric.)

  101. 101
    demimondian says:

    At the risk of looking like a fool, I’m going to state that I don’t believe that RTG is DougJ. There are a few textual discrepancies: (1) he uses *BOLD CAPS* in his text, (2) the paragraph count — even when writing as himself, DougJ rarely writes more than two paragraphs. Four is unusual among frequent posters. In addition, there’s the matter that we have a T. Mag. posting at 10:31 EST and the first RTG posting at 10:33. That’s a pretty short interval.

  102. 102
    demimondian says:

    As far as this posting goes, though, I do think RTG is someone’s sock puppet, primarily because of this passage:

    What about the ticking time bomb scenario? Look, we need to torture people so more Americans don’t die as a result of the muslims’ extremism.

    Nobody is his or her right mind would write that seriously. That’s sock-puppetry.

  103. 103

    Here’s your ticking time bomb:

    Abramoff cops a plea deal, offers up thousands of e-mails detailing the scope of influence peddling throughout the GOP-led Congress.

    Don’t think torture did anything to stop this from exploding. Ka-booooom…

  104. 104
    Krista says:

    demimondian – can I just say that you’ve spent an awful lot of time studying this? Either that, or you’re some kind of savant who can recognize a person via their writing style in an inordinately short amount of time.

    Either way, you’re scaring me.

  105. 105
    Mac Buckets says:

    Abramoff cops a plea deal, offers up thousands of e-mails detailing the scope of influence peddling throughout the GOP-led Congress.

    No doubt this will be the biggest thing since the Downing Street Memos!

  106. 106
    Tractarian says:

    If military men personally insult terrorists, isn’t it a form of torture in most of you poster’s eyes?

    Um, nope. Next question.

  107. 107
    Krista says:

    If military men personally insult terrorists, isn’t it a form of torture in most of you poster’s eyes?

    Hardly. Call them all the names you want. I don’t know what it will accomplish, though.

    C’mon Stormy — I know you’re smarter than this. Name-calling? None of us consider that torture. What we’re talking about is the kind of physical and mental agony that fucks people up for life and often engenders either madness, undying hatred for the torturers, or both. If the US is indeed torturing suspects, then it’s basically helping to create a bunch of madmen with a permanent hatred for the US. Some of those people might be inclined to act on that hatred. I just think that torturing is creating WAY more problems than it could potentially solve.

  108. 108

    I am not equating Bush with Hitler. But did Bush ever want to be a painter?

  109. 109
    Andrei says:

    C’mon Stormy — I know you’re smarter than this.

    Come on now Krista… where has Stormy said anything this past year that even hints that she understands how the world works outside of her northern Texas suburban life where the terrorists really are planning to take her and her cats out?

  110. 110
    Krista says:

    I like to give everybody the benefit of the doubt.

    And anybody who shares my unrequited lust for Naveen Andrews deserves a fair shake, in my book.

  111. 111
    skip says:

    “And you don’t think the 9/11 attacks constitute an actual invasion? Need I remind you that there are terrorist sleeper cells all throughout America right now. We are at war people, the invasion has already occured! Just look at the growing muslim population. And don’t give me that bologna that Islam is a religion of peace. The’re a bunch of throat-slitting bastards that would like nothing more than to eat our hearts.”

    But, but Shamir said they were just cockroaches. Let’s all just sleep with our lights on, and train our cops with the IDF (as is already being done). Look how well that has worked for our Special Ally!

  112. 112
    demimondian says:

    skip, I’m sorry that you’ve let your sympathy for the oppression of the Palestian people overwhelm your good sense, but , well, you’re being an antisemitic moonbat. Stop.

  113. 113
    RTO Trainer says:

    Has anyone here (including, perhaps especially, John Cole) actually read the text of the amendment? It’s just plain bad law.

  114. 114
    skip says:

    {with your] sympathies for the oppression of the (sic) Palestian people” . . “you’re being an antisemitic moonbat.”

    Yeah, just like maybe 90% of the rest of the civilized world (most of whom harbor neither Jews nor moonbats).

    I confess I care far less about the oppression of the Palestinian people (when lots of other people are oppressed) than I do about the subject causing the kind of calumny and thought suppression manifest in your infantile post.

  115. 115
    scs says:

    At the risk of looking like a fool, I’m going to state that I don’t believe that RTG is DougJ.

    Come on now. On here, DougJ is PB, RTG, T Mag, Paddy O’Shea, goldStarfor RobertBoy, maybe more. Really, about 50% of posts on this blog is DougJ. Where does he find the time? My theory is he works in a college library, as one of those tech support/check-in guys and has plenty of time and access to use different computers. If he only used that energy for good and not for evil…

  116. 116
    scs says:

    And probably add Skip to that.

  117. 117
    scs says:

    More guesses on DougJ. A student in the northwest, maybe Oregon, working on a math graduate degree. Am I right DougJ?

  118. 118
    skip says:

    Well then DougJ is bilocating. I live at 38.75/76.59 W, and I got my masters degree in 1971 (not in math). I haven’t set foot in a library since.

  119. 119
    DougJ says:

    You’re cracking me up, scs.

  120. 120
    demimondian says:

    I confess I care far less about the oppression of the Palestinian people (when lots of other people are oppressed) than I do about the subject causing the kind of calumny and thought suppression manifest in your infantile post.

    What, you don’t like it when people accurately depict your views for what they are? Going on about the IDF, and the ADL, and initmating, as you have, that they’re in control of the United States, is antisemitic.

    As to “thought control” — calling someone’s statements hideous is not even censorship. Trying to get them suppressed is, and I did not do that. If you hold reprehensible views, that’s your problem, not mine. If I let you think that they’re accurate or acceptable, or even given them tacit acceptance, that’s my problem.

  121. 121
    DecidedFenceSitter says:

    Huh Demi, take a moment. You are generally this irrational.

    He said, rightly or wrongly, that the IDF is co-training with our police force. Not that they were in control; that we are training to use the same tactics, and that those tactics, as evidence in Israel in Skip’s opinion, are ineffective to the point of aggravating the situation.

    I don’t see anything anti-semitic in that. Perhaps factually incorrect; but not anti-semetic.

  122. 122
    DecidedFenceSitter says:

    aren’t generally this irrational. It’s been a long day at work for me.

  123. 123
    demimondian says:

    If it were an isolated posting, you’d be right. However, if you run through his history here, he’s posted diatribes about the ADL and other Jewish organizations, alleging misbehavior.

  124. 124
    DecidedFenceSitter says:

    Okay, point granted. I didn’t recognize the name; but I generally tend to glaze at the Israel/Palestinian discussion.

  125. 125
    skip says:

    “f it were an isolated posting, you’d be right. However, if you run through his history here, he’s posted diatribes about the ADL and other Jewish organizations, alleging misbehavior.”

    So, “running through his history” huh? Who has time for that but the, er, ADL. Do you dispute the fact that they DO monitor anything or anyone sympathetic to the Palestinians, and that the Israelis ARE training our cops (it was in CNN a few days ago). Whether that is really Jewish “misbehavior” is doubtful, but whether it is useful is what is in question.
    What is not useful is Demi using the term antisemite in such an irresponsible fashion. Lots of people don’t agree with the Likud regime and its fans. Lots! Even more don’t like being smeared for taking what is a tenable position on a serious subject .

  126. 126
    demimondian says:

    So, “running through his history” huh? Who has time for that but the, er, ADL.

    I rest my case.

  127. 127
    chef says:

    Re: glazing over at the Palestinian question.

    If there is something new, fine. Otherwise ZZZZZ. This is the most overdiscussed issue on earth.

    Where is the connection to today’s hot news in the US?

  128. 128
    RTGthe3RD says:

    This is too rich. The whole ‘lot of ya seem like a bunch of moonbat conspiracy theorists. I am the real thing, and yes, Disenfranchised Voter, I am that Ralph (which is my first name). Ralph T. G. the 3rd to be more specific, hence RTGthe3RD.

    Funny. I didn’t know your kind visited here. Kind of odd for a libertarian to be visiting such a pro-Operation Iraqi Freedom blog, isn’t it? Then again, it’s probably all the radical anti-war commentors that attracted you here.

    Figures.

  129. 129
    ppGaz says:

    If he only used that energy for good and not for evil…

    On another subject …. are you related to John Cole?

  130. 130
    GTinMN says:

    And you don’t think the 9/11 attacks constitute an actual invasion? Need I remind you that there are terrorist sleeper cells all throughout America right now. We are at war people, the invasion has already occured! Just look at the growing muslim population. And don’t give me that bologna that Islam is a religion of peace. There a bunch of throat slitting bastards that would like nothing more than to eat our hearts.

    Either the thoughts of someone all set to soil themselves the next time a car backfires nearby, or else really good snark.

  131. 131
    RTGthe3RD says:

    More like the thoughts of someone who was once blind but can now see as a result of 9/11.

    The blind eye you people turn to the domestic terrorist threat is both astonishing and scary.

  132. 132

    If military men personally insult terrorists, isn’t it a form of torture in most of you poster’s eyes?

    Stormy. Either you were drunk when you made this statement or you are delusional.

    I have yet to see one single person here claim that personal insults constitute torture.

    For your sake I hope you were drunk.

    Unfortunately, I have a feeling you are just delusional.

  133. 133
    Victor says:

    “Bush and Clinton see Brokeback Mountain”

    http://www.columbiacitypaper.c.....nton.shtml

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Bush is out of Control

    Bush is out of Control… Where does this end? And how long will Conservatives continue to justify the absolute destruction of our democracy in the name of security. The parallels with past dictators can not be ignored….

Comments are closed.