Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Tico, please excuse me, but I've been meaning to thank you for those direct links you posted for me. That was very considerate of you.

Foxfyre wrote:

All this just goes to prove that Lefties, leftwing Democrats, and Bush-haters will not accept ANY explanation by ANYBODY related to ANYTHING that does not support their prejudicial negative views regarding all aspect of this administration and generally the entire GOP as well.

Where did this come from?

If somebody doesn't want people (possibly innocent, maybe not, we don't know...) being held for years without a trial, that proves ... what?


Follow the leader, Foxy.

Where did this come from?

What should be fascinating news about the WMDs being reported this week are being given very minor, unexcited coverage, or no coverage while the Vice President's hunting accidents is leading every MSM radio and television report. The existence of WMDs don't help the MSM or Democrats who might have to eat a LOT of words if this turns out to really be something.

You are an anti-Bush person; therefore you choose to believe the liberal MSM accusing the administration of unjustly holding people at GITMO despite the USA's pretty darn good track record on human rights. I would bet at least another Big Mac that if it was a liberal Democrat in office, you would not have so much concern for GITMO detainees.

Quote:

What should be fascinating news about the WMDs being reported this week are being given very minor, unexcited coverage, or no coverage while the Vice President's hunting accidents is leading every MSM radio and television report. The existence of WMDs don't help the MSM or Democrats who might have to eat a LOT of words if this turns out to really be something.

That's because the WMD news this week isn't new news in the slightest. It doesn't reveal anything new, that we didn't know before. It doesn't implicate anyone who isn't already on trial. It doesn't provide either a 'smoking gun' or an excuse for an administration which lied in order to send us to war.

Whereas, the VP just shot a guy the other day, and the stories about it don't all add up. Imagine if he'd gotten a blowjob from someone; I bet you'd be up in arms about it, but that's just based upon what Righties tend to view as important or acceptable.

Cycloptichorn

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck inspired me to start this thread, when he started the "Weeping and gnashing" thread:

I hereby declare this the self-pity thread. Kerry supporters only (others can watch but are not allowed to gloat), feel free to vent your frustration, whine, pout, cry out loud, accuse Republicans of election rigging, and pre-mourn 4 more years of absolute Republican control.

So .... if you are a Bush supporter and feel the urge to "gloat" in your "post-election afterglow," use this thread for that. I don't expect many postings.

This is a continuation of http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37997 That topic will not be unlocked; please use this one instead. Thank you.

I didn't come here on this thread to debate, bash, or defend, but to answer a simple question with a simple reply. I hope you'll respect this, and leave it at that.

PoetSeductress wrote:

I didn't come here on this thread to debate, bash, or defend, but to answer a simple question with a simple reply. I hope you'll respect this, and leave it at that.

<psst> Can't you bash Cyclops, at least? Just a wee little bit?

No? Oh, well.


Thanks for your opinion, PS. I think everyone can appreciate it. (They might not agree ... but that's not what I said.)

Now, I know that you don't believe the VP has a responsibility to report his actions to the American people; but he works for us, not the other way around. He is a public servant. He has a responsibility to inform his bosses, the American people, about what went wrong.

Judge Orders Action on Spying Documents

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 16, 2006
Filed at 3:33 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge dealt a setback to the Bush administration on its warrantless surveillance program, ordering the Justice Department on Thursday to release documents about the highly classified effort within 20 days or compile a list of what it is withholding.

U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy said a private group will suffer irreparable harm if the documents it has been seeking since December are not processed promptly under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Justice Department failed to meet the time restraints under FOIA and failed to make a case that it was impractical to deal quickly with the request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Greenland Glaciers Dump More Ice Into Ocean

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 16, 2006
Filed at 3:19 p.m. ET

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Greenland's southern glaciers have accelerated their march to the Atlantic Ocean over the past decade and now contribute more to the global rise in sea levels than previously estimated, researchers say.

Those faster-moving glaciers, along with increased melting, could account for nearly 17 percent of the estimated one-tenth of an inch annual rise in global sea levels, or twice what was previously believed, said Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

An increase in surface air temperatures appears to be causing the glaciers to flow faster, albeit at the still-glacial pace of eight miles to nine miles a year at their fastest clip, and dump increased volumes of ice into the Atlantic.

That stepped-up flow accounted for about two-thirds of the net 54 cubic miles of ice Greenland lost in 2005. That compares with 22 cubic miles in 1996, Rignot said.

Top political appointees in the NASA press office exerted strong pressure during the 2004 presidential campaign to cut the flow of news releases on glaciers, climate, pollution and other earth sciences, public affairs officers at the agency say....
Dr. Griffin announced the review of communications policies after complaints last month by James E. Hansen, the agency's top climate scientist, that political appointees were trying to stop him from speaking out on global warming. After those complaints were reported in The Times, other scientists and press officers came forward with similar stories.

No Checks, Many Imbalances

By George F. Will
Thursday, February 16, 2006; Page A27

The next time a president asks Congress to pass something akin to what Congress passed on Sept. 14, 2001 -- the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) -- the resulting legislation might be longer than Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past." Congress, remembering what is happening today, might stipulate all the statutes and constitutional understandings that it does not intend the act to repeal or supersede.

But, then, perhaps no future president will ask for such congressional involvement in the gravest decision government makes -- going to war. Why would future presidents ask, if the present administration successfully asserts its current doctrine? It is that whenever the nation is at war, the other two branches of government have a radically diminished pertinence to governance, and the president determines what that pertinence shall be. This monarchical doctrine emerges from the administration's stance that warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency targeting American citizens on American soil is a legal exercise of the president's inherent powers as commander in chief, even though it violates the clear language of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was written to regulate wartime surveillance.

Administration supporters incoherently argue that the AUMF also authorized the NSA surveillance -- and that if the administration had asked, Congress would have refused to authorize it. The first assertion is implausible: None of the 518 legislators who voted for the AUMF has said that he or she then thought it contained the permissiveness the administration discerns in it. Did the administration, until the program became known two months ago? Or was the AUMF then seized upon as a justification? Equally implausible is the idea that in the months after Sept. 11, Congress would have refused to revise the 1978 law in ways that would authorize, with some supervision, NSA surveillance that, even in today's more contentious climate, most serious people consider conducive to national security.

Anyway, the argument that the AUMF contained a completely unexpressed congressional intent to empower the president to disregard the FISA regime is risible coming from this administration. It famously opposes those who discover unstated meanings in the Constitution's text and do not strictly construe the language of statutes...

pssssst....

When George Will (George Will! for goodness sakes) tells you that the administration is heading into dictator-land, it might well be prudent to make some reassessments...

Quote:

No Checks, Many Imbalances

By George F. Will
Thursday, February 16, 2006; Page A27

The next time a president asks Congress to pass something akin to what Congress passed on Sept. 14, 2001 -- the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) -- the resulting legislation might be longer than Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past." Congress, remembering what is happening today, might stipulate all the statutes and constitutional understandings that it does not intend the act to repeal or supersede.

But, then, perhaps no future president will ask for such congressional involvement in the gravest decision government makes -- going to war. Why would future presidents ask, if the present administration successfully asserts its current doctrine? It is that whenever the nation is at war, the other two branches of government have a radically diminished pertinence to governance, and the president determines what that pertinence shall be. This monarchical doctrine emerges from the administration's stance that warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency targeting American citizens on American soil is a legal exercise of the president's inherent powers as commander in chief, even though it violates the clear language of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was written to regulate wartime surveillance.

Administration supporters incoherently argue that the AUMF also authorized the NSA surveillance -- and that if the administration had asked, Congress would have refused to authorize it. The first assertion is implausible: None of the 518 legislators who voted for the AUMF has said that he or she then thought it contained the permissiveness the administration discerns in it. Did the administration, until the program became known two months ago? Or was the AUMF then seized upon as a justification? Equally implausible is the idea that in the months after Sept. 11, Congress would have refused to revise the 1978 law in ways that would authorize, with some supervision, NSA surveillance that, even in today's more contentious climate, most serious people consider conducive to national security.

Anyway, the argument that the AUMF contained a completely unexpressed congressional intent to empower the president to disregard the FISA regime is risible coming from this administration. It famously opposes those who discover unstated meanings in the Constitution's text and do not strictly construe the language of statutes...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502003.html

pssssst....

When George Will (George Will! for goodness sakes) tells you that the administration is heading into dictator-land, it might well be prudent to make some reassessments...

Okay. So. Something I don't understand: especially given what you perceive as the "USA's pretty darn good track record on human rights", doesn't it bother you even a little bit that people are being for years without a trial? I'm not saying they are all innocent. Nope. But if they are guilty, well, try them and then lock them away to serve their sentence. Would make so much sense, wouldn't it? And I simply cannot understand how anybody could argue against that.