JONATHAN TURLEY
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools.
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades ranging, representing whistleblowers, military personnel, and a wide range of other clients. These include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is facing criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).
Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. He also represents Dr. Sami Al-Arian, accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. He also currently represents pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represents David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia. Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.
Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40.
Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with over 500 articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is on the Board of Contributors of USA Today. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News and CBS News to cover stories that ranged from the Clinton impeachment to the presidential elections. Professor Turley is often a guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday.Professor Turley teaches courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS).
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. (In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest).
For further information: Ms. Kristen Hilderbrand – 202-994-0537
Mr. Turley, I’m a fan of yours and have enjoyed the mental aerobics you’ve displayed during testimony before Congress and elsewhere on TV. I’m happy to learn of your new WordPress.com blog and plan to follow your endeavor here. Welcome! May you shine here as well as you do elsewhere.
Thank you for your very kind note. We are still putting this site together and finally move me into this century — tentatively. I am very grateful for such a welcome to the new age. While I know that many are less civil in the blogosphere, but it is good to know that civility can be found in cyberspace.
Best,
Jonathan
Prof. Turley,
There are a very few TV/radio commentators who, when they speak, I stop what I’m doing and listen. You are one of the best. Thanks for your input on politics and current affairs.
Stephen Mette
Dear Mr. Turley:
I never imagined I would ever get a chance to address you directly, but like bloggomio and Stephen Mette above I have been a fan and supporter of yours for many years now. Today, I enjoyed (as always) hearing you discuss the latest “high crimes and misdemeanors” on AirAmerica with Randi Rhodes, and was thrilled to hear about your blog. So, here I am. The following “note” is much longer than I intended, and I hope it does not overwhelm you! Please bear with me.
As depressing as it can be to be a patriot and constitutionalist in these trying times, it is good to know that there are a few men out there with the time, tools, talent, intellectual chops and courage to take on massively powerful corporate/government interests when they engage in unconstitutional (and un-American) behavior. Criminality and unconstitutionality seems to be the standard operating procedure these days. Perhaps it has always been thus…
I’ve followed your work for years, going all the way back to the Clinton era (seems like ancient history now). The Area 51 case was amazing. I consider myself fortunate to have seen you on a documentary about “America’s most secret base,” lest I might never have heard about the case otherwise. The story certainly wasn’t covered by the local news here in Los Angeles!
I imagine it took great chutzpah to “beard the lion” in his own court, if not in his own den, and it was highly surreal listening to you describe a court battle in which part of the government’s defense was that since the base didn’t exist there couldn’t be any violation of law. It must have been even more surreal to be there! In my opinion, knowing how powerful (and nefarious) the federal government is these days, I think it’s safe to say that those injured workers and their surviving family members were very lucky to have you. Well done sir!
In any event, I believe your words (both written and spoken) have had a profound effect on the criminal cabal running this country and have contributed mightily to the recent departures of several luminaries. I’m sure Gonzo and others like him get rather dyspeptic when they hear you enumerate the many ways in which they have violated the law, and would greatly prefer that you didn’t! More-so, your work keeps extremely important issues front and center for many people — including members of congress — who seem to need a “good swift kick” to even contemplate doing the right thing these days.
Thankfully, the Att’y General is stepping down. I believe you and Mr. Olbermann had a big hand in that. I can only hope that there will be real investigations and prosecutions (where warranted). Not that I’m holding my breath. Sadly, in the end, the President will most likely pardon all of his cronies so there’s little chance any of it will “stick.” The implications are dire for what’s left of the republic and it’s long-term survival. I am certainly not the first to point out that we have been sliding down the slippery slope towards total statism/fascism for a long time now, and I fear that we are reaching the bottom.
So, having said all this, I hope you will indulge me for a few more minutes. I have two questions for you. The first is rather long, but I think it will be of interest, and I look forward to your answers.
*** *** ***
1) At the risk of being immediately labeled a “conspiracy theorist” (or worse) for even raising the question, I’m wondering if you and your colleagues are aware of the fact that many (if not most) of our high-ranking officials, elected or otherwise, are Freemasons (and/or members of other Masonic secret societies, such as Skull and Bones, to which our President and his father belong)?
While you may not realize it, this is a profoundly important issue, perhaps even one of the most important (though largely unknown) issues in America today. Why? Because Freemasons and Bonesmen swear oaths of loyalty, secrecy and protection that supersede any others, including the oath of office!
I simply can’t emphasize how important this point is, and I think you of all people understand it’s implications. In my opinion, the behind-the-scenes influence of the Masonic brotherhood goes far towards explaining much of the unconstitutionality (and criminality) that is endemic today. FDR and Truman were at the very top of Freemasonry (32º and 33º respectively, 33º being the highest), and it’s been steadily downhill for this nation, insofar as observance of constitutional law goes since then. By the way, lest I be accused of partisanship as well as lunacy, I am not claiming this is purely a partisan problem. It is not. High level Freemasons infest (and I’m choosing words very carefully here) both of our major political parties. I simply mention Roosevelt and Truman because it was under their watch that the rise of the crypto-fascist national security state began.
For those without time or interest to investigate the role of secret societies but who wish to get a flavor for their influence on day-to-day events and “national security,” I recommend the recent films The Good Shepard (directed by Robert De Nero) or The Company (starring Michael Keaton). These works focus on the dangerous and unconstitutional activities of Bonesmen (rather than Freemasons, per se) in American intelligence and foreign policy. However, the message is clear.
If you wish to see a list of “important Freemasons,” I suggest going over to Wikipedia. For those who are not steeped in such material, it’s an eye-opener, I assure you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Freemasons
Our forefathers were certainly aware of how important the intertwined issues of divided loyalty and secret societies was, and it remains to this day. Washington, Jefferson, Hancock, Madison, Paine (among others) warned of the dangers to the republic inherent in secret societies (given that Washington was at one time an active Mason, his condemnations are particularly apt and telling).
John Quincy Adams, in his LETTERS ON THE MASONIC INSTITUTION said: “A more perfect agent for the devising and execution of conspiracies against the church or state could scarcely have been conceived.”
Following the murder of ex-Freemason William Morgan (by Masons) in 1826, the Anti-Masonic party came to the fore. In it’s day, it’s influence was such that Masonry (prior to the Civil War) nearly died out. Would that it had.
Masons (the so-called “blue lodge” or first three degrees) pledge to protect their brothers in all matters, excepting treason and murder. I should not have to point out that this still includes a high degree of latitude. But far more disturbing is that higher level Masons (which includes most of the officials in high office all over the land) swear to protect their fellow Masons in all cases, up to and including treason and murder!
I don’t know about you, but I think this is extremely alarming, to say the least.
“You must conceal all crimes of your brother Masons…and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him…It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you’re keeping your obligations.” — Ronayne, HANDBOOK OF MASONRY
Please understand that I am not one who approaches this from a fundamentalist Christian and/or Biblical perspective. I’m not religious at all, and in fact, consider myself a deist like most of the Founders. But there are those who say Freemasons are Luciferians and/or Satanists and therefore inherently evil. To my mind, that whole line of thought is nothing but a straw man argument and, worse yet, a distraction from the real danger. No, my concern is purely a pragmatic one. To wit: how can we have honest, open government when many (if not most) high-ranking officials are sworn to cover up each other’s crimes? How can we trust anything they do or say when the oath of office means nothing to them?
Concern over this problem has gotten so acute in England that the government has enacted laws requiring secret society members (Masons in particular) to disclose their relationship to the brotherhood. It may not be much, but it at least it’s a start.
In my opinion, Masonic secrecy (and all that it entails) is one of the most important issues in the world today. Yet outside of very narrow circles it is not even known, much less discussed. Your thoughts?
*** *** ***
2) If you had to pick a few constitutional groups to support with your time and/or money, which ones would you choose?
*** *** ***
In closing, I thank you for your attention and I commend you on your great work! I believe you are truly an American hero, albeit largely unsung. Somewhere far away, the Framers are smiling knowing that a few staunch men of conviction remain. Above all else, keep up the good work, continue to fight the good fight and (we hope and pray) never falter — America needs you!
Sincerely Yours,
K. S. Knight
Dear Prof. Turley,
I deeply appreciate the intelligence and perspective you’ve brought to the Countdown broadcasts; like Stephen Mette, above, I drop my knitting and just listen when you (and John Dean) come on the show. I also learned of your blog from a reference Randi Rhodes made to it, and was very happy to learn of it. Thank you for joining us in the blogosphere, and may you always find it welcoming!
Best wishes,
Arabella
Arabella:
That alone was worth blogging. What a wonderful way to start the weekend. Thanks for the kind note.
Jonathan
Dear Professor Turley:
I am a loyal fan and always watch your commentary on Countdown. (I make sure to watch it again when it re-airs at midnight to make sure I get it all…) No one in this house is allowed to talk while your segment is airing.
Your words are a voice of reason in all of this Constitutional madness we have had to endure since this administration seized power. I also appreciate the way you explain Constitutional issues in layman’s terms for all of us non-lawyers.
Some people have religion, some people have the bible. For me the Constitution is my bible. I worship it and often get depressed about how it is being assaulted time and again. The Framers are rolling over in their collective graves.
I want to thank you for all that you do. You are a true American patriot and because of you, I have hope that we can get back to the country we once were. (Oh – and go on Randi Rhodes more – I love those segments too!)
I think you’d make a great Attorney General.
Warmest wishes and regards,
Diana
Loxahatchee, Florida
Attorney General! I thought you liked me. Recently, Republican candidate Ron Paul said that he would like to make me Attorney General if he is elected and I asked what I ever did to him.
Thanks for the kind words Diana. Such positive feedback means a lot to me.
Best,
Jonathan
Welcome to the blogosphere! I’ve linked to you before and will do so again and run a special Take A Peek on our site to get some of my modest readership to your new blog. Also, clearly you won’t be putting political blogs on our blogroll but I’m going to add you to OTHER VOICES on The Moderate Voice’s blogroll right now. I’ll check in and link to you frequently. Your site is already a great resource and you are someone who has enormous credibility…someone who calls the shots in a consistent manner.
Sorry (you have no email address so I have to leave this here but you can delete these comments if you wish). I see I added you already to Center Voices since you’d get more hits there.
Joe:
Thank you for adding me to the website and checking in. I originally set this site up for my students and colleagues. I have been surprised and gratified by the interest outside of the law school. As a baby blogger, I am still learning the ropes but it is a fun distraction.
All my best,
Jonathan
K.S.:
Thank you for your very kind comments. On the Masonic issue, I am aware of the long controversy. I do not like secret societies and I certainly do not like any oath that seems to place the organization above civic duties. Beyond that, I do not know enough about the Masons to comment. On the constitutonal groups, there is an array of options. No good entirely thrills me, but I tend to be a hard sell. The American Civil Liberties Union has done important work historically, but I do not agree with some of its more recent priorities. There seems to be a great deal of politics in the selection of its positions on some issues. Nevertheless, it is an organization with a proud history. I tend to have a fair dose of libertarian feelings so CATO has always held some interest for me. There are, however, a plethora of great groups that specialize on issues of church/state separation and privacy. I tend to be a mutt when it comes to my political views with some conservative, some libertarian, and some liberal elements.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts,
Jonathan
Dear Mr. Turley,
PLEASE help me!!
Knowing the Constitution and Bill of Rights as well as you do, would you say that Bush and/or Cheney have violated the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights enough to be impeached?
My congressman, Robert Wexler, says no. If he is mistaken, I would like to give him a list of impeachable offenses if I could. Please help me to compile such a list.
Respectfully,
JBR
In my view, President Bush clearly committed an impeachable offense in ordering the domestic surveillance program which is a federal crime. The Democrats, however, allowed the law to be extended in one of the most bizarre decisions in decades. The White House immediately claimed that the move established its legality. There are a variety of alleged violations of law but little serious effort in Congress to force disclosure of the information. Years ago, Democratic leadership promised not to allow impeachment investigations let alone proceedings.
Dear Mr. Turley,
Hi, my name is Kate and I attended NYLF Law last week. During my week at DC, I had the opportunity to attend your speech. It was extremely engaging. I was always afraid of admitting that I wanted to be a lawyer (I mean.. it does sound nerdy) and was often confused as to what being a lawyer actually meant. It just seemed like a fancy title that everyone wanted to have. However, after your speech, my dream of becoming a lawyer and helping people became more tangible. I’d like to thank you for such an amazing speech and I’ll never forget that night. Thank you very much.
Kate:
What a wonderful surprise to read your entry on the blog. I cannot tell you how much it means to an academic to receive such a response to a speech. I hope that you continue your plans for the law. We need good people in this profession!
All my best,
Jonathan
I think it appropriate on Thanksgiving to say “Thanks” to you.
You are a welcome reminder that the Constitution is so much more than
“just a piece of paper.”
Thanks so much, and happy thanksgiving to you too!
Prof. Turley,
I was very pleased to hear of your blog on the Randi Rhodes Show today. I enjoy your many appearances on TV and whtching the testimony you present to Congress.
Keep up the good work. No secerts or privelege here.
Thanks, Judy. You made my week.
You are very welcome Prof, Turley.
Dear Mr. Turley,
I, too, am attending the NYLF on Law program. Currently I’m sitting in one of the many hotel rooms on this floor enamored by the speech you gave to us during your brief visit here. You left many of us stunned and became the talk of the night. You truly put things into perspective about what it means to set yourself on an introspective journey. Indeed, it’s more important to be able to look at yourself in a mirror and know who you are, than to be the man who has a thousand riches and has lost himself. Thank you again for taking the time to come. It was definitely enlightening.
My regards,
Trevor
Trevor:
Your message was a wonderful surprise this morning and a great way to start the day. I am glad that you liked the speech and that you guys have continued to talk about it. Enjoy your time in Washington. I look forward to seeing you in a courtroom in the future!
Best,
Jonathan
Dear Prof. Turley,
Welcome to the tubes! I came across your blog after it was mentioned on Daily Kos. I’m a big fan even though I only ever see you in you interviews wit Keith Olbermann. I don’t think he could have picked a better man to help educate the American public about their constitution and the very real risks they face (I’m not American btw).
Thank you for your clear voice, and for using it.
Yours,
Clive,
Taiwan
Dear Professor Turley,
While I am always interested in your thoughts on constitutional law and appreciate the wisdom you bring to TV viewers, this is on a personal note. I was wondering if your ancestor was John Turley Gunnell, who was born in 1796 near Alexandria, VA. His wife was Elizabeth Redd Major. He died in Danvers, Il (McClean County) in 1867. If you are interested, I have some old documents in hand that I would be glad to share.
Regards,
Pat Gunnell Dean
San Anselmo, CA
I am indeed aware that there were Turleys in Virginia at the founding. I gave a speech at George Mason’s home a couple years ago and was struck by the fact that one of his neighbors was a Turley. I was told that Turleys first came over before the Revolution and began in New York/New Jersey. My grandfather’s name was Edmund Turley and lived in New Jersey. We were raised in Chicago, however.
Im actually blown away by this site……..great work Professor.
Thank you. While it is still new and evolving, it has been a fun distraction.
What I find remarkable is Professor Turley’s willingness to find the time, despite an overwhelmingly busy schedule I imagine, to reply to contributors to the discussions. Unfailingly kind, he reminds me of Emerson’s maxim:
The greater man, the greater courtesy.
Well actually its Tennyson I am told.
I am getting old and forgetful!
I read of your site on the dailykos and since I truly enjoy hearing you speak when you’re on Keith Olberman, I had to try to contact you.
The article that referenced your site, mentioned that there is a way to go forward with impeachment of the criminals in the white house without congress, since they are hell bent on not doing their job! What can we, as citizens, do when congress and the senate refuse to provide oversight or investigate the many illegal actions of the bush administration?
I truly fear for the future of this country when all branches of the government are complicit in such gross illegalities. When is torture not torture? When bush and his boys say so… We need help. Where do we go? Thank you in advance.
(I left this question on another blog – but this seems the better place to ask, so sorry for the repeat.)
Dear Professor Turley,
It is such a honor to run into your blog like this.
I used to watch CNN all the time(used to be a news junkie, not anymore though, news depresses me too much these days…) and very much enjoyed your commentaries. I am not going to pretend that I understand law but as a person who strongly believes that “knowledge is power” and more than anything who is always curious with the world and things around me, I feel so lucky to discover your blog today. I made a link to your blog and I know I will be a frequent visitor here and be your virtual student.
- Always Curious
You are very kind and you are welcome to our small circle. I like the idea of a virtual classroom as long as I do not have to hand out virtual grades. I am buried right now in grading my torts class, which is a labor of love but a labor none the less.
Dear Professor Turley,
But as much as I want to be your virtual student here, I don’t want to be graded either. 
I have been enjoying out of school years for quite some time now.
You wouldn’t believe what a great honor it is to be able to address you directly this way. Thank you very much for the welcoming words. You really make me want to be your student.
Today while driving I caught your voice in some segment in NPR (I think it was “Talk of the Nation”, the subject being Castle Doctrine: In Defense of Self-Defense). Sadly I was able to catch the last few minutes of your commentary on the subject.
But it certainly was a pleasant surprise. I hope to see/hear you on TV or radio often.
But I am curious where you find all this time to do so many things, teaching/grading students, appearing on TV or Radio and blogging… I think I need to learn some time management skills from you.
Sincerely,
- Always Curious
I thoroughly enjoy your appearances when I see you on CNN. You bring light to areas I am unfamiliar with, such as constitutional law and its interpretation. I enjoy hearing your opinion and consider you one of the best commentators I have seen on TV.
Keep up the good work.
Rick
Always Curious:
It is not difficult to be a columnist, litigator, and law professor. My secret is that I discovered that you could do a huge number of things if you focus on keeping the quality of your work as low as possible. If you are not insistent on good quality work, you would be surprised how many things you can do!
Rick:
Thank you for the kind note. Feel free to periodically post such notes on a regular basis! Happy Holiday.
Mr. Turley, I enjoy you on Countdown and The Randi Rhodes Show and i’m amazed at how positive you are about our ability to restore the constitution. Just when it seems there’s no turning back from the power grabs by the Bush administration you reassure us that there are legal solutions. With great respect, thank you for serving our country.
Fireontop:
You are very kind. However, I cannot take the credit for the optimism. We have survived worse than the Bush Administration. The Constitution was designed by the Framers to be idiot proof and through the years we have certainly tested that concept.
Best,
Jonathan
Prof. Turley,
First off, let me just chime in with my appreciation of the work you do in the media along with your other duties. Taking complex, emotional (as well as more than a few DUH!) issues and breaking them down to their basic “is it legal or not?” facts is a huge benefit and a bright spot in a generally biased media. You help to show what the media can do, inform a busy populace of the facts of the matter. A basic service that is sadly all to lacking these days.
I hate to bug you, but i do have one question, I have recently gotten into a debate with a friend about the constitutionality of universal health care. His argument is that if a power is not specifically granted by the Constitution, then it is not within the scope of the Federal Government, and then falls upon the states. And that just because powers have been granted to the Fed in the past that weren’t within the intended scope, that doesnt mean that the practice should continue.
To quote him (because he makes his case far better than I)
“The reality is that the Constitution defines what the federal government CAN do. If it isn’t explicitly stated, the federal government has no jurisdiction.
For citizens, it works the other way. If there is nothing prohibiting something to the people, the people can do it unless the states have rules against it. The Bill of Rights may outline some of the rights we have, but one should not take it as an all-inclusive list.
The second mistake is that she’s attributing the statement of purpose (to provide for the common welfare) with an actual power. A good way to explain this is to break a similar statement down. Ex: “To provide for the national defense, the government may maintain a militia, navy, etc.” Should we then take that statement in the same fashion, claiming that the government’s purpose of providing for defense grants it unlimited power to do so by any means necessary? That’s what we’re stating when we use the welfare bit in that way, after all.
So, short version:
The Constitution limits federal government to those powers explicitly granted. If it is not in the Constitution, federal government should not be doing it.
The welfare “clause” is a statement of purpose. It tells us WHY the government is granted the powers listed in the Constitution… it does not grant additional powers.”
I was just wondering if he was correct, or if he was missing something?
The only legal case I can see that makes me question his assertion is mcCulloch V Maryland, however even that ruling states that the end result must be within the scope of the Constitution.
Of course, I’m no lawyer, so naturally, i have zero clue!
thanks so much, for giving us this forum, and for giving so much of your time to educating and shedding light on the laws that make our freedoms possible.
Aaron
Dear Prof. Turley,
I’ve seen your discussions with Keith Olbermann of COUNTDOWN many times, and have always enjoyed your discussions.
Your blog and various articles are excellent, and I always learn a great deal about the law and the criminal justice system by reading them. I’m sorry to impose, but I just would like to know where on your website the article “CRIMINALIZING INNOCENT BEHAVIOR AT AN ALARMING RATE” is posted. I would like to post this link at a forum I post on to point out how the criminal justice system is being used as a weapon against innocent people in a grossly abusive fashion by members of the law enforcement community.
If you could give me a “road map” in the form of a link to that article, it would be very helpful. I’ve looked through several of your pages, but I always seem to miss the correct page. Needless to say, I have put your site on my Favorite Places list for regular reference.
Thank you in advance.
Susan
Thanks Susan. You will find a bunch of entries on the over-criminalization of America by putting in criminalization in the search box. A column can be found at http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/18/the-criminalization-of-america/
Thanks again for your kind words and putting me in your favorite site!
JT and Susan
I was curious, too, so I Googled the phrase
“CRIMINALIZING INNOCENT BEHAVIOR AT AN ALARMING RATE”
and got an article you wrote for Jewish World Review 3/28/07
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/turley.php3
Dear Prof. Turley,
Thanks so much for your prompt response. I hope you don’t mind if I posted the link to this excellent, not to mention alarming, article at a Justice System forum. My feeling is, the more people who know about these abuses by law enforcement, the better.
I have noticed that everyone wants to believe the best of law enforcement at the city, state and federal levels, but it seems they’re too eager to bury their heads in the sand to avoid hearing the worst. The consequences of this ostrich imitation is that the worst (being falsely or wrongly charged with a criminal offense) could happen to them, or someone in their family. By then, of course, it is too late.
Again, thank you.
Hello ,
I hope you are fine and carrying on the great work you have been doing for the Internet surfers. I am Ghazala Khan from The Pakistani Spectator (TPS), We at TPS throw a candid look on everything happening in and for Pakistan in the world. We are trying to contribute our humble share in the webosphere. Our aim is to foster peace, progress and harmony with passion.
We at TPS are carrying out a new series of interviews with the notable passionate bloggers, writers, and webmasters. In that regard, we would like to interview you, if you don’t mind. Please send us your approval for your interview at my email address “ghazala.khi at gmail.com”, so that I could send you the Interview questions. We would be extremely grateful.
regards.
Ghazala Khan
The Pakistani Spectator
http://www.pakspectator.com
I read on another web site that you served as a Congressional page. I also served–in 1969. Just wondering what year(s) you served and your thoughts on the experience.
Thanks!
rog
That was back in the 1970s. Here are a couple of links http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/20/the-page-scandal-and-a-congress-that-simply-cant-resist/ and http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/18/the-page-protection-act-the-path-to-saving-a-historic-program/
It is good to hear from another page. I was in the House page service in 1997 and 1978. I loved it, though as these links indicate, I have been a critic of the structure and supervision of the page service since then.
Professor,
What is your opinion on the constitutionality of sex offender registration? I look forwoed to your reply.
BP
Professor,
What an impressive C.V.! I’m grateful you’ve found another medium to share your constitutional wisdom with all of us. Your reach is growing and providing many people like me with important info to help steer this country in the right direction.
Here’s proof: On an Octover 16 entry above, JBR asked about your opinion of impeachable offenses commited by the President. He wanted to convince Congressman Wexler of the need to uphold the Constitution. Have you seen wexlerwantshearings.com yet? Kudos to both you and JBR for playing a role.
I’ve contacted my congressman but have not gotten any response yet. I’ll keep trying, though, I’m becoming more pessimistic about him.
My question is since the teleco’s may receive retroactive immunity, does this negate the warrantless wiretapping as an impeachable offense? Also, is there any truth to the argument that if the teleco’s do not receive immunity, then other companies will not be able to support the Administration spying on Americans “to protect Americans?”
Thanks in advance for your response. And thanks also for joining the blogosphere…I’ve added your site to my Favorites!
Dear Jonathan Turley 02-15-08
I enjoy listening to your comments whenever you are on Keith Olbermann’s show. The other day was most interesting as it fits well with what I’ve experienced in most of my life while married. The following day, I ran a search looking for any website that followed your commentary but there was only one.
I left the following post and wanted to make sure you and Keith were able to read it…..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Unfortunately there is much more to what is happening than what many already know. Many of us are horrified with what is happening, but there maybe another side that explains this than what we all currently see.
Sadly, sometime over the last many decades we’ve seemed to have replaced our two parties into two groups with one wanting our Constitution and the other NOT wanting the Constitution. There seems to be many other changes too and a glaring one is that our system of Law isn’t living up to what it should be. There is also a realization with everyone that “We the People” have been replaced with “The Corporations” and “Others” NOT wanting the Constitution.
Unknown to me at the time while married in a family back in the 70’s, they joined a group who actively doesn’t want the Constitution. I was in that family for more than 26 years and early on, their job with this group was to launder Drug and Gun Running money straight into property with big Banks using Mortgage Fraud to hide ownership. Please note that the Gun Running part has already been in the news with Drummond Corp and Chiquita Brand. However there is another huge part beyond these corporations that include many others that many don’t know about.
In the early 90’s the family graduated from laundering money into going into business with “Clyde O’Connor” with flying in huge amounts of Drugs into the US. This became part of a large group of other people, some families I can name. Recent investigations have surfaced that a fleet of 50 Planes are involved. Clyde O’Connor was caught in Mexico later last year with Ton’s of Cocaine on his plane but wasn’t ever prosecuted as he remains at large to this day. Clyde is my ex-sister-in-laws brother and her husband is Clyde’s money man. I know this because I stood next to Clyde and my ex-brother-in-law in the early 90’s while they discussed getting their new business venture started in Florida.
As per the family, the drug system is enormous. The Chicago part is a $100 Million Weekly shipment split with Florida and New York. That amounts to more than $5 Billion annually and we need to consider that there are many other weekly shipments going elsewhere within the US at the same time.
As explained by the family, the Drug system’s proceeds are being used to FUND “Black Op’s” here in the US in support of another “White House Coup”. The Coup has been “in process” for decades as they learned early on after the failed White House Coup in 1933 that a different approach was needed to succeed. The Coup is waiting for a day they call “The Change”. “The Change” is when our Government system finally changes over to be a Dictatorship. That is also when many other things are expected to happen as well. Needless to say, there was a lot of discussion back then knowing the earlier failure with worrying about another failure. Even though the family was concerned, they always said that they were told this time the Coup would be successful.
There is a lot to talk within the family about this issue. Please accept that I’m as concerned for everyone as you are. After hearing Keith Olbermann and Jonathan Turley last night, my thought today was to write them directly. I may still do that. Happily I ran across this article with an opportunity to reply.
I just hope and pray someone is listening!
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Usually posting challenges my ability to limit an explanation of this system to something smaller than a book. There is so much more about this that needs to be surfaced. I’ve been following the news for sometime and feel that soon something may break on many of these issues. That means that if not now, later we’ll be talking in a serious manner focused on what this is.
Sincerely,
Marty Didier
A Man and A Woman, what shall they be
An Artist and An Artist, all that responsibility
A poet, a philosopher , a diplomat, a muse
An actress, a musician, an inspiration, to truth
Dear nature come calling on God’s blessed Earth
Your children love dearly this place of their birth
A home eternal for creatures large and small
World spin the seasons winter, spring, summer and fall
A web has been built between present and past
It’s up to mankind to decide if mankind will last
The future holds promise for all cultures to see
The cosmos do beckon for the brave and the free
Democracy’s path protects freedom and rights
Woe to those who abuse it and challenge it’s light
Some pretend to believe for power and greed
Their fate is sealed, their faith failed their need
The material and the spiritual and all of God’s plan
This meeting has been building from before the fall of man
The journey’s been joined by our friends Time and Space
And of course the Almighty in his infinite grace
Now on with your hats and on with your boots
The good and the righteous are forgiven for the fruit
A Man and A Woman, what shall they be
To all on all virtues, we’re waiting to see
Where is William Boykin.
Mr Turley,
I appreciate your candor and have become a fan of your writing and TV appearances (while testifying and as an analyst). Always speak truth, sir.
Thank you!
I have added you to my BlogRoll so others may find their way here.
Mr. Turley,
Hopeless, I found, getting thorough and an insightful view on Texas Supreme Court Justice Medina and his spouse concerning duplicity in the arson of their Spring, Texas home, the destruction of another home, plus damage to a third residence. Seeking just a morsel of intimacy about the various players in their story; their defense attorney, the grand jurors- foreman/asst foreman, a county DA and his assistant, troubled Texas judges, that ole rule of law and sweetheart blind justice. I knew there must be a realm of credulity that was breeched. Nowhere that did not lack integrity did I find background exploring the tangled issues that strung the players together, nowhere did I find a writer or reporter whose pen pointed straight had planted their shovel into the fertile Texas landscape to do limited or otherwise investigative background on the principals themselves where the identity a myriad of sordid details may come to light; i.e., Medina’s financial plight, the spectrum of gay rights and its activism, political mud raking, judicial indiscretions’, and so on. I ignored the lackluster reports as I continued to search the web clicking through a number of “news articles” concerning the Harris County Indictments that had been handed down in January, and then ever so swift right on the heels of the indictment D.A. Rosenberg’s controversial motion to withdraw those indictments against Justice Medina and his spouse (with Judge Wallace ordering same) on different charges between the two… Except that I ran upon your blog about this Medina mess and more, which I read with interest, thank you for reasonably detailing this Medina affair. I can see how you have become interested in a well-rounded way, whether taken aback by the similarities, or lack thereof, concerning the Rocky Flats jury, or a more banal perspective you may be taking– that indeed disaster lies underfoot of the Harris County prosecutors’ actions, that impotence is laying in wait, that our judicial system is under stealth attack. Someone must be there to witness, be there to report at some level upon truth that does not lie. And it is you- you are that man, who I now recognize. I am but one lone interested reader, but I know there are more like me too, wanting to know, and to know even more without picking up a Texas Monthly.
CSRVICES
Austin, Texas
Mr Turley:
I appreciate your appearances on Countdown. Your comment last night (3 April 2008) about lawyers being responsible for sanctioning the lawbreaking in the Bush administration is something that needs to be said. At the same time — and I know you already know this — many lawyers have also shown themselves to be among the most courageous in defending those whose rights have been compromised by the administration. In particular, I’d single out the JAG Corps, especially Navy JAGs, who have been the most involved with Guantanamo. It’s extremely difficult to “go against the flow” when your career is determined by people who disagree with you, but many JAG officers have done so. I salute them.
Jim Wilson
Arlington VA
P.S. No, I’m not a lawyer, nor a member of the Armed Forces. But I’ve had the privilege of working with some JAG officers in the distant past. Their courage and independence in today’s politicized environment doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Somebody told me when I became what I could have been
Somebody lied to me tell me everything
Cuz it’s been hard you see to find myself again
Oh I’m an angry fool
All of the time I have spent
Trading loves for my innocence
Hey did I betray the truth
Cuz it would be a shiny sea
If I spent it all worthlessly
Oh I’ll be bankrupt from you
Cuz it’s been hard, hard but I’m livin
Trying to believe
I remember back in the day
We were young our dreams just came our way
But now one’s broken, one’s missing, one’s blue
Tell me cuz I just want to know
Did he call me his one man show
I’m all tangled up and bruised
Cuz it’s been hard, hard but I’m livin
Oh it’s been hard, hard but I’m living
Trying to believe
We’re all O.K.
Am I self destructing
Am I self destructing
Are we self destructing
Figure it out
Thanks for your courage and integrity, Jonathan Turley. I never thought I’d live to see torture institutionalized in America. Like Spencer Tracey pointed out in Judgement at Nuremberg, “Civilization is the defendant” if the Bush administration’s war crimes are ever brought to trial. Your unwavering voice pierces the cacophony, and I cannot thank you enough.
Dear Professor Turley,
I am an attorney and former adjunct law school professor.
I am writing to bring your attention to an urgent issue, and to get your take on it.
Specifically, as documented at the website http://www.constitutionally.blogspot.com (with links to source materials):
(1) The United States has been in a declared state of emergency continuously from 9/11 to the present;
(2) Continuity of Government (“COG”) measures were actually implemented on 9/11, and were maintained — at the very least — for 9 months;
(3) Congress did not know COG plans had been implemented;
(4) The implementation of COG plans supersedes the Constitutional form of government created by the founding fathers. For example, COG plans basically cut Congress out of the decision-making process;
(5) In the summer of 2007, the Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress requested that the White House disclose to it the full documentation on the latest COG plans. Most or all of the members of the Homeland Security Committee have full security clearances to view all such documents. However, the White House refused to show the Committee the documents, citing “national security”;
(6) There is strong circumstantial evidence that the COG measures implemented on 9/11 were never rescinded, and are still – currently – in effect.
You have shown great insight and courage in speaking on other important Constitutional issues of the day. Thank you in advance for spending a couple of minutes looking into this meta-issue.
GW.
By the way, I did not intend to put a smiley face in my post (I typed close quotes and then close parenthesis).
Mr. Turley, thank you for your insights, I just found this blog after having seen you 10 times on Olbermann. I was curious if you were active at all in the things you talk about, ya know, trying to counteract or stop, but I guess I’ll read the blog first.
cheers!
jason in germany
http://www.prlog.org/10066765-congress-and-supreme-court-listen-to-what-dennis-quaid-has-to-say-about-big-pharma-abuses.html
U.S. Congress and Supreme Court: Listen to what Dennis Quaid has to say
about Big Pharma’s Abuses!
by Stephen Fox, Managing Editor Santa Fe Sun News
A nightmarish story of two week old twins of Dennis Quaid and Kimberley
Buffington, getting overdosed by a 1000 times overdose of blood thinner
Heparin* at LA Cedars Sinai Hospital (*already under scrutiny for Chinese
manufacturing contamination)
Dennis Quaid is here in Santa Fe to film Legion. We were horrified to learn
what happened to his twins, Thomas Boone and Zoe Grace, who were last
November accidentally given 1,000 times the common dosage of the blood
thinner, Heparin; this drug is already under scrutiny because of
contamination presumably in the manufacturing process in China. According to
an article and photos in the New York Times, this heparin manufacturing
process involves grinding up pig intestines in family kitchens/factories
that seem ordinary for China, but which would seem monstrously filthy in
most nations.
These Quaid twins were conceived with a surrogate mother and are wonderful
little blue-eyed bundles of joy already.
Cedars of Sinai Hospital officials denied that any of the victims suffered
any ill effects. Chief Medical Officer, Michael Langberg confirmed that
three patients received vials containing 10,000 units per milliliter of
heparin, instead of vials with a concentration of 10 units per milliliter.
The patients were receiving intravenous medications and the heparin was used
to flush the catheters to prevent clotting.
Once the hospital staff realized the error, they tested to measure the
patients’ blood clotting function. One test was normal, but the other two
were given another drug, protamine sulfate, that reverses the effects of
heparin. Further tests “indicated no adverse effects from the higher
concentration of heparin,” Langberg said. Heparin is used to treat and
prevent blood clots in the veins or arteries and comes in different
concentrations; too much can be deadly.
Last year, three premature infants at an Indiana hospital died after a
pharmacy technician mistakenly stocked the medicine cabinet with heparin
vials containing a dose 1,000 times stronger than what the babies were
supposed to receive. Three others also suffered overdoses but survived.
Quaid and his wife, Kimberley Buffington, are the biological parents of the
twins, who were born Nov. 8 to a surrogate mother.”God has definitely
blessed us,” the couple said in a statement announcing their birth. Quaid,
53, has a 15-year-old son, Jack Henry Quaid, from his marriage to Meg Ryan.
His credits include “Great Balls of Fire!” “Any Given Sunday” “The Big Easy”
and “Far From Heaven.”
This nightmarish story is of great concern to me, given my deep focus on
consumer protection, especially getting aspartame taken off the market by
getting its FDA and other regulatory approval rescinded.
Two week old children should not be administered such risky drugs in the
first place. Quaid and his wife are correct to be suing the manufacturer
because of the shoddy labeling on each vial, although the $50,000 they are
asking for seems like chump change for what sort of terror as parents they
had to have gone through; Quaid told me that he is very keen on getting them
to standardize their labeling all over the world, so this won’t happen
again. Baxter Health Care stated that: “this is not a product issue. The
issue here is about improper use of a product.”
In a prepared statement, the hospital said a pharmacy technician took the
heparin from the pharmacy’s supply without having a second technician verify
the drug’s concentration, as hospital policy requires. Then, when the
heparin was delivered to a satellite pharmacy that serves the pediatrics
unit, a different technician there did not verify the concentration, as
required.
Finally, the nurses who administered the heparin to the patients violated
policy by neglecting to verify that it was the correct medication and dose
beforehand, the hospital said. Quaid’s suit argues that the heparin
was “unreasonably dangerous” as it was packaged and sold because both the
small and large dosage vials had labels with blue backgrounds when the vials
should have been completely distinguishable (by) size and shape. He can wait
up to eight years to sue Cedars Sinai, which is warranted, given the
developmental damage that might have occurred with the heparin overdose,
which hopefully will not materialize during the next seven ½ years.
Quaid told me out of their concern for other potential vicitms of heparin,
especially children, that he and his wife Kimberley will be addressing a
Congressional hearing in the near future on this matter, and is even more
concerned that the United States Supreme Court does not extend its immunity
blanket to drug manufacturers in a decision expected this summer. “The
Supremes” have already given blanket immunity to medical device
manufacturers, and of course extending this to Big Pharma becomes an obscene
and brazen gift from the Bushie Neocons-doing-business-as-the-US Supreme
Court to some of the biggest corporate monsters in America.
Mike Adams of Newstarget.com, one of the sharpest and most astute
alternative health commentators in the USA, decried this situation in a
great column and recent post as no less than the veritable end of our nation
as we know it, if the Supremes hand the “get-out-of-being-sued” card to Big
Pharma. Let’s hope that Mr Quaid and his wife can add momentum and some
celebrity impact to this discussion when they appear before Congress, and
let’s hope that some of the venerable Supreme Court Justices might just
happen to be listening!
Re: “Criminalization of America” related topics
Professor, I just wanted to thank you for continuing to “shine the searchlight,” for lack of a better expression, on the serious problem of lawmakers who make up ridiculous and abusive “crime” statutes, and the law enforcement officials who enforce them.
I post at another justice discussion forum, where concerned citizens who are very worried about these types of abuses by law enforcement can meet to share and exchange ideas for possible improvement. I know you are very busy with your own blog, and this is strictly an invitation only, but if you’re interested in receiving a link to this Justice System Discussion forum just to check it out, feel free to send me an email at: JUSTICE1st@aol.com. I don’t want to post the link to the forum on the blog, because that will attract the destructive flamers.
Again, my sincerest thanks.
Susan
Dear Professor:
You seem to key in a lot on injustice in Denver, ranging from its hooker trsfficking federal judge( Bush appointee, to its pesky grsnd juries , and leaks in criminal matters, but your silence is utterly deafing in the Stone civil csse.
Mr Jim Stone wss tehe civil plsintiff in the reputed big qui tsm worker csse.
Strangely, he did not testify in 1999 at the trial.
He wss hurt on all of that, even though he went to the FBI
The FBI guy did not testify in the civil csse sgainst against Rockwell, either.
You are strangely silent on the above.
Mitchell
Mr. Turley,
Heard you on Rhandi Rhodes program today. Keep up the good work.
Currently I am battling an overzealous and moronic code department at the City of Fort Lauderdale. I have already attended the hearing they set up with the special magistrate that is on their payroll. No jury trial. He did not hear a thing I said. Literally. (my microphone was cutting in and out)
I have been pondering going to battle (appeal / sue) over the following legal questions:
Whether quasi-judicial code hearings conducted in front of a special magistrate – whose salary ( $350 per hearing ) paid by the moving party ( the City) – is a conflict of interest. (Obviously if he ruled against the City very often they would not bring him back for any hearings)
Whether quasi-judicial hearings conducted in front of a special magistrate – instead of a jury trial – violates a resident’s right to a jury trial per Article 1, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, and Amendment VII U.S. Constitution. ($150 / day fine being threatened)
SECTION 22. Trial by jury.–The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate. The qualifications and the number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law.
Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
Whether an action by the City to take a resident’s property because he is fixing his car on his own property … violates Article 1, Section Two of the Florida Constitution, also see Amendment XIV, U.S. Constitution.
SECTION 2. Basic rights.–All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; … No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
Whether an action by the City to take resident’s property simply because he stores a few items in his fenced in back yard … violates Amendment XIV, U.S. Constitution. The City’s own code – section 47 – clearly gives Fort Lauderdale residents the right to store items in their back yard. (City’s response ? “section applies to commercial property”. Then why is the word residential used 12 times in this section of the code ?)
Whether FLL Code section 47-19.1.M – which states “ No private garage will be allowed in residential districts in which is conducted any business” – is overbroad and vague, and therefore unconstitutional.
Whether the City is negligent for failing to provide the accused resident with a proper working microphone at the special magistrate hearing.
Whether the City is negligent for conducting said hearing in front of a special magistrate who admitted he is hard of hearing.
Whether Judge Hull – by ordering the resident to allow the Code officer into the resident’s fenced back yard – is violating the resident’s fundamental right to privacy.
SECTION 23. Right of privacy.–Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.
SECTION 12. Searches and seizures.–The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution
Whether the City is guilty of selective enforcement when it ignores blatant code violations by one resident and over-pursues violations by another resident.
Whether the City’s overzealous prosecutions – advanced solely to fund their coffers – violates
Article 1, Section 17 of the Florida Constitution:
SECTION 17. Excessive punishments.–Excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden
I think I have a fair chance if I can ever get these issues in front of a jury trial in the County Court system.
I spent almost 110 years in the Federal Justice (sic) system trying to obtain justtice against Eastern Air Lines for labor violations. All I got from that was BOHICA (bend over here it comes again) I will never waste my time in the Federdal system again ( I hope ).
What do you think my chances are ?
I have not had a chance to do any deep legal research on these matters yet. Been too busy trying to do everything that the code department expects me to do.
Thanks in advance,
Bruce Toski
Fort Lauderdale, FL
954 583-4191
Dear Prof. Turley,
My name is Alan Jasie and I am the Program Producer for News Talk Online at Paltalk.com. I would like to invite you on to our show to talk about what the next president should look for in selecting the next Supreme Court justices. We would also like to discuss the decision reached by the Supreme Court re Habeas Corpus and the prisoners at Guantanemo Bay.
News Talk Online is broadcast live Monday – Friday at 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM EST. We use a web cast audio/video format and our audience can ask questions to our guest and host via voice chat or text (our host would read the text questions). We are located in New York City but we can do the interview over the phone.
News Talk Online at Paltalk.com is hosted by Gary Baumgarten (former CNN Radio NY Bureau chief). Paltalk has over 4 million users. Our show is also broadcast over the CRN Radio network into 12 million households.
We have the following dates open: Friday June 20th and Monday June 23rd –Tuesday June 24th
Some of our recent guests:
News and Politics – Ed Koch, Gary Hart, Ollie North, Dr. Frank Newport (Gallup), Jon Soltz (VoteVets.org) and Bob Barr(Today)
Authors – Gregg Mitchell (So Wrong For So Long), Jonathan Cohn (Sick), Cliff Schecter (The Real McCain), Robert McElvaine (Grand Theft Jesus)
Entertainment – Gary David Goldberg (Sit Ubu Sit), Janine Turner
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks and Best regards,
Alan Jasie
News Talk Online
Program Producer
212 564 9997 ext 242 (T)
646 236 1517 (C)
Paltalk “Communication Beyond Words”
Dear Jonathan,
I have been uplifted by your quest to show that the Democrats, especially my Congressional opponent, Pelosi, are now (or have been) collaborators with BushCo in their crimes.
As you may, or may not know, I have been an avid and outspoken advocate for impeachment for years now and I appreciate the renewed interest in the concept of impeaching GWB and DC.
I think it would be timely if you could come to San Franciso and speak on a panel with me and do some actions aimed at the Speaker.
Of course, Cindy for Congress would pay your travel and lodging expenses.
I don’t know if you read these responses…
Respectfully,
Cindy Sheehan
Cindy, go get a job.
bindo:
She tried but she had family problems. Maybe someone read you something about it –using flash cards I suspect. Only a cad would insult a mother who lost a son in a needless war. That family’s honor is intact, yours is shattered, if it ever existed.
mespo727272:
Cindy’s son volunteered as have two of my sons and millions of other’s sons & daughters.
In my opinion, it is wrong for her to be politicizing his sacrifice in an attempt to cause this country to lose a war that almost everybody that thinks agrees must be won while we only differ on the cost to the world of leaving the battlefield.
russ:
Like so many one dimensional thinkers, you missed the point. Her son did more than volunteer, he died fighting in a war we would have never fought if the facts were fairly presented to us. Forgive me for feeling bamboozled, but if I were fraudulently sold a lemon car, I would resent making the payments. You should know that your sons’ service is honored by everyone, it’s the cowboy yahoos we elected who deserve the scorn. I wonder what your sons would say to your trashing of a gold star mom? Why don’t you ask them or, for a better perspective, ask their mother?
mespo:
Nobody died in a war whose facts were not fairly presented to us; the world saw the danger Saddam was and our President acted. Now you choose to complain.
The OATH President Bush took is very clear and looked at from Bush’s viewpoint, he was doing only what his oath of office required. Of all the responsibilities imposed on a president, none exceeds the obligation to protect the American people. Indeed, any president found to have neglected or shortchanged that obligation would expose himself to impeachment — by popular demand. Bush did what he thought he had to do.
So please, you, Cindy, and the rest of the looney left, lay off my SON’S COMMANDER IN CHIEF! Your incessant whining is getting sickening.
The really SAD fact is if America had been attacked again after 9/11; the same childish lunatics here would be screaming for impeaching him for NOT protecting us.
russ:
Seems you disagree with the recent Senate Intelligence Committee Report that says we were “lied” into a war by Bush & Company. We’ll just ignore Richard Clark too. But hey I’ll take your word for it since you have mastered the fine art of cut and paste putting the same comment in two threads. Seem my reply elsewhere to this foolishness. By the way, on your second comment, I wouldn’t give up my day job. Being a swami doesn’t suit you. I can think of other acts in the circus that might though.
mespo: the only way you can agree that the recent Senate Intelligence Report says what you says it says is to be wililng to take the word of, lets say, someone as “distinguished a liar as Michael Moore…….
If you read the report you would see it doesn’t say anything anywhere near what you have been told it says.
Liberal TNR Editor:
Bush Never Lied to Us About Iraq
By Warner Todd Huston | June 16, 2008 – 13:39 ET
In an editorial in the L.A. Times on the 16th, Kirchick said that “Bush never lied to us about Iraq” and then went on to substantiate his claim in a style that runs contrary to the Media and nutroots meme that “Bush lied and people died.”
The left narrative, one the media is happy to parrot, has been that Bush lied us into war. Kirchick points out that “the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.”
But Kirchick then steps out into some of the most intellectually honest analysis I’ve seen from the left since before the 2000 election when BDS first began to infect the media.
Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House “manipulation” –that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction –administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.
Kirchick goes on to chronicle some of the agencies and investigative bodies that have found absolutely no evidence that the Bush Administration manipulated Congress as it made the case for the war.
Kirchick also comes as close to calling John D. Rockefeller (D, W. Va.) a liar as you can without using those specific words when he notes that Rockefeller’s “highly partisan” Senate Intelligence Committee report does not support the wild eyed claims made in its summation.
Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
Kirchick also trenchantly notes that the latest partisan attack that is being presented as a “report” conveniently forgets to mention the words of the many dozens of highly placed Democrats who’s words were nearly identical to Bush’s in the run up to war.
In 2003, top Senate Democrats — not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others — sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month’s report, titled “Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information,” includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees — who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors — many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.
In the end, Kirchick finds no shred of proof that Bush “lied” about anything. In fact, he scolds every Democrat and partisan leftist for saying that he did and that the claim that Bush lied us into war is an “unsubstantiated allegation” that is “cowardly and dishonest.”
So, kudos to James Kirchick for an honest look at the record. Certainly we can agree to disagree right now, at this point, if the war was a good idea or not. But, it is beyond question that there were no lies disseminated by the Bush Administration and neither did the president “manipulate” any evidence to “mislead” the nation into war.
Go read Kirchick’s piece and marvel that it came from a lefty. He really nailed it. “Bush never lied to us about Iraq” is worth your time.
russ:
Unlike you, I did read much of the Report. Here are the verbatim conclusions of the Committee detailing the false, misleading, incompetent, and ill intentioned deeds of this Administration and the President, Vice-president and Secretary of Defense in particular:
“Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.”
If you would like the actual false statements, they are likewise stated in the Report. A fair minded person must conclude that our Government either was totally incompetent,or “lied us” into a needless war. Neither choice is very appealing, and given this Administration’s record of not leveling with the American public, I would have to say the chances are that we have been deceived.
Iraqi, U.S. Forces Take Over Al-Mahdi Stronghold Without Firing a Shot
Thursday , June 19, 2008
They came at dawn, thousands of Iraqi troops and U.S. special forces on a mission to reclaim a lawless city from the militias who ran it.
By the end of the day, al-Amarah was under Iraqi government control — without a shot being fired amid cheering Iraqi troops.
The city had been taken over by Muqtada al-Sadr’s al-Mahdi Army two years ago after British troops handed it to an ill-prepared Iraqi Army. On Thursday, the city’s streets were crawling with smiling yet forceful Iraqi security forces. Soldiers searched houses as police manned checkpoints and Soviet-era tanks guarded bridges over the Tigris River. Jubilant residents were seen motioning to Iraqi soldiers to search their homes as if saying “I am with you, I am Iraqi, come see.”
The flood of troops, who had moved into position outside the city a week ago, had encountered no resistance as they moved in. The leaders of the Shia militias that once ruled as crime bosses and warlords were either gone or in hiding. Even the police chief fled a week ago, fearing arrest for his affiliation to the al-Mahdi Army, while the mayor, a member of the Sadrist movement, was arrested.
Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia prime minister, has insisted that his large-scale operations in the south are not targeting the Sadrist movement, which has been increasingly weakened by internal divisions, its brutal reputation for murder and extortion and a hugely more confident Iraqi military.
Al-Sadr, the fundamentalist Shia cleric who heads the al-Mahdi Army and the Sadrist political movement, claimed he had ordered his men not to resist the government forces, and a senior member of his parliamentary block expressed grudging support for the Iraqi troops.
Locals said that militiamen had been spotted throwing their weapons into the Tigris or trying to hide them along the lush river banks. One man said that he saw women digging up stashes hidden by fighters and taking them into a weapons collection point manned by Iraqi soldiers to get them out of the hands of the fighters.
Hi! Just have to say I’m a fan of the U.S. Constitution and like what you say about it being “idiot-proof”. Gives a person hope to hear that….
I’ve been reading some of your stuff, today, and I’m wondering…. what person from history (i.e. founder, lawyer, scholar, philosopher ) would YOU most love to be able keep as a conversation buddy….?
Highly curious….Thanks!
MornenGleide
Mornegleide:
Yes, the US Constitution is idiot proof from our liberals. They can’t touch it. Liberals in America are the most intolerent group of people you will ever find when it comes to politics. They will shout you down, ruin speeches by screaming epithets, march in the streets intimidating those they disagree with by getting in their face, mock as neanderthals those they differ with.
But we are safe in our US Constitution. It calls for free speech and the liberals are not able to take that away no matter how much they scream, rant, swear at others, or push them around.
“Yes, the US Constitution is idiot proof from our liberals. They can’t touch it.”
I may not be a liberal, but I do know a duplicitous liar when I see one.
It’s amazing how you can feign loyalty to the constitution out of one side of your mouth, while cheering on an administration as it uses the constitution as a urinal puck, out of the other side of your mouth.
MornenGleide”
“They will shout you down, ruin speeches by screaming epithets, march in the streets intimidating those they disagree with by getting in their face, mock as neanderthals those they differ with.”
*********************
Yeah, yeah what russ said and plus they spy on you, intercept your phone calls, place you in “free speech zones” away from any political speaker, confinscate tape recorders from journalists when their Judges talk, eject people from speeches by public officials (even Presidents) because of the T-shirt you wear, and many other horrible things–oh wait, that was conservatives who did that to liberals. My bad!
MornenGleide:
No contest. James Madison. Though I would have to chide him over the electoral college.
JT:
Though a life-long admirer (I even went to his University)I think a table for three would have include his neighbor and friend Thos. Jefferson. Wouldn’t you agree?
Hi Mespo! I know you posed the question about including T. Jefferson in the group of three to JT, but may I say that I agree?
Bindo and Russ:
This page is a bio of someone who, when he talks, I listen.
Your points may be relevant, but please take them elsewhere.
Professor Turley:
Yes, when you talk on the tube I make sure I put down what I am doing and listen. Your analysis is clear and to the point and heck, nice tie!
I read this blog daily, which I consider to be a “Legal News of the Weird”. I wonder how some of these cases turn out.
Thanks for being a clear voice for the Constitution, a document that seems these days to be used more as an earplug than a legal statement of Ideals.
I agree with Alan, above, on both counts…
That tie really is “Off the Hook” – a Happy Father’s Day present?
You looked ‘mahvelous’ on KO 6/19.
Yours has to be the whitest shirt I have every seen – against that dark blue jacket! Nice combination for you. Surely, even Leslie approved.
p.s. How are Madison and the other cabinet members?
Mespo:
I am frankly uncertain about the dinner invite for T. Jefferson if only a third chair is available. I would probably first ask George Mason and, if I am allowed to go foreign, Edmund Burke. It is not that I am in total agreement, but I would expect that to be a very interesting evening out. TJ would certainly be in the top five from that period, however.
Alan Liechty:
I will assume that weird in “Legal News of the Weird” is not meant to be a reference back to the legal news rather than the blogger. Thanks for your kind note, much appreciated.
JT:
I thought about Mason too, but Jefferson could discuss a broader range of topics from horticulture to natural law to politics to inventions. If I could pick anyone from the period, I would take Meriwether Lewis. Assuming we could get him to talk (he was hopelessly shy) that would be a conversation for the ages including the mysterious circumstances of his death at Grinder’s Stand. Jefferson was a tad cantankerous and a bit haughty, but I personally would love to hear about that election in 1800. BTW your tie was quite the hit apparently.
Mornegleide & you liberals here, all three of you:
Yes, the US Constitution is idiot proof from our liberals. They can’t touch it. Liberals in America are the most intolerent group of people you will ever find when it comes to politics. They will shout you down, ruin speeches by screaming epithets, march in the streets intimidating those they disagree with by getting in their face, mock as neanderthals those they differ with.
But we are safe in our US Constitution. It calls for free speech and the liberals are not able to take that away no matter how much they scream, rant, swear at others, or push them around.
russ:
Personally, I think no liberal would ever shout you down or mock you. Why should they, by comparison they all sound like Winston Churchill or Cicero. Carry on brave defender of the faith.
Mornegleide & you liberals here, all three of you:
Yes, the US Constitution is idiot proof from our liberals. They can’t touch it. Liberals in America are the most intolerent group of people you will ever find when it comes to politics. They will shout you down, ruin speeches by screaming epithets, march in the streets intimidating those they disagree with by getting in their face, mock as neanderthals those they differ with.
But we are safe in our US Constitution. It calls for free speech and the liberals are not able to take that away no matter how much they scream, rant, swear at others, or push them around.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT LIBERALS ALWAYS FEEL THEY MUST GET THE LAST WORD IN……….
Mr. Turley,
I always look forward to your appearances on “Countdown With Keith Olbermann”. I wish you could have been my government teacher, way back in the 1970s when I was in high school. I may have chosen a different path in life.
I have sent a suggestion to Barack Obama’s website that he consider you for a seat on the Supreme Court, after he becomes President. I know you would use the Constitution as your basis for decisions, and not let any politicians influence you.
Thank you for your logical, factual and excellent discussions with Keith; and I do hope you will consider becoming a Supreme Court Judge, if the situation arises.
Sincerely,
Mary Leon
Mary Leon:
I can guarantee you Mr. turley is not qualified for a SC nomination. He is like Obama, all talk and no facts.
Shame you are so enamoured with a low life narcistic person like Mr. Olbermann. Most people have seen right through him which is why even Oreilly’s re-run ratings from two hours later beat Olbermann’s prime time show.
russ:
I was leaving a message for Mr. Turley, not you.
You’ve added your opinion, so thanks, but I can decide for myself who I like to watch on TV and I enjoy watching Keith Olbermann.
I would think that you would be too busy to post here, what with all the scandals and lies coming from your president Bush and his White House gang.
Every day I look forward to the newest exposed lies and corruption. And, yes, even though it may take time, your president Bush will be exposed for what he has done to destroy our country and our US Constitution and Especially the loss of our US troops and Innocent Iraqis; either in this world or the next.
I’m also looking forward to Election Day this November so I can cast my vote for Sen. Barack Obama.
Adios, russ,
Mary Leon
One more thing, russ:
You might be interested in “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC) agenda. It is a delusional Neo-Con dream of world dominance, starting in the Middle East. I’m sure you will find it a fascinating work of fiction. Some of the original signers of the agenda: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush. Very interesting that these men are or were so involved with this White House administration…
You’ll have to find it in Wikipedia, though (look under the PNAC archives). The main website is Closed, with a message to contact the accounts office. You would think that William Kristol–the main author of the PNAC agenda–would have more than enough money to keep the website going.
Anyway, enjoy the agenda. I do hope you’ll come back here soon and let us know how you are doing your best to dream this impossible dream of a One World Order led by the Neo-Cons.
Adios, russ,
Mary Leon
mary leon, the only thing at this web site are a handful of left wing lunatics that don’t have a clue…….like you.
Shock: Obama disagrees with Court’s decision in child rape caseposted at 6:35 pm on June 25, 2008
Actually, not so shocking.
Had the decision come four months ago in the heat of the primary and he responded this way, that would have been shocking.
As it is, consider this the legal equivalent of his many full-throated statements of support for Israel. Maybe he means it, maybe he doesn’t, but he can’t afford to be on the wrong side of it politically so his disciples will just have to console themselves with the possibility that it’s yet another lie concocted in the interests of getting elected.
The DUers & other left wing lunatics sound bummed. They’ll get over it. He is their only choice and even as he runs to the right of where Hillary was and governs even further to the right of that when elected; they will cheer him on anyway since he is THEIR GUY.
russ, percy and others,
Why are you bothering to come here and insult us serious people who want to talk about Mr. Turley and his work?
Why don’t you just go to a right-wing website or Fox News site?
Thanks,
Mary Leon
mary leon; seriously now, serious people don’t come here.
PERCY,
Obviously, you are quite mistaken, as in your case, one can deduce
the seemingly ’seriously’ disturbed quite simply and inevitably show up
-every now and again.
Prof Turley,
I will be attending GWU Law next year and I hope to see you there! I found your blog a few weeks ago and the eclectic mix of law-related posts are great. I was just wondering, how do you get the time to keep it up!?
ubeube:
Congrats on getting into the GW! I speak to the incoming class each year so I will see you at orientation. Turley blog readers are given a standard grade inflation in my classes, so you are covered.
As for how I keep it up, the answer is simple. I have found that if I keep the quality of my work as a professor, litigator and columnist low, I can do much more in a given day.
Once again, my congratulations on your selection for GW.
Dear Professor Turley,
Today I discovered this website and your bio. As a member of the group fighting the bill of attainder contained in HR 4343, I am honored to have you on our side. I will continue the effort for veterans under VEVRAA and appreciate all that your efforts have accomplished. Thank you.
Chuck
Chuck:
Are you fighting the unjust baggage aspect or are you one of those that don’t think it wrong for the public to expect pilots not to drop dead of old age at 30,000 feet?
The price of gas is going through the roof, and Bush and Cheney are smiling at all the money they’re making every day in their offshore accounts from their oil dividends while we pay over $4 a gallon.
Something is wrong with this…
Greetings Professor Turley,
I have admired your comments on MSNBC for sometime now and I write to you this evening requesting a small favor. Could you glance at the complaint Jimbo’s v. USBC filed in Harrisburg District Court by clicking on the page at BowlParkLanes.com? I am in a David v Goliath situation with this as I am up against the powers that be in a $10 Billion per annum industry. The disposition of this case is important to the little guys in our industry as it refects a liftime’s work for many of us. Any suggestions, comments or help would be cherished. I thank you for your time.
jim
Mary Leon, our homes are worth 25% less, our 401k’s are tanking, we are paying $4 or more per gallon of gas. All this has happened in the 18 months Democrats have controlled congress.
Nancy Pelosi said she had an easy answer to the energy shortage in October of 2006; she never told us it was for us to pay $7 per gallon for gas.
You are childish and imature to blame Bush, who can do nothing, for the state of affairs we are in with our economy. For 30 YEARS the demcoratic party has fought against drilling, coal, and nuclear energy:
June 16, 2008
Who’s to Blame for High Gas Prices?
ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed
SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
88% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
You and people like you have supported the do-nothing Democrats for 30 years. I know because I use to be an idiot just like you. Grow up and face the music: your Demcoratic party is the most corrupt bunch of weasels America has known. They accomplish nothing and while our young cannot afford homes and are going broke on food that is 25% more because of their ethanol fiasco here we sit.
Mary Leon: additionally, the left’s PRECIOUS JOE BIDEN went to Pakistan and interferred with their elections in his effort to have Mushareff removed from power. Joe was successful and we now have militants executing people. Do you THINK IDIOT JOE BIDEN HAD A CLUE TO THE DAMAGE HE WAS ABOUT TO DO: WHO WILL CHALLENGE the lunatic Biden about a US Senator going to a foreign country during an election with the stated goal of making sure Musharef is weakened because he doesn’t like him:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A gang of Pakistani militants executed two alleged U.S. spies in front of thousands of cheering supporters Friday as a top U.N. official expressed fears that Pakistani government peace deals with the gunmen were sparking a wave of human rights abuses.
Caution: Clown Congress at work
Percy:
Well, I have to admit, you’re a real Republican. How many years have you been a member of the PNAC agenda? Do you know what the PNAC agenda is? Hint: Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
If you are a loyal Republican then you must agree 100% with this agenda that William Kristol wrote about 10 years ago. He basically decided that the United States should rule the whole world–using our military and your “compassionate conservative” morals. This nightmare agenda was approved by, amongst others: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush.
The mistake that Bush made was that he thought that the Iraqis were living in the Dark Ages under Saddam Hussein’s rule, so Bush figured he could go invade Iraq; take out Saddam and steal the Iraqi’s oil, all while smiling and chewing gum at the same time because he wanted to run the US empire on earth. He failed to realize that Iraq is where civilization started and the Iraqis are smarter than he could ever be. He still thinks he can invade Iran before he leaves the White House, but I guess if he does you better go volunteer for his invasion.
Your president Bush opened up this can of worms, so whatever is happening now to our economy and our standing in the world is NOT the fault of the Democrats. They do NOT have a 2/3 majority in either the House or the Senate, so you can’t say that they are at fault.
Why don’t you ask Bush and Cheney how much money they’re making every day on their oil dividends while you, me and everyone else pays over $4 a gallon. Oh yeah, even if we drilled for oil off the coastline and in Alaska or the Arctic, we would never see a drop of it for at least 7 to 10 years from today. So how’s that supposed to help us?
When are we leaving Iraq, Percy?
Mr. Turley,
I want to apologize to you for my frank arguments with Percy and Russ. Sometimes I tend to go overboard with my disagreements about this White House administration.
I do this because I love this country, but I do not like what has happened to it these past 7 years. I want this country to be the way it was before Mr. Bush took over–for the People, NOT for the “haves” and the “have mores” and I cannot stay quiet while people like Percy and Russ defend this administration and their lies and crimes while our beloved troops and innocent Iraqis are dying for no reason.
Sincerely,
Mary Leon
Next time you’re filling your gas tank, staring at the pump and those little dials are spinning so fast you can’t even read the numbers, ask yourself: If Barack Obama is elected, will those numbers slow down?
If Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton get a filibuster-proof Democrat majority in the Senate, will gas prices fall?
These liberals, currently running Congress, have no problem with U.S. consumers sending $600-700 billion each year to Russia, Venezuela and the Middle East for oil while they stifle our nation’s ability to develop our own known vast energy resources.
That’s the choice we’re facing this coming fall.
mary leon: I bet you post over with the loons here also:
http://www.democraticunderground.com
You sound just like them.
God Bless our President Bush.
mary leon: I love it when the opposition wins my arguments for me.
Your post above shows just how little thinking goes through your head. God help you if you believe even 10% of what you write. You are truly a product of the American school system of the last 20 years.
Change: LOL!
Barack Obama has artfully crafted an image as an unconventional candidate, a change agent and a post-partisan politician who represents a dramatic break from the status quo. But since securing the Democratic presidential nomination, when confronted with a series of thorny issues the Illinois senator has pursued a conspicuously conventional path, one that falls far short of his soaring rhetoric.
Faced with choices on fronts ranging from public financing and town hall meetings to warrantless surveillance and the Second Amendment, Obama passed up opportunities to stay consistent with his primary speeches and promises and make striking departures from customary politics.
Instead, he has followed a familiar tack, straddling controversial issues and choosing politically advantageous routes that will ensure his campaign a cash edge, minimize damaging blowback on several highly sensitive issues, and keep him away from open debates with his opposition.
Abandoning the far left rhetoric of the primaries, and those that supported him, Obama has now begun the move to the center where the votes are. The only thing left for Obama to abandon is his committment to a fast withdrawal from Iraq.
That may have already occurred yesterday at Unity Massachusetts where the candidate made note of the necessity for a slow careful withdrawal from Iraq; virtually indistinguisable from either the Bush or McCain plan for Iraq.
Unity Massachusetts?
With talking points so loud, who has time to think?
martha h:
Just so you recall oil was $27.39 a barrel when Clinton left office. It’s now $140.00. And I will give you the sage words of George W. when asked during the election about what he would do if oil hit $30.00 a barrel. Our resident mental midget said in 1999, “I’m an oil man, if it gets too high, I ‘ll just jawbone OPEC down. That’s what Bill Clinton should have done.” Keep talking oil man. Funny how Big Oil’s profits have soared under Bush/Cheney, both acknowledged “oil men.” I wouldn’t be so hard on Mary Leon. She remembers what you choose to forget. Finally unless McCain can start raising money soon or the price of oil drops, you’d better start getting used to saying “President Obama.” I know, I know you’ll move to Australia. Can I contribute to your moving expenses oh great intellectual product of our private schools? Why not spread your conservative tripe over there?
mespoop7272:
You have to be truly ignorant to think that pouting that oil was $30 per barrel when clinton left office but now it is $140 accomplishes anything. You have to be truly even more ignorant to think your argument about this being Bush’s fault holds water in America. Almost 80% of Americans know the problem is production and want to drill now. Your President Clinton locked up 100 years worth of coal and oil with executive orders blocking exploration. Now here we sit. World oil use has increased by 30% in those years while production has increased only 25% largely because of Clinton and this:
June 16, 2008
Who’s to Blame for High Gas Prices?
ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed
SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
88% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
mary leon, this is directed especially at you since you are one of those that obviously thinks Obama walks on water:
Change: LOL!
Barack Obama has artfully crafted an image as an unconventional candidate, a change agent and a post-partisan politician who represents a dramatic break from the status quo. But since securing the Democratic presidential nomination, when confronted with a series of thorny issues the Illinois senator has pursued a conspicuously conventional path, one that falls far short of his soaring rhetoric.
Faced with choices on fronts ranging from public financing and town hall meetings to warrantless surveillance and the Second Amendment, Obama passed up opportunities to stay consistent with his primary speeches and promises and make striking departures from customary politics.
Instead, he has followed a familiar tack, straddling controversial issues and choosing politically advantageous routes that will ensure his campaign a cash edge, minimize damaging blowback on several highly sensitive issues, and keep him away from open debates with his opposition.
Abandoning the far left rhetoric of the primaries, and those that supported him, Obama has now begun the move to the center where the votes are. The only thing left for Obama to abandon is his committment to a fast withdrawal from Iraq.
That may have already occurred yesterday at Unity Massachusetts where the candidate made note of the necessity for a slow careful withdrawal from Iraq; virtually indistinguisable from either the Bush or McCain plan for Iraq.
Ah the beauty of self-proclaimed statistics; almost makes ya look like you know what you’re talking about.
Almost.
Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must ‘kiss my _ _ _’ for his support
By Tim Shipman in Washington and Philip Sherwell in New York
Last Updated: 9:07PM BST 28/06/2008
Bill Clinton is so bitter about Barack Obama’s victory over his wife Hillary that he has told friends the Democratic nominee will have to beg for his wholehearted support.
AP
Bill Clinton is still very bitter that Barack Obama beat his wife Hillary. Mr Obama is expected to speak to Mr Clinton for the first time since he won the nomination in the next few days, but campaign insiders say that the former president’s future campaign role is a “sticking point” in peace talks with Mrs Clinton’s aides.
The Telegraph has learned that the former president’s rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.
A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could “kiss my _ _ _” in return for his support.
A second source said that the former president has kept his distance because he still knows Mr Obama cannot win the election.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2211812/Bill-Clinton-says-Barack-Obama-must-%27kiss-my-ass%27-for-his-support.html
martha h:
Like most of your conservative brothers, numbers make you swoon. Demand for oil is down 8% domestically and oil production is at an all time high. The cost to get a barrel out of the ground is still around $30.00 but your oil pirating brethren in the neo-con party want their “ENRON loophole” speculation profits and Big Oil wants big money as it always does (40.6 billion dollars last year for ExxonMobile alone), so the cost still hovers around $140.00. While there is demand pressure from India and China, it does not account for the obscene increase in price and hence profits to your friends. W’s disastrous economic policy and his interminable war have reeked havoc on the dollar and hence our crisis. BTW does Bush screw up everything he sees or just the Texas Rangers, two oil companies, the State of Texas and now the Nation? You may fool some of the people some of the time, but it appears about 75% have caught on to our war criminal/robber baron/buffoon Chief Executive. He and his party– along with your dubious logic– appears poised to make an fast exit stage right, appropriately. Bon voyage. Say hello to the kukaburras for me!
And as an aside, you don’t need to publish someone else’s nonsense in toto and of course, without attribution (it’s the neo-con way). Unlike most of us on the left, it’s only the right that needs to learn from flash cards.
Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com
Thursday June 26, 2008 07:22 EDT
Keith Olbermann: Then and now
(updated below – Update II)
On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute “Special Comment,” the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to “retroactively immunize corporate criminals,” and said that telecom immnity is “an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush's] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email.”
Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a “shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism — the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government.”
Olbermann closed by scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security:
There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists. Sorry, Mr. Bush, the eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat the thwarting of which could hinge on an email or phone call that is going through Room 641 of AT&T in San Francisco.
Strong and righteous words indeed. But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections.
Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing — and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists — everything has changed.
Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama’s support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn’t a syllable uttered about “immunizing corporate criminals” or “textbook examples of Fascism” or the Third Reich. There wasn’t a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama’s bravery and strength — as evidenced by his “standing up to the left” in order to support FISA revisions that include telecom immunity.
Obama Undercuts His Brand
The Huffington Post
June 28, 2008 12:10 PM
Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of “flip-flopping” by party stalwarts.
The Times reports:
In recent weeks, he toughened his stance on Iran and backed an expansion of the government’s wiretapping powers. On Wednesday, he said states should be allowed to execute child rapists. When the Supreme Court the next day struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, he did not complain…
…”I’ve been struck by the speed and decisiveness of his move to the center,” said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute…
…And Obama endorsed a compromise wiretapping bill despite stiff opposition from liberal activists. MoveOn.org, the liberal online activist group, asked its members to flood Obama’s campaign office with phone calls and e-mails urging him to support a filibuster of the bill.
The changes carry some risk that Obama will erase the cultivated image he has as a new type of leader who will change how Washington conducts business.
McCain and other Republicans have used his recent policy statements to argue that Obama is a traditional politician, unwilling to take clear stands on tough issues and abandoning his principles when he finds it advantageous.
The Post reports that those who should be his strongest supporters are taking this as a wake-up call.
martha h:
While in Australia, please pass on my recommendation to the Sydney Morning Herald that you would make a fine newspaper boy spouting the words and thoughts of others after screaming “Extra,” “Extra.” Could you let me know when you get an original thought? I think I have enough time. I ‘m only 49 and expect to live another few decades.
Amen
I have an idea…
Instead of posting barbs on JT’s Bio, which seems inappropriate to me, perhaps, he would provide a Free-for-All ‘Chat’ section.
It could be fashioned ‘On the Hook’ – whaddaya say?
PattyC:
I agree with you 100%. I have already issued Mr. Turley an apology for my posting, which tends to get quite emotional at times. But I will NOT apologize for telling the Republicans that they are so wrong about what they’ve allowed to happen to our country.
What ever they write to me or about me doesn’t bother me in the least. Ever since Bush got ’selected’ as president in 2001, I’ve been saying that he’s going to try to turn this country into the “haves”, the “have mores” and “the rest of us–their personal slaves”. I’ve been called everything from traitor, unpatriotic, a hater of our country, you name it, I’ve been called it. They don’t scare me at all; because my conscience is clear. But they are the ones who will have to live with themselves because they decided to follow Bush by approving and even cheering his invasion of Iraq and the Killings that have happened because of it.
I wonder if Percy, russ, and any other Republican have seen pictures of our young troops after they’ve been hit by a bomb. I have, and I will have those terrible photos of our dismembered troops in my mind until the day I die. I remember one young troop said that he thought he had seen everything in this war, when he had to go out after a bombing to pick up the pieces of his dead buddy off the street. But, then he looked down the street and saw a little boy, picking up the pieces of his dead father. How terribly tragic and sad…
June 28, 2008
Delahunt Bobs, Weaves, Lies
Mark Levin’s radio show caught up with disgraced Congressman Bill Delahunt to ask him about his expression of solidarity with al Qaeda against the Bush administration, which we wrote about here, here, here and here. Unfortunately, on Levin’s show Delahunt simply repeated the same incredible tale that he told shortly after his encounter with David Addington.
To see how ridiculous Delahunt’s excuse is, let’s reproduce his exchange with Addington:
DELAHUNT: Was waterboarding one of them?
ADDINGTON: That’s what I’m answering, because I know where you’re headed. As I indicated to the chairman at the beginning of this thing, I’m not in a position to talk about particular techniques, whether they are or aren’t used or could or couldn’t be used or their legal status.
And the reasons I would give for that, if you’ll look at, I think, Exhibit 9, the president’s speech of September 6, 2006, explains why he doesn’t talk about what particular techniques…
DELAHUNT: Oh, I can understand why he doesn’t talk about it.
ADDINGTON: But you’ve got to communicate with Al Qaeda. I can’t talk to you. Al Qaeda may watch “C-SPAN.”
DELAHUNT: Right. Well, I’m sure they are watching and I’m glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. .
ADDINGTON: I’m sure you’re pleased.
DELAHUNT: Given your penchant for being unobtrusive.
Delahunt’s excuse on the radio is obviously a lie. He and Addington were talking about the fact that, because al Qaeda may be watching CSpan, Addington does not want to discuss specific interrogation techniques. Delahunt now claims that he meant to say, “Right. Well, I’m sure they [al Qaeda] are watching and I’m glad I finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington.” That sentence makes no sense. Obviously, the people who are “watching”–al Qaeda–are the people who Delahunt is “glad” to have a chance finally to see Addington.
If hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, the kind of transparent lying that Bill Delahunt is now engaged in is perhaps the tribute that crazed partisanship pays to the patriotism of the American people. It is sad that we have vicious haters like Bill Delahunt in Congress, but it is good that when the mask slips for a moment, and viewers can see how they really think, haters like Delahunt have no recourse but to lie.
martha h:
Did you even read what I just posted above?
Mary Leon:
To your credit your are here to dialog with others. The vexatious martha j is here to cut and paste talking points in the hopes that we read them. I suggest we treat her like all the other white noise around and just ignore her until she moves to the next blog.
mespo727272:
I wish martha, Percy, russ and the other Republicans would read the last paragraph I wrote above. War isn’t pretty and those photos I saw were terrible and sad. I know that the dead person is put in the coffins face-down before they are shipped back to our country, in case anyone but the mortician inadvertantely sees the body. This is due to the trauma caused by the bombs and other weapons. If martha, Percy, russ and anyone else cannot be affected by our beloved troops’ deaths and innocent Iraqi civilians’ deaths, all willingly caused by their president, then I guess I will just have to ignore them.
mary leon, hundred of thousands of soldiers and civilians caught up in war have had to pick up the pieces whether it was ww1, ww2, korean war, vietnam, or any of the other hundreds of conflicts in the world where good people are trying to free other people or oppose tyranny.
maybe you just need to stay safe in bed with your quilt over you, a flashlight, and a “save the seals” book…
Too bad those who love this war in Iraq won’t have the courage to volunteer and enlist. Then they can “free” the Iraqis…
mary leon,
i have two sons in the service, a us marine and a us air force officer. you have no clue who is defending this nation nor why do you.
martha h:
Your sons service is commendable. Your shrill defense undermines their service. Perhaps you haven’t noticed but 75% of the Country is against this needless, immoral war, and unless something happened last night with the Bush mob, public opinion still matters in a democracy. This election will turn on that war sentiment as all wartime elections do. I would prepare for your profound disappointment which ironically will lead to your kids coming home. When that happens, I trust you will being writing thank you notes to President Obama.
mespo727272:
I wonder if those who love Bush and what he’s done to our country are either making lots of money because of his policies or are blindly following him because they can’t think for themselves; they can’t go against what their friends, relatives and neighbors do. What kind of life is that for an adult?
It’s also too bad that these people don’t realize that Saddam Hussein could have been eliminated without our troops having to take one step into Iraq. Who ever said that Iraqis wanted Democracy? They have the right to choose the way they want to run their country, NOT have Democracy shoved down their throats with a barrel of a gun.
I feel so sorry for our troops–they had no say in being sent to Iraq. They have to follow the president and his policies, no matter how delusional. I wish everyone who supports this war would volunteer to go to Iraq and take the place of one of our troops–then they would find out how insane this war and this president really are. But those who won’t volunteer to go serve in Iraq are cowards and hypocrites–love the war but won’t fight in it.
mary leon & mespo.
i doubt if there were ever two sorrier examples of americans than you two.
Those who support this war and have sons and daughters serving in Iraq will have a different opinion, if, God forbid, their son or daughter comes home from Iraq in a body bag. Tragically, some people can only see the truth when they are personally affected by it.
mary leon, again i say the two of you are the sorriest example of americans there are. sons & daughters volunteer to fight in a war about freedom for others…….and you have the gall to come here and post that parents will change their minds about that fight when their sons or daughters are injured or killed in their quest to help others.
you have taught me and others here that there are no limits to the reaches of depravity of the left. god help you.
Who said Iraq wanted our help? Who said there were weapons of mass destruction aimed at our allies in the Middle East? If it was so dangerous, why didn’t Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Oman, etc… decide to invade Iraq together to stop Saddam Hussein? Why didn’t the United Nations believe that Bush needed to invade Iraq, and therefore would not commit troops to help him? Why does everyone hate the United States now? Why do millions believe Bush invaded Iraq to get their oil?
I believe in God. I have a clear conscience. I am Patriotic. I love this country and I hate what has happened to it over the past 7 years. But I am wise enough to understand why this invasion happened. I can understand the evil that comes from this White House administration. History will prove that I and others were right–Bush invaded Iraq to get their oil so he, Cheney and their oil friends could make tons of money in profits, plus Blackwater and KBR Halliburton (both Neo-Con corporations) have already made Billions from their no-bid contracts.
You are believing in a war of Choice, not a war of Necessity. This war is all about getting oil and making money. Bush could care less how many people die. All he cares about is the money, and you are ignorant enough to believe he invaded Iraq to spread freedom and democracy all over the Middle East.
I feel sorry for you, because you will find out the truth one day, and you will know that all these people died for your president’s love of the almighty dollar and that you supported Bush’s agenda and therefore you supported the deaths of innocent people.
martha h:
“i doubt if there were ever two sorrier examples of americans than you two.”
************
I consider this observation an honor almost as prestigious as being on Nixon’s hit list. Please continue in the knowledge that, like you (unless you take me up on my offer to aid you in your trip to Australia), I am not going anywhere. And by the way, using your kids service to support your preposterous position that this is a war about freeing Iraqis and not about oil may assuage your conscience, but it also places you squarely beneath contempt for the million or so Iraqis we have “freed” from life on this planet.
Mary Leon:
Forgive me for responding to the foolish comment before your sane one. In any event, you, like most thinking people, have it right. It took some citizens years to figure out that Bush was a con man without peer. But most people have the concept now. It was always about oil and defense spending with Saddam Hussein serving as the stooge to fool the incredibly stupid conservatives who supported this guy. Bush was always the company man– a sort of Manchurian candidate from Wall Street by way of the Pentagon. People like our own martha h are the sad ones who willing give their children to this war-machine-for profit on notions of patriotism. The ironic thing is that true patriots abhor this little man with his big war. I doubt you will see a conversion from martha h; she has too much invested in this fight to even consider she is wrong. I have always believed that blindness is the worst disability that could befall someone, even more so when the blinding is self inflicted by wishful or delusional thinking. By the way, have your received your “sorriest Americans” membership card yet? I am anxiously awaiting mine.
Hey Martha H.,
Can I get into the “sorriest American” club too?? It seems no matter which topic(s) you are writing about, the facts somehow do not seem to get in your way. Congrats on your factoid blindness. And one other thing Martha H., I, like Mary Leon, believe in God. And I didn’t have to drive drunk and snort cocaine before deciding to believe.
rafflaw:
“And I didn’t have to drive drunk and snort cocaine before deciding to believe.”
**********
I believe too, but I question why He didn’t give me the wit to say that first? I am still laughing as I type.
mespo and rafflaw:
No, I have never heard of the “sorriest American” club until today. I will happily be a member.
I would add that by believing in God, through His words is how I was able to recognize Bush and Cheney for what they really are–wolves in “designer” sheeps’ clothing.
Sure, they can be pro-life (yet they sure love that death penalty), frown on stem cell research, hate gays and lesbians and believe that they and ONLY they are the only ones going to Heaven. But I say that no matter how much they go to church and profess to be christians their actions speak louder than any words can.
Do they follow the teachings of Jesus? Love their enemies, do good to those who disagree and hate them? Try talking with others through diplomatic means before any blood is spilled? Share the wealth of this country, (the richest country that ever was on earth) with everyone they can–by way of feeding the hungry and making sure everyone can see a doctor when they need to? Do they follow the law of the land–the US Constitution–and abide by its fair and separate balance of powers? Do they do what is right for the people that live in the United States? Do they make sure there are good schools for educating our children? Do they believe in a fair tax system? Do they care about the “have nots”? Do they fairly treat prisoners–as in the Geneva Convention?
By watching and observing this White House administration, I can safely say that NO, they do not follow the teachings of Jesus. And no matter what happened with any other president in our country’s history, from scandals to assassinations, there has NEVER been a sitting president who deliberately and willingly invaded a country; and who deliberately and willingly tried to destroy our US Constitution–until NOW.
Mary Leon,
The Republicans and the Neo-Cons use religion as a shield and have no intention of living under those religous precepts. The only question you have to ask them is WWJT? Translated, Who Would Jesus Torture?
Mespo,
While we are on the topic of religion, the good Benedictine Nuns that I had in grade school were not as amused as you were with my wit! But thank anyways.
rafflaw:
I had the Sisters of Mercy. They were equally humorless.
Who said Iraq wanted our help?
Saddam’s people pleaded with the world, anyways those that escaped with their lives.
Who said there were weapons of mass destruction aimed at our allies in the Middle East?
Bill Clinton did, along with Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and almost every leader of the free world.
If it was so dangerous, why didn’t Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Oman, etc… decide to invade Iraq together to stop Saddam Hussein?
Each of those countries were convinced Saddam had and would use his WMD if any of them attacked him, but your ignorance of the region astounds me. Syria was his ally, Jordan supported him out of fear, Iran had fought a 12 year war to a standstill wit him, and Saudi Arabia did not have the ability to wage war along a 1,000 mile front with him.
Why didn’t the United Nations believe that Bush needed to invade Iraq, and therefore would not commit troops to help him?
The UN has no militarily trained “troops”. They have a force of blue helmeted thugs that rape & demand payments for protection or they stand around as innocents get slaughtered like in rwanda, nigeria, etc. What on earth do you think the UN is? It is nothing but a bunch of political animals with a few ten thousand blue helmeted peace keepers that would have been killed on the spot by Saddam even if they cuold have been convinced to fight for something other than the woman, booze, and money they fight for now. The UN DID manage to pass 17 UN resolutions demanding Saddam comply. If you want a UN you better have someone behind it enforcing it or it is a waste of time.
Why does everyone hate the United States now?
I think the most haters of America in the world live right here in big houses with big cars big salaries, huge egos, and nothing to do but bitch.
Why do millions believe Bush invaded Iraq to get their oil?
Because lunatics like you have been saying it for 7 years, despite it being a bald face lie.
I believe in God.
So did Saddam Hussain & Adolf Hitler.
I have a clear conscience.
Most children nowadays have been brought up without one so that means nothing.
I am Patriotic.
Like hell you are; you are giving aid and comfort to those that are trying to kill our sons & daughters that are fighting for others freedom every day.
I love this country and I hate what has happened to it over the past 7 years.
Then leave. It would be better without children like you.
But I am wise enough to understand why this invasion happened. I can understand the evil that comes from this White House administration. History will prove that I and others were right.
Ya, sure, you betacha. I have some land to sell you in Florida also if you believe all that. What crock.
Bush invaded Iraq to get their oil so he, Cheney and their oil friends could make tons of money in profits, plus Blackwater and KBR Halliburton (both Neo-Con corporations) have already made Billions from their no-bid contracts.
Oh, now its the oil. Why didn’t we just take Kuwaits oil? We had 100,000 troops there and could have just taken it. Why didn’t we take Saudi Arabia’s oil? We also had 400,000 troops there in 1991 and didn’t take it did we?
You are believing in a war of Choice, not a war of Necessity.
Get a clue: ALL wars are choice.
This war is all about getting oil and making money. Bush could care less how many people die. All he cares about is the money, and you are ignorant enough to believe he invaded Iraq to spread freedom and democracy all over the Middle East.
You have so many screws loose I pity you.
I feel sorry for you, because you will find out the truth one day, and you will know that all these people died for your president’s love of the almighty dollar and that you supported Bush’s agenda and therefore you supported the deaths of innocent people.
What is it like to think you know everything? I realized when I was 15 that I didn’t know everything. I guess you must either be 14 yet or you never grew up.
Yet Another Obama 180, This Time on Iraq
Recent statements & acitons indicate that Senator Obama plans to aggressively move to the middle on Iraq in the coming months. This is a good political move for Obama, if only because he’s finally starting to recognize reality.
However, it’s no surprise that he will continue to try and have it both ways: moderating his withdrawal language without giving any credit to surge/Petraeus advocates.
Standing alongside Hillary (Friday in Unity, NH), Obama said:
“We can follow a policy that doesn’t change whether violence is up or violence is down, whether the Iraqi government takes responsibility or not; or we can decide that it’s time to begin a responsible, gradual withdrawal from Iraq.”
GOT THAT? RESPONSIBLE GRADUAL WITHDRAWEL – BASICALLY NO DIFFERENT THAN MCCAIN OR BUSH IS IT?
….. Just months ago, Obama clamored for an “immediate” withdrawal, regardless of the situation on the ground; today, his withdrawal would be “gradual.” Maybe he was channeling Hillary Clinton, or maybe he finally realizes that very few people—except the MoveOn crowd—want an immediate withdrawal. His website, I should note, still touts an “immediate” withdrawal.
Regardless, within a month Obama will throw the left wingers under the buss on Iraq. He will say he was ill-informed and/or uninformed as to the situation and that new information means any withdrawel must be gradual. What the heck; who else are the lefties going to vote for in the Fall? Nader?????
Martha H.,
Thank you for calling me a child. It has been many, many years since I have been called a child. I am a bit confused with your postings, however. You seemed to have your facts screwed up. Since when is wanting peace unpatriotic? Only since the Bush Crime Family Administration was appointed into power. What is this crap about every war is a war of choice? We did have a choice in Iraq and your appointed President made the wrong choice. We had no choice in WWII because of Pearl Harbor.
Iraq has more oil reserves than Kuwait and Kuwait already does business with Daddy Bush. Have you ever heard of the Project for the New American Century? You may want to check them out. Before they closed down their website you could find their plan to invade Iraq if they had a big event to convince the American people. I wonder what that evernt was??? Could it be 9/11? Georgie didn’t listen to Germany, or France who knew better not to get involved in Iraw, even though they joined us in Afghanistan.
I guess it is just a coincidence that gasoline cost me $1.60 when Bush was appointed and I just paid $4.19 yesterday. I almost forget, I am a Patriot because I make sure my country is following its own laws and the world’s laws. George W. vilated FISA with his illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Prof. Turley and Mespo can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that would be a felony. George W. ordered torture of detainees in our control which violated U.S. law and international accords. I could go on, but my Mom just told me that it is time for all children to be in bed. Peace.
Mary Leon wrote:
Do they follow the teachings of Jesus? Love their enemies, do good to those who disagree and hate them? Try talking with others through diplomatic means before any blood is spilled? Share the wealth of this country, (the richest country that ever was on earth) with everyone they can–by way of feeding the hungry and making sure everyone can see a doctor when they need to?
*****************
I haven’t noticed either Bush or Cheney following any of those particular teachings. They seem to have a huge problem with the idea of sharing the wealth, but have NO problems TAKING it though. Including starting wars to get it from other countries. Is that version of Christianity (the taking part) from the Old Testament or the New? I always get them mixed up.
rafflaw:
Save your typing. Martha H has drunk the kool-ade and will not be dissuaded. Some people never get it, and they always question everyone else’s patriotism. They are fools and they tend to stay that way. We’ll just soldier on allowing her to wallow in her hate. BTW violating our civil rights is a crime with sanctions varying depending on the injury sustained. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242. More pertinent Bush is likely guilty of war crimes with national and international sanctions available.
Mespo wrote:
rafflaw:
I had the Sisters of Mercy. They were equally humorless.
*************
I have to wonder if a formal study has ever been done on how many adults who are now either non-religious or no longer Catholic had to attend Catholic church and/or school as kids. I was stuck with both as a kid; rejected it all by the time I was 18.
martha h:
“OT THAT? RESPONSIBLE GRADUAL WITHDRAWEL – BASICALLY NO DIFFERENT THAN MCCAIN OR BUSH IS IT?
….. Just months ago, Obama clamored for an “immediate” withdrawal, regardless of the situation on the ground; today, his withdrawal would be “gradual.” Maybe he was channeling Hillary Clinton, or maybe he finally realizes that very few people—except the MoveOn crowd—want an immediate withdrawal. His website, I should note, still touts an “immediate” withdrawal.”
*************
One last post just to correct the falsehood you mouthed from the National Review website –god forbid you have an original thought in your own head. Let me start by quoting the exact passage from the website of Obama:
“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”
For those of you in conservative la-la land you may see an conflict between his statement in Unity, N.H. and the website. For the rest of us who can read and comprehend the langauge, we see that there is no conflict. Upon election Obama will immediately START the gradual withdrawal over 16 months which appears to most people to be a responsible timetable, and he will keep some troops there to oversee operations and protect installations. He never said “immediate withdrawal.” That is pure fiction by the National Review as mouthed by the apparatchik we know as martha h. (I’d call her a liar but that would imply intent to deceive, and as we have seen martha h has little intent to do anything save disagree with us grasping at the false talking points of her masters on the right) If you’re going to plagiarize at least get the name of the fool your mimicking for us so we can rebut the charges, or is that not sporting in the neo-con world you hail from.
Susan:
“I have to wonder if a formal study has ever been done on how many adults who are now either non-religious or no longer Catholic had to attend Catholic church and/or school as kids. I was stuck with both as a kid; rejected it all by the time I was 18.”
*************
Never heard of one but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there for your proposition. I bet that would be an interesting study, too.
Interestingly almost every pagan I know was raised either Catholic or extreme protestant fundamentalist. In the case of those who were Catholic I notice the ceremonies recreate the rites in great detail. There are high priest and priestess who run things and tell everyone else what to do. There are elaborate ceremonies which must be followed exactly. There are pieces of knowledge that only followers who’ve been appointed by the leadership are allowed to learn. It is a massive hierarchy with rigid rules of obedience. As far as I can tell, members have exactly recreated the church, just changing to gods and goddesses and they do allow women priests.
The Nuns didn’t scare religion out of me. I made the improper(in their eyes) habit of asking the wrong question in religion class. I still ask those questions, but I am still a believer. I just have a problem with some of the bishops and Cardinals and some of the Popes!
Well, what’s the news today? Surprise, Surprise!
Iraq is going to be making short-term contracts with Exxon-Mobil, British Petroleum, Chevron, Shell, and a few other smaller oil companies who want to ‘help’ Iraq pump more oil every day.
Exxon-Mobil, Shell, and British Petroleum have been working in Iraq for ‘free’ the past 2 years and now wants to make sure they get compensated for the ‘free’ advice.
Saddam Hussein kept the big oil companies out of Iraq for over 36 years. Now, these oil companies are being allowed in for short-term drilling rights (how short is short-term anyway? The companies won’t disclose this info).
So, Mr. Bush, who is friends with all the CEOs of all of these big oil companies now says that the US will NOT get involved with helping Iraq deal with these companies.
*** I wonder how these oil companies were allowed to go into Iraq in the first place, so they could give their ‘free’ advice and how much it’s really going to cost Iraq for this ‘free’ advice?***
Let’s see, now, martha, What was the reason Bush invaded Iraq? It certainly WAS NOT for the oil, was it?
Case closed, my dear. RFLMAO
Mary Leon:
Daggone it, martha h with her private school education, TOLD (or most likely read) you that the war wasn’t about oil, and you keep presenting all these facts that the National Review never told her about and just upsetting her to no end. She even fled the blog. Now I hope you are happy with yourself because, because….we surely are!
Isn’t it great how current events always seem to come back to bite the neo-cons right on the butt. Would be funnier if we all weren’t paying the price for their rampant stupidity.
mespo:
You betcha I’m telling martha what the ‘real deal’ of the Iraq invasion is.
But there is a huge sadness to all of this–so many, many thousands of people that are dead that shouldn’t be dead. That is something I wish would have never happened–all the deaths of our troops and of innocent Iraqi citizens, just so Bush and his corporate friends could get richer from taking Iraq’s oil.
It’s people like martha who blindly follow whatever they hear, either from the ‘prosperity’ gospel preacher, or the republican party. She fell for the ‘us versus them’ trick–”let’s us ‘christians’ go over to the Middle East and teach them ‘heathen’ Iraqis how ‘conservative and compassionate’ we really are “and, “oh, yeah, while we’re there, let’s show these heathens, who live in the Dark Ages, how we are so ‘progressive’ at getting that oil. Of course, we’ll have to keep the oil profits, or them Iraqis will give the profits to ‘terrorists’”. I bet she even believes that now that Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP and Chevron have access to the Iraqi oil that the price of a gallon of gas is going to go down. Won’t she be surprised when it DOES NOT go down–rather, the oil companies will INCREASE the price, due to their whining that they have to bring in ‘new’ technology and pipelines to Iraq, so it’s going to cost them a ‘fortune’, and ‘unfortunately’ they have to pass the price increase for us to pay.
Well, I’m glad she’s gone. She’s probably over at either Foxnews.com or Bill O’Reilley’s website, crying her poor little heart out, about us ‘big mean’ liberals, and our ‘big mean’ way of speaking the TRUTH…
“I wonder how these oil companies were allowed to go into Iraq in the first place, so they could give their ‘free’ advice and how much it’s really going to cost Iraq for this ‘free’ advice?”
You may want to Google up “Executive Order 13303″
Bob, Esq.
Thank you for that interesting piece of information. I wonder what other “Executive Orders” are out there that Bush signed? Scary thought…
Martha is right. You people are insane. You are literally the one percenters of America all coagulating around a half dozen wacko blogs.
Funny how Obama moved even further to the right today, showing his disgust with you Moveon.org types and Weasely Clark fans.
Who knows, pretty soon Obama might announce he is a Blue Dog Democrat; you know, those Democrats that are so far to the right that they could be mistaken for moderate Republicans. The Democratic party found they had to run blue dog democrats or they could not win a single election in America. Rahm Emmanual came up with that idea, but now he has anothe problem; blue dog democrats gave the Democrats the majority but those same blue dog democrats don’t always follow the party line, do they, on abortion, national security, taxes. etc.
Mary,
If you’re looking for a solid patriotic foundation upon which to despise G.W. Bush, please note that E.O. 13301, issued 21 days after “Mission Accomplished,” legalized all crimes committed by private contractors and mercenaries.
Why is it patriotic to despise Bush over this? Well, ya see, back in July of 1776 13 Colonies set forth a Declaration of Covenants & Restrictions against their first and foremost enemy; TYRANNY.
Montesquieu held that Tyranny consists of oppression via gathering of too much power in too few hands; Locke, i.e. Jefferson’s role model, defined Tyranny as follows:
“AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.”
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr18.htm
Legalizing crime is the essence of tyranny.
Accordingly, everything you heard about Bush fighting tyranny in Iraq was a total lie; not just because tyranny is an inherently domestic enemy of the constitution, but for the simple fact that he established tyranny in the very country he claimed to liberate.
Regards,
Bob
“As usurpation is the exercise of power over which another has a right to; so TYRANNY is the exercise of power, beyond
PERCY,
I find your lack of fealty is disturbing.
It’s said that George Washington once crucified a man for desertion.
Ever wonder what George Washington would do to the likes of you if he were alive today?
http://www.76house.com/history_tavern.html
Being a mindless ditto-head can be hazardous to your health.
Mary Leon you really need to get your news straight before running her and posting BS. It makes you look so childish.
Tonight Iraq indicated that reports oil contracts would be limited to five western countries on a no bid basis were incorrect.
Bids will be accepted for 8 months from 36 oil companies world wide. The only oil companies locked out where those that had executed “back door” lucrative contracts with Saddam that were to have been effective after the UN ended sanctions on Saddam. Guess which countries….Russia & France.
No contract will be awarded until March of 2009 after the new Iraqi Government has reviewed all applications and bids.
Sorry Mary Leon. Once again your blind hatred of a fine man & President, our President Bush, caused you to make an uninformed ass out of yourself, but that is typical of the one percenters here.
oh oh. Two more under the Obama bus today:
Weasely Clark – THROWN UNDER THE BUS TODAY!
Moveon.org – THROWN UNDER THE BUS TODAY!
att: Mary Leon
You really need to get your news straight before running her and posting BS. It makes you look so childish.
Tonight Iraq indicated that reports oil contracts would be limited to five western countries on a no bid basis were incorrect.
Bids will be accepted for 8 months from 36 oil companies world wide. The only oil companies locked out where those that had executed “back door” lucrative contracts with Saddam that were to have been effective after the UN ended sanctions on Saddam. Guess which countries….Russia & France.
No contract will be awarded until March of 2009 after the new Iraqi Government has reviewed all applications and bids.
Sorry Mary Leon. Once again your blind hatred of a fine man & President, our President Bush, caused you to make an uninformed ass out of yourself, but that is typical of the one percenters here.
Percy:
I wouldn’t care how many companies were “qualified” to bid if I got to draw up the bid documents as the American companies did. Sounds like the little boys got caught with hands in the oil jar yesterday and had to back down for awhile ’til this blows over. Let’s wait and see before we condemn Mary Leon who is merely saying what the Arabs and most thinking people believe.
oh oh. Two more under the Obama bus today:
Weasely Clark – THROWN UNDER THE BUS TODAY!
Moveon.org – THROWN UNDER THE BUS TODAY!
att: Mary Leon
You really need to get your news straight before running her and posting BS. It makes you look so childish.
Tonight Iraq indicated that reports oil contracts would be limited to five western countries on a no bid basis were incorrect.
Bids will be accepted for 8 months from 36 oil companies world wide. The only oil companies locked out where those that had executed “back door” lucrative contracts with Saddam that were to have been effective after the UN ended sanctions on Saddam. Guess which countries….Russia & France.
No contract will be awarded until March of 2009 after the new Iraqi Government has reviewed all applications and bids.
Sorry Mary Leon. Once again your blind hatred of a fine man & President, our President Bush, caused you to make an uninformed ass out of yourself, but that is typical of the one percenters here.
Gee, I miss one day of posting messages here, and Percy acts like he got a wedgie over his head. LOL
Percy, why are you copying others’ words? Don’t you know you’re committing plagerism?
Oh, maybe you know the answer to this question–
Where was Bush when he went AWOL out of the National Guard in the 1960s for over a year? I bet if any other soldier did that, they would have been thrown in the brig for a year or two. Nice to have Daddy Bush’s money to pay off the National Guard so they will ‘conveniently’ lose Bush’s paperwork.
Oh, by the way, he’s YOUR president, NOT mine. He was ’selected’ by the Supreme Court in early 2001, even though Al Gore won the popular vote in Florida. So, for the past 7 years, I’ve had no president to admire.
If you’re so enamored of Bush, why aren’t you over fighting for him in Iraq? I mean, unless you have an excuse why you can’t enlist in one of the military branches, what are you doing wasting my and others’ time here, ‘copying and pasting’?
Oh, yeah, one more thing Percy. I thought that the United Nations mandate says the US has to leave Iraq by the end of this year, but Bush announced that he’s sending MORE troops into Iraq next year. Did he make a deal with al-Maliki, an ‘agreement’ that we’ll be in Iraq for years? How come he won’t tell US the people who will end up paying for this?
Lots of crimes are being committed by Bush and Cheney. Those are two evil men; and you admire them. That says a lot about your character, Percy. Too bad you are on the LOSING side of History, by supporting the WORST president we’ve ever had.
I join the other posters who hold you in high regard!! I first heard you comment on Countdown. I, also, pay close attention when you or John Dean comment. I’ve seen the twinkle return to your eyes recently, as the DOJ scandal unfolded and bushco was called out for politicizing justice!! I am confident that you would point to lawbreakers in any political party, and am comforted by the thought of you teaching true bipartisanship to the up and coming law students.
And speaking of bipartisanship: I am really disappointed in the postings!! People, take your political party fights to another site. This site should be for people interested in law and reality.
suziq:
Yes, you are right about the political fighting. When I first posted here to Mr. Turley, I had told him that I submitted a suggestion to Barack Obama’s website that, should the need arise, that Mr. Turley would make a wonderful nomination to sit on the US Supreme Court.
The next thing I know, someone named russ started in on what I wrote, then came Percy, then martha h.
I would love to discuss when Mr. Turley appears on “Countdown” but I will not let someone tell lies about Bush and Cheney like it’s the truth; and I don’t like when someone posts something here, cutting and pasting from some other person’s writings to use as justification for their views.
I guess you can say I enjoy a good debate, but I will be the first to admit that I do NOT like any part of this White House administration, which in my opinion, is the Worst we’ve ever had in the history of our country. They have cheated, lied to us all and sent our military to fight in an invasion of a country that had Nothing to do with September 11, 2001.
I am praying that Barack Obama will be elected President this November and he will begin the investigation of war crimes and other illegal crimes against this administration.
The main reason I am doing this is because of all the Unnecessary deaths of our US troops and Innocent Iraqi citizens–all for a lie. This is inexcusable that this administration is allowing all this death and making us pay the bill, just so they can get hold of the oil in Iraq and Bush and Cheney, both oil men, can get good deals for their oil associates to make obscene profits.
Mary Leon:
“Where was Bush when he went AWOL out of the National Guard in the 1960s for over a year? I bet if any other soldier did that, they would have been thrown in the brig for a year or two. Nice to have Daddy Bush’s money to pay off the National Guard so they will ‘conveniently’ lose Bush’s paperwork.”
More Dan Blather garbage. No doubt you believe a word processing software program was spirited back in time to create those “letters” Dan Blather & his informer tried to produce as factual. By the way, Larry Flynt the Penthouse Magazine scum, offered a million dollars to anyboby that could bring him proof about Bush being absent from the National Guard. He is still offering it.
“Oh, by the way, he’s YOUR president, NOT mine. He was ’selected’ by the Supreme Court in early 2001, even though Al Gore won the popular vote in Florida. So, for the past 7 years, I’ve had no president to admire.”
All the Supreme Court did was rule you could not change election laws AFTER the election. I am not surprised you are not informed. You appear to be a very young naive uninformed product of the public school system.
“If you’re so enamored of Bush, why aren’t you over fighting for him in Iraq? I mean, unless you have an excuse why you can’t enlist in one of the military branches, what are you doing wasting my and others’ time here, ‘copying and pasting’?”
I am sure Percy has served this country in a number of ways, including military. I find it shameful you would resort to such a “Keith Olbermann” style attack. And you wonder why Olbermann’s ratings are 1/3 Bill Oreilly’s?
“Oh, yeah, one more thing Percy. I thought that the United Nations mandate says the US has to leave Iraq by the end of this year, but Bush announced that he’s sending MORE troops into Iraq next year. Did he make a deal with al-Maliki, an ‘agreement’ that we’ll be in Iraq for years? How come he won’t tell US the people who will end up paying for this?”
How many years have we had troops in Germany? In South Korea? In Bosnia? Personally, anybody that has a brain knows it would be a huge benefit to have a contingent of American troops right alongside the worst trouble maker in the region – Iran.
“Lots of crimes are being committed by Bush and Cheney.”
Prove a single crime or SHUT UP.
“Those are two evil men; and you admire them. That says a lot about your character, Percy. Too bad you are on the LOSING side of History, by supporting the WORST president we’ve ever had.”
Harry Truman had the worst rating in history when he left office; now he is considered a great President once the lunatics got tired of bitching, moaning, and lying about him. History will look very favorably on President Bush. Already, foreign opinion of him is bouncing back. Popularity comes & goes, but I know this is too much for an obviously little girl to understand.
Isn’t it time for you nap?
GOD BLESS PRESIDENT BUSH!
martha:
“GOD BLESS PRESIDENT BUSH!
**************
Well martha you got three out of four words correct.
martha, what are you doing here? I thought you left and went over to Fox news’ website or that you enlisted, so you could take the place of one of our troops, who then could come home from Iraq and be with his/her family.
FYI I’m 47 years old, and I’ve seen enough people like you to last me more than 100 lifetimes. Actually, you are quite funny, your blind loyalty to Bush is rather amusing. I wonder when was the last time you thought for yourself, instead of agreeing with whatever Bush says and does because he’s your president? There’s such a thing as ‘too much patriotism’.
Keep on writing bad thoughts about me–because I’m going to earn a lot of rewards in Heaven because of them. Yes, I believe in Heaven. And I believe that God sees and knows ALL, and he sees the “tree of bad fruit” that is the Bush administration, and “the bad fruit” which are Bush supporters, like you. You probably are a card-carrying member of the “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC)agenda.
Bush’s crimes? How about–Justice department choosing applicants based on their political views; Guantanamo Bay prison torture; illegally invading Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11; signing new legislation, then using the ’signing statements’ so he can ignore the laws just passed; having people in his administration ignore subpoenas to testify, using that “executive priviledge” excuse; having KBR and Blackwater no-bid contractors sent to Iraq that are immune from any type of prosecution in Iraq; choosing people for departments in his Cabinet based on party loyalty, and not personal experience; and the first thing Bush did as president?–seal his daddy’s White House papers until 50 years after daddy dies, so none of us can find out what daddy did in the White House. Plus, the worst one–signing a Presidential Directive last May, 2007, giving himself Complete Control over all 3 branches of our government–you know, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches–giving him the power to cancel the 2008 presidential election and declare Martial Law–with ‘homeland’ Chertoff second in command, if there is a terrorist attack, or Suspicion of an attack. And etc, etc, etc… He must have signed Thousands of Presidential Directives, probably pardoning everyone he knows from any criminal prosecution (I don’t think he can get away with pardoning himself)to selling our country to the Highest bidder–right now, Saudi Arabia and China OWN almost half of our corporations. It will take Barack Obama a few years to even find out what else Bush has done to us…
ml writes: “Plus, the worst one–signing a Presidential Directive last May, 2007, giving himself Complete Control over all 3 branches of our government–you know, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches–giving him the power to cancel the 2008 presidential election and declare Martial Law–with ‘homeland’ Chertoff second in command, if there is a terrorist attack, or Suspicion of an attack.”
WARNING! WARNING ! DANGER WILL ROBINSON! WARNING! WARNING ! DANGER WILL ROBINSON! WARNING! WARNING ! DANGER WILL ROBINSON!
LOL. b-a-n-a-n-a-s
dundar:
I don’t know if you’re joking or not, but if you don’t believe me, look it up yourself.
mary leon: don’t you get tired of repeating that same old huffington post, daily kos garbage? do you even bother to entertain the idea that you are being lied to by leftists with an agenda. i am sorry, but if you are truly 47 years old, i don’t know how you made it this far in life with such idiotic thoughts, ravings, ideas, and imaginations.
here is a thought; your family has you on medications and you refuse to take them, right?
July 3, 2008
Buyer’s remorse? Part Two
Earlier today, John wondered how many Democrats who voted for Barack Obama on the theory that he was a staunch antiwar candidate are having second thoughts. It’s a legitimate question, and it extends beyond the Iraq war. In fact, it turns out that an “internet petition” has been launched to pressure Obama to flip back to opposing legislation that would immunize telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration’s warrantless intercept surveillance program.
The interesting question is not whether Obama will continue to tack towards the center as a candidate — that’s a virtual certainty. The interesting question is what he’ll do if elected president.
It’s almost certain Obama won’t satisfy his leftist supporters when it comes to foreign, defense, and security policy. That’s mostly because Obama is far too intelligent to embrace leftist indifference to obvious national security concerns.
Thus, for reasons of pragmatism, Obama will be quite keen, for example, to prevent a successful attack on the homeland. Indeed, I suspect that Obama’s current position with respect to surveillance of terrorists (including suits against companies that cooperate in that surveillance) is not just the product of strategic political thinking but also a reflection of what he’d like to be able to do as president. Let’s hope so. Odds are that McCain will win this election handily, but in the event Obama pulls out a long shot – don’t expect him to be swinging left on policy.
martha, I still have ‘free speech’ so I’ll wish you, Percy, dundar and everyone else here a Happy 4th of July.
PS. Don’t play with fire crackers!
Hi Mr. Turley…..Something has been nagging at me during all this FISA/telecom immunity crap, because it was missing, but I couldn’t figure out what it was. Till now. Given your status as a scholar of constitutional law, I’m curious as to your thoughts.
Specifically, what’s been missing is the fact that the congress is going to be passing an unconstitutional act of law.
And no one has been commenting on that fact, especially not Obama, the former law professor.
In Article I/Section 8 of the Constitution it quite clearly states that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
A law that grants immunity for crimes, after the fact of the crimes, is–by definition–an ex post facto law. Which same the congress is banned from passing.
Any ideas as to why everyone is acting as if the law-to-be is constitutional? You’d think that its blatantly unconstitutional status would be obvious to the meanest intelligence.
Cheers!
Rob
Rob,
This may answer your question, in that it explains how your excellent point is “gotten around” by the wording in the law.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35636leg20080612.html
Jill
rob, obviously, you don’t know what you are talking about.
I would like to know where I may email a personal note to Jonathan. I am an old family friend who knew him personally when we were both adolescents. I just read what I think was a recent reference to his mother’s driving and, while I don’t necessarily recall the out-of-body experience, I do remember the car–a Mercedes– I think dark, like dark green or black. As I recall, it was perhaps my first ride in a Mercedes, which may be why I remember it.
I hope your mother is well. Mine, as you may have heard, passed on about 10 years ago in Florida.
For that matter, I hope the whole family is well. I imagine the family has become a large extended family since I was in your family’s house back in the 70’s.
Anyway, I have seen Jonathan on television for several years now and always thought it would be nice to say, “hello.”
I am proud of your accomplishments. I remember you as a very funny kid who entertained my family during his visits.
Take it easy,
Kurt “K.C.” Moser
(formerly of Arlington Heights, IL now residing in Los Angeles (Van Nuys), CA)
kacemo@adelphia.net
Sorry
I didn’t realize that would post directly to the blog. -KC
KC, Turley is still funny when he is on Countdown. A regular riot.
Welcome, Rob and K.C. Don’t mind martha h too much. She is a troll who probably is paid to come here and slime everyone. Too bad she’s part of the Neo-Con crowd–what a boring, power-hungry empty pathetic existence she must have.
The latest news out of Iraq:
Al-Maliki and the Iraqi government have been in talks with the US to draw up a Short Term agreement (can’t call it a TREATY, if Bush does that, then the treaty has to be approved by Congress, and he’s not about to let them have that power to deny it) because the UN mandate calls for all foreign Occupiers to be out of Iraq by this year, December 31, 2008. BUT now the Iraqis are TELLING Bush that they will NOT sign a Long Term agreement, AND they want the US to set a timetable for the troops to leave, after the Iraqi military gains control of the various districts.
Let’s see–as I recall Bush has said that when the Iraqis ask us to leave, we WILL leave. Now I read that Bush is against ANY type of US withdrawal, ANY kind of timetables. Well, Bush, YOU said that we would leave Iraq when the Iraqis want us to–so you have NO other option but to agree to their request. If you defy the Iraqi government on this point, not only will you get not get an ‘agreement’ but you will be showing your true colors of your delusional “Project for the New American Century” agenda of world domination by the US ‘Empire”.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for taking those intrusive and annoying pop-ups down! For what it’s worth, you have another loyal, guaranteed regular reader. And while I’m at it, thank you for standing up for our Constitution. Someone sure needs to…
Why do Congressional Democrats fear free speech?
posted at 6:30 pm on July 8, 2008
Efforts in both chambers of Congress have Republicans wondering why Democrats seem to fear free speech. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) has proposed limitations on how Representatives can post information to the Internet in a time when we should be demanding more transparency, not less. According to a source in the Senate, Dianne Feinstein has begun her own campaign to force Senators to seek permission before communicating over the Internet.
Soren Dayton at The Next Right has the story from the House:
In typical fashion, House Democrats are trying to pass rules that stifle debate and require regulation. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on House Administraion Kevin Brady. The letter is a response to a debate about whether the House should allow members to use YouTube, first raised by Rep. Kevin McCarthy back in April. …
Well, Capuano’s proposal is a disaster. It creates a list of sites, maintained by the Committee on House Administration that members are allowed to post material. Except, those sites have a caveat:
To the maximum extent possible, official content should not be posted on a website or page where it may appear with commercial or political information or any other information not in compliance with the House’s content guidelines.
In the Senate, the problem gets even worse. Feinstein (D-CA) would have the Rules Committee act as a censor board, forcing members to get approval for the act of communicating on external websites. Further, it would appear that the Feinstein proposal would attempt to exercise editorial control over these sites, at least indirectly.
As my source put it, these are the key issues:
Under their scheme, the Senate Rules Committee would become the Internet speech police for everyone in the Senate.
It will be up to the committee to “sanction” which websites and forms of communication they deem appropriate.
The Rules Committee thus gets to pick winners and losers among various websites in terms of which are appropriate for use.
The Rules Committee would get to regulate communication through any site not ending in “senate.gov,” which would include sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
Further, this could jeopardize guest posts at sites like RedState and Townhall.
The Rules Committee would require senators to moderate “any public commentary” which would likely mean regulating comments on guest posts and YouTube videos, among other things.
It also raises a number of questions:
Would this rule extend beyond comments to posts on the site?
Would it affect Slatecard & BlogAds?
How about something like The Ed Morrissey Show, which has a live chatroom? Would that have to be moderated?
The Rules Committee would get to act as the “Content KGB” since it can require the removal of content in violation of Senate Rules. And who determines what’s in violation? The Rules Committee.
There are no similar controls on any other form of communication with the public, such as publishing op-eds in newspapers or appearing on radio or television.
The sudden interest in silencing Congress goes right along with the brand-new 9% approval rating the Democratic leadership has earned Congress. Imagine how much worse it will get when they gag their members and force an end to communication through policy sites, blogs, and Internet media.
Want to ask Feinstein what she’s thinking? Be sure to e-mail her through her website or call the Senate Rules Committee at 202-224-6352 to express your support for free speech and transparency. Ask them what they have to hide that the 9% of Americans who still support them shouldn’t find out.
Update: And let’s not forget Feinstein’s other policy goal —
I have a question for JT.
Is there going to be a point in the future at which you ask MSNBC if there will ever be an opposing viewpoint to the far left chatter you and the other 5 steadies on the show blather about?????
Heck, if Bill Oreilly can immediately have someone on his show almost everynight to challenge him on his viewpoint; why can’t MSNBC?
Almost every night 10 minutes into Bill Oreilly’s show, after he speaks his opnion, he brings someone on with the opposing viewpoint to challenge him.
What is MSNBC, or more importantly, YOU JT, afraid to have opposing viewpoints? Can’t find one in your small liberal world?????
Obama answers McCain on deficit with a SHRUG!
posted at 8:31 pm on July 8, 2008
John McCain pledged yesterday to balance the budget by 2013. Barack Obama responded by claiming that it can’t be balanced, and he can’t be bothered to try:
Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.
“I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families,” Obama told reporters this week when asked if he’d match McCain’s pledge.
Democrats have complained for years about the Bush administration deficits. In fact, they routinely use that as one argument against the Iraq war, claiming that it has exploded the deficit. Now are the Democrats about to say that the deficit is of no consequence at all, and that spending shouldn’t rely on financing? They insisted on pay-go in 2007, although they broke their own rules in the 2008 budget.
There is a large difference between the McCain and Obama spending plans. Obama would add almost $300 billion in new spending each year, while McCain would add less than $20 billion, and McCain has at least outlined cuts to balance them. The difference becomes more significant with Obama’s stated indifference to the deficit, now and in the future.
This time, Obama won’t just execute a flip-flop for himself. He’s about to force the entire party to do a 180 on deficit spending. When do the backflips cease with Obama?
I knew your father in Chatham, New York and did a few favors for him: one day he ran out of gas on the way to the office and I took a can of gas to him on the road. It is good to know there are defenders of freedom and the constitution hard at work. Thanks!
Anyone else having fun scrolling thru martha’s posts?
Mr. Turley,
Thanks again for your non-partisan opinions. I was glad to hear you call out both parties on the FISA fiasco. The republicons may be the worst offenders in breaking the laws, but the democrats are enablers and culpable. I am very sad today.
I believe I shall report martha h for plagarizing other people’s spoken or written words. Come on, martha, use your own talking points, not others!
Obama Flip-Flops on FISA
Standing with his party’s hard-left wing through the primary season, Barack Obama consistently opposed granting immunity to telecoms who cooperated with the federal government’s foreign terrorist surveillance program in the years after September 11. Obama went even farther by vowing to oppose any cloture motion on the FISA reform bill as long as it included telecom immunity. Jake Tapper has assembled the quotes, including this one from Obama’s Senate office in December:
Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd’s efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same….Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.
Like everything Barack Obama says, that pledge was operative only as long as it was in Obama’s political interest. Last month, he announced a change in position. He still favored the Dodd amendment to strip telecom immunity from the act, but said he would now vote in favor of cloture and in favor of final passage of the FISA reform bill.
Today, the FISA bill came up for a series of votes in the Senate. Consistent with the new position he announced last month, Obama voted for the Dodd amendment, to delete telecom immunity from the act. The Dodd amendment failed, 66-32. Later came the cloture vote, the one on which Obama had pledged to vote “No.” Obama voted “Yes.” He then voted with the 69-28 majority in favor of the act.
There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over Obama’s flip-flop on the Left. The Associated Press wailed and gnashed its teeth a bit over the bill’s passage, as well. This is how the AP began its story on the Senate vote:
Bowing to President Bush’s demands, the Senate sent the White House a bill Wednesday overhauling bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shielding telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.
The Senate “bowed to President Bush’s demands” in a 69-28 vote? In a parallel universe, the AP might have begun its story, “The Senate voted today, enthusiastically and overwhelmingly, to continue President Bush’s program of keeping Americans safe by spying on terrorists overseas.” But that’s not a world any of us are likely to live long enough to see.
powerline blog.
Good News from Iraq:
Al-Maliki has announced that before the US makes any kind of agreement with Iraq that the US has to follow a timetable set by Iraq.
Bush says that we will leave when the US generals decide the conditions on the ground are good and he will not follow any timetable.
I say: let the Iraqis make their own decisions. After all, it’s THEIR country!
to russ, martha, Percy, etc…
powerline blog–whoopie, two lawyers write a right-wing blog and you copy their work. Why can’t any of you repubs write your OWN words?
Me, I write what I feel and what I believe. I don’t need to go to any other website or blog and write, word for word, what someone else has said or written.
Can’t you think for yourselves and write something original to support your warped views?
Wow, Senator Obama was sure quick to accept Jesse Jackson’s apology over threatening to cut a physical attribute of Senator Obama’s off if he didn’t stop “talking down black people”.
I wonder if a weak kneed PRESIDENT Obama will be so quick to run out and jump to accept an Achmadinejad’s “apology” after threatening to blow New York City off the face of the earth a couple years down the road.
We don’t need a WEAK man protecting a nation of 330 million people do we? Even Jesse Jackson’s SON was tougher on his father than Obama was; maybe the party nominated the wrong man for President, maybe it should have been a strong Jesse Jackson Junior, a man obviously not afraid of even his own father.
Ask a Republican a question, get a response about “weak kneed” and “talking down black people”.
Big Deal, russ. Jackson is just jealous of Barack because Jackson is getting to be an old fart and doesn’t hold sway on anyone anymore.
So, did you think up this about Barack all by yourself, or did you write this from a blog or website?
Oh, I know you won’t answer this question, but, russ–when are YOU going to Iraq to fight for your president?
Oh, one more thing: are you going to leave the United States when Barack Obama becomes President?
JT was on with the FAMOUS DAVID SHUSTER TONIGHT!
On September 24, 2007, Shuster interviewed Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn while filling in on Tucker Carlson’s show.[1] When Shuster asked about her response to the MoveOn.org ad campaign concerning General David Petraeus’s Iraq war testimony, he followed up by then asking her the name of the last soldier from her congressional district who had been killed in Iraq; she was not able to name the soldier. Shuster mentioned that it was 18-year-old Jeremy Bohannon, and asked Blackburn why she was not able to recall the name. However, Bohannon was not actually from Blackburn’s congressional district, but had grown up in the congressional district of Rep. John Tanner.
That interview was not the first time Shuster has sparked controversy.
Shuster has been criticized for inserting political commentary into his coverage of news stories. One incident occurred on May 8, 2006, when he cited attorneys familiar with the CIA leak investigation and proclaimed, “I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted”[2] in relation to the Plame affair. A month later, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who had always indicted grand jury figures referred to as “person A,” announced that Rove would not be indicted.
On February 7, 2008, while hosting an MSNBC program, Shuster discussed Chelsea Clinton’s campaigning for her mother Hillary Clinton, her efforts to influence superdelegates, and her refusal to answer any questions by the media. When his guest, Bill Press, pointed out that Bush’s daughters campaigned for their father, Shuster noted the different access rules in each case and responded:
“There’s just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea’s out there calling up celebrities, saying support my mom … doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”
The Clinton campaign demanded an apology and stated that Clinton might not participate in any further debates on MSNBC. Shuster was suspended from all NBC News and MSNBC appearances for his comments. Before the suspension Shuster had engaged in a heated e-mail exchange with a Clinton staffer in which he defended his remarks. Shuster’s long suspension from on-air duties ended on February 22, 2008.
On February 9, 2008, a blogger posted that Phil Griffin, senior vice president at the network, threatened to fire Shuster for not having apologized; Meet the Press host Tim Russert intervened with Griffin on Shuster’s behalf.
Mr. Turley,
On a recent “Countdown” you had commented about the protection for the telecoms and referred to the Founders and how they would be appalled by this attack on the Fourth Amendment. Every time I hear the Founders referenced as to what they would think or feel I am shocked- especially when stated by a lawyer and my understanding of “hear-say.” Admittedly not an expert, I would bet (if it were legal in California) there would be much of our present-day America the Founders would find contrary to their vision. Regardless, after reading your posted biography I applaud your involvement in defining our laws despite often views to the contrary.
Best of luck on the site.
Thank you.
russ:
I knew you wouldn’t answer my questions, but I didn’t know you’d start a “kill David Shuster” campaign.
I saw “Verdict” last night and I agree with Mr. Turley about the telecoms getting immunity and your president Bush getting away with more crimes.
I know that when Barack Obama is President he will have to go through all the various laws, by-laws, signing statements, etc… that Bush did and have his assistants find out what is and isn’t Legal. (My guess is that 99.999% of everything that Bush approved is ILLEGAL). This will take Months and Months of work to try and go back and correct all this Illegal activity.
I also know Barack Obama voted in favor of this sham of a FISA bill, but he has said that, since there is so little time left before Bush is given his walking papers out of the White House, that Barack will be starting on his long job of fixing our broken government. I’m sure this FISA bill will be one of the first things addressed, right after Barack agrees with Iraq to end this Illegal Bush Invasion.
Have a good weekend…
Mary Leon. You write FISA will be one of the first things addressed by Barack……LOL! Ya, I bet right up there with going back to his bank and asking them to INCREASE his loan rate!
You might be interested in this, I think it is the tip of the iceberg for Barack. He is as corrupt if not more than your average politician:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
Judicial Watch Files Senate, FEC Complaints against Barack Obama over Questionable Mortgage Loan
Northern Trust Allegedly Provided Obama Special Discounts on “Super Super Jumbo” Home Loan
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed separate complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee against Senator Barack Obama for allegedly accepting a below-market rate mortgage loan in 2005 not available to the general consumer.
By the way Mary Leon, for every Jonathan Turley on MSNBC, long noted as a joke for any balance, there are a dozen others more versed in law that KNOW this Rove chase is a big fat JOKE!:::
In Defense of Karl Rove
July 11, 2008 – 5:11 pm
It seems the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is trying to obtain information from Mr. Rove concerning the firing of several U.S. Attorneys by the President. Now the President has the right to fire any U.S. attorney. (This isn’t the teachers union!) In fact, Bill Clinton fired I think the figure is 94, U.S. attorneys and Mr. Clinton’s staff was not subjected to any subpoenas. As they shouldn’t have been.
So, what does Mr. Rove know that the Committee Members want him to repeat under oath? Absolutely nothing. Do the House members think that Mr. Rove will assert that the President fired some of the U.S. attorneys because he does not agree with their political philosophy? No. Are they being barraged with phone calls and emails by their respective constituencies wondering what Mr. Rove knows? Of course not. If the President wants to fire 500 U.S. attorneys, it IS his right to do so. I will go so far as to say that if President Bush fired all of the U.S. attorneys because they disagree with his political philosophy, so what?
Let me remind the American public that WE voted for President Bush and WE respect the right of the President to make an executive decision. That’s his job. If the American public wants a new President, guess what? We have that opportunity every four years. It’s called America, not Russia.
Mr. Rove has offered to answer questions posed by the Committee to get to the bottom of whatever it is they want from Mr. Rove, but the Committee has rejected Mr. Rove’s offer. Why? Because an informal question and answer session will NOT embarrass the President. It is Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat that are pursuing Mr. Rove. Please, if either of these Democrats are YOUR representative, by all means, contact them, and ask them to concentrate on keeping their own jobs of working for the PEOPLE, and stop wasting your tax payer dollars on attempting to embarrass the President.
Newsweek Poll: Obama drops like a rockposted at 6:53 pm on July 11, 2008
Newsweek’s poll surprised many by showing a huge gap between Barack Obama and John McCain, with the Democratic nominee-apparent enjoying a 15-point lead over the Republican.
One month later, Obama has lost all of the momentum and has dropped into a virtual tie with McCain. The latest Newsweek poll shows Obama up 44-41, within the margin of error:
A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama’s glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month’s NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.
Obama’s rapid drop comes at a strategically challenging moment for the Democratic candidate. Having vanquished Hillary Clinton in early June, Obama quickly went about repositioning himself for a general-election audience–an unpleasant task for any nominee emerging from the pander-heavy primary contests and particularly for a candidate who’d slogged through a vigorous primary challenge in most every contest from January until June. Obama’s reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.
More seriously, some Obama supporters worry that the spectacle of their candidate eagerly embracing his old rival, Hillary Clinton, and traveling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics. This is a major concern since Obama’s outsider credentials, have, in the past, played a large part in his appeal to moderate, swing voters. In the new poll, McCain leads Obama among independents 41 percent to 34 percent, with 25 percent favoring neither candidate. In June’s NEWSWEEK Poll, Obama bested McCain among independent voters, 48 percent to 36 percent.
There is a definite momentum away from Obama, especially within the independents. June’s poll, taken only three weeks ago, had Obama ahead by 12 points, 48-36. Obama has lost a whopping 14 points among independents and now trails McCain, 34-41. “Undecided/Other” rose among independents from 16% in June to 25% in July, which likely shows flirtation with third-party candidates such as Ralph Nader and Bob Barr — but some went to McCain as well.
One last comment before the weekend:
russ:
As far as Barack Obama, we shall see what happens. We can only live one day at a time. I’m just hoping he’s elected President, Bush gets what he deserves–a prison sentence for war crimes, (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Gonzo, etc…) I have no more power to make these things happen than you do.
And why do you come here to post on Mr. Turley’s website if you don’t respect him or are interested in his views? Seems to me like you’re wasting our time here…
Dear Professor Turley,
You have captured us here in our home. I stop whatever I am doing when you are on, and have my children watch you later on Tivo. When you speak we learn so much about our Constitution, and how wonderful our rights are, and how evil it is for those who wish to restrict our rights. You are the truest Patriot – and we very much appreciate your sharing your knowledge in such a clear and approachable way – our family will follow you!
Respectfully,
Carla
Rumor had it that Barack Obama would release his June fundraising numbers yesterday.
John McCain released his two days ago and raised a huge amount.
So far today, no release of information has come across the wires or at Obama’s website.
Does Team Obama have bad news they want to bury far into a weekend cycle?
Maybe Obama is going to FLIP FLOP on campaign finance and decide to change his mind & take public financing after changing his mind & deciding to take private financing after telling America he would take public financing…..
A commander-in-chief who fears the military?
July 12, 2008
John McCain has accepted an invitation to appear at a nationally-televised town hall meeting next month organized by a coalition of support organizations. Despite pleas from the group, Barack Obama has refused to appear at the same event, underscoring his desire to avoid extemporaneous exchanges with John McCain, especially on military matters in which he has no experience at all.
The Fort Hood group has offered to change dates, but Obama remains obstinate.
Carissa Picard, managing director of the Fort Hood Presidential Town Hall Consortium, said she had suggested Aug. 11 and asked the campaign to suggest other dates if that was not convenient, but after several conversations she had not been able to work anything out. “I’m having extreme difficulty getting the Obama campaign to commit to this event, and we do not understand why,” said Ms. Picard, whose husband is deployed in Iraq. “We made it very clear to them that if they would commit to the event, we would work with them on dates.”
On a number of occasions, Obama challenged McCain to debate foreign policy and the war, “anywhere, any time”. Hmmmm.
The U.S. is on the way toward transitioning away from over-reliance on fossil fuels, pursuing every source of energy out there –solar, nuclear, clean coal, wind, biofuels, hydrogen, shale. We need it all.
But we’ve built up an infrastructure over 100 years that must be relied upon as we make the change to renewable sources. Congress has to get out of the way and allow the U.S. to develop its resources for that infrastructure – or we’re headed towards economic catastrophe.
A number of Democratic officeholders have heard from their constituents, and they know they desperately need to vote to expand energy exploration. But their leadership is making sure they cannot.
You can feel the Democratic solidarity on this fragmenting. One of two scenarios is likely. Either the leadership wakes up and allows expanded development – in Alaska, outer continental shelf, shale – or I suspect Republicans are going to do a great deal better in this fall’s elections than most pundits now assume.
Hey, russ, what are your thoughts about the book that will be published next week that has the official Red Cross findings that the CIA, through Bush, HAS committed torture on prisoners?
I’ve even heard that if we don’t start Impeachment against Cheney and then Bush, the World Court might decide to bring charges of War Crimes against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc…
Our own Congress won’t do anything, because Pelosi and lots of others are also guilty of war crimes. The only person who has enough guts to say anything has always been Rep. Dennis Kucinich. God Love him.
In 2002, Bush signed some kind of act that would allow him and any of his administration to ignore any subpoena from the World Court. (way back then, Bush KNEW he was doing wrong, and he tried to ‘cover all his bases’). BUT I know that the majority in the world would welcome any kind of trial for this evil administration, so Big Deal about Bush trying to ignore any subpoena. He won’t be able to hide forever on his 100,000 acres in Paraguay. Cheney has a bigger spread, right down the road from Bush.
How are you going to feel, knowing that you support WAR CRIMINALS???
mary leon:
LOL! Ya try them in the famous WORLD COURT! What a rip roaring joke and now you 1 percenters really think it COULD happen.
Let’s see now; the WORLD COURT has not brought a single third world murderous dictator to justice but BY GOD the WORLD COURT is going to put a UNITED STATES PRESIDENT in JAIL for freeing countries from tyranny!
Ya, that will get you all a lot of votes in the next election. GO FER IT! LOL!
I can’t stop laughing..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! world COURT! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahahhahahhhhhhhhhhhhahahaahahahahaahhah,,world court…lahahahahahaaahahahahahhaheeheeehahchahaeehhheeeeeeeeehhaww!
Say, I see Obama is TANKING EVERYWHERE! Even the Germans want Obama to stay out of Germany, the smart ones anyway.
According to the NYT, you two percenters are getting restless about Obama……..::
In the breathless weeks before the Oregon presidential primary in May, Martha Shade did what thousands of other people here did: she registered as a Democrat so she could vote for Senator Barack Obama.
Now, however, after critics have accused Mr. Obama of shifting positions on issues like the war in Iraq, the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants, gun control and the death penalty — all in what some view as a shameless play to a general election audience — Ms. Shade said she planned to switch back to the Green Party.
“I’m disgusted with him,” said Ms. Shade, an artist. “I can’t even listen to him anymore. He had such an opportunity, but all this ‘audacity of hope’ stuff, it’s blah, blah, blah. For all the independents he’s going to gain, he’s going to lose a lot of progressives.”
I see no transformational quality to either Obama or his candidacy. Obama said he was a new kind of politician. He sold an entire younger generation on the theory of change, a new kind of politics in Washington and he’s delivered the status quo. He’s shown us that on FISA, the death penalty, guns, religion, Iraq, Afghanistan and trade policy (so far) he’s all about preserving the status quo and not rocking the boat in his quest for votes. How much more “politics as usual” can you get? … How does anyone know what Obama really believes or, even more problematic, what beliefs he’ll decide are worth expending political capital on once he’s elected?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13liberal.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
russ:
You’re doing it again! You’re writing someone else’s comments; but at least you’re giving the source credit for it.
Oh, by the way, the current commander-and-thief is the one who is afraid of our military. After all, he’s the one who was AWOL for over a year from the National Guard during the Vietnam War. Put that together with his veep *5 defferments* Cheney, and you have your two chicken-hawks.
I wouldn’t laugh too much about the World Court not being able to get any leader guilty of war crimes just yet.
Bush WILL pay for what he’s done to us, either here or in the next life…
And YOU will pay for your supporting him, one way or another…
russ:
I ask you again:
Why do you post on Mr. Turley’s website if you don’t respect him or are interested in his views? Seems to me like you’re wasting our time here…
(Original Quote by ME)
mary leon: I told you long ago that your favorite progressive, Larry Flynt the porno king, has a reward for $1,000,000 to anybody that can prove President Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. The offer has been out there for 5 years now and nobody can claim it because he wasn’t AWOL.
russ:
Just answer this following question:
I ask you for the Third time:
Why do you post on Mr. Turley’s website if you don’t respect him or are interested in his views? Seems to me like you’re wasting our time here…
(Quote by ME)
Will Kurtz Slam the L.A. Times Web Site for the Commenters Who Reveled in Tony Snow’s Death?
Tomorrow there will be an online chat with Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post web site. You can leave questions or comments for him here. Here is the question I just left:
Mr. Kurtz:
When Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a brain tumor, you made a special point of noting in your column that there were commenters at Michelle Malkin’s site “who were reveling in the news and, in one case, talked of celebrating.”
Over the weekend, Tony Snow died. At the L.A. Times web site — where comments must be approved before they appear — well over 2 dozen commenters reveled in the news. Some examples:
“CANCER WAS TOO GOOD FOR HIM. HOPE IT WAS PAINFUL. NOW FOR THE REST OF THIS SCUMMY ADMINISTRATION. COME ON CANCER, DO YOUR GOOD WORK………………..”
“I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the first day of a Tony Snow-free world! Yay!!!!”
“I only wish his suffering were more prolonged.”
“I hope he suffered at the end. Just a terrible person.”
My question to you, Mr. Kurtz: is this worthy of mention in your column? Is it meaningful that one of the nation’s largest newspapers approved these comments for publication? Or are such comments relevant only when they appear on a conservative blogger’s site?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/13/will-kurtz-slam-the-la-times-web-site-for-the-commenters-who-reveled-in-tony-snows-death/
russ:
I ask you a simple question, three times already, and you Ignore it.
You won’t face reality. You, russ, are guilty of supporting an administration that will be facing War Crimes, whether here on earth or in another place and time (Yes, I’m talking about Heaven. I can be a pro-life Independent AND a Christian at the same time, you know). You DON’T want to face this fact, because if you do, then you know you will be guilty of sending our soldiers to Iraq, to die and be injured for Life, whether Physically or Mentally–all because of a LIE.
Haven’t you read the “Project for the New American Century”? Haven’t you read what the Neo-Con plans were? William Kristol is the author of this piece of evil, supported by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Jeb Bush, amongst others who signed their souls to the devil, as far as I’m concerned, to try to force everyone on earth to follow the “American Neo-Con Empire”; starting with the Middle East.
Sorry, russ, but I can’t help you when you finally face facts. You and millions of others will have to Live with what you’ve ALL done to us, to our soldiers and to the Innocent Iraqi civilians by following that warped man in the White House. There will be PLENTY of Democrats in Congress that will be facing facts along with you, for their silent approval of Bush’s crimes.
May the Lord keep you all from going crazy with guilt and grief…
Hello Professor Turley,
I am not a law student nor am I a college student. I am a junior in highschool and because of the speech you gave at the June 9 2008 NYLF Law I am 100% sure that I would like to pursue a career in law. I truly appreciate the way you presented the speech, it made the message one hundred percent more enjoyable. As soon as I was able to call my mom at the conclusion of the speech I was like “Mom this Professor is amazing.” Of course i had to tell her about how ministers can add the extra “D” to God and also about how when you know that the defendent is guilty and you have to have a bottle or two of wine and realize what your job is. Those two really made me laugh. Even the “If you eat sushi, raw fish, why can’t you try crime?” made me laugh until my stomach hurt. I would just like to say thank you so much because I was a little skeptical because of my shyness but you inspired me to step out of my box and its okay to be funny and have a fun character.
Once again thank you!
Sincerely,
Andrea C.
University apologizes to student after accusing him of … “openly reading” a bookposted at 7:33 pm on July 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Behold the ne plus ultra of campus tolerance, in which the act of reading scholarly material now constitutes an actionable offense. Our culprit? A student-janitor named Keith Sampson.
His weapon? “Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan.” The charge? Racial harassment, for thoughtlessly brandishing this anti-Klan book with an image of Klansmen on the cover where others might see it.
The AP story describes what happens next, but to get the full Orwellian flavor you need to read Dorothy Rabinowitz’s op-ed. Quote:
Mr. Sampson stood accused of “openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black co-workers.” The statement, signed by chief affirmative action officer Lillian Charleston, asserted that her office had completed its investigation of the charges brought by Ms. Nakea William, his co-worker – that Mr. Sampson had continued, despite complaints, to read a book on this “inflammatory topic.”…
Ludicrous harassment cases are not rare at our institutions of higher learning. But there was undeniably something special – something pure, and glorious – in the clarity of this picture. A university had brought a case against a student on grounds of a book he had been reading.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/15/university-apologizes-to-student-after-accusing-him-of-openly-reading-a-book/
JONATHAN,
SHOULDN’T THE NEW FISA BILL BE CONTESTED BY YOU BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, IT IS CLEARLY UNCONSITITUTIONAL?
THANK YOU,
DAN BERGSTROM…
SEATTLE, WA…
Turley:
Someone said they saw you were on Countdown again without anybody to debate your extreme positions.
Is it because you are buddies with Keith Olbermann that he permits you to come on the national tv without rebuttal?
I find it disturbing that you would be fearful of actually having someone debate you one on one.
MARTHA H,
I FIND IT VERY DISTURBING THAT YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO JONATHAN WANTING TO PROTECT AND PERSERVE OUR CONSTITUTION AGAINST AN ADMINISTRATION WHO HAS CLEARLY VIOLATED IT!
THANKS,
DAN BERGSTROM…
SEATTLE, WA…
dan b:
I find it very disturbing that you do not believe in the innocent until proven guilty aspect of our judicial system. I guess you have made up your mind that the administration has “clearly violated” our Constitution despite the absolute EVIDENCE that anything of that sort occurred; except in the minds of the dead enders that infest left wing blogs.
martha h:
The fact that the Administration won’t let the truth be proven should give even you some pause, martha h. Let me know when you evolve from apparatchik to citizen.
Welcome, Dan,
Just ignore martha h, russ, percy, and any Neo-Cons that post messages here. They have NO respect for Mr. Turley’s website; in fact I wonder why they bother to come here and post incredibly idiotic and hypocritical remarks.
Mr. Turley is a Professor of the US Constitution and knows the laws thoroughly. I have even sent a suggestion letter to Sen. Barack Obama’s website, stating that Mr. Turley should be considered a nominee for the US Supreme Court, if the opportunity ever arises. He is such a learned scholar and can make decisions based on LAW, NOT on Neo-Con baloney.
When the TRUTH comes out, then martha h, russ, percy and the rest of the Neo-Cons will owe us an apology. Everything Bush has done using the name of our country will be because of these people who voted for him and gave him their silent approval of Invading Iraq, and killing our US soldiers and Innocent Iraqis and changing our laws by shredding the US Constitution, Especially the first 10 ‘Bill of Rights’.
I’m glad you, me, mezpo and others agree with Mr. Turley. He knows the TRUTH and so do we.
I am starting to think mary leon, raf, mespo, etc are all JT alter ego’s meant to come here to stroke his own ego!
That wouldn’t surprise me a bit, no sirree, wouldn’t surprise me a bit.. Certainly when one insists on not having an opposing view for debate when you appear on a ridiculous low rated in-the-tank-for-Obama show such as countdown, that raises the suspicion bar.
martha h,
No, I’m a real person.
Why do you come here to post vile messages?
Why do you disrespect Mr. Turley so much?
Why don’t you go join Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly’s websites?
We don’t need you, russ, percy, or any other Neo-Con here; so get lost.
52 seconds on why Obama won’t win the November election:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
3,000,000 hits so far.
In the video Obama pronounces a McGovernite credo like a catechism:
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems…
…I will not weaponize space…
…I will slow development of future combat systems…
…I will institute a “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending…
…I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons…
…I will not develop nuclear weapons…
…I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material…
…I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals…
NOT surprising Obama has not been asked about his statements by the media is it? This guy Obama is preparing to surrender America!
Iraqis Differ on Obama’s Plans
As Candidate’s Visit Nears, Residents Worry on Troop Pullout
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, July 19, 2008; Page A07
BAGHDAD, July 18 — As Sen. Barack Obama prepares for his first ever visit to Iraq, Iraqis are worried over his plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in 16 months should he be elected president.
“Iraq will be in hell, and we will find ourselves at the gates of civil war,” said Maied Rashed al-Nuaemi, a provincial council member in Mosul, a city in northern Iraq where Iraqi forces are battling the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq. “The American presence in Iraq is the safety valve to keep this country quiet. If they withdraw, that will lead to calamity.”
Perhaps more than any country in the world besides the United States, Iraq finds that its future is at stake in the presidential elections this November. And the single most important question Iraqis have for the next president is: How long will U.S. forces remain?
While most Iraqis are against what they see as the continuing U.S. occupation, many also view the U.S. military as a bulwark against militias and extremists, as well as the growing regional influence of Iran.
In polls, a majority of Iraqis say they want U.S. forces to leave, but only a tiny minority say they want the forces to leave immediately.
Some of the more than two dozen Iraqis interviewed for this article said Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, is naive in wanting to withdraw U.S. combat troops by the summer of 2010.
“I think that Obama talks more than what he can accomplish, because reality differs from promises and dreams,” said Um Mohammed, 60, an engineer in Baghdad who declined to give her full name. “I think it is just a camouflage to reach the presidential chair.”
Mohammed Sulaiman, 56, a retired government employee in Baghdad, said: “The proposal of Obama to pull out the troops by summer 2010 is foolish. If the United States withdraws from Iraq, I think its credibility among the international countries would collapse.”
Most Iraqis interviewed appeared wary of setting a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, although Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and senior politicians have said they want such a commitment from the Bush administration.
“We need more training, as well as new and developed weapons and supplies. We also need modern and developed technology. The U.S. forces should withdraw gradually so our Iraqi forces can fill the gaps that the American forces will leave,” said Brig. Gen. Najim Abdullah, spokesman for the Iraqi National Police. “As to a timetable, I don’t think we should specify it now, because it is related to the logistical support and the ability of our Iraqi forces to handle their responsibility.”
Several Iraqi army commanders said the country’s security forces would not be ready to stand on their own for at least several years.
“Now we are only fighting the insurgency in our country, and we still need the support” of U.S.-led coalition forces, said Maj. Gen. Habeeb al-Husaini, commander of the Iraqi army’s 14th Division, whose forces control the cities of Amarah, Samawah and Nasiriyah in southern Iraq. “So how about if we want to defend the country from the external threats?”
The Left is crowing about the time line BUT the truth is:
Maliki: Obama’s 16-month timetable sounds goodposted at 12:15 pm on July 19, 2008
“Interpreted” by Reuters as tacit evidence of Liberal Jesus’s foreign-policy sagacity.
SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.
The unasked follow-up question: How about the 14-month timetable that Obama wanted to set in January 2007 to start pulling troops out before those positive developments could occur? How keen does that look in hindsight? To repeat a point made yesterday, the only reason a timetable or “time horizon” is arguably a responsible strategy now is because it was properly rejected as being irresponsible then. Maliki hints at that in another part of the interview:
So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn’t the case at all. If we by good fortune & success now come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias.
Exactly, which at least partly explains why Bush is more willing to compromise now on some sort of informal schedule. Compare Maliki’s justification for the timetable to Obama’s justification in his big Iraq speech. The pacification of the country is almost incidental, something to congratulate Petraeus on and then quickly move past. To the extent conditions in Iraq seem to affect his rationale at all, he offers this: “In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset – Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact.” I.e. it didn’t work, so let’s get out.
Back to Maliki for a rebuttal:
SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?
Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.
One more quote from the interview which I dare say won’t be making it into the inevitable Team Barry press release. The fact that Maliki thinks the war was good for Iraqis doesn’t mean it was good for America, needless to say, but Obama fans eager to exploit the timetable bit may want to mull this before baptizing his judgments with Absolute Moral Authority:
SPIEGEL: Mr. Prime Minister, the war and its consequences have cost more than 100,000 lives and caused great suffering in your country. Saddam Hussein and his regime are now part of the past. Was all of this worth the price?
Maliki: The casualties have been and continue to be enormous. But anyone who was familiar with the dictator’s nature and his intentions knows what could have been in store for us instead of this war. Saddam waged wars against Iran and Kuwait, and against Iraqis in the north and south of his own country, wars in which hundreds of thousands died. And he was capable of instigating even more wars. Yes, the casualties are great, but I see our struggle as an enormous effort to avoid other such wars in the future.
For context, here’s Petraeus on MSNBC yesterday afternoon (before the Spiegel interview was published) responding to reports that Maliki wants a timetable. He fudges a bit with the “time horizon” terminology, but note well the point about domestic politics and assertions of sovereignty. Another “positive development.” Exit question: What do we do now with that NYT piece from the other day about Iraqis who love Obama for bringing Hope but pray that the U.S. security presence doesn’t Change?
Update: Spend some time with this AP story about U.S. troops — who would have been reduced to a small Baker/Hamilton token force by now if Obama had had his way last year — helping Iraqi villagers rebuild after purging Al Qaeda. Quote: “It reveals how drastically American troops have shifted their focus from combat to helping Iraqis build on a newfound peace.
In just 30 short years almost 20 MILLION children will be born free in Iraq thanks to GW Bush.
and you low lifes here complain bitch & moan while sitting fat on your couch watching sports.
martha h:
I thought you’d gone over to Hannity or O’Reilly’s website.
Your copy and pasting here is a waste of space.
Get Lost, Loser!
martha h:
“In just 30 short years almost 20 MILLION children will be born free in Iraq thanks to GW Bush.”
******************
Wonder what they would say to the 1.2 million or so Iraqis born alive but are now dead in just 5 short years because of GW Bush and his “mistaken” invasion? You may want to recheck with the Red Cross or Opinion Research Business in London, the figures are likely up by now. Maybe we and he should have stayed on the couch. Well he does have a problem with pretzels there doesn’t he:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/bush.fainting/
mespo:
martha h is just so stubborn and ignorant when it comes to defending the clown in the White House.
I wonder how much the Repub party pays her for coming to this website and pasting and copying stuff from her right-wing bible…
Mary Leon:
I like to think she is a Democratic plant serving as an inert bacteria into the blog that forces us to rise up against feigned stupidity like white blood cells in the body against disease. It’s makes more sense than the other alternative which is that someone is really that dumb!
Instead of a gas-tax holiday, Congress considers gas-tax hike
John McCain couldn’t convince Congress to adopt his gas-tax holiday, but Congress does plan on making some changes to the rate. Unfortunately, the change will go in the opposite direction, if Democrats get their wish. With Americans driving less, the highway fund faces even more severe shortfalls than expected from lost gas-tax revenue — and so the Democrats plan to hike it up by ten cents a gallon:
Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded — with a prod from the construction industry — that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs.
Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel. …
Oberstar, D-Minn., said his committee is working on the next long-term highway bill. He estimated it will take between $450 billion and $500 billion over six years to address safety and congestion issues with highways, bridges and transit systems.
“We’ll put all things on the table,” Oberstar said, but the gas tax “is the cornerstone. Nothing else will work without the underpinning of the higher user fee gas tax.”
The problem with the transportation bill isn’t a lack of funds, it’s a lack of fiscal discipline. Oberstar figures prominently in this, earmarking transportation funds for projects like bike and walking path, visitor centers, and other nonsense instead of focusing on the infrastructural needs he decries. Over twelve percent of the last transportation bill consisted of earmarks, with projects like a North Dakota peace garden, a Montana baseball stadium and a Las Vegas history museum.
Pork is the cholesterol of infrastructure. Whenever Congress attempts to address legitimate infrastructure needs, it signals open season on the taxpayers. In that bill last year, over $8 billion got spent on earmarks — the same amount that Congress says will be the shortfall this year for transportation needs, and the deficit they need to erase by raising the gas tax.
When gas was inexpensive, Congress could get away with that. Now that fuel prices have shot through the roof, taxpayers want relief, not a greedy Congress looking to get a piece of the action. If Congress demands sacrifice, then let it start with Congress and eliminate their pet projects from future transportation bills. The gas-tax holiday may be a silly idea, but a gas-tax penalty at this point in time has to set a record for political stupidity.
hey, martha h:
Tell us all about the “Project for the New American Century” and stop cutting and pasting from your right-wing sites…
oh, yeah, another thing martha h:
How are you Repubs going to pay off the $10 TRILLION debt your president is leaving us???
I shouldn’t have to pay ONE DIME of the National Debt since I did NOT vote for that clown, and I did NOT approve of his Invasion of Iraq, nor any of his other Illegal decisions concerning ‘war on terror’, corporate welfare, tax breaks for the rich, everything for everyone who is a ‘have’ or ‘have more’, paid by us who don’t have much.
So, you Repubs who approved everything he’s said and done the past 7+ years should foot the bill for his choices…
Mary Leon:
re: 10 Trillion dollar debt: You must mean the medicare social security PONZI schemes the Democrats shove on America for VOTES. Seems to me it should be the Democrats that solve that fiasco and the people that sold their votes for MY tax money should be ashamed.
As far as your lunatic Bush Derangement Syndrome blather; History will show whether what we did in Iraq was good or bad for the region, but that History won’t be written for 50 years. I suggest you shut up and wait for that. Most in America know this was the right thing to do in Iraq, the only thing they are bothered about is why it took 5 years but of course since the Democrats were trying to LOSE the war for 3 years for Political gain, American will power was waining. Thank GOD we won in Iraq and GOD BLESS GW BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now move to Canada………PLEASE! Or are you in Iran sipping tea and posting more BS while pretending to be Americans?????
martha, martha, martha, LOL
No, my dear, I’m not moving to Canada.
Why won’t you answer me about the Project for the New American Century?
Don’t you even know what it is? If you do, do you think it’s okay for the US to take over the world?
You must have some stock in the oil wells, or else you are completely loony.
Can’t you think for yourself?
Don’t you know how much the rest of the world HATES us? Don’t you care?
Don’t you think that Bush has abused the ‘executive priveledge’? You do know it’s ONLY supposed to be used for National Security reasons, NOT to keep Congress from subpoenaing ANYONE to testify?
Rove, Miers and Bolton should have at least had the DECENCY to show up at their hearings, then plead the 5th. If you or I had a subpoena, we’d better darn well show up!
You may think your Repub party is the best thing since sliced bread–but YOU will have to answer to God why YOU and your kind allowed this ‘man’ to kill Innocent Iraqis, using WMDs, ‘democracy in the Middle East’(yeah, right) and any other excuse for his invasion of Iraq. WE ALL know it had to do with stealing Iraq’s oil. And it looks like al-Maliki won’t let Bush even do that.
I’m so happy that gasoline is so expensive now. Maybe you people in your fancy homes and fancy cars and SUVs will get off you ass and MOVE by your own two feet! Lazy bums!
oh, martha, I forgot something…
The Bible says we must forgive our enemies. Being that you ARE an enemy of our country, I do forgive you for being an ungrateful, hypocritical woman who doesn’t want to know the TRUTH.
Actually, I don’t really feel like forgiving Bush or Cheney for anything they’ve done. They are not human beings, you know, the regular people that have feelings for others–they are Money Machine psychopaths.
mespo:
Isn’t it ashame that our little martha h doesn’t realize she’s being put through the ’spin’ cycle? She wouldn’t believe that Bushie would sell her out to the highest bidder if he could make a profit.
Things like Bush and Cheney have so much money, they don’t know what to do with it. All they do is strive to have ONE more Dollar than the man down the street from them.
What a life! Nothing to look forward to but counting money. But, having people like martha actually believe that Bush is doing great for us and our country is so idiotic, it’s almost too funny to imagine.
martha must have just fallen off the turnip truck before she started to come here and defend the clown in the White House. Won’t she be surprised when all his ‘dirty little secrets’ are finally bared to the whole world?
She will probably then say that she never supported the guy; that she never said for God to “bless” Bushie. I wonder what kind of kool aid they serve at the Repub parties? It must be pretty strong mind-control drugs in that liquid. But then, anyone who claims to be a Repub has already put their Eternal Life in danger by following the murderous clown in the White House…
GOD BLESS GW BUSH.
OBAMA FLUNKS HISTORY – AGAIN!
posted at 10:24 am on July 20, 2008
After receiving a hailstorm of criticism for considering Brandenburg Gate for a public speech, as well as official German dissuasion, Barack Obama moved the venue to the Siegessäule monument. Obama will speak about “historic” US-German relations, but once again, Obama’s own grasp of history has been proven deficient.
Not only does the site contain a monument to Prussian victories over other American allies in Europe, its placement was decided by Adolf Hitler — in order to impress crowds in his idealized version of Berlin called Germania:
Still, even as the issue of his speech’s location has now been settled, a number of politicians in Berlin are still dissatisfied with the site. The Siegessäule — or Victory Column — was erected in memory of Prussia’s victories over Denmark (1864), Austria (1866) and France (1870/71). The column originally stood in front of the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament building, but was moved by Adolf Hitler to its current location in 1939 to make way for his planned transformation of Berlin into the Nazi capital “Germania.”
“The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France,” the deputy leader of the Free Democrats, Rainer Brüderle, told Bild am Sonntag. He raised the question as to “whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world.”
Andreas Schockenhoff of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats said, “the Siegessäule in Berlin is dedicated to a victory over neighbors who are today our European friends and allies. It is a problematic symbol.”
Hitler didn’t just move the monument to its more central location. He had a taller column built for it as well, to emphasize its message of German military domination over Europe. He saw it as a message to Germans of their destiny — as well as to other Europeans as their destiny as well. It was never meant as a symbol of peaceful, multicultural co-existence.
Team Obama has outdone themselves on symbolism with this choice. They’ve managed to make their hosts uncomfortable for a second time with their choice of rallying point, and perhaps more so this time. If one wanted to talk peace, what worse location could one choose than Adolf Hitler’s favorite monument to militaristic domination? One has to wonder how France, Denmark, and Austria will feel about Obama rallying German masses under the Siegessäule. Deja vu?
Obama could be excused for his gaffe, except for two reasons. His team certainly understood the historical weight that the Brandenburg Gate would have lent his event, so why didn’t they bother to ask the Germans about the Siegessäule? Quite obviously, the Germans understand the meaning and subtext of the monument, and most of them wonder why Obama does not. Maybe this is a better example of clueless Americans traveling abroad than those who can only say Merci, beaucoup.
My bad!
On an earlier post I said that the World Court was going after the leader of Zimbabwe. I was wrong. They are going after the leader of Darfur. Hopefully, they will go after the leader of Zimbabwe next, then our ‘leader of the ‘free’ world’ Bush.
martha h = Cutting and pasting, cutting and pasting. Such a copy cat; can’t even think up her own words. Has to follow the Rush Limberger school of thought–the Repub mind control. I could care less if they pay that old fart Rush a Billion dollars. He sounds like he has a bunch of marbles in his mouth-he can’t even pronounce words correctly. What a waste of time to listen to his drug-induced crazy thoughts. But, most people don’t realize that the Media is owned by corporations; mainly right-wing conglomerates. Why people ever think that the Media is ‘liberal’ is sure strange.
We’ll always have people like martha. I can spot them coming from a mile away. They live their whole lives like children. All lock-step with each other. They stay with the same kind of people, the same kind of views, the same kind of talk–never daring to explore any other opinions. They think that Bush is the ‘big daddy’ president who knows best and who always tells them the truth.
Sorry, but I am a grown woman, able to decide things for myself. I have studied very carefully the 2 candidates. Obama may have his faults and limitations, but at least HE doesn’t want to keep our soldiers in the Middle East for 100 years, like McSame; and HE wants to stop the tax breaks for the rich and give us back our US Constitution. So, my vote will definitely go to Obama. As for McSame, he can go back to snoozing on his lazy boy recliner–another old fart like Limberger…
Martha!! Mary!!! Get a room!!!
suziq:
The more I criticize Bush, the more martha h cuts and pastes her right-wing babble–the latest ’spin’ the Repubs are saying about Barack Obama. It’s so fascinating to see these ‘lock-step’ Repubs defend everything that Bush does–and bash Barack Obama with lies and smears. I have a feeling that martha h doesn’t like Barack Obama because he’s ‘different’ from her ‘kind of people’. Too bad, martha h. There are LOTS of different people in the world and you have to learn to live with them.
You’re right, suziq. I should post less here and let martha h burn out her computer with all the cutting and pasting she’s doing but I’m having so much fun pulling her chain! LOL
I agree with you, Mary. It is fun to bait the trolls – there is SO much bait! And Martha takes your bait everytime. You have to give her props for at least knowing how to read/cut/paste. Comprehension is another matter. But the give/take is predictable and I have gone to scrolling thru it all, even tho I agree with your comments and think you are well spoken.
I started coming to this site out of a great respect for Prof. Turley, but it seems no matter what site I visit the trolls spew the party line and have no opinion of their own. And they bring the site down to their level. But please continue your fun – martha will always respond to show us how in tune she is with the rest of the world. (NOT!)
suziq:
martha h doesn’t know this (she will now LOL) that I cut and paste HER stuff here and send it to some Liberal sites I belong to. None of us has to sign up anonymously with a Repub website and be a Troll there, all we do is go to different websites and gather up the Trolls’ ‘cut and paste’ Neo-Con delusions and we read what each other has found.
I can honestly say that Thousands of people are LOL when they read martha h’s ‘cut and paste’. She’s one of the easiest Trolls I ever targeted and I hope she keeps on ‘cutting and pasting’ here so I can share the fun with my Liberal buds!
I tell you, some Repub Trolls are SO DENSE, they don’t even know when they’re being ’spinned’! LOL
Obama to Couric: You know, I’m not sure how many troops I’ll keep in Iraqposted at 8:28 pm on July 22, 2008
Consider this a complement to the “flexibility” word games I wrote about earlier. We know he’s shooting for 16 months; we also know he (properly) reserves the prerogative of strategic decisions to himself as president. Beyond that, we don’t know jack:
Couric: You talk about a residual force remaining in Iraq, but you’ve been hesitant to really give a number … to people. You haven’t been specific, though some of your advisors have said it could be tens of thousands of troops. Why can’t you be more specific as to what you envision?
Obama: Now, keep in mind that when I talk about timetables, people say that’s too specific, with respect to residual force, maybe not specific enough. I think this is an example of a tactical issue. How do you execute a mission that requires commanders on the ground to make that decision? My job as commander-in-chief would be to indicate to them here’s our goal, here are the missions that we need to carry out. Now, you tell me what it is that we need in terms of boots on the ground, in terms of equipment, in terms of other capabilities that are gonna be required. The overarching strategy is not something that I can deflect to the general. That’s something that I have to make a decision at of, if I am president of the United States.
Couric: Having said that, if General Petraeus or the chairman of the joint chiefs, Admiral Mullen, say to you, “Hey, President Obama …” Obama: Right. Couric: …if that comes to pass, “you cannot take out the final complement of combat troops. You need them in the theater,” you would say?
Obama: I will always listen to the commanders on the ground. And I will make an assessment based on the facts at that time.
If he considers troop levels to be a tactical rather than a strategic issue and therefore something to be guided by the advice of his generals rather than dictated from the top down as C-in-C, how is he able to set even an informal timetable? Petraeus, his would-be Centcom commander, is already telling him that a timetable unmoored to conditions is a bad idea. Is that a strategic or tactical judgment? Does it matter, since he’d have the final say anyway? He’s drawing an artificial distinction here in order to avoid having to commit to an estimate of the number of troops he hopes/plans to draw down. Which is fine by me, since it leaves him room to inch away from a total withdrawal later on, but presumably not so fine by the left for the same reason.
Imagine, for instance, he tells Odierno that manpower is desperately needed in Afghanistan and therefore he wants to try to free up 50,000 troops by accelerating the handover of provincial security to Iraqi forces. No dice, says Odierno; we can spare 20,000, but those other 30,000 will be needed as back-up for awhile since the Iraqis aren’t fully prepared yet for their lead role. 50,000 versus 20,000 is a big deal, sufficiently so to matter to voters, I’d think. We have no sense from his answer what he’d do.
Elsewhere in the interview, he reiterates his opposition to the surge:
Couric: But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support [the surge] … so I’m just trying to understand this.
Obama: Because … it’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision — to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.
Lots of “factors,” near-total flexibility — again, fine by me, not so fine for the left. Also, notwithstanding the political reality of both sides refusing to admit error in their Iraq judgments, I’m surprised that he’s as reluctant as he is to change his position on the surge in hindsight given (a) how much improvement there’s been, (b) what the likely consequences would have been if it hadn’t worked, and (c) the fact that he can still tout his initial judgment on the war to voters as evidence that he’s savvier than McCain. A “serious energy security plan” would be wonderful, but the alternate-history timeline in this scenario includes possible Srebrenicas.
When ABC’s Jake Tapper says Obama hasn’t learned anything, he isn’t kidding.
Do you have an opinion on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy of imprisoning families while they await disposition of their proper pleas for amnesty? T Don Hutto, in Taylor, Texas, is a former medium security prison “converted” as a family detention–at a tidy profit to CCA (private prison corporate giant) and much to the pain and degradation of the prisoners–many of them infants. Barbara Hines, UT Law Immigration Clinic and others (ACLU, included) sued and settled over some specific clients/issues, but the facility not only continues–the gov and CCA are in the process of building more.
A group of pained patriots are holding a forum on this in September; Prof. Hines will be a panelist. But I want to know if this is Constitutional. (These people have been charged with no crimes; many of them have crimes commited against them while in this facility, by the guards.) Additionally, because the facility is under Homeland Security jurisdiction, absolutely NO regulatory standards apply! ICE is free do as they chose, which means the corporation getting the gross profits pretty much does as it choses.
I’m happy to supply more info if this piques your curiosity and/or moral indignation.
Thanks!
Texas Liberal:
I agree with you. This does not seem to be Legal or Constitutional, but then, when has Bush let anything in the Constitution or the Law stop him from doing whatever he wants?
He doesn’t care about People–he only cares about those with Money. Everyone else can drop dead. If the CCA is making tons of money, then Bush is happy to let them do whatever they want, as long as he gets a bit of the profits.
Whoever thought of that “Homeland” Security slogan must have thought of Hitler and his “Fatherland” Germany of World War II. I mean, what the heck does “Homeland” really mean? It must be a code word for the Repubs or something; you know like “Compassionate Conservatism” (yeah, right, like anyone would ever believe that bunk).
PS. To martha h:
Thanks for supplying some more ’spin’. I can’t wait to cut and paste it so my Liberal friends can have a laugh. You are TOO funny for words!
You, my dear, are SO being used, abused, and royally Screwed by the Repub party. You must either enjoy it or you are too afraid to think for yourself…
Oh, this stuff does ‘pique’ my curiousity, but I sure don’t feel any ‘moral’ indignation. I don’t claim to be part of the ‘moral majority’ party of hypocrite Repubs. Oh, yeah, I’ve heard that the number one tourist spot in Minneapolis-St Paul during the Repub convention will be the airport men’s room where Sen Larry Craig did his little toe tapping… The Party of Morals–what a crock!
I never miss you on Countdown and try to catch you whenever I hear you are on any show. I so wish I lived closer just so I could take a class that you teach. Keep on fighting the good fight of trying to protect the Constitution. One day maybe it will sink in with all the people in this country.
C. Lewis:
COUNTDOWN! You mean fat boy bowling ball Keith Olbermann? You and five others are watching Countdown. Bill Oreilly’s RERUNS beat Keith Olbermann’s ratings!
PS. Next time you are watching fat boy, make sure you pay attention to just how he hides his weight problem.
PS Again: There is a reason they call him bathtub boy.
EMAILS FROM AFGANISTAN:
I had a first hand view of Barrack Obama’s “fact finding” mission, when he passed through this base.
While I can’t name it, it’s one of the largest air bases in the region, with up to 8000 troops (depending on influxes and transients in mobilization/demobilization status), mostly Airmen and Soldiers, but some Marines, Sailors, Koreans, Japanese, Aussies, Brits, US Civil Service, contractors including KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton, among others in the news. The overwhelming majority of all of these are professional, courteous and disciplined.
Problems are rare. Casualties are also rare. This base has a large hospital for evacuation—twenty plus beds. I have yet to see a casualty in one, though I am told there are about three evacuations a week through this region, of which two on average are things like sports injuries, vehicle accidents or duty related falls and such. You can tell from the news that the war is going well. The ghouls are now focusing on Afghanistan, since there is no blood to type with here.
When his plane arrived (also containing Senators Reed and Hagel, but the news has hardly mentioned them), there was a “ramp freeze.” This means if you are on the flight line, and not directly involved with the event in question, you stay where you are and don’t move. For a combat flight arriving or departing, this takes about ten minutes, and involves the active runway and crossing taxiways only. For Obama’s flight, this took 90 minutes, during which time a variety of military missions came grinding to a halt. Obviously, this visit was important, right?
95% of base wanted nothing to do with him. I have met three troops who support him, and literally hundreds who regard him as a buffoon, a charlatan, a hindrance to their mission or a flat out enemy of progress. Even when the rumors were publicly admitted, almost no one left their duty sections to try to see him, unless they were officers whose presence was officially required.
Mister Obama’s motorcade drove up from the flight line and entered the dining hall toward the end of lunch time. Diners were chased out and told to make other arrangements for food, in the middle of the duty day.
Now, there are close to 8000 troops on the base and its nearby satellites. No one came up from the Army side (except perhaps a few ranking officers). The airbase resumed operation, once he cleared the flightline, as if nothing had happened. The dining hall holds about 300 people and was not full. The troops did not want to meet him and the feeling was apparently mutual. In attendance, besides the Official Entourage, were the base’s senior officers, some support personnel, and a very few carefully vetted supporters who’d made special arrangements. No photos were allowed. No question and answer with the troops. No real acknowledgment that the troops existed.
Obama left around 1530, during the Muslim Call to Prayer. Within 48 hours he was in Afghanistan. It takes most troops longer than that to in-process and get cleared on safety, threats, policies and such. Yet he somehow made a strategic summary by not talking to anyone and not seeing anything.
Twenty-four hours after that, he was in Kuwait, back here, and then home, so fast we didn’t even know he arrived the second time at this base.
I can’t imagine any officer of the few he met told him anything other than what they tell the troops, and what their own leadership at the Pentagon tell them—we’re winning. Our troops are stomping the guts out of the insurgency. The surge worked and is working. If the insurgents have to divert to Afghanistan, it means they can’t fight in Iraq anymore. We should not change the rules and retreat with the enemy on the ropes as we did in Vietnam. We should finish kicking their teeth in. The Iraqi government now controls 10 of 18 provinces, with US assistance in the rest. Let us win the war. 90% of the troops I know, even those opposed to the war, say that is the way to win. Victory comes from winning, not from “change.” In fact, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on record as opposing Obama’s strategic theory.
Since he obviously knew in advance that’s what they’d tell him, and since he didn’t care to talk to the troops (we’re told by the Left that the troops are horrified, shocked, forced to commit atrocities with tears in their eyes, distraught, burned out, fed up with losing, etc) and find out how they feel, and was barely in country long enough to need a shower and a change of clothes, we can only call this for what it is.
In comparison, I’ve seen four star generals and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this base. They each held an all ranks call, met with and briefed the personnel, and took questions on every subject from tour length to uniform design to rules of engagement to weapon choice to long term policy, from the newest airmen to the senior NCO with TEN 120-180 day tours since Sep 11. It’s very clear they want to know what the troops think, and to keep them informed of events. It’s equally clear mister Obama does not.
Obama clearly doesn’t care about the troops, doesn’t care about America, doesn’t care about anything except hearing his own voice and the chance to sit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…From where he’ll bring us the proven Democratic wartime leadership of Bosnia and the Balkans (US forces still there), Somalia (US forces prevailed despite being ill equipped by executive order, and taking heavy casualties), Haiti (what were we doing there again?), Desert One (oops?), Vietnam (where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory), Korea (still there), WWI, and the fluke success of WWII won by such wonderful liberal notions as concentration camps for Japanese Americans, nukes, FBI investigations of waitresses who dated soldiers in case they were “morally corrupt” and the (valid) occupation of and continued presence in Italy, Japan and Germany for 60 years, which they are conveniently pretending won’t happen with Iraq.
That’s not “change.” That’s “failure we can do without.”
Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to “The War Zone”. I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plan[sic] and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram. As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn’t say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service. So really he was just here to make a showing for the American’s back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you. I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don’t understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.
Why Obama snubbed the troops: no photo op allowed
posted at 7:21 am on July 25, 2008
The skinny on the abrupt cancellation of Barack Obama’s visit to Landstuhl and Ramstein yesterday. The campaign tried to excuse it by claiming that it wouldn’t be appropriate to visit while on a campaign-funded portion of his trip, but that wasn’t the real problem. When Obama found out he couldn’t use the visit as a photo op, he canceled:
One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama’s representatives were told, “he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers.” In addition, “Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama’s visit.”
The official said “We didn’t know why” the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. “He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him.”
In fact, those same rules applied for the CODEL trip to Iraq and Afghanistan. They serve to keep politicians from exploiting military facilities for political reasons, and to ensure that all visitors get treated fairly. Andrea Mitchell, also of NBC, complained of this very issue during the earlier visits with the troops when she told Chris Matthews that the media couldn’t get access to Obama when visiting troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This makes the decision track very clear. Obama and his team set up the visits to military installations before going overseas. After seeing how the media got excluded in Iraq and Afghanistan, they decided it wasn’t worth traveling to Ramstein and Landstuhl to visit the severely wounded troops because they couldn’t bring the campaign and get the photo ops they wanted. Instead, Obama went shopping in Berlin.
That’s certainly a revealing set of priorities for a man who wants to lead these troops as Commander in Chief.
July 25, 2008
McCain Hits Hard
Before a military audience in Denver today, John McCain launched his strongest attack yet against Barack Obama. The attack was devastating because it is true. Here are some excerpts; McCain began by recalling the beginning of the surge:
Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama’s failed.
We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the “surge” was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops — which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president. I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war. My choice was not smart politics. It didn’t test well in focus groups. It ignored all the polls. It also didn’t matter. The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.
Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn’t just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.
And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. …
Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn’t have been more wrong.
By November 2007, the success of the surge was becoming apparent. Attacks on Coalition forces had dropped almost 60 percent from pre-surge levels. American casualties had fallen by more than half. Iraqi civilian deaths had fallen by more than two-thirds. But Senator Obama ignored the new and encouraging reality. “Not only have we not seen improvements,” he said, “but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”
If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically. Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the “Sunni Awakening” would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.
Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened. Our military, strained by years of sacrifice, would have suffered a demoralizing defeat. Our enemies around the globe would have been emboldened. …
Senator Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth.
Fortunately, Senator Obama failed, not our military. We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right. Violence in Iraq fell to such low levels for such a long time that Senator Obama, detecting the success he never believed possible, falsely claimed that he had always predicted it. … In Iraq, we are no longer on the doorstep of defeat, but on the road to victory.
Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.
That recitation of Obama’s conduct is entirely factual. In this case, the facts are nuclear.
There is one obvious neo-con, zionist, republican wackjob that feels she has to post on this blog and I have to waste time scrolling past her propaganda to read the views of intelligent people, but unfortunately that’s her right. But what does half of her nonsense have to do in this “Bio” section?
Any guesses as to whom I’m referring?
Dr. Turley, keep up the good work and I’m glad to see that you don’t ban people of her ilk like Fox bans intelligent people.
zakimer:
God Bless GW Bush and all he is doing…………
GOD BLESS GW BUSH.
Bushs is showing those that would kill us we won’t stand and wait for them. We will TAKE THE WAR TO THEM!
GOD BLESS GW BUSH!
right zaky old buddy bud budy????>>>>>>>>
zakimer:
Yep, martha is our resident kook.
She cuts and pastes her neo-con crap here and I cut and paste it and send it to a few liberals friends, who read what the right-wing is up to. She must be paid by the RNC or some group to troll here; but she is the one that is going to pay for her loyalty to the resident traitor in the White House by being guilty of supporting Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq and the deaths of thousands of our soldiers and Iraqi citizens. She and her kind will have to answer to God why they supported deliberate MURDER.
She wants God to bless Bush; but God is NOT going to bless Bush–rather God is going to allow Bush to use his free will until Everyone, even martha realizes that these past 7+ years Bush’s main goal was to turn our country into the country of “have and have mores” and the rest of us into their slaves. Bush HATES the US Constitution and the Balance of Powers and he’s done all he can (with the traitorous help of 99.9% of Republicans and a few chicken Democrats) to destroy our way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Bush thinks he’s won the Project for the New American Century Neo-Con agenda; but he has LOST the respect of most of the people in the US and the world. Does anyone think that McCain would not do the same stuff for the next 4 years? He’s just another “Bush” in disguise.
Thanks be to Keith Olbermann’s show and Mr. Turley’s appearances on it–giving us the FACTS about the US Constitution and the FACTS that Bush is committing crimes against us and against the people of Iraq…
Thanks Mary Leon for your insight, but I’m afraid I have to agree with both you and the whackjob whose name I can’t speak. I am truly sorry for the reprehensible thing that I have done, but read my following message and I hope everyone will understand – and forgive me.
From a previous posting of mine.
I’m really torn about whether to hate or love Bush Jr. On the one hand, he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis but on the other hand he has done more to end the reign of the American Empire than anybody including Reagan.
I’m also torn on Obama vs. McCain for the same reason as above. On the one hand, Obama like Clinton could turn the Republican deficit into a surplus and perhaps get a settlement for Palestine and Israel. On the other hand eight more years of Bush – I mean McCain and a war with Iran which is four times larger and has more than double the population of Iraq and has many more sophisticated weapons could very well be what bankrupts the US, demoralizes what is left of the armed forces and leaves them unable to dominate the world.
Unfortunately, I’m going to have to go with McCain because more Iraqis died under Clinton than under Bush. Clinton deprived Iraq of food and medicine with his sanctions and over 500 000 children died (see WHO, IRC) and when Albright was asked if the USA was justified in killing half a million children, she said “yes”.
For all of us non-American citizens, go to McCain’s website and donate money. When asked for a Zip Code, just pick almost any random five digit number – I went with 85050 (Phoenix, Arizona) but I’m sure 90210 would work just as well.
I feel sorry for all the Iranians and US soldiers who will die under McCain and I pray that God will take my explanation on Judgment Day, that I was doing it for the good of the world in the long term and I would encourage all those that donate to also donate to the International Red Crescent/Red Cross after the war to help the orphaned children and maybe some money for all the disabled soldiers that make it back alive. God Bless and please forgive me.
zakimer: God Forgives; America remembers……………..
zakimer: just in case you don’t get my post:
Eventually, GOD will forgive those that have attacked the United States of America which is his gift to the world of freedom and hope.
Personally I hope God is very slow to forgive those that have been trying to destroy it, but the God of Abraham is a forgiving GOD.
martha h:
You must be very special indeed to speak for– and presumptively with –your god. Tell me who’ll win the World Series this year?
zakimar:
Well, it is your decision to vote for whoever you want, but I know that there will be NO way I would ever vote for John McCain.
Have you ever heard of the “Project for the New American Century”? It is a Neo-Con agenda dedicated to the idea that the United States is the last ‘empire’ on earth and therefore the rest of the world must follow the US ideas; whether it be military or spiritual. The main author of this agenda is William Kristol. Unfortunately his official website is closed–and there is a message to contact the Accounts office (he’s a millionaire but he can’t pay the bill for this website?)–but you can find the archives if you ‘google’ or ‘yahoo’ it.
This “Project” is nothing more than the US taking over all the world by way of military force. It was approved by (amongst other signers) Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush (W’s brother). I’m sure that McCain is a card carrying member of this “Project” and will follow its agenda until he either bankrupts the US or he invades Iran and so many of our US soldiers are killed that we Demand he bring them back home.
It will be a ‘lose-lose’ situation if McCain gets elected.
If Obama gets elected we will have the chance to get out of Iraq and to go after the al-Quaida that are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This will be a major undertaking, but THIS is where the killers of September 11th are based, they are NOT based in Iraq; but their members in Iraq sure have recruited enough people to follow their ways and kill our soldiers. The “surge” is a failure, too, because there is no way the US can stay in Iraq and force democracy on Iraq. We have to let Iraq decide what they want to do with their own country’s future; whether it is Democracy or tribal leadership. The reports that come out every six months from the generals on the ground are always going to say that Iraq is ‘improving’ but it will NEVER say that Iraq has successfully become a democracy, or that the US can ‘finally’ leave Iraq. This was W’s goal–stay in Iraq, get their oil, then invade Iran for their oil–no matter how many people have to die. His “Project” was to start the global domination by the US in the Middle East, but he has lost. He is so stubborn he will Never admit to this defeat, and he will never care about the US soldiers who have died for his “Project”, but he has others who are willing to keep his “Project” going–namely McCain.
If McCain was the only candidate, I would sit home and not vote on Election Day. But he’s not the only candidate, and I would rather vote for Obama any day of the week, than to vote for another 4 years of ‘Bush’ and his “Project for the New American Century”.
I know about a guy who wanted to start a Project that would last one thousand years too, but his Reich only lasted 12 years (1933 to 1945). If McCain wins, I think the New American Century will last 12 years as well – 2001 to 2013, RIP.
zakimar:
It may be true that McCain will keep this “Project for the New American Century” going for a few more years, but he cannot succeed either.
Unfortunately, the first thing McCain will do if he is elected president is invade Iran. Iran is at least 3 times larger than Iraq and has at least 3 times more people than Iraq.
How are we ever going to get the money to fight wars in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan? Only Great Britain and a few other countries will even help us with the “war on terror” and if we elect McCain I know that we will lose more and more allies that would help us if we ever came under attack again. McCain = 4 more years of Bush!
How many more Thousands of people will have to die for a “Project”?
No, zakimar, I don’t believe you want to see this occur. If it does, then the United States of America will cease to be a country with a Constitution and balance of powers and will become a country of the small minority of the rich and super rich and the rest of us their low paid slaves. I pray to God we NEVER see that happen here in the United States of America!
The problem with Obama winning is that he may actually turn the US economy around and get the troops out of the Middle East just as Clinton did after Reagan’s senile spending spree almost bankrupted America. If not for Clinton, Bush Jr. wouldn’t have had the funds for this fiasco.
So unless Obama is followed by the likes of Edwards, Webb indefinitely, sooner or later another Bush or McCain will come around and threaten the world all over again. It is better to eliminate the threat permanently. The US will still be around, like Russia or Britain, but not able to set up puppet-dictator regimes/satellites/colonies respectively all over the world.
zakimer: you do realize you are posting back and forth with a couple of people on medication don’t you? mary leon & mespo come here to post when they have gone two days without their medications.
For anybody wanting to know what an insane asylum looks like, I invite them to the JT blog site. There are now 5 rock solid left wing lunatics posting here and one that seems to have lost his way.
July 27, 2008
Another day in Arafatistan
An Israeli operation in Hebron has resulted in the death of the terrorist mastermind of the suicide attack on Dimona earlier this year. Carl in Israel has posted a good round-up. The Jerusalem Post reports:
The IDF said that in a joint Border Police and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) operation the forces surrounded a house where 25-year-old Shihab Na’atsha, a Hamas explosives engineer, was hiding. The IDF said Na’atsha had assembled the bomb belt used in the Dimona attack on February 4 that killed 73-year-old Lubov Razdolskaya and wounded 40 other people….
Troops surrounded the house in Hebron early Sunday morning and exchanged fire with Na’atsha, calling on him to exit the building. Once he refused to surrender and after hours of gunfire, the IDF bulldozed the house. His body was later removed from the rubble.
The IDF added that during the heavy exchanges of fire, troops heard explosions from inside the house, presumably from bombs stored inside. Two additional terror suspects were apprehended during the operation.
Na’atsha and his ammo dump somehow went undetected by the “security forces” of the Palestinian Authority, only to be discovered by Israelis in an operation of the kind that Secretary Rice finds to visit indignity on Palestinian Arabs.
GO ISRAEL! GOD IS WITH YOU & AMERICA!
Did the same person that told you that Islam had a Prophet in 1300 AD tell you about the story above, and was Santa Claus driving the bulldozer?
You are obviously a Zionist Jew, and Zionism is Apartheid which is Racism and should be hated by all decent people. No person is better than any other and should be given special rights in this life or the next solely based on their race.
Unfortunately, some races, religions and groups believe in hate and Zionists belong to this group. I am not surprised that many Americans and the US Government sees nothing wrong with Zionism because many Americans have no regard for their own indigenous people (that’s Injins to those that don’t know what indigenous is), didn’t oppose Apartheid in South Africa and until a few months ago had Nelson Mandela on their terrorist list for decades.
Both the US and Israel were founded on the slaughter and oppression of the indigenous people and both had “founding fathers” that were racist. Most in the US even had slaves and some even raped their slaves. If your God blesses those sorts of people, his actual name is Satan.
The latest news from Iraq:
New bombings kill dozens.
Yep, that “surge” is working, NOT.
It seems as though every time John McCain opens his mouth and shouts that the “surge” is a Success that there is another bombing in Iraq.
I believe the two are connected. Maybe if McCain keeps quiet for a few days, there will be no bombings in Iraq? But, unfortunately, McCain is all mouth and no exit strategy…
Oh, wait, he does have an exit strategy. Every six months from now until the end of time he will say that the “surge” is working, Iraq is more safer, but we still can’t leave Iraq because of ‘conditions on the ground.’
Barack Obama’s solution: get out of Iraq and go after the real al-Quaida of September 11th in Afghanistan, and get Pakistan to force Osama bin Laden and his gang out of their caves.
John McCain’s solution: stay in Iraq until either the ‘conditions on the ground’ are absolutely safe (which they will never be, as long as we occupy Iraq) or until every last person in Iraq is DEAD.
Mary Leon; You are one of the few people on this blog that I sadly say seems to intelligent for most of the others who seem to be imbeciles. But if you don’t mind spending the time contributing, I’ll keep spending the time reading your stuff. Unlike some others (who will remain as nameless as they are soulless, I enjoy reading stuff that I may disagree with, as long as it’s factual and polite. Keep up the good work.
zakimar:
Thanks for the kind words.
I really do hope you change your mind about McCain and see that with Obama there is at least a Chance to get out of Iraq and not even get in Iran.
Remember the old saying: “Be careful what you wish for. You may just get it”. (My translation: McCain may seem to be the lesser of two evils, but I would much rather take my chances with Barack Obama than to keep the McCain war machine going; because all this war machine will bring is more death and destruction to Innocent people who have done nothing to us).
I always say a prayer every night, for our US troops and for the Innocent Iraqi citizens that have been killed, that they will rest in peace for eternity, and that we shall all be together one day in Heaven.
Hello Mary Leon; McCain is NOT the lesser of the two evils, as far as I’m concerned he is even more evil than Bush Jr. Bush Jr. is just a privileged coward that doesn’t know what war is, however McCain doesn’t have that excuse. In spite (or maybe because) of McCain’s “experience”, he still craves war and has voted against every bill to spend money on veterans. That is precisely why I wrote the following above:
I’m torn on Obama vs. McCain. On the one hand, Obama like Clinton could turn the Republican deficit into a surplus and perhaps get a settlement for Palestine and Israel. On the other hand eight more years of Bush – I mean McCain and a war with Iran which is four times larger than and has more than double the population of Iraq as well as possessing many more sophisticated weapons could very well be what bankrupts the US, demoralizes what is left of the armed forces and leaves them unable to dominate the world.
So I’m giving money to McCain because I feel he’ll be Rome’s Nero, France’s Louis XVI or the Third Reich’s Hitler and leave the US unable to make war in the future. Every president in recent history has attacked a Muslim country including Clinton (who did it to get the media focus away from Lewinsky) at least Bush Jr., who did it for oil and the big US corporations also managed to remove Hussein. I doubt that Obama will any different.
McCain will need the draft and between that and the huge US debt and the number of people that will be left without jobs or homes, there will either be another American Revolution (or at least thousands of riots all over the country) or the economy will collapse and the US will no longer be able to export billions of dollars and weapons to Israel and terror throughout the world. Obama will just delay the process as did Clinton. I’m just sorry good people will have to die in the short term and that you’ll be living there when all that happens. I would suggest to all decent Americans, if McCain wins, start applying for your travel/work Visas to Canada and the EU.
zakimar:
I don’t wish to leave my home country just yet.
I am supporting Obama because he can turn this country around. It’s true that Clinton left over a $200 Billion surplus for Bush to waste, but we are so much in debt now it’s going to take YEARS to even balance the budget, let alone have a spending surplus.
I know the National Debt is AT LEAST $5 TRILLION and that by the time Bush is out of office and after all the debts are added up for the Invasion of Iraq and the tax breaks for the rich and for the money we owe to Saudi Arabia and China on loans Bush took from them, then the National Debt will be OVER $10 TRILLION!
Obama will be busy enough trying to find out what Bush has done to us; by way of his presidential directives and his hundreds of signing statements. These past 7+ years of Bush signing away our rights and freedoms and selling the country out; there are literally thousands of papers to go thru and Millions of e-mails to go through (that is, if there are any left after Bush had papers shredded and e-mails permanently deleted).
The LAST thing on anyone’s list will be getting a budget surplus.
That’s why I hope you don’t donate one Penny to McCain’s campaign! His wife is worth over $100 Million, due to the fact that she is an heiress of a beer delivery dynasty, so he doesn’t need any more campaign contributions, as far as I’m concerned.
BUT, if McCain does win, then I’m going to Mexico. My husband was born there and I’ve been married to him almost 29 years. (This is another story for another day; but let me just say that since he is dark-skinned and speaks with a foreign accent he has been the victim of racial slurs by white people, who have accused him of being a member of al-Quaida and being a terrorist, and I have been accused of being married to an enemy of the US and I’m a traitor to this country, etc…) I have TONS of stories on how I and him have been treated, but I will say that the more my husband and I have been insulted, the more my husband and I stick together and Love each other!
mary leon:
Zakimar is just another one of JT’s most recent alter-egos trying to bait someone into making some “biased” statement here.
I can’t believe you are falling for it…….wait…..yes I can.
Mary Leon, you are quite the whiner yourself. I would rank your whining right up there with “Zakimer”, alias JT.
I would have responded sooner but I fainted when I read that martha h had something nice to say about any SANE person. I take being compared to Dr. Turley as a compliment.
Zakimar: Give it up. We know you are Turley and one of his alter egos he uses.
martha h:
How many times must you come here and think that we are not who we say we are? Mr. Turley must get quite a laugh when he reads your ‘cut and paste’ blather and your crazy ideas that he is the only person who is posting responses to you by using various aliases.
To put it bluntly–you must be a white woman who gets paid as a Troll for the Repub party, because you are acting like a Troll, and acting like a typical white person who thinks she is better than everyone else just because of her skin color. People like you disgust me because you have had all the ‘breaks’ and made all the rules, and yet you can’t stand the thought of someone else getting a piece of the American dream–especially someone who is not ‘lilywhite’ like you!
And as for me ‘whining’, yes I will ‘whine’ when either my husband or myself are called traitors, terrorists and unpatriotic, but I won’t back down or let anyone, especially the likes of YOU, step all over me.
But as far as you; you have NO excuse for coming here, cutting and pasting your right-wing tripe. I guess you DO like that I cut and paste your tripe and send it out to my liberal friends, or else why would you keep coming back here? Unless you like to ’spin’???
Hello Mary; I can see how marta h confused me with the good Doctor. We are both articulate, educated, sane men who seem to feel that somehow EVERYONE is entitled to human rights and dignity even though Americans and Israelis are the only people deserving of God’s love on the planet. I’m sure Dr. Turley is also an excellent father to his wonderful and fortunate children and a great husband to his beautiful wife, as well as being quite handsome himself. The main difference between me and Dr. Turley is that he is more educated than I and I am less humble.
zakimar:
I can’t tell you how happy I get when I see Mr. Turley on “Countdown” with Keith Olbermann, and lately, a few times on “Verdict” with Dan Abrams. My husband also enjoys watching him. Mr. Turley is such a smart and learned scholar! Like I posted before–I have written a suggestion to Barack Obama’s campaign website that Mr. Turley should be considered as a nominee to the Supreme Court when Obama becomes President. I can’t think of anyone else who could do the job as well as Mr. Turley, and I do hope he IS chosen, should the situation arise.
And yes, martha, this is ME, Mary Leon (that’s my real name) so don’t accuse me of being an alter-ego of Mr. Turley. Also, if you can’t say anything nice about Mr. Turley at his own website, just don’t say anything at all!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzZNP4tTfV0
Get This Man A Teleprompter!
Barack Obama is a lot like Sean Penn or George Clooney. If you give him a script, he can deliver it pretty well. But if he tries to talk without a script that has been written for him by others, he quickly reveals that he is poorly-informed if not downright ignorant.
Today he delivered another classic, by claiming that if only we would all properly inflate our tires, we could save as much gasoline as “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.”
The stunned silence with which the crowd greets this howler suggests that most Americans have a more practical understanding of energy consumption than Obama.
Just for fun, I did the math. Properly inflating your tires can improve gas mileage by 3%. Of course, many people already keep their tires properly inflated, and many more are at least close to being properly inflated. Let’s be generous and assume that one-half of the total possible savings would be realized if we all inflated our tires properly; that’s a net gain of 1.5% fuel efficiency.
Americans drive approximately 2,880 billion miles per year. If we average 24 mpg, we use around 120 billion gallons of gasoline in our vehicles. If, through perfect tire inflation, we improved our collective fuel efficiency by 1.5%, that would be 1.8 billion gallons. A barrel of oil produces around 20 gallons of gasoline, so the total savings available through tire inflation is approximately 90,000,000 barrels of oil annually.
How does this stack up against “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling?”
ANWR: 10 billion barrels
Outer Continental Shelf: 18 billion barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned)
Oil shale: 1 trillion barrels
So, on the above assumptions, it would take only 11,308 years of proper tire inflation to equal “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.”
Obama is a curious case. He gives the impression of being an intelligent guy, but through his unscripted comments we have learned that he knows little about history, science or mathematics. He also seems rather shockingly short on common sense, as this most recent gaffe illustrates.
By conservative estimates it will be over five years before there is any oil from this new drilling. I know you probably have your grade six math, so 100% of 0 is 0. So if 1 gallon was saved, by the entire country, in the next five years, that would be more than all the oil that has been drilled. And since you’re such an educated fellow, perhaps you can find Czechoslovakia and the Iraq/Pakistan border on a map and show it to Senior McCain/Bush III.
zakimar: Much of the new oil would be available in 1 to 3 years, with some not coming online for 5 at most. The point is we know where it is and how to get it.
PS. Every barrel of oil we produce ourselves is $120 we don’t have to send to scum of the earth low lifes barely out of the stone age that are using it to kill civilians without a care in the world.
PS again, many believe Satan formed a religion over a lake of oil in that region to mess with God’s wonderful creation. What do you think?
PS again, many believe Satan formed a religion over a lake of oil in that region to mess with God’s wonderful creation. What do you think?
Pulease – talk about LUNAtics!
If the guardians of marta h and percy ever gave consent for these two to get “hitched”, they’d better get ready to apologize to Dr. Turley because they’ll need him to stop the State from sterilizing them so they can’t breed.
I guess I should give up my day job doing “satire” for the New Yorker.
That “religion” Satan formed is called Zionism.
Monday, July 31, 2008
JON VOIGHT: My concerns for America
OP-ED
We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.
Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.
The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.
The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.
Those same leaders who were in the streets in the ’60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.
Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we’ve almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.
If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there’s not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.
Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero.
This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.
WELL SAID JON VOIGHT!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Voight couldn’t raise his own children properly – they aren’t even on speaking terms.
Yet another pillar of the Republican establishment a