Democrats & Liberals Archives

Congress: A Chance for Redemption

When the U.S. Supreme Court slapped the president for overstepping his bounds by establishing a Guantanamo “justice” system, it also slapped you, the Congress, for not acting as an independent branch of government and for following the president like sheep. You now have a chance to redeem yourself. With your reaction to this reprimand, you will show us, the citizenry, whether you deserve to be reelected.

The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court was clear. It found the contrived Guantanamo "justice" system unconstitutional and said that the president must work within the law written by Congress. As Justice Stephen Breyer said in his concurring opinion:

"Congress has not issued the executive 'a blank check."'

What's the reaction from the White House? Well, here's what appeared in Saturday's Washington Post:

"A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the issue is still being debated internally, seemed to hint at the potential political implications in Congress. 'Members of both parties will have to decide whether terrorists who cherish the killing of innocents deserve the same protections as our men and women who wear the uniform,' this official said."

The political battle has already started. The administration is stating that all those who disagree with Bush are friends of "terrorists who cherish the killing of innocents." What nonsense. We all want justice for everyone. And you can't have justice if you have one justice system for terrorists and another for "ordinary" criminals. How do you know a so-called enemy combatant is a "terrorist"? Don't you need a justice system to decide whether he is a terrorist or not?

One big reason why our country is in this mess is that Congress stayed on the sidelines. Bush asked for authorization to use force and Congress gave it to him. After that Congress relaxed and allowed Bush to do whatever he pleased. If the commander-in-chief asked for anything he got it, no questions asked. Bush built his gerrymandered "justice" system and Congress either said nothing or cheered him along. You've acted as a rubber-stamp Congress. You have a very low approval rating with the public.

Now each of you legislators is faced with a fateful choice, the type of choice that comes rarely, a choice that gives you the opportunity to redeem your reputation and the reputation of American democracy. Or not. You may label yourself:

  • A SYCOPHANT - Whatever the commander-in-chief wants the commander-in-chief gets. Lindsey Graham is already making the usual sycophantic sounds

  • A WIMP - You may stand for principle a little, and give a little because you are afraid of criticism. Arlen Specter is showing signs of being a wimp. I hope he sticks with principle.

  • A PATRIOT - You follow the ruling of the Court and regardless of political pressure, you insist that whatever is proposed deserves to be part of the justice system of the U.S. A true patriot sees to it that the U.S. is once again admired for its civil liberties and its system of justice. I'm not sure who falls into this category
Please note that we the citizens of U.S. now have an excellent marker for determining whether to reelect an incumbent representative or senator or not. All we need do is follow the actions of these candidates with reference to Guantanamo "justice" during the next few months. We vote against sycophants and wimps and we vote for patriots.

Please, all members of Congress, redeem Congress in our eyes by acting as patriots and making America whole again.


Posted by Paul Siegel at July 3, 2006 5:06 PM
Comments
Comment #164544

I’ve seen more spine on an elementary playground. You mention being soft on terrorists to this bunch in DC and they will fold immediately. Bush just has to ask and frame it in the way mentioned above, and there’s sure to be legislation around the corner (before elections) to give Bush all the power he could ask for.

These guys don’t want to think or discuss long term issues or realistically do anything on the war on terror… they’re just in it for the paycheck. I’ve seen people flipping burgers with as much dedication to their jobs.

Posted by: tony at July 3, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #164545

“A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the issue is still being debated internally, seemed to hint at the potential political implications in Congress. ‘Members of both parties will have to decide whether terrorists who cherish the killing of innocents deserve the same protections as our men and women who wear the uniform,’ this official said.”“

They don’t!!
Ever heard UBL or Zarqawi say they need to follow the Geneva Convention when they order their followers to kill?
Had the Taliban joined?
Maybe we should let them establish a country - say Darfur or Sudan. Then we wait for them to sign on to the Geneva Convention.
If they do… they can be afforded the same rights as those who have.
If they don’t… we can be humane to the prisoners but they do not deserve ALL the rights.

Posted by: bug at July 3, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #164546

This Congress has set some lousy precedents when it comes to checking the power of the Presidency. We can only hope the Democrats get at least one house so deadlock can prevail, the best we can expect from the federal government.

Posted by: BAWDYSCOT at July 3, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #164551

Maybe the neat time the Talaban captures someone maybe it will be some bleeding heart liberal or one of the Justices who said the Gitmo justice system is unconstitutional family member and they watch the talaban lop off their head. We might hear a different song then.

Posted by: RAK at July 3, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #164555

RAK -

So, you’re routing for the terroists? Hope they catch someone? Wow… it feels good to have such patriotic Americans.

Posted by: tony at July 3, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #164556

Tony
No I’m not ruting for the terrorist. From all your other posts I’ve read it seems that when anyone makes a comment you turn it all around for the bad. Dose the Taliban care about the Geneva convention. I think not. I guess your for the crimial and not the victim. I pray nobody gets captured by those ruthless SOB’s.

Posted by: RAK at July 3, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #164558

RAK -

You’re the one that’s hoping the “will be some bleeding heart liberal or one of the Justices who said the Gitmo justice system is unconstitutional family member and they watch the talaban lop off their head. We might hear a different song then.”

It seems you want people to see your point of view so badly that you will wish the torture of watching their loved ones beheaded by terrrorists. Or did I read the post wrong.

And no, I’m not for the criminal - but I’m sure that would make your argument easier if I were. You have to think through situations and make choices based on our freedoms and Constitution.

Tell me one GITMO prisoner who has been released or will not face justice because of the SCOTUS decision. (Not one - they will all face justice - but it will be by American laws and International laws. This way, when we convict, it will be legitimate.)

Posted by: tony at July 3, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #164560

“How do you know a so-called enemy combatant is a “terrorist”? Don’t you need a justice system to decide whether he is a terrorist or not?”

Very well said! This is another example of how the current administration uses misdirection to try to influence opinion.

Seriously, who’s in Gitmo? Suspected terrorists, right? Well, what’s to prevent some NSA guy from putting you (or your father or brother) on a list of enemy combatants? Nothing. No court has to issue a warrant. They could just grab you and cart you off to Gitmo. If they do that, what can family members do to get you out? Nothing. Nothing at all. There is no process. They don’t have to charge you. And, even if they do charge you, until the court ruled, they could try you in secret without you being allowed to defend yourself.

So, what you end up having is a ton of power in just one branch of government. And actually, this power ends up in the hands of just a handful of people in the NSA or CIA.

That’s what the SC ruled on. Their ruling is to protect you from this small group of people who would otherwise have the power to destroy YOUR life without any checks or balances from any other part of the government.

They did not rule in favor of terrorists. They ruled in favor of justice for all. And those terrorists who lop off heads, don’t deserve anything but eternity in hell. But we really can’t know for sure who those terrorists are until we can prove it fairly. Right?

Also, RAK and bug, you compare our justice system to the Talaban and Zarqawi. Are you suggesting that we don’t need to be better than they are? Come on…we are better and we have to remain better. If we’re not better, it will be much harder for me to enjoy their executions and life sentences.

Posted by: Jeff at July 3, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #164562

“From all your other posts I’ve read it seems that when anyone makes a comment you turn it all around for the bad.”

RAK -

Care to share specifics on this, or is it simply enough to cast suspicion? (Argue the points and try to avoid personal attacks… it’s really beneath you.)

Posted by: tony at July 3, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #164567

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —”

I remind you it wasn’t the Geneva Conventions that our founding fathers depended upon.

Posted by: gergle at July 3, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #164571

The American criminal justice system is for Americans. Are any American citizens being held in Guantanamo?

Can anyone name a single American citizen who has been “suspected” of being a terrorist, dragged from their home by the NSA, CIA, FBI or any other governmental agency, and throwed into a cell in Guantanamo or anywhere else?

As for the men being held there, I am surprised, nay, shocked, that you would assume them guilty before the evidence, if there is any, has been presented.

“… when we convict, it will be legitimate?” (Tony)

“… it will be much harder for me to enjoy their executions and life sentences?” (Jeff)

What happened to “justice for all?”

Posted by: ulysses at July 3, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #164572

What do we do with persons that commit crimes against humanity? Do we just look the other way? Say sorry about yor luck? I know that we can’t police the world. I’d sure like to find out who has a better solution to the problem. Do we keep them at guantanamo or set them free?

Posted by: RAK at July 3, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #164576

“Do we keep them at guantanamo or set them free?”

Are these the only two options we have? Is it truly so “my way or the highway” with Bush that he would release all those who are guilty simply because the courts told him to play by the laws of our country? (OK, that was intended to be snarky.)

My point is that there can be no logical argument when you limit choices to “Gitmo or set them free.” By the way, name a single person who has said to immediately set them free. You frame it that way to get political mileage, but it’s a crap argument. We will put these people through the legal system, and if they are guilty, then they will pay for their crimes. If they are innocent, then they will be sent back to their homes.

If you want to see a horrible example of setting prisoners free for political gain, look at what the Iraqi government (with the support of the REP Congress) is doing. To make people happy, they are letting violent prisoners go - ones who attacks our soldiers - while our soldiers are still on the ground. What’s your reaction to this?

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/06/08/iraqi_prisoners_rejoice_over_freedom/

Posted by: tony at July 3, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #164577

gergle, that’s a great point. Would our founding fathers believe that terrorist suspects “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”?

I’m pretty sure that when they applied those inalienable rights to “all men” they really did mean ALL men. Even suspected terrorists.

But when have Republicans ever been worried about preserving and upholding the Constitution… :/

Ever heard UBL or Zarqawi say they need to follow the Geneva Convention when they order their followers to kill?

Who cares? Should we rip up the Constitution and dismantle international law just because a few nutcases don’t follow it? Why are you so quick to allow terrorists to define what is means to be an American?

Posted by: American Pundit at July 3, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #164579

Yes send them through the legal system. That takes time and it won’t happen tommorrow. Even local cases take a few years to procicute unless it’s open and shut.

Posted by: RAK at July 3, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #164582

International laws!!!!!!!!! what international laws? there is no such animal. There are international agreements i will agree on but laws, no.

Posted by: The Griper at July 3, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #164584

RAK -

So you agree that we can still prosecute in the existing legal system? We can put them wherever they need to be kept until they have their day in court.

Posted by: tony at July 3, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #164585

I do not agree with the judgement, but I am happy that it forces the President to work more with congress. Bush took too much on himself. Now the congress, including the Dems, will have to put up or shut up. Just like when the Dems went on the record supporting the Iraq war, they will now have to go on the record supporting Bush policies toward terror - OR not. In any case, the sniping will stop. They will no longer have the luxury of saying Bush is messing up w/o giving their own options.

Posted by: Jack at July 3, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #164586

Tony
Yes even if they have to be tried in an international court seeing how other countries have been terrorized also.

Posted by: RAK at July 3, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #164593

I seem to recall the SCOTUS making especially strong reference to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. I must say though I’ve not yet found the ruling in it’s entirety.

But, if anyone’s not yet done so you might read the Geneva Conventions: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

One of the things I find interesting and very simple is “(prohibtion of) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”


Article 5 then states: “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”

I guess the term “civilized people” may be of the most importance. This could well be seen as a test of just how civilized we are. If we become as barbaric as the terrorists then what have we accomplished?

KansasDem


Posted by: KansasDem at July 3, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #164596

>>I do not agree with the judgement, but I am happy that it forces the President to work more with congress. Bush took too much on himself.

Posted by: Jack at July 3, 2006 08:32 PM

Huh? You don’t agree with the judgement…even though the judgement was sound?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 3, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #164611

Marys

I do not believe the terrorist deserve the protections of the Geneva Convention, since that convention also stipulates behavior for them, which they violate by the very nature of their methods. But the forced change was right, even if for the wrong reason.

The best thing that ever happened to me was to break my leg in three places when I was 11. It was not a good thing, but it had good results in that it changed my life direction for the better. But that doesn’t mean I can advocate leg breaking as a general strategy for bringing up children. Same with this ruling.

Posted by: Jack at July 3, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #164615

—Jack — Is this a trick question?

Posted by: DAVID at July 3, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #164619

Judgement was made but that don’t make it right.
It was just the opinion of 5 of the nine justices. Right or wrong we still have to abide by it.

Posted by: RAK at July 3, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #164621

“I do not believe the terrorist deserve the protections of the Geneva Convention, since that convention also stipulates behavior for them, which they violate by the very nature of their methods.”

Jack,

You did read Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions then? “such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal”.

Bush and his administration tried unsuccessfully to redefine “a competent tribunal” and now it’s back to the drawing board.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 3, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #164634

-Jack and Rak— I have a trick Question for you? you both have the same hand writing, do you both happen to be one in the same?

Posted by: DAVID at July 3, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #164649

Paul said in his article: “With your reaction to this reprimand, you will show us, the citizenry, whether you deserve to be reelected.”

They won’t, Paul, pure and simple. Even if they get this one right, they got so many other issues completely wrong. This entrenched incumbent Congress has fealty only to party power: the people, the nation, and their future all take a back seat to power partisan politics.

Look at Lieberman. He is willing to dump the primary system of his party and reject the voters expressed preference if he loses the primary race. C’mon, he is about power, the people be damned. That is what this incumbent entrenched Congress is about with few and rare exceptions, and even that is arguable.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 4, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #164664

—David and Paul, Do you think a compromise could be in order, may be using the power of the net an getting bloggers together an tell our Democratic leaders to get our Democratic views out front inclusive of all Democrats, including working with the poorer amongst us, an inaction to our requests would be at their parral.

Posted by: DAVID at July 4, 2006 2:39 AM
Comment #164666

—David R Remer- We really do need a movement an I know nothing about networking, I guess there is no excuses this day in age for being computer illiterate, but I am smart enough to judge character an I believe this Web site could do great things for our faltering Democracy.

Posted by: DAVID at July 4, 2006 2:51 AM
Comment #164677

DAVID, many are working on the issue. Incredible numbers of people, talent and money are at work trying to salvage our democratic republic. And even more are working against them. This is a war for America that must be fought and like all wars, the outcome is never certain until the last battle is fought, and either compromise, victory, or defeat is achieved.

I have hope, for yet a little longer.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 4, 2006 4:22 AM
Comment #164685

My company just added it’s bit to the war against the political status quo. We produced a training/motivational DVD for door-to-door canvassing (pro bono). GOTV, raising awareness… canvassing just seems to be key in getting the people’s needs and interests injected into the political process.

IMO - the problems we face today in politics is a direct result from broadcast-based campaigns. The candidate spends most of the money and effort in the campaign to getting air time, and the face-to-face time is strictly reserved for those who can pay at the door (in large amounts.)

I don’t see this changing - believe me, I’ve tried. I know quite a few regional and national candidates - and have tried to get more personal forms of communications into their campaigns… yea right. They all love the way these ideas sound, but their sole focus in the almighty TV. (We’ve offered up FREE database/poll responsive email campaigns, web based media responses, etc.)

One thing they do respond to is sending people door-to-door before the campaign. I’d like for these people to be as effective as possible… and also train them to bring back with them the opinions of the people they interact with.

I know, in the current political world, this matters very little… but I’m hoping that the more people meet with their neighbors and the more local and regional campaigns feel the impact of canvassing… the more average people involved with canvassing start to push for more personal connections within political campaigns… maybe we can change the way things are run, and change the way politicians set the agendas.

Posted by: tony at July 4, 2006 9:16 AM
Comment #164699

Paul,AP,David R. Remer, Gergle:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” — Declaration of Independence

“Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution…Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash….Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed….Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.” — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, F. J. Goulding, translator, London, 1970.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Declaration of Independence

Non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.” — Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami

Then again, I suppose someone here will say this is a Rovian attack message, or a neo-con web site.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 4, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #164718

Congress uses the excuse that some people might lose their jobs if they raise the minimum wage…I think all of Congress should lose their jobs for raising their salary, as they’ve done nothing of real, positive consequence for this country for years!!

Posted by: Lynne at July 4, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #164719

The thing we must keep in mind is that if we adopt the “terrorists don’t care about the Geneva convention so neither should we” mind set, we become no better than they are. Either we stand for Justice for all or we become terrorists ourselves.

Posted by: Mc at July 4, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #164721

>>I suppose someone here will say this is a Rovian attack message, or a neo-con web site.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 4, 2006 10:01 AM

se,

We might say it only because your issues are so far removed from the thread that Rove must have initiated it…that is the Rovian way. ‘We are making huge mistake in Iraq, so let’s focus on the gay marraige thingy’, etc.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 4, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #164722

sicilianeagle—You give yourself way to much credit, off subject spinmeisters opinions are as relative as a Nat’s arss!

Posted by: DAVID at July 4, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #164736

tony: May I suggest you get hold of your Democratic Central Committee or a candidate you favor and volunteer. You will find both use door to door canvasing and will be happy for your help. Door to door,nieghbor to nieghbor campaigning is effective and is being used more and more. The drawback is it is labor intensive. They can use your help.

Posted by: BillS at July 4, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #164750


Don’t you just love the rights argument; in order to defeat the terrorists, we have to become terrorists. Many have critized F.D.R. for the interment of Japanese Americans during WW2. Had we been like the Germans, He would have sent them to the gas chambers and the ovens. The World has critized the Japanese for the rape of Nanking. Had we been more like the Japanese, we would have raped and killed as many of the civilians in Tokyo as the Japanese did in Nanking when we occupied Japan. One of the things that made America a great nation is that we have not been as vile and detestable as our enemys. If some on the right had their way, we would be a powerful and vicious nation feared by the entire world but we would not be a great nation.

Posted by: jlw at July 4, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #164757

jlw,

Great comparisons. I would add that one of our greatest “foes” in the “War on Terrorism” is religious extremism. Islamic extremism for sure, but how do we win such a war?

Fighting fire with fire always sounds great but it hardly proves to be the most effective method of fighting every fire. I would argue that our only hope of winning this war is to show the world that we are a just and moral people who won’t allow justice and morality to fall victim to their extremism or our own.

That hardly means that we must be passive. Strength, justice and morality can work well together as they have in the past.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 4, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #164769

jw,Kansas: I wish I shared your optimism. Strength,justice and morality can work well but we have long abandoned all but might. We are a “powerful and vicious nation feared by the entire world.”True,we did not rape and murder as much as the Japanese did in China. We did burn millions of Japanese civilians alive though in bombing raids. Perhaps it was necessary,perhaps not but it does not put us on the side of the angels. The practical reason for treating POWs in accord with the Geneva Convention is that way their relatives hate us a little bit less. Important to win a peace.
Justice and morality? . There are thousands of examples in our forign affairs that are quite the opposit. Take our dealings with Iran,for a timely instance. We replaced one of the few democratic governments in the region with the Shah and used CIA assets to keep him in power incooperation with his notorious secret police,the SAVAK. We encouraged Iraq to invade Iran and supplied chemical and biological weapons components to Iraq. We also gave them reconaisance and logistic support.Yes,US planes and satellites directing their battles. In one battle Iran had loses of 65,000 brave men due to US supplied and directed chemical weaponry. At the same time we were selling weaponry to the Iranins and useing the proceeds to crush a populist movement in South America. Morality? Justice? Hardly.
The greatest thing about Amerca has always been its potential. Americans always dream about what a great country we could be. I share that vision. I am only pointing out just how far we have to go. Illusion is the enemy of progress. Happy 4th. Lets celebrate the country we should and can be.

Posted by: BillS at July 4, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #164778

BillS -

I tried with a local campaign - it’s a US Congressman I know (but unfortunately not in my district.) He might need a few DVDs. One positive note: the chairman of the NC Dem Party had a phone call with Howard Dean about the DVD - the DNC might want to ship out quite a few. (I’ll keep my fingers crossed.)

As far as labor intensive - yes, door-to-door takes a huge number of people, but the stats say it the most effective tool a campaign can use… about 1 in 6 success ratio. Nothing else is even close. My favorite part is it’s something we can do at our neighborhood level. I now know 11 people in my neighborhood that are liberals - we’ve done several things together now (block parties GOTV canvasses, etc.)

Posted by: tony at July 4, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #164781

—BillS- The best of what could be considered a proclamation from hands of Jefferson and the rest of our american past greats. There will always be hope for our nation with such excelent,critical thinking by people like you. My hat is off to you Sir. Thank you.

Posted by: DAVID at July 4, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #164785

“Strength,justice and morality can work well but we have long abandoned all but might. We are a “powerful and vicious nation feared by the entire world.”

I heard someone say that we (USA) are the teenagers of the world. We never doubt our logic or desires - we are always right - we immediately dismiss the wisdom of older/more experienced countries - we are quick to violence - we have no concept of how to live in moderation - we are terrible with credit cards/debt.

Posted by: tony at July 4, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #164787

BillS,

I don’t think it’s too late to turn back from the brink, but don’t get me wrong, morality and justice without “might” could also spell an end to our society and quite possibly the whole of the free world.

That aside I read two such starkly different Independance Day messages today it made me proud to be a Democrat.

The first is that given by President Bush which I also watched on the tube, and he did good at first, but he couldn’t help but play politics even on the 4th of July by saying, “I’m not going to allow the sacrifice of 2,527 (U.S.) troops who’ve died in Iraq to be in vain by pulling out before the job is done.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060704/pl_nm/bush_iraq_dc_3

The second is that of John Murtha which I copied in it’s entirety from HuffPost:
“While I enjoy the fireworks and the cookouts, to me the 4th of July is about honoring a nation that has inspired millions, a nation of endless opportunity, and a nation where countless Americans are doing their part to make our country and our world a better place.”
“But more than this, July 4th is a time to celebrate our nation’s quest for freedom and liberty. These were values worth fighting for. These are values that should never be compromised. May God bless the United States of America.”

We can each decide for ourselves who is more concerned with the welfare of America and Americans, and who is more concerned with playing the politics.

KansasDem


Posted by: KansasDem at July 4, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #164793

Thanks Kansas,tony and DAVID.Happy 4th

Posted by: BillS at July 4, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #164795

-KansasDem- I haven’t noticed, on most posts, or on any other media lately any thing that says we the people owe our lady America something in return for the privilege of living here. I personally think we at least have a mandatory responsibility to at least VOTE every four years, only then are we true Americans. If you do not vote, you also have no voice.

Posted by: DAVID at July 4, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #164797

—HAPPY 4TH AN BEST WISHES TO ALL——————- Including those who hoast this Blog.Site- DAVID-

Posted by: DAVID at July 4, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #164800

David,

I’m not really a betting man, but if I were I’d bet everyone you see on this blog votes. The only year I could legally have voted but didn’t was 2002 and that’s because I’d been ill since December 2001 and simply couldn’t.

I’ve always been amazed though how few Americans do vote. Shameful really.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 4, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #164803

—KansasDem— Sorry, I hope you do not think I made any remarks towards you, My Brain seems to operate like a plane on a short run way! I was thinking of the dems.in Cal. as so many stayed home and did not vote, along with low voter turn out as in Pryor years.

Posted by: DAVID at July 4, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #164810

David,

You’re correct. Far too many people just don’t vote. No need to apologize to me ever.

I’ve only been offended once and that’s when someone called me a liar. Yet, I’d have to admit that I’ve sometimes accused those who disagree with me of being trolls when in fact they simply tick me off. I also seldom thank those who help me out in an argument.

This is a good site to discuss political issues. You seem to be worried about your “internet” knowledge. Don’t sweat it. As long as you don’t attack someone personally or start posting totally inappropriate stuff you’ll be fine.

My abilities are limited and I got in trouble once, but I think the managing editors must be pretty understanding. Just don’t sweat it.

Sooner or later we all step on each others toes, just follow the “rules of participation” from the link just above the “POST” button and above all rememeber to Critique the Message and NOT the Messenger.

KansasDem

PS: if this seems like rambling nonsense, oh well!

Posted by: KansasDem at July 4, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #164863

Hello All,
I’m back! I’m sure you folks didn’t miss me at all.

I just had to get on this topic. I still can’t get over a ‘letter’ I received from Senator Graham on the 20th of June.

He, Senators, DeWine, Hagel & Snowe have all introduced the “THE TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 2006” (link:)

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/dewine031606.html

Instead of wanting to ‘investigate Bush’s wiretapping fiasco’, they want to give ADDITIONAL time to do wiretaps, and just review them as the Attorney General sees fit. Somehow Congress is suppose to be kept informed about this They also want a five year Sunset period built in.

In other words, WHOEVER wins next year will basically have unlimited power for the first four years of their new administration. So will the appointment of the new Attorney General. At least we should be able to get rid of Alberto Gonzales. Heaven will simply have to help the US when or if this Act takes effect.

If ever we needed to vote extremely prudently, warily and cautiously it must be in the next primary and major elections.

Anyone who runs for or is appointed to Attorney General and Congress will need to be strongly scrutinized - not that they all aren’t equally important, but Congress seems bent on turning our Executive Branch into a strange sort of dictatorship.

It also appears that Congress would be giving away more power to the Executive Branch, especially if one or some of the members get got in the wiretap. Just imagine the mess that would make…

Just something to think about.

I wish EVERYONE the Greatest, Happiest Fourth of July ever - and I can say that and still be politically correct! Amazing!


Posted by: Linda H. at July 5, 2006 1:13 AM
Comment #164933

Has anyone read the NEW Act that’s being put forward regarding the Terrorists Surveillance Act of 2006?

http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi%2Dbin/query/z%3Fc109:S.2455.IS:

I seriously suggest a thorough read. And be prepared to be very scared.

The bill would give the government up to 45 days to monitor calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists when one party is in the U.S. and the other is overseas. Like Bush’s existing program, the government would not have to get court approval.
After 45 days, federal officials would have to stop the eavesdropping, get a court warrant or explain to House and Senate intelligence subcommittees why the monitoring must continue.

http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/252722.htm

This is frighting.


Posted by: Linda H. at July 5, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #166594


Its happened on more then 1 occasion when we have released 1 of the murderous terrorist do to bleeding-hearts pressure, that we have re-captured them again in combat trying to kill us.

I dont think the bleeding hearts realise that the radical Islamic-arabs of the world have 1 goal in mind and that is to “eliminate” christians/Americans.

Sooo releasing the prisoners from Gitmo will make you feel good but get someone else killed. Good Job libs

Posted by: MacIrish at July 11, 2006 4:13 PM
Post a comment