I read that in a news story discussing “Lawmakers Focus on Patriot Act Extension”
http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=116&sid=134058 that really made me think of the Ben Franklin quote I see from time to time: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
In addition, Bush is politicizing the most recent bombings in London as a means to push legislation to extend the Patriot Act. “Bush sees London attacks as reason for Patriot Act”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050720-102536-4094r.htm
I really have a problem with seeing this document passing again. Why? Because the items that violate the Bill of Rights are still there. It’d make sense to pass the portions of the act that gives more money to support state & local jurisdictions. But that damned document still has those laws in place which violate the Bill of Rights. First, read this:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Patriot Act allows the FBI to conduct secret searches without a warrant, access personal information, and jail people without charges. This can be done to regular Americans. I remember that the first Patriot Act was passed without congress even reading it, which was bad enough. I hope that this extension does not pass. It gives one branch of the government too much authority to violate the constitution. When I think about it, the commander in chief was elected to uphold the constitution and swore an oath to it. At the same time the commander in chief passes legislation to stymie the Bill of Rights. I just do not get it. I know the Patriot Act sucks. Why? Read on…
Patriot Act report documents civil rights complaints
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/21/justice.civil.liberties/
Report on USA Patriot Act Alleges Civil Rights Violations
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0721-01.htm
USA Patriot Act, Civil Rights, Privacy Issues
http://usliberals.about.com/od/patriotactcivilrights/
7/14/2005
Karl Rove and the neocon weasels
I have been listening to right and left radio and reading various stories about Karl Rove the last few days. I have heard both sides of the story, and can understand the desire to hold this guy on treason charges. One point that his supporters say is that Valerie Plame was not a true operative, therefore nothing was done. It makes sense, to a point. What I really see if that the important part of this whole topic really needs to be considered: Karl Rove and the cabinet, are they capable of such “treasonous” and devious things?
Simple answer, for me, is YES. So I would not put it past Rove to rat out a CIA whatever. The whatever, being the “he said, she said” type of nonsense that the media talking heads are yammering about the specifics of the case. It’s tough to tell really. All I know is that the points that really mattered is that this is the media’s opportunity to get back at an otherwise secretive and “we can do no wrong” administration. It’s going to be a lot of debate and accusations. I guess we’ll see how it plays out. Bush won’t fire Rove and he won’t be help for treason. Crap, I think the entire cabinet should be put up on charges and impeachment hearings to kick Bush out of office are needed. Clinton may have done bad things, but Bush’s bad things are costing lives. In addition, he is doing much worse things to this country. It’s kind of tough to associate Bush as being a ‘conservative’ or ‘Republican’ when we see citizens rights going down the shitter, an open border, the Cheney-Haliburton "exclusive" Iraq contracts (why no competition???), and shady and bogus reasoning to invade Iraq.
One thing to point out is everyone (as in both parties) supported his Afghanistan campaign. When they seek answers to why and what was the reason for Iraq the only thing that really turns up is misleading and bogus lies as justification for going in. Recent information has turned up that would back those claims, but it should have been used then and not after the fact.
Search the web for PNAC, or The Project for the New American Century. There is an excellent website which covers them. Basically, it’s a neocon think tank that has papers, studies, etc. in which people say the agenda of invading Iraq was a priority of PNAC outlined in some of their works. The reason this beltway think tank stands out from the other ones is the fact that people associated with PNAC also hold positions in the oval office. Paul Wolfowitz, who drafted a document in which “US military dominance over Eurasia and preemptive strikes against countries suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction” is among them. It sure gives me warm fuzzies! The neocon list, plus the above quote, can be found here: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html?leftNavInclude
A great analysis website is http://www.pnac.info/. Ok, now I have read these documents and websites for awhile now. A lot of it is good input on ideology of how to spend our resources in defense spending and where new threats or shifts in strategy might be in the future. I support the defense industry wholeheartedly. Heck, many of their developments are great contributions to civilian or medical technological advancements.
In all, PNAC is a good group. But the nefarious part comes from their emphasis on who is in the white house now and their agenda prior to 2003. For example, note this:
“In the Beginning - In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.
The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.”
http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000043.html
It really makes me wonder how much of this was just anticipated. Were the 9/11 attacks and subsequent ousting of the Taliban the perfect excuse for these goons in the oval office to seek to take out Sadam? They just needed the means to their end, and those means are sketchy at best. I call them bogus sexed up BS turned into flat out lies. I saw a DVD called “The Truth About the Iraq War” where ex-CIA and other inside the beltway people were being interviewed. It did a great job of explaining fact vs fiction with the evidence to go to war. I do not trust the current administration at all anymore.
You know, if they were just honest with the American people, I would have a different opinion. I know PNAC, a secretive administration, MANY instances of people saying the Iraq justification was a lie, and creepy-sleazy-silly acts like what Rove might or might not have done. I just do not trust them one damned bit. I am all for a strong defense, retaliation for 9/11, ousting Sadam simply because he is an asshole, and the war on terrorism…it just seems that what we should be doing and what has gone on is completely different. For that, 2008 will be a good year. In addition, for what a demon we paint Sadam now, I tend to remember such things as these…
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
I just don’t see the Constitution giving the Federal Government the right or the power of empirical aspirations. Isn’t what we left in the first place? I am all for a strong defense as stated in what is required in the Constitution, but what do preemptive strikes based on bogus information have to do with anything? These idiots in office need to review that document that they made an oath to serve. They are bound to that contract so long as they hold public office. I commend those who also know the citizenship has the power to remove them from power. Not a revolution, that’s stupid…we are not that bad off. I am thinking along the lines of the free press pointing out the actions of those elected to office. I am talking about those whistle blowers who are demonized at times, and are probably much more patriotic than those accusing them of wrong doing. Those folks are great, and we need more of them. Sorry, I thought “Deep Throat” did a great job. If the status quo sucks, change it.
Simple answer, for me, is YES. So I would not put it past Rove to rat out a CIA whatever. The whatever, being the “he said, she said” type of nonsense that the media talking heads are yammering about the specifics of the case. It’s tough to tell really. All I know is that the points that really mattered is that this is the media’s opportunity to get back at an otherwise secretive and “we can do no wrong” administration. It’s going to be a lot of debate and accusations. I guess we’ll see how it plays out. Bush won’t fire Rove and he won’t be help for treason. Crap, I think the entire cabinet should be put up on charges and impeachment hearings to kick Bush out of office are needed. Clinton may have done bad things, but Bush’s bad things are costing lives. In addition, he is doing much worse things to this country. It’s kind of tough to associate Bush as being a ‘conservative’ or ‘Republican’ when we see citizens rights going down the shitter, an open border, the Cheney-Haliburton "exclusive" Iraq contracts (why no competition???), and shady and bogus reasoning to invade Iraq.
One thing to point out is everyone (as in both parties) supported his Afghanistan campaign. When they seek answers to why and what was the reason for Iraq the only thing that really turns up is misleading and bogus lies as justification for going in. Recent information has turned up that would back those claims, but it should have been used then and not after the fact.
Search the web for PNAC, or The Project for the New American Century. There is an excellent website which covers them. Basically, it’s a neocon think tank that has papers, studies, etc. in which people say the agenda of invading Iraq was a priority of PNAC outlined in some of their works. The reason this beltway think tank stands out from the other ones is the fact that people associated with PNAC also hold positions in the oval office. Paul Wolfowitz, who drafted a document in which “US military dominance over Eurasia and preemptive strikes against countries suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction” is among them. It sure gives me warm fuzzies! The neocon list, plus the above quote, can be found here: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html?leftNavInclude
A great analysis website is http://www.pnac.info/. Ok, now I have read these documents and websites for awhile now. A lot of it is good input on ideology of how to spend our resources in defense spending and where new threats or shifts in strategy might be in the future. I support the defense industry wholeheartedly. Heck, many of their developments are great contributions to civilian or medical technological advancements.
In all, PNAC is a good group. But the nefarious part comes from their emphasis on who is in the white house now and their agenda prior to 2003. For example, note this:
“In the Beginning - In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.
The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.”
http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000043.html
It really makes me wonder how much of this was just anticipated. Were the 9/11 attacks and subsequent ousting of the Taliban the perfect excuse for these goons in the oval office to seek to take out Sadam? They just needed the means to their end, and those means are sketchy at best. I call them bogus sexed up BS turned into flat out lies. I saw a DVD called “The Truth About the Iraq War” where ex-CIA and other inside the beltway people were being interviewed. It did a great job of explaining fact vs fiction with the evidence to go to war. I do not trust the current administration at all anymore.
You know, if they were just honest with the American people, I would have a different opinion. I know PNAC, a secretive administration, MANY instances of people saying the Iraq justification was a lie, and creepy-sleazy-silly acts like what Rove might or might not have done. I just do not trust them one damned bit. I am all for a strong defense, retaliation for 9/11, ousting Sadam simply because he is an asshole, and the war on terrorism…it just seems that what we should be doing and what has gone on is completely different. For that, 2008 will be a good year. In addition, for what a demon we paint Sadam now, I tend to remember such things as these…
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
I just don’t see the Constitution giving the Federal Government the right or the power of empirical aspirations. Isn’t what we left in the first place? I am all for a strong defense as stated in what is required in the Constitution, but what do preemptive strikes based on bogus information have to do with anything? These idiots in office need to review that document that they made an oath to serve. They are bound to that contract so long as they hold public office. I commend those who also know the citizenship has the power to remove them from power. Not a revolution, that’s stupid…we are not that bad off. I am thinking along the lines of the free press pointing out the actions of those elected to office. I am talking about those whistle blowers who are demonized at times, and are probably much more patriotic than those accusing them of wrong doing. Those folks are great, and we need more of them. Sorry, I thought “Deep Throat” did a great job. If the status quo sucks, change it.
7/07/2005
London bombings
I went to Edgware Road station & Kings Cross several times when I was there last October on a visit with my girlfriend. Now that my initial worries of my friends in the UK are fine, I can think about the people who did this horrible act. I hope that they bring those assholes that did this to justice. When I read the website about the claims of the terrorists doing such an act in the name of Allah, it being his will, and the same old horse shit tribute given to the “martyrs” really makes me think what God would approve of this? Also, today it was reported that the Egyptian envoy to Iraq was killed by al-Qaeda in Iraq. So you have an Egyptian Muslim called an infidel and killed by another Muslim in the name of God.
Tough to take in. I realize that there is a separation of degrees. The problem is radical Islam, compounded with little to no voice from the moderates does little to nothing to help them. In comparison, you have rabid abortion clinic bombers who kill in the name of God, so it’s not just “Islam.” It’s tough to distinguish this to some extent because a suicide bomber and Islam (though it is radical in this case) can go hand in hand with many people’s perceptions. My thoughts about it really coincide with what Blair said:
Blair condemns bombers who "act in name of Islam"
LONDON, July 7 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair, condemning the London bombings that killed at least 33 people on Thursday, said: "We know that these people act in the name of Islam."
In a statement from his London residence, a grim-faced Blair thanked The Muslim Council of Britain for roundly condemning the bombers who struck in the early morning rush hour.
"We know that these people act in the name of Islam but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are decent and law abiding people who abhor this kind of terrorism every bit as much as we do," Blair said.
It’s good to see some Islamic groups condemning the actions of a few who claim to represent the “word of Allah”. I just hope that more Muslims stand up to these people and work towards eliminating these terrorist assholes.
Another thing I hope to see is Blair actually having balls and doing what Bush failed to do—bring those guilty to justice. I hope Blair does not follow the inaction of our moron in chief. We do not have the mastermind of 9/11 in custody, Bush seems to not care. He is not important. I am glad we have that stupid tyrannical despot Sadam in custody, but he did not cause 9/11.
I wish Blair good luck in capturing those guilty. I’d like to thank Bush for continuing to be an idiot and listening to the neo-con assholes that he has in his cabinet or advisors, you have really screwed this country with lies and inaction. Lastly, I hope the best for the victims of the London bombings.
Tough to take in. I realize that there is a separation of degrees. The problem is radical Islam, compounded with little to no voice from the moderates does little to nothing to help them. In comparison, you have rabid abortion clinic bombers who kill in the name of God, so it’s not just “Islam.” It’s tough to distinguish this to some extent because a suicide bomber and Islam (though it is radical in this case) can go hand in hand with many people’s perceptions. My thoughts about it really coincide with what Blair said:
Blair condemns bombers who "act in name of Islam"
LONDON, July 7 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair, condemning the London bombings that killed at least 33 people on Thursday, said: "We know that these people act in the name of Islam."
In a statement from his London residence, a grim-faced Blair thanked The Muslim Council of Britain for roundly condemning the bombers who struck in the early morning rush hour.
"We know that these people act in the name of Islam but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are decent and law abiding people who abhor this kind of terrorism every bit as much as we do," Blair said.
It’s good to see some Islamic groups condemning the actions of a few who claim to represent the “word of Allah”. I just hope that more Muslims stand up to these people and work towards eliminating these terrorist assholes.
Another thing I hope to see is Blair actually having balls and doing what Bush failed to do—bring those guilty to justice. I hope Blair does not follow the inaction of our moron in chief. We do not have the mastermind of 9/11 in custody, Bush seems to not care. He is not important. I am glad we have that stupid tyrannical despot Sadam in custody, but he did not cause 9/11.
I wish Blair good luck in capturing those guilty. I’d like to thank Bush for continuing to be an idiot and listening to the neo-con assholes that he has in his cabinet or advisors, you have really screwed this country with lies and inaction. Lastly, I hope the best for the victims of the London bombings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)