Bush responds to Judge, shouts “look over there!” and runs off. August 18, 2006
Posted by Evil Bender in Dubya, News and politics, constiutional issues.trackback
Okay, not exactly, but he did do the only thing he knows how to do. Confronted with harsh evidence of his own illegal activities, he blamed the terrorists. This is the political equivalent of the “interrupting cow” joke:
Bush: Knock, knock.
Mainstream Media: who’s there?
Bush: The interrupting cow.
Mainstream Media: The interu–
Bush: MOO!
Here’s how he did it:
Bush said those who applaud the decision “simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live” and that the alleged British terror plot broken up last week was evidence that attacks were still being planned against American targets.
This is the exact same maneuver as all those times Bush mentioned Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence, despite the complete lack of a connection. There is no evidence–none–that his program has helped stop this or any other terrorist plot. Nor would it, since the tools are already in place, through FISA, to do wiretapping of this sort.
This program doesn’t make us safer, it just makes us less free. It is a tradeoff with no benefit. And Bush shouting “terrorist” is just pathetic.
“This country of ours is at war,” Bush said. “And we must give those whose responsibility it is to protect the United States the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war.
“I put this program in place. We believe — strongly believe — it’s constitutional. And if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know why they’re calling.”
We don’t need tools that break the law, tools that add nothing to the safety of the country. And we sure as shit don’t need an illegal program to do what we could already do before hand–tap the phones of suspected terrorists. Keep shouting “al Qaeda” mister President. Come November, your party will have to answer for a failed hunt for Osama bin Laden, an increasingly shaky situation in Afghanistan, and a failed and unrelated war in Iraq. Keep shouting; it isn’t working anymore. Our country is less safe now than it was on 9/11. Our ports are no more secure, we’ve created waves upon waves of people who didn’t use to hate us but do now, we’ve systematically alienated our allies, and our President has done nothing but make money for his friends, break the law, violate civil liberties, and shout about being at war.
The ruling from the Carter appointee is an “utterly unsupported, constitutionally and logically bankrupt collection of musings” (quote from http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0MjFjNzQ= )
Democrats continue to decrease the likelihood of taking over the House in 2006 and the presidency the more they align themselves with the position of this judge. Furthermore, if they actually want to loose more House seats they should make a lot of noise about being against the Terrorist Surveillances Program.
My prediction, and you can quote me on this, is that this ruling will be overturned.
This is not looking good for Democrats ( http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/099bd269-0072-4399-b75d-58558238cc57 ):
Not a single Democrat of any stature or visibility has stepped forward to criticize much less reject the opinion from Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declaring NSA surveillance of our enemies contacting their operatives inside our country to be unconstitutional. Their collective silence has grown more and more revealing as the chorus of legal commentary mocking the absurd opinion has grown throughout the day.
The Democrats cannot be seen to say anything against the opinion because of Kosputin and his minions. The party of Lamont is unhinged, and Judge Taylor’s opinion is now a new icon of the movement.
It is clear that the Democrats are invested in her conclusion and her reasoning, a position on national security that will bind the party if it reaches a majority in either the House or the Senate, and paralyze at least some of the intelligence collection activities already underway. We have to assume that their zeal for ignorance will extend to every presidential directive not explicitly backed by Congressional mandate, and thus an understanding of the Article II war powers more circumscribed than ever in our history.
The cow has moo-ed so many times, I’m surprised it hasn’t attracted bigger bull.
Josephnadir,
Your invokation of the war powers granted the president during war suggests that the War on Terror is, in fact, and actual war, fought in an acutal place against actual people. The war on terror is only an idea.
And of course the rulling will be overturned. The case will be reconsidered by judges the president appointed. These judges will decide in favor of the president, in the process establishing precendent. How’s that for judicial activism.
It’s pretty funny to me how some people use “Carter appointee” with the same sense of righteous indignation that most of us reserve for terms like “child molester.” What matters is not who appointed the judge; it is that the chief executive of our country is ignoring its systems of governance.
Was giving all of those words in that quote capital letters supposed to give it more importance?
The war on Muslim terrorists is very real as is self-evident to most of humanity.
Just look at the many declarations of war they have made against us. The enemy we’re dealing with is not going to be satisfied until we convert to Islam and repent for our “wicked” way of life.
Here is a sampling of the enemy’s perspective…
Page 51 of the 9/11 commission report (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05aug20041050/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf or http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/):
I’m guessing the last part of the quote is a reference to the practice of abortion.
Bin Laden’s letter to America (see http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html
for details):
Please take the word of the enemy at face value. They are so serious about their ideology that they are willing to die for it.
The war on Muslim terrorists is very real as is self-evident to most of humanity.
Just look at the many declarations of war they have made against us.
The enemy we’re dealing with is not going to be satisfied until we convert to Islam and repent for our “wicked” way of life.
Here is a sampling of the enemy’s perspective…
Page 51 of the 9/11 commission report (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05aug20041050/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf or http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/):
Care to back up that assertion with evidence?
I provided links to very compelling arguments that the judge’s ruling is “utterly unsupported, constitutionally and logically bankrupt collection of musings”.
It is quite telling that you have not disputed this and instead pointed out that it’s funny that others have pointed out that she was appointed to the bench by a liberal.
Here is more evidence that her ruling was careless:
It is quite telling that you have not disputed anything I’ve said or linked to and instead resorted to poking fun at the URL of the link.
Democrats are in real trouble if they resort to that type of “argumentation”.
>> Was giving all of those words in that quote capital letters
>> supposed to give it more importance?
>It is quite telling that you have not disputed anything
>I’ve said or linked to and instead resorted to poking fun
>at the URL of the link.
In other words, “yes”. :)
Last time I checked, the ruling of a judge was what mattered. Since judges are supposed to make rulings based on the law, and since the ruling has not yet been overturned, then anyone who violates said ruling is ignoring our country’s systems of governance. I don’t need to look at your pieces of “evidence” to know this; it is the law of the land, and it is taught to every elementary student in the country.
If I were to act in opposition to a judge’s order simply because I thought he were in error, then I would still be held liable for my actions, even if I’m pretty sure that the ruling will later be overturned.
QED, sucka.
The judge issued a stay of her order which in effect allows the terrorist surveillance program to continue.
Correct, but it is not relevant since the judge issued a stay of her order.
Let me demonstrate that you are wrong.
Your statement/conclusion “that the chief executive of our country is ignoring its systems of governance” was based on the false premise that the continuation of the terrorist surveillance program constituted a violation of the judges ruling, thus your conclusion is false. QED
josephnadir, I apologize for failing to take the stay into account. As you have observed, Judge Taylor’s stay of her order ensures that the Bush Administration will not be held liable for continuing the program (for a time, at least).
But a stay does not change the fact that the program has been ruled illegal by a U.S. judge. That decision has yet to be overturned, although it is being appealed by the federal government. Thus, the administration has been engaging in activities that are contrary to the laws of the land.
So, if josephnadir dosen’t respond after two months, dose that mean he concedes? :)
Maybe he’s just realized that everyone has had enough of his “arguments” and is ignoring him rather than watch him ignore their points and build strawmen. And knowing that really hacks him off is all the reward I need. ;)
Howdy Evilbender,
Straw men? In this http://evilbender.wordpress.com/2006/08/15/morality-a-primer-for-moralists/ posting you said:
Hence, you have taken the leap of faith to believe there is no such thing as an objective morality; this is moral relativism. By your own admission you are a moral relativist which is a self refuting position to adhere to as I’ve pointed out at http://josephnadir.wordpress.com/2006/08/16/debating-a-moral-relativist-about-moral-relativism/
A straw man this is not :-)
If you disagree I publicly challenge you to debate on the matter.
Oh no! A public debate challenge on the Internet! :-)
Aw, there goes my brain again. It just keeps exploding on me…. :)
Hehe. Whatever’s causing your brain to explode, I can promise you the way to keep it from happening is to ignore his comments completetly. I notice he’s still commenting, and proceed to skip right past the comment. Can’t you just feel his rage
affitto sardegna
news
affitto camera
news