The Republican Fear Machine Kicks into Action
This is so typical of the Republicans. They have the audacity to attack Obama for campaigning on a slogan of hope and yet they dive straight in with another of their fear campaigns.
Glenn Greenwald:Just by the way, the whole premise of the ad is that we're all about to be slaughtered because the Protect America Act expired. It expired because George Bush threatened to veto any extensions and House Republicans unanimously voted against any extension. Our blood, to be gushing shortly like a volcanic eruption, will be on their loving, protective hands.
Bush has chosen to let this expire as he thinks it's more important to give telecoms immunity than it is to protect Americans. And that's the long and short of it.
How did this guy ever become the most unpopular president in the history of the United States? Oh, that's right, because he thinks ordinary Americans are too stupid to see this crass political manoeuvring for what it is.
Click title for Greenwald's article.
16 comments:
Bush has chosen to let this expire as he thinks it's more important to give telecoms immunity than it is to protect Americans. And that's the long and short of it.
Once again, you are incorrect. Bush did not "choose" to let anything expire. The House Republicans blocked an attempted extension by the House Democrats. While Bush signaled he would veto such an extension if it were to cross his desk, no such extension crossed his desk as no such bill for an extension ever left the House.
House leaders wanted to pass a three-week extension of PAA powers to give themselves time to resolve differences with the Senate, but House Republicans blocked the move.
Further, as the DNI, Attorney General. Bush, and an overwhelming bipartisan Senate have agreed, Protect American without the necessary protection for private companies required to help the government is a non-starter.
The Senate was able to come to a responsible bipartisan agreement (your video shows Senate Democrats stating the importance of the bill) well within the time framework (given that there had already been an extension) and the House had plenty of opportunity to do the same. The House Dems refused to allow it to come to a floor vote because they know they would have lost. Further extensions are only playing games, now it's all on them.
Oh, that's right, because he thinks ordinary Americans are too stupid to see this crass political manoeuvring for what it is.
Blathering rhetoric aside, the only "crass political maneuvering" (where do you get this stuff?) being done was by House Dems, as even Senate Democrats agree.
Protect American without the necessary protection for private companies required to help the government is a non-starter.
Why is that a non starter? These companies have engaged in illegality, albeit at the request of the President. Is their immunity more important than protecting America? That appears to be what the President is saying.
Jason, your portrayal of "Senate good, House bad" is a bit of a stretch. The Senate was tied up in cloture votes for days. The Republicans took a partisan stand and blocked the amendments that would strip out telecom immunity. The Senate Republicans walked out in a fit, too. It was one of the most bitter battles in months, but you make it sound as if they all just joined hands and approved it in an "overwhelming bipartisan" way. "Senate Democrats agree"? Where do you get this stuff? Sure, after the Republicans, on a partisan line, kept telecom immunity in the bill, it passed. But telecom immunity was the major sticking point for the Democrats in the Senate, so this idea that you're trying to spin of Senate Democratic support for telecom immunity is a little sad. If it weren't for telecom immunity, it would have passed easily, but Bush vowed to veto any bill without it. Perhaps you can see how the threat of a veto would affect things, since the Democrats don't have a veto-proof majority. Thus, Bush's insistence and veto threat ensured that a quick extension of the PAA would not happen. Kel didn't say that he vetoed anything. He made a choice to go all or nothing and risk not getting the extension.
The video showed one Senate Democrat "stating the importance of the bill", and that was Rockefeller. A few hundred thousand in campaign donations from the telecoms worked a little magic in his case.
I'd consider Republicans walking out of the Senate and House to be "crass political maneuvering", along with ignoring that a FISA warrant will do everything Bush wants to do.
If the warrantless wiretaps were as legal as Bush and the DOJ say they are, then there is no need for telecom immunity. If, however, there were serious and continuous abuses, the telecoms should be held accountable.
These companies have engaged in illegality
A statement not backed up by fact or law. No criminal charges have been brought against anyone, so claims of illegality are spurious. There is a supposition that the telecoms may have assisted the government in a program that some believe should have been governed by FISA. The President claims, and with some legal precedent to back him up, that he did not need to work within FISA for the program. As the courts have not weighed in on the matter (the one activist judge who made her ruling outside the bounds of the law was roundly shot down by multiple higher courts), claims of illegality cannot be substantiated.
Is their immunity more important than protecting America
It is one and the same. The telecoms must be shielded from the kind of politically motivated fishing expeditions that they are being subjected to now. By all reports, the cooperation of the telecoms is absolutely essential to the gathering of foreign intelligence. As such these companies need to be protected in order that they can provide the help that national security demands.
Jason, your portrayal of "Senate good, House bad" is a bit of a stretch.
Your interpretation, not my portrayal.
The Republicans took a partisan stand and blocked the amendments that would strip out telecom immunity.
You mean, the Republicans, 17 Democrats, and one Independent. That's what's called "bipartisan".
"Senate Democrats agree"? Where do you get this stuff?
"This is the right way to go in terms of the security of the nation," said Senator Rockefeller, a Democrat of West Virginia, who is the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, which wrote the Senate bill.
Sure, after the Republicans, on a partisan line, kept telecom immunity in the bill, it passed.
Let's not forget those 17 Dems and one Independent. Which is, as I have stated all along, bipartisan. The Republicans could not have done anything without the Dems being split on the matter.
If it weren't for telecom immunity, it would have passed easily, but Bush vowed to veto any bill without it.
As he should. The heads of the intelligence agencies, the DNI in particular, have stated that the telecom immunity is absolutely essential. Hence, any bill without it is pretty much a waste of paper.
A few hundred thousand in campaign donations from the telecoms worked a little magic in his case.
So then you know that his position in no way had anything to do with the fact that he's in charge of the Senate Intelligence Committee, holds higher security clearances than non-Intelligence committee members, and is much more in-the-know about how the various intelligence agencies' programs work compared to those who don't sit on the committee?
If the warrantless wiretaps were as legal as Bush and the DOJ say they are, then there is no need for telecom immunity.
Not true. Even given the legality of the programs, there is still nothing to stop activist groups such as the ACLU from dragging them through the court system on the kind of fishing expeditions they have been engaging in. Aside from costing the telecoms millions and making them less inclined to assist the government, these kind of stunts risk exposing vital national security information to the public and our adversaries.
The President claims, and with some legal precedent to back him up, that he did not need to work within FISA for the program.
Mukasey is now saying the opposite.
"[You imply that the emergency authorization process under FISA is an adequate substitute for the legislative authorities that have elapsed. This assertion reflects a basic misunderstanding about FISA's emergency authorization provisions. Specifically, you assert that the National Security Agency (NSA) or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) "may begin surveillance immediately" in an emergency situation. FISA requires far more, and it would be illegal to proceed as you suggest]."
The telecoms must be shielded from the kind of politically motivated fishing expeditions that they are being subjected to now.
This has got nothing to do with actually protecting the telecoms, it's being pursued to stop any investigation into what Bush and Co have actually been up to.
You mean, the Republicans, 17 Democrats, and one Independent. That's what's called "bipartisan".
You are hysterially funny Jason. When the Republicans vote en masse and are joined by Joe Liebermann and 17 Dems that becomes bipartisan in your mind? This really is what the Bush regime mean when they talk of bipartisan politics, they mean some Dems assist them to push a Republican agenda.
If the warrantless wiretaps were as legal as Bush and the DOJ say they are, then there is no need for telecom immunity.
Not true. Even given the legality of the programs, there is still nothing to stop activist groups such as the ACLU from dragging them through the court system on the kind of fishing expeditions they have been engaging in.
Dragging people through courts for engaging in legal behaviour is something that no Telecom company would ever have to fear. Your point is simply illogical. Indeed, they fear the courts because they have been engaging in illegality. As Mukasey has clearly stated, wiretapping outside of FISA is illegal.
Mukasey is now saying the opposite.
The program that President Bush had previously authorized, according to reports was not re-authorized and is therefore no longer running. That means that all collection must now be done under FISA. Since the previous Presidential-approved program is no longer running, collection that is against FISA would now be illegal, as the DNI has stated.
it's being pursued to stop any investigation into what Bush and Co have actually been up to.
That is your assumption. That assumption however is not backed up by fact is runs counter to the claims of the current DNI and head of CIA, neither having been in office during the previous program the President had authorized (if I remember correctly). In any case, if you think immunity is not to protect the telecoms in order so that they can continue to cooperate with the intelligence community, then you are stating that you believe the DCI is lying. Is that what you are stating?
When the Republicans vote en masse and are joined by Joe Liebermann and 17 Dems that becomes bipartisan in your mind?
No, that's bipartisan in the mind of anybody who pays more than passing attention to how the US legislature works. Do the math - 34% is a pretty sizable chunk of the Senate Democrats, and 67% is a vast majority of the Senate as a whole.
Dragging people through courts for engaging in legal behaviour is something that no Telecom company would ever have to fear.
This is not backed up by fact. The fact is that the program the President claimed he was running has never been determined to be illegal. The fact is that there is nothing more than supposition that the telecoms cooperated in this program. So despite the fact that there is not even the slightest bit of evidence that the telecoms engaged in activity that is actually illegal, and despite the fact that there is nobody who even has standing to claim that the supposed cooperation the telecoms might have given the government has somehow damaged them, they still find themselves mired in the courts. Therefore, you statement does not hold.
Indeed, they fear the courts because they have been engaging in illegality.
Again, unsubstantiated.
s Mukasey has clearly stated, wiretapping outside of FISA is illegal.
Overly simplistic since "wiretapping" as you call it is not illegal outside of FISA. There are certain forms of intelligence collection which are however covered under FISA. I have already addressed the point about collection under the previously authorized and no-longer functioning program versus programs that are likely in effect now.
Despite the orgasmic tizzy that some of the far left amy be building towards, Mukasey has not said anything earth-shattering or outside the norm. His remarks merely reflect the current state of intelligence collection, and not the state of intelligence collection as it reportedly existed under the now-discontinued Bush program.
This is not backed up by fact. The fact is that the program the President claimed he was running has never been determined to be illegal.
That is backed up by facts. Even the new programme was deemed to be illegal:
"The order by a judge on the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court has never been publicly acknowledged by administration officials—and the details of it (including the identity of the judge who wrote it) remain highly classified. But the judge, in an order several months ago, apparently concluded that the administration had overstepped its legal authorities in conducting warrantless eavesdropping even under the scaled-back surveillance program that the White House first agreed to permit the FISA court to review earlier this year, said one lawyer who has been briefed on the order but who asked not to be publicly identified because of its sensitivity."
Eavesdropping - even under the scaled-back surveillance program - was deemed to be illegal, so one can only imagine that there was even more illegality in the previous programme.
And your argument that "it was never deemed to be illegal" is slightly undermined by the fact that Bush, in the middle of a war on terror, agreed to scrap it. The legality argument certainly wasn't won in whatever backrooms they used to knock out the compromise or one would imagine Bush wouldn't have agreed to stop doing whatever the Hell he was doing.
The fact is that there is nothing more than supposition that the telecoms cooperated in this program.
Now you are simply being ridiculous. Bush has already acknowledged that wiretapping has taken place. Unless you are arguing that he did this without the Telecoms?
And even Fox News have confirmed that certain Telecoms did assist with the programme.
Despite the fact that there is nobody who even has standing to claim that the supposed cooperation the telecoms might have given the government has somehow damaged them, they still find themselves mired in the courts.
You know as well as I do that the only reason there is no-one with standing to the claim is because Bush refuses to say whether any of the claimants have actually been spied upon. So it's hardly true to say "there is nobody who even has standing". There might be lots of people who have standing, but the Bush regime are refusing to say who they are. It is for this reason and this reason alone that "no-one has standing".
Overly simplistic since "wiretapping" as you call it is not illegal outside of FISA. There are certain forms of intelligence collection which are however covered under FISA.
Nonsense, the House reaffirmed last May that FISA is the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted".
Unless you have some new meaning for the word "exclusive"?
His remarks merely reflect the current state of intelligence collection, and not the state of intelligence collection as it reportedly existed under the now-discontinued Bush program.
Give us a break, Jason. It was discontinued because it was illegal, hence the reason Bush wants immunity for the Telecoms who aided him in this act of illegality. You have to be astonishingly partisan to pretend that you live under this fog of uncertainty regarding what has happened here.
But, of course, just as you did in prior debates over torture; you find no proof of impropriety amongst Republicans until it's as clear as the nose on your face. And once that's established you would then immediately set out to defend it.
That is backed up by facts. Even the new programme was deemed to be illegal:
Then please show me where exactly the Terrorist Surveillance Program (a very specific program authorized by Bush) had been deemed by the courts to be illegal. Which court reviewed the TSP and claimed it was illegal? It wasn't the FISC (who never had the TSP submitted to them), and it wasn't any of the Federal Circuit courts, so please enlighten us to which court reviewed the TSP and stated that it was illegal.
When Bush did not re-authorize the TSP, he submitted a different, follow-on program to the FISC for review. According to interviews with DNI Mike McConnell, the FISC stated that purely foreign intelligence (that is intel where both sides of conversation were overseas and non-US entities) could not be collected if it was intercepted in the United States off of US networks (or I believe also even if there were a chance that the information might traverse US networks). This was by all accounts a new and hitherto unprecedented restriction on foreign intelligence collection. The Protect America Act (PAA) was soon drawn up to close this loophole (again, according to all press accounts).
By the way, quoting an opinion piece isn't the same as quoting factual reporting if your goal is to try and convince somebody of some set of facts.
Eavesdropping - even under the scaled-back surveillance program - was deemed to be illegal
No, "eavesdropping" (as you call it) was deemed to require a FISA warrant in certain very specific circumstances. For example, collection of foreign-to-foreign intelligence originating from a foreign network is (according to all accounts of this) does not require a FISA warrant. McConnell claims that the result of the FISC ruling was that foreign-to-foreign intelligence collected via US networks now requires a FISA warrant. Collection involving US persons reportedly requires a FISA warrant now just as it did in the past. This is not a question of legal versus illegal, this is a question of requires a FISA warrant or doesn't require a FISA warrant.
And your argument that "it was never deemed to be illegal" is slightly undermined by the fact that Bush, in the middle of a war on terror, agreed to scrap it.
And yet you cannot point to a court making an unchallenged ruling that the TSP was "illegal". The program was not re-authorized because of public pressure resulting from the traitorous actions of the NY Times reporters who believed they publicized the details of sensitive intelligence operations during time of war and anyone who may have leaked the details of this alleged program.
Unless you are arguing that he did this without the Telecoms
I am stating that intelligence collection off of a network does not always require the cooperation of the owner of the network. Just ask the Japanese during WW2. That said, I suspect the telecoms would assist the government with any request. But me suspecting something is just supposition, and not the same thing as hard fact. There has been no court that has determined the telecoms broke any laws, and neither the government nor the telecoms have stated what if any assistance they have given the government.
It is for this reason and this reason alone that "no-one has standing".
Then we both agree that there are no defendants with standing.
Nonsense, the House reaffirmed last May that FISA is the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted".
I should have been more specific. Not all forms of "electronic surveillance" require FISA warrants.
It was discontinued because it was illegal
So you keep claiming. If that's the case then it should be a simple matter for you to demonstrate what court has a standing ruling that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was illegal.
hence the reason Bush wants immunity for the Telecoms who aided him in this act of illegality
Again, this is your supposition which you cannot back up with facts. You will make some claim that your version of truth is evident and that we shouldn't need silly facts getting in the way of course.
You have to be astonishingly partisan to pretend that you live under this fog of uncertainty regarding what has happened here.
As apparently you are. You prefer supposition and unfounded subjective claims to cold objective facts. I on the other hand tend to prefer objective facts.
Of course not lost in all this is that we are speaking of intelligence matters which is something that I suspect nobody here can definitively speak about, making the entire conversation (not to mention most of the reporting on this topic) nothing but pure speculation.
This post is such a wonderful example of your debating style, where you demand that Republicans be given the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity and require 100% evidence even of things that you conclude there is every chance have actually happened, like the telecoms assisting Bush when he listened to Americans.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court said that aspects of Bush's programme were illegal and I provided you a link which confirmed that. However, that is not enough for you. And I took it as a given that we were discussing communications which involved Americans, as it those that have been the subject of controversy.
But the snide and dishonest way that you simply regurgitate Republican talking points is best illustrated by the way you state, "Then we both agree that there are no defendants with standing." That comment, despite your many claims of independence, tells me that you are not interested in the truth. You are here purely to defend the Republican position and demand that I supply facts which you also concede - as these issues relate to national security - I will be unlikely to do.
This is the exact same tactic you used when there were rumours that people were being tortured from organisatios like Amnesty International and Human Rights watch. You demanded incontrovertable proof without which you deemed it an almost patriotic duty to take the President at his word. Even though the President refused to specify what he considered torture whilst claiming that the US did not engage in it.
You prefer supposition and unfounded subjective claims to cold objective facts. I on the other hand tend to prefer objective facts.
That is laughable. You are a man who has consistently made fun of the fact that I refer to opinion polls so much as you would prefer your opinion as a substitute for facts. This enables you to claim that your extreme right wing views represent the views of most Americans. The only time you insist on "hard facts" are when your government are engaged in secret activity which is rumoured to be illegal. In these circumstances you demand proof for everything, even to the ludicrous extent of claiming that you don't know if Telecoms aided Bush's programme.
As you rightly say, there is no point in this conversation as you are demanding proof which you know Bush is refusing to allow courts access to.
Just as you demanded proof of torture and then, when it was confirmed by the US that torture had taken place, immediately dismissed it as no big deal and started defending it. It's what you do, Jason. You defend Republicans. Always.
You spend seven paragraphs attacking me and completely avoiding any semblance of rational argument, not that I'm surprised.
This post is such a wonderful example of your debating style, where you demand that Republicans be given the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity and require 100% evidence even of things that you conclude there is every chance have actually happened, like the telecoms assisting Bush when he listened to Americans.
Not at all, but when you go making wild unsubstantiated claims it wouldn't hurt to keep in mind the difference between fact and opinion.
But the snide and dishonest way that you simply regurgitate Republican talking points is best illustrated by the way you state
Where can I find these so-called talking points? They're not emailed to me and I don't frequent any websites where these "talking points" you refer to would be posted, so maybe you can help me out and tell me where I can read them.
You are here purely to defend the Republican position and demand that I supply facts which you also concede - as these issues relate to national security - I will be unlikely to do.
Since I'm not a Republican, I'd like to think I'm here to defend truth and reason, which is otherwise generally lacking here. In any case, I'd suggest learning the difference between opinion and fact, and refraining from presenting said opinion as fact.
You are a man who has consistently made fun of the fact that I refer to opinion polls so much as you would prefer your opinion as a substitute for facts.
Absurdly amusing that you believe opinion polls somehow represent fact.
This enables you to claim that your extreme right wing views represent the views of most Americans.
You wouldn't know an "extreme right winger" if you saw one. I think it's pretty much an axiom that a so-called "extreme right winger" would not have been openly supporting moderate Republicans for President (Guilianni and McCain in my case) before the more conservative candidates had dropped out (Romney and Huckabee). If you'll remember my initial choice all along had been Guilianni, who is universally considered a moderate-to-liberal Republican, and then switched to McCain when he dropped out (another moderate-to-liberal Republican).
That you are a left-wing extremist is evident to all who read your blog, or do you actually labor under the delusional fantasy that you're some kind of rational moderate? From that perspective, an American moderate Democrat would seem like a right-wing extremist to you.
You defend Republicans. Always.
Since your topics here are so limited, you cannot in truth make such a claim. However, given that your opinions are so extreme and I normally share none of those opinions, I can see where you might make that mistake.
Where can I find these so-called talking points?
From the mouth of George Bush and other Republicans.
Since I'm not a Republican, I'd like to think I'm here to defend truth and reason
Ha ha ha. Thanks for that. Best laugh I've had in ages. You have defended everything this administration has done, including torture. You demand the highest level of proof of wrongdoing from this administration and you ignore and question the integrity of organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch when they point out possible illegality. You even state that there is no proof that Telecoms assisted Bush at the very moment in time when Bush is seeking immunity for them, claiming that he is only doing so to save them from malicious prosecution.
It's a simply ridiculous position that turns reason on it's head.
Absurdly amusing that you believe opinion polls somehow represent fact.
When we are talking about what most Americans think about a certain subject then opinion polls do tell us that fact. You often make the claim that "most Americans" think one way or the other and opinion polls often show that what you - and others like you - are claiming is factually incorrect.
You wouldn't know an "extreme right winger" if you saw one.
You continue to support a President whose policies have made him the least popular President in your nations history. 19% of Americans agree with you whilst around 81% do not. That is an extremist position.
That you are a left-wing extremist is evident to all who read your blog, or do you actually labor under the delusional fantasy that you're some kind of rational moderate?
Unlike yourself, I do not hide behind any label such as "independent". I am a grown up with an interest in politics therefore I have, by now, worked out which party best represents my beliefs. I think if you lived in Britain where people who take your stance are referred to as "floating voters" rather than the more noble sounding American equivalent of "Indepenent", you too would have decided which party best represents your world view. As I say in the header, this site is written from a left wing perspective, so I do not regard myself as a moderate. You, however, appear to suffer from the delusion that you are, whilst making comments that cause other people to refer to you as "a Kool-Aid drinker."
Your defence of torture alone should tell you that you are not a moderate.
You have defended everything this administration has done, including torture.
Wrong again. I have stated quite plainly that I am against any form of interrogation that is illegal under US law. As "torture" is not legal under US law, I must then necessarily be against it. So that means you were either unable to draw such an analysis on your own, or you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
When we are talking about what most Americans think about a certain subject then opinion polls do tell us that fact.
For the love of God man, go to school, take a statistics course. Opinion polls are a snapshot of how a group of people reacts to a given set of questions at a given point in time. Those statistics are then extrapolated to try to give an indication on how a larger population would react to the same set of questions. The reliability of these polls is certainly variable. Take the most recent exit polls from New Hampshire that showed Obama winning the state's primary as an example. They do not represent fact, and nobody who has even had a basic stats course would claim otherwise.
the least popular President in your nations history
You can back this claim up somehow, yes? Further, where do you think his highest approval ratings rank him in terms of popularity? Answering that question will serve to indicate to you the usefulness of relying on opinion polls from a certain snapshot in time.
19% of Americans agree with you whilst around 81% do not. That is an extremist position.
What exactly do 19% of Americans agree with me on and when did they do so? Further, are you claiming that 20% of the country is extremists, or is that you once again displaying your ignorance for rudimentary statistics? As we are talking statistics here, to be considered an "extremist" a person would have to be an "extreme outlier" in a dataset. Suffice it to say that referring to 20% of a dataset as an extreme outlier is incredibly ridiculous.
Unlike yourself, I do not hide behind any label such as "independent". I am a grown up with an interest in politics therefore I have, by now, worked out which party best represents my beliefs.
Unlike Europeans, Americans value independence of thought. The idea of slavishly following a single party is the antithesis of this for many Americans (I believe most Americans call themselves Independents). People who are independent of thought do not require a party to tell them what they believe on a given issue and can work it out for themselves.
whilst making comments that cause other people to refer to you as "a Kool-Aid drinker."
When you said people, what you should have said is "other left-wing extremist nutters".
Wrong again. I have stated quite plainly that I am against any form of interrogation that is illegal under US law. As "torture" is not legal under US law, I must then necessarily be against it.
Ah, but you do not regard waterboarding as torture do you, Jason? Otherwise you wouldn't have said this:
If by "enabler" you mean someone who doesn't get all broken up over waterboarding being used on three occasions (none since 2003), then I guess that's me.
Because, of course, you subsequently went on to argue that waterboarding was not illegal under US law. So, in your understanding of US law, drowning someone i.e. filling their lungs with water, is not torture. I'll leave it to anyone reading this to come to their own conclusion as to whether or not you have defended torture.
Indeed, if I remember correctly, and people need only follow the link to read the whole exchange, the views you expressed were so abhorrent that at one point you claimed not even to be expressing your own opinion, but merely acting as a sort of Devil's Advocate.
"What I personally consider it is of no consequence, and I have not stated my personal opinion here one way or the other"
Indeed, in another post you commented that:
"Regarding the three specific individuals who were waterboarded, I could quite honestly care less. They are not human[...]
On the face of things though, you sound like someone who's never had to make a hard life-or-death choice. To you and those like you, everything is theory.
You presented torture as "life or death" choices that needed to be made and implied that Liberals like myself didn't have the balls to do it. That's not only defending the use of torture, that's turning it into a positive virtue that weak kneed Liberals are too pussy to engage in. So no, Jason, you have not been against torture, you have (1) told me that you don't get "all broken up over waterboarding being used on three occasions" and (2) implied that I am somehow lacking because I don't have the balls to make "life or death choices". The example you then gave was of a man who held a gun to an Iraqi's head. You then stated:
I suspect one such as yourself would state that they could never do what the colonel did, but that's the difference between having to make real life-and-death choices and living in some idealistic fantasy world where we can pretend that there aren't really bad people out there actively trying to kill us.
That's not only defending torture, that's glorifying it and turning it into a masculine virtue.
Opinion polls are a snapshot of how a group of people reacts to a given set of questions at a given point in time.
Yes, but if what we are talking about is what people think at a certain moment in time - you know, like if you said most Americans agree with you, and the polls show that they don't - then it would be a fact that, at that moment in time, most Americans didn't share your opinion.
And yes, there are rogue polls, but they tend to be the exception that proves the rule.
the least popular President in your nations history
You can back this claim up somehow, yes? Further, where do you think his highest approval ratings rank him in terms of popularity?
I have already posted this on the site, Jason. He is officially the most unpopular President in the history of the United States.
His highest approval ratings must be the highest ever achieved or very near that as he was President on 9-11 when your nation needed to believe in him. The fact he has fallen so far - and steadfastly remained below thirty for about two years before this final slide into oblivion - is simply remarkable, especially when one considers how much goodwill was poured towards him simply for being Commander in Chief on the day your nation faced it's worst ever attack.
What exactly do 19% of Americans agree with me on and when did they do so?
That Bush is doing a good job.
Unlike Europeans, Americans value independence of thought. The idea of slavishly following a single party is the antithesis of this for many Americans (I believe most Americans call themselves Independents). People who are independent of thought do not require a party to tell them what they believe on a given issue and can work it out for themselves.
But you have never expressed an independent thought in your entire time posting here. You always express whatever position the Republicans are currently espousing.
And, if you do think for yourself, you have surely worked out what both parties stand for and which one best encompasses your beliefs? Dear God man, it's not as if both parties reinvent themselves every four years... They basically argue the same bloody points every election cycle.
So which party best represents your beliefs?
Ah, but you do not regard waterboarding as torture do you, Jason? Otherwise you wouldn't have said this:
We've had this argument already. I have made abundantly clear that I do not condone any practice illegal under US law hold. Therefore, since torture is illegal, I do not condone it. Put whatever twisted spin on that you want to, it doesn't change anything.
You presented torture as "life or death" choices that needed to be made and implied that Liberals like myself didn't have the balls to do it.
No, I presented the fact that you sitting here discussing theory is quite different from the real world where people are trying to kill each other and life-or-death choices are made. That said, every person is responsible for the choices he makes and must be willing to accept any resulting consequences.
The rest of your diatribe concerning your faulty interpretations of my past postings are just more hysterical rantings. I've already addressed them sufficiently and will not do so again.
then it would be a fact that, at that moment in time, most Americans didn't share your opinion.
Only you would continue to try to present opinion as fact. Let me try this one more time. Let's say that an opinion poll determines that "25% of people think that George Bush is the anti-Christ". The poll states that 400 people were asked this question, which means that 100 of them feel Bush is the anti-Christ. More specifically, the question asked was "Do you think George Bush is a nice guy? Or do you think he is the anti-Christ?".
So first off, this number is influenced by the question asked, how it is asked, and where it is asked relative to other questions in the poll. This particular question clearly influences the respondent to state anti-Christ if he feels Bush isn't a nice guy. Certainly that makes for a poor poll question, but that's nothing new.
The next thing to address is who are those 400 people? Where do they live? Are they demographically and geographically diverse, or are they 400 people from Madison, Wisconsin? If they are 400 people from the same area, how can we then state that the population is representative of the entire US population? And even if they are somehow a representative dataset, how well that population extrapolates to the US population as a whole is quite debatable.
So, the only fact that can accurately be stated is: "When 400 people were asked whether they George Bush was a nice guy, or if he was the anti-Christ, 100 of them replied that he was the anti-Christ." That is the only objective fact that can be taken away from that.
This can be seen quite evident if you have been paying attention to polling for the Democratic primaries. Most recently, many polls had Obama winning the Texas primary. Well, he didn't. The polls were wrong, and there numbers in no way represented fact. All they represented was the way that a sampling of people responded to a particular question.
That Bush is doing a good job.
I don't seem to remember ever issuing a blanket statement that he's "doing a good job" as you say. I think he's doing okay in some areas, and horrible in many others. If a pollster were to ask me if I approve of the job he is doing and they refused to get into specifics, I would probably reply in the negative.
And, if you do think for yourself, you have surely worked out what both parties stand for and which one best encompasses your beliefs?
Yeah, I know which party is closes to my beliefs. But as I indicated, I vote for individuals, not parties. And that's why I've voted for Democrats for Congress in the recent past, not to mention for state and local positions as well. Slavishly voting along party lines is for people who can't think for themselves.
The rest of your diatribe concerning your faulty interpretations of my past postings are just more hysterical rantings. I've already addressed them sufficiently and will not do so again.
Thank God. Because you haven't brought a single new argument to the table and people can scroll back up and find pertinent examples I've given of where you defended torture and implied that Liberals lacked the courage to do so.
I think he's doing okay in some areas, and horrible in many others. If a pollster were to ask me if I approve of the job he is doing and they refused to get into specifics, I would probably reply in the negative.
Whaow. That's the first reasonable thing you've said on here for months...
I'm sure it'll pass...
Post a Comment