gerryhatrick

I have no problem with wire-tapping either. I think I said so. Why can't it be done under the law? If the law was broken, Bush should suffer the consequences. The war for Western civilization can continue just as successfully without him. In fact, given the evidence of his leadership ability lately it would in all likelyhood continue with more success. That seems to be what you're suggesting....the war for civilization is threatened if Bush is taken down.

Listen KK, it's a dumb side-argument you're attempting to stoke for some reason. He clearly said leaving Iraq would be leaving it to those who attacked them on 9/11, not those with the same ideology. Just because you found another line in which he refers to people with the same ideology doesn't change the explicit meaning of the line I quoted, no matter how much you wish it did. You're getting tripped up on Al-Qaida anyway. The key point is terrorists. Bush and his Cabinet say over and over and over that if the US left Iraq they'd be leaving it to terrorists. It's not supported by any evidence. It's just more fear mongering. A plurality of Iraqis feel attacks on US troops are justified (I'd bet a paycheck that's gone up since the recent attacks and clashes), 80+ percent want the US out of Iraq, and 72% of US troops want out. This points to some clear conclusions and John Murtha is vocalizing them: the US is the common enemy in Iraq and until they leave the violence will continue and likely worsen.

What do you mean "without any real facts"? There are real facts. It's bad for the US given the facts we have now. And don't show up telling blatent lies about me. Accusing me of "openly rooting for the insurgency" is an ignorant, idiotic statement.

Well that's your opinion. Now prove that it's a lie! It's not neccessary for me to prove it's a lie. It's a self-evident lie because you're making a statement of fact with no proof. There were false documents, but the segment itself has never been shown to be false. I can call you a child-molester. You can say "you lie". I then ask you to prove it's a lie. We're at the same place. You're confused about the topic betsy. It's not about detainees, that was just an example (like your Dan Rather thing). The topic is about the muzzling of MP's by Stephen Harper.... not allowing them to speak about anything but the five "priorities" or write letters to the editor without his approval. NOW they're talking about keeping the schedule of Cabinet meetings secret so his Ministers don't have to answer questions! Strong backbone, huh betsy?

Well, you can always write him a letter and ask, but his words were pretty clear: I don't know why you're picking on this point to be-labor. You're pointing at words he used elsewhere in the same speach and claiming that means these words are not specific. weak. And as I've said, they've made the claim that leaving Iraq would leave it in the hands of terrorists over and over and over. Arguing that fact does wonders to kill your credibility. Time to get back on topic anyway. The USA is the common enemy in Iraq for foreign terrorists and Iraqi insurgents. That is undeniable. Thus, their continued presence only continues violence that would otherwise not occur. I'm interested to hear something from you. Besides your non-specific claims that the region would blow up if the US left Iraq, what do you think would happen in Iraq? Do you think the violence would explode? If so, why? Sectarian violence? Terrorist violence? Explain why (if) you believe violence would increase if US left please. Help me understand why it's anything more than fear-mongering by the Bush admin. thx.

Hard to conclude anything about this event other than the facts in the story. They may have been Sadr militia, but it was the US and Iraqi forces who initiated the confrontation and many of the dead pictured are old men. I agree, this is bad.

Actually yes, he specifically did. And he's done it before, as have member of his Cabinet. This is not spun, it's his own words: That's a complete sentence. I'm not leaving out any context. The context is Bush saying the USA will not abandon Iraq to Al-Qaida. You are reaching and missing. Give it up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/internat...artner=homepage Likely going to be a real sh@tty week after this. I can see why the Bush admin is now blaming the media. They know it's going to hell, and they have to blame someone.

I don't care about this issue one way or the other, but I think the answer to your question is because they're providing a needed economic service. That's why Bush is defending them.

Hardly a joke. As I understand it, control of a Congressional house is needed for Impeachment articles to be submitted. As things stand now it looks very possible (if not likely) that will happen. It would be refreshing to see a rightwinger with a little honesty admit that wiretapping legality is something that Bush could be impeached upon. Your point that he's not been hauled into court over it is stunningly dishonest because you present it as evidence that he's done no wrong. Surely you're not that ignorant of how things work, so I have to assume you're being dishonest.

No, it has not. But regardless of whether it was 100,000, or the 30-40,000 number more accepted by the Bush admin it's still beyond acceptable.

Obvious? Yes, obvious. You asked who I was referring to as being desperate, and it was pretty obvious that it was Bush and his Cabinet. AGAIN...they first defended the wire-tapping as being permitted by the vote in Congress before the Iraq war. Once people started saying "wha?" they turned to the Constitution. It's a desperate move. Don't ask me again who I'm referring to please. If you're going to play dumb while debating me I'll just answer the dumb questions

For proof, you give You making your own shit up Gerry? Is that what you have to do to make your argument valid? That's very funny, but the context is clear. Bush is clearly saying they won't leave Iraq to terrorists. I provided the link, so obviously I'm not making it up. And besides this recent example, they've (and by they, I mean Bush and his Cabinet) have continually said that if the US leaves Iraq it would be abandoning it to the terrorists. How you can deny this is beyond belief. Why do I get the impression that you're not debating in good faith...that you're being intelectually dishonest here?

Desperate for Bush and his neo-con pals. Why would you ask a question for which the answer was so obvious? I said: This was clearly in regards to the wire-tapping and the excuses they've come up with for it. I shouldn't have to explain such clear posts to you.

This is a pretty funny comment coming from you. Look at your last couple of posts. Are we talking about Dan Rather now, or about Liberals wrongdoings being ignored? What happened to your accusation of me deliberately reading more into this Harper fiasco than should be? I called you on it, and you decided Dan Rather was a better discussion. You lie about Dan Rather anyway. It wasn't a "false segment". Regardless of who fed him documents, he obviously represented them in good faith. And the story stands without the documents, that's the stupid thing about it all. But hey betsy, let's talk about Dan Rather some more! You've been kicked bad on everything else, maybe you can salvage something by bashing Dan Rather.

What is Bushs course? I don't know, and niether does he quite obviously. His course is "stay the course", which is just stay in Iraq and hope that peace and democracy breaks out. And, is an Iraq in turmoil with iranians running it productive for your vision? What in hell are you talking about? I don't recall any sort of speech saying the above. Just because you don't recall things doesn't mean they aren't happening: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060320/dcm067.html?.v=22That was just the other day. Just one example. He and his Cabinet says it all the time KK. You really should pay more attention to them.

The point is though that it's not clear that the Constitution applies to what he did. Most legal experts I've seen comment on the matter say it does not. First they cited the permission granted by Congress to use force. Now they're citing the Constitution. It's looking a little desperate.

No? Downing St Memo, WMDs and such? Pick up a paper sometime. I've heard of those things, of course. But there's been no real impeachment talk in the mainstream and halls of Congress. I'll direct you back to the topic post. "Calls for impeachment growing louder" There is no logic in saying there was talk previously, and therefore the calls for impeachment now mean nothing. Move on KK. I have no problem with wire-tapping suspected and/or real terrorists. Let it be done within the law though. The FISA law was put in place to protect against the kind of abuses seen under Nixon. If you think in an environment of absolute power abuse will not occur you are obviously naive. As we all know, under FISA they can wiretap without a court order and have 72 hours to approach the court afterwards. So why not use it, or get it changed if neccessary? Claiming the right to step outside the law is not an option in a democracy, and using the "I'm protecting the USA against terrorists" defense is not enough. It is a false and circular defense because it leads right back to the FISA law which could be used to protect the USA against terrorists. So, if the law was broken by the President it's very serious and impeachment for it is not unlikely. It will be for the courts to decide if Constitution law is applicable and gave him the right to break other laws.

Yes, his staff decided to go into Iraq and his staff is deciding to stay there. His staff. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings for Bush KK. It is quite clear he has a small unchanging group of advisors who are on the record expousing PNAC goals, or even authoring them. It is now a group-think situation in Iraq...and the group-think path is "stay the course". But, like you they don't really understand what "the course" is. Sure, they can talk about it. Just like you. Iraq is neccessary for "peace in the region" or a "peaceful, democratic Iraq will bring security to the region". You've said the same thing, even going further to claim leaving Iraq will inflame the region. They tell us it's part of the war on terror, like you do. They tell us they're winning there, like you do. You parrot the Bush narrative, and then tell me it's all your own. The best part has been this last bit though....where you've been claiming they know what they're doing in Iraq...that the President gets briefings from the Pentagon on the region and from that he (and his staff, of course) can envision the results of their Iraq policy. For the love of God, Bush and his Cabinet tells us that if they leave Iraq it will fall into the hands of Al-Qaida! Do you believe that? To anyone with the least amount of knowledge about the realities in Iraq it's absolute nonsense! They have bungled North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. When Bush called them the "axis of evil" he put them on notice. That was applauded by neo-cons and other Bush supporters. Probably you agree it was a good thing to say, or see nothing wrong with it. Yet how stupid is it to put your adversaries on notice? Now both North Korea and Iran openly refer to it as a reason to be beligerant. North Korea cites it when they say they're building up Nuclear capability. This is the administration you point at and express confidence that they're managing the region expertly with calculated goals.

Even if your numbers were accurate, what is the point? All my talk radio and print media is right-of-center. Media control and editorial influence is largely right of center. There are bleeding heart journalists in media, just as there are war hawk neo-cons. BUT, voting Liberal or Conservative or NDP or Bloc doesn't mean that will influence how you do your job. Your suggestion that a persons voting choice somehow translates into news reporting bias is baseless. Journalism is a job and news reporting is most often a neutral translation of the facts. It's when folks like yourself don't like the facts that you point at the messenger. I think it's pathetic to blame the media for the news....like a criminal blaming his mother for his choices. The Conservative right keeps up a steady drone on the matter, but I've come to the realization that it's pure cynicism. A crass dishonesty for political advantage.

How have I done that? Of course, I have not. All PM's have attempted to control the message, I understand that. This goes further than any have before. Telling your MP's that letters to the editor must be vetted is astounding. Your unwillingness to admit even the least amount of displeasure belies your fear that any critisism of Harper will harm him thus you stand behind him 100% in this and all matters. You are correct, large portions of the media are owned and/or published by Conservative partisans. I only complain about it out when a partisan Conservative claims that the media is all "liberal", which is often. It's a common ploy, one we see constantly down South. Currently rightwing pundits are blaming the media for the state of Iraq. Stop blaming the media for Harpers missteps. Paul Martin was roasted during his tenure, and no doubt you were still crying about liberal media then.

Actually, by most estimates Saddam and the USA are responsible for about the same number of civilian deaths. Of course Saddam took about 5 times longer to accomplish that.

Troops serving in Iraq: You can read into it what you like. Troops wishing for their comfy beds...or troops with no intelligence or understanding of the political realities. Just stupid soft troops wishing for home, right? I choose to think it indicates troops on the ground realize certain truths, such as the ones John Murtha is speaking of. You are assuming some higher vision because you repeat the neo-con/Bush narrative that Iraq is intricately woven into the war on terror and pulling out would be a defeat in the war on terror. Go beyond what's put in front of you KK. Gee KK, how do you find the time to blog here? Shouldn't you be at the Pentagon, privy to all the latest about the global operation? Please, get back to it soon! We need you at the helm. With all the inner circle knowledge you're privy to it's very heartening to hear your belief that the global operation is going better than you anticipated. You need to read a few books of people who've emerged from Bushs inner circle KK. Have you seen the video of Bushs briefing on Katrina, that's a little insight. If you think he's a cerebral guy who's weighing all the complicated nuances and intricacies of the world stage you're kidding yourself. Right now he's just thinking "I'm not leaving cause I'll look like a doofus if I do" and damn the realities.

Sorry, just remembering the last four years of impeachment talk and all with what - WMDS and stuff missing. Ya, things start with talk but you have to admit, the Democrats sure do a lot of yapping and get no results. Well, I guess I don't read the same news you do because I haven't seen four years of impeachment talk. Your point is not really useful beyond some cynical purpose anyway. Well again, I'm not sure what "last time" you are on about. But at this point we have a case of laws being broken and the constitution put forth as a defense. I have heard from many experts on the law, and all except those on the Presidents payroll say it is an empty defense. It's gone a little beyond whatever bloggers you've noticed previous "impeachment talk". I like the way you try to frame the wiretapping KK! "tapping phone calls of suspected terrorists". That's the narrative we're being fed, so it's heartening to see you repeat it. Problem is they haven't revealed exactly what they're doing. There's quite a bit of speculation (and perhaps even confirmation, I'd have to dig) that it has been more of a data-mining operation than a controlled targetting of suspected terrorists. If it was a controlled targetting of suspected terrorists then it will be interesting to hear why they couldn't use the FISA law. After November we should find out the true answer to that regardless of impeachment proceedings.

include the "somewhat agree" number and it jumps to 71%!! http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12874 And there's Bush out there laying the framework for the midterms by telling everyone he will continue with a pre-emptive doctrine. BooYeah! America is waking up. Pro-war/anti-environment idgits like Bush and the congressmen who support him will be out the door soon.