• Notes From Dave
  • my thoughts on some of the tough issues of short-term missions
  • God's Politics
  • jim wallis' smart, political, and God centered take on the issues of today
  • Progressive Eruptions
  • the liberal side of politics from shaw kenawe. a daily read of mine.
  • Conservatism With Heart
  • a conservative take on life and politics from a well connected missouri mom
  • Truthdig
  • left of center, and very informative. bob scheer's online journal
  • Coffee Klatch
  • home of the best coffee roaster in So. Cal. and where i learned to love coffee
  • The Coffee Geek
  • everything you need to know about coffee and how to make a great cup o' joe
  • Bleacher Report
  • varied sports blog, lots of attitude, and sometimes i'm a featured writer
  • Aubievegas
  • a mix of sports in general with a bent towards vegas and auburn
My Photo
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

I am a self proclaimed coffee addict and Executive Director of a non profit missions agency working primarily in the Mexican cities of Oaxaca, Guadalajara, and Ensenada. I've been married for over 30 years to Chelle, and we have one grown son, Joseph, a graduate of Auburn University in Alabama.

Powered by Blogger

Monday, May 09, 2011

Just Stop It!

[from the LA Times]

Stop it!

Enough is enough.

This constant carping from both sides of the political spectrum over who is to blame or who gets the credit is tearing us apart.

Are we not able when we see something good happen in America to simply step back a few moments and enjoy it? Or does each side of the political aisle have to look for way to score points?

It is as if people immediately fall into some type of Alice in Wonderland wormhole when their candidate, or party, is not in office.

Let me give you a couple of examples.

In early 2009 when Barack Obama was sworn in, GOP partisans instantly began calling the economy his, as if there had been no involvement, good or bad, from President Bush and the largely Republican Congress that had been in charge for 6 of the prior 8 years.

The Democrats, feeling outraged, chimed in almost immediately that perhaps it was unfair to criticize the new President for the economic anemia that had its roots in an earlier day. President Barack Obama was about as responsible for the economic failures of the US when he took office as I was.

And yet that did not stop the partisans from making that accusation. Barack Obama was almost singularly responsible for every financial problem we had and had personally wrecked this once great economy.

Fast forward a couple of years and let’s look at a more recent example, the successful raid and killing of Osama bin Laden last week.

I have watched the predictable back and forth since then and I am as disgusted now with the Democrats as I was then with the Republicans.

Beyond the facts that are known, and they are many, the blatant rush to claim political credit for the killing of this little turd is little more than another fine example of political revisionism and convenient memory loss.

It is as if, for many, George Bush and his team of people who worked tirelessly to find Osama bin Laden, streamline and connect our 12 million intelligence agencies never existed, or spent their days in office sipping margaritas on the beach.

If in 2009, President Barack Obama cannot be held responsible for all of the economic woes of our country, because of the policies of the past president, it would seem to follow that he also cannot get all of the credit for getting bin Laden, as much of the groundwork that led to his demise was begun during the Bush Administration.

But perhaps I am the one who has fallen into some other parallel universe.

Maybe my fervent hopes that as a people, we Americans of all political stripes could set aside our ideologies for the sake of compromise, pragmatism and a mutual search for the common good are just a pipe dream.

For more on this, check out this excellent piece from Tim Rutten, “Snapshot of a Split America.”

And then if you need a laugh, check out Bob Newhart's excellent advice in this video to someone suffering from psychological distress and apply his remedy to our politicians.

Labels: , , , , ,

Comments on "Just Stop It!"


Blogger BB-Idaho said ... (4:49 PM) : 

"But perhaps I am the one who has fallen into some other parallel universe."
No, you are in rational land, a tiny but logical place...the rest are in
lala land and gaga land...


Blogger Beth said ... (7:23 PM) : 

Unfortunately, I see no way out of the partisan people we have become. Truly, no way out.


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (7:43 PM) : 

Thanks BB...

Beth... I fear you may be right... in which case, it will only get worse...


Blogger Doug said ... (4:32 AM) : 

Dave, this would make a great campaign slogan "Just Stop It!"

You should run for president.

And we all already know how every debate and press conference will go too!

Now if we could only apply this to the NFL, all would be correct in the world.


Blogger tha malcontent said ... (5:32 AM) : 

The timing of both the Osama Raid and the releasing of the birth certificate and socking it to Donald Trump at the same time along with the start of Obama’s re-election campaign. Has to make one wonder. I don’t think that uou don't have to be a conspiracy theorists to question the timing of all this, but rather a person that asks questions.
You’d have to admit that all of this in one historical week is pretty darn amazing. Even for a man that is known to walk on water.


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (8:15 AM) : 

Doug, gracias mi amigo, but I do not think I would have enough time to do the job and continue to serve in Mexico...

I do think this could be an appropriate solution to the NFL, and soon to be NBA problems...

I forget who it was that had this quote, but it about sums it up...

Billionaires arguing with millionaires and we're the ones getting screwed...


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (8:35 AM) : 

Mal, you are guilty of a little revisionist history...

First of all, the birthers are not conspiracy nuts, they are just nuts!

Here's some facts...

1. For Barack Obama to obtain a US Passport, which he has had for a number of years, he would have had to prove his citizenship with a valid birth certificate!

2. Before he ran for President in 2008, Hawaiian officials from both the Republican and Democratic Parties examined the birth certificate that had already been released and judged it to be legitimate, legal, and conclusive proof that he was born in the United States.

3. For President Obama to have not been born in Hawaii, as his originally released birth certificate proved, would have required a choosing of Barack Obama within hours of his birth to be part of some nefarious scheme to defraud the United States of America.

4. Numerous people knew the family, attested to his birth, and there were acknowledgements in the local newspapers at the time.

I find it interesting that a large number of the GOP doubters on this, also call themselves Christian, accepting the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus as fact with much less information.

No Mal, I am sorry, the facts do not support yours, or anyone elses view that President Obama just released his birth certificate. That was done in 2008.

The facts also do not, and never supported the view that he was not born in the United States.

Perhaps a better question is why people continue to believe this story in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

As for Trump, it was the Correspondents Dinner. It is what you do.

Your desire, and that of other like minded conservatives and liberals to assign the worst motives to our politicians for political gain is what Rutten writes about in his article, and what, in my opinion, is tearing America apart.

Let's Just Stop It!


Blogger Tim said ... (8:52 AM) : 

Dave I am an independent who has been voting Democratic since 2000. The last two elections I have voted "straight Democratic ticket" on ballots. Why? Because of birthers, wars, deficits. I used to vote for the candidates individually, but EVERY Republican is either a nutjob or a prostitute of the wealthy. Reagan himself would be too left wing for today's Republicans.


Blogger tha malcontent said ... (9:21 AM) : 

And what in my opinion, is tearing America apart is Barack Hussein Obama...

So Let's Just Stop Him!


Blogger Doug said ... (9:32 AM) : 

Actually, I am one who thinks control of all legislative branches is a bad thing, regardless of party, and have voted accordingly.

It is unfortunate that the democratic process has gotten as bad as it has.

And I sometimes think that it is unfortunate that the Internet provides such un-filtered access to everybody. It tends to lend itself to abuse.

Hence the point of this post and article "Just Stop It".

However, I would be the last to suggest limiting free speech ; I just wish folks would get their facts straight once in a while - also regardless of party.


Blogger Z-man said ... (10:38 AM) : 

Dave most people would say what you just said, that partisanship is bad. We ALL say that but speaking for myself for the first two or three days after the raid I thought the President had finally done a good thing. Then on my drive home from work one evening I tuned into Mark Levin. Now granted you could make the case that he's partisan but a former Navy SEAL called up and the conversation turned into a fascinating one indeed. He made a good point, would Attorney General Eric Holder just give the SEAL team carte-blanche to just go into that compound and kill bin Laden right in front of his whole family? Bear in mind this is the same Eric Holder who's had a great problem with so-called enhanced interrogation techniques under Bush/Cheney. So then I started thinking there are an awful lot of questions and gaps of information in this case. However even if your objective analysis comes to the conclusion this wasn't conducted properly it gets spun as partisanship so you can't win. Of course in the same vein a lib couldn't legitimately criticize Bush over Iraq so that's where I'm coming from on all this.


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (12:03 PM) : 

Z, and there is where we find ourselves...

Distrusting, often with good reason, of the other.

But wasn't it Reagan who said, "Trust, but verify?"

How does that play out today?

Tim is right, Reagan would be a RINO today with his history of raising taxes and believing in compromise.

He would never get out of the primary battles.

And on the Dems side, JFK could never win the nomination today because he was very strong on self reliance ["Ask not what your country can do for, rather, what you can do for your country"] and lower taxes.

Doug, we indeed seem to be a country much happier with divided government.

Mal, could not the libs have made the charge about Bush? Actually they did.

Perhaps the results are never what we wanted, or expected, but I choose to believe all politicians, both GOP and from the Dems and others, go into this line of work with the idea of making a positive difference in the lives of Americans.

In my opinion, those that choose to believe that only the politicians with whom they agree want to improve America are just choosing to think badly and impute evil on others.


Blogger BB-Idaho said ... (1:57 PM) : 

When we elect a person, he
is (or should be) responsible for all his constituents..even those
that voted against him.
That is democracy 101.
When we start attacking a newly elected person before
he even is sworn in...
that is studity 101.


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (2:31 PM) : 

BB, and that has happened to both President Obama and President Bush...

Both were on the receiving end of many vicious attacks before they ever really got started...


Blogger Tim said ... (4:35 PM) : 

Mal, Obama was elected by a majority. It is crybaby Republicans who are tearing this country apart. It is also Republicans who made it impossible to conduct any trials of terrorists by refusing to bring them to the USA because they are a bunch of cowards quaking in their boots about security. They are chicken hawks.


Blogger BB-Idaho said ... (4:37 PM) : 

Well, Dave as I recall, the
election of 2000 was fairly
civil..until the vote recount/SCOTUS thing. In
2004 it was the war thing:
and true there was an 'Anybody but Bush' atmosphere and the noted
Swiftboaters. IMO, if Karl Rove is involved, prepare to play dirty. ..but I have yet to find 'vicious
attacks' on Bush..other than the pius arguments in this most peculiar place, and the questioning of his AWOL activities from the Air NG.
Guess I'm partisan and can't make the grade to
"Just Stop It!". :)


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (5:21 PM) : 

BB, I would argue that the start of most of this can be traced back to two people, Tip O'Neill and Newt Gingrich.

And television.

In the early 80's, Tip worked with President Reagan to push through a number of laws in a bi-partisan fashion. They respected each other.

But then television entered the arena and CSPAN started televising the House proceedings.

A young back bencher named newt Gingrich, tiring of never getting floor time to speechify, crafted a policy that had the GOP muckrakers giving highly partisan speeches late at night, because the cameras were available.

Once Tip figured this out, he was furious, because these mostly young Gingrich acolytes were acting as if, and presenting their speeches as if the chamber was full, when in fact, late at night, is was totally empty.

Tip then ordered the cameras to pan the room whenever a GOP rep. gave one of these late night speeches so that those watching could see that the speech was not to influence the House, rather it was solely for political consumption.

Not long after that, Newt with his storm troopers attacked the next Speaker, Jim Wright, produced the Contract with America, and here we are.

Mixed in this, long before Karl Rove, was Lee Atwater, who worked for daddy Bush.

Lee Atwater you may remember, was responsible for the Willie Horton ad and for bringing into the campaign Kitty Dukakis' mental illnesses, effectively killing her husbands chances of becoming President.

It is a fact that Lee Atwater admitted to and apologized for "Naked Cruelty" towards the Democratic standard bearer.

And from these roots, comes Karl Rove, the man most responsible for killing and chance McCain had at being President with his character assassinations in South Carolina.

And no Mal, I am not blaming anyone here. I am restating the factual record.

Now as for how GW was treated after his election, he was in fact treated badly throughout his Admin. Monkey photos, MAD magazine caricatures, questions about the legitimacy of his presidency, they were all there.

No where near as bad as they have been against President Obama, but there nonetheless.

I guess you could say the Dems were pretty hard on Nixon, but be serious, he was directly in a coverup of a felony! And his Admin was participating in it.

This is why I have no respect [NONE]for people who say Clinton or Obama are totally corrupt.

Either they are practicing selective memory loss, or they are just stupid. The Watergate scandal was a big deal. It brought down a Presidency because of a group of lying, corrupt, politicians who did not care what the Constitution said, or what the laws said, they wanted what they wanted and were determined to get it, at all costs.

Just like in Iran Contra, which almost brought down another Presidency.

Just facts...


Blogger Tim said ... (7:45 PM) : 

"This is why I have no respect [NONE]for people who say Clinton or Obama are totally corrupt.

Either they are practicing selective memory loss, or they are just stupid."

Dave, believe it, they are just stupid...


Blogger Tim said ... (7:48 PM) : 

Clinton was the best President (even better than Reagan, who was also a great president) since Kennedy. 8 years of no wars, an expanding economy, a balanced budget, need I go on?
Obama was handed a giant sh&t sandwich by Bush, and we are all having our bite of it.


Blogger Z-man said ... (7:00 AM) : 

Getting back to my point let me lay my cards on the table. I didn't vote for Obama and disagree with most of his policies so if I come to the conclusion that he authorized an improper raid in Abbottabad can't that be an objective conclusion on my part or am I just practicing my partisanship? Seems lke the imputing of motives, your classic gray area.


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (8:17 AM) : 

Z, perhaps it is tone and substance...

Your issue about whether the raid was legal or not is not the majority of partisans can even contemplate...

Because they are too wrapped up in scoring points and denigrating anything the other side does, good or bad...

I have been waiting for the violation of sovereignty argument to see when it would come up.

If it does, here is how i think it would play out.

The conservatives side would pooh pooh any criticism because we got the results we wanted.

But when they were pressed as to whether they believed this was a proper way for nations to deal with other nations, they would fall on the side of only America gets to make that call because we are always on the side of right...

I admit I was conflicted on the raid... glad we got him, worried about the implications..


Blogger BB-Idaho said ... (10:05 AM) : 

The US has not paid attention to international law since the Reagan Admin-
"After the court ruled that its covert war against Nicaragua was in violation of international law (Nicaragua v. United States), the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986."
..given the Mexican,
Spanish-American Wars,
chasing Pancho Villa,
Panama intervention..seems to be the norm.


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (11:04 AM) : 

BB, and thus my concerns about what admittedly is what I see as a problem more for the right currently, than the left.

If it is alright for us to take an action towards another country, based on what we feel is our national interest, would we affirm that it is legal, right, and proper, for another country to take equal action against us, based on what they believe is their national interest?

These are the types of questions and issues that just do not fit into nice neat black/white good/evil boxes that a lot of people seem to want to inhabit, because it is so much easier.

Once the questions get tough, those types of people resort to name calling, or just quit responding, because in spite of their wishes, there are no easy answers.

Immigration is a good example right now. Some conservative bloggers are upset that president Obama is calling for a comprehensive plan to deal with illegal immigration.

They say we should never give any form of amnesty and that all illegals should go home.

Yet when you try to talk about how to do that, and the realities of the problem, they just scream louder, refusing to even consider the many issues that are part of this.

But being partisan is much easier than sitting down and trying to understand the problem and working to get a solution.


Blogger BB-Idaho said ... (2:31 PM) : 

Tim used the term 'chickenhawk' above.
I think it is legitimate,
for we see disabled Dem combat vets
(Tammy Duckworth, Max Cleland, etc) losing to
GOP folk who never served, yet convinced voters that
they were more 'patriotic'.
..another of those catchwords getting tossed around. That's why I keep a
list ..
..partisan, I suppose?


Blogger Lista said ... (2:43 PM) : 

Nice Post, Dave. Next I'll have to Read all the Comments.


Blogger tha malcontent said ... (5:37 AM) : 

And were were you and all of your fellow libs/Progressives and whatever they are called these days when Bush was president, I didn't hear you say "Stop It" then.


Blogger dmarks said ... (8:38 AM) : 

Dave asked: "If it is alright for us to take an action towards another country, based on what we feel is our national interest, would we affirm that it is legal, right, and proper, for another country to take equal action against us, based on what they believe is their national interest?"

I tend to think of things whether or not they are in the interest of everyone, not just the US. And then, whether or not the action is a good thing, or a bad thing.


Blogger dmarks said ... (8:44 AM) : 

Tim said: "Clinton was the best President (even better than Reagan, who was also a great president) since Kennedy. 8 years of no wars, an expanding economy, a balanced budget, need I go on?
Obama was handed a giant sh&t sandwich by Bush, and we are all having our bite of it."

A little facts here? Clinton attacked a nation that never ever attacked us (Serbia). That's something Bush never did, and the actual history puts the lie to the claim of 8 years and no wars. Clinton also launched some large scale bombardment against Iraq to retaliate for their attacks. Before George W. Bush, Saddam had abandoned the cease-fire and was attacking us again, so that is another war also.

Clinton never ever balanced the budget. Check the treasury department figures. However, he did run up $1.6 trillion in new debt.

"Obama was handed a giant sh&t sandwich by Bush, and we are all having our bite of it."

Don't forget that Obama added a few more layers of shit to this sandwich. He chose to. He greatly increased the deficit: he could have cut the waste spending instead of increasing it, and has ignored the job situation. I've seen his "stimulus" efforts force small businesses out of business.


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (10:42 AM) : 

DMarks, when did Iraq attack the United States and where was that attack?


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (10:45 AM) : 

For the record, I am not considering shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone an attack worthy of an army of 150,000.

So I hope you have a real attack in your back pocket to bring up.

Let's remember, Russia did the same thing a while back to us, and we never felt a need to attack them, and we knew for sure they had nukes...


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (10:47 AM) : 

Sorry Mal, I did defend Bush against that type of attack. But the tone of your question belies an attitude that says they did it, so can we.

That is the problem, the underlying attitude.

An attitude looking to solve problems understands that both sides do, and that both sides are wrong.

You seem to be unable or unwilling to accept that concept. But if neither side can do that, we will never move forward.


Blogger dmarks said ... (11:09 AM) : 

Dave; Saddam ordered attacks on US and UK peacekeepers in the no-fly zones. An act of war and aggression against Americans.

It is as if after the end of WW2, the Emperor of Japan started to order the Japanese to try to kill Americans again.

"For the record, I am not considering shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone an attack worthy of an army of 150,000."

A matter of opinion, then. Iraq attacked us, now we agree. What sort of response was necessary, we can disagree. Certainly Clinton's large bombing effort did nothing to deter the attacks, convince Saddam to comply with inspections, give up on the idea of exterminating the Israelis and conquering Kuwait again, or end his involvement with terrorism. Though for the record, it wasn't a bad idea to do so. Yes, I'm giving credit to Clinton.

And no, I'm not criticizing Clinton for launching the wars in the former Yugoslavia. I mentioned it to point out the hypocrisy of those who bash Bush for attacking "a country that never attacked us" and saying nothing about Clinton, when in fact Bush attacked two countries that DID attack and Clinton is the one who attacked one that never attacked us at all.

In a similar light, consider a past US president who illegally armed rebels who were trying to fight off a brutal communist occupation of their country.

Reagan get criticized for this. Yet few mention that Clinton illegally armed the Croatians in "Krajina" who eventually repulsed the Serbian invasion.

The criticism all depends on what party someone is affiliated with.


Blogger tha malcontent said ... (10:00 AM) : 

Tim said...
Mal, Obama was elected by a majority. It is crybaby Republicans who are tearing this country apart. It is also Republicans who made it impossible to conduct any trials of terrorists by refusing to bring them to the USA because they are a bunch of cowards quaking in their boots about security. They are chicken hawks.

So the Republicans are a "Bunch of chicken hawks"?

Now isn't that the biggest piece of BS I've ever read.
Here is a breakdown of our Military, lets see who the REAL CHICKEN SHITS are

Democrat 14.4%
Independent 21.1%
Libertarian 3.1%
Republican 48.9%
Other 4%

I wonder if you ever spent even one day in the Military!


Blogger dmarks said ... (10:44 AM) : 

Mal: The "Chickenhawk" claims are bogus for two reasons:

1) Many of the so-called Republican "Chickenhawks" were actually never drafted at all. (Despite claims that these people dodged service)

2) It IS possible to make informed decisions as a legislator or President on combat matters without having seen combat.


The claims all in all are 100% misleading and have nothing to do with anything. They attempt to divert discussion from actual policies into instead discussing the supposed character of people making policy statements.

I for one don't care if a Georgia politician was a Vietnam vet or not: if he is promoting unwise policies that favor the terrorists, I will call him on it.


Blogger dmarks said ... (10:49 AM) : 

BB said: ".but I have yet to find 'vicious
attacks' on Bush..other than the pius arguments in this most peculiar place, and the questioning of his AWOL activities from the Air NG.
Guess I'm partisan and can't make the grade to
"Just Stop It!". :)"

Where were you from 2000 to 2008? I recall the calls for George W. Bush'a assassination and the clueless boobs who insisted that he wasn't really President.

As for "Bush's AWOL activites", there's no evidence, and this turned out to a a hoax after all.


Blogger tha malcontent said ... (3:49 PM) : 

Thank You dmark.

Have a nice weekend you all, I've been taking tests at my Doctors, for the past 2 days and I will be tomorrow as well, so I won't be blogging for a few days..


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (7:57 PM) : 

well some of this seems a little disjointed because of the blogger issues...

cuidate mal, and y'all have a great weekend...

tomorrow i'm starting to drill a well in Oaxaca...


Blogger BB-Idaho said ... (1:47 PM) : 

"I wonder if you ever spent even one day in the Military!"
yep, Mal: both enlisted and officer, a strange place in the remote desert and the pentagon. You?


Blogger tha malcontent said ... (7:08 AM) : 

This comment has been removed by the author.


Blogger tha malcontent said ... (8:14 AM) : 

I also spent time in the desert, lots of time. I was with the 5th Marine Brigade in the Gulf.
I asked that question only because you had the audacity to call an entire group of people (republicans)who served Chicken-Hawks.
And I would hesitate to call ANY other man or women who has served "chicken hawk".
Something I would never do to a fellow soldier.


Blogger Tim said ... (9:25 AM) : 

4 years in the USCG Mal, saving lives, breaking ice, and maintaining aids to navigation in the Great Lakes in all kinds of dangerous weather. Never believed in killing, so I put my life on the line saving (just sayin'). Way to totally miss my point and accusing me of calling veterans (who happen to vote Republican) chickenhawks when I'm referring to politicians of your party who have made it impossible to try KSM in NYC because they are afraid of another attack. I'll say it again, they are chickenhawks. Badass when when there is no danger to the homeland and peeing their pants when the time for guts really counts.


Blogger BB-Idaho said ... (12:01 PM) : 

'Chickenhawk' is probably a generational thing; when
I was in there was a draft;
you could enlist, hoping for a better deal, wait til
your number came up, get a deferment, go National Guard (which then was never deployed)..or go to Canada. Many of that generation are now in high
public office. Those that
got deferments, sometimes
several serially (list I linked) later became what
we term 'neocons': eager
to use American muscle, show the flag, send in troops. They were a subgroup of hawks called
chickenhawks. Frankly, IMO,
getting a deferment took
some clout or help; when I
was discharged, I ran some
labs at an Army Ammunition
Plant and lost a couple of
good scientists doing important defense work to
the draft, despite filling
in the requisite paperwork.
After the VN generation and the end of the draft,
we stopped producing the type called 'chickenhawk'.
If you served and are a neocon..you are a hawk,
no perjorative implied...


Blogger tha malcontent said ... (12:49 PM) : 

"Chickenhawks" =The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Generally, the implication is that "chickenhawks" lack the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.
The term was first applied to vocal supporters of military action who were perceived to have used family connections or college deferments to avoid serving in previous wars, particularly the Vietnam War. In current usage, the label is used almost exclusively to describe ardent supporters of the Iraq War who have themselves never been in combat; it is less often used to describe supporters of the more broadly supported war in Afghanistan as such. People who use the term have not necessarily been in the military themselves; people labeled "chickenhawks" have sometimes served in the military, but have not seen combat. Although it is possible to have a military career and never be at war, the term is often used in the context of someone who has been in the military in time of war but made efforts to steer clear of combat.

Lets be careful when we use therms such as that one. And not use it broadly


Blogger Tim said ... (3:41 PM) : 

In the context of my comment, Mal, I was referring to the Viet Nam era draft age politicians who are now "Neo Cons". BB, you have qualified my position perfectly. Pulling strings to get multiple deferments from the draft, or using connections to get state side duty in the National Guard, who were not deployed in the Nam.
However, if you are an ardent supporter of Iraq and are of an age to serve, then I think you are also a chickenhawk if you run your mouth about patriotism but do not join up and fight.

But back to my original point: Republicans politicians who have made it impossible for these terrorists in our custody to be tried in court citing "security concerns" are a bunch of pussies. You are telling me that they can not find a secure location on American soil to hold a trial? GMAFB! A true patriot respects the rule of law. Try them in court and execute them after they are found guilty. Personally, since KSM and his buddies offered to plead guilty I say let's do this thing and do it right. In court. Let's prove that we really are better than China, Iran, and other totalitarian dictatorships.


Blogger tha malcontent said ... (4:31 PM) : 

I'm sorry but I don't think we have to prove anything to anybody. Thats our trouble, we seem to always aim to please the next guy, the same guy that wants to chop off our hears and kill our children.
Let's stop taking the high road and worrying about what other countries think.


Blogger Tim said ... (2:59 PM) : 

Mal, if we do that we are just down in the gutter with the garbage. Maybe you are okay with that, but not me.


Blogger dmarks said ... (7:22 AM) : 

I'd be all for trying KSM in New York if:

1) the defense statements were limited to relevant comments, and weren't victory/propaganda speeches for the terrorists.

2) if the defense attorneys were decent and honest and ethical (i.e. no lying in the courtroom, no trying to get KSM to completely escape justice).


Blogger tha malcontent said ... (12:46 PM) : 

dmarks said...

I'd be all for trying KSM in New York if:

1) the defense statements were limited to relevant comments, and weren't victory/propaganda speeches for the terrorists.

But dmarks, that's EXACTLY how it will be. It will be a party of victory/propaganda speeches for the terrorists.


Blogger dmarks said ... (4:54 PM) : 

And.... Tim's right. Let's always take the high road. I see no reason at all not to.

Other than my misgivings about factors that would not make it a fair trial (i.e. one where justice was served).


Blogger Tim said ... (7:04 PM) : 

dmarks realizes that we are no better than these shithole despotic dictators if we arbitrarily throw people in jail forever with no trial (or just shoot them). bin Laden is THE exception that proves the rule. Still, he got on TV and admitted that he was responsible for 9/11. That would have been a total slam dunk in court. KSM, I could give a damn what he says in court to glorify his cause. Don't allow cameras in there. Let him spew and he still will lose his case and be found guilty anyway. If he wants to make a fool of himself fine, we all know that unless he can repute the case against him (which he can't) he is at the very least going to prison forever.


Blogger Tim said ... (7:09 PM) : 

I meant to say "refute". And really, let the lawyers do whatever they want. If the government can't prosecute this case and win, then they MUST be allies with al-Queada. Come on! How hard can it be to win this case?


Blogger dmarks said ... (6:02 AM) : 

Whether or not I agree with it all, Tim, you made some pretty good points there.

I typically don't mind cameras in the courtroom... but in this case... yeah keep them out.


post a comment