Wednesday, October 18, 2006

putting their liberal agenda ahead of the security of America

* billmon:
Let's review. We have:

The head of the FBI's national security branch
The Vice Chairman of the House Intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence.
The Chairwoman of the House Intelligence subcommittee charged with overseeing the C.I.A.’s recruiting efforts in the Islamic world

And they each know less -- probably much less -- about the most critical religious divide (Sunni/Shia) in the Middle East (the same one that is currently getting U.S. soldiers killed at the rate of about three a day) than your average commentator at Little Green Footballs.
(he's not kidding)

* read froomkin today.

* hastert:
""The Democratic plan would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent Americans' lives. While House Republicans work to deal with these dangers like establishing Terrorist Tribunals that will prosecute enemies of America, Democrat Leader Pelosi and 159 of her colleagues voted in favor of NEW rights for terrorists.

"The House Democrat Leader does not understand that our fight for freedom does not just happen on the battlefield but also on the floor of the House of Representatives. It should come as no surprise that the Democrats in the House put their liberal agenda ahead of the security of America.""


* glenn:

"When I first began blogging, I believed -- and frequently argued -- that the best strategy for imposing real limits on the excesses of the Bush administration was to attract the support of the group of GOP Senators who did not appear to subscribe to the most extreme elements of the Bush agenda. I was operating on the assumption that certain excesses would be so intolerable and repugnant to their worldview that they would be virtually compelled, by their own consciences and sense of personal dignity if nothing else, to take a real stand, partisan allegiances notwithstanding. From Iraq to torture to warrantless eavesdropping and many things in between, it has been conclusively established that those assumptions were fundamentally false."


noise said...

The Soros piece in part explains why Hastert gets away with his bluster. Soros suggests the Dems weak opposition to the Bush administration is due to their fear of being characterized as "weak on terror."

Sure. Whatever.

Here are the two most common talking points:

The Bush administration has made a series of "mistakes" and the Dems stood by as Bush policies got thousands of human beings killed because they didn't want to be perceived as "soft on terror."

Terrorism exists and there are lots of dangerous groups out there who have no remorse about killing civilians.

Those tactics/groups existed before 9/11. Furthermore, all the remedies to "prevent another 9/11" are based on false premises. If the premises are false, then the WoT itself must be called into question.

I may be wrong but IMHO the WoT is likely a corporate globalization agenda disguised by way of propaganda, appeals to nationalism/patriotism with some fearmongering thrown in for good measure.

lukery said...

thnx mate. fp'd