A federal judge struck down President Bush's authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutional and vague, according to a ruling released Tuesday.A Bush EO was unconstitutional and vague? Stop the presses, we have something that's news!
"This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists," said David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights that represented the group. "It was reminiscent of the McCarthy era."But wait, according to Ann Coulter, Joe McCarthy was a victim of a liberal witch hunt:
The myth of "McCarthyism" is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Sen. Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't hiding under the bed during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis. As Whittaker Chambers said: "Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does."If anyone knows about Orwellian frauds, it's Ms Coulter and the Conservatives. But hey, did you notice how she continued the McCarthy-ite attack? Liberals were guilty of treason because they denounced McCarthy.
Anyway back to Bush. The wingnuts over at freerepublic have already begun to seethe. Here's one response:
Well, ol' Audrey apparently wants more terrorists to get into the country and then kill thousands of more people so that we can all be "victims" again and feel good about it.Ah, there it is. Disagree with Bush and you want more terrorists to kill more Americans. Such rational thinking from the right. William F. Buckley must be so proud.
Meanwhile, there's this from The Hill (via talkingpointsmemo.com):
President Bush has pledged to work with the new Democratic majorities in Congress, but he has already gotten off on the wrong foot with Jim Webb, whose surprise victory over Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) tipped the Senate to the Democrats.Nice guy that Dubya. Asks a father about how his son is doing in the war he manipulated the nation into and then gets his panties in a knot when he doesn't hear the answer he wants to hear.
Webb, a decorated former Marine officer, hammered Allen and Bush over the unpopular war in Iraq while wearing his son’s old combat boots on the campaign trail. It seems the president may have some lingering resentment.
At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing.
Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb.
“I didn’t ask you that, I asked how he’s doing,” Bush retorted, according to the source.
The article goes on:
Webb confessed that he was so angered by this that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source, but of course didn’t. It’s safe to say, however, that Bush and Webb won’t be taking any overseas trips together anytime soon.To which Josh Marshal asks:
Can he vote on bills from Gitmo?How long before they Swiftboat Webb?
15 comments:
I wonder whether Ann Coulter thought s/he could revive the McCarthy paradigm in our country? The effort doesn't seem to have generated much public support so far.
Probably not. S/he was probably just throwing another right-wing bomb out there to attract attention and earn herself another $1.6 gazillion.
I've seen better spankings. If Webb wants to act like a jagoff to the President, that's his problem. Don't expect any favors from the Republican side of the aisle or the executive branch. Hell, even Schumer is civil towards the President.
I always admired Webb when he served under Reagan. I even read one of his Vietnam books years ago, and it was a good read.
He needs to simmer down though, to get anything accomplished.
BTW - Coulter's just a loon.
Coulter surely is a loon. I guess her books are bought by the same people who complain about the gratuitous carnage on the TV news and then tune in every night.
I don’t think I have read any of Webb’s books. Reading the exchange between Webb and Bush, I guess my reaction is: What did Webb expect? Still, Bush’s reported answer would seem to be unusually cruel to a parent with a child in Iraq. We know the President can show tremendous sympathy to grieving parents (or so it has been reported). But does it have to be at a time and place of his choosing, or is he capable of switching gears with a generic “his service is helping keep America safe” (and let Webb make the anti war gaffe)? It’s as if he said to Webb “don’t bring me down, man. Lighten up”.
I mean, I know this blog is pretty selective about what it posts about Bush, but it still consistently finds some reminders of how much of a light-weight Bush can be. At least he’s gotten rid of Rumsfeld. But I have been reading (sporadically) “Team of Rivals” and there’s just no comparison. I mean, even Gore went to Vietnam (as a reporter and smoked pot). I doubt even Gore would show the insensitivity that Bush is reported to have shown (of course, Gore possibly wouldn’t be in a second term).
I had a different take on it. My reading was that GW was asking a question to a parent of a Marine in harm's way, and did not want to start up a debate about the war in a receiving line.
Well, I think that one's position about who was being rude in that exchange will have a very strong correlation to one's position about the war and Mr. Bush in general.
Having said that and figuring the reader will already know my prejudice with regard to Mr. Bush, I suspect he actually was looking to pick a fight. Certainly he is aware of Webb's feelings about the war, and even he is not sufficiently dense to perceive that a remark like that could be taken as a tweak. If he didn't want to start a debate, he shouldn't have started a debate.
What's more, if he didn't like the reply he got, he could have ignored it or brushed it off. Of course, that might have put a dent in his machismo.
At least he didn't invite Webb to "bring it on."
On the subject of Coulter, I strongly disagree about looniness. S/he strikes me as a superb reader of the pulse of her audience, and has become a very wealthy person by pandering to it. Nothing loony about a few million more.
Now if it could be shown that s/he believes that crap, then I would agree we are dealing with a loon.
"At least he didn't invite Webb to "bring it on."
Which proves to me that if a Republican would say something about that if say, a Democrat were President; there would be bloody hell to pay. But then again, it's ok for a Democrat to say things like the way Webb did because when you're a Democrat, it's *just* different.
Well, Xranger, I see your point, there's no telling the context in a third hand report. It is certainly possible that either gentleman could have been rude. I would have to say Bush's original question was simple courtesy. Webb's could have been belligerent or more anguished, we'll likely never know.
Bush's occasional prickliness has been widely reported. To be sure, it is simply a personality thing and has nothing to do with his abilities as president, good or bad.
Bush's reported response to Webb still strikes me as at least awkward, but considering I'm not reading it in a major news source I will take it with at least a grain of salt (bad for my BP).
Again, D-L shows his near complete ignorance.
He wrote:Which proves to me that if a Republican would say something about that if say, a Democrat were President; there would be bloody hell to pay.
I'm not surprised that he didn't know that that DID, in fact, happen. In 1994, REPUBLICAN SENATOR Jesse Helms threatened DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT Bill Clinton.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981957,00.html
He must've missed that at the weekly wing-nut circle-jerk.
The Webb/Bush thing has been overblown. It really is impossible to know the context and it does sound like Bush was, initially at least, trying to be courteous. Sounds to me like they were both being hard-headed.
As for D-L, I'm not a fan of banning, because I typically think that's a crap move that is used to get rid of people who are making valid arguments. But this is a different case because he never supports anything he says with anything remotely resembling a fact.
He just parrots GOP talking points.
xranger clearly has different ideas than many people who visit this blog, but he mostly supports his arguments with coherent thoughts. At this point, D-L is just an annoyance with no real interest in having any sort of reasoned debate.
I know I used the term "coward" last week to describe the likes of Democrats-Lie, and I'll try to avoid that. But his comments are just so far off of the deep end at this point that it seems to warrant a consideration, at least, of banning.
We have a weekly wing-nut circle-jerk?
Huh.
I am completely opposed to banning anyone from any public forum for any reason short of physical violence, which is very difficult through the HTTP protocol.
So what if he never had an original idea in his life? So what if he just says the same stupid, hateful things over and over again. All you have to do is ignore his posts. (The more sophisticated among us can learn to be amused by them.) And by banning him, you would actually be validating his right-wing paranoia.
The answer to unpopular speech is always more speech, not censorship.
Restricting speech is an extremely illiberal thing to do. If we believe in the Constitution, we should live by its principles ourselves, and let even people with tiny little brains waste their time and electrons in our discussions.
Besides, it's fun to ridicule him.
As far as your characterization of x is concerned, I completely disagree. His posts lately have been well-written, reasoned, reasoned, and even humorous. He can't help it if he's usually wrong. (Just kidding, x. We both know you're always wrong. (:^)} What's the point of a debate if there's no one taking the other side?
Personal to x: I thought you knew about the Thu night meeting. I got invited once. They even let me bring the cracker.
Oops, I hit the wrong button. That was supposed to be "reasoned, reasonable", not "reasoned, reasoned"
Schmuck, you make good points about banning.
As for my characterization of xranger, I said this:
"xranger clearly has different ideas than many people who visit this blog, but he mostly supports his arguments with coherent thoughts."
Not sure how that is disparaging in any way.
Whigs, you are correct and I apologize for misreading. I saw the reference to x and the following disparaging comments; but I missed the fact that you had changed back to talking about our dear friend Master Lie.
I promise to read more carefully from now on.
Post a Comment