Does anyone really pay attention when De Lay opens his mouth?
He’s even further right than Gingrich was.
He even called in Homeland security to find the missing Dems.
The more I learn about Tom Delay, the more I think he’s simply an ass. The man will do anything to win, including throwing democratic principles (note the small d) out the window. On this latest bit of verbal excrement, I have a few thoughts:
1.) The Democrats have consistently fought for more money for a host of Homeland security measures than Bush has allowed. Check out port and airline security if you don’t believe me.
2.) Graham’s remark was something like “if the charges that Bush intentionally mislead the American people are true, then under then now watered down standards, impeachment would be appropriate.” I distinctly remember the “if” even if the rest is a bit hazy. Given that, I’m not sure what the problem is. Misleading the country on issues of war and peace a la Johnson seems more important than Clinton’s shenanigans.
3.) Kucinich has long been recognized as a nut.
4.) I’d love to see a cite on his Kerry remark
5.) I recently had the extreme misfortune of sitting through a 3.5 hour committee hearing on intelligence sharing. Let me assure you that neither the DHS, FBI, CIA, or even TTIC has a clear idea of how intelligence is supposed to be shared, they rely on a very ad hoc approach, nor any clear method of disseminating threat information to the public, that both the FBI and DHS claimed responsibility for this function did not prevent several representatives from passing along complaints from their first responders for bad and out of date information.
6.) Bush has been getting it from the Israel caucus for some time without any retribution. For those following this issue, it may be possible to recall Bush’s statement that Israel’s targeted assassination policy was counterproductive. In response, Delay et al reamed him for it. The child tax credit was a far bigger issue and Delay didn’t hesitate to oppose Bush there either. Despite being him being a pain in the ass, Bush will keep him despite this as well.
To December’s points
1.) The democrats are doing a lot on HS and the war on terror, they just can’t celebrate it with foolish theatrics like carrier landings
2.) This isn’t intended to hurt the democrats, this is aimed at the RR. Bush needs to appear above the fray and moderate so now, as on the assault weapons ban renewal, Bush is letting Delay and company satisfy the radicals and take the hits.
Tax cut primarily for the wealthy, and a war that was justified by questionable intelligence, if not outright lies. How does this show Bush beating Democrats “like rented mules?”
Is this a demonstration of the Republicans ignoring other forms of terrorism?
In any case, I think you’ll have a very hard time showing that Democrats are ignoring or refuting that terrorism (Not just “islamic terrorism”) is a risk. At best, I think you’d find some saying that it’s not the hugely over-blown risk that it’s being presented as by the current administration.
As far as terrorist groups go, yes. That does not change the fact that it’s a small group, especially if we are comparing it to the US, as my statement was. Nice way to completely dodge the rhetoric issue, though.
There have been plenty of ideas promoted for dealing with terrorism (Again, not just the blinders-on “islamic terrorism”), which have generally been rejected (Most were, I guess, too “defensive”). However, since the Democrats aren’t in power currently, and partisan fighting between the two political groups will pretty much killl support for any proposition proposed by an opponent, I don’t know what you expect them to do.
True enemy of the country. That’s a laugh. Saddam hasn’t posed a serious threat to the US. And seeing as their “political adversary” is running the country, and taking it down all sorts of paths that many see as being quite deletrious or destructive to the nation, it makes perfect sense to be opposed to him, and simply dismissing it as being “concerned about a political adversary” instead of a “true enemy” is a horribly narrow presentation of it, if not an outright strawman.
Ahh. Well, that would explain why I had no clue what you were refering to. A more honest person might have noted that particular “fact” was used a fair bit in the past 9 months, prior to its outing as a hoax, to promote the invasion of another country. Hardly irrelevant, and certainly not something ten years in the past, as your post made it sound.
Saddam, sure. Osama bin Laden, not so sure. al’Qaeda has still carried out attacks, we have no clue where most of their infrastructure is now, and by US intelligence reports, al’Qaeda’s recruiting has risen since the whole march to war began.
Okay, I looked at that cite, and I’d say, that doesn’t quite cut it. It quotes only part of the bill. Looking at the full bill, I’m much less impressed. In fact, saying it was a bill to “ban mind-controll satelites” is more than just a simplification. It’s a ban on ALL space-based weapon systems. The majority of the original bill was taken up with defining various systems, from well-known (Kinetic, explosive, high-energy lasers, NBC weapons, etc), less-known (EMP, microwave lasers, psi-ops, etc), and theoretical/undeveloped weapons (Tectonic, climate, and psycotronic).
In any case, it looks as if your claim that he is now calling for the banning of mind-control weapons in space is false. The bill you cite was an original draft. The current bill (Easily found through your own google search) has no mention of such weapons (Though it does leave an out for itself, with “directing a source of energy against that object or person” and “any other undeveloped means.”)
(On preview, I wish I’d said what elucidator said…)
In any case, one could dig up plenty of equally “weird” propositions from Republicans. Neither side has a lack of idots, you know.
Really? If you’re simply going by what has been posted in this thread, I would say you have almost no idea what my POV is on those subjects, and it’s a bit presumptuous of you.
Because, you know, Bush supporters desperately WANT to be had, hook, rope and sinker. Only in this way can they demonstrate that their loyalty is, in fact, with the guy on top, and not with the country.
Or that it should be adressed differently than a bunch of scare-mongering law- and order- fanatics who never, ever, had the slightest experience dealing with terrorism successfully want to deal with it.
Not to mention that that fact was found to be false already well before the war started. But Bush supporters were too busy drooling for some Iraqi blood to flow on TV and waiting for some cruise missile impacts to realize that.
Appreciate your POV, Telcontar. A rew quibbles,
Yes, the Dems do favor spending more money domestically. But, I think there is no Democratic position on how to actually defeat the terrorist.
Yes, I remember the “If.” But, that’s not enough to undo the impact of his comment. Raising the subject of impeachment, even hypothetically, is a strong position, which I believe is outlandish. Maybe Graham needs to be more careful about answering hypothetical questions.
Fair point. Still, the Dems look like they have been grudging in their support for Bush foreign policy.
You may be right.
Phoenix Dragon, your argument should be turned around. The worse Bush’s policies, the more impressive his political victories. If Bush’s tax cut is primarily for wealthy Republicans, then he beat the Democrats on this issue by getting them to vote for it. If the Iraq war was really for the benefit of certain Bush supporters, then Bush beat the Democrats by getting them to authorize it.
You say “There have been plenty of ideas promoted for dealing with terrorism.” I assume you mean “promoted by Democrats”. I can’t think of any Democratic ideas for dealing with terrorism. Can you list a few?
In what way is what you think is the case an actual argument? And in what way do the Republicans have a position, aside from using the very same means that have proven to be unsuitable wherever they have been tried, from Northern Ireland to Israel?
It didn’t seem to be outlandish for Republicans in their mudslinging campaign against Clinton.
Possibly because Bush’s foreign policy, to a large degree, has been counterproductive?
In other words, Bush has a strategy for dealing with terror that you don’t like. But, AFAIK the Democrats have no strategy at all.
Clinton committed perjury- a felony.
Perhaps so. But, in order to be taken seriously, the Dems should be offering an alternative foreign policy approach, not just whinging.
I’m not really sure that I understand “strategy for dealing with terror”. I’ve never been convinced that “terror” is something that it is possible to fight a war against, and “strategy for dealine with terror” seems to allude to the same thing. Maybe the Democrats reject the world view within which this “strategy” is being formulated? (just speculating, don’t consider myself an expert about what the Dems think about anything).
December, you didn’t seem to come back on the view that the strategy you talk of has been proven again and again to fail when dealing with terrorism. Would you consider a proven bad strategy to be better than no strategy?
Force has had mixed results in fighting terrorism. It worked against post-war Nazi Germany, although it took 3 years to fully defeat the “werewolves.”
Yes. Some problems can only be solved by “bad strategies.”
It is patently untrue that “The Democrats” have no strategy for fighting a war on terrorism. I’ve heard many proposals from the Democrats which address terrorism. Then again, if fighting a war in Iraq is proposed as an arm of the war on terrorism, then anything from tax cuts to health care to insurance reform can be considered an arm of the war on terrorism.
John Edwards has a plan for reorganizing the Department of Homeland Security. Bob Graham is a big advocate of going after Hezbollah and militant groups in Syria and Egypt. Kucinich wants to start a Department of Peace. Most Democrats have said that they would seek the UN’s help in rebuilding Iraq. I haven’t heard a word against the war in Afghanistan, but I have heard many Democrats talking about how Iraq has distracted us from the seemingly more important reconstruction there.
Top liberal thinkers have come up with plans for defeating terrorism. It hasn’t been hard to find these. They make up the op-ed columns in many major newspapers every week. We should involve the UN, we should set up civilian rebuilding corps, we should link economic aid to liberal reforms, we should take it up with the ICC, etc. etc.
First and foremost, though, is the fact that we are still over 15 months from an election. We haven’t even seriously started talking about primaries. The candidates have made their talking points known, but they can’t be expected to have fully fleshed out foreign and domestic policy at this point. Saying that they should (and even referencing the candidates at this point, before the primaries) is ludicrous.
The Republicans (and Delay’s ilk especially) more and more are portraying any kind of democratic opposition as high sedition. Note the title of Ann Coulter’s new book (Treason). It’s like they expect the Democrats to just lie down and let Bush and his party do what they want for the next 5 years, just because we were attacked on 9/11. My prediction is that things are going to get really, really messy before next November.
I have carefully examined this statement. Front to back, back to front. I took it apart with a hammer. Yes, it was made up of words, correctly fitted as far as the rules of grammer, as are many remarks that are cogent and reasonable. I have even passed a tri-corder over it, scanning for elements of logic. Even at the “Republican” setting, there was no detectable presence. (Passed over the SOTA, registers .0012, so calibration is not at issue.) This statement makes no sense.
There is no other interpretation: Cognitive Dissonance has struck again, and claimed another victim. When will you people listen? This epidemic is a plague, a mortal danger to the Republic! I urge you to contact your local branch of the Mother’s March Against Cognitive Dissonance!
Today it was december! You could be next!
The Werewolves were not terrorists. They were guerillas. Though I do believe in principle that force can be used effectively against terrorist groups, depending on the nature of the grou (for instance, it seems the latest “cease-fire” by HAMAS is a direct result of Israel having smashed their infrastructure and killed or at least credibly threatened their leadership).
Cute post, albeit based on an intentional misunderstanding of what I wrote. That’s meant as a compliment. I believe you are quite intelligent enough not to have really misunderstood my point.
Compulsory vaccination is a bad strategy. It’s a violation of civil liberties. Some people will be harmed or killed due to side effects of the vaccine. But, the government has sometimes forced everyone to be vaccinated in order to avoid an epidemic, which would be even worse.
War is a bad strategy. It results in many, many deaths and injuries and widespread destruction. Mistakes invariably occur, with tragic consequences. “War is Hell.”
Yet, sometimes war is the best one can do. War was a necessary bad strategy in 1941. I regret that the US didn’t adopt that “bad strategy” 5 or 6 years earlier, when they could have saved millions of people from concentration camps and genocide.
The Civil War was bad strategy. It caused more American deaths than any other war in our history. But, it saved the Union and it ended slavery.
I think the war on terror is another necessary bad strategy. edwino points out that Democrats have ideas for Homeland Security, for UN involvement, for internal restructuring, etc. These may or may or may not be good moves. But, they’re side issues. As far as I can see, our essential choice is to go to war against the terrorists and their allies or to not go to war against them.
I believe the Gentleman from Texas spells his name Tom “Barney Fag” DeLay.
December, have you got any evidence that Iraq was a threat to the US, or its interests?
We’d be very interested to hear it if you do. As, I’m certain, would the entire planet.
As things stand, we have absolutely no evidence that the war on Iraq would have any negative effects on worldwide terrorism whatsoever. Lashing out blindly at convenient targets does not an effective strategy make.
Wait… that was Dick Armey.
Note to self: do not go in to GD after fifth Sierra Nevada.
Of course I do. Iraq’s past actions show a pattern of activity that suggest that they could be a threat to the US and our allies. E.g., here are 11 items for starters,[ol][li]Seeking nuclear weapons.[]Building an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons[]Use of chemical weapons.[]Brutal invasion of Kuwait[]Brutal invasion of Iran[]Failure to obey Security Council demands and its own 1991 peace accord comitments[]Firing on US reconnaisance planes[]Support for middle east terrorism[]Anti-American comments and displays[]Some degree of contact between al Qaeda and Saddam’s government.[]Baath party expressions of support toward al Qaeda’s anti-American terrorism.[/ol][/li][quote]
As things stand, we have absolutely no evidence that the war on Iraq would have any negative effects on worldwide terrorism whatsoever. Lashing out blindly at convenient targets does not an effective strategy make.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a valid POV, aothough I don’t agree. There may be some Democrats who have come right out and said what you just did, but not many. Most of the Democratic Presidential candidates are sniping at Bush’s policy problems, but without offering a clearcut alternative.
Priceless, although I may have to rethink my support for Al Sharpton in the Democratic primary. 
Shouldn’t we have expected more from a man who promised to work together with Democrats on resolving important issues?
I am reminded of the line from My Fair Lady. “I think you’ve picked a poor example, sir.”
Determining that Clinton committed perjury required an investigation during which the subject of impeachment was raised several times. The truth had to be determined.
Why do you consider the use of the term “impeachment” outlandish when it is quite possible that the President of the United States deliberately lied to Congress and to the citizens of the United States? There are investigations going on. For what purpose: To determine if this President intentionally led our country into an unnecessary war that required and continues to require the deaths of members of our military, the military of other countries, and countless innocent civilians, possibly for the purpose of personal gain.
But at least he didn’t commit purjury about his sex life!
Could be is not was. The criteria are constituting a CLEAR and PRESENT danger. Paranoia is not a justification for war.
No evidence whatsoever that any remotely successful step was taken since the last inspection.
See above.
Outdated, and happened under very specific circumstances, namely a threat to Saddam Hussein’s power.
Invalidated by the invasion of Iraq.
Invalid argument, since the US behaved likewise.
What support existed was negligible compared to that of others.
I see. To hell with free speech if its against us. Remind us what was so bad about Saddam?
Unproven to any meaningful extent.
Ok, so as far as you are concerned, an invasion in the US is justified by support for an illegal invasion in the Netherlands by members of the US legislature?
Maybe. Or maybe you are purposefully not informing yourself on the alternatives offered.