Comments on: Fact-Checking the National Security Strategy http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:02:48 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Naked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-4885168 Naked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked Sun, 13 Apr 2008 05:26:35 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-4885168 <strong>Naked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked</strong> I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view Naked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

]]> By: Jack http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-4835936 Jack Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:06:32 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-4835936 <strong>Jack</strong> Brilliant information and great site to visit. Informative and attractive layout. Jack

Brilliant information and great site to visit. Informative and attractive layout.

]]> By: Teen Girls Black Teens Kiss Lesbian Teen http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-4807998 Teen Girls Black Teens Kiss Lesbian Teen Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:33:18 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-4807998 <strong>Teen Girls Black Teens Kiss Lesbian Teen</strong> I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view Teen Girls Black Teens Kiss Lesbian Teen

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

]]> By: Michael Keenan http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-482656 Michael Keenan Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:03:14 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-482656 I come from Nixon's old congressional district and as God is my Fuhrer believe that: We are in a state of constitutional crisis. For Rumsfeld to lobby on intelligence reform and now have military acts off the books means that the "linchpin" of the constitution, the taxing and spending powers of Congress, of raising standing armies, has now been violated. My Congressman David Dreier now has no way to effect my Liberty nor my Republic. Our constitution was specifically designed to avoid this combination of the President's office with the Defense Department; that the King shall not have his own standing army to send willy-nilly to wherever he thinks he has the pleasure too. That is why I can never believe the neo-cons or Alitos et al., claims to absolute presidential power as Commander-and-Chief even during war. The claim of inherent power of the president has already been settled under Nixon's attempt during the so-called Vietnam War. As Nixon’s assistant attorney general Rehnquist made the argument of inherent power to wiretap the White Panther Party without a warrant – during a war. This power, which was claimed to be held, under the President’s Oath of Office, was rejected by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision against suspending all or parts of the Constitution. Because this was Rehnquist’s argument as assistant attorney general he had to recuse himself from his very first decision after being appointed to the Supreme Court and rightly so. And guess what? America was still standing in the morning after this and Nixon's resignation avoiding his impeachment. This is in spite of a average of 6 bombings a day, 86 killed policemen, and a record 33,604 thousand injuries between the fall of 1969 and spring of 1970 by our own citizens protesting over the illegal invasion of Cambodia. Unfortunately, Rehnquist conveniently ignores this when he reviews his history of the power of the President during war. He brings up WWI and WWII in this review. But, for some reason, he completely skips how his “inherent” argument on presidential power was slapped down by the Supreme Court during the undeclared, illegal and immoral so-called Vietnam War. This is bald face intellectual dishonesty, if not outright historical revisionism, that completely belies the important decision on the necessity of War - not to mention the young lives thrown willy-nilly into harm's way. And so much for a responsible versus an irresponsible debate Mr.Bush. That is why I completely reject the neo-con's medieval thesis that constitutional government is too weak to survive in a difficult world and that we should defer to a sole sovereign power since 9/11. We have become weaker since taking on this post 9/11 repeat of Rehnquist's "in terrorem" position. (I would like to read his memo on the subject of presidential power and the invasion of Cambodia but alas that memo has disappeared, nowhere to be found on the Internet. The persuasive force of his ideas no longer count I can only suppose). I only fear that our new Supreme Court justices Roberts and Alito will take what was a tragedy we survived and turn a repeated claim of 18th century inherent power into a farce that destroys the sheet anchor of our Republic - our precious Constitution – along with the Bill of Rights. Censure is indeed warranted. Nixon would have approved! I come from Nixon’s old congressional district and as God is my Fuhrer believe that:

We are in a state of constitutional crisis. For Rumsfeld to lobby on intelligence reform and now have military acts off the books means that the “linchpin” of the constitution, the taxing and spending powers of Congress, of raising standing armies, has now been violated. My Congressman David Dreier now has no way to effect my Liberty nor my Republic.

Our constitution was specifically designed to avoid this combination of the President’s office with the Defense Department; that the King shall not have his own standing army to send willy-nilly to wherever he thinks he has the pleasure too. That is why I can never believe the neo-cons or Alitos et al., claims to absolute presidential power as Commander-and-Chief even during war. The claim of inherent power of the president has already been settled under Nixon’s attempt during the so-called Vietnam War. As Nixon’s assistant attorney general Rehnquist made the argument of inherent power to wiretap the White Panther Party without a warrant – during a war. This power, which was claimed to be held, under the President’s Oath of Office, was rejected by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision against suspending all or parts of the Constitution. Because this was Rehnquist’s argument as assistant attorney general he had to recuse himself from his very first decision after being appointed to the Supreme Court and rightly so. And guess what? America was still standing in the morning after this and Nixon’s resignation avoiding his impeachment. This is in spite of a average of 6 bombings a day, 86 killed policemen, and a record 33,604 thousand injuries between the fall of 1969 and spring of 1970 by our own citizens protesting over the illegal invasion of Cambodia.

Unfortunately, Rehnquist conveniently ignores this when he reviews his history of the power of the President during war. He brings up WWI and WWII in this review. But, for some reason, he completely skips how his “inherent” argument on presidential power was slapped down by the Supreme Court during the undeclared, illegal and immoral so-called Vietnam War. This is bald face intellectual dishonesty, if not outright historical revisionism, that completely belies the important decision on the necessity of War – not to mention the young lives thrown willy-nilly into harm’s way. And so much for a responsible versus an irresponsible debate Mr.Bush. That is why I completely reject the neo-con’s medieval thesis that constitutional government is too weak to survive in a difficult world and that we should defer to a sole sovereign power since 9/11. We have become weaker since taking on this post 9/11 repeat of Rehnquist’s “in terrorem” position. (I would like to read his memo on the subject of presidential power and the invasion of Cambodia but alas that memo has disappeared, nowhere to be found on the Internet. The persuasive force of his ideas no longer count I can only suppose). I only fear that our new Supreme Court justices Roberts and Alito will take what was a tragedy we survived and turn a repeated claim of 18th century inherent power into a farce that destroys the sheet anchor of our Republic – our precious Constitution – along with the Bill of Rights.

Censure is indeed warranted. Nixon would have approved!

]]> By: Michael Keenan http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-482651 Michael Keenan Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:58:15 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-482651 Can you say "The Long Bambozzle." Can you say “The Long Bambozzle.”

]]> By: Cafe Politico » Bush’s latest PR stunt http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-478489 Cafe Politico » Bush’s latest PR stunt Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:47:34 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-478489 [...] Think Progress does some basic fact-checking and calls the new NSS what it is- a PR stunt to rehabilitate Bush’s piss-poor poll numbers. And the only way the GOP thinks they can do that is by reminding Americans that we are at war (and of course, it’s unpatriotic to criticize a President while we are at war! How convenient!) and that well, we are at war. [...] [...] Think Progress does some basic fact-checking and calls the new NSS what it is- a PR stunt to rehabilitate Bush’s piss-poor poll numbers. And the only way the GOP thinks they can do that is by reminding Americans that we are at war (and of course, it’s unpatriotic to criticize a President while we are at war! How convenient!) and that well, we are at war. [...]

]]> By: west virginia hillbilly http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-478065 west virginia hillbilly Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:59:13 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-478065 OOPS! concerned with our intentions. OOPS! concerned with our intentions.

]]> By: west virginia hillbilly http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-478058 west virginia hillbilly Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:46:34 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-478058 In Americas pursuit of its "manifest destiny" all nations should be concerned with our intensions. In Americas pursuit of its “manifest destiny” all nations should be concerned with our intensions.

]]> By: Lora http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-478041 Lora Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:26:09 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-478041 #64 I was just being sarcastic in referring to Mighty Hypocrite as an attorney, as he/she claims. I already made my case on another thread for why I don't think Mighty is a woman--especially a woman with a professional degree. A "professional woman" of another sort perhaps, but definitely not one with a professional degree. And, yes, let's not insult mail clerks. #64
I was just being sarcastic in referring to Mighty Hypocrite as an attorney, as he/she claims. I already made my case on another thread for why I don’t think Mighty is a woman–especially a woman with a professional degree. A “professional woman” of another sort perhaps, but definitely not one with a professional degree. And, yes, let’s not insult mail clerks.

]]> By: progressive and proud http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-478018 progressive and proud Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:03:54 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-478018 Attorney? I don't think so. There are stupid attorneys all over the nation but as I am in the legal field, I've never seen one with such a weak grasp of the English language. The over punctuation says mail clerk, at best. And I don't want to insult any mail clerks. Aphro is no woman and no attorney. I'm thinking, by the over the top emoting, he is just a pimply-faced college kid. You know the young republican type. Attorney? I don’t think so. There are stupid attorneys all over the nation but as I am in the legal field, I’ve never seen one with such a weak grasp of the English language. The over punctuation says mail clerk, at best. And I don’t want to insult any mail clerks.

Aphro is no woman and no attorney. I’m thinking, by the over the top emoting, he is just a pimply-faced college kid. You know the young republican type.

]]> By: Lora http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-477996 Lora Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:29:48 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-477996 could those who wish to fulment (SIC) Civil War actually have stolen them?? Could some of them be trying to stir the cauldron??? Nah…… Comment by mighty hypocrite — To Mighty Hypocrite, Someone already pointed out to you on a previous thread that "fulment" is not an English word and that perhaps you mean "foment." For a so-called attorney wiho boasts about her/his excellent private school school education, you certainly are a slow learner--that is, if you learn at all. I also noticed you and the other usual trolls posted nothing on the news about the GOP's defeat of a Rep. Sabo's bill to increase funding for port security. It seems that you reichwingers shut up when real proof of how little the GOP is actually doing to protect the US pops up. could those who wish to fulment (SIC) Civil War actually have stolen them?? Could some of them be trying to stir the cauldron??? Nah……

Comment by mighty hypocrite —

To Mighty Hypocrite,

Someone already pointed out to you on a previous thread that “fulment” is not an English word and that perhaps you mean “foment.” For a so-called attorney wiho boasts about her/his excellent private school school education, you certainly are a slow learner–that is, if you learn at all.
I also noticed you and the other usual trolls posted nothing on the news about the GOP’s defeat of a Rep. Sabo’s bill to increase funding for port security. It seems that you reichwingers shut up when real proof of how little the GOP is actually doing to protect the US pops up.

]]> By: Bruce Gorton http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-477959 Bruce Gorton Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:10:13 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-477959 Thing that got me was that was clearly not Straw man. A argument could prehaps be made for reductio ad absurdum (Which isn't always a logical fallacy), but not straw man. Straw man is where you define your opponent based upon made up facts and spin, and then attack your opponent based on that definition. It is in essence, precisely what Bush did to Kerry in 2004, and precisely what the conservatives have been doing to liberals from time imemorial. Thing that got me was that was clearly not Straw man. A argument could prehaps be made for reductio ad absurdum (Which isn’t always a logical fallacy), but not straw man. Straw man is where you define your opponent based upon made up facts and spin, and then attack your opponent based on that definition.

It is in essence, precisely what Bush did to Kerry in 2004, and precisely what the conservatives have been doing to liberals from time imemorial.

]]> By: Old Woman http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-477867 Old Woman Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:36:30 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-477867 Don't blame liberals and progressives for the unholy mess in Iraq. Let's give credit where credit is due. Georgie, you're doin a heckuva job! Don’t blame liberals and progressives for the unholy mess in Iraq. Let’s give credit where credit is due. Georgie, you’re doin a heckuva job!

]]> By: Mary http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-477833 Mary Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:18:57 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-477833 He continues to push for the pre-emptive attack being the policy of the US.As if we haven't been in trouble for the last five years he has to threaten every country on the planet,except Israel.He has to go,one way or another we must be released. He continues to push for the pre-emptive attack being the policy of the US.As if we haven’t been in trouble for the last five years he has to threaten every country on the planet,except Israel.He has to go,one way or another we must be released.

]]> By: The WB42 5:30 Report With Doug Krile http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-477793 The WB42 5:30 Report With Doug Krile Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:28:18 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-477793 <strong>Dismatling the Security Report...</strong> Amazing what a little research can turn up.... Dismatling the Security Report…

Amazing what a little research can turn up….

]]> By: United States National Security Strategy Updated and Released http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-477725 United States National Security Strategy Updated and Released Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:15:39 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-477725 [...] ThinkProgress does a little fact checking. They also have their own answer in a progressive National Security Strategy. [...] [...] ThinkProgress does a little fact checking. They also have their own answer in a progressive National Security Strategy. [...]

]]> By: Global Geopolitics News » Global Security News - CSTO supports UN Security Council s intentions on Afghanistan http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-477724 Global Geopolitics News » Global Security News - CSTO supports UN Security Council s intentions on Afghanistan Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:14:40 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-477724 [...] Fact-Checking the National Security Strategy Think Progress, DC - 3 hours ago Today, the White House released its long-overdue National Security Strategy (NSS). Like the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq [...] [...] Fact-Checking the National Security Strategy Think Progress, DC – 3 hours ago Today, the White House released its long-overdue National Security Strategy (NSS). Like the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq [...]

]]> By: Gerald Gibson http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-477637 Gerald Gibson Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:54:18 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-477637 <em>For Truth Another analagy to #16, “I’m gonna sit in a pool and try to keep water away from me, and if you don’t support me in this, then you want me to drown. Uh, that’s not an anology. That’s a classic case of liberal false logic. See: Straw Man Comment by Gothic Serpent </em> This is like in a sitcom on TV where the young teens are in a talent contest they practiced very hard to get their act right and then the "bad guy" peers get up on stage and do the very same act ...thereby making the next group of people about to get on stage and perform look stupid because they are using the same song...the same dance... etc... They have stolen truth by saying the same words, but casting a different meaning to them ... then when the left screams out about liberty! The right says WE JUST SAID WE ARE GIVING THE IRAQIS LIBERTY! SO WE ARE THE PARTY OF LIBERTY!!! .... For Truth
Another analagy to #16,

“I’m gonna sit in a pool and try to keep water away from me, and if you don’t support me in this, then you want me to drown.

Uh, that’s not an anology. That’s a classic case of liberal false logic. See: Straw Man

Comment by Gothic Serpent

This is like in a sitcom on TV where the young teens are in a talent contest they practiced very hard to get their act right and then the “bad guy” peers get up on stage and do the very same act …thereby making the next group of people about to get on stage and perform look stupid because they are using the same song…the same dance… etc… They have stolen truth by saying the same words, but casting a different meaning to them … then when the left screams out about liberty! The right says WE JUST SAID WE ARE GIVING THE IRAQIS LIBERTY! SO WE ARE THE PARTY OF LIBERTY!!! ….

]]> By: Don http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-477620 Don Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:38:31 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-477620 <strong><em>FACT: “Al Qaeda terrorism remains the most serious threat to U.S. national security, and the insurgency in Iraq shows no sign of abating, the nation’s top intelligence official told the Senate yesterday.</em></strong> This is one of those "facts" that I expect the Washington Times to print, but is NOT something that I expect a progressive blog to parrot. <strong>FACT: U.S. military imperialism is the most serious threat to U.S. national security.</strong> FACT: “Al Qaeda terrorism remains the most serious threat to U.S. national security, and the insurgency in Iraq shows no sign of abating, the nation’s top intelligence official told the Senate yesterday.

This is one of those “facts” that I expect the Washington Times to print, but is NOT something that I expect a progressive blog to parrot.

FACT: U.S. military imperialism is the most serious threat to U.S. national security.

]]> By: TJM http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-477618 TJM Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:37:49 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/fact-checking-the-national-security-strategy/#comment-477618 The Senate vote (77 for 23 against) is here: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/107/senate/2/votes/237/ The Senate vote (77 for 23 against) is here:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/107/senate/2/votes/237/

]]>