Snow Defends Boehner: He Was ‘Asking Tough Questions’
Snow Defends Boehner: He Was ‘Asking Tough Questions’
On Tuesday, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) questioned whether his political opponents are “more interested in the rights of terrorists than protecting the American people.” During yesterday’s White House press conference, Tony Snow appeared to distance himself from Boehner’s remarks.
But this morning on ABC, Snow offered a lengthy defense of Boehner’s caustic remarks. Snow said that Boehner’s statement was “one of these hypotheticals” that raises the question “OK, what do you want to do for security?” According to Snow, Boehner’s remarks highlighted legitimate “issues.” Watch it:
UPDATE: On CNN, Snow said that Boehner was “musing and he was asking tough questions.”
Transcript:
ROBERTS: Who’s going to keep us safe? That’s something that Americans want to know. And it does get a little contentious at times. The Democrats are very upset over House Majority Leader John Boehner for the comments that he made recently saying that Democrats were soft on terrorism and terrorists. I want to play a bit of his soundbite and get your reaction to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER, HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER (R-OH): Sometimes, based on the votes that get cast, you wonder whether they’re more interested in the rights of the terrorists than in protecting the American people.
ROBERTS: Are Democrats more interested in the rights of terrorists than protecting the American people? Of course, Democrats are a little outraged about that. Does the president agree with a statement like that? The White House agree with that?
SNOW: Well, we tend not to vet statements of members of the House and Senate. We just pointed out they’ve got their own ways of doing things.
But it’s interesting — what he was really talking about, and it was one of these hypotheticals. And, I know — I understand why people get upset about it. But one of the things he was doing is raising the question, OK, what do you want to do for security? Do you believe in listening in on terrorists? What do you think about the terrorist surveillance program?
The president asked for cooperation on that. How about what we do with people detained on the battlefield? How do we proceed to hold them in conditions that are acceptable to the American people, to question them, to get intelligence so that we can glean intelligence that’s going to save American lives? The president last week asked both parties go ahead and step up and help out in those things. So Representative Boehner was raising those issues.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Boehner’s remarks were unamerican. It’s defamatory to accuse members of Congress of caring more about terrorists. Snow should be ashamed.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:14 amMan I hate this guy. Smug, flippant, rude.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:18 amyes, but we forget that snow HAS NO SHAME.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:21 amSo, you are either a rubber stamp for Bush or you support the terrorists. Thanks for clearing that up Tony Snow. When does the Unamerican Activities Committee begin hearings? That would be the next logical step.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:24 amThat is a nonsense question tony….what we HAVE to know is ‘who is going to protect the American people from the bush gang?’
September 13th, 2006 at 10:25 amRemember all, Snow is one thaw away from being a total flake…Blessings
September 13th, 2006 at 10:25 amI agree whole hearted with Boehner. Just ask yourself if the actions of lawmakers make it harder on the good guys (that would be the U.S.) or the bad guys (that would be the terrorists and their enablers).
September 13th, 2006 at 10:26 amP.S. I had to record the Path to 9/11 and you mooks should actually sit down and watch it. It really does grasp how the U.S. policy (not just Clinton’s) was so perverted as to make life easy for terrorists and how they used that against us. Fast forward to today about complaints about listening to terrorists phone conversations and whether our troops should mirandize every bad guy they capture and you get a sense that maybe we need to maybe make life harder on terrorists and not the U.S. government.
i find humor in the text “can bush keep his congress?”
it shows the lack of balance of power between parts of the government. and its prob good to let the voters know that if you vote against the republicans you will be voting against bush
September 13th, 2006 at 10:26 amBush picked the best man for the job. (Just as Harriet Miers was, oh so long ago.)
September 13th, 2006 at 10:28 amIt is unconscionable for anyone, particulary a US Rep. to imply that their political opposition is not in favor of protecting Americans.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:32 amIt is another bold and blatant attempt to stifle all opposition to the administration.
If you don’t agree with us – you must agree with the terrorists.
It’s a false argument, but they use it at every opportunity. It gets the sound byte they want and they deal with the fall out later. Hence, Snowjob coming out today and slicking it down with his spit.
Snow seems to forget that he’s not a pundit anymore. He’s speaking for the president. It’s his job to answer the question “Does the president agree with a statement like that? The White House agree with that?”
I don’t see what’s wrong with the press secretary saying, “Of course that remark was a little extreme. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are all acting with the best interests of this country, and nobody in the government is more concerned about the rights of terrorists than the safety of Americans. It’s simply a matter of how you want to achieve that safety…” That’s called bipartisanship. That’s called diplomacy. That’s called acting like the fricken president of the fricken United States.
But rather than take a stand and use some presidential integrity to calm down the rhetoric, Snow equivocates, effectively endorsing the words of the minions without having to have uttered them.
How Christian.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:32 amg – that line caught my attention also:
“can he keep congress his?”
um, i thought congress was OURS…
September 13th, 2006 at 10:33 am#7 RRS
September 13th, 2006 at 10:35 amAnd while we’re at it, lets systematically destroy all liberty in America that our troops are supposedly defending in Iraq.
good guys (that would be the U.S.) or the bad guys (that would be the terrorists and their enablers).
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier —
Great description, buddy. Let us know when that Hollywood flick ends and start talking like a grown up.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:37 amJUDD,
September 13th, 2006 at 10:37 amWhat is meant by the “edit this” that asks for registration? If we register again, will we be able to post without problems?
The issue isn’t what should we do with detainees, and should we be listening in on terrorist’s conversations. The issue is why can’t this administration deal with these problems without compromising the integrity of America abroad and abandoning our constitution?
Other presidents have worked through national security problems involving terrorism both at home and abroad, they’ve conducted wars with enemies as clever and deadly as al Qaeda, had to deal with the threat of being vaporized by Soviet nuclear missiles, missiles being installed in Cuba, war protests, racial riots that nearly destroyed some of our inner cities. What did they do that Bush and his war buddies are unable to do?
I recall living in fear during the cold war and the Underground Weathermen bombings, but I have never before felt that my rights were being taken from me, that I could not voice objections or criticism to a president without being labeled as sympathizing with the enemy, or feeling that I was living in the footsteps of Russian citizens during the time of the Soviet Union.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:37 amRRS
September 13th, 2006 at 10:39 amOK, I asked myself and here’s my answer:
Our foreign policy does nothing to capture the perpetrator of 9-11, making a mockery of the U.S. Our invasion of Iraq provides further inflamming of anti-U.S. sentiment, puts American citizens “over there” so the terrorists have ready access to targets, and provides one huge training camp for terrorist activity. What does the U.S. get? Dead soldiers, attacks on the Constitution, huge debt to other countries due to an unwillingness to pay for the war today, higher gas prices and higher profits for oil companies, fear mongering, and labelling of many of its citizens as “traitors” and similarly offensive terms. I think the terrorists are getting more of what they want.
Hey Tony, here’s a hypothetical question for you…
Tony, have you, Darth Cheney & King dumbya stopped molesting young boys yet?
September 13th, 2006 at 10:39 amHere’s another hypothetical question:
Is the Bush Administration wiretapping more political opponents than suspected terrorists? Just musing, you know, without court order and Congressional oversight it’s entirely possible that the Bush Administration is more interested in the rights of the Republican National Committee than the safety of American citizens.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:48 amABC.
Go figure.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:53 amMore duplicity. More punishing terrorists by building deomcracies. Ho hum.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:56 amAnd we’re the bad guys.
#7 Retired Republican Soldier
I agree whole hearted with Boehner. Just ask yourself if the actions of lawmakers make it harder on the good guys (that would be the U.S.) or the bad guys (that would be the terrorists and their enablers).
Why did Bush change his mind about catching the terrorist mastermind who attacked us on 9/11? Why did he go soft on terrorism? Bin Laden is still out there plotting more attacks on the U.S. and Bush is letting him get away with it, because he ‘doesn’t really think about him’. Bush: Soft On Terror.
I had to record the Path to 9/11 and you mooks should actually sit down and watch it. It really does grasp how the U.S. policy (not just Clinton’s) was so perverted as to make life easy for terrorists and how they used that against us.
You’re getting your information about U.S. policy on terrorism from a fictional account, known to have several scenes that were total fabrications and contradictions of what the 9/11 Commission Report said? Instead of trying to learn something important from a lying piece of propaganda, you could just go read the 9/11 Commission Report. In fact, there’s a graphic novel version of it, called “The 9/11 Report, A Graphic Adaptation”. Members of the commission say it’s factually accurate. You get facts AND pictures. Cool!
September 13th, 2006 at 11:05 amIf you say a thing often enough…
…people are bound to believe it…
…Dems need to learn that lesson…
…and come straight out with the “Bushites are traitors and crooks” mantra…
…stop the civilized crap!
September 13th, 2006 at 11:07 amwhy is it that whenever some reich-wing douchebag throws mud in an extremely childish manner, it gets non-stop press attention? This is what the republicans want. When they pull bs talking points like “democrats support terrorists” and other lines that have no basis in reality, they want the media (as well as the democrats) to get up in arms over it so that the message will keep repeating. All this does is beat the right wing lie into people’s heads that the democrats are weak on terror.
What the democrats have to do is stop being so f**king defensive and start playing offensively. Instead of saying “man, guys like Boehner sure are jerks for saying that”, the democrats should come up with some talking points of their own to smear the republicans. Here’s a suggestion: if they’re gonna compare democrats to terrorists, then why not have the democrats fight back by comparing the republicans to terrorists.
Some similarities between terrorists and conservative republicans:
- They both are against women’s equality and feel that women are meant to be in the kitchen while the man has a career.
- They both want religion to be integrated into government and want to put prayer in public schools.
- They both believe in an oil-based economy where government and big oil are one and the same. Both have ties to big oil.
- They both hate homosexuals.
- The both believe in war and violence as a solution to society’s problems.
- They both hate the UN.
- The both believe in censorship in music and the arts.
- They both hate Jews.
- They both see innocent civilians as “collateral damage”.
- They both support/use torture.
- They both falsey believe they are doing what God wants.
- They both go out of their way to intimidate voters during those rare moments of an actual election.
- The republican’s anti-environmental policy is on track to make the whole world a hot desert planet similar to the middle east where the terrorists are.
- They both claim to hate liberal ideology.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:09 amWhat do you expect from these republican’ts??
September 13th, 2006 at 11:09 amGeorgie is bin Laden recruiting poster boy and is doing a heck of a job in that role. I thought Tony provided cover for the WH. SO now he does the same for loose lipped Senators.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:13 amOh man! A graphic adaptation of the 9-11 Report?!!! Get out of the way you mooks! Let me at it! Let me at it!
September 13th, 2006 at 11:14 amPLC: you’ve got it right on the money. The repukelicans and their enablers like Retired Reichwing Soldier are clearly more interested in the rights of the neocons and nazis among them than they are in the rights of average american citizens. That’s what gave rise to their covert surveilance programs, their secret prisons (where even american citizens are held indefinitely without being charged, incidentally), their interest in having no judicial review of executive decisions, etc.
Thankfully, the Founding Fathers saw BushCo coming, 225 years ahead of time, and put the 4th Amendment into place, preventing this type of government intrusion into the privacy of american citizens. The difficulty now is twofold: (1) BushCo and their enablers don’t view the Constitution as preventing them from doing anything; and (2) BushCo (and even RRS) get to define what a “terrorist” is — and I’m sure they’re now including average american citizens who disagree with their policies, such as us, in this group — thus making us eligible for waterboarding, electroding, and microwaving, and all the other torture methods that the nazis currently infesting our government say they don’t or won’t use…
September 13th, 2006 at 11:14 amThank You Tony
September 13th, 2006 at 11:23 amDo you belive in hell?
Clearly you people have not been paying attention to the world in general. The terrorists movement didn’t start on 9/11 or even 1993 (first WTC bombing) and would not end if (and I suspect this already has happened) that Bin Laden is sent to the bosom of Allah. There are lots of terrorists organization out there that are hell bent on the destruction of the U.S. and most of them came to being LONG before George W. Bush even became Gov of Texas, let alone President. Now if you can’t understand that yes we need to listen to overseas phone calls from and to possible terrorists overseas and that if given a chance we need to kill or capture the leaders and suspected associates, then yes I think you are not on the right side of this argument. If you think we will be safe if only we bring our troops home and promise not to interfere with the terrorists then you have just repeated the mistakes of the late 20th century.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:26 amIsn’t the realm of hypotheticals an anathema to the GOP? Aren’t we always hearing on Sunday’s shows how loath they are to deal in them? Perhaps they should change their tune: “That’s a hypothetical that will make the administration look bad. I don’t deal in those.”
It’s so clear now the Republican party is filled with liars, cheats, spin doctors, and, the most shameful of all, cowards.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:29 amIf we keep our troops in Iraq for as long as there are terrorists to interfere then this country will be bankrupt and crippled long before anything useful happens. It must be a nice fantasy land where things such as troop deployments and wars don’t cost a thing. Too bad we don’t live in one. I heard a great description of the idiocy of the bush policy on terror a while back. If we were a military base and we were attacked within our perimeter, which would be the most logical thing to do militiarily? Send out most of our troops and attack some other group of people that wasn’t involved and keep them there and use all our resources in the meantime? Or secure our perimeter and make sure that it doesn’t happen again and then go after the ones that attacked our base?
September 13th, 2006 at 11:38 am[...]
Now if you can’t understand that yes we need to listen to overseas phone calls from and to possible terrorists overseas and that if given a chance we need to kill or capture the leaders and suspected associates, then yes I think you are not on the right side of this argument. If you think we will be safe if only we bring our troops home and promise not to interfere with the terrorists then you have just repeated the mistakes of the late 20th century.
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier
First off, NO ONE has suggested NOT listening into phone calls – ever! Some of us just believe it should be done legally as outlined in FISA.
Secondly, we’d be safer if we hadn’t taken a baseball bat to a hornet’s nest like we’re doing in the Middle East. But, we’re there and no, pulling all of the troops all at once won’t help – but, they should start to re-deploy out of the middle of things.
If these people want to continue to kill each other, then that’s their choice.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:38 amRPS – I watched Path to 911. You are are dead on. The movie was not specific so much as to party but more about the obstacles we have placed on ourselves. Everyone is playing CYA and the terrorists are very aware of this and use it to their advantage.
Just curious RPS if you agree with this. 1) I have a different opinion of Richard Clark. It’s more favorable. 2) I was left with not completely understanding Tenet. I wondered why he proceeded so cautiously all the time. 3) Condi Rice really blew it. 4) Albright is a bitch and a key obstruction to nailing OBL. 5) Sandy Berger ran interference for Clinton by forcing Tenet to do his job but Tenet did not have political courage. 6) The Bush team was too focused on setting up their structure than recognizing the importance of the impending threat.
There are more but what do you think about those?
September 13th, 2006 at 11:39 amThere’s a terrorist under that rock! And that one, too! ! I’m not yet safe! Planes and trains and bridges and borders and nukes and bio-bombs — oh, my God — Democrats in Congress!
Get an effing grip. You’re more likely to get killed by a stress-induced heart attack than by a terrorist.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:44 amYou’re views are changed thru fiction, ben?
Are you a republican perchance?
September 13th, 2006 at 11:47 amDear Retired American Soldier,
Have you forgotten what you had signed up to serve, to protect for?
Primary of our rights as Americans is the opportunity to live FREE. That means to live under a lawful government that obeys it’s own laws and doesn’t practice tyranny. Tyranny, you know, the kind King George III practiced. Where a leader could just pronounce a program and it is state sanctified. That’s exactly what you are proposing in allowing King dumbya to be able to hold American Citizens without charges, spy on American citizens without judicial warrents, to conduct torture on prisoners against the Military Conduct Code & the Geneva Convention all because you shit in your pants whenever your tyrant leader George43 tells you to be scared, be afraid enough to sell off your primary rights as citizens so he can sell you additional lies and hold all power.
You sir, deserve to be Court Martialed. Stop besmirching the good name of our boys in uniform by advocating the very thing they have a duty to uphold while they are in uniform.
You sir, are a CAD.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:52 am#30 RRS
September 13th, 2006 at 11:52 amYou are correct when you say that George Bush didn’t invent the terrorists and they had been in existence long before his reign.
Where you go astray is when you willingly surrender everything that defines America as a beacon of democracy in the world to those very terrirists, giving them, by default, everything they would like to see.
Unintended consequences of the arrogant and belligerent Bush adminstration is the proliferation of those terrorists, the enabling of them to enlist volunteers from around the world.
Terrorists are not state-sponsored, so conventional warfare is a poor choice in combatting them – the collateral damage to civilians and to the US integrity is too high a price. What should be done is what is loathed by GW and his company of warmongers – discussion, diplomacy and negotiation.
How will conflict ever come to an end as long as W refuses to “negotiate” with terrorists or even sit down at a table to talk with them? Will it end when millions more are dead? Who will decide when it’s ended? Who will count the bodies – Is that the sign of victory?
Right now we are involved in a civil war in Iraq (all due to GW) how do we get out? What’s your plan? Whose side do we take? The secularists (Sunni) – we ousted them with Saddam? The Shiites who are very cozy with Iran (another enemy)? the Kurds – who want to secede from Iraq?
Who do we want to win in Iraq? What is victory?
Bush has no plan – it is pay as you go with him. He and Rumsfeld wouldn’t hear of any post-invasion planning – and look what it has brought us.
It should be increasingly clear to you that when Bush abandoned the search for OBL and went into Iraq, there was something more on the agenda. Perhaps the war was not totally for oil, but it certainly is a factor.
Perhaps another factor was that Saddam was planning to stop trading oil on American dollars (which props up our economy).
Perhaps it was a glorioius gift to Republican contributors like Halliburton, and countless others.
We can’t say we weren’t warned about the military/industrial complex.
You attempt to make your arguments here, and usually resort to charging the Democrats and liberals with treason, cowardice and other false and inflammatory claims – but you fail to see the fault in your own strategy.
I guess Retired Republican Soldier is more than happy to let any elected President decide to listen in on any conversation (international or domestic) with no oversight whatsoever. All the President has to say is “Terrorism!” and Retired Republican Soldier will simply say “Oh, then do anything you want! Why not just crap all over the US Constitution while you’re at it, Mr. President!”
Sorry, I’m a little bit more skeptical that you are and I don’t trust big-government to do the right thing without any oversight whatsoever. Ever since the elected Republicans have become the “borrow and squander”, pro-big-government, fiscally irresponsible party, they’ve lost all respect for the American public, the US Constitution and America in general.
I’d much rather have a President that would comply with the law in regards to spying on the pubic than someone who say’s “Trust me!”
Retired Republican Soldier, I’m sorry that you feel that big-government is the answer. I don’t. That’s why Pres. Bush needs to have someone question his actions. If the President cannot stand up to criticism, what good is he?
September 13th, 2006 at 11:55 amAnAmerican – You know it is unfortunate that so many of the people here like yourself seem uncapable of having an open mind. I watched Michael Moore’s F911 and formed my opinion afterwards. But you guys immediately assume that Path is fiction without seeing it. You behave like sheep. You get your marching orders and do exactly as you are told. TP orders you to believe this is fiction and lies. The DNC puts out it’s orders and again just like sheep you do as you are told. The truth is that it was very well done and again the message that should be taken from the movie is that we have the tools to protect this nation. We just need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:56 amRight Ben, and Coyotes use giant slingshots.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:59 am#40 – “You behave like sheep. You get your marching orders and do exactly as you are told. TP orders you to believe this is fiction and lies. ”
Ben, it sounds like you’re talking about the neo-cons that complained about the Pres. Reagan docu-drama.
By the way, I never hear you take the Republican posters to task for their griping about Michael Moore’s F911 when they haven’t watched that film.
What gives? Why the double standard? Could it be you are a partisan yourself? Hmmm. . . .
September 13th, 2006 at 12:02 pmRRS,
As a soldier, it should be CLEARLY evident that in any war; first, one hopes to win; then one expects the enemy to lose; then, one is satisfied that he too is suffering; in the end, one is surprised that everyone has lost.
What have we gained? 2500 soldiers dead, Bin Laden loose, Taliban gaining strength, Iraq in chaos, Israel rattling its sabers, and we have become the rallying cry for every international organization against democracy!
Yep, YOU are a Republican for sure!
How could it be that, in YOUR ignorance you miss the essential but simple difference of facts versus fiction. You cannot answer why we have not caught Bin Laden! You cannot address the quagmire of Iraq! You cannot address the incompetance of Katrina! But, you expect any SANE person to believe that a President 6 years removed in responsible for 9/11!!!
If he (somehow) is responsible, then WHO is responsible for the 1,000+ deaths and 1,000,000+ homeless in New Orleans and Mississippi?
But, hey…
If you have an idot following a jackass, then the destination can ONLY be calamity, because rather than subscribing to a group, I’ll stand on ethics and principle…
In this case, YOU are full of sh*t!!!
September 13th, 2006 at 12:04 pmwow, marie… excellent…
may i share? …it’s too good to now pass around…
September 13th, 2006 at 12:08 pm“it’s too good to NOT pass around”… of course…
September 13th, 2006 at 12:09 pm…
RRS
September 13th, 2006 at 12:10 pmClearly you have not been paying attention to the progressive world. We can and do understand that we need to listen to overseas phone calls from and to possible terrorists overseas but only with a court order and Congressional oversight to insure that the President does not have dictatorial power, is doing the job well, and is not misusing the powers. Yes, if given a chance we need to kill or capture the leaders and suspected associates but only if we are certain we’ve got the right people targeted in our cross hairs. That takes honest intelligence gathering and not cooked information. So, then yes I think we are on the right side of this argument. And, no, no one has suggested that we will be safe if only we bring our troops home and promise not to interfere with the terrorists. We want to be smarter and have a better cost/benefit ratio to our strategies and we don’t want to have our foreign policy dictated by the desire for a “New American Century” of American arrogance. BushCo has simply repeated the mistakes of the last several centuries in the middle east and of the fallen Roman Empire.
#30 Retired Republican Soldier
The terrorists movement didn’t start on 9/11 or even 1993 (first WTC bombing) and would not end if (and I suspect this already has happened) that Bin Laden is sent to the bosom of Allah. There are lots of terrorists organization out there that are hell bent on the destruction of the U.S. and most of them came to being LONG before George W. Bush even became Gov of Texas, let alone President.
Why doesn’t Bush want to get bin Laden? Al Qaeda has grown a lot bigger in the past five years. The number of terrorist acts has greatly increased in that time. Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq before, but thanks to Bush’s invasion, it is now. Not going after bin Laden has emboldened the terrorists. It’s sent them the wrong message. Bush has told the terrorists “You can blow up buildings in our country and we won’t do anything about it, because we’ve got other priorities. We’d rather go invade a country that has nothing to do with terrorism than try to catch you.” That’s what Bush said to the terrorists by not trying to catch bin Laden. Why can’t you understand that, RRS? Why do you want to let bin Laden get away with 9/11?
September 13th, 2006 at 12:13 pmDo you think the trolls get paid per post or per word?
September 13th, 2006 at 12:15 pmGee, thanks, Katy.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:15 pmI thought I might have been rambling.
# 30 Retarded Republican Soldier – No Shit… terrorism didn’t start during Bush’s first term?
As long as there have been people – there have been people that would use violence and the threat of violence to get what they wanted… so to fight a war against terrorism is not only futile but also silly… just as futile and silly as fighting a war against war.
You can not use the threat of violence to eradicate the threat of violence. Even if your threat of violence does temporarily deter your enemy from using threats of violence – you have only reaffirmed that threats of violence work… which will ultimately assure the perpetuation of threats of violence.
The only way to effectively reduce terrorism is not to make terroristic threats against the terrorists… but instead to set up such a defense that the terrorists would be rendered impotent and their threats hollow.
If we just spent our time building a better bee keepers suit – instead of a bigger stick to stir up the hornets nest… we would no longer have to worry ourselves with the activities of the hive!
September 13th, 2006 at 12:16 pmRRS – You, correctly mention that terrorism has been a tactic for MANY MANY years. However, as a veteran of the USAF myself, I believe that the Commander in Chief should be held to the same core principle of integrity that every troop under his command is. What it comes down to is that this President told the American people that he would capture Osama Bin Laden (a man responsible for the deaths of 3000+ Americans). And I quote:
As to the other issue you brought up in your ridiculous post, NOBODY, I repeat NOBODY has stated anywhere that we shouldn’t listen to the phone calls of suspected terrorists. We just want it done within the bounds of the law (and, for the record, that’s US LAW). The President had a legal mechanism that had been in place for 20 years to do what he wanted to do but, he chose to circumvent it. That’s incorrect procedure and he knows (and knew it then) it. If FISA wasn’t strong enough to accomplish what he needed, he should have lobbied Congress to change it. In the wake of 9/11, they would have given him whatever he wanted (Hell, look at the Patriot Act.).
Regardless, take your bullshit strawmen somewhere else. Your President LIED to you when he said that we would hunt down and capture or kill the man responsible for the September 11th attacks and yet you still defend him. Therefore, in the eyes of this grizzled veteran, you have lost all credibility and have lost the integrity that was supposed to be core to your service to this once-great nation of ours. Away with you!
September 13th, 2006 at 12:24 pmEven if your threat of violence does temporarily deter your enemy from using threats of violence – you have only reaffirmed that threats of violence work… which will ultimately assure the perpetuation of threats of violence. Comment by G.W.SuperChrist
Thanks, for this insight – yesterday I was posting a similar “violence breeds violence” message to someone who offered that the atomic bomb got the Japanese to surrender. I had to concede that that was somewhat true, but I knew there was more to say. You just did. The fact that the U.S. is the only country to have used a nuclear weapon is certainly a factor in the distrust others have in the U.S. and its intentions today, which assists in breeding terrorists.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:26 pmI love how the Republican talking point is “rights of terrorists” and not “rights of suspected terrorists” as if everybody they are catching in their dragnet approach to terror suspects are all guilty of terrorist acts.
Remember “Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?”
I do. Republicans seem to have forgotton…
September 13th, 2006 at 12:27 pmmarie, it’s not rambling when it’s cohesive and sensible…
September 13th, 2006 at 12:27 pmit was great, and i will use it when needed, with credit given…
thanks…
Boehner’s slander is just one of the Republican Quotes of the Day.”
September 13th, 2006 at 12:31 pm#50 G.W.SuperChrist
If we just spent our time building a better bee keepers suit – instead of a bigger stick to stir up the hornets nest… we would no longer have to worry ourselves with the activities of the hive!
And to that hornet’s nest analogy, I’d like to add something. The guy who whacked the hornet’s nest, despite people telling him there were better ways of getting rid of the hornets, is the last person we want trying to deal with the hornet problem now. He’s an idiot, he’s screwed things up royally, and he only makes things worse. It’s going to take a long long time now to get rid of the hornets, but we’ll never be rid of them if we leave a moron like that in charge of the operation. The longer he’s allowed to screw around with it, the more hornets there are, and the more people get stung.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:33 pmSo Boehner is now
PLANTING
JEFF GANNON style (THE WHITE HOUSE’S GAY PROSTITUTE)
FAKE ATTENDEES
just like Rove Dick and Bush have been for years now!
.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:55 pmPLC – The Japanese did surrender… but not necessarily because of the bombs that we dropped on them – but more because of the bombs that we promised that we would drop on them if they didn’t.
The message was clear… the threat of massive amounts of death and destruction worked.
Countries did not look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then decide to dissolve their military… recognizing that war was horrific and futile… instead they saw the utility of “going big.â€
Countries have been lining up every since… one by one countries acquire the ability to kill on unprecedented scales. Eventually every backwater and banana republic will have the ability to set off chains of events certain to usher in the end of the human race.
Yes… using massive amounts of death and destruction against Japan did end the war… but it did not make us safer in the long run… it has only served to assure that this method of warfare is perpetuated… assuring that one day this method of warfare would be used against us.
September 13th, 2006 at 1:03 pmBack in the 1930s, Benito Mussolini asked: Are you more interested in the rights of Ethiopians or the rights of Italians? Fascist Italy had invaded Ethiopia as an act of colonial aggression and was getting some resistance from Ethiopians, naturally. The Bush gang are all fascists, so of course they come up with idiotic ways to phrase their ongoing destruction of our Constitution, our Democracy and our Bill of Rights. Boner is just another worthless corporate pig…
September 13th, 2006 at 1:08 pmCheers,
ABC: The new and unimproved Fox News Channel.
Doesn’t Tony Snow look remarkably at home on ABC News?
It’s as if he never left Fox at all.
September 13th, 2006 at 1:12 pmDear Retired American Soldier,
Have you forgotten what you had signed up to serve, to protect for?
Comment by kindness — September 13, 2006 @ 11:52 am
RRS,
As a soldier, it should be CLEARLY evident that in any war; first, one hopes to win; then one expects the enemy to lose; then, one is satisfied that he too is suffering; in the end, one is surprised that everyone has lost.
Comment by IraqVet — September 13, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
you have lost all credibility and have lost the integrity that was supposed to be core to your service to this once-great nation of ours.
Comment by green917 — September 13, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
Yeah, I wonder if RRS is really a Retired Soldier? Probably a Retired Repulican Soldier in the battlefields of the mind (or in HIS mind)
September 13th, 2006 at 1:13 pmDo you think Roosevelt would have sat down with Hitler in 1944? Many of the thoughts above lack critical thinking
September 13th, 2006 at 2:58 pmOur Declaration of Independence declared all men are created equal…and as such have the right to life liberty and justice…The Unanimous Declaration is the precursor to the U.S. Constitution…our laws accept that all men not just those born in America have these individual rights..even if thier own Nation does not recognise these truths that we hold as self-evident Our Constitution is not just ours we share this idea with the world …but not at the end of a gun
September 13th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
I wonder how these rightwing turds sleep at night !
September 13th, 2006 at 3:23 pmFranklin Roosevelt was an un-American, unpatriotic, wimp. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler was marching through Europe, what did he get our country to do? Counter-attack Japan and Germany. As if!! Any right thinking American can clearly understand that we should have attacked Iraq. We should have fought those Nazis over there instead of over there.
September 13th, 2006 at 3:48 pmWell, scratch my ears and call me Fido, I’ve been against this Iraq war from the beginning, and nobody told me I was a terrorist Dem until now. Damn. Guess I’m gonna have to go out and change my registration to GOP. And here I thought the Democrats were a bona fide party in this country. Never did I imagine that by voting for a Democratic candidate, I was voting for terrorists. Jeez Louise! You’d think they were just politicians asking for our vote by the way they talk, but NO! According to the GOP, they’re the enemy in disguise, looking out only for the rights of the terrorist on my block, not me. Well, shut my mouth and call me solitaire! Boner must have such a hard time not blowing away the other side of the aisle where the Dems sit when Congress goes into session,… must be tough restraining himself… the American patriot that he is. So… shall we imprison the 65% of the American public that thinks the IRAQ war STINKS? Might as well get them all at once, eh?
September 13th, 2006 at 4:18 pmOh my my you really are up in a tizzy about this one, aren’t you ladies. How about you stop trying to impugn my integrity and spouting off talking points. Focus on the issue and tell me how you can champion the rights of terrorists over the security of the U.S.? Bush is not using the NSA to spy on opponents because HE IS NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE. And instead of worrying whether Achmed down in Gitmo gets a fresh prayer rug every week, how about we find out if he has any friends that are planning more attacks. Oh yes boys and girls the bad guys are planning attacks and guess what? I would prefer that we stop them BEFORE they get here. If Achmed doesn’t want to talk we would be well within the Geneva Convention to take them all out back, line them up, and execute him.
September 13th, 2006 at 4:26 pmWe cannot beat the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan – what makes you think we can keep them from coming here.
September 13th, 2006 at 4:39 pmOur tactics are wrong – they are not working.
BTW, Four names of Saudis were given up by al Zabaydah early in 2002 (not through torture, but through rules of engagement interrogations). The names included three Saudi princes and one official.
Within the year, they all died under unusual circumstances. One died in a one-car accident, one was killed in a plane “explosion”, one died of “thirst” (at age 26) and one died of a “heart attack.”
So who determines what constitutes a terrorist, RRS?
There’s been a lot of things that the United States has done that would make it eligible for the ‘rouge state’ classification, so what’s our caveat? What’s our out? That we are America, and we work for the greater good?
You and I both know that’s a bunch of Bushit, so how can we be objective and draw the line without also incriminating ourselves? Wouldn’t it behove us to act in ways that don’t also condemn us? If you agree with that, then you DISAGREE with the Administration, and that makes you a terrorist anyway.
So you might as well get on the side of the “good guys”. That would be the American *people*, by the way.
September 13th, 2006 at 5:23 pmthe story marie refers to:
Why protect the Saudi royal family and Pakistani military?
September 13th, 2006 at 6:53 pm- September 13th, 2006 BY GERALD POSNER
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/node/4023
…
fellow randi listener, ri – er – correct?
…
Thanks again Katy.
September 13th, 2006 at 7:04 pmI’m sorry Marie but I am not awar of an attack here in the States since 9/11, are you? I would add the most of the violence in Iraq is not aimed at American Troops but at each other. The die hard Jihadi wannabe pool has just about dried up on the bad guys and they are having a tough time recruiting. Fact is the Shia have a long standing score to settle and the Sunnis are hitting. I am just surprised that the Shia didn’t go on a nationwide killing spree after Saddam was ousted.
September 13th, 2006 at 7:28 pmRRS
Careful – Don’t be too smug — it can come back to bite you in the ass.
What source is informing you that the “bad guys” are dried up. Could it be the fact-free Fox network?
Heard about Anbar Province (50,000 square miles in area) being lost to AlQaeda? This is in addition to the sectarian violence.
Our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war which was not expected, not planned as a contingency, and there is no way to exit.
Thanks, GW.
There can be healthy debate between parties -I, for one, have not always voted Democratic. I have always listened to both sides and voted for the man I believed to be best. (I did not vote for Clinton the first time).
September 13th, 2006 at 7:40 pmIt is one thing to debate policy, it is another to call those who debate you traitors, and that is the game plan of your party. They are closed.
There is no debating you because your mind is closed, and that is too bad, because you don’t appear to be a stupid person.
BOEHNER – A CLONE OF DELAY.
September 13th, 2006 at 8:17 pmRRS, it is a win-win isn’t it? If they don’t attack it is because of Bush. If they do attack it is because the Dems are soft on terror. Is there any way that your precious thugs are at fault?
September 13th, 2006 at 9:48 pmTest…
September 13th, 2006 at 10:47 pmRetired Republican Soldier, you have just proven (by ignoring the FISA law) that you hate the US Constitution.
Pres. Bush is more than legal in requesting wire taps, ONLY SO LONG AS HE GETS A COURT ORDER! Guess what? he can wait up to three full days AFTER he’s already had a wire tap in place to get the court order! So much for your false claim that the FISA law is too restrictive.
Have you done any research on the current FISA law, RPS? You sound like all you’ve done is swallow the “party line” announced by your elected officials like a good lemming. How many FISA requests have been turned down since it was enacted?
“The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court’s operation. In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court’s activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that “no orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the requested authority” submitted by the government.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered “substantive modifications” took place in 2003 and 2004 — the most recent years for which public records are available.
The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years — the first outright rejection in the court’s history”
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html
So, before you start making more false claims about how Pres. Bush has his hands tied, you might want to get off your lazy fanny and do a bit of research about the current FISA law and actually question your pro-big-government leanings and wonder why 3 days to get “forgiveness” after already tapping someone is just way too hard for Pres. Bush to have someone else do for him.
September 14th, 2006 at 8:11 amWhen dems clap when the kill the patriot act that allows US agencies to talk to each other about terrorist and then want to stop a surveillance program that listens to overseas call from terrorist and give terrorist all the same constitutional rights the a common US citizen has the American citizen can make up their own mind about the dems
September 14th, 2006 at 9:50 amRe: No. 73. Retired Republican Soldier, I have a question – not “snarky” or sarcastic, just a serious question that deserves a serious answer.
I understand your concern over safety and security, but at what cost?
How much liberty are you willing to give up? Is there a point at which you’d rather risk another terrorist attack than give up more liberty?
The rationale you use to defend Bush’s policies is very open-ended. Anything to keep us safe. But I presume you think there is some limit to government authority, even if it is designed to protect the citizenry. Right? There has to be some tipping point where you’d say, okay, I’ll take my chances that the terrorists might strike again, but I’m not willing to give any more ground to the government … or is there?
I’d like to know where you stand.
September 14th, 2006 at 1:03 pmCock Mommy Loves Cock Cocks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 10:24 ambad debt debt good ratio
March 26th, 2008 at 9:07 pmCash Advance Loans
Awesome cash loan program offering cash advances for US residents.
March 30th, 2008 at 7:06 amTalisha
just stand there, make it happen
March 30th, 2008 at 6:17 pmGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:27 pmCock Massive Cocks Cumshots Big Gay Cock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 12:17 pmGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 6:54 pmCock Dog Dick In Pussy Sucking Dick
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 10:27 am