WSJ attacks the ‘anti-antiterror left.’
WSJ attacks the ‘anti-antiterror left.’
In an editorial on FISA today, the Wall Street Journal slams lawmakers’ attempts to deny telcos retroactive immunity:
Not long ago Democrats seemed ready to move a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee last autumn. But under pressure from the anti-antiterror left, they are now bending and will try to weaken the bill on the Senate floor. Given that the House is likely to pass something far worse, the Senate debate will determine how much the U.S. ties its own hands in the fight against terrorists.
By far the worst threat is an amendment from Senator Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) to deny legal immunity to telephone companies that cooperated with the government on these wiretaps after 9/11.
Steve Benen and Glenn Greenwald have more on this editorial.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Wait a second… if it wasn’t illegal, they wouldn’t need immunity.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pmBy far the worst threat is an amendment from Senator Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) to deny legal immunity to telephone companies that cooperated with the government on these wiretaps after 9/11.
Start out with a lie, as usual. The Telcos were asked to spy on this Nation’s citizens before 9/11.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pmMan, they’re really reaching, aren’t they? Or was that reaching around?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pmWhat American isn’t proudly anti-terror?
Morans!
-GSD
February 11th, 2008 at 1:06 pm#2, yeah, and clearly successful against terrorism, because 9/11 still happened.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:06 pmI guess the Murdoch Ass Wrapper is pro-terror.
-GSD
February 11th, 2008 at 1:06 pmIf they did not break the law and violate the 4th, why do they need retroactive immunity?
Anyone who votes to pass immunity for lawbreakers is a crooked pussbag and needs kicked out of Congress.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pmSo what you’re sayig is: The WSJ is anti-anti-anti-terror?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pmhttp://www.tshirtinsurgency.com
If I represent the “anti-terror” left, then they represent the “pro-terror” right.
Got it.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:08 pmAll the rubber stamps of the Bush/Cheeny propaganda factory — the anit-anitterror left.
The question that needs asking is to the reporter: HOW MUCH ARE YOU BEING PAID TO WRITE THIS?
When will people wake up to the fact there is no shortage of journalists who will endlessly put out the Bush propaganda – any reason at all to think they aren’t getting paid?
Remember Armstrong Williams – 1/4 of a million dollars to write Bush propaganda… know anybody who gets cash like that to write anything? Think he was the only one?
ASK THEM AND SEE WHAT KIND OF ANSWER YOU GET… That’s an outrageous accusation (didn’t say he didn’t do it)… I have received no orders to write this from anybody… (the highly qualified “no orders” servers to cover the PO number they got)…
GO AFTER THESE PROPAGANDA THUGS – THEY ARE BEING PAID!!!
February 11th, 2008 at 1:08 pmthe Senate debate will determine how much the U.S. ties its own hands in the fight against terrorists.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:08 pm…Bush hands were not tied up when he and the war criminal Rice ignored the PDB entittled “Osama Bin Laden determined to attack…”!
Typical of a Murdoch publication to spew this nonsense.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:09 pmThe war criminal Rice’s hands were not tied up when they dismissed Tenent’s warning about a possible eminent attack!
February 11th, 2008 at 1:09 pmWhat kills me about this whole debate is how the right has framed it. They say that until this bill is passed, Americans are in grave danger of a terrorist attack as we lack the ability to ‘track’ suspicious activity.
BUT, they won’t pass the bill unless it includes immunity.
So, what they are saying is that immunity for corporations is more important than preventing a terror attack.
Really, if they were so goddamned concerned about terrorists, then why are they stalling this bill?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:10 pmSo the worst threat to the country is no immunity for telecoms? Interesting. What about all those terrorists whose calls we need to listen in on, ergo, the reason for the FISA “fix” in the first place. What a joke these people are.
I dare say, dangle any favorable legislation in front of a multinational company and most (but perhaps not all, thanks Qwest) will do what the Unitary Executive asks them to do. When the time lines don’t quite match up, however, well, there’s the rub and the need for “immunity” (perhaps we should call it amnesty — its a word all GOPers appear to understand on some level).
February 11th, 2008 at 1:10 pmBy far the worst threat is an amendment from Senator Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) to deny legal immunity to telephone companies that cooperated with the government on these wiretaps after 9/11.
The Wall Street Journal claims laws being broken and civil rights violations being righted are “worse” and not allowing amnesty for telecom companies are akin to a “threat” ………Who the hell wrote that stupid Op/Ed ? Rove ?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:10 pmGranted, the behavior of the Bush administration and the telecom companies should be raising eyebrows on all proud Americans — especially activity that predates 9/11.
But there’s another elephant in the room nobody’s talking about. Has anyone ever adequately explained why WARRANTLESS wiretapping is necessary? Is there something so inherently broken about the way we issue warrants that wiretapping with warrants is unacceptable? If this is the case, why can’t we fix this problem instead of blasting everyone who objects to spying on our own citizens with no accountability whatsoever is unpatriotic?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:11 pmI, myself, am anti-anti-terror terror and, therefore, in favor of anti-immunity unless it also contains an anti-dote to the secret anti-Constitutional pressures of the Bush administration on the telecoms to act in an anti-American manner. If the telecoms don’t ante up anti-Bush information, I remain anti-immunity.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:11 pmIn a sick, demented way, this is kind of fun, watching the jingoistic right get themselves all tied up into knots with circular buzzwords of ever-increasing complexity.
“The anti-antiterror left”?
Somehow, I don’t think this one will catch on with their base like “Islamofascism” did.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:12 pmWhat American isn’t proudly anti-terror?
Comment by GSD — February 11, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
You mean besides those Americans working in the defense contracting and personnel security industries whose annual bonuses depend on keeping the threat of terror front and center on the American news agenda?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:12 pmThe WSJ editorial board is irrelevant.
You see, I think they are A$$holes– just an opinion, doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:12 pmAnd look what happened to Qwest for not complying? They lost billions in contracts.
At least someone had the balls to stand up for right and wrong.
And Murdoch did what I fully expected him to do…take a once respected paper and trash it. I wouldn’t wipe my a$$ with the WSJ these days let alone make any financial decisions based upon it.
One more useless rag.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pmHas anyone ever adequately explained why WARRANTLESS wiretapping is necessary?
Comment by missmolly — February 11, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
No, missmolly, no one ever has explained it.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pmIf I represent the “anti-terror†left, then they represent the “pro-terror†right.
Got it.
Comment by DieNowForPeace — February 11, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
No, no – the left isn’t “anti-terror.” The left is “anti-antiterror.” The right is “anti-anti-antiterror.”
It gets confusing very quickly, as any fool can plainly see.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pmAll these corporate asslickers continue to use the lie that removing telecom immunity would be essentially giving in to the terrorists. However not one of them has posed a valid arguement as to how protecting the telecoms from lawsuits makes the US safer. And why no PUBLIC debate on the issue? Perhaps because it is blatantly indefensible AND anti-Constitutional and our dear representatives in Washington don’t like their subversion of our Nation’s laws to be represented by their own words available on the internet and in print that they may be called on to defend.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:15 pmThe WSJ is now truly akin to the NY POST– a rag merely to line bird cages or to train pups.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:16 pmAnd Murdoch did what I fully expected him to do…take a once respected paper and trash it..
Comment by Ms_Joanne — February 11, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Ms_Joanne, I don’t think you can blame this op-ed entirely or even mostly on Murdoch, The WSJ editorial board has been knee-jerk right-wing for as long as I can remember.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:16 pm.
Mesage to the WSJ:
Since when is warrantless legal?
.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:18 pmUh-oh, Real Clear Politics hasn’t posted a Rep vs. Dem poll in over a week, and the previous posts were trending down, down, down for Dems.
I wonder if it means Obama is no longer ahead of Hill’reh against McCain, or if it is simply that Dems lose by any margin.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:18 pmThe telephone companies knew they were breaking the law. They should be held accountable for their action. QWEST knew that tapping Americans was illegal. QUEST did the right thing an then got hammered by the Bush conspiracy.
Let them spend their money defending their ill-conceived actions. Like all the Bush decisions, their lawyers probably advised against it.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:19 pmBlah blah Hill’reh blah blah Hill’reh Hill’reh.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 11, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
Oh look! Another off-topic post from Jason M. Hill’rehndler! What a surprise!!!
February 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pmThe WSJ editorial board has been a pack of quasi-authoritarians for years.
Now with Murdoch at the helm they’ve opened their august op-ed pages to the likes of Ted ‘Wang-Dang Sweet Poontang’ Nugent.
-GSD
February 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pmThe patriots of this country certainly do not reside at the WSJ.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pmMs_Joanne, I don’t think you can blame this op-ed entirely or even mostly on Murdoch, The WSJ editorial board has been knee-jerk right-wing for as long as I can remember.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 11, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Agreed, but this is a bit beyond. That said, I have seen this trend going further and further to the wingnuttiest side as of late. It’s like they are trying to out dumb themselves.
And Jason, no one gives a f()ck what you have to say. (sweet smile)
February 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pmPlease ploitely ignore the troll Jason ManHandler; he’s got Troll Tourette’s and tends to interrupt threads with belches about whatever crosses his mind at the moment.
I trust he’s seeking help.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pmThreadus Interruptus. Right wing disease. :-D
February 11th, 2008 at 1:23 pm,
The WSJ mentions retroactive immunity for the Telecoms cooperation with the president to usurp our Fourth Amendment Rights, calling people like me “LIBERA” because I respect my Rights and demand that Corporations do the same thing.
What they failed to mention is this warrantless wiretapping was set up BEFORE 9/11. Yes, it’s been happening since 9/11, but that isn’t when it was set up.
When corporations are given greater Rights than the People, then what Rights do the people have if what is left for the People is the Right to be spied upon, warrantlessly.
.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:23 pmMs_Joanne, I don’t think you can blame this op-ed entirely or even mostly on Murdoch, The WSJ editorial board has been knee-jerk right-wing for as long as I can remember.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 11, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Took the words right out of my mouth, ralph. The WSJ has always had a solid wall between the crackpot editorial page and crackerjack (heh) journalism — up until Murdoch. But the editorials have been borderline insane for years and years.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:23 pmUh-oh, Real Clear Politics hasn’t posted a Rep vs. Dem poll in over a week, and the previous posts were trending down, down, down for Dems.
I wonder if it means Obama is no longer ahead of Hill’reh against McCain, or if it is simply that Dems lose by any margin.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 11, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
Keep wondering
It means no one believes a 2-bit rag of a wrong wingnut web site has any type of credibility , and they’ve stopped checking it ; and John McInsane has about 24% of the American vote , if that.
That number isn’t likely to win you many elections for dog catcher , much less president…….
February 11th, 2008 at 1:24 pmSeriously… What Phucking Planet are these sick bastards on?
We want immunity for the telecomms even though they haven’t broken the law… Really? That’s their argument?
Then WHY DO THEY NEED IMMUNITY?!?!?!? WTF!
They broke the law, they knew that they were breaking the law and now they need to be PUNISHED for BREAKING the LAW!!!
it’s really that simple. NO IMMUNITY!
I want my country back!
February 11th, 2008 at 1:24 pmJMH reminds me of “streakers”, those guys who ran in front of TV cameras, naked, during events for attention. JMH runs across TP, naked of any relevance to the thread, for the same attention.
And why does he so often refer to “polls”? Especially ones “trending down”? Sounds pretty “anti-phallic” to me.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pmAgreed, but this is a bit beyond. That said, I have seen this trend going further and further to the wingnuttiest side as of late. It’s like they are trying to out dumb themselves.
And Jason, no one gives a f()ck what you have to say. (sweet smile)
Comment by Ms_Joanne — February 11, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
You have a point. The absurdity of the “anti-antiterror left” line does reek of lowest-common-demoninator name-calling, which reeks in turn of Murdoch.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pmRest assured that the WSJ only cares about one thing and that is the perpetuation of wealth (noble, yes) but not so noble when you look at their flagrant disregard for the Constitution.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:26 pmThe immunity deal is about making sure that the telcos that participated are not saddled with costly and protracted lawsuits. Its just about money, not patriotism.
I’ve posted this suggestion in previous threads but here it goes again:
February 11th, 2008 at 1:26 pmWhy dont’ the Dems offer full immunity for any activities that the telecoms have been involved with since the date of 9/11/01? If the Republicans and the Administration find this unacceptable (because it’s common knowlege now that the spying started in February of 2001) MAKE THEM STATE WHY so that Americans can hear for themselves that their Government has been spying on them since well before 9/11 and they STILL could not prevent the attacks from happening!”
Hendler’s so stupid that he doesn’t even know to slink away quietly when he has no defense of his boy on a thread. He just changes the topic and thinks we won’t notice he’s stymied. Here’s a hint trolls, if you say nothing we don’t know you’re here.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:33 pmComrades, I just want all you anti-antiterror sympatherizers to know that I am an anti-anti-antiterror partisan and I will watching you along with the antiterror Heroes of the Revolution at the WSJ. You should all turn yourselves in for anti-anti-antiterror re-education so that you may join in our heroic struggle over the proterror and pro-pro terror-ists.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:34 pmYeesh Jason why don’t you just tell us about the Ivy League years you spent at Stanford again, dumbass.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:35 pmIsnt this [WSJ] Murdochs new mouthpiece?
Hey, remember when Hendler wanted posters here to drink from his cup of wisdom in the 2006 congressional elections?
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
The Telcos went along with Bush warrantless wiretaps. No terrorists were caught and what people want to know is who [Remember Nixon?] they were tapping.
We cannot, nor should not, legalise Nixon-esque debauchery.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pmWhy dont’ the Dems offer full immunity for any activities that the telecoms have been involved with since the date of 9/11/01?
Comment by A Patriot Acting — February 11, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
Brilliant. This is ingenious.
It’s the political equivalent of Mike Brady dropping the briefcase.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pmWSJ attacks the ‘anti-antiterror left.’?
Do they mean that we lefties are against Terrorists, and Terror?
What’s wrong with that?
Do the Reichwingers like the terrorists and terror?
Oh, forgot, they do, my bad.
Buck Fush
February 11th, 2008 at 1:41 pmHEADLINE!
Reich-wing toilet paper producer prints false information!
Anti anti terror? So.. pro terror then? Hmm.. Yep that’s the same as not allowing coporations to spy on Americans. We won’t stop there, oh no. Next we’ll be bullying those poor little people in the Whitehouse that started this war. Yep, we’ll be taking our anti anti terror campaign directly to the pro war war Whitehouse.
When does the war trials begin people?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:42 pmNo, no – the left isn’t “anti-terror.†The left is “anti-antiterror.†The right is “anti-anti-antiterror.â€
It gets confusing very quickly, as any fool can plainly see.
Comment by toasterhead
So help me out here, If I marry my anti-terror am I uncle terror to her nephews? and if one of her nephews marrys my divorced mother, that makes him my father and my wife my niece in law?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:49 pmWow the Rupert Murdoch influence showing so soon?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:52 pmSo help me out here, If I marry my anti-terror am I uncle terror to her nephews? and if one of her nephews marrys my divorced mother, that makes him my father and my wife my niece in law?
Comment by Bobwurst — February 11, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
No, it makes you West Virginian.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:54 pmNo, it makes you West Virginian.
Comment by toasterhead
Ok, that one made me laugh. Nice. They voted for Phuckabee, right?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:59 pmOh no, Rupert Murdock’s buying of the WSJ won’t change a thing…
February 11th, 2008 at 2:04 pmJebus. Those propagandists are just plain idiotic – and downright unAmerican. Typical of a Murdoch yellow rag.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:06 pmUh-oh, Real Clear Politics hasn’t posted a Rep vs. Dem poll in over a week, and the previous posts were trending down, down, down for Dems.
I wonder if it means Obama is no longer ahead of Hill’reh against McCain, or if it is simply that Dems lose by any margin.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 11, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
Um…what’s your point, here? And what does this have to do with the WSJ editorial that’s the subject of this thread?
Whenever you have these little brain farts, please try to post them in a thread about that subject. If one doesn’t exist, you can always go post in the ThinkFast thread for the day, since most of us accept that as an open thread.
Then somebody (like me) might respond to you explaining that you are incorrect (polls still show Dems ahead of the GOP), your logic is faulty (a poll not getting posted doesn’t automatically mean doom for the Democrats), and why. Complete with links — something you have trouble doing.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:14 pmComment by toasterhead — February 11, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 2:14 pmThanks, toasterhead. “Honorable son uses honorable noodle”
Now Murdoch’s transition of the WSJ to a right-wing rag is complete. Coming soon: The WSJ Page 3 girls!
February 11th, 2008 at 2:22 pm911’s are better than living in a Police State~
February 11th, 2008 at 2:23 pmNow Murdoch’s transition of the WSJ to a right-wing rag is complete. Coming soon: The WSJ Page 3 girls!
Comment by schrank — February 11, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
I just got a mental picture of Alan Greenspan in a bikini.
@_@
February 11th, 2008 at 2:30 pmThe WSJ is now truly akin to the NY POST– a rag merely to line bird cages or to train pups.
Comment by ADDdaddy — February 11, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
My Parrots and Cockatiels do not like the WSJ and the NY Post, even to Poop on. It does not meet their standards. The Bayonne Community News is better for them, since it has more profound reading and better pictures.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:31 pmNo Amnesty for Telecoms!
Rightards are sooo against any amnesty, why in Hell would Telecoms be any different?
No Amnesty for Telecoms!
February 11th, 2008 at 2:34 pmfrom the (cough cough) editorial:
“The debate concerns an effort to revise the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to bless spying without a court order on terrorist communications that originate overseas but move through U.S. switching networks.”
to BLESS spying?!
The wingnuts end the article with:
“If Congress does more harm, he should declare that to protect the country he’ll use his Constitutional war powers to wiretap al Qaeda anyway and toss the issue squarely in the middle of the Presidential campaign.”
As though Bush already doesn’t do whatever he pleases anyway..
February 11th, 2008 at 2:37 pmMore reich wing fear mongering.As this Authortarian administration lingers it is looking more and more like a self-destructing neo con robot.The wsj is now officialy a rag in my book!!!!
February 11th, 2008 at 2:43 pmNo amnesty for the telecoms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 11th, 2008 at 2:44 pmGarbage right right from the murdock mouth. Just his new platform for spewing his bs. Fool me once…..
February 11th, 2008 at 2:48 pmThe wsj is now officially a rag in my book!!!!
Comment by christopher wiwi — February 11, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
It always was a rag. Back in the 80s, we used to call it “The Wall Street Urinal”
February 11th, 2008 at 2:50 pm“just following orders” (or complying with requests) is no defense for a criminal act. any of the telcos who complied with illegal gov’t requests broke the law, and should face the consequences, just like any other indivudual or corporation.
give them all the Nuremburg treatment. it’s what the Greatest Generation would do.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:58 pmI can figure out if I’m pro-anti-terror or anti-pro-terror or if being ambidextrious makes me a double jerk off.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm#4 – What American isn’t proudly anti-terror?
- GSD
That would be Bush, Cheney, the neocons, and anyone who pushes their BS.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:07 pmI wonder if it means Obama is no longer ahead of Hill’reh against McCain, or if it is simply that Dems lose by any margin.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 11, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
looks like jason hitler has access to the best acid ever made.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:59 pm911’s are better than living in a Police State~
Comment by Guido OBGYN Lover — February 11, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
This statement proves you, and those like you, have forgotten what 9/11 did to us. There are terrorist who want to destroy our people and our goverment, and they want more 9/11’s. They are the enemy. But since the enemy doesn’t exist in your minds (I know, Bush is the enemy in your minds), we should do nothing and wait for the next attack. If you would like to relive more “9/11’s†again, you have something in common with the enemy.
Comment by Southern Man — February 11, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
BOO!
(Now that Southern mammal is safely ensconced under his bed, we can point out that “what 9/11 did to us” was give powerful people excuses to exploit fear for their own political and extra-legal ends, to expand the power of the presidency and invade a nation that hadn’t attacked us and was no threat.
I think THAT is what SM is talking about here.)
February 11th, 2008 at 4:45 pmThis statement proves you, and those like you, have forgotten what 9/11 did to us. There are terrorist who want to destroy our people and our goverment, and they want more 9/11’s. They are the enemy. But since the enemy doesn’t exist in your minds (I know, Bush is the enemy in your minds), we should do nothing and wait for the next attack. If you would like to relive more “9/11’s†again, you have something in common with the enemy.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:56 pmComment by Southern Man — February 11, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
Chicken crap whiner. Some Americans who actually are proud remeber that the great part of being an American is the Constitution, which makes it possible (unless of course, your president is a felon) to live free, and that this is something worth dying for, if necessary. Get the FRICK out of my foxhole and dig your own, you putz.
Comment by Southern Man — February 11, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
Do you really believ that millions of people died so that George W. Bush could call the Constitution a “god damned piece of paper”?
February 11th, 2008 at 4:59 pmI wonder if it means Obama is no longer ahead of Hill’reh against McCain, or if it is simply that Dems lose by any margin.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 11, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
Well two out of three isn’t so bad I guess. The thing to do with the words you struggle with is to practice them. Let’s try it shall we?…
H -I-L-L-A-R-Y.
See that wasn’t so hard, now was it?
February 11th, 2008 at 5:05 pmIf Southern Man believes the USA could be “destroyed” by terrorists, he must not think very much of his Country or its people.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:06 pmAl-Qaeda gaining somefooting
February 11th, 2008 at 5:12 pmThis statement proves you, and those like you, have forgotten what 9/11 did to us. There are terrorist who want to destroy our people and our goverment, and they want more 9/11’s. They are the enemy. But since the enemy doesn’t exist in your minds (I know, Bush is the enemy in your minds), we should do nothing and wait for the next attack. If you would like to relive more “9/11’s†again, you have something in common with the enemy.
Comment by Southern Man — February 11, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
I don’t think that anyone here has forgotten what 9/11 “did” to us. Just under 3,000 American people were killed on September 11, 2001 in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or on any one of four different jetliners. Three WTC buildings were destroyed, and the Pentagon required extensive repair. That’s what the terrorist enemy did to us.
Everything else that 9/11 “did” to us was of our own doing. The rise in American bigotry toward Muslims. The “do not fly” list. The invasion of a country having nothing to do with 9/11. The trashing of goodwill toward the United States around the world. The loss of habeus corpus. The acceptability of torture. The breaking of our military. Our skyrocketing national debt. Our incredible shrinking dollar. Our loss of privacy. And Americans suffering under leadership anxious to exploit 9/11 for their own political purposes at every turn.
Yes, losing those 3,000 people was a tragedy that shouldn’t be belittled. But it deserves some perspective. That number doesn’t even begin to come close to the number of Americans who died that same year as a result of highway crashes (42,116), or as a result of getting shot with a gun (29,573). There were even more people who accidentally drowned in recreational settings that year (3,372) than were killed by terrorists.
So why are we so complacent when it comes to these “enemies”? If we are to be outraged by senseless deaths, let’s get outraged at all of them.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:13 pm“Did you here that al- Qaeda is crumbling in iraq and around the world.. ”
Comment by Southern Man — February 11, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
No. Did you hear and will you acknowledge that al-Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq before we invaded?
February 11th, 2008 at 5:17 pmSo why are we so complacent when it comes to these “enemies� If we are to be outraged by senseless deaths, let’s get outraged at all of them.
Comment by missmolly — February 11, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
missmolly, I believe because these people are “Fighting Clowns”, and no matter what, there must be an enemy. It matters not who or what they are. They spend their time thinking of conflicts instead of being creative and using their brains for projects like alternative energy, health, peace, and understanding. In my opinion, this all goes back to the wacky “God vs The Devil” or perhaps this state of constant turmoil is a serious brain malfunction. This of course, is not just a Republican/Fundamentalist/Conservative disease, but perhaps is part of evolution (or devolution) of the species. In the march from crawling out of the sea to the stars, there must be some brain circuit that is dominant in the entire species or individual’s evolution, that feel sit must constantly fight. Hopefully, we will move away from this dominate/submit mindset into something better.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:24 pmIF Southern mammal is bothering you, simply go:
BOO!
That’ll send it scampering for a while so the adults can talk.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:27 pmWere not scared, that’s is why we FIGHT for our freedom; the same freedom that the enemy vows to destroy.
Comment by Southern Man — February 11, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
That would be nice if it was Freedom© tat the US troops were fighting for and not Zionists, Exxon, Lockheed, Halliburton, and like I said in the last post, your particular dominant neural circuit, which is centered in the Dominant/Submit mode.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:28 pmYou are the one who is a coward wanting to cut and run, and not finish what was started.
Comment by Southern Man — February 11, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
Ahem — I believe we have ALREADY “cut and run” and “not finished what we started” in our mission to find Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
On the other hand, if you are talking about Iraq — just what was our objective over there, anyway? What was it we started when we went in that we need to finish? Was it the WMDs? Non-existant. Was it to punish the Iraqis (or Saddam) for 9/11? They had nothing to do with it. Was it because Saddam Hussein was just a really, really, really bad guy who needed deposing? Fine — we did that (of course, we started a civil war in the process, but that’s just being picky).
I guess what we “started” was a huge mess, and to “finish” it we need to clean it up. Well, we’ve been trying to clean up for quite awhile now, and we’re not doing all that well. Suggesting that the locals could probably do a better clean-up job than we can is hardly cutting and running.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:29 pmYou’re not fighting for your country. You’re fighting for a president and an ideology, with an attitude that the Constitution is “just a goddamn piece of paper”. I get it pal. My father who fought in Europe got it. My uncle who died in Korea got it. You don’t .Not even close. We weren’t hit on 9/11 because the president didn’t have the right to tap our phones without warrants and read our mail. We were hit because he ignored the warnings. Wiretapping was already going on at that point, and a fat lot of good it did, huh? “since so many in here hate the military machine (but you love the troops)?” Typical cheap shot from the coward right I’ve come to expect in here. Go nurse your ideology before it gets flushed, punk ass.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:31 pmSM,enlisted yet? What is this we crap,we means you have done your part,and served proudly. The “enemy” didn’t wiretap illegally,the enemy didn’t use water torture,the enemy didn’t rendition innocent people.I think you are just another paid RNC whore,IMHO.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:44 pmComment by Southern Man — February 11, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
“I guess fighting for freedom around the world, hoping it spreads, is a bad thing.”
Yes. Fighting around the world is a bad thing.
“I guess other people in the world don’t deserve to be free in your opinion, only us and a few select others that have “earned itâ€.”
If the Iraqis were fighting for their freedom and asked us for help, that would be a different cirmustance altogether, but they weren’t and they didn’t. The people who have “freedom” handed to them at gun point aren’t really free at all.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:46 pm“They raise their hands and swear to do so. I believe they are, considering we haven’t been hit yet.”
Comment by Southern Man — February 11, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
No, they raise their hands and swear to protect the Constitution.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:58 pmIslamic fascists? Which ones? The ones from way back in 1953 when Eisenhower’s CIA overthrew the democratic government of Iran and installed a brutal dictator, setting the stage for Islamic fundamentalist rebellion and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini? The one’s Reagans geniuses armed with advanced weapons in Afghanistan and trained in techniques of guerrilla warfare, sabotage and terrorism? Or maybe Saddam’s own forces whom Reagan forged alliances with while they were doing all the killing and torturing that people like you twist their panties over now? My father knows damn well “why they hate us so”. That’s why he swears he’ll never vote for another rescrewituplican for as long as he lives.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:09 pmNo, they raise their hands and swear to protect the Constitution.
Comment by J — February 11, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 6:10 pmThank you J. Basics civics is lost on these people.
They hate us because of our freedoms?? I think they may hate us more for the many years of cavalier foreign policy we subjected them to.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:12 pmGotta go, SM. Just love spending time with panty-twisters such as yourself, but life beckons.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pmI’m pretty sure that southern mammal doesn’t understand what the term fascism refers to.
If it did, it wouldn’t use the term “Islamist fascist” which makes no sense to any educated reader.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:18 pmThey hate us because of our freedoms.
Comment by Southern Man — February 11, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
I see. And your solution is to get rid of our freedoms.
Very clever. I wouldn’t have thought that would work.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:19 pmComment by Southern Man — February 11, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
They hate us because of our freedoms.
No, they hate us for our presence in their Holy Lands and for our continued unbalanced support for Israel and their violent occupation of Palestine.
“Their religon does not like freedom. You can’t control people who are free.”
That may be true. It has been true of most religions throughout time. Iraq was the most stable and secular society in the middle east. Women had more rights there than most, but look what kind of example we made of Iraq? Why should other middle eastern countries choose to follow that path now? We sent the wrong message and pushed an actual “freedom agenda” back generations. Why is that so hard to understand?
“Just go ask the women in Saudi Arabi and many other places around the world. ”
Then why is Saudi Arabia our ally? Why are we not fighting them? Are you advocating that we do? It sounds like you are.
“They believe we live in an immoral society. That is why they hate us.”
That sounds more like right-wing America to me. In this context, please explain the difference to me between 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:20 pmThey hate us because of our freedoms. Their religon does not like freedom. You can’t control people who are free. Just go ask the women in Saudi Arabi and many other places around the world. They have very few rights. They believe we live in an immoral society. That is why they hate us.
Comment by Southern Man — February 11, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
You’ve shown your ignorance of history very clearly, as well as your cowardice. They hate us because we kill them and steal their resources. it’s a good reason to hate us. Our “freedoms” and morality have nothing to do with it. You’ve been told a pack of lies, and you’re too stupid to see the truth. They actually don’t care about how we live, until we try to force our ways on them,as we are now. Then they, like anybody else, resist. Islamist fascists don’t exist, it’s a foolish scare tactic, a blatantly racist name to get idiots like you angry at everybody except the oilmen who have caused all of this. You, Southern pansy, are a tool, and they laugh at you as you defend their greed and sociopathy.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:43 pmThe WSJ is now truly akin to the NY POST– a rag merely to line bird cages or to train pups.
Comment by ADDdaddy — February 11, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
I agree…
The WSJ is now a true Ruppert MurderinDick, RePugniScum suckin’, Facist, PoS RAG!!
WSJ!
RIP!!!
PHU(CK!!! YOU AND THE RUPPERT SCUMBAG YOU RODE IN ON!!!
(I know the WSJ sucked RePugniScum djck before Rubberbutt MerdeDick trashed the joint, so, don’t lecture me!)
February 11th, 2008 at 7:21 pmHas anyone ever adequately explained why WARRANTLESS wiretapping is necessary?
Comment by missmolly — February 11, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
Oh, they’ve tried to explain, just not adequately.
As you may recall, Bush has said that he ordered the warrantless wiretapping program because we don’t have time to go to the FISA court for a warrant to listen in on a domestic-international call. However, he has no problem going to the court for a domestic-domestic call.
We have been told by several members of the administration that the warrantless wiretapping program is a limited, targeted, program.
They have told us that it targets only known or suspected terrorists. We have been told by the Dir. of National Intelligence that it takes 200 hours to assemble a warrant, and apparently that is why Bush has bypassed the FISA court on international wiretaps; there’s
February 11th, 2008 at 8:08 pmnot enough time to get a warrant, he tells us. But he has no problem, and time is of no concern, when he goes to the court for a
warrant for domestic wiretapping. 200 hours to get a warrant? No problem. No one from the administration has bothered to explain
this discrepancy. Except for one instance, no one in the press has bothered asking about it, either. In the one case, however, when Bush was asked to explain it, he avoided the question.
SM has all the RNC talking points down, “they hate us for our freedoms”, “we have to fight ‘em over there”,ect,ect. But he still doesn’t answer my question? IF HE BELIEVES THE FIGHT IS JUST,WHY ISN’T HE FIGHTING. The trolls want to compare this “war” to WW2 but where is the rationing?the war bonds?THE DRAFT?????
February 11th, 2008 at 9:39 pmThey hate us because of our freedoms. Their religon does not like freedom. You can’t control people who are free. Just go ask the women in Saudi Arabi and many other places around the world. They have very few rights. They believe we live in an immoral society. That is why they hate us.
Comment by Southern Man — February 11, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
And just what freedoms do you think they expected to take away from us on 9/11? Hmmm? What freedoms are they trying to take away from us by fighting us in Iraq? So they kill a U.S. troop on the streets of Baghdad because they hate the fact that females in America can walk freely on our streets and be seen with any man they choose? And killing our troops is supposed to make us change that? If they hated us for our freedoms, they sure as hell wouldn’t be wasting their time in Iraq.
Since 9/11 the Republicans have done their very best to frighten the people of this nation into voting for them. When Cheney or Bush or Giuliani say things like “vote for a Democrat and we’ll be attacked again,” what they are really saying is, “vote for me and we won’t.” What the idiots who believe this don’t understand is that there will be other attacks, either here or around the world, no matter who’s in charge in America. Bush’s “we’re fighting them over there…” bullsh*t certainly didn’t stop the attacks in London or in Spain, and they certainly haven’t stopped would-be terrorists from plotting other attacks. But I guess as Lynn Cheney declared recently, those attacks don’t really mean anything since they were not on American soil.
I bet you’d agree with me if I said that the terrorists want us to be afraid of them; the Republicans are doing nothing more than marching right along with them. Bush says give him immunity for the telcos, and give it to him last week, or we’ll be attacked. Apparently, if Congress doesn’t give him what he demands and he vetoes the legislation, we’ll be safe from an attack.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:03 pmWant another 9/11? Vote republican. That’s a guarantee of another successful attack. Vote for the party that failed so miserably to defend the USA. Southern Moron is a perfect example of treason and cowardice masquerading as nationalism. As soon as these wingnuts man u9p and join the service, they’ll have a little credibility. Until then, they’re just idiot cowards.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:19 pmthe term “Islamist fascist†… makes no sense to any educated reader. – ralph
On the other hand, “Republican Fascist” makes perfect sense
February 12th, 2008 at 10:34 am