Hate to even bring up the ACLU, but since you did Gtech the article you posted at least to the extent of the ACLU does not appear to be truthful. Please see http://www.aclu.tv/patriotact/main/abuses
What is with you and your buddies in White house and conservative think thanks that you feel the need to lie all the time? First, there was WMD in Iraq and now there is no abuse of patriot act.
I believe it was quite truthful at that time. Look at the date of the article and the date of the letter. And after looking at what the ACLU says are abuses, I think it's more truthful now, than before. http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17911&c=206 Mayfield...I remember this one. His finger prints mysteriously matched those found during the Madrid bombings. He was arrested. After a few weeks of investigation, nothing was found to indicate he had any part and was released. A system that works. Look at the names, do the research, see what you come up with. Or I can do it for you.
What's a think thank, numb nuts? Do you mean these conservatives? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=25263#
I wont even go into disputing the 'timing' but the updates even if all info on the ACLU page is after the fact still shows it to be inaccurate at this time. Not to mention so much of what is being done is in 'secret' so of course it's not going to be found immediately, much of any abuses probally will never be found from the secret nature of it. Just because he was released does not show a system that works, or a system that is free of abuses. http://news.bookweb.org/freeexpression/3383.html Even the current Attorney General who of course is going to be all for the patriot act does agree and see why some are conserned, and even states he would support amendments to it which again is what I am arguing for, not a total destruction of the law, an overhaul into areas that need it
I meant think tank, when it is a conservative think tank usually it means a bunch of over paid academics that talk and make up excuses for the government failures.
Any Conservative, Democrat or Independent who respects Constitution and human rights is a good man. Any Conservative, Democrat or Independent who does not respect Constitution and human rights is an A*shole.
More good stuff from my Inbox... ----------------------------------------------------------- Give credit where credit is due--our military Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University: Tribune Media Services Published October 21, 2005 Last week's landmark referendum on a new Iraqi constitution saw 10 million people freely vote in the Arab world's first democracy. The jihadists cannot be entirely defeated without such a political solution. Yet Iraq's democratic voters would never even have had an opportunity without American soldiers, whose sacrifices offered a chance of reform. The U.S. military ousted Saddam Hussein from power in three weeks--in an effort designed to liberate Iraqis rather than aimed punitively against an entire nation. Some observers, however, on the eve of the war predicted a protracted effort to remove Hussein. Later, during the war itself, they warned that we were supposedly bogged down in a sandstorm on the way to Baghdad. In the ensuing 30 months, despite hundreds of horrific deaths and thousands of wounded, the U.S. military has never lost an engagement with the terrorists. It has trained hundreds of thousands of Iraqi police and military units, and, now, with last week's election, will see its hard work pay off in the ratification of the constitution when the final results from the referendum are announced as early as Friday. More parliamentary elections are slated for December. Yet for almost 2 1/2 years of constant combat, the American military's mission has been misrepresented or caricatured. Some said soldiers were fighting to secure oil, although since the invasion oil prices have skyrocketed and the Iraqis' petroleum reserves have come under their own transparent control. Others alleged the real reason for military operations was Halliburton's profit or Israel's security. But what our soldiers accomplished better revealed their reasons for being there: no more no-fly zones; no more Kurdish or Shiite state massacres; no more attacks on Kuwait, Iran, Israel or Saudi Arabia; no more assassination attempts against former presidents--and now a democracy in place of a terror state. Throughout this entire war, we have asked our soldiers to do the near impossible: remove a dictatorship, put down jihadist assassins and create a democracy--while sometimes being shamefully derided by their own countrymen back home. Eason Jordan, while a CNN news executive, implied--without evidence--that our troops were deliberately targeting journalists. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) indirectly compared our military guards in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to those in service to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. When Hussein's statue fell, nearly everyone praised the miraculous conduct of the war--at one point, 74 percent of Americans expressed approval of the military's incredible victory. Now only half of us say the mission was worth the effort and cost. In between those highs and lows, we have endured the teeth-gnashing over President Bush's flight suit, the blame game over the Iraqi archeological museum looting, the controversy over the embalming of Qusay and Uday, the supposedly humiliating oral exam of a captured Hussein, the accusations of everyone from former security analyst Richard Clark to ex-diplomat Joseph Wilson, false reports of flushed Korans at Guantanamo, the abuse of Abu Ghraib compared by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), to Hussein's own mass murdering, and troops in Iraq (but not in Okinawa, Germany or Korea?) supposedly shorting the effort in New Orleans. Politics guides much of the media's portrayal of our soldiers. There have been thousands of American heroes in Iraq, but instead the most discussed soldier in the public eye is still Army Pfc. Lynndie England, convicted of abusing inmates at Abu Ghraib. Likewise, there are almost 2,000 mothers of fallen Americans, yet the public recognizes the name only of Cindy Sheehan. When the military created the conditions to allow a critical January inaugural election, pundits back home claimed it should be delayed and would fail. When it succeeded with higher turnouts than our own presidential elections, former Clinton administration diplomatic aide Nancy Soderberg scoffed, "Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us. ... There's always hope that this might not work." To read the opinion columns is to shudder as flip-flopping insiders post facto write, "I told you so," reaffirming, renouncing or hedging their support for the war based on the hourly pulse of the battlefield. Through all this, the U.S. military has fought a successful war first against Saddam Hussein, then ex-Baathists and now Islamic jihadists, battling beheaders, car bombers, improvised explosive devices, suicide bombers and assassins. We hear mostly of how much we've done wrong in Iraq, but last week we should have been better reminded of just how much we have done right--and only because of our mostly unheralded soldiers who gave freedom to 26 million without it in the hope that this might just work. ---------- E-mail:
Yet another excellent article from Victor. I had his "and then they came after us" article in my sig for a long time. Speaking of the patriot act and the ACLU's desire to protect terrorists: http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051027/APN/510270798 One of gworld's buds: Doing exactly what it's supposed to do...putting terrorists and those that support/fund terrorism behind bars. I think we know who is grateful and who isn't
blah, blah, blah. War is good, peace is bad. Everybody is out to get us because we are peaceful and like democracy. We just bomb and kill people for their own benefit. Will, You still haven't answered if you served in The military, I couldn't find anything in Hanson biography that suggested he did either which is strange because he was the right age for Vietnam. Do you know if he has been in military? It is my personal experience that big mouth war lovers who always like to send others to the war, usually try their best not to serve in the military themselves.
Who is "we?" You are not American, thank God! What does it matter? Are only people that served in the military afforded some perceived opinion? I served. Here's my opinion: Terrorists are bad and what they do are bad. Stop making excuses for them.
I should read my e-mail more often. Here's another interesting note... -------------------------------------- There is a lot of hype out there about Bush's poll numbers. I think some perspective is needed for those who are gloating over them. Bush Sr. 29% LBJ 35% Clinton 37% Reagan 35% Nixon 24% Ford 37% Carter 28%
Yes, most politicians were caught up in 'terror' and 'fear' at the moment just like the rest of the population, they voted on something they didn't even get to read. Why? who knows, out of politics or fear or hopes of actually getting the terrorists. Just because many congressman made a mistake doesn't make it right or constitutional.
First of all I was making fun of the idiots who write such articles and the people who quote those articles. We was referring to those people. Second, I didn't say that people who have not served can' t express their opinion, I just wanted to confirm my personal experience that usually loud mouth pro war experts, do their best to avoid serving in military. If you want proof, just look at present American administration.
I got a red rep for the above posting with comment "Weekly dose." Gtech, was it you? I can not think of anyone else on this board that so strongly disagrees with above post that needs to give a red rep. Just out of curiosity, if I post: "Democracy (Constitution, human rights, laws) is bad, Fascism (State has all rights, Individual has no right) is good" How many of you, in Gtech group will give me green rep?
Sorry I tried, I do think you bring up some very good points, even for those who do not agree with them.
Nope. I'd have to care about what you said and I don't. I could give you red or green right now. Just haven't seen anything recently that deserves it either way. Feel free to ask an admin. You never seem to post about what little green rep you might get, only the red. Maybe people are trying to tell you something My advice though, on rep is, take your lumps like a man.