on Bush and his crashes

Mark Hickey wrote:

...
Bottom line - some people just overreact. Last night as I was leaving
the Bank One Ballpark rally (cool event, but they didn't seem to be
expecting 35,000 people)... as we were leaving, the police (for some
unknown reason) slid one of the gates shut. This temporarily boxed in
a good number of people, most of whom didn't really appreciate it.
After a few moments, they re-opened the gate. We walked out beside a
couple young (college-age) guys - one of them was visibly shaken, and
was talking about how that was his "worst nightmare"... that it was
just like Nazi Germany and the brownshirts.

Two things to keep in mind - they were probably Republicans (so they
should know better), and I just invoked Godwin's law. Thread over.

No, you did not meet the criteria from invoking Godwin's Law. Try to get
something right once in a while.

--
Tom Sherman

George Herbert Walker wrote:

Even if they don't like to say it out loud, lots of Democrats think
that George Bush's supporters are a horde of ignoramuses. Now comes
evidence that they're right! A remarkable new report

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr...0_21_04.html#1
,
titled "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," from
PIPA, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University
of Maryland, suggests that rank and file Republicans are more
benighted than even the most supercilious coastal elitist would
imagine.

UNBELIEVABLE . . . although, of course, not really.

Certainly supports my experience in talking to numerous Bush supporters. So
many have been absolutely resistant to 'facts' via source documents. When
'incontrovertible evidence--' taken from the annals of the administration
that they favor--rears its ugly head, the e-mail thread suddenly stops. I
like the hypothesis posited by the researchers:

"The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to
Steven Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and
equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in
its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between
Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes
it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect
judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his
policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are
at odds with his supporters."

Reminds me of an Al Franken-ism: He says conservatives love their country
the way a 4-year-old loves her Mommy: unconditionally. Anyone who criticizes
Mommy is bad. By contrast, liberals have a "grownup love" for their
country. They take the bad with the good and help their loved one grow.

So . . . those of you representing the conservative position he what is
your reaction to this study's findings??

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:56:09 GMT, "neil0502" wrote:

George Herbert Walker wrote:

Even if they don't like to say it out loud, lots of Democrats think
that George Bush's supporters are a horde of ignoramuses. Now comes
evidence that they're right! A remarkable new report

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr...0_21_04.html#1
,
titled "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," from
PIPA, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University
of Maryland, suggests that rank and file Republicans are more
benighted than even the most supercilious coastal elitist would
imagine.

UNBELIEVABLE . . . although, of course, not really.

Certainly supports my experience in talking to numerous Bush supporters. So
many have been absolutely resistant to 'facts' via source documents. When
'incontrovertible evidence--' taken from the annals of the administration
that they favor--rears its ugly head, the e-mail thread suddenly stops. I
like the hypothesis posited by the researchers:

"The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to
Steven Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and
equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in
its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between
Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes
it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect
judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his
policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are
at odds with his supporters."

Reminds me of an Al Franken-ism: He says conservatives love their country
the way a 4-year-old loves her Mommy: unconditionally. Anyone who criticizes
Mommy is bad. By contrast, liberals have a "grownup love" for their
country. They take the bad with the good and help their loved one grow.

My observation is that the liberal attitude is more like that of a teenager
toward Mommy: every imperfection is hypocrisy, each rule obvious fascism and
every disagreement, no matter how minor, cause for screaming, thrashing,
trashing and hateful invective. All of which is followed by demands for food,
money and personal services at no charge.

So . . . those of you representing the conservative position he what is
your reaction to this study's findings??

I'm not going to dig into that study. In any poll, ANY POLL, you need to see the
actual questions and methodology, you need the internals before accepting the
results. Let's also wonder what ax the people doing the poll and providing the
interpretation may have to grind. The list of PIPA sponsors are the usual
suspects of leftist philanthropy in America. In short, I don't think that study
came close to asking the right questions in a way that would elicit useful
information. I think they sought to portray Bush supporters as ignorant and
succeeded.

Anyway, I can't speak for any unconditional Bush supporters. I simply don't know
any. I know dozens of people who will vote for him warts and all. I know some
whose support is non-negotiable who do feel a sense of loyalty and shared
allegiance for reasons as Kull suggests. Every one of those I have met is very
aware of Bush's failings (with an entirely different idea of what those are than
a liberal think tank) and has some disagreements with him. In fact, that's why I
question the PIPA polling, I don't know of any Bush voters who favored
subjecting US to the ICC or Kyoto. There's something very wrong with their
numbers.

Anyway, these seem to sum up their feelings:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/bommer/Wh...es_Around.html
http://www.ashleysstory.com/media/Ashley.mplarge.wmv

Do you really think the people who made those give a damp fart for the opinions
of France's Bonapartist (ex)foreign minister or some corrupt UN official.

Myself, I can think of several better candidates than Bush. None of them are
running and the alternative offered by the Democrats this time around is an
insult to the republic. They could not have made a worse selection for the
times. The VP nominee is so singularly unqualified we have to question Kerry's
sanity. The guy makes Dan Quayle look like Teddy Roosevelt.

Ron

Ronsonic wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:56:09 GMT, "neil0502"
wrote:

George Herbert Walker wrote:

Even if they don't like to say it out loud, lots of Democrats think
that George Bush's supporters are a horde of ignoramuses. Now comes
evidence that they're right! A remarkable new report


http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr...0_21_04.html#1
,
titled "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," from
PIPA, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the
University of Maryland, suggests that rank and file Republicans are
more benighted than even the most supercilious coastal elitist would
imagine.

UNBELIEVABLE . . . although, of course, not really.

Certainly supports my experience in talking to numerous Bush
supporters. So many have been absolutely resistant to 'facts' via
source documents. When 'incontrovertible evidence--' taken from the
annals of the administration that they favor--rears its ugly head,
the e-mail thread suddenly stops. I like the hypothesis posited by
the researchers:

"The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information,"
according to Steven Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic
experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership
that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to
have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an
idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his
supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments
before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his
policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions
that are at odds with his supporters."

Reminds me of an Al Franken-ism: He says conservatives love their
country the way a 4-year-old loves her Mommy: unconditionally.
Anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. By contrast, liberals have a
"grownup love" for their country. They take the bad with the good
and help their loved one grow.

My observation is that the liberal attitude is more like that of a
teenager toward Mommy: every imperfection is hypocrisy, each rule
obvious fascism and every disagreement, no matter how minor, cause
for screaming, thrashing, trashing and hateful invective. All of
which is followed by demands for food, money and personal services at
no charge.

Sincerely LOL!

I would add, however, that parents can only expect quid pro
quo/contributions/results from children if they have given those children a
leg on which to stand--food, clothing, medical care, education, etc. A
parent who expects their teens to lift themselves up by their proverbial
bootstraps--none having been provided--is cruel and inhumane . . . and turns
a problem child loose on society.

I contend that the conservatives have edged too far toward this end of the
spectrum. Some people (45M?) still need medicine more than they need tax
cuts.

So . . . those of you representing the conservative position he
what is your reaction to this study's findings??

I'm not going to dig into that study. In any poll, ANY POLL, you need
to see the actual questions and methodology, you need the internals
before accepting the results. Let's also wonder what ax the people
doing the poll and providing the interpretation may have to grind.
The list of PIPA sponsors are the usual suspects of leftist
philanthropy in America. In short, I don't think that study came
close to asking the right questions in a way that would elicit useful
information. I think they sought to portray Bush supporters as
ignorant and succeeded.

Also fair, but--again--it has certainly been borne out by my (limited sample
size) experience repeatedly. My biggest fear (and we saw it from '92
through 2000) is that the animus created through the mudslinging election
season predisposes the winner to lead a house *bitterly* divided . . . no
matter what.

I'm not talking about the politics of each party. I'm talking about the
cognitive echoes of the shouts of liar, coward, traitor, moron, gigolo, etc.
In Clinton's case, the animosity was so extreme that [insert any impeachment
reference here].

Anyway, I can't speak for any unconditional Bush supporters. I simply
don't know any. I know dozens of people who will vote for him warts
and all. I know some whose support is non-negotiable who do feel a
sense of loyalty and shared allegiance for reasons as Kull suggests.
Every one of those I have met is very aware of Bush's failings (with
an entirely different idea of what those are than a liberal think
tank) and has some disagreements with him. In fact, that's why I
question the PIPA polling, I don't know of any Bush voters who
favored subjecting US to the ICC or Kyoto. There's something very
wrong with their numbers.

Anyway, these seem to sum up their feelings:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/bommer/Wh...es_Around.html
http://www.ashleysstory.com/media/Ashley.mplarge.wmv

Narrow, primal, reactionary, inflammatory, simplistic, flawed, appeal to the
most base instincts, did I say narrow?, desperate, etc., etc. I understand
you're not calling these vid-clips representative of your views, but the
incessant use of 'vote for me or DIE,' explicitly and implicitly is (and I
say this rarely) shameful. The matter of degree, IMHO, draws a dramatic
distinction between telling seniors that their Medicare benefits may be cut
and the worst possible threat you can level: your_loved_ones_will_all_die .
.. . .

Do you really think the people who made those give a damp fart for
the opinions of France's Bonapartist (ex)foreign minister or some
corrupt UN official.

Myself, I can think of several better candidates than Bush. None of
them are running and the alternative offered by the Democrats this
time around is an insult to the republic. They could not have made a
worse selection for the times. The VP nominee is so singularly
unqualified we have to question Kerry's sanity. The guy makes Dan
Quayle look like Teddy Roosevelt.

Ron

.. . . . and on that basic premise (not who I plan to vote /for/ so much as
who I plan to vote /against/), I think you, I, and many others agree. I was
asked several times to be an activist for Kerry, but told the folks that I
could not, in good conscience. I have no love for the man. Edwards, OTOH,
to me, is a far, far more benign (whether likeable or not) character than
Darth Cheney. I was never afraid of Veeps 'til Dick took the chair. I've
been heartened (pun intended??) to see W taking good physical care of
himself the last 3.5yrs.

And in another matter we have similar feelings: our sense that one of the
candidates is the worst possible person for these times. We're just looking
at different people.....

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:46:48 GMT, "neil0502" wrote:

Ronsonic wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:56:09 GMT, "neil0502"
wrote:

George Herbert Walker wrote:

Even if they don't like to say it out loud, lots of Democrats think
that George Bush's supporters are a horde of ignoramuses. Now comes
evidence that they're right! A remarkable new report


http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr...0_21_04.html#1
,
titled "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," from
PIPA, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the
University of Maryland, suggests that rank and file Republicans are
more benighted than even the most supercilious coastal elitist would
imagine.

UNBELIEVABLE . . . although, of course, not really.

Certainly supports my experience in talking to numerous Bush
supporters. So many have been absolutely resistant to 'facts' via
source documents. When 'incontrovertible evidence--' taken from the
annals of the administration that they favor--rears its ugly head,
the e-mail thread suddenly stops. I like the hypothesis posited by
the researchers:

"The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information,"
according to Steven Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic
experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership
that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to
have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an
idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his
supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments
before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his
policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions
that are at odds with his supporters."

Reminds me of an Al Franken-ism: He says conservatives love their
country the way a 4-year-old loves her Mommy: unconditionally.
Anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. By contrast, liberals have a
"grownup love" for their country. They take the bad with the good
and help their loved one grow.

My observation is that the liberal attitude is more like that of a
teenager toward Mommy: every imperfection is hypocrisy, each rule
obvious fascism and every disagreement, no matter how minor, cause
for screaming, thrashing, trashing and hateful invective. All of
which is followed by demands for food, money and personal services at
no charge.

Sincerely LOL!

I would add, however, that parents can only expect quid pro
quo/contributions/results from children if they have given those children a
leg on which to stand--food, clothing, medical care, education, etc. A
parent who expects their teens to lift themselves up by their proverbial
bootstraps--none having been provided--is cruel and inhumane . . . and turns
a problem child loose on society.

I contend that the conservatives have edged too far toward this end of the
spectrum. Some people (45M?) still need medicine more than they need tax
cuts.

So . . . those of you representing the conservative position he
what is your reaction to this study's findings??

I'm not going to dig into that study. In any poll, ANY POLL, you need
to see the actual questions and methodology, you need the internals
before accepting the results. Let's also wonder what ax the people
doing the poll and providing the interpretation may have to grind.
The list of PIPA sponsors are the usual suspects of leftist
philanthropy in America. In short, I don't think that study came
close to asking the right questions in a way that would elicit useful
information. I think they sought to portray Bush supporters as
ignorant and succeeded.

Also fair, but--again--it has certainly been borne out by my (limited sample
size) experience repeatedly. My biggest fear (and we saw it from '92
through 2000) is that the animus created through the mudslinging election
season predisposes the winner to lead a house *bitterly* divided . . . no
matter what.

I'm not talking about the politics of each party. I'm talking about the
cognitive echoes of the shouts of liar, coward, traitor, moron, gigolo, etc.
In Clinton's case, the animosity was so extreme that [insert any impeachment
reference here].

Having watched and been around the conservatives who just hated Clinton so bad
they _hurt_. I now get to be amused by the Bush haters, the whole "Bu****ler"
thing would be hilarious if it weren't for the generally caustic effect. Hell,
Gore himself seems to have become unhinged.

People seem to forget that nobody is swayed by the depths of their hatred, they
just tick one off in the "hates 'im" column and ignore all else that is said.
Unless the hater gets really nuts in which case he's moved into the "nutso"
column and his political opinion becomes disregarded.

Anyway, I can't speak for any unconditional Bush supporters. I simply
don't know any. I know dozens of people who will vote for him warts
and all. I know some whose support is non-negotiable who do feel a
sense of loyalty and shared allegiance for reasons as Kull suggests.
Every one of those I have met is very aware of Bush's failings (with
an entirely different idea of what those are than a liberal think
tank) and has some disagreements with him. In fact, that's why I
question the PIPA polling, I don't know of any Bush voters who
favored subjecting US to the ICC or Kyoto. There's something very
wrong with their numbers.

Anyway, these seem to sum up their feelings:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/bommer/Wh...es_Around.html
http://www.ashleysstory.com/media/Ashley.mplarge.wmv

Narrow, primal, reactionary, inflammatory, simplistic, flawed, appeal to the
most base instincts, did I say narrow?, desperate, etc., etc. I understand
you're not calling these vid-clips representative of your views, but the
incessant use of 'vote for me or DIE,' explicitly and implicitly is (and I
say this rarely) shameful. The matter of degree, IMHO, draws a dramatic
distinction between telling seniors that their Medicare benefits may be cut
and the worst possible threat you can level: your_loved_ones_will_all_die .
. . .

Do you really think the people who made those give a damp fart for
the opinions of France's Bonapartist (ex)foreign minister or some
corrupt UN official.

Myself, I can think of several better candidates than Bush. None of
them are running and the alternative offered by the Democrats this
time around is an insult to the republic. They could not have made a
worse selection for the times. The VP nominee is so singularly
unqualified we have to question Kerry's sanity. The guy makes Dan
Quayle look like Teddy Roosevelt.

Ron

. . . . and on that basic premise (not who I plan to vote /for/ so much as
who I plan to vote /against/), I think you, I, and many others agree. I was
asked several times to be an activist for Kerry, but told the folks that I
could not, in good conscience. I have no love for the man. Edwards, OTOH,
to me, is a far, far more benign (whether likeable or not) character than
Darth Cheney. I was never afraid of Veeps 'til Dick took the chair. I've
been heartened (pun intended??) to see W taking good physical care of
himself the last 3.5yrs.

Well Edwards seems likable enough. I'll tell you, if I end up falling off a
defective ladder, that's my go-to guy. When he gets me a bunch of money I'll go
to Cheney to manage it. So what's the deal with Cheney Fear? He's obviously an
extraordinarily capable and intelligent guy - does he know _too_ much?

And in another matter we have similar feelings: our sense that one of the
candidates is the worst possible person for these times. We're just looking
at different people.....

That's why we put up with this stupid ritual every four years.

Ron

There is even more evidence about the debate wires coming out he

http://puppetstring.blogspot.com

Thats a wire.... bicycle mechanics, you see wires, that a wire?


(George Herbert Walker) wrote in message . com...
Ronsonic wrote in message . ..

A
teeneaged boy was told that he was a security risk because
he had a Kerry sticker on his wallet when searched by the
Secret Service. If you have any Kerry-Edwards material in
your possession, you are deemed to be a security risk and
are threatened with arrest.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4076497

After the rampages from Kerry's goons this last week that isn't a stretch.

Rove's newest scheme?

Not long ago, Karl Rove told Sean Hannity "We've got a couple of
surprises that we intend to spring." Perhaps we can glimpse the
outlines of one of those surprises.

Across the country, Bush campaign headquarters have been shot at,
attacked, and burgled. None of these attacks have prospered the Kerry
campaign in any way. Each incident has admirably served Karl Rove's
propaganda purposes. In a previous election, he once staged a
"bugging" of his own candidate.

One of the most recent office assaults took place in Knoxville,
Tennessee, where a drive-by shooter put two rounds into a Bush/Cheney
headquarters. As we have noted in one of yesterday's post, this same
office played a key role in an apparent hoax connected to the "mystery
bulge" controversy. The purpose of the hoax remains unclear. I suspect
that the intention was to sidetrack any investigators looking into the
issue, just as legitimate concerns over Bush's National Guard service
were sidetracked by the CBS debacle.

Another senseless attack took place at the Charlestown, South Carolina
G.O.P. office. News reporters covering that story dealt with the
mysterious Phil Parlock, previously linked to a number of
obviously-faked "attacks" by alleged Democrats. In one of these
attacks, Parlock's son played the role of a violently enraged
unionist.


"Enraged unionists" from the AFL-CIO allegedly spearheaded mob action
against various Bush offices on October 5. While these apparently
began as legitimate protests, everyone old enough to recall the
protests of the '60s will know the danger of the agent provocateur. #
posted by Joseph : 1:33 AM


www.cannonfire.blogspot.com/
for the active links (sorry, to lazy to paste them in)

Also see www.isbushwired.com for a similar analysis of another Rove
scheme to discredit the "Bush is Wired" story.

We don't give a **** you ******

"political commentary" wrote in message
om...
There is even more evidence about the debate wires coming out he

http://puppetstring.blogspot.com

Thats a wire.... bicycle mechanics, you see wires, that a wire?


(George Herbert Walker) wrote in message
. com...
Ronsonic wrote in message
. ..

A
teeneaged boy was told that he was a security risk because
he had a Kerry sticker on his wallet when searched by the
Secret Service. If you have any Kerry-Edwards material in
your possession, you are deemed to be a security risk and
are threatened with arrest.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4076497

After the rampages from Kerry's goons this last week that isn't a
stretch.

Rove's newest scheme?

Not long ago, Karl Rove told Sean Hannity "We've got a couple of
surprises that we intend to spring." Perhaps we can glimpse the
outlines of one of those surprises.

Across the country, Bush campaign headquarters have been shot at,
attacked, and burgled. None of these attacks have prospered the Kerry
campaign in any way. Each incident has admirably served Karl Rove's
propaganda purposes. In a previous election, he once staged a
"bugging" of his own candidate.

One of the most recent office assaults took place in Knoxville,
Tennessee, where a drive-by shooter put two rounds into a Bush/Cheney
headquarters. As we have noted in one of yesterday's post, this same
office played a key role in an apparent hoax connected to the "mystery
bulge" controversy. The purpose of the hoax remains unclear. I suspect
that the intention was to sidetrack any investigators looking into the
issue, just as legitimate concerns over Bush's National Guard service
were sidetracked by the CBS debacle.

Another senseless attack took place at the Charlestown, South Carolina
G.O.P. office. News reporters covering that story dealt with the
mysterious Phil Parlock, previously linked to a number of
obviously-faked "attacks" by alleged Democrats. In one of these
attacks, Parlock's son played the role of a violently enraged
unionist.


"Enraged unionists" from the AFL-CIO allegedly spearheaded mob action
against various Bush offices on October 5. While these apparently
began as legitimate protests, everyone old enough to recall the
protests of the '60s will know the danger of the agent provocateur. #
posted by Joseph : 1:33 AM


www.cannonfire.blogspot.com/
for the active links (sorry, to lazy to paste them in)

Also see www.isbushwired.com for a similar analysis of another Rove
scheme to discredit the "Bush is Wired" story.

(political commentary) wrote:

There is even more evidence about the debate wires coming out he

http://puppetstring.blogspot.com

Thats a wire.... bicycle mechanics, you see wires, that a wire?

Heh... I've seen some nonsensical conspiracy theories, but suggesting
that GWB wore "a wire" to a debate...

1) when the same audio could be picked up on any TV set in the US
2) with a connection cable the (apparent) size of a brake cable outer
(bike content)
3) inexplicably routed outside his shirt
4) that somehow disappeared from other camera angles

I can't WAIT until this election is over so the level of nonsense
returns to normal.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

(George Herbert Walker) wrote in message . com...
Ronsonic wrote in message . ..

A
teeneaged boy was told that he was a security risk because
he had a Kerry sticker on his wallet when searched by the
Secret Service. If you have any Kerry-Edwards material in
your possession, you are deemed to be a security risk and
are threatened with arrest.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4076497

After the rampages from Kerry's goons this last week that isn't a stretch.

Rove's newest scheme?

Not long ago, Karl Rove told Sean Hannity "We've got a couple of
surprises that we intend to spring." Perhaps we can glimpse the
outlines of one of those surprises.

Across the country, Bush campaign headquarters have been shot at,
attacked, and burgled. None of these attacks have prospered the Kerry
campaign in any way. Each incident has admirably served Karl Rove's
propaganda purposes. In a previous election, he once staged a
"bugging" of his own candidate.

One of the most recent office assaults took place in Knoxville,
Tennessee, where a drive-by shooter put two rounds into a Bush/Cheney
headquarters. As we have noted in one of yesterday's post, this same
office played a key role in an apparent hoax connected to the "mystery
bulge" controversy. The purpose of the hoax remains unclear. I suspect
that the intention was to sidetrack any investigators looking into the
issue, just as legitimate concerns over Bush's National Guard service
were sidetracked by the CBS debacle.

Another senseless attack took place at the Charlestown, South Carolina
G.O.P. office. News reporters covering that story dealt with the
mysterious Phil Parlock, previously linked to a number of
obviously-faked "attacks" by alleged Democrats. In one of these
attacks, Parlock's son played the role of a violently enraged
unionist.


"Enraged unionists" from the AFL-CIO allegedly spearheaded mob action
against various Bush offices on October 5. While these apparently
began as legitimate protests, everyone old enough to recall the
protests of the '60s will know the danger of the agent provocateur. #
posted by Joseph : 1:33 AM


www.cannonfire.blogspot.com/
for the active links (sorry, to lazy to paste them in)

Also see www.isbushwired.com for a similar analysis of another Rove
scheme to discredit the "Bush is Wired" story.

After Terror, a Secret Rewriting of Military Law
By TIM GOLDEN

Published: NY Times, October 24, 2004

WASHINGTON - In early November 2001, with Americans still staggered by
the Sept. 11 attacks, a small group of White House officials worked in
great secrecy to devise a new system of justice for the new war they
had declared on terrorism.

Determined to deal aggressively with the terrorists they expected to
capture, the officials bypassed the federal courts and their
constitutional guarantees, giving the military the authority to detain
foreign suspects indefinitely and prosecute them in tribunals not used
since World War II.

The plan was considered so sensitive that senior White House officials
kept its final details hidden from the president's national security
adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and the secretary of state, Colin L. Powell
officials said. It was so urgent, some of those involved said, that
they hardly thought of consulting Congress.

White House officials said their use of extraordinary powers would
allow the Pentagon to collect crucial intelligence and mete out swift,
unmerciful justice. "We think it guarantees that we'll have the kind
of treatment of these individuals that we believe they deserve," said
Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a driving force behind the policy.

But three years later, not a single terrorist has been prosecuted. Of
the roughly 560 men being held at the United States naval base at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, only 4 have been formally charged. Preliminary
hearings for those suspects brought such a barrage of procedural
challenges and public criticism that verdicts could still be months
away. And since a Supreme Court decision in June that gave the
detainees the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal court,
the Pentagon has stepped up efforts to send home hundreds of men whom
it once branded as dangerous terrorists.

"We've cleared whole forests of paper developing procedures for these
tribunals, and no one has been tried yet," said Richard L. Shiffrin,
who worked on the issue as the Pentagon's deputy general counsel for
intelligence matters. "They just ended up in this Kafkaesque sort of
purgatory."

The story of Guantanamo and the new military justice system became an
intractable legacy of Sept. 11 has been largely hidden from public
view.

But extensive interviews with current and former officials and a
review of confidential documents reveal that the legal strategy took
shape as the ambition of a small core of conservative administration
officials whose political influence and bureaucratic skill gave them
remarkable power in the aftermath of the attacks.

The strategy became a source of sharp conflict within the Bush
administration, eventually pitting the highest-profile cabinet
secretaries - including Ms. Rice and Defense Secretary Donald
H. Rumsfeld - against one another over issues of due process,
intelligence-gathering and international law.

In fact, many officials contend, some of the most serious problems
with the military justice system are rooted in the secretive and
contentious process from which it emerged.

To the policy's architects, the attacks on the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon represented a stinging challenge to American power and an
imperative to consider measures that might have been unimaginable in
less threatening times. Yet some officials said the strategy was also
shaped by longstanding political agendas that had relatively little to
do with fighting terrorism.

Military lawyers were largely excluded from that process in the days
after Sept. 11. They have since waged a long struggle to ensure that
terrorist prosecutions meet what they say are basic standards of
fairness. Uniformed lawyers now assigned to defend Guantanamo
detainees have become among the most forceful critics of the
Pentagon's own system.

Foreign policy officials voiced concerns about the legal and
diplomatic ramifications, but had little influence. Increasingly, the
administration's plan has come under criticism even from close allies,
complicating efforts to transfer scores of Guantanamo prisoners back
to their home governments.

To the policy's architects, the attacks on the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon represented a stinging challenge to American power and an
imperative to consider measures that might have been unimaginable in
less threatening times. Yet some officials said the strategy was also
shaped by longstanding political agendas that had relatively little to
do with fighting terrorism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jobst Brandt

Mark Hickey wrote:

...
I can't WAIT until this election is over so the level of nonsense
returns to normal....

So you must be a Kerry supporter then, since we have had four years of
policy nonsense from the Cheney/Bush II administration.

--
Tom Sherman