Jim VandeHei reports today in the Washington Post :
Less than three months before midterm congressional elections, many Democrats are trying to simultaneously express skepticism about Bush’s Iraq war policy and project a message of resolve and strength against terrorism.
…. At the same time, Democratic leaders in Washington moved on several fronts to accuse Republicans of exploiting terrorism fears for political gain….
It will be interesting to watch the Democrats attempting to demonstrate “resolve and strength against terrorism” when, up to now, they have opposed so many anti-terror policies of the very sort that allowed the Brits to foil the recent plot.
“It will be interesting to watch the Democrats attempting to demonstrate “resolve and strength against terrorism” when, up to now, they have opposed so many anti-terror policies of the very sort that allowed the Brits to foil the recent plot.”
The Democrats will say police and criminal law worked and that was what Kerry advocated in the 2004 campaign.
To get around why they opposed the methods and policies takes a little more gall. But they have enough. Here is one deceptive method someone will try.
As the British police learn more, post arrest, they will see what they might have done better.
Critics can then say ‘See, the Brits could have broke this case another way. They didn’t need to do X’.
This is refinement or reflection. It is done in math, science, poetry, cooking, everywhere.
But you cannot refine until you know the answers. And in police work you don’t know the answers, you are looking for them.
“It will be interesting to watch the Democrats attempting to demonstrate “resolve and strength against terrorism” when, up to now, they have opposed so many anti-terror policies of the very sort that allowed the Brits to foil the recent plot.”
Democrats support legal police work. Its teh GOP the opposes it, thinkin that they are above criticism and any rules because of their holy war.
Yes, Democrats seem to support “legal police work” as long as it meets our 9/10 security needs as they define them and not our post 9/11 ones. The Bush Administration is not above criticism, but constructive proposals dealing with the world we now live in, not the one Democrats wish we did, would be appreciated. Senator Reid, et al., have no meaningful platform and Ned Lamont has even less of one on these issues.
“Democrats support legal police work.”
Really? Is that why there was wide-spread hair-pulling and screaming about the Swift program?
“Its teh GOP the opposes it, thinkin that they are above criticism and any rules because of their holy war.”
Ah, yes, a nice attempt to make it religious from the tolerant left. Sorry, teh (sic) GOP doesn’t think they are above the law. But they aren’t idiots who believe that you can announce in the nation’s biggest newspaper what your tactics are to combat terrorism and still be effective.
Sharon writes:
>>>”Sorry, teh (sic) GOP doesn’t think they are above the law.”
Oh really?
>>>”The American Bar Association will launch a campaign targeted at curbing the “misuse” of presidential signing statements, including an effort to take the documents to court.
Outgoing ABA President Michael S. Greco created a task force to review signing statements after President Bush’s use of the statements attracted attention this spring. While presidents since James Monroe have used signing statements to clarify their interpretations of laws, critics argue that Bush has used the statements more aggressively–signaling not just his interpretations of the law but, sometimes, his intent to ignore it.
Two weeks ago, the ABA task force agreed, recommending what Greco called a “roadmap” to change. The roadmap included five policy resolutions. One declared statements like some Bush has issued “contrary to the rule of law”; two others urged Bush to change the way he uses the statements, exercising his veto power if he thinks a bill is unconstitutional; and two more recommended Congress write legislation to encourage that change.”
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060809/9signing.htm
To date, this administration has written 130 signing statements with 750 challenges. In other words, the President doesn’t believe the laws that he signs applies to him.
That’s the very definition of being “above the law.”
–Cobra
Cobra,
This is the essence of a red herring. Many presidents have used signing statements. In President Bush’s case, he uses them in replacement of a veto. Using a signing statement to say, in essence, that he disagrees with various provisions of a law but is signing it anyway is one way of preserving an argument should there be a legal challenge. Contrary to your assertion, this is acting well within the law.
Sharon writes:
>>>”Using a signing statement to say, in essence, that he disagrees with various provisions of a law but is signing it anyway is one way of preserving an argument should there be a legal challenge. Contrary to your assertion, this is acting well within the law.”
Well…that SOUNDS all well and good, but in reality, here’s an example of how that works.
>>>”WASHINGTON — When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.
After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ”signing statement” — an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law — declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.
”The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief,” Bush wrote, adding that this approach ”will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.”
Torture is illegal…unless Dubya wants to do it
But back to the core of this discussion. What has Republican “strength and resolve” against terrorism accomplished besides creating MORE terrorism and MORE terrorists? Do conservatives TRULY believe that bombing villages and killing civilians will endear displaced survivors to America and its allies? If the goal isn’t winning hearts and minds through endearment, then what is the goal? Intimidation? Not likely. Total Surrender? Less likely than the first.
I’d love for a Bush supporter to explain exactly what the plan is.
–Cobra
“Really? Is that why there was wide-spread hair-pulling and screaming about the Swift program?”
It seems like most of the hissy-fitting is coming from wingnuttia.
“This is the essence of a red herring. Many presidents have used signing statements.”
They got real popular under reagan. Bush has used them more than anyone. Its really a wonder why they do it. As it seems very much against the sort of textualism that Scalia espouses, and wingnuts love.
“But back to the core of this discussion. What has Republican “strength and resolve” against terrorism accomplished besides creating MORE terrorism and MORE terrorists?”
First of all, there have been no new attacks on American targets (such as in this country, foreign embassies, etc.) since we began fighting terrorists where they breed. It’s just stupid to say our policies have created “more terrorists” since we know that the “peace at any cost” foreign policy did, in fact, create “more terrorists.” Osama bin Laden said so. I’d love to know exactly what whiz-bang foreign policy advice people like Cobra would give the President. More appeasement? Hasn’t worked in 30 years. More foreign aid? Didn’t work for 30 years. Stick our heads in the sand and hope they go away? Didn’t work for 30 years. Wring our hands and hope it will get better? Didn’t work for 30 years.
“Do conservatives TRULY believe that bombing villages and killing civilians will endear displaced survivors to America and its allies?”
I guess that depends. If the civilians think the deaths associated with bombing are accidental, as opposed to getting put through plastic shredders, which was intentional, they may be inclined to forgive the casualties. Or they may realize that this is what happens in war.
“If the goal isn’t winning hearts and minds through endearment, then what is the goal? Intimidation? Not likely. Total Surrender? Less likely than the first.”
Well, you are in a part of the world that loves the strongman. Why would we want to win the hearts and minds of terrorists? Is that the latest Democrat slogan? You might want to take it for a dry run before the November elections. It just doesn’t have much of a ring to it.
“It seems like most of the hissy-fitting is coming from wingnuttia.”
Of course you would think this, Actus. I mean, It’s leftwing moonbats who think every effective program for fighting terrorism should be on the front page of the NYT so the terrorists can learn about it. I mean, it wouldn’t be FAIR if we actually caught terrorists before they killed a bunch of Americans, wouldn’t it?
“They got real popular under reagan. Bush has used them more than anyone. Its really a wonder why they do it. As it seems very much against the sort of textualism that Scalia espouses, and wingnuts love.”
Bush uses them so he doesn’t have to veto legislation. Surely a brilliant legal mind like yours would know this. And we all know how much you love Scalia, given your arguments on another thread supporting Scalia-like legal theories.
“Bush uses them so he doesn’t have to veto legislation.”
I know. That’s why its against scalia’s formal textualism. Teh president has the power to sign or veto legislation. Not to change it with signing statements. Of course scalia would just say this sort of junk should just be ignored. I say we should quite loudly be saying that the people who support scalia’s theories are the ones defending things in violation of them.
Sharon writes:
>>>”First of all, there have been no new attacks on American targets (such as in this country, foreign embassies, etc.) since we began fighting terrorists where they breed.”
Why do you seem to assume that “terrorists” are following an established time table? It was eight years between the first WTC attack in 1993 and those on September 11th. Plus, any passive observer of the Bush Administration knows that terror and rumors of terror, complete with color-coded warning charts have been the staple diet on the propaganda menu.
Even with the fear-pimping by this President, what exactly is making you so confident about his stewardship? Are the borders secure? What about the Ports? Airline safety a priority?
C’mon, Sharon.
Sharon writes:
>>>” I’d love to know exactly what whiz-bang foreign policy advice people like Cobra would give the President.”
For one, I would recommend actually using diplomats and diplomacy. The Nixon Administration visited China. The Reagan Administration had summits with the Soviet Union. Last time I remember, those two nations were our adversaries and had thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at us, a FAR greater threat of annihilation than anything the “Axis of Evil” has in their possession.
Also, I would tell Bush not to let the whims of Oil barrons and PAC commitees design foreign policy, but rather, the best interest of all Americans, including the ones who would be sacrificed in some grand imperialism scheme.
Sharon writes:
>>>”I guess that depends. If the civilians think the deaths associated with bombing are accidental, as opposed to getting put through plastic shredders, which was intentional, they may be inclined to forgive the casualties. Or they may realize that this is what happens in war.”
Oh yeah…that’s a strong sell there. I’m sure if your home is bombed out, all your possessions destroyed, your loved ones either killed, wounded or spirited away in the night to held without charges and subject to torture, you’d be “inclined to forgive.”
LOL.
Sharon writes:
>>>”Why would we want to win the hearts and minds of terrorists?”
You don’t. You want to win their hearts and minds before they TURN to terrorism.
–Cobra
“Why do you seem to assume that “terrorists” are following an established time table? It was eight years between the first WTC attack in 1993 and those on September 11th.”
And in between there were numerous attacks on American interests. Come on, Cobra. You know this. Stop trying to connect dot number 1 with dot number 5 without going through 2, 3, and 4.
“For one, I would recommend actually using diplomats and diplomacy. The Nixon Administration visited China. The Reagan Administration had summits with the Soviet Union. Last time I remember, those two nations were our adversaries and had thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at us, a FAR greater threat of annihilation than anything the “Axis of Evil” has in their possession.”
And diplomacy worked…how? Keep in mind that in both the Soviet Union and the China case, they were deterred by the theory of mutually assured destruction. We are facing enemies who think they are rewarded for dying while killing their enemies. Not to mention their contempt for diplomacy except as a tool for deceit. If you laughably think it was diplomacy that won the Cold War then you really are dumber than I give you credit for. Surely you were among the hair-pullers over Reagan’s walk-out at Reykjavik. Why, destruction was inevitable!
Secondly, and most importantly, the U.S. has tried diplomacy in conflicts the world over, including in Iraq. There were numerous resolutions in the U.N. against Saddam, each less effective than the one before. And we did get Resolution 1441 before we went into Iraq. So, please, quit lying about the U.S. not using diplomacy.
“Also, I would tell Bush not to let the whims of Oil barrons and PAC commitees design foreign policy, but rather, the best interest of all Americans, including the ones who would be sacrificed in some grand imperialism scheme.”
Right. And oil isn’t in the interest of Americans? I mean, where I live, gas is about $3 a gallon. I think most people here are pretty interested in it. Now, if you have some scheme to reduce gas prices, I’m all ears. But don’t spread the BS that the only people interested in oil are the oil companies.
“Oh yeah…that’s a strong sell there. I’m sure if your home is bombed out, all your possessions destroyed, your loved ones either killed, wounded or spirited away in the night to held without charges and subject to torture, you’d be “inclined to forgive.”
LOL.”
Wow…such a ….strong…argument. I mean, let’s see. You can see all your loved ones go in a woodchipper OR you can lose your home. Hmm. I think I’d take losing my home. I see your LOL and raise you an LOL.
“You don’t. You want to win their hearts and minds before they TURN to terrorism.”
But that’s happened in most of the country that is peaceful right now. The problem is with the terrorists, who want to blow themselves up and take as many civilians as possible. And you think diplomacy is going to solve that problem? Wow, the left really is bankrupt of foreign policy solutions. Thanks for providing the evidence.
Sharon,
First of all, before I respond, I will say that I want to keep this discussion at a low tempeture. Our world view and philosophies couldn’t be more diametrically opposed, but it doesn’t mean I’m not going to approach you with disrespect. We’re going to learn a lot about each other from these posts, I feel.
OK. On with it….
Sharon writes:
>>>”Secondly, and most importantly, the U.S. has tried diplomacy in conflicts the world over, including in Iraq. There were numerous resolutions in the U.N. against Saddam, each less effective than the one before. And we did get Resolution 1441 before we went into Iraq. So, please, quit lying about the U.S. not using diplomacy.”
That sounds great, but that’s not what Resolution 1441 said:
>>>”Resolution 1441 provides no new authorization for using force. It states in paragraph 12 that a meeting of the Security Council will be the first step upon a report by inspectors that Iraq has obstructed their activities. Consequences will follow a meeting. Syria has confirmed that it received a letter from US Secretary of State Colin Powell “in which he stressed that there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq.”[6] Thus, if and when a meeting is called, Security Council members will have an opportunity to state their assessment of whether serious consequences are called for or not.
Yet, if the Council is silent on consequences or even decides affirmatively not to use force, the US and UK may try to argue that once a meeting has been held they are free to act, that holding the meeting is all that is required. The resolution does not state explicitly that results of the meeting will determine future action. The US has stated repeatedly it will use force in Iraq. President Bush said to the UN on September 12: “If Iraq’s regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively, to hold Iraq to account.”[7] The US made this position clear throughout the negotiations of Resolutions 1441 and can point to the fact that Resolution 1441, unlike the ceasefire resolution (687), does not explicitly state it will be for the Security Council to decide on measures to take in response Iraqi non-compliance. Other members of the Security Council, however, have consistently taken the position that the Security Council must decide on consequences. That position tracks both the explicit terms of the United Nations Charter and the general law, discussed further below. As it stands, none of the Security Council resolutions authorize the US or UK to use force to enforce Iraq’s obligations to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, including Resolution 1441.”
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php
But that was the problem…BUSH pulled the inspectors out of Iraq. Don’t you remember?
>>>”VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday…
…”Late last night … I was advised by the U.S. government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad,” ElBaradei told the IAEA’s board of governors. He said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Security Council were informed and that the council would take up the issue later Monday.
U.N. officials have said the inspectors and support staff still in Iraq could be evacuated in as little as 48 hours.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm
Why did Bush pull them out? Because attacking Iraq was a FOREGONE CONCLUSION…a plan drafted up almost a decade before by the neo-cons at the Project for The New American Century. Because, if the inspectors had remained, they would’ve turned up the same thing our troops have turned up…NO WMDs, thus rendering the need for regime change moot.
I’ll stop at this one, because this could get long, and it’s John’s blog. I’ll be happy to take on the other issues…
How diplomacy worked during the Cold War and how it can work again today, or how trivial the deaths of tens, perhaps over 100,000 Iraqis have been to the American mindset during this war, or why every time you fill your gas tank you’re helping fund the very terrorists you claim you’re at war with…and on and on.
Email me if you like. It won’t be boring, that’s for sure.
–Cobra
It’s interesting that you say you want to keep these posts “at a low temperature,” when I remember quite clearly you raising the heat on more than one occasion. But let’s let your posts speak for themselves.
“But that was the problem…BUSH pulled the inspectors out of Iraq. Don’t you remember?”
The problem wasn’t that Bush pulled the inspectors out. We spent MONTHS negotiating with the U.N. to get a resolution. In fact, there had been numerous resolutions since the first Gulf War. Saddam violated each and every one repeatedly.
“Why did Bush pull them out? Because attacking Iraq was a FOREGONE CONCLUSION…a plan drafted up almost a decade before by the neo-cons at the Project for The New American Century.”
Oh, God. Not this silly argument. Oh, yes. It was a foregone conclusion. I’m surprised you didn’t say that Karl Rove was behind it.
“Because, if the inspectors had remained, they would’ve turned up the same thing our troops have turned up…NO WMDs, thus rendering the need for regime change moot.”
But our troops did turn up WMDs, although not in large quantities. And they found mass graves. And they found torture chambers and discovered how Saddam paid off the French and Germans in the oil for food scandal. All of these things prove that regime change was necessary, something that I thought lefties were for all along. But evidently, they thought that it was good for Saddam to terrorize his own people, support suicide bombers, cheer on 9/11, try to assassinate a president and on and on.
“I’ll stop at this one, because this could get long, and it’s John’s blog. I’ll be happy to take on the other issues…”
Wonderful. Go for it.
“How diplomacy worked during the Cold War and how it can work again today,”
Really? I guess the Cold War worked for the Russians for a while. But please give a couple of instances where appeasement (which is what “diplomacy” is) has worked. Let’s start in the 20th Century.
“or how trivial the deaths of tens, perhaps over 100,000 Iraqis have been to the American mindset during this war,”
I doubt the deaths of Iraqis has been “trivial” to Americans, but most people understand that during war, people die. And the difference is that the American soldiers are not trying to kill civilians, but that civilian casualties are inevitable when terrorists hide among them.
“or why every time you fill your gas tank you’re helping fund the very terrorists you claim you’re at war with…and on and on.”
Oh, of course. I’ll quit driving a car. THAT’S a reasonable option.
Nice try, Cobra. Next.