RSS
Misinformation gone wild
Posted by Doughboy on Jul 16th, 2009
2009
Jul 16
I just sent this email out to about 100 folks. I shall post it because not only is it important, but I think it’ll be something we “donnybrookers” might agree upon?:
On this the 219th anniversary of Washington DC’s founding, how many of your friends have told you that the housing crisis was caused by “deregulation” from the Bush Administration?
Personally, just about ALL of mine have uttered that cliche. And, no surprise, it’s 100% wrong, and the truth is basically the opposite.
Bush repeatedly warned Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and the Dems to regulate, reform and reconsider Fannie and Freddie. This is on record from 2002-2008.
In response, these Democrats said he was “ill-advised” and signed petitions opposing him. Bush’s accurate requests were repeatedly ignored or outright rejected by House “leader” Barney Frank and Senate “leader” Chris Dodd, who then, after realizing they were the main culprits in the disaster (read any of their quotes on the matter from 2006-2008, all of which were proven incorrect), blamed “right wing Republicans” and any CEO (often Republicans) they could drag onto national TV and pester before a gullible audience.
And only Fox News and Maria Bartiromo (CNBC) ever challenged them. They had no answers then either, other than more misguided blame and irresponsibility.
Fannie and Freddie’s bailouts cost us taxpayers more than the bailouts of Bank of America, CitiGroup, JP Morgan, Chase and Wells Fargo combined.
As we so often realize now, Bush was right and they were wrong. He’s a far more mature and kind man than I, so he would never rub it in their faces like I will.
I’d link articles and books, but most won’t read, so do a search if you’d like. It’s all there — on You Tube; in Dr. Sowell’s new book I just finished; in various Jeff Jacoby columns. and many others.
I write all because I simply tire of the moral relativism, mostly from the left, as the right is confident in whom to blame. Why worry when facts are on your side?
This whole political era is so obvious who’s right and wrong — on the war, economy, social issues, the environement, Israel (check this out), etc — that it’s not worth my time.
Without brainwashing factories (aka schools, especially Ivy League) and the media, the Democrat Party would cease to exist…as should have been the case after Republicans finally freed the slaves from Democrats in 1865.
That way, we’d never have heard of the KKK, segregation, Jim Crow, Bull Connor, Al Gore Sr. or Jr., Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton, LBJ, welfare, affirmative action, urban corruption, “post-modernism,” the ACLU, the Clintons, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Barbara Boxer, George Soros, Sandra Sotomayor, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Eric Holder, Barack Hussein Obama or other heinous programs (socialized health care) and non-existent distractions (“global warming”) that have destroyed the black community, put Israel in peril and divided America just like slavery once did.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
The housing crisis was caused by the legalization of usury in post-Reformation Western Europe, but I digress.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Democrat Party of the 1800s is the reason blacks were lynched, Israel is threatened, and America is divided?
While I agree that a more vigorous adherence to traditional values, mores, and behaviours would have greatly reduced the ascendancy of Enlightenment “liberalism,” and thus many of the problems society currently faces, I think it’s just plain wrong (and remarkably simplistic) to think that, if the Republicans had succeeded in eradicating Democrats in 1865 (which really could only have been done with a Hitlerian Final Solution), that none of the things you mentioned would have surfaced.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Bush also pushed for government-funded, zero-down mortgages and extraordinarily lax lending standards, particularly to minorities.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/homestead/2004-October/001418.html
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/080928_rove.htm
Bush in 2002: “The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. … So I’ve set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010—million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) … ”
…
Bush again: “”Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. ”
Remember the 2000s, the era when 3% down was a “high down payment”? Good times then.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Big shock, I’m on a conservative site, and have people criticising Bush and absolving the Dems from blame, challenging my critiques of the Dems. No wonder our party loses elections. We’re fighting ourselves!
No, Mike, my last statement was hyperbole. That said, the world would be much better off without Democrats and liberalism.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:59 am
VDH puts it better than I can, and perhaps more fairly:
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-psychology-of-debt%e2%80%94and-obama%e2%80%99s-rendezvous-with-political-reality/?print=1
July 17th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
No commenter “absolved the Democrats from blame.” When someone points out the faults of Republicans, this says NOTHING about the Democrats, bad or good. That is basic logic.
Your party loses elections because it has its head up its rear end. Bush endorsed amnesty, No Child Left Behind, bank bailouts, Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, increased funding for Medicare, and two 8+ year land wars in Asia. He was, by any definition, an enormous spender. He made JFK look like a rightwing nutjob.
To deny this — and not to see the faults in this — is hardly “conservative.” It is fantasy politics. It is like rooting for one Pharoah over another.
We’re not really in a battle of Left vs. Right. It is more like managerial bureaucracy vs. taxpayers. The Republicans simply want the power to control the bureaucracy, to make it a slightly nicer bureaucracy (to you). The Repubs assume the premises of liberalism. They will keep drifting leftward. Taxpayers will continue to suffer.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:14 am
Nimrod, Obama will do that times ten, but the GOP has its head up its rear. Any spending habits you blame Bush for are countered by Obama ten-fold.
And then there’s national security where Bush gets it and they don’t, not to mention his social and educational policies are better.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:56 am
Doughboy, I think you’re missing Nimrod’s point. Nobody is arguing that Obama is good or even better than Bush.
In a sense what is happening is you are pointing out that Obama is the devil and saying that nothing is worse than that. Nimrod is saying, “Sure, but Bush is one of his demons and not good either.” And you come over the top saying, he’s better than the devil. In the end, that argument is debatable. At least with the devil (Obama, Pelosi, etc.), you know you are screwed. With some lesser evil (Bush), you may find yourself cheering it on and promoting as a positive boon on conservative websites because it could be worse.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:58 am
OK, Karl, but still it’s not entirely fair or accurate — much less necessary — to blame Bush when 2010 and 2012 are upon us, with the nation at stake.
And that said, it’s quite capricious to blame Bush as is:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071909.html
July 21st, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Proof again that those who worship Bush are just as blindered as those who worship Obama. Don’t confuse us with the facts, we know Bush was good because he was, well, a Republican.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I’ve criticized Bush a lot before because he wasn’t perfect (just like Reagan wasn’t) but overall he was very, very good on the MOST IMPORTANT issues of the day.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:48 pm
“Proof again that those who worship Bush are just as blindered as those who worship Obama.”
yep, and you’re just the perfect guy in the middle
what a ridiculous comment…
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
“I’ve criticized Bush a lot before because he wasn’t perfect ”
“it’s not entirely fair or accurate — much less necessary — to blame Bush when 2010 and 2012 are upon us, with the nation at stake.”
With 2010 and 2012 upon us and the nation at stake, and the recognition that Bush was not perfect (a fair and accurate statement – he was the biggest spender in history prior to Obama (i.e. devil v. demon)). Doesn’t it seem prudent to try to convince the Republican Party – the party that is purportedly conservative – to annoint someone more perfect. Perhaps by airing this argument the Party will take notice and support conservative candidates as opposed to compassionate conservatism (which was neither compassionate, nor conservative), Arlen Specter, John McCain, etc.
Doughboy, if you want to call the Republican Party the conservative party, it seems to me the Party ought to do something which demonstrates its conservatism. Instead, it has embraced Big Government Statism – the only difference between the Ds and Rs is one of degree of State aggrandizement. Can you not see that there is value in attempting to influence one of the parties to abandon Statist policies? Being a cheerleader for the status quo will not send any such message.
So, for that reason, I would argue that criticism of Bush and Republicans like him is not only necessary, but crucial. The goal is not to defeat Democrats – not when you defeat them by adopting their policy goals. But, rather the goal is limited government that allows men to be free.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
No conservative I know, including me, is arguing for the status quo. I’m saying Bush was a very good president who happened to be “compassionate” and tried to “unite” us by being a liberal Republican who spent too much. He was solid elsewhere and needs to be defended, especially by those in his own party.
Karl, I have read Levin’s book as you know.
I was a Romney supporter from day one in 2007. I think a ticket with him and Eric Cantor can beat Obama/Biden in 2012.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:58 am
re: comment #11, Doughboy, by responding as you did (“you’re the perfect guy in the middle”), you indicate that you just don’t see that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between statist Republicans and statist Democrats. Dean wasn’t pretending to appeal to you from some mid-point between conservatism and liberalism. He was pointing out that Bush and Obama are one and the same. The only significant difference at all was in the area of judicial appointments, and even there, some arguments could be made about Bush’s appointees to the federal benches and SCOTUS towing the statist line, specifically with regard to presidential overreach.
July 24th, 2009 at 8:10 am
I will noty accept your line about them being the same. The War on Terror is the prime example. If you don’t see that, I cannot help you.
Then there’s abortion and much else…
July 24th, 2009 at 9:11 am
How has abortion changed? Granted, Obama rescinded Mexico City policy. Is Roe v. Wade still settled law? Yes. Are millions of innocents still being slaughtered? Yes. What did Bush do to actually stop abortion? Nothing.
How has the War on Terror changed? Are U.S. troops still killing and being killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Waziristan, Pakistan, and other secret locations under covert operation cover? Yes. Is Congress still spending massively to fund these wars which have not made us safer and which are serving quite well to recruit more fundamentalist Jihadis to the cause of their false martyrdom? Yes. Is Obama still ordering these operations? Yes. What’s different between the two administrations?
If you don’t accept that — even in these two areas — we’re dealing with two sides of the same statist coin, I cannot help you.
July 24th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Mike, I think you very succinctly point out that while the rhetoric may be different from one party to the next, the actual results are another matter. I have always thought that one should look to another’s actions rather than their words to see the content of his character. When one looks at what the Republican Party does, it is impossible to miss its resemblance to the Democrats.
People may argue that Bush wanted to end abortion, but, as you mention, what did he actually do? Did he push Congress to pass laws to make it tougher to obtain one? Did he encourage the Congress to amend the constitution and re-institute (reiterate, make plain) the basic right to life that all people possess? He did not.
As for the GWOT, I see absolutely no difference whatsoever between GWB and Obama. Indeed, the Republicans have been praising Obama for this very thing. Did Obama sack GWB’s SecDef? His generals prosecuting the GWOT? Has there been even a slight shift in the way the GWOT is being fought?
I don’t see it, Doughboy, and you are going to have to help me if you wish otherwise. I am willing to peer through the magnifying glass with you to try to discern the miniscule differences between the two administrations. But, I would like you to admit that, in large measure, there are not a lot of differences to be seen on a macro level.
July 24th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Start here:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/04/29/the-first-one-hundred-dayswhile-obama-slept/
Bush Doctrine vs Obama’s anti war cut and run stance. He’s only temporarily keeping up the fight b/c he kept Gates on and knows we’re winning. As is, he’s wrongly moving the war to Afghanistan, which is a much harder fight.
But you guys have your minds made up to strip defense and keep all the money here even if it means 250k dead in LA next month via a terror attack that the Patriot Act would have kept us safe from.
You see little difference in Bush and Obama on national security, and I see little difference between you nat’l security positions and the far left. Very little.
Here are some more articles since I cannot get thru to you:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122541445283586623.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4241865/History-will-show-that-George-W-Bush-was-right.html
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10309
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012903444.html
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-iraq-minefield/
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_shoe_nuf_truth_144409.htm
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/658dwgrn.asp
http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110008951
July 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
MIKE WROTE: “Is Congress still spending massively to fund these wars which have not made us safer and which are serving quite well to recruit more fundamentalist Jihadis to the cause of their false martyrdom?”
And, so, you advocate what response to the very real and attempted attacks on our soil? Isolationism and ignorance? Do you really think that if the U.S. stopped using oil and forever left the rat’s nest of the Middle East that we would then be safer? It is easy to criticize but what I would love to hear, Mike, is your thoughts on what should be done. I will now brace my self from the ostrich approach I assume you will advocate.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I advocate an almost total withdrawal of troops from foreign soil with a restructuring and repositioning for defense of our borders. I advocate a massive reinvigoration of domestic entrepeneurship in the energy industries for companies who produce and distribute domestic energy, with a 15-year sunset on the ability of anyone to purchase oil from anywhere other than the U.S., Canada, and strictly curtailed Mexican imports. I advocate a swift, massive, and irrevocable deportation of all illegals and most legal immigrants. I advocate a return to historical levels of sustainable immigration with a policy of assimilation and citizenship being the only justifications (with limited humanitarian and political asylum exceptions on a case by case basis). I advocate the unmistakable and unilateral declaration of non-intervention in foreign affairs. I advocate the equally unmistakable swift justice — including issuance of letters of marque — for anyone foolish enough to mistake our kindness for weakness. I have said all this before.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
To address your concern specifically, I advocate eliminating the ability — to the extent humanly possible — of any of those aggressors to harm us.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“I advocate a swift, massive, and irrevocable deportation of all illegals and most legal immigrants.” (I only site this because I have read the rest before. My lack of discussion should not be confused with acceptance.)
Really? of legal immigrants too? They do have Big C. rights and protections. Do you favor eliminating these?
July 24th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Yes.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Woah. So, no one in but Citizens. Does that mean no citizens out? What if citizens leave, may they return?
July 24th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
After post 20, Mike, it will be hard for you to go forward and argue that you are not an isolationist.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Well crap. Bill beat me to the one quibble I had with Mike’s proposal. I would not deport legal immigrants and believe they are protected by the Constitution.
However, Mike, I do have one question. When you say, “I advocate a massive reinvigoration of domestic entrepeneurship in the energy industries,” what does that mean?
Are you talking about direct government investment either through payments of cash or through tax credits to companies engaged in energy production and exploration? How do you propose to (re)invigorate domestic production of energy entrepreneurship?
July 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I would add to Mike’s proposal that we need to establish once and for all whether simply being born in the United States is a ticket to citizenship. I would suggest that something more be shown. For instance, at a minimum, I think the parents should be here legally and permanently before the baby would be considered a citizen.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
You “one quibble”?! You too believe that we should not continue the fight against those that WILL nukes us given the means? You too believe that the best way to end the islamofascist threat is to retreat and pretend we have no interest in humanity?
July 24th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Bill, thank you. A voice of sanity and common sense in this convoluted isolationist “donnybrook”
July 24th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I must have twisted your knickers a bit. You’re not typing so well.
No. I believe the best way to end the islamofascist threat to us is to stop this self-imposed policeman to the world mentality. When’s the last time you heard about a terror attack in Switzerland? Did our intervention in Iraq show our abiding love of humanity? The Catholic Church didn’t buy it if so. How do you reconcile your interventionist position with your Pope’s?
July 24th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
To you guys and the left, it’s always America’s fault that they hate us. If we went away, it’d be fine, huh? You guys are too smart and well-read to misunderstand history.
Wow.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Why shouldn’t Democrats want to rewrite the housing disaster history? After convincing Americans that Republicans supported slavery and created the Klan to enforce Jim Crow, a little thing like Barney Frank is nothing.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think I specifically said I want a roll-back to manageable levels of immigrants who come here expressly for the purpose of citizenship. Most legal immigrants are not here for that reason. They need to go. We can have non-violent felons detassel corn and pick lettuce. Is that clearer?
When I said “I advocate a massive reinvigoration of domestic entrepeneurship in the energy industries,” I mean government at state and local levels should incentivize development through whatever subsidiarity allows, i.e., tax credits. This is supposed to be an American market for the benefit of Americans. Energy is plentiful and there are legitimate, diverse sources which need to be tapped and environmentalist nonsense needs to be thrown out. I say that as a dedicated conservationist. There is no contradiction.
Bill, prove to me what someone “WILL” do. If we make it practically impossible for “them” to get to us, then how is that terror going to occur? Fighting terrorists means keeping them so far away they can’t do anything to you. That’s what my proposal does. Your method, and Doughboy’s (especially when you couple interventionism with the Patriot Act which is our Savior), do not have any better chance of preventing a rogue cell from “nuking us.” You cannot argue otherwise. There is absolutely no perfect and foolproof way to prevent scumbag nutjobs from mayhem if they are determined enough, perpetual GWOT or no perpetual GWOT, and my way is decidedly more likely to succeed at our common goal of true defence.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
The Pope is infallible on matters of faith, not politics.
Switzerland? Really, you hold up the noncommittal, standing idly by, immoral do nothings as your beacon for American foreign policy? They happen to hold on to a lot of terrorist money for one thing.
You clamor for American inaction but you fail to see that our inaction will and have only lead to victory for evil.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
“You clamor for American inaction but you fail to see that our inaction will and have only lead to victory for evil.”
BINGO! Bill wins. There is no more simpler, accurate way to put it, even if Mike writes some pedantic, long-winded reply.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Doughboy, what exactly is pedantic about the question (I’ll simplify by paraphrasing) “If we keep them there, how can they hurt us here?”
July 24th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
which them?
i meant your generally pedantic replies. sorry.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
And after you tell me what’s pedantic about it, perhaps one of the two of you could actually, I don’t know, gosh, get around to answering it? How. Can. They. Hurt. Us. If. They. Can’t. Get. In. ?
July 24th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Most of your comments are showy and pedantic, in general.
Nonetheless, who is them? The terrorists?
July 24th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
All of “THEM.” The real and imagined boogeymen. Islamofascists or actual pseudo-Muslim fanatics. Whomever. As I said, I want just about all of “them” out.
You guys, not coincidentally, almost never want to do anything about that wide open avenue of terrorist infiltration. Just ask McAmnesty. I mean, George W. McCain. I mean, Romney McOpen-Borders.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
You might percieve them that way if all you ever read is PajamasMedia or the National Review.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I generally agree with your immigration comments. I wish you’d apply the same sound, “jingoist” but accurate logic to the Jihadists in the middle east who now live in every American city.
We keep them there by continuing the VERY VERY succesful GWOT that you’all oppose, like your friends on the far left.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Mike, your way throws out basic notions of freedom and the Comstitution in the name of safety. Your way says “get nukes, just keep them in the middle east.” My position is to prevent terrorists from arming themselves with these weapons in the first place. Your way failed decades ago. Britain never did secure “peace in our time” by appeasement.
Your way succombs to terrorist desires for a weakened and defeated America who would turn her back on humanity and her own basic notions of decency. I want no part of that isolated and discouraging nation.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Did I get hit on the head and wake up in Oz? I just finished saying I want all of them that are here out. I WANT THEM GONE. Far away. Not here. Elsewhere. Overseas. At least two seas. Three is we can manage it. We keep letting them in because people like you keep on disallowing criticism of “the Party” because they’re “Sooooo good at winning the GWOT,” so “the Party” keeps on accepting lobbyist money and allowing more porous borders. Because, you know. We need the cheap labor.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Bill, you’d better just go ahead and nuke all of them because one of them eventually WILL get nukes and might use them against us, who already have them, which is fine because we can but they can’t because they’d use them! We can and have used them and that’s okay, because we do and did. But they can’t ever be allowed to do something so immoral so we have to do that immoral thing and while we’re at it we better go all the way and preemptively kill them all so there won’t ever be any more of them. Only us.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
What exaclty is preemptive about attacking those that have declared war on the U.S.?
July 24th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
You said they WILL nuke us. I said, in essence, “be consistent. Preemptively take out all future terrorists.” It’s a Final Solution.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Re: #46, no state declared war on us. The Talib regime allowed criminals to further their criminal conspiracy, and we retaliated against them in the course of pursuing the criminals who murdered people in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. We stopped that mission and started a preemptive war against an uninvolved country. We are still in that country and have begun reasserting ourselves in the previous one. Still, no war has been declared — by them or by our Congress. Remind me of that Constitution thingy you were talking about earlier with regard to immigrants and their rights under it? What does it say about war and all that again?
July 24th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Bill wrote: “Your way failed decades ago. Britain never did secure “peace in our time” by appeasement.”
How will we know? Since Britain and the USA went to war against Germany I’d say the way of peace wasn’t given a fair chance. And the results of doing it your way (joining the war) left a worse madman in power than Hitler (Stalin), Eastern Europe still under bondage of tyranny (worse than Hitler’s) and made us among the worst mass killers of innocents in history. Big success that was.
Bill wrote: What exaclty is preemptive about attacking those that have declared war on the U.S.?
Declaring war and actually waging it are two different things. According to your argument one has the right to execute anyone who trash talks to you. Can you point to one act of violence that Hussein committed against the US? (shooting at jets flying in his airspace don’t qualify)
July 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I suppose I have another quibble with Mike’s proposal (#20 and 33). He wrote: “I mean government at state and local levels should incentivize development through whatever subsidiarity allows, i.e., tax credits.”
I would allow the market to provide for itself without any enlargement of government (even at the local level). There is a market for energy. Profits will provide all the incentive needed to encourage entrepreneurship. I think we have enough government without more intrusion and interference in the markets.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Mike-
your agument that we should not fight unless a state declares war is without any merit what so ever! Terrorists are the modern day barbarians but worse.
As to the Constitution, what is your point? That force can not be used without a declaration of war? Where does the Big C say that? War, my boy, is more than force of arms.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
If we’re going to mandate that our energy infrastructure grow that much, we need to let the various governments act in their best interests with the principle of subsidiarity in mind. Besides, exempting someone from paying taxes for a period of time doesn’t grow government, it slows or stops it. I’m not following your objection.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Dean-
Yeah…you and PJB are good at re-writting history.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Bill, you said they had declared war on us so we were not preemptive. I pointed out they didn’t do any such thing. Tribesmen in Afghanistan (who had all but eradicated the terror-funding opium trade there, by the way) allowed some rich Saudis to set up camp and have Q’uran schools. The Saudis were criminals we should have sought and brought to justice or killed in the process of doing so. The Talib were set up and close with the people in Pakistan we now depend on to help make sure the baddies don’t get nukes. You guys are a riot.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Bill, I was thinking of the enumerated powers in Article 1 section 8:
“the Congress shall have power… To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; …”
Define and punish felonies and offenses against the law of nations, such as, I don’t know, a group of meatheads flying planes into buildings. That’s what I was thinking. But perhaps Jim Baker and Warren Christopher (ewww) are right that we need to have a real national sit-down and get down to the nitty-gritty of why that doesn’t prevent the President from “defining and punishing,” etc.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Presidential statism is fine, I see. Because we were safe under Bush but all these terrorist attacks under Obama are just the living end!
July 24th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Pardon me. I was referring to Bin Laden and crew. You are correct that a formal declaration was never issued by the Taliban.
You, on the one hand, make a case for expanding the war but then, on the other, cry for isolation. Which is it?
July 24th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Bin Laden and crew can’t declare war. They are not a nation. They are not sovereign entities. They are rogue criminals who should be hunted down and either tried and convicted or destroyed in the process. And then we should get back home and stop funding terrorist Pakistan, terrorist Saudi Arabia, terrorist Syria, terrorist whomever.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Bill, by rewriting history, did you mean like the shifting justifications for preemptively invading a country created by the League of Nations and given to Britain after the war with the Ottoman Empire? That kind of rewriting of history?
July 24th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
But, getting back to #58, instead, we continue to fund Saudi Arabia, which was founded by radical Wahhabis who created Al Qaeda. With George W. Bush leading the charge to kiss their asses. We continue to fund Pakistan, unstable repressive hotbed of Wahhabist fundamentalism and — oh yeah! — home of nuclear weapons ripe for the picking, thanks to our technological assistance back in our wild-n-crazy CIA heyday after Ike, with George W. Bush leading the charge to kiss their asses so as to not provoke instability. And we continue to fund… oh, man, I’m getting tired of all this rewriting and revisionism. We are so much safer thanks to Bush and the GWOT! Thanks, Dub. Thanks, Dick. Thanks, Doug. Thanks, Don. Thanks a lot.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Mike-
I was referring to Dean’s “Since Britain and the USA went to war against Germany I’d say the way of peace wasn’t given a fair chance” comment.
As Dean so honestly points out, Germany was a peaceful and moral nation after Chamberlain entered in to the Munich Agreement. But its probably easier for you to attack Israel, isn’t it?
July 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Hey, I largely agree with your sentiments in no. 60. But you still dodged the question from no. 57
July 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
You answer my question (“how can they hurt us if they can’t get to us?”) and I’ll answer yours.
And I didn’t once attack Israel.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Hell, Mike, didn’t you know? Expressing reservations about nuking every Arab-speaking nation in the Middle East is an attack on Israel.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Okay, Israel aside.
The terrorists can hurt us either by sneaking into the US, attacking interests or friends abroad. I understand, you plan effectively prevents ANYONE from coming to America (much to Eddie Murphy’s dismay). Your way also prevents most Americans from doing business abroad, or at least in areas you determine to be off limits. Americans will be abroad, hopefully we would still have friends under your plan and they would still be hurt. Your plan may delay attack until the terrorists can amass enough technology to deliver a blow from across “two seas” but it does not prevent it. They hate us for more than our travel and business. They hate us because we are not Muslim fanatics; we stand in the way of their crazy world dominating plan.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Welcome back Karl! Now, show me where some one advocated “nuking every arab-speaking nation in the middle east.” How wild eyed of you to read something that does not exist.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
You mean, the terrorists might eventually amass enough technological prowess since we continue to let foreigeners into our universities to get quality engineering educations so they can go back and develop missile and weapons programs because we let them in since we’re a “nation of immigrants”? I didn’t think of that. Gosh.
My plan redistributes national defence to where it matters: our actual nation. As I said, your plan hastens our demise, mine at least — at least — slows it considerably.
No, we shouldn’t allow our people to trade with these scum! Are you seriously suggesting we trade with them and enrich them as they proceed with their “crazy world dominating plan”???
Missionaries convert people from their crazy world dominating antichristian plans. Not bombing campaigns and rocket attacks. And our government should not be sending missionaries. If churches want to send them and our people want to go, by all means, they should be allowed to do so at their own peril, willing to become martyrs as the earliest Christian missionaries were. Without benefit of a Roman army.
So tell me, “how can they hurt us if they can’t get to us?” I already said we ought to reinstitute letters of marque and reprisal. That would take care of quite a lot of potential attacks on Americans abroad.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Hyperbole, Bill, hyperbole. That, and I’m probably getting my email correspondence mixed up with what has actually been written on the website.
As for your comments in 65, I say we withdraw to our shores and let the Russians and Chinese worry about the deranged fanatics on their doorstep. They have more to fear from a nuclear armed rogue nation bent on expanding the Caliphate than we do. Unless, of course, we make ourselves handy by maintaining military bases in the region. They too, you see, are the infidel. Let Asia take of Asia’s own.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
I seem to recall the words of another neocon hero, to the effect that speaking softly and carrying a big stick are policies to be pursued. And I’d say that’s not bad advice, provided we don’t go over there bashing people about the head and shins with said stick. And when the inevitable time comes to use it, do so judiciously.
July 24th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Karl-
So the Ostrich approach it is for you?
July 24th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Bill -
It’s called the American approach. Ask a historian, like Doughboy. We were remarkably safe here at home and pretty doggone safe for a couple hundred years, with a few incidents now and then. And Islamic radicalism is no new phenomenon. Nor is Communism. Should we have let any and every Eastern European into the country after 1917 or 1950? Should we have allowed all of our people to come and go there as much as they pleased, bringing whomever they wished? And decided, the heck with it. Let’s set up some military bases in Grozny, Minsk, Vladivostok, Bucharest, Belgrade, Tblisi, and Murmansk?
July 24th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I’m not cut out for the adventurer’s life. I respect the opinion of the Pope too much to engage in unprovoked wars against sovereign nations that do me no harm. I reject the notion that attacking others makes me safer. The results do not seem to bear that out. Plus, it is expensive. In fact, there’s really nothing positive about your way.
Bill writes: “My position is to prevent terrorists from arming themselves with these weapons in the first place.”
How has that worked out for you? Pakistan is nuclear armed. Iran will be any day. Did the adventure in Iraq prevent that? Must we now attack and disarm Pakistan and Iran? Who’s next? How about North Korea? Seems like their pretty belligerent and threatening one of our allies. Let’s take that big stick of ours and give them a whack too. Did I leave anybody out? Venezuela? Cuba? Let’s go back to Somalia; we have unfinished business there. And there are numerous tinpot additions to the Caliphate popping up all over Africa. Why don’t we just conquer the entire continent? I mean to make us safer.
You want to call me an ostrich? That’s fine. I’ll gladly be an ostrich before I will be in your camp.
July 24th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Mike/Karl-
You two are great at taking narrow points and blowing them way out of proportion!
“Should we have let any and every Eastern European into the country after 1917 or 1950? Should we have allowed all of our people to come and go there as much as they pleased, bringing whomever they wished? And decided, the heck with it. Let’s set up some military bases in Grozny, Minsk, Vladivostok, Bucharest, Belgrade, Tblisi, and Murmansk?”
Of course not, don’t be silly. But eliminating immigration from EVERY nation and unnecessarily restricting travel and business of Americans is tyrannical. You act as if every business/travel to or from the middle east is for evil puposes. How lame.
“I reject the notion that attacking others makes me safer. The results do not seem to bear that out. Plus, it is expensive. In fact, there’s really nothing positive about your way.”
You are so right. I feel humiliated. I didn’t realize that if after 9/11 we appeased Osama and radical Islam that we would be untouched for all time! Gee, seems we haven’t been attacked since….
” How has that worked out for you?” and so on….(drone).
Re-read my comment (no. 18) on “Turning Conservatism on its Historical Head” to answer (again) your faulty thinking. You can not shy away from evil, you can not let bad men trample good or you are guilty of evil yourself.
July 24th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
I’m curious, Bill. Why do we need or want immigrants?
As to your rejoinder, such as it was, I do not “act as if every business/travel to or from the middle east is for evil puposes.” I make the distinction quite clearly. But you can’t realistically separate the good from the bad, especially at the airport when the TSA is busy checking my mother-in-law’s luggage and making her take off her shoes and trying to make her walk through an Xray machine despite her doctor’s order excusing her because of the surgical implant in her lower back which would get ruined.
And do you people still (with your constant Patriot Act hue-and-cry) not get that trade has moral implications? That enriching these people enriches the very ones (hint: his initials are OBL) you claim to want to get? That trading with their companies is trading with and supporting their corrupt regimes?
As for appeasement, your chosen administration did more appeasing of those regimes than ever in history. Besides, as I pointed out in my history lesson a while back, the United States used to negotiate with “terrorist” pirates and their supportive regimes, which often did make things safer for Americans traveling and trading in the Mediterranean. When we could have been heading west and developing resources here. My way eliminates the need for appeasement and for trade with that entire sector of “crazy world dominating planners.” Yours increases it and increases it and increases it, and yet you have the balls to call me isolationist and appeaser. Unreal.
July 25th, 2009 at 2:24 am
I’d like to go back to the source of the housing crisis that helped fuel our economic collapse. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, passed during the Carter Administration, was simple social engineering, pushing home ownership for minorities by mandating relaxed lending standards for buyers who couldn’t really afford to purchase homes. This dangerous policy was pushed once again during the Clinton administration.
July 25th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Don’t stop there, Cheri, you’re on a roll. Tell us about GWB II using the Justice Department to bring pressure on lenders who weren’t being aggressive enough in making bad mortgages.
Mike wrote: I’m curious, Bill. Why do we need or want immigrants?
Surely this is a rhetorical question. How many generations of your family are native born here?
July 25th, 2009 at 8:52 am
It is a rhetorical question. The answer is, we want them if and only if they wish to connect themselves to us by adopting our traditions, customs, and allegiances by becoming fellow citizens.
Tourists from elsewhere are just that, tourists. We owe them a little courtesy and the opportunity to see how good things can be when done right. Like the Grand Tetons or Indiana Dunes or the Blue Ridge mountains.
My father’s side has been here for about 230 years, or about 8 generations. Not too bad, and then I could throw in my great-grandmother who was a Cherokee and so generations unknown. Yours?