Observer_1 wrote on Jul 27, 2007 3:49 AM:Sometimes I watch CSPAN. The advantasge is you can actually hear what the peorple are saying instead of getting only selected five or ten second sound bite on the TV news. I have seen four star General Peter Pace testifing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on several occasions. He is obviously a far more brilliant and well informed person than most senators, and he is respectful to them. Anyway he was recently quoted as saying "As long as our enemy is sworn to destroy our way of life, we are going to be in a war."

Observer_1 wrote on Jul 27, 2007 4:17 AM:My previous post was too short, I will add a little more detail. General Pace is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed forces. To put the qute in context it was from a meeting with service members in Afganistsn last week. He said he expects the war on terror to last another 20to 30 years, but that does not mean having a large number of troops in Afganistan and Iraq. A more complete quote is "The wars in Iraq and Afganistan are part of the same war, battles of the same war. The enemy's intent is to destroy our way of life, as long as our enemy has sworn to end our way of life we will be in a war. The only thing is for us to determine is how we prevail." I think he is a brillian man and in a position to get the best possible world wide information daily.

Jake wrote on Jul 27, 2007 6:44 AM:Right on Mr. Pesche. The most telling tale was during the Clinton impeachment process. Whether you believe the charges were valid or not is not the issue. It seems impossible along with illogical that every Senate member of each party voted along party lines. Real evidence of lack of individual thinking. What a disgrace!!!

INQUIRING MINDS wrote on Jul 27, 2007 6:55 AM:Miguel wrote on Jul 27, 2007 5:09 AM: F/U FROM 022607. You are equivocating. I simply inquired if you really believed that the US would go into Dafur? I take it that since you indicated that it would be left to the UN, our answer is no.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2007 7:08 AM:Wow! Such out cry from the tin-foil hatter crowd today. Is it a full moon or something. Maybe it's the kool-aid? I'd like to remind Gary Myers, Patrick Frawley, & Arlene Christensen that in 2006 we had a peaceful transition of power, and in 2008 we will again have a very smooth, peaceful transition. So slow down on the keyboard, cool your puter keys. I always find it interesting the way certain people think. You have Bush who basically wants to privatize government, thus taking it out of the hands of bureaucrats, well... most of the time. Then, on the other hand you have the Stalinists, Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Kennedy, Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Pete Stark, and company.. who really want all of the government to seize and control every aspect of American life. The tin-foil crowd sees this as good, whereas Bush is Hitler? I mean, if their both attempting to seize total control, why are you only bagging on Bush? Does it mean, that they perceive one type of control is good, and the other bad? Could the letter behind the guy or gal's name be it? I once heard Democrat Congressman Charlie Rangle say the following: "They used to come after us in white sheets. Now, they wear red ties, and talk about tax cuts." No lie. He said it. Imagine that? Letting me keep more of the money I made, and I'm in the KKK? Huh? I just thought Bush understood, that I made it, it was mine, and the government didn't need to take so much away for me and my family. The tin-foil hat crowd, will accuse me of killing children, hating poor people, and not being a good Christian. That last part, Christian? That's new right? Some focus group thing? You recently had Hillary, and others calling for "Windfall profits tax." It's basically a government seizure of private assets by force. No law on the books stating how much profit you can make legally, so they make up one, after the fact. Rational? Democratic? Hardly. In my opinion, they more resemble the ex-KGB Putin, and his seizure of oil companies in Russia. Many point to Bush and the NSA program as a violation of their privacy and civil rights. "He's wire-tapping", or "He's evesdropping on the American public", they say. I often ask, can you prove he's doing it to Americans. "No, we just know he is." I say, "where were you when Clinton was sending agents to invade your home, your business, and your gym locker?" They tell me, that was then, or why are you bringing Clinton up, or two wrongs don't make a right. Yeah, but when Clinton and Reno were doing it, where were the cry's of impeachment from you if it was wrong? They don't answer. Because they don't have an answer. The Answer is: Clinton was "Our Guy", we trusted him, and we don't trust Bush. In fact, we hate him. He stole the 2000 election, and we'll never get over that. It's BDS folks. And we really need a new 12-step program.

Charles B. wrote on Jul 27, 2007 7:17 AM:Of course Bush & Chertoff can't stop an AlQaeda attack here. First, they are both too stupid. Second, they are too busy prosecuting Marines and Border Patrol agents to worry about terrorists blowing up a school in this country. Third, the liberals and ACLU filth have de-balled the PatriotAct to the point it's impossible to track terrorist cells.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2007 7:47 AM:So, I'm watching CSPAN, as I do regulary, and this House Panel is talking about the construction of our Newest Embassy in Iraq. Cost: $592 million, originally estimated at 1 billion. So, that's a plus, were saving money using private contractors. Size: 104 acres, with 24 buildings, intended to house 5,500 Americans and Iraqi's. The key builder: a Kuwait builder, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, with the rest awarded to six American contractors working on the project’s "classified" portion — the actual embassy offices. I think we can all safely assume Halliburton, & KBR are two of the six. And maybe even Feinstein's hubby, Richard C. Blum's ownership of Perini Corp. and URS Corp, two major defense contractors, approved by Feinstein via MILCON. But, we probably will never know, since the details of this military construction are being held secret for "security reasons", and the "ethically challenged" Democrats won't look into the matter. I think if this were a Republican, we'd have subpoenas by now. Don't you?

Irenee wrote on Jul 27, 2007 7:50 AM:Well, thank you Ron for actually acknowledging that I’m right (yesterday), albeit, only partially in your mind. You still haven’t gotten your mind around the BIG problem IT’S NOT ALL ABOUT OUR IMPURITY. OK? As for today, look in the mirror to see who's the kool-aid drinker. Get with the program fella.

Note to Ronn- wrote on Jul 27, 2007 7:54 AM:You, sir, sound like the "Kool Aid" drinker to me.

Pace is kinda right wrote on Jul 27, 2007 8:33 AM:Can't deny that people who are willing to die for their hatred of the West will be around for years. So there will be attacks for years. As there have been attacks for years before 911. If that means "we'll be at war", then let's move on to the next question: how shall we conduct that war? In Afghanistan and especially Iraq we have conducted the war in 20th century fashion and it's been pretty ineffective and possibly counterproductive. Many countries before 911 were attacked. Few and rare were the cases of them hauling out shock and awe against other nations. The General is a General...he's even been retained by Bush/Cheney...so he has a particular perspective. He may (or may not) be right that "war" is the best word for this situation. But how to win? So far, I'm the opposite of impressed by the strategic and tactical ideas of this group.

How Benevolently the US Is Helping Iraq wrote on Jul 27, 2007 8:38 AM:985,340 Iraqis have been killed. The number is shocking and sobering. It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on the only scientifically valid study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003. That study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The graphic above provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count. This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it.

Purple Fingers wrote on Jul 27, 2007 8:41 AM:The Pro-War crowd says, with their hands held reverently over their hearts, that they cannot forget the image of purple fingers in the air. These fingers did not represent the hope for Democracy, they represented the hope for a better life. We have failed the Iraqi people. I suspect if that same image was photographed today the purple finger being waved in the air would be the middle one.

Remember the Alamo wrote on Jul 27, 2007 8:54 AM:While you people are debating US aggression vs Mexico in history, remind me about the Alamo. As I recall, that fort was built in Mexican territory, and the brave Americans who died there at the hands of the Mexican army are considered heroes. Texans wanted independence, right? Many were anglos, many tejanos, right? Where did the anglos come from? Where did the impulse to secede come from? Did Texas achieve independence or did they join the US?

And so it begins... wrote on Jul 27, 2007 8:58 AM:The loss of Constitutional Rights begins with the least among us. From The New York Times: "In San Diego, poor people who want public benefits must give up their privacy. Investigators from the district attorney's office there make unannounced visits to the homes of people applying for welfare, poking around in garbage cans, medicine chests and laundry baskets. Applicants are not required to let the investigators in. But they get no money if they refuse." Regardless of how you feel about welfare abuse, many of them are LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS being denied their 4th Amendment Rights. When our Constitutional Rights are suspended because of SUSPECTED WRONGDOING, we will eventually all be affected. When will they knock on YOUR door?

jvc wrote on Jul 27, 2007 9:00 AM:I would like to comment about today's letter titled " Acting president deserves the job". And why does this gentleman rise in opposition to naming Robertson president of MiraCosta College? Yes, I too have known Robertson for many years and his support of the faculty is well known, nothing wrong with that, except that this support for the faculty has been at the expense of student rights! I say this even given his office's work of foundation grants to students,the equitable administration of which is queationable! Robertson is the same man that had himself stun-gunned to prove how safe stun guns are when stun guns were considered for campus security that he directs! Naming Robertson as president is like naming the proverbial fox to guard the hen house! And naming Robertson president is the final draw to wrestle control of the campus by a faculty that does not want to end their almost 25% pay edge over any other community college in the state! Knowing Roberson, I am sure that after becoming president, he will see to it that though his PAC, he will hand pick every person on the board of trustees!

Then let's move on to Granada wrote on Jul 27, 2007 9:00 AM:Reagan hated that a bloodless coup in Granada resulted in Castro-friendly leadership. The answer? Invade and overthrow the government. Granada was Ronnie's way to give the US flag-wavers the good victorious feeling again in our first military action since the VietNam blunder. The government changed to one more to Ronnie's liking and we left. Even Margaret Thatcher was appalled at this violation of international law.

gordon wrote on Jul 27, 2007 9:24 AM:Gary Myers is right, but the affects of the Bush War are much deeper than many know (but feel).Look at today's GDP report. The largest component is GOV'T SPENDING, a 9.5% increase in defense spending, while consumer spending is falling off a cliff.40% of every dollar now goes to MILITARY/DEFENSE. Paulson's scheme is playing out- the systematic devaluation of the US dollar aiding exports in today's report, meaning the likes of Boeing(our largest exporter) and the Military-Industrial Machine are exporting more (with taxpayer's subsidies) while imports are slowing because Americans are buying less. The economy grew at 1.8% in the last year,but take out DEFENSE and you have close to negative growth.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2007 9:29 AM:Irenee @7:50 AM? If it's not all about impurity, then your suggesting it's only about our presence? I said, and have said, it is a mutli-faceted problem were facing. The remaining Sunni Bathist's want us gone, so they can retake Iraq, and re-establish another dictatorship like we saw under Hussein. That's one faction. Then you have radical cleric Moqtada Sadr, who I like to refer to as "Mookie." This guy wants an Iranian-Ayatollah Khamenei style regime, with him as Supreme Leader in Iraq. Faction two. Then you have the Al-Qaeda, all foreign fighters with one thought, Taliban style control. Mostly Sunni's, and mostly Wahabists. Kurds, who seem to be not a general threat to Iraq, but seem to have this on-going thing with Turkey along the border. And there are other factions, of various groups, ethnic, tribal, religious and political lines. But, I think we can both agree that the Bathists, Mookie and his army, and al-Qaeda want one thing, power alone. They don't want to share it, not even with each other, which if we leave, they then will first begin on each other, then the victor will again turn against any opposition to them. They each want total control, as in Hussein style or Taliban style. No doubt about that.

Reagan's legacy, con'd wrote on Jul 27, 2007 9:34 AM:Reagan, or his advisors, were brilliant. Realizing that "winning", "being a winner", is crucial to our citizens, Reagan began the shift towards engaging us in wars that couldn't be lost and, in fact, could be won in the wink of an eye. It's like the social passes given at school to raise the student's self-esteem. It works! Granada, Panama, even Nicaragua and El Salvador in their own ways. Find a country which, in our opinion, is "bad", attack, win in a few days, feel great! Bush I extended this in Gulf War I and had the Reagan plan in mind when he chose not to extend into a full-scale invasion of Iraq. Felt great! Reagan, like Bush, realized that if you are at war against an IDEA, rather than a specific enemy or country, you can have "long wars" that take you almost wherever you wish. Brilliant: we always win (but never truly defeat the idea...that would mean the end of the long war...which would require another evil idea to oppose); we always can be said to be fighting "evil" (the idea of the opponent is always a huge evil idea); the military/industrial/governmental complex is forever in the black; American men feel like hombres again. Bush II certainly had this in mind in Iraq. Link Saddam to Al Qaeda so Iraq can be viewed as part of the long war on terror. Saddam being almost defenseless, we win in a couple of weeks "mission accomplished". Feel great! (Remember Bush's smile on that carrier deck?) But, as with about everything, he misjudged. In this respect, Reagan would be ashamed of his little protege. But not to worry. Whether we get out of Iraq or not, we will certainly be distracted by another of the Reagan-type wars to give us that good feeling again. It's become the American way!

Miguel wrote on Jul 27, 2007 9:46 AM:to inquiring mind....It is DARFUR, not Dafur. Why would "leaving it to the UN mean "NO"? Spell the country right, read and understand what is said, nothing more, nothing less. You will find it rewarding.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2007 9:47 AM:But to finish my thought. It really doesn't matter which of these terrorist groups gains control, because the end result will essentially be the same. It seems complicated, but it's really not that complicated. Evil people want power over others lives, and we aim to stop them. They are the virus, and we are the cure. If you see us as the virus, then you have drank the kool-aid. If you see us as evil imperialists, then you are now wearing the tin-foil hat. We are doing neither. What we are engaged in, is cleaning out this "culture" and disposing of it. And how do I know this culture is a dangerous virus? Because, even when we are not present, they still choose to kill other Muslims. And they speak of "wiping" whole countries off the map. They invade their neighbors, killing off entire populations of opposition. This is not all about Iraq, as you libs love to try and make the case. It's about a world-wide movement, that is attempting to overthrow liberal and moderate Muslim governments. Iraq is a front of the war, and not "The War." Creating a forward operating base in Iraq will help to stabilize the region. we're seeing the effect of these insurgents on local populations, and they are beginning to turn against them. With more time, and since we've built a huge Embassy there, we will have it, and we will succeed, unless we get Hillary or Obama, or another lib, and they pull the plug. We occupied Germany for 7 years after the fall of Berlin. Japan, nearly s long. And were still there, guarding the freedom's of them as well. It's our job, we're the SuperPower.

Karl wrote on Jul 27, 2007 10:17 AM:Those who cannot debunk Ron's facts always resort to name calling.

Ron...we know wrote on Jul 27, 2007 10:21 AM:There is a certain category of Ron-posts that I would encourage him to refrain from sending. The category is: The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. This covers a lot of ground, I know, but it's pretty boring. He posts with the attitude of one enlightening all the loonies who thought that unlike the Repubs, the Dems were saints. The total number of these particular loonies is approximately zero, Ron. It's very childish to say, repeatedly, what amounts to "Oh yeah? You think you guys are so great? Well how about this?" But we didn't say we were saints and we probably knew about "this". And remember, whenever Ron makes this point, all he is saying is that the Democrats are SO bad, they are JUST as bad as the Republicans...so there's pride in this? Yawn. Spare us the straw...it's filling the house and this is fire season.

Not the only 1 wrote on Jul 27, 2007 10:25 AM:No, Mr. Cosgrove you are not the only hard working, taxpaying American who is tired of paying the bills for illegal immigrants while our own working poor, mentally ill and elderly go without health care and the other social services illegals get for free. You are not the only American tired of watching well-paying construction jobs going to illegals for lower wages and then being told those are jobs Americans won't do. You are not the only taxpayer who sees that the education our children are receiving is substandard because we pour money into ESL programs to teach illegals English. You are not the only American being told to conserve water, electricity and gas while millions of people illegally cross our borders with every intent of "sharing" our precious, limited resources. And you are not the only American who was outraged when our President really thought it was a good idea to reward those who break our laws to enter the country illegally with citizenship.

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2007 10:25 AM:"Ron" at 7:08AM, you said "or "He's evesdropping on the American public", they say. I often ask, can you prove he's doing it to Americans.". "Ron", I turn your words against you with - Can you prove that he is not doing it to Americans? These jokers cast a wide net, what are the odds of NSA having roving warrantless wiretaps and ONLY intercepting, listening and/or recording conversations that are from or to non-citizens of the U.S.? If you believe that everyone should give up their 4th and 14th Amendment Rights in the name of "Homeland Security", you deserve not to have a functional Constitution. DO NOT expect me to hand my rights over to anyone at anytime without a fight. Alf, a Libertarian.

Now this should get good wrote on Jul 27, 2007 10:28 AM:The NY Times today reports that the US is getting frustrated by Saudi Arabia's action in the Iraq situation, calling it counterproductive. We've rarely shown the cojones to talk about the Saudis with language similar to that used about Iran, but someone dared. Probably forgot that we are IN Iraq partially in obediance or "loyalty" to the Saudis. This should get interesting, seeing Bushies actually question the Saudis in public. Could be a spanking involved. Stay tuned.

to Karl...half right wrote on Jul 27, 2007 10:38 AM:I don't mind Ron's facts. Actually I am rather impressed with the trouble he goes to. But I do have a few complaints. First, the facts he gives us are often distractions from the question on the floor. They sound great until it hits you: what's this got to do with what we were talking about? Second, he has been found often to be VERY selective about his facts. Third, he usually frames his facts as though they were good arguments against an imaginary opponent whom he insults as loony, Stalinist, or some such. Typically, that opponent is pure straw: Ron goes to some lengths to tell us about what "they always say", which he is rebutting. But who are they? Usually, no living person, but rather a Rushian stereotype, a cartoon. All three of these seriously detract from what could be very powerful aspects of this discussion. All three are very Bushian tactics. It's too bad because he seems fairly bright, cares about digging up the facts, and often has interesting things to say, but he puts all of this in the service of his simplistic political goals, which detract enormously from what he has to offer. As with Bush, who seems to be a role model for Ron, even when he disagrees with W, one gets the impression that it's really all about his ego and this is likely why he has a following, like all schoolyard narcissists. A shame.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jul 27, 2007 10:49 AM:Remember the Alamo wrote on Jul 27, 2007 8:54 AM: I think that you already know the answers to your questions. What is your point?

INQUIRING MINDS wrote on Jul 27, 2007 10:51 AM:Miguel wrote on Jul 27, 2007 9:46 AM: Do you intend to answer the direct question. Do you really think the US will go into Darfur? That is the original question.

NIQUIRING MINDS wrote on Jul 27, 2007 11:06 AM:" Miguel wrote on Jul 27, 2007 9:46 AM: Never mind. You are acting like a child. I know how to spell Darfur. I am just a lousy typist. By the way, Darfur is not a country. It is a region of the Sudan.

to Karl wrote on Jul 27, 2007 11:08 AM:you are confused about who does the name calling.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2007 11:13 AM:I found it odd... that Barrack Obama would recite Ronald Reagan. Especially, when the two really have nothing in common. Reagan was a tax reducer, Obama a tax increaser. Reagan built and deployed the military after a disasterous Carter Administration, Obama wants a return to the Carter policy of isolation, and retreat. When Reagan spoke diplomatically with the Soviets, he did so with a BIG stick, and he waved it. Obama is showing our new enemies his white flag, and promising to put the stick into mothball. Reagan understood evil, and directly confronted it. Obama wants a conflict resolution meeting with those who kill and oppress. Obama... I knew Ronald Reagan, I helped to build Ronald Reagan's military, ..and Sir.... you are no Reagan.

Reardon wrote on Jul 27, 2007 11:17 AM:To And So It Begins: There is no "right to other people's money." It is purely a contractual relationship -- "I will give you money if you will permit inspection." No one HAS to take the money OR permit the inspection. Families do it every day -- "I'll give you the food money for the children if you will stop spending money on (weed)(cigars)(beer)(cigarettes)(lottery tickets)(etc.)" Limits are set by ALL "Lenders," public and private. If you don't like the rules -- don't take the money!

new here wrote on Jul 27, 2007 11:26 AM:I recently retired and stumbled on this blog site. I assume most of the bloggers are retired military. They remind me of my dads friends. My dad was retired navy, 28 years, poorly educated, politically naive and so were his friends. I remember as a kid thinking "These guys are idiots". As I got older I kept waiting for that "Oh, now I get it" moment, but nope, every reflection on my dad and his military buddies still brought on that "idiots" feeling. As the years went by I thought less and less about the idiots until I started reading the blogs on this site. I don't know what it is about being in the military that eliminates ones ability to think rationally, maybe its the training, or maybe just that the military attracts that type of person. Anyway it's been interesting trying to slog thru your blogs, brings back memories of my dad and his long departed buddies. I thank you all for your service and pray to god that you don't vote.

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2007 11:40 AM:"Ron", who stops the evil-doers from within? You know, in the pit of your stomach, that every incremental loss of rights is one step closer to becoming the thing we are fighting against. "Enemy Combatant" UNITED STATES CITIZENS held without habeas corpus and UNITED STATES CITIZENS having their 4th and 14th Amendment rights violated by the NSA program of "warrantless wiretaps" under the direction of GWB, google that phrase and read the wikipedia long version and you will see weaseling on both sides and that those are probably going to the Supreme Court. That's just 2 issues and they involve the breaching of 3 of the RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Alf, a Libertarian.

Reardon wrote on Jul 27, 2007 11:46 AM:To Remember the Alamo: If your questions were not rhetorical, here are some answers: The Alamo was populated by Tejanos, Texicans, and Anglos -- some of the Anglos came from Tennessee just days before the fight began. The fight, pale skin and brown skin alike within the walls was for independence from a megalomaniac Mexican General Santa Ana, whose troops were coming north to put down what he perceived as insurrection. Unlike other fights in which Santa Ana brutally murdered surrendered "Texicans" in cold blood, at the Alamo he gave the fighters the opportunity to retreat. They are heroes for their discipline -- but they lost. In the next several fights, Santa Ana murdered captured Texicans at Goliad, brown and white, but at San Jacinto, 700 hundred retreating Texicans turned and attacked Santa Ana's troops in a "do or die" siesta-time revenge charge. The Texicans caught Santa Ana in his tent with a prostitute called "The Yellow Rose of Texas," defeated the Mexican troops (who shouted "Me no Alamo" and "Me no Goliad!",) who surrendered (about 700 killed, 200 wounded and another 700 surrendered), and Santa Ana fled into the swamps in enlisted clothing. He was captured. The Texicans, brown and white, lost nine men in the 20 minute battle. Texas became an independent country, and has a contract with the United States that Texas may, at any time on the vote of Texas, divide into FIVE separate states -- and votes have been taken, but each state wants the Alamoand no successful vote has been recorded for that reason!

Joel wrote on Jul 27, 2007 11:56 AM:I have to agree 100% with “Ron...we know”! It IS totally boring to read his daily regurgitations. But, with that said, I totally enjoy the responses to his baited waters.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2007 11:58 AM:So... I'm sitting here wondering, what is the Democrat policy today? To Darfur, or not to Darfur? that is the question. Is it right, as Joe Biden said, that we could, and should.. stop the genocide in Darfur, but Iraq is on it's own. Seems a bit duplicitous to me. He says, he knows we can do it in Darfur, but not in Iraq. I can't help but be just a bit confused by his logic. Are the people in Darfur less able to help themselves out of their civil war, and the Iraqi's are? And how will our soldiers know who to shoot, and who to not shoot at? The the Sudanese military? Or the Janjaweed militia group, or rebel groups? The Sudan Liberation Movement, and the Justice and Equality Movement. Of late, Amnesty International issued a report accusing Russia and China of supplying arms, ammunition and related equipment to Sudan. So, could this be considered a proxy war, just as we are fighting a semi-proxy war with Iran in Iraq? Additionally, According to the Save Darfur Coalition, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and President al-Bashir have agreed to a cease-fire whereby the Sudanese "government and rebel groups will cease hostilities for a period of 60 days while they work towards a lasting peace." But the Coalition and Governor Richardson have a problem with Field Marshal Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir, as he is known in Darfur. As al-Bashir staged a military coup in 1989 that overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Sadeq al-Mahdi. Al-Bashir immediately banned all political parties, repressed the press, and dissolved Parliament upon assuming control of the nation. He then became Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council for National Salvation (a newly established body with legislative and executive powers over the country), and assumed the posts of chief of state, prime minister, chief of the armed forces, and minister of defense. And this is do-able, and Iraq is not?

Joel wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:01 PM:Welcome "new here". It is good that someone can see through some of reflex "aren't we the greatest" thinking.

to new here wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:02 PM:Brilliant post, newcomer. Nails it in a nutshell. If you read my earlier post about Reagan's legacy and then read the posts today of Ron and others, you can see how simply and predictably it all plays out. Sadly, though, they DO vote, and in much higher percentage than the people who might actually make a positive difference in this country. The US was a world-saver in WWII and we have squandered the place we won in history. This is tragic on an epic scale. Many of us who were there in the 1950s are wondering now what in the name of God happened to the promise of America? It seems that moments after we won in 1945, we lost. And have been losers ever since. Tragic.

Mark wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:05 PM:If I described someone as "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully", who would I be describing? (I'll answer later)

Question about the Alamo wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:06 PM:WAS it an insurrection? You talk about Santa Ana "perceiving it" that way. If Santa Ana were General Pace, what would he call the fighters at the Alamo? Insurgents? Foreign fighters? Terrorists? I'm positive Santa Ana was a terribly ruthless person and military leader, but really...

TO new here wrote on Jul 27, 2007 11:26 AM: wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:07 PM:Wow, you are so intelligent and yet you grace the idiots here on this blog with your superior intellect. I bet you have a FSM car logo next to your Darwin fish with legs.

to new here wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:02 PM: wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:10 PM:"Many of us who were there in the 1950s are wondering now what in the name of God happened to the promise of America?" When you all took God out of America, oh yeah and we sold the dream to Mexico. The new American dream is to get to and get paid by the USA.

4th Amendment wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:11 PM:That was the exact knee-jerk reaction I expected from you, Reardon. 4th Amendment! Do you know what that is? "This case strikes an unprecedented blow at the core of Fourth Amendment protections. The government does not search through the closets and medicine cabinets of farmers receiving subsidies," Judge Pregerson wrote. "They do not dig through the laundry baskets and garbage pails of real estate developers or radio broadcasters. Only the poor, he said, must "give up their rights of privacy in exchange for essential public assistance. The overwhelming majority of recipients of government benefits are not the poor, and yet this is the group we require to sacrifice their dignity and their right to privacy. This situation is shameful." It just kills me that the Pro-Waristas gabble on about how they fought for our rights but in truth they don't really care about the Constitution at all. Unbelievable.

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:17 PM:Well, "Mark", flip a coin, heads it's OBL, tails it's GWB. Alf, a Libertarian.

Too Funny wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:17 PM:Karl, you are a laff riot. You accuse others of calling Ron names when they can't debate him. Here is a small sampling of Ron's posts today: "Such out cry from the tin-foil hatter crowd today. Is it a full moon or something. Maybe it's the kool-aid?" "Then, on the other hand you have the Stalinists, Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Kennedy, Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Pete Stark, and company.." "Then you have radical cleric Moqtada Sadr, who I like to refer to as "Mookie."" No one slings those names as well as Ron, Karl. But you keep on keepin' on; there is not much hope that you will open your mind at this late date.

Bootstraps wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:20 PM:Tell those poor people to get off the couch and get a job! Then they won't have to worry about their 4th Amendment rights being taken away. If you don't do anything wrong you don't need rights anyway. The government will always look out for your best interests.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:21 PM:I just call as I see em, folks. If certain politicians proclaim they have the right to seize your profits, what would you call that? And just because there isn't a current law to do it, they intend to propose one. That is Stalinist, in my book. Or, if the Constitution says, I can own a gun, and they say I can't, I call that a Stalinist. If they say we have freedom of speech, but then move.. as Chavez did, to shut down certain types of speech they don't like, I call that Stalinist. They are Stalinists. I love my liberty and freedom, and these clowns seek at every moment to take it away, not give me more. For if they intended to give me more liberty, they wouldn't be calling to place every kind of restriction, and regulation, or mandate upon me. As they are attempting to do to you, as well. Only you must enjoy it, for some odd reason. Who know's, maybe your going to be the beneficiary to one of their grand schemes, I mean programs. Day after day, I labor to give you evdience that I see, and you reject it. Fine, slow boil like a frog. And one more thing... it is particularly detestable to me, personally to have one, and more... call our brave emen & women on the field of battle.. Nazi's. Dick Durbin did this, and he is detestable. I could go on, by name...but what would really be the point, their all your hero's.

4th Amendment is right wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:24 PM:Reardon's world view is dangerously typical of many people whose identities were shaped in or by the military (such as people who had military dads who ruled the homefront in that manner). They love that way of life, which is pretty much the opposite of the free democracy we all treasure. They think that because they served they have special insight into the real world, which they certainly do not. They think in terms of sentimental slogans and of battling the enemies "of freedom". But many of them HATE freedom. They always say: search my house, tap my phones, intercept my emails...I have nothing to hide, and if you oppose me it must be because you do have something to hide. This too is the opposite of what they themselves say they fight for. They want us to be grateful for their sacrifices for our freedoms. But except for the few living WWII vets, none actually HAVE fought for our freedoms. And on top of it, they'd really be happier if many of those freedoms (especially free speech) were taken away. Unbelievable is right!

4th Amendment is right wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:25 PM:Reardon's world view is dangerously typical of many people whose identities were shaped in or by the military (such as people who had military dads who ruled the homefront in that manner). They love that way of life, which is pretty much the opposite of the free democracy we all treasure. They think that because they served they have special insight into the real world, which they certainly do not. They think in terms of sentimental slogans and of battling the enemies "of freedom". But many of them HATE freedom. They always say: search my house, tap my phones, intercept my emails...I have nothing to hide, and if you oppose me it must be because you do have something to hide. This too is the opposite of what they themselves say they fight for. They want us to be grateful for their sacrifices for our freedoms. But except for the few living WWII vets, none actually HAVE fought for our freedoms. And on top of it, they'd really be happier if many of those freedoms (especially free speech) were taken away. They are the ones who taunt people with "love it or leave it" but in fact, THEY are the ones who would be MUCH happier living in a dictatorship. Unbelievable is right!

History Lesson wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:25 PM:A book recently published by a Historian covers private conversations between Nixon and Kissinger "Nixon and Kissinger by Robert Dallek". No more confusion about the whys and wherefores of Vietnam, now we know it was completely politically motivated and the timing of withdrawal was planned to benefit Nixon's presidency. Unfortunately it didn't pan out the way they planned but you can't blame the hippies any more, tisn't true. Double unfortunately the present administration is busy wiping all records of private conversations so 30 years from now they will not be available to the American Public. We will probably never know the truth about Bush/Cheney, but it is interesting that Henry Kissinger is advising Bush II as well. Deja vu?

Nixon and Kissinger wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:29 PM:Actually, it comes out that Nixon was drunk a good portion of his presidency and Kissinger was actually running the country in his place. Wouldn't it be the greatest straw man in history if Cheney is not really the brains behind Bush, but rather, Henry Kissinger, once again running the country? The parallels are quite amazing. Oh, and these are not the author's conjectures, they are true documents that have been de-classified after 30 years. Actual conversations between Nixon and Kissinger. Nixon is dead of course, but I hear Kissinger is royally P.O.'d. I suggest you read a copy for yourself.

To 4th Amendment wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:34 PM:Helping the Iraqi people, protecting American's rights, it's all just justification for Hawks to be Hawks. Sounds good, but it's not the true reason. Hawks believe in war and Doves believe in peace. The Hawks will tell you they are doing it for a good cause, but in reality they just like war. Same reason my neighbor is a Minuteman. He doesn't even have an opinion about the illegals but he is retired Navy and he does like to feel useful. Dressing up in cammies and buying all those high-powered military issue toys (scanners, scopes, night vision, who knows what else) really turns him on. And so it goes...

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:35 PM:Once you understand that leftists need to be defeated, then the rest is easy. Your right, we do vote in greater numbers because we believe in this land, and we know.. Bush is only a part of this history, and he is not ALL of history. Just as we came back from the disaster Carter was, we will survive another Clinton presidency, if it came to that. But, I know for you, the world ended in 2000, just as you believed it ended with Reagan calling out "The Evil Empire." You guys want to be lovers, we all know that. But, it's kinda hard to love a dictator, you can bribe him, as Clinton did, and as Bush has just done, or you can defeat them. Those are your choices, and not... the Barrack Obama conflict resolution plan. By the way, we captured another jihadist we let go from GITMO... he was on the battlefield again. Still want to close it down?

God wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:37 PM:I don't support the troops. Go home and quit killing people in my name. What is wrong with you people? It might be time for another flood.

to Ron and Reagan wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:38 PM:you forgot, convienantly, some other things that Reagan and Obama do not have in common. Reagan was senile whilst in office, Obama is not. He violated the trust of the American people and the world in general with his involvement in IranContra, Obama, so far, has not broken any laws that we know of. Reagan had less to do with his administration than Bush does, Obama runs his show. Reagan was for the rich, Obama is not. I knew Ronald Reagan, and sir, he was no Obama.

Reardon wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:38 PM:To Fourth: The 4th says "unreasonable search and seizure." Unreasonable is frothy wording akin to "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" -- undefined and indefinable. While the Court has decreed, wisely, that one cannot sign away their rights in advance, the rights that may not be signed away are equally frothy. Military people sign away their First Amendment rights and many others, the abolition of slavery does not protect children from "compulsory education" and "Selective Service" -- the law is sufficiently murky as to require many levels of courts. The contractual signing away of privacy for assistance exists at many levels and in many laws. Until it is found unconstitutional, it is constitutional. You may think that searching the garbage of those on assistance is unconstitutional, but I know the names of the nine Supreme Court Judges, and "4th Amendment" is not among them. Until they rule on a subject, you say tomato, and I say tomaatooo"

to 12:10 wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:46 PM:I disagree with your picture. I don't see that we have less God in the US than in 1950. The phrase "under God" has been through a lot, but all the surveys say that more Americans believe in God, attend church, etc. We certainly have become more crude, that's for sure, and we talk a lot more about sex than we did then...a mixed blessing. As to the immigrants, I see only two differences between the current immigration situation and that of the early 20th C. First, the whole disturbing question of legal immigration (which was not so much an issue 100+ years ago: it wasn't a land border and the laws were much simpler). Second, and more important, is that in the post-FDR America there are some safety nets paid for by taxpayers. The Italians, Irish, Polish, Jewish immigrants a Century ago were just as hated by self-styled "real Americans" as the Latinos are now (if you read the newspapers of that day, you find this sentiment expressed in exactly the same words as people use now...check it out, it's mind boggling!). But instead of receiving food stamps and medical care, the immigrants simply starved or were infected to death. That's not the America that I mourn.

Joel wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:56 PM:RIGHT ON, GOD.

LESSON wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:58 PM:History Lesson wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:25 PM This is one book by one historian. They are a dime a dozen. One book by one author is not evidence of anything.

Other parts of the Reagan legacy wrote on Jul 27, 2007 12:59 PM:Here's an old article from 2001 QUOTE WASHINGTON — One historian calls it a “disaster for history,” but the White House insists a new executive order issued by President Bush balances the public’s right to see the records of past presidents with a need to protect national security. Advocates for the release of government documents say the executive order violates the spirit of the 1978 Presidential Records Act and will usher in a new era of secrecy for papers left behind by America’s chief executives. ENDQUOTE See? Almost from day one of his Presidency, W instituted a policy of secrecy covering PAST presidents and vice-presidents. Despite legislation following Nixon and Reagan, which ensured access to past Presidents' papers, W via executive order, insisted that "for national security reasons" (sound familiar?) 20-year-old info about Reagan and W's dad be returned to secrecy, and that only the sitting President could decide what's to be available to the public. Little did we know that this set the tone for all that was to come. Oh, and Bush's 2001 order was endorsed and approved by Alberto Gonzales.

Also new here... wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:05 PM:I recently retired and stumbled on this blog site. I assume most of the bloggers are retired government workers, univerity professors, or Trial attorneys with too much time on their hands. They remind me of my dads friends. My dad was retired professor of ethnic studies, 28 years, highly educated, politically and realistically naive to the real world....and so were his friends. I remember as a kid, watching them sip their creme brulee, thinking "These guys are idiots". As I got older, amongst all the talk of how great socialism is and all the America-is- evil tirades, I kept waiting for that "Oh, now I get it" moment, but nope, every reflection on my dad and his Professor and lifetime bureaucrat buddies still brought on that "idiots" feeling. As the years went by I thought less and less about the idiots until I started reading the blogs on this site. I don't know what it is about being dependent on the government and thinking that government is the solution to every problem that eliminates ones ability to think rationally, maybe its the snooty attitude, or maybe just that the laziness, bickering, bleeding hearts, and constant complaining and negativity attracts that type of person. Anyway it's been interesting trying to slog thru your blogs, brings back memories of my dad and his long departed buddies. I thank you all for your service and pray to god that you don't vote. "

TO: New here, 11:26AM wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:14 PM:I don't know why, but your post jumped out at me; I haven't even read any of the others, but I"d bet they're 90% liberal lunacy. What strikes me about this site is what a liberal sewer it's become; Ron is the only "regular" conservative here, but then again I'm not "educated" and "enlightened" like yourself, so I'm probably missing something. BTW; which branch of the civil service did you retire from? Mike America.

Miguel wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:18 PM:to inquiring mind....I answered you, you don't like the answer. Grow up, stop acting like a child. You spelled Darfur wrong about 3 or 4 times. Not a typing error at all. You didn't check on how to spell it. Sloppy. Get over it.

To Ron @ 12:35 wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:19 PM:Two things. First, regarding Gitmo: I would like to see the Gitmo detainees be tried in court OR labeled POW's and afforded Geneva convention rights as is part of US law and which our courts have decreed necessary. Second, "the leftists need to be defeated" is yet another spark of Reaganian madness. Most people that you call leftists or Stalinists in your fervor to make evil enemies out of them are actually centrists who would like the government to be a little more helpful to those in need. Emphasis on a little. But, good Reaganite that you are, you insist it's all the same: if I say, let's cut back a bit on military spending or let's tax a tad more so that no one starves here, to you I am Mao or Stalin incarnate. The trouble is that as long as anyone cares about taking care of others via the shared "us" that is the government, you will see an evil enemy. As was said above: this is the exact move that killed the US after WWII. Having emerged as the world power, we insisted on having endless war against ideas to keep the military budget huge and to be sure that we served military-political Gods. There will always be "leftists" because the right will find them forever. Instead of conversations and debates, the right only wants enemies and wars. Ding ding, dribble dribble. Tragic.

More great news from the front wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:25 PM:From the AP QUOTE SAN FRANCISCO — Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman’s forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player’s death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.“The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.ENDQUOTE This is the kind of thing that happens in battle, folks. This is the real world out there that the administration and the pentagon don't want people to know about because it stains the image of how clean this war (any war) is. War is one of the worst things humans can do. Everyone involved loses. There is a place for it -- I am not a pacifist -- but only as an act of desperation. That our leaders, past and present, do it with such flippancy is beyond criminal. It's as deeply immoral as anything I can imagine.

To Reardon wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:29 PM:You talk about "until the Supreme Court rules" but I am talking about a right that already exists, not a right to be considered by the present Bush-appointed Supreme Court. Of course this will go to the Supreme Court and of course they will rule it Constitutional. That is the Bush Mandate. And that is how your rights will be taken away from you. 'Course you don't care. So be it.

Mark wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:39 PM:No Alf, not OBL or GWB. They are pikers compared to this guy. Thomas Jefferson said of him "...terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust." (see Mark's question posed at 12:05)

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:43 PM:When "Bootstraps" at 12:20 PM says "The government will always look out for your best interests.", if that person is speaking in earnest, he or she needs a psych evaluation NOW, if that person is speaking tongue-in-cheek, I can understand and if that person is being sardonic, I whole-heartedly agree. Government looking out for my best interest? Mule fritters!! Alf, a Libertarian.

Alfonso wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:44 PM:The God comment is WAAAYYYY out of line. What other country can you write those words and get away with it? You don't support the troops yet you don't say you "don't support the terrorists". You ask the troops to quit killing people but you don't ask the terrorists to stop killing? What's up with that?

Reardon wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:45 PM:To 4th is Right: Distance psychoanalysis is questionable at best. You see a military-biased mind -- I see military bashing. Perhaps we are both right, or wrong. The subject at hand is the Constitution and interpretations thereof, not my background -- which you would not believe if I posted it -- so lets question facts and even judgment without questioning motives. You cite the case wherein the Supreme Court decreed searching of garbage as "unreasonable search and seizure" and I'll Shepardize the case. If you are correct I will apologize. Deal?

To Reardon wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:52 PM:Military people sign away their First Amendment rights and many others.." Fine for you if you choose to do so, but I notice the government has been doing an extremely poor job of taking care of you in return. And thank you for the explanation, that makes it clear why military people don't seem to be much concerned with individual rights. But then again, what exactly DO military people fight for if it's not individual rights?

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:57 PM:"Ron" does it again. He starts his 12:35PM post with a fallacy and then claims to prove it. There's an old riddle/joke - You're a bus driver... and it goes through passengers getting on and off and while your brain is busy doing the math the zinger.. What is the bus driver's name? By this time you forgot the premise that YOU are the driver. I always re-read his first two or three sentences just to see how much of a setup it is. To his last question of that post - YES. Alf, a Libertarian.

To Bill Cosgrove wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:07 PM:What part of I am tired of that played out slogan! Can not one of you come up with something fresh? What part of bored to tears with what part of illegal do you not understand. That dryed out, played out slogan is played more than the race card by the other side. I mean I am adamantly against illegal immigration but come on folks can't we be more creative. This is getting boring. What part of boring do you not understand????

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:08 PM:"Reardon" at 12:38PM also tries to disassemble the words of the Framers. "Unreasonable search and seizure", taken in the meaning of the day, in lay-persons terms, means ANY SEARCH OR SEIZURE WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION OR CONSENT. Military service, be it mandated or voluntary, is still a contract, self-limiting unless the inductee or volunteer elects to re-up or gets killed. Now, "Reardon", prove me wrong with facts or court decisions or stop flapping your behind. Alf, a Libertarian.

to New Here wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:08 PM:Bravo, you obviously hit the mark! Look at em! Too funny. I hope you stick around. The truth? Priceless...

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:12 PM:Then... hold on to your hat "to Ron and Reagan" @12:38 PM. According to the Chicago Sun-Times..... Obama's Rezko ties deeper than land deal??? Could it be? OH, yeah... it be! Tip of the iceberg, my friend. Apparently, he's mentee to Harry Reid in land deal schemes. and what is this??? ...Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake...? also Chicago Sun-Times... it does seem as the Senator has a few problems taking money, but then again... don't they all?

INQUIRING MINDS wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:19 PM:Miguel wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:18 PM:Is Darfur a country or a region of the Sudan. By the way say hello to Mike American for me. You get over it.

Chuck B wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:20 PM:I see the liberals are still upset with Watergate break in and Iran Contra. Let me suggest that if your office was broken into, the odds that the police would show up to investigate are zero and none, and about 1% that your insurance agent would show up. And as far as Iran Contra, I loved it. Col. North fleeced the back pocket of the Ayatollah and put the $$ to a better use--to spread democracy in Central America, and thats what pisses off the liberals so much.

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:23 PM:You goofed, "Also new here...", since creme brulee is a pudding, one does not "sip" it. Steeerike One. I was going to go on but I must get my propane torch for my creme brulee, "Sam the Cooking Guy" showed me how. Steeerikes Two and Three for resorting to name-calling rather than debating issues. Alf, a Libertarian.

I'm With God wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:24 PM:I don't support any military action that kills innocent people in the name of the American People, of which I am one. That means I don't support our troops as long as they are in Iraq. Our troops are the terrorists to the Iraqi people, tossing civilians out of their beds in the middle of the night, tearing their homes apart looking for terrorists. I believe the Christian god speaks for the United States, the Muslims will have to deal with their own god.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:27 PM:one more thing... your in deep with all that conspiracy stuff, huh? God... that has got to drive you nutty.

Politically Correct wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:27 PM:The warmongers are always crying about having to fight a politically correct fight. Here, I will make you happy and no longer be politically correct: I NO LONGER SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. This is NOT my father's army and it is a disgrace to compare those who defended our country in WWII to those who invade and occupy an unarmed country today. Happy now?

God wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:29 PM:Look, either I have freedom of speech or I don't. If I still have freedom of speech then my comment was not "waaaaaaay out of line." You can't have it both ways.

to also new here wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:31 PM:Thanks for the levity I appreciate it's childishness, but I was quite serious. And to Mike America, I retired from a business I started when I was in my early twenties and built up to about 40 employees and just sold. Believe it or not most of my fellow business owners are centrists, certainly not conservatives of the Bush type. I guess I'll check back on this blog from time to time but really you guys don't have much new or interesting to say...kinda like my dad and his buddies.

Good Question wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:32 PM:If the military is okay with signing away their own rights, what ARE they exactly fighting for? Not freedom, not liberty, what? Oh, that was a rhetorical question, I know they are really fighting to gain control of the world because they believe that the United States has a duty to bring our way of life to the rest of the world and oversee it. Why not be honest? I've seen the PNAC website. We all don't feel that way, but I understand it makes you feel larger than life to have that point of view. I don't agree but you are entitled to your opinion. Just don't slam me for mine.

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:32 PM:"Mark", I cheated, I found it. I won't spoil your fun. I'll just give you three letters, that's my contributing clue. Huzzah! Alf, a Libertarian.

to LESSON wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:40 PM:Maybe I missed something here, but I believe that History Lesson's referred to book is comprised of actual transcripts of conversations between Nixon, Kissinger and others. That's an unusually weighty and important book, I'd say, being the President's own words. But don't worry, the current Cheney/Bush has seen to it that no book will ever be able to find out what they spoke about. Rest easy...Bush & Cheney sure are (so is Kissinger this time). I heard one transcript from the book, by the way. Kissinger and Nixon and others are discussing pulling out of VietNam. Kissinger insists this not happen soon because doing so could impact Nixon's reelection. That's right: let thousands more American kids die and kill for a little while longer in a war we are already planning to bail out of...the priority is Nixon's reelection. I hope this kind of thing awakens people, but maybe it's too distressing.

ANSWER wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:40 PM:Alfonso wrote on Jul 27, 2007 1:44 PM United Kingdom, Ireland, and France and the Netherlands to name four.

Question for Reardon wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:41 PM:The President has had warrantless wiretaps on Americans even when talking to other Americans. How do you feel about this? Is it a violation of American law?

new here wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:57 PM:Mike America seems to draw a distinction between working for the military and the civil service. Maybe in his mind, but from a business owners point of view it's all money out. Each performs a function we need and each costs a lot of money. My take is we'd be better off with less military and more civil service because with a much smaller military future presidents would be less likely to get us involved in foreign wars plus we wouldn't have the huge baggage of military retirees drawing expensive retirements.

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2007 3:03 PM:Welcome, "Alfonso", to the fray. You asked in your 1:44 post, "You don't support the troops, yet you don't say you "don't support the terrorists". Many people, like me, have grown lazy by not making clear that BOTH sides are offensive. Example - The sdmm and the pro illegal camps are both disgusting examples of sub-human behavior. Alf, a Libertarian.

To Mark wrote on Jul 27, 2007 3:13 PM:It was Jehovah, God of the Old Testament. Good question, Mark. Jefferson was not a big fan of religion in government. Jefferson was not only convinced of the falsity of the religious dogmas of his day, but militantly struggled to break the grapple hold they had upon the minds of the people, and was happy at every defeat they sustained. In a letter to John Adams, he wrote, "I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that the den of priesthood is at length broken up, and that a protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character."

Reardon wrote on Jul 27, 2007 3:19 PM:To Reardon: I can't speak for "Military men" -- only for myself. My family has fought in every war since the Revolution -- it is a family tradition, and, like most military men I have been a civilian far longer than my military career. Even as a "military man" -- like most others, I have been in education (Professor); corporate (CEO and pres); small business (owned and managed a computer store); and Foundation work (start-up president.) I have turned around two non-profits, and one corporation for the bankruptcy court. Some Bloggers seem to think "military men" are uni-dimensional robots without skills or knowledge or education. WRONG! Quit compartmentalizing those who have served their country into ANY category! We are just people with various philosophies, and various experiences. Just like everyone else.

To Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2007 3:39 PM:Ron's 12:35 post is crucial in understanding him. He says the left is the enemy and it's clear that he considers everyone from Pelosi to Reid to Obama "leftists", which he equates with "Stalinists". So there you have it. In 2000 and 2006, the majority of voters went Democratic and if polls are accurate, the majority of Americans prefer the Democratic party right now. To Ron, then, the majority of American citizens are the enemy and must be fought till the bitter end. As he says, once you realize this, it's all simple. Says it all.

God wrote on Jul 27, 2007 3:47 PM:Alf is correct. THOU SHALL NOT KILL. This is my command. It applies to everybody. Period.

To Mark Mobley wrote on Jul 27, 2007 3:54 PM:Seriously, how many people do you know that go to church on Sundays and claim their faith in the Lord, proclaiming how moral and responsible they are and then during the next week before Church the next Sunday, they are committing all kinds of sins. Sound very hypocritical to me. I know quite a few of those type of people and have found that having faith in God has absolutely NOTHING to do with a person have good morals and being responsible. To NCT - these letters should be strictly held in the faith section and not PREACHED in this section. If you believe, you believe, I don't need to read about it!

Reardon (3:19) is right wrote on Jul 27, 2007 4:32 PM:I know many military people, including many who have been to Iraq, that are liberals, Democrats, critical of the war, pro-Constitution. We should never judge. Of course, the regular flag-wavers here are much more judgmental about these fine folks. They are accused of not being "real" veterans, of being traitors, of lending support to the enemy. My guess is that the earlier remarks about military people (I don't think anyone said "all" military people; the post said "many" or "some") applies to these anti-Americans. Thank you for your fine work in and out of the service.

Fran , wrote on Jul 27, 2007 4:48 PM:While Gonzo was lying, I mean testifying, he stated that he would stay as in office so he could protect children. I almost fell off my bar stool. This is the same Gonzales who let that horrible prosecutor, Sutton, prosecute our two brave Border Patrol Agents, Ramos and Compean, who were trying to catch an illegal alien drug smuggler so he could not bring his deadly drugs to our children. And "dimwit bush" will not pardon them. Yes, the same "dimwit" who will not close our border to illegal alien lawbreakers. Keep calling!

And, wrote on Jul 27, 2007 4:50 PM:The Decider has decided to remove half the national guard from the border.

WOW!! wrote on Jul 27, 2007 4:54 PM:The judge in Hazelton has declared that illegals alien have the same rights as American Citizens. So it means nothing now to ba a Citizen.

Reardon wrote on Jul 27, 2007 4:56 PM:To Question: I do not know of a single case of warrant less wiretapping of an American citizen. Please give me a case, case number, citation from a court, etc. so I can check that out. There is a Special Court of three federal judges that grants wiretapping warrants for overseas citizens suspected of terrorist activities, and there MAY be cases where those suspects are wiretapped under federal law and a call is intercepted where the suspects are talking with perfectly innocent American citizens, but this has always been covered under "incidental" in federal law. Please give me a case, an indictment, a conviction...ANYTHING other than just a spurious charge.

yep, yep, wrote on Jul 27, 2007 5:00 PM:Bush stated that Ramos and Compean were convicted by members of his peers. Yep! But wasn't Libby convicted by members of his peers? um!!!

hey Bill wrote on Jul 27, 2007 5:13 PM:Sorry you are bored. 'What part of Illegal don't you understand' will be used until someone comes up with a good answer Haven't heard it yet. so what part of illegal don't you understand? J.W.

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2007 5:19 PM:"To Alf", just as there is some bad in the best of us, there is some good, however small, in the worst of us. I'm sure that most of us prefer to think we're part of the former, rather than part of the latter. Alf, a Libertarian.

Alfonso wrote on Jul 27, 2007 5:20 PM:Thanks to Answer...four out of 205? It's a landslide.

TheWolf wrote on Jul 27, 2007 5:58 PM:To P. Frawley, what does it say about the Democrats that their candidates for prez could not beat Bush? Speaks for itself. And G. Myers Bush for all his faults would have crushed Hitler early. To God, the line is Thou shalt not MURDER in Hebrew. The PC crowd has tranliterated the word to KILL which has a different meaning. You can look it up.

LESSON wrote on Jul 27, 2007 6:08 PM:to LESSON wrote on Jul 27, 2007 2:40 PM I shall give it a read when I find it.

Illegal? What matter? wrote on Jul 27, 2007 6:16 PM:One court has found the Bush stance towards enemy combatants illegal. Another disputed the legality of the warrantless wiretaps. One blogger above thought the Iran contra illegality was a good thing. Gonzales' testimony has been contradicted by another Bush apointee. When Cheney is asked to turn over records that are required by law, he claims to be a separate branch of the government, or else threatens to dissolve the agency that was doing its job. We seem not to care very much about the law. We only care that actions support our ends...the means are whatever needs to be done. It's the Reagan model...give us a hero that we can identify with and the law be damned. What matters is that we feel good, strong, macho, invincible. An old story, at least as old as the Iliad.

ANSWER wrote on Jul 27, 2007 6:32 PM:Alfonso wrote on Jul 27, 2007 5:20 PM: your question ask for a country in the singular. I named four for you. You are welcome.

to Reardon wrote on Jul 27, 2007 6:39 PM:The ACLU won a case against the wiretap program, in which the judge ruled it clearly unconstitutional. This was appealed, and the appeal court ruled that because the plaintiffs could not show that they were harmed by the program, it should not have been allowed to have come to trial in the first place. Why could they not show they were not harmed? It's a secret under that program. So you "won" on the basis of a technicality in which the law was cleverly designed to hide any evidence of its illegality. To me, thanks, in part, to the judge who actually looked at the substance of the matter, this is an unconstitutional spying on Americans. To say it isn't is exactly like saying OJ Simpson is innocent. Up to you.

To Wow!!!!! wrote on Jul 27, 2007 6:42 PM:" The judge in Hazelton has declared that illegals alien have the same rights as American Citizens. So it means nothing now to be a Citizen." Damn!!! It's about time you got it. According to the 14th Amendment their is very little difference between a citizen and ANY PERSON. Really the only thing they can't do that you can do is vote. Get used to it and start respecting their Constitutional rights to Life, Liberty, Property and equal protection under the law. Wow!!!! I am amazed that you finally got it.....Peace Out

A very sad state of the Republic wrote on Jul 27, 2007 6:43 PM:I was thinking the other day about Howard Dean's famous scream. As he did that, it was clear, his chance to win the Presidency went down the drain. When Edwards' $400 haircut came to light, it might be the same story. So this is what democracy in America has come to? We are idiots, and we deserve what we get. Please, can you say with a straight face that these facts determining the outcome of the election of the most powerful post on earth is a reasonable thing? We are, or should be, the great embarrassment. We don't deserve democratic elections. Plato was right.

I agree, wrote on Jul 27, 2007 6:53 PM:with Illegal? Everything is illegal since Bush was anointed King George. He has let millions of illegals come here and receive free money, American jobs and American schools. Who is George working for?

Nick wrote on Jul 27, 2007 7:54 PM:What's wrong with kool-aid?

WOW!! wrote on Jul 27, 2007 8:23 PM:I certainly respect their rights in their own Country. I respect the good immigrants who wait in line, do the paperwork and get medical checks. I do not respect illegal alien lawbreakers. Got it!

Reardon wrote on Jul 27, 2007 8:30 PM:To To Reardon: Please let me paraphrase your answer: "I do not have any proof of my allegation, but I believe those allegations to be true and that is all that counts." Thank you. I knew the answer before you wrote, but as a firm defender of the Constitution I had hopes you would have put it more clearly. If you believe, as Alf does, that the original intent of the Constitution should be the one that counts -- I agree. If you believe that case law should not supersede the original intent -- I agree. That however is NOT the law of this nation as we live in it today. One thing we should all agree upon is that proof is required, if not before the charges at LEAST after the charges. THERE IS NO PROOF. IF, and it is still IF this government wiretapped American citizens without a judicial finding and not an incidental intercept while in pursuit of a suspected terrorist under judicial review – then I will join you in calling for a Constitutional crises. Until then....

Linda W, wrote on Jul 27, 2007 8:39 PM:Other great things about Reagan. While he was trying to cut down on programs for the middle class and working poor, he said our little school children could eat ketchup for their vegetable at lunchtime. Great Man!

OBSERVATION wrote on Jul 27, 2007 8:40 PM:WOW!! wrote on Jul 27, 2007 8:23 PM Do you hate the American employers who give them work as well. The employers who not only do not provide any benefits but do not even provide work comp? It seems to me that the illegals would not be here if it were not for the work and the hungry family at home.

Singer wrote on Jul 27, 2007 10:39 PM:to "And so it begins," this is NOTHING NEW. When I was in my 20's (40 yrs ago) and applied for welfare, due to my husband's work-related back injury & subsequent surgery, it was common practice. It is to prevent welfare recipients from housing with extended family & using welfare to support more than it was intended OR to use the UNDOCUMENTED INCOME from the extended family members. It really isn't a bad practice. If you don't want the government in your life - make your own living!

Alf wrote on Jul 28, 2007 8:47 AM:There is a HUGE difference between an informed consent of searches when one is to receive something "extra", like welfare, and when there is no informed consent, no warrant, only a government violating it's own laws. Alf, a Libertarian.

Illegal wiretapping wrote on Jul 28, 2007 9:42 AM:Didn't the FBI recently discover that it had, in fact, illegally ("accidentally"?) wiretapped many, many Americans without a warrant? I seem to recall that these wiretaps were called, by the FBI itself, abuses of the surveillance program. It has not come to court because the names of those who were wiretapped is, of course, a secret. And they claim to have stopped doing this. A court is not needed: the perpetrator confessed; the perpetrator confessed it was a crime, an abuse, and that it happened a lot. Reardon, is it possible that this is not sufficient for you?

Alfonso wrote on Jul 28, 2007 2:35 PM:to illegal wiretapping...your facts are not correct. The FBI found that thousands of documents solicited from wiretap warrants had been submitted when they shouldn't have been. The NCT kind of hid the article but it is right here....http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/07/14/news/nation/19_01_087_13_07.txt#blogcomments, notice the last sentence and Alan's comment (the only comment made before it was hidden?)

Alf wrote on Jul 28, 2007 6:10 PM:"Alfonso", the point of the article is that when you have no one to keep tabs on ANY situation, in this case the FBI violating the law and its own guidelines, when things are hiddenfrom view, when there is no oversight, that is when abuses are most likely to occur. If the FBI says "I want your records on John Doe" or "I want the phone and email records on John Doe" and they flash one of these "quasi-warrants", do you want them visiting several times or once? Might you feel intimidated and give too much? The companies referred to, AS WELL AS the FBI, screwed up. At least the FBI has the honor to admit it. The executive branch, aka GWB, has no such honor. As I said before, these and other "alleged" intentional violations of the Constitution and Constitutional rights will wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court and IF THEY DO THEIR JOB there will be a resolution in favor of the Constitutional rights as opposed to what I percieve as the flagrant abuse, misuse and downright un-Constitutionally criminal behavior by GWB, Cheney and crew. Alf, a Libertarian.

Alonso wrote on Jul 28, 2007 8:01 PM:Hi Alf, I didn't read it the same as you I guess. I read it as "legally" executed warrants for information that was over submitted by the companies. the FBI's mistake, I think, was not managing what came in correctly, not violations of civil rights in garnering information. Personally, I thought this article was a great example of "Journalistic misconduct" because of how it was written. It is written to insinuate that the government is "trying" to get away with too much information when in fact, they executed the information requests per law/constitution, and received more than they asked for that was not dispositioned properly. Anyway, you're one of the people I thought would be interested in this "obscure" article by the NCT. Glad you went to see it. I don't think GWB sees much of the info gleaned anyway. He has people for that.

Pure hypocrisy wrote on Jul 28, 2007 8:35 PM:Bush wagged his finger at other nations and bragged about how, in a real democracy, the workings of the government were transparent. And yet even as he said this, he has led the least transparent..no, the most ANTI-transparent, government in our history. From day one, when, citing "national security" reasons, he put the public papers of Reagan and his father back under lock and key, to the present, when anything anyone of his staff does is similarly hidden from public view, always citing "national security" as the reason (as if this incompetent, who has done more to compromise national security than any recent President, is the expert on this), Bush/Cheney has worked for an imperial presidency. He/Cheney/Rove discerned, brilliantly (in the realm of politics; in morality it's the opposite) that Americans only want to be winners, to have a bold king to admire, smirk and all, to vote for again and again because he, only he, is macho enough to protect us, to make sure we keep our stuff...this is nauseating, isn't it? You who are Bush supporters will be held up in future history books as the ultimate dupes, perhaps as the reason the old-fashioned concept of democracy failed utterly. Shame on you.

well, wrote on Jul 29, 2007 1:02 PM:Bush may like to talk macho but in reality he is just a big scardy cat. He was certainly afraid to go to war when it was his turn.