Republican Representative is Proud of Violations of Federal Law

We've all heard about the revelation that the NSA has been illegally wiretapping American citizens under the orders of our Commander-and-Chief.  Even most Republicans won't support these blatantly illegal and Unconstitutional acts.

But at least one is openly proud of the President breaking the law.

On the CNN show hosted by Wolf Blitzer, The Situation Room, former Republican Rep. Bob Barr and current Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) debated the tactics that have recently come to light.  Barr strongly opposed them while Rohrabacher predictably supported the President's Orwellian policy.

As the debate drew to a close, this exchange occurred:

BARR: Here again, this is absolutely a bizarre conversation where you have a member of Congress saying that it's okay for the president of the United States to ignore U.S. law, to ignore the Constitution, simply because we are in an undeclared war.

The fact of the matter is the law prohibits -- specifically prohibits -- what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn't matter, I'm proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding, Wolf.

ROHRABACHER: Not only proud, we can be grateful to this president. You know, I'll have to tell you, if it was up to Mr. Schumer, Senator Schumer, they probably would have blown up the Brooklyn Bridge. The bottom line is this: in wartime we expect our leaders, yes, to exercise more authority.

Now, I have led the fight to making sure there were sunset provisions in the Patriot Act, for example. So after the war, we go back to recognizing the limits of government. But we want to put the full authority that we have and our technology to use immediately to try to thwart terrorists who are going to -- how about have a nuclear weapon in our cities?

BARR: And the Constitution be damned, Dana?

ROHRABACHER: Well, I'll tell you something, if a nuclear weapon goes off in Washington, DC, or New York or Los Angeles, it'll burn the Constitution as it does. So I'm very happy we have a president that's going to wiretap people's communication with people overseas to make sure that they're not plotting to blow up one of our cities.

This Republican House of Representatives member openly admits that he supports the violation of US federal law by the President of the United States and the establishment of a government with absolute power during "wartime."  Not only is that disgusting, but it is a violation of the oath required of him to defend the US Constitution..

"I, <name>, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Representative Dana Rohrabacher took the oath and has now violated it.  

•  Double Take

  I didn't see this mentioned anywhere online, but I did a double take when I saw it.  How far have we come that the GOP isn't even pretending its following the Constitution anymore.

  Let's hope Jim Brandt can take this anti-democracy nutjob out next November.

  by Woundweavr on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:15:10 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    The fact that government officials like Lott, Rohrabacher and Gonzales are willing to go on the public record saying it's OK to spy on Americans even if it violates the law is truly frightening.  Our country has clearly crossed a line from democratic state towards police state.

    by davidkc on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 05:22:57 AM PDT

•  Bob Barr sure has come a long way

  I guess spending time outside of DC can do a lot for somebody.

  by RBH on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:19:14 PM PDT

  •  Barr's exactly where he's always been

    He's come a long way?

    Bob Barr became famous for impeaching a president who lied under oath.

    Barr's being consistent.

    Much as some of us like to lionize Clinton, Clinton's lying (yes, yes, nobody died, and he "only" lied to protect himself when sued for sexual harassment, which isn't really bad if a Democrat does it, right?) -- Clinton's lying lowered the bar and provided cover for Bush's later and much more damaging lies.

    Sure, Clinton in retrospect was a far better president than Dubya, but we need to insist on the same high standards for both "our guys" and "the other guys".

    (Just as we need to take to task any Democrats who took money from Abramoff.)

    Barr's being consistent, and he should be an example to those of us in the Democratic Party who would accuse Republicans while excusing our own.

    by orthogonal on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:35:00 PM PDT

    •  lowering the bar

      Yes, Clinton lowered the bar some by lying under oath.

      But not as much as Bob Barr did by voting to impeach him for it.
      

      by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:45:07 PM PDT

      •  Great sig line! n/t

        by cosette on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 11:42:13 PM PDT

    •  Actually

      Since leaving Congress, Barr came out against the Patriot Act, became a prominent member of the ACLU, and endorsed the Libertarian Party in the 2004 elections.

      I'm not saying that Bob Barr is a great guy, just that he's better than most Republicans.

      by RBH on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:49:07 PM PDT

    •  I agree Barr is being consistent

      The rule of law thing.

      But why so snarky? You said "and he "only" lied to protect himself when sued for sexual harassment, which isn't really bad if a Democrat does it, right?"

      So you assume if a republican president who was doing a good and honorable job otherwise was impeached for sexual lies we would all agree that was fine?

      Or that if this current president was a Democrat we'd think the lies into war and all the other things we are upset about would be fine?

      I know you are wrong for me and I don't think I am the lone ranger.

      by joynow on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:44:31 AM PDT

      •  Let's get back on topic, please

        What matters as we head into 2006 is . . .

        When does the House Judiciary Committee begin the Rohrbacher impeachment hearings?

        by raatz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:53:04 AM PDT

      •  Not wrong for me

        If any Republican president lied under oath, no matter how honorable he or she is, the people of this sight would be up in arms and calling for his/her impeachment, probably leading the charge.  And we certainly wouldn't be fine with a Democrat today acting the way Bush/Johnson did about war.

        Anyway, the point is that Clinton lowered the bar.  I remember seeing the press conference when he said "I did not have sexual realtions with that woman" and knowing that he was lying to my face (well, he was lying into the cameras that allowed my face to see his face lying).  Not that I had a suspicion or didn't quite believe him, ie the push to war in 2003, I KNEW he was lying.  And he did it under oath, he said he would tell the truth or face the consequences.

        by slothlax on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:08:02 AM PDT

    •  Ya know

      Barr was caught having an affair at the same time he was all indignant about Clinton

      by mpc 12 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:37:39 AM PDT

  •  Barr's change began in 2000

    Which is why they redistricted him, to set him up for a Primary.

    Here's the tale as i wrote it a year ago...

    In the Spring of 2000, I was in high gear in an effort to kill Censorship and "Secret Search Warrant" provisions of the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act which had unanimously cleared the Senate, and was pending in the House Judiciary Committee.

    I first persuaded my Rep, Tammy Baldwin, a Committee member to remove the Bill from the Consent Calendar, putting it on the non-expedited review track.

    Next stops were the Libertarian and Firearms boards, where I pointed out that the Search provisions would impact firearms as well as drug investigations, and the censorship provisions provided a structure which, under a future Democratic Congress, could be applied to restrict discussion of firearms.

    Next Tammy returned to Madison, she asked "Ben, How did you get Bob Barr to call me?" It seems that thru the first 3 years of their service on the Judiciary Committee, he'd rebuffed all her efforts to engage him outside formal session, going so far as to turn his back when she'd try to approach him in the hallway, due to her sexual orientation.

    They remained on relatively good terms, while usually disagreeing on policy, until Barr left the House.

    by ben masel on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:53:17 PM PDT

    •  And Barr followed that up with

      being the guy behind sunsetting parts of the Patriot Act.

      Which is a hell of a lot better than just letting it become law forever.

      Never underestimate the power of people who don't want the government to kick down their doors and nose in on their business.

      by RBH on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 11:11:27 PM PDT

•  Sad thing is

  this probably won't hurt him politically with his constituent base. There are lots of people--not a majority, I hope--who agree with him on this, who don't see the lack of civil liberty as a bad thing when measured against the threat they perceive (which is overblown to be sure).

  by incertus on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:22:51 PM PDT

  •  the overblown threat

    Good point here. I haven't decided whether to call the terrorist threat "overblown" or "oversold?"  Seems like the Bushites have expended both effort and money to create a climate of fear on which they can capitalize.

    by greatbasin2 on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:29:29 PM PDT

    •  I'm nervous about nuke proliferation

      Now that Plame and Brewster-Jennings can't keep tabs on the nuclear black market due to loose lips in the WH, odds of a terrorist mushroom cloud in the good ol US of A are higher than they were. I don't feel confident that the domestic spying is being used to protect us, because this admin has shown such a tendency to use power for cronyism and party politics, as well as ignore PDB mentioning terrorist attacks... somehow I'm not feeling confident that this admin would react to the loss of an American city (think NOLA) except to capitalize on it.

      by teresab on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:54:45 PM PDT

•  Well........

  Afterall...as Bush allegedly said, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!

  IOKIYAR.

  by michael1104 on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:26:32 PM PDT

  •  Taking into account....

    ....what Roherbacker said, that Capitol Hill Blue report on Bush doesn't seem quite so unreliable.

    by metal prophet on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:57:20 PM PDT

  •  Yep, just a piece of paper

    The Constitution is just a piece of paper in the same sense that uranium is just a piece of metal.

    by JJape on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 11:59:27 PM PDT

•  Rohrabacher is such an ass.

  Kudos for Barr, though, for getting something right for once.

  Many Republicans are turning around (e.g. today's Patriot Act vote), but there will always be the chowderheads who will never let go.

  I'm hoping there's a special place in the afterlife for them.  Somewhere between Britney Spears' discography and the museum of Jenna Bush.
  

  by joad on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:33:11 PM PDT

•  She is Voicing.....

  The Opinion that Bush's BASE will cling to. This will be the argument on Fox......
  Oh, CNN too.
  I fuckin can't stand Wolfie....He's a dunderhead reject from the 700 club.

  by irishamerican on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:53:26 PM PDT

•  Where can I find links to Repubs denouncing this?

  I was just about to pester Sue Myrick again--but would love to have some Repub quotes to fire at her.

  by Christian Dem in NC on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 10:59:10 PM PDT

  •  McCain and Specter

    ...spoke against it in the AP.  They're the ones being quoted, but they are probably the most prominent non-radical Republicans.
    

    
    Specter:"That's wrong, clearly and categorically wrong,"
    ...
    Following a meeting at the White House this morning on national security, Senator John McCain said he ``wouldn't like it'' if he confirmed the report was accurate.

    ``We should be informed as to exactly what's going on and then find out whether an investigation is called for,'' McCain, an Arizona Republican, told reporters.

    by Woundweavr on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 11:13:22 PM PDT

•  The thing no one will say out loud

  is that without the Constitution, Americans are just a bunch of rich chickenshits.  No Constitution, no "greatest country in the world."  The fact is that we've allowed the right to convince the population that we're somehow special, without any actual obligations to higher principles, and now too many people believe that merely living here & buying a bunch of crap is a sign of divine favor.

  I don't know if we're even able to reverse this rejection of any sort of national character, really... the idea has been cheapened so much, and we've grown so fat & lazy, that it seems impossible.
  

  by latts on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 11:02:54 PM PDT

•  Foreign and Domestic

  "I, <name>, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

  This oath basically gives them the right to do whatever they want.  They can label anyone an enemy.  This story is a loser for the Dems.  It might surprise people, but it doesn't surprise me.  I think we pretty much new there was "extra" surveillance going on.

  Wait til the "think of the children" mantras get started up again and the Republicans will eliminate any controversy raised over this story.

  by Kaphin on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 11:06:57 PM PDT

•  typical cheap shot

  "You know, I'll have to tell you, if it was up to Mr. Schumer, Senator Schumer, they probably would have blown up the Brooklyn Bridge."

  This is ridiculous, also, that we have our "leaders" speaking about each other in this fashion on television.  We are or should be the fucking laughingstock of the world at this point.  Corruption run rampant throughout... the base of the ruling party are blinded fundamentalists... I could go on on on on.. but it's 1:11 am..

  The more important story out of all of this is the media's role in all of this.  We cannot trust this media oligopoly to report anything except spin and falsehoods.

  by Kaphin on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 11:12:57 PM PDT

•  Okay, okay, ENOUGH!!

  Geez, my head is spinning and my stomach feels woozy. I can't listen anymore to officers of the United States Congress and the Executive Branch expressing contempt for the United States Constitution - which happens to be the document to which they owe their power, and which they swore to uphold.

  I'm not worried, though: I know it will be upheld.

  Hasta la vista, babies.

  by occams hatchet on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 11:21:08 PM PDT

•  Through the looking glass

  Rohrabacher's quote is downright fascist.  He's putting the GOP and extreme right on record as being against the rule of law.

  And what's up with the baroque fear-mongering?

  I'll tell you something, if a nuclear weapon goes off in Washington, DC, or New York or Los Angeles, it'll burn the Constitution as it does.

  What fucking Die Hard rip-off did this jack-ass walk out of?

  by wobblie on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 11:44:08 PM PDT

  •  Not Die Hard

    Chicken Little is closer to the mark, I'd say.  If the Global War on Terror Struggle goes on much longer, the nuclear destruction of an American city will have everyone in the country reaching for the channel changer.

    by JJape on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:09:38 AM PDT

•  Rorhbacher must have never heard

  of Pandora's Box.  And I'm not talking about the porno store down the street.

  by lapin on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 11:58:05 PM PDT

•  Ask Dunkin' Dana

  He is probably better equipped than most to tell us where the next "terrist" attack is coming. Perhaps someone should "eavesdrop" on Rohrbacher's communications. Maybe some waterboarding too, just to make sure he's clean.

  This man is another of a long line of Bull Goose fascists from OC. Here's the excellent R. Scott Moxley's piece on the good congresscreature, it's a real good read.

  Congressman Dana Rohrabacher's absolutely crazy, quite possibly illegal back-channel chats with the villains of Sept. 11

  by R. Scott Moxley

  In fact, Rohrabacher's post-Sept. 11 finger-pointing was a fraud designed to distract attention from his own ongoing meddling in the foreign-policy nightmare. Federal documents reviewed by the Weekly show that Rohrabacher maintained a cordial, behind-the-scenes relationship with Osama bin Laden's associates in the Middle East--even while he mouthed his most severe anti-Taliban comments at public forums across the U.S. There's worse: despite the federal Logan Act ban on unauthorized individual attempts to conduct American foreign policy, the congressman dangerously acted as a self-appointed secretary of state, constructing what foreign-affairs experts call a "dual tract" policy with the Taliban.

  A veteran U.S. foreign-policy expert told the Weekly, "If Dana's right-wing fans knew the truth about his actual, working relationship with the Taliban and its representatives in the Middle East and in the United States, they wouldn't be so happy."

  Nowadays, Rohrabacher and his numerous aides are quick to provide copies of the congressman's pre-Sept. 11 rants against the Taliban. They will tell you that he labeled them "a pack of dogs killing anyone" and "the most anti-Western, anti-female, anti-human rights regime in the world." They will also show you records of the congressman berating Clinton administration foreign-policy advisors for misreading Taliban intentions and for trying to negotiate peace in Afghanistan with the militant Islamic group's Mullah Mohammed Omar, a bin Laden associate.

  What they won't mention is that Rohrabacher also once lobbied shamelessly for the Taliban. A November/December 1996 article in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reported, "The potential rise of power of the Taliban does not alarm Rohrabacher" because the congressman believes the "Taliban could provide stability in an area where chaos was creating a real threat to the U.S." Later in the article, Rohrabacher claimed that:

  OC Weekly

  by Dave925 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:08:49 AM PDT

  •  So in other words...

    Newly power-crazed Republicans like Dana Rohrabacher who stabbed the Taliban in the back in the post-Clinton orgy are probably the reason we got attacked on 911.

    Well duh... as usual, Michael Moore knew that...

    I still never get why Republican voters don't understand who it is that the Islamic radicals want to kill us because of. And why they keep voting for them?

    by Lode Runner on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:12:56 AM PDT

•  Isn't it disturbing

  that the Rebublican party has moved so far right, and so totalitarian, that we are on the same side as Bob Barr against it.  I never would have thought I would see this day a few years ago.

  by southernblues on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:31:11 AM PDT

  •  I know, really

    It's sad when you start finding yourself in agreement with people like Barr and Buchanan more and more in recent times.

    Maybe Barr should go on O'Reilly to defend the ACLU if he is working with them.  O'Reilly can hardly call Barr a liberal secularist.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:34:07 AM PDT

•  Congressman Dana, representin'

  the OC!

  After the war, in 2374, Dana's formaldehyde-ed head will be able to declare victory and it's back to the Bill of Rights we go!

  by The Zipper on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:37:56 AM PDT

•  So there is a "war" on

  This war on terror and some find it fine to set rights and laws aside.

  But this is the war we are told will go on and on and on. For how many generations do we give up our rights?

  by joynow on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:50:40 AM PDT

•  These psychos have no shame...

  They really can't mask the naked fascism anymore. Their b.s. crap just doesn't make any sense.

  "Ok, let's give a freak like Bush ultimate power because he's gone and pissed of Arabs worldwide such that they'd want to nuke our cities?"

  Makes sense to them.

  Let's not forget that we weren't attacked until we elected these radical rightwingers into office.

  Coincidence? I'm not sure why everyone is so unable to see what Arabs were and are thinking. Just put yourself in their shoes for Christ's sake.

  I mean... it's pretty obvious to me why 911 happened. Because Bush was installed as Dear Leader by PNAC NeoCons and rightwing radicals... and Arabs saw what was coming... duh. Anybody with half a brain (which given voting patterns rules out rural and suburban Americans) could have seen what was coming. Iraq. At the earliest political convenience.

  Republican voters really are just braindead stupid. "Let's elect the NeoCon freaks that Arabs hate... because Arabs hate em, cause we hate Arabs. Not that these NeoCon freaks actually do our country any good... in fact they'll drive the economy into the shit like never before... but let's elect em cause the Arabs hate em.

  That'll make us safer."

  It's just sad that the children of liberal folk will have to suffer because of the stupidity of Republican voters. If only the Arabs could target their real enemies (NeoCons like O'Reilly or Richard Perle) more specifically.

  Yup, Very sad that any liberal kids would have to die because of Republican trash like them... and that's always been one of my bigger beefs with this whole deal. Why do American kids have to die because of Falafel's filthy ugly bigoted hole?

  It's sad that the cities will be the ones that will be attacked... merely because they're the economically productive areas. And it's sad that the cities, the only places were science, facts, intelligence, and Traditional Liberal Democratic values are still cherished it seems... sad they'll be attacked and that the Social Conservatives and Republican hierarchy won't be affected at all.

  And sad that the more liberal the area, the more economically critical it is and the more likely to be attacked (New York and California). Coincidence? Of course not.

  While the Midwestern and Southern leeches suck off our tax dollars and whine and cry about their own paltry tax contributions... they also carelessly endanger the lives of our children. Old news by now... and that's of course why this Bush voting trash is so loathed by so many of us. Cause we actually care about the safety of our children; well go figure.

  And for that... I think these radical Social Conservatives deserve to be treated as terrorists.

  In my view, they're the ones at the root of the danger we're in. They're the real key to making our cities safe. We've got to deal with the Pat Robertses and Robertsons if we expect the countless Mohammeds of the world to leave us be. Because let's be honest, we can't even keep the names straight. We aren't smart enough as a people to learn what we need to learn about Middleastern culture to win this "War." And certainly our leaders aren't.

  O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Robertson, Tancredo; all of them endanger our children with every bigoted word out of their ignorant mouths. And it may well be that some rural areas of the country just lack the sophistication necessary to elect Representatives that can deal with terrorism and complex global problems. That may very well be true.

  All Republican voters. All Social Conservatives... their terrorizing of this country needs to stop. If Arabs want to be left in peace... it won't come until the Social Conservatives are forced back into the shadows either out of fear or shame. And attacking liberal cities isn't going to do either. Only by targeting the hierarchy I think can this monster be brought down. The only thing in the way of peace for the last 30 years has been the Republican Party. Because they're the ones the Islamic radicals attacked. Because they're the ones that are owned by the Saudis and the large corporate interests... oil and gas, military contracting companies, disaster reconstruction companies, etc. They're the ones who want the bases on Islamic Holy land. It's all quite simple to understand of course. Even for an American.

  It's the Republican elite, the NeoCons and Social Conservatives who started this Holy War. They should die for it... not our kids.

  Anyway... I suppose War is never fair. It wasn't fair that Iraqi children had to die for Republican blood lust. So it goes... Republicans kill and mame and plunder at will, blindly, out of ignorance and hate, gluttony and greed.

  Fuck em.

  And yeah, I guess I take it personally when kids are endangered by ignorant fat Republican cows in middle America. Particularly mine.

  

  by Lode Runner on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:08:09 AM PDT

•  Add Trent Lott to the list

  of elected officials who don't give a shit about the Constitution:

  Some prominent Republicans defended the surveillance, arguing it was necessary to combat terrorism. "I don't agree with the libertarians," said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). "I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that."

  by Simplify on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:13:38 AM PDT

  •  Trent Lott is a Coward.

    End of story... just look at what he said. Just pathetic and cowardly.

    What would our forefathers think of such a slimy filthy worm? "Ohhhh, my security, ohhhh Dear Leader protect me. I'm so scared. Lock me up. Beat me. I don't care... just keep me safe."

    Republicans are cowards. Just look at how they failed to sign up for the War they wanted. And now our military is suffering... falling apart. Now we've lost the War because not enough people signed up... not enough of the cowardly 4.5 million Bush voters age 18-24. Not even 2% of the those young cowards who voted for Bush in 2004 are in Iraq. We could use 100,000 more troops. That's not even 2.5% more.

    Republicans. Cowards. All of em. They've proved it once and for all. Rich, white, cowards.

    Goes for all Republicans who want to trade away America because they're afraid of terrorists.

    Today's Republicans are cowards. They prove it with every move they make. Every war they skip out on. Every war they lose. Every freedom they trade away out of fear. Cowards.

    by Lode Runner on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:38:08 AM PDT

    •  Like the Tagline

      into software testing, eh? You are right about Lott. If Burr or Hamilton had to deal with people like Lott , they would either laugh him off or kick the shit out of him. These cowards don't deserve freedom.

      by Shuvo Dutta on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 05:51:05 AM PDT

      •  you're 100% right...

        these cowards don't deserve freedom. not when there are billions of people who would do almost anything to have the opportunities they have.

        if we could trade our hierarchy of republican voters for argentinian citizens for example...

        we'd have the most beautiful, healthy, vibrant, successful country on the planet. hands down.

        same goes for trading with most any country really... these republicans just aren't "citizens"... they aren't social members of our culture. they just want everything for themselves. they don't want to put any money into our society as a whole. story as old as time...

        the shear bloated apathetic small-mindedness of republican voters is just revolting.

        it's no wonder republicans never invent anything... they just suck it up and package it for corporate consumption. they really are pathetic... rich, white, republican voters. they're like mold... or bed bugs.

        they're social detritus.

        and no... i don't do software testing... i'm guessing the wages are low? it's crazy what high tech has done to our world. the most educated people... just don't make much. i'm living proof of that... in the architecture field. but we get to do creative work... that's the trade off. money for art. always the way it works.

        and the corporate leeches lap it up and suck off our teets... always the way it works. same with the coast vs. the midwest/south. same with CEO's and their employees. The rich don't generate wealth... they just shift it around. That's something we all need to recognize. This whole myth about the rich being rich because they're the brightest... well, Bush proves what it's really about. Same as it's always been all the way back to King George. Family. It's all about the mafioso... that's all a Theocracy is. A mafia.

        by Lode Runner on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:18:27 PM PDT

•  "So after the war...

  ...we go back to recognizing the limits of government."

  Three questions:

  1. What war? Last time I checked, Congress had not declared war. It authorized the president to

  (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and

  (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

  and it "enacted a specific authorization for ... use of United States Armed Forces" as required under the War Powers Resolution, but it has not declared war.

  2. Presuming the war under discussion is the ongoing insurgent suppression operation in Iraq, last time I checked, there was no formal statement of what constitutes "victory", or when it will have been decided who won. Or even who decides.

  3. If the war being fought is the Global War on Terror(tm), the same question applies: How will we know we've won?

  We are so fucked.

  DCr

  by DCrefugee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 03:46:48 AM PDT

  •  No, Iraq is fucked.

    Republicans will just do what they did in Vietnam. Refuse to own up to the War they lost... kill more of our boys and girls than they need to out of arrogance... and then put their tails between their legs and run home to Democrats to fix all their problems for them. Waaaahhhhh. Republicans lost another war. What a shock... here's your Democratic bandaid, now shut the fuck up for 8 years while we fix this.

    That's their M.O. by now. Ford to Carter. Reagan/Bush to Clinton. Bush Jr. to some new poor hardworking Democratic sap.

    And so it will go... seemingly forever... out into the stars.

    by Lode Runner on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:28:54 PM PDT