Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Supreme Court to rule on eminent domain issue
Posted by: McQ
I’m glad to see the Supreme Court finally taking this issue. However, I’m a bit worried as to how they’ll rule.
The issue? Something which, in my opinion, completely violates the intent of the Constitutional provision of eminent domain.
Full disclosure: I am not, nor have I ever been, a fan of eminent domain. I see it as a violation of property rights because it assumes that ultimately the state has a higher right to your property than you do.
But that’s a fight for another day. What this court case concerns is the growing practice of governments using eminent domain to seize private homes to make way for business development. In other words, turning over the property to private developers to build and develop the property privately with an eye toward generating higher tax revenues for the government.
That, in my opinion, is not within the Constitutionally mandated "public use". That has traditionally meant the property used to build roads, schools and airports, etc. Not Wal-Mart shopping centers or business parks.
The case has to do with a taking in New London, CT:
The justices voted to hear an appeal brought on behalf of several families in a working-class neighborhood of New London, Conn. Taking homes for private developments, they argue, is not what the Constitution means by "public use."
The libertarian Institute for Justice, which represents the homeowners, is urging the Supreme Court to call a halt to what it sees as a dangerous trend.
"If jobs and taxes can be a justification for taking someone’s home or business, then no property in America is safe," said Dana Berliner, a lawyer for the group. "Anyone’s home can create more jobs if it is replaced by a business, and any small business can generate greater taxes if replaced by a bigger one."
This is a very important libertarian issue which is why you see them involved in the case.
Ms. Berliner is absolutely spot on with her assessment. In effect the upholding of this taking by the city government of New London CT would mean that no one really owns their property, and that there are, essentially, no limits on the taking of property by government under the provision of eminent domain.
No person’s home would be safe anywhere from arbitrary taking by government for whatever reason they give.
What’s disturbing is this trend has been evident for a few years.
Between 1998 and 2002, there were more than 10,000 instances in 41 states in which local officials moved to condemn private property so they could transfer it to other private users, the Institute for Justice’s lawyers told the court. Often, these developments have required the uprooting of elderly people who have lived in their homes for decades.
This is simply not acceptable. We all grit our teeth and accept the fact that roads, schools, government buildings and airports have to be built. But what we don’t have to accept is government taking homes to aid and abet private development in the name of increased tax revenues. This sort of taking turns the Constitution upside down because it would be protecting the government’s right to violate indivdual property rights at will. That is exactly the opposite of the intent of the Constitution. If Wal-Mart wants a piece of property, and the owner says no, its none of government’s business. If they want it badly enough, they’ll pay the price necessary to get it or go elsewhere.
Although lower courts have agreed that officials can condemn and raze slums, they are divided over whether city planners can seize private land to make way for private development.
The Constitution says people whose property is taken are entitled to "just compensation." But the New London homeowners say the government is not entitled to take private property in the first place unless it is needed for a "public use." The recent trend "raises the specter that eminent domain authority is now being used to favor purely private interests," their lawyers said.
In their response, city officials said New London had been economically depressed since the closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in 1996.
"New London was a city desperate for economic rejuvenation," they said. When Pfizer, a pharmaceutical company, opened a research center there in 1998, the city announced plans for a 90-acre economic development in the nearby Fort Trumbull section. It envisioned a waterfront hotel and conference center, a retail complex and a new office park.
Standing in the way were several dozen old homes. Susette Kelo and other owners sued to keep their homes, saying the Constitution protected their rights to their private property.
Many cities have successfully "rejuvenated" themselves without resorting to what I consider to be illegal taking. The fact that lower courts split over this concerns me. I would think this would essentially be an open and shut case for the Supreme Court, finding for the home owners. But then it depends on whether the Supreme Court chooses to interpret the Constitution as it is written or change it by fiat, doesn’t it?
UPDATE: Walter Williams also takes a look at this issue.
Permalink / Comments ( 1 ) / TrackBacks ( 0 )
The real chain of connection
September 29th, 2004
Dan Rather and CBS News have had a rough couple of weeks coping with the forged Texas Air National Guard document scandal and their subsequent clumsy cover-up. Richard Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi have been appointed to investigate this mess, but don’t expect them to connect the dots any time soon.
In fact, the left is still relying on their standard tactic of allowing that the proof underlying their assertions is “inaccurate,” but that the fundamental charges are true. Just last Thursday morning, September 23, on Fox and Friends, Michael Wolff of Vanity Fair was urging the American people to overlook the forged documents and Bill Burkett’s increasingly loony behavior. What was most important he said, was the “chain of connection” that enabled the young George Bush to "jump to the head of the line" to join the Texas Air National Guard. The implication was that his peers were forced to sweat out the wait, and if time ran out, they would perhaps be drafted and sent to Vietnam.
Mr. Wolff has identified a useful concept in his phrase, chain of connection. But no real chain of connection is found in the circumstances leading young GW into a woefully under-strength Guard billet, other than the steps of sheer logic. The future President volunteered; TANG was short of qualified recruits for the very demanding fighter pilot program; and young George W. Bush met the stringent educational, physical, intellectual, psychological, and other requirements.
Chain of connection is, however, quite relevant to the CBS scandal. Who forged the documents, and what was the chain of connection conveying the fake papers to CBS?
Further complicating matters for CBS and Dan Rather, the legacy media has unwittingly opened up another angle on probable malfeasance, when they proudly announced that Rather producer Mary Mapes had been the recipient of sensitive Abu Ghraib investigative documents and photos. Just as we are unsure of the actual source of the Guard memo forgeries, the same can be said for the source of the Abu Ghraib materials.
However, a partial chain of connection is revealed upon further examination of contemporary media accounts and the Taguba Report (the high level official inquiry) itself .
The publication of sensitive documents relating to the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib had all the marks of a well thought-out information warfare campaign. The legacy media’s focus was almost entirely on Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, rather than on the perpetrators themselves or their immediate commanders. Apparently, the instigators of the campaign and their liberal media cohorts thought that the American people would buy off on this disinformation, and would immediately call for Rumsfeld’s resignation, thereby damaging the credibility of the Bush Administration. As it turned out, the vast majority of Americans wanted Rummy to remain as SecDef, and the only people calling for his resignation were a few Democrat congressmen and left-leaning media pundits.
By her own apparent admission to the press, Mary Mapes was the recipient of these materials, but how did she get them? Ironically, a member of the new media suggests what some of the answers might be, and does this while promoting the imagined investigative prowess of one if its columnists. Barely a week prior to my original piece on the Abu Ghraib scandal, WorldNetDaily (WND) published an article about how retired Colonel David Hackworth, helped “expose the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.” This sounds similar to Mary Mapes mysteriously “uncovering” photos and documents of the abuse. The WND piece reveals that Hackworth was apparently coordinating the transfer of these sensitive documents, in much the same way that many suspect Bill Burkett may have been the middleman for, if not the creator of, the phony Air National Guard memos.
One passage in the WND piece that requires explanation is how Hackworth came to be involved:
The story began to unravel earlier this year with the actions of Ivan Frederick, father of an Army reservist turned prison guard in Iraq, Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick, who became the target of an investigation for mistreating prisoners.
Staff Sgt. Frederick’s concerns during the first part of 2004 make perfect sense, since the Army’s CID investigation had already been conducted from October to December of 2003. The CID investigators had also secured “numerous” graphic photos and videos concerning the prisoner abuse, likely with the sergeant’s face in them. Translation: Frederick was in deep trouble, and called his Dad for help.
Frederick’s father, we are told, called his brother-in-law, William Lawson, who is a retired Master Sergeant, for help; Lawson then immediately emailed Hackworth in March of 2004. Time was running short for Frederick, because on March 20 charges were officially preferred (warning: graphic language) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). [At about the same time, Maj. Gen. Taguba was turning over the classified report of his detailed follow-on investigation to Lt. Gen. McKiernan, the Commander of Coalition ground forces in the Central Region.] One of Hackworth’s associates immediately called Lawson, we are told, and put him in touch with someone in the CBS News 60 Minutes II program. According to Joe Flint of the Wall Street Journal, this was Rather producer Mary Mapes.
The WND article further states that photos of the abuse “were beginning to circulate among soldiers and military investigators.” This factoid seems to be designed to lessen the importance of the evidence in the proceedings which would eventually result in the convictions of several soldiers who committed the abuse. Naturally, the photos would circulate among the investigators, since the pictures provided the identities of the suspects. That the digitized photos would have circulated among the solders is a given; they took them after all. But the important question is did they turn them over to the CID when the investigation was launched, or was key evidence withheld?
The important consequence is that the chain of custody of the photographic evidence had been compromised, since these materials ended up in the hands of a CBS producer.
Chain of custody is a critical legal and investigative accountability procedure, which stipulates the judicious handling of evidence in a criminal case. Since the materials will be used in court to try the soldiers in question, a “custodian” must therefore always have physical possession or positive control of a piece of evidence. In the military, an MP or duly authorized investigator, or a supervisory non-commissioned officer or officer will assume control of the evidence, document its collection and formally transfer it other law enforcement or military legal personnel.
However, adhering to chain of custody regulations when it comes to digitial media requires a high degree of computer forensic expertise. Admittedly, this sort of technical and legal discipline cannot be realistically expected in a theater of war, unless an MP unit or the Staff Judge Advocate happens to have the correct people with this skill set available to handle the case. It is possible, therefore, that the ultimate source of the evidence was the defendants themselves. But none of them were charged with obstruction of justice on the published charge sheets. This may be a result of the conservative nature of military prosecutors, who generally go for the “slam dunk” charges, rather than risk having a charge tossed-out based upon insufficient evidence. However, we do know that at least one of the defendants was charged with making a false statement with intent to deceive, but this was unrelated to withholding of evidence.
The Taguba report is clear on the chain of custody of the evidence that the CID had obtained. Ultimately, it was secured by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command and by the Coalition Joint Task Force (CJTF) 7 Staff Judge Advocate prosecution team. Unauthorized persons, including nosy journalists or relatives of the accused, should not have had access to this material. So instead of publicizing that one of their columnists was instrumental in “helping” one of the possible perpetrators of the abuse, WND should have been more forthcoming and explain how its military expert coordinated the transmission to CBS News of evidence concerning a criminal investigation, according to their own article.
Further, in an apparent attempt to prove that he was only concerned for the welfare of the troops, and didn’t want to let the upper levels of command off the hook, Hackworth wrote a piece slamming the commander of the 800th MP Brigade, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, and criticizing the higher ups for giving her a “mild slap on the wrist.” While his evaluation of BG Karpinski’s poor command abilities was correct, by exposing the scandal to CBS he may not have helped the lower ranking soldiers at all. In fact, just the opposite.
Initial contact between the links in the chain leading to CBS had been made in late March, and once CBS had analyzed the photos and other documents, Dan Rather was ready blow the story open in mid-April. This was also the time that the battle for Fallujah was raging between US Marines and the terrorists of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Baathist die-hards. In addition, the first battle for Najaf was ongoing.
By broadcasting these photos, CBS gave an already suspicious Iraqi population in these two towns further cause to oppose the Coalition Authority, supplying visceral visual material to the world media, an extra-important factor in a populace with illiteracy among some segments, and a medieval honor system among men.
While acknowledging the seriousness of the abuse charges, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pleaded with CBS to delay the broadcast:
Myers said he called CBS news anchor Dan Rather, asking that the network hold the story that was due to run on its program "60 Minutes." Myers said he did so after talking with Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command. "I did so out of concern for the lives of our troops," the chairman said. "The story about the abuse was already public, but we were concerned that broadcasting the actual pictures would further inflame the tense situation that existed then in Iraq and further endanger the lives of coalition soldiers and hostages." [emphasis added] CBS did hold off, but then aired the pictures on the "60 Minutes II" program April 29.
Despite the spin from CBS News and the hype from WND last spring, it appears, based on open sources, that a family member of one of the accused, Col. Hackworth, and CBS News worked together to disclose sensitive documents, which were then used to target Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld for extensive legacy media attention, and possibly in the process to get one of the perpetrators off the hook. Somebody from CBS had to accept these documents, and that somebody seems to have been fingered by the legacy media as Mary Mapes. And, while claiming for years that he is solidly behind the Soldier in the field, Hackworth may have inadvertently given additional motivation to our adversaries while battles were being fought in key cities in Iraq.
For its part, WorldNetDaily appeared to either forget that one of its writers was seemingly a link in this chain of connection, or it chose to avoid the subject. On September 21, the very day that Dan Rather made his on-air non-apology, Editor Joseph Farah’s column rightfully criticized Dan Rather and CBS News, while reminding us that this is not the first time that Rather has made up “news” stories out of whole cloth. Farah relates how in 1988, Dan Rather had used fraudulent documents to contend that there was widespread atrocities committed by American troops in Vietnam. In view of these two scandals, Farah says,
They [the scandals] begin to make the case that Rather not only practices bad journalism, but he does it with a purpose, with an agenda, with a mission, at key moments that can impact American politics.
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, but perhaps it is time for Mr. Farah to re-examine the entire sequence of events in the Abu Ghraib fiasco, and WND’s relationship with the agenda-driven old media.
The chain of connection in the Abu Ghraib document disclosures involves a set of people passing along information, which, immediately upon release, was seized-upon by the usual suspects in order to place the blame on Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush . And, as with the circumstances surrounding Bill Burkett and the forged National Guard memos, the only remaining piece of the puzzle remains the ultimate source of the leak. A few possibilities come to mind: persons in the CID and/or the CJTF-7 prosecution team may be the source; or the suspects themselves may have withheld evidence from the investigators and given these to unauthorized parties; or, persons in the intelligence services, who were under increasing scrutiny for their actions at Abu Ghraib, may have transferred the materials or aided in the effort.
Unfortunately, the selfish and morally questionable actions of the media and their “sources” have succeeded in unduly influencing a criminal investigation of US Soldiers, allowing them to be tried in the court of public opinion before they would ever set foot in a military courtroom. And, they may have provided an additional incentive to the enemy to intensify their barbarous acts of cruelty against our Soldiers and civilians in a theater of war.
Douglas Hanson is our military affairs correspondent
Douglas Hanson
Go Top - Home
Things You’d Love to Say at Work, but Can’t
Posted by: Dale Franks
1. I can see your point, but I still think you’re full of sh*t.
2. I don’t know what your problem is, but I’ll bet it’s hard to pronounce.
3. How about never? Is never good for you?
4. I see you’ve set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.
5. I’m really easy to get along with once you people learn to see it my way.
6. I’ll try being nicer if you’ll try being smarter.
7. I’m out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message....
8. I don’t work here. I’m a consultant.
9. It sounds like English, but I can’t understand a word you’re saying.
10. Ahhh... I see the screw-up fairy has visited us again....
11. I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid.
12. You are validating my inherent mistrust in strangers.
13. I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don’t give a damn.
14. I’m already visualizing a duct tape over your mouth.
15. I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you.
16. Thank you. We’re all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.
17. The fact that no one understands you doesn’t mean you’re an artist.
18. Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
19. What am I? Flypaper for freaks!?
20. I’m not being rude. You’re just insignificant.
21. It’s a thankless job, but I’ve got a lot of Karma to burn off.
22. Yes. I’m an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
23. An your crybaby whiny-butt opinion would be...?
24. Do I look like a people person?
25. This isn’t an office. It’s Hell with florescent lighting.
26. I started out with nothing & still have most of it left.
27. Sarcasm is just one more service we offer.
28. If I throw a stick, will you leave?
29. Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.
30. Whatever kind of look you were going for, you missed.
31. I’m trying to imagine you with a personality.
32. A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.
33. Can I trade this mob for what’s behind door #1?
34. Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
35. Nice perfume. Must you marinate in it?
36. Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.
37. How do I set a laser printer to stun?
38. I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks.
Interesting,
How did you come to that conclusion?, I've been following things very closely, and haven't heard Kerry put out that kind of detail on his "plan". His 4 or 5 point plan seems to me to cover exactly what Bush is doing now- except that of course Kerry would do it better do to his decades of foreign policy experience. Yes, he hasa said he will get foreign troops to take over the burden, but France and Germany- the 2 most likely benefactors have already said point blank that regardless of who wins they will not supply troops.
Yes, it's clear that the Isreali strategy is working- along with the raising of the wall. Don't you think the we have consulted with them on this matter. The training of Iraqui troops is ongoing.
Or clone a vast hoard of Ninja surfboarders
Absurd,
North Korea has nuclear weapons because the Clinton administration got jobbed in their negotiations ( thqat brain trust Madeline Albright) THEY supplied htemwith nuclear technology- the trade off being that it was only supposed to be used for generating electricity- yeah right. Their desire to have nuclear weapons was the reasoning behind the Clinton administrations stupid plan. It didn't start when Bush called him names, it started many years ago because he is an unbalanced dictator with a tenuous grasp on reality- just the kind of person you want to give nuclear technology to right.
His nuclear desired started long before Bush was in office
silhouette3.JPG From the desk of Jane Galt:
Memo to Jimmy Carter
RE: Appearing to side with the UN against the US Making nasty accusations against your own country
Mr Carter, if you are going to rhetorically lump the US in with tinpot dictatorships that stage elections, there are a few things you might want to consider, so that the effect redounds to the greater glory of yourself and your party, rather than alienating the unwashed masses who will be voting in this sham election.
1) You should not only complain about the swing state of Florida, when the conditions that you claim do not meet "basic international requirements" exist in many states, including Democratic ones. Focusing only on Republican-controlled Florida might give people the misimpression that you care less about electoral justice, than in getting your own guy into the White House By Any Means Necessary.
2) You should not, immediately after lumping Florida in with places like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, lambaste the Republican Secretary of State for undemocratically, illegally, and unjustly . . . allowing too many political parties on the ballot.
The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore.
Your outrage at the idea of a supervisor brazenly allowing people to vote for someone other than Al Gore might give people the mistaken idea that you care less about having democratic elections than having Democratic elections.
3) If you are going to express outrage at the Republican-controlled machine's abuse of the felon purge lists, you might want to display some token outrage at the at least equally abusive Democratic drive to register people such as illegal aliens and, oh convicted felons, who are not legally allowed to vote. Surely, in your time as an election observer, you have seen that letting people vote too many times disenfranchises legitimate voters every bit as much as not letting them vote in the first place. Failing to address both sorts of fraud might give people the erroneous idea that you care less about fairness than about Winning One For the (Democratic) Team.
Just some suggestions. It would be a shame to squander your reputation by accidentally implying that your ideals are subservient to your ideology.
Update John Henke makes a similar point:
Florida, due to discrepancies in data collected on various forms, produces a potential felon list with more blacks than hispanics. (there is no "hispanic" box on the felon list, while there is on the voting list) However, they also issued specific directions to the counties to to "verify the information" and "contact the voters" before taking any action to remove them from the voter rolls.
However, some people thought that was unfair--to the hispanics, who should also have a chance to be disenfranchised, I suppose--and "state officials have scrapped the entire list".
So, of course, Jimmy Carter speaks up....
"A fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons."
Mr Carter said Florida Governor Jeb Bush - brother of the president - had "taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future".
Jimmy Carter--who couldn't find voter fraud in Venezuela if he had a 36% exit poll discrepancy....and he did--has found "voter fraud" in Florida in the form of a felon list that was rejected two months ago. And, in response to Florida's rejection of that list, he claims "no steps" have been taken "to correct these departures"???
At any rate, Jimmy Carter has spoken out about this threat to Democrats democracy in Florida.
In Ohio? Not so much.
The state of Ohio is stepping in to investigate possible voter fraud in Summit County. ... More than 800 voter registration cards in Summit County are under investigation, NewsChannel5 reported.
The Board of Elections said the voter registration cards in question are for addresses that don’t exist, spelling mistakes or have similar handwriting. Fifty of those questionable cards apparently came from the AFL-CIO central office in Cleveland, WEWS reported.
Hands up if you know which major party an AFL-CIO Union is likely to support.
For bonus point, try to find a story in which Jimmy Carter gives this 1/10th the attention he has given a Florida felon list that was old news two months ago.
His commenters also point out that John Fund's new book on election fraud argues -- convincingly, I'm told -- that the number of felons who voted in the 2000 Florida election far outstripped the margin of error. Felons broke for Gore 68%.
Posted by Jane Galt at September 27, 2004 06:55 PM / Track
I think that nations move based on their perceived best interest. Russia has had a change of philosophy due to the Beslan horror. Spain has moved in the other direction by trying to appease Islam. Kerry and the Europeans share a sensibility and a world view. The thing is I think that view is out of touch with what Americans expect from a leader
The only way would be to bribe them with rebuilding contracts-even though I doubt that would move them to supply troops.
IF he did that, what type of precedent would that set- sure you can oppose us in our actions, but sure we'll let you profit from the rebuilding afterwards
Ok, What about the conduct of the war on terror going forward?
I don't agree with Bush on a lot of social and economic issues as well, but feel the WOT trumps that now and for the forseeable future
I think the problem is with the dichotomy that Kerry keeps saying, wrong war, wrong time, quagmire, also denegrates our allies- allawi is a puppet, bribed and coerced, austrailia has made iteslf less safe by joining the coalition .
On the other hand he assures us that he will build a stronger coalition. WHo in their right mind would want to join THAT coalition with Kerry?
France and Germany are on the record as saying that, regardless of the election results, they will send no troops.
Where will the troops come from to allow our withdrawl as per Kerry?
Kerry's 10 Positions
On The War In Iraq 1. October 2002: Kerry Voted For Use Of Force Resolution Against Iraq. Kerry and Edwards voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. (H. J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea)
2. April 2003: Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began, But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge And Called For "Regime Change In The United States." (Glen Johnson, "Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric," The Boston Globe, 3/11/03; Glen Johnson, "Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own 'Regime Change,'" The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)
3. May 2003: In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President's Action In Iraq. SEN. JOHN KERRY: "I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)
4. September 2003: Kerry Said Voting Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Would Be "Irresponsible." Doyle McManus (LA Times): "If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?" Kerry: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to - to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible." (CBS's "Face the Nation," 9/14/03)
5. October 2003: Kerry Voted Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Supporting Our Troops. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)
6. January 2004: After Voting For War And Trailing Candidate Howard Dean In The Democrat Primaries, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?" KERRY: "I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 1/6/04)
7. August 2004: In Response To President's Question About How He Would Have Voted If He Knew Then What He Knows Now, Kerry Confirmed That He Would Still Have Voted For Use Of Force Resolution. SEN. JOHN KERRY: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 8/9/04)
8. September 2004: Kerry: Iraq Is "The Wrong War In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time." "Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Monday called the invasion of Iraq 'the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time' and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in his first White House term." (Patricia Wilson, " Kerry on Iraq: Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time", Reuters, 9/6/04)
9. September 2004: Kerry Says There Were No Circumstances Under Which We Should Have Gone To War, But He Was Still Right To Vote For It. IMUS: "Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?" KERRY: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The President distorted that, and I've said that. I mean, look, I can't be clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred times, there was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The president chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct than that." (MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 9/15/04)
10. Kerry Said That The Removal Of Saddam Hussein Has Left America "Less Secure." KERRY: "Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, that was not in and of itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction - The satisfaction that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At New York University, New York, NY, 9/20/04)
The thing is rightfully or wrongly, Kerry had the label flip flopper pinned on him9when the jokes show up on leno- yuo're dead)
You might like his nuanced view of the world and you can point out how it's unfair, etc., but it's way too late for that perception to change. Look at the polling #'s- whe asked the question about whether you can count on him to say what he believes or variants thereof, Bush polls in the 80's- Kerry in the 30's.
You guys are stuck with one of the all time worst candidates. At least Dukakis was forthright in his positions. People hated them, but at least you knew where he stood.
Your perception of Kerry is simply not shared by the majority of Americans
How is that relevant to what I posted?
Do you not recognize that Kerrys position switching is a problem for him.
I don't know what his positon was, but I would wager that it would be consistent with his current position.
In a related development, Kerry threw his support behind a proposal to limit games in which Pedro pitches against the Yankees to seven innings. Finishing is just too problematic for the boys from Beantow
This Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles flier shows Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, a Saudi national who may be plotting terrorist attacks as part of al-Qaida.
(AP)
Click here for larger image
Top Stories
Al Qaeda seeks tie to local gangs
Bush attacks Kerry's flip-flops
Expos likely to come to District
Plucky Florida residents shake off 1-2-3-4 punch
Republicans decry Kerry's 'legal game'
Students hope voting gets old college try
Wooing thirty somethings
AP Breaking News
American Forces Strike Fallujah
Minister: N. Korea Has Nuclear Deterrent
Palestinian Police Search for CNN Producer
Blair Seeks to Shift Focus Away From Iraq
Doctors Work to Save Haiti Storm Survivors
Bahamians Begin Cleanup From Jeanne
Envoy: Iraq Elections to Happen on Time
Paris Has a Secret Subterranean Underworld
Lebanon's Top al-Qaida Operative Dies
Syria: Israel Shares U.S. Blame in Iraq
UPI Breaking News
Iraqi judge drops case against Chalabi
No clue on CNN producer's fate
Abdullah warns extremists may win in Iraq
9/11 terror tapes remain untranslated
Adviser rejects Kyoto Protocol for Russia
Jeanne's remnants swamp northeastern U.S.
Indian court sours Taj Mahal festivities
Bears invading Japanese towns
Al Qaeda seeks tie to local gangs
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A top al Qaeda lieutenant has met with leaders of a violent Salvadoran criminal gang with roots in Mexico and the United States — including a stronghold in the Washington area — in an effort by the terrorist network to seek help infiltrating the U.S.-Mexico border, law enforcement authorities said.
Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, a key al Qaeda cell leader for whom the U.S. government has offered a $5 million reward, was spotted in July in Honduras meeting with leaders of El Salvador's notorious Mara Salvatrucha gang, which immigration officials said has smuggled hundreds of Central and South Americans — mostly gang members — into the United States.
Although they are actively involved in alien, drug and weapons smuggling, Mara Salvatrucha members in America also have been tied to numerous killings, robberies, burglaries, carjackings, extortions, rapes and aggravated assaults — including at least seven killings in Virginia and a machete attack on a 16-year-old in Alexandria that severely mutilated his hands.
The Salvadoran gang, known to law enforcement authorities as MS-13 because many members identify themselves with tattoos of the number 13, is thought to have established a major smuggling center in Matamoros, Mexico, just south of Brownsville, Texas, from where it has arranged to bring illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico into the United States.
Authorities said al Qaeda terrorists hope to take advantage of a lack of detention space within the Department of Homeland Security that has forced immigration officials to release non-Mexican illegal aliens back into the United States, rather than return them to their home countries.
Less than 15 percent of those released appear for immigration hearings. Nearly 60,000 illegal aliens designated as other-than-Mexican, or OTMs, were detained last year along the U.S.-Mexico border.
El Shukrijumah, born in Saudi Arabia but thought to be a Yemen national, was spotted in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, in July, having crossed the border illegally from Nicaragua after a stay in Panama. U.S. authorities said al Qaeda operatives have been in Tegucigalpa planning attacks against British, Spanish and U.S. embassies.
Known to carry passports from Saudi Arabia, Trinidad, Guyana and Canada, El Shukrijumah had sought meetings with the Mara Salvatrucha gang leaders who control alien-smuggling routes through Mexico and into the United States.
El Shukrijumah, 29, who authorities said was in Canada last year looking for nuclear material for a so-called "dirty bomb" and reportedly has family members in Guyana, was named in a March 2003 material-witness arrest warrant by federal prosecutors in Northern Virginia, where U.S. Attorney Paul J. McNulty said he is sought in connection with potential terrorist threats against the United States.
A former southern Florida resident and pilot thought to have helped plan the September 11 attacks, El Shukrijumah was among seven suspected al Qaeda operatives identified in May by Attorney General John Ashcroft as being involved in plans to strike new targets in the United States.
Citing "credible intelligence from multiple sources," Mr. Ashcroft said at the time that El Shukrijumah posed "a clear and present danger to America." In August, an FBI alert described him as "armed and dangerous" and a major threat to homeland security.
Earlier this month, Mr. Ashcroft confirmed that U.S. border agents and inspectors had ramped up efforts to find El Shukrijumah amid reports that the al Qaeda leader was thought to be seeking entry routes into the United States along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Mr. Ashcroft noted that increased enforcement efforts were under way in the wake of a rise of arrests of border jumpers from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
Authorities said Mara Salvatrucha gang members moved into the Los Angeles area in the 1980s and developed a reputation for being organized and extremely violent. The gang since has expanded into the Washington area, including Virginia and Maryland, and into Oregon, Alaska, Texas, Nevada, Utah, Oklahoma, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Georgia and Florida.
More than 3,000 Mara Salvatrucha gang members are thought to be in the Washington area, with a major operation in Northern Virginia. Other gang centers, authorities said, include Montgomery and Prince George's counties and the Hispanic neighborhoods of Washington.
Mr. McNulty, whose office has prosecuted Mara Salvatrucha gang members, has described the organization as the "gang of greatest interest" to law enforcement authorities. He said gang members are recruited predominantly from Hispanic communities and typically among juveniles, some as young as 13. Recruits are "jumped" into the gang by being beaten by members while others count to 13, he said.
Gang rules, he said, are indoctrinated into new recruits and ruthlessly enforced. Those who cooperate with law enforcement are given the "green light," he said, meaning that the gang had approved their killing.
In March, the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office filed an injunction against Mara Salvatrucha, charging that the gang's criminal activity constituted a "public nuisance" based on the number of killings, robberies and drug crimes. The injunction requires gang members, under public nuisance statutes, to follow curfew rules and regulations and prohibits them from associating, driving or appearing together in designated areas of the city.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Peace with Honor
Posted by: Jon Henke
Aid and comfort...
"The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips." -- Joe Lockhart, Kerry/Edwards spokesperson
To this point, the Kerry camp has not retracted, or even commented upon, this bone tossed to the jihadists, insurgents and terrorists.
In the middle of a war to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, Joe Lockhart tells them their new government is their worst nightmare....a puppet government of the United States. President Bush may have said "Bring it on", but Joe Lockhart has given them a reason. He’s told the insurgents and jihadists that they are right.
"Relax, Jon, he’s just a spokesperson." Well, yeah, that’s true. But, I fear his defeatism is indicative of a common mindset in the Kerry camp.
Since 1970, John Kerry’s approach to foreign policy has been Vietnam-centric, and that has been reason enough to oppose the extension of US force in any significant way. Whatever the reality on the ground, John Kerry seems determined to find an equivalence with Vietnam, even if it means every problem gets the "peace with honor" treatment.
Well, that’s a pretty good way to lose. As CavalierX writes...
If John Kerry and his cronies can again force the US to abandon its responsibilities by turning public opinion against the war, if we’re forced to watch helplessly as innocents who trusted our promises are butchered again, then the Democrats will at last be justified in calling Iraq a second Vietnam.
My fear is that John Kerry will not press for:
Democracy:
"[Democracy] shouldn’t be the measure of when you leave. I have always said from day one that the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that’s a full democracy."
Victory:
[If we provided for Iraq’s stability] ... we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years."
It may be peace with honor. But it’s not victory. It’s a self-fulfilling prophesy of defeat.
KERRY'S "SECRET PLAN" OBSESSION [09/27 03:26 PM]
Look at the lead paragraphs of this AP story from today:
SPRING GREEN, Wis. — Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told voters in America's Dairyland on Monday that President Bush had a secret plan that would hurt milk producers after the election.
Kerry tried to convince voters in this rural community, where he is practicing for Thursday's debate, that he would look out for dairy farms here even though he hadn't always in the past.
In the 1990s, Kerry supported the Northeast Dairy Compact, a regional pricing program that propped up prices for Northeastern dairy farmers over objections from their Midwestern counterparts.
"We've had a difference between the Midwest and the Northeast," Kerry said. "I'm going to be very upfront with you about it.
"As a senator representing Massachusetts, I fought for the dairy compact and fought to have our dairy farmers get help," the four-term lawmaker said. "I'm running for president of the United States now and I intend to represent all the farmers of America."
I wonder if that would make a good quote for a Bush ad in New Hampshire.
Also, do you feel like you're having a hard time catching up with all of Kerry's charges of "secret plans"?
He's charged Bush with having secret plan to call up more troops after the election.
Kerry has suggested that Bush has a secret plan to bring back the draft.
Blogger Slings and Arrows is on the "secret plan" beat, and has found that Kerry has accused Bush of having secret plans to privatize Social Security, wage nuclear war, cut social services, manipulate oil prices to benefit the Saudis, cut VA Benefits, cut Education Funding, and send jobs overseas.
Meanwhile, Kerry has refused to specify some of his foreign policy and economic proposals... because they're secret, and "as president there's huge leverage that will be available to me, enormous cards to play, and I'm not going to play them in public. I'm not going to play them before I'm president."
Could this be a case of projection?
At RealClearPolitics Tom Bevan has circled back to examine John Kerry's support for unilateral military action to remove Saddam Hussein as expressed in a November 1977 Senate speech prompted by the removal of UN weapons inspectors: "The 1997 Senate speech that damns John Kerry."
In the speech Kerry states: "This is not a matter about which there should be any debate in the Security Council or, certainly, in this Nation." In his conclusion Kerry asserts the desirability of mulitalteral military action, but asserts his support for unilateral miliarty action "if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation and our entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully[.]"
Bevan asks: "So is it plausible for John Kerry to have believed in 1997 that Saddam was a grave threat requiring the use of significant, preemptive, and unilateral military force but to now - more than five years later and in a post-9/11 world - stand before us and argue the opposite?" And answers: "It is not."
In the International Herald Tribune, John Vinocur cruelly strips away the illusion that Kerry would somehow be capable of expanding the multilateral coalition President Bush has assembled in Iraq: "European honeymoon won't happen for Kerry." Vinocur reports:
[L]ast week, just after Kerry's major speech on the war in which he insisted that the United States "must make Iraq the world's responsibility" and that others "should share the burden," [German Chancellor Gerhard] Schröder's sense of courtesy collided with reality and he drove a spike into the notion. He told reporters, "We won't send any German soldiers to Iraq, and that's where it's going to remain."
Clear? A faint irony slips in at this point. For many Europeans, the problem in making sense of Kerry's speech was not Schröder's rather predictable reply, but how much delusion or candor there was in the Democrat's campaign promise to enlist countries opposed to the war to bail out the United States militarily. Add to that the candidate's linked idea of leveraging a notional European military presence into a pullout by some American troops as early as next summer. It seemed enough to make Kerry's continental friends cringe.
To the same effect, though with less bite, is the Financial Times article: "No French or German turn on Iraq."
Posted by The Big Trunk at 06:50 AM / Permalink / TrackBack (0)
Flirting With Disaster
The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Sept. 27, 2004, at 11:35 AM PT
There it was at the tail end of Brian Faler's "Politics" roundup column in last Saturday's Washington Post. It was headed, simply, "Quotable":
"I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month." Teresa Heinz Kerry to the Phoenix Business Journal, referring to a possible capture of Osama bin Laden before Election Day.
As well as being "quotable" (and I wish it had been more widely reported, and I hope that someone will ask the Kerry campaign or the nominee himself to disown it), this is also many other words ending in "-able." Deplorable, detestable, unforgivable. …
The plain implication is that the Bush administration is stashing Bin Laden somewhere, or somehow keeping his arrest in reserve, for an "October surprise." This innuendo would appear, on the face of it, to go a little further than "impugning the patriotism" of the president. It argues, after all, for something like collusion on his part with a man who has murdered thousands of Americans as well as hundreds of Muslim civilians in other countries.
Continue Article
I am not one of those who likes to tease Mrs. Kerry for her "loose cannon" style. This is only the second time I have ever mentioned her in print. But I happen to know that this is not an instance of loose lips. She has heard that very remark being made by senior Democrats, and—which is worse—she has not heard anyone in her circle respond to it by saying, "Don't be so bloody stupid." I first heard this "October surprise" theory mentioned seriously, by a prominent foreign-policy Democrat, at an open dinner table in Washington about six months ago. Since then, I've heard it said seriously or semiseriously, by responsible and liberal people who ought to know better, all over the place. It got even worse when the Democratic establishment decided on an arm's-length or closer relationship with Michael Moore and his supposedly vote-getting piece of mendacity and paranoia, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The DNC's boss, Terence McAuliffe, asked outside the Uptown cinema on Connecticut Avenue whether he honestly believed that the administration had invaded Afghanistan for the sake of an oil or perhaps gas pipeline, breezily responded, "I do now.")
What will it take to convince these people that this is not a year, or a time, to be dicking around? Americans are patrolling a front line in Afghanistan, where it would be impossible with 10 times the troop strength to protect all potential voters on Oct. 9 from Taliban/al-Qaida murder and sabotage. We are invited to believe that these hard-pressed soldiers of ours take time off to keep Osama Bin Laden in a secret cave, ready to uncork him when they get a call from Karl Rove? For shame.
Ever since The New Yorker published a near-obituary piece for the Kerry campaign, in the form of an autopsy for the Robert Shrum style, there has been a salad of articles prematurely analyzing "what went wrong." This must be nasty for Democratic activists to read, and I say "nasty" because I hear the way they respond to it. A few pin a vague hope on the so-called "debates"—which are actually joint press conferences allowing no direct exchange between the candidates—but most are much more cynical. Some really bad news from Iraq, or perhaps Afghanistan, and/or a sudden collapse or crisis in the stock market, and Kerry might yet "turn things around." You have heard it, all right, and perhaps even said it. But you may not have appreciated how depraved are its implications. If you calculate that only a disaster of some kind can save your candidate, then you are in danger of harboring a subliminal need for bad news. And it will show. What else explains the amazingly crude and philistine remarks of that campaign genius Joe Lockhart, commenting on the visit of the new Iraqi prime minister and calling him a "puppet"? Here is the only regional leader who is even trying to hold an election, and he is greeted with an ungenerous sneer.
The unfortunately necessary corollary of this—that bad news for the American cause in wartime would be good for Kerry—is that good news would be bad for him. Thus, in Mrs. Kerry's brainless and witless offhand yet pregnant remark, we hear the sick thud of the other shoe dropping. How can the Democrats possibly have gotten themselves into a position where they even suspect that a victory for the Zarqawi or Bin Laden forces would in some way be welcome to them? Or that the capture or killing of Bin Laden would not be something to celebrate with a whole heart?
I think that this detail is very important because the Kerry camp often strives to give the impression that its difference with the president is one of degree but not of kind. Of course we all welcome the end of Taliban rule and even the departure of Saddam Hussein, but we can't remain silent about the way policy has been messed up and compromised and even lied about. I know what it's like to feel that way because it is the way I actually do feel. But I also know the difference when I see it, and I have known some of the liberal world quite well and for a long time, and there are quite obviously people close to the leadership of today's Democratic Party who do not at all hope that the battle goes well in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I have written before in this space that I think Bin Laden is probably dead, and I certainly think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a far more ruthless and dangerous jihadist, who is trying to take a much more important country into the orbit of medieval fanaticism and misery. One might argue about that: I could even maintain that it's important to oppose and defeat both gentlemen and their supporters. But unless he conclusively repudiates the obvious defeatists in his own party (and maybe even his own family), we shall be able to say that John Kerry's campaign is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His new collection of essays, Love, Poverty and War, is forthcoming in October.
Boy, THEY really don't have a sense of humor do they?
Actually, Bush never said "Mission Accomplished" in that speech. He thanked the troops for their hard work and told them there was more hard work to come.
Teresa Heinz Kerry talks in her sleep
THK: “Yes, God, you may have one serving of creme brule. But when you’re finished, I expect you to fix the polls in those odious battleground states, is that clear? Now off with you. Terry needs her me time.”
"Day One of his presidency, every child in America will have health care. Period," Heinz Kerry said of her husband."
Hmmmmm, I guess she'll just bypass that whole plebian detail about the Congress making laws
Don't forget the scams by the demos in registering voters that goes on in every election
I believe that the purges were of convicted felons from the rolls. Are you against that? The notifiactions are sent out well in advance of the election- giving people who are removed in error a chance to get it srtaightened out.
I agree that the border situation should be dealt with. It's a blatant political ploy to attract hispanic votes
OK, so saying that they would conduct the war on terror better than the Demos is over the line, but Kerrys repeated chant that he would have conducted the War in Iraq better than Bush is fair game? Seems like a double standard to me.
The WOT is the major issue in this election. Saying that your side would deal with it more effectively is to be expected. It's politics and a lot is at stake. Whining about it will not help the Demo cause. If a party goes over the line, I think that paople are smart enough to judge that for themselves and decied accordingly
Putting aside your supreme power to determine who really believes what they profess- from the "leaders" to the mindless flocks ( I guess that fits in with that great populist Michael Moores - stupid white men attitude) , oil od course plays a great part in what is going on in hte middle east.
Allowing the oil production of that area to fall into the control of the Islamic extremists would have dire implications for the world.
Don't you agree?
The meaning may have been in yur head, but it wasn't in your post. You're still being unclear>
What American policies are you talking about?
Who said it was a jihad against all Islam, we've made that clear, even in the face of "moderate" Islams lack of criticism of heinous acts commited in it's name>
You may think that the terrorists are "irreligious" but the fact is that they proclaim themselves to be Muslims and justify their actions by quoting the Koran. I can't believe that you're not aware of their justification for their actions being based on the koran. I guess you just know better then they do what thier religious beliefs are.
Your position is really hard to understand
Do you really think Kerry will do a better job?
Well,
Apparently there are a lot of muslims who claim that the beheadings and jihad are justified in the Koran. Are you saying that they are nor muslims?
I don't support his stand on a lot of the social issues, but again feel that the war against radical islam trumps that
"against everything he has said"
LMAO , if you sum everything he said or didn't said about every issue you would be able to argue for and against everything in the universe ad infinitum
I am in no way and idolizer of Bush. I'm a registered independent with libertarian leanings. I just think that Kerry would be an extremely dangerous President given the threats that we face due to Islamic extremism
I would disagree that his policy is imperialist. what economic benefit have we derived from our action in Iraq? I think that the tax cuts were a good idea, but disagree with the added expenditures on education and the new entitlement of the drug bill
Do you have something against Christianity, or people who have a deep belief in their religion- that's what your question seems to ask.
"Does it give you comfort knowing the whole world hates us?"
A bit of overstatement here? France and Germany were the big hold outs from Nato in terms of support for the war. Of course you're aware that due to the oil for food scandal and billions of dollars of cantracts with Sadaam, their reluctance should be viewed with a sceptical eye. Russia was sceptical also, until Beslan, now they realize the magnitude of the danger all non islamic countries face. This is no less than a world war based on religion and culture. Does Spain think that they will be spared by appeasing the terrorists? I wuld be very leery about placing such a bet with the security of my country. Countries don't act based on hate/love/like- they act based on theie best self interest
If you had taken the time to read the quote of his statement, the first part of the sentence said that we would be hit by terrorists, the second said that if that happened and Kerry was in office, there would be a chance that he would fall back into the old trsof seeing it as a law enforcement issue. Based on Kerry's past voting history, that would seem likely to me.
Won't you acknowledge that he was misquoted purposefully for partisan political advantage.
Here's some background info. Sorry to confuse you with the facts:
AP Takes Cheney Quote Out of Context
The Associated Press is at it again. In a story covering a town hall meeting with Dick Cheney yesterday, the AP accuses Cheney of saying that a Kerry presidency would result in a major terrorist attack on the United States. The AP bolsters this conclusion by chopping off the end of one of Cheney's sentences, thus causing Cheney's statement to sound inflammatory and even extremist, when it actually was neither.
The AP story opens:
Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.
The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as "scare tactics" that crossed the line.
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.
If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.
AP readers are not told that the AP snipped Cheney's quote in the middle of his sentence, in a way that supports the AP's interpretation of Cheney's remarks as an argument that a Kerry presidency will lead to another terrorist attack. When you read Cheney's quote in its full context, it is highly questionable whether the AP's interpretation is correct.
I heard Cheney's quote on the radio today, and later found it in a couple of places on Nexis. (I'll provide a web link when one becomes available.) [UPDATE: The White House transcript is here.] When I read the entire passage in context, it does not appear to me that Cheney is arguing that electing Kerry will lead to another terrorist attack. Rather, Cheney appears to be arguing that, if Kerry is elected, the next terrorist attack will be viewed according to a pre-9/11 mindset, and will consequently be treated as a criminal act rather than an act of war.
Here is the full quote, in context, with the most relevant portion set in bold type:
We made decisions at the end of World War II, at the beginning of the Cold War, when we set up the Department of Defense, and the CIA, and we created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and undertook a bunch of major policy steps that then were in place for the next 40 years, that were key to our ultimate success in the Cold War, that were supported by Democrat and Republican alike -- Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerry Ford and a whole bunch of Presidents, from both parties, supported those policies over a long period of time. We're now at that point where we're making that kind of decision for the next 30 or 40 years, and it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.
We have to understand it is a war. It's different than anything we've ever fought before. But they mean to do everything they can to destroy our way of life. They don't agree with our view of the world. They've got an extremist view in terms of their religion. They have no concept or tolerance for religious freedom. They don't believe women ought to have any rights. They've got a fundamentally different view of the world, and they will slaughter -- as they demonstrated on 9/11 -- anybody who stands in their way. So we've got to get it right. We've got to succeed here. We've got to prevail. And that's what is at stake in this election.
While Cheney's language could have been more precise, I think that his point was clearly that Kerry would view any future terrorist attack as a law enforcement matter -- not that a Kerry presidency would cause another terrorist attack. At the very least, this is a plausible interpretation of Cheney's quote.
Granted, Cheney's fundamental point is that treating terrorist attacks as a law enforcement issue will lead to more terrorist attacks -- over time. And, of course, the Bush Administration wants the public to believe that Americans will be safer under Bush than under Kerry.
But there is a difference between saying, on the one hand: "John Kerry will respond to terrorist attacks in an inappropriate fashion, which will eventually lead to more terrorism," and saying, on the other hand: "If you elect John Kerry, we are going to get hit with another terrorist attack." The former charge is standard campaign rhetoric. The latter charge, which implies an immediate and direct causation between a Kerry presidency and an act of terror, is one that many Americans would see as needlessly controversial and inflammatory.
By snipping the quote where they did, and declaring that Cheney made the latter, more controversial accusation, the folks at the AP deprived their readers of the ability to interpret Cheney's quote for themselves. Unless they happen to have heard the entire quote in context, as I did, AP readers will have no idea that Cheney appeared to be making a different, less inflammatory, and more defensible point.
The Bush will restore the draft threat is really sad. The SSS is mandated by law to set up that procedure. The draft legislation is a bill that has ONLY democratic sponsors. Isn't it a bit sleazy to try and scare college people in this manner with outright lies and half truths?
He was planning to transfer to Alabama, which was a non flying assignment. The plane he was trained on was being phased out. Due to the winding down of the war, the Guard had a glut of pilots. If he knew he was going to not fly again, why would he take the physical? It was comman practice for paople in the same position to not take their physicals.
"invidious inveteracies," niiiiice
I do seem to remember previous posts questioning differing writing styles in your posts. I really don't see how I impugned your integrity. I could have been off on the timeline- no biggie to me- It just took one look at your recent posts to notice a marked lowering of language skills. You question my veracity as you choose, and as you are free to do.
Lkie I said this isn't a matter of great importance to me as I never paid great attention to your trading posts but found some of your background and off tpoics posts interesting, and you wrote with evident intelligence back then.
No apology offerred
Wasn't it the head of FNM that said that HE had no idea what thier derivative exposure was?
They're just too big to suffer any serious consequences I would think