Democrats Are Traitors: Part Deux

PoliBlog responds to my post in which I point out that Democrats are traitors. It's a reasonable, though off the mark post and deserves being addressed.

In the first place, he states that the penalty for treason is death. That's not true and serves only as hyperbole to mask the truth. I'm not charging someone in court, I am simply accurately characterizing their statements.

Treason:

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."

Here are some important items from Steven's response, though I'd encourage you to read it all.

If Dan is really as concerned about this situation as he makes out, then surely he would prefer that we, as a country, work this situation out–something that is going to be impossible if we are going to basically tell each other to shut up (which is what this kind of talk accomplishes).

Could I also point out that many of our friends, family and co-workers vote for the Democratic Party. Are we going to send out the National Guard to round them up?

I mean, really: this treason business is ridiculous. The bottom line is that there are different views on these issues (i.e., Iraq, the War on Terror, etc.) and it is simply wrong to label someone a traitor because they don’t agree with your position.

Very well, in incidents so noteworthy as to not even require a link in all cases, former Democrat Presidential candidate Al Gore took to the stage and said of our Commander In Chief during a time of war:

"He betrayed this country!" Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats here in a stuffy hotel ballroom. "He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."

The speech had several hundred Democrats roaring their approval for Mr. Gore, the party's 2000 standard-bearer.

Another Democrat Presidential Candidate, John Kerry, went on a major network show, Face The Nation at CBS, and announced:

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...

Leading Democrat John Murtha went on television and pronounced several Marines guilty of cold-blooded murder in Iraq. And we now know he did that prior to having any depth of knowledge of the case.

There aren't enough web pages on this blog to archive the treasonous statements of former Democrat President Jimmy Carter when it comes to current events - and often overseas, at that. Frankly, I could go through the entire Democrat leadership and come up with many more examples.

So, now, what? I've provided a link to the definition of the word treason. I have characterized the statements of leading Democrats precisely as they are. Am I supposed to buy into the notion that they, as leaders, are welcome to engage in such destructive discourse, yet, me a humble blogger, is somehow hurting the debate for calling said statements precisely what they are? Sorry, I think not.

Let the individuals who would seek to defend the Democrat's honor in this regard answer me this - how is it that such statements as displayed above can be seen as anything other than injurious to our nation during a time of war? And as that phrase itself is included in the very definition of treason, why is it so wrong, or dangerous to simply call them what they are?

Steven suggests he could be marginalized from this debate as someone, potentially me, would now call him a traitor. Certainly not, his response was reasoned and somewhat thought out. But, allow me to ask this: as all I have done is call a spade a spade, why is it that my rhetoric should result in me being marginalized from our political debate? That is precisely what Steven is advocating, after all.

If one is worried about friends and family who vote for Democrats being made out as traitors, I never said anything of the sort. But if they are family or good friends, perhaps one should ask them how they can defend such treasonous discourse from the leaders of their beloved party. That might be a more productive conversation than attempting to marginalize another point of view which does nothing more than point out said statements and individuals for what they, by definition, really are.

I played no role in telling Democrats how to carry on as they have. But I'll be damned if the offensive nature of thier own words and deeds is going to prevent me from carrying on about it, however I would.

Comments

[Original Rick]

"If you reject Clinton's initial decision not to try to kill bin Laden BEFORE 9-11 (which he reversed, btw, also before 9-11), then it is considerably worse that Bush has failed to capture or kill the guy, EVEN THOUGH HE SAID IT WAS OUR OBJECTIVE, after he killed 3,000 Americans in an attack Bush was explicitly warned about -- and did nothing whatsoever to prevent."

Now, on teh one hand you claim Clinton and his folks KNEW for a fact that Al Queada was GOING to attack the US...infer that they KNEW they would use aircraft....So I guess "Clear and Present danger" means an aircraft length away from a building??????

[rwilymz]

But y'see Rick, when Clinton refused for "legal" reasons and instead made half-hearted military attempts and thus drove Osama-dude underground so that only his chauffeur knew where he was, that really means that Bush failed to act on specific information.

Just because it's post hoc, equivocative ad hominem shinola doesn't mean that it fails to gather votes ... so it becomes "truth".

[rwilymz]

FYI: Osama-CIA link nonexistant:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

[Original Rick]

Why should the Bushies have listened to Clintons NSA folks? Those idiots and Clinton believed Iraq had WMDs and that Saddam should be removed from power. They couldn't even capture UBL when they had a bag over his head THREE TIMES IN 1996. Also in the list of things that disprove "Clear and Present Danger" might be the 1st WTC bombing 1993, Somalia 1993, Khobar Towers 1996, TWO US Embassies in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000. Let's leave Kosovo out of it. My, all of these attacks against the US and it's properties sure seem like someone wants to hurt us..........That's enough, I need a wet cigar.

[Original Rick]

"Just because it's post hoc, equivocative ad hominem shinola doesn't mean that it fails to gather votes ... so it becomes "truth".

Oh yeah, I understand the whole "you're too busy watching "Idol" to remember anything more than 10 minutes ago strategy. Amazing though imagine how well capturing Osama would have improve AlGore's chances......

My intention is to smack down this whole "our guy woulda done better" crap. I was/am against Iraq from the beginning because 1) Any WMDs (using the historicals sense) were theater only threats and 2) I dont care how many of thier own kind they kill 3) No western nation has ever done well in that part of the world.....It's better than "because I hate GWB and that's all I need". But we're in it until the dems take over in the next election. Of course A'stan was necessary and has been sucessful enough to turn over to NATO. There have been a few attempted attacks and we dont know how many others stopped so maybe succes is relative.

[theAmericanist]

Anybody want to see what denial looks like?

"the Old-Politicians Home for Stentorian Debate" Um -- they predicted the strike that happened, and who would do it. Sensible folks don't retroactively reject the folks who were right.

Golly, read what the Library of Congress told the National Intelligence Council more than two years before 9-11: what, you think EVERYTHING that happened before Bush took office is useless except as a point to score against Clinton?

"As long as by "objective" you don't mean militarily..'

I meant what THEY said our objectives were. The ones I cited weren't the goals? Do tell, what WERE they?

"You're tying "accountability" to "unachieved goals"

Imagine! Next I'll be connecting "east" to "sunrise" and "gravity" to "falling down".

"'the Bush guys essentially took the view that whatever was important to Clinton was not important to them.'

That's not indicated in any of the analysis."

Riight. The last official act of the Clinton national security team was to warn the Bush guys about terrorism, specifically including al Qaeda. But even then, there was a TON of other indicators.

Hell, you don't even have to use the Nunn-Rudman report. The Library of Congress warned in 1999: ""Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives…into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."

You guys are like alcoholics who won't take the first step -- God knows when you will hit bottom and realize you have no control over your denial.

It wasn't simply neglect, either. Bush reversed US support for the G-7 and OECD money tracking programs, cuz Clinton had supported 'em. He cut the budgets for the Clinton focus on law enforcement against terrorism, and the guys he appointed to run the INS outright KILLED the student visa tracking system that had been designed, and was already being implemented, to catch guys like Atta. (Look it up: google CIPRIS.)

In April 2001 when the Bush administration did the annual report on terrorism, it CUT the entire chapter on al-Qaeda. CNN reported AT THE TIME that a 'senior State Department official' said the Clinton focus on al Qaeda was a mistake, and when the AP examined the logs for more than 100 National Security Council briefings in between Inauguration Day and 9-11, just TWO had "terrorism" on the agenda.

And finally: Rice's speech prepared for September 11th itself to set the Bush goals for national security focused on strategic and theater missile defense, and did not even mention al Qaeda, bin Laden or Muslim terrorism.

You've tried to say gee, nobody warned us -- but that's not true. You've tried to claim that the warnings weren't SPECIFIC enough -- as if that isn't part of the indictment. (When there is a wasp in the room, you LOOK for it.) You've tried to say, there wasn't anything we could have done -- but that's not true, either. It's not wholly illegitimate to say, gee, CLINTON didn't kill bin Laden when he had the chance -- when it was far less indicated; but that just deepens Bush's failure, and the irresponsibility of reversing policies in place or gearing up (like CIPRIS) and ignoring warnings that are about as clear as they ever get unless you MAKE them a priority.

Bush didn't do that.

Bush doesn't even have the half-assed Pearl Harbor defense -- that we figured they'd attack SOMEWHERE, but figured it would be, like Singapore or Hong Kong, and much later, so we were thinking it through.

As the Rice speech shows, he simply didn't care. It's not that missile defense is nuts. Take it for what it shows -- missile defense was his priority, NOT the actual threat that hit us, about which he was repeatedly warned and did less than nothing.

And this is just false:

"The Republicans in Congress were telling the CinC that it is not wise to have the Oval Office giving battlefield orders...."

"When asked the question, ‘what if he does not come to the table,’ they said, ‘well, we will go to Phase 2, and Phase 2 is that we will bomb for a few more days. Then he will be going to the table, by crackie.’ And when we asked, ‘Then, what?’ then they said, ‘well, we will bomb for another week and that will force him to come to the table and this will be all over with.’ And then when we asked, ‘Then, what?’ there was silence. This administration started a war without a plan farther along than two weeks... I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace....Instead of sending in ground troops, we should pull out the forces we now have in the region. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should send ground troops to Kosovo and I do not think we should be bombing in the Balkans.” Republican House Leader Tom DeLay, April 28, 1999

He wasn't bitching about "picking targets". He was announcing that this was Clinton's war, that Republicans opposed it, and that it wouldn't work: PRECISELY (and with considerably less nuance) what ol' Dan condemned as 'treason', which it ain't.

It's politics. It involves accountability.

So -- compared with Iraq (like to like, by its own objectives), did it work?

"For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce.” Floor Statement opposing resolution commending America’s successful campaign in Kosovo, 7/1/99

This is yet another f'r instance, only subtler, of how skewed what passes for the 'conservative' view of patriotism really is: ending genocide in the Balkans, however slowly, was an AMERICAN triumph.

And not incidentally, Americans were sacrificing our blood and treasure to save MUSLIMS.

I cant' help but think that if Republicans and 'conservatives' weren't to blinded by their own bullshit, you'd have seen what a strategic asset that could have been fighting bin Laden and al Qaeda.

But you bought the cowboy lines... "dead or alive" Bush's objective: did we achieve it, or not?), "crusade" (how many Muslims did we lose forever with two syllables?), and now we're stuck.

It shouldn't oughta be a DISQUALIFICATION to have been right in the first place, yanno.

[Original Rick]

"Hell, you don't even have to use the Nunn-Rudman report. The Library of Congress warned in 1999: ""Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion {COULD} crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives…into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."

WOW!!!!! And for months, teh adminsitration did nothing to prevent it? Also in 1999 the Clinton admin refused to hire Arabic translators for the CIA. No need since there was no "credible" threat.

[Original Rick]

"It wasn't simply neglect, either. Bush reversed US support for the G-7 and OECD money tracking programs, cuz Clinton had supported 'em."

STOP IT! you're making my side hurt!!! Tell WaPo and NYT that Bush is against tracking these people's funding.........Tell us how Clinton was listening into American's phone calls, but it was ok since they were drug dealers and gamblers

[Original Rick]

Stopping genocide was a good thing in the Balkins, pity that administration didn't feel the same about Rwanda though. I actually got to see all teh good Carter did for Cambodia. Of course, ridding the Kurds of Saddam was wrong, oh so wrong. You remember Saddam and the bad goat meat? Yeah, he farted and killed thousands of Kurds imagine what he would have done with WMDs.

[theAmericanist]

Rick, try to follow this: 1993 came before 1994. 1995 came after 1994. January 2001 came before April 2001, and August comes before September.

See how it works?

One of the more elementary (and thus common) mistakes in history is to confuse something that came AFTER as a cause of something that came BEFORE.

But a cause always come before an effect.

Various terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, had attacked the U.S. by the time Bush was sworn in in January 2001. It is a fair criticism of Clinton to argue that he should have, and could have, done a lot more about it. It is also fair to argue (thought this one requires a bit more responsibility in the current climate, e.g., it was ordinary law enforcement not military action that stopped the London plot) that Clinton's law enforcement approach was flawed.

But NONE of that exonerates Bush's failures from January 2001 through September 11. The harder you make the case that Clinton should have done more, that worse it is for Bush, because CLINTON WASN'T IN OFFICE on 9-11.

It'd be one thing if Bush had taken office and said, Holy Cow! This terrorism thing is serious! We have to do MORE than Clinton was doing: let's track their cash, keep an eye on foreign 'students', figure out how to get this bin Laden guy.

It'd be another thing if the 9-11 attack had happened, say, on February 11th (or, like the Iranian hostage release, on Inauguration Day). It might be legit for Bush to claim that he had only just taken office, and hadn't had time to establish his own policies -- which were gonna be SO effective, by gum.

What actually happened was that, like Clinton, Bush had a TON of warnings and indicators. Unlike Clinton (who, granted, had more time to absorb it all), Bush didn't change his mind from Clinton's arguably too-slow and too-law enforcement approach to something quicker and tougher.

Bush changed Clinton's emphasis on terrorism to emphasize ... missile defense.

He changed Clinton's support for G-7 and OECD money tracking policies, to outright opposition: by April, 2001. (That he changed again AFTER 9-11 just makes the point -- when he SHOULD have been following or accelerating Clinton's policies, he was slowing or ending 'em.)

April comes before September.

He outright killed the CIPRIS student visa tracking system, in March 2001.

March comes before September.

You cannot claim that any of those failures CAUSED Clinton's failure to get bin Laden, because they all came after Clinton had left office, and Bush became responsible.

You CAN state (as I do) that all of these were CAUSED by Bush's inauguration, because after he became President he changed Clinton's emphasis on terrorism in general, and al Qaeda in particular, with very specific steps (tracking the money, monitoring foreign students) that Bush opposed.

See how this chronology thing helps keep cause and effect straight?

[Original Rick]

So basically what you're saying is that Clinton can be excused for sitting on his hands (or whatever) and doing nothing but bombing aspirin factories, empty training camps and the Chinese Embassy, knowing that AlQuaeda was planning "the big one". Because...well he's Clinton. And that since GW had nothing to do for his first 7 months in office, it is he who should've...what? He has intel that says Al Quaeda is PLANNING an attack and MAY hijack AN airliner. Geeze, I guess he should've preemptively bombed an empty terror camp. Of course if Kerry had not kept it to himself that Logan MAY be the demarcation point.......well, we couldnt do all possible to help GW make a fool of himself if we had acted like grown ups, now could we?

[theAmericanist]

Speaking of chronology: the Cambodian genocide took place after the Rouge launched their offensive to take Phnom Penh in January 1975, the city fell in April 1975, and most folks consider the peak of the genocide to have lasted from then until September 1976 when Pol Pot was forced to resign.

That's when Vietnam attacked Cambodia. The nature of the Cambodian genocide changed with the war with Vietnam, becoming an ethnic cleansing kind of thing. (Ethnic Vietnamese in eastern Cambodia were a big target of the Rouge after September 1976, whereas most victims of the genocide April 1975- September 1976 were Khmers.)

Carter didn't take office until January 1977.

[Original Rick]

"Carter didn't take office until January 1977." and almost immediately pulled any US "aid" from the area. Actually Pol Pot left on January 7, 1979...give me that calendar speech again..... It took almost another year to clean up all resistance.

[theAmericanist]

It's sorta silly to try to educate Rick beyond his intelligence, but "basically what you're saying is that Clinton can be excused for sitting on his hands (or whatever) and doing nothing but bombing aspirin factories..."

No, that's not what I'm saying. Among other things, Clinton had started two different visa tracking systems that were designed and tested (and found to be effective) to catch exactly the sort of conspiracies that pulled off 9-11. It is legit to criticize Clinton that he didn't accelerate 'em -- but ya gotta add, that Bush KILLED them.

"Would a student tracking system have prevented September 11? Had the full CIPRIS system been even partially deployed, along with the entry/exit system that Anderson [N.B. Bush appointed Anderson policy director of the INS in February 2001] and his allies helped delay in 1998, the terrorists' sojourn in the United States might have ended much sooner. Hani Hanjour, who piloted the plane that hit the Pentagon, had enrolled in a community college in California in November 2000 but never showed up for class; CIPRIS would have alerted the INS to his absence almost a year before the attacks.

Similarly, Mohammed Atta's original student visa application would not have languished in a warehouse in Kentucky for six months. Instead, it would have filtered through the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency, and Treasury Department databases, which might have thrown up any number of flags---Atta's trip to Afghanistan in 1999, for instance, or the Al-Qaeda source of his flight-school tuition. Even had Atta been cleared, his busy travel schedule---unusual for a full-time student---over the next year might have drawn notice. When Atta re-entered the United States "out of status" (that is, with an expired visa) in January 2001, the INS inspector who released him after a few questions might instead have sent him back to Madrid. And though Atta was not initially on the State Department's terrorist watch list when he first applied for his visa, CIPRIS's real-time updating would have instantly alerted law enforcement officials as soon as he was added the following year....

"...You'd think that the events of September 11 would have forced the enemies of student-visa tracking to rethink their positions---if not to beg the Lord for forgiveness.... instead of resurrecting the strong system Berez's group came up with, [then DHS Secretary]Ridge's group is focused on tweaking SEVIS, the greatly-dumbed-down version....Meanwhile, Anderson, as INS policy director, will be responsible for finding ways to implement almost everything ... including provisions like the entry/exit system that he's been lobbying against and has publicly described as "Gestapo tactics." Or not implement them: "For every law enforcement person we talk to---INS, Border Patrol, you name it---Stuart Anderson is sort of at the top of their list," says a Republican staffer in the House. "It's generally their opinion that he's doing everything he can to divert resources away from the enforcement side [of the INS]." " - Washington Monthly, May 2002

[Original Rick]

"Among other things, Clinton had started two different visa tracking systems that were designed and tested (and found to be effective) to catch exactly the sort of conspiracies that pulled off 9-11. It is legit to criticize Clinton that he didn't accelerate 'em -- but ya gotta add, that Bush KILLED them."

Hmmmm, Good thing he did kill them since teh ACLU would've been all over him for it.

[Original Rick]

BTW; It is not impossible to educate me...happens alla time. But it is impossible to convince me that tripe is patteid beef loin.

[rwilymz]

"they predicted the strike that happened, and who would do it. Sensible folks don't retroactively reject the folks who were right."

Jean Dixon predicted Kennedy would be shot, too. In Dallas, even. But unless "prediction" comes with "plan to avoid" it's useless.

"I meant what THEY said our objectives were. The ones I cited weren't the goals? Do tell, what WERE they?"

They were, and are, "not for public consumption until wa-a-a-ay after the fact." It's a war, in case you forgot, General Pershing.

"Imagine! Next I'll be connecting "east" to "sunrise" and "gravity" to "falling down"."

So define what was not achieved and unaccounted. Simple enough request. You can't simply criticize without splainin.

"Riight. The last official act of the Clinton national security team was to warn the Bush guys about terrorism, specifically including al Qaeda. But even then, there was a TON of other indicators."

Yeah, they did. But the question is: so what? The 9-11 commission basically said the same thing: so what? Oh, hey, stop the presses! Terrorism!

Yeah? waddaboudit? Be. Specific. Is there a SPECIFIC threat identified?

No there wasn't. Something about airplanes.

Okay, marvelous. We'll watch for airplanes then.

""Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives…into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."

Right. So this implicates United 93 ... how?

"You guys are like alcoholics who won't take the first step -- God knows when you will hit bottom and realize you have no control over your denial."

...said the wino on the park bench.

"It wasn't simply neglect, either. Bush reversed US support for the G-7 and OECD money tracking programs, cuz Clinton had supported 'em"

Ironic. Wasn't it just you who whined and wet his pants about everything I say is just to refocus on Clinton?

"He cut the budgets for the Clinton focus on law enforcement against terrorism"

Terrorism remains a paraMILITARY thing. Fighting terrorism with subpeonas is largely a waste of time. Not completely, but largely. ...not that I wouldn't mind a whole hell of a lot sending the first wave of attorneys to fight it out with their briefcases, but that's just idle daydreaming.

"In April 2001 when the Bush administration did the annual report on terrorism, it CUT the entire chapter on al-Qaeda."

Dang! WASN'T it just you who claimed that everything I say was only to refocus on Clinton?

"You've tried to say gee, nobody warned us -- but that's not true."

I didn't say that, and I didn't *try* to say that. What I said I'll say again, and I'll point you to the >ahem< "blue ribbon bipartisan 9-11 Commission for support: any warning that were handed from the Clinton Admin to the Bush admin were vague and unactionable.

"When there is a wasp in the room, you LOOK for it."

Great. And when "there's something in this room, or maybe in the next room, that involves airplanes but we're not sure how" then what do you do?

"This [Clinton] administration started a war without a plan farther along than two weeks..."

That is patently false. I work for the folks who make them.

"Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should send ground troops to Kosovo and I do not think we should be bombing in the Balkans.” Republican House Leader Tom DeLay, April 28, 1999"

Gosh; politicians playing, um, politics. What next? Water's wet?

"I cant' help but think that if Republicans and 'conservatives' weren't to blinded by their own bullshit, you'd have seen what a strategic asset that could have been fighting bin Laden and al Qaeda."

That's a two-edged criticism, there, son. You've made a handful of points, but ONLY a handful; you've more than detracted from them by issuing partisan -- and grossly inaccurate -- screed attempting to do exactly what you criticize everyone else of doing. Which makes you a hypocrite of the highest order.

Oh, golly, someone has a passing criticism of Clinton, therefore they're only doing it to blame Clinton for Bush's faults, so let's point right back at Bush for Clinton's... Pot, kettle, frying pan, hibachi ...

Rule number one of politics: politicians play it.
Rule number two: only idiots buy into it.

"But you bought the cowboy lines... "dead or alive" Bush's objective"

I did? That's certainly news. But then I'm one of the folks in the DoD chain who knows what goes on despite what the politicians say, since I'm doing the same damned thing no matter which party is in the Oval Office.

The main difference in the two popular parties, once they attain Presidency, is nada, zip, zilch. Their difference lies in personality. Clinton was a meddler; Bush is not. Bush the Elder was mostly not. Reagan was like a kid in a toy store wanting to try the latest thing. Carter was a nervous, hand-wringing micro-manager. Those are the prez's I've DoDed for.

Of course you can't accept this, though, since it'd absolutely kill your axiomatic hypothesis that one can criticise Clinton's hamfisted use of the military, and praise anything about Bush's hands-off use and not be, by definition, a cracker neocon white supremacist.

"did we achieve it, or not?"

The question is irrelevant. No matter how many times you peevishly demand it, it'll be irrelevant.

It'll be irrelevant because it's based entirely on politics and nothing else. Pre-war posturing is not a valid measure of a single thing.

"crusade"

Yep; bad choice. Not that History should enter into it or anything, seeing as how the Crusades were the first unified European response to a 2-pronged invasion, with probing actions, of two separate muslim empires or anything. Let's just accede to the collective pan-islamist delusion of Crusade as Current History and Apropos of Nothing.

"It shouldn't oughta be a DISQUALIFICATION to have been right in the first place, yanno."

Oh, indeed. So I'm kinda wondering why it's so hard to admit that Bush is objectively right about those things he's objectively right about.

I doubt you'll choke on the words...

[theAmericanist]

LOL -- Rick really does have trouble with this 1970, 1975, 1976, 1979 sequence thing.

Cambodia 101: Weak country next to a couple very strong countries. Particularly troubled by Vietnamese moving up the Mekong into Khmer territory for a millenia or so. Vietnam gets independence in 1946, loses it to the French (with American backing, the price for France to join with Germany in Nato), gets it back in '54, the North becomes Communist (take your pick -- 1919, 1946, or 1954), settles into a war with the South. North uses Cambodian border to supply their troops and allies in the South. Cambodian government turns a blind eye to this, basically cuz there's not much they can do about it. This pisses off the U.S. (being as how we're getting killed with stuff transported through Cambodia), so Nixon finally decides to DO something about it.

Cambodia had fed itself for a thousand years or so with a network of irrigation ditches and dikes that grew rice and fish in a distributed system across most of the country. Nixon bombed the whole system, which destroyed it, AND he sent U.S. troops after the Vietnamese on the border, who promptly over-ran most of the country.

Fact check: before the bombing and the 'incursion', there were at most a few thousand Khmer Rouge soldiers. After, there were hundreds of thousands. Nixon's attack on Cambodia CREATED the Rouge, to all practical purposes.

For one thing, it was the only reliable way to get something to eat: the Cambodian subsistence economy had ceased to exist.

So a big chunk of the population moved to Phnom Penh, which was still precariously run by the King. But since he had been trying to walk the razor all those years, Nixon didn't like him, either, so he staged a coup, replacing the King with a high school teacher named Lon Nol, who was never confused with a world class statesman.

Nixon's secret plan to win in Vietnam turned out to be the 'decent interval' between us getting out and the utter collapse of the South, so we bail -- leaving not only our friends in the South to the brutal revenge of the North, but also Cambodia -- the country we had poked with sharp sticks until it went nuts.

One thing people skip over, cuz the horror is too much, but the act that began the Khmer genocide, the evacuation of Phnom Penh, was NECESSARY. With U.S. aid entirely cut off by the Ford administration (that chronology thing again), there was no way for the millions of people in the city to be fed.

The forced march into the countryside that started the worst of it was the only way for Cambodia to feed itself: cuz the U.S. had cut off all USAID, etc.

Being as how by the time Carter took office, Vietnam had been unified under the Communists, Cambodia was entirely over-run by the Khmer Rouge (and had been administered as the Asian Auschwitz for two years), AND was actually at war with Vietnam, it's not real clear just what "aid to the region" ol' Rick here is hallucinating about.

[Original Rick]

"aid to the region" ol' Rick here is hallucinating about."

I wish this piece of copper jacket was a hallucination too.

[Original Rick]

theUn-Americanist; Some of are emailing each other about you. Are you a reencarnation of 'x' or his mad scientist professor???

[Original Rick]

You have educated me though. I now know that it is OK to commit genocide as long as you're hungry. Is that why we did nothing for Rwanda?

[rwilymz]

"Various terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, had attacked the U.S. by the time Bush was sworn in in January 2001."

Not the least of which was a Hamas operation in Brooklyn, in '97.

So let's concentrate on al Qaida. Izzat how it goes?

"It is a fair criticism of Clinton ..."

I'll bet your hair caught fire while typing that, didnit?

"But NONE of that exonerates Bush's failures from January 2001 through September 11."

Such as? "we've got various terrorist groups targeting and claiming to target US interests, so if any of them succeed, you've failed. This is your warning"? Wow. Lotta info there to work on.

"The harder you make the case that Clinton should have done more, that worse it is for Bush, because CLINTON WASN'T IN OFFICE on 9-11."

More press-stopping data.

Bin Laden disappeared after Sudan, to pop up on the radar in A'stan [in '99?] to disappear until Tora Bora, to disappear as of two minutes ago. Of the three times anyone knew where he was, Clinton was in office for twice of them.

And wasn't it Clinton's own terrorism tracking dude the one who had all the specific information on the threat...?

"It'd be one thing if Bush had taken office and said, Holy Cow! ... figure out how to get this bin Laden guy."

But since bin laden was only one of several and there was nothing specific identifying bin Laden to any tangible threat, why would that have been the case? Jeanne Dixon died. So did Edgar Cayce and Nostradamus.

"What actually happened was that, like Clinton, Bush had a TON of warnings and indicators."

Yet, interestingly, none were terribly specific. The Ace of Spades next to the Knave of Clubs means something in tarot, but it's virtually useless in Intel.

"Bush didn't change his mind from Clinton's arguably too-slow and too-law enforcement approach to something quicker and tougher."

Personally, I've been a Roosevelt Big Sticker for decades. We don't answer to anyone b'cept us, and shouldn't be made to. If it's in our interest to kick, say, Yemen's ass, then we march our heinies over there, bend Yemen over the Horn of Africa, and kick away. France doesn't like it, France can be next.

Now, the drawback to that is it's raging unilateralism, but if used in moderation it can be effective. International respect, among a community of nations most of which do not like you, is earned through fear, not "cooperation". Cooperation is viewed as weakness and capitulation.

FYI.

[Original Rick]

"France doesn't like it, France can be next."
Thay are just jealous that they can't do it anymore. They used up thier turn.

[theAmericanist]

Jayzus, if rwilymz is helping write war plans, no wonder Iraq is such a catastrophe.

But since this guy IS such a rectangular brass bowl, it's worth this last point: when senior folks like Nunn and Rudman, and (independently) public sources like the Library of Congress, make warnings like "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives…into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House..." sensible folks don't dismiss it as "too vague to bother about".

It might be a legit defense to say, well, we TRIED to figure out what planes they'd hijack, and where they'd get explosives, and such, and we FAILED, despite our best efforts. That's the connection between goals and accountability.

We've established in detail that Bush simply ignored the threat, where he didn't actually kill effective efforts to watch out for it. (Psst, Rick: who cares what the ACLU thinks?)

But personally (that is, before I knew that rwilymz here was in on the planning), I woulda thought that taking a threat like this seriously, ESPECIALLY when it is still indistinct, goes like this:

Somebody with clout convenes a meeting, with analysts tasked to say just how THEY would "crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives…into the Pentagon."

Some designated skeptic says: and just how would you GET high explosives into a commercial flight, numbbnuts?

'Course, now that we know ol'rwilymz is at the table, we can understand why nobody said: Hey -- aren't those things full of FUEL? Gee, maybe they don't need to pack 'em with C-4, maybe all they have to do is hijack plans on the East Coast (where all those targets were), fueled for a long flight, ya know, like to the WEST coast...

That's how you go from the public warnings to a classified plan of action, rwilym: an EFFECTIVE one, as noted in a different fashion regarding CIPRIS, above.

For a guy who claims to do military planning, rwilymz doesn't seem to know what an "objective" is, nor how after-action reports work.

[Original Rick]

"For a guy who claims to do military planning, rwilymz doesn't seem to know what an "objective" is, nor how after-action reports work."

Not that he needs my defense, but he never said that he does planning. An obvious reading comprehension problem. SO BFD, the terrs can hijack a plane and fly it into a building......WOW, WHAT INTEL!! ground all flights immediately until we screen these terrs out. No, of course we can't just screen people from teh mid east. That's profiling you jerk and it's just wrong. No wait! What day? Which airline? WHich airport? OMG, what if they pay some former IRA dudes to do this? Check all teh little old ladies. Quick ! Hurry!! Rapido!!! we must do something because someone is capable of hijacking a plane.

[theAmericanist]

CIPRIS.

[rwilymz]

"if rwilymz is helping write war plans, no wonder Iraq is such a catastrophe"

The warplans for Iraq are being written in detail by Majors and Lt COLs in Tampa. Centcom, you know.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives…into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House..."

"could"

"sensible folks don't dismiss it as "too vague to bother about"."

Anything "could". Unless there is something tangible to work from, it's a waste of time, effort, money, etc, to devote time, effort, money etc to it. Needle/haystack. Teeth/hen.

"We've established in detail that Bush simply ignored the threat"

Who's this "we", kemo sabe? Certainly not the 9-11 Commission.

"Psst, Rick: who cares what the ACLU thinks?"

So you're not entirely irredeemable.

"Somebody with clout convenes a meeting, with analysts tasked to say just how THEY would "crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives…into the Pentagon." "

Well, there's that hindsight thing. You look behind you really well. Congratulations; you and about 6 billion others on the planet have the same impertinent talent. Now jump in your Wayback Machine and take specific information back with you.

The military is the group of folks who do these things, not sci-fi scriptwriters. The military thinks in military terms -- they are trained to, and are very very good at it. It's very linear and donctrinaire. The drawback to that is that they aren't often granted the latitude to -- I hate this phrase -- "think outside the box".

It violates their "paradigm".

And even after 9-11 they *still* couldn't envision methods of non-military warfare -- which is why in early 2002 the Pentagon called hollywood sci-fi script writers to come think up as many far-fetched schemes as possible so that the military could figure out how to respond to them.

"...maybe all they have to do is hijack plans on the East Coast (where all those targets were), fueled for a long flight..."

Hindsight is great like that, idnit?

"For a guy who claims to do military planning, rwilymz..."

I didn't make any such claim. I work for them. They themselves do the planning. I just watch.

And listen. Which is why I know what I'm talking about.

But thanks for the promotion.

[Original Rick]

ooops, I have to apologize to Mr. Wizard. It was not JC who made us leave Thailand (nor was it JF) t'was the Royal Thai government and we were "officially" out (mostly) before JC became president.

[Original Rick]

"The military is the group of folks who do these things, not sci-fi scriptwriters. The military thinks in military terms -- they are trained to, and are very very good at it. It's very linear and donctrinaire. The drawback to that is that they aren't often granted the latitude to -- I hate this phrase -- "think outside the box"."

Almost a perfect description also explains the panic when a fire chief says he's got 3 people "DOA" and teh Provost assumes that to mean dead Dept of Army guards. The problem with acronyms.

[Original Rick]

While this has been scintilating, like most discussions with Captain America it has finally become too boring to bear. He's right I think. Everything from the Crimean War to Armegeddon is and will be GWBs fault. In parting though, Tell us please about your military career.

[theAmericanist]

Ya know, folks, when you are admitting you've been wrong, it helps to NOTICE.

I noted that one way sensible people respond to warnings like Bush had before 9-11 was that "somebody with clout convenes a meeting..."

Which rwilymz finally concedes... that BUSH DIDN'T DO.

Why not? It wasn't cuz he wasn't warned. Can't blame it on Clinton. So why didn't he do it?

I also noted that if that meeting had happened to deal with 'civilian airliners hijacked and flow into the Pentagon (for example)', somebody gets tasked to say "this is how I would carry out the threat", and somebody else gets assigned to say "sez you -- how would you get explosives on the plane?"

To which rwilymz concedes: "The military is the group of folks who do these things..."

Which pretty definitely proves the point I've noted all along: No, it's NOT the military.

Preventing a civilian airliner from being hijacked within the United States is NOT (and was not) the responsibility of the United States military.

Bush was warned several times, with a very high degree of specificity (e.g., civilian airliners hijacked and flown into the actual targets), and he did ... nothing.

Nobody with clout organized a meeting. Nobody was tasked to say 'this is how I'd do it'. Nobody was assigned to say 'it can't be done -- like that.'

And FIVE YEARS LATER, you guys still haven't figured it out, and you keep making the lamest sort of excuses for what is flippin' obvious.

[Original Rick]

Hmmmm came back expecting to learn how Mr Wizard had been Westmoreland's right hand man during that unpleasantness in IndoChina. I guess the only conclusion is that he did not serve in the military and is a military genius by osmosis.

Yes, yes, yes Mr Wizard GW Bush is directly responsible for all the inaction of all 42 presidents before him. Well, maybe not Garfield since he really never had a chance. If only he had just shut down all international airports and bombed Cuba 9/11 would never have happened. Happy now? Good, go play with yourself again.

[theAmericanist]

LOL -- man, how this guy TRIES to convince himself: "Bush is directly responsible for all the inaction of all 42 presidents before him."

(patiently) The cause and effect thing I noted above, Rick, denotes that causes come BEFORE effects, never after.

That means that since the current President Bush was President AFTER Clinton, he is not responsible for the failures of the Clinton administration.

But it also means that Bush IS responsible for his own failures.

Like I said, for guys who (inexplicably) brag about what are evidently pretty thin military credentials, not to mention complete ignorance of law enforcement, intelligence analysis or history, you don't seem to know what an "objective" is, nor how after action reports work.

You're both (like our host) so deep in denial it's sorta useless, but fwiw, this is how it goes:

I noted that before we invaded Iraq, I said just two things: the second was that wars are easier to start than to finish. How's that one holding up?

The FIRST, however, has to do with that principle of "the objective". After 9-11, Bush said Saddam had to go. Once he'd SAID that, that was good enough for me. I want the bad guys of the world to believe American Presidens when they say things like that.

But that doesn't absolve Bush of responsibility. It deepens it, that patriotic Americans back him.

Likewise, for Bush's war to lose the backing of patriotic Americans doesn't make it right for somebody like our host to slur scores of millions of his fellow Americans for treason -- that isn't patriotic, but the opposite.

It is more patriotic in a free country to hold the guy accountable for what he's said and done. Why dis that?

Bush stated plain objectives for both the war in Iraq AND for the "global war on terrorism."

For Iraq, he said: knock off Hussein, help a united, democratic government to emerge, achieve stability, and leave.

For the war on terrorism, he began with a very blunt and clear objective: bin Laden, "dead or alive".

Since of ALL of those objectives, only one has been achieved (arguably the least important and most counterproductive), I suppose somebody could argue that we should just wait patiently, suffering dead Americans (not to mention dead Iraqis), spending hundreds of billions -- but a genuine patriotism from reasonable people questions if these guys know what they are doing.

That Bush's "objective" for Iraq is now the purely negative one not to be driven out before he leaves office, so his successor has to make the hard decisions he's avoided, does not argue well.

Rumsfeld's role in Lebanon in 1983 is worth noting, because it is such a clear indicator of how he confuses "objectives", much the way rwilymz does. Briefly, Rumsfeld had been Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East to deal with the fallout from Israel's last incursion. In Lebanon where U.S. Marines were a buffer between the various factions, he was in the Ambassador's residence when it was shelled from Druze in the Bekaa hills. He demanded to know what would be done about these guys who were shooting at him, to which the Ambassador said: Nothing, Boss -- unless of course that's why YOU'RE here, cuz this country is a mess.

Rumsfeld asked for a secure phone, called Reagan, and 20 minutes later the New Jersey opened up. The shelling stopped. Objective achieved, "mission accomplished."

But with the first salvo, our Marines became just another faction. A few weeks later, more than 200 died -- partly because, as a simple matter of the rules of engagement which were unchanged because Rumsfeld had changed their role without altering their mission, they weren't protected. (Have faith, rwilymz: with your capacity to learn from error, YOU will be promoted to SecDef any day now.)

Just so with Iraq: we won the war and are losing the peace.

That's what an after action analysis is intended to sort out, yanno. It's not a CYA exercise -- which, one suspects, is what rwilymz has experience with, plainly indicating an exalted career path for him.

9-11 is an excellent example. The first thing to remember is that it happened on Bush's watch -- not Clinton's, nor his father's. His.

The second thing is that Bush was warned -- repeatedly, and in a timely way: the August 6th briefing gave him plenty of time. 'What SHOULD he have done?' isn't an idle question, it's a guide for the future.

An after action analysis would answer the question: "Knowing what we know NOW, what did we know THEN that we should have acted upon -- and how?"

It's not an attempt to assign blame so much as to identify responsibility, lines of authority, and decision points.

The godawful claim that warnings like "al Qaeda's Martyrdom Brigade may hijack commercial airliners and fly them into buildings like the CIA hq, the Pentagon and the White House" was TOO VAGUE is something, frankly, a real patriot would be ashamed to say.

And if you guys knew more about how this sorta thing is most effectively done, you'd recognize that the proper response is to note that we DID know then that an attack on the Pentagon (not to mention the WTC, since it had ALREADY been attacked) was possible. And of course hijacking is always a threat.

So (an after action analysis would continue) we should have had a VIP meeting in which, as noted, somebody would say how THEY would do it, and somebody else would say: No way, not like... that.

That's where a proper after action report would recognize that it wouldn't have been much of a stretch at all to have knocked down the 'loaded with explosives' speculation... and replaced with 'full of fuel.'

Likewise, since all the targets Bush had been warned about were on the East Coast, that would have suggested the planes to watch were East Coast take-offs headed either across the Atlantic or to the West Coast.

An appropriately high level task force (certainly indicated by the urgency of the August 6th briefing, which was ignored) would have gone on to ask, with forceful skepticism: Okay, so where are these hijackers gonna come from? Not everybody can fly a commercial airliner, ya know... to which a reasonable person (a proper analysis would note) might say, well: they won't have to take off, and they don't intend to land, they only have to steer it. Anybody in a flight school can learn that -- are we tracking foreign students?

CIPRIS. Which Bush killed.

That isn't hindsight, it's FORESIGHT. Learn from mistakes.

'Course, this assumes you guys even WANT to. Evidently, you don't.

[rwilymz]

"I noted that one way sensible people respond to warnings like Bush had before 9-11 was that "somebody with clout convenes a meeting..." Which rwilymz finally concedes... that BUSH DIDN'T DO"

There was no, and is no, and will be no, valid justification for "convening a meeting" on some threat that is not defined.

Let's convene a meeting on the threat of space aliens. Hey, we've all seen "Independence Day", right? Can't say we weren't warned.

It.Doesn't.Work.Like.That.

"Preventing a civilian airliner from being hijacked within the United States is NOT (and was not) the responsibility of the United States military."

Respsonding to a military attack, no matter the source, is the job of the military. The FAA has zero authority or capability of preventing a civilian airliner, once hijacked, of being used as a guided missile.

You can misrepresent the issues involved all day long, and that only makes you an ignorant novice all day long.

"The FIRST, however, has to do with that principle of "the objective". "

Which you are clueless about.

You are a mere citizen. Any "objective" that you are going to know about involves you. And that objective is to get you salutin and rootin and tootin. It is not the obligation of the JCS to involve you in their planning, run their military goals past your eyes, give you some last-minute veto authority, or let you control the words which leave their sources for public consumption.

"After 9-11, Bush said Saddam had to go. Once he'd SAID that, that was good enough for me"

So you danced your little citizen dance around the flagpole. Good for you. You did your job. Now move along. Vote if you must, but stop insinuating yourself into the decision-making chain. You don't belong there, not even as a voting citizen.

[Phoenix]

I hate the word 'post-modern' because it makes no sense. Modern is a continuum that has no 'before' or 'after'. But I think Americanist personifies it in some odd way. He can't seem to understand that the actions of the past do not always affect current actions, and that using the past to explain away or justify the present ring hollow when progress continues apace in its relentless way. It is we who have to adapt, and harping on history's mistakes does nothing but waste time. Neither does playing the blame game. Get with it.

Christ, what an utter bully and a bore, to boot.

[rwilymz]

"harping on history's mistakes does nothing but waste time"

It doesn't matter who was driving, or how fast, when you slide off the road in a snowstorm. Once you determine that everyone's okay, you get out and push. There's more than enough time for accident recreation over hot chocolate once you get home.

The middle of a war is not the time to yammer about whose fault it was that made the surprise attack so surprising. 9-11 was as much of a surprise as Pearl Harbor -- which we were also "warned" about, and which warning fueled conspiracy theories at the time every bit as pointless and unproductive as, say, Mr Murtha's attempts to rewrite the tactical rule book he studied and memorized as a jarhead officer because he wants to score political points among the easily bored voters in his district.

For what it's worth, "modern" is a descriptive for an "age" of civilization. Just like "classical" and "romantic" is an age of music, rather than a style.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

"Modern" is about progress and analysis and objectivity, post-modern is about subjectivity, relativism, navel-gazing, anti-intellectualism, rationalization and asserting "the personal is political". I speak, therefore you must listen; I assert; therefore I'm correct; I criticize, therefore I'm an authority; I vote, therefore I rule.

It satisfies our juvenile need to label everything, put a handle on it so that we can claim indifferentiation when we're caught with our biases hanging out.

"I'm not biased! I simply *reject* your interpretation of the dynamics." ...as if the mere act of negation substitutes for analysis. Gainsaying as logic. "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" The intellectualism of the kindergartener.

When facts are subjective, 2+2 can equal 5. ...as the preceding discussion shows.

[OR]

This thread was intended to be a discussion on whether dems are treasonous. Obviously, as a group that's just silly but at the "leadership level" the question is open. This is a glaring fact; everything E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G the administration has tried to thwart more attacks and to fight a declared (by Islamists)war against us has been derided and resisted by the dems. That by definition is treason. They use as the Constitution as a weak excuse for thier resistance. However thier love of Constitutional rights does not stand the test of history going only back to the last administration....simply untrue, totally disproven.There ONLY REAL reason to stand on the Constitution is their hatred for the president. Why certainly in seven short months he tore apart everything they built over eight years. Of course they are about to get another chance to get it right come the next elections and I am looking forward to it. We'll pull out of Iraq and six months later the new rulers will make SoDamn Insane look like Walt Disney. Pretty much the whole region will explode because the 'slams will know that we wont do anything. I'm fortunate to live in the country, no airplanes slamming into these little buildings. Actually, the armegeddon scenario will likely be prevented by paying tribute to our enemies so they wont kill us. Fear not, the des will buy them off.

[OR]

If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.

[theAmericanist]

Wow -- even for you, that's spectacular: "There was no, and is no, and will be no, valid justification for "convening a meeting" on some threat that is not defined."

'al Qaeda's Martyrdom Brigades hijacking civilian airliners, packing them with explosives and flying them into CIA hq, the Pentagon and the White House..." is an UNDEFINED threat, to you?

Senators Nunn and Rudman -- these guys are lightweights? The Library of Congress -- yeah, THEY don't know anything. A classified briefing for the president A MONTH before precisely the attack warned about in teh title: "Al Qaeda Set to Attack in the US"?

Golly, you really DON'T know anything about the military, much less law enforcement or intelligence analysis.

It's a frightening thought that the nation might be SAFER that rwilymz is a low-level military clerk with delusions, rather than, say, an urban detective. Picture the scene: "Hey, word in the Hollow is that the Latin Kings are gonna bang on the Korean groceries along King Blvd, probably use juveniles with screwdrivers. We could call in the merchants' association, I got some snitches I could work, maybe just give some uniforms overtime.... what do you want to do? "

"Why, NOTHING -- of course. That is far too vague to even consider as a threat. Why would we even have a shift meeting about it? If you want me, I'll be at Dunkin Donuts."

[OR]

"Golly, you really DON'T know anything about the military, much less law enforcement or intelligence analysis."

As opposed to a never served anywhere, non-vet like yourself?

[OR]

"'al Qaeda's Martyrdom Brigades hijacking civilian airliners, packing them with explosives and flying them into CIA hq, the Pentagon and the White House..."

All hyperbole dreamed up by the Republicans to scare us. We have nothing to worry about.

[rwilymz]

"'al Qaeda's Martyrdom Brigades hijacking civilian airliners, packing them with explosives and flying them into CIA hq, the Pentagon and the White House..." is an UNDEFINED threat, to you?"

Not only to me, but to the 9-11 Commission as well.

"A classified briefing for the president A MONTH before precisely the attack warned about in teh title: "Al Qaeda Set to Attack in the US""

Uh-huh. "With airplanes". That narrows it down, dunnit?

"rwilymz is a low-level military clerk with delusions"

I'm a data analyst with sexual fantasies about Renée Zellweger.

I'm sorry you're having trouble with the concept, but please refer to the 9-11 Commission report, which categorized the pre-9-11 intel as too vague to be actionable.

[OR]

CaptainAmerica or 'X' never served but may get the chance when the dems bring back the draft. What do you make of this lil ditty CaptainAmerica?

Iran is still a significant military power by Gulf standards. It has some 540,000 men under arms and over 350,000 reserves. They include 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained fro land and naval asymmetrical warfare. Iran's military also includes holdings of 1,613 main battle tanks, 21,600 other armored fighting vehicles, 3,200 artillery weapons, 306 combat aircraft, 60 attack helicopters, 3 submarines, 59 surface combatants, and 10 amphibious ships."

[Phoenix]

I don't think Captain America is 'x'. He's much more rabid than 'x'. 'x' was at least able to make one or two posts without lapsing into puerile name-calling.

I'm a well-read bitch who has sexual fantasies about Mike Baker. (former CIA operative.)

[Phoenix]

Rwil,

""Modern" is about progress and analysis and objectivity, post-modern is about subjectivity, relativism,....."

I know this. It still does not justify the use of a word that is a continuum of thought, action, progress. Yes, your description of the era is right-on. It is the use of 'modern' that is misleading and wrong. The 'post-rock'n-roll era' would have been more fitting. Will the next era be post-post-modern? Post-post-post-modern? See? Whatever little effete, wine-drinking pantywaist wannabe artist came up with this 'post-modern' word just didn't get that time moves on despite his insistence on hanging on to his fifteen minutes of pseudo-fame. And we bought it. Idiots.

[progressives=saviors]

After reading these articles and posts, I am very happy & excited for the current state of conservatism! Between the republicons calling for making Santorum a Supreme Court Judge, and then saying the election was a win for conservatives, and NOW trying to call for a coup against the US government...WOW!! YOU ARE ALL DELUSIONAL!!! And the american people don't like crazy!

I admit I was a little worried about the repukicons getting focused after the election day massacre (apparently red doesn't run...it FADES!), but now I see you're leadership has all but abandoned the flock, leaving you all to create marvelous fantasy worlds to shield you from the blinding light of reality. BUT HEY! GET TO WORK ON THAT COUP! You do know the NSA will pick up on your anti-government, militant agenda - which makes you automatically eligible for camp gitmo. HOPE YOU LIKE WATER BOARDING!

If it the propigator of this anti-government coup does work for the military, then I would suggest he familiarize himself with the possible charges he may face in military court for plotting treason against the government.

But alas, I leave it to "CONservatives" to make an article calling their opponent treasonous, and then make a call to arms for treason against the government.

[progressives=saviors]

I hope the people calling for overthrow of the government here know they are guilty of Sedition at minimum. I am also very confident this material is being forwarded to the right authorities. Again, if the author's work is in the military, I suggest you look up how this would be dealt with by military tribunal.

definition of Sedition:

Sedition is a term of law to refer to covert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often included subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel.

[Post American]

I'm looking foward to seeing Republican AND Democrat Politicos and Pundits brought to justice for appeasing the Tyrant Bush, for not protecting and defending the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, for ignoring Nine Eleven Warnings, for not sending enough Troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, and most importantly for being Israel's bitch.

As for the stupid ugly fat Americans of both parties, they'll get what they deserve. Chaos, if I were you I would stock up on canned goods, bullets, rope, tar, feathers,
Styrofoam packing peanuts will work too. With the resistance in all of its forms...