continued

Or substitute the Japanese.

Or the Germans.

Or the Socialists.

Or the Anarchists.

Or the Immigrants.

Or the British.

Or the Aliens.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And, always, always wrong.

“With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat
seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?”

Wise words.

And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.

Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.

You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.

Sadly—of course—the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take
seriously was you.

We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that “those who would give up
essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

But even within this history we have not before codified the poisoning of habeas corpus, that wellspring of protection
from which all essential liberties flow.

You, sir, have now befouled that spring.

You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order.

You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom.

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And — again, Mr. Bush — all of them, wrong.

last part coming, sorry it was so long, but valuable!

next to final part:

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done to anything the terrorists have ever done.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that “the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values” and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens “unlawful enemy combatants” and ship them somewhere—anywhere -- but may now, if he so decides, declare you an “unlawful enemy combatant” and ship you somewhere - anywhere.

And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president.

And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask
yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an
“unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?

This President now has his blank check.

He lied to get it.

He lied as he received it.

Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?

“These military commissions will provide a fair trial,” you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush, “in which the accused are
presumed innocent, have access to an attorney and can hear all the evidence against them.”

"Presumed innocent," Mr. Bush?

The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before
they sustain “serious mental and physical trauma” in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer
even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.

"Access to an attorney," Mr. Bush?

Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to
his detainee defendant on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.

"Hearing all the evidence," Mr. Bush?

The Military Commissions Act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the
defense.

Your words are lies, Sir.

They are lies that imperil us all.

“One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks,” you told us yesterday, “said he hoped the attacks would
be the beginning of the end of America.”

That terrorist, sir, could only hope.

appologies for the length again, however this was sent to me by a good friend in the US and she is very concerned about the direction she sees things going...

ok, so now the last part:

Habeas corpus? Gone.

The Geneva Conventions? Optional.

The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection?
Snuffed out.

These things you have done, Mr. Bush, they would be “the beginning of the end of America.”

And did it even occur to you once, sir — somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic
invocations of the horrors of 9/11 -- that with only a little further shift in this world we now know—just a touch more
repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died --- did it ever occur to you once that in just 27 months and two
days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future president and a “competent tribunal” of lackeys would be
entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of “unlawful enemy combatant” for -- and convene a
Military Commission to try -- not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And doubtless, Sir, all of them—as always—wrong.

© 2006 MSNBC Interactive

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167

The standing of the Republicans is sinking in quicksand spread out by the Bush Whitehouse...

Will we, in Canada, follow-march into the same walking nightmare?

This can't be good news for the GOP ---

http://origin.denverpost.com/news/ci_4588998

Thank you very much, Murdock- I forwarded that URL to a few folks...

It amazes me that the Dems are not screaming about the tampering of Habeas Corpus - a huge part of the Constition that is the very foundation of America. It is absolutely outrageous and you don't hear a word about it. The same kind of importance that Canadians should be giving to the Arar case and don't let Harper keep delaying an apology and deserved compensation for the outrage that happened to an innocent Canadian citizen.

Murdock,

Maybe you can just put the links in. That way we can read the articles if we wish to.

Quite the story, G. And we let him cross borders up here no problem, to spew out his hatred towards Muslims, simply 'cause he prays beside George Bush. This Canadian Republican Conservative party's gotta go. Enough's enough.

Apparently he's stepped down for the moment and seems to be claiming that his association with the subject in question was only for the drugs. I guess the voice mail message was pretty damning.

These characters claim to 'control' the voting behavior of 30M Americans (and that's just the group he's associated with) so anything that shakes up that kind of blind devotion and unthinking action is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.

Did you read the cops are after Ann Coulter in Florida for voting irregularities?

murdock,
As far as I'm concerned you can post the articles if you want to. No one's forcing you to read them working man.

Ann Coulter? Serious? It might not matter. I've got a buddy who did a documentary on the last U.S presidential election. When 85% of the voters were asked why they voted Republican, they said "I don't know. I just do." Sad. Disturbingly sad.

the brain; why post something as stupid as that. The math doesn't even work. Are you saying that someone you know, actually figured out how to find 85% of Republican voters, and poll them on why they voted Republican, and were told that those polled " don't know " is kind of science add up?
Sad. Disturbingly sad.

No Ron, what he's saying is that 85% of the voters who admitted to voting GOP said they didn't know why they'd done it.

That's what's sad, disturbingly sad.

Working Man posted:

I thought about doing only the link, but the piece is just too relevant and I was afraid that it would be taken off MSNBC since they are collapsing the news division.

murdock
There's a rumour about that ARMY TIMES is coming out with an editorial statement calling on Rumsfeld to resign - to be published before the election.

Have you heard anything about it?

GWest Here's a link to that story.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15552211/

The neocons are all saying it's not their fault that Iraq is not an imperialist triuph.
From the Guardian
http://www.rense.com/general74/sceo.htm

from Vanity Fair
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612?printable=true&currentPage=all

Not only are the rats who created the mess leaving, they are dumping the blame on Bush and Condi.

So by now there is probably a verdict against Saddam. His defenders will be able to appeal. It will take years to sort this out before he is hanged, unless he dies before that.
Tomorrow is going to be bad day or the Republicans. The Sunday press will be pushing for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, and there will be tremendous sectarian violence in Iraq. All Hell will brake loose. The mainstream media (MSM) will be on full throttle in their mission to destroy America.
The terrorists are endorsing the Democratic Party. Liberals are ecstatic. The whole balance of power could change. The liberal wet dream is in sight, it might actually be possible.
MSM will be on full tilt tomorrow. I will be listening to Patriot Radio AM 1280 out of Minnesota online.
This is far from a done deal for either side.

G West,

The 'Gin Rummy' deal for him falling on his sword has been in the rumor mills for a few months.

Likely his performances, counter-acting and showing visible disdain for the US army CoS at a number of news conferences, did not do his credibility any good with the Army Brass.

Once he has lost the confidence of the senior army officialdom his usefulness to the 'President' is essentially gone.

I seem to recall before Clueless George became the Commander in Chimp that many pundits said not to worry about his lack of any real large organizational experience (or success) or not to be concerned with his clear display of non-intelligence because he was going to be surrounded by good 'white-house' experienced people and his daddies 'old guard'.

I would like to observe that much of the 'old guard' has only been up to 'old tricks' and the capable, experienced and somewhat trustworthy persons are all gone...

Only the monkey and his organ-grinder 'THE MAN' are left...

IAMC:

Ah! Hedging of bets, I see! I do believe your unequivocal prediction was a Republican retention of Congress. Now you've presented a "just in case" alternative.............

George Bush in 2000, George Bush in 2004, Gordon Campbell in 2004, Stephen Harper in 2006. None of these events were possible according to MSM. Yet they happened.
Where is Pelosi,Reid,Kennedy,Murtha and the other far left Democrats. They are in hiding, afraid to be quoted saying anything too Liberal. You can't predict the results of the mid term election by listening to the old media.
I will stick with my perfect record of predicting. You can blame it on fixed voting machines or some other "vast right wing conspiracy".

G West, I made many friends in the US army while I was woking in South Korea during the Dirty Nineties. None of them are happy with Bush and Rummy. The Us military is designed as a hard hitting in and out force. The war in Iqaq is wasting that force and killing its morale.

Ron, you might want to notice that Herr Harper has about as slim a minority and any govermnet can have and did not elect a member for any major urban area. He made his political friend a sentator and then put him into cabinet in a pork barrel ministry. Then he reversed his promise no to tax income trusts and wiper $4bn our of Canadian's pockets in one day, mostly retirees.

Lyin' Brian made the same mistake.

Edmonton and Calgary aren't major urban areas?
Harper's gutsy move on income trusts have not cost him. Besides, shouldn't you happy to see corporations pay some tax?

Ron:
Gordon Campbell in 2004? What are you talking about? The election was May 2005 and Campbell was widely touted in the media to win. You have Scotch with your cereal this morning?

On what Bush and Rummy have done to the US armed forces working man - absolutely agreed!.

Ron - I'm not sure what to call Edmonton - pretty decent city actually - despite its government. Calgary - a mess - every time I'm there the whole city seems to smell of burning meat. What is that?
Maybe you can explain.

Oh and Ron, if you actually stopped to look around (at the Income Trust thread) you'd see I gave Harper credit for having done the first decent act of his prime-ministership.

LOL

Sorry G was chastising Working Man. And that burning meat smell in Calgary, it's the smell of hundreds of thousands of tenderloins of beef being cooked by those blue eyed Arabs.

Absolutely disgusting it is!

And pleased to say that the Green Riders just ended the Stampeders season too!

Aren't they called The Saskatchewan Roughriders? What, are we getting politically correct by renaming teams G? What's next, The Edmonton Inuit?
Or the Torono Boatpersons? This is the silly season,isn't it?

Ron, we stubble jumpers have called them the Green riders forever. It's because of their uniforms - they're Green - remember.

I think the Stampeders were bloated with all that undigested red meat.

And the ARMY TIMES editorial calling for Rumsfeld to be fired wasn't just a rumour - soon it'll only be RATS left on the sinking ship.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php

I visited the Army Times site. It's hard to figure it out. But let's say they fire Donald Rumsfeld. Then they bring in a guy that's not afraid of spending money, and is not worried about domestic opinion, and has two years to kick ass. Is that what the liberals are promoting?

The editorial says that Rumsfeld has been a disaster. A disaster for the army and for the country.

If Bush continues to play to his dance card he'll stick with Rumsfeld anyway. Normally the army brass wouldn't call for a defence secretary's firing. I don't think they'd be doing it today if things weren't so bad Ron.

But I've been trying to tell you this for months. Why weren't you listening?

If you want the dem's to win G I can only ask how are you going to deal with their in inherent protectionism, and how that will reflect upon our protectionist Wheat Bord, Egg Board, Cheese Board, that force us into paying twice what we should be paying for the commodities of bread, milk, eggs and cheese.
This idea that the Democratic Party will do for the liberals in Canada is a folly.
Give your heads a shake.

We should be paying far more for our food Ron so that Canadian farmers can make a decent living. I'm all for an increase in the proportion of the budget that goes to food. We should buy locally too. Why import cheap, mass produced low quality tasteless food from the United States? What kind of a Canadian are you?

just for you Ron:
Poll: Democrats boost advantage in races for Congress

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of likely voters who plan to vote for Democrats in Tuesday's congressional elections increased in the past week, according to a CNN poll conducted during the weekend.

Those voters supporting Democrats also seem less likely to change their minds before casting ballots, the poll found

Democrats hold a 20 percentage-point advantage -- 58 percent to 38 percent -- over Republicans among likely voters in the survey released Monday morning. The Democratic advantage was 11 percentage points -- 53 percent to 42 percent -- in a poll a week ago.

Pollsters asked people who identified themselves as being likely to vote which party's candidate they would vote for in their congressional district if the election were being held today. (Watch how the parties are trying to get voters to the polls -- 2:13)

On this question, the poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

In the so-called "poll of polls," which averages the results of five national surveys, Democrats have a 53 percent to 41 percent margin over Republicans.

When asked if it is possible they could change their mind before Election Day, 17 percent of those likely voters who supported Republican congressional candidates said they might instead chose a Democrat, while 10 percent of those supporting Democrats said a switch was possible.

The poll's sampling error on this question was plus or minus 6 percentage points.

The CNN poll, conducted by telephone Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corp., interviewed 1,008 adult Americans, including 636 likely voters.

Democrats need a 15-seat pickup in Tuesday's elections to regain control of the House of Representatives and a gain of six seats to reclaim the Senate.

I will stick to my bravado for the Republicans. Laura Ingram asked Americans who have been polled to phone her and describe the questions the poller asked. There were many questions, but they were all slanted towards a favourable view of Democtrats.
For instance one question was " Are you happy with the way things are going in Iraq? "
Well, who is? No matter what side you are on you are not happry with the way things are going in Iraq.
And I wouldn't give you 10 cents for a poll conducted by CNN. Is FOX conducting and publishing polls? Of course not. MSM is biased towards liberals. There is no doubt about that.

Just remember tomorrow, if the Repubs don't have a crashing victory, that you have an appointment here to eat humble pie.

I know what sensible Americans SHOULD do, but I'd never entertain a guess as to what the will do.

That's your department RON.

You said you wanted a FOX poll Ron, correct?

Here you go dude:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,227707,00.html

Remember where to come when it's time to eat a little crow.

Sounds like Daniel Ortega is doing pretty well despite Bush's attempts to fox the election, eh?