Saw McCain Today
John McCain made a stop in Norfolk, VA today to discuss foreign policy issues and receive some glowing praise from a number of his colleagues. Always keen to learn more about international relations and, well, see famous people, I managed to weasel my way in and was treated to a sensible, realistic acknowledgment of the threat of radical Islam. This is from some of the most knowledgeable authorities on national security in Congress.
Chief among these in my eyes was John Warner. A Southern gentleman in the truest sense, Senator Warner has been a strong advocate for the military and if he believes that John McCain will do well as the President then I am prepared to believe him.
The major point today was that we absolutely must confront radical, militant Islam. I agree with that sentiment 100%. Senator Sam Brownback made some very excellent statements, bringing the focus onto Africa where a significant amount of Muslim extremism is fomented. Brownback is also extremely prominent in the pro-life community. His endorsement of McCain puts any doubts about McCain's pro-life credits to rest.
In addition to these two men, the endorsement of former Secretaries of the Navy William Ball and John Lehman spoke volumes about their beliefs in McCain's strong military stance. Rebuilding the military is key, as the Clinton years saw too much military reduction. Rumsfeld made an error before Iraq and Afghanistan by not focusing more effort on building up force levels to avoid long, repeated deployments. But another point made today was that we must maintain the All Volunteer Force by increasing recruitment and increasing opportunities for soldiers. As McCain said, there is a market out there and young people have to know their needs will be met should they choose military service.
It is well within the interests of my region of Virginia to elect a man like John McCain.
McCain is strong on the social issues. Period. McCain is obviously strong on foreign policy (his strong language regarding Iran was particularly impressive), though conservatives still need more assurance about the illegal immigration issue. When I informed my good friend W that I was in attendance, he cut to the heart of the matter quite succinctly: "...if they serve lunch order the enchiladas. I hear they taste really good with a side of amnesty." No lunch, but it is important to keep from getting star-struck. Thanks W!
On a side note, I just saw myself on TV. Some guy blocked my handshake with McCain and the annoyance on my face is pretty obvious. I wish I had a picture. It's ok, because I did get to shake Sam Brownback's hand and let him know I appreciate his pro-life stance. He said we've got to push harder on that issue. Agreed.
I got a picture of McCain answering questions from the press, which I have provided. Forgive the quality. I didn't think I'd actually be allowed inside and neglected to bring a camera! If I can locate a bit of that video with my handshake fiasco, I'll post that too. UPDATE: Here's that video...Note the disappointed looking young man at 56 seconds in. That old guy in front of me was such a fanboy, he jostled me out of the way just to tell McCain something the man wouldn't remember in 10 seconds anyway.
Comments
To his credit, McCain has been the most courageous conscience -- of both parties -- against wasteful defense spending.
The irony is that it is only because George W. Bush is such a terrible leader and made so many horrible decisions (66% disapproval-- yikes!) that Barack Obama-- a black man with an Arab middle name, no less-- now has the very real possibility of being the next President.
You reap what you sow, Republicans.
Be careful what you wish for- it might come true. It amazes me that every election intelligent people give up their ethics, morals, common sense and dignity and vote for politicians who use the police power of the state to steal money from their neighbors, relatives and themselves and hand it out to other people who did not earn it.
ethics, morals, common sense, dignity... those things are sorely lacking in the current administration. and this administration IS stealing money-- not just from us, but from our children and grandchildren as well.
Lenny, this may very well be our last exchange because I feel I've indulged you long enough. Clearly you know the difference between sense and nonsense because when you appear on my blog you're doing your best impersonation of rational, but then I encounter you elsewhere and your comments range from the ridiculous to the deranged.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating that you remind me of a guy from 2004 who made it a point to tell us all most forcefully that we're all fools and suckers because Bush was "going down" and how he was going to return after the election to give us a proper mocking once Kerry was elected. Later, I had to plead with him to return because I really wanted to see what it would look like even if his dream hadn't come true, and do you know, he wouldn't even acknowledge me?
Now see, when we criticize Democrats in general and the Clintons in particular, we do it about real, demonstrable things, but when your lot applies its labels, it's always vague, and when you're asked to clarify, the explanations, on those rare occasions when they are forthcoming, are general, nebulous and unsubstantiated, - at least I assume they are since not one has ever been proven true.
Take the "Bush lied" garbage. I asked whole forums of liberal fools to provide one actual example, and all I ever got back was answers of the "I just know." variety. And I'm sure that if I request that you provide similar examples to bear out your charges of a lack of ethics, morals, etc, I'd get a wonderfully amorphous answer that under other circumstances, I might find rather amusing..
But what actually was amusing was the idea implicit in your comment that Republicans/conservatives are anti-black because as you know, and as you've now seen firsthand, the bigotry is a trademark of Democrats/liberals. And Lenny, I don't say things I can't demonstrate. Whether it's Lyndon Johnson thwarting the civil rights act in the '50s to Byrd's several "niggers' comments on live TV to the quiet bigotry of the Clinton campaign, you own it.
And thus it remains to be seen that Obama has "a very real possibility." Because if you think about what you said, it's very difficult to get at what you meant.
Was it that heretofore, a black had no chance because Republicans wouldn't vote for him? Are you that ignorant? I mean who exactly will this black vote for this black guy who wouldn't before? Democrats?
Because I assure you, Colin Powell has a "very real possibility" in '96 if he'd wanted it.
So, it not only remains to be seen whether Dems will vote for a black, but whether than black has any substance at all. If the hollow rhetoric can sustain him, I'll be amazed because Kerry's couldn't and it had traces of substance.
So hang on to your dream, and if it does come true, let's both hope it's because Barry found something tangible to run on between now and election day, shall we?
Let's start with an easy one: Violating the Bill of Rights.
The 4th Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Since nearly the beginning of his Presidency, George W. Bush has been-- with the cooperation of the telecom industry-- violating the 4th Amendment. They have been monitoring all electronic communications-- both foreign AND domestic. They have actually been running the entire internet through servers and data-mining it:
Ted-- were you aware that the Bush Administration started this program of domestic surveillance in violation of the Constitution a full SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE 9/11?
And what about the 6th Amendment?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
The Bush Administration has held US CITIZENS in military prisons for years, without charge, access to counsel, or trial. Jose Padilla, who then-Attorney General John "cover-that-statue's-boobs!" Ashcroft interrupted a visit to Moscow to breathlessly claim was trying to detonate a "dirty bomb", was held for 3 and a half years as an "enemy combatant" and denied habeus corpus. As the case was about to finally be heard before the Supreme court, the Government suddenly had a change of heart and charged him with conspiracy.
Not one of the original allegations put forward by the U.S. government three years prior-- the claims that resulted in Padilla being held in the majority in solitary confinement throughout that period-- were part of the indictment: There is no mention in the indictment of Padilla's alleged plot to use a dirty bomb in the United States; there is also no mention that Padilla ever planned to stage any attacks inside the country, and-- most importantly; there is no direct mention of Al Qaeda.
Considering Padilla was held for years in military custody with no formal charges brought, this is a pretty curious move by the Bush Administration, dont you think?
Bush basically set the precedent that the U.S. government now has the right to detain citizens indefinitely without charges, without access to counsel, and without presenting the cause that would eventually be tried.
Like I said Ted-- you probably think these violations are at worst no big deal, or at best the right thing to do, but if we truly are a nation of laws, and if-- as we always say-- no man is above that law, then there is no other conclusion a person can come to: George W. Bush has broken his oath of office by violating the founding document of our Republic.
Is that "real" and "demonstrable" enough for you?
Well, at least I was successful in bringing your lunacy into full bloom. I won't deal with that disjointed nonsense, Lenny, because you, yourself, are incapable of grasping where and in how many areas you've gone wrong. You assume facts and truth where there either is none or it hasn't been established, and you appear to have ignored court decisions. In short, you've manufactured what you want to see, and where details either don't exist or don't fit, you've simply ignored them or made them up.
Just look at the comment from the main idiot on one of your links:
"That means that, on behalf of your US government, AT&T has been reading your email, watching what sites you visit and listening in on your chats. In their eyes, we're all terrorists, and we're all subject to warrantless wiretapping and monitoring. Outraged yet?"
No, I'm not outraged because it doesn't mean anything of the kind. Lenny, you have to stop hanging out with and reading what fools write because people may start to think you are one.
When you have something concrete and coherent, I'll consider it. In the meantime, get help.
"disjointed nonsense"
What-the-fuck-ever Ted. You FIRST attack me based on the fact that i (like all liberals, in you mind) provide no details, are vague, unsubstantiated, etc.
So i give you a nice detailed account of the willful, and deliberate (and in one case, repeated) violation of 2 amendments to the United States Constitution.
You then seize upon the rhetoric of a columnist in one of my links to attack my intellect and judgment, yet ignore the substantial crux of the argument: AT&T is diverting Internet traffic into the hands of the NSA wholesale, in violation of federal wiretapping laws and the Fourth Amendment.
It's just factually true Ted. It IS happening, it IS real, and it is NOT "lunacy" to point out that very real-- and CONCRETE fact.
If you-- a supposed member of the party of small government, the party that has always advocated LESS government in our lives, the party of the man that claimed in January of 1981 that Government was not the solution to our problem, but was itself the PROBLEM-- choose to either NOT believe that this is actually occurring, or (worse) believe that this is an appropriate role for the United States government, than you need to shed your mantle as "the naked conservative" and replace it with "the authoritarian conservative."
I think it's important to discuss the real world applications of this stuff. How has the government violated your rights? I suppose what I mean is, if you aren't noticing any kind of persecution in your daily life then how can you be sure that we have a festering tyranny on our hands?
with regard to "real-world applications":
In my understanding, the Constitution is a absolute document. If the government is violating the Constitution, it affects EVERYONE-- even if that transgression doesnt directly touch you.
In the case of the 6th Amendment, it doesnt affect me directly, but if the Government now reserves the right to detain-- without charge or access to counsel-- a US citizen, it really affects ALL of us. You know-- slippery slope, etc etc. Surely you remember Martin Niemoeller's poem, yes?
When the Nazis came for the communist,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
With respect to the 4th Amendment and the illegal surveillance of Americans' communications, there is just no way of knowing who has been affected. But if, as reported, the entire internet is being filtered and data-mined-- likely with sophisticated word and pattern-recognition software-- you can bet that your communications have been scrutinized. With phone communications, the case is likely very similar, since the same companies that control the internet in large part control voice data as well.
I am a citizen of two countries-- i communicate regularly with family and friends overseas-- i have little doubt that my communications have been the subject of Bush's wiretapping program, as have the communications of all Americans who communicate with people outside of the country.
When the government declares the the right to ignore the law-- no matter how narrowly they justify it, the liberty of ALL Americans is at risk.
If my appeals to your (and Ted's) respect for the Constitution are not enough, allow me to appeal to your partisanship: What if President Hillary Clinton declared the right to do as Bush has done?
To my thinking, the sad truth is that President Bush is following precedent here. In times of national crisis when the danger from a fifth column is very real and immediate, the United States has suspended certain liberties in the interest of preserving order. Lincoln took habeas corpus, Roosevelt detained Americans of Japanese descent, many different fellas tried to ferret out secret communists in the fifties, and Bush has taken to eavesdropping. In a digital age, where there is hardly a need for physical evidence to even exist in the plotting stages, we may have to reexamine our definitions and make some adjustments.
Yes, and any time we are faced with a situation in which the best option is to withdraw some of the protections afforded us by the Constitution in order to strip our hidden enemies of those same protections, then I'd say we are in a pickle. But the only smart thing to do is take on your enemies and remove the need for reduced liberties...then take up arms if you don't get them back. That's the American way.
But if it doesn't directly touch you how can you be sure it's as bad as people say? You take it on faith that it's a horrible slippery slope, but without demonstrable evidence of wrongdoing (that is, from a neutral mainstream source, not some 9/11 whackjobs) we can't even really be sure the government is listening in on all our conversations or reading all our e-mails. I have not seen evidence of an American citizen getting interrogated for saying:
"I want to put a bug bomb under my rose bush."
To be sure, the British know where that slippery slope leads. They have cameras on every street corner. But I think the central point to keep in mind when we evaluate these surveillance programs is how it actually affects the life of people who are doing no wrong versus how it affects those who are doing wrong.
To date, I would say that it is a fair trade. Radical Islam must be fought, and since it is engaging in terrorism then we must use countermeasures appropriate to the threat.
One thing, though...it's not the right to privacy, which doesn't actually exist in the Constitution. It's implied, maybe. It is the explicit rights to due process and freedom from illegal search and seizure that are threatened. At least I think.
this is what i wish people would see: Bush has declared "war" (even though that is a right afforded only to Congress in the Constitution), and as such, has afforded himself extra "war-time" powers as commander-in-chief. Further, he himself (as well as others in his Administration) has declared that this "war" will last years, decades, even "generations".
When is our "war" against the tactic of terrorism over? Is that when we get our full constitutional rights back?
I think it would be wise for all Americans, especially those in favor of "suspend[ing] certain liberties in the interest of preserving order", to remember the words of James Madison:
I wish we had leaders today that were as smart as the ones we had back then.
I had a discussion with a voxer a few months back basically over the same concept, he believed that the government would order the military to act against civilians if the civilians ever dared to take up arms. He like so many others dont really understand how the military is trained or he wouldnt believe that, but regardless the fear was there and that fear would paralyze many people.
Honestly though i dont believe this would be a scenario that would ever happen. we have to many checks and balances that would allow the government to act to that extreme. That doesnt mean i dont think there are a few politicians capable of trying it though.
And now, it would be irresponsible to abandon the responsibilities we've taken on. Hence our continue global involvement.
What's all this talk of Democrats voting for the war then? If Congress authorized the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan I don't think you have a leg to stand on there.
Sure, if you play it like a dumb hippie. My contention is that it isn't nearly so bad yet. But if it did become a situation where the gov't was actually oppressing its own citizens, then I believe we have an obligation to change that gov't. Or die trying. Either is good.
Yeah, I think we need to start a movement to do away with generic talk of terrorism and just outright say we're going after radical Islamists. Once the radical faction of Islam has been killed off we can breathe easy for a while. I don't think we'll be going after the IRA next or anything like that.
It's radical Islam that's the problem, and if we stop being politically correct and just admit that it's an Islam problem we'll have a much better idea of when we can have those rights "back." Of course, I'd like to know when you were last searched and seized and when you had your right to due process revoked. Airport shoe checks don't count.
I'm not trying to discount the idea that the gov't may be abrogating our civil liberties, but I am trying to say that they are doing so in the least obtrusive way they possibly can out of an acknowledgment that their action is a necessary evil.