Comments on: The Rogue Bush White House

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:17:44 +0000

The same reasons not ALL conservatives were in favor.

By: pdt1420

pdt1420 — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 16:03:05 +0000

"Liberals were mostly in favor of going after al-Qaeda after 9-11."

That's very telling… why were some Liberals NOT in favor of going after al-Qaeda following 9-11?

By: frank

frank — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:10:43 +0000

Mr. King,
Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that Libertarians wanted smaller, less intrusive government than Bush offered. I also thought they valued quick decisive action, unlike the lack of concern about the warnings they received from within our government and other governments' intelligence agencies about Al Qaeda and 9/11. I also thought that Libertarians could tell the difference between seeking justice or revenge against Al Qaeda and instituting an illegal war of aggression against a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. My bad.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:19:19 +0000

Liberals were mostly in favor of going after al-Qaeda after 9-11.

That ruling, as proven in Hamdan, would never stand up in the Supreme Court….at least, not until one more neo-con is put on the bench.

By: Da King

Da King — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:02:52 +0000

Rev says, "F*ck that ruling."

Such disdain for the rule of law, Rev. Tsk, tsk. I knew you really didn't care about the law, just about getting your way.

But as always, Al Qaeda agrees with you, so there's that.

By: Da King

Da King — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:58:36 +0000

frank,
Libertarians/Conservatives get pissed off when thousands of their countrymen die in terrorist attacks on the same day. Recognition of the need for self-defense/offense tends to kick in about then.

With liberals, not so much. Liberals immediately start blaming Bush instead.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:16:10 +0000

I'm all in as soon as you locate some evidence, Reverend.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:46:49 +0000

There's plenty. There is just no will in D.C.

What is interesting is the casualness with which conservatives regard national traitors and international war criminals. Just interesting. Blowjobs? Now that's a different story. Some stuff is just too threatening.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:40:08 +0000

I'll take your last sentence as a mea culpa, Reverend. It must be frustrating that after all this time and effort you've still got nothing. It's like Cheney's your Moriarty or something.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:45:11 +0000

King's linked piece ends with this exchange…

"But, the court ruled, “this is little more than a lament about the risk that government officials will not operate in good faith.’

“That sort of risk exists even when a warrant is required,” it said."

Yeah, a real sound judgment that is. The court was flipping the bird at the 4th amendment in a biased ruling for executive lawlessness. I wonder why Americans would conclude that their government isn't operating in good faith. I wonder. You know, life's a risk, warrants are a risk, even though, yeah, that's the law, but hey you just gotta take that risk. F*ck that ruling.